Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 10834
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
BQ (QC)
View Andréanne Larouche Profile
2021-02-26 12:40 [p.4620]
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles for his speech, in which he spoke about health care. This is a very relevant topic these days, given the pandemic.
If we want to provide better care, we need more money, as my colleague pointed out. A special committee on WE Charity would have been able to shed light on some aspects, review the spending and determine how much money was spent on this scandal, money that could have been spent on Canadian health transfers.
My colleague's party and his leader often talk about how important it is that health transfers be stable and predictable. Right now, health transfers cover 22% of total costs. Quebec and the provinces are calling for this figure to be increased to 35%. What does my colleague think about these demands? For some, stability and predictability could mean an increase of just 2% or 3%. Is my colleague prepared to go as high as 35%?
View Pierre Paul-Hus Profile
CPC (QC)
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.
I agree that health transfers must be stable. These days, however, the government is setting conditions. The Liberal Party prefers providing health transfers with strings attached and allocating money to specific sectors. We have always taken the position that the money is to be transferred with no strings attached.
However, we first have to be responsible, assess the damage caused by the Liberal government's management of COVID-19 and see how the public finances are doing at the end of the fiscal year before we can determine how much of an increase we will be able to provide. We will have a serious discussion with the provinces before making any serious proposals.
View Louis Plamondon Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, another major architect of the Quiet Revolution has passed away. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, allow me to honour the memory of Yves Martin and offer my condolences to his family and loved ones.
History will remember Mr. Martin as a founder of the Université du Québec network. Generations upon generations will continue to flourish as a result of the legacy of Mr. Martin's work to foster the intellectual enrichment of his nation. A sociologist by training, he was also central to the creation of Quebec's ministry of education and therefore the tremendous gains in education that have since enabled our young people to aspire to a future that lives up to their ambitions. Yves Martin was one of those bureaucrats who were fully devoted to public service and who laid the foundation of modern Quebec.
The Bloc Québécois also remembers his generous collaboration and, more broadly, his contribution to the sovereignist movement, alongside our greatest premiers. I thank Yves Martin for his dedication.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-02-24 14:40 [p.4494]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday we read disturbing records of official conversations between the U.S. government and former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau. We learned that, after the Parti Québécois was elected in 1976, Mr. Trudeau talked about a diplomatic and industrial strategy to undermine Quebec's economy. He asked Paul Desmarais to move his business out of Quebec, with the stated objective of doubling Quebec's unemployment rate. The Canadian prime minister was plotting to make honest people lose their jobs for political ends.
Does the Prime Minister think his predecessor's actions were worthy of the office?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-02-24 14:41 [p.4494]
Mr. Speaker, I will not get into a debate over history with the Bloc Québécois member today. What I am concerned about these days is protecting people, fighting COVID-19 and ensuring a strong economic comeback for Quebec and Canada. That is what I will continue to focus on.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-02-24 14:41 [p.4494]
Mr. Speaker, then let us talk about the present. These revelations have revived questions about federal support for Quebec's leading industries. Ottawa is abandoning our aerospace sector, since Canada is the only major country without a strategic policy for this sector. It is abandoning Davie and our shipbuilding expertise. Although Quebec is a pioneer in the electrification of transportation, the government is investing $300 million to develop batteries in Ontario. The list goes on. What looks like a definite trend today, to put it mildly, was a deliberate strategy under Pierre Elliott Trudeau.
Now more than ever, the Prime Minister must explain why he has neglected our leading industries. Will he do so?
View Justin Trudeau Profile
Lib. (QC)
View Justin Trudeau Profile
2021-02-24 14:42 [p.4494]
Mr. Speaker, on the contrary, since the start of this pandemic and since taking office five years ago, we have been investing for Quebeckers and for all Canadians.
We are investing in new technologies. We are working with our partners in Quebec and across the country to invest in aerospace and electrification. We will continue to make investments.
I know that it upsets the Bloc to see a federal government that is very present in people's lives and helping Quebeckers and Canadians every day, but that is exactly what we are doing.
View Mark Gerretsen Profile
Lib. (ON)
Madam Speaker, I note that toward the end of his speech, the member specifically talked about why the timeline is so important and about getting this done in time before other measures come into effect. I am wondering if he can comment on the seriousness of that and what it would mean if we did not get this accomplished by Friday, not just from a legal perspective, but also with regard to the real effect it would have on so many Canadians.
