Xavier Barsalou-Duval

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to my colleague's question, I do think it was important to modernize the agreement and include the cultural exemption. We consider that to be a positive.

However, we are not looking at this agreement through rose-coloured glasses. When the time comes to make a decision, we do not look at one sentence or two lines only, but rather at the entire agreement. We have made proposals to the government to improve the agreement and make it acceptable to the Bloc Québécois and to Quebeckers. Unfortunately, it is not acceptable in its current form.

Our hope is that, when this is all over, we will have an agreement that will hold up and that we can support.

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

Mr. Speaker, today's debate is of course on the bill to implement the Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement, or CUSMA.

Unfortunately, we found that Quebec was pretty much excluded from the discussions. Quebec's priorities were largely excluded. That is why there is a very good chance we will be forced to vote against CUSMA in its current form.

Some of the other parties are making up all kinds of stories about the Bloc Québécois. They want everyone to believe that we oppose free trade agreements, we are against the economy and we want to withdraw into a shell. All the prejudices and all the spin being spewed about us are completely false.

To illustrate that, I want to talk about two important figures in Quebec's independence movement. No one can deny the influence they have had on Quebec and, in a way, on the rest of Canada. I am talking about Jacques Parizeau and Bernard Landry.

Jacques Parizeau was the finance minister in René Lévesque's government, and was also premier of Quebec. He was a great economist who trained at the London School of Economics and Political Science, an internationally renowned school.

As for Bernard Landry, he was also a finance minister in Quebec and premier of Quebec.

They were two important champions of free trade, including the first free trade agreement, the first NAFTA, signed with the United States and Mexico.

They were among its main proponents. Mr. Landry toured Quebec to talk about how important it is for small nations to do business with other foreign countries and to open new markets.

We do not want to stay locked up inside Canada. We do not want to limit ourselves to doing business with Ontario. I am more than happy to do business with Ontario, the Maritimes and the other provinces, but why should we limit ourselves to this country, which has a somewhat limited population? Why not send our goods, our knowledge and our skills to other places and benefit from what others have to offer us?

We have absolutely nothing against that. On the contrary, it is a real benefit for Quebec to be able to take advantage of those different markets. However, there are some things that we care about. There are some things that we want to maintain. To the extent possible, we want to maintain control over our agriculture because we like being fed by local farmers who produce food that meets the highest health standards. Since we never know what might happen abroad, it would be good to be able to continue feeding ourselves.

The other thing we care about is culture. Quebec is America's Gaulish village. That is something we hear a lot. I think it is important for us to keep our culture strong in Quebec and that we ensure that agreements continue to promote and protect that culture.

This agreement does contain at least some worthwhile aspects with regard to culture. Some progress has been made and we are pleased about that.

Labour is also an important issue to us. A free trade agreement must contain attractive working conditions for workers in each of the countries, whenever possible. It is not about comparing apples and oranges. Attractive working conditions are necessary to ensure that people in other countries are not exploited and to ensure that we do not lose any jobs here. Otherwise, the agreement leads to exploitation in other countries.

I think we must consider these issues when we sign agreements. Once again, I think some progress was made. The agreement is not all bad, but unfortunately there are a number of aspects that bother us. I will explain.

One of the things that bothers us is the Liberals' record when it comes to Quebec. Free trade agreements are useful, but free trade agreements are generally about gaining something. Concessions are made, there is some give and take, and we end up with a deal that benefits all parties. The problem in this case is that the Liberal government tends to sacrifice Quebec when it signs free trade agreements.

The gut reaction always seems to be to sacrifice Quebec a bit more and listen to Quebec a bit less than the provinces or the rest of Canada in its entirety. Finally, the government works for Canada and not Quebec. That is why we want to form an independent country. Then we could negotiate our own agreements, which would benefit us and respect our conditions. We would stop getting the short end of the stick, as is often the case with Canada.

Let's go back in time a bit and look at the Liberals' record of listening to Quebec. They are currently making up all sorts of things and saying that they listened to Quebec. If we go back less than 100 years, to the 1940s, the Liberals promised Quebeckers during the Second World War that there would be no conscription. Indeed, Quebeckers did not forget the conscription imposed by the Conservatives under Borden. However, once in power, the Liberals organized a neat little referendum to be able to go back on their promise and impose conscription on Quebeckers. This is just one example of many.

