Alain Therrien

[Government Business No. 8, July 8th, 2020]

Madam Chair, on April 29, the Bloc Québécois proposed an amendment to the CERB whereby the more one works, the higher one's income will be, independently of the amount or number of hours worked. That makes total sense. We asked the government to make that happen, and the Deputy Prime Minister said she would consider it. She even promised to make it happen.

At the time, the Conservatives did not comment on the idea. Then a few weeks later, they were back on the scene talking about how adjusting the CERB was a good idea. Why is it a good idea? First of all, adjusting the CERB will encourage people to go back to work. That means it will spur growth, not slow it. Recovery will be easier if the CERB encourages people to go back to work. That is what the Government of Quebec keeps telling us.

Also, if people want to go back to work, obviously, it will cost us less in CERB payments, and everyone wins. That would mean an increase in government revenues because of stronger growth. On top of that, government spending goes down, precisely because people are getting back to work. Everyone is happy, because we end up with a situation where everyone is better off.

The Conservative Party has seen the light, I must admit. I would like to know whether the leader of the official opposition thinks that if we had adjusted the CERB from the beginning, when on April 29 our esteemed Deputy Prime Minister—

[Government Business No. 8, July 8th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, we were told that the government was spending all of the necessary funds during an unprecedented time. That is clear to everyone, obviously, since we have a $243-billion deficit. We certainly feel it as well.

However, the thing people are forgetting is that Quebec and the provinces are the ones on the hot seat when it comes to health spending. The provinces and Quebec are the ones that had to respond to this pandemic and ensure that the health care system could adequately meet the needs that we had to address because of the situation.

At first, the Liberal government gave $500 million to the provinces and Quebec. That is the equivalent of roughly $100 million for Quebec. Recently, the Government of Quebec said that additional health spending as a result of the pandemic alone has exceeded the $3-billion mark, and it is not over yet.

Health falls under the jurisdiction of the provinces and Quebec and it is written in the Canadian Constitution that the federal government must bear part of the burden of health spending. The federal government used to fund 50% of health spending. Then it reduced that amount to 25% and now it funds just 20% of health expenses.

Will this government make the necessary effort to provide money to the provinces and Quebec with no strings attached so that they can have a bit of breathing room in the sector that has been the hardest hit by the pandemic?

[An Act Respecting Additional COVID-19 Measures, June 10th, 2020]

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

[An Act Respecting Additional COVID-19 Measures, June 10th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: That the sitting be suspended until such time as the Chair may reconvene the sitting following consultation with the House leaders.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the House Leader of the Official Opposition. We heard that this morning, but it did not come up. I held out hope.

Unfortunately, the motion before us summarily puts an end to the business of the House as we have known it for the past two days. The government says that we will continue to sit and that it will answer our questions. It does not take an Einstein or a Leonardo da Vinci to realize that sitting four times a week with 90 minutes of oral questions a day is not the same as five days of Parliament sitting from 10 a.m. to 6:30 p.m. Nobody is going to buy that.

We are in a pandemic. However, the lockdown is easing. The Quebec National Assembly and the legislatures of the other provinces have resumed sitting. Businesses in Quebec are open again, while businesses elsewhere have already been open for some time. We are emerging from the lockdown. Things that were true and went without saying a month and a half ago are no longer relevant today. We are able to act intelligently, open up Parliament, vote on motions, study bills, and advance debate.

Why is the government running away like this when we are in a pandemic and the deficit is $300 billion and climbing? The government is refusing to provide an economic update and going into hiding.

The leader is acting surprised. That is what the government is doing. I am an objective observer of the government, and it is doing everything that it can to avoid answering questions. I think that democracy is ailing in Canada right now. I do not understand, and I want to know why the government is running away like this.

[Intergovernmental Relations, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, they obviously had no agreement with the provinces and Quebec.

The government is just telling us that, if the provinces decide to give 10 days of leave, the feds are in agreement. That is not a measure, it is a wish.

