- 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 2:30:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if things are stabilized at the current number, then things will be good in the coming decades. It seems to me like we are hearing the same thing as we did at the end of the last session. We are beginning a new session. Let us do so with a new state of mind.
The Premier of Quebec sent a letter asking the Canadian government to ensure the fair distribution of asylum seekers across Canada. That seems very reasonable to me. We are talking about humanitarian issues, not economic ones.
Will the Prime Minister do that, while also ensuring that Quebec's demographic weight is respected?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Nov/2/23 2:29:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is the way it has always been, in health care too. The government claims that it has talked to the provinces, but it never really listens to them or makes any changes based on what they say.
However, yesterday, the government voted and said yes. It said that it would consult Quebec before setting the immigration targets that the minister was in the process of announcing. For consistency's sake, the government ought to talk to someone in Quebec City because, if it does not, it needs to realize that Quebec will no longer be able to ensure that immigrants who settle there are taught French. In other words, the government will be reducing Quebec's weight within the Canadian federation.
We will draw our own conclusions.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 2:27:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Government of Quebec announced its immigration targets, in other words, how many people Quebec believes it will be able to integrate and teach French, and the federal government did the same. The two governments are not at all on the same page.
In the meantime, however, I asked all members, including the Minister of Immigration and the Prime Minister, whether they would consult Quebec before setting the 2024 targets. The Prime Minister said yes and the Minister of Immigration said yes.
Am I to understand that the targets announced yesterday are temporary and that they will speak to Quebec?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/23 2:53:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am bit like those people. I am reluctant to talk to him about things he does not necessarily understand, but I have no choice. He does not want to provide an answer so I will answer for him. Quebec can and should become independent as soon as possible. He may agree or disagree, but he cannot deny that there are 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec who have said that Quebec can be a viable country economically. The Prime Minister of Canada is too spineless to say anything.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/23 2:51:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister proudly makes funding announcements in Quebec with the member to his right, he is actually talking about money that belongs to Quebeckers. Those are our tax dollars. With respect to the motion, if he says he agrees, he is in trouble. If he says he does not agree, he is in trouble. Since he is in trouble either way, and because he will be asked about it the next time he is next to the Premier of Quebec, why will he not simply tell us what he really thinks for once?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/23 2:37:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec has heard the “we want change” rhetoric before. However, I would remind the Prime Minister, who claims to speak for the masses, that everyone, including the Premier of Quebec, voted in favour of the motion saying that Quebec is capable.
I am not asking if that is what he wants. I am not asking if he knows how to count. I am asking him if he agrees with the statement that Quebec is capable of being an economically sovereign country. That is all.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/23 2:35:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the National Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a motion asserting the economic viability of a possible sovereign Quebec, another in a series of unanimous motions that speak for all of Quebec.
Regardless of his personal preference, does the Prime Minister recognize Quebec's ability to succeed economically as an independent country?
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/23 2:19:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, Quebec will celebrate its national holiday. Quebec is a proud nation. Soon there will be nine million Quebeckers, and Quebec will still be one nation. While many languages are spoken in Quebec, its common language is French. Quebec sings many songs, dances many dances, colours many canvases as a single nation with diverse backgrounds, with a rich and vibrant diversity going back tens of thousands of years, to the time when many peoples were already living on this great land that would become Quebec.
This nation hosts all kinds of debate, seeks out what is best for everyone, and manages its diversity like all democratic nations. This Saturday, however, our nation will sing with one voice, put away for now the blueprint for building a greener future, set aside uncertainties, share smiles in the sincere friendship of common convictions and in its ever-richer identity of what could well become the country for everyone.
Let us be proud, sing, dance, laugh and love each other for who we are, and for all that we are.
I hope everyone has a wonderful time on Quebec's national holiday.
191 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 2:27:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government agreed to a gimmick it called the Century Initiative, which we will not bother translating into French. It does not deserve to be translated because, at that point, we would all be speaking English. The Liberals said that they would drop the slogan. That is fine.
Then, the Liberals said that they would abandon the idea of 100 million Canadians by the end of the century because we did not like it. In any case, we will all be dead in 77 years. However, they decided to keep the target of 500,000 new immigrants per year as of 2025. That is what is going to shrink Quebec and bring about its permanent downfall.
Do the Deputy Prime Minister, the voice of reason, and her government really think that Quebeckers are that stupid?
140 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
- May/10/23 2:46:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is rarely a good idea to go after the diligence, independence or integrity of a media outlet. It is rarely very democratic, especially when the head of said outlet is Pierre Karl Péladeau.
The next person I want to mention needs to be handled very carefully. Gérard Bouchard said that there is indeed cause for concern about the 500,000 immigrants the government wants to welcome annually. He is a highly respected sociologist. The Prime Minister has to weigh his words very carefully in his response.
What does he have to say to Gérard Bouchard?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 2:33:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Coalition Avenir Québec is opposed to the idea of 500,000 immigrants a year. Our own cousins in the Parti Québécois are obviously against it. Québec Solidaire, cousins to their NDP bedfellows, are very uncomfortable with the idea. The Liberals in Quebec City, the blood of their blood, are no more in agreement with it than anyone else. No one in the National Assembly agrees with this.
What does the Prime Minister have to say to the Quebec National Assembly?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/23 2:32:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government has taken a firm position against the federal government's plans to bring 500,000 immigrants into the country every year.
There are challenges related to the cost for the health care system, the cost for the education system, the cost for child care services, and the housing crisis. Obviously, language and culture are fundamental concerns.
I would like to hear directly from the Prime Minister what he has to say to the Premier of Quebec about imposing his new immigration targets.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, on a somewhat lighter note, the arts, culture, language and communications are part of our soul in Quebec and part of what defines us as a nation.
The Bloc Québécois, and the member for Drummond in particular, was largely responsible for shaping much of the content of Bill C‑11. The arts community was very appreciative of that. Unfortunately, the Conservatives turned their backs on a unanimous vote in Quebec's National Assembly and, quite frankly, betrayed it.
Is the minister committed to getting Quebeckers on board when Quebec issues are at stake?
101 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 10:31:51 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 10:09:43 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
- Feb/1/23 2:30:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree that that is important, but it does not have to be this difficult. To reduce polarization, to really work on getting to know each other and mitigate the serious impact of these recent decisions, will the Prime Minister smooth things over and stand in the House and admit that Bill 21 is not Islamophobic?
59 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
