“We asked to raise Old Age Security by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74, just like the government did for seniors over 75. They are also hurt by high prices. Does the member support this?”

“Mr. Speaker, as far as the economic update is concerned, the Bloc Québécois had 11 proposals to help people cope with the cost of living. One of our demands was to increase OAS by 10% for seniors aged 65 to 74, since the government did it for seniors over 75. These people are really being affected by inflation and the cost of living. Does my colleague support this measure?”

“The government should stop giving public money to oil and gas companies. Ending these subsidies would save $25.7 billion over five years. This industry makes record profits, and most of it is owned by and sold to Americans. I want to know if the member agrees with ending these subsidies.”

“Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague’s speech. Incidentally, I want to congratulate her on her French. In her speech, she told us that Canadians were relying on the government. There is one segment of the population that certainly relies heavily on the government: the people in the oil and gas industries. As for our demands for the next budget, the Bloc Québécois’ proposal is simple. We could raise $25.7 billion over five years by eliminating direct and indirect federal government subsidies to the oil and gas sector. Let us not forget that the oil and gas sector is making record profits, that it is currently exempt from the tariffs, that 60% of it is owned by Americans, and that 90% of its production is sold to Americans. It makes no sense for us to collectively give so much public money to this sector. Does my colleague agree with me?”

“The government should give more money to seniors aged 65 to 74. This costs about $3.2 billion. The government could pay for it by ending subsidies to oil companies, which would save up to $5 billion a year. I want my colleague to agree with this idea.”

“Mr. Speaker, one of the Bloc Québécois’s budget expectations for the 2025 economic update involved ending the discrimination against seniors aged 65 to 74. We have been fighting for this measure for several years now. It would cost about $3.2 billion. If the government were to end the subsidies it gives to oil companies, it could recoup nearly $6 billion a year. Let us round that down to $5 billion a year. Does my colleague not think that would be a good idea?”

“Oil companies make huge profits, but the government still gives them nearly $26 billion in subsidies. We should use that money for seniors and healthcare instead. Lowering gas taxes only helps oil companies keep more money. I want to know what my Conservative colleague thinks about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, everyone knows that the oil companies are not making huge profits these days and are struggling to make ends meet, just like the people who put gas in their cars. However, the government continues to fund them through subsidies to the tune of nearly $26 billion. With that money, we could put an end to the discrimination against seniors and even lock in a 6% health transfer escalator, which is the level it should be. Otherwise, it will drop back down to 3%. What does my Conservative colleague think about the government’s insistence on continuing to subsidize oil companies when people are struggling to make ends meet? Furthermore, the government has decided to lower taxes at the pump, but we know full well that, in the end, many experts will tell us that the oil companies are pocketing the savings.”

“I want the House to vote against this budget bill unless the government accepts our changes to it. The government rejected our ideas to protect airline passengers, show pesticide studies, and make big American companies pay their share of taxes. The federal government also still owes Quebec 814 million dollars from the carbon tax rebate and must pay for the costs of asylum seekers.”

