Sébastien Lemire
Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I find it ironic that the member from downtown Toronto gave a speech on the challenge of access to housing and housing construction, because I get the impression that, for the last 30 years, the federal government has been doing nothing but building housing in downtown Toronto.”
“Mr. Speaker, five years ago, I rose in the House to note that my son, Léon, was finishing elementary school. Naturally, five years later, it is time for his high school graduation ceremony, which he will be attending on Saturday.”
“That is, of course, provided that it does not take two years to sign the agreements, meaning that inflation eats up the lion's share of the funds allocated to Quebec. The Canada housing infrastructure fund agreement was finally signed after two years.”
“As a result, it has to ask CMHC—or perhaps I should say “the agency formerly known as CMHC”—to do what it used to do: review applications. Who suffers as a result? The projects and the organizations themselves. For my region, the upshot of this is that we will often miss the construction season.”
“It is rather ironic that the Auditor General of Canada issued a report on child care services. As members know, this policy resulted in an unconditional transfer being made to Quebec. That is because, in 1997, Quebec had already created the network of early childhood centres to provide affordable child care for everyone.”
“Mr. Speaker, I wish I were wrong, but the record of the last 10 years in this Parliament shows that I am not wrong and that funding does not reach Quebec, or if it does, it is only after several years' delay. Obviously, this means there is less money in current dollars available for the construction of these homes.”
The complete record
Every one of 447 lines we hold for Sébastien Lemire, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 4 of 9.
“Another very important rule is the ban on this type of advertising in traditional media during programs that are likely to be watched by minors or an impressionable young audience. Quebec already regulates online gambling advertising. What the federal government wants to do here is tell us what to do and how to do it, once again, as though we were incapable of doing so and as though every province did not have that ability. I just demonstrated that we do. I presume the concern expressed by some members stems first and foremost from their concerns about their own provinces. This bill comes to us from the Senate, but I would advise the member sponsoring the bill to go to Ontario and advocate for a change in the rules in her province. Just because we do not have a uniform approach does not mean that a loophole exists.”
“Subsection 6 states that the board is responsible for “monitoring advertising and educational programs relating to alcoholic beverages and to activities governed by the Act respecting racing and the Act respecting lotteries and amusement machines”. Quebec's regulations are very clear on sports betting and advertising. According to the law, a gaming and gambling company must not promote activities to minors under any circumstances. Its advertisements must portray games of chance and gambling in a responsible manner without encouraging excessive gambling. In fact, there are a lot of ads during sporting events, and that is fine. Advertising for games of chance and gambling also must not be misleading or inaccurate. For example, advertisements that promise easy winnings and give the impression that the player is certain to win are prohibited.”
“However, that is where the problem lies, as illustrated by the court's ruling. That is why Quebec cannot ban unapproved online gambling sites from operating within its territory. That is why there has been an increase in the number of platforms and ads. We are not opposed to studying a bill that would address this issue, but we have reservations about the desire to establish a national framework to regulate advertising. In our view, this is another perfect example of Ottawa encroaching on a jurisdiction that is not its own. The Act respecting the Régie des alcools, des courses et des jeux, which created Quebec's gaming board, contains a very interesting provision: section 23.”
“This is a societal choice that is up to each province. Do I agree with the Ontario model? The answer is no, not especially. However, I respect that government's choice. Quebec decided to retain control of legalized gambling through its Mise‑o‑jeu program. In 2016, acting within its public protection jurisdiction, Quebec passed a law banning unlicensed online gaming sites by requiring Internet service providers to implement systems for blocking access to them. The Superior Court struck down that Quebec law because, in its view, it infringed on an area of exclusive federal jurisdiction, namely telecommunications, as well as on the Canadian Criminal Code. (1830) What does the bill we are debating do? It does not attempt to regulate the Criminal Code of Canada or federal broadcasting legislation.”
