- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Joliette
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $132,165.46
- Government Page
- May/23/24 4:56:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, it was not about the substance of what was said, but it was really about the heckling. I am sitting next to the member for Mirabel, and I could not hear him respond.
My question is this. In the last budget, the government told Quebec that it has until January 1 to sign an agreement or it will negotiate with the cities on housing. That is illegal in Quebec. The Conservative housing plan does the same thing. It is forcing cities to increase construction by 15% or else it will cut its support in other areas. That is illegal in Quebec. We saw this during the Harper years. The federal government has continued to grow its tentacles and its size.
Basically, in Ottawa, between the Liberals and the Conservatives, is it not six of one and half a dozen of the other?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:10:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was not aware of this proposed amendment, so I am not in a position to fully criticize or justify the proposed amendment that was just raised.
I would say that, in general, these elements are included in the spirit of our motion. As far as the dental care and pharmacare programs are concerned, the Bloc Québécois's position is that jurisdictions must be respected. Why did Ottawa not give Quebec the right to opt out with full compensation so that it could take care of the programs?
I would remind the House that the dental care program will be administered by Sun Life, a multinational insurance company that charges $2 billion in administration fees. In Quebec, the existing program for children is administered by the public sector.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 4:06:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is the centralizing, Ottawa-knows-best attitude of telling the provinces what to do and how to act. First, Ottawa cuts health transfers and underfunds health care. Then it tells the provinces that they are mismanaging their affairs because health care is underfunded due to the fiscal imbalance, so it creates its own parallel programs.
When Quebec's health transfers were cut, the province managed to create a partial pharmacare program for the less fortunate who were not covered. It is really limited, but with limited resources, it has had an exceptional impact not seen anywhere else in Canada. Now Ottawa has decided to create its own program. It did not sit down with Quebec to recognize that the province has its own program under its jurisdiction and tell Quebec that it will respect that and help improve its program. It did not ask what it could do to improve it. It did not ask if it could transfer the money to Quebec.
No, it did none of that. It just worked in isolation. The government is encroaching on provincial jurisdictions, it is developing a new program that overlaps with the existing one, and there is no harmonization. That is how Ottawa works. The king does not listen to his subjects. It is appalling.
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/24 10:29:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his speech. I want him to know that I was deeply moved and shocked by the story of what he experienced when he was younger. It reminds us of the importance of fighting against all forms of violence, all forms of sexual violence, especially against children. I was very moved and I hope that this type of trauma will never happen to anyone ever again.
Now, with respect to the bill, I commend the minister's openness to collaborating with Quebec and the provinces. He is saying all the right things. In reality, however, based on the way the bill is drafted, it is paternalistic Ottawa that is dictating what its priorities are and disregarding the model that Quebec has in place for pharmacare, which is meeting the most urgent needs. There is no coordination. There was no advance planning. We saw the same thing with dental insurance. Ottawa is giving $2 billion to Sun Life for management fees alone, while we have a public system in Quebec. The minister could have sat down and discussed how to coordinate this. He also talked about the importance of keeping the public health care system, yet he chronically underfunds the health care systems by covering 20% of the cost, when it should be 35%.
Why is there such a huge gap between the benevolent rhetoric and the actions that undermine the system in Quebec and the provinces?
244 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/24 2:44:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a unanimous motion by the National Assembly of Quebec is historic. Canada's Liberals have been denounced by their Liberal allies in Quebec. The NDP has been denounced by Québec solidaire. The Conservatives have not been denounced by their ally Éric Duhaime because he has no members. Quebeckers do not vote Conservative. However, the Conservatives were also unanimously condemned by the National Assembly of Quebec.
All elected members in Quebec City see that all federalist members in Ottawa are working to undermine Quebeckers' ability to make their own societal choices.
Does the government realize the precedent it has set?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 2:58:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal budget does not just mark the end of respect for jurisdictions. It also marks the end of competent policy management.
