So V ote

May/23/24 4:56:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was not about the substance of what was said, but it was really about the heckling. I am sitting next to the member for Mirabel, and I could not hear him respond. My question is this. In the last budget, the government told Quebec that it has until January 1 to sign an agreement or it will negotiate with the cities on housing. That is illegal in Quebec. The Conservative housing plan does the same thing. It is forcing cities to increase construction by 15% or else it will cut its support in other areas. That is illegal in Quebec. We saw this during the Harper years. The federal government has continued to grow its tentacles and its size. Basically, in Ottawa, between the Liberals and the Conservatives, is it not six of one and half a dozen of the other?

147 words

May/23/24 4:10:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this proposed amendment, so I am not in a position to fully criticize or justify the proposed amendment that was just raised. I would say that, in general, these elements are included in the spirit of our motion. As far as the dental care and pharmacare programs are concerned, the Bloc Québécois's position is that jurisdictions must be respected. Why did Ottawa not give Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation so that it could take care of the programs? I would remind the House that the dental care program will be administered by Sun Life, a multinational insurance company that charges $2 billion in administration fees. In Quebec, the existing program for children is administered by the public sector.

135 words

May/23/24 4:08:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what we want is for the government to take responsibility. We want it to spend every dollar it takes from taxpayers effectively. That is why we are telling it that, instead of interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces—which is the focus of today's motion—it should use its public servants, existing resources, and the taxes it collects to do its own job properly. Take employment insurance, for example. Is it socialist to want an employment insurance system that works? Right now, only four out of 10 people who lose their jobs can get insurance. No private insurer would have any policies if its insurance was that ineffective. This jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the federal government, but it is doing a very poor job of looking after it. That is what we are saying. We are asking the government to spend every dollar wisely. Because of the fiscal imbalance, provinces like Quebec are not getting enough money for the public services they have to deliver. Half of every tax dollar is spent on these services, yet half of the public's needs are not being met. What we are asking is that the government look after health, education and social services transfers.

210 words

May/23/24 4:06:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this is the centralizing, Ottawa-knows-best attitude of telling the provinces what to do and how to act. First, Ottawa cuts health transfers and underfunds health care. Then it tells the provinces that they are mismanaging their affairs because health care is underfunded due to the fiscal imbalance, so it creates its own parallel programs. When Quebec's health transfers were cut, the province managed to create a partial pharmacare program for the less fortunate who were not covered. It is really limited, but with limited resources, it has had an exceptional impact not seen anywhere else in Canada. Now Ottawa has decided to create its own program. It did not sit down with Quebec to recognize that the province has its own program under its jurisdiction and tell Quebec that it will respect that and help improve its program. It did not ask what it could do to improve it. It did not ask if it could transfer the money to Quebec. No, it did none of that. It just worked in isolation. The government is encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, it is developing a new program that overlaps with the existing one, and there is no harmonization. That is how Ottawa works. The king does not listen to his subjects. It is appalling.

