44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 18, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/18/24 11:32:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, until recently, the only questions the Conservatives asked in French during question period were about the carbon tax. For months, that was all they talked about. Finally, they had an epiphany and realized that it does not apply to Quebec, which goes to show they could understand the concept easily enough once it was explained to them over and over again. They figured they had to find something else to hammer away on during question period. They came up with federal interference in Quebec's jurisdictions, and they have been getting some good mileage out of that for the past few days.
Now, I hear the Conservative leader talking about housing. He says he is going to tell the cities what to do, but without encroaching on their areas of jurisdiction. However, when any cities disagree with him, he is quick to insult the mayors. Basically, he insults them respectfully. There was a time when Harper promised to eliminate the spending power in order to respect jurisdictions. The only way to truly respect jurisdictions is to make unconditional transfers.
Will the leader of the official opposition commit to making unconditional housing transfers to Quebec if he ever takes power?
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 11:44:00 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with its latest budget, the federal government has launched an unprecedented attack against Quebec and the provinces' powers.
We saw it coming with the striptease leading up to the budget, when the Prime Minister, worthy successor of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, proclaimed that Canadians did not care about jurisdictional matters. Although the federal government has always tried to centralize powers, this time they are doing so without reserve, without restraint and without shame.
Let us take housing, for example. While, on the one hand, the government has finally recognized the crisis and is proposing positive measures, on the other, it is taking advantage of the situation to launch an unprecedented centralist offensive. According to the budget, it is now in charge of everything housing, the provinces and municipalities being relegated to the position of executors of federal priorities.
For example, the government is forcing the provinces to sign an agreement by next January. According to the budget, if Quebec rejects the conditions set by know-it-all Ottawa or proposes different priorities, the federal government will ignore Quebec or any recalcitrant province and will negotiate directly with the municipalities. This approach is illegal in Quebec. In fact, since a decision rendered by Robert Bourassa's government in 1971, Quebec's municipalities cannot transact directly with Ottawa. The goal is to prevent the federal government from adopting a divide-and-conquer approach as it is wont to do, and from diminishing Quebec's negotiating power at the bargaining table.
The federal government is encroaching on municipalities' urban development plans by imposing specific requirements for receiving infrastructure transfers. It is going so far as to establish the height and density of residential neighbourhoods within an 800-metre radius of educational institutions and public transportation routes. If the cities do not authorize the construction of certain types of multiplexes in these sectors, they will not be entitled to federal transfers. The government is also encroaching on property tax rights by announcing a tax on vacant lots in urban areas.
Lastly, it intends to purchase land from the provinces and municipalities and lease it long-term to developers to construct buildings. Since these constructions will be built on federal land, they will automatically be exempt from municipal bylaws and provincial laws. This is a significant risk.
The budget is full of interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction that will cause repeated disputes concerning jurisdiction and delay service delivery to Canadians. In addition to housing, the federal government is interfering in health care with the announcement of a bill on Canada-wide standards for long-term care and with its prescription drug and dental insurance plans. The same is true in education.
Ottawa has announced a lot of money for the energy transition. The budget explains how it will be distributed. The private sector and western Canada will receive generous subsidies and credits for carbon capture and nuclear energy development. That is the transition plan. In terms of compensation, Ottawa is offering a 15% tax credit to publicly owned corporations like Hydro-Québec for developing green projects. However, the federal government is going even further by interfering in how provincial publicly owned corporations are run. For example, it is imposing conditions on Hydro-Québec's rates. The publicly owned corporation can have the 15% tax credit for investments in its projects only if it commits to complying with the conditions set by know-it-all Ottawa. This government is forcing Hydro‑Québec to use it to reduce electricity bills and publicly report “how the tax credit has improved ratepayers' bills.”
The budget is a demonstration of the effects of the fiscal imbalance. Jurisdictions no longer exist in the eyes of the federal government. With this budget, the Prime Minister is declaring himself the Prime Minister of Canada, the premier of every province and the mayor of every town. Since the Liberals are busy messing around in Quebec's jurisdictions like sorcerers' apprentices, we are entitled to ask who is taking care of federal responsibilities like managing the borders or employment insurance, which is badly in need of a long-awaited reform.
This budget was made on the backs of Quebeckers. It is a clear demonstration of the damage that can be caused by the combination of the fiscal imbalance and the federal government's spending power by reducing Quebeckers' ability to manage their own society themselves.
