44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 31, 2024 02:00PM
- Jan/31/24 2:17:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I want to pay tribute to six Quebeckers who were tragically killed during the terrorist attacks in Ouagadougou on January 15, 2016.
The attacks claimed the lives of four members of a Lac-Beauport family—Yves Carrier; his wife, Gladys Chamberland; their children, Charles-Élie and Maude Carrier—and two of their friends from the Quebec City area, Suzanne Bernier and Louis Chabot, all of whom were loved and cherished. They were planning on building a school.
After all these years, although the pain has not dissipated, it is important to remember that they were ambassadors of peace, committed to promoting both understanding and unity. Let us take inspiration from the love and tolerance they embodied. Let us defend the values that were so dear to their hearts. Let us fight against the darkness, as they did, using the light of solidarity, compassion and humanity. Let us find the strength to build a world where peace will prevail over hatred.
Gladys, Yves, Charles-Élie, Maude, Louis and Suzanne—
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 2:28:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, medical assistance in dying is profoundly influenced by a progressive idea in Quebec. Everyone agrees that a person who is suffering from a serious mental illness cannot make a decision on medical assistance in dying. There is a broad consensus about that idea, and a postponement is warranted. However, there are people who know ahead of time that their condition will deteriorate and who want to make the decision now. The government's bill could provide this option and reflect the will of Quebec.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to consider it now?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 2:35:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there he goes again accusing the people of Quebec of being incompetent. That is a real pattern for the Conservative leader.
We are here to work hand in hand with municipal leaders, with police chiefs and with the provinces on resolving this problem. We are here to work responsibly by making investments. For example, today we announced $121 million to help Ontario. There is work to be done, but empty slogans and personal attacks are not going to fix this problem for Canadians. Our hard work will.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 2:41:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us say that my neighbour comes by and I ask him to do me a favour and pay the people who are coming to install my heat pump. I promise that I will pay him back the next day. The next day, when my neighbour comes to see me and asks me to give him back his $1,000, I tell him that I will not or that I will give him only a fraction of the amount. That is what is happening with immigration.
Quebec has been told to foot the bill for asylum seekers and reassured that it will be reimbursed later. Ottawa then says that it will not pay Quebec back or that it will maybe pay back only a fraction of the amount. Will the Prime Minister acknowledge his debt and commit to paying Quebec back?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 2:42:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have recognized from the very beginning that Quebeckers are shouldering a heavy burden when it comes to supporting irregular arrivals. First, it was through Roxham Road, and now that we have worked with the Americans to resolve that issue, these immigrants are arriving via airports. We are here to help.
We are working hand in hand with the Government of Quebec. We are in discussions with that government to determine how we can support it properly. We have seen the Government of Quebec's request for funding and we are working with Quebec because we recognize that, yes, Quebeckers are shouldering that burden, and we will be there to help.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 3:04:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us talk more about CBC/Radio‑Canada CEO Catherine Tait's appearance at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage yesterday. Nothing she said provided anyone with any reassurance about her vision for Quebec news and culture. She will not be reinstating the 600 jobs she cut, a disproportionate number of which were on the French-language side. At this morning's scrum, the government floated the possibility of additional financial assistance for CBC/Radio‑Canada.
Will the Prime Minister commit to making any additional funding for Radio‑Canada conditional on jobs being reinstated?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 3:10:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for well over 150 years, this House has been here to recognize the debates and follow what people have been doing. Hansard is the official record of this House. If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting that Hansard, in which he said that Ukraine is a faraway foreign land, is somehow misinformation or disinformation, then he should come right out and say so.
As far as housing is concerned, we continue to invest across the country, including in Quebec. Quebec is matching the $900 million we proposed to help create housing—
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 3:15:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yes, he is taking a lot of measures to drive up the cost of housing. The cost of rent has doubled, as has the cost of a mortgage. I saw a headline today that said, “CMHC report on the rental market: Rent continues to rise at a staggering rate in Quebec”.
Meanwhile, housing starts are in serious decline. Will the Prime Minister finally stop building bureaucracy so that we can start building housing?
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 3:15:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Conservative leader's housing plan mainly consists of accusing Quebec's elected representatives of being incompetent. The reality is that we are going to work with provincial and municipal elected officials in Quebec to make investments.
I also want to point out that the Government of Quebec doubled the $900 million that we put toward accelerating the construction of housing in Quebec to ensure that municipalities can do even more to address this housing crisis. That is a real plan, not insults.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 6:18:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I respect my colleague who just made a speech, so I am going to appeal to his intelligence.
