- Member of Parliament
- Member of the Subcommittee on Review of Parliament’s involvement with associations and recognized Interparliamentary groups
Deputy whip of the Bloc Québécois
Member of the Joint Interparliamentary Council
- Bloc Québécois
- Manicouagan
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $175,049.14
- Government Page
- Jun/3/24 1:25:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am not at all surprised by my colleague's question. Perhaps others have answered it, but I will answer again.
I have listened to what the coalition of labour unions are saying. I understand that they want improvements to pharmacare in Quebec, but I will repeat that it is up to Quebeckers to do that. Yes, there can be a coalition. I understand that, but the fact remains that we have a National Assembly and that is the body that will make the decisions. It is the one in charge.
Sometimes it seems as though Canada may do something worthwhile when it gets involved, and we think that something is going to happen. However, what I would say to my colleague is that there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip when it comes to this bill. There is a really long way to go. There is a committee that is going to meet and hold consultations.
Quebec already has the experience and the expertise. Why not leave the task to a government that already knows how the system works? The federal government can tell Quebeckers that it wants to improve the pharmacare system, but as I said, we will discuss the matter among ourselves. However, the federal government can send us the money that it does not know how to spend because it is unable to take care of its own jurisdictions. We will improve the system.
Quebec has said that it will improve its pharmacare program. I think that the question is irrelevant. I am really pleased that there are ways to exert pressure to help us make gains, but the federal government needs to talk to the ones who are in charge, the Quebec National Assembly and Quebec, when it comes to improving our pharmacare program.
I do not need a paternalistic party telling Quebec what to do.
315 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/30/24 4:36:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Mégantic—L'Érable for ascribing such power and importance to the Bloc Québécois. Indeed, we really are a bulwark against the Conservative Party. It seems to me that the Conservative members are doing something they do a lot: making up problems that do not exist and coming up with solutions that certainly do not work.
Here is an example. Right now, the government is returning all of the revenue from the carbon tax, which does not apply in Quebec. I have had to repeat this several times. Maybe one day the opposition members will get it. In the provinces where it does apply, people are reimbursed for this tax, which does not apply in Quebec. Voting for this measure to abolish the tax for three months works out to $3 billion, $3 billion that Quebeckers would have to pay.
I do not know why my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable does not talk about the debt he would be forcing Quebeckers to take on this summer. Instead of having money in their pockets, they will have to pay for Canada, which does not want to do the same thing Quebec is doing, that is, participating in the carbon market.
As I said, the Bloc Québécois serves as a bulwark. I would have liked to hear my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable comment on the fact that, two weeks ago, we were talking about women's right to control their own bodies. The House was full, but I did not see anyone applauding the parties opposite or over there. Ours, however—
293 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 5:43:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is making it clear that he could never be the Speaker of the House of Commons because he does not understand the impartiality and discernment needed for the job. That is what he just said: He does not understand and it seems unfair to him.
We need to look beyond perceptions and really acknowledge what the role of Speaker involves. The person who occupies the chair must be able to rally all members so that we can do the work that Quebeckers and Canadians are asking us to do as quickly as possible.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/24 11:24:33 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the unfortunate thing about the insults uttered by the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell is that they overshadowed opportunities for a substantive conversation about the French language. While he was publicly humiliating himself, the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages went almost unnoticed. However, the commissioner harshly criticized the federal government, describing it as uncooperative. It it uncooperative when it comes to providing services in French and allowing francophones to work in their language.
Instead of insulting Quebeckers, should the Liberals not have announced this week that they are finally going to force the federal government to respect francophones?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/24 9:57:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I am pleased to be here this evening to talk about softwood lumber. I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac. I have had some good discussions with him on the issue of natural resources.
Speaking of natural resources, I would also like to thank my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois forestry caucus, including my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, the international trade critic, and my colleague from Jonquière, the natural resources critic. I am also thinking of the members from Abitibi, Trois-Rivières, the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé, the Magdalen Islands and Lac-Saint-Jean, because there certainly is quite a bit of forest in Quebec.
