- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,154.34
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my enthusiastic colleague. His speeches are always very lively and well researched. It is obvious that he really knows his stuff when it comes to anything related to innovation, especially the people who have expertise in his region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue.
I want to come back to the question asked earlier by my colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup. I was rather confused, even surprised, upon hearing his comments. He has been a member of the Canadian Parliament for a number of years and, all of a sudden, he is worried that having ministers from outside Quebec could put Quebec at a disadvantage, because economic interests could be concentrated outside Quebec. We in the Bloc Québécois have had the answer to this question for a very long time. For us, the only way to truly defend the interests of Quebec is to be independent.
I wonder if my colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue could share his thoughts on defending our head offices in Quebec and our economic interests, which are often at odds with the economic interests of the oil and gas sector in the rest of Canada.
208 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise today to speak to Bill C‑34 for the second time. This bill amends the Investment Canada Act. It is well intentioned, but there is still a lot of work to do.
The bill reinforces controls and increases the powers of the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry regarding foreign investments in Canada. As we did at second reading of the bill last winter, Bloc Québécois members will continue to fully support any action aimed at better protecting Quebec's economy and Canada's economy against potentially detrimental foreign interests.
I will get right to the crux of the issue. We are debating today the amendments made by the committee. The bill is back in the House to be debated again, and I am glad that my colleagues on the committee were able to look at this closely and broaden the notion of sensitive sectors to include intellectual property and databases that contain personal information. We all agree that this improvement makes the bill stronger and that we should support it.
We also applaud the committee for rejecting the Conservatives' proposed amendments. Their proposal was intended to label every state-owned enterprise not run by our Five Eyes partners as hostile, which would have threatened Quebec's interests given that 40% of European investments in Canada are made in Quebec.
Let us take the example of Airbus, a French-German state-owned company that manufactures its A220 aircraft in Mirabel in partnership with the Quebec government. This project, which generates economic spin-offs for Quebec and Quebeckers, would have been compromised by the Conservative Party when, in fact, it is a collaboration with democratic and transparent states but, most importantly, with allies.
There is also the question of coordinating with the U.S. system. The proposed new review process essentially mirrors what is being done in the United States. Its adoption is intended to increase our American partners' confidence so that they continue to consider us a reliable and preferred partner within their supply chains. It has to be said that trade with the Americans is very important, and I think this bill is a step in that direction.
In March, when the debates clearly indicated that Bill C-34 enjoyed the support of the House, the United States agreed to include Canada in its critical minerals supply chain, which was very good news. This is a sign that the bill achieved its goal and helped strengthen our partners' trust in us.
Without a doubt, Bill C‑34 adds several useful weapons to our legislative arsenal. However, I must emphasize that these changes are still very incomplete. This is why the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to go much further in scrutinizing foreign investment in general. I am going to explain why.
The bill we are studying covers only those investments that could affect national security. This category of investment is extremely sensitive, and targeting it is justified. However, when we look at the big picture, we see that it represents only a tiny portion of all foreign investment in Canada.
I am going to present a few statistics that will undoubtedly convince my audience. Of the 1,255 investment projects submitted in 2022, only 24 would trigger a review under the new rules proposed in Bill C-34. That is just a grain of sand on a beach. Barely 2% of all investment projects would trigger a security review.
The other 1,221 investments would remain subject to the old rules. These rules provide for a review to determine whether a project is of net economic benefit to Canada. However, a review is only carried out when a project exceeds a certain monetary threshold. That is the problem. I hope the government pays attention to this. Over the years, the threshold at which a review is triggered has increased considerably. Projects are getting bigger and require even more investment.
In the past 10 years alone, investment projects have more than tripled. The consequence of this aberration is that virtually all projects are rubber-stamped without additional review.
Getting back to last year's figures, of the 1,255 projects submitted, only eight were subject to a review under the Investment Canada Act. Eight projects out of a total of 1,255 were submitted for review under the act. That is less than 1%, although the review rate was 10% as recently as 2009. The holes in this safety net have become far too big for it to be effective. The measure might as well not exist; it would not make much difference. That is why we need to go much further.
I would like to draw a parallel with history. In building our future, it is always important to be cognizant of the past, in order to avoid past mistakes and learn from past successes. I would like to share with the House some snippets of history to illustrate why we need to do more to control foreign investment.
Since the Quiet Revolution, the Quebec government has established significant economic and financial levers. These tools have allowed it to pursue a policy of economic nationalism aiming to give Quebeckers better control of their economy. This does not mean that Quebec is closed to foreign investment. We are open to it, of course, because it is a driver of growth and development. However, we believe we must support our own businesses to help them grow and seek to preserve our headquarters, which are significant decision-makers.