Quebec already has its cap and trade system, and it works. We know that, by 2015, Quebec had reduced its emissions by 8.8% over 1990 levels. That means it is working.
If my colleague believes, first, that climate change exists—which is not a given in his party—second, that climate change must be fought, and third, that there are economic tools that work to lower carbon emissions, as demonstrated in Quebec, then why is he so opposed to economic tools that we know work?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 6:35:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened to my colleague carefully, and I commend her for her work.
There is something that she did not mention. We are going through one of the worst housing crises in 35 years. The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, told us today that Canada's vacancy rate is 1.5%. The rate has not been that low since 1988.
The budget mentions housing, but not homelessness. I would like to draw my colleague's attention to the fact that homelessness has increased in Quebec by 44% in the past five years. The housing crisis is wreaking havoc everywhere.
The Liberals' national housing strategy is not working. Today, CMHC gave us more proof of that.
I would like my colleague to tell us what her government is going to do in the next budget. Despite what we had hoped, the last economic update did not say that any funds were set aside for housing.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 7:15:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I must admit that I really enjoyed my colleague's speech. I liked the fact that he drew from history to support his argument.
It will come as no surprise to anyone that the Bloc Québécois is by no means opposed to eliminating the obligation to swear an oath to the British monarch. I have immense respect for my colleague's reasons for introducing this bill. Given his Acadian ancestry, it is entirely understandable that he is no less averse to swearing an oath to the monarch than we Quebec separatists are.
I was not entirely comfortable, however, with his proposed amendment concerning the best interest of Canada. I think it could be open to different interpretations. As far as the Bloc Québécois is concerned, for example, the best interest of Canada would be to become an excellent neighbour of Quebec, as two separate countries.
I wonder if my colleague would agree that, instead of swearing an oath in the best interest of Canada, we should be swearing an oath to the people in our ridings.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what is the point of the monarchy? Qu'ossa donne?
I want to apologize to the interpreters. I doubt it is easy to translate those words from Yvon Deschamps, but, in all honesty, that pretty much sums up my thoughts.
In 2024, Canada's head of state is a king. In 2024, Canada's King is represented by the Governor General. In 2024, Canada has lieutenant governors. In 2024, new Canadian citizens must swear allegiance to His Majesty. In 2024, Canada has colonial institutions. Elected officials must swear allegiance to the King, except in Quebec.
Thanks to the stubbornness, determination and insubordination of Parti Québécois MNAs, the members of Quebec's National Assembly, elected by the people, no longer have to swear an oath to the King of England in order to take their seats. It was about time. It has been a year already.
The Canadian monarchy has existed since France took possession of the St. Lawrence lowlands in the name of King Francis 1 in 1534. It is now 2024. That was 490 years ago. The only thing that has changed since then is that, instead of swearing allegiance to the King of France, we now have to swear allegiance to the King of England. We are still talking about the same archaic system based on unequal, hereditary privileges.
Should we be proud of that? Should we be proud of an aristocratic system based on privilege, a system that classes citizens based on their birth? That does not make me proud. It does not make sense that this is still how the head of state is chosen in 2024. I cannot understand why this country celebrates and wants to continue with a system from the Middle Ages.
What we want—what we are fighting for—is greater equality, greater justice and an opportunity for people to rid themselves of the shackles of the past. Meanwhile, we still have a foreign head of state who holds office not because of merit, effort, competence or democratic choice. No, Canada's head of state is a man who was born lucky. That is the only reason we still give him special treatment. He will be on our stamps and our currency. Places and buildings will be named in his honour, even though, at the end of the day, what has he done besides being born?
As I said off the top, “qu'ossa donne?” What is the point of the monarchy? There is not much point at all, to be honest. It is fun when they come to Ottawa with the horses, the army, the carriages and all that jazz, but that is really just for show and a total waste of money, as I saw for myself last year. I was part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association mission, and His Majesty Charles III received us at Westminster Abbey. What the heck was a Bloc member doing there? It might have been good fodder for online platforms, but that is all.
Last year, I surveyed people in my riding about being part of a monarchy. My constituency office was flooded with responses from people in Laurentides—Labelle. It was incredible. People are dead set against it. I was really surprised, not to see that people are against it, but to see that this topic mobilized so many people in my riding. People no longer want it. As I see it, the monarchy serves very little purpose, except to mobilize people against it, as we are seeing tonight.
