Debates of May 23rd, 2024

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

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would not want the member to put words in my mouth. What I am suggesting is that the people of Canada, no matter what region of the country they live in, appreciate it when governments work together. I would ultimately argue that, when governments work together, one gets better results.

On jurisdiction, we have the Canada Health Act. The Canada Health Act is something that ensures that there is a national health care system from coast to coast to coast. I believe that the majority of people in Canada today support the need for the Canada Health Act.

We need to be more appreciative of the many different things that the different regions have to offer and recognize the uniqueness of the different provincial entities. Obviously, Quebec stands out because of that sense of French uniqueness and the culture, arts and heritage of the province of Quebec.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, earlier, when I read the quotes to my colleague, I thought he would understand them. After all, they seem pretty clear to me. Now, since he does not seem to have understood them, I am going to explain them to him.

There have already been Canadian prime ministers who recognized Quebec's specificity and areas of jurisdiction, and who accepted or offered the right to opt out with full compensation, so when my colleague tells me that we want to tear the country apart, that is not true. We are not going to tear the country apart, we want to build our own, which is very different. When my colleague tells me that Canada is a great country, I tell him that, if we were really part of this country, we would be respected here, and if we were respected here, so would our skills and the powers of our national government.

What does he think about that? He probably will not have understood much of what I have just said, but I can start over.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

This is a question and comment period. Members can give answers or make comments.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I did understand the question. Let us take a look at William Mackenzie King; prior to Mackenzie King becoming the Prime Minister of Canada, there was a great deal of discussion about pensions. The pensions were, in fact, at one point in time, provincial jurisdiction. Mackenzie King came in and then ultimately worked with the province to develop a national program, and today we have the OAS system. I believe a vast majority of Canadians like the old age system we have, which provides a monthly income and keeps a lot of seniors out of a poverty situation.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today's motion reads as follows:

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.

I do not know what my colleagues think of this, but it feels like déjà vu to me.

Let us start at the beginning The Constitution Act, 1867, divides up federal and provincial jurisdiction in sections 91 and 92. It is just a list, kind of a shopping list. However, the federal government's history of attempting to legislate in areas under provincial jurisdiction is impressive. How much money has been wasted on needless, fruitless and even harmful legal wrangling and pseudo-negotiations?

Our courts have had many opportunities to remind us of the terms of the Constitution in which the federal government constantly drapes itself but systemically disrespects. I have a suggestion to make to members of the government, which is to reread sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. They are only two pages long, and they are in both French and English.

Secondly, on the subject of authority, a reference relating to securities law was handed down in 2011 by the Supreme Court of Canada. The federal government should go back and read the explanations given by the judges in this decision as to how the division of powers works. I will mention just three.

Paragraph 119 says, “Inherently sovereign, the provinces will always retain the ability to resile from an interprovincial scheme”. Paragraph 119 also states, “it is in the nature of a federation that different provinces adopt their own unique approaches consistent with their unique priorities when addressing social or economic issues.”

The third example is found in paragraph 71:

The Canadian federation rests on the organizing principle that the orders of government are coordinate and not subordinate one to the other. As a consequence, a federal head of power cannot be given a scope that would eviscerate a provincial legislative competence. This is one of the principles that underlies the Constitution...

The Supreme Court said that. It was not the first time.

In 1919, the Supreme Court's decision in In Re The Initiative and Referendum Act stated that the purpose of the Constitution Act, 1867, was:

not to weld the Provinces into one, nor to subordinate Provincial Governments to a central authority, but to establish a Central Government in which these Provinces should be represented, entrusted with exclusive authority only in affairs in which they had a common interest. Subject to this each Province was to retain its independence and autonomy....

The Constitution is clear. The Supreme Court has said this many times. I just quoted from two decisions, but the current federal government does not seem to understand these simple principles, which a first-year law student would easily understand.

We are now seeing multiple intrusions and attempted intrusions. Look at pharmacare. Quebec's system has room for improvement, but it does exist. The federal government should transfer the money instead of creating a new costly and inefficient structure.

