- Member of Parliament
- Leader of the Bloc Québécois
- Bloc Québécois
- Beloeil—Chambly
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 55%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $98,385.23
- Government Page
- May/22/24 2:45:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a brand new study by the Office québécois de la langue française shows that the proportion of young Quebeckers who use French as their language of work 90% of the time has dropped from 64% to 58%.
Will the Prime Minister admit that his language policies are not slowing the decline of French one bit, and that his opposition to Bill 96 is weakening the French language, or will he in turn start hurling vicious and vulgar insults at Quebec scientists?
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 2:31:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, he is right, and I appreciate this stroke of brilliance: the best thing that could happen to French in Quebec, in Canada and partly around the world, is an independent Quebec.
Meanwhile, what did the Prime Minister of Canada say during the English debate in 2021? When I was the only one who wanted to talk about francophones outside Quebec, in English, I was told that I did not have the right to talk about French in English during his country's English debate.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 2:30:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals claim to be interested in French in Quebec and Canada. The fact is that they are subsidizing the quiet disappearance of francophones in western Canada and outside Quebec, much like the proverbial frog in a pot of boiling water. What is more, the Liberals are mobilizing dozens of unilingual anglophone members to protect their offensive member, whose comments were as underhanded as they were inappropriate.
Would the Prime Minister really have francophones believe that it is out of a love for French that they are going to stack the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie tomorrow?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 3:06:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I just heard that we need to protect both official languages. Where does English need protecting?
This summer in Montreal there is going to be the equivalent of a global conference of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie that will be chaired by his friend, who, by his own actions, is embarrassing us on the world stage.
I think I get it: The Liberals are trying to have everyone believe that French is just fine in Quebec and there is no need to do anything to make Canada's anglophones happy.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/8/24 2:48:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the word that I used and that you called me out on is not nearly as bad as the word that the member over there used and that nobody said anything about.
The Prime Minister is trying to sow division between francophones in Quebec and francophones in Canada. I would like to remind him that, in the last election, I wanted to talk about francophones outside Quebec during the English debate and I was told that that was not the place and that we could not talk about French during the English debate.
Is that not picking a fight?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/7/24 2:25:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals are having a hard enough time as it is convincing people that they are committed to the French language. I will spare them the trouble of claiming it is part of their culture. At the very least, the Prime Minister should take responsibility for one of his members uttering such a vulgar slur about our national language.
Will the Prime Minister at least suggest that the member step down as president of the Canadian branch of the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 10:54:44 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is an intriguing question. It raises the issue of numbers wars.
We can opt for the ideological extreme of the Century Initiative proposed by the McKinsey firm, which has been paid to take de facto control of Canada's immigration department. The people in that department are so eager and are moving so fast right now that the figure of 100 million Canadians by the end of the century will be completely blown out of the water. This raises the issue of numbers.
Right now, numbers wars are being waged because it is easier to talk about a figure in the media. In reality, we need tools to measure—after one, two, three or four years—the quality of integration and overall quality of life of people who decided to come and live in Quebec. It is a set of variables. For these people, it is not enough just to know how to speak French. Is their degree recognized? Do they have a decent job? Do they have reasonably priced housing?
Here we have the other extreme. We are so focused on numbers and so keen to open everything up that people who came here as asylum seekers are sleeping in the streets of Montreal, without housing. This is the most obvious example of the government's heartless failure.
225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 10:53:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have just heard my esteemed colleague tell us about his great passion for the French language. That is not what we heard, though, because I believe it was in English. I, too, can express my passion for English; it is easy.
That said, we are in fairly constant contact with people at the National Assembly of Quebec, with whom we have a fairly long‑standing relationship in some cases. It is easy, not only over the telephone, but simply by reading the newspapers, to see that, in general and even in a great deal of detail, the Bloc Québécois is expressing positions that are completely compatible with those of the National Assembly of Quebec, but that the Liberal Party of Canada is expressing positions that are completely incompatible with those of the National Assembly of Quebec.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 2:34:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I hope we are not supposed to think that Liberal cuts are better than Conservative cuts.
More people in Canada tune in to Radio-Canada than the CBC. Radio-Canada generates more advertising revenue in Canada than the CBC. In fact, French-language Radio-Canada subsidizes CBC's English-language services.
Nevertheless, Ms. Tait is calling on French-language Radio-Canada to absorb half the cuts she is demanding, at the expense of French and at the expense of the regions.
Should the Prime Minister not personally summon Ms. Tait to come and explain herself to francophone parliamentarians in the House of Commons?
105 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
- 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/11/23 10:36:46 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that was a wild speech with a lot of hot air, to put it as politely as I can.
Anyone who goes to the trouble of the putting the words “French”, “extreme right”, “Bloc Québécois” and “Pierre Karl Péladeau” in the same sentence deserves nothing short of my contempt.
