So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 268 - Dec/14/23

May/7/24 12:33:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as members know, the Bloc Québécois is not opposed to good ideas. Our party is in favour of equity, if not equality. However, the merits of this measure were not proven to the National Assembly, which overwhelmingly came out against it. I think that the government can make decisions. I am not sure if I should lump the NPD in with the group, because apparently there are all sorts of coalitions going on here. I am finding this out every day. It is somewhat disorienting. All jokes aside, the government needs to open a dialogue with Quebec and the provinces. As has already been noted, Quebec already has its own program, so we do not want to be forced to do anything. There need to be discussions. Something certainly can be done, but it must be done with the consent of the National Assembly. This is a step that cannot be skipped.

158 words

Context: House Hansard - 120 - Oct/28/22

Dec/14/23 3:26:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-58 Bill C-276

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today on behalf of the Bloc Québécois to applaud Bill C‑58, the anti-scab legislation. People have been waiting decades for this bill. I am a Quebecker, and our anti-scab legislation was already in place when I was born. Now, a bill has been introduced. I would not go so far as to say that I was hoping for this back when I was two, but I will say that I have been waiting for it for decades. The Bloc Québécois has been waiting for it, too. The Bloc Québécois has introduced several bills in the decades since 1990. My colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, who is still in the House, introduced the first bill on this subject. He was actually my MP at the time. Since then, 11 bills have been placed on the Order Paper, evidence that the Bloc Québécois is determined to protect workers and protect the right to negotiate. I want to thank all the Bloc Québécois MPs and teams before us who strove to advance the issue of justice and workers' rights. I would also like to thank my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville, who introduced Bill C-276 at the start of this Parliament. Her bill also seeks to ban the use of strikebreakers. My colleague worked tirelessly, just like the others I mentioned earlier. I commend her. She is persevering and willing to collaborate, someone who believes in social justice and who has a lot to teach the members of my caucus and, I hope, the other members of the House and all the people she meets and talks to about labour issues in particular. There is an expression that I like a lot, and I use it whenever I can, although it is not mine, of course. It is the idea that, whenever we do something great, we were often building on the work of those who came before us. We are often dwarves standing on the shoulders of giants, if I may use a mythological or fairy tale image. We owe a lot to our predecessors. There are also other people who worked to pave the way for what we have achieved at this moment in history. There are other political parties. I would like to acknowledge the work of the NDP on this matter, as well as the unions. When I say unions, I also mean workers. They are the giants. They are the ones who came to us and showed us the value, the necessity, of passing laws to protect the right to negotiate. I would like to thank all the people who got us here today. I hope that this will move faster through the House than it has in recent decades. It is urgent. At the start of my speech, I mentioned that Quebec has had a law on the books since 1976. I am sure we can come up with something equivalent for areas under federal jurisdiction. Time is of the essence. A bill has been introduced. We were waiting for it. In the current context, we are theoretically two years away from an election. We would like the work to move forward, for things to happen quickly. Of course, there is filibustering in the House, but we hope that within the next two years, the bill will be passed, will receive royal assent and will come into force immediately. However, the bill has `an 18-month time frame. Why 18 months? We have been waiting for a bill for 50 years. Why can it not be implemented immediately? That is the first question. I think it is an essential question that we are asking. We are also concerned about the part of the bill that sets out exceptions. We are still wary of the exceptions. Of course, it is relevant, but we still have to define what a “threat to the life, health or safety of any person” means. At first glance, it looks like it is intended to provide protection. We are not against virtue, but we also do not want this clause to become a kind of catch-all clause that allows employers to circumvent the bill and get out of having to uphold workers' right to freely negotiate. Those are two elements I wanted to mention. The Bloc Québécois sees them as red flags. We would like to get answers very quickly. I presume that could be done in committee. If we can deal with these two elements that we have concerns about, we think the bill could be passed very quickly. I repeat, we want it to be passed and to receive royal assent, but we also want it to come into force as soon as it receives royal assent so we can protect as many workers as possible by defending their rights. I spoke about equity and rights, and I would like to touch on that again. Reduced to its simplest expression, the bill simply aims to level the playing field. If one of the parties to the negotiations has all the power, it is difficult for the other party to assert their needs, desires and rights. I think it is almost a truism, it is so obvious. What we want to do is to restore the balance of power so that workers can also participate in the negotiations. This will allow them to reach a compromise solution quickly and effectively at the bargaining table, which would be a win-win. It is good for workers, but also for employers, which, in my opinion, have everything to gain from a law that will allow the parties to sit at the table and settle disputes quickly. I have managed to address only three of the 10 points I wanted to get to, so I will pick up the pace. I would remind members that the holidays are approaching and that the Bloc Québécois has always been a workers' party. We have always tried to defend workers. Manicouagan is a riding where there are a lot of workers under federal jurisdiction, in particular in the air and rail transport sectors. There are also a lot of people who work for the post office. There are workers under federal jurisdiction everywhere in Quebec and Canada, but there are a lot in my riding. I think about them, about the people in Quebec City and the dock workers at the Port of Québec, for example, who have been in a labour dispute for more than a year now. This dispute has been going on for a long time and it cannot be settled, precisely because there is an unfair power relationship. The employer has more power than the employees. I would also like to remind my colleagues in the opposition of the following. I do not want to put words in the mouth of my colleague from Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola, but I think he said earlier that he was worried that workers would cause inflation as a result of their demands in the negotiations for a new collective agreement. I find that kind of talk dangerous. I would like him to discuss the matter with his Conservative colleagues from the Quebec City region, who are likely, if I am not mistaken, to join him in voting against this bill. They would be voting against the people in the ridings adjacent to the Quebec City region, who have already been paying the price for more than a year because MPs do not want to vote for a bill that would level the playing field in labour negotiations. I will conclude with this. I hope that the Conservatives will get around to telling us their position on the bill soon. That being said, the Bloc Québécois will give the bill its full support, because we care about workers.

