Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I want to correct my colleague. It is true that there was an indication from Canadians during the election campaign. That does not stop at the end of the campaign, however. The government needs to listen to what civil society is saying now. Not too long ago, we showed up with representatives from all health care sector unions. All of these big unions called for health transfers to b…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, yes, absolutely. However, my main concern is that all this public money is going to the oil and gas sector, which is making money hand over fist. I cannot understand why any public decision-maker would decide to financially support an industry that is currently reaping eye-watering profits, an industry that also contributes to putting us all at risk, since it is the industry that pr…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I totally agree with my colleague, especially given that the Minister of Environment told us that he was going to end the fossil fuel subsidies since they are inefficient. I now have the impression that all this talk of inefficient subsidies is nothing but rhetoric. What the government is trying to say today is that the oil and gas sector is synonymous with green development, which …
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I just want to tell my colleagues that repeating a falsehood does not make it true. One reason the price of gas is skyrocketing today is refining margins. Big oil producers have boosted their refining margins significantly. Suggesting that the government should cut taxes to give big oil more room to manoeuvre when these greedy corporations are siphoning off what little money the Can…
Read full speech →Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my colleague by saying that informed politicians who are familiar with Quebec and Canadian politics would know that we have been talking about these issues for more than 50 years. At some point we need to stop debating; we need to do something. We are moving this motion today. I do not think it is illegitimate or irrational to ask that a nation like the Quebec n…
Read full speech →Routine Proceedings
Madam Speaker, according to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, defending the Quebec nation means playing politics and obstructing Parliament. I will be frank: Earlier, I referred to history, by saying that in 1963, Quebec was sidelined by the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission. In 1982, when the Constitution was repatriated, Quebec was sidelined. In the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, Quebec was …
Read full speech →Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out to my colleague from Winnipeg North that he and I are the only ones debating the Constitution. The motion is specifically about Quebec's political weight, not the Constitution. I would also point out that it was his party that raised the constitutional issue by saying that the notwithstanding clause should not be used. It was his party that raised this, not …
Read full speech →Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, could our colleagues please move their conversations somewhere outside the House? Even though I am next to the member for La Prairie, I cannot hear what he is saying.
Read full speech →Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Winnipeg North, who I find very interesting and enjoy hearing from. I do not mean to insult him, but I noticed something in his presentation that I see frequently and that I would describe as “predatory federalism”. I apologize for using that phrase, but it means that the Quebec nation and the French language are great as long as they remain a qu…
Read full speech →Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking why we are in such a hurry. Simply put, we have been waiting a long time for the Quebec nation to be recognized. Earlier, I was talking about the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which was in 1963, if I am not mistaken. It proved to be a failure for us. Then, in 1982, the Quebec nation suffered another setback with the patriation of the Constitution. Then there was…
Read full speech →Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, the procedure is very straightforward. We want this assembly to vote on the motion moved by my colleague. It is as simple as that. We can talk about it now. We spent an entire day doing so. As members know, there was an opposition day about Quebec's political weight during which we discussed an issue similar to this morning's issue. The House had a chance to vote then. This is very si…
Read full speech →Routine Proceedings
Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member for Winnipeg North’s approach very interesting. Actually, I am not the only one to mention the Constitution. Earlier this week, we spoke about Bill 21 on state secularism. His colleague from Mont-Royal said that the notwithstanding clause should never be applied. However, it is part of the Constitution. Does this colleague not respect his voters, since he talks …
Read full speech →Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, not only does the Prime Minister want to challenge Quebec's Bill 21, but the Liberals are even planning to use the case to put Quebec under federal control. On Friday, his colleague from Mount Royal said that the notwithstanding clause should be completely abolished and that this article has no place in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and should never be used. He wants to …
Read full speech →Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, cases like Bill 21 are the very reason why the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes a notwithstanding clause. It is there specifically to prevent Canadian institutions from unilaterally overturning the democratic rights of Quebec and the provinces. It is there specifically to prevent the Prime Minister from blocking Bill 21 and imposing his own vision of state secularism, …
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the ever‑charming member for Manicouagan. This is the best time of day, right before question period, when no one is listening and we can say stupid things, although I will not do that. I would like to begin with a reflection on the issue of positive discrimination. When research chairs are being selected, should positive d…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, I will pick up where I left off earlier. To begin, I want to repeat what my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said earlier today. According to my colleague, if the Bloc members' priority is to defend white men who want a job at a university, then we need to own that. This makes me think of something I often accuse the Conservatives of, and that is taking a populist approach. If…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I am just as perplexed as my colleague. Earlier I spoke about Max Weber's essay “Politics as a Vocation”. Weber makes a marked distinction between the role of politics, which is to set directions for society, and the role of a vocation, which is to further knowledge. What happens with something like EDI is that politics dictates what should be studied, but that is not how it works. …
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, my colleague is being very kind. This raises a question for me. For example, today's “diversity ideology” raises the following question: Are there fields of study that may now be off limits? Can a person who is non-indigenous specialize in studying indigenous communities? The definition of EDI suggests that this is not a possibility. One thing scares me. What I wanted to say earlier…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, that would mean that the committees awarding research chairs have members who are insensitive to diversity. That is what you are saying.
