Debates of May 23rd, 2024

Opposition Motion—Federal Intrusions in the Exclusive Jurisdictions of Quebec and the Provinces

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is somewhat sad that a political entity in the House would not support, for example, a senior who is on a fixed income and requires dental services having access to a national dental program. It is somewhat sad that some members would advocate that it is okay to leave a hungry child in a school setting because they do not support a national food program.

Would the member agree that sometimes we need to put the party aside in the best interest of the constituents we serve?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, what is even sadder is that my colleague's only solution for seniors is the dental care plan. He did not talk at all about what his government is responsible for. Let us be clear. Old age security should be taken care of by his government, which increased the benefits by only 10%, and only for people aged 75 and over. I keep hearing about it every day. Seniors do not understand why his government, which is in charge of this program, has not taken care of people aged 65 to 74. They are falling through the cracks. They do not have more money in their pockets. That is what I do not understand and find very sad.

As for setting partisanship aside, I will say again that if something is good for Quebec, we will vote in favour of it, and if it is not good for Quebec, we will vote against it. My colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou has worked on the issue of food assistance for children.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for my colleague. Our leader spoke about this earlier in his speech. The Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the budget allocations. We even heard the leader and some of his Bloc Québécois colleagues say that it was no big deal, that there is no time for that.

The Liberal Party of Canada's meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions has been apparent for a long time and these budget allocations are partly to blame.

Why did she vote for those?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, here is a lesson in introductory politics and economics. Estimates and allocations, votes on budgets and votes on budgetary allocations are not the same thing. We oppose the Liberal government's really reckless, often ineffective and poorly targeted spending. We voted against the budget. That is how we have shown our opposition to this out-of-control spending.

Last week, in committee, I asked a question about another example of poorly targeted funding. On one hand, the federal government has hired more public servants, but on the other, it is using external consultants more, and that costs more. I was unable to get an answer about that in committee, by the way.

It is not in anyone's interest to make the system break down. That is the difference between budgetary allocations and the budget. Obviously, we are opposed to reckless spending, but we must also respect our institutions and those who work for government. It is not in anyone's interest to bring the system to a halt.

[Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton Griesbach, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will speak directly to the concern that the member raises, which is that of jurisdiction, and the real risk that is present to Québécois, which is the erasure of culture. It is ironic for me in many ways because there are more than two nations in Canada. The Bloc often speaks of just two nations. Turtle Island is founded on the diversity of many nations, of which I am a member in Alberta, particularly the Cree and the Métis.

The member speaks about freedom and self-determination for Québécois, but we just recently heard that first nations there were concerned about the erasure of their own culture.

How does the member reconcile the very real difficulty between the self-determination of Québécois and the self-determination of indigenous people in Quebec?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have always advocated for nation-to-nation dialogue in Quebec with indigenous peoples. Here is another example of what is not working. The federal government is responsible for housing, especially in indigenous communities. We looked at this in committee, and right now, not enough investments are being made in housing for indigenous women and indigenous people.

Rather than investing in areas that fall under Quebec's jurisdiction, the federal government should look after its own affairs.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, I hope you found some spruce gum.

I have been wondering what approach I should take for this speech. There is so much to say, yet at the same time, so little. I can boil it down to a very apt phrase my grandmother used to say to me when I was little and wanted to play with the pie dough while she cooked for dozens of guests. This saying applies to all kinds of situations, especially when we look at the multiple instances of federal meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions: in all circumstances, if we cannot be helpful, we should refrain from doing harm.

I could stop there.

Federalism, by definition, is about pooling some of our resources, establishing priorities and areas where it will be good to do things collectively, identifying what might be advantageous to pay for together and then letting everyone do what they want with the rest of their resources. Quebec has the data, the institutions and the intellectual and organizational capacity to do it best.