Ottawa is imposing its priorities everywhere, without even knowing whether that is a good idea. It is calling for the construction of 40-storey apartment buildings next to schools in neighbourhoods where it has never set foot. It is meddling in the training of construction workers without knowing anything about that. It is imposing long-term care standards for seniors that it has never taken care of.
Why not let the competent people handle the files that fall under their jurisdiction?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/18/24 12:13:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for sharing his outlook with us. I agree with him completely.
Before I talk about housing, I will speak to infrastructure. The municipalities are asking us whether Ottawa is finally going to renew the gas tax and Quebec's contribution program, or TECQ, and distribute the funds, with no strings attached, on a per capita basis. When the dollars get out the door, municipalities can get projects done quickly.
In the recent budget, Ottawa is proposing infrastructure programs that require agreements because interference is at issue. It takes one, two, three or four years to reach an agreement, and years more before the funds are disbursed. The needs are there, but the money is not.
It is the same thing when it comes to housing. With regard to the rapid housing initiative, or RHI, Ottawa let Quebec choose which housing it wants to fund. The money was allocated quickly. In all of the other programs, it takes years for Quebec to get a single penny, for a single shovel of dirt to be turned. The government is passing the buck. Money that we voted on, money paid by Quebec taxpayers is being held up here in Ottawa for ideological and bureaucratic reasons.
It is the same thing for indigenous people. Once again, the money is there in the budget, but at the end of every fiscal year, the money has not been spent. That is again because of bureaucratic management. Needs are growing and the money was approved, but it is not being spent. That needs to change. We need to tell Ottawa to cut the red tape and to stop creating obstacles by dictating conditions. Local governments are the ones that know what is good and where the needs are. The federal government needs to transfer the money and get out of the way.
315 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, from my perspective and that of my party, the substance of Bill C-62 is to ensure that we never discuss this again. By choosing to extend the exclusion by three years, there could well be a Conservative government─possibly a majority government─in power. I would be amazed if that government chose to follow up and move in the same direction.
Let me remind my hon. colleague that Canada is a federation that includes several nations. The Quebec nation has a unanimous position on advance requests but cannot implement it because the federal government refuses to amend the Criminal Code.
We understand that the rest of Canada may have other debates. That is the idea of a federation, to bridge different cultures and perspectives. There is unanimity in Quebec. We are not asking for a unilateral approach or for the Quebec model to apply from coast to coast, but for Ottawa to stop blocking what Quebec has unanimously decided.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about his leader's bill, Bill C‑356. With that bill, Ottawa would require all municipalities with high housing costs—the list is getting longer and longer—to increase housing starts by 15% over the previous year.
If a municipality's housing starts do not increase as required by Ottawa, the Conservative leader is proposing to cut its gas tax transfer and public transit transfer by 1% for every percentage shortfall from the target he has unilaterally set. For example, in Quebec, housing starts are down 60% this year, mainly due to interest rates, rather than up 15%. That is a difference of 75%, so transfers would be reduced by 75% for cities and towns in Quebec.
In the economic statement, the Minister of Finance said that she wants to do something similar. Could my colleague comment on that?
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 7:42:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one element of my hon. colleague's speech caught my attention and that is the issue of jurisdiction.
We know that one compromise of a federation is equally sovereign levels of government, each with its own areas of jurisdiction. However, what we have seen in recent years, with increasing frequency, is Ottawa interfering in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction. Social services and child care are not Ottawa's responsibility, but that of the provinces. By taking half the taxes, Ottawa takes those resources and then chooses to use them to interfere in the provinces' areas of jurisdiction by attacking their sovereignty, which is supposed to be on the same footing as Ottawa's sovereignty.
What does my hon. colleague think?
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 7:44:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, again, I thank my colleague from Mirabel for his comments. Yes, indeed, we have two levels of government.
Because the decisions made here in Ottawa are not consistent with the values held by our distinct society, we have developed a sort of half-state that is more responsive to our needs. Meanwhile, half the taxes we pay come here. Sometimes these funds are spent in useful ways, but sometimes they are used for projects that we do not care about or that actually harm our interests and values.
Because we love Quebeckers and want the best for them, our party is of the opinion that we had better make decisions ourselves in order to be fully accountable. Let us stay good neighbours instead of bad roommates.
