SoVote

Jun/23/22 12:42:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to show how little respect I have for this member: I will take the next question now.

21 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 12:43:11 p.m.
Watch

Order, please. I am recognizing a point of order, and it is not the one from the parliamentary secretary. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands is rising on a point of order.

33 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Jun/23/22 12:43:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know I do not need to point this out to you, but Standing Order 18 says that “No member shall speak disrespectfully” of another member. That is not just using foul language or calling someone a name; it is also saying, as the hon. member just said, he has so little respect for the member that he is leaving. I am sorry, but that violates Standing Order 18.

73 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Jun/23/22 12:44:00 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate the point of order from the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I want to remind members to please be respectful to each other. We are at the end of the session and today is the last day, and I am sure the Clerks are going to be happy to have a bit of a break, as all of us will. I ask members to please be respectful to each other, and to allow the hon. member for La Prairie to have the floor at this point.

90 words

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Jun/23/22 12:44:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Joliette. Once again, we are debating a motion aimed at extending hybrid parliamentary proceedings. Let me make one thing clear: Hybrid Parliament is not a cure-all. There are a number of problems with the format. It was supposed to be temporary, and I hope that is still the intention. First, there are the interpretation problems. On several occasions, the interpretation has stopped working or interpreters have fallen ill for various reasons. This format is extremely demanding on our human resources. We must be aware of that. Second, there is the matter of accountability. The government is hiding behind a two-dimensional format. It is always easier for ministers to hide their incompetence behind a screen than in person. It is a little less embarrassing. That is one of the reasons the Liberal Party likes the hybrid format so much. It is a way of dodging accountability. As we know, this government does not like Parliament. It does not like to talk or negotiate. It would rather impose its own law. This was a minority government. Thanks to the NDP, it became a majority government and, thanks to the government House leader, it is now an authoritarian government. There are no more negotiations, but the extension of the hybrid Parliament is something that should be negotiated by common agreement or consensus. We are changing the way Parliament operates. That is a big deal. I am not wrong in saying that it has changed. Democracy requires that ministers and members be present. That way, we can do more parliamentary work and discuss current files and future committees. We can do that when we are here in person. This is a government that likes to run away. Considering all of the disasters Quebeckers and Canadians are going through because of this government, the reason is obvious. This government is just plain incompetent. The day before yesterday, June 21, we ran into problems with the hybrid format. That shows just how fragile it is. The Bloc Québécois wanted to be able to continue to do our parliamentary work during the pandemic, but we would have liked to have more of a discussion about extending the hybrid Parliament, instead of having it imposed on us like the government is doing today. It was not urgent. Lastly, we hope, and in fact we know, that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be looking at the extension of the hybrid Parliament to determine what will happen next. They should be able to see that it is not going too well. There are a number of problems. What do the other parties think? As I mentioned, the Liberals do not want anything to do with Parliament. They do not want to hold discussions, so they like the idea of continuing in hybrid format. The government's position is as follows: less time in Parliament and more virtual answers, which is far easier. If the Liberals had their way, Parliament would stay hybrid until the end of time. Why are we talking about a hybrid Parliament? We are talking about it because of the pandemic, and yet, when we ask the New Democrats why they want a hybrid Parliament, they do not even mention the pandemic. They talk about improving work-life balance and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. The NDP government—because, yes, the NDP is now part of the government—agreed to the Bay du Nord project and to increased subsidies for the Trans Mountain pipeline, and now the NDP members come along and tell us that we need to cut greenhouse gas emissions. As the House leader of the official opposition said, the truth is that the New Democrats want to stay home because they live far away, and flying hurts their ears. That is their position. They like to participate, but from a distance. The reality is that elected members of Parliament are accountable. We have responsibilities and obligations towards our constituents. Sitting in Parliament is the primary responsibility. Hiding behind a screen will not make us work any better. No one here believes that, but that is the position the NDP government has taken. The Bloc Québécois believes that the virtual mode should not be the norm, it should be the exception in a context of COVID-19. People should be able to participate virtually if they have the virus or if they have been in contact with someone who does. Virtual mode should be used only in those cases. There are several members we have barely seen for two years. Why is that? Do they have eternal COVID? Did they dive into a little pool full of COVID? Did they make friends with two viruses and start going around with them all the time? That is the reality. I will not name any names, but we know who they are and, above all, we know which party does this. If we want to make this about work-life balance, if we want to use less gas to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, then it will be up to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to discuss it and to decide if we will have a permanent hybrid Parliament. With respect to the NDP members' thinking, the pandemic is not the real reason for this. They want a permanent hybrid Parliament, and we do not agree with that. Why are we talking about this on June 23? We have been co-operating with the government for more than two weeks so that we could rise for the summer today. Remember, Parliament voted to recognize the Quebec nation. Saint-Jean-Baptiste festivities are taking place today and tomorrow, and we do not understand why we are being forced to sit when this almost never happens. I think it has happened four times in the last 40 years. We asked the leader of the government to postpone this discussion until the fall for three reasons. First, that is how it has been done since forever. The start of the session is when we determine how the House will operate. Second, there is no rush, because we are going back to our respective ridings. Finally, it would allow us to gather more information. The Liberals said earlier that we are in a pandemic and we do not know what the future holds. All the more reason to wait and gather information for three months, in order to make more informed decisions, but they are talking about extending the hybrid Parliament for a year. Would we still need a year or six months? Perhaps by September, we would have had more answers, and more intelligent ones, to our questions. The Liberals clearly do not care much about intelligent answers. Just look at the passport situation. We therefore suggested that we postpone the discussion until the fall because we have some problems with the hybrid Parliament model. As I said earlier, we view this model as an impediment to democracy and do not think it should be the norm. I am repeating this, because it is important. The hybrid model must be an exception. Looking back, there is one point I want to bring up. I know that the member for Kingston and the Islands enjoys making lists of who votes and who does not vote. He is not concerned about his own party, but no matter. When Bloc Québécois members were not in the House, it was usually because, with few exceptions, they had caught COVID‑19 or had been in close contact with someone who had it. We always viewed hybrid Parliament as an exception. We are trying to set an example. We believe in walking the talk. The government's recognition of the Quebec nation cannot be all talk. It needs to take action. Once again, the government has failed to walk the talk. For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the motion.

