Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné

[The Budget, April 25th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. I also thank him for agreeing that we are doing quite well in Quebec.

We are already supporting the purchase of electric vehicles. That measure was financed by Quebeckers' taxes. Hydro-Québec has done a lot of work. As usual, Hydro-Québec financed the work with our own money and without the federal government's help.

I would say that Manitoba may need it, but Quebec does not. Why propose a budget containing measures that Quebec does not really need?

[The Budget, April 25th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for sharing her time with me.

This year, I was fortunate enough to be one of the privileged members of Parliament who participated in an in camera review of the budget before other members and prior to the minister's speech. It was an opportunity for us to understand it and analyze it.

When I walked out of the room, a little earlier than expected, the first thing that came to my mind was that this was a missed opportunity. It is a missed opportunity to address real problems and, in the process, to create a sustainable economic recovery. Let me briefly go over the context in which this budget was tabled.

First of all, there is a labour shortage, a supply chain shortage, and a customer shortage, since people no longer want to return to performing arts venues, movie theatres and so on. The hospitality and tourism sector is still suffering, and I would remind members that the measures to help it will end next week.

Second, we have an inflationary context. Just this morning, the Governor of the Bank of Canada revised current and projected interest rates upward. Third, we are in a climate crisis.

Given these three overarching factors, the Bloc Québécois made five demands: higher health transfers, which my colleague talked about; a better standard of living for seniors; measures to fight inflation, including short-term protection measures; measures to encourage sustainable finance; and, lastly, indigenous housing. Of these five measures, only indigenous housing is in the budget. We are happy about that.

Unfortunately, none of the other four proposed measures wound up in the budget. My colleague did a great job describing the government's approach to the Canada health transfers and seniors' standard of living.

As for the fight against inflation, unfortunately, the budget contains very few measures to help people get through what is likely to be a longer period than expected, as the governor said this morning. In 2022, we are going to see high inflation.

Given the need for economic recovery and a green transition, I have to say again that this budget is a missed opportunity.

First of all, the budget proposes numerous measures for housing, especially for affordable housing. A few days ago, the Gatineau newspaper Le Droit reported that affordable housing means a one-bedroom apartment costing $1,950 a month. I wonder who here would agree that this is really what is needed. Imagine a single mother of three who does not want to transfer her children to another school and who is offered affordable housing at $1,950 for a one-bedroom unit. I think most of us would agree that this is not necessarily what will most help those suffering from inflation.

Second, the budget proposes dental coverage. Clearly, this encroaches on an area of provincial jurisdiction. As we keep saying over and over again, we do not want measures that encroach on provincial jurisdictions. It is also important to remember that the proposed coverage is meant to help children aged 12 and under, but Quebec already has a program that covers children aged 10 and under. We therefore thank the federal government for wanting to help 11- and 12-year-olds, but that is not exactly what we were asking for.

Finally, on the environment, the budget proposes some good measures, such as electric vehicles. At the same time, however, it is completely undoing its own environmental efforts, particularly by increasing funding for an extremely expensive technology that is not even proven: carbon capture and storage. If this technology were reflected in gas prices, the consumer price index I mentioned earlier would be even higher.

This response to the climate crisis is disappointing, especially since only a few days earlier, the government had approved the Bay du Nord project, which will involve the extraction of almost one billion barrels of oil over the next few years.

We expected a bit more ambition and vision in this budget. As far as the five Bloc measures are concerned, sustainable finance was not addressed either. There are very few measures in the budget.

Once again, we saw very little with regard to fighting inflation. There are several measures that could have been proposed to fight inflation, such as social housing instead of affordable housing, as I was saying, as well as measures to fight monopolies and cartels. We know that that helps boost consumer purchasing power.

The government could have brought in tangible measures to deal with the semiconductor shortage that has been mentioned and that is causing a major problem for the supply chain. As I was saying, there is a shortage of products in the supply chain.

The budget contains a lot of proposals about creating working groups and task forces, but it is weak on tangible action. The proposals in the budget are sorely lacking in vision in areas that are very important.

The proposed measures intrude considerably on provincial jurisdictions. In a nutshell, the federal government is putting money into areas where Quebec has already made investments. It is rather rich that the new areas in which the federal government is innovating with this budget, such as electric vehicles, dental insurance, or even the day care system that copies the Quebec model, are all already covered in Quebec. It is unbelievable that the budget proposes to interfere in provincial measures that already exist in Quebec. What this means is that Quebec is already doing quite well.