The purpose of federalism is not to impoverish the members that make up the whole. However, it is quite the contrary here in Canada. It does not matter which political party is in charge. This happens under every government, with the aim of dominating the provinces, intruding into everything, spending outrageously, duplicating spending, and demanding more and more in exchange. The proof is that everything keeps getting worse. In the history of Canadian federalism, we have never seen so many conditions attached to such meagre proposals.

My colleagues across the way would have me believe that, in Quebec, it is only normal that no one cares about where the money comes from, that the important thing is that the money arrives. To all those who believe that myth, I am sorry, but that does not fly in Quebec.

Why would the federal government change its methods? Ottawa keeps the upper hand by maintaining the fiscal imbalance. That is its self-maintaining power. In a federation, there is a fiscal imbalance when one level of government collects more taxes than it needs to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities, while the other level of government struggles to fund its own areas of responsibility independently because it is underfunded.

There is a serious fiscal imbalance in Canada at the expense of Quebec and the provinces. It is recognized, and it has been studied and analyzed. The Parliamentary Budget Officer repeats this year after year in his report on the fiscal sustainability of the provinces. At the end of the day, the provinces' finances are not sustainable. As time goes on, the federal government is getting more and more leeway to interfere, because Quebec and the provinces become so financially vulnerable that they are prepared to accept any crumbs rather than have nothing. That is the worst thing. They are forced to give in through deprivation. It is despicable.

Take health care, for example. The federal government funds a meagre 23% of provincial health care spending. Its constitutional obligation says it could go as high as 50%. The premiers presented a united front and asked for 35%. That would have meant about $6 billion a year for Quebec. Quebec was told that it would receive $900 million a year, but it is still waiting on that.

Had the federal government fulfilled its yearly obligation to provide the provinces with adequate health care funding, their balance sheet would look very different. We would not be arguing about dental insurance. We would just have it, like we have pharmacare. The issue is not that we do not want dental insurance. The issue is that the federal government is not delivering on its responsibilities. It is not funding provincial health care systems adequately, and the provinces are being forced to accept anything rather than nothing at all. That is how we wound up where we are today. Then the government swoops in like Robin Hood to save the day. After starving people, it throws a few bucks their way to placate them.

Even under the Harper government, there was centralization of power. There is no status quo in Canada. The middle ground between sovereignty and assimilation, respect for Quebec's autonomy, has always been under attack by every federal party that has ever held power. Quebeckers have a natural, organic, creative impulse that has always driven the unconventional development of our society and kept it ahead of the curve. My background is in entrepreneurship in the regions. We know from hard work, resourcefulness, rational thinking and organizing for efficiency in the regions.

That was probably what struck me most when I arrived here in the House. I wondered where I had landed. There was talk about a lot of things that already exist in Quebec. When the rest of Canada wants child care centres and pharmacare like Quebec has, why can the federal government not recognize Quebec's progress and simply give it back its share of the tax contribution, unconditionally? Quebec can simply say no thank you, we already have all that, we want our share and we will determine where to invest that money appropriately, based on where we are at.

No, they do not want to give us that. They want us to calm down, not get carried away and wait patiently. They want us to pay twice for things we already have, for redundancies that muddy our system and seriously bog down all our incredible, ingenious initiatives that have always been our signature and our strength. We are herded like sheep, sending in our share of the money to be spent as the feds see fit. When it suits them, they send us a little money, just to keep us quiet.

On this opposition day—and I find these words to be particularly meaningful—we are saying that, for us, depending on a machine that is adding layers of red tape to increase its authority to decide our future with our own money is unacceptable. We Quebeckers are capable of conceiving, building and shaping our society ourselves. The proof is that, despite the many restrictions created in large part by the centralization imposed by the federal government, Quebec has nevertheless managed to provide more social services and win more economic victories over the years than many countries in the world, and that will continue. It will continue because that is who we are as Quebeckers. In Quebec, we speak French and we are close-knit. We support one another and we protect what we have. Our future is green and sustainable, and we are moving towards it with ingenuity and creativity.

