- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Joliette
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $132,165.46
- Government Page
- May/28/24 12:54:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague obviously needs to ask him that question directly.
I would say this to my colleague. People decide for themselves whether to believe a politician's promises and commitments. We can see how consistent some of the parliamentarians here are.
43 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:52:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us be clear. I am not giving a speech here to slow down or block the pharmacare program. Personally, I would like every individual and every citizen to have access to the medication that they need. That is very important, and we want that to go forward. That being said, we have serious concerns about the way that is being done, and rightly so. For example, Quebec is not being consulted, and the program is not being aligned with the existing program. The work keeps being done in layers of silos. I am not rising today to delay the passage of the bill, quite the contrary.
We are debating a fundamental issue: the partiality of the Speaker. Can he be trusted to do his job in the House? Even though I get along really well with him, we see that he is unable to be neutral and use good judgment when deciding on his activities. That is serious. Members can use sophistry and say that another Speaker before him was even worse, but that is not the issue. Today, we are looking at the actions of the current Speaker.
192 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:50:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I do not thank my colleague for his remarks, because I find them highly disrespectful.
As we know, the Bloc Québécois is doing well in Quebec. Perhaps that explains why the Liberals are accusing us of colluding with the Conservatives and of leaning to the right, if not the far right. Meanwhile, the Conservatives say we have joined the Liberals in promoting socialism. This is what the House has been reduced to: rhetoric and caricature.
Personally, I am just trying to do my job fairly and properly. The Speaker tried to participate in yet another partisan activity, despite knowing he could not. Today we are debating a motion about the confidence we have in the Speaker and the fact that he must exhibit impartiality and judgment. This matter has moved to the top of the agenda because it is a priority. Last time, we were told that the Speaker would learn from his mistakes and would not repeat them, yet he has in fact repeated them. We need to talk about this.
I could then respond at length to the other questions, but I see that my time is up.
199 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 12:41:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the wonderful and extraordinary member for Beauport—Limoilou. That is how she asked me to introduce her.
As we know, the current Speaker of the House is still engaging in partisan behaviour, this time through his riding association. That led the opposition to raise a question of privilege. The reason why we are having this debate today is that the Speaker's office approved the request because it found cause for the question of privilege.
The question of privilege does not have to do with the fact that the Speaker organized a partisan fundraising dinner in his riding. It has to do with how the event in question was promoted. The Speaker's partisan riding association published direct attacks on the Conservatives on its website to promote this summer evening with the Speaker. The website stated the following:
While [the Leader of the Opposition] and the Conservatives propose reckless policies that would risk our health, safety, and pocketbooks our Liberal team is focused on making life more affordable for Canadians and moving forward with our bold plan to grow an economy that works for everyone, protect our environment, keep our communities safe, and so much more.
Obviously, we completely disagree with the false claims about what the Liberals are doing, but that is not the issue. The advertisement was apparently online for almost a week before the media picked up the story and the invitation to the evening event was taken down.
The Chair recently ruled not on the question of privilege involving an umpteenth incident with the Speaker, but on the lack of a clear procedure for challenging or withdrawing confidence in the Speaker's actions by some means other than a non-confidence motion. The Chair is asking the House to consider this matter.
In response, the opposition is moving the motion being debated here: That the Speaker's ongoing and repetitive partisan conduct outside of the Chamber is a betrayal of the traditions and expectations of his office and a breach of trust required to discharge his duties and responsibilities, all of which this House judges to be a serious contempt and, therefore, declares that the office of Speaker shall be vacated effective immediately before the hour of meeting on the next Monday the House sits following the day that this order is adopted and directs that the election of a Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 2(2), shall be the first order of business at that Monday's sitting of the House.
Obviously, we agree with this motion.
The Speaker's latest partisan activity adds to an already long list. Last December, at the Ontario Liberal leadership convention, the Speaker paid tribute, in a highly partisan manner, to his friend John Fraser, the party's interim leader. Wearing his Speaker's robes, he addressed a speech to him in a video called “A Message from the...Speaker, House of Commons of Canada”. He recorded the video in the Speaker's office here in the House, using House of Commons resources.
In his remarks, the Speaker said:
And boy, did we have fun. We had a lot of fun together, through the Ottawa South Liberal Association, through Liberal Party politics, by helping Dalton McGuinty get elected. This was really a seminal part of my life. And when I think of the opportunities that I have now as being Speaker of the House of Commons, it's because of people like John....
He also used the phrase “our party,” as the Speaker actually admitted in his testimony before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The day before this convention, the Speaker had given an interview to Laura Stone of The Globe and Mail, in which he paid tribute to the outgoing interim leader of the Ontario Liberal Party, John Fraser, in glowing terms, while referencing Mr. Fraser's work within the Liberal Party. This interview was published on The Globe and Mail website that evening and appeared in the paper's print edition the following morning.