As in the case of pharmacare, Quebec already has a public dental insurance system, managed by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. We agree that it could be improved, but the federal government is determined to create its own parallel system. If the money were transferred to the provinces with no strings attached, these plans could be upgraded. Instead, the government is going to spend money to create conflicting and sometimes overlapping provisions.

The federal renters' bill of rights is a new scheme devised this spring. Announced in late March, this bill of rights would require landlords to disclose rent histories. It would also crack down on renovictions and establish a standard, national lease template, among other things. However, jurisdiction over property and civil rights, as set out in subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, is assigned exclusively to Quebec and the provinces. Yesterday, in fact, Quebec's minister of municipal affairs and housing introduced Bill 65 in the National Assembly. The bill aims to regulate evictions by imposing a three-year moratorium. Quebec is doing what it must. The minister said this morning on the Radio-Canada program Tout un matin that the federal government should simply look after its own responsibilities, like the out-of-control temporary immigration that is driving up the demand for housing.

Another type of intrusion is the promise to challenge Quebec's state secularism law. On June 16, 2019, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 21, which seeks to ensure that all Quebeckers have the freedom to practise and display their religious convictions without the state expressing any preference whatsoever. That is what is known as secularism. The Quebec state is secular both in spirit and in letter. It must be secular in both word and deed, demonstrating its secularism through its representatives. How is this the federal government's business? Why is the current federal government not only promising to challenge this legislation before the Supreme Court, but also funding the various legal challenges it is facing? This is clearly interference in provincial jurisdictions, and it explains, in part, the motion before us today.

Beyond respect for jurisdictions, what about respect for the motions of the House?

On June 16, it will be three years since the House of Commons adopted the following motion, and I quote:

That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions and acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.

Since then, the federal Minister of Justice has still not entered in his administrative codification Quebec's changes to section 90, regarding language and nation, and to section 128, regarding the oath to the King. I would point out that this codification is mainly used by judges, lawyers and other court officials. The Government of Quebec has updated its codification, which incorporates the changes made by Quebec and Saskatchewan. What is the federal government waiting for?

Respect for jurisdictions also involves respect for motions that call upon the government to acknowledge the actions taken by various governments in their areas of jurisdiction. I would like someone to explain the reason for this oversight. For now, only Quebec has an up-to-date codification of the Constitution Act.

At the beginning of April, the Prime Minister said that people do not really care which level of government is responsible for what. A Leger poll released on April 19 tells us that 80% of Quebeckers believe that governments must respect their respective areas of jurisdiction and that 74% of them believe that Ottawa must get the agreement of the provinces before it intervenes in their areas of jurisdiction. Quebeckers, like Canadians across the country, certainly want affordable rent and groceries, but I do not recall anyone talking about chaos.

My time is up. I would still have much to say. Perhaps I will continue in my response to questions, if there are any.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member focused a great deal of his speech on the constitutional element. I want to go back to the constituents he represents. Does the member believe that the dental program that is in place, the school food program that is being rolled out and pharmacare, which is going to provide medication for people with diabetes, are programs the member will not support because of his position with respect to the Constitution? Would he deny his constituents those program benefits?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would say that in Rivière-du-Nord, as in the rest of Quebec and probably across Canada, everyone is happy to have social measures that help people. However, no one is happy when that is done in such circumstances, where there is no respect for anyone in this House.

When we stand up and ask the government to respect us, we are told that we like picking fights. That is all this government is capable of doing in response to our requests to respect jurisdictions.

Do we agree? Are we happy with this dental plan? No. We want the money to be transferred to Quebec, which already has a dental plan. We do not want measures that overlap or contradict each other. One captain per boat is enough.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I always find it a little odd that the greatest defenders of the Canadian Constitution in the House are the members of the Bloc Québécois. It makes no sense how much they like the Canadian Constitution.

There is no duplication of dental care programs, because the Quebec plan does not include dental care for seniors. The Quebec plan does not include dental care for teens. It also does not cover people with disabilities. We are talking about helping 4 million Quebeckers.

When there is no discussion or negotiation with the provinces, the Bloc Québécois members get all worked up, and rightly so. However, while we have a pharmacare plan that lays the groundwork for negotiation and discussion with the provinces, the Bloc Québécois whip told us yesterday that there was no deadline, that it was taking too long and there were too many discussions.

