Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, on February 16, at 8:08 p.m., my friend Jacques Tremblay passed away. Jacques was a cornerstone of the political world in the riding of Montcalm. He made his mark as president of the Bloc Québécois in Montcalm, but also as a municipal councillor for the City of Mascouche and as a political aide to the MP for Montcalm. Yes, in 2015, despite adversity, we joined forces to win back Montcalm, driven by a common cause: the Quebec nation. My friend and I travelled many kilometres to meet the people of Montcalm. He was a man in search of social justice, a tad impulsive, but above all full of humanity. He was a man who deeply loved his family. He was so proud of his sons, Francis and Guillaume; his daughter, Émilie; and his grandchildren. I want to wish my friend Jacques a safe journey. May he rest in peace.

Mr. Speaker, you are the guardian of my parliamentary privilege, and one of those privileges is to ensure that, when I attend question period, I can hear the questions and the answers, regardless of how I may feel about them. However, during several recent question periods, the people sitting to your right have developed the bad habit of not containing their enthusiasm. They are standing up and applauding before the answers are finished, which prevents the interpreters from doing their job. It has happened on a few occasions that they have been unable to do their job. When the interpreters are able to do their job, we cannot appreciate it because we cannot hear the rest of the answer at all. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to make this clear to the people across the way.

Mr. Speaker, beyond how each side presents its arguments, there are uncomfortable questions arising from this debate. Does my colleague not find it embarrassing that it takes 40 months to process a claim and get a response? Does he not find it embarrassing that, in order to speed up these claims and responses, 25,000 asylum seekers per year have been exempted from the security process? Does he not find it embarrassing that his government is still delaying the payment of $700 million owed to Quebec?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Bourassa spoke about respect for fundamental human values. I would like to know whether he feels that taking 40 months to process an asylum claim is an example of fundamental human values. Does he believe that it is time for his government to give Quebec—which has demonstrated fundamental human values by welcoming twice its demographic weight—the $700 million it is owed?

Mr. Speaker, the member pointed out the flaws in Quebec's health care system. He referred to the fact that the range of services is limited, and rightly so. However, he knows very well that the main reason for that is that the federal government is committing to funding only 21% of health care costs. The provinces are responsible for 79% of health care costs. As my colleague knows, in Quebec, we were locked down for a year because the network was too vulnerable. However, after the pandemic, what did the federal government offer? Although needs grew to $28 billion a year, the government decided to provide $4.6 billion a year. My colleague's leader said that he might increase that offer. Does the member not think that there should be a bit more for health funding and transfers?

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague. I appreciate him very much. We sit together on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The arguments currently being made by the Conservatives fly in the face of the saying “What is good for the goose is good for the gander”. On the one hand, they feel strongly about financial support for the oil industry, which is primarily owned by the Americans. The Conservatives see no problem in using Canadian taxpayers' money for that purpose. On the other hand, when it comes to EVs, that becomes a problem. Why the double standard?

Madam Speaker, my colleague's argument is that the money should be invested elsewhere, especially at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet and the high cost of living is so high. He is talking about the electric car industry, but what about the hundreds of billions of dollars that are going to oil companies, to American companies that make hundreds of billions of dollars in profits every year and that the government continues to finance at a time when what we really need are meaningful measures? I represent an agricultural riding. Climate change is a nightmare for farmers. That is what is affecting the cost of living. There is room for everyone to take their place in the sun. Let us continue to invest in the climate transition while ensuring that people who currently make a living from the fossil fuel industry can gradually transition to renewable energy, because that is the future of our planet.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said earlier that the average price of an EV is $63,000. That is expensive, and it is the average price. Let us not get carried away. The measure applies to vehicles that cost less than $50,000. I do not know how much my colleague's vehicle cost, but it was likely close to the average price. Why target one industry, the electric vehicle industry? EVs are very popular in Quebec since the Quebec economy is more focused on the energy transition. Why are the Conservatives not looking at the fact that, in recent years, the government has given hundreds of billions of dollars in subsidies to American companies that make billions of dollars in profit every year? I am talking about the oil industry—

Mr. Speaker, the program that the Conservatives are criticizing today provides for $2.3 billion over five years. This sort of incentive worked very well in Quebec and helped boost EV sales there. When I compare this amount allocated over five years to what the government is giving the oil industry, which is controlled by American companies that make billions of dollars in profit a year, it seems to me that this government is not very green and is not doing very much to fight climate change.

Mr. Speaker, this government bought a pipeline that cost $34 billion. Over the past 10 years, budget after budget, it has provided funding to oil companies, most of which are American-owned. Now, it is proposing a subsidy costing a paltry $2.3 billion over five years. Does my colleague think this is enough, given that Canada used to hold itself out as a champion in the fight against climate change?

Mr. Speaker, the member moved me. He gave a moving speech, with an accurate assessment of the reality facing our farmers. Members will recall that, during the pandemic and toward the end of it, there was talk of food security and how important it is to be self-sufficient. We are faced with a bill, Bill C-15, that gives absolute powers. In his speech, the member said that people lost their land and their homes. I would add that their physical and psychological integrity were harmed. There is no willingness to apologize on the other side of the House. Why does my colleague think that is?

