So V ote

Jun/6/23 7:24:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his fiery speech, as usual. Quebec made a choice to have an emissions trading system. That is its own system, which is why the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. My colleague spoke eloquently of the Montreal Protocol on CFCs. Obviously, we eliminated the threats to the ozone layer. The whole reason this came about was that an emissions trading system was implemented, increasing the price of these polluting products. The higher price was an incentive, as the Conservatives like to think, to develop new technologies, which is why, today, the problem has largely been resolved. If the western provinces, which do not like the carbon tax, had implemented this strategy that was used by the Mulroney government, they would not be getting the carbon tax in their provinces. Is it not somewhat their own fault that they are getting a carbon tax?

151 words

Jun/6/23 4:54:34 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, what kind of a world is this when we state the facts and get accused of being partisan? What would make life better for Quebeckers is if the government respected the Quebec National Assembly and respected the unanimous motions from the Quebec National Assembly. The 125 elected members in Quebec City are standing up for policies in Quebec's own jurisdictions. It is not partisan when every party stands up. They are calling for the right to opt out of the dental care plan with full financial compensation. They are calling for health transfers. The NDP supported agreements under which the provinces got only one out of six dollars they had asked for, and yet it boasts about wanting to take care of people. Tell me who is partisan here.

132 words

Jun/6/23 4:52:55 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, I am not a New Democrat, thank God. I do not agree with the approach the New Democrats took when they decided to support the government no matter what. I think they took their own risks, and at some point they will have to figure out when it stops being compromise and starts being a denial of who they are and what they believe in. I think my colleague said it well. I can think of two examples, which I will briefly summarize. The first is time allocation, gagging Parliament. It is very rare for opposition parties to support such a measure at all, let alone so often. The second is the special rapporteur, David Johnston. Because of their agreement, they are conflicted. They go from one position on Monday to another on Tuesday and a third on Wednesday. It is obvious. As a result, they cannot do their job as an opposition party. It is becoming more and more obvious. I am very glad I am not in their shoes.

173 words

Jun/6/23 4:50:45 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, what is happening is that the government has developed a habit of overspending given the flexibility that it has. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has shown that, to maintain its debt-to-GDP ratio, the government has roughly $40 billion in fiscal flexibility. However, the government has developed a bad habit of using its fiscal advantage to take over areas of provincial jurisdiction. We saw this in the case of child care and the infamous dental plan. The government has encroached on many areas of jurisdiction. I believe my colleague will agree with me in part. I think the government could be more fiscally responsible if it took better care of its own areas of jurisdiction and let the provinces do their work as they should. I think there is some confusion in Ottawa at the moment. All the Liberals want to do is stick their noses into just about everything, in order to win votes. It is highly unproductive. I am sure my Conservative colleague will agree with my take on the situation.

