“I will vote against this budget bill. It does not help small businesses in Quebec deal with American tariffs, and it gives more money to oil and gas companies. The government also ignored our ideas and rushed the bill through without proper discussion.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that we are rather disappointed with Bill C-31. We are disappointed because neither the implementation bill nor the economic update really take into account the current tariff crisis. This serious crisis is affecting businesses in general, but, once again, it has been particularly hard on businesses in Quebec, where these tariffs apply to one-quarter of exports. Smaller businesses have been particularly hard hit. That is something else that makes Quebec unique. When I say that the country of Quebec already exists, I mean that there are already structural differences between Quebec and Canada. Quebec’s economy is made up of SMEs, and they need support. They need a government that is there for them and that tells them that we are going through a tough time because our neighbours to the south have an unpredictable president. No one here knows what he will do next. There is nothing worse for the economy and for our businesses than uncertainty, so we have to be there for them, but the government is not taking serious action. Then, the Bloc Québécois put forward 11 requests. That may seem like a lot, but they are reasonable requests. We wanted to put them up for discussion. Ever since I arrived here in 2019, the Bloc Québécois has been an intelligent and constructive opposition. In fact, it is in the Bloc Québécois’s DNA to work that way. We are not here to obstruct everything, despite what some may think or say. We are here to move things forward for the common good, at least for the time being, of course, because our ultimate goal remains achieving Quebec’s independence. In our day-to-day work here, we are well aware that time is of the essence and that our goal is far from unrealistic. It is essential to the full and comprehensive development of our society, in accordance with its values and, above all, its priorities. It is not that Canada is not a beautiful country. That is not the issue, and this is not directed against Canada. It is really about our own development according to our own choices and priorities. This will certainly be done in partnership with Canada, since Canada will always be an important neighbour. However, we are in Parliament and we have made proposals. We asked our colleagues to look at them and we have not even received a call. There has not even been 12 seconds of consultation. Things were different a few months ago. However, because of some backroom deals, people crossed the floor and the government built itself a majority. Once it had a majority, consultation was over. The government talks a good game. They say that they will continue to work in the common interest and listen to opposition parties, and so on. In fact, the reality is that we get bills like C‑31, for which we did some serious work early on. That is probably the most insulting part of all of this. It is not as though we did not bother to work or as though we just spouted some populist rhetoric and said that the government is bad or rotten. We analyzed the situation. We have a team of researchers and a team of MPs. We are serious. We are dedicated. We came up with real proposals. I get the feeling that the government did not even bother to read them. Of course, we fully expected that some of our proposals would be rejected, such as the idea to reimburse Quebeckers for the money that was stolen from us and used to buy Liberal votes in the last election. We included that out of principle, to make sure no one forgets. We honestly do not understand why this is not generating more reaction in the media. That said, it seems to me that the government should have considered some of the other proposals. After all, it claims to be reasonable. Bill C-31 is a major, complex bill that is several hundred pages long and that contains numerous amendments. Once again, and this sums up the essence of my speech this morning, the Bloc leader’s office requested, in good faith and in a constructive way, a briefing session on the subtleties and specific features of the bill. We waited more than three weeks before that briefing was held. It took place this week. At the same time, we are expected to pass this bill as soon as possible. The answer is going to be no. We cannot hand over a blank cheque for such important, large-scale measures while the government continues to expand its subsidies to the oil and gas industry, for example. Enough is enough. Let us be serious and work together. This government has three years left, if it manages to hold on to its majority. People may get fed up, like the former environment minister, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, who announced this week that he is leaving politics. Now that is really something, forcing someone like him to leave politics. That means that the Liberals have pushed things too far when it comes to the highly polluting oil from the west. That is also part of the issue. Returning to today’s topic, the bill proposes to once again expand oil and gas industry subsidies. We requested a briefing to ensure that we properly understood the bill, but since the Liberals won a majority, the government seems to scorn us. They seem to have no need for a group of MPs that want Quebec to become independent. They seem no longer interested in even talking to us, now that they can vote as a majority and pass bills as fast as they please. Is that democracy? Has the government now decided to administer things at lightning speed? Let us just say that we do not like it. Furthermore, based on our initial interpretation, considering the limited time we were given and the information we received, Bill C-31 opens the door to increased government powers and less transparency. We also see that the system for processing air traveller complaints has changed. The government appears to be trying to sweep that issue under the rug. We are deeply concerned about travellers’ rights. The government says it wants to take a different approach by having these complaints handled not by the Canadian Transportation Agency, but by a private firm. Once again, and I will repeat this several times in my speech to make sure that the government hears me, we were not given a proper explanation and we were not given the opportunity to carefully examine the provisions of this bill. As we understand it, we could end up with private companies working for the airlines to quickly resolve passengers’ complaints. Now passengers can be treated with contempt by those companies too. Why not? That is already the way things have been going. It is unfortunate, but for all of these reasons, I have to announce that we will be voting against this bill. Before I close, I want to mention a few of the constructive proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois. For one, the government needs to stop subsidizing big oil. Oil companies are making exorbitant profits. When the government makes the mistake of removing a tax, it does not take long for the benefits to disappear. We saw this with the suspension of the excise tax and the 10¢ rebate. How many years has the Bloc Québécois been repeating the same message? If the government removes a tax, then this greedy sector will fill that void and put the money in its own pockets. That is what happened. If the government removes another tax, then the same thing will happen. The oil companies will wait a few weeks and then they will do it subtly on some pretext about what is happening abroad. At the end of the day, they will pocket the money. Enough with the subsidies. There are other things we could be doing with those billions of dollars. Take SME wage subsidy programs, for example. They play a vital and important role in maintaining the economic fabric of our regions. However, they are not being used. As for the EI reform, it makes no sense for an EI system to cover only about 60% of its contributors. It means that 40% of people contributing to the plan are throwing money out the window and will never qualify for benefits. We cannot accept that. It constitutes a serious injustice. We could talk about the spring gap that seasonal workers face. There are lots of things we could talk about. We need meaningful measures for our media, the reinstatement of the digital services tax and the reinstatement of labour tax credits. The federal government must listen to the opposition parties. We are not here to block everything. We are here to contribute our opinion, to share Quebec’s take on situations and to work constructively. I am sending the government a message. If it wants us to vote in favour of a future bill, it will have to get serious and respect opposition MPs, because just like Liberal MPs, they too were elected.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The Prime Minister talks a good game.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since May 29.

