Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[Justice, May 25th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec lawyers held a special assembly yesterday to tell their board of directors to back down. It is unacceptable for our institutions to attack the Government of Quebec's laws. Curiously, it seems the Minister of Canadian Heritage funded that unacceptable lawsuit. Quebec is French and must remain so.

Will the heritage minister acknowledge her lack of judgment in supporting the lawsuit? Will she withdraw her funding?

[International Trade, May 23rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, we know what happens when people seek to sign a deal at any cost. They always lose.

The Liberals agreed to market access concessions of 2% in supply-managed sectors under CETA. During the by-election in Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean, the Prime Minister swore with his hand on his heart that he would protect supply management at any cost. However, after the election, he agreed to concessions of 3.25% in supply-managed sectors under the trans-Pacific partnership. That is twice that Quebec farmers have been taken for a ride.

When it comes to NAFTA, can the Prime Minister assure us that there will be no concessions, not 3%, not 1%—

[Elections Modernization Act, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.

There have been all kinds of scandals since the beginning of this term. There was something fishy about how the government obtained its funding. For example, a Chinese bank was approved, and within the following 48 hours, the government's coffers were thousands of dollars richer. A large number of Parliament Hill lobbyists for web giants fund the governing Liberal Party.

In our democracy, the party in power must avoid financial influence, since people are always going to appease a group that gives them a lot of money. The more we allow large donations, the more influence these groups will have. To maintain a healthy democracy, we must limit individual and corporate donations to political parties, and in particular to the party in power, since these donations can sometimes be made through the back door.

[Elections Modernization Act, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, it is not that restoring public funding for political parties will favour the Bloc Québécois. It will favour democracy. There is a difference between the deep pockets of political party donors and the people who have an interest in contributing to a political party for reasons that might go against their personal convictions. This is one way to clean up politics.

In Quebec, public funding for political parties has changed things quite a bit. The maximum donation is capped at $100, but we are open to it being $200, $300, or $400. The important thing is that donations are capped in order to prevent people from having undue influence because they arrange to make donations together in order to get favours. We have a problem with that.

In Quebec, we have a fine example of a solution that would help resolve this situation and it would not cost taxpayers any extra. At the end of the day, we would have a healthier democracy where we do not spend our time chasing after money. Obviously, when donors say that they will no longer donate money to us if we do not do this or that, we tend to listen to them.

[Elections Modernization Act, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague opposite, who is generously sharing his time with me.

It is a great pleasure to speak today to Bill C-76 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. Many subjects are debated in the House, and when we discuss democracy, and changes in how we operate and how members of the House are elected, I believe that it is a crucially important debate for everyone here. Furthermore, it is even more important that we take the time needed to debate these matters and that everyone have the opportunity to speak as long as necessary, because our democracy is at issue.

My party studied the bill thoroughly, but since we do not have much speaking time today, I will have to focus on just a few main themes.

Before I begin my more in-depth analysis, I would like to touch on the few things we think this bill gets right. First of all, Bill C-76 undoes some of the damage the Conservatives did with Bill C-23, such as preventing the Chief Electoral Officer from educating voters about the voting process and encouraging people to vote.

I think virtually all of us can agree with the basic principle that more voter participation is a good thing. The Chief Electoral Officer's job is to make sure that as many people as possible can vote. Preventing people from voting undermines and delegitimizes our democracy. On that, this bill is a good first step.

In addition, the bill gives the Chief Electoral Officer and the Commissioner of Canada Elections some powers that were also taken away from them under Bill C-23.

Bill C-76 contains positive measures to encourage members of the armed forces, young people and persons with disabilities to participate in the electoral process. We also welcome the government's efforts in this regard. Finally, we are particularly supportive of limiting the duration of the election campaign to 50 days, because that is what the Bloc Québécois asked for during the last federal election in 2015. In fact, the Conservative government used a loophole in the fixed election date bill to greatly extend the duration of the election campaign in order to circumvent the spirit of the legislation put in place. We had not seen such a long election campaign in hundreds of years. It did not make sense. We needed something that made sense. We had to frame that. For this reason, we are pleased to see the 50-day limit, because it is still a reasonable limit. We very much welcome these provisions and congratulate the government on having retained the position and vision of the Bloc Québécois on this issue.

Now, I want to talk about one of the biggest problems with Bill C-76. The problem is not necessarily what is in the bill, but what is missing from it, and some measures in the bill are not particularly interesting.

I want to point out four areas on which we disagree. If I have the time, I will then talk about what we plan to do later on. The first thing that we have a problem with is third-party involvement in the electoral process. The government is proposing greater oversight of third-party involvement in the electoral process. We think it is a good idea to have greater oversight of third parties, except that this oversight would allow for a higher spending limit for third parties, even though there is greater oversight during the pre-election period. There is also greater oversight over the money going to and from these third parties.

The government is over-complicating things. We do not think that third parties should be influencing the election by spending money during the electoral process. We think that is a bad thing. The political parties that spend money to get elected are the ones that should be involved in the electoral process. We are already supposed to be regulating spending and fundraising for political parties, so third parties should not be spending money to get other parties or a specific party elected. It is dangerous to get third parties involved since they could find roundabout ways to use money to support one party and undermine the others.

