Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of tabling a petition today on recognition and support for family caregivers. These women and men play a vital role in supporting people with health conditions who are in the process of losing their autonomy or living with a disability. Their work eases some of the pressure on our health care system. This petition is the outcome of a remarkable grassroots movement led by Geneviève Coutu of Sorel-Tracy, who I am happy to say is here in the gallery today. The petition gathered 13,035 electronic signatures and more than 3,600 paper signatures. As a family caregiver of many years to her husband, who has Alzheimer's disease, she embodies the reality faced by so many families. The petitioners call upon the federal government to provide better recognition for caregivers while respecting the jurisdictions of the provinces, including Quebec. The Bloc Québécois fully supports these demands, and I invite all the parties to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by sincerely thanking you for your work, your patience and your remarkable ability to remain calm. I would also like to thank all the members of the political parties for their tributes, which I thought were almost too generous. I want to thank my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, the member for Ville‑Marie—Le Sud‑Ouest—Île‑des‑Soeurs and the member for Lévis—Lotbinière, whose riding is next to mine and who is also a friend. I also want to thank the member for Vancouver Kingsway and the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands. I thank them for their kind words. They were very generous. I was genuinely moved by all the fine speeches. I thank them for their kindness, which will remain engraved in my memory. I also want to thank the members of the Bloc Québécois team, with whom I have the privilege of working. Their diligence, creativity, sense of duty and, above all, their ability to tolerate stories from a veteran politician like myself, deserve special recognition. I want to thank them for standing with me, for advising me, and sometimes, I admit, for bringing me back on topic. Today, I am speaking not only as a member of Parliament, but also as a witness to a journey that, I admit, even exceeds what I could have imagined at the start of my career. Here is what my 42 years as a member of Parliament represent: more than 15,059 days of parliamentary service, majority governments, minority governments, governments that were defeated, governments that were rebuilt, 12 federal prime ministers, reforms, economic crises, impassioned debates, thousands of speeches, a historic referendum, major reforms and, quite likely, enough red tape to cover the Champlain Bridge twice. I have seen the House at its best, and sometimes at its loudest, but I have always been witness to the fact that democracy, although imperfect, remains essential and invaluable. When I arrived here in 1983, some of the current members were learning their colours, others were starting their first day of school and some were not even a twinkle in their parents' eyes. I say this with humour, but also with deep humility. Having the honour of serving for so long is a privilege that I have never taken for granted. I will not hide the fact that when I started, many people told me to serve my term and then move on as best I could. They thought I would get tired of it and not stay very long. A few years turned into a quarter of a century, then three decades, and I will let my colleagues finish that list. However, I can say without hesitation that I have never been bored. What is fascinating about a political career is that the years go by, the debates change, governments come and go, but the passion remains. I would say that I still have the energy, the will—and the enthusiasm, even—to get up every morning to serve the people of Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak because this role remains, even today, the greatest honour of my life. Being elected for a year is a gesture of trust. Being elected for a decade is a responsibility, but being elected for 42 years is an honour that words cannot describe. If I have persevered, it is first and foremost thanks to the people of Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak, thanks to their trust, renewed year after year; thanks to their advice, sometimes gentle, sometimes very direct; and thanks to their devotion to a representative who has always tried to be warm, accessible and down to earth. I owe it all to them. Serving as a member of Parliament for four decades means witnessing the change in our people, debates, institutions, and technology. When I first arrived, we had no cell phones, no email, no fax machines, no social media. We only had typewriters and notepads. Today, everything moves faster, but the essence of the job remains the same. It involves the duty to listen, understand and represent. When I think back to my early days, I remember a Parliament where speeches were still typed on typewriters. Some of my colleagues were not even born yet, and the press gallery was packed. Since then, I have seen caucuses form, transform, split up, and sometimes heal. I have seen colleagues become friends, and others become history. I have witnessed Quebec struggle, grow, assert its rights and showcase the richness of its French language. Over the years, I have become the dean of the House of Commons and the longest-serving member of Parliament in Canadian history. This fact still surprises me because it was not a goal of mine. Being the dean of the House is also a strange position. It comes with certain