SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 305 - Apr/30/24

Mr. Richard Martel (Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, CPC)

Apr/30/24 1:17:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her remarks. For nine years, the government has been pumping money into programs and constantly driving up the debt. Moreover, productivity is in free fall in Canada. The government spends, spends, spends, but we see that people are lining up at food banks, that grocery costs have doubled, and that people are unable to put a roof over their head or pay their mortgage. I have a question for my colleague. When are we going to see results?

86 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Apr/30/24 1:18:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a bit surprised to hear this coming from a member from Quebec, because we went through years of austerity, service cuts and additional costs for social programs and infrastructure for municipalities. We know how that turned out: Quebec went through a very difficult period. It is the role of a government, especially the federal government, to invest in the economy to ensure that all Canadians across the country have a desirable quality of life.

79 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Apr/30/24 1:19:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, people in Manicouagan have a lot of needs in the fisheries sector. We have been hit hard lately, and I would say that the future looks bleak. Of course, there was the issue of Mexican temporary foreign workers, who could not come over because of government measures. The government does not think there is a fishing industry here, so it forgot that this would be detrimental to the fishery. Of course, there is the whole issue of shrimp and the fact that shrimpers cannot go out this year. The Minister of Fisheries, Oceans and the Canadian Coast Guard does not even want to buy back their licences and does not want to compensate them in any way. In short, the budget is obviously very thin when it comes to fishing. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about her government's plan for fisheries. I would like her to analyze it and to tell me what the government is doing right with this budget and whether she really believes that it is thinking ahead in this area. Personally, I think it is all improvisation and half measures and this government is going nowhere. The fishing industry continues to suffer.

204 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Apr/30/24 1:20:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I really appreciate the question from my Bloc Québécois colleague, because she is asking how the federal government can help producers in Quebec's fishing industry. We are here to support the industry and help it. We have set aside money in the budget to facilitate the arrival of temporary workers. We know there are still problems, but I have confidence in our Minister of Fisheries, who represents the Magdalen Islands.

77 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Apr/30/24 1:20:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Liberals promised that their disability benefit would end poverty for people living with disabilities. We have heard my good friend, the member for Port Moody—Coquitlam, advocate very hard for the disability community. As New Democrats, we were expecting a disability benefit that would actually lift people out of poverty. Instead, what they are offered is $200. That is $6 a day. It is not even a bus pass in many areas. Could my colleague maybe explain to people living with disabilities why they could not even offer a disability benefit that would meet the poverty line in our country, to ensure that people living with disabilities could at least have a $2,000 minimum income a month to try to make ends meet?

128 words

Mrs. Brenda Shanahan

Apr/30/24 1:21:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that I am an avid advocate for the disability benefit. Having worked somewhat in this field, though, I am painfully aware that just putting in a benefit at the federal level will not solve the problem. We need to work closely with the provinces and with the other plans that are in place. The worst thing we can do is put in a federal benefit and then have provinces and other private plans withdraw their support. I am confident that, with this new plan, it is a great start and it is a great day for the disability community.