In a democracy, the power of elected representatives comes from the people, the citizens who vote for their representatives. Therefore, as elected officials, it is from these citizens that we derive our legitimacy.
In a democracy, elected officials serve the people, not His Majesty and not a colonialist, paternalistic and downright anti-democratic system.
In Bill C‑347, the new oath would read as follows:
I, A. B., do swear that I will carry out my duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.
This makes far more sense than swearing allegiance to a foreign monarch. Members of Parliament and senators could swear an oath to Canada and its Constitution. We also have to keep in mind that Quebec has still not signed the Constitution. A change like this would be a significant democratic improvement. We in the Bloc Québécois oppose all expressions of such an archaic system of government as monarchism and its underlying philosophy.
I mentioned earlier that I belong to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is a genuine forum for nation-to-nation dialogue. Do my colleagues know how many Commonwealth countries are now republics that left the archaic monarchy behind? That would be 37 countries that are now republics and members of the Commonwealth. In other words, 66% of member states deliberately and democratically decided to sever ties with the British monarchy.
Madam Speaker, there is a loud noise, but I will try to focus and continue with my speech.
852 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 7:40:25 p.m.
- Watch
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
The newest, most recent republic is Barbados. It became a republic on November 30, 2021, so it is not too late to abandon this system, just like it is not too late for Quebec to become independent.
Quebec's independence would mean the creation of the Quebec republic. I have been speaking about Canada for the past little while and so I want to talk about Quebec, and I am proud to do so. The Quebec republic would be a system of government in which the people would be sovereign. It would be born from the will of its people to emancipate themselves from an archaic, colonial system. The Quebec republic would be founded on democratic principles, principles that are respectful of democracy and the people. Those are the principles that would underpin its legitimacy. The Quebec republic would not have an unelected Senate. The head of state would not be a symbol of the past or a citizen of another country. The Quebec republic is the only way for us to leave the monarchy.
Canada will never be able to sever its ties with its colonial past. Canada was not born of the will of the people. It was born of the will of a handful of men who decided the will and destiny of this land without consulting the people. Canada is a country that, since 1867, has been founded on guiding principles that do not take into account the will of the people.
When Quebec becomes independent, it will not trample on the people. Independence will be achieved by and with the people.
273 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 7:42:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking our colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for introducing this private member's bill.
Generally speaking, convention dictates that one should begin with compliments and then move on to criticisms. However, I am going to do the opposite. I am going to share my criticisms first and then my compliments.
I would like to say that this is an extremely interesting bill. However, I am somewhat uncomfortable with it, because it is a bill about us. I am not a big fan of that. I would rather debate a bill about people struggling to pay the rent and buy groceries, or about climate change, our children's future or education. This bill is focused on us, so it is not one of my favourite bills. That said, it touches on a crucial issue. That ends my criticism.
This is a crucial issue because it is kind of about who we are as an institution, as a people, as a democracy. This is an opportunity to look at how we can improve things, update and modernize ourselves. The idea is to give people who represent the Quebec nation, the Acadian nation, first nations and the Inuit nation, along with all the different people who come from different places around the world, whether they have been here for several generations or for just a short time, a chance to feel comfortable here, not trapped by archaic practices and outdated institutions that harken back to another time.
I am speaking on my own behalf because, today, the NDP caucus has decided that people can vote as they see fit on this issue. We believe that every member should be able to vote freely in accordance with their beliefs and their conscience, with how they see things, in whatever way they feel comfortable, whether they agree or disagree. I think it shows freedom and maturity on our part to be able to have frank and healthy discussions while airing what may be differing opinions.
I will therefore speak for myself. It is no secret and no surprise that I am not a fan of the monarchy. To me, swearing an oath to a sovereign, a monarch who, in theory, holds power by the will of God, is something out of the Middle Ages. The fact that it is the monarch of another country does not make it any better, nor any worse. If it were a monarch from Quebec, that would not be any better in my eyes. To me, the idea of inheriting such a title is completely at odds with democratic values. As the French revolutionaries said, men are born free and equal in rights. They did not mention women at the time, but that was in 1789. If what they said is true, then the idea that someone can benefit from such power through a stroke of fate that caused him to be born into that family makes no sense.
I want to point out right away that I am not a fan of New Labour. However, I remember when Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, did away with hereditary seats in the House of Lords. One British lord said that that made perfect sense because he did not see why he should inherit the title of lord, the equivalent of a senator in Canada, just because one of his ancestors had partied with the king. That is what it boiled down to. Friends of the king were appointed and were given the aristocratic titles of duke, baron or whatever it was, making them lords. Four hundred years later, that individual, who was in his early thirties or thereabouts, said that it did not make any sense for him to sit in Great Britain's upper chamber simply because he had inherited a title.
