So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 147 - Dec/13/22

Dec/13/22 2:43:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, ongoing transfers are what is needed. Everyone knows that. As the Prime Minister digs in his heels and refuses to engage with his counterparts on the subject of health care funding, 784,000 people are on waiting lists to see a medical specialist and 160,000 people are awaiting surgery. Nearly a million Quebeckers need care but cannot get it because there are not enough resources. Can the Prime Minister explain to those one million Quebeckers why just meeting with his counterparts to talk about health transfers is too much to ask of him?

96 words

Context: House Hansard - 143 - Dec/7/22

Dec/13/22 2:04:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Terrebonne and I would like to draw the House's attention to the amazing work of an organization operating in my riding and in the RCM of Les Moulins, the Société de développement et d'animation de Mascouche, or SODAM. Founded in 2000, this not-for-profit organization is driven by a profound desire to enliven the community's cultural offerings and facilitate access to the area's rich local history, agriculture and arts scene. SODAM, the dynamic, creative organization behind the Festival Grande Tribu, farmers' markets, guided historical tours of Mascouche and the Cirkana circus school, was awarded not one but two prizes this fall. On October 25, SODAM won the Conseil québécois des événements écoresponsables's Vivats award for best new entrant for its Festival Grande Tribu. On November 4, it won the heritage interpretation award of excellence for Le patrimoine vivant en cinémascope. Congratulations to everyone on the team, and long live SODAM.

176 words

Context: House Hansard - 143 - Dec/7/22

Dec/7/22 4:14:20 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois asked that Bill C-32 include a commitment from the government to increase health transfers. Since the third wave of COVID-19, every expert has said that what Quebec and the provinces need is predictability to be able to improve their systems. Short-term and one-time investments are not going to solve the problem. I would like to ask my colleague what the government is waiting for to meet the needs of Quebec and the provinces, patients and staff. If we want to rebuild our healthcare systems, we need respectable health transfers. We asked for 35%. The provinces spend $200 billion a year on health, while the federal government kicks in $42 billion. Increasing transfers by 10% will not solve the problem. If health is important to my colleague, does he agree with the unanimous demand made by Quebec and the provinces?

152 words

Context: House Hansard - 143 - Dec/7/22

Dec/7/22 4:10:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Mr. Speaker, here is the problem. The sound is good when there are people in the booths here in the House. The booths in the House are properly equipped for sound. Every time we have an interpreter working remotely outside the House, the sound is bad, and it can damage our hearing. I demand, as a member of House, that my hearing not be jeopardized. Let us fix the problem once and for all.

74 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 135 - Nov/25/22

Dec/7/22 4:09:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-32

Mr. Speaker, I do not want to miss anything my eloquent colleague says, but I have had to adjust my earpiece to the maximum volume. There is no one in the interpretation booths, and the sound is bad. When a different interpreter comes in, I can hear my colleague as if he were speaking directly into my ear. It is unacceptable that we are unable to fix our interpretation and sound problems. This is not the first time I rise to mention this. I do not know why there is no one in the booths, but I know that the interpretation system right now is inadequate. I will not be damaging my hearing and I want to be able to hear my colleague, who I like listening to, incidentally, even if I do not always agree with him. I would like—

142 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 135 - Nov/25/22

Nov/25/22 12:27:37 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-20

Mr. Speaker, at the principle stage, bills are never perfect, but could my colleague tell me, given the searches that officers can conduct of travellers' cellphones, how Bill C‑20 in its current form could preserve solicitor-client privilege in an exchange between a client and their counsel?

49 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 133 - Nov/23/22

Nov/25/22 11:18:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, this afternoon, the government will announce that it is improving EI sickness benefits. I would like to remind all parliamentarians that we would not even be talking about this were it not for Marie‑Hélène Dubé and her “15 weeks is not enough” campaign and Émilie Sansfaçon, who spent the final moments of her life fighting so that people who are seriously ill will never again be abandoned by the government, as she was. Every little bit of progress that is made on the sickness benefits file is thanks to courageous women like these two. However, more needs to be done. Before Émilie Sansfaçon passed away, she met personally with the Prime Minister. She explained to him that sick people need 50 weeks of support. We will continue the fight for 50 weeks of benefits, because the only thing that people with diseases like cancer should have to worry about is healing, not financial concerns. Let us continue, in memory of Émilie.

