So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 243 - Oct/31/23

Nov/8/23 3:44:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the results of the previous vote and will vote in favour of the motion.

26 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Oct/31/23 3:03:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, SMEs are not asking the federal government for the moon. They are asking it to be flexible by deferring repayment of loans from the Canada emergency business account without loss of subsidies. These businesses are not multinationals. It is the local restaurant where someone's daughter works. These are local entrepreneurs who are working hard to create jobs in their region. It could be a future Bombardier in its infancy. The government is quite generous with American multinational oil companies. Why does it refuse to be flexible with our SMEs?

93 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 242 - Oct/30/23

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Oct/30/23 2:41:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let us talk about the federal government's flexibility. Businesses had until December 31 to repay the loan without losing a subsidy that is saving them from bankruptcy. Are my colleagues aware of how much more time Ottawa has given them? It has given them 18 days. The Liberals gave 18 days to businesses that have been fighting for three years to pay off their pandemic debts. Eighteen days is what they call flexibility. The survival of 250,000 businesses is at stake. When is a real payment deferral coming?

92 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 242 - Oct/30/23

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Oct/30/23 2:40:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the federal government cannot let 250,000 businesses go bankrupt without trying to save them. Everyone is asking the government to defer repayment of the CEBA loans for another year without losing the subsidy. All the premiers agree on this, including the premier of Quebec and the premiers of the other provinces, as well as the National Assembly, the Canadian Federation of Independent Business and the Association Restauration Québec. The federal government's inaction is leading us to a wave of bankruptcies. When will the government finally offer SMEs an adequate deferral of repayment?

98 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 36 - Feb/21/22

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/21/22 2:03:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois members, I would like to salute parliamentary staff for their absolutely exceptional work over the past few days during these extraordinary sittings of the House. While police forces were in the streets putting an end to the siege of Parliament Hill, men and women here worked tirelessly so we could debate confirmation of the Emergencies Act. From the cafeteria and maintenance workers to the Sergeant-at-Arms' team, from the clerks to the security guards, everyone showed up despite the craziness of the past few days. They have done an amazing job. In particular, I would like to acknowledge the herculean task performed by the interpreters as we debated for 16 hours a day this weekend. They too were just amazing. I hope they will be able to get some rest and relaxation. Well done, everyone, and thank you.

151 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 5:54:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry, but I think the member for Kingston and the Islands is running out of arguments. He has been here arguing for a long time. He is tired and is now taking things too far. All of the police forces came together, teamed up, joined forces and worked together. They are the ones who managed to push the protesters back, with support and coordination from their command centre. It was not special legislation or an order that came in to save the day.

88 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 5:53:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, frankly, I am flabbergasted by my colleague's question. From what I understand, he is saying that the provinces did not do a damn thing and stood by while the situation got worse, and that the good old federal government had to come in to whip the troops into line and invoke special legislation to get them to do their jobs— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

69 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 5:51:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my whip colleague for the question. This allows me to clarify that the people who were part of the convoy or the hundreds of people who occupied the streets did not all have the same message. They were not a monolithic group, but we seem to have forgotten that when we focused our attention on one group over another. Like my colleague, I have seen testimonials and I have spoken to people who were in tears because they wanted to withdraw from the convoy but were stuck. We have seen and heard all sorts of things. The important thing today is that the streets are empty. The occupation is over. We no longer need this legislation. It is no longer useful, vital or necessary to manage the crisis that is coming to a close.

