44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 26, 2024 11:00AM
- Feb/26/24 1:20:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in the last election, Canadians clearly indicated that they wanted a minority government like the one they had between 2019 and 2021. They wanted to keep an eye on the government. That is the message they sent. That was the will of the Canadian and Quebec electorate. Unfortunately, that is not what happened. The government thumbed its nose at the will of Quebeckers and Canadians and chose to disregard its minority status and form a majority with another party. The result was the marriage of the Liberal Party with the New Democratic Party.
This marriage comes at a huge cost, both financially and democratically. Usually, when people get married, they pay for their own wedding. Sometimes their parents pay. It depends on the culture. In any case, we expect the happy couple to pay for the wedding. However, that is not what is happening here: Canadians and Quebeckers are paying for the huge cost of the wedding. That is what we are seeing now. We are paying for the two lovebirds. At some point the government needs to explain itself, and the Liberals claim that they need the NDP with them, that it is important. Earlier, the government leader said that there was obstruction, that this was chaos. It does not take much to throw him off if he thinks this is chaos.
I have been the opposition House leader for over four years. I can say that I have seen many things, but I have never seen chaos. I am concerned for the government leader. It does not take much to throw him off. I do not know if he watched The Walking Dead but, if he did, it must have given him a heart attack.
On top of that, he says it is chaos because the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois ask too many questions. Of course, the NDP does not do that. The Conservatives and the Bloc take too much time debating issues in the House.
If we were spending 50 days debating a bill, I might agree, but representatives of the government would sometimes come to me to say they were imposing a gag order because they were tired and we had been debating a bill for too long. I answered that we had been debating the bill for five hours. They said they could not take it any more. Oh, brother.
The bills we were debating were not small bills. They were big bills, some of them economic updates, and the government quickly put a stop to the debate because they knew very well that there was no chance of my agreeing with them. Yet they knew that the New Democrats eat at the same trough. They knew that the NDP would be there for them. So it often happens that, after three, four or five hours of debate, the discussion is closed. Is that good for democracy? Is that good for members of Parliament? The only weapon we have to defend our constituents, our fellow citizens, is time. It is the time we take to explain our position, propose changes, solutions, amendments, discuss better ways of improving life in our communities. That is what the government is always stopping us from doing here in the House.
Since 2021 alone, the NDP has supported 14 closure motions and eight super closure motions. They have also supported 23 time allocation motions. Never in the history of Canada have members of the opposition been subjected to so many gag orders. It is as if we had nothing important to say and they decided to gag us. That is what it looks like.
Today we are discussing motion No. 35 aimed at extending sitting hours. We usually work by consensus. When we change parliamentary rules, we seek consensus. All four parties have to agree and give their reasoning. That is not, however, what is happening here. With a majority, the government is constantly changing parliamentary rules.
Earlier, the government leader even boasted about it. He said that the Liberals had done so three times in two years, and boasted about it. I want to circle back to something terrible. The two parties did something terrible when they decided on the hybrid Parliament rules. That was unprecedented. They changed the parliamentary rules, knowing full well that some parties did not agree. It is not because we were freaks. The Bloc Québécois never said that it was a ludicrous idea, but we were not even consulted.
Those parties just came along and said that, from now on, this is how the hybrid Parliament works.
The leader of the official opposition correctly said earlier that, if that is how they change the rules, that means that any majority government will be able to change the rules of Parliament.
I do not know if my colleagues have seen the polls, but I have. There is a small chance that a Conservative government will be elected, and there is a small chance that it will be a majority government. Let us say Canadians elect a majority Conservative government. That means that the Conservatives will be able to say, “These are the rules from now on”. When that happens, the NDP will get up and say that that is not right, yet they did it themselves in 2022. The Liberals will also get up and say that that is not right, yet they and the NDP did it themselves. The only party that will be able to stand up in the House and credibly tell the Conservatives that what they are doing is not right is our party, the Bloc Québécois.
