- 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/4/24 12:19:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, qujannamiik to my colleague from Nunavut, with whom I was pleased to work on the Standing Committee on Indigenous and Northern Affairs.
I am happy that we are talking a little about the north today. Rural and remote communities, in particular indigenous and Inuit communities, often face difficulties due to their geographical remoteness.
My colleague touched on the issue of housing. Obviously, we are talking about nutrition. This is nothing new. People in the north have been dealing with this issue for decades. Of course, when the entire population sees that there is a problem, our instinct is to tackle it head on. However, potential solutions have already been proposed for the north.
I would like to hear more from my colleague about this issue and what she has to say about nutrition north Canada. Concerning the question of food security, does my colleague have other solutions to propose for regions like hers and mine?
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 11:01:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, listening to my colleague's speech made me wonder about something.
They are talking about nutrition north Canada and the need for reform. We have actually known that for years. The program did not only just now stop working in the north and other remote regions. In my riding, the boat often fails to arrive, forcing us to transport food by plane. It is getting more and more expensive. Eight years ago in the north, I saw a jar of Maxwell House coffee priced at $25.
What are the Liberals waiting for? They have been in government for eight years.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 10:27:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would just like you to confirm whether we can refer to the presence or absence of other members in the House. I do not think that is allowed.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 3:28:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if I am not mistaken, the member for Ajax voted, but we did not see his photo.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 1:31:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is actually the voice of the Quebec National Assembly. My colleague repeated his question, and I will repeat the answer. The Quebec National Assembly is made up of people elected from all parties. This is a unanimous motion supported by all parties, including Québec Solidaire. Everyone agrees that the answer is no, that we want to opt out with full compensation.
I am an elected member of Parliament. I work for all of my constituents. I have a great deal of respect for the unions, and I would even say that I get along very well with them. I share the same values, namely solidarity and fairness. However, I am an elected official, so I represent the people. I do not just represent the interests of unions and other organizations.
It makes me a little uncomfortable to see my colleague siding with organizations, no matter which ones, rather than the people. I am sure the unions will agree with me that they should be the ones to decide for elected officials. Of course, pressure tactics are needed. Let us talk. Discussions are needed, yes, but that can also happen in Quebec.
I want to repeat the essential part my answer, so that it is clearly understood. I represent the Bloc Québécois and the people of Quebec through the National Assembly. That means everyone, and it is legitimate.
242 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 1:29:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is as though my colleague from Montcalm can read my mind. Obviously, I agree with him. It makes perfect sense.
I tried to bring up the election issue. I know that people may not always want to talk about it in the House, because everyone wants to be above the fray. However, at a certain point, we feel we need to point out some of the blind spots that others may not see. Sometimes we have to point out certain things that have been forgotten.
I mentioned the National Assembly motion. That was in 2019. It has been on the table for a long time, since June 2019. Let us think about it. That was before the election that the Prime Minister called because he wanted to win a majority. That is not what happened. We have been discussing this for a long time. We are just not seeing it. I am not saying that there is not some merit behind it but, as far as I am concerned, it is almost purely electoral. Once again, we refuse to support it.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
Mr. Speaker, I have risen three times today because I was so eager to speak.
I am pleased to speak today at third reading of Bill C-64. We have been debating this bill for a long time. Clause-by-clause study took place last week, but we do need to wind up the debate at some point.
Before continuing with my speech, I would ask my colleagues to respect my right to speak and not talk over me.
First, to make things clear, if they are not already, the Bloc Québécois's position has not changed one iota: We are against Bill C-64.
I would like to remind my colleagues of the purpose of the bill. Obviously, a bill can have several different purposes, depending on which side we are on. Sometimes it may seem like a bill has a noble goal, but that may not be the case.
I would like to talk about something that is totally obvious to me but that people tend to forget when we get into these debates. Bill C‑64 addresses one of the 27 items in the agreement that the Liberals reached with the NDP in 2022 to stay in power by forming a sort of coalition with the NDP. This may have been in the NDP's best interests, although maybe it will want to argue that point.
I would like to remind the House of the wording of the second item in this agreement: “Continuing progress towards a universal national pharmacare program by passing a Canada Pharmacare Act by the end of 2023”.
