- Member of Parliament
- Leader of the Bloc Québécois
- Bloc Québécois
- Beloeil—Chambly
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 56%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $98,385.23
- Government Page
- Jan/29/24 2:28:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is going to take a while.
The House unanimously adopted a motion calling on the government to consult Quebec and the provinces on immigration targets. However, the government seems to be using the policies suggested by McKinsey and the Century Initiative, and even more, because at this rate, the population will hit 100 million by the end of the century.
Is the government disregarding the House's unanimous vote and injunction or will it review its policies with Quebec and the provinces?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/23 2:32:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I will not get to hear any more details.
We are debating a motion on successful immigration that would require the Minister of Immigration to consult Quebec, the provinces and territories, which is perfectly appropriate by the way, to establish targets starting in 2024.
Dare we hope that, if the House votes in favour of the motion, the minister will not announce targets given that he cannot know the targets until he has consulted Quebec and the provinces? That would be a responsible act of good faith.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/23 2:31:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Environment announced a pathway, but he has not announced new immigration targets. The plan is for him to announce them tomorrow, but he candidly admitted that he does not know them. Today, he does not know the numbers he will be announcing tomorrow.
That worries me a little. This is not a high school project one puts together the night before it is due.
Why would he not wait until he knows the targets and has done consultations before announcing the announcement date?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/21/23 2:26:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister responsible for housing admitted that there are strings attached to the $900 million Quebec is supposed to get to build social housing. The thing is, social housing is not his responsibility.
Is he telling people in distress, who may soon be unable to pay their rent or who are at risk of ending up homeless, that they are being held hostage by the Liberals' desire to centralize?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 3:06:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we have a Prime Minister who is about to speak about himself in the third person, who says he consulted 3,000 organizations or people, but not Quebec, because those they intend to harm do not get consulted.
What does he have to say to this growing number of people who realize, say and write that the only solution is Quebec's sovereignty?
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:37:28 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, can I have another 20 minutes?
Even I was still young in 1982, which is when the Constitution was imposed, shoved down the throats of Quebeckers and the René Lévesque government, after the common front shown by the provinces broke down on several issues, as it would do later on.
No, there is no legitimacy whatsoever. The notwithstanding clause is the only part of the Constitution that does anything to help preserve who we are and who we have a right to be.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:36:03 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the difference is that I do not read planted questions in advance, but that is another debate.
Since 1982, no other Canadian government has been so intent on interfering in and encroaching on Quebec's responsibilities, especially with regard to language, values and identity. These regular and disrespectful attacks involve litigation, appointments that at a minimum are dubious, the weaponization of political issues and this bad habit of repeating the opposite of the truth.
Quebec keeps having to tell them, to put it succinctly, to mind their own business.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:34:11 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will share that acknowledgement with my colleague from Jonquière. We have raised the issue several times since that transaction, initially in private with the minister responsible.
Notwithstanding the harmful effects of the transaction, if this had been an oil company, it would only have taken two shakes of a lamb's tail for Canada to stand up, invoke national security and block the transaction. In this case, however, it is only wood, it is only the forest, and it is only in Quebec, so they do not care.
If Bill C‑34 is any good, then it should cover the transaction that is shielding Sinar Mas and forced Uighur labour.
116 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:31:51 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there was a self-congratulatory tone to my esteemed colleague's comments.
I can see why he feels a need to defend the minority, because he is the only Quebecker in his party, as opposed to 32 members of the Bloc Québécois. All things being equal, and since everyone's voice deserves to be heard, we certainly do not speak less for Quebec than he does, so we will not remain quiet. I do not think that he remains quiet or hesitates to say what he thinks just because there are 32 members who do not agree with him. The opposite will certainly not happen.
The Constitution is intended to provide guidelines for institutions, not to pre-emptively judge how it will be used. In his role as the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, our colleague finds himself in a position where he must serve a group of NDP members who are chronically ignorant about Quebec. He is therefore forced to defend things that we, and many other Quebeckers, find indefensible.
It is his judgment against that of the people who will vote when called upon.
194 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:29:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if he was not tempted to do so.
Sometimes in politics, I think people have a nasty habit of exploiting crises or difficult situations to serve their own ends. This time, he had a lucky escape.
