- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Mirabel
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 62%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $216,581.38
- Government Page
- Jun/10/24 6:16:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is our international trade critic, so there is something I cannot help but wonder. Some of our trading partners are obviously taking the foreign interference issue more seriously than we are. The United States would never have let something like this slide for so long, and neither would France. Here, in contrast, the second opposition party is the one asking the government to expand the terms of reference of a commission that the government itself created. In my colleague's opinion, how does that make us look in the eyes of our trading partners?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 4:59:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on September 21, 2010, when my colleague was a minister in the Charest government, Le Soleil published an article that said, “the Charest government was hoping that Ottawa would recognize Quebec's right ‘to opt in or opt out of federal financial initiatives’ and that, if it decides to opt out, it would receive ‘full compensation’”.
The member voted against the Bloc Québécois's subamendment, which called for exactly the same thing that she was calling for when she was a minister in the Charest government. I listened to her speech and it seems as though she has changed her mind again.
What is her final position on Quebec's right to opt out with full compensation?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/6/24 1:18:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will tell them what I told a woman from my riding recently. When the details of the program were not yet available, she realized that she would have to pay with her credit card and then go onto the CRA portal to apply for a refund. Then, after having to wait for the refund, she would only be reimbursed for half the amount. Children are covered in Quebec. There is already a system in place and dentists are participating in it.
The government could have reimbursed people automatically so that they would not have to pay for their dental care out of their own pocket. People often have to use their credit card at an interest rate of 20%. That is what doing a good job means in a federal context. That is what Quebeckers are telling us. That is what they are experiencing. They are paying 20% interest to provide advances to the federal government for these services because it is the CRA that has to issue the refund.
173 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/15/24 3:58:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to thank my colleague for his very touching testimony.
Quebec currently approves MAID for certain conditions, notably those for which death is foreseeable. There are certain circumstances in which, we know, it is acceptable.
In this case, we are talking about mental disorders and neurodegenerative diseases. I understand that, because of his family situation, this is a very sensitive topic for my colleague.
When it comes to mental disorders, there is no consensus among experts, and we have obviously agreed to push back the deadline for including the issue of mental disorders.
However, when it comes to neurodegenerative diseases, which are diseases of the central nervous system, which are incurable and some of which, like Alzheimer's, lead to certain death, is it not possible that these illnesses are similar to situations in which MAID is already acceptable? Quebec is working on this and, I should point out, there is a consensus within Quebec society.
Have we not correctly distinguished the question of mental disorders, which are not subject to consensus, from that of neurodegenerative diseases, which are currently being studied by Parliament?
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:54:54 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, before the Axworthy reform of the 1990s, 64% of Canadians were covered by EI; today, 40% are covered.
Does the minister believe that going from 60% to 40% is the right way to help the unemployed who have bad luck in the labour market?
46 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:54:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, approximately 60% of workers who lose their jobs will not be covered by EI.
Does the minister believe that to be a sufficient rate of coverage?
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/29/23 7:48:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, there is the EI spring gap for temporary workers. There is the problem of inadequate coverage through the EI system. There is the actuarial financing of the EI fund, which is poorly suited to economic cycles and major disasters like the one we just went through. We have been calling for EI reform for years. Since 2015, the Liberals have been promising EI reform, but we have seen nothing of the sort.
Most recently, we were promised EI reform by August 2023, which is right around the corner. There was absolutely nothing in the budget. The actuarial calculation shows that an extra $25 billion will be taken from the pockets of unemployed workers between now and 2030.
Is the minister committed to keeping her government's promise to reform EI, or to at least announce a reform, by August 2023?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 4:57:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is an attempt to hijack the debate. I, for one, have problems with all kinds of laws, from a moral standpoint. There are laws that are passed in other Canadian provinces, in Quebec, in other countries and just about everywhere that I disagree with, whether they use the notwithstanding clause or not.
The precedents my colleague refers to come from trying to revoke the unconditional nature of the notwithstanding clause and add additional layers of interpretation, even though the Supreme Court has already been very clear.
The sovereignty of parliaments comes with the possibility that those parliaments will make mistakes. It also comes with the possibility that voters will sack governments that make mistakes.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I applaud the minister and my colleagues.
At the end of last year, we learned that the RCMP had allowed Sinclair Technologies, a company with ties to communist China, access to its security systems. We then were witness to a failure of regular surveillance mechanisms and a failure by the government to try to control access to our technologies by this company controlled in part by China. It took a long time before the government finally decided to end this contract.
My colleague is more familiar with Bill C‑34 than I am. With the new amendments to the Canada Investment Act, is Sinclair Technologies the type of company the minister, who is not listening to us right now, should pay particular attention to?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, if it was my words that were criticized, I could withdraw them, but it is a bit more difficult with my finger.
We are in a situation where a family has to go to the CRA, fill in paperwork and be audited. To qualify for this enhanced benefit, they will have to go to the dentist to seek services not covered by current programs and get through a bunch of red tape. Instead of helping their children do their homework, instead of spending time with their children, they will spend their time being audited to qualify for an amount that is not related to dental costs.
