So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 221 - Sep/20/23

Sep/20/23 2:45:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we hear all sorts of excuses from the Liberal-Bloc coalition for drastic tax increases. They say that the carbon tax does not apply to Quebec, but that is false. The second carbon tax, which the Bloc Québécois supports, will add 20¢ to the cost of a litre of gas. After eight years, the Liberals have managed to convince the Leader of the Bloc Québécois to take more money from Quebeckers and send it to Ottawa. That is totally irresponsible if the goal is to help families who are struggling. Voting for the Bloc Québécois is costly. Why is the Prime Minister endorsing the Bloc Québécois's wish to drastically increase taxes at Quebeckers' expense?

134 words

Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23

Sep/20/23 2:44:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if the government taxes vegetable growers, the truckers who transport those vegetables and the processors, then Quebec families are bound to have higher grocery bills. While half of Canadians are surviving paycheque to paycheque, the Liberal-Bloc coalition seeking to drastically increase taxes thinks that Canadians are not paying enough. Not only does the Bloc Québécois support the carbon tax, but its members want to drastically increase it. Why have the Liberals and the Bloc joined forces to impoverish Quebeckers?

86 words

Context: House Hansard - 219 - Sep/18/23

Sep/18/23 2:43:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what we want is for groceries to be cheaper for everyone. Contrary to the Bloc Québécois's claims, the Liberals' carbon tax 2 applies not only to Canadians but to Quebec too. On June 1, a motion was moved in the House: That...the House recognize the failure of carbon tax one and call on the government to immediately cancel carbon tax two (the “Clean Fuel Regulations”). The Bloc Québécois voted against that motion. Worse still, the Bloc members want to drastically increase the carbon tax. Will the Prime Minister reject the Bloc's request to drastically increase the carbon tax at Quebeckers' expense?

116 words

Context: House Hansard - 218 - Jun/21/23

Sep/18/23 2:42:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal-Bloc carbon tax has caused food prices to soar. The cost of carrots alone has risen by 74%. My mother always told me to eat my carrots. She said they were good for my eyes. I encourage the Bloc leader to eat more carrots to help him see the cost of his support for the Liberal-Bloc carbon tax. The Prime Minister and his Bloc coalition are not worth the cost. Is there any hope that the Prime Minister's big meeting with grocery CEOs will eliminate this 74% price hike on carrots by Thanksgiving, yes or no?

102 words

Context: House Hansard - 216 - Jun/19/23

Jun/21/23 5:04:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to present a petition signed by 27 petitioners condemning the heinous acts committed by Russia in its unprovoked war against the people of Ukraine. The petitioners wish to draw the attention of the House to Russian forces' attacks on Ukrainian civilian targets and the recent attack on the Nova Kakhovka dam, causing a major humanitarian and environmental disaster. The petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to immediately and publicly designate Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism.

85 words

Context: House Hansard - 216 - Jun/19/23

Jun/19/23 3:01:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, opioids have killed 36,000 Canadians since January 2016. The Government of British Columbia revealed that McKinsey allegedly worked with opioid manufacturers that targeted doctors and pharmacists to increase opioid sales in Canada. That is unbelievable. Former director of McKinsey Dominic Barton gave the Liberal government some free advice. In return, the Liberal government gave McKinsey $116 million in contracts, many of which were untendered. Rather than rewarding McKinsey, could the Prime Minister commit to putting an end to all of the firm's contracts, given its involvement in the opioid crisis?

98 words

Jun/19/23 3:00:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, after eight years of this Liberal Prime Minister in power, Canadians have never been in worse financial shape. After eight years of this Liberal government, nearly half of Canadian families say they could not afford an unexpected $500 expense. What great solution did the Liberals come up with? They are charging an extra 20¢ tax on every litre of gasoline that Quebeckers buy. This will cost Quebec families $400 or more on average. That is outrageous. Will the Liberals get out of the way instead of making things worse for Quebec families?

