Alexandre Boulerice

[Business of Supply, May 31st, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my amazing colleague, the member for Nunavut. I am eager to hear what she has to say.

I would like to point out that we are currently, here in Ottawa, on Algonquin territory. Personally, as a member for Montreal, I represent a territory that was never ceded by the Kanyen'kehà:ka, a place for the nations to gather and exchange. I think that it is important to point this out, especially given the nature of today’s debate.

I am not particularly surprised to hear the Conservatives speak of unbridled individualism and individual responsibility. I am a little surprised, however, to hear my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois following the same line. That is a symptom of a conservative shift in the Bloc that has been happening for years but is coming to the fore once again. We can see it in today’s motion. However, intellectually speaking, the motion raises some interesting questions. These are questions concerning equity, sociology, social determinants, systemic racism, the representation of diversity in our institutions and the fact that our public and private institutions should be a reflection of our society, a society that is as open, diverse and inclusive as possible. We need to work on that. I think we need to think about that. These are important subjects and issues.

Did this warrant an opposition day and a full day of debate? That is a good question. That being said, the choice was the Bloc Québécois’s.

I would like to put things in context. After devoting an entire day of parliamentary work to the prayer in the House of Commons, the Bloc now introduces a motion whose main issue is that some white males will not have access to positions in federal research centres. That is the biggest problem for them. That is the Bloc’s priority. That is what we are talking about today. It is frustrating that these white males are facing restricted access to positions where they have been the overwhelming majority for decades.

We are experiencing a housing shortage; some people cannot pay their rent; others have not received an employment insurance cheque for three or four months; still others want to regularize their status but are in the dark because the wait times for immigration are interminable; people are unable to get a passport; we are in the middle of a climate crisis and a climate emergency; we are being told to expect a hot summer with forest fires, floods and violent storms.

However, let us talk about the poor white males who may not have access to certain positions, when they have occupied 65%, 70% or 80% of these positions for years.

A minimum of effort is being put in to facilitate access to these positions for women, indigenous peoples, visible minorities and persons living with disabilities. Apparently, that is unfair and discriminatory. It is called affirmative action, with a view to effecting a social change that will not happen on its own for historical, sociological and societal harmony reasons. I could give several examples, since we still have to deal with sexism, we still have to deal with systemic racism, and we still have to deal with discrimination and prejudice against immigrants and first nations.

That does not count, because we live in a meritocracy. Each individual is responsible for their own success or failure, and that is it. It is that simple. Now there is an intellectual shortcut if I have ever seen one.

I will use the percentage of women in this Parliament, in the House of Commons, as an example. In 2011, when I arrived here, 24% of members were women. That figure was 26% in 2015, 29% in 2019, and 30% last year. On average, the percentage of women in parliament in a democratic G7 country increases by 1.5% to 2% a year. At this rate, our Parliament will have achieved equity in 40 years. My daughter Marianne will be retired when Parliament achieves gender equity. Without serious incentives and sometimes even coercive measures, it will never happen.

We could also look at unemployment rates. In January 2021, unemployment among Black people in Quebec stood at 13%, which is 70% higher than the Quebec average. The Black community has more university graduates but an employment rate that is 5% lower than the average rate, and they earn $4 an hour less than white people.

In February 2021, one month later, the unemployment rate in Canada increased by 0.6%. That same month, the unemployment rate increased by 4.5% for Latin Americans, 5.5% for the Black community and 7.6% for Southeast Asians. They have higher unemployment rates, earn less and have greater difficulty finding a place to live, even though they are better trained and educated than the average Canadian.

If this is not proof of systemic racism and barriers that must be broken, I do not know what is.

At Laval University it was an awful scandal that women make up 38% of professors, or below 40%. This figure is 6% for members of visible minorities. Fully 13% of Quebeckers are members of a visible minority. That represents one million people. That is halfway to the target. Persons with disabilities represent 1% of professors at Laval University.

As far as research chairs in general are concerned, the numbers are practically the same if we look at the average of federal research chairs. Women represent 34%, even less than at Laval University, and members of visible minorities 6%. The number of persons with disabilities or members of first nations is so low that it cannot be counted. The numbers are not available.

