Debates of May 23rd, 2024

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît on a point of order.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate to the Chair that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), all of the Bloc Québécois's speaking slots for today's debate on the business of supply will be divided in two.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Noted.

We will begin debate. The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, over the past few years, the Government of Canada has developed a way of doing politics that follows a clear and heavy-handed approach, including an egregious abuse of the so-called fiscal imbalance. This means that the federal government is receiving more revenue than it needs to fulfill its roles and responsibilities, whereas Quebec and the provinces are collecting and receiving less than they need to fulfill their respective roles and responsibilities.

The government is taking that money and using its constitutional spending power to intrude into areas under the exclusive jurisdiction of Quebec, the provinces and the territories, as set out in the Constitution. What is emerging more and more is the government's persistent, clear and ideological push to centralize powers, in the sense of the responsibilities specific to a level of government. I certainly do not mean powers in the sense of ability or the faculty to do something. These powers are being centralized in the federal Parliament.

When we take a close look, it is pretty clear this is a failure. It is one failure after another. I would like to take this opportunity to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Jonquière. I could list a whole series of the federal government's failures when it comes to interference, but I could go on for days, so I will just name a few.

I will use a recent example, namely the government's desire to intrude in the area of dental insurance. At first glance, this seems ideological. Then they decide to hand it over to the private sector, with the support of the NDP. Now it seems no one can make heads or tails of it. It is a failure in the making. It is clearly the result of their refusal, for many years, to make the health transfers that Quebec, the provinces and the territories are unanimously calling for.

In this context, the federal government claims to be working hand in hand with Quebec and the provinces. However, no serious person with a third-grade education still thinks that this is not some kind of a never-ending conflict with the provinces.

There are the conditions imposed by Ottawa on municipal infrastructure. There are the conditions imposed by Ottawa on social housing. There is the colossal failure of immigration: Ottawa is incapable of handling visas, there is a years-long backlog of case files, and the Minister of Immigration has lost track of hundreds of thousands of people currently on Canadian soil. There is the sub-contracting of immigration policy to a highly questionable company such as McKinsey, an ideological aberration that ultimately weakens Quebec. The federal government has failed across the board.

There was much talk about language over the last few days. The vulgar language we have heard is essentially a panic reaction. It betrays a lack of an intelligent response, because there cannot be an intelligent response to what we have seen. We cannot invite people to appear in committee only to treat them in a way that would shame a schoolyard bully.

However, the numbers speak for themselves when it comes to the situation of the French language, both in Quebec and across Canada. The Liberal government does not care all that much about the decline of French, but it sure cares when someone points it out. This is the same government that intends to support a Supreme Court challenge of Bill 96, which seeks to strengthen the French language in Quebec.

I am talking about setbacks, failures and intrusions galore. I am talking about a lack of respect.

Of course, I could talk about secularism, but I will merely say that a secular state would never conceive of imposing Islamic mortgages on a level of government such as the Quebec government, which endorses state secularism. Quebec would not hesitate to eliminate the religious exemption that allows the worst hate speech to spread under the guise of religion.

I repeat, these are failures. In fact, the only good thing the Liberal government ever did with respect to language and secularism was convincing the Conservative Party to basically share its views, views that are extremely unpopular among Quebeckers.

The Phoenix pay service, a terrible failure, will now be replaced. This will not get us our money back. There is also the ArriveCAN failure. The repercussions, the spin‑offs, if you will, have now reached the billion‑dollar mark. This money has come out of the pockets of the Canadian state. It is one failure after another.

Consider the tens of thousands of businesses that were abandoned after receiving assistance from government programs during the pandemic. Given the labour shortages, inflation and interest rates, those businesses faced a highly complex situation. Many of them—we will never know the exact or the real number—had to declare bankruptcy and close down because of this government's ineptitude. This is another failure.

One failure on the international stage, which again is repeated and ongoing, relates to a lack of credibility. It is the inability to have a plan to reach the 2% investment target. It is the position on the war in Gaza and the inability to take the normal and increasingly internationally recognized step of recognizing the Palestinian state. Once again, it is a series of failures.

