Claude DeBellefeuille

[Government Accountability, June 19th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, the government has abandoned any notion of ministerial responsibility during this session. The Liberals are happy to be accountable when things are going well and are always there for good news. However, when things go sideways, they do not know anything about anything. They avoid hot topics. In the case of Chinese interference, they even blamed the media for publishing fake news. That is completely irresponsible.

To govern is to be accountable when things go well and when they do not, and to be responsible at all times. They are going to have to prove that they are ready to govern over the next few months. Is that still something they want to do?

[Canada Business Corporations Act, June 19th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, we are debating yet another closure motion, the latest in a long line. I do not really have a question for the minister, but I will make a comment on the mood in the House over the past few months. It is almost shameful to see how everyone in the House is behaving during this very intense period leading up to the summer adjournment.

There is retaliation going on. Maybe the minister will address that in his comments, but I get the impression that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is not reaching out to all the opposition parties. He is behaving as though the government has a majority, and he is getting on the nerves of several members in the House. Once again we are dealing with an eleventh-hour time allocation motion because no one is reaching out on either side.

[Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act, June 19th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to start the week this morning by discussing a bill that protects supply management. This system is vitally important for all the farmers under its management, including dairy, poultry and egg farmers. When a bill like this gets debated and makes it this far along the legislative process, it is precisely because very active and deeply engaged members, firmly connected to their communities, have fought for it.

In Quebec, the supply management system is extremely important, and it makes great things possible. I will explain that a little later in my speech, but right now, I really want to thank the Bloc Québécois members who have worked hard since being elected, especially over the past two years, because today's bill is not the first supply management bill or motion that we have debated.

First of all, I would like to thank the member for Montcalm, who is the bill's sponsor. He introduced this very important bill in the House of Commons and ably defended it in committee and in all forums, as well as throughout his constituency. I think he is lucky. I would have liked to introduce this bill because my riding has many dairy farmers, in particular, who play a major role in our area's development.

I must also thank the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, because it was at the Standing Committee on International Trade that the bill was defended. Committee members heard from various witnesses who, in general, were clear about their support and backing for this bill as a fair and equitable marketing system for farmers, communities and consumers alike.

The gold medal goes to the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé, our agriculture and agri-food critic, who stands up for all farmers, regardless of their specific field, and who has passionately, wholeheartedly and authentically defended this bill that is so important to Quebec's supply-managed farmers. Where I come from, we would say that the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé is like an agricultural star. There is nobody who grows anything in Quebec who does not know our passionate critic, the hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé. He understands, and I think he is trying to impress upon everyone the fact that if Quebec ever becomes a country, we will need farmers. We will need food sovereignty as well.

We believe that defending the supply management system and all of Quebec’s farmers is a real priority. Over the past year, constituents have told me about the Bloc Québécois's work on the ground to make use of every political mobilization strategy possible and to give all the necessary support today so that this bill can be passed tonight and make its way to the Senate, which, hopefully, will not take too long to consider it, because it has gathered very strong consensus or, in any case, is supported by the vast majority of members in the House.

Now that I have said my thanks, I would like to talk about my riding of Salaberry—Suroît. I would say that it is a fairly rural riding. There are 358 dairy farms in my riding. Think about it: There are 358 farms in Montérégie-Ouest, farms that I also like to call businesses. These are dynamic companies always on the lookout for creativity and innovation. These farms are made up of people who work hard in their communities. In Montérégie-Ouest alone, they account for $260 million in economic activity and 3,156 jobs.

That is no small thing. It is a very healthy sector that is extremely vital to our communities. Members often hear me say that, since farms are businesses, they are often at the heart of our small towns. Without them, many businesses would not survive.

I will give the wonderful example of Montcalm Farm, which just celebrated its 100th anniversary of dairy production in Saint‑Louis‑de‑Gonzague, a very dynamic little municipality. I had the opportunity to give a member's statement honouring the Montcalm family and welcoming them here in the House.

The Montcalm family is the perfect example. They developed a family dairy farm. We are not talking about industrial production that is only concerned with production. This is a farming business that is involved in the community.

