Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, May 25th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

I must admit I did not detect a specific question. Generally, he asked me if the current spending will contribute to inflation or encourage consumption, in other words, if this is a stimulus budget. I gather that is the gist of his question.

Public spending is generally key to a sound economic recovery. Of course, we must not invest indiscriminately, but historically, in times of crisis and turmoil, we have relied on an ambitious public spending agenda. We do not like all the public expenditures laid out in the budget, but we are not opposed in principle to public spending.

We also know that most of these support programs will disappear in the near future as the crisis subsides, so we will not have to rack our brains about where to make cuts, because many of the programs will automatically come to an end.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2021, No. 1, May 25th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-30, which implements certain provisions of budget 2021.

As everyone knows, it is a mammoth and extremely dense bill that contains a wide range of measures. We unreservedly support some of these measures, which we would like to see implemented even if we vote against the budget.

This part of the bill seeks to extend COVID-19 assistance programs, which although not perfect are nevertheless essential, until September. These include the Canada emergency wage subsidy and the Canada emergency rent subsidy. Many businesses that have suffered badly over the past year rely on those programs. Considering how important predictability is in business, of course we are pleased that entrepreneurs will have a clear idea of the programs available to them over the coming months. However, the amounts allocated will decrease gradually throughout the extension period.

However, there is one little thing worth noting. The bill gives the Minister of Finance the power to extend the programs until November 30, 2021, through regulation, without having to go through the legislative process. I believe I am right in thinking and safe in saying that this measure is an insurance policy in case the House is dissolved for a fall election, which would prevent it from enacting a law that would extend the wage subsidy beyond September 27, 2021. I will let my colleagues read between the lines to determine when the government expects the House to resume.

We are particularly pleased that, instead of paying taxes in the year that they received a government assistance cheque and getting a credit in the year that they reimburse the amount, as is currently the case, under Bill C-30, taxpayers will not have to pay taxes on any government assistance that they reimbursed. Those who have just completed their 2020 income tax return could end up paying taxes on the amounts they received through the Canada emergency response benefit. However, even if the government asked them to pay back those amounts, under Bill C-30, any reimbursements made this year make the cheques received last year tax-free.

Another piece of good news is the creation of a hiring subsidy program, which will be in effect from June 6 to November 20, 2021. That program is offered to businesses restarting their activities and hiring or rehiring employees. I am also pleased that taxes will finally be imposed on Internet products and services and Airbnb rentals, which will put an end to the unfair competition that we have strongly criticized.

I would also note the new Canada-wide child care program, even though it is part of a general trend of interference and federal centralization. Fortunately, there is mention of a possible asymmetrical agreement with Quebec and the federal budget statement repeatedly touts the child care system. However, there needs to be assurances that this agreement will translate into full compensation with no strings attached for Quebec for its share of the total cost of the program. Since this federal government likes to interfere in matters that are not under its jurisdiction, I would like to note that family policy and related programs are exclusively under Quebec's jurisdiction.

Bill C-30 provides for a one-time payment of just over $130 million to the Government of Quebec to harmonize the Quebec parental insurance plan with the Employment Insurance Act. Since the eligibility criteria and benefit period for EI have been temporarily modified and increased, Quebec has the right to opt out with financial compensation with respect to the maternity and parental benefits program.

However, Bill C-30 also lays the foundation for a Canadian securities regulation regime, which the Bloc Québécois and Quebec strongly oppose. This bill provides for a significant increase to the budget of the Canadian Securities Regulation Regime Transition Office, so it is not a stretch to conclude that Ottawa wants to strip Quebec of its financial sector. I remind members that the office was created in 2009, and its purpose is to create a single pan-Canadian securities regulator in Toronto. Bill C-30 authorizes the government to make payments to the transition office in an aggregate amount not exceeding $119.5 million, or any greater amount that may be specified in an appropriation act.

Although the Supreme Court ruled on a number of occasions that securities were not under federal jurisdiction, Ottawa finally got the green light in 2018 to interfere in this jurisdiction provided that it co-operate with the provinces and not act unilaterally. History has taught us to be cautious in such situations.

This plan to create a national securities regulator in Toronto is bound to result in regulatory activities transitioning out of Quebec. I will note that the unanimity we have seen in opposition to this bill in Quebec is rather remarkable. All political parties in the Quebec National Assembly, business communities, the financial sector and labour-sponsored funds are against this bill. The list of those who have vehemently expressed their opposition to this initiative includes the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan Montreal, Finance Montréal, the International Financial Center, the Desjardins Group and Fonds de solidarité FTQ, as well as most Quebec businesses such as Air Transat, Transcontinental, Québecor, Metro, La Capitale and Molson.

