- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
- Apr/18/24 4:58:10 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from York-Simcoe belongs to a party that has been saying for weeks that the Liberal government is corrupt, that it is mismanaging the public purse and that it is managing everything all wrong.
Yesterday, in an interview with Le Téléjournal on housing, the member's own leader said that he wants to use federal public funds to give money for housing to Trois‑Rivières and Victoriaville, where his party hopes to win seats. Meanwhile, he plans to penalize Montreal, where he will likely not win any.
Does my colleague think it is right that his leader is already starting to buy votes with public funds, even before taking office? Does he not think that his leader should wait until he is in power before he starts using public money for partisan purposes?
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was saying that we have reached a crossroads with this bill. All of the parties worked on it. It is a bit of a sliding scale. As we know, our interests diverge. Today, however, we have a good bill. This is obviously a first step, but everything starts with a first step.
I would like to take this opportunity to do what I did during my previous speeches on Bill C‑290. Once again, I call on all the parties to work together, because absolutely nothing could be less partisan than protecting whistle-blowers, transparency and integrity. Absolutely nothing should be less partisan than that.
I would add that today, we finally have a serious opportunity to send a message of hope to all federal public servants watching us today. They contact us, and we know that they are watching us. We want to tell them that their integrity and safety matter. I am speaking to them directly. Their safety, integrity, career, life and family matter. That is the profound message conveyed by this bill.
Now, there are some people I would like to thank directly. I would like to thank whistle-blower Julie Dion and whistle-blower Luc Sabourin, both former public servants at the Canada Border Services Agency. They are courageous people with a sense of public service right down to their core. They paid dearly in order to stand up for transparency. I would like to thank whistle-blower Joanna Gualtieri, a former public servant—
253 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what kind of a world is this when we state the facts and get accused of being partisan?
What would make life better for Quebeckers is if the government respected the Quebec National Assembly and respected the unanimous motions from the Quebec National Assembly.
The 125 elected members in Quebec City are standing up for policies in Quebec's own jurisdictions. It is not partisan when every party stands up. They are calling for the right to opt out of the dental care plan with full financial compensation. They are calling for health transfers.
The NDP supported agreements under which the provinces got only one out of six dollars they had asked for, and yet it boasts about wanting to take care of people.
Tell me who is partisan here.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are 338 members in the House. We were elected by people who went to the polls and asked us to work for them in a constructive manner to develop better public policies, better transfer programs, to improve their quality of life and the quality of services. I am utterly convinced that despite our different views on a number of things, the 338 people seated here today are here for the right reasons. That is why we need to work together.
When we develop public policies like the ones in Bill C‑31, we have to work hard in a non-partisan way to deliver better programs, especially with an ambitious bill like this. This forces us to collaborate, reflect, draft several versions of the bill, amend it, consult people, experts, the communities and respect the voice of those who elected us. That too is part of our job.
That is the part of our job we were prevented from doing with the botched process surrounding Bill C‑31, which was disrespectful of parliamentarians. This bill was concocted at the last minute in the middle of the summer because the leader of the NDP went on the news and said that their agreement might be off. Now we find ourselves stuck with Bill C‑31. Truly, this bill seems like it was drafted on a napkin. When something is cobbled together at the last minute, the parliamentary process becomes even more important. The role of members of Parliament and the opposition parties, the experience and the expertise on both sides of the House become even more crucial in improving this bill, which is obviously more likely to be flawed than bills that have been introduced once, twice or three times in the House and that have already been examined in parliament.
How can we contribute to this work? Through hours of debate in the House and the work we do in committee. That takes time, planning and preparation. We can speed things up a little, but it takes energy, time and witnesses from society at large. We cannot do our work in a vacuum. We cannot do that. The people who elect us deserve better. We need numbers, like the ones we get from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. It takes time to introduce amendments, to consider those amendments, to study and debate them. Sometimes, amendments enable us to ensure nobody is excluded by these policies. That is definitely true of Bill C‑31.
Then we come back to the House at report stage and third reading. The hours we spend debating bills to improve them are important. Anyone who truly believes in the parliamentary system and in our institutions sees the value in that.
I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North over there. He knows this better than most because he spends 23 hours a day debating in the House.
After doing that work, then at least we can be confident that the work was done. Obviously we are not all going to vote the same way. Most of the time, we are not going to agree, but we will all have the sense that we did what we were supposed to and that we are voting on work that is as complete as it should be.
In this case, we did not skip one step, we did not skip two steps, we did not skip three steps. We skipped every step of the legislative process. Parliamentarians were fully prevented from doing their job. We were subjugated by the executive branch of government. In effect, parliamentarians were muzzled, both in committee and here in the House. It felt like we were being told that we had nothing to say, that we were not being constructive, when the government imposed not just closure, but super closure.
After muzzling the House, the government told us we had nothing more to say. Apparently we did have things to say, things that could have improved this bill. Members on this side of the House are just as competent as members across the way. We were told that the committee would sit on a Monday evening from 7 p.m. until midnight. If the work was not done at midnight, if there was a fire alarm or some such interruption, the amendments would no longer be negotiated and would no longer be discussed. Our work would go in the garbage, and the bill would be adopted as-is at report stage.