responsibilities, like opening the new legislative session and, above all, recounting memories that no one else remembers but me. It is also a privilege to witness the cycles of our democracy and the continuity of our institutions. The young members who arrive each year remind me of two things, that time passes very quickly and that the next generation is bright, idealistic and determined, which reassures me tremendously. I am often asked what keeps me going after all this time. I always answer that it is the people, the folks back home. I have never forgotten that behind every debate, every vote and every speech, there is a farmer who gets up before dawn; a single mother who works miracles to make ends meet; an entrepreneur who risks it all for the sake of a dream; a young person who wants a greener, prouder and fairer nation; or a senior who wants what he is owed after a lifetime of toil and hard work. These are the people who guided me, encouraged me and got me through 15,059 days with the same unwavering conviction that a member of Parliament is never greater than the people they represent. There is also something profoundly human about this job: We age together. I want to emphasize the important role that Quebec has played in my political career. Since the Bloc Québécois was first established, I have had the immense privilege of helping to defend the interests, values and aspirations of the Quebec nation here in Ottawa. I have watched our party grow, reinvent itself and welcome new generations of elected officials. To promote the French language all these years, to pass it on, defend it and hear it resonate in the House is something that I have always considered to be my highest calling. I still remember my early days and my first caucus meetings, where we had more passion than knowledge, where we built a party with conviction as our main fuel and with hope as our compass. Today, I look at my colleagues, the new generation of the Bloc Québécois, and I know that the flame is still burning. The torch has been passed on, but the flame never goes out. I would like to think that these 42 years have made me wiser. That is partly true. I have learned that listening goes further than anger, that bridges are often more useful than walls, that humour can save nearly any situation and that respect, even when two people disagree, is the key to a healthy democracy. I have also learned that it is important to remain true to oneself and to always be authentic, consistent and faithful to those who elected us to this place. I will conclude by saying that I have never taken this job for granted. I see every election, every speech and every intervention as a renewed privilege. As long as the people of Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel—Alnôbak place their trust in me, I will continue to serve with passion, consistency, humour—sometimes a little too much, some might say—and, above all, with unwavering loyalty to our democracy. Today, as we mark these 42 years of service, as we acknowledge this record of 15,059 days, I want to make it clear that this is not a personal accomplishment. It is a tribute to the collective work of my staff, my Bloc Québécois colleagues, my family and the people who supported me. It is also a tribute to this institution, the House of Commons, that I deeply respect. It is not perfect; no parliament is. However, it remains a place where the will of the people is expressed, where ideas are debated and where the future is built. I have had the privilege of participating in this process for over four decades. I want to thank the citizens who elected me. I thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues, past and present, who have supported me. I thank everyone here, from all parties, with whom I have shared debates, disagreements, compromises and sometimes real friendships. I thank my family, who have agreed to share my life with politics, which requires more patience than anyone can imagine. I thank my team, my employees who have helped me with my office work and in Parliament, including Rita, Carole, Michel, France, Jocelyne, Maxime, Caroline, Jacqueline, Denis and Charbel. I thank the House of Commons staff, the security and transportation staff, the interpreters and everyone who keeps our democracy running smoothly. I want to thank my former leaders, Mr. Bouchard, Mr. Duceppe, Mr. Paillé and, of course, my current leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly. Thank you for allowing me to keep doing today what I love the most, that is, representing my constituents with heart, pride and determination. Despite my 42-year long career, I do not see myself as reaching the end of a chapter; I see myself at the centre of a book still being written. As long as I have the strength and the trust of my constituents, I will keep rising proudly, day after day, as a member of Parliament. Thank you for the past 42 years, and for being here with me to mark these 15,059 days that have marked my entire life.

I will soon suspend the sitting for 30 minutes. Before I do that, I would like to thank my entire team of volunteers for helping me get elected for the 13th time. I thank them for this exalted throne. I also want to thank my whole family. I do love this throne, but I will have to let the King borrow it tomorrow. The King is welcome to it. Actually, he will be sitting on the throne in the Senate. I wish to remind hon. members that the bells to call the members back to the House will be sounded for not more than five minutes. The sitting is suspended to the call of the Chair. (The sitting of the House was suspended at 9:28 a.m.)

