- 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/27/24 5:05:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from La Prairie's speech, and I completely agree with what he said. I could try to give some more arguments, but I think that the Bloc Québécois's position is fairly clear.
I do have to say that I am deeply saddened to rise to speak today. It is sad that the member for Hull—Aylmer is once again in the spotlight, a distraction that is diverting attention away from the work of the House and slowing it down. I am trying to put myself in his shoes and I can imagine that it must not be very pleasant for him to hear what we are saying today.
As the member for La Prairie said, we do not have anything against the member for Hull—Aylmer. On the contrary, as I said many times when he testified before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the member for Hull—Aylmer is certainly a good person. It is just that he does not have the right qualifications for the job. He is not the right person at the right time to preside over this House, a job that requires a high degree of knowledge, skill and judgment.
It is not easy to become the Speaker without first putting in time as a deputy speaker, without having learned the rules of procedure, without having learned how to do that job or give rulings first. That takes experience. It is not easy to become the Speaker overnight without having gained that experience, like the Assistant Deputy Speaker has been able to do. Thanks to all her knowledge and experience, she now has the ability to one day hold the position of Speaker. It takes experience.
At the risk of repeating myself, after today I do not want people to think that the Bloc Québécois is attacking the member for Hull—Aylmer. It is the complete opposite. We reached out to him several times to ask him to step down of his own accord and realize that he has lost the confidence of the majority of members in the House. After the most recent event that was the subject of the motion we are debating, the Speaker made some calls. He contacted me to say that what happened was not his fault and explained to me at length what really happened.
I told him that if I were in his position, given the situation and the fact that he did not have the confidence of 149 members of the House, I would not have taken part in that event to thank volunteers. I would not have publicized it or organized it. I would not have done so to prove to the members of the House that I wanted to finish out the parliamentary session on as good a note as possible. The fact that he went ahead with the event demonstrated to us once again that he showed a lack of judgment. If I were in his place, I would have said to my people that we would not hold the event to thank volunteers this year, even if the Clerk of the House had given me permission to do it.
As we all know, the Clerk of the House advises the Speaker. The Deputy Speaker knows this, because she herself has received advice from the procedural clerk and his team. However, the Clerk cannot advise the Speaker on his political judgment. He provides guidance on procedures and refers to precedents, but he cannot advise the Speaker on any political decisions involving any activities. Once again, the member for Hull—Aylmer, even as Speaker, has the right to thank his volunteers, because there will be an election next year. Let us just say that this was all very sloppy and unprofessional in terms of how it was organized and advertised and how communications were handled between his office and the political party leadership.
I think the member for La Prairie would agree that if one of us had been in the Speaker's shoes, our teams, the people around us, would have been monitoring the website where the information was going to be posted. From the moment an invitation or press release was imminent, my team would have been making calls and sending texts to ensure that what was published matched my intentions, so that this activity would not be seen as partisan or as an ad attacking the official opposition party. That was the mistake. It was not an error in terms of rules or procedure. Rather, it was an error in judgment.
In our discussion with the Speaker, he told me that meeting with volunteers in the middle of July or August was not easy and that is why he decided to do it in early June. That was a poor decision on top of all the other poor decisions that he has already made and that engendered mistrust.
We take no pleasure in having this discussion today, but we are all wondering what will be next. We are appealing to the judgment and the competence of his team to advise him well because the Speaker is walking a fine line, as the saying goes. He has reached the limit. There is no more room for error. He did not take the opportunity to cancel or postpone this annual event, even though he knew he was putting himself at risk. He is at risk. If we keep making the same mistake, at some point enough is enough. There is a limit, as the member for La Prairie said.
There was already a lack of trust, but to be quite frank, it is as though the Speaker and his entourage were doing everything in their power to once again make themselves the object of debate, the focus of discussion and a major distraction at the end of an intensely busy session.
Earlier, a minister said that we would have to sit until midnight to get our work done. However, what we are doing today—debating and dealing with a motion asking the Speaker to step down and seeking to hold an election on Monday—is delaying the passage of bills and our legislative agenda. Members will be rising until midnight to support the motion moved earlier. As a result, we will be losing an entire day discussing the Speaker's errors in judgment.
I understand that this is a difficult situation. It is easy for the Liberals to point fingers at the Conservatives and say that, even if the Speaker had the wisdom to leave and another Speaker were appointed, the House would not change its behaviour. They would argue that no Speaker could manage the House as it currently stands because its members are so unruly and deeply disrespectful toward the Speaker and each other.
Personally, I do not subscribe to that theory. I think that if the Speaker wisely steps down of his own accord, members of the House will trust the new process and give the new Speaker a chance. It would be good to have a female Speaker to end the session, to have a woman with experience presiding over the end-of-session proceedings. The elastic has been stretched so thin for the current Speaker that, if a new Speaker were elected, I trust—and I do not say that often—that my opposition colleagues, mainly the Conservatives who, sometimes, find it hard to chill out, as the member for La Prairie would say, would understand that we are on the homestretch, and if a new Speaker took the chair, we would end the session much more calmly and with more discipline.
