So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 175 - Mar/29/23

Sep/29/23 1:00:12 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank and congratulate my hon. colleague, the member for Repentigny, for the quality of her substantive speech, as well as for the quality of her answers. When the Conservative member did not like my colleague's answer, she heckled her throughout. However, my colleague maintained her focus and answered frankly. I take my hat off to her. An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Gabriel Ste‑Marie: Madam Speaker, there she goes again. The part of my colleague's speech that really stood out to me was when she said how little Ottawa understands the ecosystem of Quebec's labour market and workforce and how they operate. Can she share some more examples of that?

123 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 175 - Mar/29/23

Mar/29/23 5:14:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple: No, because it is not enough. It is six times less than what Quebec and the provinces are asking for to prop up the health care system. What is Ottawa doing with this agreement? It is stabilizing the proportion of support it provides to the health care system. In 2015, when this government was elected, the federal government was funding 24% of health care spending. With what is being proposed, it will still be 24% in 10 years. To restore fiscal balance a bit, it needs to be 35%, because it is not enough. The Government of Quebec told us that given the choice between this and nothing, it decided to take this, but it is not enough and it is not going to solve anything.

132 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 163 - Feb/17/23

Mar/29/23 2:43:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in yesterday's budget, the Liberals chose to spend heavily in areas of provincial jurisdiction to please the NDP, but that is not what Quebeckers need. That is why, this morning, the Quebec government asked to opt out with compensation from the federal dental care program because it already has one. Quebec rightly explains that, before new programs are created, existing programs should be adequately funded. Is the government committed to giving Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation?

84 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 135 - Nov/25/22

Feb/17/23 1:30:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-295

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Vancouver Centre for her bill. Bill C‑295 seeks to amend the Criminal Code to create an offence for long-term care facilities, their owners and their managers to fail to provide necessaries of life to residents of the facilities. Furthermore, it would allow the court to make an order prohibiting the owners and the managers of such facilities from being, through employment or volunteering, in charge of or in a position of trust or authority towards vulnerable adults. It would also allow the court to consider as an aggravating factor for the purpose of sentencing the fact that an organization failed to perform the legal duty that it owed to a vulnerable adult. According to the logic in this bill, filling the Criminal Code with offenses is a way to help people. We will need to take the time to study this in committee. In practical terms, this is what the bill would do. Sections 214 through 320.101 of the Criminal Code constitute part VIII, which deals with offences against the person and reputation. First, Bill C‑295 would add two definitions to section 214 of the Criminal Code, namely, “long-term care facility” and “manager”, for the purpose of establishing the following criminal offences. Section 215 pertains to duties tending to preservation of life. The following would be added after paragraph 215(1)(b): “(b.1) as an owner or manager of a long-term care facility, to provide necessaries of life to residents of the facility; and”. Paragraph 215(2)(b) of the act would be replaced by the following: “(b) with respect to a duty imposed by paragraph (1)(b.1) or (c), the failure to perform the duty endangers the life of the person to whom the duty is owed or causes or is likely to cause the health of that person to be injured permanently.” Subsection 215.1(1), pertaining to prohibition orders, would be added. This subsection would enable the court to issue a prohibition order against any person convicted under paragraph 215(2)(b). The order would prohibit the individual from “continuing any employment, or becoming or being a volunteer in any capacity, that involves being in charge of or in a position of trust or authority towards an adult who is vulnerable by reason of age, illness, mental disorder, disability or frailty.” The court would decide the duration of the prohibition order and the sentence. There is no maximum or minimum. The order can be varied by a court on application of the prosecutor or the offender if the circumstances change. Whoever fails to comply with the order could be subject to “an indictable offence and...imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years” or to “an offence punishable on summary conviction.” Finally, the bill introduces sentencing factors for organizations. The act is amended by adding the following after paragraph 718.21(a): “(a.1) whether the organization was under a legal duty that was owed to vulnerable adults and failed to perform that duty”. The Bloc Québécois believes that it is relevant to determine whether including criminal negligence of seniors in long-term accommodation in the Criminal Code will help them get the care and services to which they are entitled. Seniors have obviously been the biggest victims of the COVID‑19 pandemic. They were overrepresented in the number of deaths and they suffered and continue to suffer the most from the aftershocks of the virus: isolation, anxiety and financial difficulties. It should be noted that Quebec has legislation on elder abuse and the abuse of any vulnerable adult. This legislation provides for fines and protects informants who report mistreatment. The Bloc Québécois believes that the federal government is exercising its prerogatives through this bill. It would give investigators additional tools. The Bloc Québécois will take the time to study the issue in committee to assess the pertinence of the bill. However, beyond prosecuting managers who may have committed or may commit criminal acts, it is important that our seniors receive services that improve their quality of life. In that regard, the Bloc Québécois wants to underscore the other important role the federal government must play in health care, that is, to increase health transfers to 35% of the costs of the system, rather than sign the bargain-basement deal that has just been reached. Finally, the Bloc Québécois would like to point out that these horror stories are not to be used as a pretext for the federal government to impose national standards on long-term care facilities. I would remind the House that the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously denounced the idea of imposing federal standards on long-term care facilities and is demanding a much more substantial increase in health transfers than what is provided for in the deal this government has managed to force down the throats of the provinces. On December 2, 2020, the minister responsible for seniors and informal caregivers moved the following motion: THAT the National Assembly reject the Government of Canada's desire to impose Canadian standards in Québec CHSLDs and long-term care facilities for the elderly, as this falls under exclusive Québec jurisdiction; That it express its disappointment that the federal government did not include an increase in health transfer payments in its last economic update, while the provinces must cover significant health spending costs in the context of the COVID‑19 pandemic; That it call on the federal government to commit to not imposing Canadian standards in Québec CHSLDs and long-term care facilities for the elderly and to increasing health transfer payments to an amount equal to 35% of healthcare network costs. I think it is worth revisiting this motion. The Bloc Québécois supports the unanimous position of the National Assembly and condemns the centralizing vision that pervades the House. I also want to remind the House that Quebec has already come up with solutions. In her report of November 23, 2021, the Quebec ombudsman identifies shortcomings and recommends measures that the Government of Quebec needs to take to ensure that this never happens again. For example, the report suggests a risk assessment and management policy, a detailed plan for strengthening long-term care homes' capacity, a personal protective equipment supply strategy, a Quebec plan for deploying emergency personnel, protocols for deploying extra staff under exceptional circumstances, a Quebec strategy for combatting labour shortages, updated computer systems, a national action plan developed by the Quebec department of health and social services to recognize the complexity of care and service provision in long-term care homes, the adoption of legislative measures that define the guiding principles that must be followed regarding living environment quality and organization, and the establishment of the procedure for applying them by regulatory means. Quebec already has ideas for fixing this situation. The federal government knows nothing about the reality on the ground or about these specific hospital settings, so it is not likely to be able to improve things. In response to this report, the Government of Quebec presented its plan for reforming the health care system. The plan includes an array of measures such as large-scale recruitment, better access to data, the construction of new hospitals, and increased accountability for executives. Additionally, the coroner is still investigating, and some people are calling for a public inquiry into the situation at long-term care facilities. In any case, it is up to Quebeckers to take stock of the situation and to fix their system. The problems are not going to be fixed by the federal government blundering in with its standards, unwanted and unwelcome. If the federal government truly wants to help the provinces and Quebec emerge from the pandemic and provide better care to our seniors, it should stop being so paternalistic. I hope that this know-it-all government has understood that. It should forget about imposing federal nationwide standards that are not a good fit for a range of different social and institutional contexts. It should actually increase health transfers, which would enable Quebec and the provinces to attract and retain more health care workers. Unfortunately, the Liberals are pleased as punch to have shortchanged the provinces by offering them six times less than they said was needed to get the health care system working properly. These Liberals are puffed up with pride at the cheap deal they scored, but the problems and hardships in hospitals and long-term care homes will continue because of the government's negligence.