They want to “continu[e] progress”. We often hear similar phrases in the House, phrases like continuing to move forward, continuing progress or continuing to do something. That is all very vague, in my opinion. I would imagine that pretty much anything we do is progress, even the bill we are currently discussing. Perhaps that covers the disagreement there was between the Liberals and the NDP on this issue.
As members know, the Liberals dragged their feet on introducing this bill. This bill was in the works for years. They were talking about it in 2022. It was introduced on February 29. They could not agree on the cost of the measure. Of course we would like to see a pharmacare act, but perhaps not at all costs, if my colleagues will pardon the pun.
This bill was introduced on February 29, at the very last minute, to save the agreement and to save the Liberals. I might add that it was also to save the NDP. I must say that I did not hold my breath at the time.
A moment ago, I talked about the purpose of the bill. I think that this bill was introduced purely for the purpose of garnering votes. It could have been introduced sooner, but there was an agreement. The NDP would not want to bring the government down. That is why I was not surprised when the bill was introduced this year, one year away from the election, just before the budget.
I also get the feeling that it may have been because the government is short on ideas. I have spoken many times about the government's lack of vision. It has been eight, almost nine, years since the government came to power. It will have been 10 years by the time the election comes around.
I have noticed that the House is copying the debates taking place south of the border. Take the debates over contraceptives and diabetes medication. It is not that I am not happy to see my colleagues across the aisle and next to me tackling the official opposition, to use a soccer term, here in the House over a woman's right to do what she wants with her own body. I was not unhappy about that. However, it is being done for the purpose of gaining votes. There is one party in the House that wants to limit women's rights. This may resonate with some people, even me, but it should not be done for that purpose alone.
In fact, maybe it was entirely arbitrary. The government did not know what to do, what to propose. It desperately wanted pharmacare, but it had no idea what it really wanted to do, so it thought about what could help it win votes. It figured that it could take certain debates from the U.S. bipartisan system and copy them here to pit the good guys against the bad guys.
In short, I am not saying that these billions of dollars that will be spent by the government are a form of pre-election advertising, but that is what it looks like. Again, Quebeckers and Canadians need to be aware of the partisan agenda hidden behind this bill. There is a hidden objective.
I think it takes a certain kind of courage to oppose a bill that seems virtuous. That is what we are being told: If we do not vote in favour of the bill, it is because we are against it. I, of course, am 100% in favour of a woman's right to choose and all methods of contraception. I am a member of the Bloc Québécois. I speak on behalf of Quebec. I am not against the provinces' positions. I do not mind if they decide that the federal government can interfere in their jurisdictions. That is their choice, and I respect it. At the same time, that is not what I want for Quebec. That is why the Bloc Québécois proposed the following amendment in committee:
Despite subsections (1) and (2), a province or territory may elect not to participate in national universal pharmacare, in which case that province or territory remains unconditionally entitled to receive payments in order to maintain the accessibility and affordability of the prescription drugs and related products already covered by its public pharmacare.
Our amendment concerns the ability to opt out with full compensation from the pharmacare program. It was not debated because we could not debate it in committee during clause-by-clause study of the bill. It was not rejected either. I would say that what happened is even worse: It was ruled inadmissible. I wish I could avoid talking about the reasons the committee chair ruled the amendment inadmissible, but I think it is important to go over them because this is just another clear demonstration of bad faith, in my opinion, and the federal government's disregard for the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec.
It was argued that the amendment required a royal recommendation, which is false. What we were told is that it will generate additional costs and that, since we are an opposition party, it requires a royal recommendation. I hate to say it, but that is absolutely false. The amendment did not require a royal recommendation, because the funds had already been committed by the government. The Bloc Québécois's amendment was therefore legitimate and admissible.
This is not the only time that government members have made arguments that do not hold water and that are merely a pretext to interfere in Quebec's jurisdiction. The government did the same thing in the case of Bill C-35, which deals with the child care program. As far as I am concerned, this is not only a sign of disrespect toward Quebec, it is basically an insult, because over the decades, Quebec has built a social safety net that is the envy of North America. We have pharmacare, as well as dental coverage for young people. We have free education and early childhood centres. We have made some huge social advances.