The government needs to realize that it has dragged things out for so long that the person who is suffering right now is the member for Hull—Aylmer, who feels judged and truly unliked. The truth, however, is that that is too bad for him.
He did not become Chair at the right time, in a context that suits the arrival of a new Speaker. We therefore ask him to leave the chair.
1376 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 4:34:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my speaking time with the hon. member for Shefford.
I rise today to speak about a topic I am passionate about. I am a social worker. I spent my career supporting seniors who wished to live at home, as well as seniors living in long-term care centres. I could say that I will be giving a speech, but it is more like a first-hand account, because this morning, quite frankly, I could not believe my ears. I could not believe the outrageous remarks I was hearing on the issue of medical assistance in dying.
I would like to remind the House that the Bloc Québécois has a humanist vision of medical assistance in dying. Our focus is on the importance of the individual's right to dignity, to free and informed consent and, most of all, to self-determination. That means that I am the best person to decide what will happen to me, because I am making a free and informed choice.
I want to tell the House a story, but I should mention that it is not a very pleasant one. As I said, I am a social worker, and I have kept up my membership in my professional association, because I think that is very important. Today, I am addressing my colleagues as both a member of Parliament and a social worker.
I worked with an elderly lady in a long-term care home. She had multiple sclerosis. She had been living there for years. Slowly, little by little, she lost her autonomy, until all she could do was move her head, swallow, and move two fingers. It was just enough to operate her wheelchair. She asked for medical assistance in dying.
As a social worker, it was my job to professionally assess whether her request was free and informed and whether she was asking for care in a free and informed way. I did my duty. I went to university, so I have clinical knowledge that enabled me to examine her condition, professionally evaluate her and use my clinical judgment to assess the request from this woman who had been suffering for years, confined to her bed.
Imagine what it is like for someone who has to stay in bed all day long, having people turn them over so they do not get bedsores. Imagine what it feels like for someone who can no longer go to the bathroom, who is incontinent, who can no longer scratch their own forehead and has to ring for an attendant to come scratch it for them because it is itchy.
The woman I am talking about made a request for medical assistance in dying. Her request was denied because the members of the multidisciplinary team concluded that this person was not in a condition to make a truly free decision, that she was depressed and that it was not the right time for her to take that step.
When I hear our Conservative friends say all someone has to do is ask and they will get an injection the next day and die, I can tell my colleagues that, as a health professional and a social worker, it is tough to listen to that. As a member of Parliament, I am ashamed, because it is bad to spread misinformation. Just because someone asks for medical assistance in dying does not mean they will get it. There are tons of people around these patients who assess their state of mind and their disease. Together, they decide whether that person can request medical assistance in dying and receive it. We live in a democratic country. People can submit requests. That does not mean anything goes and requests will automatically be granted. This morning, I decided I had better listen to the speeches from my office, because I would have had trouble facing the members who were saying outrageous things.
The same goes for people with disabilities. It seems like some members believe that people with disabilities are not smart, that they cannot make decisions and that they need to be guided. I am sorry, maybe I am getting emotional, but I have profound respect for human beings, and human beings are capable of making decisions about themselves.
I want to reiterate that just because someone requests MAID does not mean they will receive it. The professionals surrounding these people are not naive. They are educated people: doctors, nurses, social workers and occupational therapists. Care providers are professionals.
MAID is a lengthy process in Quebec. Sometimes, people make the request too late. They lose their ability to consent again to the process, and they miss their chance. They suffer because they lost the cognitive capacity to consent one more time to medical assistance in dying.
We agree that today we are discussing a very sensitive and complex issue. There are some members in the House who are really lowering the level of the discussion and debate. Frankly, I feel sick about this, and I repeat that I am ashamed of what I heard this morning.
The Bloc Québécois’s proposal is balanced. We know that Quebec passed a law and wants to allow people to make advance requests. What does that mean? If the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie received a diagnosis of early dementia or Alzheimer’s around the age of 45, he could decide that he did not want to die in a long-term care home, hunched over and completely dependent on others. He would then decide to draft his advance requests and trust those around him so that he could receive medical assistance in dying when all the criteria he described were met. In Quebec we are ready to do that.
Furthermore, the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying, which analyzed the issue for a year, reached the same conclusion, namely that it makes sense. A person who is mentally sound, who has been assessed and wants to make their advance request should be able to do so and, above all, to obtain it.
The bill we have here is very timid. It lacks ambition and political courage. We are abandoning people who, at this very moment, would like to use advance requests because they are suffering from a form of dementia, a kind of incurable neurocognitive disease. They see the end coming, and it is terrible, because it comes with atrocious suffering and complete loss of autonomy.