“Mr. Speaker, I would like to give my regards to all my colleagues who are here today for this important debate, which is on last year’s budget, just two days before the next budget. I would like to digress for just a moment and mention that the Premier of Quebec, Mr. St‑Pierre Plamondon, made some important appointments today to very senior government posts. I would like to take a moment to commend my cousin, Isabelle Garon. When I was a little boy, I used to call her my big cousin. She will be working very closely with the Premier and will be responsible for his priorities and major projects. I have always been proud to be a Garon, to be part of a family that has served Quebec for generations, especially since my cousin was, until very recently, a senior vice-president in the president’s office at Desjardins. I am pleased to see that, in flagship companies like Desjardins, which is a big co-operative, there are people who want to pursue their careers by serving Quebec. That makes me very proud. I want to sincerely congratulate Isabelle Garon and everyone else who was appointed today. As I said at the outset, today we are talking about last year’s budget. We were told that it would be generational and that it would be urgent. However, 362 days later, we are still debating Bill C-31, the second budget implementation bill. Today, the Bloc Québécois presented its expectations for the next budget. The budget will of course be tabled in two days. I had some conversations with the Minister of Finance, as basic courtesy dictates. What is surprising is that, once again this year, we have to resubmit requests that we made in the past. For example, we are calling for Quebec to be reimbursed for the phony carbon tax rebate that was used to buy votes during the election campaign and partly paid for with Quebec taxpayers’ money. Our share amounts to $814 million. We are still having to ask for it. That money would allow the Government of Quebec to take additional measures to ease the pressure of the high cost of living in Quebec. Let us also consider the costs incurred by Quebec because of the influx of asylum seekers. We know that the federal government acknowledges its responsibility. An initial small payment was made, but Quebec City is still owed significant amounts of money that could be used to deliver better services and help ease the cost of living burden for Quebeckers. We are still making those requests, but most of all, we are trying to make the most effective use of taxpayers’ dollars in order to help people get through this cost of living crisis. We know that interest rates have risen again, and the Bank of Canada tells us that inflation will remain higher, around 3%, possibly throughout 2027. That is something that hits people directly in their wallets. For someone in the riding of Mirabel, inflation is not an economic indicator. It shows up on grocery store shelves. We are proposing a significant increase to the much-touted groceries and cost of living benefit. We resubmit these requests year after year because they eventually work. Sometimes governments end up listening. For example, last year, the Minister of Finance introduced the new groceries and cost of living benefit. That was something the Bloc Québécois had suggested when the war in Ukraine first broke out. It took several years, but it finally happened. Today we are calling for that benefit to be enhanced, because the Bloc Québécois’s primary concern is the people who vote for us, the voters and citizens across Quebec who are going through this cost of living crisis. Earlier on, my colleague, the member for Montcalm, mentioned the poor oil companies that are living on bread and water these days, having a hard time, unable to make ends meet. Obviously, the member for Montcalm was showing off his trademark sarcastic wit. These oil companies are getting billions of dollars in subsidies. Mr. Speaker, I know that the oil industry is active in your riding of Lac‑Saint‑Louis. One thing is clear, however: The United States has a predilection for this industry at the moment, considering that it was spared from the tariffs. A big portion of our oil output goes to the United States. Why is it that instead of helping people make the transition, the government is granting money to these companies, which are owned primarily by American shareholders? It is a fair question, not for or against the industry. It is a common sense question. Why is the government helping this sector? In Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the steel, aluminum and phosphate sectors have seen funding under the critical minerals strategy held back by government-imposed regulatory measures. The government should be helping these people. They are the ones really bearing the brunt of the tariff crisis. The growth data clearly show that the oil sector is doing anything but struggling at the moment. We are therefore reiterating our proposals. They have been costed and are self-financing. This is a responsible and thoughtful approach, and we are proud to stand behind it. Now, will the government listen to us? During committee consideration of Bill C-31 last week, the parliamentary secretary and member for Whitby, a very sweet man, would tell us with a smile, every time the opposition tabled an amendment, that we had done a good job, that the Liberals agreed with the principle of our amendments, but that they would nevertheless be voting against them. The message was clear: Our amendments were doomed to be tossed out like garbage, purely on principle. That was essentially it. At the end of the day, what does that amount to? I even heard the Minister of Government Transformation, Public Works and Procurement and Quebec Lieutenant say that the only thing he knows for certain when he gets up in the morning is that the Bloc Québécois will be complaining about something. We have pages and pages and pages of costed proposals for the people we represent, but will it all be tossed in the trash, just like our amendments during the committee study of Bill C‑31? I invite people to watch the video of that meeting. It is sad to see how the government treats members of Parliament. It is sad because, when it comes to pesticides, we know it is important to farmers to have access to products that support agricultural productivity. What did we ask for in our amendments? We wanted the government to release the scientific studies it used to authorize pesticides that were previously banned. That was too much to ask, apparently. The Liberals supported it in principle, but opposition amendments are always one step away from the trash, unfortunately. On the air transportation file, the Liberals are planning to outsource work the government should be doing. They are now contracting out work that they have not been able to do for years. We said the people handling complaints should have to meet clear criteria. That was too complicated, apparently. In parliamentary committees, the shredder is always close at hand. We said that an airline should have to pay interest if it withholds money it owes people, just as any customer would have to do. The member opposite is reacting to that. She cannot believe that her own party voted against that. I see her. She cannot believe it, and neither can we. We also said that complaints should be assigned at random, rather than by a third party selected by the airline. Airline passengers’ rights always end up in the shredder too. We raised questions about the global minimum tax. Companies that make profits in Canada but are headquartered in the United States should also contribute to the common good, since they have economic activity here, to ensure there is no unfairness toward companies that are based here. However, the Prime Minister created a special regime for the Americans, just as he did with supply management permits and the levy on digital giants. He rolled over. It is too hard for him to stand up to the U.S. President, so Bill C‑31 includes a special tax regime for the United States, for the very companies that are suffocating our media ecosystem. Under the Canadian Income Tax Act, which is extremely simple, as everyone knows, there are dollar thresholds for accessing the accelerated dispute resolution mechanism. This mechanism can be used for cases below a certain threshold. We asked that the thresholds be indexed to inflation so that we would not have to pass new legislation on that every year. In fact, the Quebec bar association proposed that idea. The government replied that if the thresholds were indexed, it would mean that the numbers would go from $50,000 to numbers that are not round numbers, that is, with cents. Since the government thinks that is too complicated, the whole idea went into the trash bin. It is hard to work constructively in a Parliament where the Prime Minister is on an authoritarian rampage and showing contempt for Parliament. The Prime Minister has nothing but contempt for the work of parliamentarians, especially when they do their work diligently. That is how last year’s budget was handled by Bill C‑31 this year. Today, I am calling on the members opposite to start recognizing the quality of the work being done on our side. Obviously, without significant amendments, it is impossible for us to vote in favour of Bill C‑31.”

