44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 15, 2023 02:00PM
- Feb/15/23 2:31:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the territories, the provinces and Quebec asked for $28 billion a year for health care, but they got $4.6 billion. I fully understand that they did not have a choice. It was that or nothing.
To rebuild a decent health care system, reduce emergency room and surgical wait times, and help people grappling with mental health issues, the provinces asked for $28 billion. My question is simple: Is $4.6 billion enough?
79 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/23 2:33:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the worst thing that can happen to the Bloc Québécois is for the provinces and Quebec to agree with the federal government. That is what happened. We have an agreement with Quebec and all of the provinces to help the pediatric hospitals, to reduce waiting lists and to cut wait times for mental health services.
This is a good deal for Quebec and Quebeckers. It is bad for the Bloc Québécois.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/23 2:42:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind my colleague from Quebec that the price on pollution is not applied in the same way in Quebec. It is administered by Quebec.
I would also like to take this opportunity to remind all of our farmers that we have improved the Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada advance payments program, which provides short-term loans of up to $1 million. The advantage of this loan is that the first $250,000 is interest free. I encourage farmers to take advantage of this interest-free loan.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/23 2:42:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague opposite seems to be living on another planet. The carbon tax certainly does affect Quebec because we are not self-sufficient. For example, the propane and natural gas needed to dry grain and heat buildings has an impact. We also import many products from other provinces and territories, so I will take no lessons from my colleague.
Things are only going to get worse on April 1 when the government plans to triple the carbon tax. The Conservatives will continue to defend Canadian farmers.
When will the Liberals be courageous enough to do the same?
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/23 2:43:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, what my hon. colleague just said in the House is simply not true. Federal carbon pricing does not apply in Quebec because Quebec has its own cap-and-trade system, which was implemented before the federal government introduced carbon pricing.
I would also like to remind my colleague and all of the Conservatives across the way that climate change affects farmers across the country just as it affects all Canadians.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc-Liberal alliance continues to work against Quebec's best interests. First, their proposed bill, Bill C‑11, fails to ensure that online businesses are subject to Quebec's status of the artist legislation. Second, this bill contains no mechanism for formal consultation with the Quebec government. The Minister of Canadian Heritage has stated that his government is collaborating extremely well with the government, yet he has ignored the input from April 29, 2022, and the letter from February 4, 2023.
Will the government send Bill C‑11 to committee so that it can consider Quebec's proposed amendment?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a consensus in Quebec on the importance of the bill and the importance of supporting our artists, creators, directors, producers, those who top the best-of lists in music, film and television. Everyone agrees, except the Conservatives, who never talk about culture. In fact, their daily dose of culture comes from their morning yogurt.
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is more than a consensus in Quebec; there is unanimity. The National Assembly voted unanimously to demand that this government hear what it has to say on Bill C‑11. We realize that members of the Bloc-Liberal alliance may not have read the bill carefully. Clause 7 gives greater power to cabinet to direct the CRTC. This centralizes power at the federal level, and the Bloc Québécois is okay with that.
Could the Liberal or Bloc minister, since it is hard to know which is which, tell the House that, yes, they will allow the Quebec proposal and the amendments to be heard in parliamentary committee?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is because today is Canada's Agriculture Day, but my colleague always seems to be in the weeds. When it comes to culture, there is a consensus in the government with the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and Quebec society on the importance of working together to ensure that online broadcasters like Netflix, Disney and others, which are very popular, contribute to the production of homegrown content, in other words Quebec and Canadian content in music, film and television. Everyone agrees, except the Conservatives.
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that everything the Bloc-centralist-Liberal alliance is currently doing for Quebec is not working. Just think of Bill C‑5, which allows rapists to stay at home, or Bill C‑75, which lets criminals who have been released to obtain bail even if they are still violent. Now, there is Bill C‑11.
To add insult to injury, they are refusing to consider the motion that was adopted unanimously. Even the Bloc voted unanimously for the federal government to move on Bill C‑11.
Can the minister tell us if Bill C‑11 will be sent to committee to be studied together with the amendments?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois friends who have understood the importance of culture in Quebec.
I am confused about why Quebec MPs elected by other Quebeckers do not understand how important this bill is to ensure support for our music, television and movies so that we can continue to be not just the best in Canada, but the best in the world.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, who would have thought? Not only is the Liberal government no longer bickering with the Bloc Québécois, but now it is bickering with the Government of Quebec at the National Assembly. That is not what it means to speak on behalf of Quebec.
The fact is that Quebec is the home of the French fact. The Government of Quebec and the National Assembly want to be heard in parliamentary committee.
Could the new star of the Bloc Québécois, who happens to be minister of the alliance between the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party, stand up and assure Quebec that, yes, Quebec's grievances over this bill will be heard in parliamentary committee?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we know that being a Quebecker means being able to reach out and that if there are disagreements over certain things, being able to work for the interests of Quebec. That is what we are currently doing with the Bloc Québécois and with the NDP, unlike what the Conservatives are doing.