In this case, the federal government is digging in its heels and refusing to allow Quebec to opt out unconditionally with full compensation. As I see it, Ottawa is refusing to recognize Quebec's decades of leadership in this area. The same thing happened with child care centres and Bill C‑35. What is more, the federal government is doing all this without having jurisdiction over this area or having any expertise in care and social services. Quebec is being denied something we have every right to request by a government that lacks both expertise and jurisdiction. The government has no compunction about turning us down, but at the same time, it has to follow our example with a view to “continuing progress”, as they put it so eloquently. I have no problem with the federal government continuing progress, but I do not want this progress to come at Quebec's expense.
As I said before, Quebec already has a public pharmacare plan for part of the population that the government introduced nearly 30 years ago. I need to repeat this because I think some people have trouble hearing it. This is not the case with everyone, but in the House, it is true of nearly the majority. As far as Canada is concerned, it is trying to catch up. It is behind by 30 years, so now it is encroaching on our jurisdiction. It may be more. We also have a private plan offered by employers, to which workers contribute as well. No one in Quebec lacks pharmacare coverage. People need to stop spreading falsehoods.
The choice was made by Quebeckers. It was not Ottawa that made this choice, it was Quebec. Our plan is also paid for by Quebeckers. The federal government did not give a red cent for this plan. We know what is right for us. We do not need someone else to tell us. We are capable of taking care of ourselves. We do not need paternalistic Ottawa trying to manage a pharmacare plan in Quebec without expertise, without legitimacy and without experience.
I keep thinking that what the Bloc Québécois is asking from the federal government is simple and it makes sense. We are asking the federal government to take care of its own responsibilities, such as foreign affairs, defence and fisheries. It seems to me that the federal government has enough responsibilities. It has more than enough things to take care of.
Perhaps that is not sexy enough for the government. I should ask that question. Is that sexy enough for the government? Health and education are the two areas that affect people the most. Of course, health is a matter of major importance. We talk about the things we care about. If we are not alive, then nothing else matters, obviously. Health is important. These are the two budget items that are most important for Quebec.
The government knows that, for years now, its health transfers have been insufficient. They are shrinking down to nothing. It knows all that. If the government reduces the transfers, the burden will fall heavily on Quebec and the provinces. Who gets the blame when there is a shortage of care and services? Quebec and the provinces, obviously.
Jean Chrétien understood this well. He bragged to the G7 that all he had to do to balance the budget was reduce health transfers. He said that Canadians would look for someone to blame, but that they would not blame the federal government, because health is under Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdiction. They are the ones who would be cutting health care and education. For him, it was simple: Canadians would take it out on the provinces. The federal government would be able to achieve a balanced budget, and no one would hold anything against it. The provinces would pay the price, both literally and figuratively.
It always comes down to this, unfortunately, but as a separatist, I have no other choice. I am a separatist and I am pragmatic. It always comes down to the fiscal imbalance. The federal government collects more money than it needs to fulfill its responsibilities, while the provinces and Quebec are not collecting enough to manage their own jurisdictions. They are short of money, which gives the federal government an opening to spend money on things under Quebec's and the provinces' jursidiction.
It is unbelievable. It is like the federal government is stealing from the provinces and Quebec. It is strangling them. If they meet certain conditions, it will back off and let them breathe again.
We would not thank anyone who is strangling us for stopping. We understand that interference is always done with a purpose. I mentioned this earlier, but it is still the same thing with the government and its minions.
The federal government swoops in like a saviour, slapping its flag on cheques, which it tosses around like confetti, and the cavalry of government members run around, trumpets blaring, trying to solve the problems it created itself. In fact, the more I think about it, the more I like that image. It has definite educational value. However, although we may be laughing over it, it is a hard fact.
While the government is gaily running around, it has forgotten why it was elected. Perhaps it does not know. Perhaps it has forgotten. When a government has no vision, it may take a peek in the neighbour's yard, looking for direction.
Again, interfering in areas of provincial and Quebec jurisdiction has a purpose for them. In fact, the purpose is twofold in this case: one, to keep the government in power, and two, to prepare for the next election.
Until we gain independence, Quebeckers will have to fight to make sure this government respects us, respects our expertise and experience and gives us what is ours, meaning our money and, of course, control over our own jurisdictions. It will also have to respect the fact that we have our own pharmacare program.
Quebeckers are capable of discussing amongst ourselves, at home, and improving our pharmacare plan with our experts, based on our experience and our wishes. It is not up to the federal government to tell Quebeckers what to do. We refuse to let our own tax money be used against us and at our expense.