Bombardier, for example, is missing out on $5 billion in spin-offs. Meanwhile, Boeing will award contracts worth $400 million with the co-operation of the governments of Quebec and Canada. I doubt whether we will ever find out the real reasons behind that whole mess. It is one failure after another.

The government is incapable of doing its own work properly, yet it wants to do the work of others in their own areas of jurisdiction. The people have given it a mandate, but it is a minority mandate. This minority government, as I said, is a failure. Interference always takes longer, always costs more and never improves things. It is done at the cost of a series of subcontracts, whether we are talking about McKinsey, ArriveCAN or others of the kind. It is done at the cost of 109,000 more civil servants. That is on top of the subcontracts and the increasing duplications in Quebec and provincial jurisdictions. There is also the $40-billion deficit, which is no small matter.

To govern as a majority, purely for the sake of power, the government joined forces with the NDP. Rather than receiving its mandate from the people, the government receives its mandate from the NDP. It is a fool's bargain. If the NDP does not act soon, it will bring about its own demise. The government has two choices then. It can hold off on its aggressive centralization agenda, its abuse of the fiscal imbalance and abuse of spending power until the end of its mandate, which would normally run until late 2025, or it can call an election now to try to obtain that type of mandate, which I strongly doubt that Quebec will consider. It has no right to dupe Canadians or the parties in the House. As I said before, if the Prime Minister is so interested in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, he can go off and pursue a career in provincial politics, preferably in Ontario.

At the very least, however, what the government must do is acknowledge in every one of its actions the right to opt out with full compensation, with no conditions for Quebec and the provinces. At least its centralizing ideology could then be properly circumvented in a way that respects the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. The main goal—and this is the spirit of this motion—is for the Canadian government to put an end to its increasingly numerous and increasingly crude and misguided abuses that fail to respect the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. If the government does not do so, since it will have fun raising the issue in the next election, it will see how useful the Bloc Québécois really is.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to think that members of Parliament would put the people they represent first and foremost with respect to their interests. Whether it is the dental program, or the school food program that is providing nutrition to children or the national child care program, these are all programs that the Government of Canada, working with stakeholders and other levels of government, has moved forward with and that are being received well in all regions of the country.

Does the member not believe that the Government of Canada should be reflecting on the expectations of people in all regions of the country, which include the types of investments we are making today?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, in a way, the answer is in the question.

I would like Quebeckers to hear someone stand up in Parliament and tell them, in English, to look at what the rest of Canada is doing better than they are, and to tell them that they are so bad that the federal government needs to develop programs that will be imposed on them with their own money. I think it is completely ridiculous to say that a Canadian is intrinsically superior to a Quebecker.

If good ideas are implemented in one place, they can be implemented in other places. Take, for example, child care services, whose model originated in Quebec, or pharmacare, whose model originated in Quebec. If the Canadian government feels entitled to copy what Quebec is doing right, I hope it will at least acknowledge that this is because Quebec is capable of doing it.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly, the leader of the Bloc Québécois.

There are many things that divide us. There is no denying that, to be sure. However, there are some things that unite us. I think the hon. member will acknowledge that we, Conservatives, respect jurisdictions. That is a cornerstone of our political action. In fact, when we were in power, our government minded its own business, dealing with federal matters and letting the provinces make their own decisions. The result spoke for itself: The sovereigntist option lost support in the polls.

Conversely, as the leader of the Bloc Québécois demonstrated, what we have seen for the past nine years is a federal government that does not take care of its own business properly. Not only does it not look after its own affairs properly, but it also interferes in provincial jurisdictions. What are we seeing as a result? The independence movement is on the rise in Quebec. While that may be music to the ears of the leader of the Bloc Québécois, it is not necessarily a good thing. Two weeks ago in the National Assembly, the leader of the Parti Québécois cited the Liberal government's mismanagement of Canadian funds to justify independence.