There is now a problem with the way we operate, because the government has created a fake majority. That is what we are faced with again: procedural changes that reduce the opposition parties' speaking time and steamroll discussions, because they are going to limit the opposition's ability to stand up and defend their position. That is unacceptable.
They want to change the rules, but I think we have a perfect example here of a government that is incapable of respecting Parliament. It seems unwilling to discuss its own bills. The bills are not always good, of course, but discussion is the way to improve them.
That has always been the Bloc Québécois's goal. Our goal is to be a constructive opposition and to tell the House that we are always thinking of Quebec and only Quebec. Oftentimes, Canada feels the same way Quebec does, so everyone is happy. Other times, we may disagree on a bill for whatever reason, so then we work to amend it in good faith. The only two tools we have for convincing the government are time and the parliamentary process. If our only tools are damaged, it diminishes the power of democracy in Parliament. It is a little strange that Parliament is working to reduce the power of democracy within its own walls.
I always feel a bit uneasy when it comes to the NDP. When members of the NDP rise in the House after question period, they wag their fingers and talk about how appalling ArriveCAN is. They rant and rave. It is not a pretty sight. They also say that this government is focused on oil production and that it is the worst government in history when it comes to Canadian oil production. They claim to be environmentalists and so on. When there are Liberal scandals and when the Prime Minister is caught red-handed, they rise to express their outrage. However, when the lights go out, what we see is that the NDP always supports the Liberal Party. In all honesty, I would feel really uncomfortable with that, if I were a member of the NDP.
The Bloc Québécois will therefore vote against the motion. We are simply going to do what it takes to defend the interests of Quebeckers, even though our right to speak is being undermined.
1351 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 1:33:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as always, I enjoyed the speech by my friend and colleague from La Prairie.
My colleague wondered what he would say to his constituents if he were a member of the NDP. I think that what he should be wondering is what he would say to his constituents if he were an NDP MP.
Of course, he would tell his constituents in La Prairie that it was the NDP that proposed the pharmacare plan. It is a better plan than the one currently in force in Quebec, since there are holes in Quebec's plan. It was also the NDP that proposed a dental care plan, and it is thanks to the NDP that the extremely important anti-scab bill was introduced. There are also the legislative measures to crack down on grocery chains' price gouging. My colleague would be proud to tell his constituents about all of these measures. The fact is that the NDP is an effective opposition party and has made far more gains than any other opposition party in the House of Commons since our country was founded.
My colleague also mentioned the issue of time allocation motions. The member for La Prairie was not here during the Harper regime, so I would simply like to remind him that the Conservatives imposed more than 100 gag orders in Parliament from 2011 to 2015. They did it more than a hundred times. The Liberal government has done it eight times. Compare that to the Conservative number and it is clear that Parliament can work when an opposition party is willing to do its job in Parliament.
I would now like to ask my friend a very simple question. There are two aspects to this motion. On the one hand, we are going to work in the evening, a principle that the NDP has always supported, but on the other hand, this motion aims to put an end to the possibility of working all night, like the time we voted for 30 hours. We experienced that in December. The Leader of the Opposition was not actually here, but we voted for 30 hours straight. Interpreters and House employees are then forced to work for 30 consecutive hours.
I would just like to know why the Bloc is not standing up for interpreters, House employees and all those people who are subject to the disrespect shown by the Conservatives when they impose votes for 30 hours to make cuts to all government programs.
416 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 1:47:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on the quality of his French. I hear him using typically Quebec expressions such as “j'ai mon voyage”. It proves that the member has spent time in Quebec.
On the substance of the issue, he is totally wrong. We do not have the right to make a distinction between a vote in the House and a virtual vote. A vote is a vote, period.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:08:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this government, the Bloc-Liberal coalition is costly for Quebeckers.
The Bloc is in cahoots with this government that is not worth the cost. It pretends to be outraged by the ArriveCAN scandal, yet it voted in favour of cost overruns to fund ArriveCAN eight times. Then, it defended its actions by saying that it was not going to scrutinize everything the government spends. The Bloc told the government to go ahead and hand out the money.
Voting for the Bloc is costly. Even the Premier of Quebec is wondering what is the point of the Bloc Québécois. That is saying something.
