- 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
- May/22/24 7:57:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate, but I think it is unfortunate that I will not have much time to do so. With the help of the NDP, the government has limited the time for debate. That means that, today, I will not be able to share absolutely everything that I would have liked to share and debate with my colleagues because time allocation has been imposed on an important bill that has consequences for the provinces.
This bill will have consequences and it will infringe on provincial jurisdictions. It may also cause disruptions in the existing system. I think it would have been only reasonable for us to take the necessary time to debate this bill and to shed light on some of its inherent problems. We think that this shows that the government and the NDP are in a hurry to tick a box on their platform so that they can have people believe that they implemented a universal pharmacare program, which is not the case.
Today, we are debating a bill that sets out a series of principles. If those principles are adopted and if the provinces are willing, then one day there may be a pan-Canadian pharmacare program. However, there is many a slip 'twixt cup and lip.
First, Quebec has unequivocally stated that it will not support this bill or work with the federal government to set up a Canadian pharmacare program. In fact, Quebec has had a hybrid pharmacare program since 1996, meaning that no one in Quebec lacks drug coverage. Everyone is covered, either through their job—with a collective agreement or a contract that allows them to access a private company—or through access to the public pharmacare plan, which is administered by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec.
The bill we have before us blatantly encroaches on Quebec's jurisdiction. The government is suddenly swooping in to play the leader in a program that already exists in Quebec.
The NDP will not have a chance to ask me the question, so I will provide the answer I would have given if my colleagues had asked it. We know that in Quebec, the unions, who for the most part represent public sector workers, pay big medicare and pharmacare premiums on their paycheque. We in the Bloc Québécois agree that there is an imbalance. The government should talk to Quebec and the unions to find an answer to this situation, because there is indeed a problem. However, what my NDP colleagues fail to mention is that at the National Assembly, which is the democratic assembly of Quebec, all the parties, namely Québec Solidaire, the Parti Québécois, the Liberal Party and the CAQ government, unanimously adopted a motion saying that this is out of the question, that this does not interest them, but that it might interest them if the federal government were willing to give them the money to improve their own programs, with no strings attached.
We are not being bad sports. We are simply asking the government not to disrupt the way we manage pharmacare in Quebec. That said, we are prepared to talk, take the money, improve our program and, perhaps, find a solution to the issue of public sector workers paying unreasonable premiums. I say this because, before becoming an MP, I was a public sector worker. When I looked at my paycheque, I saw that I was paying huge premiums. This is due to the fact that pharmaceutical groups now finance their medications in a certain way. A small number of us finance the costs of increasingly niche medications for very specific patients. That means a very small number of us are paying the costs of research.
Public system workers are the ones paying a large share of it. Since we agree on that, what stopped the government and the NDP from agreeing to Quebec's request? Quebec is not against pharmacare. It is not unwilling to explore ways of improving it. However, the government should not try to tell Quebec how to do it, what recipe to follow, and so on.
This bill contains all sorts of steps that need to be taken before people can get a full refund of their drug costs, including diabetes medications or contraceptives for women. That is going to take a long time. The government wants us to believe that if this bill is passed, people will have access to a free, universal Canadian pharmacare program by the next day. We do not think that is possible, because it will take quite a while before Quebec reaches an agreement with the federal government. I heard my colleague say that Alberta, like Quebec, has also voiced opposition.
I know that time is running out and that the time I am taking to talk is delaying the next vote, but I still have a lot more to say about how we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, do not understand why we are being accused of blocking a bill like this one, when Quebec has jurisdiction and is responsible for managing everything related to health, including pharmacare.
As we know, the provinces have created an alliance so that they can buy prescription drugs in bulk. Quebec's health minister, along with a team of experts, determines the list of drugs that are covered by the public plan. We also have a system that enables doctors to ask the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec for exemptions, so that a person who really needs a drug that is not on the formulary can get reimbursed for it.
Imagine if Canada came up with a formulary that was completely different from Quebec's formulary. Imagine the utter confusion that would cause. That is already happening with the dental insurance. We do not need another pan-Canadian program to tell us how to manage our health and social services. What is more, the federal government is not in the best position to tell us what to do, since it already has enough trouble managing its own affairs in areas under its own jurisdiction.
We are calling on the federal government to leave it to Quebec and the provinces to provide the service. The best way to help Quebec and the provinces is to give them the money with a right to opt out with no strings attached. That would prove that what matters is not making political gains, but ensuring that people have access to a pharmacare program.
What we are seeing is simply a PR exercise where two political parties are hurting in the polls and they want to be able to tick a box on their record and build their electoral campaign on it. Speaking for myself, I am going to be very uncomfortable when people ask me when they will be able to get their drugs for free in Quebec. I have no date to give them. I really have no hope of giving them one either because, based on what we are seeing right now, this is just a PR campaign that is misinforming the public. I find that shameful.
1220 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on this Conservative opposition day. I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful and handsome colleague from Jonquière.
First I would like to say something to the Conservatives, who may want to make a meme about my speech. The Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C‑234, and all parties voted unanimously in favour of it at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. I will talk about it a little later, but it is important to clarify this from the start.
Today, I want to talk about something I experienced, to give context to the Conservatives' motion that we have been discussing and debating since this morning. Today we are watching a finely orchestrated scene of intimidation. It makes no sense. There are women from all parties sitting here in the House, and I do not understand how the Conservative Party can deliberately orchestrate an intimidation campaign targeting two women senators over Bill C‑234.
These two senators have been named and are doing their job. As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois could do without the Senate, but today these two senators are here and the Senate is sitting. This has nothing to do with the fact that they are senators. The fact is they are here, they have a role to play and they are being deliberately intimidated. We are talking about senators Bernadette Clement and Chantal Petitclerc. As we know, Ms. Petitclerc is a Paralympic athlete, an admirable woman and role model in our society. The same applies to Ms. Clement, whom I have met. She is the former mayor of Cornwall. She and I shared the responsibility for maintaining relations with indigenous people from the Akwesasne reserve. These two inspiring role models are being deliberately intimidated.
What surprises me most is that this came from a Conservative member who, frankly, I respect. I am surprised to see that it is the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle who launched this intimidation campaign by tweeting photos of Ms. Clement and Ms. Petitclerc. As we know, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle is the House leader of the official opposition. I believe that whoever holds such a position should exercise it with a sense of propriety. They cannot engage in petty politics, resorting to intimidation to coerce two women senators, as he did. He published two photos on the social network X, one of Senator Clement and the other of Senator Petitclerc. Frankly, I may not be the most creative person on earth, but it did not take much imagination to see these two pictures looked like mugshots, such as those one might see on wanted posters in a western.
The two women received many threats. They received so many threats that Senator Clement, on recommendation by security personnel, even had to leave her home and family to take refuge in her official apartment in Ottawa, a much more secure place than her home.
How can we, in 2023, accept the use of such partisan politics—indeed dirty politics, a term I rarely use—to attack individuals and their private life?
The member for La Prairie and I have also been victims of such nasty intimidation, and I can say that what we experienced at the time was serious. Our children, partners and family were all involved. What the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle did is unacceptable. If the Conservatives think the Bloc Québécois will play their game and support a motion that encourages the intimidation of two women, they are wrong. We have no intention of playing that role. I understand the Conservatives are on a quest, that they feel like kings in waiting, but I will tell them quite frankly, if they think they will appeal to Quebeckers with such tactics, they are wrong. They do not understand Quebeckers at all.
In Quebec, we do not like people who viciously attack others, who bully them and who put so much undue pressure on them that it affects their personal and family lives. In the case of Ms. Petitclerc and Ms. Clement, I would even say it is affecting their professional lives. How would any of us feel coming to work, knowing that tons of people are writing to us? I, for one, know how it feels. The member for La Prairie and I received hundreds, if not thousands, of hateful emails. Do my colleagues know why I received them? It was because I stood up in the House and asked the Chair to reprimand a member who had done something serious. I wanted an apology. The Chair thought I was right and asked the member to apologize. He never did apologize, but that is not the point. The point is that my personal life, and the life of the member for La Prairie, were severely affected. I went through sleepless nights because my children were getting death threats. That is serious. If the Conservative Party hopes to govern Canada in the near future, it should know that this is not the type of thing that will inspire Quebeckers to trust it. Quebeckers abhor bullies. They abhor people who deliberately set out to hurt other people on a personal level. This seems like a ploy borrowed from the Americans, and that is not who we are.
In addition to bullying, the Conservatives are moving a motion with a false premise. Its content supports some highly questionable tactics. With this motion, they are trying to make us believe that Bill C-234 will eliminate the carbon tax. It does not eliminate the carbon tax. It extends the exemption for farmers who use propane to dry their grain by eight years. I will say it straight off: There is no carbon tax in Quebec. Bill C‑234 has no effect on Quebec farmers.
If Quebec Conservatives are listening to us, maybe this will make them want to work for our farmers and say that the federal carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Again, passing Bill C‑234 will have no effect on Quebec farmers. If Conservatives want to work for Quebec, the Conservatives in the Senate should get a move on and work to pass Bill C-282, which does affect Quebec. It affects dairy farmers, poultry farmers, all farmers under supply management.
That would really be working for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois will always be there to stand up to bullies and fight for Quebec's interests.
1114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/23 4:54:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, despite the respect I have for my colleague, he knows full well that he is completely off topic. We are debating a bill about anti-scab legislation. He is taking advantage of this, with the Chair's full knowledge, to debate a topic that is being dealt with at the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology. I believe he should take parliamentarians seriously, be rigorous, and debate the bill we are seized with today.
76 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 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I usually begin my speeches by saying that I am pleased to participate in the debate on a bill.
However, today, I have to say that I am really disappointed to be here once again debating a bill that, as we know, affects sick workers who need more than 15 weeks of special employment insurance sickness benefits.
During the previous Parliament, I had the privilege of introducing a bill that is similar to that of my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière. We are both concerned about people who worked and contributed their whole life and who did not choose to get sick, to get cancer, for example. They deserve more than 15 weeks of support.
It has been very well documented that, today, workers often need more than 15 weeks to recover. They need to fight the illness, receive treatment, heal and regain their strength before they can return to work. No one chooses to be sick.
As I was saying, I am always happy to debate, but I am incredibly disappointed today. I would even say that I am angry, because we are wasting time. As far back as at least 2011, all parties, including the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and even the Liberal Party when it was in opposition, agreed that it was time to amend the Employment Insurance Act and that these changes were needed to support workers through an illness.
I am disappointed because, as members know, I introduced Bill C‑265 in the previous Parliament, and this bill was passed at second reading. We worked on it in committee, which was an amazing experience for me. It was the first time that I had the opportunity to debate with parliamentarians from all parties and to hear witnesses speak to Bill C‑265. Today we are debating Bill C‑215, which is practically the same bill. I am sharing this story with my colleagues because committee stage is the right place and the most appropriate place to have in-depth debate and improve the bill.
We can all agree that Bill C‑215 is not a big bill. It seeks to amend just one section of the Employment Insurance Act. We are asking that benefits be extended from 15 weeks to 52 weeks. During the last Parliament, when we debated in committee, we heard from all sorts of witnesses. Quite honestly, I would say that we did not see any significant resistance to extending benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.
What really caught my attention was the study from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. According to that study, we collectively have the means to provide the most vulnerable workers the support they need to return to work. The Parliamentary Budget Officer stated and documented the fact that a small increase in contributions, which does not amount to much in the lives of every employer, would financially help thousands of sick workers.
We all know someone in our lives who has gone through the process of recovering or fighting cancer. We know that some cancers can be healed in 15 weeks. However, we also know that if a person has the misfortune of being diagnosed with certain other cancers like colon cancer or rectal cancer, they will need 30 to 37 weeks of financial support to get through it. That is scientifically documented. Advanced technology and science are making it possible for more and more people with cancer to recover, but they still need to take the time to go through the treatment.
When it comes to honest workers who are among the most vulnerable, those who do not have group insurance or the necessary support from their employer, it is rather disgraceful that a rich country like ours is abandoning them.
I often joke that with a quick stroke of the pen, the government could decide, by ministerial order, to extend benefits from 15 weeks to 50 or 52.
It would be humane and compassionate of the government to say, after listening to the witnesses and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, that since bills have been introduced year after year for 10 years, enough is enough. It should quickly pass Bill C-215 or give it a royal recommendation in order to reassure the sick workers who are watching the debate today and who do not understand what is happening.
Personally, I wonder why the government is not taking action on this file. Members will recall that, last year, we passed Bill C-30, which contained a provision that would extend benefits from 15 weeks to 26 in 2022. Why wait so long? What is the justification?
Bill C‑30 received royal assent on June 29, 2021, which was almost a year ago, but I am still trying to convince my colleagues that this failure to move forward makes no sense. Mainly, I am trying to convince my colleagues across the way, because they are the ones who are not on board. I know the Liberal benches over there are full of compassionate MPs who care about sick people, so why on earth is cabinet so dead set against it?
I have my theories, but I wonder which lobby group has been quietly telling cabinet to put it off for as long as possible. Maybe insurance companies, maybe employers? I have no idea, but I do want to point out that employers said they were not opposed to extending the special EI benefit period.
That leaves me wondering who is behind this, because I just cannot understand why I am still here on June 13 giving a speech about a bill to protect and support our most vulnerable workers.
I want to thank my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière for not giving up and for reintroducing his bill, which will help put the spotlight on the government benches to make it clear to the Liberals that this is not a partisan issue. This bill is about humanity, compassion and understanding of the status of a worker who is seriously ill. Perhaps one day we will know who is preventing the government from moving forward more quickly.
It is supposed to come into force in the summer of 2022. According to my assistant, Charles, Quebec strawberries are in season, which means summer is here. If summer is here, why has the government not announced that it is giving royal recommendation to Bill C-215, so that we can give all our vulnerable and seriously ill workers all the support they need to fight their illness, recover and get back to work?
I appeal to the compassion and humanity of the Liberal members opposite.
1135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I knew that this time allocation motion was coming, but I did not think it would be moved so soon. It is important for people to know that we have not yet even had five hours of debate on Bill C-19, which is a big bill with numerous measures. Many sectors have been calling us after seeing the budget. We need to debate this big, important bill, and five hours is not enough time.
I am surprised because I think this demonstrates carelessness and contempt on the part of the government. The Liberals are saying that we have debated this long enough, and they are eager for the bill to be passed. We, too, are eager for it to pass, but debating bills is part of our job. I am therefore very surprised, and even appalled, that this motion was moved today when I was not expecting it until later.
I think that is an exaggeration. I think the government is counting on its tacit agreement with the NDP to prevent meaningful and thorough debate, especially in the case of Bill C-19. This is not a small bill; it is 452 pages long and the Standing Committee on Finance has already begun its study.
This is not a question, but I will say to my colleague that it is a bit discouraging to see that the leader continues to be contemptuous of the legislative work that we have to do here in the House.
249 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