This plan is just bad and must never see the light of day. Contrary to what members opposite are saying, this is more than just a dispute over jurisdictions or a new conflict between the federal government and the provinces. This is quite simply a battle between Bay Street and Quebec. It is an attack on our efforts to keep head offices in the province and preserve our businesses.

Keeping the sector's regulator in Quebec ensures that decision-makers are nearby, which in turn enables access to capital markets for businesses. A strong Quebec securities regulator is essential for the development and vitality of the financial sector. In Quebec, the financial sector accounts for 150,000 jobs and contributes $20 billion to the GDP. That is equivalent to 6.3%. Montreal is the 13th largest financial centre in the world.

A strong financial hub is vital to the functioning of our head offices and the preservation of our businesses. It is a well-known fact that businesses concentrate their strategic activities, in particular research and development, where their head offices are located. This new attack on Quebec's jurisdictions risks having us go the route of the branch plant economy, to the detriment of Ontario.

This potential exodus of head offices could have serious consequences on every level of our economy, since Quebec companies tend to favour Quebec suppliers, while foreign companies in Quebec rely more on globalized supply chains. Just imagine the impact that can have on our network of SMEs, particularly in the regions. As we have seen during the pandemic, globalized supply chains are fragile and make us very dependent on other countries. We will not stop fighting against this plan to centralize the financial sector in Toronto.

We will also keep calling out the government for ignoring the demands of the Quebec National Assembly and the provinces and refusing to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%. As we know, the government is ignoring the will of the House of Commons, since a Bloc Québécois motion calling on the government to substantially and permanently increase federal transfers to the provinces was adopted in December 2020.

The government could well have taken advantage of the fact that the deficit announced in budget 2021 was lower than expected, by $28 billion, which is exactly how much Quebec and the provinces are asking for. With massive spending on the horizon, it is clear that by refusing to increase transfers, the government is making a political choice, not a budgetary choice, to the detriment of everyone's health.

It was a long time coming, but Bill C-30 finally includes the increase to old age security that this government promised during the 2019 election campaign. However, the increase will amount to only $766 per year, or $63.80 per month, and will apply only to seniors aged 75 and over. The increase will not begin until 2022 and is insufficient for seniors and for the Bloc Québécois.

In closing, we will vote in favour of the bill, because we do not want to deprive seniors aged 75 and over of this cheque. We do not want to deprive businesses and workers of the assistance programs they are counting on, but we will continue to fight to ensure that all sectors of Quebec society receive their fair share in a fairer budget in the future.

[Business of Supply, May 13th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who also made a powerful speech a little earlier.

I could not agree more. That is exactly what we are seeing. I gave the example of proposing an amendment to the amendment. That is part of the workings of democracy, especially in a minority government context. Then the government says that if the amendment to the amendment is adopted, then it will trigger an election. The government is blackmailing all the parties to make sure that a majority of members vote no. Then, it will say that we are the ones trying to trigger an election. It is absolutely ludicrous.

What my colleague said is quite accurate. We are reading the situation the same way.

[Business of Supply, May 13th, 2021]

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

There are no tricks here. Everything is written in black and white. There is no ambiguity. There is nothing wrong with the motion. It is simply a statement of good faith, and I think it would reassure Quebeckers and Canadians. It just makes sense.

Of course we encourage the government to support this statement. If the Liberals vote against it, that would mean they do not agree with it and an election could very well happen in the midst of a pandemic.

[Business of Supply, May 13th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak today to this proposal by the Bloc Québécois on this, our opposition day.

This is a proposal that goes to what may be the very heart of our political commitment, that is, the expression of democracy itself. There are several components and several things to say about this proposal. There would also be several things to say about Bill C-19.

Today, it has come down to us making a common-sense proposal that no election be held while the pandemic is at its peak, which has yet to be confirmed. By definition, we never know what the future holds. The first wave was strong, the second was even stronger, and the third is bringing particularly harmful variants that are more dangerous and more contagious. With each wave, we told ourselves that it could not be worse than what we had just come through, but unfortunately we were wrong. Such are the vagaries of public health and the life we have been living for a year now.

I feel it is a shame to present a motion on something that is just plain common sense. This motion is not even binding. If the situation changes and the need for an election becomes palpable, it will still be legal to hold one. That is not the issue. This motion is really an affirmation of good old common sense: we all understand, collectively, as a political class, that the priority is not to hold elections. It seems to me that should be obvious.