As for taking lessons from the Bloc Québécois, the NDP did not take them from the Bloc Québécois. It took them from Quebec. There is one lesson left.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 10:12:45 a.m.
- Watch
That, given that,
(i) the Century Initiative aims to increase Canada’s population to 100 million by 2100,
(ii) the federal government’s new intake targets are consistent with the Century Initiative objectives,
(iii) tripling Canada’s population has real impacts on the future of the French language, Quebec’s political weight, the place of First Peoples, access to housing, and health and education infrastructure,
(iv) these impacts were not taken into account in the development of the Century Initiative and that Quebec was not considered,
the House reject the Century Initiative objectives and ask the government not to use them as a basis for developing its future immigration levels.
He said: Mr. Speaker, once upon a time, there was a company called McKinsey and a scheme known as the Century Initiative. I am deeply averse to speaking English in the course of my official duties, but I believe in calling a thing by its right name. An initiative that will sabotage French in Quebec and Canada over the long term cannot be called by a French name or by a name that can even be translated to French. I feel it is only right to continue to use the name Century Initiative when speaking French, not its amorphous French name, “Initiative du Siècle”.
It outlines a vision of an economy serving capitalism, a vision of people's labour serving the economy. The Bloc Québécois, however, thinks it should be the other way around, that the economy should serve the people.
The idea is to increase the population of Canada, should it survive in its present form until then, to 100 million inhabitants by the end of the century. Truth be told, that is rabble-rousing lunacy. It is a delusional vision of the future whose true purpose is more immediate.
They say they want Canada to be a global superpower. What are Canada's greatest resources? They are: brains, institutions and democracy, of course, but also natural resources, such as oil, which some of us are still mulishly dependent on, forestry, ever the poor cousin, mines, which could be Quebec's ticket to leading the transportation electrification charge, a role some would rather see Ontario take on using polluting western Canadian natural gas, and water, which will be on the table sooner or later.
Add to that cheap labour, the labour market imbalance, and the struggle for collective representation that is increasingly coming under fire, the struggle for unions and the labour movement that are so readily demonized. Backed by the NDP, which claims close ties to unions, this pro-scab government rejects the importance of prohibiting strikebreakers, proof positive that it is not a pro-worker government.
I find it hard to understand, moreover, how the labour movement can still identify with a Prime Minister who repeatedly said yesterday that he had spoken to businesses or with an NDP that supports big business against workers. It is like trusting this government to protect jobs in the forestry sector. We have no such trust.
McKinsey has a terrible reputation in human resources. One does not have to get to the end of the book When McKinsey Comes to Town to realize that the same story keeps repeating itself. We see the same manoeuvres: breaking workers, degrading working conditions.
The Century Initiative is a vision that has blindly, or complacently, been adopted by Ottawa with, moreover, an outsourcing of certain immigration services. Ottawa either has a hostile bias or is indifferent to a normal Quebec desire to make, at least in some respects, its own way in Canada, or not.
Mr. Barton acknowledged in committee, in response to a question I put to him, that he had not considered Quebec at all in the development of the Century Initiative. For them, passively or actively, Quebec was simply a community created by earlier immigration and it had to fit in the anglicized mosaic of Canada.
At least Mr. Barton admitted in his testimony that they were making recommendations and that the Prime Minister was the one responsible for deciding on the implementation of a policy whose known effect—which we can assume was at least partly intended—was a direct threat to the continued existence of a Quebec people.
There are many benefits to immigration. Are labour issues part of that? Certainly, subject to how we treat people who choose to come to make their life in Canada or in Quebec. Is it the solution to the labour shortage? It is certainly one of the possible solutions, but it is not the solution. Here again, it falls under the slogan that a former colleague called the kinglets of chambers of commerce.
Immigration comes with humanitarian and intake responsibilities. It comes with the responsibility of an unavoidable fact: With climate change, in which Canada is a central player with its insistence on toxically exploiting hydrocarbons that directly heat the climate, tens of millions of people around the world will need to move. Those are climate migrations. It would be very irresponsible to not welcome at least some of them, but on what terms? That is another part of the debate, but they will have to be welcomed. Accepting responsibility in sharing the weight of the misery inflicted on those who are less fortunate than us is itself fundamental to a sound immigration policy.
There is also the inevitable desire of people to immigrate and make a better life for themselves. That comes with uncertainties. It has been said and repeated. Without protecting a political lever, those who said it were not heard, here in Ottawa.
There will be an enormous impact on the costs of an educational system, which increase much faster than the economic or fiscal contribution of newcomers. The same reasoning applies to a health system that is severely underfunded due to willful ignorance, an ignorance some might argue the Prime Minister cultivates. So there are issues and demands for health transfers.