My question is very simple: Why, then, did the Bloc Québécois vote for $500 billion in budgetary appropriations?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, this is a wonderful opportunity. However, there are a number of factors.

First, I acknowledge the Conservatives' new position of wanting to give unconditional health transfers, or transfers of any kind, to Quebec and the provinces.

I have a second piece of good news. We will hold the debate on independence. Indeed, the tide is turning, we are coming up on the third referendum and we will win it. There will be room for everyone in Quebec to continue in politics, including the members of Parliament.

There is a third thing. Let us get something straight in this slogan‑driven demagoguery. The Bloc Québécois has voted against every Liberal budget and every Liberal economic update. That said, the failure to vote in favour of appropriations in a number of cases amounts to replicating, as the Conservatives know all too well, the American model of government paralysis designed to prevent the state from functioning. The departments in question would be unable to issue paycheques. This is the simple explanation. We voted against the budgets and the updates, but the Conservatives can go ahead and keep repeating in French that the Bloc Québécois did this and in English that the NDP did something else.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for his speech and his motion on things that matter to us as New Democrats, such as public services and health services, or pharmacare, which will require negotiation with the provinces, since the Quebec system is not perfect. All the unions in Quebec have unanimously called for public universal pharmacare. We could take a step forward together by engaging in discussions.

With respect to dental care, there is no interference, because the federal government does not tell Quebec how to manage its health care system; it pays dentists' bills directly. This will benefit four million Quebeckers who do not have dental insurance. Thousands of seniors have already received this care. It would be a shame if the Bloc Québécois opposed care for Quebec's seniors.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is wonderful to see the NDP recommending and hoping that the Canadian government will outsource public programs to the private sector, which will make a profit from the public program.

I will repeat the fundamental principle to the unions, the NDP and the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie: There is nothing that a Canadian can do that a Quebecker cannot do, except perhaps extracting oil. Therefore, I invite everyone to commit to improving services in Quebec. We must invest in services in Quebec. The government does not need to negotiate with Quebec. It is supposed to transfer money unconditionally. That is what is missing.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, what an inspiring speech. It is a tough act to follow. To illustrate just how much the federal government has interfered in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces, I want to revisit what happened this week during question period.

This week, I asked the Minister of Transport a question, and I was basically saying that Quebeckers want to be masters in their own house, whereas the feds want to be masters everywhere. We see that with pharmacare, dental insurance and all kinds of jurisdictional encroachments.

In response, the Minister of Transport said that the Bloc Québécois was looking for a fight. He is always saying that. Not only does he say that, but he also says that the Bloc members used to be here for their passion and that today they are here for their pension. Such rhetoric is tired and stupid. I do not think the Bloc members are the only ones getting a pension. Reducing us to that is very rude.

I bring it up because I was initially going to use my speech to respond to the Minister of Transport. However, I think doing so would be mean-spirited and show that I was stooping to his level. I prefer to show the Minister of Transport what we are passionate about in this place: defending the interests of Quebec.

If we are to discuss jurisdictional interference, we must review the definition of what Canadian federalism is. We need to distinguish between two things. On the one hand, there is a unitary state, which holds all the powers. Anyone who has taken politics 101 knows this. On the other hand, there is federalism, which assumes the autonomy of the central government, meaning the federal government, but above all the autonomy of the federated states, in this case the provinces and Quebec. Any student who has taken law or political science knows that this means that, within their own jurisdictions, the provinces are autonomous. In consequence, in the Canadian context, this means that the Quebec state is autonomous.

It is obvious to my party that Quebec is capable of making its own decisions and implementing its own economic, social and cultural approaches to ensure that it continues to survive and thrive. Even Quebec federalists recognize this fact. That is why the vast majority of politicians in the National Assembly identify as autonomists, if not sovereigntists. That is the reality of Quebec politics. The Parti Québécois, the Coalition Avenir Québec and Québec Solidaire are all parties that want the Quebec nation to have more powers in order to secure its future. I do not mean to offend, but even the Liberal Party of Quebec supports the idea of more powers for Quebec, albeit in a different, somewhat half-hearted way. The evidence is clear. Many of the Quebec National Assembly's motions are supported by the Bloc Québécois. Every time the federal government tries to intrude on Quebec's jurisdictions, a motion is unanimously adopted by the National Assembly.

