- 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
- May/4/23 11:27:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the answer is no but, in any case, I do not think the question is that relevant given the debate today.
The questions I am hearing from all sides concerning specific members just lead me to reiterate that this debate is becoming far too partisan, which serves no one, and certainly not democracy. That is why I urge all members to vote for the motion, because the main thing it is calling for is a transparent and independent public inquiry. That will allows us to move forward rather than get stuck in partisan politics and to address pressing problems that, if this continues, may not be resolved by the time the next election comes around.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/23 1:21:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North for his speech.
My colleague from Joliette mentioned, in a question posed a little earlier, that Revenu Québec had done a much better job than the CRA on tax evasion by recouping significant amounts, which was one of the arguments used by the Bloc Québécois to justify giving Quebec full taxation powers by implementing a single tax return.
I would like my colleague to comment on the idea that this bill will make it even easier for Quebec to recoup even more money hidden in tax havens by tax evaders, providing further justification for giving Quebec full authority over its tax returns.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/8/23 2:33:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is not strictly the NDP's duty to protect our electoral system. It is not the Bloc Québécois's duty to do that either. It is not the Conservatives' duty, and it is clearly not the Liberals' duty. It is the duty of all of us, collectively.
What the Prime Minister does not seem to understand is that the integrity of our democracy is under threat. We should all be concerned, and we must all be part of the solution.
All parties are calling for an independent commission of public inquiry. Why is the Prime Minister stubbornly refusing this inquiry?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/10/22 4:17:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to speak to the Bloc Québécois motion today. What I propose to do is to start by addressing certain arguments that I heard from both sides about the purpose of our motion.
I heard more attacks that got rather gratuitous than comments that were really about the subject at hand, but I still would like to respond. I will start with something I heard quite recently from the member for Kingston and the Islands, who wanted to know why we would change something that has always been part of our practices and habits.
I want to take a few minutes to talk about certain things that have always been part of our habits, and to show that this does not mean that they are not outdated. I want to refer to the Criminal Code, which contains several peculiarities.
I am going to talk specifically about a few sections, including section 365, which prohibits the fraudulent practice of witchcraft. It says:
Every one who fraudulently (a) pretends to exercise or to use any kind of witchcraft, sorcery, enchantment or conjuration, (b) undertakes, for a consideration, to tell fortunes, or (c) pretends from his skill in or knowledge of an occult or crafty science to discover where or in what manner anything that is supposed to have been stolen or lost may be found, is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
Another example of something that is still in the Criminal Code is the offence of challenging someone to a duel. Section 71 provides as follows:
Every one who (a) challenges or attempts by any means to provoke another person to fight a duel, (b) attempts to provoke a person to challenge another person to fight a duel, or (c) accepts a challenge to fight a duel, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.
A final example is the section that makes the theft of oysters a specific offence. The Criminal Code already has fairly broad offences concerning theft, but it has a specific section that makes it illegal to steal oysters. This goes back to a time when fishers had their gear and shellfish stolen fairly regularly by people trying to steal the pearls, but this is not something that happens anymore.
The reason that I bring this up is simply to illustrate that some sections were much more relevant at one time, but that time is past and they no longer appear to be warranted these days. That is the main difference with what we are talking about today.
In the opinion of the Bloc Québécois, prayer is from another era. However, unlike those sections of the Criminal Code that are no longer used, except in very rare cases, the Bloc is calling for an amendment to a section of our internal code of procedure that is used every day. What we want to change today is part of something that is also much broader, namely the central principle of the separation of church and state.
We could unanimously agree to drop the sections of the Criminal Code I just mentioned, since they are not problematic and no one is using them.
However, what we are trying to do today seems to be causing a lot of friction. We are talking about the articulation of the principle of religious neutrality of the state.
One of the arguments we heard was that people do not bring this up to members when they run into them on the street. However, it is important to remember that the prayer is not broadcast on CPAC. No one knows about it, in fact, and it is quite curious that it is not broadcast.
When I talk about it with my constituents who ask me how I found my first day in the House of Commons—
662 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the bill that just went under time allocation is 500 pages long. It contains 60 measures and amends 37 acts. Just reading it takes longer than the time we have to debate it.
It covers issues such as COVID‑19 support measures, employment insurance, fighting anti-Semitism, the Social Security Tribunal, aerospace and more.
Every one of these topics deserves its own fulsome debate, but, no, they are using time allocation to shove it down our throats. Why deny democracy like this?
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in a democracy, one of the most fundamental principles is no taxation without representation. In other words, no elected officials, no taxes. This is at the heart of modern democracy.
The budget and the budget implementation bill are therefore essential moments in democratic life and in its exercise.
Does anyone in the government realize the damage that is being done to democracy by stifling the voices of the opposition on the budget implementation bill?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