1485 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 135 - Nov/25/22

Nov/25/22 11:41:30 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are concerned because this is not the first time this government has stolen money that belongs to our municipalities. That is exactly what it did last June with $342 million in another infrastructure program, so, yes, we are concerned when this government threatens to keep every penny that has not been spent by March 31 of next year. When it comes to stealing money from our cities, this government has always kept its word. Why not collaborate instead and announce that any money remaining in the fund will simply be transferred to Quebec?

98 words

Context: House Hansard - 130 - Nov/18/22

Nov/25/22 11:40:51 a.m.
Watch

Laser beams are not what they used to be, Mr. Speaker. The federal government is bringing the deadline to submit infrastructure projects forward by two years. If Quebec fails to meet the deadline, the federal government will keep $2.7 billion that is owed to our cities. It is bullying our municipalities and threatening to keep every cent that is not spent by March 31. Meanwhile, yesterday, the federal government announced a new $1.6‑billion infrastructure project to fight climate change. Is that program being funded with the same money it plans to steal from municipalities at the end of March?

105 words

Context: House Hansard - 130 - Nov/18/22

Nov/18/22 11:26:33 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if the minister is so very aware of the situation, he should cancel his decision. The federal government does not understand the implications of moving up the deadline by two years. Its job is to announce funding and show up at the ribbon-cutting when the work is done. The fact is, there is a labour shortage in the construction industry, contractors are fully booked, and most municipalities do not have people to write specs. That all has an impact on planning infrastructure projects for the people who build them, and that is why the Union des municipalités du Québec is asking the government to honour the agreed-upon 2025 deadline. Will the government tune in and listen to our cities? Hello?

128 words

Context: House Hansard - 130 - Nov/18/22

Nov/18/22 11:25:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the federal government is threatening to steal $2.7 billion in infrastructure money meant for our municipalities. It is moving up Quebec's deadline to submit proposals from 2025 to next March. Miss the deadline, miss out on the cash. The Liberals changed the date unilaterally. Then they had the nerve to accuse Quebec of dragging their feet and leaving federal money on the table. For starters, it is not their money. It is Quebeckers' money. Also, Quebeckers are not dragging their feet. The Liberals are the ones changing deadlines and acting like bullies. Why not honour the deadline and work together instead of jeopardizing projects that are important to our cities?

115 words

Context: House Hansard - 124 - Nov/3/22

Nov/18/22 10:27:55 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. In his speech and during questions and comments, the student loan measure was mentioned. The Bloc Québécois supports this measure because we see that it will help students in the rest of Canada. However, I would like to remind my colleague that Quebec is not part of that program because it already has its own loans and bursaries program that works well. An agreement with Ottawa gives Quebec the right to automatically withdraw with full compensation, which we are pleased about. With regard to the dental insurance set out in Bill C-31, however, it is important to note that Quebec already has its own dental insurance program for children aged 10 and under. We thought that the programs would be harmonized with, for example, funding to extend coverage to children up to the age of 12, especially since Quebec's program is a real program that works well. However, there is absolutely nothing about that or about a right to withdraw with compensation. To make matters worse, the government has imposed a super gag order to prevent the bill from being examined in committee. That means no amendments can be proposed. What does my colleague think about that?