I will provide an example. In 1988, Bernard Landry, former premier of Quebec and leader of the Parti Québécois, campaigned to promote the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA, which was signed with the United States and Mexico in the early 1990s. As we know, Quebec's strategy worked well when we explain economic nationalism and the protection of headquarters in terms of the large subsidiaries worldwide. Banking on the development of these businesses, we saw the growth of many flagships whose headquarters are in Quebec. The presence of these headquarters is significant. Structurally, businesses with headquarters in Quebec tend to create jobs, attract talent, and promote sourcing from local suppliers, creating a virtuous economic cycle. Companies also tend to concentrate their strategic activities, such as scientific research and technological development, where their headquarters are located.
There are also reasons for adopting this legislation. There is no shortage of examples that demonstrate the harmful effects of ill-advised foreign investments on our economy. I will name a few. The loss of decision-making levers and headquarters condemns us to be a subsidiary economy, where foreigners decide for us. Everyone remembers Lowe's acquisition of Rona. Let us also consider the weakening of Montreal's financial position as a leading world financial centre; the total reliance of our businesses on foreign providers and on supply chains that are more vulnerable than ever; the possible land grabs by rich foreigners who have no interest in our social and economic priorities; and the loss of control of our natural resources, which are the greatest wealth our territory has to offer.
The Bloc Québécois strives to be a constructive partner, and as such, it has suggested three types of tangible changes for the government to focus on. The first is to lower the review threshold so that the government has the power to review more investment projects. According to the numbers, it looks at barely 2% or even 1% of certain projects. There is a huge gap to overcome for a bill to be able to ensure better security overall, but also better protection from foreign investments. The second is to pay special attention to strategic sectors of the economy, such as leading-edge sectors, land ownership or control over natural resources. The third is to develop a tighter process for transactions involving control over intellectual property patents. Intellectual property is the knowledge we develop. We need to protect that knowledge, including in the pharmaceutical sector. Some Quebec companies had molecule patents that were then purchased by major pharmaceutical companies and moved overseas.
National security is important, but we must not overlook economic security and long-term prosperity. Let us be clear. This is not about closing the door on foreign investment. Quebec and Canada must remain economically open to the world.
In closing, as Jacques Parizeau wrote in 2001, before China even became a member of the World Trade Organization, “We do not condemn the rising tide; we build levees to protect ourselves”.
Unfortunately, the weakening of the Investment Canada Act has caused those levees to break.
1464 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C-34, an act to amend the Investment Canada Act, has good intentions. It seeks to improve controls and give the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry more authority over foreign investments in Canada. The Bloc Québécois fully supports this commitment to better protecting the economy of Quebec and Canada from foreign interests that may be harmful to us.
The new review process is essentially the same as the one used in the United States. Adopting it increases the chances that the U.S. will continue to see us as a reliable partner. That is a condition for being a preferred supplier that is well integrated into their supply chains. At a time when protectionism is on the rise among our neighbours to the south, a trend that could seriously disrupt our economy, that is an important asset, and the Bloc Québécois applauds it.
Bill C‑34 is in addition to the new critical minerals guidelines that the government adopted in October 2022, and that apply to 31 minerals that are critical for the long-term economic prosperity of Canada and its allies. Bill C‑34 and Canada's new critical minerals strategy should help stop Chinese companies, among others, from taking over our resources.
All these developments are positive, but they are only half-measures. That is why the Bloc Québécois is asking the government to go much further in controlling foreign investments in general. The bill under consideration is limited to investments affecting national security. This category of investment is extremely sensitive, so focusing on it is justified. However, it represents only a small fraction of all foreign investments made in Canada. It is clear that the safety net provided for in the new system created by these proposed amendments to the Investment Canada Act is inadequate.
Here are some figures. Of the 1,255 investment projects filed last year, under the new rules being proposed in Bill C‑34, only 24 would be subject to review. Clearly, this is like a grain of sand on a beach. This bill would affect only 2% of all investment projects filed last year. The other 1,221 projects from last year would remain subject to the new rules. Those rules provide for a review to determine whether a project will truly provide a net economic benefit to Canada.
There are six criteria then used to assess whether a transaction is beneficial. That said, I would draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that a review is only triggered when a project exceeds a certain monetary threshold, as my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères explained.
That is where the problem lies. Over the years, the threshold at which the government must assess whether an investment is economically beneficial has been significantly increased. It has more than tripled in the last 10 years. At the same time, the number of investment projects is increasing every year, and that must be taken into consideration.