  Every time it was said →

“The government claims it works with other parties, but it stopped doing that once it made a deal to get a majority. Minority governments are better because they have to cooperate and pass fair laws.”

“Mr. Speaker, he is not the only one who is disappointed. I am disappointed with that answer. The government talks a good game. It says that it is working co-operatively and that it voted in favour of private members’ bills, but that was when there was a minority government. For the past few weeks, the government has had a rigged majority, a manufactured majority. It is a similar story in the previous Parliament. At a certain point, the government made a deal with the NDP and started acting like a majority government. Co-operation happens in a minority setting. That should send an important message to the public. We heard the parliamentary secretary. The best government is a minority government. It helps prevent authoritarian excesses and bills that are passed are reasonable and arise from consensus.”

• Echo ×4

  A repeated line

  “The Prime Minister talks a good game.”

  Said 4 times by 2 members since May 29.

  Every time it was said →

“I want the government to drop the excise tax for small local producers who make alcohol from berries and maple syrup. It will not cost much, and it will help our farmers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I know that for many years he was the Bloc Québécois agriculture critic and I know that he cares about local craft producers of berry-based alcoholic beverages. The Bloc Québécois is proposing a modest measure that would not cost the government much, but that would make a difference for local producers of alcoholic beverages made from berries and maple syrup. Can my colleague explain to the government how exempting small local producers from the excise tax would make life much easier for our farmers?”

“I want the government to support small businesses by cutting taxes on berry-based alcohol, just as it did for mead. This would help local farmers and cost very little money.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her intelligent and logical question. I hope the government is listening when I say that this is essential. This measure has already been implemented in the case of mead, for example. When it was done in committee, it was done quickly, and the amendment was incomplete, because it did not include berry-based alcohol. This is a fundamental measure. There are a lot of members on the other side of the House. The Liberals often boast about having 44 members from Quebec and representing the regions. Many of the members across the aisle have farmers in their ridings. We are not talking about huge sums of money here, unlike the billions of dollars the government is throwing at oil companies. Let us be serious and support small businesses.”

“A minority government is supposed to work with other parties to pass bills. That usually makes laws better. Right now, the government is not listening to us or reading our ideas.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for her question, which is an interesting one. Having a minority government forces parties to compromise. Absolute power is never a good thing. When the government has a minority, it is forced to consult with the other parties. If it wants a bill to be passed, it must talk with with the opposition and convince them. The opposition may raise some concerns; it may say that it agrees on one thing, but that another aspect should also be considered. The best thing about that—and I have experienced this over many years—is that, often, the government realizes that it is actually a good idea. They mull it over and may even include it. That is how it worked when we discussed legislation to protect supply management. The trouble at the moment is that the government is not listening to us anymore; I am not even sure they have read our proposals. That is the tragic part about it.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

  Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.