Also last December, there was another partisan incident. In Washington on December 5, as part of an official trip he had decided to make of his own accord as Speaker of the House of Commons, just as the House was debating a question of privilege in connection with his actions, the Speaker attended a reception honouring a long-time friend with whom he shared common political affiliations. He had met this friend while running for president of the Young Liberals of Canada. The Speaker gave a public tribute to his friend.
A third partisan incident also occurred in December in the Speaker's riding. The Speaker attended in an event billed as an activist cocktail party bringing together Liberal activists from both the provincial and federal levels. Though the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was already looking into the Speaker's ethical lapses, donations were reportedly collected at the event. Despite this, in his testimony before the committee, the Speaker did not believe it was appropriate or honest to state that he had participated in other partisan events.
Here are two excerpts from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition:
When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.
In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity (for example, by not attending caucus meetings), does not participate in debate and votes only in the event of an equality of voices, normally referred to as the “casting vote” of the Chair.
By all accounts, the Speaker has failed to meet his duty of care with his many partisan activities, and every party, with no exceptions, has acknowledged that to be true. He has been unable to show impartiality, despite the fact that he is a seasoned parliamentarian and that the House of Commons administration provided him with information on the duty of impartiality in writing and orally when he began his new role, as indicated in the committee report entitled “Speaker's Public Participation at an Ontario Liberal Party Event”.
I also want to note that the Speaker exhibited a serious lack of judgment on several occasions, particularly when he recorded a partisan video while dressed in his Speaker robes in the offices he occupies and with the resources of the House that are at his disposal because of the responsibilities assigned to him since his election as Speaker. Furthermore, when he apologized, it was not for having engaged in partisan acts, but for how these acts had been interpreted.
During his testimony before the committee, in response to one of my questions, Eric Janse, the Speaker's top professional procedural adviser, stated that, as Clerk of the House, he would have advised against recording this video had the Speaker asked for his advice. No such request was made, however. Not only did the Speaker not take to heart the information he had received about his duty of impartiality, but he did not see fit to request advice from the appropriate professionals at his disposal in the exercise of his duties. The fact that the Speaker did not ask his top adviser for advice and that he then neglected to mention to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that he had participated in other partisan activities demonstrates once again that the Speaker tends to lack judgment.
As we all know, the Speaker of the House is a very nice person with whom I get along really well. However, that is not the issue. To carry out his duties properly and have the support of his peers, a Speaker must have two indispensable qualities: judgment and impartiality. Unfortunately, with the latest incident, he has once again revealed that he has neither, and that is why we will be supporting the motion we are debating today.
1367 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his very interesting speech. I especially liked the part about the tidal energy industry in the Bay of Fundy, which has the highest tides in the world. As for the bill before us, we supported Bill C‑49 at second reading because we expected a collegial approach, and we thought we would be able to discuss it and improve it in committee. However, the government rejected all of our amendments.
In the hon. member's opinion, is that how this government operates, even with a minority of seats? Is that not the same way it behaves toward its provincial counterparts?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her very interesting speech. She raised some important issues.
I sit with other colleagues on the Standing Committee on Finance. Introducing mammoth bills, budget implementation bills that affect a whole bunch of different acts, seems to be the government's way of doing things at the moment. It is positioning itself above the provinces, above other jurisdictions, above other governments and telling them how things are going to be done.
The latest example is Bill C-69, in which the government legislates on the whole issue of open banking. Institutions under provincial jurisdiction must ask the province for permission to opt in to federal regulation if they want to be able to compete with federally regulated banks. That always seems to be the way. This government does not seem to understand that the compromise of the federation was to create separate governments, each of which is sovereign in its own areas of jurisdiction. In the House, the government always says that it conducted consultations, but when we talk to the governments, we find out that it did not, or that the consultations were too little, too late and always conducted with a paternalistic approach. Ottawa knows best and decides what the naughty little children should do.
Is that acceptable?
217 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 8:48:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting speech.
This bill makes it clear that it does not end oil and gas exploration in Atlantic waters. However, fishers are being asked to do more and more to protect the right whale.
My colleague had started to list some potential solutions that could be put in place. I invite her to continue with that list, for the benefit of all our colleagues.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 8:29:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I had the pleasure of working with him at the Standing Committee on Finance a while ago. My question is on the process during the study of a bill.
The Bloc Québécois voted in good faith in favour of the bill at second reading stage. We hoped to be able to study this bill in committee to improve it so that it would meet our needs. We proposed several amendments to the bill, but the representatives from the party that forms the government systematically rejected every one of them to prevent things from moving forward.
Does my colleague think this is a good approach to take when studying a bill in committee, especially when the government is in a minority situation?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C‑49 has passed the committee stage. We now see that the government has chosen not to implement a real environmental assessment process for future energy projects. These offshore projects ought to undergo robust, effective, transparent environmental impact assessments to ensure that they are part of proper marine spatial planning to identify and prevent adverse cumulative effects and contribute to sustainability.