The consequence of this aberration is that virtually all projects are rubber-stamped without additional review. Last year, of the 1,255 projects submitted, only eight were subject to a review under the Investment Canada Act. That is less than 1%.
The member for Winnipeg North says that the law is being amended, so it must be good. The Liberals have created a bill that does not affect even 1% of the projects. That is not very ambitious. It reminds me of yesterday's smoke show on health transfers.
The review rate was 10% as recently as about 10 years ago, in 2009. In reality, this measure has become essentially ineffective over time. It might as well not exist; it would not make much difference. The situation is such that foreign investments are rubber-stamped without analysis, save for exceptional cases. Understandably, less than 1% certainly qualifies as exceptional.
Everyone knows how much I love history, how passionate I am about it, and I believe that building our future depends on having a good understanding of the past so we can learn from our successes and avoid repeating mistakes. I would like to share some snippets of history to illustrate why we need to do more to control foreign investment.
Since the Quiet Revolution, the Government of Quebec has established some important economic and financial levers. These tools enable it to pursue a policy of economic nationalism designed to give Quebeckers more control over their economy. That does not mean Quebec is not open to foreign investment. We are open to it because it can drive growth and development. However, we believe the priority is supporting our own businesses to help them grow so we can protect the significant decision-making power of our own corporate headquarters.
In 1988, former Parti Québécois premier Bernard Landry lobbied for the North American Free Trade Agreement, better known as NAFTA, which was signed with the U.S. and Mexico in the early 1990s. Quebec's strategy worked. Quebec's decision to invest in its businesses paid off, and many flagship companies headquartered on Quebec soil grew.
As the figures show, the presence of head offices is important. There are currently close to 578 head offices in Quebec. This represents approximately 50,000 jobs that pay twice as much as the Quebec average. On top of that, head offices provide nearly 20,000 other jobs for specialized suppliers such as accounting, legal, financial and computer firms, and so on. Structurally, companies headquartered in Quebec also tend to favour procurement from local suppliers, which creates a positive economic circle. Finally, companies tend to concentrate their strategic activities, such as scientific research and technological development, where their head office is located.
As the Bloc Québécois science and innovation critic, I have to emphasize how important this characteristic is, since Canada ranks last in the G7 when it comes to corporate investments in research and development. This statistic can probably be traced to the fact that the Canadian economy has always been recognized as a subsidiary economy. One might think of the automotive sector, with Ford Canada and GM Canada, or the oil sector, with the Shell Canadas and the Imperial Oils of the world.
There is no shortage of examples of the harmful effects that ill-advised foreign investments can have on our economy and even our prosperity. Here are just a few.
First, there is the loss of decision-making powers and head offices, which condemns us to being a subsidiary economy, where foreigners decide for us. Second, there is the weakening of Montreal's financial sector as a global finance hub. Third, there is the total dependence of our businesses on foreign suppliers and supply chains that are more fragile than ever. We saw that during difficult times, such as the COVID‑19 pandemic. Fourth, there is the possible land grab by rich foreigners who do not care about our social and economic priorities. That is a concrete example. Fifth, there is the loss of control over our natural resources, which are our country's greatest asset.
By focusing exclusively on national security, Bill C‑34 does not address Quebeckers' and Canadians' gradual loss of control over their own economy. I want to reiterate that we invite the government to amend its bill to make it much more bold and ambitious and to modernize the entire Investment Canada Act and not just the part on national security.
As always, the Bloc Québécois strives to be a constructive partner, and as such it is recommending three types of amendments. The first is to lower the review threshold to prevent most foreign investments from being approved without review. The second is to pay special attention to strategic sectors of the economy. The third is to develop a tighter process for transactions involving control over intellectual property patents.
I hope the government will listen to our practical proposals and modernize this bill.
1361 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable. I very much appreciated some of what he had to say.
Under the Canadian Constitution, family policies fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The Bloc Québécois did not make that up. The federal government knows nothing about any of that, but as my colleague mentioned, Quebec has 25 years of experience with its own child care network.
We know that the federal government would like to help with immigration, but, again, the Government of Quebec is petitioning to fully and completely manage its immigration system. Again, we see that the Conservatives' vision and the vision of the Government of Quebec are in opposition. Even my colleague said that he did not really support the creation of our child care services, even though they are internationally renowned.
My colleague forgot to mention the agreement that the former leader of the Conservative Party, the member for Durham, was proposing during the last election campaign. He wanted to cancel the $6‑billion agreement that the Government of Quebec had reached with Ottawa on transfers for the child care network. In total, the Government of Quebec would have lost $6 billion.
I would like my colleague to explain that today. He says he is in favour of child care networks, but his party wants to cancel the transfers to the Government of Quebec. What is the real vision of the Conservative Party?