One way to respect us is to vote down Bill C‑64. I may be a member of the Bloc Québécois, but I am not the only one who says so. The Quebec National Assembly has said it too. Christian Dubé, Quebec's health minister, pointed it out the day before the bill was introduced. We do not want this bill. We do not want the federal government to encroach on areas of Quebec's jurisdiction. I would remind the House that the National Assembly alone speaks for all Quebeckers.
In closing, I would therefore like to let the voices of Quebeckers be heard through the unanimous demands of the National Assembly for compensation to be paid to Quebec. That is what the Bloc Québécois has asked for, because the Bloc Québécois speaks on behalf of Quebeckers. The motion unanimously adopted by the National Assembly on June 14, 2019, reads as follows:
THAT the National Assembly acknowledge the federal report recommending the establishment of a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;
THAT it reaffirm the Government of Québec's exclusive jurisdiction over health;
THAT it also reaffirm that Québec has had its own general prescription insurance plan for 20 years;
THAT it indicate to the federal government that Québec refuses to adhere to a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan;
THAT it ask the Government of Québec to maintain its prescription drug insurance plan and that it demand full financial compensation from the federal government if a project for a pan-Canadian pharmacare plan is officially tabled.
That was back in 2019, so the Quebec government made its position clear quite some time ago. Today, I am still trying to be a voice for the National Assembly. I hoped that the federal government would respect Quebec's decision to refuse to join the federal plan, for example, in the motion put forward at the committee studying Bill C‑64. We respect the provinces that want to take part in the program set out in the bill, since coverage is rather inconsistent across Canada, but in Quebec, everyone is covered by a pharmacare program.
It is up to us to decide what we want to do next. It is not up to the federal government.
2770 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 11:27:22 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is indicative of a culture problem within the Liberal Party. The whole purpose of the Standing Committee on Official Languages is to promote French in Canada. All the Liberals need to do is choose five of their 156 members who speak French and who want to protect the French language. That is all. Those are the only two criteria, but they cannot even do that.
Let us get back to the member for Alfred-Pellan, who is arguing in committee that English should become Quebec's official language. Why is he even there? Why is it so hard for the Liberals to send members who do not want to undermine French?
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/24 11:26:01 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Liberals have transformed the Standing Committee on Official Languages into an endless source of reasons to be concerned for the future of French. After the Liberal member for Saint-Laurent said that Bill 96 prevents anglophones from receiving care, and after the Liberal member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell insulted researchers who are worried about the decline of French, yesterday, the Liberal member for Alfred-Pellan added that Quebec should become bilingual in order to be, and I quote, strong, not just a unilingual francophone province. In his opinion, the French language is limiting us.
Once again, is that the Liberals' position? If not, are they going to set their MPs straight?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Bill C-377, introduced by the Conservative member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, raises extremely important but sensitive issues.
The member is correct in saying that the current situation is not working and needs to be improved. When we talk about parliamentarians' access to classified information, there are two conflicting principles. Both of these principles are important, and so we must find a way to reconcile them before our deliberations come to an end.
On the one hand, there is responsible government, which is the very basis of democracy. Ministers are responsible for everything that happens in their departments. Cabinet members are collectively responsible for everything that happens in government. They are not accountable to the Holy Spirit, but rather Parliament.
We have a parliamentary system, and Parliament is the boss. The government must be accountable to Parliament, to the representatives of the people. To do that, Parliament must have access to all the information it needs, including documents that are to be produced.
When classified documents are involved, the situation is more sensitive. Those documents are classified secret for a reason, and disclosing them can be dangerous. Doing so can expose the identity of confidential sources, which burns them. It can make impossible co-operation with the intelligence agencies in friendly countries, which is necessary for ensuring security both at home and abroad. It can set off an international crisis or even uncover military secrets that would make us all vulnerable; it could cause an ongoing investigation to derail.
In the somewhat outdated words used in Bourinot, the old procedural guide that was consulted by the Chair during the Afghan prisoner crisis, it is important to preserve the roughly 140 years of collaboration between the House, the grand inquest of the nation, and the government, the defender of the realm. It is old language, but we understand the principle. When it comes to classified documents, there is no real mechanism that allows for this collaboration to work. This gap was made clear during the Afghan prisoner crisis and the Winnipeg lab crisis.
