- 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/6/24 3:53:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister when he says that everyone who needs it should have drug coverage. The Bloc Québécois wholeheartedly agrees with him.
That being said, what is the best authority, the best government to manage a pharmacare program? The Bloc Québécois is convinced that it is the Government of Quebec and the provincial governments that should fulfill that responsibility for their citizens.
I know that the minister wants to impose a gag order because he is worried that the Conservatives will delay the debate to prevent the bill from being passed. On the other hand, the Bloc Québécois still needs to debate this bill, because it creates an agency that will manage a Canadian pharmacare program.
It is complicated. I am wondering how things will be done in Quebec because we already have a hybrid public-private program managed by the Régie de l'assurance-maladie du Québec.
That means that we have a lot of questions and we need to hear from witnesses. I understand that the minister wants to move fast on this and that he is concerned that the Conservatives will filibuster, but we still need to debate this matter and study it further. We need to hear from witnesses to determine whether this bill will work for Quebec and the provinces. Is it the best solution to provide good coverage for all Quebeckers and all Canadians? I have to wonder.
254 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 2:44:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Prime Minister Attal told Quebeckers that they are not alone in their efforts to defend secularism. France has banned religious symbols for people in positions of authority since 1905. Belgium, Norway, Denmark and several German states are doing the same.
I would like to quote the Court of Justice of the European Union: “In order to put in place an entirely neutral...environment, a public administration may prohibit the visible wearing...of any sign revealing...religious beliefs”.
Is the European Union discriminatory too, or is it just Quebeckers?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/15/24 2:41:56 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, French Prime Minister Gabriel Attal spoke at the Quebec National Assembly on Thursday. A worthy representative of the land of the Enlightenment, he delivered a spirited defence of state secularism, which both the French and Quebeckers hold in high esteem.
France, like Quebec, prohibits government employees in positions of authority from wearing religious symbols. France's legislation goes even further than Quebec's Bill 21, which this Prime Minister wants to take to the Supreme Court on the pretext that it is discriminatory.
Did the Prime Minister tell France that he finds it discriminatory, or does he reserve his contempt for Quebeckers?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 2:26:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, although Quebeckers make up 22% of the population, we received 6.7% of federal housing investments when the projects were chosen by Ottawa. It does not take a math genius to realize that we are getting ripped off.
Since 2019, the money has gone mostly to funding projects outside Quebec. We are in the midst of a full-on housing crisis and our tax dollars are being spent to house Ontarians, when we can no longer even pay rent here at home.
Is it clear now why we need to keep Ottawa as far away as possible from our exclusive jurisdiction over housing?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/11/24 2:25:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the housing issue proves that we must prevent the federal government from meddling in Quebec's areas of jurisdiction. When the federal level decides where the money goes, Quebeckers get ripped off, and the numbers from CMHC prove that without a doubt. Since the national housing strategy was created in 2019, what share of the funding has Quebec received when the federal government is choosing the projects? Do members know? The answer is 6.7%. That is not even a third of our fair share.
Will the government stop shortchanging Quebeckers and transfer housing money to Quebec, no strings attached?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 2:27:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada can continue to think about it, but Quebec is ready.
The Quebec National Assembly is unanimously calling for the federal government to amend the Criminal Code so that Quebec can move forward with advance requests. Ottawa has the moral duty to grant Quebec's unanimous request.
Canadians have the right to take more time to think about this, but they do not have the right to make Quebeckers suffer needlessly for years. Will the government legislate so that Quebec can authorize advance requests?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/8/24 12:52:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, which strikes me as quite partisan.
The Bloc Québécois has raised an issue that is of concern to all the provinces, and one on which there is consensus this morning. I guess the member did not have a chance to read the Journal de Montréal, which very clearly indicated that both Quebeckers and Canadians think that Quebec and the provinces really need to sit down at the same table because everyone has a say. We often talk about two solitudes, but in this case, everyone is on the same page. Everyone agrees that we need to find the solution to successful immigration together. The people who would benefit most from that kind of democratic exercise would be immigrants themselves.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/1/24 4:06:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, during question period today, the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship misled the House by insinuating that the leader of the Bloc Québécois compared immigrants to heat pumps. That is not what he did. I think we need to listen closely to what the leader of the Bloc Québécois said because he was actually condemning the minister's refusal to reimburse Quebeckers for the costs they have incurred by generously welcoming asylum seekers to Quebec. Serious questions deserve serious answers from the minister, not contempt.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that you have a listen and direct the member for Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs to withdraw his remarks and apologize.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 2:16:37 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, seven years ago, a gunman killed six people and wounded 19 others at the Quebec City mosque just because they were Muslim.