There are so many crises, issues, failures, boondoggles and comedies of errors going on that he cannot turn them to his advantage in the short term. I would be surprised to hear anyone say that the government is on top of things.
If he really was hoping to exploit these crises, it seems like we can add that to his list of numerous failures.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:28:02 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the driver cannot really complain about the route that is taken. Members of the federal government hold more keys to the Constitution and the back rooms of the Supreme Court than Quebec sovereignists or the provinces and territories.
It would be surprising if the federal Parliament were to make use of a constitutional provision that serves to protect it from itself. History being what it is and future prospects being what they are, it is understandable that that did not seem realistic to us.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:09:43 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.
He said: Mr. Speaker, rest assured that I am excluding you from this argument, but I get the impression that Quebec does not have many friends in the House. This has been made particularly evident by what seems to be—and this may seem harsh—the Liberal government's descent into hell. The government is essentially the only one to blame, and it is useful in this context to revisit—and, again this may sound harsh—a recent debacle. I will let you be the judge of that. Speaking of judges, we will, once again, have to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter.
I have made a little list. Bill C-21 on gun control was a lesson in clumsy backtracking, an unruly fiasco and a retreat that was anything but strategic. There was not even a whiff of them admitting to an error—an implicit error—and no recognition of the fact that, indeed, one must consider the safety of civilians and women while also preserving the legitimate privileges of sport hunters.
One example is the electoral map. I remember going to the Gaspé region last summer, just a few days after the Prime Minister, when the first new version of the electoral map had been considered and the riding of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was disappearing. The Prime Minister was in the region and had not said a single word about the fact that the regions in Quebec were being weakened. There might even have been a threat regarding the expressed desire of the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine to keep the file. The Prime Minister, however, never said a word; again, the government is essentially its deputy minister.
There is Medicago, a company, a flagship in technology research that, due to a kind of negligence perpetuated over time and interventions that were often too late, risks seeing the achievements of Quebec engineering go to Japan, subject to the good will of Mitsubishi, which will certainly be a major loss for Quebec and Canada.
There is the acquisition of Resolute Forest Products by Paper Excellence, which is owned by Sinar Mas. That represents 25% of cutting rights in public forests in Quebec and does not qualify in the new Bill C-34, which does not even protect it. Good heavens, if that is not protected, what will Bill C-34 protect?
There are obviously the health transfers. That is really very interesting. Of everyone here, we see that only the Bloc Québécois is both speaking for Quebec and representing the provinces' common front. The Bloc Québécois is the only party to stand up for Yukon, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Alberta. We will wait for the thanks from the benches next to us. Only the Bloc Québécois is standing up for the will of the provinces, the territories and Quebec, while the others are being opportunistic or lazy. We will be told that what we are doing is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time; it is very revealing of how things work.
There is the McKinsey case. I do not have time to go through everything about McKinsey. There would be far too many secrets to be brought to light, like McKinsey and ethics, McKinsey and lobbying, McKinsey and defence, McKinsey and standing offers, and so on. McKinsey's former boss himself—who is surely not as naive as he tried to make us believe in committee—said that, if he had been the client, he would not have signed the contract that the Government of Canada signed. That is interesting. There is also McKinsey and immigration, as well as McKinsey and Century Initiative. One hundred million Canadians, how nice. That is quite a lot, given Quebec’s inability to absorb, over time, in French and with our values, the number of immigrants that that requires. I asked Mr. Barton whether he had considered Quebec. They did not consider it at all. It was not even on their radar.
Based on the ignorance expressed, my word, I want to be the boss at McKinsey. He does not work that hard and says he does not know anything. Also, I suspect the pay is not too bad. McKinsey has a role to play in border management and, of course, in language and identity.
There is also the exploitation of Roxham Road. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned, according to recent revelations, not only do we have criminal smugglers, we now have an all-inclusive package on offer, on both sides. A bus ticket is provided and migrants are openly and brazenly sent to Roxham Road. No one likes handcuffs. However, a brief moment of discomfort from being handcuffed is worth it for migrants, who are very happy to have reached Quebec; of course Quebec is paying the costs of welcoming them in a humane manner.
There is the appointment of Ms. Elghawaby. I will not repeat the whole speech and I do not want to make this personal. That said, it was clear that the government has an extraordinary ability to isolate and protect itself. If our homes were as well protected as the government, we would not need insulation.
