Debates of June 10th, 2025

Opposition Motion—Canada Carbon Rebate and Payment to Quebec

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my opinion has not changed in the slightest. A cap-and-trade system is a very good system. Quebec chose that. At the time, we were able to convince our neighbours in Ontario to participate as well. It is, therefore, an excellent system.

What we have now, with industrial carbon pricing, is very similar to that system.

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

Mr. Speaker, we just had a federal election, on April 28, and it was really quite encouraging to see the number of Quebec members of Parliament who were elected in the government caucus, but we saw a significant drop with the Bloc. If we reflect on the election period, it seems to me that across the nation, people were genuinely concerned about things like Trump, the tariffs, the trade issues and how we are going to be able to protect critically important industries throughout Canada.

I wonder whether the member could provide his thoughts on what was happening at the doors in his constituency.

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the riding I represent is about 70% francophone, and in my door-to-door activities during the campaign, a lot of people told me they would not usually vote Liberal but would this time because we needed someone like the Prime Minister to lead us through this period of incredible uncertainty. That is what they did, and that is why I am here. I am very happy to be here.

[Éric Lefebvre, Conservative, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal member for Marc‑Aurèle‑Fortin said that a balanced budget is not an obsession but an obligation.

Did the former Quebec finance minister speak with the current federal Minister of Finance?

[Carlos Leitão, Liberal, Marc-Aurèle-Fortin, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is another good question.

Indeed, it was not an obsession. It is an obligation. However, these things take time. Balancing a budget cannot and should not happen overnight. We are not going to do that in the midst of an economic crisis or trade war. We will take the time to get it right.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to rise here in the House of Commons. I particularly enjoy participating in opposition day debates. I am pleased to have the opportunity to interact with all my colleagues here, particularly the members of the Bloc Québécois, but also the many Conservative members who speak French.

Today's opposition motion was moved by my hon. Bloc Québécois colleague from Saint-Jean. I have a great deal of respect for my colleague, who is a good parliamentarian. I appreciate the opportunity to debate the essence of the motion.

The motion is related to carbon pricing. I have a lot of experience with this issue. I am a government member who represents an Atlantic riding and, like many of my Atlantic colleagues, I had a different perspective on this issue. We understood the importance of changing the national policy, of changing the federal backstop for a couple of reasons.

I am going to talk today about something that happened in the last Parliament, and that shows the need for change. This story is also about the hypocrisy of the Conservatives when it comes to their position on the environment in general, but also when it comes to their position on carbon pricing. In some contexts, carbon pricing, particularly industrial carbon pricing, is a very conservative but small-c conservative policy. The Conservative Party platform that was presented during the election campaign included a plan to spend more public money, to spend more government money to deal with the challenges posed by climate change. It is not an effective plan, and I will talk about that later in my speech.

It is important to understand a few aspects of the federal carbon pricing plan. When former Prime Minister Trudeau and his government introduced their carbon pricing plan, the provinces and territories had the option of creating their own provincial plans. In fact, the goal was for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and all the other provinces and territories to have their own plans. It is absolutely necessary to acknowledge that Quebec, British Columbia and, I believe, the Northwest Territories developed their own plans. I think that Quebec's plan, with its cap‑and‑trade system, was a good plan. It was a good plan in terms of public policy, but also given the political context.

I represent a rural riding in Nova Scotia. It is very difficult for my constituents to get around by public transit because the systems are non‑existent or are only available in the larger communities in my riding. This makes it absolutely necessary to have a car. The same is true for all rural communities across our country. It is also important to recognize that oil heating is particularly important in Nova Scotia and the Atlantic provinces in general. I must say that it is also important in Quebec. I stressed the need to change policies in order to reflect each province's and territory's realities and to address the specific issues facing the provinces and territories.

I commend the Government of Quebec for introducing its own plan using the cap-and-trade system while focusing on the province's major GHG emitters. Polls have been conducted. According to various polling firms, a majority of Quebeckers, more than 50%, support this carbon pricing system. It was a resounding success.