What I would like to know is this: Do they want discussions or not?

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we do not want discussions. There is nothing to negotiate in the Constitution. It has been signed for 150 years. It is important to remember that. Everyone should reread it and it should be respected.

Health is a provincial jurisdiction. The government needs to transfer the money to Quebec, the provinces and the territories, and stop meddling in areas that are none of its business. That way, there will be no more bickering. Let us stop wasting time and be efficient. People will love us. They will love the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, me and all my colleagues in the House.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches by my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois from the start. I have a very simple question.

We agree with the motion as it is moved today. We think that the Liberal government interferes massively in provincial jurisdictions. When I listen to the speeches and when I see the actions of my Bloc Québécois colleagues, I tell myself that it is six of one and half a dozen of the other. Essentially, what the Bloc Québécois wants is to have full responsibility, but also the power to spend the same money and ability to tax Quebeckers more.

I would like my colleague to explain to me what difference today's motion will make in a Quebec that might be led by the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the leader of the Bloc Québécois has any designs on leading Quebec, but we shall see. I will leave it to him to respond to that.

We do not want to further tax people in order to provide them services. We want efficiency. We want every penny paid by Quebeckers in taxes, whether to Quebec City or Ottawa, to be used 100% efficiently. There is a captain of health and that is Quebec's health minister. Transfer money to him and let him manage it. If he does not manage it properly, then I can guarantee that Quebeckers will be there to tell him, to call him out and to get rid of him in the next election.

That is how it is done. We must not get involved in what is happening in other people's sandboxes.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, with its latest budget, the federal government has launched an unprecedented attack against Quebec and the provinces' powers. We saw it coming with the striptease leading up to the budget, when the Prime Minister, worthy successor of his dear old dad, proclaimed that Canadians did not care about jurisdictional matters. Although the federal government has always tried to centralize powers, this time they are doing so without reserve, without restraint and without shame.

Let us take housing, for example. While, on the one hand, the government has finally recognized the crisis and is proposing positive measures, on the other, it is taking advantage of the situation to launch an unprecedented centralist offensive. According to the budget, it is now in charge of everything related to housing, the provinces and municipalities being relegated to the position of executors of federal priorities.

For example, the government is forcing the provinces to sign an agreement by next January. According to the budget, if Quebec rejects the conditions set by know-it-all Ottawa or argues that it has different priorities, the federal government will ignore Quebec or any recalcitrant province and will negotiate directly with the municipalities. This approach is illegal in Quebec. In fact, since a decision rendered by Robert Bourassa's government in 1971, Quebec's municipalities cannot transact directly with Ottawa. The goal is to prevent the federal government from adopting a divide-and-conquer approach, and from diminishing Quebec's negotiating power at the bargaining table.

The federal government is encroaching on municipalities' urban development plans by imposing specific requirements for receiving infrastructure transfers. It is going so far as to establish the height and density of residential neighbourhoods within an 800-metre radius of educational institutions and public transportation routes. If the cities do not authorize the construction of certain types of multiplexes in these sectors, they will not be entitled to federal transfers.

The government is also encroaching on property tax rights by announcing a tax on vacant lots in urban areas. Lastly, it intends to purchase land from the provinces and municipalities and lease it long-term to developers to construct buildings. Since these constructions will be built on federal land, they will automatically be exempt from municipal bylaws and provincial laws. This is a significant risk.

The budget is full of interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction that will cause repeated disputes concerning jurisdiction and delay service delivery to Canadians. In addition to housing, the federal government is interfering in health care with the announcement of a bill on Canada-wide standards for long-term care and with its prescription drug and dental insurance plans. The same is true in education.

Ottawa has announced a lot of money for the energy transition. The budget explains how it will be distributed. The private sector and western Canada will receive generous subsidies and credits for carbon capture and nuclear energy development. In terms of compensation, Ottawa is offering a 15% tax credit to publicly owned corporations like Hydro-Québec for developing green projects. However, the federal government is going even further by interfering in how provincial publicly owned corporations are run. For example, it is imposing conditions on Hydro-Québec's rates. The publicly owned corporation can have the 15% tax credit for investments in its projects only if it complies with the federal government's conditions. Ottawa is forcing Hydro-Québec to use it to reduce electricity bills and publicly report how the tax credit has improved ratepayers' bills.