I have a question for the Quebeckers watching me today: Why are we still part of a country that is undermining us?

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He very eloquently and approvingly mentioned the system of early childhood centres that was created by our leader's mentor, among others.

My colleague's speech made it clear that Quebec was single-handedly able to use its own resources to build a system that is favourable and very helpful to our economy.

By that same logic, Quebec is great at developing programs on its own that are good for its people. Again, let us follow that logic rationally.

Why is the federal government refusing to increase health transfers unconditionally when Quebec is so great at creating programs that are good for its people?

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for his question. Unfortunately, I believe that the government will do what it usually does. Before the next election, it will promise a pittance but will fail to address the fundamental issue, which is that Quebec must decide for itself, particularly when it comes to health care, and that the money, which is ultimately ours, must be returned to Quebec.

It is our money we are sending to the federal government. It is up to us to decide where it goes and how it will be used to improve our health care system.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for this easy question. Having worked on the report published by the Ouranos group several years ago, which talked about the cost of climate change in Quebec, I would say that climate change is indeed very costly for society.

There are certainly health costs associated with climate change, and some diseases are a direct result. Zoonotic diseases come to mind. There are also infrastructure-related costs. We need only think of flooding, erosion and permafrost.

The government cannot see this, probably because its discount rate is too high. It is surely not a social discount rate, so it must be a private discount rate. By doing a cost-benefit analysis, the government would see that climate change is very expensive and that tackling it would be the better solution, both economically and environmentally.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, the first question is perhaps the easiest. The way things are going with the current government and its proposals, there will definitely still be a flourishing oil industry in Canada.

However, this is not the right objective to set if we want a greener, fairer and more equitable future. We hope that this industry can be transitioned without necessarily causing job losses, because that is not what we want. It needs to be transitioned for a better future and for a more resilient economy that can respond to the climate crisis.

Another question from my hon. colleague was, I think, about products that we are being asked to produce. My colleague asked whether they have a future in the context of the climate crisis. I think that all products, no matter where they come from, should be designed to create a greener and fairer economy. We need to do this now. It is urgent, as the IPCC report points out.

[Committees of the House, April 4th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for Mirabel for sharing his time with me.

These days are particularly important. Obviously, they are quite extraordinary, given the current context. Two years ago, our country closed its borders, implemented health measures and entered the pandemic era. Also, the budget is about to be tabled. There is plenty to say, and I want to begin by looking at the current challenges.

To begin with, we are in an era of shortages: customer shortages, labour shortages and supply chain shortages.

I want to start with customer shortages. Consumer habits have changed. Although economy activity has picked up, some businesses are barely staying afloat. I recently spoke to the executive director of the Terrebonne SODEC, a cultural development agency. She told me that theatres, even the busiest ones in Quebec, are not filling up. They may be open and operating at full capacity, but people have changed their habits and are not coming back.

Now let us talk about the labour shortage. Everyone knows that most companies are having trouble recruiting. We are returning to an era of full employment, but companies are struggling to fill positions. Once again, there is some tension. I recently spoke with a number of people and businesses in my riding. They told me they are having a really hard time finding staff. They are quite stressed out by the fact that Immigration Canada and Service Canada cannot keep pace with the needs of businesses. The wait times are outrageous, forcing some companies to shut down while waiting for employees to arrive. I am talking about temporary foreign workers and workers in the economic immigrant category. I am also talking about companies that simply cannot keep their plants running because there are not enough workers.

Lastly, I want to talk about supply chain problems. Many companies have talked to us about the parts shortages that are affecting the manufacturing process of their products. One of the reasons for this shortage of parts and products is the delay in containers arriving from western Canada. It is also caused by the many shutdowns that occurred during the pandemic. In short, these parts did not arrive. We are at the point where the economy is reopening in most countries around the world, but these companies still cannot produce their goods and are forced to shut down because of parts shortages. We are in an era of shortages.

We are also in the middle of a climate crisis. The environment file is a major one, but our Minister of Environment and Climate Change is having a hard time deciding whether to green-light the Bay du Nord project, which would extract one billion barrels of oil over 30 years. Let us not forget that this is a former Greenpeace leader having a hard time making a decision about a project that makes no sense.

Then there is inflation. Lots of people have talked about this. Not that I want to provide ammunition to any of our friends in the House, but I would like to reiterate that inflation is currently at a 30-year high. We are also seeing record-setting rent increases and gas prices. Today, the Bank of Canada released a report showing that businesses think this inflation is not temporary and will last a long time. People are worried, and they have reason to be.