Today, with the motion it moved, the aim of the Bloc Québécois is to win or justify some kind of federal expenditure specifically for the province, considering that the federal tax does not apply to Quebec, British Columbia or the Northwest Territories. David Eby's government did not raise this issue, and neither did the Premier of the Northwest Territories.

Had I accepted the Bloc Québécois's arguments, although I did not, I would have had a different problem with the text of the motion. Our government sent the payment directly to families and individuals and not to the government or a government program. The text of the motion says to give federal money to the Government of Quebec “without conditions”. It says without conditions, without an obligation to make the payment to Quebec families. I think that is problematic.

If the Bloc Québécois wants a program similar to the one that the federal government had just before April, it is imperative to do what the Government of Canada did and send payments to Canadian families living in the provinces where the federal backstop for carbon pricing applied. I think that the text of the motion is problematic in that respect.

I would like to raise two other points. In the current context, it is necessary to have a flexible policy. The government is going to develop a strategy for working with the Canadian industry. We have to be competitive.

I have a problem with the Conservatives' position on the environmental issue in Canada. Our plan has the support of our economists; it seeks to reduce greenhouse gas emissions more effectively in Canada, especially for big corporations. We have to work with them. With all due respect to the Conservatives, it is very rare that they raise the issue of the environment. Nonetheless, in their election platform, they say that to change our climate goals, we need to spend more. There needs to be more government spending, more public resources. In my opinion, their plan is really chaotic. There needs to be a baseline for our businesses. There needs to be stability in the climate and competition policies, but also in the context of our international free trade.

I am now prepared to answer my colleagues' questions.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there is one question that they have been trying to avoid since the day began. Perhaps my colleague can help me answer it.

Someone who does not pay taxes does not get a tax refund. I want to know by what magic trick do Canadians who did not pay the carbon tax get a carbon tax rebate. I would like him to explain the magic formula that makes this possible.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, eight out of 10 people in Canada paid the carbon tax in provinces where a federal backstop applied, such as Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Manitoba, Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador.

Families who paid the carbon tax received a payment from the federal government. When the Government of Canada decided to end carbon pricing, it sent them a final payment. Quebeckers did not pay this tax because they have a completely different system.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton—Bkejwanong, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for his speech entirely in French. It was very good. He said that the Liberals had a plan. If there really is a plan, will the government table a budget?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have delivered a speech entirely in French in the House. It is a very proud moment for me.

The Minister of Finance was very clear in the House of Commons. The federal budget will be presented in the fall. I think it is better to do so in the fall because we currently have many challenges ahead of us, including the relationship between Canada and the United States, the defence partnership with Europe, and the bill to build a single economy in Canada. We have a lot of important issues to address.

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

Mr. Speaker, can my colleague provide his thoughts on the global market and the need to look at industrial carbon pricing as something that allows Canada to continue to be competitive, as well as how that feeds into the one Canadian economy?

At the end of the day, the European Union and other countries are looking at establishing tariffs for countries that do not have some form of price on pollution. That is why we need to move forward with the industrial carbon pricing, contrary to what the Conservatives are saying.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, because of the U.S. government's position, there is great deal of uncertainty all over the planet regarding free trade. However, as my colleague mentioned, there are other opportunities for us, particularly with Europe, Australia, New Zealand and Japan.

Many G7 countries are looking into how we can reduce greenhouse gases. It is important to address economic challenges while maintaining the importance of reducing GHGs. This will be a measure of competitiveness, and we need to strike a balance between those two things.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join in by heaping more praise on the member's speech in French. I remember that he hardly spoke any French back when I met him in 2019, so I congratulate him for making the effort. We can correct each other if he is interested in continuing.

My question is very simple. Could my colleague confirm for me, yes or no, whether the consumer carbon tax payment was paid out in advance or after the fact? All the analysts say that it was paid out in advance. If it was paid in advance and—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the hon. member to give the parliamentary secretary 30 seconds to respond.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Mr. Speaker, this was a final payment from the Government of Canada for Canadian families living in a province that had a federal backstop. It was therefore a final payment for those families. It did not apply to Quebec or British Columbia.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Resuming debate.

Before giving the floor to the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, I want to let him know that I may have to interrupt him given that the time allotted for debate is almost over.