Honestly, being dependent on a federalism that is caught up in its own areas of jurisdiction and feeds its own centralizing habits to excess makes us all the more eager to become independent. The Bloc Québécois is here for just that reason, to stop the federal government from constantly putting things in place to try to keep Quebec in line. The federal government is interfering in our economy, our resources, our public services, our values and our language.

For Quebec, that is unacceptable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, much like the Province of Saskatchewan played a very important role in the creation of the Canada Health Act and our national health care system, the Province of Quebec played a very important role in the national child care program we have today and the legislation that was ultimately put in place. That is one of the nice things about the federation. I think about the individuals who would be helped in all regions of the country through the national dental care program and the national food program for children.

I am wondering why some members in the chamber do not see fit to support those programs, which would help real people, real children and real seniors on fixed incomes. Why would the member not recognize that?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, this goes back to what I was saying earlier: The federal government starves the provinces, it starves Quebec, it underfunds it, and then it comes along like a hero and claims to be nice and kind by finally giving us a few crumbs. The federal government is making seniors poorer. It is leaving the health care system worse off. Think of housing, too. Instead of giving the money to Quebec, which knows perfectly well what to do in its own jurisdictions, the federal government would rather take the money away and impose conditions for writing a cheque, when Quebec is fully competent and capable of doing all this itself.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to put a question to my colleague, who lives just across the water from me, on the other side of the St. Lawrence River. We live in an absolutely extraordinary and exceptionally beautiful province. Isle-aux-Coudres, where my colleague lives, is a phenomenal place. It is right across from where I live. In fact, I jokingly tell her that I watch her with my telescope. I do not, of course.

I have a very simple question for my colleague, for whom I have the utmost respect and who has an extraordinary voice. Quebec sovereignty, if it ever happens, will happen in Quebec City, not in Ottawa. For more than 30 years now, the Bloc Québécois has been complaining about what the federal government does or does not do with regard to Quebec's needs, even though it knows that the work is going to be done in Quebec City.

Why does she come sit here in the House and see herself as being in another country? Her salary is paid by all Canadians, but she says she lives in another country. I would like her to just answer my question. Why is she here?

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a good opportunity to remind my colleague that, like him, more than 18,000 people democratically placed their trust in me and my voice to represent their interests and convictions and, above all, to exercise extreme vigilance when it comes to federal government manipulation in Quebec's intrusions, among other things. We, the 32 members of the Bloc Québécois, were given this mandate because members of the other parties who are from Quebec failed at the task. That is why I am sitting here, and I am proud of it. When I leave, I am going to buy my chair.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, listening to the member's response on dental care, it feels like sometimes the Bloc is working for François Legault instead of working for Quebeckers. Fifty per cent of Quebeckers do not have dental coverage. I am curious how the member would respond to the Quebeckers who are enthusiastic about dental care, the 600,000 of them who have already registered for the program.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Madam Speaker, we share a certain affinity in our way of seeing society. The NDP's values occasionally intersect with ours. On certain matters, however, we have a very hard time seeing eye to eye. We often see the NDP, at the risk of being inconsistent, abandon its values to align itself with a government so it can say that it came up with a certain idea or that it is the one changing people's lives.

In reality, these are palliative measures. The NDP government's proposals are palliative proposals. What we want is to create an economically healthy Quebec, and that will require the unconditional health transfers that Quebec is owed.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Nepean.

I will begin my remarks by saying that it pains me to see the Bloc and the Conservatives arguing, when they are often on the same wavelength.

Getting to the substance of my speech, I would like to examine the assumptions underlying this motion. The first is that the federal government is some kind of centralizing monster that is trying to stifle Quebeckers' aspirations. We have been hearing this narrative for as long as I can remember.

I will provide some concrete examples to illustrate that the federal government does not want to manage everything, whenever possible, even when it comes to its own jurisdictions. It prefers to delegate responsibilities to the provinces so that they can manage their own affairs, even if it is a federal jurisdiction.