I would obviously have a host of examples to give; however, since my time is limited, I will provide examples in a future speech.
153 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his moving speech on what are certainly very important topics.
Obviously, the issue in question is not covered in Bill C‑47 and I am not really familiar with it, even though I think it is of the utmost importance.
The Bloc Québécois wants Ottawa to ensure that health care services, including mental health services, will be fully funded. Ottawa's plan for supporting the health care plans of the provinces is inadequate and unacceptable, despite the extra $2 billion provided through Bill C‑46, which was passed on Wednesday. We are far from a done deal.
Ottawa offers direct services, including in health, for veterans and certain sectors. What is being done seems plainly insufficient. Of course, anything Ottawa does costs two and a half times more than the same service provided by Quebec.
If the federal government were responsible for delivering health care services, a public health care system would be completely out of reach.
173 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 5:14:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the answer is simple: No, because it is not enough. It is six times less than what Quebec and the provinces are asking for to prop up the health care system.
What is Ottawa doing with this agreement? It is stabilizing the proportion of support it provides to the health care system. In 2015, when this government was elected, the federal government was funding 24% of health care spending. With what is being proposed, it will still be 24% in 10 years.
To restore fiscal balance a bit, it needs to be 35%, because it is not enough. The Government of Quebec told us that given the choice between this and nothing, it decided to take this, but it is not enough and it is not going to solve anything.
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if that was the government's goal, it has been achieved. I thank the hon. member for Calgary Shepard for his question in French. I commend him.
At this uncertain time, what we are asking the government to do is to focus on its core duties, such as EI and health care funding. It needs to stop introducing new programs, projects and policies that intrude on areas of provincial jurisdiction.
The government is not even doing well at handling its own affairs, such as issuing passports, controlling the borders and funding health care, yet it wants to get involved in areas that do not concern it. We see it happening again in this budget.
As the Parliamentary Budget Officer said, there is a lot of money going to unspecified programs. He also noted that, over the long term, the concern is how the finances of the provinces will be affected, because Ottawa is not funding health care as it should.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his question and for his kind words. The feeling is mutual. I appreciate my hon. colleague's dedication and desire to do good and work hard and everything he does for democracy in the House.
We are not in the loop, of course, but we do know there was an agreement to create a dental benefit. The problem is, Ottawa does not have the expertise to provide services directly to the people, whereas the provinces do. What officials told us when the most recent budget came out was that they did not know how they were going to set this up, that it was bound to be long and complicated, and that it would not work.
I suspect that, when the government said that to the other opposition party in the context of the agreement, it was told that would not fly and it would have to find another way. The government cannot create a real insurance program, so it opted to send cheques. The NDP said to be quick about it or lose their support, so the government did it quickly and haphazardly without really taking the facts and the technicalities into account. We figured we could make changes in committee, but the government was not interested and swiftly shut things down with a super closure motion. If a bill is bad from the get-go and does not get amended, it is still a bad bill.
250 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/21/22 11:38:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is not true. Crisis management is about hours, maybe days. Not three weeks.
After three weeks of inaction, it was not the emergency measures that brought an end to the siege of Ottawa. It was the police. It was the 1,800 or 1,900 additional police officers that the City of Ottawa had been calling for all along.
The moment the city got those reinforcements, an operation was launched, and less than 48 hours later, the streets of Ottawa were empty. It was the police who ended the siege of Ottawa.
Why did the federal government sit on its hands for three weeks, doing nothing to mobilize and coordinate police officers?
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/21/22 11:37:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the truckers' occupation of Ottawa dragged on because the federal government blocked any possibility of intervention for three weeks.
We know that when the City of Ottawa asked for reinforcements of 1,800 police officers, the federal government did not grant the request. However, we also learned from the commission that the mayor of Ottawa, Jim Watson, repeatedly asked the federal government to appoint a mediator. This request was also refused. For three weeks, there was no police reinforcement, no mediation, no progress.