1364 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Jun/23/22 12:53:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last week, I was unable to participate here on the floor of the House of Commons because I had tested positive. Fortunately, now I am testing negative, so I did have a bout of COVID-19. I was able to participate here by using hybrid Parliament. That was just last week. I had the opportunity to address a number of issues on the floor. It also enabled me to vote. To try to wish away the pandemic is highly irresponsible. Believe it or not, we will continue to have the pandemic over the next couple of months at the very least. What we are doing is affording members of the House the chance to demonstrate leadership to their constituents by not having to go into a certain environment. I would not have wanted to come in here, having tested positive, to deliver a speech or to vote. That demonstrates leadership, and that is the type of leadership we should be demonstrating to our constituents. Does the member not agree that it was the responsible thing for me to do to be here by the hybrid method, as opposed to being here in person, because I tested positive last week?

201 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/23/22 12:55:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North says that that demonstrates leadership. I thank him for that. He demonstrated leadership because he is an exception. As I explained, we support the idea of members who have COVID-19 not coming to the House in person but still being able to do their work. If my colleague had listened more carefully, he would have understood that I support that way of doing things, and so I commend him for his actions. Yes, the member for Winnipeg North is often in the House. We are well aware that. When I noticed last week that he was not physically present in the House and was participating virtually, I knew something must have happened, and I figured he had COVID-19. No one could ever say that he does not do his job in Parliament.

