- Member of Parliament
- Deputy House leader of the Bloc Québécois
- Bloc Québécois
- Saint-Jean
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,900.56
- Government Page
- Nov/20/23 3:02:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's aerospace industry is not asking for handouts. It is just asking to be able to compete. It is asking the federal government to give Quebec workers a chance to show their expertise before gifting $8 billion of taxpayer money to the Americans.
It is only natural that the U.S. ambassador is standing up for Boeing, an American company. That is his job. However, it is not right that the federal government is not even giving Quebec businesses a chance to compete. When will the government do its job and launch a competition?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/20/23 3:01:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we already knew that the Liberals were considering excluding Bombardier and Quebec's expertise and awarding Boeing an $8‑billion sole-source contract to build military aircraft, but now the Americans are putting the pressure on. The U.S. ambassador has written to a number of Liberal ministers to ask them to oppose a competition.
I would like to remind the Liberals that they work for their constituents, not for Washington. They owe it to Quebeckers and Canadians to make sure they are buying the best aircraft by letting Bombardier compete. Will they finally launch a competition?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/2/23 2:44:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in a response to a question from the Bloc Québécois yesterday, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said that questioning Quebec's capacity to integrate immigrants showed bad faith and was essentially a refusal to listen to what is going on.
Let me tell members what shows bad faith: setting record immigration thresholds without even trying to determine our integration capacity. Let me tell members a refusal to listen really is: refusing to consult Quebec. “Bad faith and a refusal to listen” could have been the title of the plan the minister unveiled yesterday.
Will the minister scrap his plan and consult Quebec in order to present thresholds that are based on reality?
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/23 2:49:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec has confirmed that it was not consulted.
This means that the immigration thresholds that the minister will unveil shortly do not take into account the availability of health care. They do not take into account space in our schools. They do not take into account child care spaces. They do not take into account capacity for French-language training. They do not take into account the housing crisis. They do not take into account the infrastructure that needs to be built to support population growth.
Did the the minister consult his astrologist to come up with the thresholds he will be announcing shortly?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/23 2:48:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois motion that the minister will be supporting later today is about successful immigration.
Immigration cannot be successful when thresholds do not take integration capacity into consideration. Indeed, the Conference Board of Canada indicated yesterday that the number of disappointed immigrants who end up leaving Canada has skyrocketed. In 2017 alone, 60,000 immigrants left; two years later, it was 67,000. Problems with access to housing and economic integration were among the reasons cited.
Will the minister get back to work and consult Quebec instead of announcing immigration thresholds that are completely disconnected from our integration capacity?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/23 10:25:35 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the debate we are having today is not about setting thresholds. The aim is to ensure that talks with the provinces at least get started, which has not happened, despite Canada's legal obligation to do so.
When Manitoba decided to have programs, there was more latitude on immigration, which was great. I am pleased that Quebec has programs, although more are needed. There is a language issue that arises here. Yesterday, there was a very good piece on Radio-Canada about Jacques Couture, who was responsible for the Cullen-Couture agreement back in the day.
When it comes to the issue of thresholds, consultations are key. Ultimately, interprovincial migration also comes into play, and it may impact Quebec. We must also therefore consider arrivals outside Quebec.
We have to take into account our ability to house people and the fact that the federal government underfunds health care. This has to be part of the discussion. The health transfer escalator is 3%, while current needs tell us it should be 6%. All of this has to figure into the equation, and this is why we ask that there be at least one initial consultation, which is not currently the case.
202 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 11:26:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, let us talk about the human cost.
There is a labour shortage in our classrooms. We cannot just ask our teachers to take in even more children who do not speak French and who are more likely to have special needs. The elastic is stretched thin and stretching it further would cut the quality of education offered to all children. Quebec does not have the resources to take care of all the asylum seekers from Roxham Road on its own. That is the reality.
When will the government finally suspend the safe third country agreement so that asylum seekers can be welcomed across Canada?