Pursuant to the Standing Orders, the House will now proceed to elect a Speaker. After the Clerk has opened the envelope containing the ballots, I will suggest a method of proceeding that will help accelerate the voting process. We will now begin to vote pursuant to Standing Order 4. Please allow me to outline the procedure for all hon. members. The names of the candidates for the election are listed on the ballot in alphabetical order. To vote, you must rank the candidates in order of preference, placing the number “1” in the space next to your first-choice candidate, the number “2” next to your second-choice candidate, and so on, until you have ranked all candidates for whom you wish to vote. Please note that it is not necessary to rank all candidates. Members can vote for a single candidate, if they so desire. In order to vote, I will ask that members leave their desks, exit through the curtains and come to the table using the doors behind me on the left and right sides of the chair on their respective sides of the House. The clerk will issue a ballot paper to each member. After casting their ballots, members are asked to leave the voting area. The polling booths on both sides are now open for voting. (Members were issued ballots and marked their ballots in secret at voting stations)

Mr. Speaker, ten years ago today, on Wednesday, October 22, 2014, Parliament experienced one of the darkest days in its long history, a day that would forever change life in the House of Commons. Ten years ago, a terrorist killed a man just steps from Parliament before bursting into Centre Block targeting elected representatives with deadly intentions. Ten years ago, Corporal Nathan Cirillo lost his life in a completely senseless attack, when he was shot by a deranged jihadist sympathizer. The Bloc's thoughts go out to Corporal Cirillo's loved ones. His life should never have ended that day, at the age of 24, because of a senseless act. As Quebeckers, we cannot help but remember that the Ottawa attack came barely two days after another traumatic incident in Saint-Jean-sur-Richelieu. Just two days earlier, another individual inspired by radical Islamism mowed down two soldiers in a parking lot. One survived but the other, Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, lost his life. We remember him today, too. Our thoughts are still with his loved ones, ten years later. All parliamentarians, all staff and even people who were working in the area around the Hill will remember October 22, 2014, for the rest of their lives. That was the day all of downtown Ottawa wondered whether we were safe, as we were all locked down in our offices until the end of the day. It was the day a madman killed a soldier and then stole a minister's limo to get to Centre Block. It was a Wednesday, a caucus day, when Parliament is more crowded than any other day of the week. That was the day this man started a shootout with parliamentary security in the Hall of Honour, right by the library. It was the day Sergeant-at-Arms Kevin Vickers and the police heroically opened fire and brought down the shooter. History will always remember the heroism demonstrated that day by Mr. Vickers and by members of Parliament's law enforcement service, particularly Corporal Curtis Barrett and Constable Son. It was a very heroic moment, but it did not mark the end of the crisis because nobody knew at that time that the shooter was acting alone. It was the end of the threat to Parliament, but the beginning of a long day for all MPs, staffers and House personnel, who feared for their safety. No one knew what was really going on. We were told to keep our offices locked, to stay away from the windows and to close the curtains. We called our loved ones, our spouses, our children. We wanted to reassure them. It is very difficult to reassure loved ones when we have no idea what is actually going on. Finally, though, we were told that it was safe to leave and go home. Life in the House of Commons changed that day. It changed for the many people who suffered post-traumatic stress following that horrible event, which continues to leave a mark 10 years on. It also changed with the creation, the following year, of the Parliamentary Protective Service in its current form and with the heavily tightened security measures around the Hill, which are still in place this fall. Most of all, Parliament lost a lot of its innocence that day. Gone are the days when we believed such things would not happen here on Parliament Hill, which used to be more like a tourist attraction with a laid-back atmosphere. The change is probably for the best, considering the current climate of hostility and threats against elected members. It will forever be deplorable and tragic that, in order to get to this point, Nathan Cirillo, a young man in the prime of his life, had to lose his life to a terrorist. We will never forget him or what happened on Wednesday, October 22, 2014. In closing, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to thank all the Parliamentary Protective Service officers who are here with us every day and who put themselves at risk to keep us, our employees and all the dedicated House of Commons staff safe, as this commemoration clearly reminds us. We thank them.

Mr. Speaker, I too would like to honour John Fraser today, whom I had the honour of working with for many years when he was a minister and when he was Speaker of the House. He was the proud representative of the riding of Vancouver South from 1972 to 1993. In 1986, Mr. Fraser was the first MP elected Speaker of the House of Commons by secret ballot. Prior to this first election in the House, the Prime Minister appointed the Speaker, and the leaders of the other parties simply gave their approval. As was mentioned earlier, in this election, it took 11 rounds before he was elected. We finished at around 1:30 a.m., and the procedure was subsequently changed. He held this position continuously until his retirement in 1993. Decisions made at the time by Speaker Fraser are still cited today. I want to tell a little story. Speaker John Fraser was very clever. At one point, when I was serving as an independent member, I asked a question that he found to be a bit radical, I