- Member of Parliament
- Liberal
- Lac-Saint-Louis
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $123,581.21
- Government Page
- Jun/1/23 10:39:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague.
First, he spoke about the American approach. It is true that the Americans have not put a price on carbon, except in California. They prefer subsidies. In fact, the Inflation Reduction Act contains $329 billion in subsidies. Would my hon. colleague prefer that we spend more to achieve our goals?
Second, he claims to be a nationalist, but all of Quebec's governments—the CAQ government as well as previous Liberal and PQ governments—have advocated for a price on carbon. Why are the Conservatives diametrically opposed to Quebec's policies?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:35:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first I would like to ask the member what he is afraid of. Why does he seem to be afraid of having an open, democratic debate on the use of the notwithstanding clause down the road in a legislature in public, in front of the media?
I thought I heard him or someone else say earlier that this would not amount to anything, that too much money would be spent going to court only to arrive at the same conclusion.
My second question is, does the member want Quebeckers' rights to be determined by money?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:51:10 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by talking about this big, beautiful country we call Canada, a country blessed with a diverse abundance of riches that make us the envy of the world.
Take hydroelectricity from Quebec, for example. It not only meets our energy needs and heats our homes, but it also supplies energy to our neighbours in Ontario and New York State, in the U.S. We also grow wheat and other crops that help feed our planet. We even produce oil that is used to manufacture medical supplies and that continues to heat our homes during our transition to a cleaner, greener economy. Lastly, our waterways nourish our ecosystems and serve as transportation routes for our resources and our intermediate and finished products headed for markets in North America and overseas.
However, a country's real strength lies in its citizens' values. Here in Canada, Canadians, including Quebeckers, value community spirit and co-operation. They also espouse democratic values. These values translate to, among other things, a profound attachment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution. Whether in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec or Ontario, Canadians across the country are tenacious about asserting their rights and freedoms, regardless of what governments may do from time to time.
Consider, for example, the late Nicole Gladu, who invoked the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution to assert her right to medical assistance in dying. I must point out that it was a Quebec court that granted her that right under the charter. I believe that we should thank and honour Pierre Elliott Trudeau for his decision to devote his political life to patriating the Constitution and adding the charter, which is one of the most modern laws in the world, in that it recognizes community interests.
The charter also includes a notwithstanding clause. It should be noted that this clause cannot be used to violate the rights of official language minorities. I want to stress that point because many people often forget that this notwithstanding clause cannot violate every right, because some are guaranteed by the charter and the Constitution Act, 1982.
Since being elected, and even before that, I have never been in favour of invoking the notwithstanding clause, which, by the way, Parliament can do under the Constitution. People seem to forget that. This clause exists and it has a clear objective, namely to allow the federal government or a provincial government to take the time to consider and adjust to a court decision that would invalidate one of its laws in whole or in part. Its application is time-limited, so it is not a blank cheque nor open season. In fact, the use of this notwithstanding clause has to be renewed every five years.
There are several aspects of this clause that we could view as democratic. For example, it is not quite the final word, because the clause must be re-invoked every five years. It allows a legislature to temporarily derogate from a court decision.
Obviously, this matter is open to debate, but, in my opinion, the notwithstanding clause was intended to allow courts to render judgments and provide opinions based on our legal system's judicial traditions. Moreover, the notwithstanding clause was intended to create a requirement to have an open political debate every five years on the merits of using the notwithstanding clause.
In both of the cases that are before the court right now, namely Bills 96 and 21, the Legault government in Quebec used the clause pre-emptively. This pulled the rug right out from under the court. In fact, the court's hands are tied. It cannot do anything. We know that, in the case of Bill 21, the Superior Court of Quebec discussed some aspects of the bill that impede certain rights. However, it admitted that it could not do anything because of the notwithstanding clause.
What is problematic about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is that not only are the court's hands tied, but we cannot have a full debate on the use of the clause, a debate in a legislative assembly in front of the cameras, a debate whose every detail could followed by our media. I find that extremely problematic, and it adds an anti-democratic element to a provision that is undeniably democratic and perfectly legal.
When governments use this provision pre‑emptively, whether it is New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec or any other province, one question comes to mind: What are those governments afraid of? Are they afraid of their legal experts, their courts or their citizens? Are they afraid that their citizens might watch the debate on a measure that will take away their rights and that they will change their minds about the measure that the government has put in place with its law? Are these governments afraid of both the lawyers and the public?