Then I am told that we should not have measures to increase these shameful percentages by giving a chance to someone who does not have the same opportunities in life when it comes to filling a researcher or professor position.

Affirmative action measures work, as we have seen in many countries, such as the United States, where such measures were absolutely necessary. I know that “affirmative action” is sometimes translated in French as “discrimination positive”, or “positive discrimination”. Some people find that amusing and say that you cannot fix discrimination by adding discrimination. That is a bad joke that comes from a narrow, short-sighted perspective. Éric Duhaime, the new leader of the Conservative Party of Quebec, was the first to say this in 2019. That is the very perspective that the Bloc Québécois is embracing here. Bravo.

As a way forward, this is just appalling. We could be talking about any number of things that could be done to help people, but instead you move a motion that will actually hurt people.

[Health-based Approach to Substance Use Act, May 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise in the House to talk about the important bill introduced by my NDP colleague from Courtenay—Alberni, Bill C-216.

COVID-19 took the lives of thousands of Canadians over the past two years, and we have devoted a lot of time and energy to helping those affected by the virus and preventing the loss of even more lives. Meanwhile, another crisis has been happening for years that has not received nearly as much attention.

Today, it is claiming the lives of hundreds of people every month. Thousands of people have died over the past five years because of the opioid crisis and addiction and substance abuse problems. It has been a literal carnage. We need to act quickly and do something about this.

We have here a solution based on science, studies, reports and the opinions of experts. In the House, members who say that they follow the science when they vote and take action must support Bill C-216 because everyone who has been following this issue over the years is telling us that this is the way to go, that this is the first step in saving people's lives. We must absolutely send this bill to committee.

I hear everyone here saying that drug addiction is not a police issue or a legal issue, but a health issue. If members truly believe that, they must support the bill at second reading to send it to parliamentary committee. The committee will improve, enhance and study its clauses as needed and will bring in witnesses and other experts.

I think this is the right thing to do. If members are sincere in saying that this is, above all, a health problem and a public health problem, then we must decriminalize simple possession of drugs.

Two or three weeks ago, my colleague from Courtenay—Alberni came to Montreal. We had the opportunity to visit groups that help people who are in crisis, who have drug problems or who are at risk of dying. We visited the organizations Dopamine and Cactus, and everyone told us that the members of the House need to vote in favour of Bill C‑216. It is the right thing to do. The bill is not perfect, but it is definitely a good step forward. We need this.

My NDP colleague and I came out of the Cactus office and a woman in crisis was lying on the sidewalk with a worker. She looked at us. I guess we must have looked somewhat official. She told us that we need to help these organizations, because they saved her life and do the same for dozens of other people, every day, every week. We need to help organizations like Dopamine and Cactus.

Next, we went to see doctors, social workers and researchers at CHUM who specialize in addiction and substance abuse, all of them women. They told us that this is exactly what they had been asking for for years, that it just makes sense to decriminalize simple possession of drugs and not to use the police or prisons for these people, which deprives them of the help they need. It is true—a prison is not a hospital. It serves other needs, other functions in life.

Maybe social workers should already be prepared, funding should be increased and outreach services should be available, but I think that, as federal lawmakers, our responsibility is to take action where possible right now. If we determine that amending the Criminal Code is the thing to do, those amendments are our responsibility.

In this case, it is the right thing to do. All the international evidence proves it. Everyone on the front lines in Quebec and Canada is asking us to do it. Even if people are unsure or have doubts, they should at least vote for Bill C‑216 in principle so it can go to a parliamentary committee. The committee members can amend it, fix it and improve it as necessary.

However, if members refuse and kill Bill C‑216 right away, that is a sign that they are not listening to people on the front lines and that more people will lose their lives. We will end up back at square one and nothing will happen. More people will die in the streets of Montreal, Vancouver and Toronto.

I think it is our responsibility to be courageous, take that step and vote in favour of Bill C‑216 so it can at least go to committee.

[Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, May 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. The Liberal government is preaching, not practising. Worse still, the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who is a francophone and a Quebecker, does all his communication in English. They have sunk pretty low.