The Afghan prisoner crisis occurred under the Conservative government of Stephen Harper and the Winnipeg lab crisis under the current Liberal government. This is not a partisan issue. It is an institutional gap.
I want to say a few words about the story of the Afghan prisoners. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the United States felt it had been the victim of aggression. It invoked NATO's collective defence clause and asked its allies for help. This marked the start of the Afghanistan campaign, in which Canada took part.
In 2007, whistle-blowers made some alarming statements to journalists. Whenever the Canadian army took prisoners, it handed them over to the Afghan government, at which point they were tortured. This contravenes international law. Of course, it was extremely serious.
In 2009, there was another leak. A memo prepared by Canadian diplomats in Afghanistan confirmed the 2007 allegations. The special committee on the war in Afghanistan asked to see the memo, but the government denied its existence. The committee asked to see all the documents relating to the affair, but the government refused. It was the start of a tug-of-war. The government eventually released 4,000 pages of documents, but so much had been redacted that it was impossible to know what information they actually contained. Worse still, new leaks showed that the redacted parts did not contain information that needed to remain secret. They contained information that was simply inconvenient to the government.
The Speaker confirmed that the House had a right to know. The House declared the Harper government in contempt of Parliament and the government fell in 2011.
However, this did not resolve the matter. The Harper government, which managed to win a majority because the Bloc Québécois had been weakened, created a committee of former judges and parliamentarians, all with security clearance. In the end, 40,000 pages of lightly redacted documents were made public in 2014 and confirmed the allegations.
Canada had indeed handed over some prisoners to the Afghan government. They were subjected to torture. Canada knew it. Soldiers and diplomats had concerns about it. They are not to blame. However, the government turned a deaf ear. Seven years had gone by. The practice had long since stopped. The Canadian army's combat mission ended in 2011. It was too late to do anything.
The Winnipeg lab affair is quite similar. In 2019, we learned that two researchers were fired and deported to China, but the government refused to say anything more. This was the start of another tug-of-war. The House asked for documents, and the government refused. The head of the Public Health Agency of Canada was found in contempt of Parliament and was admonished by the Speaker. The Liberal government, however, doubled down. Worse still, it took legal action against the Speaker of the House and then dissolved Parliament.
Last week, after a committee composed of security-cleared former judges and parliamentarians reviewed the documents, the report was finally made public. Our worst fears were confirmed: These two researchers were spying for the Chinese government. Five years had passed since the information first came to light. Clearly, the system is broken.
There is the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, which the government legislated into existence in 2017. However, the story of the Winnipeg laboratory, which occurred two years after the committee was created, laid bare its limitations. Not only are its members bound to secrecy, but it does not report to Parliament. It does not really allow Parliament to do its job.
This is where Bill C‑377 comes in.
When it comes to giving access to classified documents, the government has two requirements. First, individuals must have security clearance. Second, the documents must be required in the course of the individual's work. In the case of civil servants with well-defined responsibilities, it is fairly difficult to determine whether they need access to a particular document. In the case of parliamentarians, it is more complicated. The government is accountable to Parliament for all its activities and the government should not have the right to decide what Parliament can legitimately investigate, which is essentially the situation we have now.
Bill C-377 proposes a simple solution. Proposed subsection 13.1(1) reads as follows:
A member of the Senate or the House of Commons who applies for a secret security clearance from the Government of Canada is, for the purposes of the consideration of their application, deemed to need access to the information in respect of which the application is made.
The bill respects the privileges of parliamentarians, so this is a step in the right direction. The government will no longer be able to decide, on a case-by-case basis and in a completely arbitrary manner, what a parliamentarian should have access to. However, Bill C-377 is missing something. Parliamentarians who have security clearance will have easier access to classified information. That is good, but they will obviously have to keep it to themselves. I do not know whether the House of Commons, as an institution, will be strengthened by this or how the situation will be any different from what we are experiencing with the National Security and Intelligence Committee of Parliamentarians, whose limitations we have seen.
The United States has the Gang of Eight. The government regularly provides this group with confidential briefings and access to documents. Who is on that panel? For each house of Congress, it is the leaders of both parties, plus the individuals responsible for intelligence in both parties. They must keep the information to themselves, of course, but having access to it guides their work, both in Congress or in the Senate, and at committee. This approach, in addition to giving representatives and senators access to information, feeds the institution and guides its work.