183 words

Context: House Hansard - 133 - Nov/23/22

Nov/23/22 5:04:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo on his very eloquent speech. He said that he had 15 pages to read. The member raised a major issue with the justice system, namely its efficiency, as well as another directly related issue, access to justice. Would the member agree with me that Bill S-4 could improve the justice system in terms of accessibility and efficiency? Could he continue his speech by telling us more about what should be added to Bill S-4 to make it even more effective in terms of access to justice? Maybe he covers that in the other 15 pages of his speech.

115 words

All Topics

Nov/23/22 4:34:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-4

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill to modernize the system. The Barreau du Québec made a series of recommendations, especially with respect to testimonial evidence being given in person. Can my colleague tell us whether this recommendation will be fully implemented? What is the advantage and the essential nature of this Barreau du Québec recommendation that all evidence be given in person? Is that possible?

75 words

All Topics

Nov/16/22 6:16:10 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Madam Speaker, the supply management model is a collective, co-operative model. It makes it possible for everyone from the farmer to the consumer to earn a decent income. The following is very important in defending supply management. What has been hurting our farmers in the years since the government began chipping away at the system is that they have no predictability. They need predictability to grow their business and to be able to export such a model. If the largest G7 countries begin to undermine it, how can we convince people that this is a smart, sustainable model?

99 words

All Topics

Nov/16/22 6:15:17 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Madam Speaker, during the pandemic, we saw that supply-managed sectors did not experience the same shortages that other food sectors did. This system, this management model, is essential for food security, or what I refer to as food self-sufficiency.

41 words

All Topics

Nov/16/22 6:13:01 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

Madam Speaker, as I was saying earlier, it is not just the Conservatives who have been chipping away at supply management. The Liberal Party has done it too, after voting, hand on heart, for motions that said supply management should be left alone and needs to be protected. These motions passed unanimously in the House. It is not about who is at fault, the Conservatives or the Liberals. I think that the real problem stems from the fact that Canada's agricultural sectors are ultimately very different, and the government decided that it could sacrifice a sector for the sake of opening up certain markets. I am sorry, but I am sure that the Conservatives are going to act differently, since their leader said not so long ago that it would be ridiculous to buy out all the quotas. It would cost billions of dollars, and we need to uphold supply management.