Quebec accounts for 20% of softwood lumber production. This industry supports entire communities. It is the backbone of the economy. I commend my colleagues. I also commend the Quebeckers who are keeping that economy, these communities, these workers, these unions and these businesses going.
I am beginning my ninth year as an MP. I was elected in 2015, a year that could have given us hope. In 2013, Quebeckers had adopted a new forestry system, one that we had worked on for several years. At the same time, an outdated agreement that had been signed by the Conservative government of the day expired. We were expecting something to be done about that.
However, it has been nine years, and I have to say that nothing has been done yet. We are still at the same point, despite the opportunities we have had. I think that every one of my colleagues talked about it in the House this evening. There were many opportunities, including NAFTA and CUSMA, but none of them were taken.
Being here tonight with my colleagues, I feel as though I should say that this is what the Bloc Québécois is all about. We are the only ones bringing this debate to the House. We almost never hear about forests. We do not hear about softwood lumber or countervailing or anti-dumping duties. They come up at times, such as every time the United States says it is going to impose these duties, then a minister stands up and says that the government is not going to let it happen this time, that Canada is not going to take it. Six months later, when the duties are imposed, the minister says the same thing, that the government will not let it happen and that it does not make any sense at all.
However, since 2015, unless I missed something, nothing has changed, but I am open to being corrected. Sometimes, I have seen strokes of genius. We figured that we were truly dependent on the United States and that the Canadian market depended on the United States, and we wondered what would happen. There was talk of diversifying the Quebec market and turning to Asia. There were programs like that and I specifically remember a minister who offered that. However, to us, that changes absolutely nothing.
The Bloc Québécois has asked for several measures, including loan guarantees. However, I talk to my industries. I am thinking of Mr. St‑Gelais from Boisaco, who I talk to quite frequently. What we are asking is for the forestry regime to be recognized.
How is it that, on the other side of the border, no one says a word on this issue? I was listening to my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot earlier. He said that every time he goes to the U.S., he meets with congressional representatives and several people from the industry, including members of the National Association of Home Builders. He meets with them. The members of the National Association of Home Builders raise the issue, but the Canadian delegation members do not.
I am somewhat concerned that the same thing happened during the NAFTA renegotiations. I fear that softwood lumber was used as a bargaining chip. The government may have defended the auto sector and Ontario, but it could not be bothered to defend Quebec. New Brunswick does not have much to say regarding countervailing and anti-dumping duties. The same goes for British Columbia. Only Quebec seems to find this really difficult, but the government is saying too bad, that it is going to protect the auto sector instead.
Understandably, a debate like tonight's brings the softwood lumber issue to the fore once again. I would like the official opposition and the government to step up and say that they are going to do something. As my colleague from British Columbia said, for the past 42 years, which is nearly my age, nothing has changed and our businesses are still paying the price because they cannot invest, modernize or expand. Quebec is the one paying the price, because of both the official opposition and the government.
833 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/24 11:25:16 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is not the point. Let me remind members once again that the federal government does not run one single hospital. It has no expertise in health care, but it is withholding the money needed to care for people, because it thinks it can tell health care workers how to do their jobs.
Let me also remind members once again that the federal government is withholding nearly $5 billion in Quebec taxpayers' money. That is nothing more than our share, plain and simple. Quebeckers want their money to be used for health care, not for Liberal political games.
When will the federal government give us our money?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:41:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my colleague said earlier, the Bloc Québécois is asking the House today to recognize a fact by asking “[t]hat the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.”
Acknowledging a fact seems like a no-brainer. That said, history, even very recent history, reminds us that we should take nothing for granted. Nothing is ever a given.
This is serious. Think, for example, of Morgentaler reading the bills from the member for Yorkton—Melville, of Pythagoras learning of the Flat Earth Society, of John Locke hearing the Prime Minister of Canada exclaim on January 23, 2023, that he is going to intervene in the Supreme Court case involving Bill 21, right down to tagging the use of the notwithstanding clause. No, nothing is ever a given and no right is a given.
The Bloc Québécois knows this and is watching out for Quebeckers, and even for the provinces and territories in this case. We want to reiterate that it is imperative that the House unanimously reaffirm that Quebec alone must decide when it should use the notwithstanding clause.