It is much the same thing with the monarchy. It goes against our democratic values.
I for one am very pleased that we are starting off the discussion, as the member for Madawaska—Restigouche very sensibly did, by saying that if some people want to keep swearing an oath to a monarch, they can go right ahead, but now they would have an alternative. They would have the option of swearing an oath to the Constitution, in this case, or maybe to the people or constituents or an institution. I think that is a good thing. I think it is entirely appropriate.
It is true that some colleagues in the National Assembly did the work and got the rules changed. I congratulate them and applaud their efforts. Maybe here in Ottawa, we could adjust the clock to 2024, or 1789, and stop the completely outdated and obsolete practice of swearing oaths to a sovereign, a monarch, a king or a queen. If we are true democrats, it seems obvious to me that we should swear an oath to the people, to constituents and to the Constitution. I think that my Liberal Party colleague brought this forward very skilfully. I thank him and congratulate him. I hope that all parliamentarians in this House will pass this bill.
There is something deeply offensive and profoundly unjust about the very system of the monarchy, a caste that awards itself privileges, rights, powers and absolutely staggering wealth on the backs of the working men and women. It goes against all democratic principles. If it were a meritocracy, if they at least had to work to achieve that status, that would be something else entirely.
At least the people here have worked to become a member of Parliament, Leader of the Opposition, minister or Prime Minister. What is more, we are held accountable every four years, or sometimes every two. We have to go back to our constituents and ask them if they will again give us a mandate to represent them. We must ask them if we did our job well, if we defended them well, if we voted in accordance with their values and principles. Monarchy is not like that at all. People are born into it, and it is theirs for life. It continues in perpetuity.
As a member of Parliament, it would be nice to have this option. I hope the bill passes. If I am re-elected to the House, I will be able to take advantage of the option that is presented to me.
I would like to say a few words about meritocracy because I talked about monarchy and democracy. We have to recognize that even meritocracy has its issues. Yes, we all worked very hard to be here, as did the people who lead us, but we must not forget that there are very few labourers in parliaments in western democracies. There are not many PSWs or plumbers. There are not many people who work with their hands or do manual labour because meritocracies have their own illusions, too. Generally, people born into families of means that also possess social and cultural capital, relationships, networks and contacts will have easier access to education, to good schools and to the opportunity to use their words to debate and present ideas. Clearly, even a meritocracy has its flaws.
I studied sociology, and I want to call my colleagues' attention to the magnum opus of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, which is entitled The Inheritors. It describes the French education system as a system that reproduces class dominance, with the dominant class consisting of people who are already in power, who already have access to knowledge and culture and who already have contacts in the right networks to be able to push and get people into the circles of power.
We must not be fooled. As a good socialist, I have a vision that includes working to prevent social reproduction in order to achieve true equality, not an illusion of equality that is merely theoretical, because inequality of various types of capital, as Pierre Bourdieu explained so well, does in fact still exist today.
I thank the member for his bill, because it gives us a chance to have this debate and to talk about Pierre Bourdieu in Canada's Parliament.
1365 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I was saying earlier, I thank my colleague from Vancouver Centre for introducing Bill S‑209, which designates March 11 as pandemic observance day. It has not been amended, and therefore the Bloc Québécois's position remains unchanged: We support the bill.
The Bloc Québécois stands with everyone in Quebec and Canada who was directly or indirectly affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. The Bloc Québécois would like to offer its condolences and sympathy to the families affected by the crisis, and to thank health care workers and all workers who could not work from home. They are many of them, and they are often forgotten. My speech will highlight their work and recall the many people who lost their lives to this pandemic.
Above all, I will approach the subject from an environmental perspective, which I am sure will surprise no one. I will talk about how pandemics are made. What I am going to say is not about the origins of COVID‑19, not at all, but about the fact that a significant number of emerging diseases of the past 40 years are zoonotic. Everyone has heard of SARS, Ebola, the avian flu, rabies. There are a dozen on the government site.
Serge Morand, a French environmentalist and biologist explains it well when he talks about the “dilution effect caused by man, who by encroaching on wild natural habitats and thereby creating more interactions, is accelerating the spread of new viruses by disrupting the animal ecosystem”. The issue is deforestation, industrial livestock production and globalization.
