- 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/13/23 1:32:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the question of privilege raised on Wednesday, February 8 by the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle concerning freedom from obstruction and technical difficulties related to the interpretation service and to the comments made by the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, which dealt more specifically with technical difficulties in parliamentary committee work.
The Bloc Québécois agrees with the House leader of the Conservative caucus that the parliamentary privilege of his caucus was indeed breached because of the technical problems that occurred and that prevented the interpretation of members' remarks during the last caucus meeting of the official opposition.
We want to acknowledge the remarkable work that the interpreters do and the support they provide to members of Parliament during parliamentary proceedings. The interpretation service is essential to the proper functioning of Parliament.
As the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle pointed out, subsection 4(2) of the Official Languages Act requires that “Facilities shall be made available for the simultaneous interpretation of the debates and other proceedings of Parliament from one official language into the other.”
The Bloc Québécois would like to thank the interpreters who interpret every day. I would like to point out that most of the interpretation is done from English to French, so it is all the more important to ensure the right of francophone members to participate in parliamentary proceedings in their language, which is also the language of the majority of their constituents.
The second part of the intervention by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle concerned the problems caused by the technical arrangements for caucus meetings. He rightly referred to pages 111 and 112 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, which state, “A member may also be obstructed or interfered with in the performance of his or her parliamentary functions by non-physical means.”
A little later, he added:
It is impossible to codify all incidents which might be interpreted as matters of obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation and, as such, constitute prima facie cases of privilege.
The member for Mégantic—L'Érable went further in his reply. He asserted the following about the technical problems:
We need to have a plan B. Meetings must take place at the scheduled time and proceed normally with the possibility of access to interpretation services and interpreters and, especially, to the equipment that makes those services possible.
On that particular issue, the Bloc Québécois wants to note that technical problems are unfortunately increasingly delaying the work of parliamentary committees and becoming a recurring obstacle to their operations. This poses a significant problem considering the scope and nature of the work done by the committees within the parliamentary apparatus. Parliamentary committees play a fundamental role, including in the legislative process, by conducting a comprehensive review of bills and improving them by adopting amendments, as well as in the oversight process when they conduct investigations into the government's activities, policies, expenses and programs.
As a whip, member of the Board of Internal Economy and a member of Parliament, I find the situation to be very alarming. Last week alone, we on this side related the following events. There were incidents: on February 6 at the environment and sustainable development, veterans affairs, and agriculture and agri-food committees; on February 7 at the health, human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities, and national defence committees and at the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying; on February 8 at the industry and technology, and citizenship and immigration committees; on February 9 at the foreign affairs and international development, international trade and veterans affairs committees. There is more. On February 10, there were problems at the human resources, skills and social development and the status of persons with disabilities, and official languages committees and again at the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. Just this morning, there were problems at the Canadian heritage committee.
We submit to your attention that technical difficulties affecting interpretation services, both during the Conservative caucus and during various committee meetings, may be considered obstruction, interference, molestation or intimidation, and as such constitute a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege.
I thank you for taking these situations into consideration during your reflection, as I believe they are very serious.
753 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:47:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we are not debating the hybrid Parliament today. However, since the question was asked, I will provide a quick answer.
The hybrid Parliament was created for use during the pandemic, but now it is being changed with a view to perhaps making it permanent in order to foster work-life balance, among other things.
The Bloc Québécois does a lot to promote work-life balance and, as whip, I approve many requests on that subject. The hybrid Parliament is not the only solution. Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. My colleague, the NDP House leader, and I both sit on the Board of Internal Economy. He knows very well that I have proposed concrete solutions. I proposed that we all agree to require witnesses and MPs to wear a headset that meets the safety standards and to require chairs to attend in person. I proposed concrete solutions on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.
I condemned the fact that no one seemed to be in much of a hurry to turn the suggestions I had made on multiple occasions into a motion that we could adopt unanimously to guarantee occupational health and safety for interpreters.
Today we are debating a motion to extend sitting hours, which will have an impact on the health and safety of our interpreters and cause burnout among mothers and young fathers in every party. Although I respect my colleague, I do not think I have anything to learn from him on this subject.
258 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/14/22 1:19:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to speak to this debate on Motion No. 22 under Government Business. For those watching us, this motion may seem procedural and maybe even uninteresting. We are talking about procedure and rules. The public does not usually like that part and does not consider it a priority.
However, we are talking about democracy here. From what I see, and from what my entire caucus sees, the government is taking advantage of its alliance with the NDP to change the rules of the House.
Before, changing a rule required debate. There is a way to do this under the Standing Orders. Ever since the pandemic and the adoption of a hybrid Parliament, the government has not really been shy to propose changes to the Standing Orders to serve some interests more than others. Maybe we should talk about this and consider what the rules are for.
We have a good rule book that sets out the agreed-upon rules of the House that must be followed. Most importantly, these rules guarantee the exercise of a healthy democracy. In our Parliament, democracy is practised with a government in power and opposition parties that challenge it. I often say that the better the opposition, the better the bills and debates and, consequently, the better the government. A government that seeks to muzzle the opposition by changing the rules is a government that is basically depriving itself of the expertise of witnesses and parliamentarians to improve its bills.
The motion that we are talking about today essentially seeks to extend sitting hours late into the night. However, 10 days of intensive sitting days are already set out on the parliamentary calendar, depending on the needs of the government. When the government manages its legislative agenda properly, Standing Order 27(1) proposes a calendar that is negotiated among the leaders of each recognized party in the House at the beginning of the Parliament. The leaders agree on a calender and establish the ground rules at the beginning of the Parliament. This standing order about the calendar was established in 1982, so the House agreed a long time ago that it would decide on a calendar in order to have more transparency and to exercise a healthy democracy. This means that we are well aware of the times when the government can intervene to extend the sitting hours.
I remember the government House leader lecturing the Bloc Québécois last June. Quebec's national holiday falls on June 24, but we begin our celebrations on June 23 and end them the evening of June 24. The Bloc Québécois had asked that we rise earlier, on June 23, so that members could return to their ridings to celebrate the national holiday. This elicited a strong reaction from the government House leader. He told us that it was ridiculous for the Bloc to dispute something that had been agreed to unanimously by all parties. He criticized us for revisiting a unanimous decision made by all parties. I could repeat that my colleague, the government House leader, stated that we needed to be reasonable.
Today, I consider that the original calendar proposed at the beginning of the Parliament was the reasonable outcome of discussions, and it was adopted. Now, the government itself is brazenly revisiting it and is seizing the opportunity to change it, not just until Christmas but until June 23, 2023. We do not understand this. We are wondering what is happening. Why amend the calender up to June 23, 2023?
This motion circumvents Standing Order 26. According to the Standing Orders, if the government wants to extend sittings in addition to what is already provided for, it can move a motion. However, if five opposition members rise to object to the motion, that is one way for the opposition to play the parliamentary game and object to a government motion.
Today's motion circumvents that. It will no longer be possible for opposition members to rise and object to an extension of sitting hours.
I am sorry to have to say this, but I am surprised to see my NDP colleagues support this motion, insinuating that we will have more hours for debate, and then wonder why we oppose the motion. They also say it will not cause problems for parliamentary debate, which is totally false, and they know it.
Standing Order 106(4) enables members who sign a written request addressed to a parliamentary committee to discuss and debate a priority matter in committee.
At the beginning of this Parliament, we unanimously agreed that the opposition could not play around with this standing order. Everyone agreed, reasonably, that a request to call a committee meeting should be signed by different parties. In other words, if the official opposition wanted to call a committee meeting, it would need help from the NDP or the Bloc Québécois in order for the matter to be considered a priority in committee.
However, today's motion gets rid of that idea. It takes only one other House leader to extend the sitting hours. It seems to me that it would have been more transparent, beneficial or democratic to say that two leaders are required to change the sitting hours. Instead, only one leader is required. What is the motive behind all this? Again, I have a hard time understanding how my NDP colleagues could get on board.
By putting forward this motion, the government is seeking to limit, but not ban, the use of gag orders. There have been a lot of gag orders in the past year. I am guessing that the government is starting to get a bit embarrassed about needing to use gag orders to manage its agenda. The government has decided to bypass a few Standing Orders and do indirectly what it cannot do directly.
Let us be honest. Even if this motion is adopted, it will not stop the government from using closure motions, with the NDP's support.
What is motivating the government to table such a motion? We think the House and the committees are working very well. In the last year, 29 debatable bills have been introduced in the House. The House has passed 18 bills, 15 bills have received royal assent, six bills are currently in committee and five bills are at second reading. When I hear someone say that Parliament is not working, that sounds like nonsense to me.
On the face of it, the government would have us believe that Parliament is not working, when that is completely false. As I said, many bills have passed in the House and are either in the Senate or have received royal assent.
I did a little research. In 2015, the majority Liberal government passed 13 of the 37 bills it introduced in its first year in office. Clearly, the current minority government is performing better than the majority Liberal government did in its first year in office.
What is more, on October 5, the House adopted a motion by unanimous consent to extend the debate in order to pass Bill C‑31. This was possible because we negotiated, discussed and concluded ad hoc agreements. This allowed us to avoid a “supermotion”, which would effectively bulldoze the democratic process and would not be the fruit of the parliamentary discussions we should be having.
This leads us to question why the government wants to extend the sitting hours of the House of Commons when in fact it is reducing parliamentary debate. I think my colleagues are aware that the work done in committee and the studies they do, on bills and other issues, are very important to me. We know that the parliamentary work suffering the repercussions of the hybrid Parliament is the work done in parliamentary committee. I will give some examples.
This morning, a committee meeting with veterans was cancelled because a motion had been moved under Standing Order 106(4) at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The meeting with veterans was cancelled so that discussions and debates could be held at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We had to do this because we do not have enough interpreters or technical support staff to go around. This means the whips must agree on which committee will cancel its meeting.
As a whip, it was heartbreaking today to have to cancel a meeting with veterans, two days after the Remembrance Day celebrations, to give priority to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Every time a minister rises to ask for extended sitting hours, the whips will have to agree on which committee will have to be cancelled. It will not be just one committee because when we sit until midnight, we usually cancel two committees. Those two committees will not do their work, will not move forward and will have to cancel on witnesses they invited.
It seems as though this government has just accepted that it is now normal for committee meetings to be cancelled because of the limitations of the hybrid Parliament. I do not mind sitting until midnight. I do not see any problem with that, as long as no committee meetings are cancelled. However, I do not want anyone calling me lazy for not wanting to sit until midnight when I just want to make sure that committee meetings are held. Right now, the NDP and the government are consciously working to cancel committee meetings and limit their important work.
I would say that partisanship has trumped common sense. One cannot call for a better democracy and extended debates in the House while limiting important debate in committee without anyone noticing. On Thursday, we may sit late and we will have to determine which committee will be cancelled. The Board of Internal Economy is sitting one afternoon, and we will have to cancel yet another committee meeting. No one from the government or the NDP is talking about that situation.
I kept a close eye on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs' work on the subject of hybrid proceedings, and I was quite touched by all the talk of work-life balance. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons' very personal testimony about the importance of avoiding burnout, participating in family life and finding balance was moving. Now, however, he is an ardent proponent of extending sittings until midnight or 12:30 in the morning. Can someone explain to me how that squares with the importance of work-life balance? The NDP, despite its support for a hybrid Parliament, is doing the same thing. One of the main reasons the NDP is in favour of a hybrid Parliament is that it makes work-life balance possible, or so it says.
If I have kids and I work until 12:30 in the morning a few nights a week, I might find it challenging to collaborate and get work done. Obviously that will have repercussions on my family life.
What should be normal is having a climate of collaboration and discussion in the House, a climate that allows us to prioritize bills and agree on a legislative process. That process should focus on seeking a consensus or a majority, rather than having the agenda dictated by a government that will simply seek an alliance with the NDP. I do not understand my colleagues' lack of sensitivity on such a fundamental issue, and that goes for both the government members and the NDP.
What is more, we have yet to talk about the interpreters. As we know, there is a shortage of interpreters. Many were injured during the pandemic. Even now, interpreters are still being injured by acoustic shocks. We know that there is a shortage of interpreters, yet the government, with the complicity of the NDP, has decided to make the interpreters work until 12:30 a.m. under conditions that could lead to burnout.
I do not understand the position of the government and the NDP in this regard. They are not in such a hurry to move a motion that would make it mandatory for witnesses and MPs to wear headsets and require committee chairs to attend meetings in person. They are in less of a hurry to protect the health and safety of our interpreters than they are to muzzle the opposition in order to advance their legislative agenda.
Honestly, I am completely dumbfounded. Normally, I would say “appalled” because that word reflects my sadness at the government and NDP members' lack of sincerity and authenticity in the context in which we are debating, namely a hybrid Parliament with a shortage of interpreters and technical limitations. The Board of Internal Economy, of which I am a member, has spent countless hours talking about this dangerous situation for our interpreters, and yet I still feel as though, today, the government and the NPD are abandoning them and their health and safety. The government and the NDP are saying loud and clear that parliamentary committees do not play an important role in our overall work. That is sad.
Members will realize from the comments I have made that we will be voting against this motion. We are doing so not because we are not willing to work hard or sit until midnight, but because we object to the government's refusal to discuss or agree on a calendar with the opposition parties. The government is acting as though it has a majority. Quebeckers and Canadians voted in a minority government, and that requires that it work with the opposition.
Therefore, I am moving this amendment to the amendment moved by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle: that the amendment be amended, in paragraph (a), by adding, after the words “provided that”, the following: the House leader of a recognized party that supports the government's request also rise from their seat to orally and formally indicate their support to the House.
My amendment to the amendment demonstrates that transparency is important to the Bloc Québécois.
2380 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/24/21 5:22:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois's House leader is a tough act to follow. It is hard to improve on his use of metaphor and imagery to get his point across. Nevertheless, I will try to lighten things up and make members laugh.
First, though, I would like to thank the people of Salaberry—Suroît for re-electing me to serve a fourth term. I was fortunate to be a member of Parliament from 2006 to 2011. I ran in 2015 and lost by a slim margin. I ran again in 2019 and won, and I also won in 2021. I am proud to be representing Salaberry—Suroît once again.
I would like to thank the 200 volunteers who were so involved and engaged in the election campaign. I also want to thank my whole family, my partner and my children. You know this first hand, Madam Speaker: an election campaign is an intense time, and our families make lots of sacrifices, so I want to thank them too. I am grateful to my partner, Maurice, my three girls, and my grandson, Victor, who is almost two.
I am the whip for the Bloc Québécois in the House of Commons, as I was in the previous Parliament. It therefore has to be said that I had the privilege, in a time of crisis during the pandemic, of contributing to the creation of a hybrid Parliament that allowed us, despite the pandemic, to continue our work during an important time.
I have to say that it was an extraordinary situation, and I really want to commend the entire IT team for contributing to that build, creating what was needed and doing everything that was necessary to allow us to continue our work during the first wave, even though the situation was less than ideal.
We did that because it was the right thing to do, because we were in a crisis. We did not have very much information. It was inconceivable that we were here while so many of our constituents were sick, especially since we did not have any vaccines yet. We are evolving, and we have changed how we work in order to deal with the pandemic. I can honestly say that building the tools to allow us to vote and participate virtually was an impressive feat.
I am not questioning what was. What the Bloc Québécois is questioning today is the need to continue the hybrid Parliament from now until the end of June.