With all that in mind, let us look at what the Standing Committee on Finance did. The committee received 495 briefs from individuals and groups that wanted to have their say about the future budget and wanted their voices heard as part of this democratic process. We listened to them. Between January 31 and February 14, 29 witnesses from all sectors of our economy were called. The committee heard from representatives of community organizations and small, medium and large businesses, and their recommendations were taken into consideration.

This committee's overall objectives are to grow the economy, of course, but also to protect the vulnerable. We also need to make sure that there is still a planet to leave to our children.

Economists agree that for this to happen, we obviously need to increase productivity, but we also need to strengthen our social safety net. I remind members that the Bloc agrees with the report that was presented, but we have several unconditional demands.

The first demand has to do with health transfers. My colleague from Mirabel spoke about this one. Every time we ask a question about health transfers, the government gives us the runaround, which unfortunately does not help the people who are suffering in our health care system. Our demand is quite simple. We are calling for the federal government to respect jurisdictions. Respect for jurisdictions is the bedrock of the Bloc's mandate. Provincial jurisdictions must be respected. We developed our knowledge and skills over time. The government cannot reinvent the wheel. Our demand is clear. We want the government to increase the Canada health transfer from 22% to 35% of health care costs, and then by 6% annually. We are also calling on the government to restore the funding for the Canada social transfer to its 1994-95 level. This is not rocket science.

Second, we are calling for the government to pay close attention to our seniors. We need to ensure that those who want to keep working are able to do so. I should also point out that this is a solution we proposed for addressing the labour shortage. We are calling for old age security to be increased by $110 over three years, starting at age 65. We do not want two classes of seniors.

Third, we proposed and will continue to propose measures for fighting inflation. Obviously they include short‑term measures to protect the most vulnerable, as others have mentioned. For instance, we suggest doubling the GST rebate whenever the inflation rate exceeds the rate set by the Bank of Canada and paying it out every month. We are asking for an increase to the Canada child benefit to keep pace with inflation. We are asking for targeted support for SMEs. There are also several medium-term measures that could be taken immediately, if the government is willing to be a bit more proactive, in order to help fight inflation and especially to boost our resilience. For example, we suggest building social housing to address the housing shortage. We could also develop segments of the economy that we are missing, such as semiconductors. We know that there is a shortage and that these parts are very important to our economy. There is also the fight against monopolies. It is outrageous that Canada still has monopolies creating certain costs that have been eliminated in other places around the world. The European Union broke up the telecommunications monopolies. Canada should no longer have any monopolies.

Fourth, we want green financing. Our banks must be more transparent. Finally, there is the issue of first nations housing. It is not right that there are still problems with access to clean drinking water and a lack of social housing in a G7 country.

If the trend continues, we will have a minority Liberal government Thursday evening and probably on Friday as well. However, as with every budget, our proposals should be incorporated. The Bloc Québécois's role is to make concrete proposals. That is what we did. The government has often listened to us. We are there for Quebec.

[Office of the Auditor General of Canada, March 31st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the work of the Office of the Auditor General of Canada is vital in a democracy. Its employees provide Parliament with the truth about the government's spending, probity and effectiveness.

Employees in its audit services group, three-quarters of whom are women, have been without a contract since 2018. They have been working to rule since last November and are now on strike.

Although the Auditor General is independent, Treasury Board makes the decisions about budgets and negotiating terms. Obviously, the President of the Treasury Board can easily live with an Office of the Auditor General that is no longer able to produce reports that embarrass the government.

The men and women of the audit services group are not asking for the moon. They want a pay grid comparable to that of the federal public service. The difference of $215,000 divided between 165 employees is practically nothing. The President of the Treasury Board must take action. Negotiations are under way at this time, and this must be resolved. This is urgent.

[Economic and Fiscal Update Implementation Act, 2021, March 28th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, usually the other parties accuse us of picking fights, but apparently it is not the Bloc this time.

Here is my question relating to my hon. colleague's speech. In the economic update, the government held the Canada health transfer to the legal minimum, which is 3%. I would like my colleague to comment on the fact that this is the absolute minimum and that the Canadian provinces and Quebec have been asking for significantly higher health transfers for a long time. An increase is overdue and would be perfectly reasonable following this kind of pandemic.

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP's motion is slightly different from the Liberal government's election promise made during the last campaign. The motion adds oil companies and big box stores to the list.

Can the member explain why the Liberal government does not support this motion? Is it because they want to protect oil companies?