The ArriveCAN app cost an arm and a leg, made a company very rich and made things difficult for Canadians. ArriveCAN joins this worn-out government's long list of bad decisions, mismanagement, lack of ethics and lack of transparency.
While the Liberals are mocking Canadians, common-sense Conservatives continue to fight for their interests. We are going to axe the tax, build the homes, fix the budget and stop the crime.
184 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:26:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, anyone worried about the relationship between the NDP and the Liberals can rest assured that this courtship will keep going strong until 2025, even if it is costly. The top priority is making Canadians happy. It is not about Quebec's priorities.
Quebeckers did not ask for day care, they already have it. Quebeckers did not ask for dental insurance, they already have it. Quebeckers did not ask for drug coverage, they already have it.
How much will the “majority insurance” of these two lovebirds cost Quebeckers, even though it ignores our priorities?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:27:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out to my colleague that if Quebec is a leader in social matters, so much the better. Yes, we draw inspiration from Quebec when it comes to day care. Yes, we draw inspiration from Quebec when it comes to dental care. Yes, we draw inspiration from Quebec every time we implement initiatives that will push Canada to offer more services for Canadians.
What has surprised me this morning is that the Bloc Québécois is not talking about investments, particularly Moderna's investment in Laval this week. Canada will have the first Moderna plant in the world. It will be in Quebec. We will be able to ensure the health and safety of Canadians.
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:28:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if only the Liberal-NDP “majority insurance” could improve care. A year after the forced deal on health transfers, Quebec has not received a single penny. Ottawa keeps imposing its conditions.
Eleven months have passed since Quebec demanded the right to opt out of federal dental coverage, and still nothing. Today, our lovebirds are having their third long-term spat, this one on pharmacare. In the meantime, not a single Quebecker is getting better care.
Instead of playing games just to stay in power, why not give Quebec the money it needs to take care of our people?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:28:46 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is clearly trying to pick a fight. We are seeking solutions. That is why we are having good conversations with Minister Dubé and the Government of Quebec about improving the quality of health care.
It is essential that all Quebeckers have access to dental care and a good health care system. That can be achieved through co-operation, not through bickering or this sort of debate.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:45:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the government already owed Quebec $470 million for services rendered to asylum seekers. Its debt has just climbed to $1 billion. These are not projections, these are the bills incurred for guaranteeing the asylum seekers quick access to social assistance, temporary housing, health care and schooling. Ottawa's refusal to pay Quebec what it owes is sabotaging our capacity to not only integrate these asylum seekers, but also serve the entire population.
When will the government reimburse Quebeckers?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:46:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the member knows full well, since 2015, we have paid Quebec $5.2 billion under the arrangement we have with the Government of Quebec, the Canada-Quebec accord.
We are prepared to do more. We are prepared to sit down and work with Quebec. Ideally, we do not do that in public. It should be known that we have a good relationship with Quebec. We are currently working with our officials to determine what is our responsibility and what is Quebec's responsibility.
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:47:01 p.m.
- Watch
It is a great relationship, Mr. Speaker.
For months, the minister has been repeating that he is at the negotiating table with Quebec, but there are no negotiations going on. The Quebec immigration minister confirmed that on Thursday, when she said that the federal government has been wasting Quebec's time for two years.
Fortunately, we know that the premiers will be meeting in the coming weeks. I would like to remind the House that Quebec's budget will be tabled on March 12 and that we are talking about $1 billion here.
Will the government announce today that it will pay back Quebeckers?
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:47:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, guess who is not at the negotiating table and never will be? It is the Bloc Québécois.
It is strange to hear such a statement. We met with officials from Quebec the very Monday that this statement was made. We are talking. We are discussing. We are negotiating. It is important that both sides work together to know who is doing what. We will do that with Quebec. We have a good relationship and we will maintain it.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:48:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that just goes to show that just because a person is six foot, three inches tall does not mean they are able to take the high road.