Mr. Speaker, it is with some emotion that I address the House. Despite the fact that I have only just come back and that I am slowly recovering from pneumonia, I felt it was crucial that I speak. Since I am short of breath and the government's comments are enough to knock the wind out of a person, I hope I will make it to the end of my speech and, more importantly, that I will live up to the name of my riding by staying calm. First, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères. Right now, in the public arena, those who are speaking out in local newspapers are mayors, stakeholders and members of the Union des producteurs agricoles, or UPA, who are wondering what this is all about. What is the deal with the so-called consultations that took place yesterday when people did not even know any consultations were happening? In the end, a few people attended, but the whole thing was just a public relations exercise. They were not real consultations at all. I will come back to this, but the government is simply pretending to recognize the mistakes of the past in this situation. Meanwhile, it has just given Alto the power to do whatever it wants and to do it quickly through Bill C-15. It is all in the approach. I want to begin my speech today by quoting a song by Paul Piché that accompanied me throughout my teenage years. It really encapsulates today's debate. The people in Mirabel will surely remember it, maybe with a tinge of sadness: In Forillon Park or St-Scholastique Gotta make way for tourists and airplanes Early mornin', gotta hit the bricks We're in the way, they explained Got played a damn dirty trick Chased off our homes, our lands, our country. I would add that they lost their health too. Some lost their families, and some never recovered from this betrayal. We are told here today, with all the sensitivity that technocrats like the member for Thérèse-De Blainville can muster, that a program could be implemented and that mistakes were made, but that people should get over it. That is not what is needed. The people in charge of major projects have to show respect for human beings first and foremost and not take them for fools, and they should not pass themselves off as promoters or peddlers, as the Minister of Transport is doing. Trust has to be earned. Crucial to earning people's trust for the high-speed train that will go through Mirabel, where a monumental, horrible mistake of historic proportions was made, is the recognition by this people's assembly of the pain, the suffering and the way people's lives were negatively affected. There must be an apology. The government has certainly had the opportunity to apologize. On the 50th anniversary of the expropriation of Mirabel residents, the Quebec National Assembly asked Ottawa to apologize. Some Quebec MPs tell us every day that there is no need for the Bloc Québécois to stand up and ensure the voice of Quebeckers is heard in the House of Commons. I have yet to hear them talk about the folks in Mirabel whose land was expropriated. I hear them talking about the big high-speed rail project, but not about the people whose land was expropriated to build Mirabel. I am not hearing them now. Our debate started an hour ago, but I have not heard them voice any intention of apologizing. Yes, Marc Garneau apologized, as an individual, and it was a gesture worthy of the man I respect, but this motion concerns a democratic institution, the people's assembly, which includes representatives of certain parties, one of them being the party in power. As they peddle their projects, the last thing they want to do is apologize. They are certain that they know what the people of Mirabel need better than we do. On April 3, 2019, the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a motion that had the unanimous support of MPs from Quebec. It seems to me that something unanimously passed by the National Assembly is something that a Quebec member of the House of Commons should be able to bring forward, table and put to a vote here, but no. Here is the motion: THAT the National Assembly mark the 50th anniversary of Mirabel residents' expropriation; THAT it demand that the Government of Canada formally and officially apologize to the Québec citizens who were expropriated by the Federal Government in 1969 for the construction of the Mirabel airport. In April 2019, the Bloc Québécois, which is the only party that passes on the unanimous decisions and unanimous votes of the Quebec National Assembly, moved the following motion in the House: That this House acknowledge the 50th anniversary of the expropriation of land from Mirabel residents and that this House call on the government to formally and officially apologize to the people of Quebec from whom the federal government expropriated land in 1969 to build the Mirabel airport. At the time, some members who are in the House today voted against the motion. Today, they are introducing an omnibus bill that waives important provisions of the Expropriation Act, such as the ability to appeal compensation powers. Furthermore, the Minister of Transport is saying that people are not being accurate in their remarks. In response to a question from the member for Mirabel in the House, he wondered why the member for Mirabel did not rise to criticize the Quebec law on the grounds that its wording is the same as that of the federal law. That is false, completely false, particularly on the issue of appeals and compensation. Still, the Liberals continue to ask us to trust them. They want the people of Mirabel to say okay, they will allow the government to do what it has to do because the Liberals recognized that the airport was a mistake. Mirabel Airport was touted as the seventh wonder of the world in the 20th century, the project of the century that needed to be built fast so we had to act quickly. What happened? It was a huge disaster. Today, the government does not even have the decency to apologize to the people who suffered and are still suffering decades later. I would like to warn you that Alto is doing things all wrong. To quote Daniel Bélanger, another singer-songwriter I like, “it is all in the way you do it”, and Alto has clearly just failed its first test. I do not know how they are going to recover from this, but clearly in our neck of the woods—it is also going to run through Lanaudière, Mascouche, Terrebonne and so on—farmers and young families are saying the project should be stalled until they are consulted, because they want to be treated equally and have their say. As for the rail line, as hard as it is to believe, they are saying a rail line will be built somewhere in a strip not 60 metres wide, but 10 kilometres wide. They are making it up as they go along. I hope my colleague from the Quebec City area will stand and support our motion because he is a man of honour.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Mirabel said, the worst part is that people were dispossessed of their land. In some cases, their children bought back the land when it was returned. Now they are being told, without consultation, that the same thing is happening again and they could lose everything. It feels a bit like Groundhog Day. From a purely moral standpoint, it is unacceptable. Our farmers feed us. Being a farmer means putting down roots in the land. People in urban areas do not understand that. They may be attached to their house, their home or their car. However, when someone has ties to the land, and that land is cut in half and ripped away from them, it tears out their heart.

