So V ote

May/30/24 2:58:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's justice minister informed us in March that there had been 109 stays of proceedings for unreasonable delays in Quebec alone last year. How can we expect the public to have confidence in our justice system when the course of justice is being impeded? We have been sounding the alarm for years now about this government's careless attitude when it comes to appointing judges. There is still a shortage of nearly 60 judges, and it is a recurring problem. Does the Minister of Justice think it is acceptable for trials to be cancelled because he did not bother to appoint judges?

105 words

May/23/24 3:55:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I do not think that the leader of the Bloc Québécois has any designs on leading Quebec, but we shall see. I will leave it to him to respond to that. We do not want to further tax people in order to provide them services. We want efficiency. We want every penny paid by Quebeckers in taxes, whether to Quebec City or Ottawa, to be used 100% efficiently. There is a captain of health and that is Quebec's health minister. Transfer money to him and let him manage it. If he does not manage it properly, then I can guarantee that Quebeckers will be there to tell him, to call him out and to get rid of him in the next election. That is how it is done. We must not get involved in what is happening in other people's sandboxes.

149 words

May/23/24 3:54:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we do not want discussions. There is nothing to negotiate in the Constitution. It has been signed for 150 years. It is important to remember that. Everyone should reread it and it should be respected. Health is a provincial jurisdiction. The government needs to transfer the money to Quebec, the provinces and the territories, and stop meddling in areas that are none of its business. That way, there will be no more bickering. Let us stop wasting time and be efficient. People will love us. They will love the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, me and all my colleagues in the House.

110 words

May/23/24 3:52:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would say that in Rivière-du-Nord, as in the rest of Quebec and probably across Canada, everyone is happy to have social measures that help people. However, no one is happy when that is done in such circumstances, where there is no respect for anyone in this House. When we stand up and ask the government to respect us, we are told that we like picking fights. That is all this government is capable of doing in response to our requests to respect jurisdictions. Do we agree? Are we happy with this dental plan? No. We want the money to be transferred to Quebec, which already has a dental plan. We do not want measures that overlap or contradict each other. One captain per boat is enough.

