Michel Boudrias

[Business of Supply, October 29th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, this morning I heard a lot of rhetoric about the terrorist events that occurred at the time. However, this debate is about the 500 people who were incarcerated arbitrarily and unjustly and, contrary to what my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent says, with the obvious complicity of the federal government, given its jurisdiction over defence, the army and especially the War Measures Act.

If it is right to recognize the mistakes that were made and the injustices against certain people in the past, such as the Japanese citizens who were unjustly incarcerated during the Second World War, then it is right to do so in these circumstances. That is what we are talking about this morning.

The point is to acknowledge the mistakes and apologize to the 500 people who were unjustly incarcerated with the legal complicity of the federal government. They incarcerated 500 Quebeckers who had absolutely nothing to do with the terrorist acts that keep being mentioned. That is not what we are talking about this morning.

[Canada Post, October 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, mail delivery is an essential service. During the first wave of the pandemic, when Canada Post was plagued by major delays, the Government of Quebec had the great idea to consider creating Quebec Post. The more time goes by, the more timely and necessary the idea seems.

The federal government's careless attitude toward postal services as a whole and postal management is forcing all of our businesses to turn to Amazon and other private courier services. Our businesses and retailers are paying the price for the mistakes of the Liberal government, which is shirking its responsibilities.

When will we force them to—

[Opposition Motion—Pharmacare, March 12th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, obviously, we agree with the substance of the motion. As we have heard, Quebec is setting an example when it comes to protection and coverage for medical care, particularly regarding pharmacare. We already have a system that works, the first in Canada, which serves as a model. We fully agree on that.

However, it is important to keep in mind that this is a provincial jurisdiction and that the federal government spends $300 billion a year. Of that amount, $100 billion goes to real services, while $200 billion in transfer payments of all kinds are used to force the hand of various governments and blackmail them.

Would my colleague not agree that the money should be transferred to the provinces so they can create their own pharmacare programs?

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I do not know if my colleague realizes that two elements of his speech are key and essential to resolving the problems of recurring deficits and indebtedness.

According to several serious economic studies carried out in recent years, nine out of 10 provinces will be insolvent by 2030-35. There is a likelihood that Canada could default on its debt in 2030-35. In the meantime, two-thirds of the federal government's budget consists of all sorts of transfers. Only one-third of the budget is allocated to the provision of immediate public services.

To resolve this problem, would my colleague and the Conservative Party be in favour of the federal government letting the provinces decide what to do with two-thirds of the budget in order to alleviate the enormous financial and fiscal pressures on Canadians?

[Business of Supply, March 9th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, regardless of what people may think, we sympathize with our Conservative colleagues' concerns about the effects and economic impact of the energy sector slowdown. We realize that western Canada's economy is largely energy-based.

I do not know whether my colleague is aware that the reason this oil is not competitive on the international market today comes down to three key factors. The first is that it takes the equivalent of four barrels of oil to produce one barrel of this kind of oil, so production is non-competitive right off the bat when the price per barrel falls below $50 or so.

Since 2012, Saudi Arabia has literally cut the price of its oil by raising taxes within its own country to guarantee international dumping. Thanks to those two factors, Canadian oil is not competitive right now and probably will not be for quite some time. That is a business reality, not a political reality under the circumstances.

I understand the local and social concerns this can cause, especially on an economic level, but has my colleague considered any potential transition solutions for his province?

[Relations with Indigenous Peoples, February 18th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, when it is a question of a blockade that has been paralyzing a major, crucial piece of infrastructure like a rail system in the middle of winter for 13 days, of course there are some extreme concerns, at least for the near future, and it is our duty to address those concerns. Indeed, we have a responsibility to negotiate peacefully and reach a consensus, considering the source of the conflict.

If we begin with the principle that we must negotiate and consider the serious concern raised by my colleague, we must strike a balance between safety and liberty. After 13 days, the government still has yet to reveal a contingency plan.

What do they plan to do in the coming hours and days to ensure the supply of energy and major commodities, like agricultural products and so on?

What is the contingency plan? We are going to have to take a serious look at this issue all together.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 6th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, I am a sovereignist, and in the past several days of debate on free trade, I have been hearing many concerns expressed about Canadian sovereignty on trade issues. My colleague talked about it again earlier.

Obviously, when it comes to defending Canadian sovereignty in trade agreements, there is always something called state strategic industries. Energy and aluminum are two examples. Trump used the national security clause, for instance. There needs to be a clear definition of what is sacred and inviolable for the security and prosperity of a typical country. Take, for example, industries like the high-value-added, high-tech aerospace sector.

Is my colleague not concerned about the government's laissez-faire approach to dealing with Washington and other powerful nations in these trade agreements? Is he not concerned about how easily the government gives in and sacrifices certain key sectors?

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, February 3rd, 2020]

Madam Speaker, it was really interesting to listen to my colleague's speech.

The Conservative Party is talking about concerns over threats to Canadian sovereignty from U.S. protectionism, which make the negotiations that much more complex and difficult. Common concerns are being voiced from east to west regarding supply management and aluminum. However, both main parties say they are going to ratify this agreement.

The Bloc Québécois has proposed constructive solutions for solving these problems, which, as I noticed while listening to my colleague's speech, are having economically disastrous consequences that are trickling down to his own riding.

Over the past few years, in deal after deal, Quebec's interests have been used as a bargaining chip, and Quebec is suffering setbacks. Do members know that, day by day, every setback brings Quebeckers closer to the realization that the only valid solution is to take their decisions into their own hands, by which I mean become sovereign so they can negotiate for themselves, freely and without obstruction?

Ultimately, our colleagues will need to realize that their refusal to act only bolsters our case for sovereignty. I thank them for that.

[Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement Implementation Act, January 30th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, under the current occupant of the White House in Washington, trade deals are becoming increasingly protectionist. When negotiating agreements, the U.S. always cites the national security provision. Whether it is about steel or aluminum, the Americans freely invoke it in all their negotiations.

Given that Canada also has a strong presence, particularly with the Quebec aluminum industry, why does it not invoke national security when negotiating its agreements, to protect a good part of its industry from U.S. protectionism?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, January 27th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on her speech. She made a lot of sense about a lot of things, including her local- and provincial-level concerns about infrastructure, social issues and youth. Those values are shared by most Canadians and most of the MPs here. However, most of these issues are not just regional but, about 90% of the time, local, and they fall under provincial jurisdiction, especially when it comes to infrastructure and health.

With the federal government allocating some two-thirds of its budget to transfers, would my colleague agree that more money should be transferred to the provinces to fund those programs?