Mr. Speaker, I did not say that it was without consultation, I said that it was with so-called consultation sessions, because these are actually information and promotion sessions for a project. They are sessions to promote a project, and people are not getting time to prepare briefs and familiarize themselves with the files. Right now in Canada, I would say that we are witnessing something shocking that has never happened before. High finance has seized the reins of the federal government, with its sole interest being economic gain. That is why good projects or great projects can sometimes end badly, because human rights are not being taken into consideration.

Mr. Speaker, my experience as a parliamentarian leads me to believe that if the Quebeckers sitting on the government benches vote against this motion, it is because they are being forced to toe the party line. That is why I tell the people I meet in Quebec that if they want to be defended and have their voices heard in the legislature that is the House of Commons, they would be much better off counting on us, because the Quebeckers in the Liberal Party are wilfully blind, deaf and mute.

Mr. Speaker, the motion we moved calls for respect and dignity for the people of Mirabel. When I hear the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie reduce this motion to a Bloc Québécois tactic, I dare say that the cynicism he is showing today suggests that politics is wearing on him. I have known him for a long time, and this is not the intellectual integrity I would have expected of him. Now, we have been told since this morning that we want to leave people in the past and that we only want to focus on the past. Does my colleague not believe that voting in favour of this motion would mean bringing the people of Mirabel into the future instead of leaving them in the past?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was singing the praises of a 21st-century vision. Mirabel airport was a 20th-century vision. After the Mirabel fiasco, the expropriation laws were indeed amended. I would invite my colleague to review the provisions of Bill C-15, which suspends exactly what he is referring to, in order to ensure that the process respects the people who will have to make decisions and live with this project. I invite him to reread Bill C-15, first of all. Secondly, we are all in favour of a vision for the future, but will he vote for or against the motion to ensure that the people of Mirabel can—

Mr. Speaker, since the beginning of the debate, members from Quebec have refused to say whether they will vote for or against our motion, preferring instead to simply toe the party line. If, during the vote, a few courageous members stood up, but the entire cabinet remained seated, does my colleague not think that this would illustrate that they have no sway over government decisions to ensure that Quebec's voice is heard within this government?

Madam Speaker, as this is my first speech of the year, I would like to welcome my colleagues to the House and wish them an excellent parliamentary session. We are studying a motion to restore Canada's sovereignty vis-à-vis the United States. Pathways Alliance members account for 80% of oil sands production and are 73% foreign owned, 60% of which is American. These companies made $131.6 billion in profits, $79 billion of which was distributed to shareholders, 62% of whom are American. Even so, people want to talk to us about sovereignty.

Mr. Speaker, I am always somewhat astounded to hear my Conservative colleagues defend people who are struggling to make ends meet and talk about their unfortunate reality while continuing to lobby for an oil industry that is making huge profits, but whose profits are going into the pockets of Americans. We are studying a motion that aims to restore Canada's sovereignty over the United States. However, Pathways Alliance, which accounts for 80% of oil sands production, is 73% foreign-owned, with 60% of that ownership held by Americans. Those folks made $131.6 billion in profits. They paid out nearly $80 billion in dividends, three-quarters of which went to foreign shareholders, including 62% to American shareholders. Then the Conservatives come here and talk about Canada's sovereignty.

Mr. Speaker, in November 2023, the Standing Committee on Health tabled a unanimous report calling for a breast implant registry and the recognition of breast implant illness. Health Canada has been dragging its feet, and three years later, nothing has been done. This has been going on for 30 years. Shame on Health Canada for neglecting the health of generations of women in this way. Breast implants are associated with cancers, anaplastic large cell lymphoma, crippling fatigue, pain, severe weakness, stiffness, memory and concentration problems, rheumatoid arthritis, and the list goes on. Is this what we want for women? The Minister of Health must show political leadership so that women like Julie Elliott, Terri McGregor, Nancy Pratt, Isabelle Gaston and all other victims do not have to suffer any longer and so that their suffering is not in vain. Above all, we must prevent other women from experiencing similar suffering. When will the minister take action?

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the Brookfield company assets still owned by the Prime Minister, which he placed into a blind trust. The Ethics Commissioner set up a conflict of interest screen for the Prime Minister. This screen is administered by two of his advisors, including Michael Sabia. However, Mr. Sabia also owned shares in Brookfield. He sold them to protect his Prime Minister. If Mr. Sabia sold his shares to protect the Prime Minister from any appearance of conflict of interest, why will the Prime Minister not do the same?

Mr. Speaker, the highest office in government must be transparent and beyond reproach. Doubt will remain as long as the Prime Minister is both a shareholder and decision-maker. For example, in October 2024, the Prime Minister helped to relocate Brookfield's head office from Toronto to New York. Seven months later, at the G7, he announced that U.S.-based companies would no longer have to pay the global minimum tax of 15% aimed at countering tax evasion. How much money did the Prime Minister save Brookfield and how much did he cost the public purse?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is an MP from Quebec. He knows the extent of the crisis in Quebec's health care system. He is also very aware of the fragility of that system. Unfortunately, there is no new money in this budget. Worse still, the health transfer escalator will drop from 6% to 3%, which will once again weaken the provinces and Quebec. Does my colleague agree with me that this should not happen?