152 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 127 - Nov/15/22

Nov/16/22 5:56:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-282

moved that Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management), be read the second time and referred to a committee. He said: Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise in the House to speak on behalf of supply-managed producers. I will present the main reasons why we, as lawmakers, should guarantee our producers a sustainable future by passing Bill C‑282. I just want to take a moment to thank farmers in the riding of Montcalm who operate 87 supply-managed farms. Over 70% of the riding is agricultural. Its main industry is agriculture and agri-food. Given that a number of Bloc Québécois motions to protect the integrity of supply management have been adopted unanimously, some members think it would be inconsistent not to pass this bill in principle and refer it to a committee for study. I thank them for that. It is also a privilege for me to sponsor this bill, which I should note is identical to Bill C‑216. If memory serves, that bill won the support of a significant majority of 250 MPs in the previous Parliament thanks to my colleagues' amazing work. I want to mention the work done by the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, a brilliant and staunch defender of the interests of the agricultural sector. I also salute the contribution of my young and eloquent colleague from Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, the Bloc Québécois critic for international trade. Not to mention the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, who sponsored Bill C‑216 in the last Parliament, a bill that would already be in effect if not for the useless election in August 2021. He is the dean of the House, the one who has seen the flood of good intentions in the ocean of promises to protect supply management. These promises resulted in irreversible breaches in three major free trade agreements that unfortunately did permanent damage because the supply management system wrongly became a bargaining chip, as Gérard Bérubé wrote in Le Devoir on August 30, 2018: Canada's supply management system has found itself in the crosshairs many times in the context of free trade and, unfortunately, has become a bargaining chip for Ottawa in the the past three major negotiations. From breach to fault, the crack continues to grow dangerously bigger. I believe in parliamentary democracy and refuse to become a cynic, although I hold no naive beliefs about the ability of the legislative power to not let itself be subordinate to the executive, especially for those on the government benches. As MPs, we are representatives of the people and we are legislators. We are the ones who must make the voice of the people heard and defend their interests against an executive power that all too often governs like a supreme ruler and that sometimes breaks its promises and goes against the unanimous will of the House, as expressed in the motions it adopts. Some might think that Bill C‑282 is not necessary. They will swear, hand on heart, that they will protect supply management from now on. However, history tends to repeat itself, so I would humbly point out, by way of example, that, in the context of the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion on February 7, 2018, which said, and I quote: “That the House call on the government to ensure that there is no breach in supply management as part of the new Trans-Pacific Partnership.” This motion was unanimously adopted. A month later, on March 8, 2018, the Liberal government went back on its word by signing the new Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. In the context of the renegotiation of NAFTA, the Bloc also moved a motion on September 26, 2017, for the government to protect supply-managed markets. I will read it: That the House reiterate its desire to fully preserve supply management during the NAFTA renegotiations. One month later, on November 30, 2018, the Liberal government went back on its word by signing CUSMA, an agreement meant to replace NAFTA. Unfortunately, despite the promise made to Parliament, several concessions were made, putting the financial stability of Quebec's agricultural businesses in jeopardy. Four times the House unanimously expressed its desire to fully protect the supply management system. However, both Liberal and Conservative governments clearly did not feel bound by that commitment when they signed the last three free trade agreements. These agreements have been disastrous when it comes to the concessions that were made at the expense of supply-managed agricultural producers and processors. Without the guarantee that Bill C‑282 offers to exclude supply management from free trade agreements, many are now questioning their future. Bill C‑282 is very simple. It amends the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act to expand the minister's list of responsibilities to include protecting the supply management system. Section 10 of the act would be amended to add supply management to the list of directives that the minister must take into account when conducting Canada's external affairs, including international trade. Once this bill is fully implemented, the minister responsible for international trade will have to defend supply-managed farmers to our trading partners. It will now be part of the minister's mandate to negotiate without creating loopholes in the system, as has been the case with the last three agreements. Bill C‑282 has become necessary because the loopholes that have been created are preventing the system from working effectively. They undermine the integrity of the principles that make up the system: price, production and border controls. Supply management is an essential strategic tool in preserving our food autonomy, regional development and land use. It is also a pan-Canadian risk management tool designed to protect agricultural markets against price fluctuations. This system is based on three main principles, on three pillars. The first pillar is supply management via a production quota system derived from research on consumption, that is, consumer demand for dairy products. The Canadian Dairy Commission distributes quota to each province. The provinces' marketing boards, also known as producer associations, sell quota to their own farmers to ensure that production is aligned with domestic demand. The second pillar is price controls. A floor price and a ceiling price are set to ensure that each link in the supply chain gets its fair share. The third pillar is border control. Supply management is a model envied around the world, especially in countries that have abolished it. Dairy producers in countries that dropped supply management are lobbying to have it reinstated. Increasingly, American dairy producers are questioning their government's decision to abolish supply management for their sector in the early 1990s. For almost a decade now, the price of milk has been plummeting, and small farms are no longer able to cover production costs. This price level is generally attributed to overproduction. Every year, millions of gallons of milk are dumped in ditches. In 2016, it was over 100 million gallons. In the state of Wisconsin, for example, nearly 500 farms per week were shutting down in 2018. Producers can simply no longer afford to produce for so little income. One of the problems is that the dairy sector is organized around overproduction, particularly with the aim of exporting surplus production at low prices. As a former U.S. secretary of agriculture himself admitted, when you overproduce, only the biggest can survive. Of course, there is another possible argument. Some people might think that, since producers and processors have finally been compensated, although four years later in some cases, and they are satisfied, small breaches can continue from one agreement to another by compensating people afterwards. Of course, no amount of compensation, no temporary one-off cheque, will cover the permanent structural damage and losses caused by the breaches in the agreements with Europe, the Pacific countries, the U.S. and Mexico. Supply management is not perfect, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages, especially in allowing all links in the chain to produce and to have fair and equitable incomes for everyone in the entire production chain. In closing, the question we need to ask ourselves is this: Do we want to protect certain segments of our agricultural industry from foreign competition while abiding by the rules of the WTO agreements? The answer to that question should be yes, especially since the supply management system follows those rules. We have the right to do so, and many countries avail themselves of those provisions. We are not the only ones that protect certain products. Everyone does it, even the countries that are criticizing us for doing so. It is important to remember that Canada has signed 16 free trade agreements that do not affect supply management in any way. It is therefore possible to discuss and negotiate without touching supply management. We cannot allow the United States or other countries to force us to abandon our agricultural policies and practices. What are we really trying to protect our production from? We want to protect it from unfair competition. Our main partner, the United States, is breaking many international trade rules while constantly asking us to give them more access. The U.S. is providing its agricultural industry with billions of dollars in illegal subsidies a year, which cuts production costs for farmers and enables them to resell their products locally or elsewhere at a lower cost. That is strictly prohibited by the WTO. There is no question that Quebec and Canada are exporting nations. This is not about increasing protectionism. What we want is to maintain a system that has proven its worth for almost 50 years. Since 2015, I have had the opportunity to introduce two bills, which were rejected. This is my third attempt. If the House were to adopt Bill C‑282, I would share my pride with all parliamentarians from all parties, and with all those who care about protecting an agricultural model that provides our producers with the predictability required to look to the future with dignity, to grow their businesses in the hope of proudly passing on their passion to the next generation with human-scale farms, while always ensuring that they produce high-quality products ethically. This model ensures that everyone wins, from producers to processors to consumers. By adopting Bill C‑282, we will ensure that never again will supply management be sacrificed on the altar of free trade.