This attack sent a shockwave across Quebec and made us all painfully aware that we are not immune to such hateful acts.
Justice was served and the gunman ended up in prison, where he belongs, but our society as a whole must now be vigilant to ensure that intolerance never becomes commonplace. In case some people need to hear it again, I want to say that freedom of religion is guaranteed in Quebec and that no one should feel threatened because of their faith.
Today, our thoughts are with the victims' families, with all Muslims in Quebec and with all Quebeckers, who will always have to live with the consequences of this traumatic event. We all stand together in saying, “Never again”.
149 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/28/23 11:27:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not know how to explain it. I know the member well. We met in a previous life, when he was president of Quebec's federation of municipalities, the Fédération québécoise des municipalités.
I will say it again and, honestly, I cannot be any clearer than this: The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec because we have the carbon exchange. The tax does not apply. Quebec farmers will not pay a carbon tax because it does not apply.
I do not know how else to say it because he simply does not want to understand. I am surprised to hear this from an MP who knows a lot about agriculture and Quebec. He is playing his party's game. He is trying to mislead Quebeckers and farmers.
I cannot be any clearer than that. It does not apply.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/22/23 2:19:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, the dreary November days are chased away by a colourful celebration that speaks to all of us. November, in Quebec, is Social Economy Month. It is an opportunity to celebrate all these businesses that make up our economic fabric.
Quebeckers all have their favourite not-for-profit organization. Virtually everyone is a member of a co‑op. We all know a mutual. We all have confidence in these local businesses that give meaning to the economy, either for its workers, its artisans or its consumers, and for good reason.
The social economy is having a business sense and knowing how to share one's success by not leaving anyone behind. Back home, the social economy is Valspec, Jardins de la Résistance, Cré‑Actions, Coop CSUR and its eco-local market. It is also Coup de pouce des moissons and the Lac‑Saint‑François national wildlife area.
To the Bloc Québécois, the social economy is above all a source of pride.
I wish everyone a good Social Economy Month.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague very much. As everyone knows, I am a social worker, a member of my professional association and a manager of a Quebec CISSS. I use the term “CISSS” because I know Quebeckers will understand what I mean. One thing I can say for certain about mental health is that no professional who delivers mental health services directly to residents in my riding, or in the riding of the member for Sherbrooke, receives any federal funds.
Federal funds pay for help lines and websites. I am not saying that this is wrong. However, when someone is in distress or experiencing a crisis and thinking of committing suicide, they call their local community service centre's crisis line. I am looking forward to seeing what percentage of this $200 million will find its way to the Suroît area's local community service centre.
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/24/23 2:57:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, where is the Prime Minister in the labour dispute between his government and the public service?
After a weekend without any progress and given that the situation is likely to escalate, the Prime Minister must personally intervene. That is a formal request from the union and it is also in the interest of Quebeckers, who have everything to lose if the dispute drags on. Every hour that passes moves us further away from a desirable negotiated solution and leads us closer to an escalation of tensions.
Will the Prime Minister finally sit at the bargaining table?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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 3:25:14 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 am pleased to rise to speak at report stage of Bill C-32.
After reading Bill C-32 and the proposed amendment, all I can say is that this bill just dusts off some old legislative measures. There is nothing to excite us or to show us what direction the government wants to take. This bill is actually rather disappointing.
As a former health care network manager in Quebec, I want to talk the fact that there is absolutely no mention of health transfers in this bill. That is a problem.
Coincidentally, I read a wonderful article in La Presse this morning by the former mayor of Gatineau, Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin. I am actually somewhat envious of him. I wish I could have written that article myself, because what he said is exactly what I think about the whole debate on health transfers, namely, that needs are being expressed in the provinces and Quebec, but the money is in Ottawa.
I urge my Liberal and NDP colleagues to read the article. It is in French, but that would be a good way for them to practice their French. It is so interesting that it might even be worth getting it translated. Essentially, Maxime Pedneaud-Jobin says that the needs vary so widely from one province to another that Canada-wide standards would not really help patients. The purpose of the health transfers is to allow as many residents as possible to obtain high-quality public services, regardless where they live.
