TranslatePolitics.ca

Grant Jackson

Conservative 12:10 p.m.

“I want to complain about the government spending too much money. I think it's bad for young people and the future. My friend tried to fix it with an amendment. Can my other friend also say why he thinks the government's budget is bad for everyone?”

Michael Guglielmin

Conservative 12:10 p.m.

“The government spends too much. More spending is bad. It takes money away from other things people want, like health care or lower taxes or housing. I thought this government would be different. But it's just like the old one.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, we would think, given all the turmoil and the disastrous record of the Liberal government over the last 10 years, this “new” government, as Liberals like to label themselves, would have easily been able to divorce itself from the disastrous track record and trajectory of the Liberal government. Instead, as we learned this week, it has decided to double the deficit and increase the interest payment on the debt to $80 billion, money that could be used for health care transfers, to lower taxes or for housing. Instead, it is being used to rob a generation of growth and opportunity. We thought the current Prime Minister would be different. Instead, we realize he is just another Liberal.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 12:10 p.m.

“The government's economic update only extends EI eligibility until 2028. That's not enough. The spring gap is a permanent problem. I want a big, permanent EI reform. Do you agree with me?”

Michael Guglielmin

Conservative 12:15 p.m.

“This budget is no good. The government spends too much money and doesn't fix things. Jobs are leaving Canada. Young people won't have chances. More people will need EI because the government is making everything worse.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, like many things in this budget, there are no solutions. This budget is full of empty promises. It is full of nothing more than a bunch of announcements that do nothing for people other than to serve the purpose of adding debt and robbing opportunity from a future generation. Unfortunately, jobs are fleeing this country. Young people are going to have less and less opportunity. We have seen that over $1 trillion of capital flight has occurred here in Canada, with the difference between foreign direct investment and capital flight accelerating. More and more people are going to require employment insurance if this keeps up because, really, the government is not providing the conditions for any future opportunity in this country.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 12:15 p.m.

“I want to look good by sharing my time with someone else.”

The Acting Speaker

Conservative 12:15 p.m.

“I'm filling time by asking if everyone agrees he can split his time.”

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 12:15 p.m.