“The way sports betting, racing, and gaming are managed today is different because each province has chosen to adapt its regulations to its own context and interpretations, and that is perfectly fine. Quebec and each of the provinces and territories have different ways of seeing things and different vulnerabilities. Any regulatory or legislative changes that aim to achieve this are welcome, because they give provinces the power to act as they see fit and the agility to act quickly. That is what happened on the ground. The Ontario government, for example, opted for an open market. It created iGaming Ontario to regulate online gaming and issue operating licences to private companies. Quebec, on the other hand, went a different way. Through its Mise‑o‑jeu program, Loto‑Québec decided to take charge of online sports betting itself.”
“Amendments to the Criminal Code changed gaming in Canada by consolidating power in the provinces. As a result, the federal government ceded all jurisdiction over gaming to the provinces. Quebec and the provinces are the ones operating, administering and regulating legalized gambling. It should be noted that in 2021, this Parliament passed the Safe and Regulated Sports Betting Act, which amended the Criminal Code to make it lawful for the government of a province, or a person or entity licensed by the lieutenant governor in council of that province, to conduct and manage a lottery scheme in the province that involves betting on a race, other than a horse-race, or fight, or on a single sport event or athletic contest. I think it is clear that regulating sports betting is the responsibility of the provinces.”
“We also recognize that pathological gambling is a public problem that requires public authorities to address the issue in a consistent manner and to invest the necessary funds, because people are suffering because of it. As I mentioned, each province is responsible for taking action and implementing measures to restrict sports betting advertising, as well as lottery and gaming advertising. We recognize that, for many young people and minors, sports betting advertising, which is primarily online and can feature spokespersons like athletes and celebrities who are worshipped by young people, is a problem that needs to be addressed. However, again, it is not the federal government's responsibility. I would remind the House of the federal-provincial agreement on gaming signed in 1985.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by expressing my support, as many other members have done, for the communities affected by the events of this week, specifically Tumbler Ridge and Kitigan Zibi. Bill S-211 provides for the development of a national framework to regulate sports betting advertising by establishing national standards. No one will be surprised to hear me say once again that Canada is jumping headfirst into areas of jurisdiction that belong exclusively to Quebec and to the other Canadian provinces. As with many other national strategies, we in the Bloc Québécois are not at all happy about them. I would like to remind the House of one thing: The Bloc Québécois recognizes that sports betting advertising and its effects on vulnerable groups are harmful.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is never easy to take up a bill from the Senate in the House, especially when there are imperfections. I would like to note my colleague's desire to start a public debate about an issue that affects people's health and that has significant financial implications. Obviously, this encroaches on the provincial jurisdictions and that of Quebec. I would like her to tell us about that. Her research led her to Quebec's sports betting model. I would appreciate if she could tell the House more about that.”
“Mr. Speaker, since we are in a debate about cars, I will ask a question about mechanics. Then, since we are discussing subsidies for electric vehicles, I will ask a question about money. I would like to know if the member for Halifax thinks that the fact that the Conservative Party receives a lot of money from donors who are heavily involved in the oil and gas industry could have anything to do with its choice to use its opposition day to remove subsidies for electric vehicles, which would obviously have a strong, lasting effect on the automotive industry of tomorrow.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are seeing the world through rose-coloured glasses. The Cúram software was supposed to cost $1.75 billion. We are now at $6.6 billion. That is a cost overrun of nearly $5 billion. However, according to the Liberals, that is not a cost overrun. No, those were just initial contracts with a below-cost starting value. They seem to think we are stupid. Oh, that is not a cost overrun? Well, if we compare what it now costs to what it was supposed to cost, it is four times more expensive, damn it. In addition, there are problems, particularly in Quebec—”
“I think this would mean a lot to everyone who has had a hand in modern coalition issues over the past few decades. I would like my colleague to comment on this idea.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague's intervention on modern treaties was heartfelt and sincere. This commissioner will indeed play a role vital to us as parliamentarians. We will be able to take responsibility and ask the right questions. In short, we support this bill. I had the opportunity to speak at first reading. Here is my question. After my speech, I received a lot of feedback, especially from the Land Claims Agreements Coalition. Incidentally, it will be holding an event on Parliament Hill tomorrow, and I encourage all parliamentarians to attend. If there is one person who is especially important to this coalition, it is Jim Aldridge. I would like to propose that this bill be named after him in committee. It would be known as Jim Aldridge's bill.”