176 words

Jun/6/23 4:39:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, my regards to you and to all our valiant colleagues who are here with us. This is a debate at report stage on the budget, specifically Bill C‑47. It is the month of June. The Stanley Cup finals are going on. It is hot out, we still do not have a budget and we have a minority government. As we have seen all this week and today, there is a blockage in Parliament. Everything is delayed, everything is moving slowly. These blockages clearly have an impact on government policies, Quebeckers and Canadians. In a minority government, we would expect the government to use methods that foster a consensus and the advancement of the work of Parliament. We would expect the government to propose a budget that we could agree on, one that could achieve a consensus, especially since there is great potential for blockage here on the part of the official opposition. The Conservatives have many faults, including being against women's right to control their own bodies, being against environmental policies and being pro-oil, but they do have one good quality, and that is that they are predictable. We know that they will block everything. We expected the government to have the foresight to propose a budget that we could work on. Instead, the government did exactly what it had promised it would never do. It is something the Harper government did time after time, namely present an omnibus bill, a colossal bill that is basically impossible to rework and that is almost designed to be delayed. It almost seems like the government has no respect for the House and is looking for trouble. This bill amends 59 acts, in addition to the Income Tax Regulations. Anything and everything is in there. There is even a royal provision in the budget to recognize Charles III as sovereign. After all that, the government members are surprised that it is being blocked. They are surprised to see the Conservatives propose 900 amendments. They will say that everyone else is being unreasonable, when they are the ones who tabled an omnibus bill. They will ultimately invoke closure. The NDP will get into bed with the Liberals and support closure as usual. After that, they will accuse the other parties of picking fights. As a responsible opposition party, all we ask is to debate and be able to do our work on each element of the budget bill. For example, we wanted to be responsible and work intelligently on the royal provision. There is an appointment in the bill. Charles III is to be appointed head of state in a sovereign country. We thought we would do what we do for all appointments of all commissioners and officers of Parliament. We thought we would call His Majesty and have him come to committee. We wanted to give him a chance and see if he is competent to be head of state. There is no one more sporting than us. We are square dealers. We therefore asked the clerk of the Standing Committee on Finance to contact Rideau Hall and ask them invite His Majesty. This is, after all, part of his kingdom. We were told that they do not have his phone number. We were surprised to see that the Governor General did not serve much purpose. Honestly, I was surprised. I did not expect that. Then we went back to the clerk to see if he could contact Buckingham Palace and ask them to have His Majesty come testify. An email was sent to Buckingham Palace. The response we received from Buckingham Palace was that His Majesty is a bit old-fashioned and only opens snail mail, so the invitation would have to be mailed to him. I do not know if mail addressed to His Majesty can be sent postage free. That should be checked. Nevertheless, he was supposed to be invited by mail. How should we interpret that? First, we have a head of state who cannot open emails. Do we really need to invite him to committee to know that he cannot deliver results? Would we hire an ethics commissioner or a privacy commissioner who could not open emails? Maybe we should have sent him a homing pigeon. Government do not work that way. We have to wonder. Does a refusal to come pay a short visit to parliamentarians not show contempt for Canada, its institutions and its Parliament? I see that as contempt. I cannot believe that, in order to send an invitation to His Majesty, we have to send him a letter on papyrus and wait for the letter and his response to travel across the Atlantic Ocean. I thought it seemed obvious. Even His Majesty is embarrassed about the budget and ashamed to be associated with it. I think members can understand why. The reason is that the things that are most important to Quebeckers and Canadians have been left out of the budget. Even the King is embarrassed. Take, for example, employment insurance. The government was supposed to have learned from the crisis. During the COVID-19 crisis, the government went from one temporary measure to another. That is because we have an EI system where 60% of people who lose their jobs are not eligible. It is not right that six out of 10 people are not eligible. What is more, women and young people are particularly affected because many of them hold non-standard jobs. They have a hard time qualifying. It also has more of an impact on those who are vulnerable because of the new realities of work, or what is referred to as the sharing economy, which is a way of artificially turning a salaried employee into a non-salaried employee so that they do not have access to all the benefits that a social safety net could provide. The Liberals have been promising to reform EI since 2015. They promised not once, not twice, but three times. It was supposed to happen in August. Then we saw the actuarial forecasts in the budget. We realized that not only was a reform off the table, but they were going to pick $25 billion from the pockets of SMEs and workers through a payroll tax to pay off the EI fund deficit that built up during COVID‑19, even though all the other pandemic measures implemented were funded by the entire population. That is why His Majesty is embarrassed to come. He no longer wants to have anything to do with the Liberals. It could be that His Majesty is embarrassed over the environmental policies. We are giving away $20 billion to $30 billion in dirty oil subsidies, allegedly for carbon capture, even though the problem is immediate. The government tells us that the environment is important. On May 31, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change boasted to the New Economy Canada conference that there was a plan for transitioning to the green economy. That same day, the Minister of Labour told an audience of business people, “Don't tell me a green energy future doesn't include oil and gas.” What colour is oil? It is not the colour of the chairs here in the House of Commons. It is definitely not green. The environment is being completely neglected. Here we have the government creating its much-touted green fund, the $16‑billion Canada growth fund. This fund will be managed by PSP Investments, a company that does not report to Parliament and will not be accountable. The only mandate it has ever had is financial performance. Through no fault of its own, this company has absolutely no expertise in this area. At the moment, it sees carbon capture as the green development model. That technology is not yet up and running, but we are being promised that it will exist in 30 years' time. However, the problem is here now. There is even talk of using small modular nuclear reactors to extract more oil by using less oil to export more. That is what PSP Investments is all about. In the budget, there is nothing for seniors who dealt with the crisis and were hit hard by it. Even before the crisis, their purchasing power had declined. There is nothing for our regions either, nor for discount regional flights. I am thinking about Abitibi, the Gaspé and the north shore. We know that for regional development, for economic development, we need regional flights. It is very important. There is absolutely nothing in the budget. It is always promises, promises. The budget includes changes to the equalization system that deny Quebec of $400 million in short order. Let us talk about equalization. We are still in this mode where the Liberals are not meeting their commitments. That being said, they are doing some things. It is not all bad, but they are not getting results where it counts. They will tell us that we should support this because the best is yet to come, but we know all about Liberal promises. We knew about them in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022. We still know about those Liberal promises, but we no longer believe them. That is why we are going to do what King Charles III would do if we were in our shoes: We are going to vote against the budget.

