Mr. Speaker, this is a somewhat unexpected turn of events, but since some members did not use all of their speaking time, I will take the liberty of adding a few remarks.
Let me begin with a story. I grew up just north of the riding of Abitibi—Témiscamingue in a village called Lebel-sur-Quévillon. The population of the village was about 4,000 at the time. An older gentleman named Mr. Tremblay lived there. He was a legend. Everyone knew Mr. Tremblay. Everyone who lived in Lebel-sur-Quévillon had met Mr. Tremblay at one point or another. What was special about this man was that he lived to be 116 years old. Obviously, that is impressive. I was still a kid when he died, and I asked my father to explain why Mr. Tremblay lived to be 116 years old. My father told me that it was simple: Mr. Tremblay minded his own business. That way, no one would ever want to give him a slap. Mr. Tremblay understood that.
After nearly two centuries of history, the federal government still does not understand that if it wants to avoid getting slapped in the face, it needs to mind its own business.
Price regulation is consumer law. According to the Claude Masse Foundation and the book Le droit de la consommation, “Consumer law is entirely based on the legal institution of the contract, whether verbal or written. This does not mean that the only legal protections for consumers are contractual in nature, but rather that there would be no consumer law without contracts.” It is civil law.
For some time now, the federal government has been blaming the provinces for all of society's problems. Everything is always the provinces' fault. If food prices have risen, it is certainly not because of a lack of competition. It is certainly not because in 1984 there were 13 major grocery chains and today there are only four or five, including Costco and Walmart. No, that is not why. It is because the provinces are still getting it wrong.
The federal government tells us the same thing about health care. If hospitals are underperforming, it is not because of inadequate funding from Ottawa; it is because 10 provinces and three territories are useless. If the government interferes in university affairs, the provinces are told it is because they cannot manage their universities or because the universities cannot manage themselves. They can never do enough equity, diversity and inclusion to suit the federal government, so it has to stick its nose into their business.
The same goes for dental care, which Quebec does better than Ottawa. We use an automatic system to issue payments, but nothing we do is ever good enough for the federal government. The same goes for infrastructure and housing. When Ottawa comes up with its national housing strategy, it takes three or four years to get it off the ground. Finally, the thing gets done, and the program that the Bloc Québécois called for, the rapid housing initiative, is a reality. It comes with no conditions, and it is the only program that gets social housing built quickly, because Quebec is the only province that has permanent social and community housing construction programs.
It is the same thing for the child care centres. The federal government goes and tells the provinces what to do, even Quebec, which developed the system in the first place. Nothing we do is ever good enough for the federal government.
On the issue of food labelling, what did we do wrong? My colleague from Abitibi—Témiscamingue said it earlier: Quebec launched a reform to improve transparency. It is not perfect, but it ensures that prices are clearly displayed and that consumers know what they are buying in terms of quantity. When we know how much we are paying per 100 grams, we can pay less. It reduces opportunities for what is known as shrinkflation, the practice of putting fewer grams in every box while raising the price. Quebec has done that.
Can someone explain to me how a national framework, which is simply an encroachment on the powers of Quebec and the provinces, is going to improve anything? The government is talking about price transparency, yet there is no budgetary transparency. We had to fight with the Minister of Finance and National Revenue to find out when he would table a budget, but price transparency, that is important.
At the Prime Minister's Office, there is a whole floor dedicated to managing the Prime Minister's conflicts of interest, yet price transparency is of the utmost importance to the federal government. At some point, a recalibration will need to be done and the federal government will have to start looking after its own affairs.
The Conservatives were talking earlier. They like to say that, if we want to ensure that people can buy groceries, the important thing is to put money back in their pockets. The Conservatives, of course, like to talk about inflationary deficits and all sorts of things that, from a purely macroeconomic perspective, are more or less true most of the time.
However, at the end of the day, we must face reality. When a Quebec taxpayer receive their paycheque, after taxes and after their contributions, ultimately, even though there is a federal government, a provincial government and a municipal government, there is only one taxpayer.
In Quebec, we are currently experiencing multiple crises at the same time, in the education sector, the health sector and the infrastructure sector. We know that our population is aging. We know that, given the pressures of this aging population, the years 2025 to 2035 may be the most challenging that we have seen in decades in terms of Quebec's public finances. If the government wants to give Quebeckers a break, it needs to help the Quebec government fulfill its fundamental responsibilities under the Constitution by increasing unconditional health transfers, social transfers and so on.
When the Bloc Québécois asks for these things, what is the response? First, the federal government tells the Bloc Québécois that it has no money. Then, a week later, the federal government comes out with a plan to spend that same amount of money, but with conditions that encroach on provincial jurisdiction. That is all relevant. If the government wants people to be able to afford groceries, if it wants to boost spending power, there are two ways to do that: either increase income or reduce the cost of the goods people spend their income on, as well as the tax burden. Everyone knows the provinces need some breathing room.
In short, I am not saying that this is not a good bill or that its goal is not worthy. I do not think its purpose is bad. I just think the priorities are wrong, this is the wrong time for it, it encroaches on provincial jurisdiction and there is nothing in it that Quebec is not already doing very well.
I will conclude by saying that interprovincial trade is the most far-fetched argument for this bill. Someone will have to explain to me how adding a layer of federal bureaucracy to price labelling, whether at convenience stores, grocery stores or gas stations, will help interprovincial trade. I have never gotten the impression that goods are labelled at the factory before they cross the border.
For all these reasons, I will be voting against this bill. The Bloc Québécois will be voting against the bill. Of course, we will always be open-minded when it comes to considering bills that do not encroach on provincial jurisdictions.