View David Lametti Profile
Lib. (QC)
Madam Speaker, first of all, if we fail to meet this deadline, we will have a different regime existing in Quebec than in the rest of Canada. In Quebec, the Bill C-14 regime would be enlarged to include death that is not reasonably foreseeable without any kind of safeguards. On the other hand, Quebeckers would not benefit from the Audrey Parker amendment or the other compassionate improvements that we made in the end-of-life regime.
In the rest of Canada, there are people who would like to have access to MAID who are not at the end of their life. They would be denied. This is a source of suffering for so many people and they would like it to be alleviated, but they would also not have access to the new benefits in the bill, such as the Audrey Parker amendment.
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
BQ (QC)
View Stéphane Bergeron Profile
2021-02-23 14:14 [p.4446]
Mr. Speaker, in 2000, the current U.S. President, Joe Biden, remarked that Canada's foreign policy was limited to a single issue, namely fighting Quebec, in his words. Now, documents declassified by the U.S. State Department prove he was right.
After the Parti Québécois was elected in 1976, then prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau spoke to Washington about his plans to sabotage Quebec's economy in order to undermine René Lévesque's government. The documents reveal that Trudeau asked billionaire Paul Desmarais to move his operations and investments out of Quebec in order to double the unemployment rate. He encouraged Desmarais to make things “as tough as possible” for Quebec. A prime minister of Canada plotted against Quebec's economy with the stated intention of making Quebeckers lose their jobs.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau brought shame upon himself. Quebec recognizes that and will not forget it.
View Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Speaker, I am extremely pleased to speak in the House today to the bill introduced by my colleague and friend the hon. member for Jonquière.
Almost everyone thinks the environment is important. In fact, the environment means as much to people as apple pie. I think everyone likes apple pie, therefore everyone likes the environment.
Since we have limited time to debate I will get to the point. The environment is a jurisdiction that is exclusive to Quebec and the provinces. Again, I want to reiterate that time is limited because it seems clear to me that the government would rather waste time than take action while we still can. Our window of time to deal with the environment is getting smaller by the day. Instead of taking real action, the government is still wondering about the possibility of a pan-Canadian framework. In fact, however, the governments of Quebec and most of the provinces are already taking action.
The federal government, regardless of its political stripe, has a poor track record in this regard. For example, rather than analyzing the risks associated with offshore oil drilling, the Liberal government chose to approve such activity. The same is true of a large number of other projects. However, we are not fooled. If the Liberals really cared about the environment and thought it was important to act, they would have done so a long time ago.
It is crystal clear to me that we need to protect the environment, but the best way of doing that is not to greenwash the government's record with lip service. Instead, we need to take the tools that exist in Quebec and the provinces and apply them to federal projects. We also need to listen to scientists, the very people that the Liberals keep saying over and over that they rely on when making decisions.
It is 2021. We are past the point of asking all these questions that scientists have already asked and answered. My colleagues who are listening may have good intentions and may still believe their government's claims of environmentalism. However, I am telling the House that, if there were oil in Lac Saint-Jean, the government would surely come up with a good reason to extract it.
That is why it is especially true that no one is better placed than Quebec and the provinces to deal with environmental issues. Not only does each province have its own environmental ministry with competent expert scientists, but they are also responsible for managing natural resources, water resources and other resources within their borders. That is why the federal government should start by respecting Quebec and provincial environmental laws. It needs to respect the jurisdictions set out in our Constitution, which have been clear for over 150 years.
It is significant that a sovereignist is the one reminding the government of the basics of federalism.
With the House's permission, I would like to make a suggestion. A few weeks ago, during the debate on the Canada water agency, I pointed out that the Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-225, sponsored by the eminent member for Jonquière, on Quebec's environmental sovereignty. What I am saying today is practically copy-paste, because instead of analyzing federal laws, Bill C-225 would amend them and make them more effective. I will therefore vote in favour.
Let us be pragmatic for a minute. If we admit that it is important to protect the environment, we also have to admit that it is urgent. If it is urgent, let us choose the fastest, most effective way possible. In our case, that is the rules made by Quebec and the provinces because they are the toughest and they already exist.
Logically, if my colleagues behave in accordance with their desire to protect the environment, they will agree with me that the federal government should make sure its own infrastructure and laws respect the provinces' and municipalities' rules instead of squabbling with them over jurisdiction and always trying to decide who should be making the laws. It is simple: Provincial legislators should be responsible for everything related to the environment because that is what they are there for.
There is another question we must ask ourselves: Who do we work for? I want to remind the House who I work for and why I am here. I work for my constituents, for the people of Lac-Saint-Jean. When it comes to the environment, I work for my children's generation in particular. I work for young people who, as recently as a few weeks ago, were telling me that they are sick of the bureaucratic quagmire and tired of the federal government stalling on everything and accomplishing nothing. What is the point of sitting around a table wondering how to put out a fire when the firefighters are outside with the hoses and nozzles?