We could make this case just by looking at Quebec's history. There is no denying that every Quebec government has been determined to defend its autonomy. From Duplessis to Bourassa and even Legault, as well as Marois, Parizeau and Lévesque, successive Quebec governments have all sought to expand Quebec's powers. We saw this in rounds of constitutional negotiations, which were carried out to our detriment. We have also seen this in administrative agreements. Quebec is the only province with immigration powers. Quebec is the only province with specific agreements on workforce training.

Quebec society as a whole agrees on the need to defend Quebec's autonomy. Perhaps it was Benoît Pelletier who said it best. Let me quote him briefly:

... the history and current state of our federalism eloquently illustrate Quebec's profound attachment to its autonomy within the federal system. This is easily explained. The minority status of the Quebec people within Canada as a whole confers special value on Quebec's sphere of autonomy arising from the division of powers.

Benoît Pelletier is a federalist. However, he is a bit more informed than some others. He acknowledges that autonomy is a matter of survival for a minority nation. Quebec is a minority nation within Canada. Defending its autonomy is a matter of survival. This explains why other provinces easily accept the federal government's interference in their jurisdictions.

This brings me to a question that I think is central. I have been asking myself this question since I arrived in the House in 2019. Why are the Bloc Québécois members the only ones speaking out against the predatory federalism—I am choosing my words carefully—that is weakening the Quebec nation? Why do my Quebec colleagues in the Conservative Party and my Quebec colleagues in the Liberal Party and the NDP never condemn this system?

The answer is quite simple. It is because predatory federalism suits them. It is because, in a way, they live off it, politically speaking. What the Liberal Party and the NDP are trying to do now is use this predatory federalism to climb out of the basement of unpopularity. That is what they did with pharmacare and dental care. They are trying to use social issues that are outside the federal government's jurisdiction to escape their current state of unpopularity.

The strength of the federalists is primarily the same strength that any predator relies on. As we know, a predator is someone who survives at another's expense, who uses their power to take advantage of another's weakness. The strength of federalists lies in the tools they have at their disposal to bring the people of Quebec to their knees. When I say “tools”, I am referring, of course, to the spending power that creates the fiscal imbalance. It is this pernicious system that allows them to bring the people of Quebec to their knees. Jean Chrétien, in all his splendour, once had an epiphany. He realized that he could cut transfer payments without paying a political price. That is where the fiscal imbalance comes from.

I would point out that this predatory federalism also suits the Conservatives. Although they claim to be more respectful of Quebec's autonomy, we heard what the Conservative leader has said in recent months. He was looking to establish some sort of electoral dominance at Quebec's expense. When he publicly and shamelessly says that he is going to challenge Bill 21 and Bill 96, he is serving the interests of the English-speaking majority in the rest of Quebec and trying to score election points for his own rather simple purposes. He is trying to appeal to ethnocultural communities in the greater Toronto area. That way, he can say to Quebec that its autonomy is very low on its list of concerns.

The Conservatives, the Liberals and the NDP respect Quebec's jurisdictions as long as it does not cause problems for them. If we take a closer look, we see that the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the NDP are parties that assume that the federal state is above Quebec, that North America's only francophone nation should fall in line like the others and that Quebeckers should behave like Canadians, like everyone else. That is as typical of the Conservative Party, as it is of the NDP and the Liberal Party.

I will close with this. Members may recall the Prime Minister's unfortunate comment that people “do not care” about jurisdictional bickering. They may also recall the unfortunate statement made by the leader of the Conservative Party, who said that Quebec mayors are “incompetent” and that he would manage housing production. I would say this ultimately shows that federalists could not care less about what Canadian federalism is. If that is the case, it opens the door wide to our sovereignty goals.

