- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Drummond
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $108,134.67
- Government Page
- May/31/24 10:46:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would also like to congratulate the member for Chatham-Kent—Leamington on his speech.
My colleague just spoke about municipal elections, which are extremely important in Quebec, and about the need to motivate the public to get involved at every level in each election.
However, the sensitive issue of pensions cannot be overlooked. I know that my colleague touched on it earlier. Personally, I am extremely uncomfortable about telling Quebeckers that we are going to push back the date of the election. The only message that people will remember is that a whole bunch of MPs elected in 2019 are going to be eligible for their pensions. I think that sends a very bad message. It encourages and fuels cynicism toward politicians.
I would like to know whether my colleague would agree to a possible proposal to amend this bill and move the election to a different date, two or three weeks earlier if necessary. This would address concerns over the municipal elections scheduled at the same time and quell public cynicism toward politicians, precisely over the pension eligibility issue.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 1:08:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the motion moved by the Conservative leader is yet another very populist gimmick. It is easy for the Conservatives to tell people they are going to demand a summer tax break so people can go on vacation. I do not think it is as simple as that for Quebec and Canadian families, but the idea, as far-fetched as it may seem, would still come at a cost.
Can my colleague tell me how much it is estimated that Quebeckers and Canadians will save thanks to the measure proposed by the Conservatives, but more importantly, how much it will cost SMEs, Quebec and Canadian businesses and the administration of the system in general to suspend a tax for a limited period of time?
What will it cost in terms of operating costs, and what will it cost the public purse in lost revenue?
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in light of what I said earlier about the difference between the social values and legal traditions of Quebec and Canada, will the minister commit to supporting the spirit of the bill that was introduced by my colleague, the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou? This bill responds to the aspirations of the Quebec National Assembly and also to the will of the vast majority of Quebeckers. It seeks to allow advance requests for medical assistance in dying in Quebec.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 1:50:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise and take advantage of the unwillingness of Conservative, Liberal and NDP members to ask questions following the speech by my colleague from Terrebonne. Let me correct what I just said: A Liberal member did rise earlier. I understand that this may be a somewhat sensitive topic for the parties that would like to make gains in Quebec. We know that this is a matter of concern to Quebeckers.
Earlier, my colleague mentioned a Bloc Québécois win, namely the fact that the federal government transferred funds to Quebec to bring high-speed Internet to all regions of Quebec. The program has worked better in the hands of the Government of Quebec, because the federal government had been dawdling for years. There are still problems of this nature, especially when it comes to cellphone coverage. There are a lot of problems like that.
Does my colleague not think that, ultimately, the federal government should simply redistribute the money to Quebec and the provinces so that matters are resolved within a reasonable time frame and in a more competent manner?
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 1:34:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle.
If she follows the workings of the House a bit—and I am sure she does so diligently—she knows very well that the Bloc Québécois represents the Quebec National Assembly, the elected representatives of the people of Quebec and, ideally, the consensus of the National Assembly. Above all, we respect, first and foremost, the decisions that are made in Quebec's National Assembly, because that is what best represents the interests of Quebeckers.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 1:25:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have the honour of warming up the crowd for my colleague from Terrebonne. I am pleased to do that.
I listened to a number of the speeches that were given by my colleagues before me. I would like to reread the text of the motion because, obviously, we are going to be talking about it all day. It states, and I quote:
That the House:
(a) condemn the federal government’s repeated intrusion into the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and the territories;
(b) remind the Prime Minister that, despite his claims, it is not true that “people do not care which level of government is responsible for what”; and
(c) demand that the government systematically offer Quebec, the provinces and territories the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation whenever the federal government interferes in their jurisdictions.
The last sentence is a bit contradictory because the federal government should never interfere in the jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and the territories.
I want to come back to paragraph (b) of our motion today, because earlier, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis referred to it and implied that it was a bit ridiculous. I want to reiterate the part in quotation marks, which states, “people do not care which level of government is responsible for what”. We did not pull that out of thin air. The Prime Minister himself is the one who said that. Members are calling into question the fact that that is not true, but 82% of Quebeckers who were polled in March said that they were concerned about respect for federal, provincial—in this case Quebec—and municipal jurisdictions. That is important. That means that people do care, to use the words of the Prime Minister.
Nothing annoys me more than someone who does not mind their own business and comes in and does something that is someone else's responsibility just so they can take credit for it. Imagine if today I decided to recognize a member rising on a point of order. You would tell me to sit down in short order, Madam Speaker, and rightly so. That is how Quebeckers feel when the federal government barges in on our jurisdictions. This tension between the federal government and Quebec over respect for jurisdictions is nothing new, and it is not just a matter of sovereignists trying to pick a fight. Robert Bourassa complained about it. Was there anyone more federalist and Liberal than him in Quebec provincial politics?
