Xavier Barsalou-Duval
Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis?”
The complete record
Every one of 556 lines we hold for Xavier Barsalou-Duval, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 12.
“Mr. Speaker, the leader of the Bloc Québécois met with the Prime Minister yesterday. He emphasized the need to put an end to Driver Inc. scheme. However, the battle is far from over. Not only is the federal government not doing much about this issue, but it is, in fact, part of the problem. Canada Post has contracted no fewer than 25 companies that do business with Driver Inc. drivers. The federal government is feeding the beast with our tax dollars. When will the Liberals get Driver Inc. drivers off our streets instead of getting out their chequebooks?”
“Mr. Speaker, I rarely do this, but I really want to congratulate the member opposite on his speech. He is generally not my favourite member because I find his speeches overly partisan. However, today, I am truly impressed because he really dotted the i's and crossed the t's and told the truth about electric vehicles. Since he is now such a straight talker, today, I would like to know if he is willing to admit or state that his government's decision to end the subsidies for zero-emission electric vehicles in 2025 was a disaster. Is the fact that it has been reinstated today not proof of this?”
“Mr. Speaker, I note that in the last point of the motion, point (c), the Leader of the Opposition is calling for a tax cut for GM factory workers who have lost their jobs. That is very generous of him, but how could someone who claims to advocate for Canada and work for everyone not think of the Paccar workers, who also lost their jobs? Why did he not include them in his motion? In Sainte-Thérèse, 700 people lost their jobs. That is my first question. Here is my second question for the Leader of the Opposition. Alberta produces oil and Quebec produces electricity. Quebec is the leading market for EVs in Canada. Does he understand that his motion is an attack on the electrification of transportation, that Quebeckers are fond of electricity, that they are fond of electric vehicles, and that, basically, he is attacking Quebec?”
“Madam Speaker, the simple answer is that western Canada produces oil and has an oil-centred economy, even though the rest of the world is heading in a different direction. Ontario generally tows the same line, since it primarily manufactures gas-powered vehicles. Canada seems incapable of changing its ways. In Quebec, we produce electricity. That means we have every reason to transition away from oil for both economic and environmental reasons, since we already produce electricity. Right now, however, Alberta and the federal government seem unwilling to invest in a forward-looking and future-shaping economic shift. Instead, they want to keep things as they are for as long as possible. It is like wanting to hold on to coal trains forever. One day, this will simply no longer be possible.”
“I think the figure is approximately 40% in Quebec, and, in Canada, transportation accounts for about 20% because the country produces greenhouse gases in so many other industries. All of that is to say that conventional vehicles account for a significant portion of our greenhouse gas emissions, and we need to move toward the electrification of transportation if we want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions and reach the much-discussed global commitment of net zero by 2050.”
“Madam Speaker, I think my colleague raised a good point. I do not often agree with the Liberals, but I think that we can work together on some things, and electrification is one of them. I would encourage his government to be even more ambitious, because abandoning the electric vehicle availability standards we had in the past is an unfortunate move. We know that when dealerships are forced to stock EVs, consumers have more choice and are more likely to buy these vehicles. I think that is the direction that we need to go in. We know that EVs produce virtually no greenhouse gases, unlike conventional vehicles, which obviously cause more pollution because they burn gasoline. Conventional vehicles account for a substantial portion of our greenhouse gas emissions.”
“Madam Speaker, I find the question rather interesting. We are not, in fact, giving money to the United States. We are giving money to taxpayers to help them buy vehicles that pollute less. However, I want to ask my colleague a question. Why are the Conservatives defending the oil companies, fighting so hard for them, getting so worked up about them and thinking about them every morning when they get up, when 80% of those companies are controlled by Americans? Why do the Conservatives want us to continue subsidizing these oil companies and boosting their profits, which will continue to flow to American shareholders? The Conservatives seem to have forgotten one side of the equation.”
“What we notice after reading the motion before the House is that it seeks to completely detract from what is coming. Electrification is being framed as some kind of trend that we need to back away from. We are being told that the world has changed and that we are in a different place now. Unfortunately, all too often, it is the the Liberals taking that position. When we talk about people, we mean real people, not just the ones south of the border, in the Trump administration, a temporary United States government. When we look at the numbers worldwide, what do we see? We see that EVs currently account for 20% to 25% of the global market share. In China, the percentage is over 50%. In Norway, it is 88%. That reflects an increase in sales of nearly 20% last year, in 2025. Electrification has a future; oil, not so much.”
