- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Joliette
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $132,165.46
- Government Page
- Nov/3/23 11:15:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Parti Québécois just published the theoretical finances of an independent Quebec, “Un Québec libre de ses choix: finances d'un Québec indépendant”, a study that is thorough and fair.
Its publication pushed the National Assembly to unanimously adopt a motion that recognizes “the financial viability of an independent Quebec”. In other words, every elected member from every political party represented in Quebec City, including the West Island Liberals, agrees that Quebec as a country is financially viable.
The study shows that Quebec compares favourably to the G7 and OECD countries on every financial aspect. The study notes that, beyond financial viability, the economic advantage of being a country is the power to choose where to invest one's money and, as the leader of the Parti Québécois said, “putting an end to federal favouritism to the detriment of Quebec when it comes to direct investments in the economy”.
Quebeckers have more than enough money for their country. The only question is: When?
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we have been using Zoom for two or three years now. It is a shame that some people still have problems choosing the right interpretation channel.
I have a question for my colleague.
Bill C‑46 includes a $2-billion investment in health care. This measure appears again in Bill C‑47.
Today at the Standing Committee on Finance, senior officials confirmed that, if the bill is not amended, a total of $4 billion will be invested in health care.
The hon. member is saying that there is not enough money for health and mental health. This is our chance to ask his government to not remove that part of Bill C‑47, so that $4 billion will be invested in health care instead of $2 billion.
Will he commit to working to keep the $4 billion?
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois wants to make sure that Quebec gets its fair share. When Ottawa decided to save the auto industry with $10 billion in 2008, we noted that Quebec did not receive the equivalent. When Ottawa decided to save Muskrat Falls with $10 billion, we noted that Quebec did not get the equivalent. When the Liberals chose to buy the pipeline in western Canada for tens of billions of dollars, we noted that Quebec did not get its share. We want to make sure that Quebec gets its share.
Quebec specializes in green energy and the green economy, that is, the economy of the future. Quebec had all the expertise it needed to have a successful battery plant, but that was not how it played out. To add insult to injury, it was the minister from Shawinigan who made this announcement with great fanfare in Montreal to say that the plant would not be in Montreal or the surrounding region, but in St. Thomas, Ontario. Good for them.
Could Quebec get some of these structural investments to develop its economy? The proof remains to be seen, unfortunately.
197 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, according to the latest data released, last year, there were 1,255 foreign investment projects totalling $87 billion. Only eight of those projects were reviewed. With this bill, that number would increase to 24, which is barely 2% of foreign investment projects. Does my colleague think that is enough?
54 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. We know foreign investment is important in a globalized economy.
In 2001, which was before China became a member of the World Trade Organization, Jacques Parizeau wrote, “We do not condemn the rising tide; we build levees to protect ourselves.”
Unfortunately, weakening the Investment Canada Act has caused those levees to break. We agree that Bill C‑34 offers better protection, but it is not good enough.
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised some very troubling points in his speech.
There seems to be a trend. Year after year, the number of foreign investments made in Canada goes up, as does their value. According to the latest available data, there were 1,255 applications for a total of $87 billion. Only eight of those applications were reviewed.
This bill would bump the number of applications reviewed up a bit, to 24. That is barely 2%. It does not sound like that is enough.
What should the government do to improve this bill?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague with whom I have the pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on Finance. It is truly a pleasure to work with him. I thank him for his speech. He raised a number of very troubling issues.
I want to refer to the annual report from the department's investment division, which was tabled in Parliament last October. In the preceding year, there were 1,255 foreign investment projects, totalling $87 billion. However, only 2%, or 24 of them, were determined to have national security implications and would be covered by the new rules set out in this bill. The other 1,221 investments remain subject to the old rules. Of those, only eight, or less than 1%, were subject to a review to determine if they will truly provide a net economic benefit.
According to my hon. colleague, is the government doing enough to ensure both national and economic security?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very good speech and all of the constructive work that he does on the Standing Committee on Finance. He is a really valuable member of the House.
The Bloc Québécois applauds this bill, but we do not think that it goes far enough. National security is important, but we are asking the government to go further and to address the issue of economic security so that we have better control over foreign investments in general and so that we can keep our head offices, our economic levers and control over our resources.
Last year, only 24 or 2% of the 1,255 foreign investment projects totalling $87 billion were considered to have national security implications. In our opinion, that is not enough. We need better oversight to preserve our economic interests.
What are my hon. colleague's thoughts on that?
154 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