“Mr. Speaker, yes, it is always ironic to see members of the official opposition supporting closure motions. It is as though the Conservative Party had cast itself as a government-in-waiting and decided that it was great because, when they are in power, they will be able to take advantage of these botched processes. I would still like to mention something about Bill C‑5 and the Conservatives. When I presented them with an amendment to exclude the Indian Act from the process, because it would have excluded indigenous people from consultations, the Conservatives voted in favour of our amendment. That meant we could not steamroll indigenous peoples, and I am grateful to them for that. That is why the federal government is coming back with the Bill C‑15 . To me, this is a historical aberration.”
“Mr. Speaker, what happened in Mirabel is one of the biggest frustrations in Quebec's history. Not only did the government expropriate people from some of the finest agricultural land in Quebec, it left major scars and trauma in its wake for an airport project heralded to become Canada's largest international airport, as members will recall. Then Canada decided to centre all of its political and economic decisions in Toronto. Obviously, that impacted airports. In the end, the needs to be served by the large Mirabel airport were ultimately met in Dorval, the site of the international airport. The supreme irony of all this, and perhaps another reason why we need an apology, is that the other airport was named after the person who led the expropriations in the riding of Mirabel.”
“Farmers in Mirabel had to go to Laval, because initially there were no consultations in Mirabel. That is why we are saying that the process was rushed and that people were not respected. That is the crux of the problem and that is why we are holding this opposition day today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from the Laval region, with whom I had a productive discussion yesterday on social licence issues that are currently affecting the people of Rouyn‑Noranda. I thank him for his sensitivity on this issue. Obviously, I would like to see high‑speed rail go all the way to Rouyn‑Noranda. We would be happy to be able to get to Montreal, Ottawa or other big cities a little faster than we can currently. The question is not whether or not we want high‑speed rail, because the Bloc Québécois is obviously in favour of it. It is about how things are done. People in Mirabel are being asked to drive an hour or an hour and a half to give their opinion, depending on traffic. I am sorry, but that is unfair. When I take Highway 15, I always get stuck in traffic coming off Highway 117.”
“It is often said that the Mirabel region is home to the best farmland in Quebec, the most fertile land in Quebec. In closing, I would like to remind the House of the great Serge Bouchard. While acknowledging that modern humans wanted to live in cities, he spoke with admiration of the old farmer, the one who cleared the land, who loved and walked the land. As he said so well, the land is what makes the ancestor culturally unique. We need to think of them in this process as well.”
“The same farmer also added an interesting comment, noting that by giving this project to a federally created firm, the Liberals seem to want to wash their hands of it. That is problematic. These stories from agricultural producers deserve to be heard. Today, I spoke on their behalf. I want them to know that the Bloc Québécois is listening to them. We are here to help them. Major projects require us to do things right. We are not dealing with a parcel of land; we are dealing with people who have put their hearts into their land. They have made it their home, their community. Farming is a generational story, from father to son. This land represents a family history. Six to 10 generations of hard-working people took care of a piece of land in that part of Quebec, the Mirabel region.”
“Some of them will experience a second time what farmers of that era experienced, that is, the expropriation of their land only to have it returned later. One local farmer told the Mirabel newspaper Le Nord that many farmers he knows were able to reclaim old lots and short strips but then resold them, because there was the possibility of a second expropriation. Another farmer told Le Nord that, if we are as important as the government claims we are, why is Alto not holding real public consultations in Mirabel? That is a good question. Examples from my region have made it very clear. A mining company that takes responsibility and engages in discourse with the public is more likely to obtain social licence. That certainly takes time, but it is always the best approach.”