I will stop there, and I am ready to answer questions.
841 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/25/22 12:03:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as we recover from the pandemic, we must address existing challenges that were made worse for many people in Canada over the past two years.
This week, I was happy to learn that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions announced an agreement with Quebec that will continue to support improved access to home care as well as mental health and addiction services.
Can the minister tell us more about this agreement?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 11:16:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member addressed the point I was going to bring up.
In his speech, the Leader of the Opposition accused a member of the House from Quebec of wanting to tax Quebeckers through carbon pricing. He does not seem to realize that, since 2013, Quebec has had its own carbon pricing and that, as a result, the federal carbon pricing does not apply to the province.
Does my colleague not find it strange that the Leader of the Opposition, who wants to get votes in Quebec, is so disconnected from what is happening in the province?
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 3:05:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Minister responsible for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec announced over $40 million for Quebec's tourism industry.
Le Monastère des Augustines in Quebec City will be receiving $100,000 to modernize its facilities, while the Microtel project in Lachute will be getting a $1‑million contribution toward the construction of a 72-room hotel.
Can the minister update the House on these important measures to support Quebec's tourism sector and therefore its economy?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/2/22 7:34:42 p.m.
- Watch
Come on, Madam Speaker.
That is an absurd accusation. I was talking about minority languages, about official language minority communities in Canada. There is a francophone linguistic minority outside of Quebec and an anglophone linguistic minority in Quebec.
What I was saying is that Bill C‑13 is designed to strengthen the French fact across Canada. That is one of the objectives of the bill.
The member seems to have misunderstood, because that is clearly not what I was saying.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, French in North America is under pressure on all sides and especially online, which is why we introduced Bill C‑11.
However, Bill C‑13 gives francophones the right to work in French.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I could never categorically say that it would never happen.
I live in a bilingual, predominantly English-speaking community, and one would think that if anyone could not get service in French, it would be in my area. Honestly, in my personal experience, everyone makes an effort and everyone gets along. I cannot recall an incident where someone complained about not getting service in French. It may not always be perfect French, but my community shows goodwill and people get along and want to continue to get along.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to debate this bill, which is very important for our country and for official language communities across Canada.
Canada's Constitution was tailor-made for a modern federation like ours with a non-homogenous population. Some might even call our federation postmodern. Ours is a federation that brings together different cultural groups, peoples and nations who all live together in mutual respect, who adapt and who work together to build a society founded on the principles that we all adhere to.
I am, of course, talking about the indigenous peoples, the French from New France and the British settlers, who, over the years, were joined by people from other cultures who all worked together to build the new Canadian reality. Our Constitution was designed for the modern world, for a world that is becoming increasingly complex, in which the historic boundaries of cultural groups have become more flexible, and different groups share the same country.
One of the pillars of our constitutional democracy is the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, one of the world's wisest and most progressive bills of rights. Our diverse country calls for moderation and a sense of compromise. The charter contains the distinctive section 1, whereby rights are not considered absolute but rather are tempered where it is reasonable to do so.
Another defining pillar of our democracy, in addition to the constitutional recognition of indigenous rights, is the entrenchment in the Charter of Rights of official language minority rights. It is very important to be clear that, and this is a message that I want to get across to the many who might be watching today who are from minority language communities, language rights in our Constitution are beyond the reach of the notwithstanding clause, a clause that has attracted a great deal of attention and, I would say, begun to be used in a perfunctory manner by different governments.
I am speaking of minority language education rights under section 23 of the charter, as well as the right by virtue of section 133 of the British North America Act to use English or French in the federal courts and in Quebec courts, a right that also extends to Manitoba courts by virtue of section 23 of the Manitoba Act of 1870, and to New Brunswick courts owing to the province's 1993 amendment to the charter. These rights are beyond the reach of the notwithstanding clause. This is important for minority language communities.
The Official Languages Act adds a layer of protection and promotion to these constitutional language guarantees by protecting and promoting the use of official languages in the federal context, namely, in the federal public service and in Crown corporations, such as Canada Post, Air Canada, Via Rail, CN and Nav Canada.