133 words

Context: House Hansard - 300 - Apr/16/24

May/23/24 3:41:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today's motion reads as follows: That the House: (a) condemn the federal government's repeated intrusion into the exclusive jurisdictions of Quebec, the provinces and the territories; (b) remind the Prime Minister that, despite his claims, it is not true that “people do not care which level of government is responsible for what”; and (c) demand that the government systematically offer Quebec, the provinces and territories the right to opt out unconditionally with full compensation whenever the federal government interferes in their jurisdictions. I do not know what my colleagues think of this, but it feels like déjà vu to me. Let us start at the beginning The Constitution Act, 1867, divides up federal and provincial jurisdiction in sections 91 and 92. It is just a list, kind of a shopping list. However, the federal government's history of attempting to legislate in areas under provincial jurisdiction is impressive. How much money has been wasted on needless, fruitless and even harmful legal wrangling and pseudo-negotiations? Our courts have had many opportunities to remind us of the terms of the Constitution in which the federal government constantly drapes itself but systemically disrespects. I have a suggestion to make to members of the government, which is to reread sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867. They are only two pages long, and they are in both French and English. Secondly, on the subject of authority, a reference relating to securities law was handed down in 2011 by the Supreme Court of Canada. The federal government should go back and read the explanations given by the judges in this decision as to how the division of powers works. I will mention just three. Paragraph 119 says, “Inherently sovereign, the provinces will always retain the ability to resile from an interprovincial scheme”. Paragraph 119 also states, “it is in the nature of a federation that different provinces adopt their own unique approaches consistent with their unique priorities when addressing social or economic issues.” The third example is found in paragraph 71: The Canadian federation rests on the organizing principle that the orders of government are coordinate and not subordinate one to the other. As a consequence, a federal head of power cannot be given a scope that would eviscerate a provincial legislative competence. This is one of the principles that underlies the Constitution... The Supreme Court said that. It was not the first time. In 1919, the Supreme Court's decision in In Re The Initiative and Referendum Act stated that the purpose of the Constitution Act, 1867, was: not to weld the Provinces into one, nor to subordinate Provincial Governments to a central authority, but to establish a Central Government in which these Provinces should be represented, entrusted with exclusive authority only in affairs in which they had a common interest. Subject to this each Province was to retain its independence and autonomy.... The Constitution is clear. The Supreme Court has said this many times. I just quoted from two decisions, but the current federal government does not seem to understand these simple principles, which a first-year law student would easily understand. We are now seeing multiple intrusions and attempted intrusions. Look at pharmacare. Quebec's system has room for improvement, but it does exist. The federal government should transfer the money instead of creating a new costly and inefficient structure. As in the case of pharmacare, Quebec already has a public dental insurance system, managed by the Régie de l'assurance maladie du Québec. We agree that it could be improved, but the federal government is determined to create its own parallel system. If the money were transferred to the provinces with no strings attached, these plans could be upgraded. Instead, the government is going to spend money to create conflicting and sometimes overlapping provisions. The federal renters' bill of rights is a new scheme devised this spring. Announced in late March, this bill of rights would require landlords to disclose rent histories. It would also crack down on renovictions and establish a standard, national lease template, among other things. However, jurisdiction over property and civil rights, as set out in subsection 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867, is assigned exclusively to Quebec and the provinces. Yesterday, in fact, Quebec's minister of municipal affairs and housing introduced Bill 65 in the National Assembly. The bill aims to regulate evictions by imposing a three-year moratorium. Quebec is doing what it must. The minister said this morning on the Radio-Canada program Tout un matin that the federal government should simply look after its own responsibilities, like the out-of-control temporary immigration that is driving up the demand for housing. Another type of intrusion is the promise to challenge Quebec's state secularism law. On June 16, 2019, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 21, which seeks to ensure that all Quebeckers have the freedom to practise and display their religious convictions without the state expressing any preference whatsoever. That is what is known as secularism. The Quebec state is secular both in spirit and in letter. It must be secular in both word and deed, demonstrating its secularism through its representatives. How is this the federal government's business? Why is the current federal government not only promising to challenge this legislation before the Supreme Court, but also funding the various legal challenges it is facing? This is clearly interference in provincial jurisdictions, and it explains, in part, the motion before us today. Beyond respect for jurisdictions, what about respect for the motions of the House? On June 16, it will be three years since the House of Commons adopted the following motion, and I quote: That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions and acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation. Since then, the federal Minister of Justice has still not entered in his administrative codification Quebec's changes to section 90, regarding language and nation, and to section 128, regarding the oath to the King. I would point out that this codification is mainly used by judges, lawyers and other court officials. The Government of Quebec has updated its codification, which incorporates the changes made by Quebec and Saskatchewan. What is the federal government waiting for? Respect for jurisdictions also involves respect for motions that call upon the government to acknowledge the actions taken by various governments in their areas of jurisdiction. I would like someone to explain the reason for this oversight. For now, only Quebec has an up-to-date codification of the Constitution Act. At the beginning of April, the Prime Minister said that people do not really care which level of government is responsible for what. A Leger poll released on April 19 tells us that 80% of Quebeckers believe that governments must respect their respective areas of jurisdiction and that 74% of them believe that Ottawa must get the agreement of the provinces before it intervenes in their areas of jurisdiction. Quebeckers, like Canadians across the country, certainly want affordable rent and groceries, but I do not recall anyone talking about chaos. My time is up. I would still have much to say. Perhaps I will continue in my response to questions, if there are any.

1273 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Apr/16/24 12:17:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Montcalm's speech was extremely interesting. I have been listening to all this and observing the federal government's spending spree in provincial areas of jurisdiction over the past few weeks, which is obviously terrible. I wonder if the real problem we are having with this bill and with the way the NDP-Liberal government is behaving by investing in provincial areas of jurisdiction is not a tax collection problem. Quebec collects taxes from us taxpayers so it can provide services within its jurisdiction; the federal government also collects taxes for services within its jurisdiction, and it always says it has too much and will give some back, but with conditions. Is the problem we have with the bill not the same problem we have with every bill that encroaches on the provinces' jurisdictions? In the end, is the solution not simply for the federal government to stop taking more money out of Quebeckers' pockets than necessary? Perhaps Quebeckers should finally make the decision to leave Confederation.