217 words

Context: House Hansard - 313 - May/10/24

May/23/24 3:56:17 p.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 his dear old dad, 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 related to 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 argues that it has 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, 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. 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 complies with the federal government's conditions. Ottawa 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. 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. There is also not one word about the aerospace policy that the government 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. Ottawa's conditional transfers and interference are eroding Quebec's autonomy. Quebec is supposed to be completely sovereign in areas under its exclusive jurisdiction. Quebeckers agreed to the Constitution of 1867 on that condition, but it is this very principle that is being challenged by the almighty spending power. Every time Ottawa sets up a program or spends money in an area that Quebec is supposed to be in charge of, Canada decides how Quebec society will be organized. Every time Ottawa sets conditions before transferring funds to Quebec, it forces the Government of Quebec to act on Canadians' priorities rather than Quebeckers' priorities. As the Séguin report on the fiscal imbalance noted, these transfers or expenditures always “limit the decision-making and budgetary autonomy of the provinces in their fields of jurisdiction”. More and more, as a result of the fiscal imbalance and its offshoot, spending power, the Quebec government is being relegated to the ranks of a federal government subcontractor. That is true in almost every sector. Again I quote the Séguin report: Given the amounts in question, federal intervention through the “federal spending power” has a considerable impact on provincial policy in the provinces' fields of jurisdiction because the use of the “federal spending power” affects practically every one of the provinces' fields of jurisdiction. What about the Quebec nation in all this? The House of Commons recognizes that the Quebec nation exists. That is good. However, recognizing a nation is more than just a symbolic gesture. Nations, like people, have fundamental rights, the most important being the right to control the social, economic and cultural development of their own society, in other words, the right to self-determination. Two former premiers of Quebec, a federalist and a sovereignist, Robert Bourassa and René Lévesque, agreed on this issue. In 1980, René Lévesque said: Having all the attributes of a distinct national community, Quebec has an inalienable right to self-determination. It is the most fundamental right the people of Quebec possess. In 1990, when he gave a speech in the Quebec National Assembly following the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Robert Bourassa said: English Canada must clearly understand that no matter what anyone says or does, Quebec is and always will be a distinct and free society capable of taking charge of its own destiny and its own development. The federal government cannot recognize the Quebec nation and its right to make choices that are different from Canada's and then turn around and deny that nation the ability to assert that right by maintaining the federal spending power. Denying Quebec the power to spend undermines its very existence as a nation. Instead of Quebeckers being masters in their own house, the federal government is acting like it is the master everywhere. We will have a choice. We can let the federal government and the neighbouring nation dictate their priorities from the top down and decide our societal choices for us with our own money, or we can choose to fully assume our sovereignty. In the meantime, I urge the members of the House to vote in favour of this motion: That the House: (a) condemn the federal government's repeated intrusion into the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and the territories; (b) remind the Prime Minister that, despite his claims, it is not true that “people do not care which level of government is responsible for what”; and (c) demand that the government systematically offer Quebec, the provinces and territories the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation whenever the federal government interferes in their jurisdictions.

