Xavier Barsalou-Duval

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

Madam Chair, I could not have said it better myself, and I certainly agree with the President of the Treasury Board. The government did not do Davie any favours. Quite the opposite. If the government did any favours, it was for Irving, which had no shortage of contracts. Meanwhile, Quebec's shipyards continue to starve.

The document indicates that the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development also needs new money. Interestingly, I noted that $296 million of this new money will be used to fight climate change. During this government's previous term, I happened to discover that $50 million from the sustainable development technology fund set aside for clean technologies had not been invested in sustainable development technology, but rather in the oil industry. Surprise, surprise.

Can the minister assure us that this $296 million will not go to oil companies again?

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

Madam Chair, I am not sure if the minister is aware, but the contracts at the Davie shipyard are wrapping up. Several hundred employees could be laid off in a few months.

Will the minister do something before these employees lose their job or will he instead watch these Quebeckers of whom he is so proud, but for whom he does next to nothing, from his office in the national capital?

Will he watch them lose their job without lifting a finger, while hundreds of millions of dollars are spent at Fisheries and Oceans Canada and the Department of National Defence?

Our workers from Quebec need that money. I would like some assurances as to the government's intentions.

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

Madam Chair, I am disappointed to hear a minister from Quebec's national capital region—since our national capital is in Quebec—which is not very far from the Davie shipyard, say that everything is fine at Davie and that his government is doing everything necessary to help the shipyard, when we know very well that the Davie shipyard has not been given its fair share.

We are talking about the shipyard with the largest capacity in North America. Still, the government will not even give it 2%, 3% or 4% of its contracts. That is unacceptable. The government is lagging behind when it comes to its shipyards and their needs. It cannot do the work needed to be done, yet the shipyard builds ships at a lower price than other shipyards and delivers ahead of schedule.

We are waiting for news of the Obelix supply ship and the Diefenbaker icebreaker. When will that come?

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

Madam Chair, I am a bit disappointed by the minister's answer because, although we recognize that there has been an increase—we are talking about big numbers, billions of dollars—in reality, if we take into account increased costs and real percentages, we see that this increase is not enough to meet the needs.

There is a reason why the great federalist minister Gaétan Barrette, who was a member of the Quebec government not too long ago, called this predatory federalism. It was not a separatist who said that but a federalist so that is not very impressive.

Next, still on the subject of new spending, of the $4.9 billion requested, approximately $427 million were requested by the Department of National Defence and just over $355 million by the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. That is close to a billion dollars in new money for those two departments. It just so happens that the same departments in Quebec had major demands. We have a shipyard, the Davie shipyard, that needs more contracts. I would like to know how much of that $800 million is expected to go to the Davie shipyard.

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

Madam Chair, I would be interested in hearing the specifics, since technically, the government is not allowed to take money from one budget and use it for another purpose without going through the House. I would like to know what mechanism the Liberals are using to compensate our farmers. I do not understand what the government is doing.

I have another question. This one is about health transfers. We want to see new money. The budget includes about $100 million in additional funding for Health Canada. That extra money could go to the provinces. We actually need billions, but that would be a start.

This government is always trying to come up with new federal programs. Today, it is health care, but we could be talking about any other federal program or initiative. These initiatives always sound great, but the problem is that they do not mesh well with the programs we have in Quebec. Quebec has exclusive jurisdiction over health.

The problem is that federal transfers do not keep up with inflation. The Government of Quebec's costs go up by 5% or 6% every year, but the federal government refuses to boost transfers by more than 1% or 2% per year. Sometimes it goes as high as 3%, but there is always a deficit. The upshot is that we are losing money. Health care is costing us more each year because the federal government is not paying its share.

Why not transfer more money to the provinces?

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

Madam Chair, since this is the first time I have had the opportunity to rise in the House since the October 21 federal election, I would like to take a moment to thank the people of Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for once again placing their trust in me.

Before I talk in-depth about the issues, I first want to speak more generally about the supplementary estimates. There are things missing there that should normally be included. First, there is the compensation for our supply managed farmers. We have been talking about it for several months. A few days before a by-election, the Prime Minister went to Lac-Saint-Jean to tell our farmers that he would not open breaches in supply management. A few weeks after the election, we learned that more concessions would be made.

In fact, every international trade agreement, whether we are talking about the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement, CETA, the Trans-Pacific Partnership, TPP, or the new NAFTA, included breaches in supply management. For a government that claims to protect supply management, this is not a strong showing. Compensation has always been promised, but it is still difficult to obtain. We were told it was in the budget, but there was no funding. Now, we are being told that the money will be here by the end of the year, but when we look at the votes, we see that there is still no money for supply-managed producers.

Could the minister explain why there is no money in the supplementary estimates to compensate farmers?

[Petitions, June 19th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, today, I am tabling a petition calling on the government to protect the banks of the St. Lawrence River corridor.

This petition follows on an e-petition signed by about 700 people that has already been submitted. This time, the clerk certified 1,500 signatures on this paper petition. In the past, when Canadians came to Parliament Hill, the Minister of Transport refused to meet with them. We hope that, even if he does not meet with them, he will still respond favourably to the petition. The erosion of the banks of the St. Lawrence River is a very important issue for the petitioners. It affects their daily lives. I think the minister should show a little humanity.

[Democratic Reform, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, Uber, Facebook and Google are the ones funding the Liberal Party, not ordinary Canadians. It is the oil companies, the Irvings and all those who wait, cap in hand, for government subsidies.

Corporations are not allowed to fund political parties, but when their employees donate $3,000 a year, it certainly helps to fill the kitty, does it not?

Is that why the Liberals do not want to restore the per-vote subsidy? Is it because they would rather take a funding-for-favours approach?

[Democratic Reform, June 13th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, people are sick of seeing the old parties getting huge cheques from lobbies and holding fundraisers at $1,500 a head. We need to restore the former system where political parties received a per-vote subsidy. That is the only way to eliminate any potential conflicts of interest. The Bloc Québécois is not the only one saying so. Former chief electoral officer Jean-Pierre Kingsley and Democracy Watch feel the same way. Enough with the patronage.

When will the government restore the per-vote subsidy financing system?

[Democratic Institutions, June 12th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, this morning the Journal de Montréal published an article about the smell of dirty money in Ottawa.

That fetid smell is coming from the Liberal Party, which is stuffing its pockets with hundreds of thousands of dollars from Bay Street, lobbies, oil companies, banks, religious groups and law firms.

When will the Prime Minister stop working for the interest groups that are paying him off and keep his promise to restore the per-vote subsidy financing system?