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, the problem is that science cannot be beholden to an ideology, no matter how noble that ideology may be. While I see the worth of the ideology of diversity, which I adhere to myself in many aspects of society, what we are seeing here is an attempt to dictate how university research should be conducted. That is not how this works, and if we allow it to happen, knowledge will become i…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, one thing the evidence does show is that we need to increase screening measures. I agree with my colleague that all members in the House need to do some soul-searching and move away from populism, which is eating away at our democracy and plays too big of a role in our debates. I think that is the best short-term solution.
Read full speech →Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by telling my colleague from Thornhill that I think she is a very dynamic person and that I think highly of her. I hope she will not take offence at the comments I am about to make. On the last Bloc opposition day, my Conservative colleagues talked a lot about the relevance of our motion, which had to do with prayer. They wondered why we had raised that subject a…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, that was a judicious intervention. I apologize for offending my colleague. It is an unflattering play on the word inflation and the Prime Minister's name that I feel conveys that populism. Before I go on, I would like to define the word “populism”. Generally speaking, it is a style of politics that divides by attempting to simplify issues and amplify antagonism. It is us versus them. …
Read full speech →Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, my colleague's thoughts were poorly expressed. A person can ask questions whether they are a member of the Bloc, a Conservative, a papist or whatever else, but those questions have to be rational. We need to listen to the science. You can please somebody by saying that global warming does not exist and that they can keep burning gas until the end of time and nothing will ever happen t…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Mr. Speaker, I know that we need to listen to science, but pandemic science is not a monolith. There is not one united opinion and many experts disagree. It is up to the government to sift through the opinions, but it is certainly not required to base its decisions solely on the rumblings of some people who feel that their freedom is being violated by the restrictions on travel and on how we live …
Read full speech →Government Orders
What a mind-boggling question, Mr. Speaker. What does this mean? Does it mean that every restriction that people do not understand must be lifted? If someone wants to drive at 200 kilometres per hour because they think that they are a good driver, should we remove speed limits because this person does not understand that there are restrictions in society? I cannot believe that question.
Read full speech →Government Orders
I understand, Madam Speaker. The government's plan includes Canada's hydrogen strategy. The government plans to invest a ton of money to produce hydrogen from natural gas, which is what the oil and gas sector is calling for. The only natural resources industry that captures carbon naturally is the forestry industry. In my region, Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, this industry contributes more to the gover…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, and I picked up on some serious contradictions. He concluded his speech with the assertion that we should not challenge the $2.4 billion set aside for carbon capture. However, during his speech, he said that, from a technical perspective, carbon capture may not be feasible, as many experts have said, but that we need to roll the dice anyway. I hav…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague, and I have some reservations. I do not think it is right to use science only when it serves one's purposes. A group of 400 academics wrote that carbon capture is not a good idea for the oil and gas sector. A number of experts told us in committee that carbon capture could meet the needs of cement factories or heavy industrial processes, but it is …
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, what Oil Change International says is that, year after year, the government, through EDC, invests a minimum of $14 billion in the oil and gas sector. What is worse, the Canadian government is not prepared to define what it considers a subsidy, so we will never have a real sense of what is going on. Given the $14 billion a year invested through EDC and all of the money spent on the T…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I am wondering whether my colleague from Winnipeg North believes himself when he speaks. I really wonder about that. With regard to investments in the energy transition, let us not forget the much-touted $17‑billion green recovery plan. The government is investing $17 billion for its entire green recovery plan, but it is investing $30 billion in a single oil project, Trans Mountain.…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I understand my colleague's question, but I would like to come back to what he said by way of introduction. He said that he has never seen the Bloc side with the Conservatives more. What I have seen over the past few weeks is my colleague from Timmins—James Bay refusing to allow the deputy minister of the environment to come back to talk to the committee about Bay du Nord. I cannot …