If I received a diagnosis of early onset dementia and no longer recognized my children and my grandchildren, if I was aggressive, if I defecated in my underwear and did not stop walking all day long because I kept wandering and had no life left, I would want my children to say that I met all the requirements and to ask that they let me go because I would be ready and those were my wishes. In Quebec, this has been recognized. Unfortunately, because this government will not listen to Quebec, it will not allow practitioners, doctors, nurses and social workers to do their work. They could face legal action launched by the family or by a third party. What is going to happen? People in Quebec are really going to suffer because here, in the House, people lack courage and do not want to support the one province that is ready to move to another level. When it comes to advance requests, we are ready.
We in the Bloc Québécois nonetheless agreed that we had not necessarily fully explored the issue of mental disorders and that we needed an extra year to reflect and lay the groundwork. However, three years is too long. Society is moving ahead faster than legislators. Members of the House need to understand they are abandoning people who will suffer.
My grandmother was religious. At age 91, she was suffering terribly and was about to die. She refused morphine because, in her religion, those who suffer go to heaven. She refused care, and she suffered. It was a choice. We respected her choice to suffer so she could go straight to heaven, even though we knew full well she would. She believed she had to suffer. We respected that. She refused all morphine injections. Today, we have made progress. People have the right to choose how they want to leave this earth. I repeat, just because people ask for medical assistance in dying does not mean they will receive it.
Today, I am making a plea from my heart. For everyone who will need it, let us listen to the consensus of Quebec society. Let us listen to Quebeckers, who are saying that Canada can take the time to reflect, but that Quebec is ready and wants permission to do it properly and legally.
1493 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/29/24 5:34:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I have a simple question for him.
We know that members on the other side of the House are practically spreading disinformation by saying that the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs addressed all of the Speaker's missteps. That is false.
After the study, a new event emerged. What we are asking is that the new event be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the committee examine it. This is not about making comparisons and determining whether the Conservatives or the Liberals are more at fault. That is not the point. The fact is that the Speaker made another mistake after the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had finished its work and issued its conclusions and recommendations.
We want to know why the Speaker did not disclose during his appearance on December 11 that he had participated in a partisan event in November 2023. Does my colleague agree that this matter should be dealt with at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs?
187 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 11:26:14 p.m.
- Watch
Yes, Madam Speaker, it feels good to speak French. I think I was one of the first to deliver a speech entirely in French in the House.
To answer his specific question, filibustering is part of parliamentary politics. Sometimes it is misused, as the Conservatives did during the last few votes to retaliate against the government for its behaviour and arrogance.
It takes two to tango, however. A government that is defiant and irritating, one that refuses to compromise or negotiate and instead ignores the opposition is bound to face some bumps in the road. I do not agree with the Conservative Party's misuse of the voting app, but I can understand that sometimes there are no tools left to respond to an arrogant government that ignores the opposition parties.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/12/23 11:01:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. I have been here since the beginning of the debate, and I can say that few speeches have mentioned the whole issue of the interpreters and their health and safety while working in a hybrid Parliament. I want therefore to congratulate my colleague, because I share his concerns. I will speak more about that in my speech.
I am surprised by the arrogance of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and by the way he chose to move this motion in Parliament. He could have done it in a different manner.
I would like my colleague to address two things. First, what other approach could the government leader have taken to gain support and consensus on certain aspects of a hybrid Parliament? Second, could the member tell me who are the people most affected by the hybrid Parliament?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/23 9:00:04 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is true. When I talk, I can hear an echo. It is quite odd, but I will try to continue my speech anyway.
I was saying that it is shameful that there is nothing in the bill to financially support seniors, to increase, maintain or develop their purchasing power.
Madam Speaker, I am very sorry, but I can hear my voice echoing, as though there were two of me—
73 words
- 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
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the member for Jonquière's speech. He made some strong, well-researched arguments that I think make sense.
I would like him to explain to me in different words why he thinks that the Liberals, with the help of the NDP, had to impose a major gag order and fast-track the passage of this bill when we know that more time was needed to properly research it, listen to experts and, most importantly, consult the provinces.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague. As someone pointed out, I think he is on his fourth speech of the day. I want to commend him for all of the energy and passion he still has at this rather late hour.
I know that he is a diligent, hard-working MP who loves his community and who believes in its vitality.
Does he not truly believe that it would have been better for the federal government to hold a round of negotiations with his province so that it could be heard and so that the government could establish a program that they both agreed on, rather than imposing a measure that the provinces and some professional associations do not really support?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 2:22:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to my colleague's speech, and I have two questions for him.
I did not hear him talk much about his position on the right to demonstrate. I would like him to clearly express whether he believes the right to demonstrate is important.
In addition, Wellington Street in Ottawa has been cleared by law enforcement agencies that coordinated and worked together.
Does the member think that the Emergencies Act is still necessary, considering the situation now?
The act may be useful, but is it absolutely necessary?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/22 4:33:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would have liked my colleague, who delivered a very fine speech, to remind the House that the Bloc has also made proposals to support seniors, such as increasing the earnings ceiling for the GIS from $5,000 to $6,000 in order avoid penalizing seniors who want or have to work. Can she explain why this is so important?
62 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