1583 words

Apr/25/23 7:59:54 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, our emotional colleague gave a very interesting speech. He told us that Canada is not yet in a recession because the GDP is going up. He is inventing some sort of recession that he calls a “functional” recession, where he tells us the per capita GDP is going down. That means, in his opinion, that the Canadian population is growing too quickly. First, if we receive too many immigrants, it is likely a sign of economic success. Then, according to the calculation he pulled out of thin air, is he not saying that he thinks Canada's immigration targets are too high?

106 words

Apr/25/23 7:44:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague spoke about the gatekeepers of housing construction. This gives me an opportunity to remind her that Quebec is the only province with a permanent program for the construction of social housing among other things. With respect to housing construction, the worst gatekeeper for many years has been the federal conditions. The national housing strategy in particular has deprived poor Quebeckers of housing because much time was lost in administrative delays. Does my colleague agree that the federal government's conditions have hindered the development of housing? Is she ready to admit that money to help build housing should be paid directly to the Quebec government without any conditions and with respect for its areas of jurisdiction?

123 words

Apr/25/23 7:29:30 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Madam Speaker, my colleague has spent a lot of time telling us that we need to shrink government and reduce debt and the deficit. I understand that; he is a Conservative. I respect his point of view, even though I do not share it. That being said, the government has fundamental responsibilities that should be important, even to a Conservative. One of those responsibilities is employment insurance. He and I will both agree that a company like Sunlife is not going to provide a decent private-sector EI program. For years, the Liberal government has been promising to reform the EI system. We need to expand coverage, ensure that there is no longer an EI spring gap and change the way it is funded, because we are going to shift the burden of pandemic-related expenses to our businesses and workers. Does my colleague agree that the government has broken its promise, and does he think that the system needs to be reformed?

164 words

Apr/25/23 7:14:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-47

Mr. Speaker, in one of his recent books, Michael Mann, a physicist at the University of Pennsylvania, said that the oil industry's primary strategy to deal with climate change was first to deny reality. Then, as the consequences of climate change became visible, the industry changed its strategy to mislead the public. It is trying to make us believe that there is hope that new technologies will emerge in a few years and that we will be able to defeat climate change easily. I would like to know whether my colleague is prepared to accept science and recognize that taxpayer-funded carbon capture strategies are a ploy to mislead taxpayers. Those subsidies and tax credits for carbon capture and storage represent a significant amount of public funds. Is my colleague, who is so concerned about a balanced budget, prepared to rise and take a stand against these subsidies?

149 words

Mar/29/23 5:34:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when we look at the debt and the deficit, we have to look at it in proportion to the ability to pay. Any banker who is asked for a $2,000 or $3,000 loan does not treat someone with an annual income of $10,000 the same as someone with an income of $50,000 or $100,000. The same applies to people with assets and people with no assets. The first thing to look at is the debt-to-GDP ratio. The Conservatives go from dollars, which they call nominal, when it suits them, to the ratio when that suits them. A little consistency would be nice. Beyond that, public finances have to be looked at as a whole. It is important to be concerned about both the deficit and the federal debt, but if the provinces are going broke in the meantime and they have to borrow money, or choose between borrowing money and caring for their residents, that has to be taken into account.

170 words

Mar/29/23 5:33:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, there is no need to get angry. My colleague started by telling me that the government is good at administering programs, and he spoke about employment insurance. I hope that the government will not dip into the dental care fund as it did with the EI fund, because it is not doing a good job of administering that. Health care is a provincial jurisdiction and an area where the federal government often shows its incompetence. We know that from experience. What the Government of Quebec is saying is that health is important to us and that existing programs must be improved. What Quebec is saying is that birthing rooms remain closed, there is a lack of palliative care, cancers are going undiagnosed, emergency rooms in the regions are struggling to stay open, and mental health services are unavailable. We are not saying that dental care is not important, but rather that the NDP is using this issue for electoral purposes. We see that clearly. That said, as public decision-makers, we must set our priorities. The NDP is making the next election its priority.