guess. He asked me to withdraw some of my comments, which, being a good MP, I willingly agreed to do. To my great surprise, two or three weeks later, the Prime Minister used the same expression and so I asked the Speaker if he was also going to ask the Prime Minister to withdraw his remarks, since that is what I had done. He told me that he would think about it. That is when I understood that he was very clever. He gave his answer when I was absent, even though I had been there every day to hear what he had to say on the matter. He decided that it was fine for the Prime Minister to have said what he did, so I went to the Speaker's office to meet with him and ask him why it was okay for the Prime Minister to have made those comments. He said that the reason was very simple. It was that my tone was aggressive, whereas the Prime Minister's tone was humorous, and so it was more understandable. We can see how clever and original Speaker Fraser was. I remember him as a charming man, and we liked to call him John outside his official duties. He was such a pleasure to be around. He would invite everyone to a cocktail party at the end of the year, where he would wear a kilt and serve a good Scotch from the same region. He was also an honest, articulate and dedicated man. He could be authoritarian at times, but always eager to serve all members effectively. His re-election as Speaker was merely a procedural matter, because he was so well liked by all members of the House. Of course, he is being remembered as Speaker of the House, but he was also an excellent environment minister and served as minister of fisheries and oceans. He got in a bit of hot water at the time and, apparently, he did not eat tuna for several months. Anyone who looks it up will understand what I mean. After retiring from Parliament, he continued to be a strong advocate for Pacific salmon conservation in British Columbia and with a number of groups. He also served as an ambassador. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I extend our sincere condolences to his entire family. Farewell, Mr. Speaker. He was a dedicated member of Parliament, a capable minister and an exceptional Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, what can I say after all those kind words? I would like to thank the five speakers from the various political parties who spoke so kindly of me. I have served in the governing party, I have served as an independent, I have served in the official opposition, and I have served as a member of the third party. I have known just about every trend and experienced all the highs and lows. I would like to thank my constituents for supporting me in 12 elections with handsome majorities. The one in 2011 was harder because of the orange wave, but four of us got elected, including me. I would like to thank all the people who helped me get elected, including the organizers, my riding executive, and my 1,000 members who renew their cards every year and who are also starting to get older too. I would like to thank my loyal and long-serving office staff as well. I would also like to thank the research and communications teams that support the parties and members. They are invaluable in helping us better serve our constituents and give them the answers they are looking for. I thank my family and my children for understanding why I had to be away so much. I thank my partner Manon, who has been courageously battling cancer for two years. Despite her many treatments, she encourages me to continue my work here to help my constituents. She is very supportive. Many people here in this beautiful chamber will no doubt break my record, since many of them were elected at a very young age. However, I would like to warn them right now that I hope I still have two or three more terms to serve. That is my intention. This time, it will be within the same party; there will be no changes. I have often enjoyed hearing O Canada because, as Gilles Vigneault once said, I have always loved hearing foreign national anthems. What I like about O Canada is that it was sung for the first time at a separatist gathering in Quebec. We sang O Canada because we did not want to sing God Save the Queen. However, one day, Canada decided to adopt it so that it could have its own national anthem. That was a bit of history, but I will stop there. Once again, I thank all my colleagues for their kind words. I am not sure I have been that worthy of them, but I look forward to continuing my work.

Mr. Speaker, I have fond memories when I talk about this prime minister. I was elected with him as part of his team on September 4, 1984. He was a great Canadian, a great Quebecker and a great prime minister. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would first like to offer my deepest condolences to his wife, Mila, his daughter, Caroline, his sons, Ben, Mark and Nicolas, and his grandchildren. I remember Brian Mulroney as a family man first. He loved Mila, his wife and lifelong companion. He was proud of his children and cherished his role as a grandfather. He was always only a phone call away from his loved ones and delighted in spending quality time with the whole family. Born to a working-class family, Mr. Mulroney grew up in Baie-Comeau, a paper mill town on Quebec's north shore. Thanks to a strong work ethic, Mr. Mulroney rose to the highest ranks in the legal and business communities of 1970s Montreal. He even became president and CEO of a large company before the age of 40. Early on, however, he took an interest in Quebec and Canadian politics. Motivated by a deep desire to build a modern Quebec and Canada, he left the sidelines to play an active role in the political arena. In 1984, Mr. Mulroney was the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party, a party that no longer exists. He won the biggest election victory in history. He immediately set about instituting major reforms to the Canadian economy, including the North American Free Trade Agreement, or NAFTA; the privatization of Crown corporations; policies to keep inflation low, deregulate and cut spending; and the GST. As the father of North American free trade, which would play a pivotal role in the economic vitality of Quebec as a producing