However, evidence of the government's desire to trigger an election is piling up. Unfortunately for the Liberals, they are always forced to put it off. If it were not for this third wave today, which is especially bad in Ontario, a province we know will be hotly contested, we would not be here right now. We would all be in our ridings, campaigning. There is not a shadow of a doubt about that.

In January, when the House resumed after the holiday recess, several newspapers reported that the government had asked its party and its riding associations to be at the ready and to prepare for an imminent campaign. It was not the Bloc Québécois saying it, but some very serious newspapers.

I feel it is a shame that, because we are raising this issue, the government has nothing better to do than to pass the buck to us, saying that it is the Bloc Québécois that often votes against the government. I have news for the government: as my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said earlier, this is a minority government. It is the government that often decides that a given matter will be a confidence vote. That is called blackmail.

I will take the example of the Bloc Québécois's amendment to the amendment to the budget bill. As a reminder, we proposed an increase in the pension for seniors and an increase in health transfers, and the government told us that it would make it a confidence matter. Here is a minority government that says it does not want an election, that criticizes us for voting against it when there are confidence votes, but that itself turns important votes into confidence votes.

The government is telling us that, if a majority of the members of the House impose a policy that the Liberals do not want, it will not respect democracy or the constitution of this democratically elected Parliament that, in the current context of a minority government, gives the upper hand to the opposition, which has a majority. The government tells us that there will be an election, and then blames certain opposition parties for wanting to trigger the election. This is rather odd and ethically dubious.

There are more and more signs, and I think there is no doubt that the government wants to call an election. Let me give Bill C-216 as an example that is very important, particularly for my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé. I raised a point of order on it a few days ago.

The government agreed to vote in favour of the bill to embarrass the official opposition. Since then, however, it has done everything it can to ensure that, contrary to custom, the bill does not receive priority consideration at the Standing Committee on International Trade, on which I sit.

The government expressed circumstantial, partisan and temporary support for this bill, figuring that if it delayed the study of the bill as much as possible, it would not make it back to the House before the next election. The government thinks that it will win a majority in the next election and that this will all be ancient history, but that it will not have come off looking all that bad in the meantime.

We have seen it before. We were not born yesterday. This shell game is quite elaborate, but we know exactly where the government is going with this.

I want to get back to the gag order that was imposed on a debate about an act that is fundamental to our democracy, the act that sets out the rules by which Quebeckers and Canadians choose their elected officials.

Questions about holding an election in this particular context will obviously come up, since the current Liberal government has a minority. If the government had a majority, we can assume that this pandemic would have ended before the next fixed election date. Since the government has a minority, however, an election could be called at any time. As I was saying, there would be an election right now. If not for the third wave, we would not be in the House because Parliament would have been dissolved.

We have no problem with an election being held before the health situation improves. We said as much last fall. We said that we needed to put rules in place and we invited the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, or CEO, to come up with a formula. We were the first to say it. Elections must obviously be held as safely as possible. That is not the issue. Democracy should not be suspended because of the health crisis.

Nevertheless, I want to point out that Bill C-19, regarding potential elections during a pandemic, was introduced last December and completely ignored the study previously done on this issue by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It even ignored the CEO's recommendations from November 2020. The government only brought the bill back up for debate in the House on March 8. Five months have passed since the bill was introduced, and barely four hours have been allocated for debate in the House. I repeat, only four hours to review the Canada Elections Act.

Suddenly, last Friday, we got a surprise. The issue just so happened to become a national emergency, to the point where a gag order was imposed with support from the NDP to limit debate and speed up passage of the bill. In the end, we spent as much time debating time allocation as we did debating the bill. It is outrageous when I think about it.

This bill would make fundamental changes, including giving the Chief Electoral Officer additional powers and replacing election day with three polling days. That means voting day would stretch out to three days.

Notwithstanding the merits of the various measures in this bill, such changes to such a fundamental act must not be made under time allocation. We are talking about changing the rules governing the expression of democracy. This should not be done under time allocation, which is a procedure used exceptionally to limit democratic debate.

In any case, everyone is saying that they do not want an election, so there is no point. What is the rush? Where is the emergency? We would like to understand.

Considering the examples I gave earlier, no one believes that the Liberal Party does not want an election. I want to reiterate that we are calling for all the parties to meet up, to replace the gag order with an amicable agreement to reach a consensus on election laws. Let us not waste our time. Let us acknowledge today that we have more important things to do than to call a snap election.

[Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, May 11th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I apologize for the hiccup. I hope I will be forgiven, as it is my birthday today.