186 words

Mar/29/23 5:31:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, last week, the member for Kingston and the Islands tweeted so much misinformation that Twitter had to put a warning notice on his post. I just realized that the Liberals are okay with that way of doing things. That way of doing things has spread from Kingston to Outremont. I am going to set the record straight on a number of things. We never said that everything in the budget was bad. However, we made very clear, specific pre-budget requests. In a budget, there is what is included and what is missing. Are the Liberals telling me that it is okay to refuse to grant health care transfers, to reject our seniors and to leave half of unemployed workers out in the cold? Are they telling me that all those things are okay? In any case, that is clearly what the member for Outremont is saying. The member for Outremont is rejecting the needs of Quebec, and that makes me sad.

164 words

Mar/29/23 5:18:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on February 14, I wished the NDP and the Liberals a Happy Valentine's Day. Today, to look at the budget document we have before us, I think that the union has been consummated. It is clear. What we learn from reading the budget document, which was summed up well by my colleague from Joliette, is that the federal government has a tremendous amount of means and that, with the help of the NDP, which is not surprising, it is having a hard time spending and investing those means wisely in the priorities of people on the ground who are dealing with real problems when it comes to employment insurance, seniors' return to work, or health. There is absolute disparity between the government's financial capacity and the real needs on the ground. It is not for nothing that when the Liberals toss $4 billion to provinces that are asking for $28 billion and tell them to accept it or get nothing, they have the nerve to stand up and say that it is an agreement. They have the nerve to do that. I know that they are not lying. They believe themselves and that is even worse. The budget document is clear. It seems to be very much like what the Parliamentary Budget Officer described, and my colleague put it well. It states that, in 25 years, if we include the new financial commitments, Canada's debt-to-GDP ratio will be zero even in the worse case scenario. There is no other industrialized country that plans to reduce its debt-to-GDP ratio to zero, which means that there will be no debt, without looking after its people. No other developed country is doing that. There is fiscal flexibility in the budget. The Parliamentary Budget Office has done the calculations. Those people are paid to provide Parliament with information. They are competent. They are quite right in saying that as the government eliminates its debt over time, the provinces will find themselves in more and more trouble, and that when the federal debt is eliminated, the provinces will be technically bankrupt. The federal government tells us that there is no fiscal imbalance because this year, the current year, some provincial governments are running small surpluses while the federal government has a $40-billion deficit. All of this is without recognizing that the problems we are experiencing in health care today are the same problems that could not be solved 25 years ago when the Liberals began cutting the transfers. By repeating the same thing today, they will create even more serious problems 25 years from now. In their minds, there is nothing dynamic. They are always thinking six months ahead, to the next election, and it is exactly the same with the NDP. There is $40 billion in lapsed spending from last year. We have the figures and the public accounts. That is $40 billion that was not used. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has said that another $40 billion could be used to help the provinces with health care and other things. Even so, the federal debt-to-GDP ratio would remain the same and the provinces would be able to take care of people. We are talking about $80 billion. We can add to that the fact that inflation is estimated to be 3.5% this year. That number is way off, which means that there will be additional tax revenue. That puts us at more than $80 billion, which is far more than the $28 billion the provinces were asking for. They would have $50 billion or $60 billion left over while allowing us to take care of our people. This is no joke. They could keep lowering the debt-to-GDP ratio while taking care of people. Allow me to summarize. The Liberals had an opportunity to relieve the suffering of Quebec's patients. Instead, they decided to relieve the electoral anxieties of the NDP. That is essentially what they did. I can understand why the NDP is crowing about it. If I were them, I would be happy too. That is the reality. What will the NDP tell us? The NDP is going to tell us that they got us dental care. The budget says that Health Canada is basically going to turn into an insurance company. If you have tried to get a passport, Mr. Speaker, you have every reason to be concerned. By the end of the year, it looks as though Health Canada will become an insurance company. They are going to call all the dental associations in all the provinces and they are going to negotiate agreements. Then we will be able to start submitting dental bills, all by the end of the year. That is the promise that they are going to make to us, but they need a reality check. The federal government is so bad. The Liberals have no idea how to do anything. They are so far removed from what they are good at—and one has to admit that there is not much that they are good at—that the dental care program is not even included in the budget implementation bill. They are going to implement the budget without even knowing how to do so. The dental care program is not even there. That will bring us to