and exporting nation, he is credited with reducing Quebec's unemployment rate from 12% to 6% within two years of NAFTA being implemented. He will be remembered for his engaging personality, which was key to strengthening the important relationship between Canada and the United States. Who could forget how Mr. Mulroney strengthened ties with the U.S. at an evening out with President Ronald Reagan at the Grand Théâtre de Québec in Quebec City on St. Patrick's Day, which some people were celebrating yesterday. True to their roots, both Quebec and Irish, the two heads of state solidified their friendship when they sang When Irish Eyes are Smiling on stage. Brian Mulroney persisted and successfully negotiated NAFTA. Another thing I remember about that time is that the then premier of Ontario was strongly opposed to NAFTA throughout the negotiations. He gave countless speeches on the subject. Three months after NAFTA was signed, Mr. Mulroney showed up to a caucus meeting with an American business magazine. He used to always give a little pep talk at those meetings. He opened the magazine to page six or seven to show everyone the picture of the premier of Ontario next to a message saying that thanks to free trade, Americans could now invest in Ontario. It was with a hint of humour that Mr. Mulroney showed us that photo, but he made no comment about the premier of Ontario. He had a deep respect for his opponents, but he also had a very refined sense of humour. Opposition to the GST was fierce. It came from all sides, even within our Progressive Conservative caucus. Some caucus members went so far as to resign and sit as independents. They were sure they would be re-elected as independents just by saying the word GST, because they sensed that many Canadians were opposed to this reform. Brian Mulroney did not waver. He persisted and implemented the GST. Today, no one would want to turn back the clocks on the GST. Let us not forget that, at the time, exporting companies paid a tax on the goods they exported. It was totally abnormal. Brian Mulroney promised to correct that and he succeeded. He will be remembered for reconciling an open economic approach and confidence in the markets with global leadership on the environment. He signed the Canada-U.S. acid rain treaty and initiated the Montreal protocol on ozone-depleting substances. This made him the greenest prime minister ever. The international relations he developed, his negotiating talents and his unwavering determination to build consensus gave him influence on the international scene. He was one of the first to respond to the 1984 famine in Egypt. He led the campaign against apartheid in South Africa. Canada was the first country to impose economic sanctions on that country, despite opposition from Mrs. Thatcher and the U.S. President, action that eventually led to Mandela's release. He also played an active, if not a leading role in the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie. He was awarded highest honours not only by Quebec and Canada, but also by a long list of countries, including France, which named him Commander of the Order of Legion of Honour, South Africa, which appointed him Supreme Companion of O.R. Tambo, Japan, which honoured him with the Grand Cordon of the Order of the Rising Sun, Haiti, which gave him the Grand Cross of the National Order of Honour and Merit, and Ukraine, which awarded him the Order of King Yaroslav the Wise. He was a person of international renown. There are aspects of Brian Mulroney's political life that the Quebec nation will always remember more than anyone else, and that too many others have since forgotten, if not swept under the rug. He took it upon himself to transform, almost single-handedly, the then historically difficult and distrustful relationship between Quebec and his party. Quebeckers will never forget that, when he was prime minister, from 1984 to 1993, he was the last to make a sincere and ardent attempt to reconcile Quebec and Canada. Brian Mulroney had the courage to build his winning campaign in 1984 on respect for Quebeckers and their pride. He won with the support of the most nationalistic among us. René Lévesque placed his trust in him the day after the 1980 referendum. Lucien Bouchard placed his trust in him as well, and the news of their recent reconciliation, a few months before his death, brought comfort to the hearts of many Quebeckers. The majority of Quebeckers placed their trust in him, as did I when I was elected to the House alongside him in 1984. Like most Quebeckers, I was confident that his was the steady hand that would lead the government to do right by Quebec's aspirations. He promised himself and the rest of us that the trickery marring the repatriation of the Constitution in 1982 would not set the tone for future Canada-Quebec relations. He pledged to bring Quebec into the Constitution and the federation with “honour and enthusiasm”, as a people. He said that Quebec had “an option”, to paraphrase the words he fired off at John Turner during the first debate. I am sure we all remember that. Mr. Mulroney's openness to Quebeckers did not hurt him. On the contrary, in his first election as leader, his commitment to nationalism won him no fewer than 211 of the 282 available seats, including 57 in Quebec. He won another majority in 1988. It was the first time since Confederation that the Progressive Conservative Party won a majority twice in a row, both times on a promise that no federal party would make in 2024. Nowadays, nobody is promising to reform Canada in a way that includes Quebec with dignity. Just a few kilometres from the House of Commons, at Meech Lake, he managed to convince every premier from the Canadian provinces and every federal opposition leader to take this chance with him. Everyone was ready to recognize Quebec as a distinct nation. Everyone was ready to limit the federal government's spending power. Everyone was ready to guarantee Quebec the right to withdraw from federal programs with full compensation. Brian Mulroney loved Canada deeply, just as he loved Quebec deeply. That is why he did everything he could to make Quebec feel at home. He did everything and tried everything to carve out a better Canada, a real federation, united in mutual respect and in celebration of its founding identities. Unfortunately, no one has tried to take that on since. For the years that I had the honour and privilege of sitting under his leadership, I rubbed shoulders with a true statesman, a man of vision who was undaunted in achieving the goals he set for himself, an affable man who was respectful of his opponents and who had one goal: to improve the lives of Quebeckers and Canadians. My dear Brian, we etched your name on the trees on the Hill, but over time the bark wore off. We etched your name on the sidewalks of the Hill, but over time the concrete broke down. Fortunately, we etched your name in our hearts and time will keep it there forever. Adieu, Mr. Prime Minister, and thank you.