It is also important to note that the vast majority of the funds related to the new announcements made with great fanfare to the media are broken down in such a way that they will be spent only after the next election, so this is a budget of election promises. For example, 97% of the $1.1 billion allocated to accelerating the construction of apartments is budgeted for after the election, as is 91% of the $1.5 billion for the new Canada housing infrastructure fund. The same is true of 88% of the amounts promised for pharmacare, 88% of the funding to support research and 87.5% of the funding to strengthen Canada's position in the area of artificial intelligence.
The Bloc Québécois presented its requests to the government. It asked that the government provide support for seniors, give Quebec the right to opt out when it comes to federal interference, address the housing crisis, pay Quebec back for the money it spent helping asylum seekers and put an end to its oil worship. The budget does not address any of those things.
When it comes to oil, the government recognizes in the budget that it is still subsidizing the industry by committing to develop and release “an implementation plan to phase out public financing of the fossil fuel sector, including by federal Crown corporations, by fall 2024”. The government is not committing to eliminate those subsides. It is simply committing to making a plan. If we read between the lines, it is clear that the government is going to continue to offer those subsidies.
Meanwhile, there is not one word about the aerospace policy they promised. Quebec's $11‑billion deficit caused quite a stir, but people seem fine with Ottawa's $40‑billion deficit. Ottawa's continued interference is resulting in an unprecedented centralization of power that robs Quebeckers of the ability to evolve in accordance with their needs, strengths, characteristics and desires. Centralization is a trend dating back to the dawn of Confederation, but we must not forget that, in 1867, our nation agreed to be part of Canada on the condition that the federal model recognized two equal levels of government sovereign in their respective jurisdictions.
Quebeckers want to be masters in our own house, but the feds are trying to be masters everywhere. That means we have a choice to make. We can let the federal government and the neighbouring nation dictate their priorities from the top down and use our own money to make choices for our society, or we can choose to pursue our own independence. The freer Quebec is, the better off it is. That is our goal, and that goal has informed our expectations and our analysis of this budget.
All of Quebec's major social and economic leaps forward were made by opting out of federal programs that were unsuited to our needs, or by creating programs that, ironically, will now serve as models for the programs that the federal government wants to force on us. By refusing to join the Canada pension plan, Quebec was able to create the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, a powerhouse of development and economic modernization in Quebec. By pulling out of the inadequate EI special benefits, Quebec was able to implement parental leave, which caused women's participation in the workforce to skyrocket and paved the way for work-life balance. By withdrawing from federal student loans, Quebec was able to implement its financial assistance for education expenses regime, making Quebec the North American leader in education access. By opting out of federal labour programs, Quebec was able to implement an employment policy that brings workers, employers and educational institutions together to align training with the labour market.
This would have been a good time to stop interfering, which is wasteful and causes all sorts of problems. In an economy with a combination of persistent inflation and economic stagnation, the government should have targeted spending as to better maximize its impact. That meant focusing on its own jurisdictions, such as supporting seniors or reforming employment insurance, and not interfering even more. That also meant paying what it owed to Quebec, like the billion dollars to cover the expenses related to the asylum seekers. Ottawa also has to better respond to the current emergencies, such as climate change. It has to better control its cost overruns and stop interfering in jurisdictions that are not its own. This is the opposite of what is in the budget. Year after year, budget after budget, the federal government keeps interfering in areas that do not come under its jurisdiction. With this budget, it is interfering more than ever before, and it needs to stop.
The Bloc Québécois demands that Quebec have the right to opt out with full financial compensation, unconditionally, in every instance where Ottawa meddles in areas not under its jurisdiction.
The latest example is dental care coverage, which falls under health care, an area under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec. This is a new power that Ottawa assumed, choosing to have a multinational manage it. It chose not to link it to Quebec's public program, which already covers dental care for children. Sun Life, a multinational, has been awarded $2 billion to manage the program; $2 billion in lost dental care. Interfering Ottawa is rolling out more and more complicated targeted programs, creating red tape and confusion that prevents projects from moving forward.
In fact, one could say that the setback in Quebec's autonomy and in Quebeckers' ability to make our own choices is part of a common pattern. The Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Canada-wide research group based in Ottawa, found last June that “the present trend is—
1730 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 11:56:12 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the erosion of Quebec's autonomy, and of Quebeckers' ability to make their own choices, is a strong trend.
I quoted the Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Canada-wide research group based in Ottawa, which found last June that “the present trend is toward a more directive use of the spending power”, and that “the degree of federal-provincial collaboration in defining policy challenges has declined”. It went on to say, “Partnerships now seem to be conditional on a province accepting the federal government's policy vision”.