I would say that what Quebeckers really do not care about are the federal government's excuses when it comes to immigration. They want immigration thresholds that are proportionate to our integration capacity, they want a system that meets the expectations of those who use it, and they want the federal government to reimburse Quebec for the services we have rendered. People do not care about the computer issues with Phoenix; they just want to be paid. People do not care about the issues with employment insurance; they want their benefits. Seniors do not care about the symbols of the monarchy; they want their pension to increase. Quebeckers do not care about the products of big oil, the those greedy oil companies that took $34 billion from us for a pipeline and will take $83 billion from us by 2035; they want a health care system that meets their needs and that is not underfunded.

Lastly, I think that a significant portion of the population of Quebec does not care about federalism.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Joliette.

I respect all members here in the House, who ultimately represent their constituents. However, I have a jurisdictional question. We respect jurisdictions because we have a government-to-government approach. In a way, I am going to echo the words of Premier Legault, who asked what purpose the Bloc Québécois serves in Ottawa. Our governments discuss issues between the government in Ottawa and the Quebec government. We do not discuss them with the Bloc Québécois.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I could repeat the rather harsh words that Mr. Legault used to describe the Liberal government, but I will not pull an egregious stunt like that on my colleague. She can easily find out what he said in the media.

The Government of Quebec has been very critical of the implementation of pharmacare. The Government of Quebec was very critical of the implementation of dental care. It is not just Premier Legault, but all members of the National Assembly, who passed a motion telling the Liberal government that it was acting outside its jurisdiction. If that does not ring a bell for my colleague, I do not know how to make her come to her senses.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, the provincial government recently had to take the federal Liberals to court over their inappropriate incursions into my province's jurisdictional right to develop its natural resources. The Supreme Court of Canada subsequently ruled against the federal Liberals and in favour of arguments from the provinces about how major resource projects should be approved in the country. The Liberals persist in violating provincial rights in this area.

Quebec has many natural resource projects that could be impacted by the Liberal government's inappropriate incursions into this jurisdiction, including its critical minerals strategy. Does the member believe that the principles in his party's motion today also apply to respecting the province's jurisdictional right to determine how it develops its natural resources?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. In fact, the Bloc Québécois has already introduced a bill to indicate that the provinces and Quebec should be responsible for any environmental assessments that deal with natural resource development.

However, there is something else that I would like to point out. I would go even farther than what my colleague is saying. I do not think it is right that Quebeckers, through their taxes, are being forced to finance a $34-billion pipeline that will do them absolutely no good. I do not think it is right that Quebeckers, through their taxes, are being forced to give $84 billion between now and 2035 to big oil, to multi-million dollar companies, when they do us absolutely no good. I would go even farther and say that I would allocate the money based on the natural resource development projects of each province and the Quebec nation.

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

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois always says it is in favour of what is good for Quebec. Sometimes, it would be nice if it also looked at what is good for Quebeckers, for ordinary people who do not have dental insurance.

The NDP campaigned on a promise to come to Ottawa and secure this for people, and we did it. We are keeping our promises for the four million Quebeckers who have neither private nor public dental coverage. We have secured $13 billion over five years.

That is about $4 billion for Quebec that will be directly invested to help Quebeckers who could not afford dental care save money. Quebec has no program for seniors. Quebec has no program for teenagers. We are going to directly help people in need.

I was in my riding last week, and people were coming up to me and saying, “Thank you, Mr. Boulerice, for your work in Ottawa.”

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I—

[Some hon. members]

He is not allowed to say his name.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Members may say their own name. They may not say the names of other members.

The hon. member for Jonquière.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to point out to my colleague that what Quebeckers want is a health care system worthy of the name. The federal government is creating new programs after chronically underfunding the health care system. In a few years' time, it will slowly withdraw and put pressure on Quebec.