172 words

Context: House Hansard - 299 - Apr/15/24

Apr/15/24 4:36:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, why has Canada dragged its feet for six years? I do not know. I suspect that I will never know. That being said, we have taken issue many times with the Liberal government's pattern of complacency and we continue to do so. The Liberal government is complacent in carrying out its own responsibilities but overly active in interfering in provincial jurisdictions. It defies understanding. Obviously, there are government members who would rather be serving in the Quebec National Assembly or in the provincial parliaments than here in the federal Parliament. Right now, we are talking about something that clearly falls under federal jurisdiction: the fight against terrorism. I have to agree with my colleague that we should have addressed this issue a long time ago. I, too, hope that the government will do so wisely and carefully without rushing things, but it needs to address this issue now.

151 words

Context: House Hansard - 296 - Apr/9/24

Apr/15/24 4:26:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean. Like many other matters that are brought before the House, what our Conservative colleagues are proposing today is something that I think is very important. It will certainly have serious consequences. We know that inclusion on the list of terrorist organizations means that Iranian citizens and members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps will no longer be allowed on Canadian soil. However, even if we think that perpetrators of terrorism must be prohibited from staying in the country or must at least be controlled, imprisoned or properly sanctioned, the fact remains that, according to the statistics that we have, 50% or more of IRGC soldiers are likely honest citizens who have been conscripted or forced to serve in the military. As a result, the decision that we are about to make could have a major impact on Iranians, regardless of whether people are guilty of any kind of terrorist, criminal or other act. That said, even if we do not have the expertise or enough of the full story to make such a important decision, the fact remains that the world is changing and we are looking at a major situation to which Canada must respond. We know that in the late 1950s, Iran even developed a civil nuclear program with the help of the United States. At that time, the Iranian state was seen as an ally or friendly to the west. Things changed over time. In 1979, the infamous Islamic revolution happened, and that led to a radical change in the way Iranians live and in their position on western society. We had to consider that. Members will recall that in January 2002, in the wake of the attacks on the United States, President George W. Bush declared the existence of what was known at the time as the axis of evil, which included Iran. So there was a change. Although in the 1950s Iran was an ally, a friendly country, things changed in 1979 with the Islamic revolution. I will refrain from calling it an enemy, but at the turn of the century, Iran became hostile to the west. The situation is deteriorating as the years go by. That bring us to this weekend, with the notorious drone and ballistic missile attacks. We understand, or at least wonder about Iran's real intentions. Apparently, these missiles were largely destroyed at or near take-off. It was not as devastating an attack as some might have feared but, nevertheless, Iran launched an attack and, as we know, it is working on nuclear energies. Agreements have been signed. We know that there are no nuclear weapons in Iran, and Iran's nuclear power was regulated in 2015 or thereabouts. However, there are still questions. Hostile intentions are being demonstrated by a state that is a serious threat to Canada's allies in Europe and, in many ways, Canada itself. What happens next? I admit that it is not an easy choice, but I do not think we can just stand by. We have to react. As we know, the United States has taken steps to designate the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps as a terrorist organization. We know that the European Union and other countries are seriously considering this option at the moment. I think we also need to give the matter careful thought and possibly impose such sanctions. They would have to be administered very carefully, tactfully and sparingly. I trust the Canadian government to administer the situation wisely and appropriately, but I think something has to be done. We do not have time to spend a year or two considering the matter. We have to act now. I introduced a bill on that before. The Bloc Québécois has repeatedly argued for the creation of an organized crime registry in Canada. We based our work in that regard on the registry of terrorist organizations. Our belief in the usefulness of such a registry is therefore sincere. I believe it would be even more useful for organized crime. In time, I hope to bring my friends in the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and possibly in the NDP and the Green Party, and everyone in the House, around to the idea, so that we end up with what I think would be a highly appropriate tool for fighting terrorist organizations, a tool that should also allow us to fight organized crime effectively. It is important to remember that organized crime causes a lot more harm in Canada than terrorist organizations. Organized crime jeopardizes the quality of life and peace of mind of Quebeckers and Canadians on a daily basis. I believed in a registry for organized crime, and the registry of terrorist organizations was the model I used. I still believe in it. Given that we believe in the usefulness of a registry and we think that Iran has gone down a dangerous path that could, in the short or medium term, cause major harm to Canada and, in any case, is already causing serious harm to citizens around the world, I believe that Canada should set an example. The Government of Canada needs to deal with this issue right now. In that sense, I think our Conservative colleagues are right to ask us to take a stand on this matter. I will stop there. I thank my colleagues for their attention.