The budget is a demonstration of the effects of the fiscal imbalance. Jurisdictions no longer exist in the eyes of the federal government. With this budget, the Prime Minister is declaring himself the Prime Minister of Canada, the premier of every province and the mayor of every town. Since the Liberals are busy messing around in Quebec's jurisdictions like sorcerers' apprentices, we are entitled to ask who is taking care of federal responsibilities like managing the borders or employment insurance, which is badly in need of a long-awaited reform. This budget was made on the backs of Quebeckers. It is a clear demonstration of the damage that can be caused by the combination of the fiscal imbalance and the federal government's spending power by reducing Quebeckers' ability to manage their own society themselves.

The Bloc Québécois presented its requests to the government. It asked that the government provide support for seniors, give Quebec the right to opt out when it comes to federal interference, address the housing crisis, pay Quebec back for the money it spent helping asylum seekers and put an end to its oil worship. The budget does not address any of those things. There is also not one word about the aerospace policy that the government promised. Quebec's $11-billion deficit caused quite a stir, but people seem fine with Ottawa's $40-billion deficit.

Ottawa's continued interference is resulting in an unprecedented centralization of power that robs Quebeckers of the ability to evolve in accordance with their needs, strengths, characteristics and desires. Centralization is a trend dating back to the dawn of Confederation, but we must not forget that, in 1867, our nation agreed to be part of Canada on the condition that the federal model recognized two equal levels of government sovereign in their respective jurisdictions.

Ottawa's conditional transfers and interference are eroding Quebec's autonomy. Quebec is supposed to be completely sovereign in areas under its exclusive jurisdiction. Quebeckers agreed to the Constitution of 1867 on that condition, but it is this very principle that is being challenged by the almighty spending power. Every time Ottawa sets up a program or spends money in an area that Quebec is supposed to be in charge of, Canada decides how Quebec society will be organized. Every time Ottawa sets conditions before transferring funds to Quebec, it forces the Government of Quebec to act on Canadians' priorities rather than Quebeckers' priorities. As the Séguin report on the fiscal imbalance noted, these transfers or expenditures always “limit the decision-making and budgetary autonomy of the provinces in their fields of jurisdiction”.

More and more, as a result of the fiscal imbalance and its offshoot, spending power, the Quebec government is being relegated to the ranks of a federal government subcontractor. That is true in almost every sector. Again I quote the Séguin report:

Given the amounts in question, federal intervention through the “federal spending power” has a considerable impact on provincial policy in the provinces' fields of jurisdiction because the use of the “federal spending power” affects practically every one of the provinces' fields of jurisdiction.

What about the Quebec nation in all this? The House of Commons recognizes that the Quebec nation exists. That is good. However, recognizing a nation is more than just a symbolic gesture. Nations, like people, have fundamental rights, the most important being the right to control the social, economic and cultural development of their own society, in other words, the right to self-determination. Two former premiers of Quebec, a federalist and a sovereignist, Robert Bourassa and René Lévesque, agreed on this issue.

In 1980, René Lévesque said:

Having all the attributes of a distinct national community, Quebec has an inalienable right to self-determination. It is the most fundamental right the people of Quebec possess.

In 1990, when he gave a speech in the Quebec National Assembly following the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Robert Bourassa said:

English Canada must clearly understand that no matter what anyone says or does, Quebec is and always will be a distinct and free society capable of taking charge of its own destiny and its own development.

The federal government cannot recognize the Quebec nation and its right to make choices that are different from Canada's and then turn around and deny that nation the ability to assert that right by maintaining the federal spending power. Denying Quebec the power to spend undermines its very existence as a nation. Instead of Quebeckers being masters in their own house, the federal government is acting like it is the master everywhere.