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/23 11:25:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, Quebec schools are feeling the full effects of what is happening at Roxham Road.
Since the beginning of the school year last September, the Quebec government has had to create 224 new classes just to accommodate the children of asylum seekers. That is 224 new classes, while we are in the midst of a shortage of teachers and specialists. That is 224 new classes, the vast majority in the Montreal area where schools are already filled well beyond their capacity.
There is a huge human cost to all this, which I will come back to, but first, will Ottawa commit to at least footing the bill?
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Statistics Canada also revealed that one of the three sectors where French in the workplace is declining the most is the finance and insurance sector. That means banks, which are under federal jurisdiction.
Let me repeat that. Banks, which are under federal jurisdiction, are among the main architects of the decline of the French language. Bill C‑13 allows them to continue to circumvent the Charter of the French Language. Bill C‑13 does not protect French in Quebec; it protects the banks, which want to operate in English.
What is the minister's mandate? Is it to protect the banks or to protect the French language?
111 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, according to Statistics Canada, the use of French in the workplace is declining in Quebec. One in five Quebeckers cannot work in French; also, 32% of Montrealers and 35% of Gatineau residents work primarily in English.
We will not stand for the federal government, despite being fully aware of these numbers, enacting Bill C‑13 to protect English in the workplace by allowing federally regulated companies to keep ignoring the Charter of the French Language.
French is in decline and English is on the rise. How can the minister deny that we are witnessing the anglicization of Quebec?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/4/22 11:28:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the problem is that the federal government is not listening to what Quebec wants. It throws out a number, 500,000 immigrants, and thinks it has done its job. Immigration is not just a number. It is also about meeting people's needs.
The federal government is incapable of providing its fair share of funding for housing and health. It is incapable of processing applications for permanent residency and citizenship in less than about a century and a half. This summer, it was incapable of printing a basic piece of photo ID, a passport. The federal machine is broken.
Could the government start by fixing the machine before bringing another 500,000 people into the country?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/4/22 11:27:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, immigration is a blessing. However, based on the new thresholds they announced, the Liberals are completely out of touch with Quebec's situation. It seems they have forgotten that Quebeckers must provide all the services newcomers may expect such as housing, health, education and, above all, francization. In short, everything that helps people integrate.
Why are the Liberals so intent on Quebec exceeding its capacity for integration or, failing that, losing its political weight?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 2:15:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, René Lévesque left us 35 years ago.
Quebec owes René Lévesque and the Parti Québécois so much, including the nationalization of electricity, the Charter of the French Language, agricultural zoning, automobile insurance, the immigration agreement, the environment department and so much more.
More than any of these achievements, his main contribution, his greatest contribution, was that he made us Quebeckers. Before René Lévesque, we were French Canadians. Thanks to him, and to women and men like him, we have become Quebeckers. That is his greatest and most beautiful legacy. That is why Félix Leclerc described him as the liberator of the people.
René Lévesque was born 100 years ago. He left us 35 years ago. Sovereignists and federalists alike are in his debt, and we are all his heirs, because René Lévesque was something like a great man.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is the last Friday of this session in the House. If I may, I would like to take a moment to acknowledge everyone who has supported our work throughout this past parliamentary session. This includes the interpreters, the pages, the Sergeant-at-Arms and his team, maintenance staff, cafeteria employees, IT support staff, law clerks, analysts, and so on. Not only do these people help us represent our constituents to the best of our ability, but they also make our job so much more enjoyable simply because they are so incredibly nice.
Madam Speaker, as everyone knows, Fridays can be a little colourful in the House compared to most other days. We are often treated to all kinds of surprises, including new faces in the chair you are now occupying. I want to congratulate everyone who has taken a surprise turn in the chair over the past few weeks. Everyone did a great job. Let me single out my colleague from Joliette, as well as the member who spoke right before me, my colleague from Kitchener Centre.