Being responsible parliamentarians also means delegating certain aspects to our Quebec provincial counterparts when the time is right, instead of always ignoring their existence or considering them inferior. Now is the time.
Where is the federal government's credibility in relation to multinationals when it authorizes offshore drilling? Where is the federal government's credibility in relation to riverside communities when it allows pipelines and trains to spill into those rivers? Where is the federal government's credibility in relation to municipalities struggling to provide safe drinking water to their residents when the feds cannot provide safe drinking water to indigenous communities? Where is the federal government's credibility in relation to endangered marine mammals when it allows the marine industry to regulate itself? Where is the federal government's credibility, full stop? We are still looking for an answer.
In North America and around the world, there is only one government that is looking after its environment properly and that has credibility, and that is Quebec. Quebec is committed to preserving its collective treasures. It does not do so by waffling, but by taking action. For example, integrated watershed-based management allows Quebec to plan measures for the protection and use of water resources. The Government of Quebec achieved that by focusing on collaboration between all decision-makers, users and civil society. This did not happen by holding a brainstorming session 25 years later about how to delegate jurisdictions that do not belong to us.
The proof that Quebec and the provinces are managing very well without the federal government is that when watersheds straddle the Canada or U.S. border, Quebec collaborates and establishes agreements, such as the Great Lakes-St. Lawrence River Basin Sustainable Water Resources Agreement. The federal government should respect that.
To tackle climate change, Quebec includes measures to foster the conservation and protection of water resources and the resilience of ecosystems and associated species. The federal government should respect that.
When other countries want to build a dam, they turn to Hydro-Québec and its expertise. The federal government should respect that.
We should look to the provinces for inspiration. As federal legislators, we should be creating legislation that reinforces provincial jurisdictions.
If the House passes the bill introduced by my colleague from Jonquière, Quebec's laws concerning land development and environmental protection will apply across all of Quebec, regardless of jurisdiction. This means that airport developers' privileges will not be put ahead of Quebec's Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land and agricultural activities or municipal bylaws. It also means that telecommunications giants will have to come to an agreement with municipalities and respect the wishes of local residents when putting up their towers and antennas. As with all other similar projects, infrastructure under federal jurisdiction will be subject to the assessment process of the Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement du Québec, or BAPE, and other provincial assessment processes. Developers will require a certificate of authorization from these governments before going ahead. Federal government property will have to comply with development plans and municipal bylaws adopted by local authorities, on top of providing better environmental protections and more cohesive land development.
Bill C-225 will establish legal certainty for developers, residents and environmental protection groups. It will settle the many legal disputes over shared jurisdictions. If the federal minister authorized a project that violated a provincial law, the minister would be violating a federal law. This would resolve the issue of jurisdictional disputes and it would save time and money.
I hope this helped clear things up for many a member of the House. Once again, I thank the member for Jonquière for this very important bill.
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2021-02-22 14:53 [p.4372]
Mr. Speaker, only one official language is in jeopardy in Quebec and Canada and that is French.
In Quebec, we have come up with tools to defend French, starting with the Charter of the French Language. The problem is that federally regulated businesses are not subject to it. Again, Ottawa thinks that it can do better than Quebec.
The solution is simple. Make federally regulated businesses subject to Bill 101.
Why complicate life when it can be so simple?
View Mélanie Joly Profile
Lib. (QC)
Mr. Speaker, it is not complicated.
We recognize that French is in decline in Quebec and across the country and we want to protect and promote our beautiful language of Molière. Everyone must do their part, both in Quebec and in the provinces and at the federal level. We will take our responsibilities.
We are acting in good faith and we recognize that we need to secure new rights, including in the private sector, to ensure the right to work and the right to be served in French in our federally regulated businesses. We are heading in the right direction.
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Beaulieu Profile
2021-02-22 14:54 [p.4372]
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois actually introduced a bill to make federally regulated businesses subject to the Charter of the French Language, as called for by the Quebec National Assembly, the Government of Quebec and all of Quebec's former premiers, including Liberal and PQ premiers. It seems that they cannot help themselves. The will of Quebec just does not matter to this government.
Why is the minister refusing to listen to Quebec when it is speaking with one voice? Why is she refusing to have the Charter of the French language apply to all Quebec workers?
Results: 1 - 15 of 10834 | Page: 1 of 723

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Show both languages
Refine Your Search
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data