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

Mr. Speaker, thank you for letting me know. I presume that you will remind me when I need to wrap up my speech.

We find ourselves in a sadly recurring moment in this so-called confederation, which is, in reality, a federation, where people repeatedly say they love Quebec, that it is part of Canada, that it reaps various benefits, that it is quite spoiled and so on.

However, every time we express a need and we raise an injustice or an inequity, we are told we are creating division and we are not being reasonable. In my opinion, I think we are extremely reasonable. We dedicated an opposition day to this subject in a very reasonable and positive manner. We were quite naive to think that the injustice that occurred during the election could not be ignored.

For that reason, we moved this motion in the House, thinking that all parliamentarians, who are intelligent and open-minded individuals, would hear our case, analyze the information and recognize that funds, the origin of which was not transparent, had in fact been distributed inequitably. It turns out that this is not the case.

I will therefore explain it one last time. According to what is written in the program, the Canada carbon rebate was to be paid in advance, because it was known that this measure would not be popular when it was introduced. No one likes to pay taxes, which is to be expected. The government therefore announced that a payment, which was compensation covering the next three months, would be made in advance to prevent having individuals bear the immediate costs, particularly by putting it on their credit card.

The government obviously could have done a better job at public communications, an area where it has done very poorly in recent years and where it has been completely dominated by the official opposition. The government should have explained more often that nearly 80% of individuals, especially those with low incomes and those in the middle class, were getting more money than they were paying and that they were getting it in advance.

That is the issue at stake today. The cancellation of this tax was announced on April 1. The payment scheduled for April 22 was just a few days before the general election, and the government decided that it was better not to cancel it because people might have thought that their cheques were being taken away. Those people might not have wanted to vote for the Liberals anymore. The government then decided to go ahead with the payment.

I heard all sorts of things today. Luckily for me and my general state of mind, I did not listen to speeches all day. If I had, it would have done me in. It already has. I am a sensitive kind of guy. When I hear nonsense, it bothers me.

I was told a whole bunch of things. I was told that people were expecting a payment and no one wanted to blindside them. People had budgeted for it. Even if they no longer had to pay the tax and so should not have received the payment, the decision was made give it to them anyway.

At the very least, we are willing to accept this argument and give the benefit of the doubt, but this is nothing new. Using public funds in this way in the run‑up to an election looks like an attempt to buy votes. I think that the official opposition will agree with us on that. It was a very questionable move.

However, let us show even more good faith than usual and say that all of this is fine. The government did not want to catch people off guard and take money away from them for the coming month. We can agree on that. That said, this money should have been given to everyone. The money that the government handed out was supposed to be covered by the tax that it had planned to collect over the next three months. However, that is not what it did. It would no longer collect the tax, but it would still issue the compensation payment that should have been financed by that tax that no longer existed.

Some of my colleagues have called it a magic trick. We saw a few of those during the election campaign, including when the government talked about the budget. Some people are able to promise that they will cut taxes while increasing spending, and they can say that without batting an eye, without trembling, and with a steady voice. We cannot wait to see that. That is why we are all so eager to see a budget.

The tax was not collected, but the cheques were sent out. The money did not just magically appear. It came from somewhere. It came from the state coffers. The Bloc Québécois is working to change things one day, but for now, Quebec represents 22% of the tax-paying population. Quebec therefore paid 22% of the $3.7 billion that was handed out as election goodies, as giveaways. The Liberal Party gave out a nice little cheque in the hopes that it would win some votes. That is the problem.

We disagree with the idea of giving out cheques to buy an election, and we find it appalling. If the explanation is that poorer people were waiting for the cheque and the government did not want to upset them or catch them off guard, then it should have at least treated everyone fairly. That is where the problem lies. Neither British Columbia nor Quebec received this compensation because they were not on the list.

These two provinces were not on the list because over the years they decided to handle their own responsibilities. They decided to tackle climate change head-on, to change their ways and create a serious incentive for businesses to make an effort to reduce their greenhouse gas emissions.