Does my colleague believe that the government should adopt such a measure? Why was it not done in Bill C‑49?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in Bill C‑59, the government is creating a new department, the department of housing, infrastructure and communities. None of those areas fall under federal jurisdiction. This means the minister can interfere more, impose conditions on the provinces and municipalities, and cause more bickering and delays.
Pierre Elliott Trudeau already tried this in 1971. He created a similar department, and it was a total failure. During the department's existence, there was nothing but bickering until it was shut down in 1979.
Does my colleague agree that when the Liberals do the same thing over and over again, it really seems like a farce?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-59 includes more than $12 billion for carbon capture by western oil companies. It also includes $18 billion to help oil companies buy nuclear power plants, known as small modular reactors, to replace the natural gas used to heat the oil sands with polluted water, so that they can save the gas and export it instead, particularly through the Coastal GasLink pipeline.
Bill C‑59 gives the oil industry about $30 billion. Is that the Liberals' environmental plan?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/24/24 12:44:02 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie): The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
22 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/24/24 12:43:42 p.m.
- Watch
Unfortunately, I have to interrupt the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville. She has more than exceeded her time.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/24/24 12:40:42 p.m.
- Watch
Before recognizing the hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville, I would like to remind the member that he is not to refer to members of the House by their first or last name, but only by their position or the riding they represent.
The hon. member for Thérèse-De Blainville.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 4:08:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what we want is for the government to take responsibility. We want it to spend every dollar it takes from taxpayers effectively.
That is why we are telling it that, instead of interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces—which is the focus of today's motion—it should use its public servants, existing resources, and the taxes it collects to do its own job properly.
Take employment insurance, for example. Is it socialist to want an employment insurance system that works? Right now, only four out of 10 people who lose their jobs can get insurance. No private insurer would have any policies if its insurance was that ineffective. This jurisdiction belongs exclusively to the federal government, but it is doing a very poor job of looking after it. That is what we are saying. We are asking the government to spend every dollar wisely.
Because of the fiscal imbalance, provinces like Quebec are not getting enough money for the public services they have to deliver. Half of every tax dollar is spent on these services, yet half of the public's needs are not being met. What we are asking is that the government look after health, education and social services transfers.
210 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/23/24 3:56:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with its latest budget, the federal government has launched an unprecedented attack against Quebec and the provinces' powers. We saw it coming with the striptease leading up to the budget, when the Prime Minister, worthy successor of his dear old dad, proclaimed that Canadians did not care about jurisdictional matters. Although the federal government has always tried to centralize powers, this time they are doing so without reserve, without restraint and without shame.
Let us take housing, for example. While, on the one hand, the government has finally recognized the crisis and is proposing positive measures, on the other, it is taking advantage of the situation to launch an unprecedented centralist offensive. According to the budget, it is now in charge of everything related to housing, the provinces and municipalities being relegated to the position of executors of federal priorities.
For example, the government is forcing the provinces to sign an agreement by next January. According to the budget, if Quebec rejects the conditions set by know-it-all Ottawa or argues that it has different priorities, the federal government will ignore Quebec or any recalcitrant province and will negotiate directly with the municipalities. This approach is illegal in Quebec. In fact, since a decision rendered by Robert Bourassa's government in 1971, Quebec's municipalities cannot transact directly with Ottawa. The goal is to prevent the federal government from adopting a divide-and-conquer approach, and from diminishing Quebec's negotiating power at the bargaining table.
The federal government is encroaching on municipalities' urban development plans by imposing specific requirements for receiving infrastructure transfers. It is going so far as to establish the height and density of residential neighbourhoods within an 800-metre radius of educational institutions and public transportation routes. If the cities do not authorize the construction of certain types of multiplexes in these sectors, they will not be entitled to federal transfers.
The government is also encroaching on property tax rights by announcing a tax on vacant lots in urban areas. Lastly, it intends to purchase land from the provinces and municipalities and lease it long-term to developers to construct buildings. Since these constructions will be built on federal land, they will automatically be exempt from municipal bylaws and provincial laws. This is a significant risk.
The budget is full of interference in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction that will cause repeated disputes concerning jurisdiction and delay service delivery to Canadians. In addition to housing, the federal government is interfering in health care with the announcement of a bill on Canada-wide standards for long-term care and with its prescription drug and dental insurance plans. The same is true in education.