“In point (c) of the motion, the Conservatives state that the government should use its “existing authority to reduce the amount of tax withheld on severance payments issued to workers at the GM CAMI facility in Ingersoll”. That facility is probably based in Ontario and has experienced significant job losses. What does that mean, once again? It means that the Conservative motion is centred on Ontario's auto industry and on oil interests. It also shows a complete lack of sensitivity toward Quebec businesses in the manufacturing sector, particularly those that have also suffered job losses. Consider, for example, the folks at Paccar in Sainte-Thérèse, where 700 jobs were lost. Why did the Conservatives not include the workers at Paccar in their motion? It is probably because Quebec is the least of their concerns.”
“Electric vehicles obviously need to be affordable so that ordinary people can afford to buy them. To achieve this, local manufacturers need to be encouraged to produce these vehicles. At this point, there seems to be some resistance, and unfortunately, that seems to be the case with Honda, for one, which has a plant in Canada. Obviously, it is sad to see this manufacturer back down when it would be in its best interest to look to the future, especially since it sells so many Honda Civics. I do not think any other car was as popular in Quebec when I was growing up. (1115) Meanwhile, in Quebec, the electrification market is taking off. Everyone knows that Quebec has a robust market for electrification. Quebeckers love electric cars. Honda would do well to take a greater interest in this market, since electrification is so popular in Quebec.”
“However, we see that the average selling price of vehicles in Canada was $63,400 in 2025, so this is below the average price of vehicles. If people are buying vehicles at an average price of $63,000, how can we say that $50,000 is too expensive for the average person? There is something a little contradictory about what the Conservatives are putting forward. I am not saying that everyone can afford to buy a $60,000 or $50,000 car, but it is precisely vehicles that cost less than $50,000 that are eligible for the subsidy. Cars that cost $25,000, $30,000 and $40,000 will be eligible. With this in mind, we hope that Canada will work to ensure that less expensive vehicles, including those from the EU, will eventually be available here. That is not the case, currently, and it is one of the things we find problematic.”
“Canadian manufacturers are not even subject to the $50,000 cap on the vehicle value. I feel like I am promoting the program, but I must say that the government does do good things once in a while, though it does not go as far as we would like. In fact, it often tries to have it both ways: following pro-oil policies while doing a little bit for transportation electrification, just enough to keep the sector from starving. That said, I would like to talk about another point in today's Conservative motion. Point (iv) states that “the Prime Minister's plan now requires Canadian workers to pay taxes that subsidize foreign-made vehicles they can't afford”. According to the conditions for obtaining the $5,000 subsidy, the vehicle must be worth $50,000 or less. Is that more than consumers can afford? Of course, $50,000 is a substantial amount.”
“It is important to understand that the policy that has been implemented is not aimed at favouring vehicles manufactured abroad; rather, it is aimed at encouraging manufacturers to sell electric vehicles and subsidizing these vehicles. The policy specifies that only products imported from countries where Canada has a free trade agreement are eligible for the $5,000 subsidy. I do not understand why the Conservatives are saying that Canada is helping the U.S. This policy seems more like a challenge to the free trade agreement with the U.S. In my opinion, far from being pro-American, this policy actually states that, if we do not reach a free trade agreement, American-made vehicles might no longer be eligible for this subsidy, so the U.S. would have every interest in negotiating. There is one more treat for Canadian manufacturers.”
“I think it would be a good idea to support this sector. Over the past year, I have met with many representatives from organizations in the field of transportation electrification. They had serious concerns about the government's Conservative-inspired policies and its backtracking on issues related to the fight against climate change and transportation electrification. They even told me that they were worried about the future of the electrification industry in this country. They saw that the signals the government was sending were dangerous for the industry's long-term prospects in this country. I think we should keep that in mind. (1110) Point (iii) of the Conservative motion before us states that “the Prime Minister has introduced an auto strategy that subsidizes electric vehicles made in foreign countries”.”
