Xavier Barsalou-Duval

[May 1st, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands.

We can all agree that the lapel pins we wear are not what makes us the people's elected representatives. This symbol is useful for security purposes. However, it should not have any bearing on a member's privilege to sit in the House. Parliament belongs to the people, and its representatives should always have access to this place, whether they are wearing their lapel pin or not.

That being said, the question of privilege that was raised today is more anecdotal than fundamental. Fundamentally, there are, in the House, members and legislators who cannot fully participate in the legislative process. I am talking about the 10 members of the Bloc Québécois and the member of the Green Party.

Today, we are talking about a question of privilege because we want our democracy to be as fair and effective as possible. As a result, we are talking about how the House works. That is healthy, and it is a good thing to do. First and foremost, we need to ask ourselves whom the House belongs to. It belongs to the people. We are here as representatives of the people. It is the voice of the people that is heard in the House of Commons, or at least that is the spirit of our democracy.

Like the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party, and the New Democratic Party, the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party are parties that are recognized by Elections Canada. Representatives of these parties were elected as members of the House of Commons. However, at present, only parties with 12 elected members or more have official party status. This standard for recognition is a tradition, but it is not set out in any law.

The only thing in the Parliament of Canada Act about the required number of elected officials is that a threshold of 12 elected members is needed to establish the additional allowances for the representatives of a recognized party. That is not what we are asking for. We are not asking for additional allowances for representatives of our parties. What we are asking is that all members have the same rights in the House. What would that mean? It would mean, for example, that we would be able to sit on standing committees of the House. It would also mean that we would be able to ask questions in oral question period. At this point in time, on some days we can and on others we cannot. We are never sure whether we will be able to speak. It would also mean that we would be able to fully play our role as elected members and members of the opposition. We would have a budget with which to do our work. Parties must have at least 12 members to have a budget.

The real losers in all this are not only the parties with fewer than 12 elected representatives, but the entire population. Nearly a million Quebeckers are penalized at the polls because of partisanship. Budgets that enable the parties to do their parliamentary work, be it for party leaders, whips, House leaders, research, support, or IT, are set by the Board of Internal Economy after the general election.

The way we see it, there is nothing preventing the Board of Internal Economy from granting additional funds to parties that are currently unrecognized, funds that would allow them to hire researchers so they can better perform their role and represent their constituents effectively, just like the other MPs in the House of Commons.

This is not just about political will. Unfortunately, there appears to be a clear absence of political will when it comes to parties other than those with at least 12 elected members, and voters are the ones who pay the price.

I would like to talk about how it works in Quebec. The Office of the National Assembly grants research and support budgets to all political parties with elected members. Under section 108 of the Act respecting the National Assembly, all political parties represented in the Assembly receive monies for research and support purposes. That applies to independent members too.

The amount provided will be used to cover operational and research expenses, which includes staff salaries. At present, parties with fewer than 12 members must cut their constituency budgets in order to conduct research. That is why the service is not as good in Ottawa, since some parties have less money than others to provide this service, and not as good in our ridings, since part of the constituency budget has to be cut in order to do research.

The NDP, which currently has 44 elected MPs, has an average supplementary budget of about $90,000 per member for research. This budget is used by the party leader, whip, and caucus leader, and for everything from translation to IT to coffee during caucus meetings. The Standing Orders discount 8% of the Canadian electorate. In fact, the House of Commons is discounting the 5% of Canadians who voted for the Bloc Québécois and the 3% of Canadians who voted for the Green Party. As a result, the MPs chosen by more than 1.4 million voters do not have the resources needed to fulfill their role. Is that a good thing for democracy? I hardly think so. Democracy seems to be taking a back seat when it comes to how political parties are recognized in the House.

I would like the other parties to talk about this because generally when we ask the question, they always try to avoid answering it. For so many people to have their elected representative denied the same budget as members of other parties that have more than 12 elected members does not make very much sense to us. It is the voters who determine party recognition because they are the ones who vote for the parties represented in the House. The members of those parties are entitled to the same things as all the others. A two-tier parliamentary system is far from what the public wants.