Let us consider the Fisheries Act. It is clearly a federal statute under the Constitution of Canada. The federal government signed an equivalency agreement with Quebec to enable the province to implement this act and its regulations.

The Greenhouse Gas Pollution Pricing Act is my second example. People had doubts about whether the federal government had jurisdiction in this matter. The case went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court ruled that putting a price on greenhouse gas pollution did in fact fall within the jurisdiction of the federal government. The federal government did not say that it wanted this legislation to apply to all the provinces in order to interfere with the provinces and administer this legislation. The federal government simply said that if a province had an equivalent system, as Quebec and British Columbia do, then that province's system would apply. This is a second example of how the federal government does not want to get involved in everything.

Often, even when it comes to its own jurisdiction, the federal government does not want to get involved and would rather delegate responsibility to the provinces. Immigration is another example of this. Prime Minister Mulroney was a close friend of the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. After his passing, she spoke eloquently about his friendship. She used to sing for him and his family. It was very touching. Prime Minister Mulroney signed an agreement with Quebec to allow it to decide who would be a permanent resident in the province of Quebec.

Yes, some things are centralized. Some things are centralized, but they are centralized for practical and technological reasons. For example, it is nice outside today. Let us talk about the weather. The federal government handles the weather, because technologically speaking, weather forecasts are quite complex. They require extremely sophisticated systems. So the federal government is in charge of that, but it is not centralized to stifle Quebeckers' aspirations. It comes down to practicality. It is better to centralize it than have the provinces operate their own weather forecasting systems.

Another example is communications. Canada does not have a very big population. We have about 40 million people. That is about the same population as California. I do not know what the population of New York or Florida is. There are not many of us, and we are up against web giants, big companies with enormous financial and technological power.

In Canada, we counterbalance that power with the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, or CRTC. It tries to protect the cultural interests of Quebec and the rest of Canada by opposing the web giants, in certain situations at least. Many examples show that centralization is not a bad thing. There are other examples where we can see quite clearly that the federal government prefers to have certain files handled by the provinces, even though they fall under its jurisdiction.

I would also like to refer to point (b) of the motion, where it is requested that the House “remind the Prime Minister that, despite his claims, it is not true that 'people do not care which level of government is responsible for what'”.

This observation is not very nuanced, and, in response, I would say that it is true in some cases but not in others. When it comes to primary and secondary education, Quebeckers and the citizens of the other provinces are adamant that the federal government should stay out of it. The federal government does not want to get involved. There are no issues there.

People also assume that post-secondary education is a provincial matter, but let us consider what the Government of Quebec is doing to Concordia University and McGill University. Quebec's CAQ government is chipping away at McGill University, which is ranked 28th in the world. It is a proudly québécois university that many French-speaking Quebeckers attend. If people knew about what is happening between McGill and the Government of Quebec, I think they would ask the federal government to interfere—to interfere financially, I dare say. They would ask the federal government to inject funds to bridge the massive gap. I would have said “make up the shortfall”, but the provincial government really is creating a massive gap.

I think that the business community, especially the high-tech community, would ask the federal government to interfere financially because these sectors depend on research to move forward. Quebec's prosperity depends heavily on the health of the tech sector. Furthermore, we know that Quebec's business community has concerns about the labour supply.

I would now like to talk about the pandemic. What happened during the pandemic? The federal government used its spending power to provide what amounted to social assistance to many Canadians and, by the way, to many businesses. Billions and billions of dollars were paid out. There were no complaints back then. Mr. Legault's government was not complaining about federal government interference.

There was no complaining at the time, and I am not hearing any complaints from Quebeckers about the national dental care program. It is true, in some cases, that Quebeckers are hell-bent on protecting provincial jurisdiction, but in other cases, they want their interests to come first and their needs to be addressed.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I especially thank him for putting something into each sentence of his speech that would provoke questions or reactions from me and other members from the Bloc Québécois. I would need 15 minutes to ask all my questions and challenge my colleague on some of his claims, but I will try to be more constructive.