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and as the dean of the House, I have the honour to rise to celebrate the memory of Ed Broadbent, the third leader of the New Democratic Party, who passed away at the age of 87. Canada's big NDP family lost more than a former leader on January 11. It lost the embodiment of a vision that, 35 years after his time as leader of the party, has virtually become its identity. Believe it or not, I served with Ed Broadbent in the House for five years, from 1984 to 1989, when he was the leader of the NDP. Today, I also have the honour of serving alongside a caucus of 25 of his successors. I can see that the influence of the man who was known as “Honest Ed” has not faded over the years. That is most probably because he was the longest serving leader in the party's history, from 1975 to 1989. During the four elections he was at the helm, the NDP secured a more solid footing in Ottawa and experienced its greatest electoral successes. His engaging personality certainly played a part in these accomplishments. At the pinnacle of his career, he led the polls as Canadians' favourite politician. It is, however, his vision for a more egalitarian Canada that carried his influence over the decades. Born in a working-class family in Oshawa—a riding he later represented in the House starting in 1968—Mr. Broadbent made it a mission to represent workers and ordinary people on the federal stage. He fought for democracy, but a type of democracy that went beyond individual and political freedoms to include every person's social and economic rights, a type of democracy that affords every individual the right to live in dignity and the opportunity to realize their full potential. His vision of social justice played a major part in strengthening the bonds between his political party and the union movement. It also enabled the NDP to stand out on the left of the political spectrum and to find long-lasting support among the Canadian people. Ed was a formidable parliamentarian. With his rich vocabulary, keen analytical mind and outstanding oratory talents, he could make ministers tremble in their boots during question period. If I may, I would like to share a memory. Ed always prepared his two questions very carefully and enunciated them very clearly. At one point, during a big strike in Canada, he came to the House with a very carefully crafted question for the minister responsible for this file. The minister rose and said that he wished to inform the leader of the New Democratic Party that an agreement had been reached and that the strike had ended half an hour previously. Everyone thought that Mr. Broadbent was sunk for his second question. With great dignity, he rose and said that the minister had worked very hard on this file and deserved a round of applause. He saved face, and everyone was deeply impressed by his unscripted but very fair reaction to the minister on the strike matter. In 1988, for the first time in its history, the NDP, under Canada's most popular leader of the day, became a credible option across Canada. Being the most popular leader in Canada, however, did not translate into success in every part of the country. Ed Broadbent stepped down as leader of the NDP in 1989, but it was only the leadership role that he left. He never left the NDP or politics. As members will recall, he made a brief return to the House of Commons as an MP from 2004 to 2006. However, it was mainly behind the scenes that he would continue contributing to his political party and to political thinking across Canada for the rest of his life. The highlight of his second career was, without a doubt, the founding of the institute that bears his name in 2011. The creation of the Broadbent Institute, a think tank, will ensure the legacy of his vision of politics. Equipped with its own media outlet and offering activist training, the Institute will continue to disseminate Mr. Broadbent's ideas among new generations of political influencers, including people like Montreal Mayor Valérie Plante, who once sat on its board of directors. Mr. Broadbent is no longer with us, but his influence will live on, just as his memory will live on in the hearts and minds of those who loved him. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to offer my sincere condolences to John Edward Broadbent's partner, two children, grandchildren and great-grandchildren. I also offer my condolences to his NDP political family and to everyone who knew him professionally or personally. I thank Ed Broadbent for dedicating his life to public service.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a few moments to pay tribute to Danielle Gamelin, director general of Fondation Santé Bécancour–Nicolet–Yamaska. From the time she started running that organization eight years ago, she proceeded to restructuring internal operations to improve efficiency and organizing fundraisers to stabilize the organization's financial health. What is more, she has reached out many times to the municipalities, the two RCMs, the chamber of commerce and every organization that offers health care services or community services so that the foundation can effectively meet their needs. Ms. Gamelin is a woman of conviction. She is persuasive, inspiring, genuine, audacious and extremely disciplined. May she stay at the head of the Fondation Santé Bécancour–Nicolet–Yamaska for a long time to come. This entire beautiful region thanks her very much.

