- Member of Parliament
- Whip of the Bloc Québécois
Member of the Board of Internal Economy
- Bloc Québécois
- Salaberry—Suroît
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,425.78
- Government Page
- Feb/9/23 3:39:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know if he is the worst in that regard, but I think the facts speak for themselves.
I think that for some time now, the government, certain members and the Prime Minister have been working together on the difficult matters that divide Canadians and Quebeckers. I also think that people expect us to do our absolute best and to represent our fellow citizens in the best way possible. In that sense, the Prime Minister is not setting a good example.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:38:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I often tell my hon. colleague that I believe she is a member of the wrong legislature.
I believe that if Albertans elect Danielle Smith as their premier, it is because they trust her. Democracy exists in her province as well. It is not up to Parliament, to the House of Commons to dictate what the provinces should do.
My colleague should campaign to beat Danielle Smith and elect a premier who will use these legislative and constitutional tools to serve the interests of the people of Alberta.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:36:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one side of the House giving the other side history lessons will not change the fact that Premier René Lévesque never signed the Constitution. He rejected it outright. The other provinces joined together to wrest the notwithstanding clause.
Madam Speaker, I hear my colleagues talking. I showed respect in listening to my colleague's question, and I would like him to show the same respect for me. I think it is a legitimate request.
My colleague has some legal background and I think he holds Professor Benoît Pelletier, who is a professor at the University of Ottawa and a former Liberal minister of intergovernmental affairs, in high regard. I would like to quote him:
One of the main dangers facing Quebec, like all other national minorities around the world, is the levelling effect of the courts. The notwithstanding clause has been used in the past to counter this tendency and to assert collective rights that are necessary to preserve minority cultures, but are nevertheless not explicitly recognized in the Canadian Charter. This is a—
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:25:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the fabulous member for Manicouagan.
We are here today to reiterate a fact to everyone and to all federal parliamentarians, specifically, “That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause”.
That is what today's Bloc Québécois motion is all about. It is an opportunity for parliamentarians to clearly indicate their support for a well-known provision of the Canadian Constitution that has been used on many occasions, particularly by the Government of Quebec.
The reason it is important to protect this provision, to send a loud and clear message, is because the Liberal government has recently been calling this provision into question, through the voice of the Prime Minister himself. This is not trivial. It is extremely important, and surprising at the same time.
The Prime Minister is talking about a major paradigm shift in relations between Ottawa, Quebec, the provinces and the territories. The Prime Minister is questioning the ability of Quebec and the provinces to decide for themselves. The Prime Minister is suggesting that using the notwithstanding clause is fine, but only when he thinks it is appropriate. That is why our motion is important.
Before the Supreme Court of Canada is called upon by the government across the way to rule on the use of the notwithstanding clause, let us send a very clear message. The notwithstanding clause is an essential clause in the federative pact. Without the notwithstanding clause, there would be no federative pact as we know it. It is the provinces, not Quebec, that managed to grab this right to difference.
I will humbly submit that the notwithstanding clause is the bare minimum for respecting the democratic agenda of the National Assembly of Quebec. Calling into question the right of Quebec and the provinces to use the notwithstanding clause is the symptom of a much deeper problem. The federal government is calling into question this constitutional provision in a very specific context.
The context, in my view, is the very recent passing of two laws in Quebec, one on language and the other on state secularism, that use the notwithstanding clause. These two laws share the fact that they deal with fundamental aspects of Quebec's identity, namely language and our own idea of secularism.
These two laws enjoy a broad consensus among the Quebec population. These two laws also share the fact that they have been debated, improved, commented on, studied, obviously criticized, but ultimately passed by elected members of the National Assembly of Quebec, with their eyes wide open, weighing everything in the balance.
It would seem, then, that the calling into question of the notwithstanding clause comes at a time when the Quebec National Assembly is asserting itself through these two laws. I point out this simultaneity because it is important.