Who is going to pay for this? The federal government? Quebec and the provinces? The employers struggling with COVID-19 and wondering whether they are going to go bankrupt? The tooth fairy?

How can the government announce a measure as a done deal, when it does not apply to 95% of the people and, above all, depends on other legislatures?

[Intergovernmental Relations, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, the government has announced that it is going to give workers 10 days of sick leave.

Unfortunately, given that 95% of workers are not covered by the Canada Labour Code, we see that this issue will not be decided here.

I was pleased to hear the question from the leader of the NDP, and especially the reply from the Prime Minister, who said that he was not going to encroach on the areas of jurisdiction and responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. That is what we are talking about, Mr. Speaker.

My question is simple. Just before he made the announcement, did he come to an agreement with Quebec and the other provinces?

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, one thing is for sure: I do not support the fact that the Conservatives are also going to dip into the Canada emergency wage subsidy in order to try and wipe away their supposed financial problems, when they are as rich as Croesus. I might even say that Croesus was poor compared to the Conservatives. The two main, well-heeled parties have both hands in the Canada emergency wage subsidy. It is not a pretty picture.

Yes, Parliament should continue to sit normally. I agree with him. Yes, there are matters that remain pending. When we negotiated fixed costs around the government table, there were two absentees: the NDP and the Conservatives. Only the Bloc was pushing for improvements in the assistance that could be made available to companies. When companies survive, the economic fabric is stronger and jobs are long-lasting and of good quality.

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

Of course wage subsidies are important. Just look at the Liberals; they are certainly taking full advantage. It is clearly very important to them, but the problem is that the whole purpose of the program was kind of undermined when the government shamelessly helped itself to the Canada emergency wage subsidy. The Liberals are in no danger of going bankrupt. I am quite sure they will not go bankrupt this year.

Economics teaches about two kinds of costs businesses have to cover: fixed costs and variable costs. Variable costs are usually salaries, which are covered by the Canada emergency wage subsidy.

What we are proposing is even more important for Quebec because small businesses drive our economy. Yes, there are businesses in Manitoba, and that is fine. We are not saying this is bad for the rest of the country.

Getting back to fixed costs, of course businesses have to cover variable costs and payroll, but they also have fixed costs, which they have to cover even when they are not producing anything. That is the crucial point.

Just helping businesses cover their variable costs is not enough; we have to help them cover their fixed costs too. That is microeconomics 101, which I teach at CEGEP and university. We have to help businesses with their fixed costs. That is why we reached out to the government, but the government did not respond.

Is that because it forgot—

[Proceedings of the House and Committees, May 26th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a distinct society. Even staunch federalist Robert Bourassa said so and championed the cause with other Canadians.

Among other things, “distinct society” means that most of us speak French. It is the only official language of Quebec. Our culture is different. We are no better, we are no worse; we are different.

We are also different economically. Small and medium-sized businesses are the lifeblood of our province. The vitality of Quebec is built on the dynamism of Quebec business owners, who, by dint of their efforts and their toil, have been able to create businesses that were small to begin with, certainly, but that have become medium-sized, or even huge in some cases.

The pandemic is a threat to Quebec's industrial fabric, to that spirit of innovation and entrepreneurship. On the brink of bankruptcy because of the pandemic, some SMEs will disappear. Other places in Canada may say the same thing, and I acknowledge that. However, in Quebec, SMEs are even more important given the difference in our industrial fabric.

These businesses are threatened not only by bankruptcy, of course, but also by the risk that they may be bought by foreigners. If that happens, all the effort and creativity will slip out of the hands of Quebeckers, and medium- and long-term decisions will be made in other countries. This threat may mean that businesses grappling with the temporary COVID-19 situation could suffer permanent harm. We must therefore be on our guard and make sure that this does not happen.

The Bloc Québécois's only objective is to look out for the interests of Quebeckers. That is why, on April 20 and 29, during debates on motions adopted in the House, with a government that was open to our input, we submitted proposals to protect entrepreneurship from the pandemic, where we knew we were vulnerable.