1523 words

Context: House Hansard - 313 - May/10/24

May/10/24 1:25:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this motion calls once again for federal interference into municipal and provincial regulations. Whether we are talking about supply chain losses or waste-related losses, for the most part the rules for managing these products and food donations fall under the jurisdiction of the provinces and the municipalities, the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. What is more, despite the fact that this motion has good intentions, most of the initiatives it proposes are already being implemented by the Government of Quebec, but also by the federal government through its food policy for Canada. I am going to say a few words about waste. It is not limited to unused products and food that is thrown out by consumers. We are also talking about losses identified at every stage of the supply chain. Food waste includes waste as we understand it, plus the losses. A UN report released in 2021 shows that Canada is the undisputed champion of waste. I will quote an article that talks about this report: According to the study, every Canadian throws out...175 pounds of food a year, or...44 pounds more than the average American. In 2019, three million tonnes of food ended up in the garbage in Canada. The UN Environment Programme report estimates that nearly a billion tonnes of food was wasted in the world in 2019.... Let us now look more closely at the points in the motion. First, it proposes to “establish a National Food Waste Hierarchy”. The waste hierarchy ranks the actions that need to be taken to reduce or avoid waste in order of priority. This is an important step, but one that has already been taken, particularly through the work and the research funded by the Quebec government and Recyc-Québec. Second, it proposes to “align municipal and provincial regulations concerning food waste reduction and food donations”. Third, it proposes to “lead efforts to reduce the adverse environmental impact of unused food resources”. Fourth, it proposes to “establish protocols and partnerships to facilitate food redistribution and rescue efforts”. These last three points are obviously a logical extension of the first. It makes sense to come up with the most appropriate solutions and then find a way to apply them. However, most of the laws and regulations governing food waste fall under the jurisdiction of the Quebec and provincial governments. Once again, the intention behind this motion is yet another example of the centralizing, Ottawa-knows-best attitude. It implies that the relationship between the federal and provincial governments is hierarchical, not complementary. This interpretation of federalism is a reason in itself to oppose this motion, even though it is well intentioned. Let us set the record straight. Quebec and the provinces handle all of this by working together with municipalities and with the businesses and organizations involved in the production, processing, sale or donation of food products. While agriculture is a shared jurisdiction, resource and land management, processing and marketing within the province are Quebec's responsibility. The federal government helps with the development and funding of certain risk management, research and interprovincial and international trade programs. As for waste itself, municipal regulations, not federal ones, govern the management of residual materials and certain food donation and sharing projects. Similarly, Quebec is responsible for enforcing environmental and sanitation laws. The federal government has a role to play in labelling in general and in food safety when it comes to importing or exporting. However, in the context of this broader issue of waste, Ottawa has no concrete role to play. I want to come back to the points of the motion itself. Fifth, it proposes to “identify policy and fiscal incentives to reduce food waste”. Sixth, it proposes to “raise public awareness regarding food waste, food insecurity, and associated government initiatives”. The federal government could try doing these two things. However, it would have to take into account the specifics and initiatives of communities that already have programs in place, like in Quebec. We have seen examples in several other sectors where the federal government believes it is helping, but it is actually making things more complicated by creating overlapping programs and unilaterally adding criteria that are not adapted to every situation. It will have to take into account the established environmental rules, the community structure and the connections already made by the groups. Let us now look at the food policy for Canada. The implementation of this policy was announced in budget 2019. It was included in the mandate letter for the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food that same year. I will read from the mandate letter: Lead work across government to move forward with the new Food Policy for Canada introduced in Budget 2019. This policy has four areas of near-term action, including: [h]elp Canadian communities access healthy food; [m]ake Canadian food the top choice at home and abroad; [s]upport food security in northern and indigenous communities; and [r]educe food waste. Obviously, Canada's food policy is very vague. It offers guidelines, and frankly, that is a good thing. For example, the 2019-24 policy aims to achieve six outcomes. The first outcome is vibrant communities. The policy talks about innovative community-led initiatives that “contribute to vibrant and resilient communities that support individuals and households facing immediate and long term food-related challenges by providing culturally diverse solutions in an inclusive manner”. The style smacks of government policy writing. The federal government has been directly involved with organizations since last year through the local food infrastructure fund, or LFIF. This program lacked sufficient funding when it was created, so the government tweaked its terms along the way. The second outcome is increased connections within food systems. The policy states that “[i]ncreased collaboration on food-related issues across sectors of government, society, fields of work, and academic disciplines is a central component of food policy”. The third outcome is improved food-related health outcomes. The policy refers to “[i]mproved health status of Canadians related to food consumption and reduced burden of diet-related disease, particularly among groups at higher risk of food insecurity”. The fourth outcome is strong indigenous food systems. The policy states that “[t]he Food Policy for Canada will help advance the Government of Canada's commitment to Reconciliation with Indigenous Peoples, build new relationships based on respect and partnership, and support strong and prosperous First Nations, Inuit and Métis food systems – as defined by communities themselves.” How can paternalistic Ottawa claim to have any credibility when it comes to indigenous health when it is still unable to provide clean drinking water to some indigenous communities? That is unacceptable. The fifth outcome is sustainable food practices. The policy mentions “[i]mprovements in the state of the Canadian environment through the use of practices along the food value chain that reduce environmental impact and that improve the climate resilience of the Canadian food system.” If the federal government wants to get involved, then it can fund research on green practices. The sixth outcome is inclusive economic growth. The policy mentions “[i]mproved access to opportunities in the agriculture and food sector for all Canadians within a diversified, economically viable, and sustainable food system. There is tremendous potential for economic growth within Canada's food system given the growing global demand for high-quality food that is nutritious and sustainably-produced”. That is what I had to say about what is already covered at the federal level. Now, let me say a few words about Quebec. In Quebec, it is the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, along with the ministry of municipal affairs and housing, that regulates food waste initiatives. Many groups and organizations are also involved in tackling this problem, including the Association pour la santé publique du Québec, Recyc‑Québec, community groups and municipalities. Quebec also has a 2018‑25 bio-food policy that includes two suggested courses of action that recommend reducing food waste and loss and promoting food donation, and supporting the circular economy and recovering co-products. Food waste was one of the themes identified as requiring further reflection at the May 2019 bio-food policy partners meeting and in the 2018-23 bio-food policy action plan, which was released in 2020. The 2021 edition of the 2018-2023 action plan reminds us that the bio-food action plan provides for the implementation of a food waste project in co-operation with bio-food and government partners. The purpose of the project is to take stock of the situation and to propose and implement a concerted plan to coordinate partner initiatives, both at the sectoral and government levels. As I was saying, this policy is what triggered RECYC‑QUÉBEC's research. I could continue to talk about other measures that the Government of Quebec has implemented, but we think that Quebec already has this issue covered. Finally, since the motion seeks to establish a hierarchy of levels of government, it is difficult to support.