Mr. Speaker, earlier on, the Liberal member for Mount Royal tried to convince us that Quebec's Bill 2 is what weakened the health care system, when in fact years of chronic underfunding are to blame for Quebec and the provinces' struggles to meet their obligation to care for people. The budget contains absolutely nothing for health care, apart from a measly $5 billion over three years for infrastructure. However, we know full well that a single hospital expansion project in Quebec can wind up costing about $4 billion. Does my colleague not think it is obscene that we are ending up with a $72-billion deficit, yet health care is not a priority?

Madam Speaker, I wish I could say that Bill C-224 is basically the same as Bill C-368, which was scrapped when the election was called. The Bloc Québécois had made amendments to Bill C‑368 to strike a balance between people's concern for their safety and the need to avoid destroying an industry. Could my colleague give me a clear answer this morning about whether he will support our amendments, like he did the last time when all the parties agreed to our amendments?

Madam Speaker, it is really embarrassing. Obviously, the member has not read the natural health products regulations. The member said that Bill C-47 gives more powers, when all of that is already set out in the regulations, which are quite lengthy. I read them all so that I could introduce the amendments that I mentioned earlier. The member clearly also did not read the Food and Drugs Act or Vanessa's Law. Had he read those pieces of legislation, he would not have given the speech that he just gave. He made sweeping generalizations about how we want to promote an irresponsible industry. Will the member apologize for not being able to give a speech that addresses the problem? He should have remained seated rather than standing up and spouting nonsense.

Madam Speaker, that is the second time that has happened to me. I know I need to calm down, but speeches like that make no sense. I worked full-time for over two weeks with legal experts to come up with three small amendments. The member for Ponoka—Didsbury made it clear that the first amendment has been incorporated into Bill C‑224, but there were two others. These two other amendments addressed the concerns raised by some stakeholders, particularly Health Canada. Do members know what the Auditor General's report revealed? It revealed that, since 2014, Health Canada has been unable to enforce its natural health products regulations. That is what it revealed. The Auditor General analyzed 75 of the industry's 91,000 natural health products. The Auditor General knew that these 75 products were already problematic and wanted to be able to tell Health Canada to do its job. In a panic, Health Canada decided to use an omnibus bill to introduce Bill C‑47 in an appendix. This bill purportedly championed consumer safety, but it threatened to kill an industry. Consumers must be able to make free and informed choices, but there must be products available for them to make free and informed choices about. When we talk about natural health products, we are not talking about large multinationals. We are talking about small and medium-sized businesses. Having cost-recovery provisions that allow the work to get done properly is not a problem. The problem is that Health Canada went for the simplest solution possible. It took the cost recovery and penalties model that it uses for pharmaceuticals and applied it to natural health products. Need I remind the House that the pharmaceutical industry has 20-year patents? The same cannot be said of the natural health products industry. Need I also remind the House that there are no taxes on pharmaceutical products, unlike natural health products? The government takes in enough money to pay for a proper oversight system. This is what shocks me the most. I did my job, and I have kept in touch with all the groups. The industry is not at all resistant to change. What it wants is a system that allows it to survive over the long term. However, it also wants to rid its system of bad actors. The natural health products regulations were supposed to be ironclad. We decided that we needed to go a step further. First, nicotine must be kept within the therapeutic products category. All nicotine-based products are therapies for quitting smoking. Nicotine is a highly addictive drug. That is what we did with the first amendment. That was also what the government and the minister at the time wanted. We presented that. In the second Bloc Québécois amendment, we ensured that the minister would have the power to order a recall, even though he has all the powers under the regulations. Need I remind members that recalls were voluntary? There have never been any alarming cases of people being resistant to recalls. We protected the minister's right to order recalls, which was already provided for under the regulations.

In line with what I was saying earlier, the third amendment sought to prevent a model involving fines from being inappropriately applied to small and medium-sized businesses. We wanted to ensure the industry was safe while guaranteeing its long-term survival and preserving consumers' freedom to choose between a natural health product and a pharmaceutical product, or sometimes both. Just because Health Canada was not able to do its job, that does not mean that an entire industry should be destroyed. That is the crux of the issue. When Bill C-368 was being studied at committee, we managed to come to an agreement. The Liberals were reluctant at first, but they eventually came around. Many of them supported the opposition parties' approach. The NDP members completely agreed, and so did the Liberals, to some extent. When a member is part of the government, it is hard for them to repudiate an initiative that comes from one of the most important government institutions, namely Health Canada, and its minister, who was probably misled. It is worth noting that ministers come and go, but senior public servants stay. At some point, it will be important to examine who really holds power within the government. I think it is time to start thinking about the power of the administration, which is not accountable to anyone and is not sitting on an ejection seat. Mistakes were made, things moved too quickly, an attempt was made to hide something that looked good on camera, namely tightening the rules. If Health Canada is unable to enforce the rules, then why did it go from saying that 91% of natural health product companies were compliant in 2015 to suddenly claiming that 88% are no longer compliant? Well, that 88% refers to the 75 companies that we knew were problematic and that had been flagged as examples so that Health Canada could be asked why it was not doing its job. The industry wants criteria. What criteria will be used during visits and inspections? I have talked to everyone in the industry, and it is obvious that they want clear rules and enforcement of regulations. That is why I am not asking my colleague who introduced this bill for permission to table my amendments. I am just surprised that all the work done in committee, which everyone agreed on, was not included in Bill C-224. If it had been, we could have fast-tracked this bill rather than rehash all the meetings. It should be noted that, as a result of our work, Health Canada had already begun to make concessions, particularly on labelling and cost recovery. However, the government seems to want to go backwards, claiming that Bill C‑224 is no good and that Bill C‑47 is the bill that matters. That is what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons told us this morning. That is shameful.