910 words

Context: House Hansard - 288 - Feb/29/24

Apr/9/24 10:50:47 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that greenhouse gas emissions are the cause of considerable climate change and have led to significant increases in the price of vegetables, grains and fruit in recent years. The whole point of the carbon tax is to lower greenhouse gas emissions. That is one thing. For another thing, Quebec decided to join the Western Climate Initiative, which is a kind of carbon exchange. California and British Columbia both participate. As a result, Quebec is unaffected by the carbon tax. Would our Conservative colleagues be willing to join Quebec and British Columbia in the carbon exchange? It would reduce greenhouse gas emissions and keep inflation in check, without monopolizing our time every day simply trying to reduce or eliminate a carbon tax that plays such a useful role in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

136 words

Context: House Hansard - 281 - Feb/13/24

Feb/29/24 2:40:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is disappointing. The Liberals want secularism to be odourless, colourless and tasteless. They want Quebeckers to adopt a secularism that means nothing and is inconsequential. However, the separation of church and state does mean something. It means that every single person's beliefs and non-beliefs will never interfere in their interactions with the state. That is the purpose of Bill 21, and it has real implications that may require the use of the notwithstanding clause. The Court of Appeal recognized that. Will the government acknowledge that the use of the notwithstanding clause in the case of Bill 21 is not only constitutional, but entirely legitimate?

109 words

Context: House Hansard - 271 - Jan/30/24

Feb/13/24 10:19:23 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think that the issue before us is an important one, and I recognize the work that my colleague, the Minister of Justice, has done on this file. That being said, with all due respect, I have to say that we already deliberated on this issue several years ago and that we determined that March 17 would be the date on which this would come into force. Quebec has worked on this and it is prepared to administer the medical assistance in dying that we are talking about. It would be easy for the government to simply adopt the amendment proposed by my colleague from Montcalm, which, we are going to vote on later today, I believe. This amendment would enable the provinces that are ready to administer the treatment to do so. Take section 720 of the Criminal Code, for example. It provides a similar process for drug treatment. It stipulates that provinces are allowed to administer a provincially approved treatment even if it is not otherwise authorized by the Criminal Code. A similar system could be set up for MAID. It is true that some provinces are not ready yet. That will likely always be the case. I am fairly certain that in three years, five years or ten years, some provinces will still not be ready. However, we cannot allow that to paralyze Parliament. Some provinces are ready, and we can set up a process that will allow those provinces to administer MAID. I invite my colleague and his entire government to support the amendment proposed by my colleague from Montcalm to allow provinces that are ready, like Quebec, to proceed with the administration of MAID.

282 words

Context: House Hansard - 265 - Dec/11/23

Jan/30/24 12:17:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to join my voice to that of my colleagues who have thanked our colleague from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun for his exceptional work in the House of Commons since he arrived eight years ago. We were both elected to the House at the same time, in 2015. At the time, I thought I would be the one appointed minister of justice. Unfortunately, that did not happen. I engaged many times with the ministers of justice who followed. I too must say that the member from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun did excellent work as minister of justice. Of course, we did not always agree. There was some talk about dreams earlier. I tried to convince the member that Canada would be much happier with a respectful neighbour, a wonderful, independent Quebec that would work with him on many fronts, but the member from LaSalle—Émard—Verdun never conceded on that point—and he certainly did not agree with me when I spoke to him about judicial appointments that I felt were overdue. These were not disputes, just minor differences of opinion. What struck me most about the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is that his respectfulness never faltered, despite any differences of opinion we may have had. His words were always measured and kind. The member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun is someone I consider a “gentleman”; there are a few of them here. I truly enjoyed my discussions with him about all aspects of our work, whether about matters we agreed on—and there were many—or the few issues where our opinions diverged. I can only congratulate the Fasken law firm for persuading the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun to join them. It is a distinguished firm. I was listening to my colleague just now who asked why the Prime Minister had not appointed him Minister of Justice sooner. Personally, I wonder why the Prime Minister was unable to hold on to him.