213 words

All Topics

Nov/3/22 5:17:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to start off by saying how excited my colleagues and I were this morning to get a look at this important economic statement behind closed doors. As we read through the opening pages, we felt hopeful. We thought the government understood the problems we are dealing with, the global inflationary crisis that is having a real impact on ordinary people. People are having to make do with less because prices are going up. Food, energy and gas prices, not to mention housing prices, have all gone up. People are facing major challenges, and the government says that we are in the middle of an inflationary crisis. A few days ago, even the Minister of Finance said she would be making an economic statement today because we are looking at an inflationary crisis. It is the same thing with the risk of a recession. Once again, it is a global issue. Most economists and analysts are saying that there is reason for concern and that we could enter a recession in 2023. We know that the Bank of Canada and the central banks decided to fight inflation to bring price increases back into the range of 1% to 3%, thus the 2% target. In order to do that, they are implementing a monetary policy that involves increasing interest rates. Higher interest rates mean an economic slowdown because of softening demand, which is why there is a risk of a global recession. The country's economy is facing a recession in the coming year, and the minister recognizes that in the economic statement. We commend her for that. The further we read in the document, the more we examine it from every angle, the more we do the math and compare the tables, statistics and figures in this statement with what was in last spring's budget, the more we realize that it is all very slick rhetoric. The document recognizes the economic problems that we face, but when it comes to proposing any solutions, it leaves much to be desired. There are actually very few new measures announced in this economic statement. It reiterates what has been adopted since the beginning of the fall. It reiterates the commitments made in the last budget. It announces that there could be additional measures in 2024, but there is not much new for now. There is actually some assistance for student loans. My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I, as the member for Joliette, can say that this does not affect us very much, given that the loans and bursaries system is under the purview of Quebec. I guess it is good for students in the rest of Canada, but this measure does not directly affect Quebeckers. Next the government says it will spend more to hire more public servants to improve service delivery. That is great. We saw what happened with passports in the summer. There are countless examples. There are many problems related to wait times. Nevertheless, this is a fairly minor expenditure. There is nothing major here. The statement also reiterates the funding announced for the people in the Maritimes and eastern Quebec who suffered through hurricane Fiona. We applaud that commitment as well. However, all of this is very minor and very marginal. The statement uses the word “inflation” over a hundred times, but the solutions it offers are the same ones that were presented in the spring budget, which made hardly any reference to inflation. There is an inflationary crisis going on, but what is being done about it? The government uses the word “inflation”, then rehashes the same proposals it served up in the spring, when it was not talking about inflation. One of Quebec's national dishes is shepherd's pie. People generally say that it tastes better when it is reheated. The same cannot be said of the measures we have here. What we are being served in this update, in this economic statement, is reheated leftovers. Most of the measures in the update are reheated leftovers. The significance of the current inflationary crisis and the risks of recession should not be minimized. The Bloc Québécois called on the government to take that into account and propose concrete solutions. For example, if workers lose their jobs because of the recession, we will need an employment insurance system that works. Everyone, including the government, knows that the EI system is broken. It is so badly broken that for every 10 people who lose their job, barely four have access to EI. Since 2015, the government has been telling us to wait. It has been telling us that change is coming, that the system will be reformed. We have been listening to the same broken record for seven years. We expected it to happen last September, as the special measures for the pandemic were ending, but no, back we went to the old Axworthy system that does not work at all. The government is telling us that we are headed for a recession, so the time has come to take action. It is urgent that we fix the EI system. There has been plenty of consultation. We know exactly what needs to be done to improve the system, but no. This is yet another missed opportunity. According to this economic statement, the EI system will not be fixed. The government is going to leave it broken. The government is saying that it is presenting an economic statement because we may be headed for a recession, but at the same time, it is saying that it will not fix the EI system. I completely agree with my colleague from Terrebonne when she said that the government seems to be working in silos. Did the minister responsible for EI talk to the Minister of Finance? Do these people talk to each other? This would have been a good opportunity to do so. We are in the midst of an inflationary crisis. Prices are going up, and the primary victims are obviously those whose incomes are not indexed to inflation. I am talking about seniors. As we know, the government decided to help people aged 75 and up, but not those aged 65 to 75. This government created two classes of seniors. Today, faced with a significant increase in the price of housing, gas and groceries, low-income seniors aged 65 to 75 do not have enough money to eat properly. They must turn to food banks and make some agonizing and very humiliating choices. Given that today's statement acknowledged the problem of the current inflationary crisis, now would have been the time to announce measures for these people. The Bloc Québécois believes that the government must not create two classes of seniors and that it must increase old age security for seniors 65 and up to cover inflation and deliver a modicum of social justice. This government willfully refused. Why is the government refusing to help those aged 65 to 75? I believe it is because the Liberals want these payments to be insufficient for low-income people in the first class of seniors that it created, those aged 65 to 75, so they will no longer have enough public support