Does the Prime Minister really know Quebec? Does he even know the history of Quebec? I have my doubts, most of the time. To know Quebec is to love it, not fear it or coerce it.
Does the Prime Minister remember the people of Quebec who have slowly but surely distanced themselves from the church and its robes? Does he remember the long journey Quebeckers have taken to achieve the full separation of church and state? Does he remember the night of the long knives? Does he recall that Quebec never signed the Constitution of 1982? Does he realize that perhaps, for Quebec, the notwithstanding clause is like a tiny bit of sugar in a glass of poison hemlock? I truly and sincerely do not think so.
To know Quebec is to recognize how enamoured it is with equality and freedom. It is to recognize that Quebec's biggest source of faith is intelligence and reason. It is to know that Quebec believes in the sovereignty of the state and that if it is subordinate to anyone, it can only be to itself, to the Quebec people.
The gods, whoever they may be, do not belong in the affairs of the state. They may be in the bedroom, in the kitchen, in the car, in the street, or in the church, mosque or synagogue, in a book or in our thoughts. They are certainly not here in the House or in the robe of any Supreme Court justices, who do not make the laws.
Imagine for a moment what it means to a Quebecker like me, who knows and remembers her history, to theoretically be the subject of a monarch—a monarch who is the head of the Anglican Church, no less—and to sit in a Parliament where MPs ask the Christian god to legitimize their duties and their votes on a daily basis. As an elected representative, I answer to the people, not to gods.
Imagine, too, what it means to a Quebecker like me to hear the fear, arrogance, disdain and intolerance in the Prime Minister's articulation of the fundamentally dishonest and misleading stereotype of a xenophobic or even racist Quebec where freedom and equality are but mirages. As an elected representative, I answer to the people, not to myself.
The Prime Minister's outsized attack on Bill 21 is a violent attack on the people of Quebec, for what is violence if not one party imposing its will on another by force? Violence and democracy are two sides of the same coin.
Speaking of outsized, what is the elephant in the room here? What is this terrifying Bill 21 that gives the Prime Minister the green light to go ballistic on Quebec sovereignty, its national assembly and the will of the Quebec nation?
The law simply prohibits the wearing of religious symbols by state employees in a position of coercive authority, as well as teachers in the public school system, while grandfathering in those already in their positions on March 27, 2019, the day before the bill was introduced.
Bill 21 marks the separation of state and religious powers. It guarantees freedom and equality for all. Freedom of conscience remains. We must always keep in mind that we, as elected officials, are accountable to the people and I, as a Bloc Québécois MP, to my National Assembly.
I was listening this morning to the member for Outremont. In a nutshell, she said that using section 133, the notwithstanding clause, was not consistent with section 33. That was her concern. She is worried that the notwithstanding clause is a notwithstanding clause. I do not think the government intends to open up the Constitution, but what I am hearing is that there is a concern that Quebec is Quebec.
In closing I would say that the notwithstanding clause is a place for the Quebec nation in the Constitution of Canada, a document that René Lévesque never signed. It is a place to wrest a little freedom for Quebec. I think that is hyperbole. It is a little freedom for its identity, for its essence. Quebec is granted permission to exist using an exception.
By asking these judges to stifle the notwithstanding clause, the Prime Minister intends to stifle Quebec. Why is it that the only way the Prime Minister can be Canadian is to viciously attack Quebec? No nation has the right to dictate to another nation what it should be. Quebec has its values. Quebec is secular. The notwithstanding clause does not by any means allow Quebec enough room for its existence. No one can dictate to me the kind of person I should be. I am for state secularism. I am a Quebecker. I am a separatist, and my bags have been packed for a long time now.
1024 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:10:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
What we are discussing today centres around our principles and our ideals, so I do not think this debate is unwarranted. I would like to thank everyone who is taking part in it, including those who just spoke before me.
As a matter of principle, I often look back at my roots. Everything we have experienced has helped shape the elected officials we are today. I was born to a working-class father and a mother who was a nurse. I was born female and that is the way it is. I was born a Quebecker and that is also the way it is.
Because of what we are discussing today, like all Quebeckers and Canadians, I cannot even aspire to become the head of the Canadian state, even if I wanted to.