141 words

All Topics

Mr. Michael Barrett (Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, CPC)

Jun/23/22 12:56:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we talk about responsibility and we talk about tradition. I just wonder what the member thinks about the message when we talk about leadership. I think the message we are sending to Canadians when we say “If you're sick, you still need to come to work” is quite a regressive approach. Should that be the message we are sending to our constituents? I often talk to my nephew Andy about the importance of leadership. Is it not real leadership to set an example that when people are sick they should stay home and get better? Then we could use the traditions of this place, like pairing, so that members can recover with the support of their parliamentary colleagues. Is that not a better approach, instead of the usual practice that we have come to see of people hiding from Parliament, hiding from accountability and using this virtual Parliament option to dodge their responsibilities?

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/23/22 12:57:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is somewhat related to what I was saying. Of course, during a pandemic, people might get COVID-19 and be contagious. In such cases, it is appropriate for them to be able to continue working virtually. That being said, when the pandemic is over or becomes much less severe, will we still need a hybrid model, or will we be able to just go back to the approach my colleague mentioned? There needs to be a discussion among the leaders, across party lines, to determine the best way to proceed. We need to have healthy discussions that will keep the parliamentary spirit alive in Parliament. That is what Quebeckers and Canadians expect of us.

117 words

All Topics

Mr. Stéphane Lauzon (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Rural Economic Development, Lib.)

Jun/23/22 12:58:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we know that summer is approaching and that today is a busy day. We also know that some of our colleagues have had COVID‑19 these past few days and weeks. I attended an activity this week during which I was seated at the head table. Yesterday, the participants received a call telling them to get tested, because several people had contracted COVID‑19 during some of the week's events. We know that we are still at risk. We are still in a pandemic, and our government was careful and instituted a hybrid Parliament. All summer, we will be mingling with our constituents at events. I would like to ask my colleague whether he agrees that the activities we are attending this summer will do nothing to lower the number of COVID‑19 cases that we might see on our return and that it is therefore reasonable to make this decision today.

158 words

All Topics

Mr. Alain Therrien

Jun/23/22 12:59:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my colleague wants to know whether it is reasonable to make this decision today. How would waiting until September to make this decision change any of his rhetoric? It would not change a thing. On the contrary, let us wait and see whether COVID‑19 continues. If it does, we could extend hybrid Parliament for another year. However, if we see that the pandemic is fading away, we could extend the hybrid mode for just six months. We will have some decisions to make, but we have all summer to gather the necessary information to make the best possible decision in September.

105 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie (Joliette, BQ)