The dental insurance and pharmacare measures exist on paper only. The Government of Quebec candidly admits that it has no idea when they will materialize, because Ottawa did not consult with Quebec City. The only reason that pharmacare and dental insurance were introduced was to raise the Liberal Party and the NDP out of the polling basement. That is all.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Citizens' Services]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle. I am pleased and grateful to have a chance to speak today, and I would like to take this opportunity to talk about our government's commitment to Quebec.

I am a proud MP from Quebec who represents a predominantly francophone rural region. I am an ardent defender of the French language, and I would like to point out that our collaboration with Quebec is very good. Since 2015, I have also been collaborating very well with the MNAs in my riding.

I am speaking today to point out that our government has always been there to support Quebec and that we certainly intend to keep helping all Quebeckers. The Bloc may not like that, because it is happier when there is bickering, but our record proves that we are able to work with the Quebec government and reach our goals for Quebec. Indeed, Quebec is an ally.

In the past, our government has agreed on many things with Quebec, such as the creation of day care spots, accelerated housing construction, health, infrastructure and operation high speed. During the COVID-19 crisis, members will recall that the federal government worked hand in hand with Quebec and provided most of the equipment and tools needed to keep the public healthy. We were there with the army and we took care of our senior centres. We collaborated fully with Quebec. That is the proof that Canada and Quebec work well together.

Our government is there for Quebec and with Quebec. In 2024-25 alone, more than $30 billion will be transferred to Quebec through federal transfers to help the Quebec government provide services to the public. These funds include additional amounts under the new health accord we signed with Quebec. This accord is for $8.56 billion. That is significant. These additional amounts will be distributed over 10 years to improve health care in Quebec. Just yesterday, a health care crisis was declared in the national capital region, in Outaouais, my region. Doctors, professionals and therapists of all kinds have left the region to go to Ontario. The situation in the Outaouais region is dire. That is why the Government of Canada is there to support the Government of Quebec.

In particular, this extra funding will help improve access to front-line clinics and make it easier to book appointments through the Votre Santé health care platform. This new funding will also improve care for patients with rare or chronic conditions. Take diabetic Quebeckers, for example. My daughter is one of them, because she has type 1 diabetes. This is a great example of how our plan is working thanks to our collaboration with Quebec.

I am also delighted that our colleague, the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, was in Montreal earlier this week to announce a major Boeing investment in Quebec's new aerospace innovation zone. On everything from the battery industry to innovation, aerospace and research, we are working with Quebec. Whether the Bloc likes it or not, we will continue to work with Quebec.

This major $240‑million investment is part of Boeing's industrial and technological benefits commitment. All of Quebec will benefit from this. Every Quebec riding will benefit from this investment, which is good news for our aerospace sector, not to mention all those in the aerospace supply chain. Our whole supply chain will benefit.

Another important example of collaboration is Canada-Quebec operation high speed. I am incredibly proud of this. It was one of the first files I worked on when I entered politics. Connectivity was a topic of discussion at all the first meetings I attended.

That is what we heard about in my riding in 2015. Canada-Quebec operation high speed got everything moving. The Bloc Québécois has a short memory. They complained that we were not doing enough, not working fast enough, and that we were overlooking the regions. Anytime there was a snag along the way, it was the federal government's fault. However, it should be remembered that we signed an agreement with the Quebec government in 2021. Because of that agreement, over 250,000 Quebec households now have Internet access at home. There was an urgent need at the time in my riding, in Bloc Québécois ridings and all across Quebec, so we collaborated with Quebec to improve connectivity in the province.

As I was saying, our plan is working. Not all the news is bad. We have a lot of good news.

I am delighted to see that our government has proposed a Canada-wide early learning and child care system largely inspired by Quebec's. Yes, Quebec is a role model. I am proud of Quebec's models. We are taking these models that work and implementing them across Canada, all while improving the ones in Quebec. Obviously, Quebec benefits as well. As part of a $6‑billion agreement, Quebec has committed to creating 30,000 new child care spaces by March 2026. Since the Grand Chantier pour les Familles initiative was launched in October 2021, 20,500 additional subsidized spaces have been created. Our collaboration is working beautifully. Our child care system will help families a lot, but it does not end there.