The most recent budget gives more weight to their findings. All of this is happening in a context where Ottawa is doing a very poor job handling areas under its own jurisdiction, spending more money without making sure that it is being effective or getting results, and cutting its transfers to the provinces while piling on conditions and delaying the payment of the amounts it promised. The example that comes to mind here again is health transfers. Their increase is six times lower than anticipated, and they come with conditions that have led to a power struggle. The result is that it is taking longer for the money to be paid out. There are also unacceptable delays when it comes to infrastructure and housing programs. It takes years for an agreement to be reached and for the approved money to be paid out because Ottawa is once again interfering. I thank know-it-all Ottawa for that. Ottawa is behaving this way because it has the upper hand as a result of the ongoing fiscal imbalance.
In a federation, a fiscal imbalance occurs when one level of government collects more taxes than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, while the other level is unable to finance its own needs independently. In Canada, there is a serious fiscal imbalance to the detriment of Quebec and the provinces. The Parliamentary Budget Officer repeats it year after year: Ultimately, provincial finances are not sustainable. It is not just Quebec; all of the provinces are unsustainable. Provincial status is just not viable. The fiscal imbalance is causing major problems that are limiting the government's ability to address the many challenges it faces. These problems are numerous, but they fall into three categories.
First, by bringing in more revenue than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, Ottawa is not making an effort to manage its own affairs properly. The federal government is notoriously inefficient and everything costs more than it should—just think of the ArriveCAN scandal. I have two examples that illustrate the magnitude of the discrepancy. It costs the federal government two and a half times more to process an EI claim than it costs the Quebec government to process a social assistance claim. It costs the federal government four times more to issue a passport than it costs the Quebec government to issue a driver's licence. Everything costs more.
Second, Ottawa uses its fiscal room to interfere in areas that are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces under the Constitution. These intrusions blur the division of powers, make it less coherent, while undermining our autonomy. The jurisdictional overlap does nothing for efficiency. It only promotes centralization in Ottawa. There is a duplication of efforts with the new dental insurance. The same is true for the two tax returns. There is one too many, and that is the one that is collected by this level of government.
Finally, with Ottawa indirectly controlling the purse strings of the Government of Quebec and the governments of the other Canadian provinces, the capacity of the Quebec government to fully assume its responsibilities is diminished. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's observation is clear: The provinces will no longer be sustainable. I would add that they are at risk of collapsing, while the federal government's fiscal room will increase considerably.
This continued interference has led to an unprecedented centralization of power in Ottawa, which will take away the Quebec people's ability to control their development according to their needs, strengths, characteristics and wishes. In Canada, the status quo does not exist. The third autonomist way that lies between our sovereignty and our assimilation in which Quebec would be respected is constantly under attack by the federal government, no matter which party is in power. The status quo is actually weakening the Quebec National Assembly in favour of Ottawa. However, given the current context of uncertainty and crises, the fiscal imbalance must be addressed. The main way to achieve that is for the federal government to stop interfering and give Quebec the automatic right to opt out with full compensation.
The many crises we are experiencing bring with them many challenges. We can come out stronger or weaker. The repeated crises we have experienced over the past four years have brought to light many problems. First, COVID-19 showed that our health care system has been weakened by the federal government's chronic underfunding. Meanwhile, the serious flaws in the EI system forced the introduction of a series of costly programs that were hastily thrown together.
The sudden reopening of the economy exposed other problems: the housing shortage, the labour shortage exacerbated by the aging population and the considerable fragility of our manufacturing sector. That is not to mention all the problems caused by inflation. The government has not taken any of these fundamental issues seriously.
We are calling on the government to stop interfering in jurisdictions that do not belong to it and to include a permanent and automatic mechanism for Quebec to opt out with full compensation everywhere the federal government has interfered. We demand that the federal government immediately and unconditionally transfer the voted amounts that are supposed to be transferred to Quebec. We are also calling on Ottawa to immediately reimburse the Government of Quebec for costs incurred to welcome asylum seekers.
Quebec has a very clear vision of what to do to deal with the current challenges effectively. The solution is simple, but it requires more financial resources for Quebec. The government must address the fiscal imbalance by increasing federal transfers to ensure a fairer and more equitable redistribution. We can shape our future by building on Quebec's strengths, strengths that will become increasingly important in the economy of the future. Interference always costs more, always takes longer and never works as well as respecting jurisdiction. Interference will end once we have full independence.