First, I would tell him that 82% of Quebeckers who were polled in March want the federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions to be respected. Whether it is about health care or anything else, 82% say that everybody should mind their own business. That is clear.

I particularly liked the example my colleague gave about the success of centralization when he mentioned the CRTC. This example is of particular interest to me because, first of all, I worked closely with the government to improve the Broadcasting Act with Bill C-11, and because I am a strong supporter of culture, language and all that.

However, I was taken aback to hear the CRTC characterized as a centralization success story. Without the intervention of the Bloc Québécois, almost no protections for francophone culture and Quebec broadcasters would have been included in Bill C‑11, which the CRTC is currently looking at.

I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks of the idea that the Bloc Québécois has been promoting for years: to create what would essentially be a Quebec version of the CRTC to manage more to benefit—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am familiar with that idea. I heard those arguments when we were debating Bill C‑11, but I truly believe that there are advantages to having the provinces, the Quebec nation, first nations and every other group of Canadians work together to act as a counterbalance to this power south of the border that I am just as wary of as the member. It takes a counterbalance. If we are divided in 10, each with their own communications regulator, I think that will weaken us in the long term. Honestly, I very sincerely believe that.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, Toronto is a big city. Montreal is a global city; I think this fact certainly offends many in the Bloc and certain independentists in Quebec, who are constantly undermining Montreal's position. My colleague talked about McGill, which is a world-class university. McGill draws people from around the world to Montreal, not only because of its culture but also because it is an education centre. However, we see McGill having to go to court to defend the right of students to be educated, to challenge the unconstitutional attack on a world-class institution.

What does my colleague think about a government that attacks an institution that is this respected around the world just for partisan points to please the sovereigntists?

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

Madam Speaker, the member has touched on something I care deeply about. With a few others, I met the president of McGill, Deep Saini, yesterday. I thought I knew how badly McGill is being treated by the Quebec government. I did not know the half of it until I really saw the facts. It is the 28th-best university in the world. Its graduates have gone on to create companies such as Intel. What is good for McGill is good for Quebec in many ways. It is good for the Quebec economy and Quebec culture.

I am quite offended by the fact that the provincial government of Quebec is undermining the province and all its citizens; it does not really matter whether they are French speakers or English speakers. It is undermining the province by targeting two institutions such as McGill and Concordia. I think it is a shame.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to take part in today's debate. I will get straight to the point. Criticizing the federal government's “interference” in provincial and territorial jurisdiction is not only deeply flawed but also quite unfair. It overlooks the collaborative nature of Canada's federal system. By working together, both levels of the government can address complex issues that transcend regional boundaries, fostering a more cohesive and prosperous nation.

In reality, Canada's unique federal structure grants provinces and territories more autonomy to implement programs and policies tailored to their residents while also providing a platform to showcase their strengths on the global stage. This creates a win-win situation, enabling Canadians, including Quebeckers, to enjoy numerous social and economic benefits unparalleled elsewhere.

Let me briefly touch on Quebec's unique identity within Canada, which is defined by its rich cultural heritage, distinct language, legal system and historical significance. These elements contribute to Quebec's special status and influence its interaction within the Canadian federation.

Quebec boasts a vibrant and distinct cultural scene deeply rooted in its French heritage. The province is known for its contributions to literature, music, theatre, cinema and visual arts. Annual events such as the Montreal international jazz festival and the Quebec Winter Carnival celebrate Québécois culture and attract visitors from around the world. The preservation of French culture is central to Quebec's identity and influences its social and political life.

Quebec's legal system is based on civil law inherited from the French Napoleonic Code, unlike the rest of Canada, which follows the common law system. This difference underscores Quebec's unique legal traditions and governance structures, affecting everything from property rights to family law. Quebec has a distinct historical trajectory within Canada. Quebec has a strong sense of political autonomy. The province has its own immigration policies and pension plan.