I have barely spoken three sentences, and we are already deeply entangled in something that makes absolutely no sense to someone like me with democratic ideals. After all, what kind of state deprives its entire population of the possibility of becoming head of state? It is certainly not a democracy. At most, I would say that it is masquerading as a democracy and trying to imitate its form. It is a bit of smoke and mirrors.
As some of my colleagues have done, I often like to recall the past and dwell on the meaning of words we use ad nauseam that sometimes might escape us. The word “democracy” derives from demos, the people, and kratos, to rule. Democracy is sharing power between the people. Democracy is the power of the people.
Canada, as we know, and that is what we are talking about today, embraces a constitutional monarchy. That means that the true head of state cannot be an MP, not me or anyone in the House, but a monarch such as an Elizabeth or a Charles, someone who through fate or arbitrary alliances and births, inherited a crown. That bears repeating because it is important, not only symbolically, but because it also has tangible and potential implications.
The word “monarch” derives from monos, one, and archon, ruler, and therefore refers to a single ruler, a single person who rules. Literally and absolutely antithetically, Canadian democracy does not rest in the hands of everyone, but in the hands of a single person, namely the monarch. I say this with all due respect, but, to me, this is a ceremonial democracy.
I spoke just a moment ago about appearances and form. Appearances are not the only reason why the Bloc Québécois wants to sever ties once and for all with the British monarchy. In fact, this situation goes against Quebeckers' very values.
I spoke of the people earlier because I work for them. Indeed, we need to think about values such as equality. In the Bloc Québécois, we affirm that all citizens are equal; we promote and we defend equality. There needs to be equal rights, as well as equality in fact. Not only is the monarchy hereditary by nature, the order of succession attributes preference to male heirs and to Protestants above all others.
We can therefore infer that the primary role in the Canadian state is preferably, and we truly are talking about a preference or arbitrary choice, assigned to an individual on the basis of their sex and religion, not to mention bloodline.
A democracy that has preferences and that excludes half of humankind is not a democracy and is practising discrimination. The monarchy discriminates both literally and figuratively and takes away the very sovereignty of its people because the monarch is not a Quebecker or a Canadian. The monarch is British, only British.
As a legislator, it is my job to create laws. As a member of Parliament elected by the people, I and the people I represent are supposed to accept a monarch from overseas, whose legitimacy is arbitrary, and who has the power to make or unmake laws that we vote on in the House of Commons and also in my own National Assembly in Quebec.
The public proposes, Great Britain disposes. The potential British—and patriarchal, I might add—veto belies any claims of sovereignty by the people. The sovereignty of the people is a value that is important to the Bloc Québécois. It requires another element that is important to the Bloc, another value that we have had the opportunity to debate, the separation of state and religion.
We are talking about the leader of another country not only being subject to a foreign state, but also, as I mentioned earlier, to a church, the Anglican Church. The Canadian head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church. For those of us in Quebec who decided a few decades ago to separate church and state, this is a relic of an idea that is completely outdated in terms of the sovereignty of peoples, the sovereignty of ideas and the matter of the state itself.
I do not have much time left, so I would like to very quickly talk about the status of women, colonialism and accountability, which is also important to me. Of course, the status of women is an issue that is particularly close to my heart. I will let my colleagues talk more about colonialism because that is what the monarchy's wealth is built on. We too have a story to tell here. With regard to accountability, we hope that elected representatives will no longer be subject to anyone above them or look to anyone else to save or decide for them. We are fully responsible for our own decisions.
As I was pondering what to say today, I smiled to myself because I remembered thinking about these same things back when I was a young teenager. That is when people begin to think critically, question conventional thinking, question authority and throw off the shackles of beliefs that do not stand up to reason. I went through my own quiet revolution as a young woman.
For me and for Quebeckers, our desire to cut ties with the British monarchy goes back a long way. It is centuries-old. It is an intense desire to sever a connection, seek emancipation and empowerment for our society as a whole and affirm the deeply held values I mentioned earlier: democracy, equality and separation of church and state. The majority of Quebeckers want to cast off the trappings of another world and a long-ago time so alien to who we are. I am one of them.