I am pleased to participate virtually in the debate surrounding Bill C-253, proposed by the hon. member for Manicouagan, of the Bloc Québécois. The purpose of this bill is to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act. Bill C-253 is the logical continuation of Bill C-372 that the hon. member for Manicouagan introduced in 2016, during the previous Parliament.

At the time, this bill was only debated for an hour before it died on the Order Paper because the Liberal government did nothing. The purpose of the bill was to prevent other retirees from unfairly losing their pension funds that they have worked all their lives for, which is what happened to the workers at Cliffs Natural Resources.

Let us set the scene for a moment. In 2015, this U.S. company wants to place its two Canadian subsidiaries under the protection of the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act. Meanwhile, Cliffs Natural Resources announces plans to restructure its activities with a view to shutting down its operations in eastern Canada. However, the restructuring had quite dire consequences, not only for existing employees, but also for pensioners, who lost much of their pension fund and group insurance.

That tragic situation was the impetus for the bill, which was intended to make legislative fixes, which my colleague will be much better able to confirm since I was not yet in the House at the time. Had Bill C-372 become law when the events had taken place a year earlier, the Cliffs Natural Resources pensioners would certainly have been given a bigger piece of the pie, namely the claim that was owed to them.

By proposing to amend the Companies' Creditors Arrangement Act and the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act, I think that we are calling today for legislation that will ensure fairer treatment for retired workers while maintaining fair treatment for creditors.

The purpose of the bill is therefore to prevent other creditors from getting access to what, in the end, amounts to the workers' life savings in the case of bankruptcy or restructuring. That seems logical. Since seniors are more financially vulnerable than other demographics, today, we would like this bill to fill a gap that has been created by the Liberals' silence on the matter by providing proper, fair and equitable legal protection centred on two main initiatives.

First, before the court approves a business's proposal for bankruptcy or restructuring, it must account for the total amount of special payments, as well as the amount needed for the liquidation of unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies of pension plans.

In plain language, the company's proposal must provide for a pension fund bailout if the court is convinced the company is capable of doing that. This rule would protect workers' pensions from being cut off, and we think it is crucial to protecting workers' savings.

Second, a reread of the Bankruptcy and Insolvency Act reveals six categories of creditors: first, creditors whose claims are deemed to be held in trust; second, unpaid suppliers; third, super-priority creditors; fourth, secured creditors; fifth, preferred creditors; and sixth, ordinary, unsecured creditors.

Bill C-253, which we are arguing in favour of today, would add other payments and indemnifications to these six categories of creditors. For example, special payments would get preferred claim status. The same goes for indemnification for beneficiaries of group insurance plans in which the company participated as an employer. The total amount of special payments, as well as any amount required to liquidate unfunded liabilities or solvency deficiencies, would also be secured claims against the bankrupt's assets as of the date of bankruptcy.

In keeping with our principles and our values, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I support this bill, which has been introduced for the second time by my colleague from Manicouagan, and we support it for many reasons. First, the bill will recognize that a pension plan is a form of deferred wages, and second, it will cushion the financial blow to pensioners when their former employer declares bankruptcy. I was just talking about that a moment ago. With our bill, bankrupt companies or ones that are restructuring their operations will have to provide the total amount of any special payments and the total amount needed to liquidate their unfunded liabilities or solvency deficits in the pension plan fund. In this same spirit, this bill is beneficial because it will protect retired workers' group insurance plans. It will also compel businesses to better fund their pension plans. Finally, it will enable the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology to study this important social issue. That will surely please my Bloc Québécois colleague who sits on that committee, as well as all other members of the committee.

In closing, dear colleagues, if passed, our proposed Bill C-253 would protect workers and retirees so that they would never again lose the pensions that they earned after a lifetime of hard work. We find such injustices unacceptable. It is our moral duty to defend and respect active workers and retirees who, generation after generation, have slowly forged and are still forging the way of life we are fortunate to cherish today.

Ottawa's wait-and-see attitude and inaction have gone on long enough, and while this is the position that requires the least effort, it remains the least honourable. If we do nothing, history will judge our politicians by the way we let down the citizens, who spend more time looking backward than forward.

[Points of Order, May 11th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, on March 10, Bill C-216, an act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act with regard to supply management, was referred to the Standing Committee on International Trade pursuant to an order of reference from the House.

I would like to draw your attention to the fact that the bill has still not been studied as ordered by this House on March 10. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, Bosc and Gagnon note on page 1003, “When a bill is referred to a committee, the bill itself constitutes the order of reference.”

