Claude DeBellefeuille

[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?

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

Madam Speaker, I have a fairly simple question for the member who just gave his speech. All evening we have been talking about work-life balance, how nice it would be if we could all be in our constituencies with our husbands, wives and children and perhaps have a more balanced life. Of course, I think that every working person in the world would like to have a job where they work at home with their family close by. However, that is not possible.

My question is quite specific. There are a number of things the government can do, but is not doing, to make it easier to have work-life balance. I have the parliamentary committee schedule in front of me. Before the pandemic, I think even in the winter and spring of 2020, parliamentary committee meetings were not held on Fridays. Since we have started sitting in a hybrid Parliament, committees sit from Monday to Friday, full time.

Do you not think, sir, that this measure is getting in the way of work-life balance, yet it is tolerated in a hybrid Parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make something clear to the leader of the third opposition party: The Bloc Québécois is not against using the app for voting virtually. On the contrary, we even said as much at the Board of Internal Economy.

We are not against hybrid Parliament. We are against the fact that hybrid Parliament was not regulated, that it was not done properly, in consultation with all the parties. That is what irks us. For me, it is not a question of feelings. Since the beginning of the debate, we have been talking about work-life balance, emotions, our riding. However, it is also a question of the Standing Orders.

My question is for a leader. I am surprised that the NDP fully supports the government's motion, given that it would permanently change several rules to make them more restrictive for the opposition and less restrictive for the government. For example, for opposition motions that require 25, 15 or 10 members to block a government motion, in-person attendance is mandatory. In that case, the opposition needs to rise, but on the other hand, calling for quorum, which is the government's responsibility, can be done virtually.

I am surprised that the NDP leader agrees with that. There are rules that clearly give the government a leg up. I remember one time when the NDP was really upset and taken aback by a motion adopted with 25 members. We should perhaps remember the Mulcair incident. Under the proposed Standing Orders, which would become permanent, the government does not have to work hard to win confidence votes. It just has to tell people to log on and the confidence vote is in the bag.

Can my colleague explain why an opposition party such as his would accept these permanent amendments to the Standing Orders?

[Business of Supply, June 8th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2)(a), all of the Bloc Québécois's speaking slots for today's debate on the business of supply will be divided in two.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, June 5th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on her speech. Anyone can see how passionate she is and how much she cares about her constituents.

I was also glad to hear her say that, even though the election in Alberta did not necessarily go the way she would have liked, she still respects the democracy that was expressed in Alberta. They elected a premier who, while not her choice, was nonetheless democratically elected by Albertans. That is good, because the Bloc Québécois believes that it is important to respect democracy, as well as the authority and jurisdiction of the Quebec National Assembly and the legislative assemblies of the other provinces. Alberta's democracy has spoken.

I would like to ask my colleague a question. Governments express their priorities through the budget choices they make. I am having trouble understanding something, and I hope she can explain it to me. How can she support a budget that contains no measures to support seniors, no increase in the OAS benefits for seniors aged 65 and over?

The government is creating two classes of seniors. By supporting the budget, my colleague is endorsing the idea that seniors under 75 do not need assistance.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, June 5th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I would say to my colleague that seniors talk to me about housing, but they mostly talk to me about having the opportunity to work without being taxed, without changing four quarters for a dollar.

The budget could have included measures to make seniors' work more valuable, to prevent them from losing their guaranteed income supplement or prevent them from paying too much in tax. Indeed, seniors perhaps would have wanted to work a bit to stay socially active and improve their living conditions, but there are no tax measures in Bill C‑47 to encourage seniors to go back to work.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, June 5th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I will give a very honest answer. Strangely enough, no one talks to me about dental care in my riding.

As many people know, children in Quebec have some coverage. I know the Quebec government has extended coverage to include some people who need surgery but cannot have it because they need dental care before they have their surgery, so it has extended its coverage. The Quebec government made that decision without waiting for Ottawa to decide what it was going to do.

Quite honestly, people are not talking to me about that. Seniors want to talk about the loss of their purchasing power, about having to make difficult choices between groceries, care, rent and leisure activities. They tell me they are feeling so squeezed financially that they have no room to manoeuvre after working their entire lives.

Many seniors who are now 65 or 70 years old do not have a pension plan, even though they worked hard. I am thinking of people who worked as restaurant waitresses, or people who worked hard physically, in factories, for example, and did not have access to a collective agreement that guaranteed a pension plan.

Today these people are worried and do not understand why the government did not think of them when drafting Bill C‑47.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, June 5th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, at my advanced age, it is more difficult to concentrate when there is background noise that seems to be coming from the great beyond.

What I was saying is that, basically, what is missing from this budget is real support for seniors. As my Bloc Québécois colleagues have said many times, there are two classes of seniors.

In Quebec and Canada, there are seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 and those aged 75 and up. Seniors aged 75 and up received an increase in their old age security, whereas those between the ages of 65 and 74 got nothing. Quite frankly, I am not sure whether my colleagues are aware that a person whose sole income is the old age security pension and the guaranteed income supplement does not even get enough money a month to pay for decent housing, cover all the rent-related costs and still manage to have a decent and reasonable life. It is rather shameful that a G7 country is unable to take better care of those who built Quebec and contributed to its development. We must give them what they need to live and die in a dignified way.

Roughly 22% of the people in Salaberry—Suroît are seniors 65 and over. Earlier, before the technical problems, I was saying that I attend all the events in my riding, and seniors talk to me and tell me about their problems. They cannot grasp the government's lack of understanding and the fact it does not give them more support in meeting their monthly obligations. If a senior needs home care or to buy services, go to a private seniors residence and pay for services to support their loss of autonomy, quite honestly, that person has to ask for help from the Quebec government, from their province, because what they receive in old age security benefits is not enough to meet their needs.

In this budget there is a serious lack of consideration and esteem for our seniors, those who built the society we have today.

There is another important thing missing. I am sure that people are affected by this. There is nothing about employment insurance reform. The member for Thérèse-De Blainville has often said that it is high time that old legislation were modernized. The minister has made some promises over the years.

Recently, we believed we could start working on the reform because the minister went to the trouble of holding consultations. Unfortunately, the Bloc Québécois and our partners who support workers were utterly disappointed. There is no EI reform and no major change to the Employment Insurance Act to face the new realities of the labour market and secure better coverage.

In closing, I know that my time is up. Madam Speaker, I hope you gave me the time I lost because of the audio issues during my speech. I imagine you did.

I will conclude by saying that what is important to the Bloc Québécois is to vote for a budget that is really useful and serves Quebec's interests. At present, that is not what we have before us. Therefore, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the budget and, consequently, against Bill C‑47.

[Budget Implementation Act, 2023, No. 1, June 5th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, it is true. When I talk, I can hear an echo. It is quite odd, but I will try to continue my speech anyway.

I was saying that it is shameful that there is nothing in the bill to financially support seniors, to increase, maintain or develop their purchasing power.

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry, but I can hear my voice echoing, as though there were two of me—