“First, there is the implication that the 5,000 jobs lost were lost because of electric vehicles. However, we are fully aware that job losses in Canada's auto sector are due to American tariff policies because Americans want these jobs to move to the U.S. The losses have nothing to do with any policies on the electrification of transportation. Let us be clear about that and not make up stuff. Second, when it comes to jobs, there is space to reflect and ask ourselves whether the electrification of transportation contributes to job creation and whether there have been such opportunities. In any case, in Quebec, we have expertise in this field. An Ernst & Young report released in 2025 states that Canada's electric vehicle industry has created over 130,000 jobs over the past 10 years. I think 130,000 jobs is a good deal all around.”
“For me, electric vehicles provide an opportunity to use less gas and to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, especially because as members of parliament, we do a lot of driving in the course of the year. Obviously, I think my choice contributes to lower greenhouse gas emissions. However, I do not mean to make those who have made a different choice feel guilty. I do understand that we all have different personal circumstances. That said, I would like to discuss this motion in more detail. To put it mildly, the motion before us contains a number of half-truths. Before I go any further, I would like to say I will be sharing my time with the member for Oxford . The point being made at the beginning of the motion is that over 5,000 jobs have been lost since the Prime Minister came to office. Perhaps we can put that into perspective.”
“Madam Speaker, today we are debating a motion on this Conservative opposition day. On Tuesday, we also had another Conservative opposition day. I wanted to mention this because on Tuesday, when I saw the topic of the opposition day, I thought that for the first time, the Conservatives had chosen a topic that had nothing to do with promoting oil or abandoning the fight against climate change. It seems that was too good to last because they are back at it already. Today's motion is pretty much telling us they do not want electric vehicles, and that these vehicles are the worst thing that could happen to our country. I will confess to my Conservative colleagues right away that I have an electric vehicle. In fact, I have two, because my partner has an electric vehicle as well. If that makes me the devil, then so be it.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to point out that one of the policies the government announced quite recently is the reintroduction of subsidies for electric vehicles. Today's Conservative motion slams those subsidies. That led me to the following thought. The government ended its electric vehicle subsidy program not that long ago, which resulted in a chaotic situation in 2025. Does the reintroduction of this program not show that the government's action was a mistake?”
“Mr. Speaker, this morning, I was surprised to see the official opposition's motion, because I think this is the first time in many years that we have had a Conservative opposition day about something other than oil or stopping the fight against climate change. I would like to know whether my colleague opposite wants to congratulate the Conservatives for choosing to address another subject for once.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada Post has hired 25 companies that use Driver Inc. drivers. The Liberals have been aware of the problem for at least two years. We have proposed 10 solutions. Not only do they refuse to implement them, but now they are contributing to the problem. At this point, it is no longer a matter of wilful blindness. Now they are complicit. The Liberals just gave Canada Post $1 billion. Can they at least make sure that that money does not go to shady companies?”
“Mr. Speaker, the federal government has been criticized for doing nothing to address Driver Inc., but it gets worse: Not only is Ottawa doing nothing to stop these drivers, it is awarding them contracts. Canada Post has done business with at least 25 companies that hire Driver Inc. drivers, including one who was directly involved in a fatal accident. Worst of all, the federal government was notified two years earlier by the Canadian Trucking Alliance. When will the Liberals finally create a registry of crooked companies instead of hiring them?”
“Mr. Speaker, the member explained to us how passionate and inspired she was by the much-touted Alto high-speed rail project. I did not quite understand her position on the motion being debated today. It makes me wonder. What we are criticizing is that the people of Mirabel were not part of the consultations, first of all. We are criticizing the unceremonious strategies used in Bill C‑15 to fast-track processes outside the usual laws. That said, at the end of the day, the motion we are debating today calls for an apology to the people of Mirabel. The member agreed that what was done to the people of Mirabel in the past was wrong. How would apologizing to the people of Mirabel compromise the project that she cares so much about?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague opposite, because she is not really answering the question being asked. She somewhat acknowledges that the expropriations in Mirabel in 1969 were a mistake, but she still refuses to apologize, which seems to be her government's position. Normally, elected officials are supposed to set an example. I have children, two daughters, aged three and two, and right now I am teaching them to apologize when they do something wrong. What does my colleague think I should tell my daughters when grown-ups make mistakes, when they do bad things and they refuse to apologize? What kind of example does that set for our children?”
