- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Montcalm
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 61%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $126,025.95
- Government Page
- Jun/18/24 1:19:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Harper government was penalized in 2015, so I think that the member has his answer.
When a government goes beyond the democratic interest, the public is smart enough to penalize that government. I trust the public's intelligence. I trust voters' intelligence.
Indeed, everyone must be allowed to vote. When a society allows an individual to vote, it is the ultimate gesture of integration. The social contract is sealed by this right to vote. In receiving this right, members of the public have the responsibility to prove their eligibility as voters.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:17:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, this is the elephant in the room. It is nothing but an excuse, a self-serving use of religion as a pretext for purely financial gain.
It is unfortunate because it fuels public cynicism toward elected officials. It paints everyone in the House with the same brush.
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:17:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that was a question for me. My colleague's comment was about what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said.
34 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:15:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have said many times in the House that I am indeed a separatist, but if I am a separatist, it is because I am fundamentally a democrat, since the democratic ideal is contained in the idea of a people's sovereignty. Just because I am willing to acknowledge that I do not know everything, that does not mean I am against the idea of ensuring that the election in Alberta holds up. I too share this concern. Democracy means democracy for everyone, and not just here but the world over, because we are also fighting for democracy beyond our borders.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:14:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned in my speech, had the bill been drafted to include only those things, our position would probably have been different. I would add that, absent a guarantee that this crooked addition will be removed from the bill, there is no way we can support sending the bill to committee.
This bill also provides that the Chief Electoral Officer may consider conflicts with another election. This is an important measure. For my part, I do not question the Chief Electoral Officer's impartiality or logistical ability to organize elections worthy of a self-respecting parliamentary democracy.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is not enough to bring down a government.
I would tell my colleague that I hope to get Bill C-282 passed for our farmers before triggering an election. This bill is now in the Senate and is being held up by Conservative and Liberal senators, despite the fact that it was passed almost unanimously in the House. I hope my colleague feels the same way I do.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 1:11:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it happens all too often that we show up in committee after having voted for a bill in principle, but we do not get a chance to introduce amendments because of the Liberal majority.
The Canada Elections Act is too important to take that risk. There is no way we can trust people who had the gall to present what they did. It is crooked, and we do not trust people like that.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, let us acknowledge the fact that any legislation amending the Canada Elections Act is significant. This act is the cornerstone upon which the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy, elected officials and, by extension, the government, lies.
My first comment is that this important bill was introduced 48 hours before the summer break, along with a gag order. That is great for debate. They want to facilitate voter turnout. That is the obsession behind this bill, and yet the Canada Elections Act is one of the most lax when it comes to the ability to vote. I will get back to that later.
This is an important bill, fundamental to the legitimacy of parliamentary democracy, yet it was introduced with a gag order. They do not want much discussion. Moreover, people will go on vacation and they are supposed to know what is in the bill. The Liberals think that, during vacation, the bill will get media coverage; they will talk about it and list all of its benefits. Working this way is an affront to the intelligence of members of Parliament and voters.
That is not all. The bill also proposes postponing an election set for a specific date. The October 20, 2025, election would be postponed to October 27, 2025, supposedly to accommodate the Hindu festival of lights, which is not a provincial or federal holiday.
It may have been a noble intention, but this noble intention is hiding the elephant in the room, which is allowing 22 Liberal members and three ministers to get their pension. Let me point out that it is the Liberals who introduced the bill. They were one day short of eligibility for a pension. That is their true motivation.
In my opinion, the rule of law should not be subject to religion. Anyone who has a modicum of respect for religion does not use a belief system to justify a pension. That is what this outgoing government is doing while claiming that it is a very important bill.
Now we are being told that this part could always be removed from the bill. However, even if I had wanted to make an amendment, the Conservative Party's amendment does not allow me to introduce a sub-amendment.
That is why the Bloc Québécois will be voting against this bill. We cannot endorse such a travesty. We cannot endorse an affront to voters' intelligence. If there were only one day to vote, in addition to the two days of early voting, we might consider it. Now, if we add the two days proposed under Bill C‑65, there are six days of early voting. That is unheard of anywhere else in the country.
Why have six days of advance polling? It is because voters have developed a habit of going to the polls before election day. Add in election day and voters have seven days, yet that is still not enough. Not only are there six days of advance polling, but voters can go and vote every day at the returning officer's office.
Now we are being told that there is a festival of lights, which will affect people's ability to go and vote on the big day. We pointed out that they can also vote by mail, but the government said no, we really must accommodate them. It truly feels the need to sacrifice the rule of law to religion, because it is a religious holiday. What a load of rubbish. That is why I am saying that this is an insult to voters' intelligence.
When there are six days for advance polling, in addition to election day, when people can vote every day at the returning officer's office, when people can vote by mail, when there is a mobile polling station for people with reduced mobility and when people can vote in a long-term care home, I do not want to hear about how access to voting is being restricted. What more do they want? The next Elections Act will add two more advance polling days. Election day is no longer the only day when people go out to vote.
