“The government is rushing bills at the last minute and forcing us to work all night. They should talk to us before introducing bills so we can plan ahead and work together.”

“Mr. Speaker, I am glad my colleague enjoyed my speech. That is nice. However, I will tell him that the Liberals are going to beat Stephen Harper if they continue on this path. They are going to break the record. That is not the way to do it. In my opinion, if, a few months ago, the Liberals had included in the calendar the bills they wanted to deal with on a priority basis for June instead of forcing us to deal with them two weeks before the end of the parliamentary session, forcing everyone to work until midnight and then get up at 6 a.m. to start all over, that would have made sense. We could have developed a work plan and worked together. They did not even talk to us about Bill C‑30 beforehand. The government should talk to us before introducing bills, and we can make proposals to speed things up.”

• Answered
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 100 of 100

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

  See full analysis →

“We are working for farmers. We want the government to run more efficiently, not give up control. We must follow science, but most people in Parliament use that word without knowing what it means.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question because it gives me an opportunity to elaborate on my point, especially if any farmers are listening to us right now and wondering whether we are still working for them. Of course we are. We work for their best interest and in everyone’s best interest. We must retain some control. This gives me an opportunity to explain that what we are criticizing is a lack of efficiency. We do not want to take control away. It is important to be guided by science. A whole lot of people in Parliament have been enjoying saying the words “science-based” all week long, but I am not sure whether 25% of them even understand what it means when they say it.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 37 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →
• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 39 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 →

“I do not support this bill. It does nothing to help forestry and aluminum workers in my riding. It also plans to sell off local airports and wharves. Remote communities in my region rely on them for food, mail, and medical care. Private companies will not buy them, so the government is just abandoning these towns. The government needs to keep and repair this infrastructure. It also needs to stop cutting off debate on this bill.”

