Caroline Desbiens

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I hope you found some spruce gum.

I have been wondering what approach I should take for this speech. There is so much to say, yet at the same time, so little. I can boil it down to a very apt phrase my grandmother used to say to me when I was little and wanted to play with the pie dough while she cooked for dozens of guests. This saying applies to all kinds of situations, especially when we look at the multiple instances of federal meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions: in all circumstances, if we cannot be helpful, we should refrain from doing harm.

I could stop there.

Federalism, by definition, is about pooling some of our resources, establishing priorities and areas where it will be good to do things collectively, identifying what might be advantageous to pay for together and then letting everyone do what they want with the rest of their resources. Quebec has the data, the institutions and the intellectual and organizational capacity to do it best.

The purpose of federalism is not to impoverish the members that make up the whole. However, it is quite the contrary here in Canada. It does not matter which political party is in charge. This happens under every government, with the aim of dominating the provinces, intruding into everything, spending outrageously, duplicating spending, and demanding more and more in exchange. The proof is that everything keeps getting worse. In the history of Canadian federalism, we have never seen so many conditions attached to such meagre proposals.

My colleagues across the way would have me believe that, in Quebec, it is only normal that no one cares about where the money comes from, that the important thing is that the money arrives. To all those who believe that myth, I am sorry, but that does not fly in Quebec.

Why would the federal government change its methods? Ottawa keeps the upper hand by maintaining the fiscal imbalance. That is its self-maintaining power. In a federation, there is a fiscal imbalance when one level of government collects more taxes than it needs to fulfill its constitutional responsibilities, while the other level of government struggles to fund its own areas of responsibility independently because it is underfunded.

There is a serious fiscal imbalance in Canada at the expense of Quebec and the provinces. It is recognized, and it has been studied and analyzed. The Parliamentary Budget Officer repeats this year after year in his report on the fiscal sustainability of the provinces. At the end of the day, the provinces' finances are not sustainable. As time goes on, the federal government is getting more and more leeway to interfere, because Quebec and the provinces become so financially vulnerable that they are prepared to accept any crumbs rather than have nothing. That is the worst thing. They are forced to give in through deprivation. It is despicable.

Take health care, for example. The federal government funds a meagre 23% of provincial health care spending. Its constitutional obligation says it could go as high as 50%. The premiers presented a united front and asked for 35%. That would have meant about $6 billion a year for Quebec. Quebec was told that it would receive $900 million a year, but it is still waiting on that.

Had the federal government fulfilled its yearly obligation to provide the provinces with adequate health care funding, their balance sheet would look very different. We would not be arguing about dental insurance. We would just have it, like we have pharmacare. The issue is not that we do not want dental insurance. The issue is that the federal government is not delivering on its responsibilities. It is not funding provincial health care systems adequately, and the provinces are being forced to accept anything rather than nothing at all. That is how we wound up where we are today. Then the government swoops in like Robin Hood to save the day. After starving people, it throws a few bucks their way to placate them.

Even under the Harper government, there was centralization of power. There is no status quo in Canada. The middle ground between sovereignty and assimilation, respect for Quebec's autonomy, has always been under attack by every federal party that has ever held power. Quebeckers have a natural, organic, creative impulse that has always driven the unconventional development of our society and kept it ahead of the curve. My background is in entrepreneurship in the regions. We know from hard work, resourcefulness, rational thinking and organizing for efficiency in the regions.

That was probably what struck me most when I arrived here in the House. I wondered where I had landed. There was talk about a lot of things that already exist in Quebec. When the rest of Canada wants child care centres and pharmacare like Quebec has, why can the federal government not recognize Quebec's progress and simply give it back its share of the tax contribution, unconditionally? Quebec can simply say no thank you, we already have all that, we want our share and we will determine where to invest that money appropriately, based on where we are at.

No, they do not want to give us that. They want us to calm down, not get carried away and wait patiently. They want us to pay twice for things we already have, for redundancies that muddy our system and seriously bog down all our incredible, ingenious initiatives that have always been our signature and our strength. We are herded like sheep, sending in our share of the money to be spent as the feds see fit. When it suits them, they send us a little money, just to keep us quiet.