There are different ways of doing that. I think that Quebec found one of the best ways of doing it with the carbon exchange, which is working well with one of the biggest partners in North America, California. This system works so well that there are far fewer repercussions on the citizens than the former carbon tax system that the federal government had chosen to impose on the provinces and territories that did not handle their own responsibilities. Let us not forget that, originally, this type of intervention fell under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec.

That is the injustice. We have done the math, and approximately $800 million is what has been confiscated, taken away and stolen from us. I am using the word “stolen” to express my surprise that members of the House refused to allow us to table a definition of this very simple word, which is being used to make sure that everyone understands what we are talking about.

When we speak here, not everyone can hear us. First, there are the unilingual anglophones who never use earpieces. Second, there are all those who talk while we are speaking and create a lot of background noise that is getting louder and louder. That is a constructive comment on my part. At some point, we have to make ourselves heard. We felt that people did not understand what we were saying, so we wanted to give them the definition of the word that we were using.

Besides, we are nice. We work in French and we promote French, but my colleague from Mirabel is so generous that he wanted to table the definition in both languages. He was shut down with very little consideration. Allow me to make a request to the members of the House. The next time that we are so generous, they should welcome it and accept our gift instead of snubbing us. We may end up understanding each other. That is the problem.

I want to talk about money again, because some big numbers have been thrown around. It is about $814 million, or about $10 million per riding in Quebec. I would like to explain things in practical terms for the people watching us at home. The Canada carbon rebate is $110 to $228 for the first adult, depending on the province in which it is paid. For the second adult, it is between $55 and $114, and it is between $27.50 and $57 per child. These amounts cover a three-month period. That is the money that others got and that Quebeckers did not get, but paid for. If I do a more simplistic calculation, in Quebec, we have graciously given $100 per person. We are truly generous, but we are called whiners and quibblers because we say that the government made a mistake and that something iniquitous had happened.

We humbly ask the government to fix this inequity. It should refund the money that Quebeckers paid because, as we have been told all day, we did not participate in carbon pricing. We do not have to pay for that. We have our system that works. That is the problem.

However, I am being told no. That is Canadian history in a nutshell. Sometimes, people wonder why there are damned separatists and why the sovereignist movement exists. People think that Canada is a very beautiful country. That is true, but it is simply not ours, because we do not have the same priorities as a nation.

On top of that comes a slew of inequities. Unfortunately, the carbon tax rebate during the election campaign only adds to a long list of times when Quebec was shortchanged. When we say that out loud, however, we are called malcontents and reminded about equalization payments, told that we should get down on our knees and thank Alberta. However, when they tell us that, people never remember to say that among the seven provinces receiving equalization payments, Quebec is the one receiving the least per capita. People need to be educated about these things.

Personally, I am sick and tired of listening to people talk about equalization. I want to remind people just how much we subsidize the heavy polluting oil and gas industry every year. Indeed, of the subsidies it receives from the government, we pay 22%. The government gives oil companies tax credits; in the next few years it is going to give these companies money so they can keep polluting while they try to sequester carbon in sinks or rock. Good luck with that. Every time it was tried in the past, it failed. As for us, we are going to have to pay for it.

Now, when we stand up and say that the government made a mistake, that it gave a cheque to certain provinces but not to two others, that this is unfair and that it should right this wrong, they call us malcontents, point out the equalization payments we have received and tell us to repent. We will not repent. I have plenty of examples like that.

This system is one of the most malicious that exists, because on top of everything else, less money is being invested in Quebec. That affects how equalization payments are calculated, requiring additional payments and leaving Quebeckers with the impression that they are poor. God forbid they realize that they are good people, that they are great, strong, intelligent and capable of shining far more brightly in the world and then decide to separate. What a tragedy that would be.

We have resources that benefit Canada. I will just mention the St. Lawrence Seaway. I invite the few members who are listening to me to do a bit of research. They are the exception, but we will talk to them anyway, because we have to talk to the audience that we have. Out of curiosity, they should find out how much it costs for a ship to pass through the Panama Canal. After that, they should look up how much it cost to rebuild the new Samuel de Champlain Bridge in Montreal, and how much it would have cost had the bridge been lower. It is very high because it is the seaway, and ships have to be able to pass through. It is a good idea, but it came at a price. Who paid for that?