Bill C‑11 is good for our artists, our producers and our artisans. It is good for the French fact and for French productions. The Conservatives want to kill this bill. Shame on them. It is good for Quebec and we will forge ahead.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, we have been very clear about our commitment to do our fair share to protect and promote French across the country, including in Quebec, and to protect and promote our official language minority communities.
I want to take a moment to thank the committee members who are working to advance this file.
With the passage of Bill C‑13, we will be able to give the Commissioner of Official Languages the tools he needs to do his work, which is essential. We will also be seeing changes for federally regulated private businesses to make sure that people can work and get service in French.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member for Mount Royal is against recognizing the Charter of the French Language in Bill C‑13, as are the member for Westmount and the member for Saint‑Laurent.
Now, a Liberal minister is threatening to join them and to vote against a Liberal bill. There are starting to be quite a few Liberals who are opposed to Bill C‑13.
At this point, one has to wonder whether the Quebec Liberal caucus dissidents, the rebels, are the ones who want to defend French.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Bill C‑13 is a good bill. It recognizes that French is threatened and that more needs to be done to protect French both within and outside Quebec.
However, the Conservative-Bloc coalition plans to vote against this bill. It is doing everything to defeat it.
We, on the Liberal side, will continue to fight to defend French across the country.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/23 3:14:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a number of people who crossed into Canada at Roxham Road have come to my office in Montreal.
Contrary to what the Bloc Québécois says, Roxham Road is nothing like an all-inclusive vacation. The Quebec National Assembly adopted a motion yesterday to denounce this insensitive and out-of-touch comparison, one that feeds prejudice.
Liberal inaction on this issue has also left room for this kind of divisive and misleading rhetoric.
When will the Liberals suspend the safe third country agreement so we can finally fix this?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/23 3:16:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Oral Questions, the Minister of Environment misled the House by suggesting that people in Quebec do not pay a carbon tax. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to table my own personal propane bill, which clearly shows that I paid 6.2¢ per litre in carbon tax.
60 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to once again express my appreciation for the hon. member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, the sponsor of Bill C-224. I want to acknowledge the work that was done with the co-operation of all parties. That happens every once in a while, and when it does, we see just how well it works. I want to point that out so we do not forget. When we work together, it can lead to great results.
There was no consensus on Bill C-224 at first. Members will recall that, when we received the first version of this bill, the Bloc Québécois had concerns about it. Those concerns were related to strong beliefs that we hold and that are integral to our political involvement. We felt that the original bill interfered in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec.
It was therefore difficult for us to readily support this bill, which is otherwise good. We cannot be against trying to improve our firefighters' living and working conditions, as well as their health and safety. I think that everyone agreed on that, but we had that one concern.
It did not take long for us to sense an opening for discussion. We appreciated it. That opening, evident from the start, meant that we were much more favourable to the bill moving forward.
By chance, I had the opportunity to replace my colleague from Mirabel on the Standing Committee on Health the day that the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert came to speak in support of his bill. There were firefighters in the room. There were also members who had been firefighters in a past life, which resulted in testimony that was actually quite moving. Those who were there will remember.
Several firefighters from my region, Drummond, later contacted me to say how much that meeting meant to them. I am not talking about the fact that I spoke, but rather about all of the testimony given that day.
I know that my colleague from Longueuil—Charles‑LeMoyne has already heard this, but I am going to talk about when I was a firefighter. People might think it is Capitaine Bonhomme speaking, but it is not.
Many boys dream of being a police officer or a firefighter when they grow up. My dreams were different. My dream was to be a radio host, which I ended up doing eventually. On the way there, I also worked on boats. I worked as a sailor. As part of our training, we had to learn how to respond to incidents, such as fires on board and whatnot. I had only a vague, abstract notion of what firefighters did, but they shipped me off for a weekend at a firefighters' training centre. They dressed me up in the gear, which weighs a ton. Then they put me in a container they were about to set on fire and told me to figure it out.
That is not exactly how it happened. I did get some safety instructions, which I did not really listen to, unfortunately. The point is, that day was a revelation, a shock. I realized that there was more to the job than what boys of my generation thought. It was more than driving around in trucks blasting sirens and getting cats out of trees. There were huge responsibilities. These people face major risks every day on the job.
That changed how I viewed the profession. Since that day, even though I did not have to carry out those duties as part of my job at the time, I nevertheless did retain a deep admiration for firefighting, which is a vocation rather than a profession, in my opinion.
It was therefore an honour to attend the committee meeting where we discussed Bill C‑244. As a result, I remained interested in this bill. I followed it at a distance because, as I stated earlier, the member for Mirabel was more involved in this file.
I was also pleased to see the Bloc Québécois caucus change its position to support this bill and to realize that our concerns about the bill were being addressed. It is still not perfect, but I believe that what was most important to us was to ensure we were putting in place something that would better protect those who are called on to protect us. I believe that the outcome is pretty good.