On this opposition day—and I find these words to be particularly meaningful—we are saying that, for us, depending on a machine that is adding layers of red tape to increase its authority to decide our future with our own money is unacceptable. We Quebeckers are capable of conceiving, building and shaping our society ourselves. The proof is that, despite the many restrictions created in large part by the centralization imposed by the federal government, Quebec has nevertheless managed to provide more social services and win more economic victories over the years than many countries in the world, and that will continue. It will continue because that is who we are as Quebeckers. In Quebec, we speak French and we are close-knit. We support one another and we protect what we have. Our future is green and sustainable, and we are moving towards it with ingenuity and creativity.

Honestly, being dependent on a federalism that is caught up in its own areas of jurisdiction and feeds its own centralizing habits to excess makes us all the more eager to become independent. The Bloc Québécois is here for just that reason, to stop the federal government from constantly putting things in place to try to keep Quebec in line. The federal government is interfering in our economy, our resources, our public services, our values and our language.

For Quebec, that is unacceptable.

[Business of Supply, May 23rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I would just like to correct him and point out that we do not say “supporter” in French for “support”. We say “appuyer” or “soutenir”. “Supporter” is an anglicism in this context.

The Bloc Québécois was not deluded when it came here to defend Quebec's interests. The reason there are 32 of us in the House is that Quebeckers understood that they needed us to defend their interests in the House because nobody else was doing it.

This being said, I would like to tell my colleague something. If we had voted against the appropriations, many employees of the federal government in Quebec would not have been paid. Many seniors would not have received their benefits, which are paid out by the federal government for now, until Quebec becomes independent.

Our goal here is not to sabotage the government just for the sake of sabotaging the government politically, for populist reasons. Our goal is to take concrete action to ensure that Quebec is always as high a priority as possible in the federal context until things change, and I think that change is coming fast.

[Food and Drugs Act, May 22nd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, this bill amends the Food and Drugs Act to provide that natural health products are not therapeutic products within the meaning of the act and are therefore not subject to the same monitoring regime as other drugs.

First of all, I would like to announce that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of the bill at second reading, essentially to hear from experts in committee on the best way to regulate natural health products.

This bill follows what the government surreptitiously introduced in a schedule to the 2023 budget, through Bill C‑47. There has always been a distinction between drugs and natural health products, and that was a good thing. It seems obvious that natural health products, commonly abbreviated as NHPs, differ from drugs in many ways. We are not saying that they are all harmless; people should ask their pharmacist before consuming any such products. We also acknowledge that NHPs could interact with other medications. However, these are precisely the reasons why we need to examine these products and determine the best way to regulate them.

What the Bloc Québécois wants is to be able to verify whether the decision to subject NHPs to the Protecting Canadians from Unsafe Drugs Act, or Vanessa's Law, is definitely the best way to regulate them, or whether it places an excessive administrative burden on these products. Relatively speaking, these products present lower risks and have a different impact on health than traditional pharmaceuticals.

As the saying goes, sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Regulations could have the opposite effect to what we are trying to achieve, which is the well-being of Quebeckers and Canadians. The fact is that there are some 91,000 NHPs, 75 of which have been specifically analyzed. After checking certain sampled products, it was concluded that, since 2014, Health Canada has not been doing its job in terms of guaranteeing safe products. The government tried to gain credibility by using a bazooka to kill a fly. That is a reasonable conclusion.

The decision to subject NHPs to Vanessa's Law follows a series of recommendations set out in a report by the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development. In that report to the Parliament of Canada, the commissioner notes that the government does not have the legislative authority to compel NHP companies to identify unlicensed products and take appropriate measures to prevent them from being sold in Canada; identify unauthorized activities and take appropriate action to ensure that product labels and advertisements meet product-licence conditions; obtain the information it needs to verify and ensure that these products are no longer for sale in Canada; and force a recall or impose terms and conditions to mitigate the safety risks associated with these products.