Citizens may not be aware of it, but Quebec has used the notwithstanding clause several times in its history. While Quebec was repeatedly using the notwithstanding clause, no outcry questioning its choices could be heard.
Here are some examples to make that clear. Let us take the Act respecting La Financière agricole du Québec. Quebec wants to do everything it can to support the next generation of farmers, as the agricultural sector is essential to its economy and regions. We must therefore assist in some way the young farmers. This can be done only through invoking the notwithstanding clause. Has this created an outcry? The answer is no, not at all.
Now let us take the employment equity act. Quebec is taking the lead in promoting the inclusion of all its citizens of different genders, backgrounds and abilities in its workplaces. This requires invoking the notwithstanding clause. Was there an outcry? The answer is no, not at all.
The federal government is quick to challenge the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Supreme Court of Canada.
Let us talk about small claims court, which is another concrete example. It is a Quebec innovation that allows citizens to resolve civil disputes in a more accessible, open and fair manner. The existence of such a court requires the notwithstanding clause.
Closer to home, there is the youth court. Quebec's elected officials are betting that protecting the identity of children during trials is more important than the right to a public trial. This requires the use of the notwithstanding clause. Is the judgment of Quebec's elected officials being called into question? Not at all. What I am trying to say is that in each of these cases Quebec proceeded in its own way. Our collective and democratic choices led to innovation and important legislation that all required the use of the notwithstanding clause. In these examples, the use of the notwithstanding clause was never called into question. Why is Quebec's right to make its own choices challenged as soon as we talk about language and secularism?
Perhaps citing these two recent Quebec laws, Bill 96 and Bill 21, which have elicited a rather public outcry on the Liberal benches, makes my argument a somewhat emotional one. They may be poor examples, so I will cite another.
Quebeckers remember how Liberal premier Robert Bourassa caused quite a stir, a very public stir, when he used the notwithstanding clause to protect the use of French alone on commercial signs. Times have certainly changed, but I think the debate is the same. The notwithstanding clause is all well and good except when Quebec wants to use it to assert itself. Then it is up for debate. This typical reaction to Quebec asserting itself is quite something. I wanted to briefly illustrate that in the context of today's debate.
In their speeches today, my Liberal and NDP colleagues have tried to distract our attention. Some members have raised the argument of pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. They say that Quebec would short-circuit the judicial process by stating from the get-go that its law is legitimate, necessary and balanced even though it needs the notwithstanding clause. I see that as a convenient red herring for some MPs because today's motion does not even ask members to address that issue.
Today’s motion merely affirms one fact: It confirms that federal MPs support section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would ask my federal colleagues, even if they do not always support the decisions of their legislature, to make it clear that they recognize that their province’s legislature is legitimate, and that it makes decisions democratically. In fact, what I am asking is that those members recognize the autonomy and sovereignty of their legislature.
I can tell the citizens of Salaberry—Suroît that my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I undeniably recognize the legitimacy and autonomy of the elected members of the Quebec National Assembly. The members are elected, and debates take place. Several parties and schools of thought are represented, civil society plays an active role, and the media is doing its job. We live under the rule of law. Basically, it is not always perfect, but what we can say is that the checks and balances work well in Quebec. Quebec’s use of the notwithstanding clause has not upset this democratic balance of power. In fact, the notwithstanding clause is part of the balance of power of Quebec, its national assembly, its elected members and, ultimately, Quebeckers dealing with a federal government that is increasingly activist and less tolerant of the legitimate and measured decisions of Quebec society.
Let us decide for ourselves: Let us support the motion put forward by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly.
1329 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. It was rigorous and well researched. We can see that he knows his constituents and his community. It is always moving to see members who have such a good understanding of the needs of their community.
My question is quite simple. The federal government is known to have dabbled in social programs in the past. For example, it funded a program for the homeless for a few years. Then it changed the rules of the game and disengaged.
Who got stuck with the full bill and less funding? It is the provinces.