“Mr. Speaker, if the Liberal members from Quebec decide to vote against this motion when the time comes, it will be very apparent that they are of absolutely no use in Ottawa. That will show that sending members of the Liberal Party of Canada to Ottawa to represent Quebec means sending representatives who will take their orders from Ottawa, Toronto or the Prime Minister and who will have no say in decisions involving Quebec's interests. I think the challenge is to show how useful it is to vote Liberal.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her question. The government always says that it is there to protect citizens' interests, that it wants to do the right thing and that we should listen to it and trust it. However, when we look back at the past, particularly Ottawa's past, we see that, most of the time, the government acts in its own interest. The good of the people sometimes takes a back seat, especially when we are talking about people in offices hundreds or thousands of kilometres away who are making decisions without going out to talk to people on the ground and find out what they really want.”
“I think Alto has made amends by announcing that it will hold consultations in Mirabel after all. However, the government cannot claim to be perfect now after the new mistakes it has just made.”
“Mr. Speaker, the interesting thing about the consultations is that they are more like information sessions. That is the first thing. They put up kiosks and sell the project. It is not really about listening to people and taking notes. That is not really it. It is a one-way relationship where they are selling a product. The other thing I want to note is that the people of Mirabel were surprised to see that they were not included in the planned consultations, even though most of the route in Quebec between Montreal and Ottawa passes through Mirabel. They were not included in Alto's consultations, even though they were the ones whose land was expropriated, who suffered at the hands of the federal government in 1969 and who have lived with this their entire lives.”
“I invite the government to reflect on Bill C‑15 , in which it gives itself extraordinary powers to circumvent the normal expropriation process. I invite the government to consider Bill C‑5 , which has been passed and which allows the government to circumvent all the environmental legislation to implement major projects. What is the point of these laws if the government ultimately decides to amend them or not enforce or abide by them? It makes no sense. I think the Liberal Party needs to start thinking about this. I think now is the right time to do that. I look forward to answering my colleagues' questions.”
“The Quebec National Assembly called for this, it is not just the Bloc Québécois that did so. However, the Bloc Québécois also called for this because it represents the voice of Quebec, and as such it tabled a motion before the government in 2019. What was the government's response? It said no. It is unbelievable, and yet this shows how this federation, particularly the Liberal Party, generally treats Quebec: in a patronizing and paternalistic way. Then they wonder why some people want to separate. The Liberals cannot even comprehend this, because they are so right that they cannot be wrong. Once again, they have an opportunity today to redeem themselves. They have an opportunity to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. I am reaching out to them.”
“This is a permanent stain on the history of Canada, the history of Quebec, because Quebeckers are the ones who experienced it, and primarily the history of Mirabel, but also the history of the Liberal Party, it must be said. That is not all. On October 31, 2004, commercial flights were ended. There were no more commercial flights to Vancouver or anywhere else. It was over. The airport was shut down. Worse still, in the same year, on January 1, 2004, the government went so far as to rename Dorval Airport after Trudeau, even though he was the one who expropriated the people of Mirabel. The other airport was renamed in his honour. It makes no sense, but that is Liberal arrogance. I am truly sad because, at the time of the 50th anniversary, the Quebec National Assembly formally called on the federal government to apologize.”
“On top of that, this Liberal government is saying that it has no reason to apologize, but that we can trust it because everything will be done differently this time. I am really having a hard time understanding this. As someone who does not even live in Mirabel, I am not sure I would be able to trust the government. I do not trust anyone who has such a paternalistic attitude toward the public, when they are incapable of acknowledging their mistakes and apologizing for them. I will continue my story. To date, 85% of the expropriated lots have quietly been returned. On September 15, 1997, all international flights ceased. Around 20 years after it opened, Mirabel airport stopped accommodating international flights. The government's colossal project had amounted to pretty much nothing. Everyone started talking about a white elephant.”
“The airport opened in 1975. The supreme irony is that 10 years later, in about 1985, the government started returning the land to the owners after realizing that it had expropriated too much. The thing is, it did not give back just one or two properties; it gave back 85% of the expropriated properties. That is outrageous. It later turned out that 85% of the expropriations had been unnecessary. Today, I understand why the people of Mirabel are shocked when they hear the word “expropriation”. Trust cannot be built by telling people to get out of the way, in the name of modernity and progress, and telling them that you know what you are doing, when, in the end, 85% of the expropriated land was surplus to requirements. That does not build trust.”