According to the Institut de recherche pour le développement, or IRD, website in France, at the height of the COVID‑19 pandemic, Marie‑Monique Robin, an investigative journalist, producer and writer, co-produced with the IRD the documentary called La fabrique des pandémies, “The Pandemic Factory”. The documentary's key moments appear on the IRD's website.
For this project, Ms. Robin travelled to eight countries to understand the factors driving the emergence of infectious diseases. For the scientists who were questioned, the answer is clear: Environmental upheaval is the major cause of epidemics and pandemics. Some 20 researchers were filmed while doing their research and during their interactions with local communities. In the field in Asia, Africa and the Americas, scientists and indigenous peoples seek to understand how and how closely health and biodiversity are linked. The documentary explains that the species most likely to transmit new pathogens to us are the same ones that thrive when diversity decreases. The more biodiversity we lose, the more epidemics we have.
Science has shown that epidemics are becoming more and more frequent. We should expect more of them. The documentary warns us that if we continue to destroy our planet, we will experience an epidemic of pandemics, because biodiversity plays a protective role for humans. We need to rethink the way we live, so that damage to the environment is kept to a minimum. The problem is us, not the animals.
Now let us talk about the consequences of the COVID‑19 pandemic. Let us talk about the most vulnerable members of our society. The leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, clearly expressed his thoughts when he said, “My thoughts go out to the most vulnerable, those whom the pandemic has made even more vulnerable, and to the people living in isolation, poverty and anxiety who are suffering even more and have become more fragile because of this disease.”
The Bloc Québécois leader's words bring to mind another film I want to talk about. It is not a documentary, but it is a fairly realistic portrayal of the isolation seniors may have experienced. Tu ne sauras jamais is a dramatic film directed by Robin Aubert and Julie Roy. The camera work is effective. The slow pace captivates us and shows us exactly what these seniors went through: isolation, cold meals, distress, staff shortages. Martin Naud, age 88, plays an isolated senior in his room in a long-term care home during the COVID‑19 pandemic. He is an old man who does everything in his power to see the woman he loves one last time. Martin Naud is not an actor. He is not on IMDb. He lives in Repentigny and he is a member of the Bloc Québécois. He went to an audition and turned out to be the best person to really connect with audiences and convince them, even though he is not a professional. Take it from me: he did a great job.
There was so much suffering, particularly among seniors. Seniors who stayed in their homes or apartments experienced boredom, loneliness, anxiety, sickness and fear. There are those who died, those who lived in isolation and those who survived in fear.
I am thinking about health care workers, as I said at the beginning of this speech, and about others who did not have the option of protecting themselves by working from home, those who are too often forgotten because they are invisible to us, because our lives are moving too quickly and we are not paying attention to the people around us, to those essential workers. I will talk more about them in a few moments.
Of course, I want to start by talking about frontline staff, all types of health care workers: nurses, doctors and orderlies. They all put their lives at risk to care for COVID-19 patients. We are forever grateful to them. It was not easy for them either. Everyone in society was scared. Imagine how the people on the front lines felt, working directly with the sick.
Then there are young people. Of course, this age group was not as impacted by deaths. However, young people still made the collective sacrifice demanded by health restrictions. This meant many of them missed out on the opportunity to socialize at a pivotal moment in their lives. We must think of them and thank them for their courage and resilience at that time.
We must also acknowledge the work of the scientific community. Although imperfect by definition, our scientists' explanations informed our debates and answered our questions and concerns throughout the pandemic. We are fortunate to have been able to count on them and to still be able to count on them. My colleague from Vancouver Centre talked about how science helps us better understand.
Finally, let me go back to the invisible workers I mentioned earlier. Many of them are women and young people. They may be grocery store clerks, pharmacy cashiers or shelf stockers. They may be delivery people, cleaners, construction workers, subway drivers or bus drivers. They could not work from home. They were essential during the pandemic, and they are no less essential now to our society's ability to function effectively. Too often, however, they remain invisible and forgotten. The pandemic shone a light on them, as workers too often relegated to the shadows.
In conclusion, do we really want to go through something like this again? Do want to mourn the many people who will die, relive the same fear and isolation?
To connect back to the start of my speech, without biodiversity, life is not possible. Our fates are inextricably linked. By preserving biodiversity, we reduce the risks and impact of global warming and its effects on our health. However, we must change now. Otherwise, we are treading the same path toward extinction as today's endangered wildlife.
Biodiversity is our home. We can still save it, but we must act quickly. That will require courage on the part of politicians.
Do we have that courage?
1316 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
