- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $115,154.34
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, according to Transparency International, between $43 billion and $113 billion a year is laundered or is lost to tax evasion.
Obviously the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑42, which calls for more transparency from businesses in order to determine who exactly is hiding behind these businesses.
My question for my colleague is on the need for co-operation between the federal government and the Government of Quebec. In fact, Quebec has already brought in measures to improve transparency and to prevent tax evasion. How does my colleague see this co-operation?
Business ownership and business ownership law are areas of provincial jurisdiction, not federal jurisdiction. How does my colleague think the federal government will be able to bring this bill into force while securing real co-operation and getting the necessary information, which belongs to and is the responsibility of the provinces, including Quebec?
156 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 3:00:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this is not about money, it is about criteria.
The research chair funding criteria no longer have anything to do with research. The nature of the research itself no longer counts. What counts is the nature of the researcher, assessed against the following criteria: skin colour, ethnic origin, gender, sexual orientation and disability. The last person anyone wants as a researcher is an average white man.
We agree that all kinds of people should be better represented. Among equally qualified applicants, under-represented minorities should get priority.
How is excluding a group of people consistent with a policy of inclusion?
102 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/22 2:59:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, Quebec's National Assembly passed a unanimous motion on academic freedom:
THAT [the National Assembly] reiterate that promoting greater representation of under-represented target groups must always happen in a context of equal qualifications;
THAT it denounce the interference of the federal government, which funds research chair programs according to certain criteria that do not reflect the specificity of Quebec.
Instead of imposing its ideological agenda, why will Ottawa not let Quebec manage research chairs?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this morning I have the privilege of rising to speak to Bill C-249 on the cryptoasset sector, which was introduced by my Conservative Party colleagues.
This bill seeks to require the Minister of Finance to develop a national framework to encourage the growth of the cryptoasset sector within three years after the coming into force of the act.
The bill states that, in developing the framework, the minister must consult with persons designated by Quebec and the provinces and with experts from the cryptoasset sector. Bill C-249 also provides for reporting and tracking requirements in relation to the framework.
In a sector that is more ideology-driven than factual, the bill points out that cryptoassets have significant economic and innovative potential for Canada and that the government must focus on lowering barriers to entry into the cryptoasset sector, protecting those working in the sector and minimizing the administrative burden.
I will not keep members in suspense for very long. I will say right now that the Bloc Québécois will be voting against Bill C-249.
Before getting into more detail about our position, I would like to remind the House and my Conservative colleagues of some financial advice that the leader of the Conservative Party and member for Carleton gave to all Quebeckers and all Canadians last spring. It is no secret that the new leader of the Conservative Party of Canada dreams of bitcoin and other cryptoasset fantasies at night.
Barely seven months ago, in April, he organized a small staged media event when he went to a restaurant in London, Ontario, and paid for a shawarma in bitcoin. He took the opportunity to recommend that Quebeckers and Canadians invest their savings in cryptocurrency to shield their money from inflation.
What reasoning did the leader of the Conservative Party use to offer this advice?
He used a simplistic—and frankly dishonest—intellectual shortcut to blame the big bad central bank for the inflationary crisis and in the same breath presented the decentralized cryptocurrencies, regulated by the very free market, as a magic solution against inflation.
The problem with the supposed freedom of cryptocurrencies like Bitcoin is that they are also free to crash and burn. I say this with great empathy and compassion for anyone who went through this, but the outcome was quite dramatic for those who followed the financial advice of the Conservative leader by investing in bitcoin in April 2022. Just six months later, they could only watch helplessly as close to 70% of the value of their hard-earned savings had evaporated. Poof.
I would like to hear what the Conservative leader has to say to all these constituents who trusted him and who now must surely feel he has cheated, betrayed and abandoned them. While he claims to care about helping families put food on the table, how can he take advantage of his position and the credibility his role gives him to trot out such irresponsible and dangerous financial advice?