As I was saying, I think there may still be other things that could be done. I think the bill is a very good starting point and a very good demonstration of the House of Commons' willingness to ensure that firefighters across Quebec and Canada feel supported and know that we are concerned about their safety.
I think the federal government could do more without encroaching on Quebec and provincial jurisdictions. For example, it could better fund research on the treatment, diagnosis and prevention of cancers, as well as on carcinogenic materials. Perhaps the federal government could make its own list of recognized cancers for its memorial grant program for first responders. It could also increase funding for municipal emergency preparedness infrastructure.
After I attended that committee meeting, I was approached by a firefighter from Drummondville, Marco Héroux. I asked him for permission to speak a little bit about the meeting we had recently at my constituency office. Mr. Héroux is a career firefighter. He has been working in Drummondville for several years and has had a number of work-related health challenges. Some of these challenges relate to certain traumas associated with firefighting work. These people witness trauma on a daily basis. It is hard for us to imagine the extent of what these individuals have to deal with in their line of work.
Mr. Héroux also had concerns about safety in fire stations. We talked about that at length as Bill C-224 was being developed. We talked about things like materials, clothing and fumes inside the fire stations themselves. We talked about how some municipalities are unable to renovate stations and install ventilation systems and protections to ensure that firefighters, who spend so much time at the fire stations, are not in contact with contaminants. This requires huge investments by municipalities, and it can be hard for them to respond to this emergency situation. It is an emergency for the health of firefighters.
The federal government could invest more in municipal infrastructure to ensure that fire stations are equipped with cutting edge ventilation systems that are beyond reproach to keep our firefighters safe and limit their exposure to cancer risks that are just as significant inside the fire station when they are not even doing responding work.
Obviously, some of the concerns I am raising may be outside the scope of the bill, but these are steps the federal government could certainly take to further improve the situation for firefighters and address their concerns over their health and safety.
I cannot help but come back to the issue of health transfers because it is such a topical issue. I think the Bloc has been tirelessly calling on the federal government to increase health transfers for many months, even years. An agreement between the federal government and the provinces seems to be coming together.
We are saying that that is not enough, that more was needed. Imagine what could have been done in terms of prevention and the implementation of mechanisms and research tools for cancer and cancer treatment. Health transfers could be used for all those things too. Those are the types of things that are missing because of the lack of funding for health care. We also need to invest to respond to these types of requests. Funding is not just needed to reduce overcrowding in emergency rooms. It is needed for many things, and I think this is a good example of why the government needs to increase health transfers.
I want to reiterate that I am pleased to see that this bill is going to be passed. I think that it is an important bill that has been long awaited by firefighters in Quebec and Canada. We can do more work on it as needs arise. I am pleased that the bill will be passed as a result of the co-operative efforts among the parties. The Bloc Québécois will enthusiastically support this bill.
1426 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Through you, Madam Speaker, I implore the Liberal members of Parliament to stand up against their justice minister and the irresponsible decisions he is taking.
Across Canada every year we celebrate Bell Let's Talk. Mental health services have expanded in hospitals, schools and universities because there is an inherent belief by all Canadians that mental health challenges are things we can overcome. Every family in this country is impacted by mental health, and it pains me to see my country considering offering death to those suffering at their lowest points. We do not need to do this.
Again, through you, Madam Speaker, I implore Liberal members to challenge the justice minister on his overly broad interpretation of the Truchon decision, a ruling of the Quebec court, and to stop what he wants to do.
A recent article in The Globe and Mail talked about Donna Duncan, a 63-year-old woman from my community. Her daughter successfully delayed, through the court, her mother's access to MAID because her mother suffered from a mental illness. However, just hours after leaving the hospital, Donna received a medically assisted death without her daughters being informed, even though their mother already suffered from a mental health condition that was documented.
Both daughters, Alicia and Christie, testified at the medical assistance in dying committee and they made a number of recommendations.
The first, which seems so sensible, is “mandatory access to health care”.
The second is an increase in the required number of independent witnesses to be formally interviewed as part of the assessment, to at least three.
The third is “...a pre-death assessment review. Doctors should be required to submit all assessments to an independent review board prior to a patient's death.”
The fourth is “continuity of care. Multiple assessments should be completed by the same medical professional.”
The fifth is “mandatory wait periods”.
The sixth is “...mandatory release of records. Hospitals and health authorities should be required to release unredacted copies of their MAID assessment records to those who are entitled to them.”
I would be remiss if I did not mention the fact that, when Bill C-39 was tabled in Parliament, the Association of Chairs of Psychiatry in Canada called for this delay at the beginning of December. I will note as well that University of Toronto law professor Trudo Lemmens and numerous colleagues from across Canada challenged the Minister of Justice on his actions today.
Again, my plea today is to the Liberal caucus, through you, Madam Speaker, to challenge the decision of the justice minister, not to irresponsibly expand MAID in one year's time for those suffering from mental health. Canadians know that mental health can be overcome. Canadians know that this does not have to be the solution. Canadians know that they want to take care of people when they need to be taken care of.
493 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
