“I want permission from the House to share my speaking time with the member for Jonquière.”

“Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with my highly respected colleague from Jonquière.”

“I do not support this economic update. It does nothing to help with US tariffs on steel and aluminum. It cuts gas taxes, which only helps oil companies while gas prices stay high. The government should stop giving billions to oil companies and spend that money on housing, pensions, and employment insurance instead. I also worry that changes to food and pesticide rules put corporate profits ahead of public health.”

“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.”

“The agriculture committee is doing great work, and my party will keep working with others on it. When we export food to Asia, we must be careful about recent rule changes for food safety and pest control. The government must study this closely so public health is not put at risk.”

“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.”

“The government is taking too much control over committee work and meeting in secret. I want the Liberals to stop acting like this and work fairly with other parties.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“The government did not talk to the Bloc Québécois to see what we want in this economic update. For example, Ottawa still has not paid Quebec back for asylum seekers or for the carbon tax. I want my colleague to speak about this.”

“Mr. Speaker, in his excellent speech, my colleague pointed out that no negotiations have taken place between the Bloc Québécois and the government to determine what might make this economic statement acceptable to the Bloc Québécois. Some things are quite obvious, such as the fact that the federal government has never reimbursed Quebec for services provided to asylum seekers or for the carbon tax. I would like my colleague to talk about these two glaring inequities by the federal government.”

“The government owes Quebec 14 million dollars for the carbon tax and over 700 million dollars for asylum seekers. I want Quebec to get this money back. Things like this make me want Quebec to become an independent country even sooner.”

“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.”

• Off topic
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 0 of 100

  None of this statement addressed the specific topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 35 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“The government's economic update ignores Quebec. It does nothing to help our forestry and aluminum industries with high U.S. tariffs. Instead, it spends money to help foreign-owned oil and gas companies.”

“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.”

“This plan spends public money on oil and gas instead of helping Quebec. It gives tax breaks to the gas industry, but nothing to Quebec's economy, even while we face severe U.S. tariffs.”

“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.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“Healthcare belongs to Quebec, not the federal government. Also, big oil and gas companies should not get government handouts when they are making record profits.”

“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.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 28 of 100

  Much of this statement went to praise, blame, greetings, routine procedure or general stories rather than reasons, requests or specific points.

  See full analysis →

“New American taxes on steel and aluminum will hurt small and medium businesses in Quebec. The government did not mention this in its economic update. What does my colleague think about this?”

“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his excellent speech. As we have seen and as we know, the U.S. President has increased tariffs on aluminum- and steel-based products. This will have a major impact on Quebec SMEs. The Bloc Québécois spoke about this often prior to the economic update. The economic update came, but had not a word to say about it. Can my colleague tell us more about that?”

“The Prime Minister promised us an answer in the economic update, but it had nothing in it. Now he says an answer is coming. I do not know if we can trust his word.”

“Mr. Speaker, we were all astonished, especially since the leader of the Bloc Québécois seems to have told the Prime Minister about the situation. The following day, after the Prime Minister was made aware of the problem, he told us that we would get an answer in the economic update. Then, lo and behold, the economic update arrived with absolutely nothing. On Wednesday, the Prime Minister said that it was on the way and that we would get an answer. Can we take him at his word? The next few days will tell whether the government walks the talk, but this is deeply concerning.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →