SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Whip of the Bloc Québécois Member of the Board of Internal Economy

Claude DeBellefeuille

  • 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
Context: House Hansard - 319 - May/28/24
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)
  • May/28/24 10:21:40 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I find it extremely disappointing that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is completely disregarding the motion of privilege. The motion was introduced because there was a question of privilege. The question of privilege was analyzed by the procedural team and the Speaker, who concluded that there was a vacuum and that it was a very important question, and who allowed debate on the motion. If the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons enjoys bashing the Conservatives for attacking the Speaker, this is a false debate. The current debate is on a motion of privilege. There is nothing more important in Parliament, in the House of Commons, than a motion of privilege, but the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is trying to pass a closure motion to limit debate on a motion of privilege. He can do so because, with the complicity of the NDP, he proceeded with a super motion to muzzle Parliament. This is unacceptable and is key to the current debate. Does the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons not find it curious to question the nature of the privilege motion that was received, heard and analyzed by the procedural team, which found justification for the debates we are currently having? It is as though he were challenging the decision by the Speaker.
232 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 126 - Nov/14/22
Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)
  • Nov/14/22 12:27:46 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, I am somewhat surprised by the turn today's debate has taken. I note that the government House leader gave a spiritual and somewhat philosophical speech about how he sees things. I see signs of his personal growth. I heard him quote the Bible. I realize that it may be pleasant to hear ourselves talk and share ideas, but we must not forget what today's debate is about. We are debating a motion that essentially muzzles the opposition. I want to speak about truth, but who holds the truth? I do not claim to know the truth or to believe that my colleagues' notion of the truth is better or worse than mine. I am seeking a guarantee for the exercise of democracy, and democracy is exercised in debates between a government and a very strong opposition, which makes it possible for the government to excel and be even better. I missed the first two minutes of my colleague's speech, but I would like to hear him explain why we need today's Motion No. 22, under Government Business, to extend sitting hours. I want to talk about the facts. The facts are that 36 bills have been introduced, 19 bills, or 52%, have passed all stages of the House; three are at the Senate, 16 have received royal assent, seven are in committee and 10 are at second reading. Personally, I think that it pretty good. I do not understand this obsession with extending sitting hours and saying that we need this because Parliament is paralyzed, when in fact the opposite is true. I would like the government to explain to me, with supporting evidence, why we are debating this motion today.
290 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border