Let us talk about Maurice Montcalm, who was one of the many generations of owners of the Montcalm Farm. In addition to serving as an active member of the Union des producteurs agricoles to stand up for the rights of dairy farmers and as the president of his central union, he also served as a municipal councillor for Saint‑Louis‑de‑Gonzague and was a member of the community co-op. That is a classic example of how a supply-managed dairy farm contributes to the economic and community development of a village or small municipality. Maurice is now retired, not from his job as a dairy farmer, but from his jobs in the community. He left the union and his job as a municipal councillor, but others have taken up the torch. Mélanie Genesse, Éric Montcalm's wife, has now taken over his role and is involved in the municipal council.

All that to say that dairy farms in Quebec are very important and not just because they produce the best milk in the world. I have no qualms about saying so. We have a traceability system that is the envy of the world. We have family farms that support a lot of people in our villages and municipalities. We have businesspeople who run agricultural businesses and stay up to date. They modernize and automate their farms. That means that a dairy farm might have robots in its milking room, which makes the work more effective and efficient. This means a young, next-generation farmer can attend their child's show on occasion because they can use their cellphone to monitor whether their cows were able to be milked or whether there was a problem. It is magnificent. It is wonderful.

It is not at all, as we often hear it described, an unfair system that puts other producers at a disadvantage. Formerly, I was deputy agriculture critic for my party. That was when I was first elected in 2006. There were vegetable growers, for instance, and supply-managed producers. These are two different agricultural models that are compatible. Everything goes smoothly. The two systems can co-exist. Everyone, producers, the community and consumers are doing well.

I could also have cited the example of David Cécyre's extraordinary farm in Saint‑Stanislas‑de‑Kostka. It just modernized and automated its farm, which produces excellent milk. It managed to breed a cow that performs so well that the farm produced one of the best milk in Quebec.

Members will understand my passion for dairy producers. I have no doubt that this bill will be adopted by a majority in the House, and that it will be sent to the Senate. This bill really makes sense; it is constructive for agriculture in Quebec and the province itself.

I urge senators to do their job quickly so we can pass this very important bill.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I knew Peter Stoffer. It is true that he was not in the House much. He was often in his riding. It was the whip's decision to permit those absences back then. I will not interfere in the whips' work in their own caucuses. That is a choice.

However, as a member of the opposition, I expect to get some consideration. The role of the opposition is to improve the government's work, the bills and regulations that are presented. At present, we do not have a government that is interested in having the opposition improve its bills or motions. Instead, I see a government that is closed off and anxious to stop the work of Parliament because it has had enough of being implicated in files that are a little too hot for it to handle.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am indeed very concerned about the issue of work-life balance. I think that when a person is sick, they need to take care of themselves. Sometimes a member needs to take leave to take care of themselves. As whip, I accept that. I would not want that member to connect to the hybrid Parliament. I would want them to take care of themselves. If a member of my caucus is taking care of a sick family member, then I accept that they are providing this care and that they will not be participating virtually because they need to focus on the person they are helping.

In 2010, I was the deputy whip and my mother attempted suicide. Does anyone really think that I wanted to participate virtually? Of course not. I wanted some time off to be completely focused on my family member.

In closing, I sincerely believe that there are plenty of things that the government could do to show that it really cares about work-life balance. For example, committee meetings should not be held on Fridays. That is hard for families. Now, with the hybrid format, we are obligated to hold those meetings. The government could review the parliamentary schedule. That would have a very tangible effect on the lives of families and those who live farther from Parliament Hill.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, one of the principles I live my life by is that, when I believe in something, I defend it, and I defend it at all times. I noticed that my friend and colleague on the Board of Internal Economy was defending the interpreters at the Board of Internal Economy, but that is not what I am seeing this evening. When it comes to forming an alliance, he agrees to support a motion in its entirety, without amendments that would ensure that the hybrid Parliament is well structured and that interpreters are protected. As I like to say, people need to walk the talk.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's comments.

I think it is a good thing to speak more than one language. It is good to speak English, French and Spanish. I believe we should speak several languages. That is fine. The idea is that we must try to be accepting of the other person's language. I thank the member.

It gives me the opportunity to say, in this evening's debate, that we do not talk much about the interpreters' situation, but it is truly alarming. In September, more than 57 working events for our parliamentarians will no longer take place. This means that the hybrid Parliament eats up a lot of the interpreters' time. I really want the government to be aware of this issue. We must find concrete solutions.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Yes, Madam Speaker, it feels good to speak French. I think I was one of the first to deliver a speech entirely in French in the House.