We are being told that the election really needs to be put off by one week. This one-week postponement proves how little regard this government has for municipal democracy. In Quebec, there will be elections happening six days later in over 1,100 municipalities. In 2021, turnout fell by 6% because there was a federal election at the same time, although the federal election finished much earlier than the municipal election, which is also on a fixed date. It is not like anyone can claim to be unaware that there will be elections in Quebec in more than 1,100 municipalities. It is 1,108 or 1,109, if memory serves. It is not like no one knows about it. It is on a fixed date, so it always happens at the same time. This government has so little regard. There are municipalities where the turnout in 2021 was as low as 18%, despite a desire and indeed a need to treat municipal governance not as an administrative extension of the Quebec government, but as a full-fledged government in its own right, a local government.
From a logistics standpoint, how will the Chief Electoral Officer go about finding polling places? I would love to hear someone explain that. That will really be something. In 2021, it was already difficult enough. It was a total mess. Now the Chief Electoral Officer will have to compete with municipal returning officers. Will the Chief Electoral Officer be able to use municipal facilities as polling places? The answer is no, not a chance. In Quebec, it is already hard to secure schools to use for advance polls. That is the reality. Those geniuses across the way say it is because they want to accommodate the festival of lights, but it was certainly not a brilliant decision on their part. That is the least we can say.
There are some good things in this bill, to be sure. The problem is this obsession with voting accessibility.
This government is so obsessed with voting accessibility that it is forgetting the need to strike the right balance between preserving the integrity of the process and preserving voting accessibility.
This bill could have been worded in such a way as to simply provide for polling stations in post-secondary institutions, two extra days of advance voting, an easier process for setting up polling stations in care homes, and better tools to combat foreign interference and to ensure the integrity of the electoral process. Had the bill been worded that way, the Bloc Québécois would have considered it worthwhile, but what about municipal elections? Are municipal elections not important?
Did my colleagues know that voter turnout was 44.7% in 2017? In 2021, it was 38.6%. Remember what happened in Quebec in 2008. We need to learn from the past, because these things really happened. In 2008, there was a federal election, and the Jean Charest government called an election in Quebec for six days after the federal election day. Voter turnout in Quebec had always been around 80%, 81%, 78% or 79%, but this time it dropped to 57%. Obviously, people thought he would be punished because he had just been elected. No one had decided to oust the minority government. He wanted to get both hands on the wheel. He focused on the economy, but Quebeckers' savings in the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec were in free fall, and there was no more money under the mattress. The Caisse lost $40 billion. Because he did not want to face this economic disaster during an election, he called an election.
We have fixed-date elections. Unless we bring down the government next spring if it presents a budget no one wants, the election date is set. Bill C-65 states that the Chief Electoral Officer can make accommodations if the fixed election date is in conflict with municipal elections. That is in the bill. However, they decided to choose the festival of lights, a religious holiday, over municipal democracy. Earlier, I heard someone say that Alberta would be holding municipal elections around the same time, and so will Quebec.
In my opinion, someone who has their priorities straight, based on principle, does not subordinate the rule of law to religion, especially when the religious holiday in question is not even recognized as a statutory holiday. If we had to consider all of the different communities' holidays, we might have a hard time. This is creating a precedent. If we decide to accommodate everyone, we will have a bit of a problem. I do not think these communities are even asking us to do that. These people are not even asking for it, and for good reason. They will have plenty of ways to avoid losing their right to vote. For example, they could vote by mail. In fact, the bill would improve the conditions surrounding this special voting method.
It makes no sense. We understand what we need to understand: The government is weaponizing a religious belief, a religious holiday, for purely pecuniary and political purposes. Then it wonders why people are cynical about their representatives and why people do not bother to vote. Does anyone here think there will be enough lampposts during the next election to support the posters for all these municipal and federal political parties? The parties in the House of Commons are not the only ones that will be represented in the federal election. It will be chaos.
The Liberals could at least have made some space and factored that into the bill. This would have given the Chief Electoral Officer the freedom he needs in the lead-up to the election to make sure the process goes smoothly, with no complications, because there are going to be insurmountable logistical problems on the ground.
They should just go talk logistics with the returning officers. As candidates, we had to meet with the returning officers during the last election. They were tearing their hair out. I am anxious to see whether my returning officer has any left. I think it is the same person as in 2021.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will definitely not be supporting this bill without any other guarantees, even in principle, because this was not an acceptable principle to present to the House.
1774 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 11:50:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about the parts of the bill that he, like us, considers very important. However, he avoided talking about postponing the elections, a proposal supposedly aimed at accommodating Canada's Indian communities for Diwali, the festival of lights.
Can my colleague look me in the eye and tell me that the Liberals are not using Diwali as a pretext for allowing 22 Liberal members and three ministers to qualify for a pension?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/18/24 11:15:50 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, voting in federal elections is allowed every day at the office of the returning officer. Currently, without the law, there are four days of early voting prior to voting day, people can vote by mail and they can vote on campuses. Simply put, there are plenty of opportunities to vote.