95 words

Jun/16/23 2:35:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when employees from a minister's office or any department devise strategies to avoid answering legitimate questions from members of the House of Commons, it is, for us, a prima facie question of privilege. I therefore wanted to advise you that the member for Calgary Nose Hill wishes to reserve the right to respond to the comments made by the deputy government whip.

66 words

Jun/16/23 12:30:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Parliament is about to rise for the summer, but once again, the government is showing us that, despite its coalition with the NDP, it cannot manage the House agenda without having to ram through legislation by using time allocation motions. This is unfortunate, because the government is responsible for the agenda and the business of the House. If only it had managed things differently, we could have gotten through the bills that it wanted to see passed before the summer without having to adopt all these time allocation motions. As we saw this week, the worst part is that the government even moved a time allocation motion to change the Standing Orders, which is completely unacceptable and breaks with every tradition, since major changes are normally made by consensus. Will the Liberals admit that they are simply incapable of managing the House and that they could not care less what the opposition parties think?

156 words

Jun/16/23 11:54:43 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is so independent that when the Liberals got caught, they requested a process to review the decision by CSC. If it is so independent, then why did they request a review of the process? They found out about it three months ago. The Prime Minister's Office, his staff, the office of the Minister of Public Safety found out three months ago that Paul Bernardo, that serial rapist, would be transferred to a medium-security institution. That is unacceptable. The victims had the right to know. Why did they refuse to do the right thing and ensure that Mr. Bernardo was returned—

107 words

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Jun/16/23 11:53:22 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it was this government that introduced into Bill C-83 section 28, which states that all offenders must be placed in the least restrictive environment for them. That is why, yesterday, the member for Niagara Falls asked the House to adopt a unanimous motion to repeal this portion of the section and ensure that offenders such as serial rapists are placed in an environment that contains the necessary restrictions. That is simple. We could have taken action. Yesterday, the Liberals refused. Why?