We will have a choice. We can let the federal government and the neighbouring nation dictate their priorities from the top down and decide our societal choices for us with our own money, or we can choose to fully assume our sovereignty. In the meantime, I urge the members of the House to vote in favour of this motion:

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.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think of the national disability program that is being rolled out here in Canada, the dental program that is here in Canada and the pharmacare program, in particular for people with diabetes, and I know for a fact that there will be many people, hundreds if not potentially thousands of constituents whom the member currently represents who would benefit from those programs. Is the member suggesting that the federal government should just cancel those programs and hope and pray that every province in Canada brings in its own programs?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the centralizing, Ottawa-knows-best attitude of telling the provinces what to do and how to act. First, Ottawa cuts health transfers and underfunds health care. Then it tells the provinces that they are mismanaging their affairs because health care is underfunded due to the fiscal imbalance, so it creates its own parallel programs.

When Quebec's health transfers were cut, the province managed to create a partial pharmacare program for the less fortunate who were not covered. It is really limited, but with limited resources, it has had an exceptional impact not seen anywhere else in Canada. Now Ottawa has decided to create its own program. It did not sit down with Quebec to recognize that the province has its own program under its jurisdiction and tell Quebec that it will respect that and help improve its program. It did not ask what it could do to improve it. It did not ask if it could transfer the money to Quebec.

No, it did none of that. It just worked in isolation. The government is encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, it is developing a new program that overlaps with the existing one, and there is no harmonization. That is how Ottawa works. The king does not listen to his subjects. It is appalling.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the socialist approach of the Bloc Québécois, the Liberal Party and the NDP involves out-of-control spending at the expense of Quebeckers and all Canadians.

This approach has increased the size of the bureaucracy in Canada by 100,000 people over the past 10 years. The result is a significant drop in quality of life.

Can the Bloc member tell us what his party really wants? Is it more money and more spending, which will put us all in a deep hole?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we want is for the government to take responsibility. We want it to spend every dollar it takes from taxpayers effectively.

That is why we are telling it that, instead of interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces—which is the focus of today's motion—it should use its public servants, existing resources, and the taxes it collects to do its own job properly.

Take employment insurance, for example. Is it socialist to want an employment insurance system that works? Right now, only four out of 10 people who lose their jobs can get insurance. No private insurer would have any policies if its insurance was that ineffective. This jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the federal government, but it is doing a very poor job of looking after it. That is what we are saying. We are asking the government to spend every dollar wisely.

Because of the fiscal imbalance, provinces like Quebec are not getting enough money for the public services they have to deliver. Half of every tax dollar is spent on these services, yet half of the public's needs are not being met. What we are asking is that the government look after health, education and social services transfers.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we wanted to improve the motion that was moved earlier.

I moved an amendment to reaffirm the principle of co-operative federalism, where the federal government must work with the provinces in a way that respects the jurisdictions recognized in the Constitution, and to demand that the government work co-operatively with all levels to meet the needs of citizens while systematically offering Quebec the right to opt out unconditionally whenever the federal government interferes in its jurisdiction. At the end, the amendment proposed that we recognize the fact that 600,000 seniors in Quebec have already registered for dental care and that labour groups welcome the development of a universal public pharmacare plan. That is a fact.

His House leader refused to accept the amendments I moved. Which parts does he not agree with?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this proposed amendment, so I am not in a position to fully criticize or justify the proposed amendment that was just raised.

I would say that, in general, these elements are included in the spirit of our motion. As far as the dental care and pharmacare programs are concerned, the Bloc Québécois's position is that jurisdictions must be respected. Why did Ottawa not give Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation so that it could take care of the programs?

I would remind the House that the dental care program will be administered by Sun Life, a multinational insurance company that charges $2 billion in administration fees. In Quebec, the existing program for children is administered by the public sector.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate on the motion moved by the member for Jonquière, the Bloc Québécois critic for intergovernmental affairs, natural resources and energy. I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Cambridge.

Our government has repeatedly demonstrated its commitment to working collaboratively with Quebec while recognizing its specificity in its priority areas. There are many examples of collaborative approaches our government successfully implemented in partnership with the Government of Quebec. These include child care, health care, housing, infrastructure and high-speed Internet.