It is worth reading a excerpt:
I will give you one last sampling of our differences to demonstrate how useless, if not extremely complex, it would be to set Canada-wide standards.
Quebec is the only province that has a drug plan. Quebeckers consume the least amount of cannabis. The morning-after pill is used less in Quebec than anywhere else in the country, and 8% of [elective abortions] were performed using that method here, while the rate is 31% in Ontario and 50% in British Columbia. Quebec is the place with the most psychologists per capita in North America. There are as many here as in the rest of Canada combined. Quebec has the lowest perinatal and neonatal mortality rate in Canada. In Quebec, only a pharmacist can own a pharmacy, which is a unique situation. And so on and so forth.
We have a different lifestyle, we have a different health status, and, since Marguerite Bourgeoys, we have our own health management model.
This quote demonstrates that it is unrealistic for the federal government to think it can create equity with Canada-wide standards. It is trying to make itself look good by saying it will impose a standard to ensure health equity, but it is just deluding itself. The needs are not the same everywhere. It is not that Quebec is better or worse; it is simply different. Each province has its own public health needs based on the residents it most urgently needs to care for.
Quebec also has different tools. There are local community service centres, known as CLSCs, and family medicine groups, known as GMFs. Quebec is also recognized for its expertise in setting up vaccination clinics. We are true leaders. We have developed tools that are different from other provinces', and we are proud of that. We know very well what we need to do and, more importantly, where we need to improve.
Having worked as a manager at the Montérégie-Ouest integrated health and social services centre, or CISSS, I can say that each manager is responsible for achieving certain indicators that are both well known and documented. From one region to another, these indicators are directly linked to the public health system's departmental guidelines.
The CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest's catchment area includes parts of four members' ridings, specifically the member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, the member for Salaberry—Suroît, the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle and the member for La Prairie. It is a large CISSS, and with that comes various challenges. I would like to talk about a few of the indicators that the department is asking us to observe and improve on.
The members on the government side make it sound like there are no standards at all, like it is complete chaos in the provinces. I would like my colleagues to know that the opposite is true. We have indicators, very specific standards and percentage targets. I will name a few, of which I am particularly proud.
One indicator that the CISSS de la Montérégie-Ouest has as an objective is to improve access to addiction services. There is a broad departmental guideline regarding addiction, and my CISSS—I say “my” because it is still my CISSS—wants to improve access to addiction services. If we compare some data, we see that 10,717 people received addiction services in 2020. That number went down in 2021, when 9,743 people received those services. What happened? Some of the CISSS staff are studied the situation to find out why fewer people accessed addiction services than the year before. They looked into it, did some research and consulted with professionals. They realized that they need to serve people who may not be accustomed to bureaucracy, people who may not want to go to a hospital or a CLSC, but who want to be in contact with professionals who understand their lives and do not judge them.
That is why my CISSS got in touch with Pacte de rue, a community organization in my riding with outreach workers across the CISSS's territory. These workers connect with people where they are at, in their everyday lives and on the street. They work on the ground, not in offices. They realized that, if the organization had a street medicine service, they could increase the number of individuals accessing addiction services by going to people rather than waiting until people came to them.
I think that is a powerful example of a public network, our CISSS, working with a community organization in my riding. Through their co-operation and unique model, they are reaching people who might not otherwise receive public health care services. Now people who are homeless or have addictions may encounter an outreach worker who will take them to see a street medicine nurse. This is such a great model that it proves that these claims I am hearing, that there are no standards or indicators, are not true. Quebec's Department of Health requires my CISSS to adhere to broad guidelines for health, social services and public health and very specific indicators with measurable objectives. Every CISSS in Quebec has to do everything in its power to meet the goal.
The same thing happened with the new service that just opened, called Aire ouverte. Quebec wanted to improve access to services for children, youth and their families. We noticed that our statistics and indicators showed that there were clients who were not being reached as much, clients whose needs may not be as great, but who need help and services and do not seek them out. That is why Quebec created Aire ouverte, a program where health care workers meet with young people and no appointment is needed. These are clinics where no appointment is needed to easily access health care workers who will welcome young people and speak openly with them, without judgment, and refer to them to right services.