1360 words

Context: House Hansard - 120 - Oct/28/22

Oct/28/22 12:43:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-207 Bill C-9

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S‑207. Of course, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. It is not against this bill. I will not be using all of my speaking time, but I would like—

49 words

All Topics

Oct/28/22 11:27:52 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the commissioner's text messages also reveal that in the first week of the occupation of Ottawa, on February 5, the federal government was considering invoking the Emergencies Act. February 5 was prior to the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, which began on February 7. When the federal government claims that it resorted to emergency measures because the crisis was national in scope, that is untrue. The Emergencies Act has never been invoked because it is supposed to be the last resort. Why did the government use it as a first resort and against the advice of the police?

103 words

All Topics

Mar/24/22 6:46:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-16

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, and we vote in favour.

26 words

All Topics

Mar/24/22 6:44:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-16

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

20 words

All Topics

Mar/24/22 6:38:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-16

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will vote in favour of the motion.

22 words

All Topics

Mar/24/22 6:23:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-15

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the results of the previous vote to this one, and we will vote in favour of the motion.

30 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mar/24/22 6:21:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-15

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the results of the previous vote to this one, and we will vote in favour of the motion.

30 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mar/1/22 1:58:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. The member spoke a great deal about the mechanics of the process, so I would like to know what position she is taking as an MP from Quebec and a member of the Quebec nation. Simply put, will she vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion?

60 words

Context: House Hansard - 36 - Feb/21/22

Mar/1/22 1:32:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for her question. I am disappointed to hear that anyone would try to minimize the impact of the Bloc Québécois's actions or accuse us of picking a fight. I think that is intellectually dishonest. I could make an analogy here, but like any analogy, it may be murky or flawed. Still, Ukraine is not picking a fight right now. We want to stand up for our nation, our people, our values, our self-government and our integrity, and I think that is legitimate. It is legitimate for others, and it is legitimate for Quebec. Standing up for one's rights is not picking a fight.

118 words

Context: House Hansard - 33 - Feb/17/22

Feb/21/22 10:27:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne for her speech. I would like to pick up on the part where she talked about the Ambassador Bridge. Several people have talked about it this morning. She said that there are still protesters a few blocks away from there. To be clear, these are protesters, not occupiers. This is not a siege. The Ambassador Bridge blockade was dismantled before the Emergencies Act was invoked. There was no need for the act. The situation was dealt with. Why adopt a draconian measure when the authorities already have everything they need to take action?

104 words

All Topics