We were prevented from hearing from some witnesses. Oddly enough, we had originally agreed to have four hours of testimony. We had an in camera meeting two days later, and the witnesses were gone. We had only an hour and a half with two ministers at the same time. I must say, the ministers were ill prepared and visibly uncomfortable with the bill. The Minister of Health is an excellent economist of international renown. I could see in his eyes how uncomfortable he was with certain parts of the bill. It was palpable.
Thus, it was decided that witnesses would no longer appear and, in the end, we wound up with a bill that was not amended by the committee. What is worse, we were prevented from presenting amendments after the ministers appeared, even though we had already been prevented from hearing from witnesses. The whole amendment process was therefore short-circuited. We know that sometimes amendments are not adopted. We know that the government and the NDP, which joined forces—that is not an accusation; it is a fact—might not have adopted the amendments, but those amendments still deserved to be discussed.
This bill is therefore going to be rammed through today without any parliamentary scrutiny. As a relatively new parliamentarian, I am very disappointed by that. This is not just a closure motion. It is a super closure motion.
I see members of the Standing Committee on Health here in the House. We are in the habit of working together, talking to each other and understanding each other. We do not agree on everything, but we are able to compromise. We know that we are capable of doing that. However, the government prevented us from doing so. I felt the discomfort on both sides of the House. I felt it from the Bloc Québécois and from the Conservatives. I also felt it from government members on Monday evening in committee because they were not being allowed to do their job.
Who pays for that? We know that voter turnout is dropping. People are becoming increasingly cynical about politics. People are less and less interested in it, and now we are showing those people that this is what the democratic process is like, that MPs serve no purpose, that there is no regard for their work. Then we wonder why the public has lost confidence in our institutions.
Who will pay because people were left out of Bill C‑31? It will be the progressive parents and children in Quebec who decided to pay for certain services for those 10 and under, services that are also paid for by the federal program but that we will not be compensated for. Progressive parents in Quebec are therefore being penalized, and future generations are being jeopardized.
The Liberals and the NDP say that dental care is health care, and rightly so. It is part of overall health, but we are talking about the future of universal public health care. Essentially, the provinces are being told that if they develop these services and eventually integrate them into their health care system, the federal government will penalize them.
Who will pay for that? It will be the 86,000 people who do not qualify for the housing benefit because they live in low-rent housing or co-operatives, which are progressive housing construction models adopted by Quebec. With a small, two-line amendment, we could have included these people in the federal program, but the government refused. My colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert and I wrote again to the two ministers concerned, the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion and the Minister of Health. Since they love the Queen and the King, we implored them to use their royal prerogative to include those people. We received an acknowledgement of receipt, but that is about all.
Despite all the good intentions, how can we encourage strategic assistance for housing with a bill based on such a principle? How can we encourage the provinces to create permanent programs for housing construction when the federal government establishes programs that will penalize them for it later?
The government is basically saying that since some provinces have made an effort, it will take Canadian taxpayers' money and send it to the provinces that have not made that effort. That is the issue. Clearly, this is a flawed and unacceptable process.
The Bloc Québécois would have liked to do more to improve this bill, but as it stands, we will not be able to support it at second and third reading.
1532 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:25:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North knows how much I appreciate him, and I know he feels the same way.
I can understand why he was confused about the Bloc Québécois's support for the emergency measures. We supported the idea of taking the appropriate measures at the right time and in accordance with provincial and federal jurisdictions. For more than three weeks, we were suggesting solutions and asking questions in the House. The members on the other side of the House did not seem to hear us, however. That explains why my colleague is confused.
As I was listening to his speech, I was trying to think of a suggestion, a step forward, some small way to get this committee off on a less partisan foot. I struggled to think of anything, though, so I figured that I would give my colleague an opportunity to tell us what the government could do to get this committee off on the right foot.
167 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 7:13:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, earlier I was sure I was lost. I walked into the House and then turned around and left because I was sure I had walked into a day care centre. I did come back eventually, though.
We in the Bloc Québécois do not care who the chair is. The important thing is that the work begins, but especially that there is a consensus on the formation of the committee. That is the most important thing. Getting the committee off the ground may be the only part of the Emergencies Act that will be used properly. In terms of inspiring confidence in Quebeckers and Canadians, we are off to a very poor start.
We need to have the least partisan committee possible. Nothing I am hearing from either the Conservative side or the Liberal side is inspiring confidence at this point.
146 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/2/22 4:50:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if this was not such a serious issue, I would almost be amused by the childishness of the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Personally, I find it doubly important that the membership of the committee be unanimous, because we need this committee to be as legitimate as possible given the context.
Another reason why I think that is important is that a precedent has already been set in this case. The Liberals, along with their Siamese twins the NDP, imposed the emergency measures in a seemingly partisan context, and I would find it extremely frustrating if the membership of this committee was shoved down the House's throat with a gag order.
114 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when we suggested some improvements to the short Bill C‑12, I heard some Liberal Party members talk about how making improvements is partisan. That explains a lot. I am starting to understand them more.
I can be slow to catch on, so I would appreciate it if my colleague could explain why, after seniors have endured 21 months of reduced benefits, it is partisan to ask for the payment to be adjusted as of March.
80 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