I will give a few concrete examples of the constant effort our government has made to work in collaboration with the Government of Quebec, in the interest of Quebec, and with the interests of Quebeckers at heart. My first example has to do with the early childhood sector. The signing of an asymmetrical agreement with Quebec for this sector provided for the allocation of nearly $6 billion between 2021 and 2026 to make improvements to Quebec's system. In that agreement, our government highlighted the trail-blazing nature of the Quebec government's reduced-contribution educational child care services program, created in 1997 for children under five. I was living in Gatineau at the time, where I had a daughter, and I was able to benefit from this extraordinary service for Quebeckers.

Quebeckers are proud of their educational child care system and, as I said, they have every reason to be. In addition to using it as a model—and we have—to guide our efforts to implement a pan-Canadian early learning and child care system in all the other provinces and territories, our government is making a significant contribution to supporting and improving Quebec's system, and we are doing so through our investments. When it comes to our governments' responsibilities, citizens across the country expect action to be taken to address the current concerns we are facing.

Let us talk about housing, which is an excellent example at the moment, and one that is very much ongoing, even in my community of Orleans, which I represent. As we all know, housing is one of the main concerns of young people and families across the country. It is in this context that our government has made unprecedented investments to reduce the number of Quebec households in need of housing. One of the ways we have achieved this is by financially supporting Quebec's initiatives to accelerate the construction of residential housing and meet Quebec's housing needs.

As one concrete example, our government contributed $900 million to Quebec last year through the housing accelerator fund to expedite the construction of residential housing in Quebec. The Quebec government also invested $900 million, bringing the combined total value of the two governments' envelope to $1.8 billion in new funding available for housing construction.

These investments are expected to directly create 8,000 new social and affordable housing units, 500 of which will be reserved for people who are homeless or at risk of becoming homeless. It is important to recognize that our two governments share common goals like reducing the number of Quebec households with housing needs. In order to come to an agreement, we showed flexibility, particularly by recognizing that Quebec has been administering projects with municipalities and other stakeholders through the Société d'habitation du Québec for nearly 50 years.

How have we actually shown that we are flexible? The federal government granted Quebec a set level of funding based on its demographic weight in the Canadian population, and it did so with the Government of Quebec, not the municipalities, as is the case elsewhere in Canada. Among other things, the terms of the agreement ensured that the Government of Quebec could define the terms applicable to Quebec municipalities, with the goal shared by our government to remove development obstacles and build more housing faster by reducing construction times. The agreement between Canada and Quebec on the housing accelerator fund has been a success in Quebec.

I would like to share another example of our commitment to work hand in hand with Quebec to recognize Quebec's forward-thinking contribution to addressing a number of public policy challenges. I would like to give the example of the Canada-Quebec agreement to address gender-based violence, which will provide $97.3 million for fiscal years 2023-24 to 2026-27.

With this agreement, we recognized the key role that Quebec plays through its integrated government strategy to address sexual violence. By recognizing Quebec's level of commitment through its strategy, the federal and Quebec objectives came together to address sexual violence and domestic violence in order to meet the various needs of population groups who experience gender-based violence.

The concerted efforts of our two governments have resulted in many collaborative agreements in which we recognized Quebec's specificity and its unique ways of doing things. Of those agreements, I would like to draw members' attention to the one on public safety and fighting the scourge of gun violence. Our government was able to count on Quebec's leadership, through its provincial police force especially, to bring together all of the stakeholders.

So far, I have talked about the collaborative efforts that our government has made to respond to the challenges that Quebeckers, like other Canadians, are facing. I would also like to talk about how working with the Government of Quebec has given us opportunities to develop the economy and help Quebeckers prosper.

I want to take the few minutes that I have left to talk about the major investments that the Government of Canada and the Government of Quebec made to support the development of the electric vehicle battery sector in Quebec. Thanks to joint investments from both governments, Canada has been able to attract major investors in battery materials processing and battery cell manufacturing. Take, for example, the $2.7-billion investment that led the Swedish company Northvolt to set up shop in Montérégie, Quebec. With Northvolt, governments and businesses have invested no less than $15 billion in Quebec's battery sector and that will create at least 6,000 jobs.