A little later, there were expropriations in Mirabel for the construction of the airport. Then, in Montreal, there were expropriations in the entire Faubourg à m'lasse neighbourhood, where my grandfather grew up, to build the infamous Radio-Canada tower. This was a tragic event in the lives of a lot of Quebec families. Ottawa, claiming to know what was good for them, told them their homes and neighbourhoods would be torn down. These families lost their livelihood, but the government washed its hands of it. I think it is horrible what the Liberals, who were in power at the time, did. It shows their inability to listen and their insensitivity to Quebec.

I will go back in time again, this time to the 1970s, to the time of the War Measures Act. Yes, some people were causing trouble and doing things that perhaps should have been avoided. Let's agree, however, that the enactment of the War Measures Act was a complete overreaction on the part of the Liberal government. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police used the opportunity to enter the offices of the Parti Québécois and steal its lists. More than 400 people were put in prison. It was a national disgrace because, more than anything else, it was an operation that was designed to humiliate Quebec.

Let's now turn to the 1980 referendum. Once again, the Liberals made great promises. Trudeau senior, whose son is now Prime Minister, told us in the 1980 referendum that voting no meant saying yes to change and that it would make Quebec happier. In the end, he promised us all sorts of things and talked about honour and enthusiasm, a bit like Brian Mulroney did a few years later.

After all these fine promises, a constitution was signed by every province except Quebec. This led to the infamous “night of the long knives”, when the others decided to do without Quebec's support.

There was also the sponsorship scandal, which happened under the Liberals as well.

I remember that throughout their last term, the Liberals vowed over and over to protect supply management. However, the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement opened a breach in supply management. The Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership opened another breach in supply management. The Canada-United States-Mexico free trade agreement is opening yet another breach in supply management.

In particular, I remember a by-election campaign in Lac-Saint-Jean in 2018. The Bloc ran an excellent candidate, Marc Maltais. The Prime Minister of Canada went to Lac-Saint-Jean to assure farmers that supply management would not be touched. However, a few weeks after the election, a breach was created in supply management. The people of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean remembered, because in the 2019 election, they voted in a Bloc member.

That is not the end of the problem. This much-touted agreement gives no consideration to forestry, which is important in Quebec. It has not been included in the agreement. More recently, we have learned that aluminum was being completely abandoned.

It is a real shame that I do not have more time to speak, because I would have had a lot more to say.

The important thing to note is that the Liberals keep saying ad nauseam that 70% of auto parts will have to be made of North American aluminum. That is completely not true. No, 70% is no better than zero, because 70 times zero is zero. The 70% is for manufactured parts, but the aluminum will not necessarily come from here. It could come from China and be processed in Mexico.

At the end of the day, we are losing out and it is really frustrating.

[René Lafranchise, February 4th, 2020]

Mr. Speaker, on January 27, the people of Boucherville lost one of their own, a man affectionately known as Beau Blanc.

I would like to offer my condolences to his sister, Jeannine, who cared for him, and to the Lafranchise family. René Lafranchise's kingdom extended from Old Boucherville to the east end.

He never left home without his baseball cap and could be seen any time of day walking around the streets of Boucherville on the hunt for the bottles that he returned to the Messier Metro. He would then use his hard-earned pocket change to buy himself a little treat at Ketchup restaurant, Le Vieux pub or Bar de l'eau.

Beau Blanc had his own unique way of talking to people. Often peppering his speech with expletives, he would predict rain tomorrow with total conviction or tell kids to stay in school.

Sometimes misunderstood, his words were often surprising or shocking, but the smallest kindness was enough to bring a wonderful, childlike grin to his face.

Rest in peace, Beau Blanc. You will not be forgotten.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I must admit that I did not fully understand my colleague's question, but I do understand he is concerned about how money is being used in the infrastructure bank. He wants the money to serve communities. This is important to me as well.

However, above all else, we must remember that the infrastructure bank makes decisions about public infrastructure. Infrastructure bank money should not be used to put tolls on bridges, highways or water. Citizens will ultimately not be able to pay for these things.

This is our concern. We want Quebec to be able to manage the investments made in Quebec, which cannot really happen with a bank that is controlled by Canada.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I want to reassure my colleague from Timmins—James Bay that the Bloc Québécois has always maintained that public infrastructure should remain public and belong to ordinary people, to our citizens. This infrastructure does not belong to lobby groups or to private corporations that want to take advantage and pocket some money at the expense of the people.