There will also be pressure on child care services. The housing crisis will not be addressed by welcoming 500,000 people a year in Canada, 110,000 of which would be destined for Quebec. The same is true for income support for these people who are arriving and who are sometimes helpless and, of course, for francization and the development of a sense of belonging to this people, this nation that is welcoming them. There is a risk of different kinds of social problems. There is the issue of the coherence of a cultural body that allows everyone to function within the same society, with a big neighbour trying to ensure its dislocation. There is also the appearance or increase of pockets of poverty for those that the system will be unable to integrate harmoniously and the appearance of cultural-linguistic ghettos of people who will not integrate and for whom it will quickly become too late, because the correct action was not taken or action was not taken at the right time or, in Ottawa's case, action was not taken with the right intention.
There is also the issue of the indigenous peoples. I cannot speak for them, but the numbers speak for themselves. The natural growth of the indigenous populations cannot keep up with the immigration of 500,000 people per year, which, hypothetically, would mean 100 million people in Canada by the end of the year. This great scam requires associating, integrating and amalgamating first nations as if they were immigrant populations. In the eyes of the first nations, I am an immigrant. We are the immigrants. Unlike this potentially infinite influx of people who are welcomed through immigration, no one can immigrate and say they are indigenous. One is indigenous or one is not. A person is born indigenous or is not born indigenous.
There is a threat strictly in terms of demographic weight. Maybe this is an opportunity for the first peoples to realize that Ottawa is not working for them.
There is a risk, as a nation, of losing part of our soul, most of our weight, and of failing to bring forward a different and unique culture in which and to which the contribution of immigrant communities is essential; it transforms who we are. Do we want to say in a very healthy way that we have a common language, that we have common values, that all equalities are eminently valid, that the state, to be progressive, must be secular? These are fundamental elements that define us. Besides that, there will always be a cultural and artistic contribution that enriches us, as long as it is done harmoniously. We must not fail.
We therefore have three choices. The first is to shrug our shoulders, increase immigration levels and lose our language. The second would be to obtain a guaranteed percentage of seats in the House, which we were refused outright. The government knew very well what they were doing. They knew very well that, by refusing a predetermined percentage of seats for Quebec and by implementing an immigration policy involving an extremely large number, they were condemning Quebec to being reduced and diminished within the federation.
However, there is a third way: The appropriation of all attributes of sovereignty for the Quebec people. Sovereignty is not a fictional intellectual concept or a bargain-basement anglophone bogeyman. It is the normal appropriation of all the means we have to choose, even if some are then freely and consensually shared.
Let us not fool ourselves, the NDP and the Conservatives agree with this idea of 100 million Canadians and 500,000 immigrants per year. Maybe the means could be debated? Maybe this issue could be reviewed? Maybe there is an opening, particularly among the Conservatives, that I would welcome with great enthusiasm? However, care must be taken to not create consensus that will isolate Quebec. I will come back to that.
There is a concept that exists in the intelligence community, that of useful idiots. That is the second English term in my speech. When someone, without realizing it, serves the interests of someone else, such as systematically supporting policies that benefit big money and disadvantage Quebec, while imagining that they are doing good, they may be a useful idiot. They are people who do not realize that, if they conducted themselves differently, Canada and Quebec would be better off.
Immigration is not simply good or bad. We need to make sure that integration is effective and that the people who choose us have the tools they need for a new successful life. First, there is language and then adjusting to employment, where language is the primary factor. There is also the recognition of diplomas and full training or supplementary training for a diploma to be recognized. There are many issues.
Is immigration really a numbers issue? I would say that anything is possible. I have always been very resistant to debates about numbers. A number like 110,000 looks high for Quebec, anyway. I would say that if Quebec chose to increase the number of immigrants it receives, the levels should be increased gradually. We would need tools to measure the success of everything put in place to promote sound and successful integration. There needs to be a common melting pot of a changing national culture.
We are told that sovereignty would change nothing. That is also what I heard yesterday on television. In fact, sovereignty would allow for clear integration policies, a clear message about places where people would arrive and full political weight to make decisions on our soil. Above all, sovereignty would end Ottawa's usual practice of undoing what Quebec has done through heavy-handed legislation, gobs of money and court decisions.
Because of the fiscal imbalance, and according to the government’s own figures, in 30 to 40 years the total debt of the federal government would be eliminated, while at the same time, according to the Parliamentary Budget Officer, most provinces would technically be bankrupt. This is known as the fiscal imbalance. This is essentially Ottawa grabbing fiscal resources that it does not need at the expense of the provinces and Quebec, which do not have what they need. This is how to dismantle the provinces and the Quebec nation.
