Luc Desilets

[Privilege, May 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, we are currently facing a crisis. I get that my colleague has no solution to the crisis except to vote against the motion under consideration, which is fine. I just find it funny how many gaffes a Speaker is allowed to commit.

There is also the gravity of those gaffes to consider. Although it is all well and good to see the third gaffe as relatively minor, I would say this to my colleague: We are in a crisis, not only because the Speaker has made serious errors in view of his status, role and office, but we have been in a crisis for several months. Respect no longer exists in the House. For me, this is one more factor that reinforces and lends credence to the motion calling on the Speaker to resign.

Does my colleague agree that the House is not functioning normally in terms of respect, order and language?

[Privilege, May 27th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I have a comment, rather than a question, for my colleague.

The current Speaker was elected on September 27, 2023, just eight months ago. The government is well aware that the Bloc Québécois called for the Speaker to step down after a second incident. Now, there have been three incidents. I have a question for my colleague. If the motion is not adopted, what should we expect?

Right now, the term that is being used and that we, the members of the Bloc Québécois, really like is “distraction”. The Speaker is a distraction that Parliament cannot afford. The Speaker is supposed to be the picture of impartiality in the House, so we are asking, for a second time, for the Speaker to step down. That is a comment, not a question, but I would be pleased to hear what my colleague has to say, if he cares to respond.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. He is a man I very much like and respect. He gave a nuanced and thoughtful speech with a few constructive aspects, which helps counterbalance a bit the speeches of many of his Conservative colleagues, who are firmly on the other end of the spectrum.

My question is very simple. Does he make a distinction between the concept of decriminalization and that of diversion?

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know my colleague's opinion on the impact of the Conservatives' rhetoric, demagoguery and lies and the lack of scientific content in the opioid file.

I would like my colleague to tell me what impact this could have on drug users.

[Business of Supply, May 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, this morning, something rather unusual happened, and we in the Bloc Québécois are taking it very seriously.

When we asked the Leader of the Conservative Party about the difference between decriminalization and diversion, he said that they meant the same thing, that it was just semantics. In this debate, words matter. There is too much room for exaggeration.

Does my colleague agree with his leader that there is no difference between these two terms?

[Privilege, May 9th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, up until the beginning of 2023, the Liberal government was completely denying that there was interference. We could ask all the questions we wanted, but they just denied its existence, full stop. The opposition parties fought for a rapporteur to be appointed, and we succeeded in, I believe, March 2023, but his appointment was far from unanimous. It was a failure. Now we have Ms. Hogue, who seems to be doing a great job.

After everything my colleague just said, I really empathize with her. I would like her to use some adjectives and describe to me precisely what she is going through because of this government, which has been keeping us in the dark for years, since it had highly relevant information about foreign interference.

[Privilege, May 8th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, I am rather surprised at what my colleague is saying. I just want to give a little reminder. Two years ago, his Prime Minister and the entire cabinet were saying that there was no problem with interference. In the end, because of pressure from all sides, the government appointed a special rapporteur, David Johnston, who tabled a report that nobody was happy with. Now, we have Marie-Josée Hogue, who seems to be doing a great job.

Could I remind him that what is being said right now is that interference is one of the biggest strategic threats to national security?

[Gilles Perron, April 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, today I would like to acknowledge the remarkable contribution of one of my predecessors as the Bloc Québécois member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, the Hon. Gilles Perron.

When I decided to run, Gilles told me that if I did not wear out a pair of shoes during my election campaign, I did not deserve to win. What is more, he told me to enjoy the evening of my victory, because the very next day, we would be back on the campaign trail.

For more than eleven years, Gilles wore out many pairs of shoes to go meet his constituents. However, his greatest political contribution is that, thanks to him, post-traumatic stress disorder among veterans is finally recognized today. We are talking about a historic moment for the people who defended our democracy.

As the end draws near, I promise Gilles that I will honour his political legacy in the service of the invisible wounded. For Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, I will again wear out my shoes thinking of him.

Gilles, we love you.

[The Budget, April 29th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, since this morning, the Conservatives have been presenting worst-case scenarios involving the budget. They are taking a bulldozer approach, but that is not the Bloc's style. We try to be somewhat constructive and see the positive points. We try to help, be accommodating and improve what is presented to us. That is our approach. We are obviously going to vote against the budget, but not for the same reasons.

I would like to ask my colleague if he can find just two or three small items in the budget that he agrees with.

[The Budget, April 29th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the division of powers between the different levels of government dates back to the Constitution. It comes under the authority of the Constitution Act, 1867, and it is also the basis of federalism. I would like my colleague to tell me what we should make of all this interference.

Is the government telling us that the Canadian Constitution needs to be reviewed or reopened?