85 words

Context: House Hansard - 214 - Jun/15/23

Jun/15/23 9:09:46 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-35

Madam Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to take a few moments to talk about the tragic accident that occurred in Dauphin, Manitoba. Fifteen people were killed and another 10 are in hospital fighting for their lives. On behalf of all my colleagues from Quebec, my Conservative colleagues and all my colleagues in the House, I want to say that our thoughts are with those who responded on the scene, the first responders, the families of the victims, who are at the hospital with their loved ones, and all the communities affected. We are talking about seniors, who are the heart of the community around Dauphin, Manitoba. I feel we need to take a moment to think about all these people who are currently going through extremely difficult times. I am feeling a bit emotional as I say this. I hope my colleagues will allow me to digress from the subject at hand, which is Bill C‑35. This summer will mark the 10th anniversary of the Lac‑Mégantic tragedy, when 47 Lac‑Mégantic constituents lost their lives in a tragic accident. It was the worst rail tragedy in eastern Canada's history. These moments are always difficult. A community can never really recover from a tragedy like this. Yesterday in room 325 of the Wellington Building, I had the opportunity to present a documentary directed by Philippe Falardeau about this tragedy. The title of the documentary is Lac-Mégantic: This is Not an Accident. Why was this title chosen? Because many things could have been done to prevent this terrible tragedy from happening. Some of my colleagues attended the screening, and they were all shaken by the images they saw, by the reminder of this terrible tragedy. When tragedies like this happen, it is our responsibility as members of Parliament to take the time to look at what happened, to take the time to analyze what was done then, what was done beforehand and, above all, what will be done in the future. We will soon mark the 10th anniversary of the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. It should not become just a date on which we remember things that happened. It should be a date on which we remember that we failed to do enough and that we must always do more to protect people's lives. People are counting on the legislators here in the House to make a difference when it comes to regulations and to corporations that are interested only in making a profit, sometimes, and too often, at the expense of safety. In closing, I thank my colleagues who attended yesterday's screening of the documentary. I also encourage anyone who would like to watch the documentary to do so. My Bloc Québécois colleague was there. Members of the Conservative Party were there. There were Liberals. My colleague from the NDP was there as well. Partisanship has no place here when it comes to doing our jobs. We can disagree on how to fix things or how to come up with solutions, but one thing is certain: We must all work toward the same goals to ensure that such tragedies never happen again. Just now, after seeing the images of this new tragedy in the media, I needed to take a few minutes to think back on what happened in Lac-Mégantic and remind these people that we are with them and we support them. I also wanted to emphasize that our duty as members of Parliament transcends partisan games. Our duty is to improve the lives of the citizens we represent here, as well as the lives of citizens across Canada. I thank my colleagues for allowing me to digress for a moment about these developing events. We are here to discuss Bill C‑35. My wife has been an early childhood educator for about 20 years. That has given me the opportunity to observe the evolution of public child care in the province of Quebec. I had the opportunity to see how these services were implemented because I was also involved in other levels of government at the time. I had the opportunity to see what a difference it can make for families, but I also saw what a difference it made for families that did not have access to child care. I saw how much hard work and energy went into ensuring that, first and foremost, child care enabled women to access the labour market. I will tell it like it is: Parenting responsibilities have traditionally fallen to women. Unfortunately, many women have to say no to a career, put their career on hold or delay going back to school because they do not have access to child care. That is the reality we are facing today. In recent years, we have seen more and more women enter the workforce, particularly in Quebec, and more and more women become totally independent. That is what we should be striving for. A growing number of women are getting involved in politics, in management and in decision-making positions. Madam Speaker, you are living proof of this. There are many things that a woman can do. Nothing is impossible. The fact remains, however, that when a woman decides to have children with her husband or partner—and I do not want to limit this to a man and a woman—when a couple decides to have children, there is always the issue of child care. When someone has a child, if they want to go back to work, if they want to keep their job, if they want to keep getting ahead, they may not necessarily be able to do both at the same time. They have to take a break. If the break lasts too long, sometimes women unfortunately do not get back into the workforce, or sometimes men do not get back into the workforce. That is the reality. The government came up with the proposal of a national early learning and child care system in Canada. We have already seen this play out in Quebec. More than 20 years ago, Quebec tried to set up a similar system. For the past 20 years, child care has cost less than $10 a day for families in Quebec. Does every mother, every family have access, 20 years later, to child care services? No, unfortunately. Why? Because the system is not able to absorb all the applications for child care. My wife is an educator, and I have seen up close the different attempts by the government to ensure that families have access to public, educational child care services. They were called placement centres. People went there to register their children on waiting lists. In Quebec, people practically have to put their child on a waiting list before they are even conceived. If they wait too long, the child will be two and a half or three years old before a spot becomes available. The Government of Quebec chose that system. The families who do not have access to this system, who did not have