Mr. Speaker, Hélène Alarie, the Bloc Québécois member for the riding of Louis-Hébert from 1997 to 2000, passed away last week. Without ever raising her voice or losing her cheerful demeanour, Hélène was a calm but forceful presence and a trailblazer. In fact, she was the first woman agronomist in Quebec. While the pesticide industry was in its heyday, she promoted a kind of agriculture that was more respectful of the Quebec lands she loved so deeply. As a member of Parliament, she championed the debate on genetically modified organisms and introduced a bill on mandatory GMO labelling at a time when no one had heard of GMOs before. As vice-president of the Bloc Québécois from 2001 to 2007, she reminded us about the importance of rural and remote Quebec. After retiring, she took up the cause of the Scottish separatist movement, seeing the obvious parallels with Quebec. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to thank Hélène Alarie and offer our deepest sympathies to her loved ones and to everyone else fortunate enough to have known such a remarkable woman.

Pursuant to order made on Tuesday, September 26, the House will now proceed to the election of the Speaker. Before I begin, I would like to tell my predecessor, Mr. Rota, how much I admire all of the work he did during his two terms as Speaker. He was a great Speaker, and he will be remembered for a job well done. I thank Mr. Rota. I was very pleased to fill in as Speaker temporarily. My term will end today. I had a lot of work to do, so much so that I still have not found the limousine, the keys to the official residence, the keys to the wine cellar or the form to increase my salary. I will be remembered as the Speaker with the shortest-lived career who spent the least. All members should have received by email last night the list of candidates for the speakership. This list is also available at the table and on ourcommons.ca if members wish to consult it before the vote. Before proceeding, I want to invite any member whose name is on the list of candidates but who does not want to stand for election to rise and inform the Chair accordingly. The member for Argenteuil—La Petite‑Nation.

Further to that statement, the list of candidates is revised accordingly. Pursuant to Standing Order 3.1, the House must proceed to the speeches from each candidate for Speaker. Notwithstanding any Standing Order, any procedure or any practice adopted by this House, and to help the newly elected members identify the candidates for the office of Speaker, I will recognize in alphabetical order each candidate by name and electoral district. When the last candidate to address the House completes his or her speech, I will leave the chair for 30 minutes, after which members will proceed to the election of the Speaker. I will now call upon Mr. Sean Casey, the hon. member for Charlottetown, to speak for not more than five minutes.

Pursuant to the provisions of the Standing Orders, the House will now proceed to elect a Speaker. After the Clerk has unsealed the ballots, I will suggest to the House a procedure that will accelerate the voting process. We will now prepare to begin to vote according to the provisions of Standing Order 4. Please allow me to outline the procedure for all members. The names of the candidates eligible for the election are listed on the ballot in alphabetical order. To vote, you must rank the candidates in order of preference by placing the number “1” in the space next to your first-choice candidate, the number “2” next to your second-choice candidate, and so on, until you have ranked all candidates for whom you wish to vote. Please note that it is not necessary to rank all candidates. In order to vote, I will ask that members leave their desks, exit through the curtains, and come to the table using the doors on the left and right sides of the chair on their respective sides of the House. The clerk will issue to each member a ballot paper. After casting their ballots, members are asked to leave the voting area. The polling booths are now open to vote. The polling booths are now open to vote. (Members were issued ballots and marked their ballots in secret at voting stations)

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, the Gaspé region lost one of its most stalwart advocates. Former member of Parliament Raynald Blais passed away at the age of 69. Elected three times as the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Raynald Blais represented his region in the House of Commons from 2004 to 2011. I had the honour to work alongside him in the Bloc Québécois. He truly distinguished himself when advocating for eastern Quebec fishers in their dealings with a federal government that was very out of touch with their realities. The Bloc Québécois remembers him as a real boots-on-the-ground kind of guy, a proud regionalist with deep roots in his beloved Gaspé, a man who stood up for his people, whether here in Ottawa or back home as a radio journalist or union leader. He might have left the House in 2011, but he never truly left politics behind. He was still working as a political adviser up until recently. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I offer my deepest condolences to his loved ones and to the whole region he loved so much.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and as dean of the House of Commons, I am pleased to recognize Geoff Regan, who served as the Speaker of the House from 2015 to 2019. His portrait will now hang in the halls of Parliament as is the custom. He was the 36th Speaker of the House, but the first Speaker from Atlantic Canada in nearly a century. Mr. Regan proudly represented the people of Halifax West from the time he was first elected in 1993 until he was elected for the eighth time in 2019. He served on both the opposition and government benches, and even served as the fisheries and oceans minister. However, it is for his role as Speaker that we are paying tribute to him today. I had the honour to preside over the election where he was elected Speaker by his peers in 2015. The Bloc Québécois will remember Mr. Regan as a Speaker who was fair and tough when dealing with the occasional, and sometimes not so occasional, turmoil in the House. He had the integrity, patience and expertise required to occupy that chair. That is how we will remember Speaker Geoff Regan.