The 21st century belongs to Quebec. This is the century of innovation, advanced technologies and green technologies that balance wealth creation with ecology. We have an abundance of creativity in all areas, and they need support. This is the century of renewable energy and sustainable development. We have everything it takes—water, wind, forests and know-how—to become world leaders, if Ottawa stops pumping billions of dollars into fossil fuels. Canada's oil and gas model and Quebec's renewable and sustainable model are incompatible.
This is the century of local farm distribution channels, where our production primarily serves to feed our population in a world of less fluid trade networks. We have to preserve agricultural diversification despite the current challenges created by an unpredictable global environment and climate change.
However, this is also a century of social tension, where growing inequality is extinguishing the hope of a brighter future across the western world. Our government must have the means to preserve social cohesion, especially considering the urgent challenges posed by the housing crisis and rising property prices. Maintaining the purchasing power of seniors is also imperative, considering the disastrous economic consequences that would result from their impoverishment amid an aging population.
In conclusion, this budget comes at a time when the needs are great and many, but the resources are not unlimited. The only way for Ottawa to deal with that is to take care of its own responsibilities properly. A rational and well targeted use of resources will allow us to avoid austerity measures left and right that will cause everyone to suffer. That is the opposite of what we have before us in this budget.
That is why, seconded by the member for Saint-Jean, I move the following amendment to the amendment.
That the amendment be amended by replacing paragraphs (a) and (b) with the following:
(a) uphold the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and to grant Quebec and the provinces a right to opt out with full compensation;
1426 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:05:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the fiscal issues. I would like to remind him that Canada has the lowest deficit-to-GDP ratio and lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio among all the G7 countries. In fact, Canada not only has a AAA credit rating, but it is also one of only two G7 countries that has a AAA rating from two of the three independent credit agencies.
Quebec has shown the solid move from the carbon-heavy economy to a clean economy. Quebec has very advanced manufacturing and knowledge-based companies. Does the member not recognize the importance this budget has given to knowledge-based companies and specifically how it would help Quebec companies, for example in artificial intelligence, with a $2-billion fund for the AI compute access fund, $200 million for artificial intelligence start-ups, and help for crucial sectors, such as agriculture, health care and manufacturing, to adopt artificial intelligence?
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:08:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, some members of the Bloc Québécois are fairly sensible, but I would like to know how the Bloc Québécois can talk out of both sides of its mouth. When the NDP votes with the minority government, the Bloc Québécois votes against it. When the NDP votes against the Liberal minority government, the Bloc Québécois votes with it. The Bloc Québécois is actually keeping the Liberal minority government in power.
How can my colleague talk out of both sides of his mouth? I would like to hear his thoughts on that because the Bloc Québécois is being inconsistent. Unfortunately, I have to say that the Bloc Québécois does not really represent the interests of Quebec.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:08:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it will be up to Quebeckers to decide who represents them in the next election, as they have done in every other election. That is how it works.
We set a very clear criterion to determine whether we vote with or against the government: When it is good for Quebec, we vote in favour, and when it is not good for Quebec, we vote against. It is that simple.
Between the two, the Bloc Québécois always tries to improve the proposals to better meet Quebec’s needs. Unlike the Conservatives, we are not always against the government. We do not spend our time denouncing the carbon tax, which does not apply to Quebec. We see whether it is good for Quebec. If so, we are in favour; if not, we are against.
This budget is bad for Quebec’s economy and does not meet Quebec’s major needs. We will therefore vote against it. It is clear, and it is how we do things.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:09:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague, who I am pleased to serve with on the finance committee, spoke about jurisdiction in pharmacare.
The Canada pharmacare legislation currently before the House would work exactly as the Canada Health Act does. It would offer federal money to every province that agrees to deliver diabetes-class and contraception drugs free to the citizens of their provinces through the single-payer public system. No province would be forced to participate. If the province wants to participate, they would get the money and deliver it just like any other medical service through the public health care system, just like Quebec does with all the other services.
In 2016, the Union des consommateur of Quebec made a written submission to the Standing Committee on Health on pharmacare. It said:
The explosive rise in spending on prescription drugs in Canada requires immediate action...the most effective solution would be to adopt a universal public pharmacare program. We hope the federal government will act on this issue and assure you of our full cooperation.
Does my hon. colleague not agree that Québécois deserve to have access to free diabetes medication and pharmaceuticals if 100% of it is being paid by the federal government, just like every other medical service that is available in Quebec?
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:11:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my new colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. It will be a pleasure to work with him, I am sure.
