- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,073.56
- Government Page
- May/23/24 4:55:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to highlight one thing. There may be heated debates, and that is perfectly fine, but a modicum of decorum must be maintained in the House.
I want to point out that, throughout my speech, I was utterly incapable of hearing myself. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable showed a lack of respect, consideration and decorum. I think that should be noted.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/30/24 1:38:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.
I understand that people are not always happy with what is said in Parliament. That is the nature of our work. However, I just heard the member use the word “disgusting” after my speech. I think that is unacceptable and that she should withdraw her comment.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 11:39:11 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I felt a little uncomfortable giving a speech today. The House leader of the Bloc Québécois called me yesterday to tell me that the Conservatives would be moving a super original motion today on the carbon tax. I read the motion and told the House leader that the speech should be given by the member for Montarville, because he is the foreign affairs critic.
As we know, this whole issue does not really apply to Quebec. One day we will be our own country, and we will discuss this at the UN. For the time being, we have to debate it in other people's parliaments, but this does not apply to Quebec. I see it as a diplomatic issue, and anyone who knows me well knows that I am probably not the best person to engage in diplomacy; yet here I am, rising in the House today.
We are here to debate a motion that is, as usual, ridiculous. To be frank, the motion is utterly ridiculous. It is patently false. We do not know whether this motion stems from bad faith, incompetence or a combination of the two, as is often the case. The reason the Conservatives write these motions is to create an echo. It is so they can once again say that the Bloc Québécois voted in favour of the carbon tax. They are trying to create an echo, but the echo that comes from these Conservative motions is like any other echo. It is hollow. When someone stands on the edge of the Grand Canyon and shouts “hello”, it comes back as “hello, -o, -o, -o”. When we look at the Conservatives' motions, they talk about a first, second, third, fifth carbon tax. It is an echo, and it is hollow.
The Conservatives started with the first one. The first one was the real carbon tax. They fell on it like rabid animals. They did not know that it did not apply to Quebec. I guess they did not have the expertise. Mistakes happen. They began to backpedal. In politics, it can be hard to admit to being wrong. In time, they came to the conclusion that it was true that it did not apply to Quebec, so there would have to be a second carbon tax.
That was when they invented the second carbon tax, referring to the clean fuel regulations. Then they realized that Quebec already had its own regulations, that its regulations were already in effect, and that the federal regulations were for 2030. Nevertheless, they began saying that the price of gas would jump by 13¢ or 14¢ a litre. The price of gas did go up. Then they said that people would no longer be able to afford turkeys, so Thanksgiving would be ruined. The price of gas has dropped 20¢ since then. It even dropped on Thanksgiving. The Conservative leader and the members from Quebec were not there to say so, so the price went down. They looked silly, but they are resilient. We like them, really. They are resilient. Conservatives are tough.
They figured there must be a third carbon tax coming down the pike. To hear the Conservatives talk, when I buy a piece of furniture at Ikea, it must have been made in Alberta. Everything comes from Alberta. It is transportation, it is this, it is that, only now we have the figures for inflation. Now they are interested. They talk about it all the time. Inflation is one point higher in Quebec than in Alberta, but the federal carbon tax hurts Albertans more than anyone else.
Then they decided that they needed to come up with a fourth one. The fourth one was a good one. It did not last long, because we took care of it. We are onto them now. We have become experts at nipping this in the bud. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles is the Conservative envoy to Quebec, a future minister if ever there were one. He is the opposition leader's Louis XIV in Quebec. He is the king. He told the House that it is true that Quebec has its own emissions permit system, but it is the federal government's fault that the cost of the permits has gone up in Quebec. We want to table a document to prove that this is not true, but he is opposing that. The member for Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles, the Quebec lieutenant, thinks there is a correlation. To him, there are more drownings in the summer because of ice-cream sales; the two go hand in hand. That is how it works, in his mind. We explained to him that emissions permits in Quebec are issued under a government order that predates the federal carbon tax. It is a government order. It was done with California, which is 10 times bigger than we are. It is consistent with our goal of reducing our emissions by 37.5% below 1990 levels. The biggest factor driving the price of permits is demand from California.
It is not that I do not like Canada, but Californians could not care less about the federal government. It is the least of their problems. They buy permits, and that has an effect on the price. That is where things stand now. The next step, the sixth carbon tax, will be a world economic forum for Freemasons.