to make it to the end of the month. That way, those seniors will be forced to return to work. In 2015, this government was boasting about rescinding the Conservative law that raised the retirement age to 67. However, when we look at what is happening to seniors aged 65 to 75 as a result of inflation, we see a government that is trying to bring in a similar policy through the back door, a government that is ensuring that seniors aged 65 to 75 do not have sufficient income from public pension funds to make ends meet. As a result, they are going to be forced to return to the labour market. If that is the goal, it is very hypocritical. If that is not the goal, then I do not know what this government's problem is. It could be gross incompetence, but I think it is more likely utter hypocrisy. This is not right. It is unfair. When low-income people retire, they have often worked hard their whole lives. They are often single women. In many cases, they were caregivers. They do not have a pension because they stayed at home to take care of their family. This government claims to be feminist, but it does not recognize their contribution, and it is failing them. In its statement, the government acknowledged that there is an inflationary crisis, but it is not doing anything for those hit hardest by this crisis. That is deplorable. We expected to see something like that in the statement, but it is not there, and that is deplorable. There is an inflation crisis, prices are going up, and there might be a recession. Communities in Quebec and the other provinces are also experiencing another major crisis, the health care crisis. People no longer have access to doctors. The health care system is broken. It was strained during the pandemic. Workers and nurses are all exhausted. They are burned out. Plus, the system is underfunded. The fact is, these problems started in the 1990s when the federal government in Ottawa decided to deal with deficit and debt problems by reducing health transfers. That is when things started to go wrong. In the aftermath of the pandemic, as infection rates begin to fall, we are starting to see how much was put off during that time. We thought that screening, care and surgery could wait a little while, but now we realize that the system is no longer working at all. The provinces and Quebec know what to do, and the specialists and the expertise are there. They know what to do, but they lack resources because Ottawa has been neglecting its role for quite some time now. The provincial and Quebec governments are telling Ottawa that it is time for the federal level to play its role by providing as much funding for health care as possible. These figures are calculated year after year by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. According to him, health transfers should amount to $28 billion, and there should be a 6% increase every year to cover the rising costs and the existing needs. There is a desperate need. In response to this public health crisis, the government had the role and the duty to address this issue today in this statement, especially since the government just announced that in a few days it is inviting all the provincial health ministers to a nice meeting with the federal government to discuss health systems and funding. What is the government going to tell those ministers just a few days after saying that it would not invest a penny more in the system when the need is there? When he was health minister in Quebec City, the very Liberal and very colourful Gaétan Barrette accused this government of practising predatory federalism, because the government was imposing conditions without providing the necessary funding to go with it. It was a Liberal health minister who accused this government of practising predatory federalism. That kind of infighting among the Liberals sends a clear message that things are not going well, not at all. Today, the government and the Minister of Finance had a unique opportunity to announce that they were going to address this issue and set the stage for the ministers' meeting. Again, they have been promising to fix this situation since 2015. Every time a Bloc Québécois member stands up in the House and asks the government if it is going to do its job, the government says that something is coming down the pike and not to worry. We may have believed that promise once or twice, but after hearing it for seven years, enough is enough. What message are we sending to the provincial health ministers who are trying to figure this out? They are the ones holding together the health care system, which is crumbling because of the considerable strain it was under during the pandemic. Now they are being invited for talks, but the numbers that have just been released show that there is not a penny more for them. It is contemptuous. This government stands up at every opportunity to lecture every other level of government. It even stands up to lecture the Pope and people around the world. However, when it comes to dealing with its own files, it is nowhere to be found, it is not up to the task. That is what we saw with passports and immigration too. Everything this government touches turns into a fiasco. There are cost overruns and service is not up to par. Now it is trying to tell the provinces what they should do, but it is not even investing any money. I mentioned immigration. A few days ago, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship announced new immigration levels. Canada will aim to bring in 25% more immigrants by 2025. That means 500,000 newcomers per year, as reiterated in today's statement. The Bloc Québécois is concerned about that for a number of reasons. Let me start with the practical, pragmatic reasons. We believe those targets are unrealistic. Our riding offices have been inundated with requests for urgent intervention because departmental employees cannot handle applications that are already in the queue. Wait times are atrocious, documents get lost, and mistakes are constantly being made. From a purely practical, technical perspective, maybe the government should show that it is capable of doing its job properly—and it is not—before it changes the target. Then we can talk. The government did not include one line about housing capacity. We have a housing shortage. In Quebec and across Canada, there is a shortage of housing. The Liberal government in Ottawa withdrew from funding social housing in the 1990s, and nothing has been done since. Of course, a bit of funding was announced recently, but it does not go far enough to meet the current needs. There is not enough housing. The private sector does not have the capacity to build enough homes, condos, apartments to meet the current needs. The government is planning to grow the population very quickly. Where are we going to put all these people? Condos and houses are no longer