House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2025, with 35% of the vote.
Personal Protective Equipment December 16th, 2021
Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a bit of confusion here. What I understand from the government is that the Liberals were supposedly slow to respond to the motion moved by the hon. member for Beauport—Limoilou.
However, they had plenty of time to respond. If they have gotten that slow, it serves them right. Everyone had time to vote on the motion, and it was adopted.
Justice December 16th, 2021
Mr. Speaker, there is more. It is comical.
Canadian cities have now gotten on board with the Quebec bashing. Yesterday, Brampton announced funding to challenge Bill 21. Oh, and they also called Quebeckers racist, because why not? Today, Toronto is joining in.
The worst part is that these people do not even know what they are talking about. They do not understand secularism and they do not understand Bill 21, not least because members here will not stop telling lies about it. They are grandstanding at Quebec's expense.
Will the government announce that it respects our democratic choices and will not challenge them in court?
Justice December 16th, 2021
Mr. Speaker, secularism and Bill 21 are being attacked by a united front of federal officials, including elected members from all parties, starting with the Prime Minister himself. The worst part is that this united front is spreading misinformation. Let us set the record straight.
State secularism is not discriminatory. It applies to everyone. That is a fact. The teacher, Ms. Anvari, did not lose her job. She was reassigned. That is a fact. She was not reassigned because of her religion. She was reassigned because she knowingly broke the law.
When will the government stop spreading misinformation and stop Quebec-bashing?
Justice December 14th, 2021
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister can say whatever he wants about Bill 21. Honestly, we are used to it, but at least it does not go beyond this place.
However, Bob Rae, the Canadian ambassador to the United Nations, went too far in sullying Quebec's international reputation. He claims that Bill 21 quite simply violates the Universal Declaration on Human Rights.
Quebec will not allow itself to be insulted by Canada's representative to the UN, especially given that Quebeckers pay for that representation. Will the Prime Minister call on Bob Rae to explain his completely unacceptable comments?
Justice December 14th, 2021
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister revealed his strategy for the Bill 21 dispute: in the early stages, let the opponents duke it out without getting too involved, so as not to give the Government of Quebec the chance to claim federal interference.
For now, the Prime Minister is not interfering at the federal level because he knows full well that this is Quebec's jurisdiction. We know it and he knows it. Knowing that, will the Prime Minister promise not to interfere in legislative disputes that do not fall under his jurisdiction? In other words, will he mind his own business?
Justice December 13th, 2021
Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous. Conservative members from outside Quebec, Liberal members from Quebec, Liberal ministers and the Prime Minister are lining up to bash Quebec and Bill 21.
Enough is enough. We are fed up. We are done with the Prime Minister's hedging on this. Time to set the record straight. My question is simple. When will the Prime Minister tell us if he intends to bring a court challenge against Bill 21, which was democratically adopted by the National Assembly?
Justice December 13th, 2021
Mr. Speaker, I want to set the record straight. Quebec's state secularism law was democratically passed by the National Assembly on June 16, 2019, over two years ago. That law applies to all Quebeckers and does not target any community in particular. It does not discriminate against anyone. All Quebeckers are subject to it.
I think that is easy to understand. However, the Prime Minister still does not get it. My question is simple. When will this government stop attacking Quebec's reputation here and abroad?
Health December 9th, 2021
Mr. Speaker, travellers go home, take a COVID-19 test, quarantine themselves and wait for the results. After a while, they do not hear back so they assume they do not have COVID-19.They start going out into the community and going to restaurants.
If they never hear from the officials, it may be because 14% of those who tested positive were never contacted by the feds. That means 1,156 people had COVID-19 and did not know they had it.
I do not even know whether to laugh or cry. How could such a fiasco have happened?
Health December 9th, 2021
Mr. Speaker, travel is complicated. After going through 108 steps at the border, travellers have to go home and take a COVID‑19 test. Then they have to quarantine and wait for the results.
Some time later, having heard nothing, they figure they do not have COVID‑19. They go out in the community. They go to restaurants. The thing is, not getting results does not mean they do not have COVID‑19, because the government loses 30% of those tests. That is what the Auditor General told us today: three of every 10 tests go missing or are incorrectly identified.
When will the government start doing its job properly?
Criminal Code December 8th, 2021
Madam Speaker, the government forced us into an election. I will repeat the remarks of my colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent, who quite rightly said that this election, which cost $600 million, was unnecessary.
We waited two months before coming back to the House. Everything was going well. The situation was under control. The government was in no hurry. Now, all of a sudden, it is an emergency.
We had very little time to debate this bill. Some Bloc Québécois members still wanted to speak. We do not understand what the rush is. I have not seen anyone in Quebec starting fights on buses to get this bill passed more quickly. I do not understand what is so urgent. I know that the minister just answered this question, but he has not convinced anyone here that the situation is all that urgent. The House still needs to be respected. We can appreciate the need to bring in time allocation when there is an urgent need to act, but right now, there is no emergency.
Why proceed so quickly without leaving time for discussion?