44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 8, 2024 11:00AM
- Apr/8/24 2:04:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last week we were sad to learn of the passing of the former Liberal member of the National Assembly of Quebec for Chapleau, Benoît Pelletier, a gentleman who was beloved by all. Having had the opportunity to sit with him at the National Assembly of Quebec, I can confirm that. More importantly, no matter how intense his political jousting might have been, Benoît Pelletier never crossed the line of intellectual integrity. That is why he has our utmost respect.
He was one of the most prominent constitutional law experts of his generation. Within the Liberal family he embodied nothing less than the national consciousness of Quebec. He was a true federalist who believed both in the importance of Ottawa respecting Quebec's jurisdictions and in the pride of Quebeckers. Today we are losing one of the last Quebeckers who vigorously defended that perspective, intelligently and in good faith. Our thoughts are with his family and his loved ones, who will miss him very much.
Thank you, Benoît Pelletier.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 2:28:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after pharmacare, dental care and medical assistance in dying, we thought that the federal government was done interfering in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction, but that is not the case. The Liberals have announced that, now, they also want to tell Quebeckers how to build housing.
We are talking about the same government that lost control of immigration, that caused the ArriveCAN scandal, that cannot pay its own employees through Phoenix, that caused an unforgettable passport crisis and that cannot manage its own borders. Imagine. This same government wants to tell the provinces and Quebec how to do things.
Seriously, are the Liberals not even a little bit embarrassed about this?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 2:29:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had the nerve to add that, if the provinces do not want to accept his conditions, “they don't have to take our [federal] money”. That is called blackmail.
It is not federal money; there is no such thing as federal money. It is Quebeckers' money.
This government is incapable of doing its own job, and it has no right to deny Quebeckers their share of the money they pay in taxes.
The Prime Minister does not have the right to hold Quebeckers' tax money hostage. Will he smarten up or will he pay the political price?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 2:29:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not the Government of Quebec. We talk to the Government of Quebec.
Quebec's minister responsible for Canadian relations said this week that he believes we can work out win-win agreements. That is what he thinks, that is what the Government of Quebec thinks, and that is what we think. It is a win for Quebec and a win for Quebeckers. It is just not a win for the Bloc Québécois.
Again, let them do as their Conservative friends, cousins and brothers are doing. They are now one and the same. They are the Conservative Bloc.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 2:41:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is not just a question of jurisdiction; it is more serious than that.
When the feds get involved, the delays pile up. What the Prime Minister is saying is true: Quebeckers who are struggling to find housing want governments to work together. That said, the federal government is not working with anyone. Even before we heard the details of their measures, the Liberals announced that they are willing to pick a fight over this until January 2025 in order to impose their conditions.
Who exactly is that helping right now? How does it help anyone to know that there will not be any housing starts before 2025 because the federal government refuses to work as part of a team?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 2:43:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again, we are discussing and negotiating with the Quebec government.
The Bloc Québécois does not speak on behalf of Quebeckers. It campaigns against the current government on behalf of its little cousin, the Parti Québécois.
Meanwhile, what we are doing is signing agreements with Quebec. We have signed agreements on housing, on child care, on regional Internet access, on a whole range of measures. Why are we doing this? Because it is good for all Quebeckers.
What is good for Quebeckers is bad for the Bloc Québécois.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 2:46:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the next budget is coming and the member already knows that it will contain additional housing measures.
What he should also know is that, just a few months ago, we signed a $1.8-billion agreement with the Government of Quebec that will provide, all at once, the largest number of new housing units in the history of Quebec. This is an extraordinary event resulting from an extraordinary collaboration.
Unlike the Conservatives, who keep spewing insults, picking fights and calling people, particularly municipal and provincial representatives, incompetent, we are working for Quebeckers to get hundreds and even thousands of housing units built in the coming months and years.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 7:11:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, Quebec is obviously tired of these punitive tariffs, these countervailing duties that keep coming back. As my colleague knows, when we talk to American elected officials, they too would like this to end, but often these decisions are made by the administrations. Many will say that they look forward to the court's decision and that will be good, except for some states where this topic is more political.
I remember one meeting with the U.S. trade representative, they assumed and admitted that this was a political issue. People from his office said that a number of forestry producers are fiercely in favour of countervailing duties, but the opponents of these countervailing duties are home builders. This raises a major electoral issue.
Nevertheless, we have the burden of proof: We need to show the Americans that this penalizes them as well. This certainly penalizes Quebeckers and Canadians, but it also penalizes Americans. It is up to us to do the work now.
165 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:31:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his question. For once, I agree with the Conservatives.
The fact is, the government is not acting on this issue. This cannot wait, yet that is exactly what is happening right now. The Comtois sawmill is closing and about 50 families will have to move. Lebel‑sur‑Quévillon is not that big. For these people, it is a matter of time. The government has to act quickly. Thousands of workers are at risk of losing their jobs.