People can always present whatever figures they want. Let them ask more questions about equalization payments, and I will be happy to answer them. Actually, they can keep their equalization. I do believe that Quebec would be much richer and more prosperous and would have a better future without equalization payments if it controlled all of its taxes. That is because the fundamental problem with this federation—I started talking about confederation and federation—is once again poor presentation and yet another opportunity for Quebeckers to be cheated.

It is in the contract of 1867, where the responsibilities and areas of jurisdiction were set out. In order to properly exercise these areas of jurisdiction, we need to have the financial means. However, we have discovered over time that Canada is a federation and that the federal government constantly wants to centralize power here in Ottawa without fulfilling its obligations. We see it every day.

I will just talk about the health care system, which is underfunded. Canada's contribution is now 20% or 22% of health care costs, down from 50% in the early 1970s, when the system was introduced. We need to put ourselves in the shoes of a federal government that wants to be popular and says it cannot simply transfer money to the provinces because they will provide the services and take all the credit so people will like them. The federal government cannot do that.

Jean Chrétien understood that. He cut transfers. He even bragged about it abroad and talked about what a great position he was in. He was cutting transfers and people were protesting in front of the provincial and Quebec parliaments, while he was sitting back with his feet up, with plenty of money to do whatever he wanted, including the ability to encroach on any area of jurisdiction he wanted.

I could go back even further. There is a debt somewhere. My colleague from the Quebec City area, whose full riding name I would not dare try to pronounce because I am not familiar with the indigenous portion and would not want to be disrespectful to anyone, will be pleased that I am quoting the Act of Union of 1840. I know that he is a history buff. When he asks his question, he will surely tell me that he is in a good mood today and that he wants to encourage me by saying that I am right when I say that the debts of Upper Canada and Lower Canada were merged, even though they were of a completely different order of magnitude, and that the debt of Upper Canada, which was Ontario at the time, was paid off. No one is bothered by that today, just as no one will be bothered in two years when we talk about today's $814 million. It will not keep anyone in Canada awake at night. This is another example of Quebec being cheated, although I will agree that it is on a smaller scale.

All those who stand up and tell us that Quebec did not participate in the carbon exchange and that it is not true that Quebeckers got cheated lack objectivity. I am being very polite when I say that they lack objectivity. I will say again that the credit for the carbon tax was paid in advance for the next three months.

The election date was approaching, and the Liberal government decided to scrap the consumer carbon tax in order to pull the rug out from under Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre—I can mention him by name because he is not here, which is rare, so I am taking advantage of it. They took away his arguments. I have to admit that it was a very smart and strategic political move. It seems to have worked, since the Liberals are still in power. However, the government decided that it could not stop the cheques that were supposed to arrive a few days before the election because people would not like that. It therefore decided not to stop the cheques, even though it had not collected the taxes to pay for them.

I have explained this twice. I hope that it is starting to sink in. I almost feel like saying it in English in order to make sure that I am understood, but we do have principles that we will uphold to the very last. I therefore invite those who are interested to put on their earpieces and listen carefully to the extraordinary work that the interpreters are doing here.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear.

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

I am glad to hear that. I can even hear several of you. Hear, hear.

If the Liberals did not collect the money they handed out in advance, where did it come from? It came from the public purse. However, the money in the public purse is not separated by province. Quebec's money is in there, too. That means that 22% of that money should flow back to us. That is all. This is not a malicious separatist gesture or an act of bad faith. What we want is fairness for our citizens. It seems to me that this is a very reasonable request. Unfortunately, I have the very sad duty of noting that the House does not seem to want to recognize this fact. I find that very disappointing. I hope our citizens see this, realize what is going on and remember it, because we do not want an injustice like this to happen every week. Any time someone comes along to extol the virtues of beautiful, great Canada, we will have one more piece of evidence to show that it is not working.

