Simon Marcil

Mr. Speaker, not a single penny has been budgeted to compensate supply-managed producers before the election. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has confirmed it.

This means that the $3.9 billion promised by the Liberals has become an election promise. To those farmers, however, that money is not an election issue; it is crucial to keeping their businesses afloat.

Dairy farmers are saying they want to see concrete action before the election, and that would include a cheque.

When will they get their cheque?

With regard to federal spending in the riding of Compton—Stanstead, for each fiscal year since 2010-11, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?

With regard to federal spending in the riding of Mirabel, for each fiscal year since 2010-11, inclusively: what are the details of all grants and contributions and all loans to every organization, group, business or municipality, broken down by the (i) name of the recipient, (ii) municipality of the recipient, (iii) date on which the funding was received, (iv) amount received, (v) department or agency that provided the funding, (vi) program under which the grant, contribution or loan was made, (vii) nature or purpose?

Mr. Speaker, the government tabled the estimates yesterday. This is the last request for spending approval before the election. Nearly all of the initiatives from the latest budget are in there, but a big one is missing. The $3.9 billion promised to supply managed producers is missing. This money was not in any financial tables in the budget and is not in the estimates.

Can the government tell us where we can find the $3.9 billion?

Mr. Speaker, while Abitibi is developing the Rouyn-Noranda airport, the federal government is considering authorizing cuts to air transportation security. It makes no sense to let NAV Canada cut night services for pilots at the third-largest airport in Quebec. This is dangerous and impedes regional development.

Will the minister listen to business people in Abitibi, air carriers, pilots, local officials and the unanimous voice of the Quebec National Assembly, which are all calling for the government to maintain the flight service station, or FSS, in Rouyn-Noranda?

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe you will find unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: 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.

Madam Speaker, two weeks ago, on the International Day of La Francophonie, the parties here were all so proud of the French language. We were treated to solemn declarations, videos and Internet memes. We even heard Yves Duteil's lyrics quoted in the House of Commons. I could not believe my ears. I am not making this up. One would have thought Camille Laurin had been resurrected and elected to sit here in Ottawa.

Just 24 hours later, however, the Liberals and Conservatives were hard at work preventing hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers from doing their jobs in their preferred language, French. The theatrics should come as no surprise. Everyone here in Ottawa is quick to stand up for French, except when the time comes to bring in meaningful measures that make a difference in the real world. The major Canadian political parties want to vote down Bill C-420, which I am honoured to have introduced on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. It has one simple objective: to bring the federal government into the 21st century. With this bill, we are defending the rights of all workers in Quebec to work in our common language, French, Quebec's only official language.

To the other parties, allowing Quebeckers to work in French in Quebec is too much to ask. To the government it is even shameful. The Liberals told us in the House that French at work in Quebec was shameful. Bill C-420 establishes that it was not only not shameful, but a rather logical societal choice for workers in Quebec to work in the language of Quebec on Quebec soil. Bill C-420 also seeks to protect workers' freedom of expression by preventing federally regulated companies from using replacement workers. If the government wants to talk about something shameful, I would say that it is not French in the workplace, but rather the use of scabs during disputes, and with Ottawa's blessing, to boot.

The 1950s are long gone and the Bloc Québécois wants to stop the use of scabs at the federal level, but the Canadian parties are opposed to this, as usual. It is no surprise to see the Conservatives stuck in the past, since they are all about staying in the past. I was sure that earlier my Conservative colleague was going to confidently announce that the Earth is flat. However, the Liberals' insistence on maintaining working conditions that are straight out of the last century says a lot about the way Canadians view labour relations. Clearly, the people who want to move Quebec forward cannot expect much from the House of Commons.

Speaking of being firmly stuck in the past, I must also talk about how the federal government is lagging behind on gender equality, which means that Quebec women are discriminated against when they must use the preventive withdrawal program. Bill C-420 will ensure that the pregnant women who need this program can do what is in the best interests of their health and their baby's health without being penalized.

Ottawa penalizes Quebec women who work in federally regulated workplaces. They are the only ones who cannot avail themselves of Quebec's parental leave plan, even though they work in Quebec. All Quebec women are entitled to at least 90% of their salary in the event of preventive withdrawal, except federally regulated employees. These women receive just 55% of their salary, which is essentially half. Furthermore, they are not eligible for employment insurance. Two-thirds of women overall do not even have access to the program.

Women should be encouraged to protect their safety and that of their babies, not penalized for it. Nevertheless, my colleagues from other parties are going to vote for the opposite, as usual. That is on them. I know that the NDP proposed similar amendments and bills, but I am talking about the Conservatives and the Liberals. It is always the same thing with them in any case. Perhaps we should arrange for their women voters to get wind of this.

In short, the Liberals and the Conservatives are, as usual, going to vote against the following three principles: workers' language rights, their right to strike and the rights of women workers. The fact is that Quebeckers are not getting what they need from Ottawa. They are not getting what they need from elected officials who are out of touch with the reality in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois believes that Quebec has everything to gain by voting for representatives who understand Quebec and who understand that, in Quebec, we take the side of workers, not the side of employers. We always come down on the side of French, particularly when it requires political courage. That is what Quebeckers want. They want elected officials who speak for the people in the federal Parliament, not officials who speak for Parliament to the people.

Mr. Speaker, we have been talking about SNC-Lavalin for three weeks, and no one has brought up the 3,600 workers in Quebec. Their jobs are in jeopardy, and all of the parties here are playing politics at their expense. The Bloc Québécois's priorities are workers and our economy. Not partisanship.

This is the last question before we adjourn for two weeks.

Will the government sign a remediation agreement with SNC-Lavalin to save these jobs before we return?

Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege.

Yesterday, the Crown answered a question that was not addressed to it, which is a breach of the privileges of the House.

During oral question period, my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île asked a question to the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, the member for Mount Royal. Unfortunately, the member for Mount Royal left his seat, so the Speaker was not able to call on him.

If you look at the video of yesterday's proceedings, just after 3 p.m., you can clearly see the member scurrying away after my colleague asked his question. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship then answered my colleague.

Bosc and Gagnon says the following on page 512:

Questions seeking information about the schedule and agenda of committees may be directed to Chairs of committees.

This is what my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île did. He asked a question about the agenda, or the business, of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

At the last second, and given the uproar caused by the erratic behaviour of the member for Mount Royal, the Chair recognized someone else. In the end, the parliamentary secretary to a minister of the Crown answered the question by my colleague and friend from La Pointe-de-l'Île.

It would be completely unacceptable for the Prime Minister to rise in the House and rule on the question of privilege I am raising. That would seriously call into question the independence, authority and dignity of the House. In other words, it would call into question the privileges of the House.

This is a legitimate question. A minister of the Crown is not qualified to answer a question related to the business of a committee, basically, its arm's length relationship to the government. Parliament and parliamentary committees are not servants of the government. By ignoring this fundamental constitutional principle, the government is in breach of the privileges of this House.

I therefore believe that the parliamentary privileges of my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île have been breached, as have the privileges of the House.

I believe this situation warrants redress. I therefore raise it to you for consideration, Mr. Speaker, and propose the following solution to address it. I think it would be reasonable for the Chair to recognize the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île for a supplementary question upon our return after the break. He could then ask his question again and you could give the chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights an opportunity to respond.