“Stéphane Alary, president of the Outaouais and Laurentians regional section of the UPA, said that agricultural land is often chosen first because it costs less for the developer. He also questions the idea of splitting up land, asking, “How will producers get their hay? They're not going to put a footbridge over every piece of land that's cut off.” That much is clear. That is precisely where agricultural producers need to be reassured. The government needs to consult with them, listen to their concerns and meet with them. Sure, it can send a registered letter or an email, but the decent thing to do is to go and meet with people and talk to them. (1545) Alternative solutions will have to be found to allow them to access their lands. It is also important to recall that many people still remember the expropriations of 1969.”
“All this happens because, instead of doing things right, they want to rush—at the speed of a high-speed train. Since I am now the critic for agriculture and agri-food, I will echo the words of Marcel Papin, president of the Lanaudière section of the UPA, who said that everything is moving too fast, and no one is taking the time to answer the real questions. That is exactly the mistake that is being made in most major projects, both in my region and here today. Farmers have significant concerns. Guillaume Alary, a farmer and president of the UPA of L'Assomption-Les Moulins, points out that the government does not need to expropriate land to break up a farm, it simply needs to split the farm up.”
“It involves actively participating in discussions, trying to understand each other's points of view, trying to find solutions together to address everyone's concerns and reaching out to each other. That is precisely what the people of Mirabel are asking for: to have their say. They want to feel heard, to be able to share their concerns and to get answers. They do not want to find out from the media or in a coffee shop that the high-speed rail project is going to pass by their homes or through their farmland. Moving fast with this kind of project never works. The current government wants to override every law. It wants to steamroll people and move very quickly. We know what that leads to: IT contracts with skyrocketing costs. It leads to projects that fail miserably.”
“In our region, it involved taking a step toward improving dialogue so that we could identify mechanisms better suited to today's reality. An expropriation process, where people are presented with a decision made in advance, no longer works. People want to have their say. I hope that UQAT's example will serve as inspiration to the government. I was the indigenous relations critic for a long time. The consultation process that the government put in place for Bill C‑5 was deplorable. The government sent a letter and then said that it had consulted with first nations, Inuit and Métis peoples. The government basically gave five days' notice then said that the consultation had been done. However, consultation does not necessarily mean agreeing with a project. It is not just a matter of saying that someone has been heard.”
“Uncertainty affects the people there people to this day. Yes, compensation is paid in these situations, but it is not necessarily enough to meet the needs of the people affected. That requires negotiations, but above all, it requires time, empathy and compassion. That is one of the reasons why, in 2022, the Université du Québec en Abitibi—Témiscamingue, or UQAT, took the lead in creating the Laboratoire sur l'acceptabilité sociale de l'exploitation des ressources naturelles, a laboratory focused on the social acceptability of natural resource development. It brings together researchers, organizations and members of the public who collaborate on developing social acceptance mechanisms that respect the concerns and interests of the various parties involved.”
“Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As I was saying, for many residents of the municipality, this was a deeply traumatizing chapter. The cohabitation guide went a long way toward improving the social climate. Still, when the company proposed this major project, one that would revitalize the municipality, it tore the community apart. At such times, standing in opposition takes courage because, in small municipalities where everyone knows everyone, one feels like a target. Something similar happened again recently. While the people of Rouyn-Noranda were waiting for the results of the ministerial authorization in March 2023, residents and even the mayor all learned simultaneously that the neighbourhood near the Horne Smelter would become a buffer zone. Once again, 200 families were affected by the news.”