As I indicated earlier, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the Conservative bill. My colleagues and I are convinced that, while cryptoassets do have innovative potential in some regards, the regulatory framework around them must be fleshed out and strengthened so as to make the digital and financial ecosystem in which they operate more transparent and accountable.
Unlike the Conservative Party, we believe that legislative action focused strictly on the growth of the sector, as proposed in the bill, on lowering barriers to entry, and on minimizing the administrative burden would be inappropriate and irresponsible.
The sector has experienced indisputable and dramatic growth in recent years. What it really needs now is not support for growth but a real regulatory framework that limits the risks associated with possession and transactions of cryptoassets.
There are still many issues that require us, as decision-makers, to act with caution and diligence in this matter.
The first issue is, of course, the volatility of cryptocurrencies, which is still extremely high and often inexplicable. It can be correlated to media exposure, and an event as trivial as a simple tweet has previously caused fluctuations of several thousands of dollars in just a few hours for some currencies.
That is why many professional investors see the use of cryptoassets as more of a lottery than a serious investment. Similarly, Paul Beaudry, Deputy Governor of the Bank of Canada, considers them to be more of a tool for speculation than a real means of payment, as its supporters want to present it.
Another issue that cannot be overlooked when we talk about cryptoassets is energy consumption, which ultimately leads us to energy production. That certainly is in the Conservative Party’s wheelhouse. To put it simply, cryptoassets are created by mining. This is not mining from the earth, but rather mining done by many very powerful computers operating at full power to perform extremely complicated calculations.
It is also estimated that the total activity generated by cryptomining uses as much energy as a country like Norway, about 130 terawatt hours. By comparison, Hydro-Québec's electricity sales only reached 50 terawatt hours in 2020. I think that we will have to reflect on what we really want to focus on and what we want to do with our energy production.
It appears euphemistic, then, to say that cryptoassets are energy intensive. As Europe is going through an energy crisis, we must ask ourselves whether priority should be given to these activities rather than heating our homes, schools and hospitals. Moreover, the environmental impact of these activities must not be forgotten. For jurisdictions that do not have the opportunity to produce clean energy like Quebec, the pollution caused by cryptomining is extremely significant.
The third issue regarding cryptoassets, which we cannot ignore, is their use to finance criminal and terrorist activities. There is a real and documented possibility of taking advantage of the cryptoasset sector to launder money and finance terrorist activities due to two aspects inherent in these activities: anonymity and the proliferation of instant transactions.
The launderers take advantage of this sector operating outside of conventional banking systems to convert the proceeds of criminal activities into legal tender. There currently exists a regulatory vacuum, one which organized crime certainly takes advantage of.
I will give a concrete example. At this time, current legislation allows people to convert up to $1,000 per day into cryptocurrency at an automated teller machine without having to verify their identity. There are currently no fewer than eight companies that operate such machines in Quebec and a single person can exchange several thousands of dollars per day. Obviously, this is a real boon for criminal organizations.
Terrorists can use it for similar reasons. Since it is difficult to identify the actual recipient of a wallet, money can be transferred from one side of the world to the other to finance terrorist activities without alerting the authorities responsible for our protection. So much for this party claiming to be the champion of law and order.
My time is coming to an end. I will conclude by reminding you that the cryptoasset sector has grown by leaps and bounds over the past few years. However, there have been bumps along the way, and it is now clear, given the crash of bitcoin and several other cryptocurrencies, that it is better to be cautious and responsible when it comes to this technology, which is a minefield of risks and uncertainties.
Unlike the Leader of the Conservative Party and his party members, who seem to be looking at cryptoassets through rose-coloured glasses, the Bloc Québécois prefers to focus on transparency and responsibility. We are—
1302 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
It is indeed a matter for debate, Madam Speaker. Foolishness refers not to the individual but to their arguments. That said, I suppose that, when someone has nothing to say, they can talk about tax havens and point out that they are nowhere to be found in this bill, which focuses on domestic objectives. If the member would like me to go over and explain the bill to him, I would be pleased to do so. However, he should not be saying that the Bloc Québécois wants to privatize the health care system with Bill C‑237. We have heard all sorts of things tonight, but I hope that will stay in the annals of the House of Commons because that is far from being the case. I will get back to my speech because I had prepared one, but when you hear something like that it is hard not to correct the record.