Ottawa has announced a lot of money for the energy transition. The budget explains how it will be distributed. The private sector and western Canada will receive generous subsidies and credits for carbon capture and nuclear energy development. In terms of compensation, Ottawa is offering a 15% tax credit to publicly owned corporations like Hydro-Québec for developing green projects. However, the federal government is going even further by interfering in how provincial publicly owned corporations are run. For example, it is imposing conditions on Hydro-Québec's rates. The publicly owned corporation can have the 15% tax credit for investments in its projects only if it complies with the federal government's conditions. Ottawa is forcing Hydro-Québec to use it to reduce electricity bills and publicly report how the tax credit has improved ratepayers' bills.
The budget is a demonstration of the effects of the fiscal imbalance. Jurisdictions no longer exist in the eyes of the federal government. With this budget, the Prime Minister is declaring himself the Prime Minister of Canada, the premier of every province and the mayor of every town. Since the Liberals are busy messing around in Quebec's jurisdictions like sorcerers' apprentices, we are entitled to ask who is taking care of federal responsibilities like managing the borders or employment insurance, which is badly in need of a long-awaited reform. This budget was made on the backs of Quebeckers. It is a clear demonstration of the damage that can be caused by the combination of the fiscal imbalance and the federal government's spending power by reducing Quebeckers' ability to manage their own society themselves.
The Bloc Québécois presented its requests to the government. It asked that the government provide support for seniors, give Quebec the right to opt out when it comes to federal interference, address the housing crisis, pay Quebec back for the money it spent helping asylum seekers and put an end to its oil worship. The budget does not address any of those things. There is also not one word about the aerospace policy that the government promised. Quebec's $11-billion deficit caused quite a stir, but people seem fine with Ottawa's $40-billion deficit.
Ottawa's continued interference is resulting in an unprecedented centralization of power that robs Quebeckers of the ability to evolve in accordance with their needs, strengths, characteristics and desires. Centralization is a trend dating back to the dawn of Confederation, but we must not forget that, in 1867, our nation agreed to be part of Canada on the condition that the federal model recognized two equal levels of government sovereign in their respective jurisdictions.
Ottawa's conditional transfers and interference are eroding Quebec's autonomy. Quebec is supposed to be completely sovereign in areas under its exclusive jurisdiction. Quebeckers agreed to the Constitution of 1867 on that condition, but it is this very principle that is being challenged by the almighty spending power. Every time Ottawa sets up a program or spends money in an area that Quebec is supposed to be in charge of, Canada decides how Quebec society will be organized. Every time Ottawa sets conditions before transferring funds to Quebec, it forces the Government of Quebec to act on Canadians' priorities rather than Quebeckers' priorities. As the Séguin report on the fiscal imbalance noted, these transfers or expenditures always “limit the decision-making and budgetary autonomy of the provinces in their fields of jurisdiction”.
More and more, as a result of the fiscal imbalance and its offshoot, spending power, the Quebec government is being relegated to the ranks of a federal government subcontractor. That is true in almost every sector. Again I quote the Séguin report:
Given the amounts in question, federal intervention through the “federal spending power” has a considerable impact on provincial policy in the provinces' fields of jurisdiction because the use of the “federal spending power” affects practically every one of the provinces' fields of jurisdiction.
What about the Quebec nation in all this? The House of Commons recognizes that the Quebec nation exists. That is good. However, recognizing a nation is more than just a symbolic gesture. Nations, like people, have fundamental rights, the most important being the right to control the social, economic and cultural development of their own society, in other words, the right to self-determination. Two former premiers of Quebec, a federalist and a sovereignist, Robert Bourassa and René Lévesque, agreed on this issue.
In 1980, René Lévesque said:
Having all the attributes of a distinct national community, Quebec has an inalienable right to self-determination. It is the most fundamental right the people of Quebec possess.
In 1990, when he gave a speech in the Quebec National Assembly following the failure of the Meech Lake accord, Robert Bourassa said:
English Canada must clearly understand that no matter what anyone says or does, Quebec is and always will be a distinct and free society capable of taking charge of its own destiny and its own development.
The federal government cannot recognize the Quebec nation and its right to make choices that are different from Canada's and then turn around and deny that nation the ability to assert that right by maintaining the federal spending power. Denying Quebec the power to spend undermines its very existence as a nation. Instead of Quebeckers being masters in their own house, the federal government is acting like it is the master everywhere.
We will have a choice. We can let the federal government and the neighbouring nation dictate their priorities from the top down and decide our societal choices for us with our own money, or we can choose to fully assume our sovereignty. In the meantime, I urge the members of the House to vote in favour of this motion:
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.
1523 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:37:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I refer the parliamentary secretary to Confederation in 1867. The historical compromise was to have assemblies that were equally sovereign in their respective areas of jurisdiction. However, listening to the parliamentary secretary's speech, what we see is nothing but interference. All he is doing is justifying the interference, and he is breaking this agreement of a federation made up of equally sovereign assemblies.
In the end, does he want to have a legislative union, a centralized government with an Ottawa-knows-best attitude that dictates to the provinces, who are mere administrators?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
