Luc Desilets

[Veterans Affairs, September 18th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, here is another example of how far Ottawa can go to push Quebec aside. The federal government held a competition to design a monument to commemorate the role of our soldiers in Afghanistan. A jury of experts decided that the Daoust team in Quebec won.

However, the Liberals rejected the advice of experts. They are publicly admitting that Quebec won, but that they are giving the contract to Ontarians anyway.

Who in this government ordered that the Quebec team be pushed aside at any cost, even if it meant breaking its own rules?

[Employment Insurance Act, September 18th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I first want to welcome you and all my colleagues from every party back to the House.

I rise today on Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, regarding a very specific topic: adoptive and intended parents.

The Liberal government has demonstrated a severe lack of leadership on that file. As a quick explanation for those who might not be familiar with the bill on this first sitting day after the summer break, it introduces a new type of special EI benefits, specifically, an attachment benefit of 15 weeks for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy.

The bill would also amend the Canada Labour Code to extend parental leave accordingly. It would also extend the benefit period while the child is hospitalized. I do not think anyone here in this House is questioning the need for a parent to take time off work to properly welcome a new baby home.

Whether we have children of our own or not, we all know that the arrival of a new child in a home is an intense and challenging time: cries, tears, nightmares, anxiety, colic pain, possible health or feeding issues, and so on. I see members smiling. We have all been there. We have to remove from the house everything that can possibly be dangerous for the little one and arrange the space so as to maximize the baby's mental and physical development.

An important part of being a parent is creating that special bond with the child. Parents have to make sure that their kids are happy, that they have everything they need, and that they feel safe and can develop trusting relationships with their new family.

There is no question that all new parents go through a complex adjustment period that is full of challenges and is different for each child. Unfortunately, or fortunately, there is no manual or piece of legislation that can really prepare us for that. Believe me, I too have been through it.

However, there are measures the government can put in place to make things a little easier and give new parents the tools they need—and I do mean all new parents. As it is often said, adoptive parents do not have it any easier than biological parents.

In fact, the opposite is often true, and this relates to the notion of attachment mentioned in the summary of Bill C-318. The literature indicates that the attachment theory referred to earlier by my colleague has emerged as a decisive factor in determining the best interests of the child.

John Bowlby's theory highlighted the fact that, from birth, children turn to adults for protection. The elements of attachment theory are based on the need for stability, consistency and adequate basic care in terms of both quantity and quality. Forming attachments is essential to children's long-term psychological health.

That said, in the case of adoption or surrogacy, the process of forming attachments can be tricky because there is no biological connection. The relationship needs to be developed, and that takes time.

It is worth noting that the meeting between parents and child often involves long-distance travel in different time zones, fatigue and changes of culture, language and climate. The children themselves obviously do not share the same excitement as their new parents. They have to say goodbye to the places they know and to everyone who has cared for them since they were born, people they have formed bonds with.

The impact of the overall decline in international adoption must also be factored in. I say this because it is increasingly difficult to adopt young children here in Canada. The process takes longer and is more complex than it used to be.

As for parents adopting a child conceived through surrogacy, certain factors may differ, but the challenges of creating a bond are quite similar. They need enough time with their child to foster attachment and create a strong, lasting parenting bond. I would also like to remind the House that, currently, neither the Canadian nor the Quebec maternity and parental leave plans contain an attachment benefit as proposed in the current bill.

Considering all this, the Bloc Québécois obviously and firmly supports creating a 15-week attachment benefit—yes, 15 weeks—for adoptive parents and parents of children conceived through surrogacy. This is not an onerous measure. I therefore invite my colleagues to vote with the Bloc Québécois in support of Bill C‑318.

However, what is somewhat disappointing to the Bloc Québécois right now is the Liberals' lack of leadership in the whole EI file overall. Need I remind the House that two years ago, in 2021, the Liberal Party campaigned on the promise to modernize employment insurance? It promised to extend the system to cover self-employed workers and to address the shortcomings brought to light by the COVID-19 pandemic.

Here we are now in September 2023 and, based on the Liberals' last budget, we can see that there is still nothing. Nothing has been done except for two small reforms, if we can call them that. We are far from the major structural changes that were promised to Canadians and Quebeckers. What guarantee do we have that this bill, even if it is passed, will be implemented by the Liberals? As my colleague was saying, the Liberals need to walk the talk. The talk does not seem to be a problem, but the walk is not getting us very far.

In closing, I invite my colleagues yet again to vote with the Bloc, and me, of course, in favour of Bill C‑318. This could help many families in dire need.

I thank my colleagues for listening and I wish them a good return to Parliament.

[Business of Supply, June 21st, 2023]

Madam Speaker, there are often peculiar components to the Conservatives' motions. The motion itself is interesting. It reads well. The Conservatives are asking for a plan and the Bloc Québécois agrees with that.

The disappointing part is that the motion is based on premises or whereases that are slightly sensationalist and off-topic. The Conservatives know it too.

Inflation and interest rates result from international forces. We can call out this government all day long—we could help the Conservatives call it out on a lot of things—but these factors are international.

It would have been nice if the content and premises had been based on the reality of the situation.

[Online News Act, June 20th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I am rather shocked by my colleague's comments. I do not know what his point is.

My colleague is currently questioning freedom of the press and freedom of expression. There is nothing about that in Bill C‑18. That does not make sense.

Since he likes quotes, I will share one with him. Annick Charette, president of the biggest union of French-language news media employees, said that negotiating on unequal terms or without any obligation to achieve results rarely yields positive outcomes. She believes that Ottawa has the best possible legislative tools.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Veterans, June 16th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois had to put the pressure on in 2021. It used to take 57 weeks to process initial disability claims for francophones. This number is now down to 29 weeks. That is not bad.