We believe that citizens have a right to these services. They pay for these services through taxes and they are entitled to them. These services should not end up lining the pockets of shareholders or companies that have connections with the infrastructure bank or with the government.

We believe that public infrastructure belongs to the public. Whether we are talking about water or waste-water systems, it is critical that they remain accessible to the public.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, personally, I have difficulty understanding why the government would feel insulted by comments that were not even made by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. Those were the comments of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, a completely neutral public servant who provides accurate information to inform the people and parliamentarians.

In my opinion, the fact that the government is ashamed of or insulted by the statements of any public servant shows just how terrible a manager it is and how relevant the elements of the motion are.

[Business of Supply, January 28th, 2020]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. We will each have 10 minutes, and I am looking forward to hearing his speech.

First off, I want to go back to the content of the motion moved by my colleague, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, so that we can see what it is about. The motion essentially says the following:

That, given the Parliamentary Budget Officer posted on March 15, 2018, that “Budget 2018 provides an incomplete account of the changes to the government's $186.7 billion infrastructure spending plan” and that the “PBO requested the new plan but it does not exist”, the House call on the Auditor General of Canada to immediately conduct an audit of the government's “Investing in Canada Plan”, including, but not be limited to, verifying whether the plan lives up to its stated goals and promises; and that the Auditor General of Canada report his findings to the House no later than one year following the adoption of this motion.

There is something there, and I expect this to be an interesting discussion. Before I begin analyzing our response to the motion, I would like to first indicate that the Bloc Québécois intends to vote in favour of this motion for several reasons. Here are the main three.

The first reason is the delay in spending, which members have already mentioned. Since 2016, the government has delivered on only a small part of the announced infrastructure spending. When money is announced for a project, that money is needed for the project to begin. That is even more important when it comes to infrastructure because infrastructure is something that our constituents, our communities, our towns and our cities need to operate, to grow and to have a healthy economy.

It always fuels cynicism when the government announces $300 million for this or $1 billion for that, but the money never comes. We are obviously concerned about these delays in spending. We would therefore like the Auditor General to tell us what is really going on.

The second reason is the importance of transparency when it comes to economic data. Without numbers, we cannot really get an accurate picture of the situation. The government's numbers are never very clear. It appears to be recycling amounts from previous announcements whose time is running out. Is that money being reclaimed or not? Is it being reallocated elsewhere? Nobody knows what is going on with that money.

Obviously, we think that when the government makes spending announcements, the money should actually be spent on what they said they would spend it on, especially when it comes to infrastructure. Our communities have infrastructure needs, especially Quebec communities, and we will look at why a bit later. Transparency is important because we need predictability. People need a clear sense of the situation not only so they can really trust the information they get from the government but also so they can make good decisions and adjust plans as needed. Without that information, people are flying blind.

The third reason why we plan to vote in favour of the motion is that we believe it is important for Quebec to obtain its fair share. When there is a delay in spending and a lack of transparency in the data, it is difficult to know if Quebec is getting what it is entitled to.

According to one of the PBO's reports on phase 1 of the infrastructure plan covering the period from 2016 to 2018 and tabled in March 2018, Quebec received only 12% of total investment under the program while Quebec accounts for 23% of Canada's population. I think it goes without saying that we find that offensive and, above all, inadequate. Like anyone else, we Quebeckers pay taxes to Ottawa, and we expect to receive our fair share of the taxes that we send to Ottawa until we become independent. Let us hope that happens as quickly as possible.

I will do a brief comparison of amounts received by Quebec compared to those received by the other provinces, according to the table on page 9 of the PBO's report. If we look at the figures for Ontario, for example, we see that it received 32% of total infrastructure investment for 2,884 infrastructure projects, which represents $161 per capita. We see that Ontario's share of the investments was not so shabby.

Other provinces were spoiled even more. On a per capita basis, Yukon received $1,797, Nunavut received $2,146, the Northwest Territories received $1,618, and Newfoundland and Labrador received $1,752. If we look at what each of the provinces received, we can see that Quebec was overlooked and received the least money. Ontario was next, but it still managed to receive nearly its full share. By way of comparison, Ontario is getting 32%, or $161 per capita, and Quebec is getting 12%, or $97 per capita. Some provinces are getting thousands of dollars per capita, yet Quebec cannot even get $100. It is easy to understand why we are not too happy with these figures and why we would like some answers from the Auditor General.