“I want the government to adopt our budget ideas. We want to increase benefits for people who cannot afford daily life, stop charging the federal sales tax on used goods, and send housing money straight to Quebec. We also want to make homelessness funding permanent so help groups can plan ahead.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I really appreciate her. She knows that. We always prepare budget proposals. It is not an easy exercise because our proposals actually pay for themselves. That means that we need to find the money, so it is an exercise in choices. As I said in my speech, we need to help those who are struggling the most right now with the cost of living by increasing the benefit. We also want to eliminate the GST on secondhand goods. Quebec is ahead of Ottawa in this respect. We need to stop taxing these goods twice. In fact, this would be an environmentally responsible policy. As for policies regarding housing, rent relief and homelessness, two things need to be done. First, the money must be sent to Quebec in order to avoid duplication, and, second, certain funding must be made permanent. I am thinking of the Reaching Home program, whose funding is ending in 2028. It is not right that, at a time when we are experiencing a crisis like the homelessness crisis, a crisis in transitioning away from homelessness, organizations do not know what their funding will look like beyond 2028. That requires planning. We have prepared a package of proposals, and we hope that the government will listen to them, especially since the government has had enough time to adjust the budget.”

“The government failed to meet its debt targets, so it changed the rules instead of fixing its spending. Our deficit will be over $60 billion. A major country needs clear financial rules to track its spending, and ignoring them is irresponsible.”

“Mr. Speaker, having failed to meet its debt-to-GDP target, a target that the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects will continue to rise, the government simply chose to change the rules in its last budget. When it comes to fiscal anchors, the government is like a hockey team trailing 5-2 late in the third period that decides to add three extra periods in the hope of winning the game. It is changing the rules after the fact. When a government establishes rules so that its performance can be measured from one year to the next, it cannot simply rewrite those rules. Of course, no one is expecting a balanced budget this year. Everyone understands that the public finances have been managed loosely. That was true under the Trudeau government, and it remains true today. The deficit is expected to exceed $60 billion. No one realistically expected a balanced budget. However, the fact that there is no clear fiscal anchor to show us whether the government has met its targets from one year to the next—in a country that prides itself on being a G7 nation and reminds us of this every five seconds—is, in my view, bordering on irresponsibility.”

“Could the money we spend on the oil industry be used instead for health care, seniors, and our other priorities?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his speech. As I have said before, the member for Mirabel’s speeches are always interesting. He knows a lot more about public finances than I do, so I always learn something when I listen to him. I thank him for his speech. That being said, I heard one thing in his speech that keeps coming up. I get the impression that the government could use the money it is spending on the oil sector to address many of the Bloc Québécois’s budget priorities and many of the Canadian government’s other problems. Did I understand correctly? Could what we spend on the oil sector really be used to support seniors and fund health care and all the other priorities?”

“The government gives tens of billions of tax dollars to oil companies. That money should be used for better things. We want the government to actually spend the money it already budgeted for Indigenous housing. We also want it to make homeless funding permanent, without adding to the deficit. Giving money to oil companies and failing to spend what was promised are bad choices.”

“Mr. Speaker, tens of billions of dollars of public money is going toward that sector. They do not print that money. They take it from taxpayers’ pockets. The subsidies given to oil companies could certainly be put to better use for society. We also raised other issues in our pre-budget requests, such as indigenous housing. We are not asking for a single penny more. We are asking the government to spend the funds it has already budgeted. The government puts on a good show, tables a budget, invests in indigenous housing, and then does not even spend its own money. It is the same story when it comes to homelessness and housing. I am thinking of the Reaching Home program. We are calling for these funds to be made permanent to ensure predictability. We are not trying to run up the deficit. Drawing up a budget is about making choices. In our view, giving tens of billions of dollars to oil companies and mismanaging spending are bad choices.”