138 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/20/22 5:40:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wish to join my colleague from Manicouagan in thanking the police. I also want to take a moment today to thank the interpreters who have been providing service to us from 7 a.m. until late into the night since Thursday morning and will continue to do so until tomorrow, Monday. I want to recognize them and sincerely thank them. I am the 22nd Bloc Québécois member to speak about the ratification of the Emergencies Act. I listened carefully to the debate. This is a moment that will go down in history. It is the first time that parliamentarians have been called upon to approve the use of the Emergencies Act. So far, my Bloc Québécois colleagues have shown that law enforcement had all the tools it needed to take strong action sooner in order to put an end to the occupation in Ottawa. I hope that all members of the House are aware of the incitement to hatred, hate propaganda and defamation that we have seen from some convoy leaders. Such actions are unacceptable and already prohibited under the Criminal Code. Everyone in this House knows that it is already illegal to occupy a city; intimidate residents and local merchants; and push, intimidate and spit on reporters. Those things are already prohibited and illegal under the Criminal Code. We are already able to investigate the inflow of foreign money in order to destabilize the political order. I am proud of my colleagues and their nuanced thinking. They reminded us that we all agree that the situation in Ottawa became illegal and untenable a long time ago, that we never should have gotten to this point, and that we have been witnessing a clear and serious lack of leadership, as my colleague from Manicouagan so aptly stated. We agree that something had to be done about the occupation in Ottawa. However, what we have been debating for the past few days and will continue debating tomorrow is the ratification of the Emergencies Act, and that is where opinions differ. Essentially, do we agree to this special act being applied as ordered by the Liberal government across Canada as a whole? Were the extraordinary powers of the Emergencies Act really absolutely necessary to resolve the impasse in Ottawa? The Bloc Québécois has argued that it was dangerous to downplay invoking this act across Canada, without considering that the emergency was different in Quebec, Ontario, Saskatchewan and Nunavut. We have shown that, in our opinion, the government did not prove beyond a doubt that all criteria were met to invoke emergency measures. We established that this improvised use of the act created a precedent that could be dangerous. Today, I would like parliamentarians to realize that the Bloc Québécois's position is rooted in the unanimous voice of the National Assembly. Quebec's elected officials, including its ministers, all rejected the invocation of the Emergencies Act by unanimously passing a motion in the National Assembly. On February 15, Quebec spoke with one voice. I will repeat that all elected Quebeckers, one by one, opposed the invocation of the Emergencies Act in Quebec. That is fundamentally how one can interpret the position of the Bloc Québécois, because it is in a way the underlying reason for our opposition to confirming the Emergencies Act, which applies to Quebec. As François Paradis, the Speaker of the Quebec National Assembly, can attest, this unanimous support comes from the five different political parties and all independent members. I think that means something. The message could not be any clearer. I am proud of my caucus, which, throughout this debate, has given a loud and clear voice to the legitimate wishes of the Quebec National Assembly. I hope my speech will make the members of this House grasp the significance of a unanimous vote in a national assembly and in the legislatures of other provinces. I am proud of my caucus, which has shown some nuanced thinking in a context that leaves little room for nuance, something that has been missing in these debates and in this pandemic. I call on everyone here to be very careful about making generalizations. This motion is about ratifying the invocation of the Emergencies Act, not about the cause the protesters were defending. There is a bit of mixed messaging in some of the speeches we have heard from our colleagues in the opposition parties. We have spoken rationally, but also from the heart. I am really proud of our contribution to the debate, which made members think. In response to our questions, we have learned that even certain members on the government benches do not seem 100% convinced of the need to invoke this last-resort act. When agreeing to invoke special legislation, it seems to me we must be convinced of the necessity to do so, of the fact that using the law is essential. Personally, I am confident in my vote and I know that on Monday night, I will vote no to this extraordinary legislation. On Monday, in addition to all the political and legal arguments that my colleagues have presented, the Bloc Québécois will vote in line with the unanimous will of the Quebec National Assembly. That, it seems to me, is entirely consistent with the fundamental essence of our political commitment. With respect to the unanimous will of the National Assembly, I will add that I would have also liked to see that unanimity in the House. I would have liked to see parliamentarians from all parties discuss the proclamation on emergency measures before, not after the fact. I would have liked to see a more elevated and serious discussion. Unfortunately, we saw partisanship and insinuations of support for the far right and even racism. We have heard it. This seems to be bigger than we are. We have seen it: the petty politics, the insults, and the bad faith are far too commonplace in the House of Commons, even during an historic debate. We have the opportunity to rise above. We have a duty to rise above. I invite my esteemed colleagues to ask themselves whether they are sure beyond a shadow of a doubt that this was the only way, whether they are comfortable incorporating the Emergencies Act into the modus operandi of government crisis management and whether they truly believe that our democracy will be stronger for it. I invite them to think about it because our debate is not about what happened in the streets of Ottawa. From the beginning, this debate has essentially been about our democracy.

1126 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/20/22 2:55:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I was pleasantly surprised that she did not affirmatively state that she would be supporting the governing party's use of this law and that she set out conditions for supporting it. I would like to know her opinion as a member of Parliament. Police have now removed the blockades at the border crossings. As of yesterday, Ottawa is practically free of protesters. That being the case, does she still believe that the act is useful, necessary or essential today?