Is my colleague not concerned that by becoming involved in a major program without the provinces' agreement, the federal government is meeting a need but that the provinces will not be able to cover the cost down the road and will have to pay the political price?
148 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think that my colleague believes that it is important for children under 12 to have dental care.
However, on the issue of priorities in health and social services, can he tell us who he thinks is best placed to determine, in each province, the health care and social services that need to be offered to the least fortunate populations and the population as a whole? What jurisdiction should deal with and handle this issue?
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the member for Jonquière's speech. He made some strong, well-researched arguments that I think make sense.
I would like him to explain to me in different words why he thinks that the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, had to impose a major gag order and fast-track the passage of this bill when we know that more time was needed to properly research it, listen to experts and, most importantly, consult the provinces.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. As someone pointed out, I think he is on his fourth speech of the day. I want to commend him for all of the energy and passion he still has at this rather late hour.
I know that he is a diligent, hard-working MP who loves his community and who believes in its vitality.
Does he not truly believe that it would have been better for the federal government to hold a round of negotiations with his province so that it could be heard and so that the government could establish a program that they both agreed on, rather than imposing a measure that the provinces and some professional associations do not really support?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, maybe it is because I am speaking in French that those who speak only in English are less interested. I wonder.
The idea is that we have to wonder about the money that will be spent when we propose a measure that is fundamentally good. Will the money meet our public health objectives?
In Quebec, we already have a body with the expertise to measure outcomes, and that is Quebec public health. There are researchers and scientists whose jobs it is to do this. I agree that there are dental care needs, but I am not sure that Bill C‑31 will achieve the hoped-for objectives. This came about quickly without any real exploration of the idea and without any way to measure the outcomes.
From what I understand, people will have to file an application, register with the Canada Revenue Agency and submit a receipt that could potentially get lost. Some people will not have access to the Internet. As a member of Parliament, I expect to receive phone calls in my riding. I expect to be told that a claim was filed but the cheque never came, that the receipt was lost, or that an overpayment was made and now needs to be paid back.
If the Minister of Health's objective truly is for children to have access to dental care, why did he not hand over the money set aside for Quebec so that Quebec could improve its own program? In Quebec, children under 10 years of age who are having problems with their teeth can simply use their health insurance card. They go to the dentist, show their card, and the costs are automatically covered. With this measure, we are introducing a more complex administrative process to allow parents to claim the costs for their children. It is not clear how many services will be covered and how this will be measured.
I have many questions, which is why I am not so thrilled about this gag order. We all have a lot of questions, and normally these things are debated in committee and we can look into each aspect of a bill more thoroughly.
When I was young, dental hygienists would come to my elementary school and show us how to brush our teeth. We know that oral hygiene is also a lifelong habit. The idea is to also invest in prevention. Our Quebec system is stretched to the limit. Since arriving here, the Bloc Québécois has kept repeating in the House that Quebec needs health transfers to improve all its health and social services programs as well as the safety net for its entire population.
On another note, now that we have raised the issue of dental care, I am wondering about how quickly this is happening. Usually, consultations are held. When a measure is proposed, criteria are identified to assess whether the objectives are being met. Experts are consulted. At this point, I have the feeling that this step was skipped, and that the government only wanted to quickly seal the deal with the NDP so it could say that it fulfilled its commitment. We have until 2025, here is the cheque and that is done. I feel that this is a botched bill and that we did not have the time required to consult with civil society, scientists and experts.
Regarding part 2 of the bill, which deals with housing, we cannot object to the most disadvantaged people receiving a $500 cheque. I would like to point out that in Quebec, we have had a great program since the 1990s called Allocation-Logement that provides a monthly benefit. For example, a single low-income person over the age of 50 who earns less than $20,800 can receive up to $170 per month to help with their housing costs. This is a significant program that enables low-income, disadvantaged or vulnerable people to make a budget. They know they will not receive a one-time single cheque, but they will get a certain amount each month to help them cover their rent.