Jun/23/22 1:00:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today, June 23, and tomorrow, Quebeckers will gather to celebrate. I invite everyone to proudly celebrate our national holiday. The large celebrations in Quebec City and Montreal will be held tonight. In my riding, we will be celebrating this evening in Joliette, Saint-Charles-Borromée, Notre-Dame-des-Prairies, Rawdon, Crabtree, Saint-Michel-des-Saints and Sainte-Marcelline. After two years of the pandemic, this national holiday is a very good occasion to get back to proudly celebrating together our love for Quebec and for our national language. The 188th celebration will bring people together and inspire them. This year's theme is “One Language, a Thousand Accents”, which refers to the immense richness that our beautiful language contributes to Quebec culture and identity. Quebec society is vibrant, innovative and open to the future. We want our nation to develop in French. In that regard, I want to quote Michel Tremblay from today's edition of the Journal de Montréal: I looked for a new argument to warn against the danger to the French language in Quebec. It seemed to me that everything had already been said and repeated. Then I remembered the last verses of Émile Nelligan's Vaisseau d’or: What has my heart become, thus set adrift at sea? Alas, that ship has sunk in an abyss of dreams! We must not let the French language sink in an abyss of dreams; we must make it flourish, we must make it prevail. I would also like to take a moment to quote Gilles Vigneault, who was also published in the Journal de Montréal: Language is like a country, both nomadic and sedentary! Words, like its inhabitants, travel around the world. If you recognize them, if these are your words, They are your passport; this is your country! Everyone's country is a strange thing That sleeps through the long winter, like a rose in the garden, only to wake up in the spring, after I'd nearly forgotten about it Creating a garden that is both numerous and singular It is, simultaneously: house, garden, ship, The ocean, the fountain and the tree and the paper. No sooner had these words come off the pen Than I heard the wind. A tacking sail Is inviting me to prepare for a long journey... What do words offer to the entire planet, In space and time, where borders don't matter... Should we leave at night or at daybreak? The smallest window becomes a mirror in the dead of night And reflects back to me the words I need to know myself. At dawn...we have to believe someone is waiting for us, somewhere. Lutetia, Athens, Rome...are they part of my history? The word LANGUAGE, immense and deep territory, will tell me where I come from, where I'm going...so I'm off! Before I quoted those two giants, a few moments ago I said “we will be celebrating” in my riding. However, I probably cannot include myself in that “we”, because we here in the House are likely to be sitting late again tonight. The thing is, in Quebec, local, national and federal elected representatives usually attend the celebrations. It is a perfect opportunity to meet the people we represent. I will not be able to do that this year. We will not be able to do it after two years of a pandemic. We asked the government to wrap things up earlier this afternoon by adopting the Friday schedule, but it refused. The Leader of the Government had zero interest in accommodating our request. Why? Because we have to debate this motion. The government wants to extend the hybrid Parliament by a year. It seems to think this is a pressing issue that we cannot just discuss when we come back at the end of the summer. This government and its leader stubbornly opted to prevent Quebec members from celebrating our national holiday with our constituents. That speaks volumes about the Liberals' respect for Quebec. That is how Canada recognizes the Quebec nation. We will remember this. Throughout the spring, the government has been ramping up the number of gag orders to get bills passed quickly. The House did not have to sit late tonight. However, the government and its leader do not care about my nation. I think it is best to describe this government with bird names, which is about all it deserves: mockingbird, cuckoo, woodcock, dodo, cuckold, chicken, tufted tit-tyrant, little bustard, horned screamer, smew, turkey and vulture. I will stop there, even though it is deserving of more. Their insensitivity is not unrelated to the fact that this session has been marked by a clash of values between the federal government and Quebec, as well as by the ineptitude of a Liberal party that is struggling to keep the government functioning at the most basic level. The Prime Minister has made it official: He intends to attack Quebec's Bill 21 on state secularism, as well as Quebec's Bill 96 on the protection of French. He introduced a bill on official languages that does not protect French in Quebec but instead protects the right to anglicize federal workplaces. He condoned reducing the political weight of the Quebec nation in the Parliament of Canada. This government embodies the clash between the values of Canada and Quebec on every issue. We in the Bloc Québécois will continue our work, which is now more essential than ever, to defend and promote Quebec's interests. This session made it clear just how incompetent the federal government is. If governing means looking ahead, the passport crisis paints a picture of a worn-out government caucus that is struggling to provide even basic services to Quebeckers. The number of Liberal ministers who have been in the hot seat at the end of this session because of embarrassing mistakes is worrisome. This government is incapable of being proactive. It would rather make grand gestures in front of the camera than ensure the sound day-to day management of the country's affairs. What is more, the Liberals seem to have knowingly lied to Quebeckers and Canadians about the greenhouse gas reduction targets and invoking the Emergencies Act at the request of police. We asked for more powers for Quebec in the area of immigration from an unwilling government. We noted the resistance of federal parties to state secularism when we proposed abolishing the prayer in the House. We raised the debate about ideological criteria being imposed on funding for scientific research, which the government refused to consider. The Bloc Québécois voiced the concerns of Quebeckers on gun violence, in particular by introducing Bill C‑279 to create a list of criminal organizations when faced with a federal government that has a lax approach to gun trafficking and organized crime. We also advocated for the environment in a Canadian Parliament that, in the midst of the climate crisis, supports the Bay du Nord oil project. We also continued to fight for increased funding for health care and the abolition of two classes of seniors by increasing old age security for people aged 65 and over. If the Liberals wanted to convince Quebeckers that they have everything to gain by looking after all their public matters themselves, they would not go about it any other way. They used the artificial majority they gained with the NDP's support to oppose Quebec. Quebeckers have taken note. We will remember.