Affordable child care services have also helped increase women's participation in the workforce. Once again, everything we do has a domino effect. We enabled women to return to work or enter the labour force for the first time. The labour force participation rate for women in their prime working years is at a record high. In September 2023, it was 85.7% in Canada, compared with only 74.4% in the United States. Think about the importance we place on women when we make it possible for them to return to work. This system also benefits the economy. When everyone is employed, the economy does well.

Our government's priority is to help Canadians. That is what we are doing by investing in health care, dental care, child care and housing. It is in that same spirit of helping Canadians that we are making other investments to make life in Canada more affordable.

We believe that our government should work in partnership, and we sincerely hope to be a partner for the Quebec government. When the provinces need to be encouraged to do just a bit more, our government will be there to encourage them and offer them more money so they can do it.

It is precisely in this spirit that we signed a $1.8‑billion agreement with Quebec last fall to accelerate housing construction. This is in addition to our other investments as part of the national housing strategy. The Quebec government and the Government of Canada are each investing $900 million in this housing partnership. Our government has a long history of co-operation with Quebec when it comes to housing. This is the type of agreement we need in order to build more homes faster for future generations. This is exactly the type of win-win agreement that benefits Quebec and Quebeckers. Obviously, when we co-operate, the people are the ones who benefit.

The reality is that many Canadians need support to succeed. Our government wants to help wherever possible. We have been putting programs in place since 2015 to support the middle class and make things fairer for all generations, from coast to coast to coast. The Canada child benefit and the Canadian dental care plan are just two examples.

Budget 2024 continues to support the priorities of both Canadians and Quebeckers through major investments in housing.

Housing is one of the key priorities in this budget. We are going to work with the provinces and territories to build more housing more quickly. As set out in last fall's agreement, we are going to accelerate housing construction in collaboration with the provinces and territories, whether the Bloc Québécois likes it or not.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague opposite. On the subject of aerospace and this week's announcement, I think he is missing a few small details.

First, there were two announcements in one. The good thing is that we have an innovation zone, and that is Quebec City's doing. Ottawa has nothing to do with it.

The other announcement made at the same time, which is no doubt confusing, was a Boeing announcement that the Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry took part in. All he said in this announcement was that they were working on the plane of the future. He said it earlier this week. However, I would remind the House that this plane of the future was built without a bidding process, excluding a Quebec giant in favour of a U.S. company announced late last fall. Things could have been done differently. The minister is rehashing old news when he says he is going to have a trickle-down policy, because he already announced that to sugar-coat the issue last fall.

I have a very simple question for my colleague. Just this week, in the so-called announcement made by Ottawa, exactly how much money will be invested in Boeing for that research?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to answer this question. Whether the Bloc Québécois likes it or not, investments in Quebec's aerospace sector are good news. All the grocery CEOs and business leaders I have spoken with who are setting up shop in Quebec ridings, whether in Mirabel, Laurentides—Labelle or my colleague's riding, will benefit from significant economic spinoffs. Every business, every industry linked to Boeing, even the smallest local restaurant, will benefit.

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

Madam Speaker, the measures in the Liberals' many announcements constitute interference in provincial jurisdictions. They are adding way more bureaucracy. We can expect a $40-billion deficit this year. This is costing Canadian taxpayers a lot of money.

Does the Liberal member not understand that the Liberal government's actions are having a serious impact on Canada and on Canadians and their basic quality of life?

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for making the notable effort of asking his question in French.

When we talk about the global economy, we are talking about having been through a pandemic, about war, about a difficult economy in terms of food, about many side effects, and about interest rates that have gone up.

The current government was there to help people during the pandemic. It is there for the middle class, for everyone in every riding. We helped hundreds of businesses and individuals get through the pandemic. We made the choice to invest in people and businesses to save the economy of the future for generations to come.