Bill C‑237 addresses a situation that has created friction and tension between the federal and the provincial governments ever since the Constitution Act of 1867 was passed. It is nothing new.
I am talking about respect for the division of powers between the two levels of government. Basically, according to the pact that was made at the time, in 1867, between the two levels of government, each respective area of jurisdiction should be equal and sovereign. This arrangement served to ensure that the priorities of the majority Canadian nation were not imposed on the minority Quebec nation. We are a long way from that today, in 2022.
For issues that directly affect people and the way they organize their society, jurisdiction was directly delegated to the provinces. These include things like health care, social programs, education and culture. For issues that are somewhat removed from the people or the internal organization of their society, the respective areas of jurisdiction were centralized directly under the federal government. This means things like monetary policy, international trade, border defence, and so on.
These terms are protected by the ironclad Constitution and the inviolable division of powers. Quebeckers accepted that agreement, but as I have said before and will say again, members of the federation are supposed to work together, not impose conditions, which is what we are seeing now. The government is using that to make political gains that undermine jurisdiction. It is taking over our child care system and trying to impose conditions on us. We cannot be sure it will transfer that to us. Next is health care. I bet that before too long there will be big federally funded parks all over the place. The government is going to take away all our power over social programs. That is this federal government's current agenda.
That is why we need to take a very close look at the relationship between both levels of government now, 155 years after the original agreement, the Canadian Constitution, came into effect. Inevitably, we will find that, for the past three generations, the federal government has been violating an agreement that goes back to the birth of the federation. I will explain this in a simple two-step process.
First, the federal government uses its taxing power to raise taxes higher than is required to fulfill its own constitutional responsibilities. In doing so, it also prevents Quebec and the provinces from using this tax room. This is called fiscal imbalance.
Second, the federal government uses its surplus profits, which it controls, to spend and create programs in areas under Quebec and provincial jurisdiction. In addition to controlling this money, which is normally intended for different areas and jurisdictions, it goes so far as to impose conditions on the transfer of funds. In concrete terms, this means that the federal government, the Canadian government, uses this practice to decide how Quebec society and the other provinces are set up. It also forces the government of Quebec and the provinces to implement the priorities of Canadians rather than the priorities of Quebeckers in areas under their own jurisdiction.
As I said, it is supposed to be a collaboration, not simply imposing conditions. In this case, Canada's vision and will are being imposed to the detriment of Quebec's will and vision. Quebec never agreed to become Ottawa's subcontractor. Nowadays, it is clear that Ottawa is interfering in areas of jurisdiction. It pays off politically, by the way.
There is unbridled interference going on in areas such as housing, education, family policy, day care services, the environment and taxation. Interference has become the federal government's hallmark.
The federal government has a strong tendency to use its power to spend money and surreptitiously exploit shared jurisdictions. The Bloc Québécois has had enough, which is why it decided to introduce Bill C‑237.
If passed, this bill will give Quebec and the provinces a way to counter this interference, which violates the constitutional agreement on which the country was founded. The original agreement is no longer being respected. Can we get this straightened out? We have no choice. We are being taken for fools. We have no autonomy anymore. We send our money to the federal government, but then it says it will not transfer the money unless we comply with its conditions.
In practical terms, Bill C‑237 makes two amendments. I urge my colleagues to listen carefully, because they have been saying all kinds of things about this bill. First, the bill will amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act between the government and the provinces. This will affect all of the provinces, not just Quebec. It will give all provinces the option of withdrawing from a federal program.
Furthermore, in the spirit of compromise, the government will provide matching funds to the province or Quebec, but only if the objectives of the program in question are comparable to those of the federal program. The program in the province or in Quebec does not have to be identical or even similar. It must be comparable. The funds are to be given unconditionally, without criteria and without any other form of interference.