“It was the beginning of a process that would lead to the relocation of 205 residences, and it was not an easy process. In fact, my father served on the transitional committee, acting as a mediator in the process. Compensation began three years later. However, there were many challenges. The negotiated settlement strategies caused a great deal of stress for many of the citizens affected. Relocation began even before the project was approved by Quebec's Bureau d'audiences publiques sur l'environnement. For many of the municipality's citizens, this was very traumatic. Mr. Speaker, could you ask people in the room to shout more quietly? I know it is directed at someone in particular, but it is loud.”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, I think this is a first for me in the House, but I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Saint-Jean . I would also like to thank Emily Gough, who has been part of my team over the past few months, as the parliamentary interns will soon be leaving. I am extremely grateful to her for her contribution. I think many of us can attest to her hard work. I wish her the best of luck in her new position. Expropriation is a complex process that requires exceptional tact. It is a process that cannot be done by cutting corners. My region, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, felt this very strongly in recent years. I am thinking of the Osisko project in Malartic in the early 2010s. In a church in 2006, the Osisko company presented an ambitious plan for a larger open-pit mine.”
“From Saint‑Eustache to Milano Cortina, with a stopover in Abitibi—Témiscamingue, Phil Pietroniro will allow Quebeckers to cheer on one of our own by proudly shouting “Viva Italia!””
“Mr. Speaker, many of us were dismayed to hear that Quebec would not be represented on the Canadian men's hockey team at the Milano Cortina Olympic Games. Quebec has always produced outstanding players, and the Quebec Maritimes Junior Hockey League has won more Memorial Cups in recent years than the Ontario or western leagues. However, Quebec players are absent from the team, and the French language risks being absent as well. This decision by Hockey Canada shows a complete lack of consideration for Quebec. Surprise, surprise. Quebec can still cheer on one of our own at the Olympic Games. Phil Pietroniro is originally from Saint‑Eustache. He spent part of his time in junior hockey playing with the Val‑d'Or Foreurs, where he helped the team win the 2014 President's Cup. Now he is an Olympian on the Italian national team.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my esteemed colleague for her speech. It was clear that she carefully weighed every word. That being said, one thing I feel the government has not weighed is the impact this will have on national debt, because we know that everything this government does only adds to the debt. According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, we are talking about an additional $12.4 billion of debt over six years. Meanwhile, there is no direct increase in seniors' income. There is no increase to OAS. What will happen in 2031? Inflation will have eaten away at everyone's income and people will not have a penny left. Is that a responsible measure?”
“In fact, we were supposed to get answers on this at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts today, but so far, the government is refusing to be held accountable. My question for my colleague is the following. Why not go ahead and increase OAS? Is it because his government has failed at making sure these payments go through?”
“Mr. Speaker, it is quite a privilege to hear a speech from the member for Winnipeg North . We were lucky today. What are the chances? That being said, I would like to hear his comments on the mechanics of his government. Why did his government choose to cut a cheque instead of permanently increasing OAS and therefore seniors' incomes? Is it because the OAS delivery system is failing and more and more seniors are not receiving it, regardless of the government House leader 's claims that it is a simple error and that sometimes there are IT bugs? The situation for seniors is critical and must not be trivialized, especially when we know that the cost overruns for this system are 10 times greater than for SAAQclic. The cost has shot up from $1.75 billion to $6.6 billion.”
“It is time for the government to recognize that Quebec and the Canadian provinces are capable of making their own decisions in their own areas of jurisdiction.”
“The agency states, “To achieve these goals, provincial and territorial governments should consider working together to develop and implement accessible and harmonized unit pricing requirements.” Once again, the federal government is proposing to add public servants to implement a framework that will require monitoring and investigations. That constitutes spending to develop a new program for everyone. Meanwhile, Quebec is picking up part of the bill for something it is already doing. How much will this new policy cost in terms of travel expenses, staff and various meetings? Every time a program is duplicated, the number of public servants and reports doubles; everything is duplicated. The Parliamentary Budget Officer might say that it is a question of efficiency. The Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill.”
“Quebec has chosen to protect consumers. So, if the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells wants a unit price for food, I invite him to contact his provincial representative in British Columbia. At the Bloc Québécois, we believe that the Quebec government and the Canadian provinces have their own specific powers. In the United States, price display in grocery stores varies from state to state. Alabama has no price display policy. California, on the other hand, is at the other end of the spectrum. (1745) Even the Competition Bureau stated very clearly in its report who was responsible for this. It was written in black and white.”