To answer his specific question, filibustering is part of parliamentary politics. Sometimes it is misused, as the Conservatives did during the last few votes to retaliate against the government for its behaviour and arrogance.

It takes two to tango, however. A government that is defiant and irritating, one that refuses to compromise or negotiate and instead ignores the opposition is bound to face some bumps in the road. I do not agree with the Conservative Party's misuse of the voting app, but I can understand that sometimes there are no tools left to respond to an arrogant government that ignores the opposition parties.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure at this late hour to rise and debate this motion.

Quite frankly, the fact that the government has planned changes to the Standing Orders of the House of Commons without even initiating any discussions or approaching all the opposition parties shows a certain degree of arrogance. It even shows a lack of respect and consideration for the work of the opposition parties and their leaders.

Some very important rules are being modified, and in a way, this reform is aimed at permanently establishing Parliament 2.0. I think the government could have sought consensus. Only then could they say that the other parties firmly oppose it, that there is no openness to discussion or the possibility of agreeing on one, two, three or perhaps four standing orders. We could have discussed this. Instead the government is refusing to listen.

I was even a bit insulted by the way this was presented. I read in the paper that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons was saying how things were going to work and that Parliament was not going to close its doors until the motion was adopted. I do not see any openness on his part, and I no longer recognize him. He has not demonstrated the same openness and respect for the work of the opposition as he did when he was whip.

The bottom line is that the Bloc Québécois is against the principle of a permanent full hybrid Parliament. We are not against all the rules of the hybrid Parliament or all the ways of running it.

I am pleased to see in this motion that the government listened to one thing that I really care about, and that is the fact that committee chairs are not allowed to chair meetings virtually. I am very happy about that, because it is awful when a chair tries to fulfill their duties remotely. When a chair is sick, they need to take care of themselves and let a vice-chair take their place. I agree with that.

However, when it comes to some of the other rules, I cannot understand why we were not given the time, the opportunity or the pleasure of discussing them with the government House leader.

Many of the rules are interesting because it is true that they favour work-life balance, especially the electronic vote. However, it made me laugh earlier to hear some of the NPD members say that we were against electronic voting. It is quite the opposite. From day one, the Bloc Québécois and I, as the whip, have actively participated in implementing electronic voting. We have never hidden the fact that remote voting was a good way to promote work-life balance.

What we are saying is that if we bring in permanent rules, then we might need to restore the importance of the confidence vote. I was elected from 2006 to 2011 and I went through some confidence votes. When a confidence vote is coming up, for example, a motion to pass the budget or the throne speech, it is the government's responsibility to ensure that the confidence vote is done properly. We experience these great moments in democracy by being here in person.

In the Bloc Québécois, we agree with allowing members to vote electronically. However, we would have liked to propose an amendment to give more value to confidence votes by ensuring that they are held in person.

We also believe that it is important to ensure that a virtual Parliament does not weaken accountability by allowing ministers to be absent during question period. I am not the only one who has said this; I heard similar comments during an NDP question. I think ministers should be here in person to answer questions put to them in committee or in the House. That is important, because it is not the same dynamic. As we have seen, when ministers are present or not, the dynamic changes, and I think that they should be here in order to testify, to express themselves or to answer questions put to them.

Of course, the other reason we have slight misgivings about a hybrid Parliament with no conditions and no framework is the whole issue of protecting the health and safety of our interpreters.

We need to ensure to take a fairly structured approach to conducting reviews to address the health and safety of our interpreters.

In the motion before us today, there is no consideration for these employees, who follow us every day in our committees or in the House of Commons to ensure that the work is done in both official languages. It contains no measures, apart from the mandatory headset that complies with the ISO quality standard. Other than that, there is nothing else for them.

Although I was embarrassed to say so in the past, I am no longer embarrassed to say that I am a unilingual francophone. The interpreters are my ears. I need them. I believe that I quite frequently have interesting things to say, and when I speak I also want unilingual anglophones to hear me. They have to be able to hear me.

We know, and it has been documented, that the reality of the hybrid Parliament has a greater impact on francophone members, because it is often when Bloc Québécois members or witnesses are speaking in French that there are technical, interpretation, sound or connectivity problems. Basically, what the government is telling us, with complete disregard for the interpreters, is that it would be great if everyone spoke in English so there would be fewer problems. No, the work must be done in both official languages.