Obviously, there are many major health care needs. Yes, I would like to know that everyone who needs medication can get it. Quebec has a partial prescription drug insurance plan; it has limited coverage for people who do not have access to private insurance. Yes, the price of prescription drugs is skyrocketing and it is quite the challenge.
The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to respect areas of jurisdiction. For example, health care falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The role of the federal government is to finance health care.
To meet its commitments in funding health care, the federal government needs to give six times more than it is currently giving. This shortfall means that Quebec and the provinces do not have enough resources to offer proper health care services, which should include universal pharmacare. On one hand, the federal government is underfunding the health care sector by not fulfilling its role; on the other hand, it is encroaching on our areas of jurisdiction. What are the consequences? Redundancy and a top-to-bottom vision of know-it-all Ottawa that does not reflect reality.
If Quebec is given the right to opt out with full compensation and no strings attached in order to enhance its prescription drug insurance program or manage funding in its health care sector as it sees fit, we will support the budget. We have always said that what we do not want is to see the federal government usurp spending powers. Everything that is done here is more expensive. It is bureaucratic and out of touch with the reality of Canadians.
There is not even a proposal to align with Quebec’s prescription drug insurance plan. The same goes for dental care. There is not even a proposal to align with the existing public insurance plan for children. That is being turned over to Sun Life; that is a $2-billion management fund that will enable the insurer to line its pockets instead of providing services to Canadians. That is Ottawa, right there.
That is why we want Quebec to make its own choices.
387 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:12:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his quasi-scientific speech about the budget. I truly enjoyed it.
I know he wants to get to the bottom of things and uncover the truth. Here is what I am especially curious about. We know Ottawa promises a lot of money, but that money is never spent because it does not take regional realities into account. Funding for housing does not reflect the reality of regions where conditions differ from those of the greater Toronto area. It is the same thing with indigenous peoples: Year after year, there is so much money that goes back into the treasury when that money should be going into the pockets of those who need it, so they can do things such as build housing.
In my colleague's opinion, how does that impact budgets and the real deficit? When it comes to a challenge as big as housing, how could Quebec do better than Ottawa if it were independent?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:13:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for sharing his outlook with us. I agree with him completely.
Before I talk about housing, I will speak to infrastructure. The municipalities are asking us whether Ottawa is finally going to renew the gas tax and Quebec's contribution program, or TECQ, and distribute the funds, with no strings attached, on a per capita basis. When the dollars get out the door, municipalities can get projects done quickly.
In the recent budget, Ottawa is proposing infrastructure programs that require agreements because interference is at issue. It takes one, two, three or four years to reach an agreement, and years more before the funds are disbursed. The needs are there, but the money is not.
It is the same thing when it comes to housing. With regard to the rapid housing initiative, or RHI, Ottawa let Quebec choose which housing it wants to fund. The money was allocated quickly. In all of the other programs, it takes years for Quebec to get a single penny, for a single shovel of dirt to be turned. The government is passing the buck. Money that we voted on, money paid by Quebec taxpayers is being held up here in Ottawa for ideological and bureaucratic reasons.
It is the same thing for indigenous people. Once again, the money is there in the budget, but at the end of every fiscal year, the money has not been spent. That is again because of bureaucratic management. Needs are growing and the money was approved, but it is not being spent. That needs to change. We need to tell Ottawa to cut the red tape and to stop creating obstacles by dictating conditions. Local governments are the ones that know what is good and where the needs are. The federal government needs to transfer the money and get out of the way.
315 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:36:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in general, I agree totally with my hon. colleague. The seniors are the Canadians in this country who have, through their many decades of effort, toil, work and labour, built this country. It is a shame when we have so many seniors who are living paycheque to paycheque, often many beneath the poverty line, so we think there needs to be a comprehensive resolution to this issue.
That is why, in my speech and in the budget, we are pushing for affordable non-market housing, including for seniors. We have long pushed for increases to the Canada pension plan and old age security, and it should be set, at a minimum, at the poverty level.
My hon. colleague did raise dental care. There are two ways we can help seniors. We can raise their incomes, and we can reduce their expenses. In terms of dental care, I cannot tell the House how many seniors, including many in Quebec, have come to me and our party and said thanks for providing dental care, because they now do not have to pay out of pocket for necessary dental care, such as dentures and other things, which they cannot live without. The Canadian dental plan will pay for that for them. That is going to make a meaningful impact on their bottom line and their budgets, and they are thankful for it.
231 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:57:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the point that the member raised is very important. We are a global leader in artificial intelligence, and Montreal and Quebec play a major role.
