House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2025, with 35% of the vote.
Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees November 24th, 2021
Madam Speaker, we need to remain in step with what is happening in the rest of society.
People are starting to see each other more often. Thanks to double vaccination, it is becoming easier to see each other with as little risk as possible. There will never be zero risk, but we must be realistic and respect the public by doing what we are asking them to do.
Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees November 24th, 2021
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.
Before I begin to talk about that, we should perhaps come back to the situation of the House employees who were pushed to the limit. Many of them had to go on sick leave. We may have abused the technical support resources. We might have to consider that as well.
We are no different than the rest of society. If we are able to go to the Bell Centre, the movie theatre or anywhere else, then we are able to get here, respect the health measures, wear a mask at all times and maintain a social distance. That way there will be no situation like the one our colleague mentions.
Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees November 24th, 2021
Madam Speaker, I am being asked to explain the inexplicable. The ministers were not in the House. How do we explain that?
Explaining that is about as easy as eating an apple through a tennis racquet. In other words, it is impossible.
I hope this party will get with it, roll up its sleeves, take responsibility, have respect for the public and come to the House to answer our questions.
Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees November 24th, 2021
Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague for raising this interesting question about double vaccination.
The answer is quite simple: If everyone is fully vaccinated, there will not be any problem.
Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees November 24th, 2021
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît.
Next, I would like to take a moment to thank my constituents for putting their continued trust in me. I am very pleased and very honoured to serve them. I want to say hello to all of them. I would also like to thank the volunteers on my team who worked hard so that the Bloc Québécois could keep the riding of La Prairie. Finally, I would like to thank my leader because I likely would not have won without his help.
After I won the first time in 2012, someone told me that it was all well and good to get elected but that, when a person gets re-elected, it is as though the voters are adopting them after trying them out the first time. I am therefore very pleased to have been re-elected. I will work extremely hard so that my constituents do not regret it.
Extraordinary circumstances call for extraordinary measures. What happened in March 2020 is undeniable proof of that. That is when COVID was spreading. The House immediately responded to this public health crisis in a coherent manner. When I say “in a coherent manner”, I mean that the House needs to remain in step with what is going on in the rest of society. It has to move in the same direction. It has to lead by example as well. The moment this threat was upon us, all parties joined in the effort to say that we were closing up shop for a month. The rest of the people were in almost total lockdown, that is what had to be done. All parties took responsibility.
Then we saw that society had decided to partly reopen some services, so we reopened Parliament in a hybrid format. It was the right thing to do, everyone agreed on that. Since then, things have changed. We need to adapt to change. We have to keep up with the reality of society. We cannot live in an ivory tower and say that we are going to react differently than the people are reacting. That makes no sense, because we represent them.
Along came the vaccine. The vaccine works well against existing variants. Generally speaking, it protects us from serious effects of the disease. It makes us less likely to transmit the disease. Being double-vaxxed means we can almost get back to normal. That is important, and that is why the Bloc Québécois supports double vaccination. Everyone here is double-vaxxed for sure. We have to lead by example. We have to reassure people, tell them it is important to get vaccinated, and prove it by doing it. That is the message we need to send. We are very happy about that.
The Board of Internal Economy has said—insisted, even—that everyone who comes here must be double-vaxxed, with few exceptions. That was the right thing to do.
Things have changed. We have a vaccine. Things have changed for everyone. People, ourselves included of course, are going back to restaurants. People are going back to the movies. I went on the weekend, and the place was packed.
People are going back to the Bell Centre. They would like a better team, of course, but they have to make do with what they have. I went. I was wearing a mask, and I wondered if I would take it off to holler if the Canadiens scored, but there is no need to go there because the team lost 6-0. People were masked. There were only about 12,00 people, not 18,000, and we were all masked.
There are 338 members in the House, but we are being told that this no longer works and we need to have a hybrid model and not take any risks. The thing is, it is important to return to sitting in person. It is our job and it would be a sign of returning to normal. This is how Parliament has been operating since 1867 and we have to go back to that way of doing things. This will force the government to be accountable to the House because until recently, we got the impression that they were trying to run away.
When I do good things it makes me happy. I go out and tell everyone all about it. Were they hiding because they were not doing good things? Did they lack the courage? I would not say so. I would say that they may have been embarrassed. When I look at the Liberal record, I can understand them a bit. I too might have seen the appeal of the hybrid model.
