Julie Vignola

[Committees of the House, November 21st, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.

[Privilege, November 20th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, we have been debating this issue for a few weeks now. This is not the first time we have had to tighten the screws to obtain unredacted documents. It also happened at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, which our committee chair refers to as “the mighty OGGO”.

I believe my colleague has more experience in this Parliament than I do. My question is this. If there were an election tomorrow and the Conservative party won, would he have access to the unredacted documents? If so, would he show them to the rest of Parliament?

[Public Safety, November 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, the human smuggler in question was arrested in 2008 for possessing two Canadian passports that were not in his name. He was arrested again in 2017 for human trafficking. He was arrested again in 2021, and that is when the federal government confiscated his passport. After all that, he applied for a new passport and the government issued him one in 2023.

How has no one noticed that these human smugglers are calling the shots at the border right under the federal government's nose?

[Public Safety, November 19th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, is it any wonder that we are worried about the federal government being unprepared to deal with Trump's deportations? The federal government says that everything is just fine at the border, but we have learned that it issued a passport to a notorious human smuggler. Again, when it comes to border management, the left hand does not know what the right hand is doing. It is maddening.

How many human smugglers with brand new passports are freely crossing the border?

[Privilege, November 8th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, after hearing my colleague's remarks, I just have one thing to say. I would like to extend my condolences to Stephanie and to the family of the man who was murdered, especially his son.

I would like to tell his son that he was very brave and that he must not blame himself. Now, he should grow up in the light. That would be the best way to keep his father with him and to make his father proud. He should be proud of his courage in an extremely difficult moment that no one should have to experience.

[Privilege, November 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we have been talking about this question of privilege for weeks. Other things that happened in the past could be described as scandals or whatever people want to call it. This led me to the following conclusion on Bill C‑290 on whistle-blowers, which is now before the Senate.

At the end of the day, if we did a better job of listening to and protecting these whistle-blowers who are afraid to report wrongdoing in the government, we might realize that these people also have a duty toward taxpayers.

I would like my colleague to talk about the importance of whistle-blowers who see wrongdoing from the inside.

[Privilege, November 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, here are a couple of my favourite adages: Two heads are better than one, and opposing for the sake of opposing is not constructive, especially when one is responsible for managing public assets.

I can assure the House that I will never be in government. However, if I were, I would want to know what was not working. I would work with others to improve whatever was going wrong, because that is the responsible and dignified thing to do. We are all elected and we all represent our constituents, not just the ones who voted for us, but also those who voted against us. We must represent them with dignity. That being the case, I find it hard to understand why the government refuses to hand over the documents. This would allow it to ensure, not as a government, but as a manager of funds, that all funds are being used properly.

I would like my colleague to comment on that and on the importance of transparent collaboration between the parties for the common good of the people.

[Privilege, November 7th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, for a month now, we have been given different arguments on why we cannot receive the documents. We are told that the RCMP has concerns about politicians interfering in the judicial branch. However, we are not ordering it to conduct an investigation. We are possibly providing it with potential evidence. Now we are being told that there is no search warrant. If someone has potential evidence of a crime and keeps it to themselves, they are an accomplice to that crime. A search warrant is not required for submitting potential evidence.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on these two subtle legal points. What are these new arguments all about?

[Privilege, November 6th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we all want to have these documents to be able to do a complete analysis of the situation and make recommendations to improve the process. It is part of our job to request these documents to hold the government accountable, not to us, but to the public and the money it entrusts to us to manage.

We have been asking for these documents for four or five weeks and it seems clear that we will not be getting them. If we do not receive them, that means that the government is not transparent and, as such, we cannot have confidence in it. If this is a foregone conclusion, then we should be proceeding with triggering an election, unless the Conservatives have a secret agenda to keep the government in power until they decide it is time for an election.

The government does not have the confidence of the House. Why does the opposition not trigger an election?

[Privilege, November 6th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to pick up on the question my colleague from Thérèse-De Blainville asked earlier.

If we did get the documents, that would be great. Members could continue or begin their analysis, as the case may be, and ensure that processes are improved, which is our job at the end of the day. We need to make sure that the processes are properly implemented, if that is not already the case. If they are too complicated, we need to simplify them. It is all about saving money for taxpayers.

My question is this. If the documents are not handed over, if things continue to drag on, do questions of privilege then become a roundabout, insidious way of keeping the Liberal government in power until the Conservatives decide it is time to call an election?

Would it not be better to simply say that we realize we are not going to get them, so let us put it to a vote and just accept whatever happens with the current government?