257 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague from York Centre's speech. I am glad the federal government recognizes the importance of the child care system. We all know Quebec pioneered it over 25 years ago—not 5, 10, 15 or 20 years ago, but 25.
It is a good thing the federal government is now recognizing, in 2023, the importance of having a child care system. What I am wondering, however, is how the federal government can do better than Quebec has been doing, given that Quebec created its child care system 25 years ago and has been running it ever since?
My colleague from York Centre said there are no obligations in this bill. That is not true. There are obligations for the next five years only. Plus, there is no way for the Government of Quebec to opt out with full compensation.
I have two questions for my colleague. First, does she think Quebec should have the right to opt out with full compensation because it has its own child care system already? Second, can the federal government do better than Quebec, which has been operating its own child care system for 25 years now?
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 3:00:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is not about money, it is about criteria.
The research chair funding criteria no longer have anything to do with research. The nature of the research itself no longer counts. What counts is the nature of the researcher, assessed against the following criteria: skin colour, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation and disability. The last person anyone wants as a researcher is an average white man.
We agree that all kinds of people should be better represented. Among equally qualified applicants, under-represented minorities should get priority.
How is excluding a group of people consistent with a policy of inclusion?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 2:59:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Quebec's National Assembly passed a unanimous motion on academic freedom:
THAT [the National Assembly] reiterate that promoting greater representation of under-represented target groups must always happen in a context of equal qualifications;
THAT it denounce the interference of the federal government, which funds research chair programs according to certain criteria that do not reflect the specificity of Quebec.
Instead of imposing its ideological agenda, why will Ottawa not let Quebec manage research chairs?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what we should be supporting is the idea that the federal government should mind its own business, as the Canadian Dental Association has asked. It needs to stop creating programs that rush cheques out just to shore up shaky agreements. That is not what Quebeckers want. They want real programs.
During my speech, I said that this is a temporary program. It is not a universal program, as the NDP would like.
Nobody can be against virtue, but when the Liberals create a program, first of all, they need to respect the areas of jurisdiction they know nothing about, such as dental care. Second, they need to create long-term programs that truly reflect the needs of the people, without any discrimination. That is not what this bill currently does.
How can they justify the fact that 10% of children in Quebec will receive less support than the rest of the children in Canada? This is unacceptable.
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise to speak to Bill C-31, which we are debating today.
The principle of the bill is very important, but the execution is very poor. I will explain why this bill is bad for Quebec and also discriminates against Quebeckers.
The bill has several components. I will address the first one, the dental benefit, but I will first put forward the Bloc Québécois's position.
My colleagues and I supported the bill at second reading because we agree with the underlying principle. During a cost of living crisis such as the one we are experiencing, it is both commendable and necessary to lighten the financial burden of low-income households, which are the most affected by the rising cost of gas, groceries, housing and just about everything in daily life. By funding dental care for low-income families with young children and also supporting renters, the bill could help Quebeckers and Canadians get through these tough times.
However, good intentions are not enough to make a good government or good laws. As drafted, the bill does not give Quebeckers their fair share because it discriminates against them and is unfair to them. That is why we will not support it at third reading as long as Quebeckers's interests are not more fully taken into account.
I will begin with an overview of the dental care part of the bill. First, to be eligible for a benefit, whoever submits a claim must meet the following conditions: They must have a dependent child under the age of 12; they must have a family income under $90,000; the dependent child must not be fully insured under a government or private plan; they must have incurred or plan to incur dental care expenses during the period in question; they must receive the Canada child benefit for the year prior to the claim.
Whoever meets all the requirements I have just listed can then qualify for the following benefits: $650 if household income is under $60,000; $390 if household income is between $70,000 and $80,000; and $260 if household income is between $80,000 and $90,000.
The bill provides for the possibility of receiving a payment for two separate periods, one from October 1, 2022 to June 30, 2023 and the other from July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024. It is already clear that this is far form a permanent and sustainable program. This is the program being lauded by the government and the NDP, who want a universal dental care program. Those are nice promises in theory, but the reality is quite different.
I will clarify the injustice against Quebec in this bill. At first glance, it seems fine; the bill could even be said to be a very good thing. However, when we look at the amounts that are meant to promote the oral health of young children in Quebec and Canada, we can see that that is clearly not the case.
Shaping public policy requires careful consideration of the consequences of the measures being proposed. In reading the independent and in-depth report prepared by the Parliamentary Budget Officer—the Bloc Québécois did not dream this up, or rather have a nightmare about all the details of this bill—we see that, as the bill stands, Quebec would only receive 13% of the total amounts allocated to the dental component, or $92 million out of $703 million.