Canada's natural health products regulations allow for licences to be cancelled to prohibit the sale of a product or to have it seized. However, there is no provision allowing the minister to force a product recall. Prior to Bill C‑47, recalls were therefore voluntary. Moreover, the environmental risks are not included, so there is some data missing.

As legislators, have we done everything we can to ensure that there is a balance in terms of access to NHPs to guarantee free choice for consumers? Have we done everything we can to ensure that when Health Canada approves products, it does its job and does the necessary inspections?

One of my colleagues, the member for Montcalm and Bloc Québécois health critic, asked whether an impact study had been done on the industry and on small and medium-sized businesses, concerning the recovery costs required. He was told that it was based on Treasury Board guidelines.

I imagine that the Treasury Board's main interest is getting its money's worth. What kind of service is it going to provide when, after all this time, and with all the taxes generated by the industry, it has not even been able to ensure products are tested or inspected throughout its mandate? These are questions that need to be asked. Where are the numbers on how many adverse reactions there have been to natural health products in 17 years? What are the numbers for adverse reactions to pharmaceutical products? We did not get an answer on that either. We know that even though they are approved by Health Canada, pharmaceuticals can sometimes have very serious side effects. However, that is no reason to disqualify them or discredit an entire industry.

It is just a matter of doing the work, carrying out tasks and responsibilities and making sure that things are done well. That seems obvious to me.

What we see here looks like a government uninterested in working to ensure the well-being of its people. Instead, it wants to pass on a hot potato before it gets burned. For a long time now, the government's inaction on many issues has been on full display. It does not know how to work the machinery of government, so a one-size-fits-all solution often seems like the easiest way around the problem. In reality, it is a very poor option.

We have to respect people's intelligence. To properly protect them, they need to be adequately informed. They do not need to have decisions constantly made for them. No one is forced to use an NHP. Consumers who buy these products have already looked into their effects. The role of legislation and regulations is to provide them with a proper framework.

My grandfather used balsam fir gum. He used it for a good part of his life and died at the age of 103. Was this natural health product approved? Probably not. Was it dangerous? Obviously not. He lived for over 100 years. It was not a dangerous drug either. To some extent, if we let the government have its way, balsam fir gum will probably fall out of use, and my grandfather would have been deprived of his traditional remedy, which had supposedly cured him of consumption. One day, after years of searching, he found it again on the shelves at his pharmacy, in capsule form. The midwife who had supplied it to him back in the day had died. This is why NHPs deserve a legal, responsible, credible and rigorous approach. People should be able to opt for a safe, natural solution with components that are recognized and identified, and whose effects are known and accessible to all doctors and practitioners.

Here, we vote on laws. We are not experts, but we need to act responsibly and with humility to put in place the proper legislative provisions. That is what must guide our decisions. That is why Bill C‑368 is now necessary. It must be sent to committee so that the parliamentary work can be done. If the government had been a bit more transparent, if it had held the necessary consultations, if we had all worked together to find a way to move forward without harming an industry that Quebeckers and Canadians have the right to access, then we would not be here today discussing this issue.

Unfortunately, the government has not held any consultations to date. The federal government has rather cavalierly dodged many debates on this topic, when the purpose of debate is to turn ambiguous questions into clearer, more appropriate directives. That is exactly why we are going to vote in favour of Bill C‑368.

The information I shared in my speech provides ample justification for Parliament to refer this bill to committee. A genuine assessment of the situation is needed given the government's claim that 88% of the 91,000 natural health products are substandard or use misleading labelling. Such a claim requires verification, since the methodology used is flawed. Indeed, the products were verified after problems were reported, and were then identified as substandard. However, this approach grossly inflates the data and raises reasonable questions concerning the methodology used. In our opinion, a randomized approach would be preferable.