349 words

Context: House Hansard - 261 - Dec/4/23

Dec/11/23 2:39:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are royally fed up with the monarchy. That is why the Quebec National Assembly unanimously passed a motion last Friday to request the elimination of the position of Lieutenant Governor. Every elected member of every political party wants to replace this role with a democratic institution. Of course, there would be no such consensus in this House. We know that some Canadian MPs think night and day about their fealty to Charles III. As for us Quebeckers, our desire for democratic modernization is unanimous. Will the government listen to reason and finally eliminate the position of Lieutenant Governor of Quebec?

104 words

Context: House Hansard - 256 - Nov/27/23

Dec/4/23 7:55:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-50

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's speech, which I found to be entertaining. Just before him, his colleague from Calgary Centre said that he was asking the Bloc Québécois to vote against Bill C-50 because it does not respect Quebec's jurisdictions. We told him that we agree with that. My colleague from Mirabel told the member for Calgary Centre that we were on the same page and asked him if we could count on the Conservative Party to support the Bloc Québécois every time the federal government tries to infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions, but we did not get an answer. Can my colleague who has the floor now tell me whether we can count on the Conservatives' co-operation every time the federal government tries to infringe on Quebec's jurisdictions?

145 words

Context: House Hansard - 252 - Nov/21/23

Nov/27/23 4:20:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia and my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville have already said, this legislation has been in force in Quebec for quite some time. It has become part of Quebec's social mores. The Bloc Québécois is closely attuned to Quebec's social mores, which is why we applaud this bill. Does my colleague have any idea why the House of Commons has refused for so long, 11 times, to pass this legislation? Do Canada's social mores oppose this kind of worker and labour relations protection?

109 words

Context: House Hansard - 242 - Oct/30/23

Nov/21/23 2:43:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my question was not exaggerated, but the government's complacency sure is. Cartels will not stop at committing crimes at the border. They are directly involved in crime in Quebec. Radio-Canada revealed that South Americans who entered our territory with fake Mexican passports organized a burglary ring in Quebec. According to the Service de police de la Ville de Montréal, they come to the country for the sole purpose of stealing from people. The Montreal police even called Quebec an easy target because of the porous border. I have one simple question. What will the federal government do to regain control over the borders?

109 words

Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23

Oct/30/23 5:54:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague the following. In his opinion, how many additional housing units will we be able to build if the amendment proposed by the Conservatives is adopted? Will it really improve the situation of families in Quebec and Canada who are struggling with housing problems?

52 words

Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23

Sep/18/23 1:27:31 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-48

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I saw him this summer, and I know he worked hard as well. He did not just kick back and relax. I am glad to see him here today for this debate on the issues that concern us, namely Bill C-48, which is no trivial matter. My colleague is right. The Liberals have a lamentable habit of using something they themselves dubbed the “Liberalist”. That is appalling. This is neither desirable nor even reasonable in a self-respecting free and democratic society, a society governed by the rule of law. Judges must not be appointed based on their membership in a political party. That is the kind of thing that happens in what is commonly referred to as a “banana republic”. I should hope that the Canadian federation does not see itself as a banana republic. I can say that Quebec certainly does not. I want the federal government to get serious and not make partisan appointments. Yes, judges must be appointed. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court is calling for it, and so is the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec. Everyone has been worrying over the past few months and wondering what the government is waiting for. It has gotten so bad that people are being set free because there is no time to hold trials. Is that acceptable? Is anyone in Quebec or Canada okay with that? I can say that in Quebec, the answer is no. I cannot speak for Canada, but I would be shocked to find anyone in Canada who would say yes.

273 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23

Sep/18/23 1:20:47 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-48

Mr. Speaker, as I said a while ago, my colleague can count on the Bloc Québécois to support any legislation that is consistent with the values and interests of Quebec, including Bill C‑48. That is not to say that I plan to give carte blanche. We will study the bill, and then we will see. Some amendments will probably be necessary. I look forward to hearing what the minister and some of the experts have to say on the matter. Obviously, this legislation is not immune to legal challenges. Detaining someone before their trial could be construed as an attack on the presumption of innocence. We will have to wait and see how the courts interpret this and whether such a course is acceptable in the kind of free and democratic society provided for in section 1 of the charter. We will work on the matter in committee and ensure that the legislation comes into force as quickly as possible. We need it. Now, I would ask my colleague the same question again: Does he plan to work on judicial appointments?

187 words