That is where things stand now. We are on the fifth or sixth carbon tax. I have lost track. I am not sure what number carbon tax we are up to. Now the carbon tax is no longer an environmental plan, but a tax plan. Incidentally, the translation is bad because the French version of the motion uses “mesure fiscale”, or tax measure, but the English one uses “tax plan”. “Tax measure” sounds milder in Quebec, whereas a “tax plan” sounds like something worth ranting about.
The Conservatives are saying that the carbon tax is a tax plan. That is what the motion says. The Conservatives seem to have forgotten about the “environmental” part of environmental taxation. That is understandable because they do not see any connection between the economy and the environment, innovation, the development of new technologies and collective prosperity. The Conservatives only understand the connection between two things: extraction and extraction. They can understand that one equals one. That is easy.
However, the Conservatives think taxation has no place in an environmental plan, except when they find themselves in a situation where they need tax credits for their buddies in Alberta. That, Quebeckers pay for. When the time comes for a carbon capture tax credit, when businesses need a tax credit from us, suddenly taxation is important. However, that is not a tax plan, no matter how much they rant and rave that it is.
When the conversation turns to a clean technology tax credit, when the Conservatives tell us that they would like Quebeckers' taxes to be used to fund small nuclear reactors so that we can stop using gas to process oil sands and instead take that gas, pump it through new pipelines to the port in British Columbia that is nearing completion, and then sell that gas, all with the support of taxation, they do not see that as a tax plan at all.
When it comes to tax credits for dirty hydrogen, which plan is it? All of a sudden, they see a connection between the environment and taxation.
However, when it comes to acknowledging the science that clearly links emissions reductions with carbon pricing in other provinces, when it comes to the system we have in Quebec, which uses very robust empirical evaluations, when it comes to the regime in British Columbia, when we know that trading emissions permits with Europe and the United States works, when it is time to acknowledge the science, the Conservatives absolutely never agree.
They say it is a tax plan. These are Conservatives who supposedly have faith in the market. The people on the right say the market works. The market sets a price, and people react to that price, until the environment is involved, that is. Then, suddenly, economics 101 goes by the board.
What do the Conservatives support time after time, especially the ones from Quebec whom we never see talking about this? Maybe it is because they are too embarrassed. Maybe it is because they are working on the eighth, ninth or tenth carbon tax, working ahead so they can give us all of them at once. What they support is a plan to help oil companies by taxing Quebeckers. As I have said, they are compulsive taxers.
We are talking $83 billion in subsidies for Alberta oil companies, paid for by Quebeckers through their taxes. Meanwhile, we have people waiting in hospital hallways and we are asking for way less than that in health transfers, but where are the Quebec Conservatives? They are nowhere to be seen. They are hiding. We do not see them.
Immigration and taking care of irregular migrants has cost Quebec $470 million, and the feds are supposed to cover that, yet they say they are going to give Quebec a mere $100 million and will not be paying Quebec's debt. None of the Quebec Conservatives are standing up because no expense is too great for oil companies, but any expense is too great when it comes to taking care of Quebeckers.
The Quebec Conservatives all think that they are going to become ministers. I do not know what they will be ministers of, and I would not want to be the one who has to make those decisions, but I will say that Quebeckers will have to pay dearly for those members' cabinet seats. The Conservatives have already started to abandon Quebeckers. They are good at that. I want to remind the House of a deadline that is coming up, when we will have to explain our platforms to Quebeckers and justify our actions to them. The Bloc Québécois will be able to say that we have been completely trustworthy.
Quebeckers are going to listen to what I just said about the Conservatives because they are a lot smarter than the members on this side of the House think.
1756 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, I think people try to complicate things sometimes. They pick a title that is four or five lines long—which is a waste of ink and not very environmentally friendly—so people will not read it.
I said this in my speech, and I will say it again. There will be a transition. It must be equitable, it must be just and it must benefit workers. It must not make them poorer. The transition will create huge opportunities for wealth creation, new technology, innovation, investment and export. If we focus only on oil, we will miss out. We will have to take the time. It will be hard. We need to prepare. That is very important. Around the world, everywhere but here in the House, people are calling this the just transition.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/23 7:58:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech because, since this debate began, we have been hearing all kinds of generalities and nonsense about who votes virtually and who does not. The hon. member for Winnipeg North has once again lowered the level of debate.
However, I think my colleague raised the level of debate. Indeed, he pointed out that the way this motion is being put forward, regardless of content, is unacceptable. Since 1867, the House has always been able to operate unanimously. During the pandemic, we were always able to operate unanimously. The hybrid Parliament we have today was adopted unanimously. We have always been able to do that.