Unfortunately, with a hybrid Parliament that has no conditions and no oversight, it is the francophone members and our francophone witnesses who are most affected. I can say that some of the francophone witnesses we invite prefer to give evidence in English because they know that they are less likely to be interrupted, either by technical problems or by problems related to interpretation.

I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and member for Ajax. Honestly, I have not heard him talk about that reality, and I do not get the impression that he or his government is particularly concerned about it. I would say the same thing about the NDP, since I have not heard them mention this concern for the reality of francophone members or for the health and safety of our interpreters.

I was surprised to hear him say in his speech that there was interpretation before the pandemic and that it makes no difference if we meet in person or virtually. No. There has been a lot of talk tonight about impressions, emotions and how we feel. Everyone is sharing a bit of their personal lives. The interpreters' issues are very well documented. A hybrid Parliament requires many more hours of work from the interpreters than a full in-person Parliament. That has been documented; it is not just an impression. There is data to back it up.

What really surprises me is that they are acting as if this data does not exist. I know that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the House leader of the New Democratic Party are aware of the data, because we sit together on the Board of Internal Economy. We have spent two years talking about the problem of sound quality, difficulty recruiting interpreters, the shortage of interpreters and interpreter injuries. This has all been well documented. I have not heard the government members talk about it this evening. I would not go so far as to say they have not mentioned it at all, because I may have missed a few speeches, but I did not hear it or notice them talking about it.

I have worked hard and diligently to document the use of the hybrid Parliament. It is rare for me to make assertions that are not supported by data. The fact is that the hybrid Parliament is not working very well. When I hear that it has been running smoothly for three years, that we are okay and everything is fine, my response is no, not at all. It is the complete opposite. I can say that the data I have show that things are not going so well.

Every day, there are technical problems in committees. Every day, there are problems with interpretation. Committees are being cancelled because of a lack of resources. The Translation Bureau even told us that it does not know what it will do next September because there are no solutions to the shortage of interpreters. We in the House are debating this issue together. It is great that we can be at home and we can be close to our children and spouses. However, the government is not saying much about the possibility that proceedings will not be conducted in both languages, that committees will be cancelled and that we may not have full and complete debates.

The first victims of the hybrid Parliament are the interpreters. The unions say that since the adoption of the hybrid mode in March 2020, more than 300 dangerous incidents have been reported by the interpreters, including about 100 since 2022, and 30 disabling injuries have required interpreters to stop working. Every month, about a dozen interpreters are assigned to other duties for medical reasons because of injuries sustained during hybrid or virtual meetings. One interpreter even suffered a serious acoustic shock and had to be taken away in an ambulance.

The International Association of Conference Interpreters Canada represents freelance interpreters who work for Parliament. Approximately half of the interpreters who work on the Hill are members of this association, which surveyed its members last winter in light of the interpreters' increased workload during hybrid Parliament. In all honesty, the survey results show a trend that is not pleasant to hear.

Eight out of 10 interpreters, or 81%, stated that they are unlikely to make themselves more available to work on Parliament Hill. Due to the working conditions, the interpreters said that unless things change, they would look for work elsewhere. There is no shortage of work for interpreters. Two-thirds of interpreters, or 65%, say that they will probably reduce their availability to work to Parliament Hill. Seven out of 10 interpreters stated that they are unlikely to maintain their current availability to work on Parliament Hill. Finally, 87% of freelance interpreters who had never worked for Parliament but who planned to do so were going to change their minds.

What I am saying is nothing new. The government House leader knows it, the NDP leader knows it, and all the members of the Board of Internal Economy know it. What is more, it says it on the association's web site. What shocks me and makes me feel a bit emotional is that the government is ignoring this reality.

The Translation Bureau is unable to project forward. We asked the bureau how many interpreters we will have in September when the House resumes. They told us that it would be amazing if they could hold on to the number of interpreters they have right now. They do not think they will be able to add any more, even with a pilot project they are currently experimenting with. It is not like there is an abundance of interpreters who are looking to get injured at work, to have permanent hearing damage and to kiss their job goodbye.