1545 words

Context: House Hansard - 312 - May/9/24

May/10/24 10:29:10 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his speech. I want him to know that I was deeply moved and shocked by the story of what he experienced when he was younger. It reminds us of the importance of fighting against all forms of violence, all forms of sexual violence, especially against children. I was very moved and I hope that this type of trauma will never happen to anyone ever again. Now, with respect to the bill, I commend the minister's openness to collaborating with Quebec and the provinces. He is saying all the right things. In reality, however, based on the way the bill is drafted, it is paternalistic Ottawa that is dictating what its priorities are and disregarding the model that Quebec has in place for pharmacare, which is meeting the most urgent needs. There is no coordination. There was no advance planning. We saw the same thing with dental insurance. Ottawa is giving $2 billion to Sun Life for management fees alone, while we have a public system in Quebec. The minister could have sat down and discussed how to coordinate this. He also talked about the importance of keeping the public health care system, yet he chronically underfunds the health care systems by covering 20% of the cost, when it should be 35%. Why is there such a huge gap between the benevolent rhetoric and the actions that undermine the system in Quebec and the provinces?

244 words

Context: House Hansard - 311 - May/8/24

May/9/24 2:58:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is no shortage of new blood in the public service. There are 109,000 more civil servants now than when the Liberals took office. There are 109,000 more public servants, an increase of 42%, and yet the use of outside consultants has exploded. There are more employees and more consultants, but people are not receiving more services. Getting a passport or processing an immigration file is more painful than ever. The only thing that is increasing is interference in Quebec's jurisdictions. Instead of spending like crazy to encroach on Quebec's jurisdictions, can the government just do its job and make sure the federal government is efficient?