A few minutes ago, the hon. member for Thunder Bay—Rainy River told us suddenly that unanimity is not always the best thing, that things can change. Suddenly, everything becomes relative.
How is it that, since 1867, we have always been able to operate properly and now, all of a sudden, we cannot?
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 6:04:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will use this excellent question from the member for Hull—Aylmer to give a shout-out to all the African and Maghrebian students who have come to Quebec and whom I taught and helped with their integration. I can attest to the fact that they need guidance and support to integrate our culture and our society, which is generous and wants to benefit from all their skills while giving them every opportunity that all Quebeckers have.
That being said, I think the member did not listen to my speech. What I can tell him is that we can have different visions, I agree. However, with all due respect, Quebec was never consulted on this file. Forcing a different vision on us does not make anyone democratic.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/11/23 5:05:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are in a Parliament and we want to debate ideas.
Earlier, the member for Jonquière demonstrated how important it is to do so in an appropriate and democratic manner. I listened to the NDP speeches, including the speech by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. These people are going to sit down with immigrants who have just arrived to warn them about us, saying that we are racist, and most importantly, that they should reject the host society that wishes them ill. Is that not one of the most divisive and extreme strategies possible?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 10:37:34 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, it is not necessarily that the parliamentary rules are poorly written. I certainly do not think that we should be muzzling members, shortening their speeches. I think that here in the House there are 338 intelligent people who are capable of mastering their content, who are willing to work for their constituents. If I did not have the highest regard for each and every member of the House, I would not be so upset about the use of our precious resource, our time.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/3/23 6:41:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-6
Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for his excellent speech.
It is important to modernize regulations and to keep them up to date. It is important that they be simple, clear and identical in both languages. I am a member of the Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, and we often have to repeatedly ask departments and ministers to correct discrepancies between the English and French versions of certain regulations and orders.
This week, we sent a notice of disallowance for a problem that has been going on for 25 years. I was not even old enough to vote when this problem arose. The fact that departments do not respond to the committee and that ministers refuse to testify in committee is an ongoing problem.
Do the government's objectives include fixing the relationship with the committee so that there will be more constructive interaction when it comes to modernizing our regulations and addressing any problems with them?
162 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/29/23 4:55:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the leader of the official opposition for his very good speech, especially the parts in French.
As he knows, the French language has a very rich vocabulary. We have a recipe for shepherd's pie: beef, corn, potatoes. For big numbers we say: millions, billions, trillions. I invite him to repeat after me.
He began his speech with a lecture about consistency by using the Minister of Finance's own words. He pointed out inconsistencies and told us that we could no longer believe what the government says because it is not consistent.
Right after that, he quoted the Governor of the Bank of Canada, who he threatened to fire for incompetence a few months ago during the leadership race.
When I openly say that someone is incompetent and that the first thing I would do when I become prime minister is fire him—I can assure members that I will not be prime minister in this place—I do not quote that person. I do not quote incompetent people who I want to fire.
My question is the following: Does he still want to fire the governor of the central bank, whom he quoted in his speech? If he no longer wants to fire him, what thought process led to his change of heart?
223 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I just want to make sure I understood my colleague's speech.
What has to be done to create more unity and inclusiveness in society is to get rid of taxes and lower income taxes so that one day there will be a trickle-down effect that will unite everyone in Canada and Quebec.
Have I correctly understood the underlying Conservative mentality in the speech my Conservative colleague just gave?
72 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very interesting speech, in which she explained how the CBSA's existing complaint management system can result in injustice, especially toward certain minorities that may be targeted.
Just before that, my colleague from Kingston and the Islands said that, every time someone rises to talk about Bill C‑20, they are just wasting time and delaying passage of the bill.
Does my colleague think she wasted our time with her speech?
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 10:52:21 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is always such a pleasure to hear the member for Kingston and the Islands speak, and today's speech was one of his most dynamic yet.
He laid out many potentially problematic issues that Parliament would have to examine closely. He spent 10 minutes listing all those problems, but then rejected the idea of creating a parliamentary committee to study them. Does he see the contradiction there?
Would the member reconsider his position if, say, an amendment were moved to set an end date for the committee?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 12:25:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister, the only Liberal member who has the right to speak freely, just turned what should have been a vote of conscience into a vote of confidence.
We can see from our discussions with the Liberal members that many of them are uncomfortable with these extreme measures now that the truckers are gone. Could my colleague set aside what she thinks and the speech she just gave and tell us how she feels about the fact that the Liberal members are not being allowed to vote according to their conscience on such a historic matter? Does that make her uncomfortable?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