Officially, the government is citing the need to accommodate the festival of lights, Diwali, a holiday celebrated by Indian communities, to justify postponing election day. The Liberal government has chosen to integrate the religious calendar into the electoral calendar. It has chosen to subordinate the rule of law to religious considerations. With that in mind, I would like the member to tell me what he thinks of this official reason.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 6:36:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is no interpretation.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/24 4:50:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc Québécois are in favour of transparency. It is important to be able to make informed decisions and have informed debates. We are also in favour of this motion because intellectual integrity means a lot to us, unlike some Conservative members from Quebec who have spent the past year fearmongering about the carbon tax and saying it applies in Quebec when it does not.
They tried to tell us that it was terrible, that it was a disaster and that its indirect effects were causing the economic crisis. On the issue of inflation, the Leader of the Opposition constantly quotes the Bank of Canada, which is not just anyone. However, Bank of Canada representatives told the Standing Committee on Finance that the indirect effect of this carbon tax on Quebec was 0.02%.
This means that it costs 20¢ out of every $1,000. I would like my colleague to explain why the government is withholding information if it is so proud of this environmental measure.
177 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/11/24 11:37:20 a.m.
- Watch
He is laying it on a bit thick, Madam Speaker. I do not have enough time to go over and correct my colleague's remarks. Everyone is to blame but them. Basically, he is promoting single-party rule, a return to totalitarianism. His conception of democracy is that Canada would be better off if all 338 seats went to the Conservatives.
I would like to know why my colleague always votes against the Bloc Québécois's proposals aimed at doing away with tax havens. He said that Canadians of every social class are paying too much in taxes. Canada's big banks have tax shelters and make billions in profits each quarter. Why does he vote against that?
Why does he vote in favour of oil companies continuing to receive tax subsidies despite making billions of dollars a year? Is that his vision of equity across social classes?
152 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/24 3:58:34 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, he cannot deny that the Auditor General released a report. The findings of that report are absolutely devastating and require an in-depth review.
Taxpayers expect accountability. They expect us, as elected officials, to be able to shed light on this type of scandal.
Is he prepared to ensure that we are given access to all of the documents?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/4/24 1:37:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as my colleagues mentioned earlier in their analysis of the NDP motion, it is targeting a genuine problem but proposing a false solution. How would we cap the prices of essential foods?
I would like my colleague to tell me how the price of bread can be capped when wheat prices are negotiated on the Chicago Stock Exchange.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 1:46:20 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the House recognized Quebec as a nation. Through a unanimous vote in its National Assembly, Quebec is calling for a right to opt out with full compensation to improve its own program, which it has been administering for 30 years.
Does the leader of the NDP agree with the Quebec National Assembly?
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as my colleague has clearly demonstrated, Bill C‑64 is much more the expression of an election agreement than of a bill. Why? That would be because a bill of this scope would have required prior coordination, at least with the nation that put a system in place 30 years ago.
Here in the House, the Quebec nation has been symbolically recognized on two occasions, but the moment that that has a legislative impact, it is out of the question. The National Assembly unanimously agreed that it wanted the right to opt out with full compensation to improve its plan. What is so hard to understand about that? My colleague clearly demonstrated that.
The worst part is that, in addition to the first phase of the bill, the government intends to implement something with no accountability. Has anyone ever seen a Canadian prime minister lose their seat in an election because of health care? It has never happened. Why? Because health care has never been their jurisdiction. In Quebec, however, governments have fallen over health care.
The government wants to meddle in the affairs of others, and with no political accountability, to boot. What does my colleague think about that?
205 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 12:57:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebec realized a long time ago that it needed pharmacare. The Bloc Québécois is calling for Quebec to have the right to opt out with full compensation, so that it can improve its plan. That is also what the Quebec National Assembly called for unanimously, across party lines.
I have a simple question for my Conservative colleague. What are the Conservatives proposing for pharmacare?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/3/24 12:24:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague talked about the contributions needed from Quebec and the provinces. Would he not agree that, when it comes to pharmacare, Quebec is already making a significant contribution with its hybrid program, which does cover everyone? Even people with no income are covered by the public component. We do have a public component.
First, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on whether it would be more cost-effective for the federal government to give us our share so that we can improve our own system based on the federal government's objectives, in order to avoid harmonization issues.
Second, given that any duplication really bothers me, I would like to know what the Canadian drug agency is going to do that the Institut national d'excellence en santé et en services sociaux, the Quebec institute for excellence in health and social services, is not already doing in Quebec.
158 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 2:19:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in February 2023 the joint committee recommended, by a strong majority, that individuals suffering from such diseases as Alzheimer's or dementia be allowed to make an advance request for medical assistance in dying.
Although 83% of Canadians support advance requests, the health and justice ministers are unequalled in their complete lack of political courage and total failure to understand the file. They still expect afflicted patients to bear the burden of having to argue their case in court.
Today, buoyed by the support of the Collège des médecins du Québec, the Barreau du Québec, the Chambre des notaires du Québec and a number of associations, we again call on the government to allow Quebec and any province so inclined to move forward with advance requests.
To those who are suffering, like Ms. Demontigny, I would just like to say that we will never forget them and we will never abandon them.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