However, such an institutional mechanism is missing from Bill C-377. That is why I just said the bill is missing something. It is nonetheless interesting, and I sincerely thank the member for Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound for introducing it. The debate on this bill is important, very important indeed. The Bloc Québécois is approaching this in a non-partisan, open-minded way, because we are all interested. We remain open-minded, as we reflect and listen, which is the hallmark of a healthy parliamentary system.
1425 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/30/24 3:59:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the fuel excise tax is $5.5 billion a year. For three months, it is $1.4 billion.
What I would like to know is this. How does my colleague think the Conservative Party would pay for its new federal fossil fuel subsidy? What would it cut?
51 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 5:47:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are not attacking him. This term is being used by the member because he does not wish to rise above the fray.
Once again, I may be a Bloc Québécois member, but I do not care which province or territory members who aspire to become Speaker come from. We have to rise above the fray.
To answer my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, as a Bloc Québécois MP, I make sure that I am the last person to see any communications posted about me on my Facebook, Instagram, LinkedIn or other accounts.
As elected officials, we must not shirk responsibility by saying that something is not our fault and blaming the party, which in this case was the Liberal Party of Canada. The Speaker must have approved the post. If he did not, he was failing to do his job as an MP and a partisan.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 5:45:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, we need to rise above the fray, because it does not matter where the Speaker is from. What matters to me is that the Speaker has the skills to do his job and that he earns the trust of the entire House.
As for the anti-Quebec conspiracy, that is not what this is. Other parties are stuck on this because we are the Bloc Québécois. The fact remains that we need to settle this issue. It is not about partisanship, hence the idea of, as I said, rising above the fray.
We want this to work. This needs to work for everyone. I would ask everyone to do the same thing I am trying to do.
127 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/28/24 5:32:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Thornhill.
To begin, I would like to convey to the House my respect for my colleague, the member for Hull—Aylmer, who is an affable, warm and cordial person and who also happens to be the Speaker of the House right now. I wanted to make the distinction because it is not the individual, the MP himself, who is being called into question, but rather the embodiment of his role as Speaker. Beyond that, as many have said yesterday and today, it is the very functioning of the House of Commons that is being called into question.
I am taking the time to reiterate this distinction, which makes perfect sense but seems to be misunderstood by government members. I listened to the debates yesterday and I am listening carefully today. It has to be said that if someone does not understand this distinction, it is difficult for them to take part in this debate, because it is the very basis on which it rests. In the same vein, since we have to make this distinction between the role of Speaker and that of member of Parliament, I would say that we must also manage, as members of the House of Commons, to distinguish between the roles we take on.
I would invite the members of the governing Liberal Party to reflect on the fact that they are not here to protect one of their own, but to protect democracy and the institution that is the House of Commons. I think we need to be mindful of the motion we are considering today, because it arises from a question of privilege. This implies that the Speaker ruled in favour of the member who raised this question of privilege. I would like to quote from the Speaker's ruling on the question of privilege because I think it is useful.
In ruling on this matter, I would like to clarify that I am not passing judgment on the alleged facts but rather on the priority these allegations should be given. While a motion could indeed be moved during routine proceedings, such motions are subject to interruptions in proceedings that could delay a decision on them indefinitely. As for opposition motions, they depend on the allotment of a supply day.
Quite clearly, it is in the interest of the whole House to resolve this particular matter quickly and with all due seriousness. As a result, I find that a prima facie question of privilege exists in this case.
The Chair clearly places a great deal of importance on this question. Since yesterday, members interested in discussing it have been accused of obstructing the business of this House, which I believe to be untrue, as the Chair's ruling shows. This debate is much needed. We are asking for a solution and for the issue to be addressed in a timely manner. When such a motion of privilege is moved, it has to take priority. I am repeating myself, but giving priority to this motion underscores the importance of the debate currently taking place in the House.
Although I said that we must, first of all, keep the motion in mind, members must also accept that we are not engaging in obstruction. Rather, we are trying to resolve an outstanding issue that is currently creating a vacuum. The question is to determine whether we still have confidence in the Speaker or not.