90 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/20/22 2:22:53 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to my colleague's speech, and I have two questions for him. I did not hear him talk much about his position on the right to demonstrate. I would like him to clearly express whether he believes the right to demonstrate is important. In addition, Wellington Street in Ottawa has been cleared by law enforcement agencies that coordinated and worked together. Does the member think that the Emergencies Act is still necessary, considering the situation now? The act may be useful, but is it absolutely necessary?

92 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/15/22 4:33:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would have liked my colleague, who delivered a very fine speech, to remind the House that the Bloc has also made proposals to support seniors, such as increasing the earnings ceiling for the GIS from $5,000 to $6,000 in order avoid penalizing seniors who want or have to work. Can she explain why this is so important?

62 words

All Topics

Feb/15/22 4:17:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe that the member and I agree that the government must increase seniors' monthly income and give them tax concessions that will let them work to make ends meet, pay their bills and socialize without being penalized by the taxman. The Bloc Québécois has made plenty of suggestions to help seniors contribute without being penalized. I believe that the solution is to increase old age security for seniors 65 and over. I think that is the most important measure right now.

88 words

All Topics

Feb/15/22 4:15:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in a former life, I was the chief of staff to a minister. Every time we were asked to tighten the budget, IT infrastructure was cut because it has less of an impact in the short term. I do not know if that is why all infrastructure has been neglected. I have noticed this with EI sickness benefits and immigration. I know it is complicated, and I am not saying otherwise. However, I cannot understand how CERB cheques were issued within ten days because it was urgent, but we are unable to issue cheques for seniors who are currently in such great need and who have been experiencing stress and anxiety since July 2021. I just cannot wrap my head around the fact that the government of a rich country cannot quickly issue a cheque to help the most vulnerable seniors in Quebec and Canada.

148 words

All Topics

Feb/15/22 4:13:44 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-12

Madam Speaker, we now know that the Senate, whose participation in the process is required, will not be sitting this week, and that it was really not necessary to pass Bill C-12 under closure. I am convinced that the legislative process could have taken its normal course and that we could have managed to pass Bill C-12 without a closure motion this week if there had been good will and if we had worked as a team and without partisanship.

82 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/15/22 4:03:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-12