Need I remind the House that we have the right to do substantive work to ensure that we are making the right decisions, voting for the right things and passing legislation in the public interest? Need I remind the House that we cannot be sloppy or try to get rid of things or hide the flaws that we did not bother to tackle, things that were swept under the rug because it is easier that way and makes us look good? It is a fairly common technique used by the current government to jump to hasty and ill-considered conclusions, only to impose drastic, rigid rules, where there are often more losers than winners in the end. The Liberals just want to be able to say that they did this, that and the other thing, that they passed this bill and that bill, and they are great. They want to say that they delivered. There was a problem with NHPs, and they passed legislation. It is not enough, but that does not matter. Fisheries are being closed. The government is not listening to those who work in fisheries. Entire villages are facing a socio-economic dead end. It does not matter, as long as the Liberals look good. They say they are going to save the biomass, but they are not saving anything. It does not matter, because announcements have been made. They pass laws and set up legislative procedures to interfere in provincial jurisdictions. It is full steam ahead. Are their solutions correct? Are they being applied consistently? No, but that does not matter.

What matters is that they passed legislation, that they spread their tentacles where they did not belong. That is the way to gain control of everything. They announce funding that is appealing to the provinces that have become so strapped for cash over the years—

[National Patriots Day, May 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, in a country, when statutory holidays are not celebrated throughout the land for the same reasons, that tells us something.

Yesterday, in Quebec, we honoured the memory of the Patriots, who laid down their lives while fighting the British Empire to protect our freedom. Meanwhile, in Canada, people celebrated the monarch of the same British Empire that hanged the Patriots and has yet to apologize for this act of colonial violence.

Chevalier de Lorimier and his brothers in arms were, however, on the right side of history. What happened since proved it. One of their demands was a responsible government, accountable to the people of this land.

While Quebec honours the memory of its martyrs, Canada continues to celebrate their executioners. When such division exists in a country, it is because that country is in fact two countries. Although the memory of the Patriots was trampled on this past weekend, we have to remember that the best way to honour their sacrifice is to win.

The Patriots' fight is our fight. Our victory will be their victory.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague. I was listening to her very emotional testimony. I support her and we are on the same page.

The opioid crisis is not a simple problem. This is a complex issue that deserves as much nuance as there are challenges and people having bad experiences when they use hard drugs. I think that the Conservative Party is in the habit of taking simplistic approaches to all sorts of topics. I think it is deplorable that, on this issue, they are taking such simplistic shortcuts as the ones that we are hearing.

I would like my colleague to tell us how she would respond to the public, who is anxiously waiting for us to provide all the tools available to stakeholders, so that we, in the House, can be part of the solution by voting against the motion. The motion is too simplistic and has too many Conservative shortcuts.

[The Budget, April 18th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I commend the efforts around the House to try to win the game, but fortunately the Bloc Québécois is here. I hope that there will be even more of us here after the next election, in the next Parliament, in order to control the different extremes on these two sides of the House.

Now, I would like to address my colleague. We are going to have to redefine affordable housing because in the budget we have just been given, I see that, once again, there is nothing, zero, nada, for seniors. For those who are poor and have not gotten significant indexing of the old age security pension in 15 years, they are practically going to need to be given affordable housing. Seniors no longer have anything to live on and they are unable to adapt. They either need to be housed or they need to be fed.

I would like my colleague to talk to us about our seniors in the context of this budget.

[The Budget, April 18th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, our political party's vision often closely aligns with that of my colleague's party. That said, I question how the NDP can support the fact that seniors have not had a substantial increase in their purchasing power through old age security for the past 15 years. The New Democrats have not shown a real willingness to reflect and move forward on this issue even though the Bloc Québécois has tabled a bill and has been demanding it for a very long time.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks. I know what he is going to say. He is going to say that they have dental insurance and pharmacare. However, we have to realize that seniors do not just need dental care and medication, they also need greater purchasing power to afford life's basic necessities. How is my colleague willing to support this budget when it has no regard for seniors?

[Business of Supply, March 21st, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know how the Leader of the Opposition plans to appeal to Quebeckers. We have heard him say outrageously incorrect things about mayors of our cities. Twelve mayors from my riding came to Parliament Hill yesterday.

At some point, will the Leader of the Opposition come up with something different to say about Quebec mayors if he wants to appeal to people in Bloc Québécois ridings?