“I'm going to talk a lot but not say much. I will repeat many things my party already said. Gas prices are high and that's bad. I don't like oil companies. The government should take money from other places and spend it on different things I want. I want the government to talk to my party more.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, in that case, I will be sharing my time with this wonderful colleague, which means I will have to step up my game. After all, there needs to be some balance in these 10-minute speeches. I would like to begin by acknowledging the exemplary, extraordinary and remarkable work of the interpreters who interpret our questions every day. They are essential to ensuring the right of French speakers to work in their language. I would like to offer them my sincerest apologies and tell them that I am truly sorry about the phone that apparently vibrated a moment ago. It was not in the right place. Let me assure them that the other phone is well out of the way. The one with the timer running is properly positioned on my desk. This proves that even members who try to be careful every day can make mistakes. I would like to remind my colleagues in the House to always be mindful of this. I appreciate the interpreters. It will come as no surprise when I say that the Bloc Québécois was very disappointed with this economic update. To sum up what I am about to say, this economic update is in serious need of an update itself. The Liberals need to go back to the drawing board. For one thing, we were very surprised that there is still nothing about the new 25% tariffs imposed on goods from Quebec and elsewhere that use steel or aluminum. It is important to note that the Americans have decided to impose a 25% tariff on the total price of the product even if steel or aluminum makes up only a tiny percentage of the final product. That comes with very serious repercussions. We asked the government some questions before the economic update was tabled. We were told that the answers would be in the economic update. Now we have it, but there are no answers in there. We are asking questions, and we are being asked what we want to eliminate. We want to eliminate oil and gas subsidies; that is what I answered earlier. We are not happy, but we are here to work as an intelligent and constructive opposition. I know that the parliamentary secretary is pleased to hear this, since he is listening carefully to my speech. I think he might be willing to accept our olive branch. Still, there is much to do and we have our work cut out for us. This is a serious matter. We are disappointed with the Liberal majority's arrogant new approach of negotiating behind closed doors, which meant that we were not invited for any discussions before the economic update was tabled. It is easy to say that the opposition complains all the time, but if the government would talk to us a little, if it would take our proposals into consideration, perhaps the opposition would complain less. Speaking of proposals, as we have said many times, the Bloc Québécois did its homework. This reminds me of the last election campaign, when journalists all said that the Bloc Québécois platform was the one that looked most like a government's election platform. That is rather ironic. The 11 proposals we made are serious, reasonable proposals. We are surprised that they were not taken into account. As an opposition, we do not expect our proposals to be accepted in full all the time, but at the very least, we expect them to be considered. In this case, they were not considered at all. We are concerned about a number of measures in the economic update. First, there is the elimination of the excise tax, which we have talked a lot about. As we have said from the beginning, lowering taxes on gasoline is not a solution. I know that many members here support that approach and want to remove even more taxes, but just look at the price of gas in Quebec and Canada this morning. It is clear that the oil companies have an insatiable appetite. They have no limits. They will take whatever they can get. The government cut the excise tax by 10¢, and the oil companies are already making up the difference. They seize every opportunity to take more. They suck up everything they can get and put it in their pockets. This needs to stop. That does not mean that the government should not help people. Obviously, it is difficult to be against a proposal like eliminating the excise tax. Members think that they are giving people some breathing room, but look at the result. Gas is up to nearly $2 a litre in Montreal this morning. This is not working. What we need is direct support. The government could have shown some intelligence and creativity by proposing, for example, a partial reimbursement of fuel costs for business owners and people who use gas and diesel for work. Targeted measures could have been used to help low-income individuals by compensating them without giving that money to the oil companies. As for the excise tax, we are seeing the results this morning. It is sad to say, but my I see that the money that was supposed to go into people's pockets ended up in the pockets of oil companies. I am not even talking about the scandal of the oil and gas subsidies. These subsidies are a tradition. They are part of Canada's DNA. We can denounce them all we want and ask the government to abolish them, but it will never do that. The lobbies are far too powerful, and there are people making money from this somewhere. We find this deeply deplorable. We could be saving $26 billion over five years and using that money to invest in social housing and to provide a decent retirement pension for people aged 65 and older, because retirees aged 65 to 74 are currently being discriminated against. That money could be invested in many other areas, including EI reform. The government could do that instead of taking the EI surplus and putting it into its own coffers. It is a bad habit that tends to happen far too often. That money belongs to workers. The EI system pays out benefits to only 60% of those who contribute. That is both ironic and embarrassing. I do not know anyone in my circle who would agree to pay for home insurance if the insurance company told them they only had a 60% chance of receiving a payout if their house burned down. Anyone would think about it for 30 seconds and then look for another company. Our workers' hands are tied. They are stuck dealing with the federal government, which is administering an EI system that it should not even be administering, since that responsibility should be returned to the provinces and Quebec. I think Quebec would do a much better job running an EI system. We have solutions to help people. Measures for the workforce were announced. That is all well and good, the intention is noble, and we cannot oppose that. However, what we would say to the Liberals is that there has been an agreement with Quebec since 1997. It seemed like we were telling them something new when they read their economic update. They are supposed to know this better than we do, since they are in government. They should have had prior discussions with the Quebec government. However, judging by the reactions of the new Premier, the finance minister and the people in Quebec City, I think they have not talked much. That is concerning to us. We will be keeping a close eye on this. Another thing that really concerns us is the increased health and safety risks when it comes to food. The government is changing the mandate of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and, if I understood correctly, it is going to change the Pest Management Regulatory Agency's regulations to include consideration of economic issues, not just public health and safety issues. We need to be careful about how we do that. As everyone knows, I am not acting in bad faith. I was very proud to work on the agriculture and agri-food file here for many years, right up until January. We talked a lot about this issue, and it is true that the inefficiency of these agencies was causing problems. Our issue was with the lack of efficiency. We did not see a need to change the mandate. We are concerned about the fact that the government wants to change the mandate because this is a slippery slope. This will have to be studied very seriously in committee. I hope that the government will give us the time we need to do that and that it will not start holding all the meetings in camera to silence the opposition, because we have serious concerns about public health. The pesticide and herbicide lobbies are extremely powerful. Members will recall what happened with the so-called tiger team. That was really serious, but unfortunately, it did not get much media coverage. That shows just how much power these people have. I am concerned. That said, I would like the Canadian Food Inspection Agency and the Pest Management Regulatory Agency to be more effective and efficient in responding to on-farm emergencies. When someone requests an emergency approval but receives no authorization, their crops can be ravaged by insects, disease or some other problem. Sometimes the authorization arrives after the damage is done. That does not mean that human safety was compromised; the product was approved. However, the processing is not being done fast enough. Agency staff should do some overtime now and then to keep up with demand. That was the issue. The Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food's request was about efficiency, not a change in mandate. My time is running out; sadly, this happens to me a lot here. Once again, the government is giving the minister the authority to suspend the application of a number of laws. That still worries me. What is this bad habit? It seems that every time I rise in the House, it is to complain about the government trying to suspend the application of laws. Three-year orders are very worrisome. We have serious proposals, such as a wage subsidy to help businesses out and give them some breathing room. We are prepared to work with the government, but it has to be willing.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 12:25 p.m.