However, so far, we are dependent on jurisdictions outside Canada for the compute access that is very critical for artificial intelligence. We have now proposed a $2-billion investment so we can provide compute access from within Canada. In addition to that, we have proposed $200 million for AI start-ups and to help companies in other critical economic sectors, such as health care, agriculture or manufacturing, to use and embrace the artificial intelligence that is available.
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 1:10:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a Constitution that divvies up federal and provincial areas of jurisdiction. People can probably see where I am going with this. The level of interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction in this budget is appalling. It is still happening, and it will keep happening.
Last week, a journalist asked the Prime Minister how he would react if Quebec wanted to invest in one of his areas of jurisdiction. I think it was a joke, but the Prime Minister replied that he would talk to the province in question.
I would like my colleague to comment on that. Have the provinces and Quebec really been consulted? Leading up to this budget, were there negotiations that covered all these areas of jurisdiction, or is Canada interfering yet again?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:15:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, next Saturday is Guy Rocher's 100th birthday. Guy Rocher is one of the great intellectuals of the Quiet Revolution and, because of his own personal journey, an icon of secularism in Quebec. His century of wisdom is worth celebrating.
He is one of the little-known fathers of our education system, having played a key role in the mystical Parent commission and in the creation of the largest university in Quebec and Canada, the Université du Québec network and the extraordinary CEGEP system, which is unique to Quebec.
Rocher is a graduate of Université Laval, Université de Montréal and Harvard University. His biographer, Pierre Duchesne, called him Quebec's leading sociologist. He was the first to understand that we could not modernize our education system without making it secular. He may even have been the first to understand Quebec so well.
As we wish Guy Rocher a happy 100th birthday, which I intend to do in person this evening, let us be inspired by his calm tenacity. Mr. Rocher is indeed 100 years young.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:25:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about affordable housing. Six affordable housing units were built during the entirety of the Conservative leader's term as minister responsible for housing. That was during his entire term and for the entire country.
In just that member's riding, 173 affordable housing units have been created by the municipalities with financial assistance from the Canadian government. However, her leader, who built only six housing units, continues to insult Quebec municipalities by calling them incompetent. In her riding, 173 affordable housing units have been built.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:28:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, our colleague is absolutely right, it is not after, it is right now that this is happening. In Quebec, 8,000 housing units are being built through the exceptional partnership between the Canadian and the Quebec governments. Indeed, 8,000 affordable housing units is the largest number of affordable housing units built in the history of Quebec because of the extraordinary collaboration between the Canadian government and the Quebec government.
The only problem is that that is very bad news for the Bloc Québécois.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:30:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very glad that, the day after the budget, my colleagues give me the opportunity to talk about the great investments we have been attracting to this country. For example, last year, Canada ranked third in the world and first per capita for attracting foreign investment. I think about Northvolt in Quebec, the largest private investment in the province's history. I will talk about Volkswagen in St. Thomas. This is going to change the whole region. We are creating jobs. We are creating prosperity. We are creating opportunities for generations. I think about Windsor and the investment we have seen from Northstar.
We are going to fight every day for Canadians.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:43:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Quebec lieutenant taught us a lesson: Canada is a secular country. We are also partial to secularism. We are Quebeckers. They are trying to pick a fight. It is the same old story.
If the Liberals are so in favour of secularism, then why do they want to change the date of the election to accommodate a religious holiday and why do they want to introduce elements of sharia law into the mortgage rules of this so-called secular country?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:44:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will need to have someone explain to me why they put that in the budget. I do not really understand.
In any case, one thing is certain, we are witnessing a clash of values here. While the Minister of Justice intends to use Quebeckers' money to fund the challenge to Quebec's state secularism law, the Liberals are thinking of incorporating more religion into Canadian law.
Again, Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress said that Islamic mortgages are another financial front of the Islamist movement. Those are serious words.
Will the government admit that it is not defending secularism, but rather putting more and more religion into the affairs of state?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:59:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are against jurisdictional interference. If the Liberals want to be involved in Quebec politics, they should run for the Quebec Liberal Party. Otherwise, there is no shortage of work for them to do at the federal level.
We want them to transfer the housing money now so we can build homes now instead of negotiating until 2025. We want them to get rid of the old age pension's two classes of seniors. We want them to reimburse Quebec for asylum seekers. We want them to reform employment insurance, which they have been promising to do since 2015. We want them to stop the fossil fuel industry from sabotaging the fight against climate change. In short, we want them to do their job. When are they going to do it?
133 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