1806 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 123 - Nov/2/22

Nov/15/22 2:41:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, pediatric emergency rooms in Quebec are overflowing as we speak. Children are being sent 150 kilometres from home because there is no room for them at the hospital. It is time the minister stopped saying that it is futile to ask for health care funding. Let us ask the parents of these children if it is futile. It is time for the federal government to stop it with its bureaucratic power trip, its arrogance and its bickering and to hand over the additional $28 billion in health care transfers that Quebec and all the provinces are calling for. What will it take for the government to understand that this is urgent?

115 words

Context: House Hansard - 122 - Nov/1/22

Nov/2/22 5:13:59 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill S-5

Mr. Speaker, I am glad my Conservative colleague shared that reminder about what led up to this bill, about how we got from Bill C‑28 to Bill S‑5, and about how so much time was wasted on what was really a totally pointless election. As I see it, Bill S‑5 has three elements at its core. They are laid out in clause 2. These three elements are as follows: considering the exposure of vulnerable populations to toxic substances, considering the cumulative effects of toxic substances, and requiring labelling to indicate the risks posed by all products containing toxic substances. These three elements are worded differently in the current version of this bill. Does my colleague agree with these elements?

125 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 117 - Oct/25/22

Nov/1/22 11:37:44 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the government's intention to keep using ArriveCAN given all the access problems users have had, all the bugs in the software and the fact that travellers will likely stop using it. What does the member think of the government's intention to keep using this app?

59 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 117 - Oct/25/22

Oct/25/22 1:41:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since arriving in the House, I have often heard my colleagues opposite give speeches of contrition for violations of human rights. Since this morning, we have heard all sorts of things and it seems that due to ignorance, complacency or lack of courage, they are content to defend the status quo without feeling any embarrassment about what the Crown did to the Acadians, which is literally a genocide. Can my colleague explain why the members opposite are not embarrassed with respect to Acadian descendants when they swear allegiance to the Crown?

93 words

Context: House Hansard - 117 - Oct/25/22

Oct/25/22 11:50:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. It is interesting to see someone who has decided to actually participate in the debate. The Bloc Québécois has opened the door and invited the members of the House to take part in a debate capable of generating comments as intelligent as the ones made by my colleague. How would she characterize the attitude of the Conservatives and Liberals who simply want to ignore the debate, despite the fact that people have been talking about the public's dissatisfaction with institutions? That dissatisfaction is often the result of institutions being maintained even though they are outdated. Should their attitude be characterized as: (a) lack of courage; (b) crass complacency inherent in a colonial attitude; (c) total ignorance of history; (d) all of the above?

137 words