In November 2015, there were 200 new members in the House. These members will recall that the Prime Minister came to welcome them all at the Sir John A. Macdonald building. At the time, he told them that his role as the member for Papineau took precedence over his role as Prime Minister. We would like him to fully assume that role and understand that the reality of members is as important as that of the Prime Minister and as important as partisanship. Whatever happened to his fine words? We look forward to seeing what comes of this.

It is time to move from rhetoric to action by recognizing that MPs from all political parties need similar tools in order to properly represent their constituents. We share the Prime Minister's desire to put legislative powers and the work of members before partisanship. I would remind everyone that the House belongs to the people, not the parties.

The same goes for committees. We do not sit on committees, other than when we are given a few short minutes to speak when it suits everyone, or just about everyone. However, meaningful democratic reform would allow members of the Bloc Québécois and the Green Party to sit on committees. I am convinced that the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands would very much like to sit on the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and that she would have many positive things to say that would bring a lot to Parliament and the government.

Our Parliament is the only one in the world that works this way. Every provincial legislature recognizes parties even when they have fewer elected members. That is also the case in London, which was cited as an example by the government. In fact, in London, budgets are allocated when a party has two elected members. The situation in the House of Commons is very unfair and unacceptable and the House must absolutely study this issue because it is not what the people want. The people want the MPs they voted for to be able to speak and to have the means to do their jobs. It is quite simply a question of good faith and democracy.

[Foreign Investment, April 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec suppliers have already begun to pay the price for the sale of Rona to Lowe's. In some cases, their sales have already dropped by 20%. It is remarkable.

The Minister of Innovation, Science and Economic Development had the power to impose guarantees, but he did not. He had a duty to examine the net benefits of the transaction, but he did not. He just wanted to get the file off his desk. This is about Quebec suppliers and jobs in Quebec.

Will the economic development minister finally admit that he did not do his job on the Rona file?

[Patriation of the Constitution, April 13th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, April 17, 1982, is a black day in the history of Quebec. Thirty-five years ago, Ottawa patriated the Constitution. The then British consul, John Ford, deemed it to be a coup carried out to change the balance of power in the Confederation. The goal was to weaken Quebec by diminishing its ability to make its own societal decisions, beginning with its ability to protect the French language.

Every one of Quebec's governments has refused to sign Trudeau's Constitution because they all came to the same conclusion: this Constitution was negotiated at the expense of Quebec and was bad for our nation.

I remember. The Bloc Québécois remembers. We expect nothing else from Canada but betrayals and attempts to weaken our ability to stand on our own. Thirty-five years later the patriation of the Constitution is a failure. The separatist movement is still alive and Quebec is still standing.

[Malala Yousafzai, April 12th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, these are difficult times for humanity. World peace is more of a dream than a possibility or a reality. Extremism keeps us at arm's length and is tearing us apart. Around the world, there is too much fear, hate, and violence. When humanity faces difficult times, a glimmer of hope always appears.

Malala is a glimmer of hope, and she invites us to be open with one another and to work towards the equality of men and women. She invites us to abandon our prejudices, to get to know one another, and to love one another more. We are pleased to have Malala Yousafzai with us. We admire her. Taking a stand, fighting for justice and for the fundamental right to education, overcoming adversity, and wanting to build a better world is truly inspiring.

I thank Malala for being that extraordinary ray of sunshine that the world truly needs. Thank you for being here with us.

[Justice, April 11th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' procrastination has gone on long enough. Since the Jordan decision, requests for a stay in proceedings in Quebec alone have increased by 70% from 574 to 809.

Arguing over the number of positions to fill is not going to solve the problem. If Quebec tells Ottawa that it needs to appoint 14 judges, then Ottawa needs to appoint 14 judges.

When will the 40 Liberal MPs from Quebec appeal to the Minister of Justice to do her job and appoint judges?

[Justice, April 10th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, in light of the Jordan decision, the Parti Québécois, the official opposition at the National Assembly, called on the Government of Quebec to use the notwithstanding clause.