“However, instead of sitting down with provincial ministers to come to an agreement between the Canadian provinces, the Government of Quebec and Canada, it is choosing to encroach on provincial powers. I also sit on the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. Recently, we analyzed spending on the child care services program. Ottawa transfers funds to Quebec without conditions, but it does so with conditions in other provinces. In the end, Canada will spend $15 million to study reports, send funds and organize meetings between the various provincial ministers. We are talking about a significant amount of money coming out of taxpayers' pockets. That is $15 million to manage a program that is not under federal jurisdiction, when all Ottawa has to do is send the money and let the provinces handle their own affairs.”
“It supports the idea that we can improve transparency and competition through interprovincial co-operation, not through top-down interference from the federal government. Why not do what we did with the grocery code of conduct, which was adopted in 2024 after several years of negotiation between the provinces and major retailers? It is considered a success story. The process was based on collaboration, respect for jurisdictions and voluntary stakeholder participation. It has been in effect since January 1 of this year and still has to prove itself in terms of results, but the intention is certainly honourable. It proves that parties can agree on things. To achieve that, the government has to talk to the stakeholders.”
“By imposing a Canada-wide standard from coast to coast to coast, Ottawa would be setting a precedent that could open the door to other interventions in areas of provincial jurisdiction in Quebec and the provinces. It is not the first time that the federal government has tried to expand a measure that was already in place in Quebec to all of Canada. The federal government's stance is the result of a recurring centralizing impulse that often puts Quebec at a disadvantage, since it has often already implemented policies that are more advanced or better adapted to its reality. In its 2023 report, Canada's Competition Bureau proposed aligning unit price labelling practices through co-operation between Quebec and the provinces. The federal government would simply be a participant in this dialogue. This point is key.”
“Domestic marketing, including retail trade and consumer protection, is the responsibility of Quebec and the provinces. Once again, Ottawa is interfering in an area of exclusive jurisdiction. The federal government justifies its intrusion on the grounds of interprovincial trade, claiming that harmonizing labelling practices would encourage the mobility of goods and healthier competition. That is not true. Unit price labelling does not hinder trade in any way, since it does not restrict the movement of goods or commercial activity. It is merely a tool to provide information to consumers in Quebec and Canada. There is some risk in this.”
“In Quebec, we are done wondering whether a combined discount, such as two jars of yogurt for $6, is worth the cost, or whether a single jar of yogurt costs $3 or $3.50. It is also mandatory to specify whether or not a product is taxable. Quebec is going even further by asking that label information be more visible, including unit prices. On top of that, the Office de la protection du consommateur is updating the compensation provided under its price accuracy policy from $10 to $15. Once again, Quebec is at the forefront of consumer protection. Once again, Quebec is leading the charge. What did Ottawa do? With this bill, it is once again interfering in provincial jurisdictions. Perhaps the government needs to read the Constitution.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to this bill as the new Bloc Québécois critic for agriculture, agri-food and supply management. What is better than talking about food transparency? I applaud the member for Fleetwood—Port Kells for his initiative. As he said earlier in response to my question, Quebec is already way ahead of the rest of Canada on this issue. In fact, just last year, the Government of Quebec changed its rules around pricing. While the unit price was already mandatory in Quebec, the Government of Quebec decided to go even further. This new legislation ensures that the regular retail price is displayed for discounted food. The price for members of a loyalty program versus non-members is also clearly shown.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his initiative to promote transparency and bring prices down in the agri-food sector. I have a question for him. Just today, at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, the Canadian Pork Council and Les Éleveurs de porcs du Québec demanded more transparency in pork-related transactions, particularly for processors. We know that consumers are paying more and more and producers are getting less and less money. There is a broken link somewhere along the chain. Can my colleague tell me if there is any openness to being more transparent about what is being done in Canada? The United States has a law that requires all aspects of these transactions to be public. Should Canada pass a similar law? I think that would help people who pay a lot for pork and would like to be able to buy more of it.”