Why did the federal government block any possibility of intervention for three weeks, while residents were being held hostage?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/20/22 7:11:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I would like to congratulate my colleague for his very interesting speech. We obviously have the same values.
I would like to remind him that the French author Michel Folco wrote a novel about a sad character in a book called Même le mal se fait bien, or even bad things can turn out well.
A question comes to my mind when I hear my colleague's comments and when I look at everything that is being done in Ottawa. It could apply to passports or to any issue. Ottawa wants to meddle in health care without adequately funding the provinces and without respecting constitutional jurisdictions.
Does my colleague agree with me that, in Ottawa, even good intentions can turn out badly?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we on this side of the House have enough faith in our nation that we do not need know-it-all Ottawa and its federal shield to guarantee that medicare remains public. We have faith that we can do it ourselves.
From what I understand, and the member for Winnipeg North did the best job explaining this from the government's perspective, the other parties see the relationship between the federal government and the provincial governments, in this case the Government of Quebec, as a boss-employee relationship. The boss demands accountability from the employee and sets conditions. A mere employee could decide to privatize the entire system but still needs the boss, in this case, paternalistic Ottawa. That is what I am seeing. We said that the NDP's position is centralist, and we have just seen proof once again.
When the member for Winnipeg North was talking, he was speaking on behalf of the government and he said that he was defending his nation, “our nation”. That is all well and good, but what about our own nation, the Quebec nation? Some time ago, the House recognized Quebec as a nation. What does that mean? How is the government walking the talk? How is it following through on its recognition?
In this Canada, is my nation only free to follow the rules and instructions set out by know-it-all Ottawa? That means a one-size-fits-all approach from coast to coast to coast, with the same criteria and the same methods. However, our nation is different and has its own special characteristics. Nevertheless, we were told no, that we have to fit into the mould. That is what we saw and what we are seeing more and more.
The government member pointed out that the separatists are the ones who want this. I would like to remind him that, yes, we are separatists, but then so is the rest of Quebec, because there is a consensus on this issue. Indeed, in the federation and federalism, there are powers and jurisdictions, and they must be respected. The various Liberal governments who have sat in Quebec City have asked for the same thing: Jean Charest, his minister Benoît Pelletier, Liberal finance minister Yves Séguin, as well as Coalition Avenir Québec, and of course, the Parti Québécois. Quebec's health care sector is no different. There is a unanimous consensus, and everyone knows it.
As my excellent colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel said when he introduced Bill C‑237, health care funding was originally split 50-50. In the 1990s, the government started cutting, and ever since then, health care systems everywhere have been ailing. This is a serious problem.
Ottawa is not contributing its fair share, and now that things are not going well, Ottawa is telling the provinces and Quebec that they should be doing things a certain way. Fundamentally, the problem is that Ottawa is not respecting provincial jurisdictions and is contributing less than it can to the system.
I thank my colleague for introducing Bill C‑237 in the House so that we can debate it. Can Quebec exist in Confederation, have a chance to do things its way, and have its freedom? The question is, is this a federation made up of several nations and will the Quebec nation be able to do things its way without Ottawa constantly bossing it around? That is really all this is about, and I thank my colleague for getting us to this point.
I think we need even more freedom than what is being asked for here, but this would be significant progress. I can see my colleague, the dean of the House, nodding in agreement.
What did the government say when we proposed that Quebec have a little more autonomy? It talked about standards for long-term care facilities, pharmacare managed by Ottawa, dental care managed by Ottawa. The government said it was Ottawa's responsibility to make sure it all worked. It said—
690 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/22 10:15:33 a.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech and congratulate him.
If we look at the budget and government bills such as Bill C-8, for example, it is clear that they want to centralize everything. It seems as though the government is far more interested in encroaching on someone else's territory than in properly managing its own files.
With Bill C-8, we can see that Ottawa is seeking, for the first time, to take over an area of taxation that is has never been in charge of before—specifically, property taxes—even if it is for noble purpose. However, it seems that the government did not consult municipalities or the provinces.
Like his colleague from Simcoe North, does my colleague believe that the government should have gone to the provinces?
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