In closing, funding for the health care system is a critical issue. Unfortunately, we are dealing with a government that is playing games with this critical issue at patients' expense.
1302 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/21/22 2:03:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec celebrates the social economy every November.
When people purchase goods or services from the social economy, the whole community benefits.
The social economy is about supporting businesses that care about community and local services. The social economy is about businesswomen and businessmen who value quality of life and citizen engagement. These are business leaders who prioritize quality of life over profit no matter what.
Quebec's social economy is a big deal. We are talking $47.8 billion. We are talking 220,000 Quebeckers working for 11,200 companies all striving to change the economic landscape.
I salute the Chantier de l'économie sociale for its dynamic involvement, the 22 regional hubs and every consumer across Quebec who chooses the social economy.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I wish everyone a happy social economy month.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as you probably know, the International Day of Older Persons is coming up soon. I would like to take advantage of the debate on my bill to draw everyone's attention to this important day, because the generation before mine did so much for the French language. As a society, it waged major battles. Its story is the story of a nation that owns its uniqueness. It is therefore fitting, on the eve of the International Day of Older Persons, to thank those who have done so much for our national language and who, quite frankly, are just as concerned about the decline of French as we are.
For some, conversations about the decline of French elicit a shrug of the shoulders. Members of Parliament say we are getting too worked up about it. They say we are misinterpreting the statistics, that the indicators do not accurately reflect new linguistic dynamics. It is a tempest in a teapot, they say. That was the message during the first hour of debate on Bill C‑238. However, Statistics Canada shed new light this summer on what is happening with French across Canada and in Quebec.
We knew it, but now it is clear. My colleague, the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île, predicted it. No matter what measure we use, we see a decline in French. In Quebec, there are fewer people whose mother tongue is French. The same goes for the primary language spoken at home and the language spoken in public, and that is key. It is a serious slide, to the benefit of English. What will my bill, which I have the honour of introducing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, do to stop this decline?
It addresses two things: language of work and the language of newcomers. For language of work, Bill C‑238 incorporates the National Assembly's unanimous request to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses. Again, this was a unanimous request. Every Quebec member thought about the issue and came to the same conclusion. I hope that the House will be able to show a bit of consideration for democracy in Quebec.
During the first hour of debate, I heard someone say that Bill C‑13 would be better at protecting French at federally regulated businesses in Quebec. To say that is to flat out say no to the National Assembly. That is serious.
I have to say what I think. I do not trust the federal government to truly fight for the French language. It is the federal government that is responsible for the fact that, as we speak, a francophone veteran has to wait an average of 45 weeks for a decision on their file. An anglophone waits only 24 weeks. In Canada, discrimination based on language is tolerated. It is the federal government that is responsible for the fact that, in the House, ministers hold important briefings on their bills with no consideration for French. It is the federal government that tolerates the fact that it is very difficult for francophones to get top jobs in the government even though many francophones work in the public service. Despite efforts made in recent decades to protect French in Canada, everything is done in English.
I therefore place my trust in the Quebec government to ensure respect for Quebeckers' language rights, which is why Bill 101 must be applied to federally regulated businesses. Bill C‑238 has a second element, namely knowledge of French as a requirement for Quebec citizenship. To be clear, knowledge of French would be a requirement to obtain citizenship for people residing in Quebec. This would change nothing for people claiming refugee status or permanent residency. I think that this is a very reasonable provision.
There are all kinds of ways for people to step up and help stop the decline of the French language. I know that my bill is just one among many others. If I have not been convincing, I ask members to send Bill C‑238 to committee so that experts can come explain why it is so important. That is what Wednesday's vote will be about. My bill represents the first opportunity for all members of Parliament to show that they are concerned about the decline of French. My bill would give Quebec two new tools to help it wage this crucial, magnificent battle for the French language, for its words, its accents and its future. I urge members not to undermine the efforts of such a resilient nation. Let us pass Bill C‑238.
778 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Madam Speaker. You interrupted my flow.
I was thanking Ali Agougou and encouraging him to keep up the demanding, top-quality work. He is the vice-president of an association representing Quebec honey wine producers. He called my office to tell us that it makes no sense, that these producers are small local operations that do not make enough to export and should therefore not be taxed. Since they should continue to be exempt, he asked us whether the Bloc Québécois could do something.