affordable. What do we tell young people? They want the American dream, which is to be part of the middle class and have a union job that allows them to buy a house and pay for it during their working life. Now that dream is shattered. Young people can no longer hope to be able to afford a home or become a homeowner in their lifetime. The housing shortage is exacerbated by the imbalance between supply and demand and the fact that the population is growing. Prices are skyrocketing, and housing is no longer affordable. These young people are being told that we are going to increase the population very quickly without restoring any balance to the housing market. This does not make sense. I used housing as an example, but the same is true for schools. There are not enough spaces. There is no coordination in that area either, nor in the area of health care. This is irresponsible. The situation is tough for us in Quebec, since we are not yet a country. Earlier, the leader of the Conservative Party talked about what he will do when he is prime minister. I want to talk about what Quebec will do when it is a country. I think this will happen within 10 years, because we will work hard. Seeing how this government and this nation ignore us, we will have all the cards to take control of our destiny. If we were to accept our share of the target that has been announced, which is prorated to our population, how could we properly accommodate and integrate such large numbers? That is impossible. It is impossible to guarantee that the French language would be preserved and respected. Even in Quebec, we see that the French language is in decline. Bill C-13 is currently being studied in committee, and the government wants to reject the Bloc's amendments, which seek to better protect French in Quebec. I am not even talking about French outside Quebec, because the figures have plummeted and that is so very sad. With the complicity of the fourth party in the House, the government will continue to erode the weight of the French language even within Quebec. We are not equipped to properly welcome all these newcomers in the language of Molière, the official language of Quebec. That is a serious problem. It is an impossible situation because if we welcome fewer immigrants in order to integrate them well, Quebec's weight as a proportion of Canada's population will quickly diminish. Either way, we could be marginalized, and it is the very survival of our culture that is at stake. Let me be clear. Immigration is a great asset. Welcoming newcomers is wonderful, except that Quebec culture does not support the policy of multiculturalism, which basically consists of telling immigrants to come live here as though they were still living in their own country and not to integrate because their grandchildren will. That is not what immigration is for us. We want to be able to say hello to a newcomer, to talk with them. We want to benefit from their rich cultural heritage, and we want them to be one of the gang, someone we can interact with. That is not going to work if the the immigration levels are quickly increased as announced. That is very worrisome. I am sorry that I spent a little longer than expected on that aside, but it is still very important. Let me come back to the economic statement. With regard to EI, as my colleague from Terrebonne said, the Minister of Employment and Workforce Development likely did not talk to the Minister of Finance. As she also said, it sounds like the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry did not talk to the Minister of Finance either. It sounds like the Liberal government is using the Apple method of developing policies and projects piecemeal without any communication. It looks like that is what is happening here. Everything that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry has said, in the House and in the media, is missing from the economic statement. I do not get it. That is problematic. In times of economic uncertainty, discipline is called for, but not austerity. That is why we want the most vulnerable, like seniors aged 65 to 75, to have support measures they can count on during this inflationary period. That is very important. We do not want austerity. We have asked the government to focus on its basic roles, on the federal government's primary functions, to try to concentrate on those and do them well for a change. Health funding is one example. We were really surprised by the last budget, in the spring. The government announced 15 or so new policies, new ways of doing things, mostly in health. These were all encroachments on provincial jurisdictions. Instead of focusing on doing its job well, the government wanted to work on the ground in Quebec and the provinces and encroach on their jurisdictions. Here we have another example. The government is announcing the creation of a jobs secretariat. That is something Quebec is taking care of, and it is going quite well. Ottawa wants to use us as a model. One of our fears is an encroachment in a few years' time. Sooner or later, it is going to impose conditions on us. It is going to steal our model and then tell us that it has its own program now and that we have to follow suit. Then we will no longer have the freedom to implement our model, which is based on the labour market in Germany. We drew inspiration from Germany. Again, these are encroachments. Instead of doing its job well and focusing on its role, the government continues to stray. The media reported a new tax on share buybacks. It is an interesting measure. We look forward to studying it, but the update states it will be implemented in 2024. It is now 2022. Today, the government was either rehashing old measures or announcing measures that will not be implemented in the next little while, or next year, but the year after that. Once that time comes, we can talk about it then and see if the government has made the same announcement about the same measure six times by then or if it changed its mind. Evidently, this is not an economic update that will go down in history. The minister's speech earlier was full of fine rhetoric, fine principles, and a fine acknowledgement of the problems affecting the economy. However, this government was either rehashing old measures, approaches and actions it wants to take or putting off new measures to the distant future. The rest is inconsequential. The government had a golden opportunity to solve problems and consider the seriousness of the current crisis, but it did not do so. That is extremely unfortunate. Obviously, I encourage the minister to talk to her colleagues, to come to the Standing Committee on Finance more often, and to communicate more with representatives from all sectors of the country's economy, without ever forgetting Quebec. That will only do her a lot of good and may even inspire her to implement concrete measures.