Of course, there is also the referral of Quebec’s secularism law to the Supreme Court of Canada in the hope of overturning it.
Beyond that, the divisiveness over Bill C-13 is quite dramatic. I would not want to invite myself to a Liberal caucus meeting, and I think its members would not like that either, but there must be some very passionate conversations within that caucus. It must be just as fascinating as the Conservatives’ conversations about abortion. There may be a few little things that need to be resolved. For our part, everything is going very well. The federal government may also go to the Supreme Court over Bill 96, which deals with the French language.
We have now come to the motion on the notwithstanding clause, which may also go before the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to speak about a very interesting aspect. In principle, Trudeau senior said that the will of Parliament had to ultimately prevail. That is why the 1982 Constitution, which we consider to be a despicable document, includes this principle of ensuring the primacy of the democracy of parliaments. Let us keep in mind that we have never signed on to that Constitution. We have been pointing that out for a few weeks now.
That was quickly tested. In 1988, the Ford decision established, on the one hand, that the use of the notwithstanding clause was legitimate and, on the other hand, that the role of the court was not to engage in pointless discussions, but to rule on the substance and wording of things.
Let us not forget that Mr. Lévesque firmly invoked and inserted the notwithstanding clause in all of the laws passed by Quebec’s National Assembly. Many fits were had, but Canada survived.
It is important to understand the current government’s legislative or judicial approach—or flight of fancy. By invoking federal documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, and by appointing new judges as old ones leave, the Prime Minister hopes to replace the decisions of the provincial legislatures and of the House of Commons with those of the Supreme Court of Canada in order to modify by interpretation the Canadian Constitution. As we said earlier, the Constitution is much more theirs than it is ours.
Having had the opportunity over time to appoint judges, the Prime Minister is confident that he has a Supreme Court of Canada whose constitution, pardon the pun, will be favourable to him. He wants to modify the Constitution by having it interpreted by judges he has appointed. This happens elsewhere in the world, and it is rarely an honourable procedure. A Parliament is always sovereign, otherwise any one Parliament could impose its will on another.
Quebec’s National Assembly is sovereign in its choices and its votes. Quebec’s Parliament is, in a word, national. Now, more than ever, Quebec’s National Assembly needs the notwithstanding clause, which guarantees the prerogative and primacy of parliaments and elected members over the decisions of the courts. Courts are there only to interpret, despite the fact that we have learned, particularly over the course of Quebec history, that interpretations can, over time, and without casting stones, be nudged in a certain direction. We do not want government by judges, but government by elected members, government by the people.
As I said at the beginning, it is important to mention that the notwithstanding clause is the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember a question period during which we were told that it was awful, that they were not against the notwithstanding clause but against its pre-emptive use.
Of course, as it is wont to do, it is when the government runs out of arguments that it starts spouting the worst nonsense. That was a good one. If the notwithstanding clause is not to be used pre-emptively, what is the point?
The notwithstanding clause is like a COVID-19 vaccine. People get vaccinated to avoid getting COVID-19, not after they get it. The notwithstanding clause protects Quebec’s laws. We could say “the laws of Quebec and the provinces”, but let us be clear: Aside from a recent notorious case in Ontario, the notwithstanding clause is mostly used in Quebec, particularly when it comes to national identity and jurisdiction, precisely so that we do not have to hear the courts say that we cannot apply our own legislation, that it is being challenged, and that we now have to use the notwithstanding clause to fix a situation that, in the meantime, has had a deleterious effect.
Clearly, that is not how we want to or even how we should use the notwithstanding clause. Too often, harm would be done, and the same courts would have to suspend the application of the law. The notwithstanding clause is a small piece of sovereignty. “Sovereignty” is a word that frightens people. Using it inspires strong feelings and cold sweats. Sovereignty, however, is merely exclusive jurisdiction held by any party. This Parliament claims sovereignty, except in the case of Chinese spy balloons.
It is essential to recognize that, by invoking the notwithstanding clause, a jurisdiction that is a parliament, which by definition is sovereign, is claiming a small part of its sovereignty in jurisdictions which, logically speaking, should be exclusive to it.
