44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 18, 2024 10:00AM
- 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 4:17:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a negative spiral. They work together, unfortunately. As there is more debt, it reduces the amount of economic growth. It is taking money out of the economy.
The reality is, as that debt reduces the growth, it then reduces the amount of revenue. It gets to a negative spiral. This is exactly what Brian Mulroney had to deal with in the mid-eighties when he took over from Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
It is a two-sided solution. We need to get the economy growing, and we need to reduce the debt so that Canadians could have a reasonable shot at prosperity.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 6:39:18 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on behalf of the Canadians in the frugal riding of Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.
Recently I asked the NDP-Liberal coalition if they would adopt a dollar-for-dollar rule for this week's budget. It is a common-sense rule where a government finds a dollar in savings for every new dollar of spending. It would allow government to focus resources where they are most needed without stoking inflation. The response from the President of the Treasury Board was embarrassing. More than embarrassing, it was sad and pathetic.
Her response was the parliamentary equivalent of the classic schoolyard taunt, “I know you are, but what am I?”
There is something about this so-called feminist Prime Minister's government that takes smart, accomplished, professional women from the private sector and turns them into shallow, glib bobble-head dolls in Parliament. If they are lucky, like Jane and Jody, they get out before the Prime Minister demands they shred their integrity. If they are unlucky, they work hard in a given portfolio, only to be demoted when they start getting better press than the Prime Minister.
I imagine that is why the President of the Treasury Board decided to ignore a policy question and reply with a lazy partisan attack. She needs to get back into the good graces of the inner circle. Any display of independent thought by any minister in the government risks bringing down the wrath of Katie, but falling in line and following orders is something the minister is especially skilled at. How else could we explain that someone could serve as defence minister, receive a first-hand look at the dire state of military readiness, then go on to cut billions from the defence budget?
That is right, the President of the Treasury Board is leading a program review. They are cutting spending from national security priorities so they can increase spending on Liberal re-election priorities. It is not quite a dollar-for-dollar policy. It is more of a “borrow $10 for a dollar” policy or, more accurately, a “borrow a trillion dollars” policy. They have borrowed so much money that the cost to finance their mountain of debt is more than what we spend on health care. The interest payments are more than all the tax collected through the GST. Incredibly, as if to fulfill the prophecy of Oedipus Rex, the Prime Minister has done in nine years what it took his father 16 years to accomplish.
Pierre Trudeau left Canada in such an economic hole, it took another 16 years to dig us out. Because of the government's historic levels of secrecy, utter lack of transparency and deceptive bookkeeping, Canadians do not know how deep this hole is. That is because, more and more, it appears as if this socialist coalition has adopted a kamikaze strategy.
They know Canadians want a change. They know Canadians are tired of the corrupt, arrogant, preachy, self righteous Prime Minister. They know no amount of new spending is going to improve their poll numbers. They know this, yet their strategy is damn the torpedoes and full speed ahead. The socialist coalition started us on a slow run to insolvency, but now they are in a full sprint. This reckless spending is not achieving positive results. The more they spend, the less Canadians can afford.
Before the parliamentary secretary rises to read Katie Telford's latest talking points, I just want to remind them that the question I asked was not a partisan question, but a straightforward policy one. All the experts Liberals love to quote said that more spending fuels inflation, so I ask this again: Will the government cap spending with a dollar-for-dollar rule to bring down inflation?
641 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