On April 20, when we brought up the idea of collaborating on the Canada emergency wage subsidy project, we knew that some businesses were quite vulnerable, as they had to cover their fixed costs despite not getting revenue. This could be a fatal situation for them. That is why we had asked the government to add additional assistance to the April 20 agreement to help with fixed costs.

We had a $73-billion wage subsidy proposal before us. We managed to convince the government to include in its motion a partial subsidy for businesses' fixed costs, an important measure that would prevent our future economic stars from going bankrupt. That is what we were proposing.

What did we get in return?

What we got was a program that offered almost no solutions for businesses. This program was too timid, too lightweight, and even inaccessible in some cases. Most businesses told us that this program was not good for them and they needed something else.

That is why we have been hounding the government and telling it to improve what was proposed in the motion. We reminded the government that it had made a commitment and that it had given us its word. We said that we needed to help businesses, because the situation is critical.

However, nothing has been done since then. It is radio silence. When the government tabled its motion 11 days ago, the Bloc immediately said that, to protect businesses, the support to help cover fixed costs had to be improved and increased.

Yesterday, the government House leader said that the government had taken a first step—a small step, if that. If that small step stops there, it is not enough, when in fact we were proposing continued assistance for these businesses. That is then a broken promise.

Mr. Speaker, I forgot to tell you that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean. Sorry about that. I am sure you will forgive me. You are so incredibly nice. You are the person I should be negotiating with in the future.

The second important point is that some businesses want to hire people and some municipalities need to hire people. Economic recovery seems to be on its way. We can see better days ahead. In order for businesses to find employees and for people to want to get back to work, we need to help them. We need to encourage people to work. We need to tell them to start working again and to contribute to the production effort. The economy in Quebec and in the rest of Canada will be better off for it.

On April 29, the government created the CESB, and we commended it for that because it is true that some students will not be able to find a job and they will need financial security to be able to continue their studies. We applauded that measure. When we analyzed the government's proposal, we found it contained a flaw that meant that students might be less inclined to work.

Do I think they are lazy? No, it is not laziness. However, as structured and written, the program ensures that students earn the same whether they work two days or seven days a week. Even a trained monkey understands that, if its salary stays the same whether it works two days or seven, it should work two days. That is pretty clear, but it seems that the government has not understood, which is why we have asked the government to commit to encouraging students to work by ensuring that, in all circumstances, students' salaries would increase if they work more. Our support was conditional on that.

It is a fundamental rule of economics: the more you work, the more you earn. You do not have to put on a puppet show or draw a picture to understand this. The government told us that it was a good idea. The Deputy Prime Minister told the House that it was a good idea and that the government would work on it. Three weeks later, nothing; it has made no progress. It is worse than the fixed costs, where the Liberals took a single step and called it a day. In the case of the CESB, they have taken no steps at all.

We have a government that is not respecting its commitments. That is why we decided to sit that one out when a new round of negotiations started. We cannot negotiate with a government that promises us things it does not do. We have had a part in this bad movie before, and we are no longer interested.

We even gave them a chance. We were really very nice about it. We told the government to keep the two promises they had made. We gave them eight days, but they made no effort. They were supposed to take more action on fixed costs to build on their very tentative first steps, and then do what they promised to do.

We waited, but in the end they said no and told us how things were going to work. That is why, today, we are saying how things are going to work for us in the Bloc. We cannot work or negotiate with people who have little regard for their word.

We have our word and we have very clear ideas. What is good for Quebec is good for the Bloc Québécois. What is good for the nation of Quebec is good for the people of Quebec. We have to help small and medium-sized businesses survive the pandemic, those budding businesses that will eventually grow into Bombardiers. They must be given a chance to survive, and that is what we have been doing from the start. We are working hard on this and we will not give up. Our platform is clear and simple: what is good for Quebec is good for us.