108 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Apr/30/24 1:22:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by stating that I wish to share my time with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères to speak on this budget. It is a budget that is a little difficult to characterize and a little difficult to describe. I was going to say that it demonstrates once and for all that there is a deep abyss between Quebec's expectations, Quebec's needs and respect for Quebec's jurisdictions, which Quebeckers hold dear, and the expectations of the other nine provinces and three territories as to what the federal government should do, but the federal government gives us plenty of opportunities to demonstrate this over and over again. One example of this deep, historical cultural abyss between what we Quebeckers expect and what the rest of the country expects in terms of federal action is the media's treatment of the budget. When we look at how this budget has been treated in English Canada, we see that analysts have focused mainly on the issue of the capital gains tax inclusion rate. As everyone knows, some people realize huge capital gains. One example is someone who buys a property, sells it several years later and makes more than $500,000 in profit. Yes, some people do make a lot of money in certain cases. Anyone who makes over $500,000 in profit has been told that they will have to contribute a little more. Obviously, this is one way for the government to bring in a good chunk of revenue. This cash grab will help the government keep its promise on the debt-to-GDP ratio, although artificially. Analysts in English Canada are talking about this and wondering whether this a good tax or a bad tax. What effect will it have on investment? Is it fair? Did the Liberal government do the right thing? Analysts in all the major media outlets have been talking about this. As an economist, I too asked myself that question. I read the English-language media and I fell into the trap. As members, we are discussing whether it is a bad tax or a good measure. However, at some point, our intellect as Quebeckers will lead us in another direction. Regardless of the new sources of revenue the federal government has found, we will start wondering what it is going to do with the money. We will realize that the billions of dollars that the federal government is raking in with a tax measure that may indeed be effective are being used not to balance the budget after the extremely expensive pandemic measures or to restore fairness between generations, but purely to trample on Quebec's rights, to interfere in Quebec's affairs and to meddle not only in areas that are none of the federal government's business, but in jurisdictions in which it is notoriously incompetent, such as health care, dental care and housing. It is not all that hard for a Quebecker to prepare a speech about the budget because it contains wall-to-wall interference. Let me give what I would call a historic example: In the budget, the federal government has decided to inferfere in Hydro-Québec's rate setting. When it comes to housing, we are basically used to it, because it happened gradually. We know about the punishing impact of the health conditions on patients. We know about the consequences of the agreement with the NDP. Now, however, the federal government is placing conditions on Hydro-Québec. How did that happen? It happened because, in the past, when the federal government was giving out subsidies for energy and for clean energy, it excluded Quebec. It said Quebec was being shut out because Quebec had a Crown corporation that supplied almost 100% of its electricity. It said Quebec would not receive one red cent. Now that there are lots of Bloc Québécois members here, the Liberals know that Quebeckers are going to speak in the House. The Conservatives, the Liberal backbenchers and the lone NDP member from Quebec are not going to do it. The federal government said, in last year's budget, that the Quebec government or Hydro-Québec would be able to apply for subsidies for green energy. It was the first time that had happened, so we were surprised. However, the conditions were not met, so not a penny was paid out. What do we see in this budget? We see conditions. In exchange for subsidies to help Hydro-Québec with its wind and solar projects, the federal government is demanding that it adjust its rate schedule so that 100% of the subsidy is passed on to the consumer. That is impossible. When I buy electricity, when I receive my bill from Hydro-Québec, I do not know whether it comes from La Romaine or a wind farm in the Gaspé. We do not know where it comes from. It is impossible to enforce, which means that Quebec will very likely once again be excluded from the program. I see the parliamentary secretary looking at me with one eye wider than the other, as usual, thinking that that was not the intention and that he and his colleagues do not want to hurt Quebec. However, it is once again symptomatic of the fact that they do not understand, because they are not good at this. They are not competent when it comes to energy. Why, then, did they design the subsidy the way they did? They figured they were going to ask polluting provinces to implement green projects. There are a lot of private companies involved, but the government wants to make sure that they do not pocket the money. Consequently, they tell them to develop projects, but to make sure that the green energy is less expensive in order to encourage people to switch over. That is essentially the plan. Then, since the government wants to apply uniform measures and does not recognize that Quebec is different, we have a program that is no good for Quebec and that is literally a violation of Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. However, that is nothing. What the government calls clean in the rest of Canada is nuclear energy. It believes nuclear energy is clean. The small nuclear reactors that refine oil sands using less oil sand so that they can export more oil sand, that is green. That is what they want to subsidize and facilitate. They will make sure that consumers pay less. This government believes that natural gas is green. Subsidies will go directly to natural gas, as long as there is a carbon capture strategy and technologies that do not exist, except in the Liberals' minds. Here are more measures that are bad for Quebec, and they keep coming. There is still no health transfer agreement with Quebec. The federal government used to manage a hospital in Quebec. It was a military hospital on Montreal's West Island. When management was transferred to the Quebec government, we heard through the grapevine that managing a hospital cost the federal government three times more than it did the Quebec government, yet the federal government has the gall to come tell us how to manage our health care system. Why? Because they want to be seen doing something and they want a maple leaf on the corner of the cheque. It is the same story with prescription drug insurance, since 100% of Quebeckers already have prescription drug insurance. We already have a plethora of programs in Quebec. The money should be given to Quebec. The same applies to dental care, since all Quebec dentists who treat children are registered in Quebec's automated system. If it wanted to implement these programs quickly without making people pay directly, the federal government would have given Quebec the money so that it could do what it is good at. However, that will not happen, because the federal government always wants to be seen to be doing something. It is the same for housing. The federal government may well have good intentions, but the road to hell is paved with good intentions. Every time this government has gotten involved in housing, there have been fewer units. When it came up with its national housing strategy, it ignored the fact that Quebec was the only province that had had permanent social and co-op housing construction programs, among others, for years. The terms and conditions of those programs were familiar to everyone in the field. What did our excellent programs get us when the federal government failed to recognize them? They got us three and half—almost four—years of negotiations, lost years during which people were sleeping in their cars, people in the regions where the housing crisis is spreading. The Liberals keep telling us that the federal government should get involved and impose all kinds of conditions. In my riding, there is a collective dwelling program that has been on pause for eight years because of these complex conditions. What is the Bloc Québécois asking for? We are asking for the right to opt out with full financial compensation. I will close with that. We are asking that Quebec get its money in areas under its own jurisdiction. Any member who works for Quebec should agree with that. We have been good sports. Yesterday, we asked for it by means of an amendment to an amendment, but the entire Quebec Conservative caucus said no to Quebec. They turned their backs on Quebec. That is what the members of that caucus are willing to do to one day get a ministerial position. They are willing to grovel. The same goes for the NDP and the Liberals. There is only one party that will consistently defend Quebec's interests and jurisdictions, and that is the Bloc Québécois. People will remember that on election day.

1682 words

Mr. Chandra Arya (Nepean, Lib.)