As a democratic woman of no religious affiliation, I reject this inequitable, arbitrary and colonialist form of power. My faith and my loyalty lie with Quebeckers.
1151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. In all the notes I prepare for my speeches, I am always tempted to remind members of that early and absolutely useless election that cost all Quebeckers and Canadians time.
We are now starting over again, discussing bills that we could have tackled back then. Furthermore, the government is constantly telling us that it is urgent. I would submit to my colleagues that we are sitting until midnight tonight. There could have been other ways of doing this.
I would like the government to take responsibility for its own bills and its own legislative agenda so we can get things done. There is no point in simply talking without there being any concrete action. We see it even with tonight's bill: There is a great deal of goodwill, but, when it comes to concrete measures, that is a different story.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/22 11:38:56 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would invite my colleague to reread the IPCC report.
In Alberta, a Radio-Canada headline reads, “Albertan oil companies and businesses pleased with federal budget.” They are pleased. That is not good news for the fight against climate change. The fox is pleased with the new layout of the henhouse.
What are Quebeckers to think of this Minister of Environment and the so‑called progressive coalition of the Liberals and the NDP, if all Canada can do to fight climate change is please the oil companies?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 1:18:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by telling my colleague from Drummond how much I admire him and how much I appreciate his work as a member of Parliament. Sometimes we have to say these things to each other as colleagues. He works so hard, and he is so passionate about everything from his role as heritage critic to his sponsorship of Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (representation in the House of Commons), which he introduced on February 8.
He introduced the bill to promote and protect the interests of people in his riding, in mine and across Quebec, to protect Quebec's weight in the House of Commons by guaranteeing that 25% of the seats here will belong to Quebeckers because Quebec is a nation.
It is therefore with conviction, but also with the certainty that I am doing what is right for Quebeckers and Quebec, that I rise today to debate the Bloc Québécois motion. This motion also addresses Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons, and it reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of the House:
(a) any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected; and
(b) the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended and the House call on the government to act accordingly.
Basically, what the Bloc Québécois is asking the House to do is to commit, as we have, to demanding that the government meaningfully protect Quebec's weight. I repeat, Quebec is a francophone nation within a country that is bilingual on paper.
The Bloc Québécois is certainly not tabling this motion by chance or on a whim. Like pictures, numbers are worth a thousand words. From 1867 to 2021, Quebec's weight in the House of Commons declined, shrinking from 36% in 1867 to 23.1% in 2015, and it is still declining. At the same time, the number of MPs from Quebec has very slowly and humbly risen, from 65 out of 181 MPs in 1867 to 78 out of 338 MPs in 2015.
In the next redistribution, which would take effect in 2024 at the earliest, Quebec's weight would continue to drop, eventually to 22.5%. Moreover, for the first time in history, Quebec would lose a seat, with its number of elected officials dropping to 77 out of 342. For the Bloc Québécois and Quebec, that is unacceptable.
Of course, the decennial process of electoral boundaries redistribution is not a surprise, nor are its mechanics. First, the Chief Electoral Officer determines the electoral quotient, that is, the population per electoral district, by assessing the population increase since the last redistribution exercise. Currently, with a population increase of nearly 10% in 10 years, the population per electoral district is almost 122,000. The number of seats allocated to each province and to Quebec is then calculated by dividing the total population of Quebec and the provinces by the electoral quotient of 122,000.
However, as the Quebec minister responsible for Canadian relations and the Canadian francophonie, Sonia LeBel, has said repeatedly, there is more to it than a simple mathematical formula. It is important to take into account the real weight of Quebec's representation in the House of Commons. We are francophones; we have a special status and a nation to defend. Quebec's specificity must prevent us from losing seats in the House of Commons.
There is more to redistribution than a simple rule of three. If that were the case, Prince Edward Island would have only one member in the next redistribution, and some Prairie provinces would lose members. That is why there are two clauses in addition to the electoral quotient: the senatorial clause and the grandfather clause. I just illustrated this by talking about the Prairies and Prince Edward Island.
The third and final aspect is the following. It is the last element for now, but I hope there will be another.