As I said, Fridays are full of surprises, and parliamentarians' schedules are sometimes turned upside down. I would therefore like to say a quick hello to Marie‑Andrée Cardinal's special education class at École Marguerite‑Bourgeoys. I was supposed to meet with them this morning, but unfortunately had to reschedule. I look forward to meeting them, and I know that it will happen another time. In the meantime, I wish them a great end of the school year and above all a good summer vacation.
I will come back to our current subject, Bill C‑226. This is not the first time that a bill on environmental justice has been tabled in the House. In the previous Parliament, the then member for Cumberland—Colchester, Lenore Zann, introduced Bill C‑230, whose objectives were fairly similar to those of the current Bill C‑226.
When the vote was held at second reading, the Bloc Québécois did not support the bill. Specifically, we raised questions about interference in Quebec's jurisdictions, because, as drafted, it contained provisions that directly attacked Quebec's environmental sovereignty. I will come back to this point later.
The bill did make it to second reading and the committee was able to correct these and other aspects, which made it possible for the Bloc Québécois to finally support it. What happened next is history. The bill died on the Order Paper when the government called an election in the summer.
Discussions about bills similar to Bill C-226 are not just a thing of the past. The other chamber is currently holding a similar debate on Bill S-5, the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. We can see that people want something to be done about environmental human rights, and the Bloc Québécois thinks that is a good thing. Since Bill S-5 is broader in scope when it comes to addressing environmental injustices, one has to wonder whether, if it passes before Bill C-226, Bill C-226 will then become obsolete. We will see.
In short, Bill C-226 is no doubt inspired by a very noble desire to advance environmental justice. However, what starts out as a good intention unfortunately does not always lead to a good end result, or the implementation of a good policy, and we believe that Bill C‑226 has some shortcomings. I mainly want to focus on two of them today.
As has already been mentioned, Bill C‑226, like the first version of Bill C‑230, would create a Canada-wide strategy, which, in a federative context, might not be the right approach. Any action by the Canadian government must take into account that Quebec and the provinces have jurisdiction over environmental protections and health and social services. More specifically, it should recognize that the Government of Quebec has authority over these matters. We therefore believe that it would be inconsistent to claim to be fighting for environmental justice at the federal level without, at the time time, defending the environmental sovereignty of Quebec.
Parts of the federal infrastructure, such as wharves, ports, airports, telecommunications infrastructure, federal property and so on, are not subject to our environmental protection laws or municipal bylaws. Quebec's environmental protection and land-use planning laws must apply to all Quebec territory and must not be overridden by federal laws.
This reflects the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly, which, on April 13, 2022, voted in favour of the primacy of Quebec's jurisdiction in matters of the environment and opposed any intervention by the federal government in matters of the environment on Quebec territory.
I want to add that, in Quebec, the right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved has been enshrined in the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, a quasi-constitutional statute, since 2006. I mentioned Bill S‑5 earlier, and I want to point out that one of the objectives of this bill is to enshrine this type of right in Canadian legislation.
Because this happened last time, the Bloc wants to remind the House that respect for Quebec's environmental sovereignty cannot be sidestepped during the study of this bill.
The other concern I want to raise about Bill C‑226 is that it should focus on environmental justice rather than environmental racism. Not only are there issues with the definitions, but also the notion of environmental racism might not be universal enough. Many people may slip through the cracks, even though we should be tackling the environmental inequality they experience too.
My colleague from Repentigny did a great job of summarizing the situation when she spoke to the former Bill C‑230:
My thought is this. If we introduce new policies based on new rights, such as the right to a healthy environment, everyone should benefit from it. Furthermore, if the policy is well thought out and targeted, it will correct unequal situations. Those who suffer the greatest injustices will then receive help and support from the government, and even reparation for the harm done. That's my understanding. The rights and the criteria for receiving state protection and support are universal. If the principles are truly applied to everyone, without discrimination, then the policy will have the effect of reducing inequalities based on differences.