People tell me about Beautiful Canada. That is all very interesting, but why does it not bother anyone that Quebec has never signed the Constitution? It is rather ironic that we are the parliamentary group that respects the Constitution the most. Since we sit here and we are obliged to work within these structures, we are constantly reminding people that jurisdictions need to be respected. We constantly have to tell them that was not what was written behind our backs in the night. One signature in the night, while the premier was sleeping. You cannot make it up. I would not say it in this chamber if I did not know it to be true. I think it is awful to see that no one is bothered by this. Then there are people with good will, like the Conservative leader who had the most common sense, Mr. Mulroney, who tried to fix this. He was not asking for much, but it was a categorical no. Still today, what do we get? We get a categorical no. We will remember.

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I have been listening to the discussion all day, and one thing that keeps coming up is the fact that Quebec did not pay this tax, so Quebec did not receive any payment.

I hear my colleagues saying that their constituents need government support to buy homes and to do many of the things that are covered by bills we have introduced in the House.

Can my colleague tell us whether he will support these bills and therefore answer his constituents' questions?

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

Mr. Speaker, I will do what I always do. When a bill is introduced, I look at what is good for my constituents. If it is good for my constituents, I will vote in favour of it. If it is not good, I will try to change it. That is what the Bloc Québécois is doing.

I want to set the record straight on something. The member was probably mistaken when she said that Quebec has not paid. I just explained for 20 minutes that Quebec paid, because the tax did not fund the last rebate. It comes from the general coffers, for which we provide 22% of the money. I wish someone would understand that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his kind words. Yes, I love history, but I also love the future.

I know that the Bloc members have talked a lot about the referendum they dream of having and about Quebec's independence, which they believe in and which I am not comfortable with, but that is part of democracy. If my colleague really wants a referendum, if he really wants a country, he will have to vote for the Parti Québécois and have the Parti Québécois form the provincial government in a year.

I completely disagree with the leader of the Parti Québécois. I think that the leader of the Bloc Québécois ran a very good federal election campaign. Yet despite that fact, the Liberals elected 44 members with the exact situation the member described.

How does he explain the fact that Quebeckers elected 44 Liberal members, when they knew full well that the situation he so carefully described would happen as he said?

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague. I am glad he asked me a question. Earlier, my speech was almost an invitation.

I, too, believe in the future. Have no fear, we will vote for the Parti Québécois at the first opportunity. What we want is to achieve independence. We are not against Canada, but for Quebec and for continuing to work with Canadians. That is the issue. The reason is because of the injustices, like the ones we called out today. I wish that some of the Conservatives had stepped up today to say that we are right.

This comes from the government. Why? It is because the election campaign stirred up a lot of media attention. It was a fear-driven campaign. Throughout the election campaign, people were told to be careful of the big, bad President Trump. We need “Mr. C”, the Prime Minister I cannot name. That happened throughout the election campaign. Now, however, three weeks on, here we are and no one is talking about it at all.

Was it a manoeuvre to use fear for electoral purposes? Maybe it is like using a cheque for electoral purposes. Why not?

What next?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his eloquent speech. It was very good.

During the last Parliament, the Bloc Québécois held opposition days on issues we consider important, such as Bill 21, secularism, the oath to the King and the monarchy. Each and every time, the Conservatives stood up and asked us why we were not talking about the real issues. They spoke about the cost of living, how much Quebeckers have in their wallets, the prices Quebeckers are paying. They asked us why we were not talking about money and purchasing power.

Tonight, we are doing exactly that. This is a concrete issue, not a symbolic one, and it has a direct impact on our constituents' wallets. The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk has been standing up and giving us election results since 9 o'clock this morning.

Why is he not congratulating us?

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

Mr. Speaker, I almost feel like giving him the floor to answer. That is such a great question. Indeed, it is surprising.

My colleague from Mirabel also raised another example of lack of respect that I could have added to my long list. I had a lot of things on my sheet. However, 20 minutes sometimes goes by very quickly. I am thinking about the injustice and the lack of respect that we have to endure.

Last year, we asked the House to respect our conscience and to allow us to swear an oath to our constituents, rather than swearing an oath to a king, which is something we do reluctantly, out of obligation, for the sole purpose of serving our constituents. In response, some of our colleagues sang God Save the King. Talk about pathetic.

When Quebec wants something, it is told to just forget it. That is the message we are getting again today.