They are considering using the notwithstanding clause because Ottawa has been completely negligent. We are on a slippery slope. Trust in the justice system is vital.

Does the Minister of Justice realize that by failing to appoint a full roster of superior court justices, criminals could get away with their crimes?

[Taxation, April 6th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the public finance committee of Quebec's National Assembly tabled its report on the use of tax havens. Unlike Ottawa, the Quebec government wants to put an end to the injustice caused by the complacency of our institutions, the consulting firms that engage in tax evasion, and the 1% of very wealthy people who are willing to do whatever it takes to avoid paying taxes.

Are the 40 Liberal members from Quebec going to side with Bay Street, as usual, or will they finally listen to Quebeckers who are saying that enough is enough?

[Government Response to Petitions, April 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion: “That, given proposals articulated during the October 6, 2016, take-note debate on the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, a special committee be constituted to conduct a comprehensive review of the Standing Orders and procedure of the House of Commons as follows: (a) that the review be divided into four parts as follows: 1. management of debate, 2. management of the House and its meetings, 3. management of committees, and 4. management of parliamentary groups; (b) that committee members submit their list of proposed witnesses to the Clerk no later than seven calendar days following the adoption of this motion; (c) that the committee may meet outside of regular meeting hours, if any, to complete its review by the date indicated in item (i); (d) that the committee consist of 12 members, which shall include five members from the government party, three members from the official opposition, two members from the New Democratic Party, one member from the Bloc Québécois, and the Green Party of Canada member; (e) that changes to the membership of the committee be effective immediately after notification by the Whip has been filed with the Clerk of the House; (f) that membership substitutions be permitted, if required, in the manner provided for in Standing Order 114(2); (g) that, with the exception of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, all other members shall be named by their respective Whip by depositing with the Clerk of the House the list of their members to serve on the committee no later than 10 sitting days following the adoption of this motion; (h) that the committee be chaired by a member of the government party; that, in addition to the chair, there be one vice-chair from the official opposition and one vice-chair from the New Democratic Party, and that all candidates for the position of chair or vice-chair from the official opposition shall be elected by secret ballot, and that each candidate be permitted to address the committee for not more than three minutes; (i) that the quorum of the committee be as provided for in Standing Order 118, provided that at least four members are present and provided that one member from the government party and one member from an opposition party are present; (j) that the committee be granted all of the powers of a standing committee, as provided in the Standing Orders, as well as the power to travel, accompanied by the necessary staff, inside and outside of Canada; (k) that the committee have the power to authorize video and audio broadcasting of any or all of its proceedings; (l) that, at the conclusion of the review of House procedures and practices, the Committee will only make recommendations to the House that enjoy the support of all the members of the committee; and (m) that the Committee complete its report and present its findings and recommendations to the House no later than June 16, 2017.

[Canada: The Story of Us, April 5th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, first the Acadians were deported, and now they are being written out of history with the Prime Minister's blessing. That is one of the first things one notices upon watching the CBC's revisionist new series, Canada: The Story of Us.

Even the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who tried to persuade us that John A. Macdonald was a feminist, a progressive, a Montreal Canadiens fan, and pals with Louis Riel, refrained from commenting on this dreck.

In this new version of history, the French are a ragtag bunch of misfits, while the English are sharply dressed, cunning, and smart.

This is not the story of us. Our history is still being written. This is the story of them, and neither Quebeckers nor Acadians have a place in the so-called multicultural Canada that the CBC wants to ram down our throats.

The worst part is that the CBC paid for this so-called Canadian propaganda with our tax dollars.

[Aerospace Industry, April 4th, 2017]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers are angry about the greediness of Bombardier executives. After cutting jobs and begging for handouts, these executives are giving themselves a 48% pay raise. This goes beyond cynicism. It is obscene. Quebeckers have every reason to be outraged.

Will the Prime Minister join Quebeckers in asking Bombardier executives to forgo their pay raises for 2016?