If the NDP-Liberal government had introduced a truly equitable bill allowing Quebec to receive its fair share of the funding based on population, which is nearly 23% of the total population of Canada, Quebeckers could have received $162 million.
A $70-million injustice is literally being inflicted on Quebeckers, thanks to the NDP-Liberal government. As an aside, $70 million is a little more than what the monarchy costs Canada. The government could help people by abolishing the monarchy.
I will come back to dental care, but when we look at all of this we see that there is a $70-million injustice. I am already prepared to answer questions and I have not even finished my speech. People think that we do not want to help Quebeckers, those who need financial support for dental care. Who would sneeze at $70 million? It is unbelievable.
It is obvious that this $70 million will not go into the pockets of families with young children, who currently need this money more than ever. To illustrate the blatant injustice Quebeckers will face, let me just say that they will receive an average of $83 per child under the age of 12, while families outside Quebec will receive an average of $168 per child. In reality, these are one-time payments. On the ground, this reality will mean that half of the families who would be entitled to a cheque if they lived outside Quebec will not be entitled to anything at all.
Let me explain why Quebec families will receive less money. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, there are two reasons why this bill puts Quebec families at great disadvantage. The first reason is that the Quebec government has implemented a government program under which many parents do not pay any fees when they visit the dentist. The second reason is that the unionization rates in Quebec are higher than elsewhere in Canada and, therefore, Quebeckers are more likely to have group insurance that covers dental expenses.
It is clear that Quebec is being denied its fair share because its government set up a dental care program for children in 1974 and because its workers have better benefits. Quebec is being penalized because visionary, progressive decision-makers decided long ago that it is right, just and equitable in an advanced society like ours for kids to get dental care regardless of their parents' income.
There is another consequence to this bill, possibly an unintended one. I refuse to believe that the Liberal-NDP government deliberately set out to inflict this injustice on Quebec with this bill. I believe that all my House of Commons colleagues are well-intentioned. I am sure they want only the best for all the Quebeckers and Canadians they represent. I believe this is a mistake caused by the federal government's desire to implement a complex system quickly despite having no expertise in this area.
Obviously, this is a hastily conceived piece of legislation that was cobbled together following an agreement between the Liberal government and the NDP. This bill is designed to keep a shaky coalition alive. The idea of bringing in a dental plan is nothing new. It was in the NDP platform in 2019 and 2021. The only reason it is now being included in Bill C-31, which is flawed and will be passed under a gag order, is to keep their shaky, half-baked deal alive.
As a final point, I just want to mention that some civil society actors like the Canadian Dental Association have told us that the best way to proceed with this bill would be to transfer the money to Quebec and the provinces.
I hope the Bloc Québécois amendments will ensure that some real progress can be made, so we can move forward, so Quebec can have its fair share of the measures and, of course, so the government can fix its mistakes.
1263 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her very good question.
In my riding of Rimouski, the vacancy rate is 0.2%. It is unprecedented. It is historic, and it is serious. We are awaiting federal government programs, and I could name one, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s rapid housing initiative. The federal government announced $4 billion in the last budget, but so far no programs have been implemented.
I completely agree with my colleague that the federal government started disinvesting in the 1990s and that we are feeling the consequences of that disinvestment today. As I said before, the vacancy rate is 0.2%. It is unbelievable, and it hinders regional development. We need to attract both new workers and students to the region.
I hope that the government will release the funding and transfer the money to Quebec so that it can build new social housing units.
155 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
It is indeed a matter for debate, Madam Speaker. Foolishness refers not to the individual but to their arguments. That said, I suppose that, when someone has nothing to say, they can talk about tax havens and point out that they are nowhere to be found in this bill, which focuses on domestic objectives. If the member would like me to go over and explain the bill to him, I would be pleased to do so. However, he should not be saying that the Bloc Québécois wants to privatize the health care system with Bill C‑237. We have heard all sorts of things tonight, but I hope that will stay in the annals of the House of Commons because that is far from being the case. I will get back to my speech because I had prepared one, but when you hear something like that it is hard not to correct the record.
Bill C‑237 addresses a situation that has created friction and tension between the federal and the provincial governments ever since the Constitution Act of 1867 was passed. It is nothing new.
I am talking about respect for the division of powers between the two levels of government. Basically, according to the pact that was made at the time, in 1867, between the two levels of government, each respective area of jurisdiction should be equal and sovereign. This arrangement served to ensure that the priorities of the majority Canadian nation were not imposed on the minority Quebec nation. We are a long way from that today, in 2022.