the summer. We will come back in the fall and there will not even be a dental care program because they just have no idea how to implement one. There has been no talk of seniors because the Liberals created two classes of seniors, those aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and up. There is nothing in the budget for seniors aged 65 to 74. They are taking the injustice they created and indexing it to inflation, and yet this government is supposed to have an aversion to injustice. When it comes to inflation, the NDP has spent all year getting worked up into a lather over grocery store owners. The Liberals decided to make the NDP happy. They are going to take the GST rebate cheque that they doubled, as the Bloc Québécois has been asking them to do for a year and a half, they are going to issue it early in the year—we asked them to increase the frequency of the cheques—and they are going to call it a grocery rebate. It is a great victory for the NDP. We congratulate them. On employment insurance, this system that insures one in two people and leaves half the people behind when they lose their job, they are saying that there will be a recession, but no EI reform. If I were looking to insure my house and the insurer told me that I had a 50% chance of my claim being rejected if my house burned down, I would switch insurers. That is exactly the situation that the unemployed are facing. The Liberals say that, according to actuarial forecasts, the EI fund is good for another 10 years before it needs to be reformed. There is nothing in the budget about getting experienced workers back to work without penalizing them for offering their strength, intelligence and experience to our businesses. When I walk around Mirabel and other places in Quebec, everyone talks to me about it. Everyone is talking about it except for the Liberals and the NDP. There is nothing for the aerospace industry. The minister was telling me that he is talking to CEOs and inviting them to invest. The minister is not a lobbyist. His job is not to be a chargé d'affaires but to ensure that the investment climate is favourable to investment, in order to have investment, research and development, investment funds, credits for research and development, and to fix the implementation of this luxury tax, which is about to kill 2,000 jobs in Quebec. People will go elsewhere to buy planes. We are the laughingstock of the G7. The Liberals tell us that aviation is important, but they are closing the control tower in Mirabel. They have shut down light aircraft access, our flight schools and a runway. The industry's strategic infrastructure is now managed by a board of directors that takes care of Montreal and whose CEO is a former accountant from Coca-Cola. Nobody is accountable and nobody knows anything about aviation. They appear to be really good at this. When they do not know something, it is scary. With regard to energy, the budget gives $18 billion in subsidies to oil companies, which have money. When it comes to taxing luxury jets that are used to transport passengers and that harm our industry, there is no problem. They are for equality. However, when it comes to giving subsidies to companies that are making tons of profit, that could invest in reducing their emissions if they wanted to avoid the carbon tax, but instead the government gives them subsidies so that these CEOs can buy private jets to go to their cottages, that is not a problem for western Canada. Now there is an election coming up in Ontario. Their 15% and 30% clean energy subsidies—because when we get right down to the nitty gritty, CO₂ is all that matters to them—are going to go to Ontario's nuclear plants. Oddly enough, there is an election coming up in Ontario. Oddly enough, the majority of the next Canadian government is going to be in Ontario. We are willing to collaborate and we are willing to vote in favour of measures that are good for Quebec. That is what we do, but our goodwill is like an elastic. There is a limit. Since my time is almost up, I will move the following amendment to the amendment: That the amendment be amended by deleting all the words after the words “since it” and substituting the following: fails to: (a) immediately reform employment insurance and increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74; (b) fight climate change by ending fossil fuel subsidies; and (c) increase health transfers to 35%, preferring instead to interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, such as by creating dental insurance without giving Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation.

1749 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 174 - Mar/28/23

Mar/29/23 4:55:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the official opposition for his very good speech, especially the parts in French. As he knows, the French language has a very rich vocabulary. We have a recipe for shepherd's pie: beef, corn, potatoes. For big numbers we say: millions, billions, trillions. I invite him to repeat after me. He began his speech with a lecture about consistency by using the Minister of Finance's own words. He pointed out inconsistencies and told us that we could no longer believe what the government says because it is not consistent. Right after that, he quoted the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who he threatened to fire for incompetence a few months ago during the leadership race. When I openly say that someone is incompetent and that the first thing I would do when I become prime minister is fire him—I can assure members that I will not be prime minister in this place—I do not quote that person. I do not quote incompetent people who I want to fire. My question is the following: Does he still want to fire the governor of the central bank, whom he quoted in his speech? If he no longer wants to fire him, what thought process led to his change of heart?

223 words