In our constitutional democracy, independent courts adjudicate constitutional rights through the prism of our most fundamental values, and perhaps no program has been more valuable in protecting official language minorities in this country than the federal court challenges program. The program offers funding to those launching legal challenges to protect their rights, including linguistic rights, from laws and policies that threaten those rights.
The court challenges program was recently used by Quebec's English language school boards to protect them from the Legault government's Bill 40. the bill aims to eliminate school boards, which are central community institutions for Quebec's English-speaking minority.
As we know, there was a court decision that said the Quebec government could eliminate school boards, but not English-speaking school boards, because the community has protection under the Constitution regarding minority language rights, and this case continues through the courts. Earlier, the program was vital to protecting Ottawa's Montfort hospital against callous attempts by the Harris government to close this institution, which is so vital to eastern Ontario's francophone population.
As promised, Bill C-13 would strengthen the court challenges program by de facto referencing it in the legislation, namely section 43(1)(c) of the act. I admit the reference could be more explicit and more definitive, and we will see what happens in committee. We will see if someone proposes an amendment to make that clause a little more affirmative. However, like any government program, whether it is in law or not, its effectiveness is ultimately directly related to its budget.
Challenging a bill like Bill 40 through the long process of court appeals can be costly. I have heard it could cost up to $1 million for the English-speaking school boards in Quebec to fight Bill 40 all the way to the Supreme Court. I think this is beyond the capacity of the court challenges program, so I call on the government to increase the program's budget. It would be money well spent in support of the fundamental principles to which we, as Canadians, adhere. Not to mention that the 2021 Liberal election platform includes such a commitment.
I represent a riding in Quebec with a large anglophone population. It is, however, very much a bilingual riding with an English-speaking school board that offers bilingual and French immersion primary and secondary education. The community is rightfully attached to its schools and to the education rights of their children.
The new section 41(4) of the modernized Official Languages Act would help maintain those rights by requiring the government to proactively, through the census, help estimate:
...the number of children whose parents have, under section 23 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the right to have their children receive their instruction in the language of the English or French linguistic minority population of a province or territory, including the right to have them receive that instruction in minority language educational facilities.
I would like to pay homage to my colleague from Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, who worked very hard on having the census be used to estimate the number of people in minority language communities across this country who have rights under the Constitution.
Whether their roots stretch back generations, or they have more recently arrived, Quebec's anglophones are deeply rooted and embedded, by choice, in Quebec society. They are profoundly attached to living in the only place in North America where French is broadly spoken every day, and they wish to remain in Quebec and contribute to its development, but they require employment opportunities to be able to do so.
The representation of anglophones in the federal public service in Quebec is, as I understand it, below the community's share of the population. Bill C-13 will hopefully help eliminate this gap in two ways. Section 41(5) of a modernized Official Languages Act would place a duty on the federal government to take concrete positive measures to enhance the vitality of English-speaking and French-speaking linguistic minority communities in Canada and assisting their development, including, presumably, by ensuring anglophones have their rightful place in the federal administration in Quebec.
Moreover, the role of the Treasury Board would be expanded as a result of Bill C-13. The Treasury Board would have a duty to establish directives and policies to give effect to the requirement to institute positive measures, as well as responsibility for “general direction and coordination” of these positive measures across departments. This is a very important addition to the Official Languages Act.
It is worth noting that in Bill C-32, Bill C-13's predecessor, this obligation was discretionary. In Bill C-13, it is mandatory. Also, Bill C-13 will require the Treasury Board to “monitor and audit federal institutions in respect of which it has responsibility for their compliance” with the aforementioned directives and policies.
As in Bill C-32, the Commissioner of Official Languages' role and enforcement powers have been enhanced, including the power to make compliance agreements. Namely, section 64.1(1) of the new modernized Official Languages Act will, after Bill C-13 is passed, state the following:
If, at any time during the course of or after carrying out an investigation, the Commissioner has reasonable grounds to believe that a federal institution has contravened this Act, the Commissioner may enter into a compliance agreement with that federal institution aimed at ensuring compliance with this Act.
As has been mentioned, the government, in parallel to introducing amendments to the Official Languages Act, has also introduced a new act, the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. This second act reasserts Ottawa's role in regulating businesses operating in federal jurisdictions in Quebec. I know this is something not all parties in this House agree with. If I recall, all opposition parties would relinquish that jurisdiction to the province.