the chance to enter the system, whether at a facility with several groups, a yard and some games, or at a home-based service, which is also subsidized in Quebec, have no other option. If they do not get a place for two and a half years, families have no other option. They cannot access affordable child care because the Quebec government chose the public child care option. Public assistance will therefore go to those who are lucky to have a spot. Quebec is now facing another problem. I can speak to it because my wife is aware of it every day. Not only are there not enough spots, but now there are not enough early childhood educators in the system to be able to fill all the spots. There are children on wait lists that cannot access child care services because there are not enough educators. Some spend hours and hours with children without a break all day. At the end of the week they are burned out. They are spread so thin that, after a few years, these young women quit their jobs and look for other work. The system is struggling because there is not enough staff and families do not have spots. This is all because the Quebec government chose to put all its eggs in one basket, namely public child care and early learning services. The government could have chosen another option. If the government had offered help, mothers could opt to spend a year at home. Instead of putting all their eggs in one basket, the government could have offered a credit to mothers who decide to stay at home. The government could have chosen to offer a credit to families who want to go to the private sector to access a spot. There is a parallel network of private child care in Quebec, alongside public child care. Private child care costs a lot more, but unfortunately, the government does not contribute to that network. It costs families a lot more. They have to pay out of pocket right away. They will recover some of that money at the end of the year, but it will never be as much as if they had had access to the public system. The thing is, these mothers and families pay the same taxes and income taxes as everyone else, but unfortunately, they do not have access to the same services. The consequences of that are serious for these mothers. I often talk about mothers, but that is the reality. I wish it were not so, but it is. The lack of child care spaces primarily affects young moms. That is what we see. The government's proposal was to introduce a national child care plan that would reduce child care costs by an average of 50% by the end of 2022 and bring them down to an average of $10 a day by 2026. The question is, who gets these discounted child care services? It is 2023. Will everyone have access to child care at an average cost of $10 a day by 2026? Quebec has not been able to pull that off in 20 years. That is the reality. Everyone has good intentions. We want to do the right thing and help, but if there are no educators on the ground, it is not going to work. If there are no services, it is not going to work. If there is no incentive for a parallel network to absorb the surplus that the public network cannot handle, it is not going to work. That is why we have expressed some doubts. Will the promised results ever be achieved? I have seen a lot of promises. Every government that has come and gone in Quebec has promised to either move faster or offer more spots. At one point, they even wanted to increase child care costs and make them proportionate to salary, so that people who earn more would pay more. During another election campaign, it circled back to the idea of a single rate for everyone. In short, they have tried everything, yet, even now, there is a significant shortage of child care spaces. I therefore urge people to be cautious. I am speaking to mothers and families across Canada. There is no way that we will be able to set up a national child care system that is fair and equal for everyone in three years. It is simply not possible. If it were, all mothers and families in Quebec would have had access to a subsidized system a long time ago. I want to talk about something that is very dear to me. I am often asked whether these child care and early learning services are useful. I am told that babysitters are available, and I am asked these questions: Why should people who are not working not have access to child care in Quebec? Why should subsidized child care be provided to people who do not need it because it is available at home, since mothers can stay at home? There are many reasons, but it is not for me to judge. I can say that my wife is a child care technician. She was trained at college to be able to not only take care of children, but also support them in their learning. That is a good thing. It is needed. That is the choice that Quebec made. Now, what I would like for Quebec, Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia, is for the program being brought in to allow the provinces to choose the system that works best for them. We know that it is not easy because in 20 years, Quebec has been unable to create enough spots. I would also like the program to allow families to have a choice and create the spots that women need. It is great to talk about money and say that this is not going to cost much, but if there are no spots that do not cost much, then women and families will not have more access to child care services and we will be back at square one. Will Bill C‑35 help produce better results? I hope so, but I am counting on the provinces for that because they are the ones that will ultimately make the decisions. It is not the federal government that will make the decision. So why is the federal government imposing standards on the provinces on how they should set up their network of child care and early learning services? I do not think it is a good idea to do this. This bill seeks to confirm agreements that already exist. The government has already reached agreements with all the provinces to give them money to establish child care services. It is setting conditions. I believe that the best way to move forward would have been to remove the conditions and allow the provinces to develop the best child care services possible based on their situations. We could have then made progress and made it possible for more and more women to access the labour market and education to fulfill their careers and dreams. I would like to thank my colleague, the member for Peterborough—Kawartha, for the excellent work she did for our party on Bill C‑35. I think she did a lot of research and that she is very up-to-date on this matter. I will follow her lead when voting on Bill C‑35.