Leaving aside issue of interference for now, here is my question: If the only inequalities covered by Bill C‑226 are race-related, are we leaving out other people who also deserve protection?
The Commission des droits de la personne et des droits de la jeunesse du Québec also addressed the issue of the systematic correlation between certain social inequalities and the notion of race.
...the idea that socio-economic, cultural and political differences between groups of individuals can be based entirely or in part on biological and genetic disparities has been widely rejected by most researchers in the social sciences.
Here is a concrete example. If the population of eastern Montreal, which is diverse and has its historical roots in the working class, were affected by air pollution, which we know it is, would it be subject to or excluded from the strategy? Furthermore, we must question the criteria used.
Similarly, would the municipality of Rouyn-Noranda, which is grappling with serious problems of air quality and overexposure to arsenic, be covered by the bill? This matter does raise issues of environmental justice, because, like David against Goliath, citizens whose life expectancy has been cut by five years are fighting Glencore and its $4-billion profits. Would Rouyn-Noranda, on the sole basis of environmental racism, enjoy protection under the law?
In short, this seems to be a matter of universality. We know that a policy is good when its measures are reasonably flexible. Throughout history, the social policies that have best served the advancement of rights and social protections and reduced inequalities, in other words, the development of a welfare state, have been universal policies. The best way for the government to avoid discriminating based on differences is to blind itself to differences.
If our institutions implement new policies based on new rights, such as the right to a clean environment, everyone should have them. If the policy is well-thought-out, if the implementation measures manage to remedy inequitable situations, then those who suffer the most from injustice will receive help and support from the government, as well as reparation for any harm done. If the rights and the eligibility criteria for government protection and support are universal and if those principles are applied to everyone without discrimination, then the policy will also eliminate inequalities based on differences, all differences.
These are two things that we should think about in order to improve the bill. I will end there.
1525 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 11:35:55 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a very interesting question that unfortunately I cannot answer, because, around 2014, the federal government abolished the regional aspect of industrial and technological benefits.
As a result, we no longer know where the money goes. We can guess that it goes where it is more helpful for election purposes.
What we are hearing through the grapevine is that, since then, Quebec has not been doing anywhere near as well, although it accounts for 50% of aerospace production.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/5/22 11:21:56 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Limoilou.
I am pleased to rise to speak to a Conservative motion on this opposition day because it will give members of the Bloc Québécois an opportunity to explain our position on defence and especially on defence-related spending. I want to begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois intends to support today's motion.
However, I will be using some of my time to point out that there should be some caveats to this because, if all we do is vote yes or no to increasing the budget, as though this is a black-and-white issue with no real grey area, then we are not really addressing the main issues currently affecting the Canadian military.
If we are talking about increasing spending on national defence to 2% of GDP, which is what Canada promised NATO it would do in 2014, then the issue for the Bloc Québécois is not really “how much”, but “how”.
For the past several weeks, this issue has come up in different ways during the Standing Committee on National Defence's study of the various threats to Canada's security. On March 21, I asked a panel the following question with regard to the budget increase: “Should the question mainly be ‘how much’ or shouldn't it also be ‘how’?”
I would like to quote some excerpts from what three of the witnesses said in answer to that question, because they presented two caveats that I want to talk about.
First, James Fergusson, a professor at the Centre for Defence and Security Studies in the department of political studies at the University of Manitoba, said the following. The quote is a bit long, but I think it is quite relevant.
It's not really a question of increasing the defence budget per se. The question is, how much, over what period of time and, particularly, dedicated to what acquisitions independent of operations and maintenance, and independent...of the problems of recruitment.
If you want to punch this money into or funnel it into expanding the Canadian Armed Forces, recruitment and retention are a big problem, and you're probably in a real difficulty.