Federal interference is seen not only as a violation of Quebec's and the provinces' autonomy, but also as an obstacle to the development and vitality of the Quebec nation. Nearly all successive governments in the National Assembly have felt that way. I repeat: 82% of Quebeckers believe that the federal government should mind its own business. Elected officials are not the only ones who think so.
When we ask the government to mind its own business, it should start by doing what it is expected to do properly. For example, it should find out where taxpayers' money is going before it realizes that $1 billion has been wasted on consultants or small businesses that are not always competent and that are hired to do things like create an app to manage incoming travellers at the border during a pandemic. That is just an example, of course.
Minding its own business also means fixing the Phoenix fiasco. Even today, we members—I am not the only one—still have to help our constituents, who are often owed tens of thousands of dollars by the government. They live in the kind of hardship we would not wish on anyone, and which is certainly undeserved, given the efforts they have put into saving for retirement all their lives. They come to our offices because the government still owes them $30,000, $40,000 or $50,000 because of the problems with Phoenix, which it is unable to solve.
Minding its own business also means not trying to impose conditions on health transfers to Quebec and the provinces, because the federal government knows nothing about Quebec's health care system. In fact, by not contributing to the health care system in Quebec and the provinces, it has contributed to the health care disaster we are currently experiencing. Now, I am certain I am going to hear the NDP and the Liberals stand up and say that 600,000 Quebeckers are happy to have a dental plan. However, if the federal government had transferred adequate amounts to Quebec and the provinces over the years so they could fund their health care systems, and if Quebeckers wanted a dental plan that covered everyone, we would have the means to afford it, just as we have introduced pharmacare and child care. We are capable of creating social programs that reflect the richness of the Quebec nation and its values.
Minding its own business also means no longer pretending to care about seniors. I know I am hitting a nerve with my colleague from Shefford. People aged 65 to 74 are being left to suffer in poverty because the federal government does not want to include them in its plan to increase old age pensions. It is completely ridiculous, inexplicable and inexcusable. Not a week goes by that I do not receive emails and calls from my constituents aged 65 to 74, who are wondering what is going on. They are wondering if they are going to get the increase. The answer is no.
The Bloc Québécois continues to work on this issue. Seniors aged 65 to 74 can rest assured that we will always be on their side.
We will also be there for people aged 75 and over in order to ensure fairness. We do not want two classes of seniors. If the federal government would mind its own business and look after its own affairs like everyone else does, we would not be in this situation.
Minding its own business also means no longer pretending to care about defending French, considering the members opposite want to challenge Bill 96, a law that was democratically passed by the National Assembly of Quebec, which knows better than Ottawa how to counter the decline of French in Quebec, in Canada and even in North America. Quebec is the last francophone bastion in North America; it is the cradle of French culture and the French language. No one knows better than Quebec how to defend the French language and reverse its decline.
The concept of federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions is taught in Quebec schools in grade 10. This means that in Quebec, 14- and 15-year-old students know what falls under federal jurisdiction, what falls under Quebec's jurisdiction, and what falls under municipal jurisdiction. They learn this at school when they are 14 or 15 years old. These young people learn that and take an interest in politics for a little while. They look at what is going on, and then they see that the Parliament in Ottawa is completely out in left field. It is not minding its own business at all. They scratch their heads and wonder why adults who have been elected to Parliament do not even know something they just learned at school at the age of 14.
There is an explanation for that. For some time now, we have been witnessing the exploitation of people's ignorance. The public is being bombarded with insipid, meaningless slogans. Crass disinformation is being propagated left and right—mostly from the right—but we see that it is working. People swallow it without asking too many questions. This is sad and dangerous for democracy.
One of the teachings of Socrates—this is going to make me sound learned—says that a democracy can only work if the people are educated. These are worrying times where politicians are exploiting ignorance rather than contributing to building a better-informed society and citizens capable of critical thinking. As parliamentarians, we have a duty to do the right thing, to respect the institutions, to respect our duty to our constituents. That means respecting the powers of each level of government and the fact that each level of government must do its job properly.
1404 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I especially thank him for putting something into each sentence of his speech that would provoke questions or reactions from me and other members from the Bloc Québécois. I would need 15 minutes to ask all my questions and challenge my colleague on some of his claims, but I will try to be more constructive.
First, I would tell him that 82% of Quebeckers who were polled in March want the federal, provincial and municipal jurisdictions to be respected. Whether it is about health care or anything else, 82% say that everybody should mind their own business. That is clear.