I am a health care professional, even though I am on unpaid leave while I do my job here in Parliament. I think it really would have been better for the government to transfer the money to Quebec's Allocation-logement program to enhance and improve it, rather than writing cheques to people who apply for this benefit. It would have been easier for those this measure is intended to help.
In order to get the $500 provided for in Bill C-31, people need to apply for it. They also need to prove that they are spending more than 30% of their income on housing. That is a lot of work for the person applying and for those who have to review their application. We know that the federal government's services to the public are a real mess right now. I am not criticizing public servants; they are overworked. There is a labour shortage and the system is not working right now. The government wants to add to that, and I am worried that the people who need this $500 will not get it.
I think that, if we really want to change things and make people's lives better in terms of things like dental care or housing, we need ongoing core measures, measures that will be around for a long time. People need to be able to understand that there is a beginning and that they can count on government help every month. In essence, the government's job is to create wealth and better redistribute it to the people who need it most.
I feel that we could have used more time to debate this bill. Its substance is good, but the execution is flawed. Unfortunately, I am afraid it was not created for the right reasons. I believe this bill has a partisan, ideological purpose, one that is not necessarily intended to serve the community.
1011 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
We learn something new every day and I just learned that she used to be a dental hygienist. She knows what she is talking about.
I have a more specific question for her. Since she was a practitioner and professional in the field, she knows that implementing a universal dental care program takes a lot of time, including to negotiate with the provinces. We know that reaching an agreement with the various professional associations in the provinces is complicated.
In light of this, can my colleague explain to me why the government and the opposition party supporting it are in such a rush to bring in this program when they know full well that it will likely make more people unhappy than happy?
132 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/5/22 2:30:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is clear to me that there is an immigration crisis. However, when the Bloc asked the Prime Minister whether it would be a good idea for Quebec to have more control, the Prime Minister did not once talk about a solution, not once. He said, “immigration will, by and large, always be under federal control.... I realize our Bloc friend is not happy about this, but Quebec is not yet its own country”.
Is it out of sheer stubbornness that the Prime Minister refuses to collaborate more effectively with Quebec's immigration department? Is that the reality?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/25/22 11:12:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am just as concerned as my colleague by what has been happening to seniors in long-term care facilities, but we do not have the same approach to finding solutions.
In Quebec, we realized what was going on, and our ombudsperson produced a report in 2021 with a number of recommendations to prevent this kind of thing from happening again if ever another pandemic strikes. Quebec realized what was going on, figured out what to do about it and is completely overhauling its health care system.
I have a question for my colleague.
If Quebec were to reject Canadian standards for long-term care in Quebec, does my colleague agree with his government that Quebec might not get any of that funding?
125 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/10/22 5:32:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today. I would like to thank my colleague for her speech, because we in the Bloc Québécois have a terrific team. I will try not to repeat what she said, but I agree with everything she did say, which I support.
I do not know if this has been done today, but I would still like to take the time to extend my condolences and sympathies to the 35,000 families who have lost loved ones to COVID‑19 in the last two years. We sometimes forget that these people went through a human tragedy and lost someone dear to them.
I would also like to take a few moments to quickly thank the health care workers in both the public and community systems. When we talk about the public health care system, we talk a lot about nurses and assistants, but there are also all of the other professionals in the system who help keep it running day after day so that care can be provided, not only to people with COVID-19, but also to those who need treatment or surgery for other health problems. I therefore want to say a big thank you to public and community health care workers.
My riding shares a border with the United States and is home to four border crossings: Dundee, Herdman, Hemmingford and Trout River. I would therefore especially like to thank the border officers, whom I have been talking to. They have sometimes had to grapple with instructions that were not very clear and implement health measures without the help of suitable tools or sufficient time to prepare. Their job has not always been easy. They have had to deal with travellers and people, including some of my constituents, who are having trouble getting across the border to visit their families in New York state.