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the brilliant, fantastic and magnificent member from Thérèse-De Blainville. I am happy to be able to discuss and debate the motion concerning Bill C-12 with my colleagues, because I have devoted my life to seniors since I was 23. I spent my career serving seniors, both providing home care in local community service centres and working in long-term care homes as a social worker and health care network manager. It is therefore an honour for me to contribute to the debate we are having today. First of all, I would like to say that the Bloc Québécois agrees with Bill C‑12. There is no doubt about that. We know that this bill is very important and that it is urgent. However, we disagree with today's motion, which is disrupting the legislative process. It is important to point out that the bill has only one clause. It amends the Old Age Security Act to prevent a deplorable situation, where 183,000 vulnerable seniors had their guaranteed income supplement cut, from happening again after July 1, 2022. That is the purpose of Bill C-12. All of the opposition parties proposed legislative work to the government for this week, because we could have managed without the closure motion, which should only be used in exceptional and urgent situations. We could have finished our work properly, in accordance with the legislative process, because this bill has not garnered much opposition. On the contrary, we are pretty unanimous about it in the House. The bill is important, but let us be clear: It does nothing to change the situation of seniors whose GIS has been slashed every month for the past eight months. It changes nothing at all. When we saw the bill, we wondered why the date was set at July 1, 2022. Why not March? That way, those whose GIS is currently being cut would not have their benefits reduced. Based on the minister's announcement, we know that there will be a one-time payment. Initially, this payment was to have been made in May, but after the questions we asked the minister and with the pressure she was under, she succeeded in convincing her officials to move the one-time payment up to April 19. In my opinion, that is still unacceptable. It is two weeks earlier, and some will say that is better than nothing, but it is unacceptable that computer issues can prevent us from returning the money that was taken from vulnerable seniors before April 19. It seems to me that that could have been done by March, or even early April. This week, the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, where she answered a question from my colleagues in the third opposition party. She said that it would be done by April 19 and she was proud of that. Honestly, I would not be so proud in her shoes, because that is shameful. On April 19 it will be almost 10 months that people have had their GIS benefits cut month after month. Today, in an article in the Journal de Montréal, two seniors who had their benefits cut described their situation to Canadians. Bob Petit, an 82-year-old senior, had his GIS benefits reduced by $350 a month, while Jacques Rhéault, a pensioner in Louiseville who worked hard all his life in a factory in Contrecoeur, lost his GIS benefit. These two people are the luckiest people in the world, because they have the support and assistance of a very active MP who has been championing their cause from the start. Let us keep in mind that these people’s benefits have been cut since July 2021. The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé represents and supports them through all of the system’s bureaucratic procedures. However, regardless of how good an MP he is, we have learned that, although the Minister of Seniors appears to have a good heart and to listen to seniors, she cannot do more because of the technical and technological limitations of the tools she will be using to issue a nice cheque to each senior who was unfairly affected by the cuts. That is quite a long time. I cannot help but make connections with other people’s problems. Consider sick workers. They are entitled to just 15 weeks of employment insurance in case of illness. The Bloc would like to see that increase to 50 weeks. The minister said that that was too much, that the government was looking at 26 weeks, but that computer problems were preventing it from doing anything right now. The Department of Citizenship and Immigration is telling us that they want to accelerate the processing of work visa and permanent residence applications, but that there are computer issues. I am starting to wonder whether the government’s key departments, which are there to serve Canadians, are paralyzed by their computer systems. That makes me think there has been considerable negligence in maintaining our infrastructure. As a result, vulnerable Canadians are finding it difficult to pay their rent and buy their medications and are grappling with anxiety and stress every month. We are talking about seniors who are vulnerable and who will be affected by Bill C-12. I do not know if it is possible to paint an accurate portrait of these people. These are seniors who, very often, have worked all their lives. These people, who may not have been unionized and who did not necessarily earn a big salary, are now retired, and tired, at age 65. Tired and without much income, they are entitled to the guaranteed income supplement. For the past eight months, since July 2021, these people have received less money because the CERB was calculated as income. That is what Bill C-12 is intended to correct, to prevent other seniors from being penalized next year. Honestly, I am offended and angry to see how the government’s limitations are getting in the way of the assistance these seniors require. When questioned, the minister says that the government invested so many million dollars in this and so many million dollars in that. What seniors need is a decent monthly income so they can pay their bills, meet their responsibilities and live with dignity. Right now, seniors are calling my office saying that they feel like beggars, if I can put it that way. It is a blow to their dignity, because these are people who worked, who earned an honest living and who have felt completely forgotten and abandoned since July 2021. Members will understand why I am emotional talking about this. I live in a riding where a quarter of the population is aged 65 or over. Today, I think it is clear that the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît is an unconditional ally of the seniors in her riding, that the Bloc Québécois is an ally of seniors, and that it will do everything it can to convince the minister to issue the one-time payment before April 19.

1236 words

All Topics

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/15/22 10:28:40 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-12

Madam Speaker, I am a little stunned to hear the minister admit so freely that she made a deal with the third party in opposition to adopt this closure motion on Bill C-12. In exchange, the government will move up payments to seniors who have been unfairly ripped off and had their GIS payments reduced. Is the minister now telling us that if there had been no deal, if the third party of opposition had stayed true to its roots and refused to support the gag order, she would not have moved up the payments? Did she use vulnerable seniors' incomes as a bargaining chip?

106 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 30 - Feb/14/22

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/14/22 7:20:35 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-10

Madam Speaker, congratulations to my colleague on her speech. She really underscored the urgent need to agree to the premiers' demands and properly fund the public health care system in Quebec and the provinces. Can she explain why it is so important to the Bloc Québécois that we go through the whole legislative process for Bill C‑10 even though the Bloc supports the bill?

70 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 28 - Feb/10/22

Context: House Hansard - 28 - Feb/10/22

Feb/10/22 5:47:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think that I understand the question that was coming. I think that we sometimes cut corners in our speeches, and I think that our colleagues opposite would have us believe that the Conservatives are demanding an immediate end to all measures as of February 28. That is petty politics. I think that today there was a great opportunity to say that it is time to work together, to join forces and to help the government with ideas so that it can come up with a plan—

90 words