Quebec's education system reflects its unique identity with a distinct structure and curriculum that emphasizes French language and Québécois culture. Institutions like Université de Montréal and Université Laval are key cultural and educational pillars that foster a strong sense of provincial identity.

Quebec plays a vital role in Canada's economy, with strengths in sectors like aerospace, information technology, biotechnology and energy. The province's economic policies often reflect its unique priorities, including the promotion of French-language businesses and industries.

Quebec is known for its progressive social policies, including affordable child care, generous parental leave and robust public health care. These policies reflect the province's commitment to social welfare and contribute to its distinct social fabric.

Quebec's unique identity is a source of pride for its residents and adds to the diversity and richness of the Canadian federation. Balancing this distinctiveness with its role within Canada continues to shape Quebec's social, cultural and political landscape.

While certain sectors are primarily under provincial jurisdiction in Canada, the federal government can play and has played a significant role in supporting these areas through various mechanisms. The federal government provides financial support to provinces through transfer payments such as the Canada health transfer and the Canada social transfer. These funds help provinces deliver essential services like health care, post-secondary education and social services. Additionally, equalization payments ensure that all provinces, including Quebec, have comparable levels of public services despite differences in revenue-generating capacities.

The federal government can establish national standards and guidelines to promote consistency and quality across the country. For example, through the Canada Health Act, the federal government sets principles for health care delivery. The federal government can initiate and has initiated targeted funding programs to address specific needs. For example, it has invested in infrastructure projects like highways and public transit systems, thus enhancing transportation networks. It has also funded education initiatives such as skills training and research grants to bolster provincial education systems.

Federal and provincial governments, including Quebec, can collaborate and have done so, through intergovernmental agreements. These agreements facilitate joint efforts on shared priorities such as improving health care delivery, addressing climate change and enhancing economic development.

The federal government can support provinces, including Quebec, by conducting research and sharing data that inform policy decisions. Federal agencies and institutions can provide valuable insights into best practices and emerging trends, helping provinces design effective programs. By leveraging available mechanisms, the federal government has complemented provincial efforts, including Quebec's, ensuring that Canadians have access to high-quality services regardless of where they live.

With respect to affordability, Canadians in every region and of all ages benefit from the federal government's fiscally responsible and people-driven economic plan. The Canada-wide early learning and child care plan is a great example of collaboration between the federal government and the provinces. We are strengthening the affordable child care system already in place in Quebec by helping to create more child care spaces. We are also supporting about 3.5 million families across Canada annually through the tax-free Canada child benefit. We will continue to work with provinces as we launch a national school food program.

We have increased old age security benefits for seniors aged 75 and older by 10%. We also delivered the first enhanced quarterly Canada workers' benefit payments to our lowest-paid and often most essential workers, with a family receiving a total benefit of up to $2,616 last year. Our new Canada disability benefit would increase the financial well-being of low-income Canadians with disabilities in every region of the country.

On top of the laundry list of measures I just mentioned, we are also working with provinces to deliver improved health care to Canadians. Last year, we committed nearly $200 billion over 10 years to strengthen public health care for Canadians, including record health transfers and tailored bilateral agreements. This year, we introduced legislation to launch the first phase of national universal pharmacare in Canada, which would provide universal single-payer coverage for a number of contraception and diabetes medications. We are, of course, making historic investments in affordable dental care, which is essential not only for oral health but also for overall health.

Thanks to the federal government's efforts to work with provinces to build more housing faster across Canada, together we are on track to build nearly four million homes by the end of 2031.

We have been steadfast in our efforts to collaborate with provinces and territories to build a better and fairer Canada, and these efforts have indeed borne fruit. However, it is crucial that we maintain the momentum. By continuing to work with our partners at all levels of government, we can drive our economy towards inclusive growth and ensure that the promise of Canada remains attainable for everyone. Therefore, I urge hon. members to reject today's misguided motion.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, what I notice, when I hear the member's comments, is that there is a lack of understanding and a lack of a desire to fully understand the reality of Quebec, which is perhaps a society where the need for this sort of respect for jurisdictions is felt even more strongly.

