Simon Marcil

[The Environment, March 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government's inaction and grovelling before the U.S. government has cost Quebeckers dearly, as we have seen with softwood lumber, diafiltered milk, and spent fowl. We have seen it over and over again.

Now, the harmful cuts proposed by the U.S. president are threatening the quality of the water consumed by the vast majority of Quebeckers. A tweet from the Prime Minister is not going to solve the problem.

What real action will the Liberal government take to prevent Quebec's main source of drinking water from being compromised?

[International Trade, February 7th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Americans are engaging in unfair competition by generously subsidizing dairy products, but the federal government is turning a blind eye and letting our people down.

The reason supply management is not covered by NAFTA is to protect Quebec dairy producers, who are the first to pay the price for Ottawa's neglect.

Now that he has his limousine and his portfolio for betraying Quebec to the banks, will the Minister of International Trade do something to protect supply management?

[Interests of Quebec, January 30th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, many are worried about the U.S. government's protectionist talk, but Quebeckers have the most to fear.

Our regions are already suffering from the federal government's inability to stand up to the United States. When it comes to diafiltered milk, softwood lumber, or spent fowl, the Canadian border is a sieve for Americans doing business here, but a wall when Quebec might come out on top. Every party in power here has allowed the Americans to run roughshod over NAFTA.

What does this government plan to do differently to protect Quebec?

[Political Party Financing, December 13th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance urged me to read the provisions of Bill C-29. He said:

He might want to know what he is talking about before asking a question. I can tell him very clearly that, in Marcotte, the Supreme Court asked us to clarify consumer protection provisions.

I read the Marcotte ruling. The court does not call on the federal government to do anything; rather, it requires the banks to respect Quebec and Quebec laws. In fact—

[Consumer Protection, December 12th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, the government is offering to delay implementation of measures that will allow banks to circumvent Quebec consumer protection legislation. Basically, banks will not be able to start gouging consumers right away. Unfortunately for them, they will have to wait until spring. After trying to put one over on consumers in its mammoth bill, the bank-friendly government wants Quebeckers to give it a blank cheque.

Is this the best plan the Quebec Liberals could come up with in order to save face with voters?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2016, No. 2, December 5th, 2016]

Madam Speaker, I understand that my colleague is happy to read the lines her party wrote for her.

She is telling us that she wants to pave the way for the future and for economic development and to invest in infrastructure. The problem is that the Liberals are doing it with our tax dollars and that the government wants to save money and protect its banking buddies from losing money. My colleague here voted against motion M-42, which is completely at odds with what she just told us.

I would ask the member to explain to us why she voted against this motion. As well, why is what she is saying inconsistent with her actions?

[Consumer Protection, December 5th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I guess Toronto banks are keen to see Bill C-29 passed considering the minister of high finance is imposing closure. He is anxious to legalize hidden fees in Quebec, authorize misleading advertising, allow banks to change our contracts without our consent, and eliminate our recourse or any sanctions.

How far is this government of banks prepared to go to quash consumer rights in Quebec to the benefit of high finance in Toronto?

The day that Quebeckers no longer have rights, will they have to cut a cheque to the government, like the Chinese billionaires did?

[Points of Order, November 28th, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning remarks during question period last Monday.

There are many dairy and cheese producers in my riding, and this subject is very important to me. However, I used an unparliamentary word that caused a commotion. I would like to withdraw that word unequivocally, and I apologize.

[Points of Order, November 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, now that everyone knows what I am thinking, I withdraw my remarks.

[Dairy Industry, November 21st, 2016]

Mr. Speaker, with regard to cheese producers, to call the minister's offer an assistance plan is clearly insulting. That plan is woefully inadequate. What it comes down to is that Ottawa does not give a damn about Quebec's fine cheeses, which are not even identified in this bad plan. Large cheddar producers, for instance, are just as eligible as artisanal producers.

Some 17,700 tonnes of cheese is about to arrive in our grocery stores, and Ottawa is doing virtually nothing about it.

Will the minister improve his assistance plan to meet the needs of cheese producers, or is he going to recite the same old government bullshit?