Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.
It is a pleasure for me to address the House in relation to the throne speech. However, I will confess that it was not a pleasure to read it, because it contained almost nothing.
My introduction will be fairly brief because I have a lot to say. I have plenty of content, and the Bloc has plenty of proposals. The throne speech may be vague, rambling and meagre, despite the fact that it took over 60 days to write it, which really boggles the mind, but the Bloc Québécois has things to propose. We are humbly putting those proposals on the table.
The throne speech encroaches on many areas under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction, including housing. Some of the measures in the throne speech may be worthwhile, but the government needs to be careful when it comes to jurisdiction. It talks about fighting inflation and creating a child care program. I congratulate the government for transferring funds unconditionally to Quebec. That is commendable.
However, there is still work to be done elsewhere. If the government really wants to fight inflation to help those most in need and those bearing the brunt, I have one little word to say. I said it earlier when asking a question: “seniors”.
People over the age of 65 who no longer work, who are receiving old age security and the guaranteed income supplement, need a decent increase to their income, not an insult to their intelligence and integrity. If the government is going to give an increase of $1.25 a month, it might as well not give one at all.
I am having a hard time with this. Other members spoke about this issue earlier and kept remarkably calm. I tip my hat to them, because the more time goes on, the more I struggle to keep calm when I am talking about seniors. This situation is revolting and needs to be fixed as soon as possible. The majority of members in the House would support this increase. I will therefore ask the government to make a formal commitment to this.
Other intrusions into areas of provincial jurisdiction include police reform, mental health, natural resource management, and the prevention of violence against women. We all agree on these general principles. I do not want anyone to think that we disagree with the actions. When it comes to Quebec's jurisdiction, however, the role of the federal government, which collects half the income tax but does not assume half the responsibilities, is to sign a cheque and send it to the person responsible for managing it. It is essential not to add any more layers. That is fundamental.
Rather than meddling in areas where it does not belong, I suggest that the federal government provide adequate transfer payments, in particular in health care. I will come back to that later. I also suggest that it look after its own affairs. I believe my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia will also talk about this.
With respect to gun control, for example, we are not just talking about domestic regulation, but about increasing and improving border controls. What is happening in our cities in Quebec is awful. It is a national emergency that must be addressed immediately. Managing international borders actually is the federal government's jurisdiction, so let us co-operate on this issue.
There are a lot of things missing from the throne speech. It is a vague document that does not say much. It says nothing about health transfers. I mentioned this earlier. All of the provinces and Quebec are unanimous. This is not a matter of separatists wanting to pick a fight. I do not want to hear anyone say that to me later. Please, let us elevate the debate. All of the provinces and Quebec are asking for an increase in health transfers and for the government to pay its fair share of the costs. Let it do this unconditionally, please.
We are talking about the energy transition and green financing. Let us take concrete action.
Let us also talk about the need for employment insurance reform, which was missing from the throne speech. Right now, there is someone who has to wait 12 weeks because a public official thinks that there may be fraud involved. The person waiting is a father or mother who is not getting any cheques, who cannot pay rent, who has trouble getting groceries and who has to wait 12 weeks because an official thinks that someone may have committed fraud.
We need to pay these people. It is okay if the investigation takes three years, public officials can eventually get the money back, but in the meantime people need support. Employment insurance is not something people should have to beg for; it is not a privilege, it is an insurance plan that workers contribute to.
I am getting angry because these are frustrating situations. I am thinking about people with a severe illness. It is terrible. Why not increase the period of benefits to 50 weeks?
I have already talked about seniors. Obviously, when I rise, my colleagues think that I am going to talk about agriculture and agri-food. What is there in the throne speech about that? Absolutely nothing. I would like my Liberal colleague to enlighten me about that, because I do not understand it. Is it because they do not have any ideas? Is it because they have no vision?
I certainly have a vision. I am not being pretentious, because my vision was developed through teamwork. It is not the vision of the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, but rather the Bloc Québécois’s policy: We have a vision of the future and concrete proposals to make.
What I would like to hear in a throne speech is the government’s vision. After that, we could work with the Conservatives’ and the NDP’s visions for the future of farming, and we could sit down together, as we manage to do in the standing committee on agriculture and agri-food. We could work together to find something feasible. Instead, after a 60-day wait, we have been given a document with nothing in it. I tossed my paper but that is okay, because there was really nothing of substance written on it. That was my summary of the throne speech. It boggles the mind.
As usual, my time is swiftly running out. I will therefore address three topics. Food sovereignty is a priority. Everyone is talking about it, everyone is making speeches with tears in their eyes, and so on. However, we need to act; we need to promote buying local.
Earlier when I rose, I removed my mask, which was made by the Prémont company in Louiseville. It is a Humask brand mask, made locally in Quebec. Before the holidays, my party was forced to move a motion in the House calling for the masks that are provided at the door in Parliament not to be made in China. I will refrain from saying the word that springs to mind as I think back on that ludicrous episode.
Let us talk about food sovereignty. We have to protect our people and keep our promises. I talked about the empty throne speech, but fortunately, there were a few lines on this subject in the mandate letters of the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food. That reassures me, and we will work on that with my Liberal friends.
Our goal is to support people under supply management who were sacrificed in CUSMA and pay them the compensation they were promised. These people expect this to happen immediately. Supply management must not be compromised any further. We know the solution to this problem. We know what to do. We will reintroduce a bill on this and ask once again for the government's support, which I greatly appreciated in the last Parliament. These are things we can do.
The second point I want to make about agriculture and agri-food is the environmental partnership. A Conservative member brought up this topic earlier. We must support the people who work the land and who are actively working to protect the environment. We must provide financial support, for what it is worth, in the form of a sort of “agri-investment”. We should give these people the money they need to invest in their own businesses.
The third point I want to make has to do with the reciprocity of standards. International trade is here to stay, but the government could show some basic respect to producers and subject imported goods to the same standards as goods produced here. The government will have to allocate resources at the border and conduct inspections. Let us respect Canadian producers and take real action. We are here and willing to work together. The door is wide open.