  See full analysis →

“The Liberals need to talk to the Bloc Québécois about the budget. They did not consult us on our plan to help small businesses with wages, and they took three weeks just to brief us. Now they want to rush a vote this week, and we will not support it.”

“Mr. Speaker, we could spend all day getting caught up in semantics, but the parliamentary secretary is completely mistaken. When private members’ bills were passed, the Liberals were in the minority. That is the key difference. I hope they will do it again. They will probably do it for bills that are not controversial. For example, if we vote on the bill establishing Arab heritage month, which is currently under consideration and is a consensus bill, they will take credit for passing private members’ bills. When it comes to the substance of the budget, it seems to me that if the parliamentary secretary were even remotely serious, he would take a moment to reflect. He would speak with the members of his party and tell them that he did not come across very well this morning in Parliament and that the Liberals might want to have a little chat with the members of the Bloc Québécois. The parliamentary secretary is talking about attitude, but our attitude has not changed. We are always constructive. He says that a wage subsidy proposal for SMEs is not a good idea. The Liberals do not have to accept it, but they should at least talk to us about it. There was no consultation. We waited three weeks to get a briefing. Now the government is saying that we need to have a vote this week. The answer is written on my face, because I am not allowed to use the words I want to use.”

“Small businesses in Quebec have different needs than businesses in the rest of Canada. Current government programs do not fit their reality, and many are closing. I want my colleague to explain what small businesses in Quebec actually need and what the government should have done to help them.”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to ask my colleague to talk about what SMEs in Quebec really need. We know that the Bloc Québécois is very close to businesses in our communities, which have a different approach than the rest of Canada. What we are hearing from these business people is that the measures currently in place are not adapted to their reality. Businesses are closing and the regions are in a precarious economic situation. What could the government have done to prevent this situation?”

“The government should give wage subsidies instead of just loans. Loans give small businesses too much debt. Right now, the government focuses on helping big companies, not small ones in our regions. I want the government to work with us to find better ways to help them.”

“Mr. Speaker, for one, it could have done more than just provide loans, because, eventually, a company’s debt level rises dramatically. I just mentioned the wage subsidy. What a wonderful way to preserve the economic fabric of the regions by maintaining the employment relationship between the worker and the company, even if production has to slow down or operations have to stop temporarily. It seems that the government’s current intention is to see small businesses disappear and for everything to be concentrated in large companies, because the focus is on helping large companies. I hope that is not the case, but I feel I need to raise the issue publicly. I would like an answer on that. Ordinary people in the regions are asking us for help, asking us for support, and the government should be more present than it is. At the very least, I urge the government to sit down with us so that we can discuss potential solutions. If it does not like this solution, let us find another one that will suit everyone. That is how government is supposed to work for the common good.”

“Quebec needs $700 million from the federal government to pay for taking in asylum seekers. I want to know if the member would give Quebec that money if she were Prime Minister.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask my colleague a question in French, to give her the opportunity to practise for her next leadership race. One never knows. I want to ask her about the money the federal government owes Quebec. I could talk about the $814 million that was sent out right before the election to buy votes, but I will not go there. I want to ask her about the large numbers of asylum seekers arriving in Quebec. I am sure my colleague would agree that these people need to be taken care of. That costs money, and it falls under federal jurisdiction. We have been asking the federal government to do its part for many years now. We estimate that Ottawa owes Quebec $700 million. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on that. Hypothetically, if she had been elected leader and found herself the Prime Minister of Canada, is that the kind of thing she would do to finally take Quebec’s reality into account?”

“The government gave tax exemptions to mead and apple cider, but not to berry-based spirits. I want my colleague to push the finance minister to change this bill so makers of berry and maple liqueurs get the same tax break.”

“Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, has given us a glimpse into the beauty of his riding, and it has made me want to spend my summer holidays in that part of the country. I do not know if Tatamagouche is in his riding, but I had the pleasure of taking a short trip to that area. I know that his riding includes cities as well as rural areas, and I am guessing there are berry growers in his riding who produce spirits. My colleagues will hear me talking about this several times today because this ongoing injustice is close to my heart. Three years ago, Justin Trudeau’s Liberal government granted an excise duty exemption for mead-based berry spirits and also for apple cider, but not for berry-based spirits. I would like to know if my colleague is willing to pressure his government to add an amendment to Bill C-31 that would make things fair for other berry producers, such as those who make blueberry or maple liqueurs. This is an important issue in rural Quebec. There are many Liberal members from Quebec who know that what I am saying is important. Is my colleague ready to take up the cause in his own province and make it clear to the Minister of Finance that it is time to right this wrong?”