I will give a few more examples because I still have a few minutes left. Let us also look at the federal government's investment in the GM‑POSCO battery materials manufacturing plant, which is estimated at $600 million, and our investment in the establishment of a copper foil manufacturing plant in Granby to create and maintain 200 highly skilled jobs.

I could talk about this at length because we are looking to work together with the Quebec government, not cause bickering in the House of Commons. That is very important for me because, even though I currently represent the riding of Orléans and I am proud of it, I grew up in Gatineau, Quebec. My parents and many Gatineau residents have told me that having access to dental care has improved their quality of life.

I know that people here in the House are always stubborn about areas of jurisdiction, but I can say that our government is working very well and very closely with the Government of Quebec to meet the objectives of Quebeckers and Canadians, to improve their quality of life, in an economic situation that is very difficult at the moment.

I will conclude by saying that we will continue to be there for Quebeckers. We will continue to work in collaboration with the Quebec government. I am very proud to have given this speech today.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing here is shocking. Earlier, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said that the Bloc Québécois is the party that cares the most about the Constitution. I almost died laughing. It is not about caring about the Constitution; it is about efficiency.

My colleague just talked about housing. She said things are going well with Quebec. People are talking and listening to each other. When the big, important national housing strategy was launched in 2017, it took three years for the government to release those funds and start building housing in Quebec.

The housing accelerator fund came along in 2022. The $1.8‑billion agreement with Quebec—$900 million from Quebec and $900 million from Ottawa—took two years to negotiate. In the meantime, money was being spent all over Quebec.

Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the national housing strategy was supposed to cut chronic homelessness in half. Well, it has doubled in the past five years. If the government's measures were working, we would know it.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said yesterday about how it would take an extra $3.5 billion a year to solve Canada's homelessness problem.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I always have to wonder when our Bloc Québécois colleagues ask questions. We are making investments. I just spoke about a housing agreement between Canada and the Government of Quebec. Is he trying to say that it is not enough? Is it too much? I do not know.

What I can say is that we have sat down with Quebec to negotiate our agreements from the start. In the case of housing, the agreement is $1.8 billion between our two governments. It will lead to the construction of more than 8,000 new housing units, including 500 for persons who are homeless or at risk of homelessness.

Once again, our debates here in the House of Commons are very important for Canadian democracy. We must not lose sight of the fact that we are here to represent Canada and Quebec. Our government works with the Government of Quebec to achieve our objectives.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think about the fact that many of us in the House, even those who have been here a decade or more, are seeing things happening in the community that they have not experienced before: homelessness, a poisoned drug supply, lack of income and more than a quarter of Canadians with a disability. We are dealing with serious issues and serious problems. I know there has been much discussion about what is being funded.

When does the Liberal government start looking at the good ideas that are coming out? For example, if we talk about Quebec and child care, I know that Quebec has a livable income pilot going right now. When will the Liberal government start taking ideas that it knows are working for provinces?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we often borrow ideas from Quebec, because they are often very forward thinking.

For a number of years, the province of Quebec has had a price on carbon. It is a separate system that is fantastic for countering the harmful effects of climate change. My colleague spoke about child care. We drew inspiration from the Quebec system in order to benefit all Canadians.

We will always work closely with Quebec, while creating federal programs to help all Canadians.

[Jenica Atwin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indigenous Services]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked previously about the major challenges Canadians are facing across this country, including some things we have never seen before, or at least with some of the highest numbers in some of those measurables. In that vein, I think that Canadians are looking for us to work together with provinces and territories.

Of course, it is really about a team Canada approach to these major challenges that we are facing. Could the member speak to that?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, team Canada also includes the provincial team with the Government of Quebec. That has been the case since we took office in 2015. Personally, I entered provincial politics first, and I have been a member of Parliament since 2019.

What I want to talk about is the massive investment of an additional $200 billion to improve health care in Canada. This will allow Quebeckers to have better health care. We know that there are still a lot of challenges in this area. The Province of Quebec and the Government of Canada will come to an agreement to improve health care services for Quebeckers, and I am proud of that.

We will continue to work not only with Quebec, but with all the provinces on this issue.