112 words

Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24

May/8/24 7:17:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-59

Madam Speaker, as we know, Bill C-59 is an omnibus bill that is nearly 550 pages long. It contains 60 different measures, about half of which are tax measures, and it amends or creates 31 acts and regulations. We studied this bill at length in committee. We raised various issues, and I think we managed to partially improve it. In my opinion, we made improvements in three areas. The first good thing that we did was to strengthen the part of the legislation governing greenwashing. We worked with various stakeholders, including the Centre québécois du droit de l'environnement, Quebec's environmental law centre, which has a lot of expertise in this area. The compromise that we managed to come to does not solve all of the problems, but it reminds us of the importance of regulating that practice. I want to recognize the Liberal member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country and the NDP member for Vancouver Kingsway, who made important contributions on this subject. The second good thing that we did was to strengthen the Competition Act. The testimony of the commissioner of competition was very important. The consumer advocacy group Option consommateurs also made a very valuable contribution. Last but not least, I want to once again recognize the member for Vancouver Kingsway for his hard work. Unfortunately, we did not have time to compare the commissioner's analysis with the senior departmental officials' analysis, which meant we had some tough decisions to make. The third good thing we did was to strengthen the right to repair. During the committee study, I came away very disappointed about one aspect that still has not been clarified. I am talking about how the association representing Quebec's orders of mental health professionals is being treated. This association represents the Ordre des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices du Québec, the Ordre des conseillers et conseillères d'orientation du Québec, the Ordre professionnel des sexologues du Québec, the Ordre professionnel des criminologues du Québec, as well as the Ordre des travailleurs sociaux et des thérapeutes conjugaux et familiaux du Québec. We are talking about 2,500 professionals in private practice who must charge their clients tax. However, clause 137 of Bill C‑59 seeks to remove the GST from psychotherapy and counselling services. The professionals represented by the orders I just listed work in professions that have been covered by Quebec's Professional Code since 2012, such as mental health and human relations. Ordinarily, they should therefore be included in the measure set out in Bill C‑59. I would like to quote Mr. Soucis, president of the Ordre des psychoéducateurs et psychoéducatrices du Québec, who said: However, the Canada Revenue Agency's notice 335 concerning the exemption for counselling therapy states that the professional services provided by a person could be exempted if the person “has the qualifications equivalent to those necessary to be so licensed or otherwise certified in another province”. Under this interpretation of the bill, it would be confusing and time-consuming, for all of the authorities that participate in such a process, for a professional to have to ask another Canadian authority to verify a qualification when it has already been attested to by the permit that authorizes the person to practise their profession. In its present form, the bill would require the members of Quebec's professional orders to verify with a regulatory agency that oversees the profession of counselling therapy in another province, as is the case in New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, that they have qualifications equivalent to the qualifications of the professionals in the province in question. We would point out that under the Professional Code, our professional orders have a mandate to be the regulatory and supervisory body for their profession in Quebec and that they are capable of doing that. In committee, the department told us that these Quebec professionals would not have to charge GST and would be included in the measure. However, this conflicts with what the Canada Revenue Agency and Revenu Québec are saying. We tried to clarify this part of Bill C‑59, but we were unsuccessful. I sincerely hope that Quebec professionals are not excluded from the measure. That was a summary of some of the work we did in committee. However, given that the bulk of Bill C‑59 was adopted in committee by the majority, we are now seized with the improved text at report stage. At this stage, again, Bill C‑59 contains some good and some bad elements, but the Bloc Québécois is opposing it once again because of two measures. The first is the $30.3 billion in subsidies to oil companies in the form of tax credits. This means that taxpayers will be paying oil companies to pollute less, when they do not need that money. The second is the creation of a federal department of municipal affairs called the Department of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities. This is a sign that we can expect more interference, more bickering and more delays, at a time when the housing crisis demands swift action. Let us look at the oil subsidies. On April 30, the Parliamentary Budget Officer released a study indicating that the latest budget would lead to a shortfall of $39 billion by 2029. The budget includes $61 billion in new spending, including tax expenditures, and there is $22 billion in new revenue, mostly from capital gains. Bill C‑59 alone contains more than $30 billion in tax gifts to the oil companies. Roughly half goes to wasting public money on carbon sequestration, while the other half would enable them to use nuclear energy to extract the tar from the tar sands. This represents more than 80% of the $39‑billion shortfall that the Parliamentary Budget Officer unveiled in his recent study, the same shortfall the Conservatives are making such a big fuss about. Since 2022, the government has announced $83 billion in tax gifts for the oil companies. That is twice the shortfall that the Parliamentary Budget Officer was talking about early last week. Need I remind the House that the oil companies do not need any gifts? According to the Centre for Future Work, the oil and gas extraction sector has made record profits these past few years, specifically $38 billion over three years, in 2020, 2021 and 2022, and half of that in 2022 alone. Apparently, 2023 was just as profitable. Since 70% of the shareholders are foreign, that is money that has left the country. In the last two budgets, the government announced its intention to introduce six tax credits largely aimed at oil companies. According to information provided by the Department of Finance, these tax credits will total a whopping $83 billion by 2035. Bill C-59 amends the Income Tax Act to create two of these tax credits, which are tailor-made for oil companies: a clean technology investment tax credit and a tax credit for carbon capture and storage. The first, worth $17.8 billion, aims to replace the use of gas to extract oil from the oil sands with nuclear power, all in order to export more gas. The second tax credit is worth $12.5 billion. Instead of accelerating the transition to renewable energy, the federal government would rather help oil companies pump every last drop of oil, hoping that they will pollute less in the course of their operations. That is the aim of this refundable tax credit for oil companies. It is only available to companies in Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia, and not anywhere else. As we know, carbon capture and storage is an experimental technique that is supposed to enable major polluters to recover some of their carbon emissions and bury them in the ground, usually in old, empty oil wells. Carbon capture is a central plank of the oil companies' pseudo-environmental strategy, in much the same way as cigarette manufacturers used to argue that filtered cigarettes were better for smokers' health in the 1970s. The International Energy Agency, an OECD affiliate, believes that countries will be making a serious mistake if they put carbon capture at the heart of their environmental strategy. It believes that carbon capture is an illusion, that the technology is unproven and that, even if could someday be made to work on an industrial scale, it would deliver only marginal results at an exorbitant cost. Bill C‑59 confirms that the government has acceded to the oil companies' demands. No surprise there. The independent media outlet The Narwhal published a document it had obtained through the Access to Information Act showing that the oil company Suncor had a hand in drafting the government's environmental policy, particularly the section on carbon capture that Bill C‑59 brings to fruition. This is what former Liberal environment minister Catherine McKenna had to say about the carbon capture tax credit in an interview with the newspaper 24 heures, on December 5, 2023: It never should have happened, but clearly the oil and gas lobbyists pushed for that. She went on to say: We are giving special access to companies that are making historic profits, that are not investing those profits into the transition and clean solutions. They are returning those profits to their shareholders, who for the most part are not Canadian, and then they ask to be subsidized for the pollution they cause, while Canadians have to pay more for oil and gas for heating. Those are some of the reasons why we are voting against Bill C‑59.