The naive, high up in their ivory tower in Toronto, believe that the fiscal imbalance, the Supreme Court biases, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms—designed against the Quebec nation—and the activism that replaces collective rights with individual privileges will save Canada. God Save The King. Some of these naive people are francophones from Quebec, but I am not looking at anyone. They are wrong. Quebeckers are patient, generous and welcoming, but there are many who realize that the immigration policy advised by McKinsey, which is laughing all the way to the bank, threatens the very existence of the Quebec people. They will want to act.
Sooner or later, this will be known as Quebec’s sovereignty. In the meantime, someone here has to stand up and denounce this vision that is harming Quebec, and that someone is the Bloc Québécois. We will not wait long. We will get ourselves a country.
2225 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/23 2:25:48 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister a question and he replies by reading a Heritage Minute.
Quebec would have to take in 110,000 more people per year, but it cannot afford to do that because of the cost of services. Of course, it cannot do it because of the need to integrate immigrants in French. McKinsey did not take into account the specific reality of Quebec or the French language. Dominic Barton said as much in committee.
The Prime Minister is francophone himself. Why is he not taking Quebec's reality into account?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 2:20:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker,
In the Quebec of days gone by, English stole the words “French” and “Canadian”.Quebeckers were born.Out of a dream, anger, the street and words.Michèle Lalonde voiced the indignation of our nation in the Americas,of hard-working Quebeckers and African slaves. Speak white!Speak white!Speak the language of whites!Speak the language of the conqueror!Speak English! Speak white!An insult that Quebec neither chose,nor appropriated.An insult that the English, this House!threw in the face of Henri Bourassa when he spoke French here...to the French-speakers of the country,to the Africans of the continent.History identifies what happened,literature records it.A people that lies to itself has neither history nor literature.If censorship wins,Speak white, a poem, will become a symbol of racism.The n-word is not for me. It belongs to those who suffer from it.Poetry is the weapon of Justice.
163 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/14/22 2:20:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that this is our last sitting in the House in 2022. I would like to say that a bit of fresh air will be good for our spirits. At the same time, not much was accomplished by all the shouting, which often owed more to showmanship than sincerity.
As we extend holiday greetings to our constituents, it is both my duty and my desire to tell them to take care of themselves. A faltering health care facility is no place to spend the holidays. A pair of handcuffs is no way to greet the desperate people finding their way to Roxham Road. A lack of support for new Quebeckers to learn the French language, a fundamental tool they will need to function in a French-speaking society, is no kind of gift.
If we are the wiser for sleeping on a problem, imagine what several weeks off could do. I sincerely wish all my colleagues in the House a very merry Christmas and a happy 2023.
My last word is for you, Mr. Speaker, along with the parliamentary staff, from the cooks to the pages, the security staff and yourself. Your patience and smiling faces remind us that we are here for the common good. Happy holidays to all of you and to Quebeckers.
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 2:29:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the past 24 hours, the Prime Minister said that Quebec must take in 112,000 immigrants.
He says that he is not imposing that number. However, all the other times, he said that he would like to impose it. He sent a former minister and now sitting member to say that Bill 96 should be blocked, because the federal government obviously must not recognize Quebec's jurisdictions.
He is forgetting about Roxham Road and the thousands of irregular claimants, who would have a hard time integrating into French-speaking society, and he is forgetting about the thousands of francophone African students who he himself is preventing from entering Quebec.
Could he do the smart thing when it comes to the issue of language and recognize that the French language and immigration are Quebec's jurisdictions?
139 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/13/22 2:28:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if I may, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would also like to offer our condolences to the family and friends of the former minister and member Jim Carr.
The Prime Minister has skilfully calculated that Quebec should take in 112,000 immigrants based on Ottawa's goal of welcoming 500,000. In doing so, he ignored the fact that there are about eight million francophones in the country and about 300 million anglophones on the North American continent. Oops. It was basic math. He himself is having such a hard time managing immigration that his government assigned 60,000 files to people who are no longer on the job.
Should he not double-check his math and let Quebec manage its own affairs on immigration and the French language?
138 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/7/22 2:18:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I salute the Quebec National Assembly, which is the only national parliament of Quebeckers and which unanimously chose to renounce or, better yet, condemn the oath of allegiance to the king.
I salute the courage and determination of the three Parti Québécois MNAs and the government's swift action, at the very time when the Conseil de presse du Québec was condemning the moderator of the last English-language debate, who basically gave a voice to every prejudice against Quebec, against the French language and against the rejection by Quebec of the church's interference in affairs of state.
That makes us racist, so much so that they are refusing to celebrate the 100th anniversary of the birth of Jean Paul Riopelle, a giant among giants in Quebec visual arts. I propose that they give us back Riopelle's works. We will celebrate his centennial with style.
As long as we are renouncing the oath of allegiance to the king, let us renounce the monarchy itself. Instead of being a conquered people and subjects of the king, let us be good neighbours.
Long live Quebec!
193 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