“Nevertheless, out of sheer obstinacy and perhaps, once again, hubris, the government refused to acknowledge that the vision was far too ambitious for what was needed. Those 97,000 acres were home to 3,000 families. Those 3,000 families lost their homes and were deported. They were exiled from their homes. (1155) According to estimates, these 3,000 families were made up of more than 10,000 people. I find that horrific, and I think that everyone in Quebec finds what happened back then horrific, too. Today, the government has a great opportunity to take up this issue and lay it to rest. It has the opportunity to apologize and admit that it made a mistake which resulted in major problems. These expropriations caused tragedy, left land scorched and homes burned down, and led to people being thrown out of their homes by police.”
“I think everyone in Quebec stands in solidarity with what the people of Mirabel went through back then. I think it is worth taking a look at what happened and providing some context. On March 27, 1969, there was a shocking announcement: Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government intended to seize 97,000 acres of farmland upon which houses were built. People lived there; families lived there. Fourteen Quebec municipalities were affected. The 97,000 acres of farmland covered more square kilometres than the city of Montreal. People had big ambitions for the future airport. The vision was monumental. Eventually, it became clear that it made no sense, which is what everyone said at the time: It was so huge that it made no sense.”
“In this context, I do not understand how a government could decide, despite everything, to vote against the motion. In my opinion, the only thing that could explain that is some kind of arrogance or pride. The Liberals may think to themselves that it was a Liberal government that did this, and Liberals cannot do anything wrong or crooked, as if Liberals did only good things. The government could then stay in denial. That would be sad, because this is a historic opportunity to heal some of the wounds that still exist. I think it would be an honourable and worthwhile thing to do. In our hearts and minds, each of us should be asking ourselves these questions as we hold this debate. I want to say a little more about what the people of Quebec went through.”
“Before going any further and doing it again, the government should restore a bond of trust by apologizing for what happened. That is the least it could do. That is the issue we ran with today. We want to discuss it. So far, Liberal members have barely managed to mention the expropriations that took place in Mirabel in the 1960s. They are skimming over the subject for now. I find that sad, and I hope that, by the end of this debate, there will be some progress based on what we have heard today. I hope that they will be able to vote on the issue and even support the motion. I do not think there is a single Quebecker—apart from perhaps the prime minister who caused this nightmare or his son—who could say that what happened was a good thing.”
“There are plans for it to pass through Mirabel, and there are plans for expropriations. That is precisely why it is so relevant to address this issue. I think it is a shame that the Liberal members who have spoken so far seem to be in some kind of denial. There is a matter before us. They are being asked to apologize to the people of Mirabel for the nightmare they went through in the 1960s, and they are not addressing the issue. That is the matter currently before us. That is what we are discussing. I find it sad. As we have said several times so far, we feel that this is a way to wipe the slate clean and end the debate. The government wants to be able to tell the people of Mirabel that it wants to run another project through Mirabel while they still bear the scars of the past.”
“Mr. Speaker, our motion is as follows: That the House call on the government to apologize to those whose land was expropriated in Mirabel, to acknowledge the collective trauma these expropriations caused for thousands of Quebeckers who were forced to abandon their homes, their communities and their livelihoods, and to urge the government not to undertake such expropriations again without public consultation, social licence and appropriate compensation. Those are the terms of today's debate. I think it is important to repeat them so that we know what we are debating, and also because, so far, a number of individuals who have spoken have not addressed the subject or have decided to talk about another subject. I can see a link between the subject at hand and the government's much-touted high-speed rail project.”
“Mr. Speaker, I will ask my question quickly. My colleague's speech was quite eloquent and very clear. Despite his compelling arguments, as well as the arguments made by the member before him, the member for Mirabel , it seems that the members opposite are still unconvinced. However, it seems clear to me that the Canadian government should apologize for this. If the government refuses to apologize, is it not first and foremost because of its political stripes and its pride?”
“However, the minister's perspective is that voting in favour of this motion is not the first step that should be taken. It is not the first thing his government should do to build trust.”
“Mr. Speaker, at one point, I was afraid that the minister was not even going mention today's motion. He eventually did address it. What I saw, however, was that the minister used pretty much the same arguments here in the House as those presented to the people of Mirabel in 1969, namely progress and modernization. Worse still, with Bill C‑15 , the government is looking to bypass the normal expropriation process that exists and that is established in legislation. How can we blame the people of Mirabel for not trusting the federal government after the trauma they experienced? The motion before us today gives the federal government an opportunity to apologize to Mirabel's expropriated residents for the horrors that were committed in 1969 and into the 1970s.”