This logical relationship between identity, the fact that Quebec is a nation begrudgingly recognized by this Parliament in a very specific context on June 16, 2021, and the fact that Quebec is the one that must resort to this clause is because Quebec is a nation, and its parliament is a national Parliament. Allow me to say that, in my opinion, this is too little.
It is too little because, of course, we want Quebeckers—in their own time, obviously, but we will encourage them—to think about sovereignty as a whole, a nation with a single national Parliament, which, as Mr. Parizeau said, would collect all taxes—we are capable of doing this and we would be having an entirely different conversation about health transfers—vote for all laws applicable in Quebec, sign all treaties and honour all existing treaties, as necessary.
Usually, people do not think about being normal. It goes without saying. We embrace normality, we seek normality and we assume normality. Quebec just needs to think about it right now, and for some time, and observe how its national identity is treated in a Parliament that should at least be a good neighbour if it cannot be a good partner.
This remains an essential reflection, but given the current context, it may no longer hold tomorrow or the next day. The game of cat and mouse, the jurisdictional stonewalling, the encroachments, the interference are anything but progress, efficiency or instruments for the greater good.
Until that necessarily deeper reflection occurs, we certainly need, in this Parliament, to solicit the good faith of colleagues and elected officials in recognizing that Quebec and the provinces have a legitimate right to use the notwithstanding clause. We are not requesting a change to the way things are done. We are asking that it be acknowledged. We simply wish to state the truth and are calling on Parliament to say that it does indeed reflect reality.
Voting against this truth would be akin to challenging the Canadian Constitution itself. This temptation was evident in the Prime Minister's comments. That raised some eyebrows, given the legacy. We are calling on the House to recognize a literal truth, if only out of respect.
In the meantime, and regardless of today’s vote, the Quebec nation and its representatives have only one true friend in this place. Only one political party raises the issues of language, identity, immigration, health care funding and the preservation of the notwithstanding clause in this House. Its members have just as much legitimacy as those of every other party. They are the members of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois is proud to stand once again, without compromise, but with a sense of responsibility and with courage, to raise, defend and promote the interests of Quebec, which we hope will accomplish even more.
2338 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/23 2:28:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the representative appointed by the Prime Minister has a rather unflattering view of Quebec. A discussion about Quebec's history and secularism would do Ms. Elghawaby some good.
The Prime Minister knew what he was doing. He and the Liberal Party will stop at nothing to strip the Quebec National Assembly of its authority, particularly when it comes to language and secularism, which must be protected. The notwithstanding clause is the last line of protection.
Are the Prime Minister and his government disavowing the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/23 2:27:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, ironically, the notwithstanding clause is a legacy that was strongly endorsed by Pierre Eliott Trudeau at the time. The rooster is about to crow for the third time.
According to what the minister said yesterday, he has nothing against the notwithstanding clause, he is against its pre-emptive use. The thing is, it can only be used pre-emptively. It is like a vaccine. We do not get vaccinated because we are sick, we get vaccinated to avoid getting sick, and we use the notwithstanding clause to avoid going to the Supreme Court. If it cannot be used pre-emptively, then what is the notwithstanding clause for?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 2:27:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, now that the NDP and the Liberals have gotten hitched, could the Prime Minister send the Green members over to this side of the House and put all the Liberals on the correct side so they can all sit together?
I gather that the basis for this agreement is interference in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces in the areas of health, dental and drug insurance. Is it not true that the purpose of this agreement is to enable this newly wedded government to tread on Quebec's areas of jurisdiction once and for all?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/21 3:06:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I applaud the Prime Minister's “epiphany”. He recognizes the existence of provincial and Quebec jurisdictions. Hallelujah.
If natural resources fall under Alberta's jurisdiction in the case of oil, then there is no need to give it money to extract the oil, either directly or indirectly, or by pretending it is to lower greenhouse gas emissions when it would actually increase production.
Is changing this not a plan?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/21 2:35:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, but I have concerns about the word “partnership”, which sounds a lot like “conditions”, to me. While I am at it, I also have serious concerns about the word “plan”, based on what we saw during the election campaign.
However, can the Prime Minister tell us, in all seriousness, whether he thinks that the horrific tragedies during the pandemic were the fault and responsibility of the provinces and Quebec? Does he think or is he claiming that he would have done better?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