For issues that directly affect people and the way they organize their society, jurisdiction was directly delegated to the provinces. These include things like health care, social programs, education and culture. For issues that are somewhat removed from the people or the internal organization of their society, the respective areas of jurisdiction were centralized directly under the federal government. This means things like monetary policy, international trade, border defence, and so on.
These terms are protected by the ironclad Constitution and the inviolable division of powers. Quebeckers accepted that agreement, but as I have said before and will say again, members of the federation are supposed to work together, not impose conditions, which is what we are seeing now. The government is using that to make political gains that undermine jurisdiction. It is taking over our child care system and trying to impose conditions on us. We cannot be sure it will transfer that to us. Next is health care. I bet that before too long there will be big federally funded parks all over the place. The government is going to take away all our power over social programs. That is this federal government's current agenda.
That is why we need to take a very close look at the relationship between both levels of government now, 155 years after the original agreement, the Canadian Constitution, came into effect. Inevitably, we will find that, for the past three generations, the federal government has been violating an agreement that goes back to the birth of the federation. I will explain this in a simple two-step process.
First, the federal government uses its taxing power to raise taxes higher than is required to fulfill its own constitutional responsibilities. In doing so, it also prevents Quebec and the provinces from using this tax room. This is called fiscal imbalance.
Second, the federal government uses its surplus profits, which it controls, to spend and create programs in areas under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. In addition to controlling this money, which is normally intended for different areas and jurisdictions, it goes so far as to impose conditions on the transfer of funds. In concrete terms, this means that the federal government, the Canadian government, uses this practice to decide how Quebec society and the other provinces are set up. It also forces the government of Quebec and the provinces to implement the priorities of Canadians rather than the priorities of Quebeckers in areas under their own jurisdiction.
As I said, it is supposed to be a collaboration, not simply imposing conditions. In this case, Canada's vision and will are being imposed to the detriment of Quebec's will and vision. Quebec never agreed to become Ottawa's subcontractor. Nowadays, it is clear that Ottawa is interfering in areas of jurisdiction. It pays off politically, by the way.
There is unbridled interference going on in areas such as housing, education, family policy, day care services, the environment and taxation. Interference has become the federal government's hallmark.
The federal government has a strong tendency to use its power to spend money and surreptitiously exploit shared jurisdictions. The Bloc Québécois has had enough, which is why it decided to introduce Bill C‑237.
If passed, this bill will give Quebec and the provinces a way to counter this interference, which violates the constitutional agreement on which the country was founded. The original agreement is no longer being respected. Can we get this straightened out? We have no choice. We are being taken for fools. We have no autonomy anymore. We send our money to the federal government, but then it says it will not transfer the money unless we comply with its conditions.
In practical terms, Bill C‑237 makes two amendments. I urge my colleagues to listen carefully, because they have been saying all kinds of things about this bill. First, the bill will amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act between the government and the provinces. This will affect all of the provinces, not just Quebec. It will give all provinces the option of withdrawing from a federal program.
Furthermore, in the spirit of compromise, the government will provide matching funds to the province or Quebec, but only if the objectives of the program in question are comparable to those of the federal program. The program in the province or in Quebec does not have to be identical or even similar. It must be comparable. The funds are to be given unconditionally, without criteria and without any other form of interference.
I see that my time is up. I therefore invite the members to give Quebec and each province the freedom to make their own choices, by themselves and for themselves.
1064 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will give an introduction to set the record straight because I have heard a lot of things this evening, things that are bordering on a lie. I am not sure whether it is a failure to understand or whether it is deliberate, but I am going to set the record straight.
First, I do not know if the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord is an unbridled sovereignist or if he is just pandering. He says he wants to defend Quebec's autonomy but that the federal government should put conditions on the health care system. The purpose of Bill C‑237 is not complicated. It is about ensuring that Quebec manages its own health system, without conditions imposed by the federal government.
Second, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby came up with all sorts of unbelievable things. Talk about the bogeyman. I am not sure if he is emulating the Conservative Party or if he really had nothing to say about the bill, but he thinks that the Bloc Québécois wants to privatize Quebec's health care system. That is not it at all. Where did he get that idea? I will explain the bill to him.
This bill is in no way an attempt to withdraw from the universal system. The bill is very simple and states that we want to withdraw from the national objectives of the Canadian health care system because we believe that Quebec is capable of administering and managing its own health care system. We do not need the federal government to tell us what to do, under the pretext that it administers a lot of health care systems in Canada.
The only health care systems that the federal government manages are those of the correctional institutions and National Defence. Aside from that, it is in no position to lecture Quebec. Hospitals in Quebec fly the Quebec flag. Quebec manages its own health care system. The federal government does not manage physicians and knows nothing about that. It is in no position to tell us what to do, what is good or what is not good.