We know that the pandemic is changing, that the fourth wave is here, but that it is being controlled across the country. We know that it is a matter of following universal precautions such as washing our hands, wearing our masks, keeping our distance. We have gone back to our normal lives. Even though we have to keep wearing a mask almost everywhere we go in our daily lives and in our social lives, we have to say that we are pleased to have resumed our quasi normal life from before. Children are going to school, university and CEGEP classes are full, and life is back on track.
Today we are questioning the insistence on maintaining a hybrid Parliament. We could have worked together at weighing the possibility of extending the hybrid Parliament for a month or two. What we want to know is why extend it until June when the situation is evolving?
I know that we created a virtual Parliament in just a few days and that we were able to adapt to the situation in just a few days with a motion. However, the situation is evolving. What my party and I do not understand is why we have to decide today whether the hybrid Parliament will be extended until June 23. Nobody understands that, including our constituents.
We are wondering whether the two parties who support the proposal are doing this to suit themselves. One must admit that, with the hybrid sittings, members can watch or listen to question period while riding their stationary bike, which is something I have seen. They can also watch bare chested or in their pyjamas. We have seen that too. I can understand that some members like to sleep next to their spouse every night since we are not all lucky enough to live in Ottawa or Gatineau, close to Parliament. I can understand that.
However, that being said, when we get elected, we need to sit here in Parliament in person in order to do our job. That is part of the contract.
I think some people got a little too used to being comfortable, particularly those who live far away and who have to travel by plane or train to get here and who find it tiresome. Perhaps there is something behind this decision.
I have to say that I think my leader has been fairly clear. It is not so good for the opposition to have empty benches near the front. It is not as difficult for the ministers and it is less stressful and nerve-wracking for new members. There are many reasons to explain it.
In our view, this is a way for them to shirk their responsibilities and their duty to be accountable. That is why we do not understand this at all.
As whip, I have to say that it seems as though people are forgetting what did not work. Although the hybrid Parliament worked well overall, it was not excellent. There were a lot of issues, and it has been documented that it was the unilingual francophone members who experienced most of the issues. Take, for example, parliamentary committees, at which 86% of the witnesses speak in English. The technical glitches with the interpretation, the interruptions, the loss of speaking time for Bloc Québécois members were all documented with the hybrid Parliament, including in committee. It is not true that everything worked well.
It is disappointing to hear my NDP colleagues suddenly see a hybrid Parliament as the only option. I remember hearing them in the House condemning the ear issues that the interpreters were having because the devices and equipment used and the fact that they were interpreting remotely, via Zoom, were causing occupational illnesses. The New Democrats are supposed to care about House administration workers, but they never talk about these workers anymore.
The interpreters testified and said as much to the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which issued a report entitled “Conference Interpreters: The Cornerstone of Bilingualism in Parliament”.
If time permits, I will read an excerpt from the report:
The current technological limitations not only are compromising the health and safety of parliamentary interpreters, but also could undermine the language rights of parliamentarians. Pursuant to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Official Languages Act, parliamentarians have the right to express themselves in the official language of their choice and to be understood by their colleagues and the Canadian public. Canadians should be able to follow the proceedings of Parliament in the official language of their choice, without being put at a disadvantage.
Because I have seen it myself, I can say that francophone witnesses invited to standing committees prefer to speak English, because they can be sure that there will not be any interpretation problems, as most members of Parliament speak English.
In closing, I would like to stress the importance of the interpreters, but we must also consider the members who do not want to lose a second of speaking time. In the hybrid Parliament and in the standing committees, it has been documented that the situation was rather unjust and unfair, and we do not want to go through that again in this Parliament, because, in our opinion, it is inappropriate.
As whip, I have defended my party's position and will continue to do so. There were actually no negotiations; there were no discussions because the government agreed with the NDP to impose the hybrid Parliament on us.
In closing, the Chair can count on the Bloc Québécois members to be present, active, diligent and at work in the House of Commons.
1385 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