What is the government doing to help Quebeckers?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:41:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, there is a key factor at play in the softwood lumber issue. Because of the decision to consider the softwood lumber issue unilaterally from coast to coast to coast, everyone everywhere is subject to the same constraints.
My colleague comes from British Columbia. Obviously, we know how important the softwood lumber industry is to British Columbia. However, B.C. is the one imposing constraints that hurt Quebeckers.
Would my colleague agree that each province should exercise its own sovereignty in entering agreements with the U.S.? That way, we in Quebec would not be penalized for compensations in British Columbia.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 8:53:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I would like to point out to my colleague that the member for Carleton was the first to rise in the House to speak out against the Minister of Environment and Climate Change's desire to create a whole saga around woodland caribou. We expected the leader of the Bloc Québécois to ask a question about that, but he did not.
There is something else that I would like to add. My Conservative colleagues on the Standing Committee on Natural Resources have shown up and have been very clear and very vocal in defending the softwood lumber industry. We make a great team, and we are able to work together to defend the interests of Quebeckers.
As it states in their platform, the Bloc Québécois's number one interest is to achieve Quebec sovereignty. Its members are applauding what I just said. We can therefore be certain that they will do anything they can and take every opportunity to try to stir up trouble, while we are trying to find solutions for producers, those I spoke about in my speech. In Quebec, 50% of forestry producers are basically going bankrupt because this government is incapable of finding solutions to the softwood lumber crisis, which has been affecting them for far too long.
222 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:57:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I am pleased to be here this evening to talk about softwood lumber. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac. I have had some good discussions with him on the issue of natural resources.
Speaking of natural resources, I would also like to thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois forestry caucus, including my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the international trade critic, and my colleague from Jonquière, the natural resources critic. I am also thinking of the members from Abitibi, Trois-Rivières, the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and Lac-Saint-Jean, because there certainly is quite a bit of forest in Quebec.
Quebec accounts for 20% of softwood lumber production. This industry supports entire communities. It is the backbone of the economy. I commend my colleagues. I also commend the Quebeckers who are keeping that economy, these communities, these workers, these unions and these businesses going.
I am beginning my ninth year as an MP. I was elected in 2015, a year that could have given us hope. In 2013, Quebeckers had adopted a new forestry system, one that we had worked on for several years. At the same time, an outdated agreement that had been signed by the Conservative government of the day expired. We were expecting something to be done about that.
However, it has been nine years, and I have to say that nothing has been done yet. We are still at the same point, despite the opportunities we have had. I think that every one of my colleagues talked about it in the House this evening. There were many opportunities, including NAFTA and CUSMA, but none of them were taken.
Being here tonight with my colleagues, I feel as though I should say that this is what the Bloc Québécois is all about. We are the only ones bringing this debate to the House. We almost never hear about forests. We do not hear about softwood lumber or countervailing or anti-dumping duties. They come up at times, such as every time the United States says it is going to impose these duties, then a minister stands up and says that the government is not going to let it happen this time, that Canada is not going to take it. Six months later, when the duties are imposed, the minister says the same thing, that the government will not let it happen and that it does not make any sense at all.
However, since 2015, unless I missed something, nothing has changed, but I am open to being corrected. Sometimes, I have seen strokes of genius. We figured that we were truly dependent on the United States and that the Canadian market depended on the United States, and we wondered what would happen. There was talk of diversifying the Quebec market and turning to Asia. There were programs like that and I specifically remember a minister who offered that. However, to us, that changes absolutely nothing.
The Bloc Québécois has asked for several measures, including loan guarantees. However, I talk to my industries. I am thinking of Mr. St‑Gelais from Boisaco, who I talk to quite frequently. What we are asking is for the forestry regime to be recognized.
How is it that, on the other side of the border, no one says a word on this issue? I was listening to my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot earlier. He said that every time he goes to the U.S., he meets with congressional representatives and several people from the industry, including members of the National Association of Home Builders. He meets with them. The members of the National Association of Home Builders raise the issue, but the Canadian delegation members do not.
I am somewhat concerned that the same thing happened during the NAFTA renegotiations. I fear that softwood lumber was used as a bargaining chip. The government may have defended the auto sector and Ontario, but it could not be bothered to defend Quebec. New Brunswick does not have much to say regarding countervailing and anti-dumping duties. The same goes for British Columbia. Only Quebec seems to find this really difficult, but the government is saying too bad, that it is going to protect the auto sector instead.
Understandably, a debate like tonight's brings the softwood lumber issue to the fore once again. I would like the official opposition and the government to step up and say that they are going to do something. As my colleague from British Columbia said, for the past 42 years, which is nearly my age, nothing has changed and our businesses are still paying the price because they cannot invest, modernize or expand. Quebec is the one paying the price, because of both the official opposition and the government.
833 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