3661 words

All Topics

Oct/27/22 5:40:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. As I said, we are in favour of the principle. There is a factual problem with his question. He is saying that the program is for every child in Quebec or for the parents of every child in Quebec. That is not true. The Parliamentary Budget Officer looked into this, and he showed that Quebec will receive only half as much as the rest of Canada will be getting. Quebec is being discriminated against. All we are asking is to drop this super closure motion that the NDP supported so that we can improve this bill in committee. If we had been able to amend it and improve it in committee, we would be voting in favour of the bill now. However, the government imposed super closure on a bill that is out of touch with reality and does not provide fair compensation. If we had had a chance to do the work to ensure that we were not getting just half of what we are entitled to, then we would have voted in favour of the bill. There are consequences to supporting super closure.

194 words

All Topics

Oct/27/22 5:36:14 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with the principle behind my colleague's comments. However, right now we are talking about technical aspects of the bill, which was drafted quickly. The principle is good, and the Bloc agrees with everything my colleague said. The problem is in the execution. The bill was drafted so quickly that we wanted to know how it could possibly line up with Quebec's program and those of the other provinces and take their reality into account. We were told that this was not up for discussion, that we could not invite witnesses, that no amendments would be accepted and that none would be proposed to deal with that. The government forgot to harmonize its program with the existing programs in Quebec and the other provinces. As a result, Quebec is getting half as much as it should be getting. In Quebec, we choose to pay for dental insurance for children. We are prepared to pay for federal dental insurance for the part that is not covered, but all we are asking for is harmonization. What the government is doing with the NDP, which is doing nothing but complain, is saying that we have to pay without getting any compensation or harmonization in return. The whole process is flawed because the government imposed super closure, preventing the House and the committees from doing their job. It is because the government botched the process that we are now being forced to vote against the bill today.

249 words

All Topics

Oct/27/22 5:26:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by congratulating my colleague and friend from Mirabel on his poignant speech. As he made clear, we are unhappy with the cavalier way the government is managing Bill C‑31. Bill C‑31 was poorly drafted. It does not take into account the reality of Quebec in any way whatsoever. It does not line up with what is happening in Quebec, either with respect to the rental support or the dental care support. Because Quebec has chosen to pay for its own social measures, it is now being largely excluded from and penalized by this bill. There are many ways to fix that, such as a compensation, or even slight changes to the eligibility rules, but nothing was done. It is the type of problem that could have been fixed through the normal process for studying bills, both in the House and in committee, with a minimum of goodwill. However, the government chose the path of super closure to short-circuit the entire normal process. The hours of debate were reduced and committee studies were minimal, just two hours, which left no time for witnesses to be heard or for the analysis of experts. That was also the case for the people affected by Bill C-31. Our amendments to accommodate Quebec were rejected because the government preferred to use its bulldozer and not listen to reason or the people affected. The government acted in bad faith by refusing to give the House and its committee the opportunity to reasonably carry out their role. This was all aided and abetted by the third opposition party, all for the purpose of moving hastily and ramming through the bill. This has given us a bad bill that has come back to us at third reading looking just as bad. The result is that, once again, Quebec is being dismissed by this government and by the House. Let me be very clear. I am totally in favour of the principles of this bill. The Bloc Québécois is all in favour of the principles of this bill, but we are going to vote against it. The reason is that the application of this bill will create great inequities for Quebec and, by short-circuiting the entire process for studying and improving this bill, the government is making the choice to implement a law that is unfair to Quebec. If the government had let the House do its work, we would not be in this position. Let me explain. The bill discriminates against Quebeckers in both its housing and dental care components. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed our concerns. The people of Quebec will not get their fair share with Bill C-31. Let us start by looking at the housing component. On October 14, the Parliamentary Budget Officer published his estimates of how much the rental assistance component of Bill C-31 would cost and how many people it would benefit. This part of the bill provides for a one-time cheque for $500. The Parliamentary Budget Officer confirmed that the people of Quebec would not get their fair share and would be discriminated against. One eligibility requirement is having a modest income, so $20,000 for a single person or $35,000 for a couple or family. Another requirement is being a renter and putting more than 30% of one's income towards rent. In Quebec, we have collectively chosen to support social housing. Many low-income households live in low-rent housing or in housing co‑operatives. In these social housing units, the rent is capped at 30% of income, in order to take into account the renters' ability to pay. These people are therefore excluded from the help being proposed here. Quebec has chosen to be more progressive and collectively pay for a social housing service. With this bill, Quebeckers find themselves paying a second time for a benefit cheque, yet they are largely excluded. There is not a penny in compensation. The result is that this bill discriminates against Quebec because Quebec is too progressive for Ottawa, for this Liberal government and for the NDP, which never stops talking. I want to be clear. There is still a serious lack of social housing in Quebec. More must be done, and Ottawa must contribute to social housing. Because the situation is better in Quebec, low-income Quebeckers are being penalized. Because Quebec is too progressive, Ottawa has chosen to deprive Quebec of its rightful portion of the rental assistance. The Parliamentary Budget Officer calculated that because of this 30% rule, as my colleague was saying, 118,000 people in Canada will not be entitled to support, and three-quarters of them live in Quebec. We are talking about 86,700 people. Why did the government choose to create such an injustice? Why is it refusing to correct it? Why is it that every time an injustice is inflicted on Quebec, Ottawa chooses to ignore it? Once again, this inequity could have been fixed in committee or in the House. This government refuses to do so, and is deliberately choosing to withhold a significant portion of the assistance to which Quebec is entitled. Is the government ready to commit to correcting this injustice? Thus far, it has refused. The same goes for the dental component. The Parliamentary Budget Officer also confirmed our fears. Quebec will receive half as much assistance per child on average. According to the PBO's calculations, Quebeckers will receive 13% of the program. If we received our share, it would be 23%. That is a 10% difference. In short, Quebec parents are far from receiving their fair share of the program. The scenario per child is not much better. On average, a child in Quebec will receive half as much as a Canadian child living outside Quebec, as I stated earlier. Furthermore, that is without compensation and without any real assurance that the support will adequately cover dental care costs. See, these are lump-sum cheques, so parents in Quebec will not get smaller cheques. Instead, half of them will not be eligible for this benefit at all even though parents with similar incomes and in similar situations outside Quebec will be. As my colleague explained, that means approximately 130,000 people in Quebec will be excluded from the program even though, all things being equal, they would be included if they lived outside Quebec. When we met with the Parliamentary Budget Officer last Friday, he pointed out that there were two reasons for this. The first is that Quebec is too progressive. Because of the Government of Quebec's program, many parents pay nothing when they go to the dentist. That means they cannot get money from Ottawa. Quebeckers chose to provide dental care for children, and we chose to pay for it. Because we pay for this important service, we will get no help from Ottawa, even though we pay for that too. There is no coordination and no compensation. The second reason for the disparity is that Quebec is overly unionized. Since our unionization rate is higher than Canada's, a higher proportion of our population has group insurance. This excludes us once again from this bill. Quebec is not getting its fair share because we are more progressive and more unionized. In Ottawa, the Liberal government and the NDP are choosing to discriminate against progressives and union members. I am not making this up. Because it is too progressive, Quebec is being discriminated against by Ottawa. The government refused to propose an alternative arrangement. The government forced the House to pass this all very quickly, without addressing the inequities. This is unacceptable, which is why we have to vote against the bill, even though we support the principle. Without a doubt, my nation is being ill served by its neighbour, who makes decisions for us about our own money, and who no longer even tries to offer arrangements or accommodations. I hope everyone remembers this.