I also agree with my colleague that Bill C‑13 is a step in the right direction and that it could go much further. I would like to know what improvements he would like to see to Bill C‑13 for francophones.

[Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, May 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, it is not the Official Languages Act that will apply to federally regulated businesses in Quebec, but the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. These are two completely different laws.

[Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages, May 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the NDP agrees that it would have been much simpler to impose Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language, on all federally regulated private businesses. However, I disagree with my colleague on the choice that businesses will have to make. I found his comments a bit harsh. Forty per cent of federally regulated business have already voluntarily adopted the Charter of the French Language, and others may as well.

The other option is not official bilingualism. Bill C-13 would create the new use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. A well-known Quebec law firm has said that, based on its interpretation of the bill, employees of a federally regulated private business in Quebec will have the right to carry out their work and be supervised in French, to receive any communications and documentation from their employer in French and to use widely used work instruments and computer systems in French. I do not see what the problem is.

[Government Programs, May 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, there is a groundswell of anger. Thousands of people are frustrated, worried, anxious and sometimes desperate. Why?

The reason is that the federal government is incapable of answering their questions or processing their files. The number of horror stories is growing. Whether it is immigration, passports, visas or employment insurance, the government seems incapable of taking action within a reasonable period of time. This has disastrous consequences for people's lives.

When will the Liberals commit the resources required to quickly respond to Canadians' requests?

[Official Languages Act, May 20th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, roughly eight months ago, we had a federal election. That was not very long ago. It is not a stretch to think that we could take more time to study Bill C‑13.

That said, francophone communities outside Quebec have been waiting for the modernization of the Official Languages Act for 30 years, not eight months. Let us not forget how critical this file is for them and their vitality, as well as for cultural institutions, positive measures and francophone immigration.

What does the minister think about the fact that these people cannot wait any longer for things to improve?

[Bank of Canada Accountability Act, May 19th, 2022]

Madam Chair, I am so happy to see so many people rushing into the House to listen to my speech.

That is very kind.

I will take the next few minutes to review the purpose of this new bill introduced by the former Conservative leader. It is essentially designed to give more work to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, but to do what? To investigate the Bank of Canada? Why?

As my colleague before me already said, the Bank of Canada is already accountable to Parliament for its own administration, its work, its monetary policies and its decisions through House and Senate committees.

It seems that the reason behind this is to hype up the bill introduced by the member for Carleton, who is pointing the finger at Canada's central bank, accusing it of creating all our inflation woes and blaming it for the current decrease in purchasing power that Quebeckers and Canadians are unfortunately experiencing. As we said earlier, the Bank of Canada is not perfect and we have a duty to criticize it and to demand accountability.

This bill is a thinly veiled threat, an attempt by the Conservatives to intrude on and interfere with the Bank of Canada, an independent body. They are doing this for partisan and political purposes. They want to use the Office of the Auditor General for partisan purposes, in a thinly veiled threat to Canada's central bank.

This bill reeks of populism. I think it is pathetic that they are taking up hours of our time in Parliament to help give a Conservative Party leadership candidate some credibility on this issue.

Of course, from a libertarian or far-right economic perspective, the likes of which can be found in the ranks of the Conservative Party, no one blames anything on big business and the massive profits these companies are making. They think it is perfectly normal for the big oil companies and big grocery chains to profit off the pandemic, the crisis and the supply chain issues by unreasonably increasing prices at the expense of workers, the least fortunate and families that are struggling.

The Conservatives are leaning into right-wing populism and will never explain why billionaires should exist or why companies make billions of dollars at Canadians' expense. Instead, they blame the Bank of Canada.

I do not necessarily agree with dramatically raising interest rates as a way to fight inflation. It has tragic consequences for people who, for example, are already having trouble paying their mortgages and bills. That is one way to do it, but it is really not in the best interests of the poor, workers and the middle class. I will come back to that later if I have time.

They want to discredit Canada's central bank in order to give more credit to cryptocurrencies. I do not know whether anyone has been following what has been happening lately with the collapse of cryptocurrencies. They are not governed or controlled by anyone, and no one is accountable to anyone else.