However, unless we know where they're going to invest, that becomes a different problem. It raises the question, which this government doesn't want to do—no governments want to do it once they do defence once—about the need for a defence review.
Mr. Fergusson went on to add the following:
Remember that National Defence, over the past many years—I think in every year I can remember—continues to give back money to the central agency. I might be wrong about the number, but I think last year it was $1.1 billion that was returned. Well, that's a problem. You can commit money, but the question is, where do you spend it...for what ends? That's an open question to this day in Canada.
Associate professor Robert Huebert of the Department of Political Science at the University of Calgary had this to say:
Let's recognize that the 2% increase, when it was created by NATO, is a political target. Once again, what we're really talking about is, what is the need for the effect of the Canadian Forces going into this new environment? It really comes down to the ability to deter growing aggressor states and fight in a collective security environment should that deterrence break down.
When we went into the immediate post-Cold War period, we of course went through what many democratic countries saw as the ability to save money on defence, because there wasn't a fear that we had to deter anyone and we weren't going to be called upon to fight. That has obviously changed since at least 2014—I would argue 2008.
The question is, okay, 2% sounds good in terms of making a commitment, but it's really getting to that capability...in terms of having the types of forces that you will be able to recruit and bring in to actually give effect to it.
It really gets to the heart of what you're asking, and that is that we need to have an ability to go beyond just simply saying, okay, 2% or 1.9%. Those are numbers.
Professor Stephen Saideman, who holds the Paterson Chair in International Affairs at Carleton University, said, and I quote:
I would just jump in here and say that we also have to think a little more about how we do our procurement, because it's often seen as a jobs program for electoral political benefit, as opposed to what is best for what we need.
For instance, we're seeing in Ukraine a variety of defence systems that are working really well.... Should we build our own anti-tank weapons when there are very good ones out there? Should we build our own anti-aircraft weapons when there are very good ones out there?
We need to be a little more realistic about what our own defence industry can do and what it should do, and this leads to a challenge that we've had in our country. We feel that once we start building up a defence industry, it must be kept busy with a variety of projects: “Well, we need to sell LAVs [light armoured vehicles] to Saudi Arabia.”
If we think about our defence industry for a minute, we need to think about whether it makes sense for us to have domestic producers of all the stuff, because it puts us in the difficult position of trying to find ways to keep them busy in between our own major projects. We need to think a little more about buying from other folks.
Essentially, when I asked at the meeting whether we should, or should not, increase the defence budget to 2% of the GDP, the three witnesses made it a point to take into account two important aspects, namely the human resources issue, which includes the pressing problem of personnel recruitment and retention, and the procurement issue, which is currently impacting the Canadian Armed Forces.
With respect to procurement, as James Fergusson mentioned in his testimony, year after year, National Defence generally returns more than $1 billion of its budget because it has not spent the money. This is symptomatic of a cumbersome, slow, inefficient and extremely politicized procurement system.
Broadly speaking, the Bloc Québécois is not particularly concerned about the Liberal government’s ability to spend, or, more aptly, to throw money out the window, and that is precisely what we do not want, spending for the sake of spending.
A recent example of the government’s ability to spend for the sake of spending is the dithering over the acquisition of the new fighter jets. After saying “anything but F-35s” seven years ago, the government spent hundreds of millions of dollars to extend the life of our old CF-18s. In the meantime, it paid a premium to purchase Australian F-18s that needed millions of dollars in upgrades. All that to finally go back to square one and announce the purchase of the F-35s.
In addition to spending, there are problems like the naval strategy, obsolete military equipment, the lack of air defence capability and the fact that the army was long unable to provide its members with something as simple as boots, asking soldiers to buy them themselves and then apply for a reimbursement. One of the questions we should ask the government in the future about the various procurement projects is whether the regional benefits have been maximized.