As I see it, this second act will reinforce bilingualism in federally regulated businesses. It will give consumers in Quebec:
...the right to communicate in French with and obtain available services in French from federally regulated private businesses that carry on business in Quebec...
This is already the case, practically speaking.
In any event, Quebec anglophones would not object to this principle. The Quebec anglophone community displays a very high degree of bilingualism. I cannot recall ever seeing a francophone consumer in Quebec being unable to obtain service in their language from an anglophone. As a matter of fact, sometimes what happens is a rather curious kind of dance where an anglophone goes into a store. The person behind the counter asks them in French if they can serve them and the anglophone asking for service is not really sure if the server is an anglophone or a francophone, ending up with two anglophones speaking to each other in French. This happens quite a lot and it is a moment of levity for all concerned.
Moreover, Bill C-13 does not prevent consumers from transacting in English. Section 7(3) states:
For greater certainty, the rights set out in subsection (1) do not preclude consumers from communicating with or obtaining services from the federally regulated private business in English or a language other than French if they wish to do so and the federally regulated private business is able to communicate or provide services in that language.
As regards language of work, section 9(1) states that employees of a federally regulated private business have a right to carry out work and be supervised in French. Again, I do not believe that anglophones in Quebec, at least not in my community, have a problem with this statement in principle. Of course, there will be regulations to determine how this right will be applied, and we will see what the regulations say.
Employees will have a right to use work instruments and computer systems in French. Again, this does not take anything away from those who speak English. Computer software interfaces provide for this flexibility. I trust the regulations will recognize this software flexibility.
This right to workplace bilingualism is reinforced in section 9(3), which reads:
The right set out in paragraph (1)(b) does not preclude communications and documents from being in both official languages...
Therefore, we see that this bill is reinforcing the core values that underlie the Official Languages Act, which of course is bilingualism.
Further, proposed subsection 10(2) states, “In developing the measures referred to in subsection (1)”, that is, measures to foster the use of French in workplaces, “the federally regulated private business must consider the needs of employees who are close to retirement, have many years of service or have conditions that could impede the learning of French.”
I believe this clause may require amendment. It seems to refer to medical conditions that could impede learning French, but there are many reasons why some individuals remain unilingual that have nothing to do with a medical condition. I think that needs to be taken into account.
Further, proposed subsection 11(2) states that a federally regulated private business “must not treat adversely an employee who occupies or is assigned to a position on or before the day on which this subsection comes into force for the sole reason that the employee does not have a sufficient knowledge of French.”
The vast majority of anglophones in Quebec are bilingual and growing more so every day. They should not be negatively impacted by this particular clause. The regulations will be key to ensuring an appropriate flexibility that protects everyone.
Many if not most federally regulated businesses deal with entities outside the province. One thinks of logistics and freight-forwarding companies, of which many are located in my community. This further reinforces the practical value of bilingualism in the federally regulated private sector, which brings me to section 11(3), which states:
Requiring an employee to have a knowledge of a language other than French does not constitute adverse treatment for the purposes of subsection (1) if the federally regulated private business is able to demonstrate that a knowledge of that language is objectively required by reason of the nature of the work to be performed
Federally regulated businesses tend to deal internationally, so there is a role for bilingual individuals in these businesses.
All that said, I feel strongly that no one, anglophone or francophone, should be prevented from working in a federally regulated business because they do not have knowledge of the other language, just as they would not be prevented from working in the federal public service because they only have knowledge of one of the official languages unless the position requires a level of bilingualism. I hope the regulations will respect this fundamental principle of the Official Languages Act.
I would like to see the regulations that will follow under Bill C-13 guarantee in some way this right to work. Perhaps this could be done through amendments to the bill. On a practical level, given today's acute labour shortage, it would be in the best interests of employers and the provincial economy to ensure that the law does not hamstring federally regulated businesses and their ability to recruit and hire qualified personnel.
2364 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 1:59:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his question.
I would like to point out that I was in the House in 2006 or 2007 when we voted on the motion that Quebec is a nation. I voted in favour of that motion because it stated that Quebec is a nation within Canada.
Unfortunately, that is not how the motion moved by the Bloc Québécois was worded. I do not know why, but that wording was not used.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