I particularly liked the example my colleague gave about the success of centralization when he mentioned the CRTC. This example is of particular interest to me because, first of all, I worked closely with the government to improve the Broadcasting Act with Bill C-11, and because I am a strong supporter of culture, language and all that.
However, I was taken aback to hear the CRTC characterized as a centralization success story. Without the intervention of the Bloc Québécois, almost no protections for francophone culture and Quebec broadcasters would have been included in Bill C‑11, which the CRTC is currently looking at.
I would like my colleague to tell us what he thinks of the idea that the Bloc Québécois has been promoting for years: to create what would essentially be a Quebec version of the CRTC to manage more to benefit—
268 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 5:08:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yet again we see the government seize an opportunity to block debate on an important bill. We could have analyzed the government's intention to once again interfere, through this bill, in areas of jurisdiction that belong to the provinces and Quebec. However, by blocking debate and cutting our time short with a closure motion, the government is stopping us from having these very important conversations.
It is one more opportunity for the government to encroach on health care, which is Quebec's jurisdiction. Quebec is perfectly ready and able to take responsibility for its own social, health care support and insurance programs.
I would like the minister to reassure us. I know this is a topic that the Bloc Québécois comes back to a lot, but interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction is a concern for many Quebeckers. Although the debate will be cut short, will the minister still listen to Quebec's demands? Quebec demands the right to opt out with full compensation from programs like the one we are discussing today, namely pharmacare, and any others that constitute federal interference in the jurisdictions of the Government of Quebec.
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:44:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will need to have someone explain to me why they put that in the budget. I do not really understand.
In any case, one thing is certain, we are witnessing a clash of values here. While the Minister of Justice intends to use Quebeckers' money to fund the challenge to Quebec's state secularism law, the Liberals are thinking of incorporating more religion into Canadian law.
Again, Tarek Fatah, founder of the Muslim Canadian Congress said that Islamic mortgages are another financial front of the Islamist movement. Those are serious words.
Will the government admit that it is not defending secularism, but rather putting more and more religion into the affairs of state?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:43:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Quebec lieutenant taught us a lesson: Canada is a secular country. We are also partial to secularism. We are Quebeckers. They are trying to pick a fight. It is the same old story.
If the Liberals are so in favour of secularism, then why do they want to change the date of the election to accommodate a religious holiday and why do they want to introduce elements of sharia law into the mortgage rules of this so-called secular country?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 2:40:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there are 32 members from Quebec who support the will of Quebec's National Assembly. By supporting the challenge to Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State, Ottawa is really challenging our model for living in harmony.
Quebeckers want the separation of church and state. We have moved on. I am sure this is not easy to understand for members who fight to ensure that the House begins with a prayer every day. However, Quebeckers have chosen secularism. Religion is private and the state is public.
I would like a straight answer from the minister. Why is his government opposed to secularism?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:39:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, respecting the charter is a good thing. Respecting court decisions would also be a good thing.
Despite what the Liberals say, there is nothing wrong with Bill 21. It is constitutional and absolutely legitimate. It is one of the pillars supporting the kind of peaceful co-existence that Quebeckers want. Five years on, we see, as the courts see, that everything is fine and that the Liberals' fears were unfounded.
Will the government respect the Court of Appeal's decision and promise to hold off from directly or indirectly challenging Bill 21?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:38:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Quebec Court of Appeal has clearly ruled that Bill 21 is constitutional and does not pose a problem. It recognizes the right of Quebeckers to adopt rules to ensure the secular nature of the Quebec state. The matter is closed, unless Ottawa and a few opponents decide to continue challenging it.
What will the Liberal government choose? Will it respect the will of Quebeckers and the Court of Appeal ruling, or will it pick a fight with Quebec again?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 5:17:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I commend the member for Sherbrooke for her speech. I know that she is concerned about social issues and that this is a cause that she cares a lot about.
As the minister pointed out earlier, Quebec has served as a wonderful example when it comes to child care and the day care network. This is something that Quebeckers truly value. There is one woman who was really at the heart of this movement, which spread from Quebec to the rest of Canada. I am talking about Pauline Marois, who was the Quebec education minister at the time and who later became Quebec's first woman premier.
In my colleague's opinion, what impact has this great Quebec woman had on the outcome that we are seeing here today, in other words the fact that the rest of Canada is following the example of what was done in Quebec when it comes to early childhood centres?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/23 12:36:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we could engage in long debates with our colleague from Calgary Shepard over whether the Senate is necessary or whether senators should be elected. We could have a great discussion on that.
However, the Senate exists. It is there and it has to do its work of considering bills from the House of Commons. I felt the same frustration as my colleague when Bill C‑11 was before the Senate. At the time, Conservative senators were the ones slowing down the process. Nevertheless, we let the Senate get on with its business.