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the $5-billion investment in health infrastructure from coast to coast to coast over the next three years. That represents approximately $300 million per year for Quebec. At the same time, Quebec is being asked to invest the same amount. Also, in the same budget, we learned that funding for health care costs, which was supposed to be indexed at 6%, will be indexed at 3% for the next few years. The federal government is making Quebec poorer when it comes to health care costs. The government is offering $300 million, when expanding the Maisonneuve-Rosemont hospital alone could cost between $4 billion and $6 billion. They would have us believe that what is being offered to the provinces is huge, that it is fantastic, when we have just come out of a pandemic. If health care had been given the slightest priority, perhaps we could have supported this budget, despite the $78-billion deficit.

Madam Speaker, no matter what the Liberals may say, this budget makes cuts to health care. It is clear even just looking at transfers. The escalator is going to drop from 6% to 3%, while system costs are 6%. Meanwhile, the Liberals are boasting. They are boasting that they are investing $5 billion in health care infrastructure to build hospitals, when in fact they are doing so over three years, and Quebec is set to receive only about $300 million. What is more, while the system is getting poorer and poorer because the escalator is not indexed to system costs, Ottawa is saying that Quebec will have to kick in $300 million itself. Considering that the expansion of the Maisonneuve-Rosemont Hospital is going to cost between $4 billion and $6 billion, this investment, which is for all projects from coast to coast to coast, is just a drop in the bucket. It is a drop in the bucket. Does my colleague not agree with me that the Liberals are wrong to boast and that this is misrepresentation?

Mr. Speaker, I see "help wanted" signs all over my riding. I have met with business leaders, entrepreneurs and workers at various companies. Of course, I am obviously not talking here about temporary foreign workers in the agriculture sector. The people I meet are concerned about applying a 20% standard, so reducing it to 10% would be a really big deal for them. The fact is that they cannot hire enough staff without temporary foreign workers. Without them, business owners would have to shut down. They would not be able to process orders. Is the situation in my colleague's riding really that much different from mine?

Mr. Speaker, youth unemployment is high. It has been said that people need to first get a job in order to gain experience. Often, that is a problem. If people do not have experience, they do not have the required qualifications and they do not get hired. The Canada summer jobs program allows young people to gain that initial work experience. How does my colleague explain the fact that the government has cut this program in half?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague raised an interesting point earlier, when she spoke about the costs associated with this. Let us not forget that the changes the federal government made to the Criminal Code with respect to cannabis meant that the federal government collected taxes and kept all the money for itself, while the provinces had to bear the administrative costs of these changes. In this specific case, we are amending the Criminal Code, which is easy to do. However, it will result in administrative costs for provinces, which are already struggling. Does my colleague believe that, if the federal government wants to make these changes, then it should also provide the provinces with the necessary funding to manage them?

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech. I heard him talk about the issue of sentencing. We know that, in the judicial process, judges are responsible for sentencing. They have the flexibility they need to apply a sentence that fits the crime. Does my colleague's current emphasis on sentencing and wanting to pass legislation reflect his belief, namely that judges are not doing their job properly?

Mr. Speaker, it blows my mind to hear my colleague talk about shared jurisdiction even as he says there is no need to consult the provinces on his bill. What a bunch of nonsense. My colleague is concerned about accountability. In Quebec and the provinces, accountability happens every time there is a provincial election. Can my colleague recall even a single time, during a federal election, when health care was the key election issue and a federal government was thrown out because it was not doing what needed to be done on health care? The answer is no. Why? It is because it is not a federal matter.

Mr. Speaker, what I am hearing from my colleague reflects my own opinion. This bill is utterly pointless. Of course all the provinces want to be able to provide appropriate care to their residents. I am not aware of any premier of Quebec or of any province who is happy with the current situation. However, accountability and transparency would also require the Liberal government to admit that it is paying 21% of the bill. When the government starts paying 79% of the bill, perhaps then it can demand accountability. At present, the declining level of service is the result of the chronic underfunding of health care. Does my colleague agree with me on that?