1277 words

All Topics

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Jun/23/22 1:07:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about events in his riding that he will not be able to attend now because the House is sitting. However, I would argue that this is the beauty of a hybrid Parliament, that members would be able to attend and also do their job here in the House. I was impacted by that, as June 6 was the first anniversary of the death of the Afzaal family in London, Ontario. I was able to go and be with my community, mourn with my community and commemorate this incredible family, yet I was also able to give a statement in the House to commemorate them via hybrid Parliament. Maybe the member could talk about the actual realities and the incredible opportunities that this provides us as members of Parliament to be able to do both jobs, in our communities and in the House of Commons.

150 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/23/22 1:08:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her remarks, but I do not agree with her assertion. The Bloc Québécois believes the hybrid Parliament is for when people have COVID‑19 or are in contact with people who have it and could be contagious. We can use the hybrid model until the pandemic is over. We see no urgent need to adopt this motion today, June 23, when everyone in Quebec is celebrating our nation. When there are important events to celebrate in our ridings, the hybrid model certainly enables us to be there, and my heart goes out to my colleague regarding the events she mentioned. However, what we are talking about right now is every single MP from Quebec, who should all be in their ridings. It is important to distinguish between rules and practices. The rule says we must sit, but common practice is to adjourn early or not sit at all. The Leader of the Government has no desire at all to accommodate the Quebec nation. We will remember that next time he asks us to be accommodating so the Liberals can adjourn early for the Liberal Party convention, as is the practice. We will remember that the Liberals are no more important than the Quebec nation.

217 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Jun/23/22 1:09:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for London—Fanshawe for pointing out the rich hypocrisy with respect to the argument from the Bloc. Yes, those members could be in their ridings and, using hybrid Parliament right now, could still participate. More importantly, if this member and his colleagues would just stop speaking, I am sure that we would see a vote on this, and we would be done. I am not aware of any other government business, so he could be home in time to participate in the festivities that he has planned. The only people who are really talking about this right now are the Conservatives and the Bloc. In the interest of allowing us to get to a vote, would the member be willing to stop talking so that we can do that?

138 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/23/22 1:10:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, he says that while standing up, taking the time to ask a question and prolonging the debate. Then he calls us hypocrites. It is unbelievable. That is it, cut the debate short. There is nothing else to say.

40 words

All Topics

Mr. Gérard Deltell (Louis-Saint-Laurent, CPC)

Jun/23/22 1:11:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am completely flabbergasted that the government member does not want to have a debate. That is the antithesis of what we are supposed to do here. He must have misspoken, and I am certain he will stand up, apologize and withdraw his words. I liked the member for Joliette's comments, as always, but not all of them. I found his Captain Haddock approach of attacking people by calling them bird names a bit strange. I have nothing against birds, but I am not sure why he was using bird names for people who, in my opinion, do not deserve that much respect. As a Quebecker, as someone who has to celebrate Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, how does it feel to be here in the House of Commons today?

132 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/23/22 1:11:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, yes, we would have preferred to be in our ridings to celebrate our national holiday, but as elected representatives, obviously we have a duty to be here in Parliament to debate. We would have preferred that this debate on extending the hybrid model take place at another time. There was no need to rush this motion through. We could have had this debate in the fall, especially since the work was going smoothly. The less debate there is in the House, the better off the government is, because it is not held to account. However, that is not why we are here. As for the bird names, they are often considered insults in French.

116 words

All Topics

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Jun/23/22 1:12:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the party of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands throws a motion in our face on Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, while also saying that if the debate goes on too long, it will be our own fault because we talk too much. I would like to know whether the member for Joliette would prefer that the member for Kingston and the Islands speak a little less once in a while.

74 words

All Topics

Mr. Gabriel Ste-Marie

Jun/23/22 1:13:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, but I do not share his opinion. I think that, despite his verve and bombastic style, the member for Kingston and the Islands has a lot to offer to this House. We are in favour of having debates in the House, but perhaps not on the eve of Quebec's national holiday, when everyone in our ridings is celebrating.

65 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 95