1662 words

Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24

May/2/24 2:45:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, whether it be in health care, housing, or other areas, in this budget, the federal government wants to dictate to Quebeckers how to run Quebec. By refusing to amend the budget, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP, the three parties, have proven that they want to exert control over Quebec. However, the unanimous response from the Quebec National Assembly yesterday was clear: We, Quebeckers, always want to be masters in our own house. Does the Minister of Finance realize that Quebeckers do not want the neighbouring country's elected officials to decide Quebeckers' priorities for them?

101 words

Context: House Hansard - 307 - May/2/24

May/2/24 2:44:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a unanimous motion by the National Assembly of Quebec is historic. Canada's Liberals have been denounced by their Liberal allies in Quebec. The NDP has been denounced by Québec solidaire. The Conservatives have not been denounced by their ally Éric Duhaime because he has no members. Quebeckers do not vote Conservative. However, the Conservatives were also unanimously condemned by the National Assembly of Quebec. All elected members in Quebec City see that all federalist members in Ottawa are working to undermine Quebeckers' ability to make their own societal choices. Does the government realize the precedent it has set?

106 words

May/2/24 2:42:33 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a historic motion: ...it denounces the refusal of the New Democratic Party, the Conservative Party of Canada and the Liberal Party of Canada to uphold the principle of respect for Quebec's jurisdictions and to grant Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation... This is the first time that the National Assembly has unanimously rebuked each of the federalist parties by name because all of them are working against Quebec. When the government says it is working hand in hand, does it mean hand in hand with these parties against Quebec?

101 words

Apr/18/24 2:59:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are against jurisdictional interference. If the Liberals want to be involved in Quebec politics, they should run for the Quebec Liberal Party. Otherwise, there is no shortage of work for them to do at the federal level. We want them to transfer the housing money now so we can build homes now instead of negotiating until 2025. We want them to get rid of the old age pension's two classes of seniors. We want them to reimburse Quebec for asylum seekers. We want them to reform employment insurance, which they have been promising to do since 2015. We want them to stop the fossil fuel industry from sabotaging the fight against climate change. In short, we want them to do their job. When are they going to do it?

133 words

Apr/18/24 12:13:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for sharing his outlook with us. I agree with him completely. Before I talk about housing, I will speak to infrastructure. The municipalities are asking us whether Ottawa is finally going to renew the gas tax and Quebec's contribution program, or TECQ, and distribute the funds, with no strings attached, on a per capita basis. When the dollars get out the door, municipalities can get projects done quickly. In the recent budget, Ottawa is proposing infrastructure programs that require agreements because interference is at issue. It takes one, two, three or four years to reach an agreement, and years more before the funds are disbursed. The needs are there, but the money is not. It is the same thing when it comes to housing. With regard to the rapid housing initiative, or RHI, Ottawa let Quebec choose which housing it wants to fund. The money was allocated quickly. In all of the other programs, it takes years for Quebec to get a single penny, for a single shovel of dirt to be turned. The government is passing the buck. Money that we voted on, money paid by Quebec taxpayers is being held up here in Ottawa for ideological and bureaucratic reasons. It is the same thing for indigenous people. Once again, the money is there in the budget, but at the end of every fiscal year, the money has not been spent. That is again because of bureaucratic management. Needs are growing and the money was approved, but it is not being spent. That needs to change. We need to tell Ottawa to cut the red tape and to stop creating obstacles by dictating conditions. Local governments are the ones that know what is good and where the needs are. The federal government needs to transfer the money and get out of the way.

