Alain Therrien

[Finance, June 10th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec needs to pay attention to Bill C-30.

The federal government is using it to bring back the Canada-wide securities commission. If that happens, the commission would wipe out Montreal's financial sector to the benefit of Toronto. That is why Quebec has been opposing this commission for 40 years and the Quebec National Assembly has voted four times in favour of motions against this project.

The Bloc Québécois managed to get the funding for the office mandated to create this commission cut from Bill C-30, but the Liberals are doing everything they can to bring it back with an amendment. The vote could be held on Monday.

Will the Liberals respect the unanimous will of Quebec and withdraw their amendment?

[Extension of Sitting Hours in June, June 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I commend the minister and thank him for his question. He raised a good point.

I am the House leader of the Bloc Québécois. At these leaders' meetings, as I mentioned, we expect the legislative agenda to move forward at a quick pace.

We unfortunately never really managed to understand this government's plan for its different bills or which bills were most important. We had no idea.

This government's management of the legislative agenda is extremely problematic and inefficient.

[Extension of Sitting Hours in June, June 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I salute the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell.

The Bloc Québécois does indeed speak a lot in the House and in committee, and we often make some very intelligent points, I must say.

We speak a lot because we have a lot to say. One thing I can promise is that we will never prorogue the Parliament of Canada.

When the Liberals prorogued Parliament, they made the House and the committees lose out on five weeks. The Bloc Québécois will never do that.

[Extension of Sitting Hours in June, June 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his comments. Yes, of course we would have preferred to discuss Bill C‑30, among other things. However, we cannot say the Liberals are entirely blameless in this situation. I watched in committee as members of the Liberal Party filibustered non-stop for three months. As the saying goes, sometimes people see the speck of sawdust in their brother's eye but fail to see the plank—or even the whole sawmill—in their own.

[Extension of Sitting Hours in June, June 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry. My hon. colleague from Jonquière is absolutely right. I mentioned it, but I used my inner voice. I was unable to speak because my lips were zipped. It happens sometimes and I am very sorry.

You are very kind, Madam Speaker, to give us a chance to share our time. You will not regret it because the member for Jonquière is a great orator. You will be impressed by what he has to say.

Now, for the matter at hand. That reduced the amount of time we would have liked to have in the House. Of course, we must understand that these are extraordinary circumstances. In addition to the pandemic, which is complicating the work that we do in the House and in committee because of limited resources, there is something else going on. I will give my colleagues the scoop. They will be impressed by what I know. We are in a minority Parliament. No one seems surprised to hear that, I see.

This means that an election can happen at any time. Some may expect, and I say so with due regard, that elections may perhaps be called in August, September or October. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister appeared on different television stations. It is as though the Liberals are getting ready. It is as though he had put on his running shoes. It may not mean that he is going to call an election, but it might be about that. Now, we are going to prepare for an election.

There are lots of irons in the fire. A lot of documents are on the table and they just need a little push to be passed. In some cases, it represents the fruit of almost one year's labour. Some bills have been waiting for a long time, and we must try to pass them so we can say that our efforts bore fruit. That is always rewarding.

The Liberals recently told us that they have priorities, including Bill C‑6, an act to amend the Criminal Code with regard to conversion therapy, Bill C‑10, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other acts, Bill C‑12, Canadian net-zero emissions accountability act, Bill C‑19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to the COVID‑19 response, and Bill C‑30, budget implementation act, 2021, no. 1. Those are the government's absolute priorities.

The Liberals also have two other priorities that they would like to refer to committee. I will not speak at length about them, but I am talking about Bills C‑21 and C‑22. We need to move these bills along.

For reasons it has already given, the Bloc Québécois absolutely wants Bill C‑10 to be passed by Parliament and the Senate, because that is what the cultural sector wants.

Madam Speaker, you know Quebec as well as anyone. You are the member for Brossard—Saint-Lambert, and there are surely artists in your riding who have called and asked you to help get this bill passed because Quebec's cultural vitality depends on it.

Quebec's culture is very important; it is the soul of a nation. This bill must be passed. Quebeckers are calling for it, the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously called for it, and my colleagues know that Quebec's cultural sector is waiting for this bill. We want to be able to accomplish this goal we have been working so hard on.

Unfortunately, we must face the fact that the Liberal Party is in power. I have been in Parliament for a year and a half. I was expecting to be impressed. I thought it would be impressive to see 338 members of Parliament capably and efficiently managing a huge country. As I watched the Liberals manage their legislative agenda I was disappointed on more than one occasion, and even very disappointed at times. They did not seem to want to get anything done. It never seemed as though they were taking things seriously.

For example, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs worked very hard on Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act regarding the COVID-19 response. We held 11 meetings and heard from 20 experts at all levels, and we finished drafting the report after the Liberals had introduced the bill.

If I were a sensitive guy, I might have thought I had done all that work for nothing. It might have hurt my feelings. Think of how much work went into coming up with solutions to help the government draft a smart bill. Instead, the government chose to introduce its bill before the committee had even completed its study, without even looking at what we had to say. To top it off, the government waited another three months to bring it up for debate, and that debate lasted just four hours.