Apr/30/24 1:32:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member talked on many points, but he forgot to mention the one key thing for Quebec, and that is the knowledge-based sector in Quebec and Montreal. For example, the Montreal-based artificial intelligence industry is leading the world. This budget, to give a couple of examples, would provide $2 billion toward the AI compute access fund and $200 million to help sectors like agriculture, manufacturing and minerals to use artificial intelligence in their operations. Does the member not recognize that this budget would provide for the growth of Quebec's knowledge-based economy and knowledge-based corporate sector so it can be a leader in technology in the world?

114 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/30/24 1:33:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague has the nerve to extol the virtues of a so-called industrial policy that will benefit Quebec, after Honda used massive amounts of federal funding to concentrate the auto industry in Ontario, after a battery plant in Ontario received six times more federal funding than Quebec and after the Liberal Party's life sciences supercluster put our pharmaceutical sector at a disadvantage. He has the nerve to talk about artificial intelligence when the Minister of Industry introduced a bill that was so inadequate that we are up to about two inches of pages of amendments put forward by the minister himself two years later. If that is the centrepiece of the budget that he is trying to sell me, I have one more reason not to buy it.

132 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen (Peace River—Westlock, CPC)

Apr/30/24 1:34:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have seen over the last nine years that our country cannot afford the Prime Minister's budget. I am wondering if the member has any comments on the deficit spending. The Conservatives have noticed that all of the GST that will be collected in the coming year will go only to pay down the interest that is being accumulated on our national debt. I wonder if the member has any thoughts on that.

76 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/30/24 1:35:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, during the pandemic, we had to help all sectors, however imperfectly, to prevent them from collapsing. Where were the Conservatives when these expenditures were incurred? They were sitting around the table with Minister Morneau, spending tens, if not hundreds of billions of dollars. If I were the hon. member, when he talks about the nine years of the current government, I would be a bit embarrassed. He is right about one thing, though, and that is that the federal government will be looking for additional revenue. For me, it is not so much the debt servicing that bothers me, although that is problematic, it is the fact that they are using these revenues to violate Quebec's jurisdictions, to violate the Constitution, to trample on Quebec and interfere in just about everything and nothing, rather than transferring the money to Quebec and letting Quebeckers be responsible for their own programs. That is what the members of the official opposition should be outraged about.

165 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Apr/30/24 1:36:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member spoke about taxation and the issue around taxes. What I do not see in budget 2024 is a windfall tax, an excessive profit tax, for example. We know there is a high rate of inflation and people are struggling with food prices. We also see a free pass being given to the corporate sector. In fact, the Conservatives and Liberals have aided and abetted this practice and refused to increase the corporate tax rate. If the government increased it to 15% to 20%, that would bring $16 billion a year into the treasury to support a variety of different measures. Would the member call for the government to do what is right for all Canadians, which is to put forward an excessive profit tax?

128 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/30/24 1:37:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is funny. The way the New Democrats talk, one would think that the revenue they want to find would be used to buy virtue. Every dollar that the NDP is calling for in new taxes will be used to buy a new shoe to better walk all over Quebec, to implement programs that infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions, including health and education, lunch, dental insurance and pharmacare programs. I get the feeling that the member does not understand what the Constitution is all about. Sadly, I did not bring a copy of the Constitution in both official languages, because otherwise I would have tabled it, after highlighting section 92, which clearly states what the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces are. That way my colleague could read up on that. I am not sure what I think about these additional revenues to walk all over Quebec. An hon. member: Oh, oh!

155 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Apr/30/24 1:38:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order. I understand that people are not always happy with what is said in Parliament. That is the nature of our work. However, I just heard the member use the word “disgusting” after my speech. I think that is unacceptable and that she should withdraw her comment.

58 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/30/24 1:38:34 p.m.
Watch

I did not hear what was said. Of course, we can review the tape to see whether it was recorded. The hon. member for Vancouver East.

26 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Apr/30/24 1:38:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do find it offensive for the member to suggest that I do not know about the Constitution. I am a Canadian. I have read the Constitution, and I am proud of the Constitution, and to suggest that I do not know about it—

47 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/30/24 1:39:03 p.m.
Watch

That is a point of debate. I will certainly ask that we review the tape to see what was actually said, because I did not hear it from this end. I will certainly take it from here. On another point of order, the hon. member for Drummond.

47 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Apr/30/24 1:39:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do understand that what my colleague from Mirabel was saying may have been offensive to the member. However, I think it was entirely within parliamentary standards to say that a member does not seem to understand provincial jurisdictions. That being said, when the member for Vancouver said the word “disgusting”, her microphone was off. That is what my colleague from Mirabel's point of order was about. My colleague from Vancouver, standing up to defend her point, repeated the word “disgusting”. I think the very nature of the word should be the subject of this debate.

103 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/30/24 1:40:09 p.m.
Watch

As I said, I did not really hear the word. I understand what the member is saying. If that is the word that was used, I want to ensure that people are using words that are acceptable in the House. I can ask the hon. member to withdraw that word, and we can continue the debate. I would ask the hon. member for Vancouver East if she is willing to take back the word she had used. The hon. member for Vancouver East.

83 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan

Apr/30/24 1:41:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, no, because I do find it offensive for someone to suggest that I do not know anything about the Constitution. I think it is patronizing to suggest that. I think that in suggesting that, it is also disgusting to me.

42 words