“Mr. Speaker, I find it interesting that the Conservatives have decided to put the topic of food prices on today's agenda. I am not sold on their solutions, but I think that the issue of food prices is a relevant topic to discuss, especially since, about a year ago, one of the government ministers, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain , was very vocal about the fact that we could judge their work by looking at food prices. A year later, what do we see? Food prices are higher than ever and Canada is the G7 country where they have risen the most. Here is the question I would like to ask my colleague opposite: How can we say that they have done a good job when the minister himself said that he should be judged on the basis of prices and that prices are still rising?”
“How have Conservative speeches over the past few years influenced his government's policies, and to what extent has his government's backpedalling harmed the climate?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague across the way on his speech today. I would say that he was true to form in that he usually tries to stick to the facts and address the substance of the speeches or arguments presented by members on the other side of the House. He does not really engage in partisanship and is able to rise above it. With that in mind, I would like to ask a question of my colleague opposite from whom we have come to expect a certain intellectual prowess. Today's Conservative motion, once again, aims to reduce, if not dismantle, everything related to the environment, which would cause us to lose even more ground. Perhaps my colleague could enlighten us about something.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is rather deplorable to watch what the Conservatives are doing. Every time they have an opposition day, every time they have the opportunity to contribute something to the debates in the House and to make everyone in Parliament take a position on an issue, they do the same thing. They always talk about the carbon tax, pipelines or oil and gas. It seems like they cannot talk about anything else. I would like to know if my colleague thinks there are other constructive issues we could have discussed in order to advance solutions to the problems that ordinary people in this country are facing.”
“In a context where the new Liberal government has shifted to the right over the last term and no longer seems to be focused on the people but on the oil companies instead, we could perhaps argue that this would represent a very low cost to society, since there are only 4.9 infant deaths per 1,000 births and few people are affected. As I said, however, those who do lose a child are deeply affected, and their whole lives change. Everyone can agree on that. I hope that everyone in the House will vote in favour of the bill before us, but more importantly, that everyone agrees that we need to go even further this time. Quebec has already solved this problem with the Quebec parental insurance plan, or QPIP. Unfortunately, as usual, the federal government is still lagging behind. Now is the time for it to catch up.”
“It is therefore not impossible that certain pro-worker policies could be adopted in the future with the support of the Conservatives and New Democrats, even without the Liberals. It would be impressive, but it is not impossible. Obviously, my expectations of the Conservatives remain limited. That said, these are possibilities that we will look into, because it is important to do more for our community. As everyone knows, the loss of a child is a major event in someone's life. The statistics show that it is not that common, however. In Quebec, there are 4.9 infant deaths per 1,000 births. When it does happen though, we obviously want to be able to help these people.”
“Obviously, I think everyone in the House understands that the Bloc Québécois intends to support Bill C-222 . However, we think that it should have been more ambitious, especially since this government has been promising reforms for 10 years. It seems to me that, after 10 years, if the government has not taken action, it is because it never intended to do so and probably never will. The good news is that there is currently a minority government in place, and a lot can happen with a minority government. It is a minority government for now, at any rate. We have also seen in recent years that the Conservatives have developed some virtues, being a little less anti-worker in their policies.”
“I have not seen the latest figures, but knowing that no major restructuring of the EI program has taken place, I get the impression that they are roughly the same today. Meanwhile, we are living through hard economic times, marked by uncertainty and job losses in a range of economic sectors. Under normal circumstances, that should turn our attention to things we can do to make life better for people who lose their jobs. We are a long way from the 1930s, but let us not forget that all the social programs that exist today for workers who lose their jobs were put in place in response to economic hardships experienced in the past. When we are experiencing economic hardships, it is precisely the right time to think about what we can do for others who are struggling or going through tough times themselves.”
“The sad part is that the Liberals are supposed to be a social democratic party that cares about needs of the people, at least in theory. In any case, that is what they claim. They are supposed to have a heart and be open to changing and improving the social fabric, and providing economic support for struggling individuals. I have a hard time understanding why these changes have not come about over the years. I would like to go back to the time when I was in CEGEP and university, because things have not changed that much since then. I remember that advocacy groups for the unemployed were saying that about one in two people who should qualify for EI were not getting it because of extremely strict rules.”