There are a lot of people who have been and still are having trouble because of their family situation or because they live close to the border. I therefore want to thank our border officers and express my sympathy to the people in my riding who have struggled because of the pandemic but also because of problems getting across the border to see loved ones or help sick family members. We have not talked very much about our border officers, so I wanted to mention them, because they played an important role during the pandemic.
I agree with my colleague that our knowledge about the virus has grown. From what we have learned from public health, we see that it is time to reassess all the measures that have been put in place to fight the pandemic and stop the spread of the virus.
Today's motion appears to acknowledge that the provinces are easing lockdowns and have their own plans and to get the federal government to work in tandem with the provinces. The idea is to give the businesses, which suffered the most, a federal plan with a timeline for when they can expect to get back to a more normal schedule and to give people an idea of when they will be able to access services or see measures lifted.
As my colleague pointed out, the motion does not say that all measures will be lifted on February 28. I think that would be irresponsible. Naturally, even after the plan is presented, some measures, like masks, will remain. Even if that requirement were lifted, I would be uncomfortable flying without a mask. I think we will have to learn to live with masks.
However, I think we need to reassess everything. As I was reflecting on today's debate, I remembered something that many other members in the House have noted. The current government has a hard time communicating its own directives and is slow to do so. This was clear over the past two years when we had to push the federal government to announce, implement and explain measures.
There is currently some confusion between federal and provincial measures, which are clear as mud. Some public restrictions are imposed by the provinces while others are imposed by the federal government. There is confusion and people are noticing a lack of consistency as well.
Here is one example. Let us say that I had COVID-19 and I go to Punta Cana. If I had COVID-19 and I go to Punta Cana, I can cross the border without having to get a PCR or any other kind of COVID test for six months. However, if I have three doses of the vaccine, I have to provide proof of vaccination and test results. People do not understand this discrepancy.
Perhaps there is some scientific basis for the fact that, if a person had COVID-19, they do not have to be tested for six months, but if they have three doses of the vaccine, they still have to be tested to cross the border. I am not a scientist, but what I do know is that people are confused. They do not understand this measure.
People do not understand why, if they travel with an unvaccinated child under the age of five, the child has to isolate for 14 days when they return. In Quebec, children under the age of 5 with COVID-19 symptoms have to isolate for five days. When they no longer have a fever, they can go back to school or day care.
There are some guidelines that seem inconsistent, and pandemic fatigue is being exacerbated by these inconsistencies. People are frustrated and, as my colleague said, we get that. In Quebec in particular, 80% of people have received two doses of the vaccine. People feel as though they have done their part. Things are tense right now. It is as if there are two camps: the unvaccinated and the vaccinated. People are starting to say that the unvaccinated are bad and the vaccinated are good.
I do not agree with that at all because I do not believe that the world is black and white. There are people who cannot get vaccinated. Constituents have called my office to explain that they were waiting to receive a medical assessment to get their medical exemption. When people talk about the unvaccinated, they feel wrongly judged, and this is creating a bad social climate right now. It is high time we thought about this and maybe came up with a plan.
I think it is important for us to say this today. I have heard many members talk in their speeches of health measures that are under provincial jurisdiction rather than talking about the ones that are the federal government's responsibility. Basically, the measures we are talking about today are not the ones that affect people on a daily basis, unless we count federal public servants. We are talking about measures that affect those who cross the border by train or by boat, or those who want to travel. This is about the border issue. The measures people are fed up with are mostly the ones that are under provincial jurisdiction.
There is some confusion. Once again, I think that if the provinces and other countries were able to come up with plans, it is high time the federal government also presented its own plan, to ensure that it coordinates and aligns its efforts with the provinces.
I will conclude by saying that I dream of a country, a country that manages its borders, takes sole and full responsibility for the management of its borders, and manages its own areas of jurisdiction. That would be much simpler, because there would be less confusion. In the meantime, in Quebec, we will continue to demand our due, which is to get back the money that we pay to Ottawa, so we can pay for our health care and build a strong and robust system to help and support all our citizens.
1335 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