315 words

Apr/18/24 12:11:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my new colleague on the Standing Committee on Finance. It will be a pleasure to work with him, I am sure. Obviously, there are many major health care needs. Yes, I would like to know that everyone who needs medication can get it. Quebec has a partial prescription drug insurance plan; it has limited coverage for people who do not have access to private insurance. Yes, the price of prescription drugs is skyrocketing and it is quite the challenge. The Bloc Québécois wants the federal government to respect areas of jurisdiction. For example, health care falls under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The role of the federal government is to finance health care. To meet its commitments in funding health care, the federal government needs to give six times more than it is currently giving. This shortfall means that Quebec and the provinces do not have enough resources to offer proper health care services, which should include universal pharmacare. On one hand, the federal government is underfunding the health care sector by not fulfilling its role; on the other hand, it is encroaching on our areas of jurisdiction. What are the consequences? Redundancy and a top-to-bottom vision of know-it-all Ottawa that does not reflect reality. If Quebec is given the right to opt out with full compensation and no strings attached in order to enhance its prescription drug insurance program or manage funding in its health care sector as it sees fit, we will support the budget. We have always said that what we do not want is to see the federal government usurp spending powers. Everything that is done here is more expensive. It is bureaucratic and out of touch with the reality of Canadians. There is not even a proposal to align with Quebec’s prescription drug insurance plan. The same goes for dental care. There is not even a proposal to align with the existing public insurance plan for children. That is being turned over to Sun Life; that is a $2-billion management fund that will enable the insurer to line its pockets instead of providing services to Canadians. That is Ottawa, right there. That is why we want Quebec to make its own choices.

387 words

Apr/18/24 12:08:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, it will be up to Quebeckers to decide who represents them in the next election, as they have done in every other election. That is how it works. We set a very clear criterion to determine whether we vote with or against the government: When it is good for Quebec, we vote in favour, and when it is not good for Quebec, we vote against. It is that simple. Between the two, the Bloc Québécois always tries to improve the proposals to better meet Quebec’s needs. Unlike the Conservatives, we are not always against the government. We do not spend our time denouncing the carbon tax, which does not apply to Quebec. We see whether it is good for Quebec. If so, we are in favour; if not, we are against. This budget is bad for Quebec’s economy and does not meet Quebec’s major needs. We will therefore vote against it. It is clear, and it is how we do things.