Then, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby tells us that the Bloc Québécois wants to withdraw so that we can privatize the system. Come on. The federal government did not create the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. The federal government did not implement the Quebec Act Respecting Prescription Drug Insurance. The Government of Quebec did all of that.
I will not stand by while the member for New Westminster—Burnaby spouts that foolishness this evening. He just made claims about something he simply does not understand.
459 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I would like her to explain something. On March 2, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion that my colleague supported. The motion sought to maintain Quebec's political weight and not have it lose a seat. The Bloc Québécois then presented Bill C‑246, which was along the same lines as the motion that my colleague supported, but she voted against it.
Today, the government is trying to salvage the situation with Bill C‑14. This bill seeks to preserve the number of seats, but not the political weight, because other seats could be added for other provinces outside Quebec.
I would like my colleague to explain why she voted for the Bloc Québécois motion and then voted against the Bloc Québécois bill.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 10:23:03 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague from Winnipeg North misunderstood my speech. The debate is not about the importance of diversity. We recognize the need for diversity, inclusion and, of course, equity.
What we are saying is that the basic criterion that must take precedence when selecting candidates for Canada Research Chairs is excellence. This criterion should not be based on identity, which sometimes has nothing to do with the context of the research.
75 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we do not need the federal government to protect French in Quebec.
Quebec is charge of its own language policy. It is that simple. The federal government says that its bill contains positive elements for minority francophones outside Quebec. However, both the Government of Quebec and the National Assembly of Quebec agree that federally regulated private businesses should be subject to Bill 101.
Quebec does not want the federal government to once again interfere in an area where Quebec has already taken charge.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if it is so obvious, I invite my colleague to support our bill.
I clearly explained in my speech that the Official Languages Act will take precedence over the Charter of the French Language. The language of business for us in Quebec is French; the common language is French; and the only official language is French.
We do not want the application of another law, the Official Languages Act, to supersede the language laws that already exist in Quebec. It is that simple.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased today to speak to Bill C-13, which is particularly important to the Bloc Québécois.
Today's strategy from the Liberals, supported by the NDP, was to move time allocation on a bill that is vital to protecting French in Quebec as well as in the rest of Canada.
Bill C‑13, which is currently under consideration, represents the culmination of efforts to modernize the Official Languages Act. This objective is set out in the mandate letter of the current Minister of Official Languages, as well as that of her predecessor.
In the September 2020 Speech from the Throne, the government recognized the special status of French and its responsibility to protect and promote it, both outside and within Quebec.
The stage seemed to be set for the federal government to protect French in Quebec. It appeared the government would include the reform, requests and demands of those dealing with the decline of their language on a daily basis, namely Quebeckers.
However, in both Bill C-32 from the previous Parliament and the current version, the Official Languages Act reform completely ignores the demands made unanimously by the Quebec National Assembly and the Bloc Québécois about protecting French in Quebec.
In fact, the federal government's bill flies in the face of the Quebec National Assembly's Bill 96. One of the objectives of Bill 96 is to extend the application of the Charter of the French Language throughout Quebec. Despite that, in their interventions and communications, the Liberals claim to support Bill 101 and brag about being champions of the French language.
Since the Prime Minister and Liberal members claim that they have always supported the Charter of the French Language, how can they introduce a bill that will prevent the Quebec government from applying that charter within its own territory? Based on a 2007 Supreme Court ruling, provincial laws can apply to federally regulated businesses as long as they do not directly violate any applicable federal law.
Quebec has long been asking Ottawa to allow Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated businesses based on that ruling. A resolution supported by all parties in the Quebec National Assembly and adopted on December 1, 2020, stated that the Charter of the French Language “must be applied to companies operating under federal jurisdiction within Québec” and called on the Government of Canada to “make a formal commitment to work with Québec to ensure the implementation of this change”.
The message could not be any clearer, but what did the Liberals do at the first opportunity? They imposed on Quebec a language regime that subjects all federally regulated businesses to the Official Languages Act, while at the same time destroying Quebec's ability to apply its Charter of the French Language to businesses operating on its territory.
That should not be taken lightly. There is even a serious and real danger for French in Quebec with Bill C‑13. In the event of a difference between the federal regime, which is based on bilingualism, and Quebec's regime, which is based on the primacy of French, the federal regime would prevail.
The Minister of Official Languages can repeat as much as she wants that Bill C‑13 will protect French in Quebec as well as Bill 101, but that is not true. It is factually incorrect.