“I want to look like I'm being nice and agreeing with the other MP. I don't really have much to say about his actual ideas though. I'll just talk about a trip I went on instead. That should use up my time.”

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 12:25 p.m.

“I want to say my committee is the best! The Bloc member is doing great there. I want to look like we cooperate, but I'll throw in a little warning too. I want us to study a topic I like and make it look important.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, since the parliamentary secretary clearly does not often attend meetings of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, I would like to inform him that, in my humble opinion, it is the most outstanding House of Commons committee. Unfortunately, I have not served on it since January, but I do want to point out that the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue, who took over for me, is doing a great job and that he is up to the task. The Bloc Québécois will continue to work co-operatively. Of course, when it comes to exports to the Asia-Pacific region, there are a lot of people to feed there. The concerns that I raised have to do with the mandate changes at the CFIA and the PMRA. I would ask the government to be vigilant in that regard. We would be pleased to work together to conduct a serious study in committee so as not to compromise public health.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tamara Kronis

Conservative 12:25 p.m.

“I agree with my friend that the government keeps hiding things. Liberals are holding secret meetings to keep Canadians in the dark. I want my friend to say more bad things about this.”

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 12:25 p.m.

“I think my friend is nice but I want the government to stop hiding things. It is not good that the government is doing everything in secret. Liberals need to be more open.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I must first commend my colleague on the quality of her French. It is exemplary. She seems very nice. The government's authoritarian tendencies are worrisome indeed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government is paying close attention and will perhaps take the opportunity to reassure us on that score. Now that I am my party's whip, I oversee all the committees. Having read our member's reports, I know that the government is quick to convene in camera and clean house. The government is in the process of taking back control of the order of precedence. I hope that this feverish activity is temporary, the result of having recently secured a majority through backroom deals, and that the Liberals will become reasonable again. Asking that an open hand be extended comes off well in public, but accepting that hand is another matter.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mario Simard

Bloc Québécois 12:30 p.m.

“I want the government to give Quebec more money for two things. I want Quebec to have money for asylum seekers. I also want Quebec to have money because of the carbon tax. If the government gives Quebec more money for those two things then my party will be happy and we might approve this budget.”

Yves Perron

Bloc Québécois 12:30 p.m.

“I'm angry Quebec doesn't get more federal money. I think Quebec should get more money for two things: the carbon tax and asylum seekers. I think Quebec is owed a lot of money for those two things. I don't want to hurt Canada. But I do want Quebec to keep getting more money from Canada. I'm building towards Quebec separating. If Quebec separates it won't get any more money from Canada. Until then I demand more money from Canada.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, “inequities” is putting it mildly. I would say it amounts to outright theft. In the case of the carbon tax refund for money people had not yet paid, we are talking about $14 million owed to Quebec. This is a grave injustice. We even held an opposition day on this issue, yet the government never even considered it. It is the same with asylum seekers. Quebec is owed over $700 million. The Bloc Québécois does not wish to harm Canada. What we want is to protect our people in Quebec and get what is rightfully ours. We are, of course, working to build the country of Quebec in the meantime, and we are more than eager to do so. When we see such blatant theft, it just makes us even more eager for the next referendum.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mario Simard

Bloc Québécois 12:30 p.m.