I immediately contacted our agriculture critic, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is Quebec's farming sector's staunchest defender. I also contacted the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who is an international trade expert. I contacted other MPs, including our finance critic, to hear what they had to say. We realized that this was very serious for producers. If Bill C‑19 was not amended, it would have a major economic impact on their sector.
We worked hard, and the producers shared their experience. After that, the committee looked at it. The finance critic really convinced the committee members that this was a good thing, not just for Quebec producers, but for Canadian producers as well. Apple cider and honey wine were exempted from the excise tax through an amendment to Bill C‑19.
When I rise in the House, I say that I speak for the people who elected me. I do this work for Cidrerie du Minot, Frier Orchards, Capsule Temporelle, Cidrerie Hinchinbrooke, Ferme Black Creek—which I see every Wednesday at the farmer's market in Huntingdon— Cidrerie Entre Terre & Pierre, Domaine des Salamandres and Verger Hemmingford.
I am so pleased that I was able to help draw attention to their problem and that, in the end, we are working together to unanimously change Bill C‑19 to their benefit and ours. I am sure that we all like apple cider and honey wine from Quebec. Everyone loves that. That is what people say, and the member for Jonquière agrees with me too, which means I am right.
A member of our caucus discovered other things in this bill, including a change to a provision governing the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. The member could not understand how this change ended up in this omnibus bill since the provision had nothing to do with the budget. In fact, it responded more to a long-standing request from some unions.
Our critic, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville pushed the minister for a timeline for the comprehensive employment insurance reform, which this change was supposed to be part of. We know that the minister has been putting off this reform almost indefinitely, but our member did not give up. She fought and argued at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to convince her colleagues that this change was inappropriate, that we should leave it out of the bill and instead take the time to study the matter.
I was once a minister's chief of staff. When drafting a bill, it is important to go out and consult your base to confirm whether what you are presenting makes sense. In this case, it was so absurd that all the unions opposed what was written in the bill. I saw our critic, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, in committee. She was passionate and thorough. She used to be the president of a major union in Quebec, and she vigorously defended the importance of removing this from the bill, so that all parliamentarians would have time to properly study and improve the EI reform, for the benefit of workers and unions, but also the government.
These contributions and gains are based on rigour, and the members of the Bloc Québécois are certainly rigorous. I heard false accusations this morning about how our party is blocking and obstructing work. That is totally false, as anyone will tell you. Anyone who works directly or indirectly with members of the Bloc Québécois knows that we work to achieve gains, make compromises and get positive results for the well-being of the people we represent in Quebec.
I would like to commend the member for Thérèse-De Blainville for her perseverance and determination. She managed to convince the government, even before the motion was adopted in committee, to remove this from Bill C-19.
I have two minutes left to explain to the House that there is a small amendment that we would have liked to discuss. It has to do with the luxury tax. It must be said that the Bloc Québécois truly agrees with the principle of a luxury tax. However, when we began talking to witnesses and to people in Quebec, we realized that, because of the way it was worded, this clause was going to have major repercussions for the aerospace industry and was expected to cause major problems.
We asked that the luxury tax clause be changed and rewritten. Since we did not want to delay the passage of Bill C‑19, we suggested that the clause be removed rather than kept so that we could take the time to carefully listen to the pros and cons of the luxury tax. Unfortunately, that was not possible. The NDP and the Liberals adopted the clause as written anyway, even though it will really penalize part of Quebec's aerospace industry, which is mainly concentrated in Montreal.
In summary, Bill C‑19 is a big bill. The Bloc Québécois worked very hard and achieved gains for Quebec and Quebeckers. We are very pleased about that. We will soon hear from my colleague, the member for Jonquière, who will tell us more about that. The Bloc Québécois is a political party that is hard-working, thorough, persistent and determined, and we want people to understand that we are here, in the House, to make advances for Quebec and Quebec businesses.
1051 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers want French to be mandatory in workplaces.
Workers can, of course, be bilingual or even trilingual, but French should be the language of work in our businesses. There is a solution, which can be found in Bill C‑238, which I introduced. This bill would make federally regulated businesses subject to the Charter of the French Language. It is as simple as that.
Does the minister realize that by refusing such a simple solution she is encouraging businesses to avoid using French?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