I see that my time is up. I therefore invite the members to give Quebec and each province the freedom to make their own choices, by themselves and for themselves.
1064 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/31/22 10:11:48 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That:
(a) the House denounce all forms of discrimination;
(b) in the opinion of the House,
(i) research is necessary for the advancement of science and society in general,
(ii) access to the Canada Research Chairs Program must be based on the candidates’ skills and qualifications; and
(c) the House call on the government to review the program's criteria to ensure that grants are awarded based on science and not based on identity criteria or unrelated to the purpose of the research.
He said: Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from La Prairie.
I rise today to open up a debate that is as important as it is necessary for the future of science and research in Quebec and Canada.
Historically speaking, research funding has always been awarded on the basis of excellence. The scientific process takes place at the frontier of human knowledge, and advancing beyond that frontier requires someone with a combination of skills and qualities that are beyond the ordinary. It therefore seems reasonable, essential even, to direct our limited financial resources towards the individuals with the greatest expertise, towards the most promising projects. That is how we maximize the benefits for society as a whole.
In recent years, however, under the federal government's direction, this basic tenet has been undermined by a new set of equity, diversity and inclusion criteria, which advocate a funding approach based on factors related to identity and representation. While these criteria are rooted in a desire to correct certain historical inequalities that we do not deny exist, the way in which they have been implemented is perplexing.
The most obvious evidence of this trend is the Canada research chairs program, where strict representation targets were unilaterally imposed on universities. Moreover, the members of the House of Commons were never asked for their input either, since the policy is based on a decision that was made by the Canadian Human Rights Commission and ratified by the Federal Court of Canada.
The impact of the policy is starting to be felt. A number of sometimes absurd and aberrant situations have arisen in recent months, where postings for open positions automatically excluded certain candidates regardless of their qualifications. Some positions reserved for representatives of certain groups also remained vacant because no one applied.
In light of this, it is high time that the House reviewed this matter. That is why the Bloc Québécois is moving a motion today for the House to “denounce all forms of discrimination”, recognize that “research is necessary for the advancement of science and society in general”, and acknowledge that, in order to maximize benefits, “access to the Canada Research Chairs Program must be based on the candidates' skills and qualifications” above all else.
To that end, the government must review the criteria for the Canada research chairs program.
In addition to posing a threat to the excellence of Quebec and Canadian research, the equity, diversity and inclusion criteria applied by the Canada research chairs program encroach on Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over education in three separate ways, since it is a program for hiring professors, it impinges on the autonomy of universities, and it restricts academic freedom.
I will now give my colleagues a brief lesson on constitutional history. The Constitution Act, 1867, placed education under the sole jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Research is an area of concurrent jurisdiction and can therefore be dealt with by both levels of government.
In 2000, the federal government invoked its powers relating to research funding to launch the Canada research chairs program.
We were told at the time that there was no encroachment on Quebec's jurisdictions and that the goal was merely to fund research. However, if we look closely at the program two decades later, we can see that a research chair is a direct pathway to a professorship. In fact, the criteria for awarding research chairs determine who will teach in universities in Quebec and the other provinces.
In addition, the equity, diversity and inclusion requirements under the Canada research chairs program also blatantly violate the universities' autonomy.
As specified in the program policies, “if an institution is not meeting its equity targets, following a deadline stipulated by the program, nominations will be restricted to individuals who self-identify as one or more of the four designated groups until such time as the targets are met”. The four designated groups are women, racialized minorities, indigenous peoples, and persons with disabilities.
We have started seeing the impact of this policy on Quebec universities. Laval University recently posted a job offer stating that only candidates with the required skills and who have self-identified as members of at least one of the four under-represented groups will be selected. The university is basically being forced to shred certain applications regardless of those candidates' qualifications or the relevance of their research projects.