Of course, cryptocurrencies are an unbridled capitalist's dream. I am not sure that this is the kind of society that we want to live in. I am not sure that we should be telling people to trust this virtual currency and that this is how the country's currency is going to be run from now on, because some shadowy forces are controlling the evil Bank of Canada and that this is not in everyone's best interests.

This is really a bill that is being used for partisan purposes, for the leadership race that is going on right now.

If we want to point the finger at those largely responsible for the current price increases, then we must not be afraid to look at the facts and see who exactly is lining their pockets right now at the expense of the average citizen.

The Association des distributeurs d'énergie du Québec recently published a chart to make comparisons between the number of cents in the price at the pump between 2008 and 2022, that is attributable to different factors. In 2008, the price of oil was 84¢, while it is at 91¢ this month, May 2022.

That is not a huge increase. Pollution pricing rose from 1¢ to 9¢. Taxes have gone up, but not that much, just from 45¢ to 60¢. The refining margin, in contrast, has gone up from 9¢ to 48¢. That is the biggest contributor to rising pump prices over the last 15 years, and it is profit for big corporations like Suncor and Imperial Oil, which made billions in profits in the first quarter of this year.

We have to be able to tell people the truth. We have to be able to tell them that there are solutions other than raising interest rates. The NDP has solutions to help people get through this crisis. Increase the GST tax credit, which helps hundreds of thousands of people in Quebec and across Canada, and increase the Canada child benefit, which is a good way to redistribute wealth.

We need to be able to tax these companies that are making billions of dollars in profits so that we can redistribute that money to the people who really need it, people who are suffering right now and struggling to pay their rent and buy groceries.

There are other solutions. I would point out that, in this morning's edition of Le Devoir, a dozen economists went over different ways we could be helping people, including regulating Airbnb rentals, lowering the cost of public transit, building massive numbers of social housing units and bringing in rent control. Not all of these measures would come from the federal government, but there are some excellent ideas and solutions.

What is currently before us is not only unnecessary, but also dangerous for our democratic institutions.

[Bank of Canada Accountability Act, May 19th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that it is a pleasure to rise in the House to speak to this bill, but, quite frankly, I have been in this place for a few years now, and rarely have I seen such a hare-brained, preposterous bill as the one presented to us by the former leader of the Conservative Party.

Worst of all, this bill was introduced by someone who ran to be prime minister, but who is now sinking into a kind of crass partisan populism. I actually get the impression that this is a scheme to promote the member for Carleton in the current Conservative leadership race.

Let us turn to serious business. The bill focuses on the role of the Office of the Auditor General, one of the essential tools for our democratic quality of life, government accountability, and the proper functioning of government.

As an independent body, the office is able to go in, check the facts and see what really happened in a particular department, with a project, military or other equipment purchase, or government contract. It is able to see whether the rules and amounts were followed and whether taxpayer dollars were spent in a proper, reasonable and rational manner.

The office does extraordinary work. As an opposition member, I can say that we have often used the studies, reports and investigations of the Office of the Auditor General to ask questions of the government. It would have been difficult to get these data and studies otherwise.

The various commissioners, including the Commissioner of the Environment and the Commissioner of Official Languages, also do work that is essential to the proper functioning of Parliament and our democracy in general.

Unfortunately, under the government of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, the Office of the Auditor General's budget was cut. They wanted to clip the Auditor General's wings because he was saying things that were unpleasant for the government. He was the one who reminded us that the government had not done exactly this or that, that it had misspent money, that it had not complied with the rules, and so on. The message they wanted to send was that he was not going to have the resources to do his job.

Not only did the Conservatives make cuts to the human and financial resources of the Office of the Auditor General, but now they are introducing a bill giving the Office of the Auditor General a new mandate. The Office of the Auditor General does not have enough resources to audit the entire government, which is considerable, to turn over all the stones and ask all the right questions—

[Business of Supply, May 19th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about this government's inability to deliver basic services. The immigration department has been a disaster for years. There are incredibly long, intolerable delays. We recently saw that the government is unable to issue employment insurance cheques, making people wait three or four months.

Anyone who wants to travel abroad must first have a passport. However, getting one right now takes forever. People are really worried about next year's vacation. Passports have predictable, set expiry dates. How is it that this government is unable to predict that more resources are needed to produce more passports?