[Municipal Officials, March 20th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we have some special visitors with us on Parliament Hill today. Over a dozen mayors and reeves have come to see us. Just by being here, they remind me of the beauty of the St. Lawrence, the mountains and the islands, and the deep love of life that defines their magnificent region.

What a great opportunity to clear our minds of some of the ugly comments recently made by others and, instead, acknowledge the hard and demanding work done by our municipal officials. Their task is not easy. It demands discipline, leadership and detailed knowledge of their community and of laws and regulations. They must also show empathy, kindness and courage.

My Bloc Québécois colleagues and I feel it is important to recognize them for their commitment and offer them our deep gratitude, admiration and co-operation. They are the very heart of Quebec's vibrant towns and villages.

Hats off to our municipal officials. To our visitors from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix and L'Isle-aux-Coudres, enjoy your stay.

[Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, March 19th, 2024]

Madam Chair, today is a day for timeless, non-partisan recognition that calls for tenderness and gratitude. My gratitude for Mr. Mulroney, his wife and their children is immense.

I am extremely honoured to take a few minutes in the House to pay tribute to this larger-than-life human that was Mr. Mulroney. In these halls and in every mode of communication, there have been countless tributes filled with praise and accomplishments. I will humbly add a few chapters of life shared with the Mulroney family to paint a deeply human picture of this exceptional statesman who was as endearing as he was dedicated.

It was fall 1984. I was a young singer-songwriter and the brand new Prime Minister of Canada and his family were expected to visit Isle-aux-Coudres as part of the famous passage of the tall ships that were sailing from Saint Malo to Quebec City. For the occasion, the islanders came together, as only islanders can, and organized a beautiful event in honour of the Mulroney family's trip to our small island. Naturally I was asked to contribute to the cultural portion of the event by singing a few songs for the famous family.

At that moment, I really felt that my songs played a role, that they had some kind of impact on people's lives. Until then, I thought that people only applauded because it was just me up there singing in front of them and it was the custom to applaud. I loved singing and capturing my Quebec in song. Having people to listen was a privilege.

But on that September day, the very same day that a certain Jacques Cartier named this land hundreds of years earlier, I was singing for the country's Prime Minister. I had no idea that Mr. Mulroney loved song and music, or that he liked to sing. Only seconds into my performance, I felt his deep interest in my songs, and the same from his wife and children, to the point that by the last chorus of my performance, Mr. Mulroney was already singing along with me. An understanding grew between us and music was at its core. The Prime Minister was also our member of Parliament. Other events in the riding followed, and from then on I became a fixture in the cultural component of his activities.

A few years later, I was contacted by the federal government protocol office, informing me that the Prime Minister and his family wanted me to come and perform my ode to the St. Lawrence on Parliament Hill. I was received by the Prime Minister. I performed my song as we floated down the St. Lawrence, accompanied by nothing less than the RCMP symphony orchestra. It was part of the celebrations for the appointment of Ray Hnatyshyn as governor general. This was in 1990, a few days before the failure of the Meech Lake accord.

As we left the island for Ottawa, my father, who followed politics closely, said to me: My daughter, go sing for your river, sing with all your heart, and hopefully one day it will be yours. Obviously, history has shown that this was not enough, for our river is slipping even further away from us, just ask Quebec fishermen.

For Mr. Mulroney, culture was the soul of a people. One day, in his rich, deep voice, he said to me, “Dear Caroline, a people that is guided by its culture and that nurtures its creations is immortal.” He cared about his roots and about everything that talked about or defined Quebec and the North Shore, where he was from. Many of his legacies demonstrate his love for culture. He helped to set up a number of important cultural sites across Quebec and Canada. Unfortunately, the Harper government later turned its back on many of them.

In the words our venerable colleague and the dean of the House, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, the party of Mr. Mulroney's time no longer exists. Regardless, in Charlevoix, we will remember that the Musée de Charlevoix, the Musée d'art contemporain de Baie-Saint-Paul, the Domaine Forget, and the Moulins de l'Isle-aux-Coudres, just to name a few, as well as all of our memorial sites, owe him a lot.