I understand the reality of my colleague, who lives in a multicultural environment, where people are not as bothered by the federal government sticking its nose in everywhere. In Quebec, however, the reality is different. What I see is that my colleague does not seem to understand or grasp the distinct nature of the Quebec nation.

In terms of the federal government's responsibility for health care, for example, the problem is that the federal government is not fulfilling its obligations, which are to transfer money to Quebec and the provinces for the management of their health care systems. This failure to live up to its obligations is creating the problems that Quebec and the provinces are experiencing with their health care systems, and this is preventing them from being able to resolve them. The federal government comes clomping in with its big boots, saying it is going to interfere in the province's areas of jurisdiction and solve its problems.

I would like to hear from my colleague on this subject, but I would especially like him to reassure me that he does understand the distinct nature of Quebec and certain other regions of Canada that are not necessarily as multicultural as Canada as a whole.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member does not seem to understand that the Canadian federal system is collaborative in nature. He talked about health care, but in the last speech by one of his colleagues I did not see him react to the question posed by an NDP member about the 600,000 Quebeckers who have registered for the Canada dental care plan. It is not just a question of jurisdiction; what is important is that the affordability issues faced by Canadians should be addressed by all levels of government working collaboratively.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague, and I know that he has a lot of knowledge about economic development and what is happening in the different provinces, particularly in Quebec, around a clean economy and the kind of innovation that we need in order to work toward a better, carbon-free future.

We know there have been historic investments made in Quebec by Northvolt and in other industries. My question for the member is this: What would happen if the federal government did not make these investments?

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, indeed Canada is at the forefront of many advanced technologies, like artificial intelligence. Indeed Quebec is quite strong when it comes to the clean economy and knowledge-based industries, especially in artificial intelligence. Quebec is also good in aerospace and other allied industries.

However, all these industries are on the global stage because of the active involvement of the federal government over a period of time. Without the federal government's investments in these advanced technologies, Quebec would not have attained the position it has, and without continued investments by the federal government, Quebec would not reach the stage where we would see Canada and Quebec's technologies at the forefront of the global knowledge-based economy.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have the honour of warming up the crowd for my colleague from Terrebonne. I am pleased to do that.

I listened to a number of the speeches that were given by my colleagues before me. I would like to reread the text of the motion because, obviously, we are going to be talking about it all day. It states, and I quote:

That the House:

(a) condemn the federal government’s repeated intrusion into the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and the territories;

(b) remind the Prime Minister that, despite his claims, it is not true that “people do not care which level of government is responsible for what”; and

(c) demand that the government systematically offer Quebec, the provinces and territories the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation whenever the federal government interferes in their jurisdictions.

The last sentence is a bit contradictory because the federal government should never interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and the territories.

I want to come back to paragraph (b) of our motion today, because earlier, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis referred to it and implied that it was a bit ridiculous. I want to reiterate the part in quotation marks, which states, “people do not care which level of government is responsible for what”. We did not pull that out of thin air. The Prime Minister himself is the one who said that. Members are calling into question the fact that that is not true, but 82% of Quebeckers who were polled in March said that they were concerned about respect for federal, provincial—in this case Quebec—and municipal jurisdictions. That is important. That means that people do care, to use the words of the Prime Minister.

Nothing annoys me more than someone who does not mind their own business and comes in and does something that is someone else's responsibility just so they can take credit for it. Imagine if today I decided to recognize a member rising on a point of order. You would tell me to sit down in short order, Madam Speaker, and rightly so. That is how Quebeckers feel when the federal government barges in on our jurisdictions. This tension between the federal government and Quebec over respect for jurisdictions is nothing new, and it is not just a matter of sovereignists trying to pick a fight. Robert Bourassa complained about it. Was there anyone more federalist and Liberal than him in Quebec provincial politics?