Mr. Speaker, thank you for calling me to order. I did actually think I could ask a question. I will continue with my speech. I doubt the member for Surrey Newton consulted the 44 members from Quebec. If he did not consult the provinces, he did not consult members from Quebec either. I would be curious to hear what those 44 members think of Bill C-239, because it does not seem to change anything in the existing legislation. The current legislation does have criteria, two conditions, and that means that we have everything we need in the law to be able to provide appropriate care. What do the 44 members from Quebec think of the motion unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly? Will they go against the elected members of the Quebec National Assembly, who unanimously adopted this motion across party lines? Those folks brag every day about representing Quebeckers. I would like to know what they think of the motion unanimously adopted by the Quebec National Assembly in March 2023, which stated the following: THAT the National Assembly recall that the Canadian government's contribution to health services funding has decreased considerably over the years, as it once represented 50% but is now called on to fund only 24% of costs; Now it is 21%, to be precise. THAT it affirm that the Canadian government's most recent offer is clearly insufficient to ensure the sustainability of health services for the population and that Quebecers will therefore have to assume the cost of this shortfall; otherwise, they will have to endure a decrease in health services; THAT it denounce the inadequacy of Canada's offer and its definitive nature and the Canadian government's gradual withdrawal from the health of Quebecers; THAT, lastly, it reiterate that the current Canadian framework and its fiscal imbalance places Quebec in a difficult situation from a financial standpoint. I get the impression that not a single Liberal member from Quebec is going to vote in favour of Bill C-239. If they do, they will be going against a motion adopted unanimously by the representatives of the people of Quebec. I said earlier that this bill was pointless because the Canada Health Act already sets out five criteria, these being public administration, comprehensiveness, universality, portability and accessibility. This bill also creates two conditions that are already included in the act. The first condition is to provide the necessary information, which is already covered in subsection 13(a) of the act. There is also a condition about recognizing the amounts transferred, not allowing extra billing and not charging user fees. These conditions are already required and met. This bill negates what already exists. Perhaps that is due to a lack of knowledge about the Canada Health Act's history and the negotiations and agreements that have taken place over the years. I will quote from one such agreement. On September 15, 2004, Paul Martin's federal government, in conjunction with Quebec, made the following statement: ...the Government of Quebec's desire to exercise its own responsibilities with respect to planning, organizing and managing health services within its territory, and noting that its commitment with regard to the underlying principles of its public health system - universality, portability, comprehensiveness, accessibility and public administration - coincides with that of all governments in Canada, and resting on asymetrical federalism [this is what my colleague has not understood], that is, flexible federalism that notably allows for the existence of specific agreements and arrangements adapted to Quebec's specificity.... It is not complicated. Those are the facts. The problem stems from the federal government's disengagement. Currently, working conditions for doctors, nurses and health care workers are appalling. The initial agreement was that the federal government would fund 50% of health care costs. At the rate things are going, that figure will dwindle to 18%. In fact, this has happened once before. In 1995, when Quebec was reforming its health care system, Paul Martin made sure health care transfers were slashed overnight from 40% to 18%. When I talk about a chronic funding crisis, chronic disinvestment in health care, that is what I mean. How can we expect the provinces to provide quality care when the federal government dumps its deficit on them overnight? Perhaps the government saw the light in 2004 and decided it would respect an agreement that made sense. However, during the pandemic, Quebec had to go into lockdown for a year because the health care system was too fragile. I thought that as we emerged from the pandemic, the federal government would take a step back and listen to the demands of the Council of the Federation, Quebec and the provinces, which were asking it to increase transfers from 21% to 35%. We are talking about 35 cents on the dollar, not even 50 cents. That translates into investments to buy equipment. There can be no medicine without diagnosis. Access to care depends on the ability to diagnose patients and to have more trained doctors, more trained nurses and fewer agencies. The number crunchers determined that it would require $28 billion per year, or $280 billion over 10 years. How much new money has the federal government given for the next 10 years while no longer covering system costs? A total of $46 billion. That is $4.6 billion a year for the entire country. Over on that side of the House, a member stands up to say that people want better care, that there are problems. Everyone knows that. Now we are being told that asking the provinces to allocate the money to specific areas will improve the situation. First of all, that makes no sense, and second of all, it is arrogant. If the member wants to improve health care, he should run for a seat in a provincial legislature. That is what provincial legislatures do; it is their specialty. He can then ask the federal government to provide the necessary resources so that the people on the ground can do their jobs. That is the situation. I challenge any Quebec MP to vote for Bill C‑239 so we can see if they stand up for Quebeckers or not.