It is easier to interact with each other in the House. All the members do it. We all have files in our ridings. We meet with members by walking across the House and they are generally and even always nice. This allows us to plan for government interventions in our riding. This allows the media to be more aware of our work, and therefore better able to inform the public about what the MPs are doing in the House. It is important to get back to that.
Yes, there will be monitoring, just as public health in Canada or Quebec are constantly monitoring the situation. The movie theatres have reopened, knowing that if anything happens we might have to take a step back. We are not aliens and we can do the same thing here in the House.
The hybrid model had its share of problems as well. Some sure did like to eat treats in the basement and vote. We know that there were some problems for the interpreters, who had some serious health issues, since House resources were stretched thin. We have to respect what these people managed to do. They got the job done.
There is no question that French was used much less often in the hybrid model. The government talks about protecting French in the House. The Leader of the Government in the House of Commons speaks French very well and I commend him for that. He wants to speak French, but if they want to keep on using French, they will have to acknowledge that French was used less frequently in the hybrid model. That is important to point out.
How about the other parties? I am going to speak mostly about the government side. I do not know what happened during the last session of Parliament, but at one point there were a few of them here and then, all of a sudden, there was just one person. It was not a minister; it was the member for Kingston and the Islands and he was brave. He was always there and, as much as I hate to admit it, he was tenacious and did his job. We were happy to see him, because he was the Liberal Party. There was no one else.
My colleague from Montarville, who delivered an excellent presentation, said that the worst part was that they answered questions while they were right here in Ottawa. They hid in their offices and, oddly enough, sometimes, when they found themselves in hot water, they would suddenly have technical difficulties. It was not clear and we thought it was strange. Then we would go back to the question but no one could hear the answer. Sometimes it sounded like R2-D2 talking. They loved it, because they were not in the House. If I look at their record, they must be embarrassed, but it must have suited them. When I asked if they were going to come back to the House, they reminded me of groundhogs, as though they were waiting to see their shadow before coming out of their hole. I asked if they had seen their shadow and if they would eventually come back to the House, but no, there was only one left in the House. The situation was serious and appalling. After the lockdown ended across Canada and Quebec, there was still only one Liberal MP left.
This summer, a miracle happened: The Liberals decided to call an election. That is when they came out of hiding and met with people. There were Liberal Party videos showing a lot of people close together, waving and hugging each other. Any more and they would have been breaking out the coconut punch and giving each other noogies. It made no sense. I thought that we would finally get back to the in-person format, but no. After the election, they decided to go back into hiding, because it is not easy and they are once again getting flustered. This is a bad sign.
When someone is proud of what they are doing, they face up to it and stand by their record and accomplishments. They are not embarrassed, and they look people in the eye. It would be nice if the Liberal Party started doing that.
Privilege November 23rd, 2021
Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring to your attention certain points that I believe are essential for your consideration with regard to my colleague's question of privilege.
On the last day of the last Parliament, you promised the House that in the event of its dissolution should the government call a general election, the Speaker of the House of the new Parliament would review and rule on the questions of privilege that remained unanswered.
We are currently debating one such question regarding the failure by the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada to table documents requested by a formal order of the House on June 2, 2021. I believe that this question needs to be given priority, especially given its importance in maintaining the authority and dignity of the House of Commons and protecting constitutional rights, both the collective rights and privileges of the House and those of elected representatives as individuals.
I want to remind the House of two points. First, the government failed to comply with the orders issued by the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations on March 31 and May 10, 2021, and the orders issued by the House of Commons on June 2 and June 17, 2021. Second, the Speaker admonished the Public Health Agency of Canada's top bureaucrat for contempt. It is quite worrisome that the Liberal government's response to the House of Common's order was to take legal action against the House in Federal Court to seal the requested documents. For all these reasons, we cannot let this stand.
I repeat that this is about protecting the authority and dignity of our institution, and the Speaker has a duty to protect the constitutional rights of the legislative branch. The authors of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice addressed this point on page 82, stating that disobedience of a legitimate command of the House must be considered contempt, especially when a witness without reasonable excuse refuses to provide information or produce papers required by the House.
I would like to quote what you said on June 21 about this matter:
The privileges held by the House of Commons are an integral part of the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Parliament of Canada Act. These rights include the right to require the production of documents. Under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, committees of the House exercise these same rights when carrying out their respective mandates.
Although he was ordered to produce documents at least four times, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada failed to respect the will of the House, which is significant, and voluntarily failed to produce the requested documents relating to the security breaches at the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg and the firing of the two scientists from the lab.