This third element shapes the electoral redistribution that the Chief Electoral Officer must adhere to. It is called the representation rule. In other words, when a province does not have enough MPs to represent a riding, then more ridings, more members, need to be added.
These clauses and rules were enacted over the past 150 years, roughly, but they are not immutable. I will quote the Canadian Encyclopedia, something I never imagined I would do. It concludes its article on the redistribution of federal electoral districts by focusing on the principle of balance:
Although at first glance, this would seem to be a straightforward mathematical exercise, the principle of political equality exists alongside the fact that Canada is a federal state and the idea that effective representation also requires the recognition of distinct communities. Balancing these principles is at the heart of the redistribution process.
Quebec is nothing less than a nation of more than eight million people who share a territory, a language, a culture and a vision. In 2006, the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation. This is a nation whose official and common language is French, as the House of Commons recognized in 2021, when it voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion to that effect.
As long as Quebec is not a country, it will not have all the tools it should have for self-determination, and this will necessarily have political consequences, namely respect for Quebec's autonomy and its national assembly, the signing of asymmetrical agreements, and the acknowledgement of Quebec's distinct character in federal laws and policies.
That is what Quebec is calling for today. It is calling on the House to take into account our nation and its corollary, in other words, the defence of its political weight.
The Bloc Québécois is waiting for a firm and unequivocal commitment from parliamentarians and wishes to clarify the position of parties in the House.
Let us remember the following. In 1992, the Charlottetown accord guaranteed that Quebec would have 25% of the weight in the House of Commons. The former Progressive Conservative Party was in favour of that. The Reform Party of Canada was against it. John Turner supported it, but Pierre Elliott Trudeau was against it. In 2006, the NDP supported it, but what about now?
Some Canadian political parties have disappeared, and others have transformed into something different, but the Bloc Québécois has remained true to itself: logical, consistent and always ready to defend Quebec's interests.
We want to know if, like Quebeckers, Canadian political parties are worried about the fate of Quebec, if they will reject any electoral redistribution scenario that reduces Quebec's political weight, and if they will act accordingly. To that end, why not add a “nation clause”? That is the role of parliamentarians.
To conclude, I would like to quote my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, and the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, who have both made statements since October expressing how Quebec feels about this threat.
The Premier of Quebec said that “the Quebec nation deserves a certain degree of representation in the House of Commons, regardless of how many people live in each province”. He said that “this is a test for [the Prime Minister of Canada]. It is all well and good to recognize Quebec as a nation, but now he needs to back that up with action.” We are calling on the Prime Minister of Canada to “protect the proportion of members of Parliament from Quebec”.
My leader also pointed out at the beginning of his speech that Quebec's weight has been reduced. Quebec absolutely cannot lose a seat, since this so-called bilingual country cannot allow its institutions to diminish the relative weight of its country's francophone territory.
I want to echo what he said. Canada has no idea how big a fight the Bloc Québécois will put up if Quebec's weight continues to decrease while it is still in the federation. If anything, that will make us leave even sooner.
I cannot wait until Quebec is able to make its own decisions.
1420 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 8:03:24 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his speech and ask him a question.
He talked about respect for his constituents. I think that is the foundation of the work that we do and I dare imagine that is also the foundation of the work the Prime Minister must accomplish. To me, a big part of this crisis in the national capital has to do with the Prime Minister's shortcomings.
I would like my colleague's opinion on what could have been done in a way that respects Canadians and Quebeckers.
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/22 4:39:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I must say, I was a little taken aback by the arrogance of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie when he talked about my leader and the Bloc Québécois.
I think my colleague is being disingenuous. He implied that the Bloc leader is not looking at the act in an intellectually honest way, when what we said is that these are two different laws. At this point, it is like using a bazooka to kill a fly, after all.
The Prime Minister had three weeks to take action under existing legislation, but he did not lift a finger. Now we are being put in a position that no one wants to be in.
I would like to know whether the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is aware that Quebec as a whole, that is, his own National Assembly, opposes the use of the Emergencies Act on Quebec territory. We do not need it.
My colleague does not represent only himself. He represents Quebeckers, so he should take that into account in his comments.
183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