Madam Speaker, I am surprised by what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government is telling us today, because the Liberals are always trying to teach the Conservatives a lesson, telling them to take note of the election result. The Liberals themselves should take note of the election result. The government does not have a majority. It is a minority government. As such, the Liberals are in the minority in committees, and if they do not make substantive suggestions, they will not have the support of the Bloc Québécois. What the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government is saying to us is that if the Liberals had a majority, we would not be having this type of debate this afternoon. There would be no debate on the rules governing conflicts of interest. We would not be talking about grey areas having to do with an incredibly unusual case that is before us, namely the position an individual held before becoming a public officer holder. Today's debate concerns the report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, which requests that the committee conduct a review of the Conflict of Interest Act. Who better to do that than the committee? The report calls for a review of “the Conflict of Interest Act, including the conflict of interest rules, disclosure mechanisms and compliance measures set out in it”. This is the mandate that we are seeking in the House, which is why we are discussing it now. The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has only to ask around in the streets and on social media. He will learn that the public has little regard for the work we do here. They have no confidence in their public institutions. Spending one short afternoon on a serious discussion of a review that is required every five years is also an opportunity to educate and to show the public that even though we politicians are constantly criticized on these issues, they do matter to us. We want to take steps to repair the negative opinion that some people may have toward politics. The report asks: that the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics be designated to undertake the review; I believe we are in the best position to do so. It also asks: that it be an instruction to the Committee to consider, as part of its review, whether the Act should be amended or expanded with a view to enhancing transparency, preventing conflicts of interest, avoiding potential or apparent conflicts of interest... This is also a question that the Ethics Commissioner raised during his appearance. I will continue: ...regulating public office holders' ownership of assets in tax havens... Indeed, it is quite interesting to know that the Brookfield firm, whose leader is now the Prime Minister, is the king of tax havens and tax avoidance. ...limiting the availability of blind trusts as a compliance measure, extending the Act's provisions to political party leaders and leadership candidates, and increasing penalties for non-compliance; That was also a recommendation from the Ethics Commissioner. It concludes as follows: ...and that, at the conclusion of the review, the Committee report its findings and recommendations to the House. The Conservatives are proposing an amendment and saying that we will not be voting on this report today. Before we vote on the report, they want to see if we need to go further, and they want to wait for an order from the House to hear from key players identified by the Ethics Commissioner, who told us that the Prime Minister's situation was such that he had to set up conflict of interest screens, which are administered by his chief of staff and the Clerk of the Privy Council. My colleague across the way seems to look down on the opposition parties. I hope people will remember that in the next election. Ethics analyzes a situation based on what should be happening. As such, ethics is more demanding than the law. The review I am referring to must be based on principles, and one of those principles is that the highest office in the land requires the highest level of exemplary conduct. This also implies the highest level of transparency and requires, according a former clerk of the Privy Council, that a distinction be made, in terms of rules and requirements, between the Prime Minister, ministers, members of Parliament, and public office holders. It is important to say that. As part of this review, we will have to find a way to provide for more oversight of the role of prime minister. When I say that ethics is more demanding than the law, I mean that just because something is legal does not mean it is ethical. For example, tax avoidance and tax havens are legal, but are they ethical? Jason Ward, who appeared before the committee, told us that the Canadian government loses between $13 billion and $15 billion a year to tax avoidance, and we learned from other witnesses that Brookfield excels in this area. It seems to me that there is reason to be concerned or, at the very least, to question and reconsider the matter. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government may not like it, but the fact remains that we need to do our job and lift this veil of secrecy. Other principles that should underpin our actions and analysis as we review this act are integrity, transparency and accountability. These must be at the heart of our work in order to come up with rules that preserve or enhance citizens' trust in political institutions. Issues have been raised since the work began. For example, one of the Ethics Commissioner's objectives is to avoid tightening ethics rules too much so as not to discourage qualified and competent people from entering politics. It will come as no surprise that I disagree with the Ethics Commissioner on that principle. People who want to get into politics must make sacrifices. At the end of the review, the committee could very well conclude that the role of prime minister is not meant for people with certain private sector backgrounds. Of course, that is assuming that we want to avoid having a veil of secrecy around all this. We will examine this issue, but it is clear that anyone who wants to become prime minister must not have any apparent conflicts of interest. That is one of the issues here. The Ethics Commissioner spoke to us about proactive rather than retroactive ethics, that is, punishing questionable conduct. He told us that it would be interesting to extend the Conflict of Interest Act to apparent conflicts of interest. He suggested a definition: “Every public office holder shall arrange his or her private affairs in a manner that will prevent the public office holder from being in a conflict of interest” or in an apparent conflict of interest. He wants people who are interested in entering politics to know that they must avoid not only conflicts of interest, but also the appearance of a conflict of interest. Some people think this is far too difficult to manage. I would respond that the Ethics Commissioner opens an investigation when he believes there is the appearance of a conflict of interest. What he told us is that he would like the provisions of the act, our regulations, to stop things from going that far. He would like to see people receive training and information to prevent them from getting into these kinds of situations in the first place. The other aspect has to do with sanctions. The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics is working on this. The commissioner told us that the $500 penalty seems too lenient to him and should perhaps be increased to $3,000. We will look into it. I want to talk about blind trusts and what is happening with the Prime Minister. If his assets are in a blind trust, does that mean that he is making decisions without knowing how much his fortune is growing? Does he really have no idea that it is growing? I mean, he knows how to count. He just does not know by how much it is growing. Some witnesses told us that this blind trust was insufficient. I am not quite ready to let everything go. We will look at this, but it is serious. Just because a person's assets have been put in a blind trust does not preclude a situation where a decision might be made requiring him to recuse himself. Recusal is vital. We are told that a conflict of interest screen has been set up. On the issue of recusal, I asked the former clerk of the Privy Council, who served from 2016 to 2019, how many times he had had to suggest to the then prime minister that he leave the room. His answer was that he did not remember. I would just like to say that if I had to ask my boss to leave the room so that we could make a decision without him there, I would remember the time and the date. I would still remember a few years later. This means that the legislation, as it is currently structured, does not adequately address the issue of conflicts of interest because the definition in section 2 is strictly limited to private interests and does not cover decisions that would have a general impact. As my colleague from Joliette demonstrated earlier, the world has changed. Gone are the days when it was a case of one company and one minister who reports to the prime minister and who is governed by certain rules. Indeed, the prime minister can tell a minister to leave the room. The Prime Minister can come to the conclusion that there is the appearance of a conflict of interest and that a decision will not be made along those lines. In contrast, we have the case of a Prime Minister who decides on all of the country's economic policies and who also comes from an environment where tax avoidance is commonplace. It is a whole culture. How do we transpose that culture into a public culture? We asked the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner the following question: If all the Prime Minister's assets were placed in a blind trust and that resolved the issue, then why did the commissioner insist on a conflict of interest screen? If that is the case, then on some level, this must not have been sufficient. How many other conflict of interest screens are there and who is managing them? That is another question that we should look into. Experts have differing opinions on that. For now, we have heard from a lot of people who are saying the conflict of interest screens are not sufficient because people who report to the Prime Minister, people he himself appointed, are the ones responsible for this screen. We do not know exactly how this conflict of interest screen works. What I would propose is that we have an independent commissioner. I asked the commissioner why it was not up to his office to go to cabinet to demand accountability, to administer this screen. He told me that, if he were to do so, he would be in a conflict of interest himself, that he would be both judge and stakeholder. The commissioner should remain the judge and we should appoint someone else to the essential role of ensuring that the process is transparent and that the requirements for exemplary behaviour are met. We have here an opportunity to create additional leverage. Have I upset the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons? Am I being overly partisan, or am I bringing up key issues in order to improve parliamentary democracy and the basic requirements expected by those who elected us? Are my current remarks in the House unnecessary? Do the people listening at home think that what I am saying is not important? That would be a bit simplistic. Duff Conacher, from Democracy Watch, told us that when conflicts of interest are defined strictly in terms of private interests, as opposed to being defined in terms of matters that apply more generally, 99% of the time, the prime minister does not have to leave the room. Funny, is it not? He said that, and several Liberals are offended by it. I asked the former clerk of the Privy Council, and he could not remember the last time he asked a prime minister to leave the room. Perhaps this proves Mr. Conacher was right when he said that, under the current act, only 1% of cases would require the individual to recuse themselves. Once upon a time there was a fellow who wanted to become prime minister. He was the head of a multinational corporation that controlled 900 companies with assets of $1 trillion. He came to power. Before taking office, he declined to make a declaration, in the interest of transparency, of any potential conflicts of interest he may have had. After entering office, however, the first thing he did was to pass a bill under a gag order that, coincidentally, will ensure that the company he once headed will one day hold very substantial interests in five shipyards—

