- 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/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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:19:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we shared the duties of whip when he was whip for the Conservative Party.
It is a combination of events. It is a string of events that have undermined and continue to undermine many parliamentarians' confidence in the Speaker. Things build up. We wonder how long the NDP and the government will tolerate these kinds of events. It is really becoming, and inordinately so, the most discussed topic in a Parliament that is supposed to finalize and complete a legislative agenda by June 21.
I will take advantage of my colleague's question to say that the Bloc Québécois wants this institution, Parliament, to work because it has the interests of Quebec to defend. Every minute that we waste, we are not present to move our issues forward and to move Quebec forward.
We have a profound respect for the institution. However, we have no tolerance for a Speaker in the chair who is not worthy of the office.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/27/24 5:16:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will try to speak slowly so that the member for Winnipeg North can hear the interpretation of what I am saying.
With respect to the latest events that have taken place, yes, the party president apologized for publishing an invitation to a volunteer appreciation event that had not been approved by the Speaker. What we do not understand, and what the member for Winnipeg North does not understand, is why the Speaker decided to organize this event. The second question is, why did he or his team only learn, six days after this invitation was published, that the Liberal Party had made a mistake and that it would be at the Speaker's expense because it proves that he was holding a partisan event? It seems that the team surrounding the Speaker and the Speaker himself were not paying attention; they did not sound the alarm bells. They did not explain that he was already in the hot seat and ensure that the invitation that got sent out was the one he wanted to send for the volunteer appreciation event. No, they sent out the press release and then did not pay attention. The wrong press release was published.
That is why we do not trust the Speaker. He lacks judgment and competence and he has surrounded himself with the wrong kind of people.
227 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- May/23/24 10:22:25 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate to the Chair that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), all of the Bloc Québécois's speaking slots for today's debate on the business of supply will be divided in two.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- May/8/24 2:21:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, history buffs will recall that on the night of May 7, 1944, in the midst of World War II, the frigate HMCS Valleyfield was torpedoed by a German ship, resulting in the deaths of 125 crew members. In a plot worthy of a Hollywood film, the frigate Valleyfield was carrying a top-secret decoder that enabled the allies to send each other secure, strategic messages.
The whole saga is being researched, shared and publicized by an outstanding Salaberry—Suroît resident, Navy Lieutenant Pierre Lefebvre. His passion for naval history led him to have a major monument erected in honour of the frigate Valleyfield in 2000 and to reunite survivors of the attack for the occasion. Mr. Lefebvre also founded the 329 Valleyfield sea cadet corps.
On the eve of his retirement from the armed forces after 46 years of service, I salute Mr. Lefebvre for his remembrance efforts and thank him for his involvement in the community.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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/29/24 2:58:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in 2019, through the building Canada fund, the federal government announced more than $12 million in funding for the Port of Valleyfield to expand a wharf. Today, however, the Canada Border Services Agency is withdrawing from the Port of Valleyfield. One minute the federal government is funding the expansion of the port, the next it is hindering its development.
What is the rationale behind this reckless and harmful decision? Will the minister help me get the Canada Border Services Agency to reconsider its decision?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 2:57:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, this morning's edition of La Presse revealed that the federal government has scrapped the Port of Valleyfield expansion. On the pretext of a lack of resources, the Canada Border Services Agency is taking away the operator's right to handle containers at this port, which is of vital importance to the region's economy. The mayor of Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield and the director of economic development have both strongly condemned this senseless decision.
Will the Minister of Public Safety intervene and ask the CBSA to continue to do its job instead of undermining the future of the Port of Valleyfield?
105 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 2:43:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let me quote Prime Minister Attal:
To those who pretend not to understand what secularism is, who try to distort it, to make people think it is a weapon against religion...to make people think it is a form of discrimination, we respond that secularism is a condition for freedom...equality [and]...fraternity.
Our Liberal, Conservative and NDP colleagues are among those who pretend not to understand. Can they at least refrain from filing a Supreme Court challenge against something they do not understand?
86 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
- Mar/21/24 2:39:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if the federal government wants to say no to giving Quebec full control over immigration, then it needs to say yes to doing its own job, particularly with respect to asylum seekers.
Families are trapped in inhumane situations. Some spend years worrying because the federal government is incapable of processing their claim. They have no idea whether they will have to leave the country. Worse yet, some are unable to meet their basic needs because they have absolutely no right to work without a federal work permit.
Instead of stirring up fights, when will the minister do his job?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/21/24 10:06:27 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The interpreter has told us that he cannot do his job because of static.
23 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/18/24 2:39:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the word of the day in Ottawa is “no”. They are saying no to sole jurisdiction for Quebec over immigration, but they are also saying no to the right to opt out with full compensation from the federal dental care program. They are saying no to the right to opt out of the federal pharmacare program with full compensation. They are saying no to advance requests for medical assistance in dying. Even in health care, where Quebec has full authority, the answer is no. Even for programs created by Quebec, the answer is no.
Why not respect Quebec's expertise instead of making it harder or even impossible to receive care?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:04:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today I am pleased to draw attention to the 150th anniversary of the City of Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield.
Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield is marking 150 years of history, 150 years of pride, 150 years of generations of locals enjoying life on the shores of Baie Saint‑François. They are good people who know the secret to the famous Valleyfield grill seasoning. They are hard-working people who never pass up an opportunity to celebrate.
Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield is also marking 150 years of solidarity, a legacy handed down by the workers of Montreal Cotton, the Sisters of Bon‑Conseil and all the others.
This 150th anniversary is an opportunity to remember how great it is to live on our island.
I would like to thank the organizing committee, co-chaired by Denis Lapointe and Renée Demers, and all municipal employees for putting together a diverse program to honour our city and its talents. This year, we are eating, exploring, playing, dancing and celebrating Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield.
I encourage the good people of Salaberry‑de‑Valleyfield to enjoy the festivities, and I wish them a happy 150th anniversary.
208 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/13/24 4:47:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will stay calm because I am not allowed to say what is on my mind. It would be unparliamentary.
I want to say something about the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. There was unanimous consensus on recommendation 21, which I will read, “That the Government of Canada amend the Criminal Code to allow for advance requests following a diagnosis of a serious and incurable medical condition[,] disease, or disorder leading to incapacity.” This is not coming from me. This comes from a joint committee made up of MPs from every party in the House and several senators. That was said in February 2023.
I was a social worker in Quebec. Children have never, ever been euthanized in Quebec. That is not what we are talking about.
I think that the member did not listen to my speech. What I said was that not everyone who asks for medical assistance in dying gets it, and those who do have to go through a thorough and professional clinical process first.
176 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