However, the service standard is still the same, which is 16 weeks. That is still well above demand. Behind these numbers are veterans who are suffering, veterans who are waiting, and veterans who feel totally abandoned by the government.

Can the minister say what he is going to do today to speed up claims processing?

[Veterans, June 16th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, Veterans Affairs Canada has a backlog of 8,365 disability claims. These 8,365 claims exceed the already long service standard of 16 weeks. The Parliamentary Budget Officer presented the solution in 2020, however. Ottawa needed to hire just 400 permanent employees, but it made half of those positions temporary.

The result is that thousands of veterans are still seeing these unacceptable delays. Will the minister finally hire permanent employees—

[Health of Animals Act, June 15th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I was saying that my very dear brother Alain is a farmer and raised goats. I can say that it is an incredibly difficult job that requires working seven days a week, 365 days a year. There is no vacation.

Farmers and ranchers use equipment that costs a fortune. They have to tighten their belts. It is an extremely demanding job.

I believe that ranchers and farmers have been forgotten by today's society. Society depends on them, but does not recognize the true value of everything they do for us.

The Bloc Québécois will obviously vote in favour of this bill.

[Health of Animals Act, June 15th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, we are in the House this evening to study Bill C‑275, which amends the Health of Animals Act. This bill was introduced by the Conservative member for Foothills, in Alberta, and is now in the House at second reading.

Briefly, Bill C‑275 proposes to “make it an offence to enter, without lawful authority or excuse, a place in which animals are kept if doing so could result in [their] exposure...to a disease or toxic substance that is capable of...contaminating them.” So it amends the Health of Animals Act, and it is under that amended act that penalties will be applied.

The Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑275, subject to a thorough study in committee. We are in favour of it because it is an important bill and subject. Fundamentally, it is about trespassing. These are criminal acts rooted in extremism. Of course, extremism has never solved anything.

I would like to clarify a few things about this bill before I move on.

First, it is not an indictment of veganism, but an indictment of extremist activism and certain antispeciesists.

Second, this is not about freedom of speech. People absolutely have the right to protest and denounce practices they do not agree with. However, we cannot condone that being done through illegal acts that could also harm both farmers and animals. Obviously, one's personal freedom ends where another's begins.

Third, this bill does not condone animal abuse. We all have a personal and collective responsibility to prevent animal suffering. Once again, that does not mean we are exempt from the law or our duty to go through the designated authorities. In Quebec, the ministry of agriculture, fisheries and food, or MAPAQ, is responsible for this.

Fourth, it is about making people aware that there are biosecurity standards to be respected on farms in order to ensure the safety of animals and livestock.

What is biosafety? MAPAQ defines it as the set of tools, measures and procedures for preventing and addressing the dangers associated with the transmission of pathogens through various pathways for contamination. Mad cow disease, H1N1 and H5N1 influenza, circovirus, scrapie and wasting disease of cervids are all examples of transmitted diseases with serious consequences for the entire agri-food complex, public health and the balance of biodiversity. When humans come into contact with animals or their habitat without taking the appropriate precautions to avoid contamination, the risk of disease increases tenfold. For a breeder, an outbreak can obviously lead to serious financial losses. In the case of a spread outside the farm, the consequences can be devastating.

It is interesting to learn that this bill was drafted partly in response to a specific event that occurred on December 7, 2019, when 13 vegan and antispeciesist activists broke into a hog farm in Saint-Hyacinthe. The farm was named Les Porgreg. They were there to protest the breeding of animals for human consumption. They entered the hog barn, filmed and demonstrated for almost seven hours in front of the pig pens in an attempt to expose the pigs' quality of life.

Several Sûreté du Québec officers had to enter the building to remove them. As a result, some 30 people who should not have been there contaminated the premises.

According to the owners, the incident caused a rotavirus outbreak, which considerably increased the maternal mortality rate of the herd.

Moreover, the criminals were fully aware of what they were doing, and what they were doing was completely illegal.

Events like those in Saint-Hyacinthe are unfortunately not isolated. What is interesting in this particular case is that it was discovered that MAPAQ followed up a year later. That helped move the issue forward and raise public awareness of the situation. The MAPAQ inspector noted that there were too many animals in certain pens at the Les Porgreg pig farm. The pens were soiled with manure, lacked proper ventilation, contained too many flies and so on. The good news is that on March 16, 2020, the farm followed the inspector's recommendations to the letter. Yes, the farm had committed a number of violations, but is this type of stunt allowed, or should it be allowed? The answer is, quite clearly, it absolutely should not.

My brother Alain is a farmer and has been a goat farmer for a number of years. I can say that it is an extremely—

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 13th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much parliamentary experience. Soon, I will have been here for a mere four years.

However, like everyone else, I have noticed something that even the Liberals who are moving this motion have noticed. For at least two and a half years, there have been major problems with interpretation. There are issues with availability, and the interpreters are experiencing more and more hearing problems. All this irritates me because this motion runs completely counter to that; it does not take into account the interpreters' health and hearing needs.

If we care about our staff, we should look after them and look out for them, for God's sake. This motion does the exact opposite. Hybrid Parliament puts a lot of pressure on them.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Government Business No. 26—Amendments to the Standing Orders, June 13th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, my grey hair bears witness to the fact that I have learned certain things in life. One of them is that changes need to be explained and justified. Intelligent arguments must be presented. People need convincing. That is not what I am seeing in this motion. These changes are being imposed and have not been properly thought out.

The government should remember that, during the pandemic, we were eager to return to work here after two years. We were glad to see one another and to work together again. Today, we are hearing the total opposite from the Liberals. We are being asked to accept that the work will be done from home under certain conditions that are as yet unknown.

That is not what we signed up for. Our voters did not put us in power or elect us to do that. Changing the rules midstream is never healthy. I would like to have—