Other things are brought up in that Auditor General report. The Prime Minister had planned to spend $14.4 billion in 2016-17 and 2017-18, as stated in his infrastructure plan. According to the Auditor General's report, however, it appears that only 50% of planned expenditures were actually spent.

There is no excuse. Sometimes, they tell us that it takes a while to come to an agreement, that there are administrative delays and that projects are not being submitted. A little later in the same report, we see that 17% of projects received no funding even though they had been approved. One in five approved projects did not receive any money.

This is inconceivable and inexplicable to us, and we very much look forward to hearing the real explanations that the government will give us. We have not heard any yet, but perhaps the Auditor General will be able to tell us more.

We also know that it is always harder for Quebec to secure funding. We have some demands. We want 100% of the funds earmarked for Quebec to stay in Quebec, we want Ottawa to send the money directly to the Quebec government, and we want it to stop imposing all kinds of conditions. Apparently, that does not suit Ottawa, and it always slows things down.

It is important to know that only 2% of public infrastructure in Canada falls under federal jurisdiction, and the remaining 98% comes under either municipal or provincial jurisdiction. The federal government owns only 2% of infrastructure, yet it controls a large portion of the budget and imposes all kinds of conditions on everyone.

It is not familiar with the reality in the municipalities and the provinces. A central government does not have the credibility to say that it understands the reality in every municipality in the country. Canada has 5,000 municipalities, but the Bloc is concerned first and foremost with the 1,400 municipalities in Quebec. It would be impossible for Ottawa to be familiar with the reality facing each and every one of them. Federal regulations make it difficult for the municipalities to qualify for and secure the funds that are rightfully theirs. This is especially true for small municipalities, which do not have an army of staff to research how to qualify for the various federal government programs, how to submit an application and how to navigate all the bureaucracy.

Clearly, it would be far more efficient if the money were transferred to Quebec so that it could be distributed based on people's needs. The money would trickle down much faster to where it is needed on the ground.

The Bloc Québécois is permanently stuck in this tug-of-war, because we want Quebec to get the money to which it is entitled.

I know that I am running out of time, but I want to close on another topic, namely the Canada Infrastructure Bank, for which the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities is responsible. After all, we are talking about infrastructure. It is very hard to get service in French when dealing with that bank. Since the bank was founded, there has not been a single executive, press secretary or CEO who speaks French. No one can respond to the municipalities in French. It is a major problem. We are talking about $35 billion that the federal government is investing in this bank. The private sector might be investing in it as well.

It was even reported a few days ago that no one at the office of the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities speaks French. It is clear that we are more than misunderstood in this country. Quebeckers would be much better off if we could manage our own money.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20, December 9th, 2019]

Madam Chair, it is hard to show proof because the money has not been disbursed yet. Once it is, we will be able to confirm that. What I want is some assurance that the money will not be used for that. I think that should be easier.

I will move on to other questions about spending.

I see $23 million for the Canadian Air Transport Security Authority. I am glad the Minister of Transport is with us this evening, because, during his previous term in office, he authorized travellers to carry knives aboard airplanes. Is this extra $23 million related to that authorization?

[Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20, December 9th, 2019]

Madam Chair, it seems that, in Canada, it is quite the challenge not to invest in oil. It seems this country is always burning oil and cannot help but invest in oil. However, it would be easy enough to impose conditions. We are sending $296 million abroad, but what is to stop the countries that receive that aid from investing the money in something other than oil? I did not get an answer to my question.

In 2019 alone, the federal government promised $19 billion to oil companies. However, those companies are rolling in money. When will we have a government in Ottawa that will stop investing in oil? Perhaps Quebec has to become a country so that we can finally stop our taxes from being used to fund oil and make the situation worse.

[Supplementary Estimates (A), 2019-20, December 9th, 2019]

Madam Chair, what I want to know is whether this money will go to the oil industry. I want to know whether the money will be invested in the oil sands. The government claims to be fighting climate change, but investing more money in oil does not fix the problem, it only makes it worse. Unfortunately, this is nothing new in Canada.

Would the Minister of Transport give me a clear answer?