Here is what happened: Conservative senators literally bullied women senators, including a Quebec senator who is a Paralympic athlete, the pride of Quebec and a wheelchair athlete admired by all Quebeckers. Until recently, tweets by the House leader of the official opposition were still being posted from the lobby showing two photos of these senators, including the one who was forced out of her home for security reasons.
Does my colleague think that this is the best way to get the Senate to work faster?
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/29/23 2:08:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, one of the biggest cliffhangers in Quebec showbiz has finally been resolved. We now know who will take over from Gino Chouinard as host of TV's Salut Bonjour next year. I was very happy to hear that the new host is Ève‑Marie Lortie.
I am pleased because, at last, a woman will be hosting a Quebec morning show, which still does not happen often enough for my taste. There are plenty of other great people who might have been offered those big shoes to fill, but no one could be as kind, caring, generous, talented and down-to-earth as Ève‑Marie.
I had the privilege of rubbing shoulders with her from time to time in another life. I even cooked with her when she appeared as my guest on Qu'est-ce qui mijote?, the cooking show I used to host. I had so much fun each time we met, and that is how everyone feels when they are lucky enough to cross paths with her.
Ève‑Marie Lortie was the natural choice to helm Salut Bonjour. Once again, Quebeckers will have a warm and friendly presence to help them start their day, a bit like having a friend over for coffee. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to congratulate Ève‑Marie. I never thought I would be looking forward to Gino's retirement.
248 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 1:15:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech. I also commend the NDP for moving this motion. I think it is very courageous and timely, because the issue is extremely important. What is at stake is democracy and the confidence that Quebeckers and Canadians have in democracy and the functioning of their Parliament.
There are several items in this motion, but the most important item for me is the one calling on the Right Hon. David Johnston to step aside and calling on the government to urgently establish a public inquiry. That is what the opposition parties are asking for. I cannot speak for the Conservatives, but the Bloc Québécois will most certainly support this NDP motion.
This is a very important motion to which the NDP is also attaching great importance. Will the NDP tell the government that this motion is the condition for its continued support for this government? Is it important enough for the NDP to stick its neck out and tell the government that enough is enough, that its confidence in the government, in their deal and in their alliance will be decided by the vote on this motion?
203 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/23 10:41:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate the NDP on the strong stance it has taken today. As my colleague said, the NDP did indeed move a motion calling for an independent public inquiry, but the Bloc started asking questions about this issue three weeks ago. Still, I am happy to see that the New Democrats are on board with the opposition consensus in favour of launching this independent public inquiry at last.
What is happening right now is extremely serious. It undermines public confidence in democracy, and that has major consequences. I really feel for my colleague, who was herself a target of Chinese interference. Of course the Bloc will support this motion.
I do have one question though. Given the significance of the situation, which is literally scandalous, will the NDP bite its tongue yet again to keep the Liberal government in power, even as it grows less and less deserving of Quebeckers' and Canadians confidence? Will the NDP help ensure that the government faces a vote of confidence so the House can decide on its future? I think this is really important and really serious, and I would like to know my colleague's thoughts on that.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/23 2:15:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, certain artists, certain songs take us back in time, maybe even to our youth. There are even some that bring us back to a specific era, perhaps to an important milestone, for example.
I do not need to sing the following lines; it is enough to recite the following:
Quebec's future will be sound,
if it does let itself get pushed around.
We all know how it goes and immediately want to sing, “Quebeckers, we are Quebeckers”.
This takes me back to the 1970s, to the excitement of René Lévesque's first term in office and the Parti Québécois.
That was François Guy.
Although François Guy embodied a past era of Quebec song, he also embodied its future. François Guy was about the Société pour l'avancement de la chanson d'expression française, or SACEF. He was about mentorship and “Ma première Place des Arts” awards. He was about love for the French language and the desire to see a new generation of artists sing in French.
François Guy passed away on Friday. To his family, to his wife, Isabelle Lajeunesse, to all his loved ones and all Quebeckers, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I extend our deepest condolences.
Thank you for the memories, but, more importantly, thank you for mentoring the François Guys of the future.
253 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/30/23 12:26:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have never agreed with that position. When this idea of trampling on Quebeckers' and Canadians' freedom of expression and fundamental rights was first brought up, we did our job. To borrow a popular catchphrase, I did my own research.
We checked and made sure that the wording of the bill would not endanger consumers' freedom of expression or rights.
That is disinformation, and it was probably very lucrative. I think that our Conservative friends have made money off this shameful campaign of disinformation.
The damage has been done, as we know. Artists and the cultural community are the ones paying the price.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