Federal interference is seen not only as a violation of Quebec's and the provinces' autonomy, but also as an obstacle to the development and vitality of the Quebec nation. Nearly all successive governments in the National Assembly have felt that way. I repeat: 82% of Quebeckers believe that the federal government should mind its own business. Elected officials are not the only ones who think so.

When we ask the government to mind its own business, it should start by doing what it is expected to do properly. For example, it should find out where taxpayers' money is going before it realizes that $1 billion has been wasted on consultants or small businesses that are not always competent and that are hired to do things like create an app to manage incoming travellers at the border during a pandemic. That is just an example, of course.

Minding its own business also means fixing the Phoenix fiasco. Even today, we members—I am not the only one—still have to help our constituents, who are often owed tens of thousands of dollars by the government. They live in the kind of hardship we would not wish on anyone, and which is certainly undeserved, given the efforts they have put into saving for retirement all their lives. They come to our offices because the government still owes them $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 because of the problems with Phoenix, which it is unable to solve.

Minding its own business also means not trying to impose conditions on health transfers to Quebec and the provinces, because the federal government knows nothing about Quebec's health care system. In fact, by not contributing to the health care system in Quebec and the provinces, it has contributed to the health care disaster we are currently experiencing. Now, I am certain I am going to hear the NDP and the Liberals stand up and say that 600,000 Quebeckers are happy to have a dental plan. However, if the federal government had transferred adequate amounts to Quebec and the provinces over the years so they could fund their health care systems, and if Quebeckers wanted a dental plan that covered everyone, we would have the means to afford it, just as we have introduced pharmacare and child care. We are capable of creating social programs that reflect the richness of the Quebec nation and its values.

Minding its own business also means no longer pretending to care about seniors. I know I am hitting a nerve with my colleague from Shefford. People aged 65 to 74 are being left to suffer in poverty because the federal government does not want to include them in its plan to increase old age pensions. It is completely ridiculous, inexplicable and inexcusable. Not a week goes by that I do not receive emails and calls from my constituents aged 65 to 74, who are wondering what is going on. They are wondering if they are going to get the increase. The answer is no.

The Bloc Québécois continues to work on this issue. Seniors aged 65 to 74 can rest assured that we will always be on their side.

We will also be there for people aged 75 and over in order to ensure fairness. We do not want two classes of seniors. If the federal government would mind its own business and look after its own affairs like everyone else does, we would not be in this situation.

Minding its own business also means no longer pretending to care about defending French, considering the members opposite want to challenge Bill 96, a law that was democratically passed by the National Assembly of Quebec, which knows better than Ottawa how to counter the decline of French in Quebec, in Canada and even in North America. Quebec is the last francophone bastion in North America; it is the cradle of French culture and the French language. No one knows better than Quebec how to defend the French language and reverse its decline.

The concept of federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions is taught in Quebec schools in grade 10. This means that in Quebec, 14- and 15-year-old students know what falls under federal jurisdiction, what falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, and what falls under municipal jurisdiction. They learn this at school when they are 14 or 15 years old. These young people learn that and take an interest in politics for a little while. They look at what is going on, and then they see that the Parliament in Ottawa is completely out in left field. It is not minding its own business at all. They scratch their heads and wonder why adults who have been elected to Parliament do not even know something they just learned at school at the age of 14.

There is an explanation for that. For some time now, we have been witnessing the exploitation of people's ignorance. The public is being bombarded with insipid, meaningless slogans. Crass disinformation is being propagated left and right—mostly from the right—but we see that it is working. People swallow it without asking too many questions. This is sad and dangerous for democracy.

One of the teachings of Socrates—this is going to make me sound learned—says that a democracy can only work if the people are educated. These are worrying times where politicians are exploiting ignorance rather than contributing to building a better-informed society and citizens capable of critical thinking. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to do the right thing, to respect the institutions, to respect our duty to our constituents. That means respecting the powers of each level of government and the fact that each level of government must do its job properly.