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I apologize: I should have said “my friend”, or simply “the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay”. We could count on the NDP on issues concerning the oil and gas sector. However, they will be obliged to support the budget, which earmarks $2.6 billion for carbon capture strategies. I will get back to that later. That prompted the mischievous member for Mirabel to say that the NDP is spe…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to mention that I will be sharing my time with the mischievous member for Mirabel. What to say about this motion? First, I will tell my NDP colleagues that the Bloc Québécois will support their motion, since putting an end to subsidies for fossil fuels is something we have long defended. When it comes to the issue of oil and gas in Canada, it seems to me…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Timmins-James Bay, whom I quite like. Often the Conservatives are puppets of the oil and gas sector, but my colleague from Timmins-James Bay is often a puppet of the Liberal Party. The Standing Committee on Natural Resources received an assistant deputy minister of the environment. Unfortunately, he pretended to have technical problems to avoid answeri…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, we have known about the Liberal government's unfortunate propensity for funding oil and gas for quite some time now. I am glad my colleague moved this motion. There is one small problem, however. The NDP-Liberal marriage means that the NDP will be forced to vote in favour of the $2.6 billion set aside for carbon capture strategies. Not only will the NDP be voting in favour, but they…
Read full speech →Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, gas prices are hurting Quebeckers and our businesses, especially in rural areas. In the meantime, oil companies raked in record profits in the last quarter: almost $3 billion for Suncor and $1.1 billion for both Imperial and TC Energy. What is most infuriating is that regardless of these profits, the federal government is giving Trans Mountain $10 billion in loan guarantees. There was…
Read full speech →Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, dirty oil producers are double-dipping. Consumers are paying twice, once at the pumps and a second time through the taxes that fund the subsidies that the federal government pays to these oil companies, which are sitting on piles of money, like Scrooge. The simple fact is that the middle class is seeing all of their hard-earned money go to oil billionaires. The oil companies do not ne…
Read full speech →Oral Questions
Mr. Speaker, fuel prices are catastrophic for entrepreneurs in farming, fishing, trucking and the taxi industry. These people are on the verge of bankruptcy. Entire industries in Quebec are suffering major losses without the least bit of support from the federal government. Meanwhile, the oil industry is reaping record profits and continues to be heavily subsidized. When will the government stop s…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's speech, and I will play nice. Yesterday the Conservatives attacked us mercilessly on the prayer issue on the grounds we should be talking about inflation instead. Unfortunately, they are not talking about inflation today. That is not my business; it is theirs. Maybe Jean Charest's presence is forcing them to go off on a China tangent. I have one very simp…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, thank you for the reminder. There is a very simple strategy: If someone wants to put down their dog, they say it has rabies. The government does not want to debate the Prime Minister's ethical issues because it says now is not the time to be debating them. My Conservative colleagues do not want to debate abortion because they say now is not the time to debate abortion. I have been i…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I would simply like to say that I think that the neutrality of institutions is likely one of the most determinative issues in politics. An institution must not speak on behalf of any one faith or ethnic minority. If we respect differences, then our institutions should be neutral. That is the first thing. With regard to the choice of topic, I would simply like to point out to my coll…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, towards the end of his speech, my colleague suggested that talking about state neutrality and saying that the House of Commons, which represents the state, should not say a prayer before question period is a divisive issue. I do not know if that is what he meant, but that is what I understood. I would like him to explain to me how secularism or state neutrality is a divisive issue.
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, I am a bit puzzled by everything that I have heard this morning. I am puzzled and perhaps angry as well. I have heard people question the appropriateness of having this debate today. There are great democrats in the Liberal and Conservative parties who are eager to tell us how we should be using our opposition day, not to talk about an issue that deals with secularism, but to talk a…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, basically, what my colleague is saying is as crazy as asking why democracy and collective deliberation are important. It makes as much sense as that. The primary principle in modern democracies is the neutrality of the state. What message does it send when this House, an institution that is supposed to be above all other institutions, says a prayer before it begins its proceedings? …
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, the principle of reasonable accommodations has been talked about extensively in the legal context. I think it would be reasonable to accommodate a member who wants to enter the chamber in a wheelchair, but that is not what this motion is about. I think it would be even more reasonable to respect the neutrality of the state and to eliminate this archaic tradition of praying before ea…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, there is a rather simple principle. Generally, the way our societies work is that they are divided into three parts: the state, which represents the public sphere; civil society, which represents the civic sphere; and the family, which represents the private sphere. Generally speaking, religion should be relegated to the civic and private spheres, not the public sphere. That is a ke…
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, it would be nice if the member for Winnipeg North could talk about the motion we are debating instead of health care funding. I am all in favour—
Read full speech →Government Orders
Madam Speaker, the member has been talking for five minutes about a petition he presented on seniors. At some point—
Read full speech →