176 words

Apr/18/24 11:56:12 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the erosion of Quebec's autonomy, and of Quebeckers' ability to make their own choices, is a strong trend. I quoted the Institute for Research on Public Policy, a Canada-wide research group based in Ottawa, which found last June that “the present trend is toward a more directive use of the spending power”, and that “the degree of federal-provincial collaboration in defining policy challenges has declined”. It went on to say, “Partnerships now seem to be conditional on a province accepting the federal government's policy vision”. The most recent budget gives more weight to their findings. All of this is happening in a context where Ottawa is doing a very poor job handling areas under its own jurisdiction, spending more money without making sure that it is being effective or getting results, and cutting its transfers to the provinces while piling on conditions and delaying the payment of the amounts it promised. The example that comes to mind here again is health transfers. Their increase is six times lower than anticipated, and they come with conditions that have led to a power struggle. The result is that it is taking longer for the money to be paid out. There are also unacceptable delays when it comes to infrastructure and housing programs. It takes years for an agreement to be reached and for the approved money to be paid out because Ottawa is once again interfering. I thank know-it-all Ottawa for that. Ottawa is behaving this way because it has the upper hand as a result of the ongoing fiscal imbalance. In a federation, a fiscal imbalance occurs when one level of government collects more taxes than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, while the other level is unable to finance its own needs independently. In Canada, there is a serious fiscal imbalance to the detriment of Quebec and the provinces. The Parliamentary Budget Officer repeats it year after year: Ultimately, provincial finances are not sustainable. It is not just Quebec; all of the provinces are unsustainable. Provincial status is just not viable. The fiscal imbalance is causing major problems that are limiting the government's ability to address the many challenges it faces. These problems are numerous, but they fall into three categories. First, by bringing in more revenue than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, Ottawa is not making an effort to manage its own affairs properly. The federal government is notoriously inefficient and everything costs more than it should—just think of the ArriveCAN scandal. I have two examples that illustrate the magnitude of the discrepancy. It costs the federal government two and a half times more to process an EI claim than it costs the Quebec government to process a social assistance claim. It costs the federal government four times more to issue a passport than it costs the Quebec government to issue a driver's licence. Everything costs more. Second, Ottawa uses its fiscal room to interfere in areas that are the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces under the Constitution. These intrusions blur the division of powers, make it less coherent, while undermining our autonomy. The jurisdictional overlap does nothing for efficiency. It only promotes centralization in Ottawa. There is a duplication of efforts with the new dental insurance. The same is true for the two tax returns. There is one too many, and that is the one that is collected by this level of government. Finally, with Ottawa indirectly controlling the purse strings of the Government of Quebec and the governments of the other Canadian provinces, the capacity of the Quebec government to fully assume its responsibilities is diminished. The Parliamentary Budget Officer's observation is clear: The provinces will no longer be sustainable. I would add that they are at risk of collapsing, while the federal government's fiscal room will increase considerably. This continued interference has led to an unprecedented centralization of power in Ottawa, which will take away the Quebec people's ability to control their development according to their needs, strengths, characteristics and wishes. In Canada, the status quo does not exist. The third autonomist way that lies between our sovereignty and our assimilation in which Quebec would be respected is constantly under attack by the federal government, no matter which party is in power. The status quo is actually weakening the Quebec National Assembly in favour of Ottawa. However, given the current context of uncertainty and crises, the fiscal imbalance must be addressed. The main way to achieve that is for the federal government to stop interfering and give Quebec the automatic right to opt out with full compensation. The many crises we are experiencing bring with them many challenges. We can come out stronger or weaker. The repeated crises we have experienced over the past four years have brought to light many problems. First, COVID-19 showed that our health care system has been weakened by the federal government's chronic underfunding. Meanwhile, the serious flaws in the EI system forced the introduction of a series of costly programs that were hastily thrown together. The sudden reopening of the economy exposed other problems: the housing shortage, the labour shortage exacerbated by the aging population and the considerable fragility of our manufacturing sector. That is not to mention all the problems caused by inflation. The government has not taken any of these fundamental issues seriously. We are calling on the government to stop interfering in jurisdictions that do not belong to it and to include a permanent and automatic mechanism for Quebec to opt out with full compensation everywhere the federal government has interfered. We demand that the federal government immediately and unconditionally transfer the voted amounts that are supposed to be transferred to Quebec. We are also calling on Ottawa to immediately reimburse the Government of Quebec for costs incurred to welcome asylum seekers. Quebec has a very clear vision of what to do to deal with the current challenges effectively. The solution is simple, but it requires more financial resources for Quebec. The government must address the fiscal imbalance by increasing federal transfers to ensure a fairer and more equitable redistribution. We can shape our future by building on Quebec's strengths, strengths that will become increasingly important in the economy of the future. Interference always costs more, always takes longer and never works as well as respecting jurisdiction. Interference will end once we have full independence. The 21st century belongs to Quebec. This is the century of innovation, advanced technologies and green technologies that balance wealth creation with ecology. We have an abundance of creativity in all areas, and they need support. This is the century of renewable energy and sustainable development. We have everything it takes—water, wind, forests and know-how—to become world leaders, if Ottawa stops pumping billions of dollars into fossil fuels. Canada's oil and gas model and Quebec's renewable and sustainable model are incompatible. This is the century of local farm distribution channels, where our production primarily serves to feed our population in a world of less fluid trade networks. We have to preserve agricultural diversification despite the current challenges created by an unpredictable global environment and climate change. However, this is also a century of social tension, where growing inequality is extinguishing the hope of a brighter future across the western world. Our government must have the means to preserve social cohesion, especially considering the urgent challenges posed by the housing crisis and rising property prices. Maintaining the purchasing power of seniors is also imperative, considering the disastrous economic consequences that would result from their impoverishment amid an aging population. In conclusion, this budget comes at a time when the needs are great and many, but the resources are not unlimited. The only way for Ottawa to deal with that is to take care of its own responsibilities properly. A rational and well targeted use of resources will allow us to avoid austerity measures left and right that will cause everyone to suffer. That is the opposite of what we have before us in this budget. That is why, seconded by the member for Saint-Jean, I move the following amendment to the amendment. That the amendment be amended by replacing paragraphs (a) and (b) with the following: (a) uphold the areas of jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and to grant Quebec and the provinces a right to opt out with full compensation;

1426 words

Context: House Hansard - 283 - Feb/15/24

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