Given that, in the mid-2010s, the government abolished the “regional” aspect of industrial and technological benefit obligations, and that more than 50% of aerospace production comes from Quebec, it is to be expected that the Bloc Québécois would pay close attention to anything relating to the acquisition of military drones, for example, especially since this is a burgeoning industry in Quebec.
With respect to recruitment and retention, the Standing Committee on National Defence is currently examining that issue. This is a study the Bloc Québécois called for. The question that arises is the following: What is the point of increasing the National Defence procurement budget if it does not have the personnel needed to manage it?
For example, the Royal Canadian Air Force is paying a high price for its low personnel retention rate. It has a shortage of experienced pilots and technicians. Because of our old aircraft, each hour of flight requires more than 35 hours of maintenance. In 2018, the Auditor General released a devastating report on the state of the air force, revealing that it has only 64% of the qualified CF-18 pilots it needs and that 22% of technician positions are either vacant or filled by unqualified technicians.
The personnel shortage also impacts the support we can provide our allies, and Canada is becoming less and less of a credible partner in this respect. For example, NATO countries are currently taking part in Operation Cold Response in Norway. Some 30,000 allied soldiers are participating. Canada is sending a grand total of 10 people.
I asked Major-General Paul Prévost about this on March 9. Not only did he confirm that the fact that we were sending only 10 people had nothing to do with the situation in Ukraine, since the decision was made long before the conflict, but he also added something quite troubling. He said, “Currently in the Canadian Forces, some of the threats to our operational readiness are related to the number of people we have.”
In short, the National Defence budget cannot and should not be increased without a review of the procurement processes. We also need an in-depth review of the recruitment and retention issue. That is unavoidable.
I will make a brief aside here before concluding, because the question of how to finance the increase to the National Defence budget may be raised, since we are talking about an additional $16 billion per year if we want to reach 2% of the GDP.
My colleagues can decide whether it is fair to see a connection between the two, but I will simply mention that, on average, the federal government finances fossil fuels to the tune of $14 billion a year.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois is focused far more on the “how” than on the “how much,” and the “how” will inevitably require some serious soul-searching about the army’s procurement methods and short- and medium-term solutions to recruitment and retention problems.
1849 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my question will be similar to the one I asked earlier. We have heard a lot about francophone minority communities, but I would like to speak more specifically about Quebec.
Can my colleague name a single positive measure that provides further protection for Quebec?
I want to forestall a potential answer and clarify that giving people the right to work in French in Quebec is not a positive measure and does not improve the situation of French in Quebec.
81 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île for his speech.
This morning, in her speech, the Minister of Official Languages talked a lot about the importance protecting francophones in minority situations. I asked her a two-part question. I asked her whether she thinks French is in jeopardy in Quebec and, if so, what new measures Bill C-13 brings in to protect it. She recognized that French is in jeopardy. Her answer to me was that the government was going to protect the right of francophones to work in their language.
I would like my colleague to comment on that.
Is that something new and is it enough to protect French in Quebec?
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the minister talked a lot about the importance of protecting French in minority situations, in other words, outside Quebec.
I would like to hear her opinion on whether French is also in jeopardy in Quebec. Can she point to even a single measure in Bill C-13 that improves the status of French specifically in Quebec?
58 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 12:23:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague.
This reminds me of a time in my not so distant youth when I was president of the Parti Québécois’s Comité national des jeunes. Some Franco-Ontarians came to see us at the end of a meeting at which we had discussed Quebec independence. They asked us if we often heard the argument that an independent Quebec would forget about the francophone communities outside Quebec. They told us not to buy that argument and that, on the contrary, Quebec would serve as a guiding light when making their future demands.
I would also like to come back to a comment that I heard just before, something to the effect that the Bloc Québécois does nothing for francophone communities outside Quebec. However, I spoke just today about immigration and accepting francophone students, the difficulties that we have run into and the battle that we are fighting on this issue. We are doing this not just for Quebec, but also for the benefit of many French-language educational institutions outside Quebec, as was often stated in committee.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