“Are we protecting our sovereignty by trusting Beijing's regime, as he likes to call it, or are we shooting ourselves in the foot when it comes to Canada's sovereignty? I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“Madam Speaker, naturally, I will not congratulate my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk on his French, but I will nevertheless address the issue of sovereignty, a theme I like to hear him talk about. I will not talk to him about the Prime Minister 's speech in Quebec City, because I know he cares a lot about historical accuracy, but I want to talk to him about electric vehicles, which he touched on in his speech. In particular, I want to talk to him about the Prime Minister's commitment to rekindling ties with China by allowing imports of Chinese electric vehicles, which are clearly built by children, with no respect for human rights, and with parts of unknown origin, which will be able to control the data and perhaps even control the vehicle.”
“Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his extremely moralizing speech, although this House sometimes needs it. Let us apply the same arguments used in support of the rigour shown by the Prime Minister recently. As a member for Quebec, does my colleague agree with the Prime Minister's historical accuracy when he rewrote the facts of the battle of the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City and its impact? Everyone unanimously spoke out against this and agreed that history cannot be rewritten. This is the same Prime Minister that my colleague just glorified today for his rigour on issues of national sovereignty. I think he needs to redo his homework. Will my colleague help his leader get a better understanding of Quebec's history?”
“Afterwards, he went to Davos and said that we would be on the menu and that we need to wake up because the world has changed. Then he went to Quebec City and said that it turns out that we all misunderstood what happened 400 years ago, because it was actually the beginning of a partnership. I imagine that English Canadians are now telling themselves that, when their farms were burned down, it was the start of a warm relationship. When their wives were raped, it was perhaps the start of a relationship by blood tie, a friendly relationship. That is the message the Prime Minister delivered last week when he twisted history. I look forward to seeing how this all plays out. In the meantime, if we want things to change the right way and in a democratic fashion, the bill tabled by the Bloc Québécois should be passed by the House.”
“I am talking about the lives of the workers, the children, who manufacture these vehicles and about mineral mining and the appropriation of global supply chains for strategic critical minerals. I think we all know that, once a vehicle is manufactured, imported and used, the consumer's data no longer belongs to them. I am talking about travel data, as well as all any conversations that may take place inside the vehicle. I do not trust the Chinese regime at all. When we buy from the United States, we are dealing with companies. When we buy a Chinese product, we are dealing with the Chinese government. For me, this is a real threat to democracy. We have opened the door to an agreement with China to have our data stolen. I think that the Prime Minister is setting an extremely dangerous precedent.”
“These kinds of practices are common these days and considered normal for maintaining the essence of what is known as democracy. However, this democracy is fragile. The Prime Minister has talked about this, and I agree with him. When we see countries arming themselves more and more, it raises some questions. We see that the Prime Minister is going to China and opening the door to Chinese EVs. I have an electric vehicle myself, but I would never want to use a Chinese EV. First of all, I have no confidence in how it was manufactured. We know nothing about the traceability of the materials used, where they come from or, more importantly, the human rights that were violated in order to build these vehicles. These EVs may cost $10,000 or $20,000 less, but at what cost?”
“Before reaching the implementation stage and, of course, the formal ratification stage, these treaties would all be ratified by Parliament. I think that makes sense. Basically, Bill C-228 will ensure that the ratification process is democratic, so that we are no longer threatened by global events in high finance. It is important to solidify those foundations. (1115) I want to point out that Quebec has also stipulated that the National Assembly must ratify international agreements and decrees. The National Assembly has a role to play here. Bill C-228 follows the example set by Quebec. The same thing exists in most countries in Europe. In the United States, Congress has given itself the mandate to negotiate. In Europe, the European Commission cannot enter into trade negotiations without the authorization of the European Parliament.”