Interpreters are taking their well-deserved retirement but there are few graduates coming out of universities. The House is struggling to recruit and retain interpreters, and there is no solution to rectify the situation. That is the harsh reality: There is no solution. The only answer is for more of the people who work here, by which I mean both elected representatives and witnesses, whether in the House or in committee, to return in person. This is the best solution to guarantee the health and safety of our interpreters.

I have said this several times. We are not taking care of our interpreters when we work virtually. We need to return to in-person sittings as much as possible. I will not rule out the possibility of sometimes participating virtually, with a hybrid model. As whip, I allowed my MPs to work virtually if they were in more difficult situations or needed to be present in their constituency. However, this needs to be used only in exceptional circumstances.

We also need to reduce the number of daily hybrid meetings that are interpreted, and insist that remote participants use the correct equipment. Again recently, committee chairs asked for unanimous consent for a witness to speak without a headset, despite everything we know today. There is resistance everywhere, in all the committees and in every party. There is resistance to using what we have at our disposal, which is not regulated, but makes the work safer for the interpreters.

For that reason, I challenge the premise that the government has listened to the opposition parties, listened to the data that currently documents the problems and listened to the interpreters' requests. It seems to me that things could not be any clearer than what I just said. A number of measures have been taken in recent years. I mean, we worked hard. Personally, I have put a lot of effort into making all my colleagues aware of what we can do, what is within our power to do and does not cost a lot of money.

I asked for a dashboard to see how things were going in committee. The interpretation problems related to the hybrid Parliament are being documented. Members of the Board of Internal Economy, including the leader, the government whip and the NDP leader, have had that information since November 26, 2020. They cannot say that everything is fine and that the hybrid Parliament is not affecting our valued interpreters. Since 2020, members of the Bloc Québécois have been on the attack. This is no joke. The Bloc Québécois has been forced to agree to actively work to change the routine motions in committee so that every committee conducts pre-tests. That came from us, the Bloc Québécois. We put this initiative in place to protect the health and safety of the interpreters, while, at the same time, guaranteeing the quality of the French interpretation.

Members of the Bloc Québécois were given instructions. If the interpretation is not good, if the interpreters indicate that the sound is not good, then Bloc members need to interrupt the committee proceedings. I participated in questions of privilege and many points of order on the use of House-approved headsets. Even Employment and Social Development Canada's labour program ruled in favour of the parliamentary interpreters. The chair is required to take that into account.

This could have been done a long time ago. Members are complacent or resistant to using the proper equipment for all sorts of reasons that I do not understand. Still today, there are members who are voting from their cars, who are participating in committee meetings from their cars without the appropriate equipment. That is still being done today, and it is unacceptable.

There is one measure that makes me say that political will is lacking on the government side because without rules and without permanent changes to the rules, everything I am saying could have been put in place with political will. The chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was able to create an atmosphere of respect. She was proactive. It is a fine example. I mention it often. Her colleagues should have followed her example more.

The fact that we are short on interpreters means that we have fewer committee meetings. We are cancelling committee meetings where democratic work is done, where we improve bills, where we conduct studies to document problems. Essentially, our work is falling by the wayside. I think that somehow it must suit the government that the committees cannot sit or improve its own bills. Maybe it prefers it that way because many committee meetings are cancelled every time Parliament extends its sittings. Just today, the meeting of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration was cancelled. The work of the Special Committee on the Canada-People's Republic of China Relationship was cut short. This is a serious state of affairs.

We have spoken a great deal about work-life balance. I have a lot to say about that. I would like people to ask me questions about that because I did not have the time to address it in my speech as I had much to say.

Today is a sad day. I hope that the government will seize the opportunity. Our leader reached out asking it to amend its own motion out of respect for its consultations with many leaders.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 12th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I really appreciated my colleague's speech. I have been here since the beginning of the debate, and I can say that few speeches have mentioned the whole issue of the interpreters and their health and safety while working in a hybrid Parliament. I want therefore to congratulate my colleague, because I share his concerns. I will speak more about that in my speech.

I am surprised by the arrogance of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and by the way he chose to move this motion in Parliament. He could have done it in a different manner.

I would like my colleague to address two things. First, what other approach could the government leader have taken to gain support and consensus on certain aspects of a hybrid Parliament? Second, could the member tell me who are the people most affected by the hybrid Parliament?