I spoke about the Liberal members, but I invite all members of the House to do the same thing, to adhere to the same principles the Speaker must adhere to, namely impartiality and discernment. It is worthwhile to note that the root of the word “impartiality” is “party”, so there is that notion of neutrality.
Once again, this is not a question of political stripe. We are talking about the very role of Speaker, which should be above all partisan considerations.
I would like to take a moment to remind the House of the highlights of the story that led to this debate that has been going on since December 2023, since the Speaker of the House participated in an event organized by the Liberal Party of Ontario. The Speaker demonstrated then that he was unable to act with the neutrality I spoke of or show good judgment. I will identify four elements. He gave a speech in the Speaker of the House's robes, gave his title as Speaker of the House, and produced a video in the Speaker of the House's office and, by extension, using the House's resources.
I am limiting myself to this portion of the story, although there are many more, since I believe that the member for Hull—Aylmer, either on this one occasion or on many others, patently demonstrated by his actions that he did not understand the obligations associated with the position of Speaker of the House. Worse yet, once he was criticized for his actions, he failed to admit that they were unacceptable. He regretted none of his actions, although they were cut and dried and, as was stated in committee, could not be interpreted any other way.
However, he did regret the video that was publicly broadcast. It is the fact that it was publicly broadcast that he regretted. He does not acknowledge his mistake, but regrets how it was interpreted. It remains a mistake, regardless of how it was subsequently interpreted. Moreover, he does not acknowledge any partisanship in his actions. He also fails to mention other, similar partisan actions he took while he was speaker. His refusal to admit his mistake supports the idea I shared earlier, that the Speaker does not understand the obligations associated with his position. Worse still, it shows his inability, whether voluntary or involuntary, to make amends. There is no change possible because he does not understand, and he refuses to apologize, understand or change his behaviour.
This incident, isolated from the ones that would follow, such as the speech in Washington, already attests to a lack of impartiality and judgment. We are now in May, but as early as last December, the Speaker demonstrated his inability to perform his duties. As we know, the legitimacy of his role is built on trust. That trust has eroded over the past few months and, as my colleague from Trois-Rivières was saying yesterday, the lack of trust turns into mistrust, and mistrust turns into defiance. Over half of the House is calling on the Speaker to step down.
When the Speaker fails to perform his duties and refuses to learn from it, when he loses the trust of the House and refuses to earn it back, when he knowingly harms the work of this institution, the House of Commons, in other words, Quebeckers and Canadians, we reach a point where the Speaker could regain the esteem and respect of the entire House by doing the only honourable thing that a Speaker who is not discharging his duties can do, and that is to leave.
Madam Speaker, before we move on to questions and comments, I would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: That, given that the House is currently debating a non-confidence motion in the Speaker of the House on which the House will have to vote, that the Speaker is usually elected through a secret ballot, and that the secret ballot prevents any attempt to influence the vote and ensures that the result represents the real will of the members of our assembly, the House defer the vote planned for today until Monday, June 3, 2024, at 3 p.m. and that the vote be conducted by secret ballot in the House.
1317 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 2:04:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is with a heavy heart, but with recognition and admiration that I pay tribute to a great Nitassinan, utshimau Alexandre McKenzie, who passed away on May 11.
The entire north shore is mourning the loss of this builder who has left a great legacy. We owe him for the founding of the Schefferville Airport Corporation, Tshiuetin Rail Transportation Inc., the first indigenous owned railway in Quebec, as well as the creation of the Institut Tshakapesh, guardian of the Innu-aimun language and culture.
Former chief of the Matimekush-Lac John community, to which he devoted his entire life, utshimau McKenzie's commitment was recognized in 2023 when he was named a Chevalier de l'Ordre national du Québec.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wish to share my deepest condolences with the loved ones of utshimau McKenzie and the Innu nation.
Tshinashkumitin utshimau McKenzie for making the heart of the Innu nation beat to the rhythm of your legendary teueikan and for continuing to make it heard from the great beyond.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 11:26:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, can you please tell me if a member's vote counts when they do not have their headset on. It is also for the interpreters' sake that I wanted to bring this up.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 11:26:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
It is my understanding that everyone is to wear the headset approved by the House of Commons when rising during the vote. The member for Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook was not wearing his headset when he wanted to check that his vote had been recorded.
I just wanted to remind all our colleagues of that.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