2465 words

Jun/15/23 3:03:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as a way to show the world his admiration for the basic dictatorship of the regime in Beijing, the Prime Minister wanted to personally contribute to its expansion in 2016 by proudly announcing an investment of hundreds of millions of dollars in the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank. We warned the Prime Minister. The Conservatives saw the trap many times. We know from one of its executives that the AIIB was in fact run by the Chinese Communist Party. Canadians should not have to pay a quarter of a billion dollars to expand the Beijing regime. When will the Prime Minister get our money back?

106 words

Jun/13/23 10:41:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I challenge my colleague to tell me, of all the changes he has just noted, how many of them were imposed through the will of one party. How many of those changes to our rules were made by one party, without consensus from all members of the House?

50 words

Jun/13/23 10:40:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to give an example to show why it is important for us to be present in the House. Tomorrow evening, I am going to offer MPs the chance to watch a documentary on the Lac-Mégantic tragedy. All parliamentarians have been invited to join me to watch the documentary, to see what happened to residents and what caused the tragedy. Unfortunately, some parliamentarians will not be here and will not be able to attend the screening. Why? It is because they are currently in their ridings, instead of being in Ottawa to ensure that they are properly informed and up to speed on the issues that concern all Canadians, particularly those affected by tragedies like the Lac‑Mégantic disaster, for example.

131 words

Jun/13/23 10:38:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, according to the Standing Orders of the House, it is not a prop. I believe that we must not go too far or too quickly, and that we must do things properly. I was elected by the people who sent me to the House and who pay me a very good salary. I am well aware that people pay me to be here in the House, and this salary comes with sacrifices that we must accept. I do not see how I could explain to my voters why I should be able to work at home every other day rather than coming to Ottawa, when the contract I have with them is to come here to do my job.

121 words

Jun/13/23 10:26:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just want to acknowledge the excellent work of my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe. This evening, in his speech, with his parliamentary experience, he talked about the many years he has been a member here, both on the opposition side and the government side. He learned to operate within this parliamentary life that calls for a lot more than just standing up, giving speeches and sharing his positions. Parliamentary life is bringing the voice of the people back home here to Parliament, joining it to the other voices we hear across the country, throughout Quebec, in British Columbia, in the Atlantic provinces, in northern Quebec, to be able to have discussions between colleagues about what everyone is going through. After that, we can make more informed decisions on how we are going to vote, the bills we will support, the discussions we will have in committee. This allows us to see what is happening and what people are experiencing in this wonderful country from coast to coast to coast. Indeed, to me, this is a great country from coast to coast to coast. At present, the government is proposing 50 permanent changes to the Standing Orders, to make permanent a situation that was temporary during COVID‑19. The pandemic was a terrible time. Fortunately, the technology made it possible for us to continue debating. If not for the technology, the government would have preferred that we adopt the majority of laws without debate, without discussion, without committee meetings, because it would have made things much easier for it. However, the technology helped us get through the situation. The technology also has its faults. We see it today with the arrival of artificial intelligence. People believe that it may revolutionize the world and help everyone, but it is raising many concerns. Hybrid Parliament is not without its faults. The main fault of the 50 amendments that the government is proposing to change the way members work together in this chamber to make Canada a better place is the fact that these changes will impose a new way for the House to carry out its work, breaking a tradition that goes back many years. Major changes to how we work in the House are usually made by consensus. A consensus means that we agree, that we are working together. This can take time. It can take a while, especially when we are talking about opposing political parties that are not always on the same wavelength. One thing everyone must understand, however, is that we are all here to represent our constituents. We are all here to stand up for our values. We are all here to stand up for our principles in our various political parties. We are on the parliamentary playing field, where we exchange ideas and where these exchanges have been going on for decades in a relatively specific way, based on rules that sometimes seem a bit exaggerated. It is precisely the role of parliamentarians to try to convince other parliamentarians that their point of view is better than any other one. That is how it works. These are the kinds of discussions that should normally take place to amend the Standing Orders. We should have taken the time to do that. Yes, today's technology allows us to do things that were not possible before. However, these changes should have been made by consensus. All parties should have had time to submit proposals. As long as we do not all agree on a change, we wait and put it off until later. In terms of the voting app, we nearly reached a consensus. We were almost there. That could have been one change. The first change that could have been made was the remote voting app. We support using this application. I know that