That is only the beginning. The program also states that “[i]nstitutions that do not meet their equity targets by the December 2029 deadline will have their allocation of chairs reduced”. Universities are being held hostage by the federal government, which is threatening to slash their allocated funding and reduce the number of prestigious research chairs they get. One of the cornerstones of university autonomy is the power to select and appoint professors, so the idea that the federal government could change the process cannot and should not be tolerated.
The third issue with the current policy is that it is an assault on academic freedom, which guarantees academics the inalienable right to teach or study any subject, school of thought, or theory without fear of reprisal or discrimination. However, the numerous administrative and bureaucratic requirements heaped on researchers in all disciplines include the submission of an EDI action plan that conforms to certain social sciences theories that are not universally accepted in academia or in society in general. This type of requirement impedes the academic freedom of researchers, who are forced to adhere to certain concepts if they want to obtain a research chair.
As a result, the very imposition of these criteria by the federal government for research chairs undermines several key principles and is in itself sufficient justification for a review. This being said, a quick analysis of the numerical requirements reveals the full scope of the policy's incongruity.
As I said earlier, universities have been ordered to meet representation targets by 2029. These strict, one-size-fits-all targets are applied equally to all Quebec and Canadian universities. They are based on the average representation rates in Canada of the four under-represented groups targeted by the program.
For visible minorities, the target is 22% for all universities because that is the Canadian average according to the latest census in 2016. However, what seems to have been forgotten or, worse still, ignored, is the fact that the population is not evenly distributed across the country. In Toronto, members of visible minorities represent 51.5% of the population. In Quebec City, they represent just 6.5% of the population. As it turns out, 6.5% happens to be the exact proportion of Université Laval professors who are members of visible minorities.
Where I am from, Rimouski, which is far from the big cities, members of visible minorities make up barely 2% of the population, but for the purposes of the Canada research chair program, they are supposed to hit a target that is 10 times higher than their actual representation. The federal government's one-size-fits-all solution does not take distinct regional characteristics into account and forces universities in the regions to recruit abroad rather than develop homegrown expertise. That makes no sense at all and it flies in the face of Quebec's university model, which is all about developing skills and expertise across Quebec.
Again, there needs to be a review of the federal government's policy of applying ideological math that does not work in the real world. There are concrete solutions to this nonsense. Of course, we need to increase funding for research and development. Canada is the only G7 country that has reduced its investment over the last 20 years. We need to increase graduate scholarships at the master's and doctoral levels. These scholarships have not been indexed for almost 20 years, since 2003.
In closing, I would like to clarify, specifically for my colleagues in the House, that the debate that we wish to have is not about positive discrimination in general, but about this specific, poorly crafted federal policy that is, moreover, encroaching on Quebec's jurisdiction—
1467 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/3/22 12:52:55 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-8
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Windsor—Tecumseh for his speech.
I am baffled by the Liberal Party's obsession with interfering in other governments' jurisdictions. I am, of course, referring to education here.
The member for Kingston and the Islands said earlier that education is the jurisdiction of the Government of Quebec and the provinces. My colleague repeatedly mentioned that the Liberal Party would like to develop a nutrition program. This was, obviously, an election promise.
I am trying to understand how the federal government would be better than the provinces or Quebec at managing nutrition in schools.
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/10/21 10:26:51 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Winnipeg North's frivolous speeches are always so fun to listen to. He said that Quebec made a good decision in 1997 when it set up its own child care network. That was 24 years ago. If this file is so important to the Liberal Party, why did it not take action sooner? The Liberals held the reins for 13 of those years, including as a majority government, but somehow, they did not think of setting up a child care program or even proposing one. If it was that important, why are they just getting around to it now?
Today I would like to mark an unhappy anniversary. A year ago, the Prime Minister called a meeting with all the Canadian premiers, including Quebec's, to talk about health transfers. A total of 81% of Quebeckers want the government to increase health transfers, so the Prime Minister committed to increasing them, but a year has gone by and nothing has happened. How many surveys will it take? How many more times will the premiers of Quebec and the provinces have to push for this? When will this government actually increase health transfers?
197 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