Interested parties could draw inspiration from what is happening in the United States with super PACs. We do not think that is good for democracy. We need to make much simpler rules that categorically ban third-party intervention in electoral spending. We hope the government and the other parties will be open to that idea.

Voter identification is another issue that is especially important to us. We got a chance to discuss it in 2015, during the last election campaign. Bill C-76 would have been a great opportunity to move the discussion forward, but unfortunately, it will not require Canadians to uncover their faces to vote, which is something the Bloc Québécois has been calling for for a long time. Some parties have supported us in calling for that. Candidates from other parties have even broken ranks to side with us.

In 2007, Michel Guimond introduced Bill C-465, which required every elector to identify himself or herself with his or her face uncovered before voting. When Bill C-23 was being debated in committee, MP André Bellavance, who is now mayor of Victoriaville, also introduced some amendments specifically requiring voters to uncover their faces. Unfortunately, at the time, the NDP, the Conservative Party, and the Liberal Party banded together to veto the Bloc Québécois's proposal that Canadians be required to uncover their faces in order to vote. The end result was that during the 2015 election people showed up to vote dressed any which way. Some dressed up as clowns, Star Wars or Star Trek characters, or monsters, while others put on hockey gear. It was absolutely disgraceful.

The electoral process must be serious, secure, and secular, since our government must be secular. It therefore seems obvious to us that Canadians should vote with their faces uncovered. We are very pleased that the Conservatives seem to have had an awakening in this regard. We hope that they will remain consistent in their views on this.

Another issue that we care about, and I hope I will have time to mention them all, is political party financing. Something must be done because not everyone can afford to pay $1,500 to attend a cocktail party. After the Conservatives did away with the public funding for political parties implemented by Jean Chrétien in response to the sponsorship scandal, the Liberals promised that they would bring it back. However, once they took office, it seems they changed their minds. Perhaps they realized that there were a lot of people who wanted to make donations. Why then would they allow the other parties to compete on a level playing field? It is important to have a level playing field. The parties should receive funding based on votes, not just on the depth of their party supporters' pockets.

Another issue that we care about is government advertising. The government promised to do something about that, but there is nothing in this bill in that regard. We know how this works. We have seen a lot of quasi-partisan or questionable advertising in recent years. The government has a duty to take action on this issue.

There is also no framework for the leadership debate in this bill. It seems pretty clear to us that all parties represented in the House should have the opportunity to participate in the leadership debate. The bill also does nothing to reform the voting system. The government has broken its promise in that regard.

Finally, the Liberals are trying to let foreigners keep the right to vote. It seems obvious to us that the people who should be able to vote are the people who live here, in a riding in Canada, and not people from other countries. We understand the case of members of the armed forces or people who are temporarily out of the country. However, people who have been out of the country for years do not have the interests of people living here at heart. Those people should just vote in their new country, if they so wish.

[Transportation Modernization Act, May 22nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House for the following motion: that the House call on the Government of Canada to negotiate with the Government of Quebec to allow the Government of Quebec to administer its own income tax returns.

[Canada Revenue Agency, May 10th, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, that was not an answer.

Today we learned that the Research Institute on Self-Determination of Peoples and National Independence, known as the IRAI in French, has been denied charitable status from the Canada Revenue Agency because it is too political.

Never mind that the agency has granted that status to The Federal Idea, which exists to enlighten us on the superiority of federalism. Imagine our surprise when we learned that an overwhelming majority of its board members are Liberal Party donors.

Can the Minister of National Revenue assure us that the decision to deny the IRAI that status was not a political directive?

[Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, May 3rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, our border has become a sieve. The government must suspend the safe third country agreement to stop the chaos with asylum seekers at our borders. Even the Association québécoise des avocats et avocates en droit de l'immigration is calling for this. Section 10 exists so that the agreement can be suspended if necessary. We do not even need permission.

Will the government step up and suspend the safe third country agreement?

[Contrecoeur Kenpo Karate Association, May 3rd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, on Saturday, April 28, over 300 guests were in attendance as the Association de Karaté Kenpo de Contrecoeur celebrated its 45th anniversary.

Founded in 1973, the karate school is Contrecoeur's oldest association, older even than the Fédération de l'âge d'or du Québec, or FADOQ. From the very beginning, it has always enjoyed the unwavering commitment of Serge Giard, founding member and president. He has definitely earned his title as a kenpo knight and his eighth degree black belt. Congratulations on this amazing dedication.

I also want to congratulate the many past and present volunteers and karatekas from the Contrecoeur judo club, and wish them all the best for the future.

[Gordon Brown, May 2nd, 2018]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to address the House.

As House leader for the Bloc Québécois, I offer my deepest and most sincere condolences on behalf of our leader, Martine Ouellet, and on behalf of my colleagues and members of the Bloc Québécois to the family of Gordon Brown, his friends, and all of his colleagues in the House of Commons, in particular his colleagues in the Conservative Party of Canada.

In difficult times like these, we are reminded of how fragile human life is, as we all have to face our mortality. Our colleague left us too soon. His death touches me as a member of Parliament and also as a human being, knowing that he would not have had the chance to say goodbye to his loved ones.

I want to recognize the commitment, selflessness, and courage of a man who dedicated his life to the well-being of his constituents.

Today, we all owe him our profound respect and deepest gratitude. My thoughts and prayers are with him and his loved ones. May he rest in peace and may his family find solace.