With respect to private members' bills, Standing Order 97.1 provides that the committee to which such a bill has been referred has 60 sitting days from the date of the order of reference to complete its study and report the bill to the House. However, the schedule dated May 3 for the work of the Standing Committee on International Trade, as proposed by the chair herself, calls for a clause-by-clause study of Bill C-216 on June 7, almost three months after the March 10 order of reference.

I believe it is worth noting that this same schedule proposes seven committee meetings, all prior to June 7, to conduct the business that the committee itself adopted.

I maintain that orders of reference issued by the House must take precedence over work initiated by the committee itself.

On this issue, I refer you to page 1058 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, on which the authors report Speaker Milliken's remarks in debate in 2002: on November 21, on pages 1738 to 1740; on November 25, on pages 1841 and 1842; on November 26, on pages 1912 and 1913; on November 27, on pages 1949 to 1950.

According to Speaker Milliken, the freedoms that committees have to organize their work as they see fit are not total or absolute. Speaker Milliken stated, “First, it is useful to bear in mind that committees are creatures of the House”.On page 1058 of Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, in reference to page 230 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, sixth edition, it is stated that:

...[committees] have no independent existence and are not permitted to take action unless they have been authorized or empowered to do so by the House.

The freedom committees have is, in fact, a freedom limited on two levels. First, committees are free to organize their proceedings as they see fit provided that their studies and the motions and reports they adopt comply with the orders of reference and instructions issued by the House. Second, committees may adopt procedural rules to govern their proceedings, but only to the extent the House does not prescribe anything specific. At all times, directives from procedural sources higher than parliamentary committees...take precedence over any rules a committee may adopt.

By that logic, all studies of bills, including Bill C-216, must take precedence over the studies that the committee has decided to undertake, since the bill is considered an official order of reference from the House.

The House already spoken on this issue as part of its debate on the adoption of Standing Order 97.1. I am referring to the debate starting on page 9469 of the Debates of April 8, 1997.

Many hon. members at the time were in favour of Recommendation No. 4 made by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business in its report of October 31, 1996, following a study carried out pursuant to an order of the House on House business that is votable.

Thus, I would like to remind the House that, when a bill is tabled before it, whether it is a government bill or not, it belongs to the House, and the committee to which it is referred must give priority to studying it, as it is an order from the House.

Unfortunately, in the case before us, Bill C-216 does not seem to have generated the interest it deserves as an order of reference, since the studies undertaken by the Standing Committee on International Trade on its own initiative were given priority, in spite of the order of reference for Bill C-216 dated March 10.

I refer you to the schedule dated May 3 provided to committee members by its chair. On May 3, 7, 10 and 14, witnesses testified for the committee study on Canadian exportation of green, clean and low-carbon technologies.

On May 28, the committee is scheduled to hear from witnesses and officials from the management and consular office and from Innovation, Science and Economic Development Canada for the study on Canada's international trade and investment policy pursuant to the motion adopted on April 30, 2021, more than 40 days after Bill C-216 was referred to the committee.

On May 31, the committee will begin its consideration of the draft report on the reform of the World Trade Organization, or WTO, and investor-state dispute settlement, or ISDS.

On June 4, the committee will study the draft report on the WTO reform, and the meeting will be held in camera.

Members will all agree that the agenda of the committee, which plans to begin studying Bill C-216 on June 7, nearly three months after the date of the order of reference from the House, shows that the committee has very little political will with regard to the bill. In my opinion, that completely defies the parliamentary principle that a committee, as a subordinate entity of the House, must comply with an order of reference from the House and put the study of bills ahead of its own work.

That is why I am asking you, Mr. Speaker, to rule accordingly and order the Standing Committee on International Trade to immediately begin the study of Bill C-216.

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 10th, 2021]

With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, in each fiscal year since 2018-19, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to any organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) date the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?

[Questions Passed as Orders for Returns, May 10th, 2021]

With regard to federal spending in the constituency of Papineau, in each fiscal year since 2018-19, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to any organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality in which the recipient is located, (iii) date the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?

[Committees of the House, May 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I asked almost all the witnesses and experts we heard from during this study about the impact on Quebec.

Unfortunately, no one seemed to have studied or researched the issue. Obviously, there could be shortages, even though we know that there are sources of supply.

In the short term, as we wait for the energy transition, the Bloc Québécois hopes that the line will remain open, but not just under any condition. We must ensure that the line is safe. If it is not, we must ensure that the necessary upgrades are made. The right to safety is not a luxury.