It is even worse, because we are waiting for some figures from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. We know that Quebec will have to pay for this. Quebec has a generous program that can be improved. This can be negotiated with the Quebec government. Quebec has a dental care program that covers children 10 years of age and under. It can be improved. The system already exists. The computer system already exists. Dentists know it, parents know it. For example, after paying for a child's filling, people are automatically reimbursed.
Because we get results, because we look after our own, because we have a system, because we stand together, because Quebeckers are united, they will pay. Parents in Quebec will not have access to as many benefits as parents in the rest of Canada. That is what is going to happen. In Ottawa, Quebec is paying the price for its solidarity. In Ottawa, Quebec is paying the price for looking after its own people.
The intentions may have been good, but who will be paying? It is the children of Quebec, the renters of Quebec and the single people of Quebec who will pay. I am not making it up when I say that nearly 87,000 Quebeckers will not qualify for the benefit. Between 80% and 90% of people do not qualify.
Let us return to the gag order, because it is of fundamental importance. These people from the NDP and the Liberal Party think they are so smart, so good, but they have tunnel vision. They have forgotten Quebec, they have forgotten Ontario, they have forgotten the New Brunswick dental care program. They have forgotten everyone except themselves.
They think they are so great that there is no need for debate. They think that because we have chosen not to get into bed with the government and have instead decided to support bills that are good for Quebec, to vote at second reading, to debate in committee, to examine bills clause by clause, and to do their job, the job they are elected and paid to do, we are not smart enough. They think we are not capable of reading a bill, improving it, looking after our constituents.
What are the NDP members doing? They are playing the government's game and supporting a gag order. Shame on those who go into politics, who get elected in opposition, in the party with the least number of seats in the House, and who claim they have the individual right to quash debate in this democratic chamber. Shame on them.
538 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to see you back here in the House. I sincerely hope you had a nice summer. It was probably much like mine, with a lot of time spent resolving problems with passport applications. Of course, we always enjoy helping our constituents.
We are considering a bill with noble goals and intentions. Bill C-252 deals with the prohibition of food and beverage marketing directed at little children. I am pleased to speak to the bill because I will probably be at the standing committee on health for the clause-by-clause study. There are a number of items that I will be very interested in looking at; I will come back to that later.
First, we must acknowledge that there is an obesity problem among adults and children. If we believe a report from the public health officer for Quebec dating from 2016, the trend is still clear. Fully 52% of the population is overweight. Approximately 18% of people are obese, and that is also true among children between the ages of two and 17. In children aged two to 17, the prevalence of obesity or excess weight has increased from 15% to 26% over time. The diagnosis is clear. We need to act. I think there is a role for public policy-makers and governments to play. That is essentially what this bill does, without claiming to fix everything.
We know the long-term consequences of childhood obesity. There is no clear cause-and-effect relationship, but we do know that there is an epidemiological link to cardiovascular disease, diabetes, musculoskeletal conditions and certain cancers. Preventing these diseases becomes even more important. Obviously, this is a prevention bill. However, the Liberal government, which includes the member who introduced this bill, refuses to give Quebec and the provinces the health transfers they are calling for in order to be able to provide people with the necessary care.
I would therefore encourage my colleague to pressure her caucus and her government. I know her well because her riding is not far from mine. I know her constituents are like mine. They think health transfers are important. I also know she has a member of the National Assembly in her riding, one of the MNAs who unanimously called for health transfers. It is important to listen, but it is also important to look ahead, and there are a lot of good things in this bill.
Some will see this as proof the government thinks it knows everything. They will see the bill as a socialist conspiracy. That is pretty much what my Conservative colleague was insinuating.
I can actually hear a small child in the House of Commons. That child may one day be protected by this piece of legislation.
Children cannot differentiate between information and persuasion. Their brains are not capable of it. The Standing Committee on Health heard from the president of the Association des pédiatres du Québec about child development. Children begin to distinguish persuasion from content around four or five years of age, but it is not until they reach seven or eight that they can really tell the difference between ads and content. They may not really understand until they are 11 or 12.
Most of the time, these ads are not meant to convince anyone, to provide information or to help consumers make informed decisions. It is persuasion aimed at children who are not in a position to make rational and informed decisions, which is why we need to support them.
I can assure the House that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill and this principle. I think it is a good thing. This bill is also consistent with the Quebec government's 2019 action plan to reduce the consumption of sugary drinks and promote water. Water can be drunk, but oil cannot. The Quebec government states in its report that the consumption of sugary drinks and the marketing practices that promote their consumption must be de-normalized. There is, after all, a cause and effect relationship.
Of course, someone in Alberta could always make comparisons and think they are just as thin as a Quebecker, and wonder why Quebeckers have advertizing laws. Such statements do not work. These statistics and comparisons between different jurisdictions are pretty shaky. This is counterfactual thinking, and these arguments are pretty weak. At the very least, it is hard to imagine that this bill will make the situation any worse.