The federal government also needs to ensure that asylum seekers are spread out among the provinces. Everyone has to put in their share of the efforts. The federal government finally started spreading out the influx last year. However, the last time we asked it to start doing this again, the minister accused us of wanting to deport people, which is a crime against humanity.
Were the Liberals guilty of a crime against humanity when they were spreading out asylum seekers last year? Obviously not, so why are they not getting to work now, before Quebec's public services collapse?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:48:58 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is very nice of the member to say I am six feet, three inches tall when I am actually only six feet, one inch and a hair.
Given his line of questioning, it seems to me that the Bloc Québécois is still looking to pick a fight with the federal government. However, that is not enough for it. Now it is looking for a fight with the Quebec government, and it has found one.
It is clear that the Bloc Québécois is not looking for relevant answers or reasonable solutions. It is just looking to pick fights.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:52:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we knew that, unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois wanted to drastically increase the carbon tax.
Now, we have learned that it does not want to do its job as an opposition party. It voted eight times to increase the ArriveCAN budget. When caught in the act, the leader of the Bloc Québécois said that they were not going to scrutinize everything the government spends. That is exactly the opposite of what an opposition party should do.
The Premier of Quebec asked what the point of the Bloc Québécois is. I am putting the question to the Liberal Prime Minister or the immigration minister. What is the point of the Bloc Québécois?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 2:53:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise that you are confused, since my very experienced colleague seems to be having a little trouble finding the right person to answer the right question.
However, I have a question for my colleague from the Quebec City area.
We know that people in the Quebec City area do not care for the politics of hate, harassment and insult. Will he come to the city council meeting next week to explain to Quebec City and all its partners why his Conservative leader insulted everyone by calling them incompetent?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:54:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to correct the hon. member on one point. In 2021, the Liberal election platform did specifically mention that we would bring in legislation to prohibit replacement workers. The mandate letter issued to the Minister of Labour in December 2021 also included this specific thing.
I am glad that British Columbia and Quebec have similar legislation in place. Does the member agree with me that it is time for all provinces to bring in similar legislation to protect the interests of workers?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 3:55:14 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, on the member's second point, I very much agree that every province should bring in similar bans on the use of replacement workers for provincially regulated workplaces. British Columbia and Quebec have led the way, and it is time for other provinces to follow suit.
On his first point, I am always open to being corrected, but usually more when I am wrong. The point I was making was that his party has voted against anti-scab legislation again and again. He mentioned the Liberal platform, and I recognize that there was a commitment in the Liberals' platform. His party commits to a lot of things in its election platform; that does not always result in their moving those things forward when they form government. I will leave it at that. The key difference here is that the legislation before us would apply to both strikes and lockouts, while the election platform of the Liberal Party did not.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:09:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it has been many years that I have had discussions on issues like anti-scab legislation and final offer selection. I can go back to the very hot debate topics in 1989-90 inside the Manitoba legislature, and I like to think that I have been a strong advocate for anti-scab legislation.
I appreciate a number of the comments the member made. I often look at British Columbia or Quebec and to what degree public servants are incorporated into the legislation. I do not necessarily know the details. I think it is a legitimate question. I would like to see it maybe addressed in more detail as it goes to committee.
The question I have for the member is this. Does the Conservative Party support passing this legislation to go to committee?
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/26/24 4:11:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, although we are firmly in favour of this—we have stood up to defend this idea 11 times—I get the impression that there is a good deal of smoke and mirrors here. Again, I want to say that we strongly support it. In fact, Quebec has had its anti-scab legislation since 1977.
The bill before us mentions a rather vague exception that talks about a threat to the life, health and safety of any person. What does that mean? Would that not potentially circumvent the right to strike? That needs to be clarified.
Then, the fact that there would be an 18-month delay before the act came into force after royal assent means that, even if the bill were passed tomorrow morning, there would not be time to bring it into force before the next election. I get the impression that the Liberals, who have repeatedly voted down anti-scab legislation every time it has come up for a vote, are once again bribing the NDP by telling themselves that it does not matter, because in 18 months the Conservatives will abolish it when they are in power.
Does my colleague share my interpretation?
201 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