Then it decided to move time allocation because the matter was suddenly so urgent despite the fact that the government spent just four hours on it over the course of five months, choosing instead to engage in three months' worth of obstruction at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which wanted to move the bill forward but was working on prorogation and had asked the Prime Minister to appear.

Once the obstruction was over, we asked if we could carry on with our work, but the government accused us of delaying the committee's work when it was actually the Liberals who stalled things. Once again, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had to get to work on Bill C‑19 at the last minute.

That is how the government is managing its legislative agenda, and I could go on about that for hours. On Bill C‑10, the committee wanted the ministers to appear but the government stalled, forcing the committee to wait and obstructing the committee's work. When we were finally able to begin, we were like excited puppies waiting for visitors, but the government said we were too late. However, it is the government that has created the problem we are facing today. We are being squeezed like lemons, and the government thinks that if the committee members are not studying an issue, there is something wrong with them. This is what happens when the legislative agenda is not managed properly.

Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois will support this motion because we want to move things forward for Quebec.

[Extension of Sitting Hours in June, June 10th, 2021]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be here today to discuss the motion moved by the Liberal Party that seeks to give us more time at the end of the session so we can continue to work on bills and extend our sitting hours. This will apply to three weekdays. On Monday and Wednesday, the House will sit until midnight, and on Friday, until 4:30 p.m.

That was not what was originally proposed. This is never usually a problem, because members here, especially Bloc Québécois members, are hard workers. When we are asked to sit longer, we almost always gladly say yes. We still have many bills to get through, and this will allow us to move them forward. At the same time, this year is different, which has made the debate a little more challenging, to say the least. After listening to the Conservatives for the past two days, it is fair to say that the debate has been a little more challenging.

This process normally runs like clockwork, so why is it more difficult this year?

It is because of the pandemic. We are working in a hybrid Parliament, and that complicates things. Because of the hybrid Parliament, we are currently having trouble keeping the committees operating as they should. We need to make choices because resources are limited and our incredible interpreters are overworked. We need to consider that the more time we spend in the House, the less time we will be able to spend in committee. That is a basic economic concept called “opportunity cost”. The gain from choosing one alternative means taking a loss somewhere else.

That is why the debate was a bit more acrimonious. I say that with all due respect. That is also why we discussed this issue with the government. The initial proposal would have eliminated eight committee meetings a week, which is huge. As we know, the work that committees do is extremely important. Eliminating eight committee meetings a week for the benefit of the House is all well and good, but it would have made the committee work more difficult. That is why time allocation was imposed.

[Official Languages, June 7th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers do not want the right to work in French; they want French to be the language of work. There is a difference. Quebec is not bilingual. It is French.

The federal government is bilingual. Francophone federal public servants say that they are uncomfortable working in their language. The federal Commissioner of Official Languages said that it is not a very inclusive culture. All too often, French becomes a translation language.

What is more, the federal government is the winner of the year when it comes to complaints for failing to comply with the Official Languages Act. Who would want to extend that model to Quebec rather than applying the Charter of the French Language? If Quebeckers had to choose, they would go with the Charter of the French Language. Why does the minister not agree with that?

[Official Languages, June 7th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec wants to apply Bill 101 to federally regulated businesses because it wants to protect French as the language of work. The Minister of Official Languages keeps repeating that she will extend the application of the Official Languages Act instead, but that legislation protects bilingualism.

Newsflash: Quebec is not bilingual; it is French, and the use of French is in decline. The government itself knows this and has acknowledged this. What is the minister going to do, use Bill 101 to protect the French language or use the Official Languages Act to protect bilingualism?

[Jocelyne Bates, June 7th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, her name is Jocelyne Bates, but I can only refer to her as “Madame”. This year, this exceptional woman, known for her striking smile, is celebrating 30 years in municipal politics. It is not nothing to spend 30 years working at a level of government that involves such close contact with constituents.

Madame Bates is passionate about her work, and she loves her town of Sainte-Catherine the way a mother loves her child. She knows everything about her municipality. She defends it, she takes up arms and goes to the front, she stands up for her community. She is simply extraordinary.

This may be a first in the House, but my Liberal colleague from Brossard—Saint-Lambert and I agreed to speak one after the other to applaud this amazing woman. That too is politics: knowing when to come together to acknowledge good things, regardless of our political stripes, as long as we are doing it for the common good. I would say that this approach of setting partisanship aside for the common good represents Madame Bates's attitude very well.

I will pass the baton to my colleague and again commend the outstanding dedication of Madame Bates, mayor of Sainte-Catherine. I wish her a happy 30th anniversary.

[Broadcasting Act, June 7th, 2021]

Mr. Speaker, using time allocation to speed up our work is a drastic measure that should be used sparingly.

However, it was the right choice for Bill C-10. Dozens of amendments have been adopted. The Bloc Québécois critic was extremely effective and had several amendments adopted that greatly improved this bill.

We cannot allow the Conservatives to block this bill and jeopardize the future of our cultural sector. It is important because every week spent debating represents the loss of millions of dollars. Quebec's cultural sector and Quebeckers are calling for this bill to be passed before the end of the session. That is why we agreed to proceed in this way.

I have a simple question for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. Should time allocation motions continue to be used only in exceptional circumstances?