I owe him all the confidence I have felt since. Thanks to his recognition and enthusiasm, the Mulroneys gave a boost to my modest career. They helped me to believe in my talent as a writer and singer. They countered my insecurity with hopes and dreams. Mr. Mulroney gave me permission to believe in myself, just like he gave Quebec permission to believe in its ability to be part of Canada as a co-founding people, deeply distinct and French and firmly independent in its vision for society. A people is like an artist, an artisan that imagines, creates, invests in himself and creates what he wants and sees as best for his progress and equilibrium. Mr. Mulroney knew that. Mr. Mulroney was an artist.

Beyond his immense legacy in domestic, international and diplomatic policy, he left a legacy as immense as the St. Lawrence in the hearts of Quebeckers. Every person he met was important. He was attentive, had a phenomenal memory and an absolutely infectious, unshakeable joie de vivre. Even René Lévesque was confident in his ability to unite the two solitudes. It was clear that if he could not do it, no one could.

That is why, ever since Canada's unfortunate refusal, we have been on a quest for sovereignty. We will not give up until it is achieved. This is clearer than ever, because the sad events of Meech Lake and Charlottetown dashed all of our hopes. Mr. Mulroney lost sight of his political agenda, and he too had to change course. We all know what happened next. Since then, Quebec has been sinking into false deficits caused by the federal government, and has seen the decline of its language and Quebec's weight in Parliament. Its regions are dying, and the federal government's interference in its jurisdictions is adding to its setbacks.

When Mr. Mulroney left politics in 1993, I had the privilege of singing his farewell one last time. For the occasion, I took the liberty of writing a little refrain especially for him and the political life he led.

It went like this: A country without its captain
Is like a ship adrift upon the tide
So hear my refrain far and wide
Never in our history have we had a better captain

Today, for a brief moment, the family and I looked back on some of the good times we had. With a heavy heart, I mourn his loss, but I am grateful for all of the news stories and tributes that have given us an opportunity to reflect on the past and that recounted a time when speeches, commitments and actions truly meant something. We have all seen that, today, in many ways, such meaning has been undermined by considerations driven more by egos yearning for power at any price, to the detriment of what should be motivating all of us, which is serving the public.

When I arrived in the House in 2019, my first thought was for my father and for René Lévesque. Today, Mr. Mulroney has joined them, and my thoughts will now also turn to him. He, too, is now one of the important people who have passed away who guide me and motivate me in politics. I am also thinking about Lise Payette and others like her who empowered women to stand up and change the world.

There are still some pretty good people here. They engage in nation-building with righteousness, rationality and perseverance. Among them are the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, my Bloc Québécois colleagues and a few of our fellow MPs, as well as our colleagues in Quebec who clearly and openly advocate for our country's independence in the National Assembly.

I also look to prominent women, such as Janette Bertrand and Pauline Marois, and to the next generation, whose excitement and joy are energizing our sovereignist political organizations. They truly inspire me and give me hope.

As we mourn and pay tribute to this man, I hope we can all take a step back and consider what we need to do to make today's society a safe, egalitarian and inclusive space, where we respect differences and agree to pursue policies that support the community's social and shared values, policies that naturally must be secular, as we all contribute to building a better world for our children.

Politics often unites, sometimes divides and can even break fast friendships. It should never put the thirst for power ahead of the interests of the people and the survival of the planet. I suggest we all take this time to re-examine our deeply held convictions and the reasons for our commitment and open the door to something better. Let us take Mr. Mulroney's passing as an opportunity to check our egos. Look up: Righteousness is within reach.

This girl from the island humbly salutes the boy from Baie‑Comeau. On behalf of all my Bloc Québécois colleagues, the people of L'Isle‑aux‑Coudres, Charlevoix, Côte‑de‑Beaupré, Baie‑Comeau, the north shore and Quebec as a whole, I extend my sincere condolences, gratitude and fond friendship to Brian Mulroney's entire family.

I still have a country to strive for.
I still have a country to raise up in song.