Quebec's policy was obviously designed to prompt a reduction in the consumption of sugary drinks. The Bloc Québécois is here in Parliament to express the consensus of the Quebec National Assembly, the vision of Quebeckers and the vision of the Government of Quebec. It would be consistent with our mission in the Bloc Québécois to support this bill, at least at second reading so that it can be sent to committee.
This bill also reflects the recommendations made by the WHO in 2010. The Government of Quebec was not alone in considering this issue. This WHO report applies to the whole world, not just Quebec. One of the recommendations made by the WHO in its 2010 report reads as follows: “Given that the effectiveness of marketing is a function of exposure and power, the overall policy objective should be to reduce both the exposure of children to, and power of, marketing of foods high in saturated fats, trans-fatty acids...”. In short, we need to take action.
Experts have recognized that there is a link between marketing and consumption. We are not saying that it is a definitive link. We are saying that there is a link and we must act. That is consistent with the Quebec government's position, the Quebec government's strategy, the WHO's position and how the Bloc Québécois has voted in the past. I am thinking in particular of Bill C‑237, which, I believe, was passed unanimously by the House of Commons at first or second reading. We are being consistent with our past voting and support. We will continue in that vein with the bill being studied. There is also Bill C‑228 on food and beverage marketing directed at children; it died on the Order Paper.
It is only fitting that we support this bill. I invite my colleagues, including the Conservatives, to vote in favour of this bill. Let us support it because as parliamentarians we know that second reading is not a final step. If there are concerns to be addressed, corrections to be made and discussions required, I can assure my colleague on the Standing Committee on Health that she will find a colleague ready to work constructively on this bill, which I find quite promising. I know that it is well intentioned. Let us refer it to committee.
We are looking for some assurances in committee. First of all, Quebec did not help develop the federal, provincial and territorial framework for action to promote healthy weights. Quebec does not endorse any pan-Canadian response that encroaches on its jurisdictions, so we will have to ensure that this holds true for this bill. Furthermore, Quebec alone is responsible for developing and implementing programs to promote a healthy lifestyle within its borders. I say that, but, at first glance, it does not appear that the bill currently under consideration encroaches on our jurisdiction.
Plus, a simple reminder that Quebec has full jurisdiction over health matters, which I feel needs to be pointed out every day, if not every hour. Furthermore, we must ensure that the bill will not interfere with Quebec's jurisdiction over civil law. Section 248 of Quebec's Consumer Protection Act already prohibits advertising directed at children.
The bill does not seem to go much further, except that the Quebec legislation does not currently regulate store windows, displays, containers, packaging, labels, and so on. Some procedures will therefore need to be reviewed. Perhaps we will find out why my Conservative colleagues do not like the Quebec legislation.
I have said it many times and I will say it agin. The intention is good. The public health objective is good. The reasoning behind the bill is quite rational and well thought out. Now, once again, as is often the case with issues related to health legislation, there is a fine line between Quebec's jurisdiction and the federal government's jurisdiction. However, it is obviously worth it, because the health of our children is of the utmost importance. It is worth passing this bill at second reading, sitting down and studying it diligently. I invite all my fellow parliamentarians to do just that.
1472 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/19/22 5:04:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today we are talking about lifting restrictions.
The Bloc Québécois has proposed we look at lifting the restrictions gradually, but our Conservative colleagues refuse. They want to lift all restrictions at the same time.
If another wave were to come this fall, would my colleague agree to use the same method proposed in the motion and reinstate all of the measures immediately, all at the same time?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:38:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, no one is perfect, but I am obviously very proud of the efforts made by Quebec and Quebeckers.
I am even more proud that you, too, are a member from Quebec, Madam Speaker. When we achieve sovereignty, you will be with us in Quebec's National Assembly.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, spending a weekend in Charlevoix does not make one an expert on Quebec.
Quebeckers know that we can do two things at once, and they support our efforts to defend Quebec's political weight. The correct weight would be 100%, and we would no longer be here.
49 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière, who is also my office neighbour. He knows how much I like him.
The Liberals enjoy making us sit until two o'clock in the morning. They say they like to debate and move things forward. If we work quickly and effectively, we will be able to determine exactly the right thing in time.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 12:25:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague criticized those benefiting from the Chinese government's largesse.
Jean Charest, a Conservative Party leadership candidate, is among those who have supposedly benefited from this regime. He allegedly was paid tens of thousands of dollars by Huawei, an appendage of the Communist regime.
I am relying on the knowledge of my colleague, who has been a member of the House longer than I have. Would the study of the contracts between Jean Charest and Huawei fall under the new committee being proposed by the Conservatives, or rather under the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, on which my colleague from Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman sits?
113 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/12/22 10:24:55 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois welcomes this motion with great interest.
We know that China now has the financial means to hire foreign agents who interfere in the economic and democratic affairs of major economies.
One of the current candidates for the leadership of the Conservative Party has worked for Huawei.
Would my colleague be in favour of lobbying to have all the unredacted contracts between Mr. Jean Charest and Huawei tabled in the House?
79 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