“Mr. Speaker, I was slow to rise because I was delighted with my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé’s comments. We just talked about another topic, infrastructure and airports. Obviously, I have a lot to say about Bill C‑30. I am thinking, for example, of the work done by my colleague from Jonquière on everything to do with the industry. In my riding, workers in the forestry and aluminum sectors need help. The industry also needs help, but the government is doing absolutely nothing. That affects us back home. Budgets, economic updates and supplementary estimates address a number of issues, but a lot of other issues are left out. When I go back to my riding this summer and speak to people, they will not know what the government has done for them, all the more so because it has put their jobs at risk. The Prime Minister said he would come to the aid of all these industries ahead of the CUSMA negotiations, which are dragging on, yet nothing has been done. The suggestions we made—the entirely reasonable proposals put forward by the Bloc Québécois—have fallen on deaf ears with the government. I do not even know if it has looked at them. As my colleague for Berthier—Maskinongé said, we were not consulted on what should be included in these supplementary estimates. I see this as evidence of contempt on the part of government. An opposition is not there simply to oppose. Yes, that is what we are called, and we are on the other side of the chamber, but we also have proposals to put forward. We see what is missing and what is being done wrong. We see how the government is improvising. That is why we are here. We are also here to improve things, for our constituents, of course, but I think we can also help the constituents of the ruling party. My colleague demonstrated this on the issue of pesticides: the government decided to shift its priorities. I do not even know if the economy is as important as public health or if it has become even more important. In my view, it is a truly dangerous practice to allow a minister to listen to lobbyists and ultimately decide that a once-banned pesticide is acceptable after all and can be authorized, regardless of the health implications. They can argue that this is truly more important for the economy, but there is also a connection to be made between the economy and security. This is very concerning. Most of my colleagues have mentioned this, but it is very concerning. The public may not realize it, but it is our role to point out that this is concerning, that the public’s health is being put on the back burner to accommodate certain lobby groups that are exerting significant pressure on the government. That is our job. I said I would talk about transportation, and I also spoke about contempt. I would like to remind members that I represent a huge riding. I cannot help that my riding covers 350,000 square kilometres and is mostly along the river, stretching 1,400 kilometres along its banks. It also includes remote areas, since it is a northern riding. Some of these areas are so isolated that they are almost like islands, and obviously do not have access to the services available to people in major urban centres. That is understandable, but with its bill, the government is threatening some of our hard-won gains. I say “gains”, although not everything is perfect. Let us look at airports and ports. I know that airports are included in Bill C-30, but the government also added some ports that it wants to get rid of. In my region, on the north shore, particularly in the eastern part, on the lower north shore, there are 15 airports and ports that the government wants to divest itself of. That is a big deal to me. Yes, it is a big number, but it is also huge in terms of its significance and the message it sends to the people of my region. The government says it has an amazing $25-billion sovereign wealth fund. We have no idea how it will be funded because the government does not have a surplus. What it does have is record deficits. Maybe it needs some ideas. What can it do? It can sell the furniture. It can sell its assets. It can try to squirrel away a little cash, then say that the sovereign wealth fund is funded and will make some amazing projects possible. In regions like mine, this worries people. Some people may not know this because they are not familiar with every riding, but, in my riding, airports are the only link to the outside world. When we say they are people’s only link, that means they are the only way to access health care. Anyone about to give birth or in need of medical care has to get on a plane. If we want to get mail from Canada Post, for example, it has to come by plane. If we want workers, they have to come by plane. If we want food at times of the year when the supply ship cannot get through because of the ice, it also has to come by plane. I mentioned ice, but even in summer there are ports where food should be arriving, yet they are no longer in service. People are worried. On the one hand, these are not major ports or airports, and private companies see no benefit in buying them. They really have no interest in doing so. What worries us is that the government wants to divest itself of assets. We are fine with that if it can make money from it, but, on the other hand, we have seen that the only way for the government to make money is to make cuts across the board. It is not creating wealth; it is scraping together a bit here and there, asking where it could find a bit of money, given that it cannot manage to create any. It is absolutely incapable of doing so. That is what the government is doing right now, so we are wondering whether it is going to help us. For starters, this infrastructure is run down. Some of it is dangerous. We cannot even access some parts of the wharves, even though food is delivered using those wharves. People board boats there too. Their safety is already at risk, and the government is not putting enough money into this infrastructure to maintain it and keep people safe. Now, the government is saying that it is going to try to sell that infrastructure. It is going to try to sell this rundown infrastructure to someone when it does not bring in any money. That does not work. What is the government telling people in my riding? It is saying that it is simply going to stop taking care of that infrastructure and just abandon it. It is going to close certain airports and shut down certain wharves. I mentioned 15 ports and airports, but there are more. There is also the Wabush airport, which is going to be put up for sale. Wabush is next door to my riding, and the airport there provides access to some parts of my riding. It is actually in Labrador, but that is where I have to fly into, like many other workers, doctors, nurses and so on. That airport is critical for us. I think it is contemptuous to turn up like that and make a big announcement saying that the government is going to find $25 billion by selling infrastructure without even telling the public about it. The government should reassure the public by saying that, even though the lower north shore is not profitable, the government will keep its ports and airports and make the necessary updates. The government is always saying that the north should be populated, that it is a strategic territory, that indigenous communities should be supported and that it should be developed. These are communities of 200, 400, 500 and 1,000 people. By depriving these communities of key infrastructure and the funding that goes with it, the government is telling these communities to close their doors and towns and not engage in development. There would be thousands of square kilometres where absolutely nothing will get done, even though there is extraordinary potential there. What is more, people are already developing these regions. Imagine the effect of such news on these communities when no one calls the developers. Neither the Minister of Transport nor his parliamentary secretary has given an answer to these communities. Are they supposed to wait on their development projects? We need wharves for development. We need an airport to attract residents. We are trying to develop our tourism industry, but no one will be able to get to our communities anymore, unless they come by rowboat, and they can only do that two weeks out of the year, because the water is too rough the rest of the time. It is the opposition’s job to speak out against this. It is my role as the member of the riding to say that this does not make sense. I have to ask the Liberals to answer our questions. I would really like for the minister to ask me questions about these airports and ports so that I can discuss the situation with him. However, this should not be done with contempt. The government should not be leading people to believe that it is going to make all kinds of money by selling infrastructure that is not sellable and that no private buyers will be interested in. All of that is just part of what is in Bill C-30. That is the substance. It is unbelievable. As for the form, the government does not even want to discuss it in the House. This is an authoritarian government. I do not like using that word, but it is increasingly applicable. Ten years ago, I would never have thought that I would have to say this. I spoke about arrogance and contempt. The government does not listen; it puts blinders on and does whatever it wants, even though the members sitting on my side of the House say on behalf of the people of Quebec and Canada that this is not what they want. I would like the government to listen to us and to give us the proper amount of time to debate. The Liberals are setting a new record for the number of closure motions. Meanwhile, silencing members means silencing the people in my riding and in Quebec.”