1349 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 105 - Sep/29/22

Oct/27/22 4:39:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Madam Speaker, a child in Quebec will receive about half of what a child outside Quebec will receive. There is considerable inequity. Why? It is because we already pay for dental care in Quebec. Quebec taxpayers already pay once for children's dental care and they are going to pay a second time for the federal program, even though Quebec will only receive half the money handed out elsewhere. That is really inequitable. We could have fixed this when this bill was being studied in committee. The government just bulldozed it through by imposing a super closure motion. We could also have fixed the rental assistance component. Why is the government refusing to accommodate Quebec?

115 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 101 - Sep/23/22

Sep/29/22 4:13:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle for her speech, which was certainly very interesting. She spoke at length about the measures her government is putting in place to deal with inflation, including dental insurance and rent assistance. However, when we read the bill, it is clear that it is not compatible with what exists in Quebec. Quebec has its own rent assistance program, and Quebeckers do not apply for the benefit directly. There is not a single line in Bill C-31 to tie it all together. The same goes for dental insurance. Bill C‑31 is for children who are 11 or younger. In Quebec, unless I am mistaken, children under the age of nine are already covered. How do we tie that together? There is not a single word about it. They did not even think about it. Does the government intend to amend the bill to take Quebec's reality into account? We opposition members can make amendments in committee, but the House of Commons law clerks would not find that acceptable since it would require royal assent. What does my colleague think?

195 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 100 - Sep/22/22

Sep/23/22 10:44:54 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know if he agrees that the government took a really boneheaded approach to writing Bill C‑31. We agree with the principles, but it is written all wrong. Allow me to provide some examples. Rent relief will be provided via the Canada housing benefit, but no one in Quebec receives that. Quebec has its own program with the right to opt out with compensation. There is not a single line about that in Bill C‑31, and there is no plan for harmonization. It is the same with dental care. It is for children under the age of 11. Quebec has a program for children under the age of nine. There is no mention of that and no plan for harmonization. Does my colleague think that the government realizes that Quebec exists, or should this bill actually be called “how to turn good principles into bad law”?

157 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 100 - Sep/22/22

Sep/22/22 6:12:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-30

Mr. Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech. The government has introduced three measures to combat inflation. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of increasing the GST/HST credit as set out in Bill C‑30. Bill C‑31 contains two more measures: dental insurance for children 11 and under and housing assistance. With respect to housing, the Bloc Québécois is concerned that the people of Quebec will not get their fair share, because this is a Canada housing benefit top-up. Quebec has had its own program for the past 25 years, and it has the right to opt out with compensation, but Bill C‑31 is silent on coordinating benefits. The same goes for dental insurance, which covers children 11 and under. Quebec's dental insurance covers children nine and under. The bill is silent on coordinating benefits. On behalf of the government, will the parliamentary secretary promise to amend the bill to make sure it harmonizes with Quebec's programs so that my constituents will not be adversely affected?

188 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 100 - Sep/22/22

Sep/22/22 5:01:53 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31 Bill C-30

Madam Speaker, to address inflation, Bill C-30 proposes an additional GST rebate for the less fortunate. It is a good measure. We have been asking for this for quite some time, and we will be voting for it. It is good, but it is long overdue. This measure was announced at the same time as the measures introduced in Bill C-31, namely rent relief and dental insurance. We support those measures in principle as well, but I feel the need to scold the government here. Bill C‑31 is really poorly constructed. It is sloppy. It is embarrassing that Parliament is considering something so poorly drafted, and I am choosing my words carefully. With respect to rent relief, we are concerned that Quebeckers will not get their fair share because it is a supplement to the Canada housing benefit, which no one in Quebec receives. Quebec has had its own program since 1997, so we have the right to opt out with compensation. Our program is more generous, but the eligibility requirements are completely different. However, Bill C‑31 makes no mention of it. Once again, the government has forgotten that Quebec exists. There is no talk of aligning the two. It is embarrassing. It is as though the bill was written on the back of a napkin. The same is true of the so-called dental insurance. If the parents pay any fees for a child who is 11 or under, then Ottawa will send them a big cheque. The programs are not properly aligned. What is worse, in Quebec, dental care is covered for children under the age of 10. People in Quebec are already paying for insurance. Once again, the government did not harmonize the programs, except to say that, if the services are covered by Quebec, then Ottawa will not pay and will not compensate Quebec for the cost of its insurance. However, if the parents pay for a service that is not covered, then they are entitled to a big cheque, even if Quebec is already covering most of the costs. How much is Quebec being penalized? The government is not saying. This is sloppy work. The bill is badly written. It seems as though the department did not even calculate the cost of all this. All it did was reuse, dollar for dollar, the numbers that the Parliamentary Budget Officer came up with and the work that he did when he costed the NDP's proposal. Once again, this shameful government forgot that Quebec exists. Once again, there is no alignment. This bill could be called “how to turn good principles into bad legislation” or “Quebec does not exist”. I say to the government, way to go. To add insult to injury, this government chose to brief journalists on this bill long before it briefed parliamentarians. This government is showing a serious lack of respect for the House. I now want to talk a little about inflation. There are some well-known factors driving the surge in prices, such as changes in demand during and after the pandemic; supply chain problems and bottlenecks in response to fluctuating demand and health measures; China's COVID-zero policy, which is drastically disrupting supply lines and is a good example of the health measures I mentioned; the terrible war in Ukraine, which we all hope will come to an end soon; the radical transformation of the labour market and what is being referred to in the U.S. as the great resignation; the ongoing housing shortage; and natural disasters associated with climate change that are also having an impact on the global economy. All of these factors have significantly affected the economy both here and abroad, and prices have skyrocketed. In a number of sectors, economic abundance has given way to Soviet-style scarcity. We hope to be able to return to some semblance of normalcy, especially if we get serious about tackling climate change. In the meantime, however, families, people, businesses and farmers are bearing the brunt of this overall imbalance. The world is struggling, and there is no easy solution. What can be done? In the short term, we must support the most vulnerable with measures such as those set out in Bill C‑30. We should also support the hardest-hit sectors to ensure that they get through this imbalance. I am thinking of our farmers, for example. In the longer term, we must help make our economies more resilient. With oil and gas prices rising, we must support the development of the green economy. Unfortunately, there is no quick fix for the type of imbalance we are currently experiencing. Keynes proposed effective tools to deal with crises in demand, but not crises in supply. In light of this imbalance caused by multiple factors, how long will inflation last? It is difficult to say. The central bank has chosen to get out the heavy artillery to fight inflation. It wants to clamp down on inflation expectations. Here is its reasoning. Once expectations of higher inflation become entrenched in the economy, everyone tries to raise their prices to compensate. That creates a snowball effect. In other words, inflation expectations cause inflation. It is easy to fall into this vicious cycle. The Bank of Canada, like the U.S. Federal Reserve, the Fed, wants to minimize that risk, even if it means seriously slowing the economy or even helping trigger a recession. Central banks believe that it will then be easier to stimulate the economy to support growth as needed. They are still traumatized by the inflationary episodes of the 1970s and 1980s. Inflation is still high, but there are signs it is stabilizing. We appear to be emerging from this period of overall imbalance, at least in some sectors, but not because of monetary policy, which is slow to bring about change. Is the central bank's policy too aggressive? Possibly. Some economists suggest waiting a little longer to see how the economy will respond to this interest rate hike. Nobody can say for sure where lies the sweet spot between fighting inflation and avoiding recession. The Bank of Canada, again inspired by the Fed, apparently prefers to fight inflation. Over the next few months, we will see if it made the right choice. Meanwhile, economic conditions remain uncertain. This is a difficult situation for many people, as I said. It is important to adopt policies aimed at those who are struggling the most and to implement them in the context of the Bank of Canada's monetary policy. We also need to promote structural measures, including supports for social housing and measures to address the labour shortage. On that point, I do not understand why the government still has not introduced any tax breaks to lure retirees back to work. I want to talk briefly about the situation in developing countries. It is downright catastrophic, and Canada and other rich countries must do a better job of supporting them. On top of food shortages, developing countries face high levels of public debt, as international institutions encouraged them to take on debt during the pandemic. Most of their imports and loans are in U.S. dollars. However, in the context of global uncertainty, the value of the greenback has soared, serving as a hedge and reducing the purchasing power of these countries. The energy crisis is also taking a toll. Lastly, China is drawing back from doing business with developing countries due to its own economic difficulties. That is why wealthy countries need to come together quickly to support these countries in order to avoid a cascading series of crises in these emerging economies. Everyone will be affected. We have to prevent that from happening. Let us also invest in the green transition. We are facing a serious crisis, and we need to act urgently.

1322 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 95 - Jun/23/22

Sep/22/22 4:15:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31 Bill C-30

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech. Bill C‑30 talks about increasing the GST rebate. That is a good measure that could have been brought in sooner. This measure was announced at the same time as the measures in Bill C‑31 concerning a dental plan and rent assistance. However, if we look closely at the bill, the rent assistance is provided through the Canada housing benefit. This benefit does not exist in Quebec because it already had a program in place, and so the right to opt out with full compensation. The bill does not mention that right, however. There is no mention of harmonization. The same goes for the dental plan. The plan proposed in the bill would apply to children 11 and under. Quebec's program applies to children 10 and under. Again, there is no plan for harmonization. Will the government commit to revising Bill C‑31 to account for the programs that already exist in Quebec? Is the government simply ignoring Quebec yet again?

177 words

All Topics