“I am very upset. The economic statement is very bad for Quebec. It doesn't help Quebec's aluminum and forestry sectors enough. These sectors are facing huge tariffs! Catastrophic! The statement helps oil and gas too much. Oil and gas make lots of money for American companies. It's a scandal! I think the government should do what I want instead.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, that comes as a surprise to no one. My colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé made it very clear that the Bloc Québécois is disappointed in the budget statement, as did my colleague from Mirabel in his response to the Minister of Finance and National Revenue. I think that his answer was very well put and it showed all the shortcomings of the economic update. This week, in response to oral questions, I heard my Liberal colleagues say many times that they want to build Canada. The update document does talk about building Canada. However, I would like to finish the sentence, because I think that, in reality, they are building Canada while ignoring Quebec. That is what the document should have been called, and I will explain why. I have a little tip for my colleagues. When we want to understand the intent of a government document or proposal, like a budget or an update, there is usually a fairly simple trick. All anyone has to do is search how many times certain words appear in the document. My colleagues will see where I am going with this. Just for fun, I checked to see how many times the word “forest” or “forestry” appears in the economic update. Those words appear six times. Then, I checked to see how many times the word “aluminum” appears in the economic update. We see that word 12 times, which is a bit better. I also checked to see how often the term “climate change” was used, and the answer is five times. When I searched for the word “gas”, I hit the jackpot at 43 times, but the real winner was the word “oil”, which is used 153 times in the economic update. Why am I talking about this? We immediately see where the government's priorities lie. Given what is happening right now, the economic update should have responded to the tariff crisis to help the industries in Canada that are currently facing the highest tariffs. Which two industries in Canada are facing the highest tariffs? First, there is the aluminum industry. As we know, primary aluminum producers are managing to get by without too many problems, but this is catastrophic for aluminum processors. The 50% tariffs are catastrophic for them. Many are operating on credit and struggling to stay afloat right now. There will be consolidations unless the government takes action. That is for the aluminum industry, which is mentioned only 12 times in the economic update. The other sector facing the highest tariffs, and the one most severely impacted by U.S. policies, is the forestry sector. It is subject to 45% tariffs. This figure is the sum of a 10% tariff, countervailing duties, and anti-dumping duties. This means that every time a forestry producer ships $100 worth of products to the United States, $45 is taken from them, stolen. Not many companies can survive with margins cut by 45%. There is another key factor that has emerged in recent weeks. In fact, we were the ones who sounded the alarm for the government, pointing out that, under a new decree, 25% of the total value of aluminum products will now be subject to tariffs, which is destroying Quebec's industrial base. Is this addressed in the economic update? No, at no point does it offer a solution to the problems facing the aluminum and forestry sectors. This makes me think that the goal is to build Canada while ignoring Quebec. I will return to the many repeated proposals we have made. I can talk about that right now. Time and again, we have proposed solutions to the government for addressing the tariff crisis surrounding softwood lumber. The government has always turned a deaf ear to them. What we see in the economic update when the word “forest” appears is a rehashing of what was announced back in August and subsequently expanded. Nothing is new under the sun. We are still in the same position with a liquidity program ill-suited to the needs of people in the industry. We have made concrete proposals to the government with people involved in the forestry sector. We proposed that the government buy back a portion of the countervailing and anti-dumping duties at the end of each month. The government would not necessarily have to pay out this money, since the anti-dumping duties that are currently being held in the United States will eventually be recovered. The government could therefore recoup its costs. We proposed this solution, but the government never wanted to talk to the Bloc Québécois to try to implement it. The same goes for aluminum. If the economic update is about building Canada while ignoring Quebec, what does this economic update actually contain? In my view, the government's primary intention is to build infrastructure to export energy. The fact that the word “gas” appears 43 times and the word “oil” appears 153 times clearly reflects the government's intention to build oil and gas infrastructure in order to export more oil and gas. We had this discussion at the Standing Committee on Natural Resources. We heard from Hydro-Québec. Sometimes I like to be a bit mischievous. I asked Hydro‑Québec, which has built two major lines allowing Quebec to export energy to the United States, one to New York and the other to Massachusetts, how much financial support it had received from the federal government to do so. The answer was zero. The federal government did not offer Hydro-Québec a single penny in financial support to develop this energy export infrastructure. We are talking about clean energy, about hydroelectricity. It is a different story when it comes to the oil and gas sector. What does the economic update contain? It includes an increase in the carbon capture and storage tax credit. That information is not coming from me. The former environment minister has stated on numerous occasions that more money has been invested in promoting carbon capture and storage than in certain carbon capture and storage projects themselves. It is a bottomless pit, and it is completely illogical to try to produce clean oil, but notwithstanding that, we know that Export Development Canada, or EDC, put $102 million into the carbon capture and storage sector in 2023. In 2022, $464 million was poured into this sector, which in no way serves the interests of Quebeckers. I will come back to EDC. When we look at the overall support for the gas and oil sector, we see that it is completely outrageous. The federal government is trying to respond to a tariff crisis by supporting the Canadian energy sector. The question that troubles me is this: Who benefits from the Canadian energy sector? People looking for an answer to that question will find something quite shocking. When looking at the ownership structure of the major oil companies, it becomes clear that 80% of these major oil companies are owned by foreign interests. I repeat, 80% of the ownership structure of the major players in the oil sector belongs to foreign interests. Furthermore, 60% of the ownership structure belongs to American interests. What does this mean? It means that the energy lobby, which aims to boost the Canadian economy, is working to the benefit of American interests. Here is a hair-raising fact. From 2021 to 2024, these people made $131 billion in profits. Did they invest in their infrastructure? No. They asked the federal government to take on the risk for the infrastructure while they raked in the profits. I have never seen a model like that. Capitalism is based on people assuming risks with their own money and then reaping the profits. That is not what the oil companies want. For the oil companies, it means having the government assume the risk so they can reap the profits. They produce 12.3 billion dollars' worth of capital flight. The federal government left Quebec out of its economic update. Instead, it is trying to help the big oil and gas companies that send their money to the United States. That is completely outrageous.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Liberal 12:40 p.m.