Madam Speaker, the question is not so much what has changed, and this is not limited to members. It is simply that we have to review the provisions of the law every five years, and that is where we are now. It is as simple as that. We have reached the point where we need to review the law, and we have submitted a report outlining the issues we wish to examine, because the world is changing and people no longer trust political institutions or politicians. There have been conflicts of interest, there have been commissions of inquiry, including in Quebec and at various levels of government, and that does not help. We must review the law every five years simply because the law requires us to do so. The former conflict of interest and ethics commissioner had requested that this review and these changes be carried out, as had the commissioner we received in committee. In his 2024-25 report, the commissioner suggested changes, and we must decide whether or not to implement those changes. It is that simple.

Madam Speaker, some witnesses told us that it was a smokescreen. Others talked about the need to work on the operational aspects of this. However, it became clear that this should not be managed by subordinates of the highest-ranking official, the highest-ranking person in the government, especially since he is the one who decides on economic policy. Also, when he first came to power, he took advantage of a tariff crisis, which will be resolved with free trade agreements in 2026, to launch construction projects that will take eight years to complete, saying that the Canadian economy needed to be rebuilt. In eight or 10 years, Donald Trump will be gone. He will be dead and buried. It just so happens that the opportunity to develop these projects is directly linked, among other things, to the company he used to run. A veil of suspicion and opacity is being created, and that is why we absolutely must ensure that the law covers this type of situation. This is unusual. We have never seen this before, and it could set a precedent. This is a long way from Paul Martin's ship scandal.

Madam Speaker, some people say it is because we need to encourage competent people to enter politics, as though competence has something to do with wealth or the fact that a person owns shares and interests in a number of companies. My question about the Prime Minister's conflict of interest screen is whether his chief of staff asked him to be careful when, at the G7 meeting, he took steps to exempt American companies from the 15% minimum tax. When he was not Prime Minister, he decided to move assets that were governed by this rule out of Canada. I am referring to Brookfield headquarters, in the United States. Was he unaware of what he was doing at the G7 regarding that exemption? Was the conflict of interest screen applied? The answer is no. He was not advised to recuse himself because the conflict of interest definition is limited to so-called personal interests, and it was a decision of general interest. This allows him to grow his wealth, but also, and most importantly, Brookfield's wealth.

Mr. Speaker, this is a clear example of the contempt toward the House of Commons that I mentioned earlier. For the Liberals, committees are just a way to keep people busy. They use them to get rid of issues they do not want to discuss in the House. However, it is important to discuss these issues in the people's place and not just in committees, whose reports just gather dust anyway, as we all know Take, for example, the unanimous report we sent to the House on the dangers of breast implants. I managed to get 10 unanimous recommendations adopted, and the government is letting the report sit on a shelf. That is why we want to have certain debates in front of all Canadians. It is a matter of transparency.

Mr. Speaker, for me, engaging in politics is a noble pursuit. A key pillar of my work in politics is to make politics more ethical. Does my colleague realize that the other side of the House is setting a trap and trying to reopen the debate by playing petty partisan politics? Right now, I want to bring the debate back to ethics. Does my colleague agree that the Conflict of Interest Act should be expanded to include the appearance of a conflict of interest? If one day, in the distant or not-so-distant future, he were to form government, would he be a strong advocate of legislation governing the appearance of a conflict of interest?