“People in my region do not want the government to sell or close 15 ports and airports. The government should not sell off infrastructure and take on more debt to create a sovereign wealth fund. Other countries pay for their funds with budget surpluses.”

“Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague’s question in two parts. First, when I hear that all Canadians have been heard, I would really like my colleague to come to the lower north shore. I invite him to come to the lower north shore and Minganie this summer to tell people that the 15 ports and airports that his government would like to sell off or perhaps even close is really what they asked for. They did not ask for villages to be shut down. Then, on the subject of the sovereign wealth fund, we are told that all countries have one. However, my colleague is overlooking one small detail: The other countries that have such a fund are funding it with their budgetary surpluses. They are not selling off infrastructure to scrape together a bit of money to set up a sovereign wealth fund. That is the huge difference. Canadians did not ask to be saddled with more debt.”

“The government's plan has no clear vision. It does not spend enough to help local economies, and it creates funds without money just to look good.”

“Mr. Speaker, that is just one data point. That said, I will not defend the government. Things seem grim over there, and there is not as much spending as we would like to see to stimulate all sectors of our economy, particularly local ones. I think a broader perspective is called for—a vision, even. I am sure my colleague feels that the government’s current proposal lacks vision. The way I see it, creating a sovereign wealth fund without actually having the money suggests a lack of vision. They have no idea what they are trying to achieve, but they want to look good. It is meaningless. It is basically the same thing. What are they trying to accomplish? How are they going to fix the situation? What is the government’s vision? Maybe that explains the figures we are seeing, but I hope this does not become a bad habit.”

• Little substance
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Signal 21 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 →

“Indigenous peoples still face many challenges. National Indigenous Peoples Day is in a few days, and I want my colleague to talk about it.”

“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech, which was packed with truth and clearly articulated. She spoke about indigenous peoples, who are often mentioned here in lofty terms, but who, in reality, still face many challenges. National Indigenous Peoples Day is coming up in a few days. I would like my colleague to say a few words about that.”

“Indigenous communities need ports and airports to travel, as well as better housing and clean water. The government is not listening to or consulting First Nations.”

“Mr. Speaker, when I spoke about ports and airports, I was referring to indigenous communities. I am thinking of the Innu communities of Unamen Shipu, Pakuashipi, Nutashkuan and even Mingan and Ekuanitshit, which need this infrastructure to develop. We are already aware of the needs in these communities, particularly when it comes to housing. We have also discussed infrastructure issues related to water and employment and all manner of issues. There are already a great many areas where we need to take action. Now the government is saying that we might not be able to get out anymore. It is the same for the communities of Nutashkuan, Unamen Shipu and La Romaine. In short, this shows a lack of respect for first nations. It means the government is not listening to them, and it is certainly not consulting them.”

• Didn't answer
  ?

  Reply to a debate question

  Relevance 44 of 100

  None of this reply addressed the specific point raised or the topic under debate.

  See full analysis →