The June 17 order was very clear that two things had to happen. First, the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada, Mr. Stewart, was to attend at the bar to receive the deserved admonishment for the repeated failure to comply with the previous orders of the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations. Second, he was to table the required documents, which, unfortunately, has not yet happened.
We debated it at length on the last day of the previous Parliament. The arguments that were made and the references that were mentioned give Parliament the full authority to use its power to enforce the orders adopted by the majority.
In closing, given the foregoing comments, we ask you to protect the parliamentary rights and privileges of the House and the elected representatives who make it up, to preserve the authority and the dignity of the House, which is no small matter, and to rule accordingly under the circumstances so that the order of June 17, 2021, is duly respected and the documents are properly submitted to the House.
The Bloc Québécois therefore supports the official opposition's proposal in this regard.
Privilege November 23rd, 2021
Mr. Speaker, I would like to respond to the question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague from Louis‑Saint‑Laurent. Could I have four or five minutes to speak, or is that too long? I would like to explain the Bloc Québécois's position.
Privilege June 22nd, 2021
Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the question of privilege raised yesterday by the House leader of the official opposition, who alleged that the president of the Public Health Agency of Canada did not fully comply with the order adopted by the House on June 17.
This question of privilege is quite appropriate. We are of the opinion that the order of the House was not followed in its entirety and that the House must act accordingly. It is time for it to act.
Last week, law clerk and parliamentary counsel Philippe Dufresne sent a document to the Standing Committee on Finance regarding the committees' power to send for papers, since the committee was finding it difficult to get documents from KPMG on its study of tax havens. This letter from Mr. Dufresne provides some thoughtful clarifications on the question of privilege we are discussing today. Regarding the refusal to produce the documents, he said, and I quote:
Only the House of Commons has the disciplinary powers to deal with this type of offence. The disciplinary powers of the House include, for example, the power to reprimand a person who is not a Member (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 164). In cases where the author of or the authority responsible for a record refuses to comply with an order issued by a committee to produce documents, the committee essentially has three options. The first is to accept the reasons put forward to justify the refusal (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 986). The second is to seek an acceptable compromise to obtain the information with certain measures in place. This could entail putting measures in place to ensure that the record is kept confidential while it is being consulted, such as in camera review, limited and numbered copies, and/or putting in place arrangements for disposing of or destroying the copies after the committee meeting (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 986, notes 180, 181, 182). It could also include having proposed redactions to the documents provided to the Committee or to my Office for review before any information is made public. The third option is to reject the reasons given for denying access to the record and insist on the production of the entire record (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 987). If a witness does not provide requested documents, the committee’s recourse is to report the matter to the House (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 165; p. 987, n. 183). Once seized with the matter, the House takes the measures that it considers appropriate (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd ed, p. 983, n. 166; p. 987).
The letter from Mr. Stewart's lawyer was tabled in both official languages in the House this morning. Mr. Stewart has no intention of complying with the order of the House for the time being, which brings us back to the third option I just mentioned.
The House has already considered what action should be taken against the Public Health Agency of Canada as a result of Mr. Stewart's refusal to table the unredacted documents before the Special Committee on Canada-China Relations.
The order adopted by the House on June 17 was adopted by a majority vote, and therefore the point of order raised by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is inappropriate. The Chair must rule on the solution, the remedy to be applied with respect to the documents that were requested but have still not been tabled in the House.
I will not repeat all the rulings and precedents that the House leader of the official opposition referred to yesterday. However, I would like to come back to some of the fundamental issues he raised about the importance of decisions that are made by the House, and I quote:
If the House does not respect its orders, who will respect the laws adopted by the House? Who will respect the regulations adopted by the House? Who will respect the political decisions made after debates, albeit spirited ones, but decisions that were voted on by the individuals who were duly elected by the public?
Therefore, we ask that you take one of the conclusions proposed yesterday by the House leader of the official opposition.
Broadcasting Act June 21st, 2021
Madam Speaker, time allocation is rarely acceptable. The Bloc Québécois defends the interests of Quebeckers. We have been saying so since we first got here, and we have never deviated from that guiding principle.
Bill C‑10 has unanimous support in Quebec. Quebeckers agree. Quebec's artistic and cultural community, the very essence of our own identity, is waiting. It has supported the bill for a long time now. The Bloc Québécois will support this time allocation motion to make web giants pay their fair share to our creators, who have often been taken advantage of by these giants.
I would like to ask the minister a very simple question: Do you think waiting is costly for our Quebec creators?
Privilege June 21st, 2021
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to reserve the right of our party to respond to the question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent at a later date.