my Bloc Québécois colleagues were somewhat reluctant to extend it to all votes, but it was a step in the right direction. Unfortunately, in committee, when the time came to continue these discussions, one party—which is in the minority—and another party—which has an even smaller minority—decided to join forces and vote for these changes. They chose to work together to make sure things changed. That was the end of consensus. In the past, there was a majority government. I had just been elected shortly before that. The majority Liberal government tried to unilaterally change the rules in a rather absurd way with a motion known as Motion No. 6. It was moved in response to altercations that occurred between the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party whip at the time. The Prime Minister and the Conservative whip got into a spat and I would say that the Prime Minister practically assaulted him. Then, the government said that it was going to put an end to all this nonsense by changing the rules, but that did not happen because all of the opposition parties stood up and decided that the motion was not up to snuff. Still today, we would expect changes like these to require the consensus of all members of the House, particularly given that the government is in a minority position. Unfortunately, that is not the case. I would even say that the Liberals are braver than usual because they have the support of the NDP. Why are they braver? They now know that they form one party and they have the support of another party; with two out of four parties, that should be enough to change the rules. Canadians will probably not really realize that the government did not listen to the majority of the House, that we did not work on consensus. This emboldened the Liberals and made the NDP forget their role as opposition. The NDP basically decided to become a full-fledged member of the government in many ways. These changes to the rules are probably part of some negotiation between the Liberals and the NDP to get things that we saw in the budget and to get all sorts of other benefits for a very minor party that is doing business with a party that has a few more members. That is where we are at. The NDP members are forgetting that they are members of the opposition. They are letting the Liberals do the dirty work of changing the rules without reaching a consensus, but there is one thing the NDP is forgetting. Their party is going to remain an opposition party. There will be a change of government, but they will still be in opposition. That is just the way it is. Unfortunately, the party will have to relearn how to become an opposition party, just under the rules it agreed to change when it decided to support the Liberal Party. It will pay for that, one day. Unfortunately, in the meantime, democracy is paying the price. Democracy pays the price because the hybrid Parliament is a form of Parliament that we are just getting to know. We should have had more time to do a full cycle and look at the pros and cons and come to a consensus. That is why the Conservatives proposed setting an end date, but not just some random date we pulled out of a hat. We are proposing that the temporary measures come to an end one year after the election of the next government. That would give the next government enough time to see what worked and try to come to an agreement with all parliamentarians on whether the changes should become permanent. This is not something that should be done at the last minute, as my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle said earlier. This is not something that should be done at the last minute as the summer looms and all the bills are being rushed through with the Liberals' gag orders. We must operate by consensus. That is what gives the Standing Orders longevity. Imposing changes opens the door for successive governments to make changes to the Standing Orders. They will believe that anything goes because the Liberals will have broken the basic rule. According to the Liberals, when they want to change how we work in a democracy, how parliamentarians vote and do their job, there is no need for a consensus and they can do it provided they have one more member than all the other parties. Unfortunately, it is an NDP member this time. How sad. I believe that it would be better for the Liberals and the NDP to say that they have heard the official opposition and the other parties, that they will take a break, pause this reform and try to obtain a consensus. Small steps take us further than a giant leap into the void.

1476 words

Quebec
Covid

Jun/13/23 2:41:25 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the special rapporteur announced his resignation four days ago, but he will remain on the payroll long enough to produce a final report that has already lost all credibility. The Prime Minister is the one who chose partisanship by ignoring the three calls by the majority of members of the House to launch an independent public inquiry. As everyone knows, he selected a friend, a member of the Trudeau Foundation, whom he literally threw under the bus to protect himself and prevent Canadians from learning the whole truth. I am giving him another chance to call an independent public inquiry to uncover the truth about any interference by the Beijing regime in our democracy.

116 words

Context: House Hansard - 211 - Jun/12/23

Jun/13/23 2:40:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we learned this morning that the RCMP has opened more than 100 investigations into foreign interference. The RCMP is conducting investigations involving more than 100 Canadians who were influenced by a foreign state. A real leader makes real decisions. A real leader takes responsibility for his decisions. The Prime Minister does neither. He has no backbone. He is incapable of making important decisions. That is why he chose a special rapporteur and gave his friend, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, the option of trying to waltz around the issue and not have an independent public inquiry. Will he stop waltzing around and finally launch an independent public inquiry?

110 words