- 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
- Feb/29/24 10:52:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I also had the opportunity to sit with my colleague at the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs. I would like him to speak in a little more depth about nutrition north Canada, which was studied in committee. We hear that it cannot resolve the whole situation of food sovereignty or food security in the north.
Does my colleague see other possible solutions or arrangements? How can the nutrition north Canada program be improved to ensure food security in the north?
84 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
- May/10/22 10:50:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at no point did I mention the Reign of Terror, if that is what my colleague is suggesting.
As I said earlier, I am passionate about both history and knowledge. Naturally I would love to have a conversation with him and very humbly share what I know about the historical period during which humanity achieved democracy. Great Britain is not the only place where peoples have fought for freedom and representation.
We have been told repeatedly that this subject is of no interest to the House of Commons and that other subjects are more deserving of our attention. However, as my colleague from Drummond said, opposition days give us a chance to do other things and explore other topics.
My colleague's enthusiasm indicates that this subject is likely to inspire debate. I very much look forward to hearing what he has to say about it. Perhaps he will speak today.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