Bill C‑13 seeks to apply the bilingualism regime to Air Canada. Francophones will be given the right to complain in the event that the right to work in French is breached. It has been shown many times that this model cannot protect the rights of francophones to work and be served in their language. Despite the thousands of complaints against Air Canada over the years, we see that for these non-compliant organizations, French is nothing but an irritant. How will extending this model to all federally regulated private business stop the decline of French?
What is more, Bill C‑13 confirms the right to work in English at federally regulated businesses in Quebec. I repeat, the Official Languages Act is reinforcing bilingualism, not protecting French. Some will say that the bilingualism approach seems reasonable at first glance. It leaves it up to the individual to interact in the language of their choice. However, when we take into account the linguistic and demographic dynamics in which that choice is made, this approach has devastating and irreversible consequences on French. Do not take it from me. It is science.
Professor Guillaume Rousseau from Université de Sherbrooke explained this phenomenon to the Standing Committee on Official Languages in February:
...virtually all language policy experts around the world believe that only [an approach that focuses on just one official language] can guarantee the survival and development of a minority language....
The...approach may seem generous, since individuals may choose which language to use among many, but it is in fact the strongest language that will dominate....In real terms, the federal government should do less for English and more for French in Quebec.
As my party's science and innovation critic, I must insist on the importance of basing our decisions on scientific data. Ottawa must listen to reason, listen to the science and respect the evidence. Science cannot be invoked only when it suits our purposes and ignored when it does not, and the Prime Minister needs to take that into account.
When we look around the House of Commons, we quickly see that the Liberal Party stands completely alone when it comes to the application of Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. It has always been easy for the Prime Minister to say that he is in favour of Bill 101 as long as that did not require him to take any action, politically speaking. Today, it is clear that French is declining in Quebec and Canada and that its decline is accelerating so fast that the Prime Minister himself has been forced to recognize it and express concern. He still says that he is in favour of Bill 101, but he is not walking the talk.
We are witnessing yet another attempt by the Liberal government to create a wide, untenable gap. On the one hand, the government wants to be the champion of French because it feels the public pressure to protect French better, including in Quebec. On the other hand, it completely refuses to let Quebec control its own language policy. The result is that the Liberal Party now stands alone in its stubbornness. We saw that when my colleague from Salaberry—Suroît introduced Bill C-238, which seeks to subject all federally regulated businesses to the Charter of the French Language. The Bloc, the Conservative Party and the NDP supported it, but the Liberal Party did not.
Let me make this clear. The Bloc Québécois will not support Bill C‑13 unless and until amendments are made that enable Quebec to be the master of its own language policy. The federal government must acknowledge that the Quebec nation is grappling with anglicization, and it must introduce a differentiated approach that recognizes and respects Quebec's unique linguistic reality. That is why explicit recognition that the Charter of the French Language takes precedence over the Official Languages Act for federally regulated businesses in Quebec is a minimum requirement. That is what the Bloc Québécois and the National Assembly of Quebec want, so that is what Quebec needs.
1288 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I would like to ask the minister a question. The government says it recognizes the decline of French in Canada and Quebec, especially in Montreal. However, this bill would give people in Quebec the choice to speak English or French. Quebec is the only place where the official language is French, yet the government wants to give people the choice to speak English.
I would like my colleague to explain how we are supposed to protect French when Bill C‑13 gives federally regulated companies the choice to speak English or French.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I think we can all agree with some of the things he said, including, of course, maintaining the number of seats in Quebec.
However, I would like to draw his attention to the concept of political weight, that is, the percentage of seats among all other seats in Canada. This was ably explained by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
Several members in the House have obviously recognized the Quebec nation. I know that there have already been similar challenges for Nova Scotia's Acadian community and that new proposals have been made to create new ridings for the Acadian community. Certain groups in the community have obtained recognition of their specific characteristics.
That is what we are asking for in the House today and with the Bloc Québécois proposals. We are asking for recognition and respect for the Quebec nation, as well as assurances that we—
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Shepard said some interesting things in his speech, in particular that this makes sense.
What does not make sense is the pattern of institutionalization of the francophone minority, in particular Quebec, that we have seen since Quebec, formerly known as Lower Canada, was integrated into the Canadian Confederation. Back in 1867, Quebec's representation was 36%, but today that figure is just 22%.
There is another thing that makes perfect sense. In the Charlottetown accord that was proposed in 1992, the Progressive Conservative Party gave the Quebec nation 25% of the seats, even though its demographic weight had declined. In 2006, the Harper government recognized the Quebec nation.
Does my colleague agree that the Quebec nation should always retain 25% of the seats in the House, regardless of its demographics?
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