“I'm going to list many things the government is spending money on. I think that proves our budget helps Quebec. Do you agree the budget helps Quebec?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I must admit that I am rather surprised. He seems to believe that Quebec was overlooked in this economic update. However, what I see, when I read the update, is a historic investment for small craft harbour infrastructure that coastal communities have been waiting for for a long time. There are many such communities in the Atlantic provinces, but also in Quebec. This is a historic, long-awaited investment. We are also investing in sports to expand access to sport for young people. That will benefit all of Canada, including Quebec. There is also the update on the housing strategy. In January, Quebec and Ottawa signed an agreement to speed up the construction of housing and the infrastructure needed to support housing construction. There are projects of national interest. I am thinking about the Contrecoeur port. Does my colleague agree that these are important investments for Quebec?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mario Simard

Bloc Québécois 12:40 p.m.

“I want more taxpayer money for my riding. I don't like that other provinces get the nice things. Give my province more money instead.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have read the entire document. The whole problem is that the major investments are being made not in Quebec, but in the oil and gas sector. The accelerated capital cost allowance in the economic update applies only to the gas sector. It does not apply to other sectors that are specific to Quebec. There is nothing for our economic sectors. There is only money for the oil and gas sector. The goal of this economic update is to give even more support to Canada's energy sector using taxpayer dollars. This is being done at Quebec's expense, just as Quebec is dealing with one of its worst tariff crises ever thanks to the United States. If my colleague does not find that outrageous, I can draw him a picture.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Tamara Kronis

Conservative 12:40 p.m.

“I want to look good by saying I listen to Quebec. But really I just want to talk about my riding's problems instead. The government should spend money to fix the crisis in my community.”

Mario Simard

Bloc Québécois 12:40 p.m.

“I don't want to answer the hard question about Quebec's substance abuse problem. I want to change the subject to attack oil companies instead. Conservatives shouldn't give greedy corporations taxpayer money.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague and congratulate her on her excellent French, even though she has not been speaking it for very long. Everyone in the Bloc Québécois agrees that she is remarkable. In my view, issues relating to substance abuse and health fall under the Government of Quebec's jurisdiction. I am not trying to avoid her question. I would, however, like to point out that I have rarely agreed with the leader of the official opposition, but I do agree with him on one thing. He has pointed out on numerous occasions that the major oil and gas companies are acting like corporate welfare claimants by asking the federal government for money. I know the Conservatives are in favour of defending the energy sector tooth and nail, but they would not stoop so low as to take money from Canadians and hand it over to the greedy oil and gas sector, which is making record profits and sending them back to the United States. On that point, I congratulate the leader of the official opposition.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Mario Beaulieu

Bloc Québécois 12:45 p.m.

“Why didn't the economic update help Quebec businesses hurt by US aluminum tariffs? I want the government to aumento money to protect my riding's industries.”

Mario Simard

Bloc Québécois 12:45 p.m.

“The Prime Minister promised help for Quebec businesses in the economic update, but it wasn't there. I don't know if we can trust his word that it's still coming. I'm worried the government won't follow through.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates

Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act

Grant Jackson

Michael Guglielmin

Yves Perron

Michael Guglielmin

Yves Perron

The Acting Speaker

Yves Perron

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Yves Perron

Tamara Kronis

Yves Perron

Mario Simard

Yves Perron

Mario Simard

Guillaume Deschênes-Thériault

Mario Simard

Tamara Kronis

Mario Simard

Mario Beaulieu

Mario Simard