Madam Speaker, Bill C-32 has more bulk than substance. My colleagues were right in saying so earlier. Bill C-32 contains 25 different tax measures and a dozen or so non-tax measures. That may seem like a lot, but there are in fact two kinds of measures. Some are minor amendments, like the ones this Parliament adopts on a regular basis to comply with court rulings, treaties and new accounting policies or to correct an unintended effect of an act, while others were already announced in the spring 2022 budget but had not been incorporated into the first budget implementation bill in June. Simply put, like the economic statement of November 3, 2022, Bill C-32 does not include any measures to address the new economic reality brought on by the high cost of living and a possible recession. It is a bill that does not do any harm but does not deserve much praise either. At the same time, it is not a total disappointment, because it does contain a few positive measures. The Bloc Québécois takes issue with an economic update that mentions the inflation problem 108 times but offers no additional support to vulnerable people, such as the elderly or those who have lost their jobs. It offers no solutions, despite the fact that a recession is expected to hit in 2023. Quebeckers concerned about the high cost of living will find little comfort in this economic update. They will have to make do with what is basically the next step in the implementation of last spring's budget. The Bloc Québécois asked the government to focus on its fundamental responsibilities toward vulnerable people, such as increasing health transfers, which I will come back to, adequately supporting people aged 65 and over, and immediately reforming the EI program, which is the best stabilizer in times of economic difficulty. The government dismissed our proposals. We can only denounce this as a missed opportunity to help Quebeckers deal with the tough times that they are already going through or may face in the months to come. With respect to health care, there is an ongoing standoff between the federal government on one side and Quebec and the provinces on the other. The Bloc Québécois asked the federal government to agree to the unanimous request of Quebec and the provinces to increase health transfers immediately, permanently and unconditionally. Let us not forget that, in 1993, former minister Paul Martin decided to erase the federal deficit by cutting health transfers from 50% to 25%. The provinces were in crisis. Since then, no government has been interested in getting funding back up to that 50% over time. We would be happy with a boost to 35%, but the government has not only failed to restore funding to where it was, it has reduced it to 22%. That is unacceptable. This injustice must be corrected. Sick people and health care workers are the ones suffering. ER doctors are warning that our hospitals have reached the breaking point, but the federal government is not taking action. Obviously, it would much rather prolong the health care funding crisis in the hope of breaking the provinces' united front so it can convince them to accept less than they are asking for. I would remind the House that sections 92 and 93 of the Canadian Constitution state very clearly that the only role of the federal Parliament is to transfer money to the provinces without any conditions. When I look at the various political parties here in Ottawa, I often wonder if they are proud to be Canadian. I am very proud to be a Quebecker, and if there were a Quebec constitution, the first thing I would do to express my pride would be to respect it. At the federal level, the Constitution is abundantly clear about health transfers. Why, then, does Ottawa choose not to respect the Constitution? Are those members proud to be Canadian, yes or no? Anyone who is proud to be Canadian would respect the country's Constitution. Let us now talk about the two classes of seniors. This is the first time we see an attack on the universality of health programs. People between the ages of 65 and 74 continue to be denied the increase in old age security, which they need more than ever before. Seniors live on fixed incomes, so they cannot deal with such a sharp rise in the cost of living. Seniors are the most likely to have to make tough choices at the grocery store, the pharmacy or the gas pump. The government continues to penalize those who are less well-off and who would like to work more without losing their benefits. Unlike the government, inflation does not discriminate against seniors based on their age. Currently, Canada's income replacement rate, meaning the percentage of income that a senior retains at retirement, is one of the lowest in the OECD. The increase in old age security should prevent demographic changes from significantly slowing economic activity. Contrary to what the government says, starving seniors aged 65 to 75 will not encourage them to remain employed. That is done by no longer penalizing them when they work. There are several solutions that could help seniors. I would like to quote from a letter I received from Robert Bernatchez, who lives in my riding. His proposal is very acceptable, very simple to understand and very simple to implement, but for the time being the government is turning a deaf ear. His letter reads as follows: Dear Mr. [MP], allow me to share with you an initiative that may help seniors 65 to 74. They do not benefit from the increase to old age security, since the federal government increased the age of eligibility to 75. Whereas the 10% increase to old age security is reserved for individuals 75 and older and this is unfair to individuals who have not reached that age. It should be noted that we had a universal plan starting at 65 for the old age security pension. Whereas there is currently no permanent government measure that allows retirees 65 to 74 to increase their income to cope with growing inflation. Whereas the message sent by the federal and provincial governments to retirees 65 to 74 is that “if you want more money then get a job to help address the pressing labour shortage and/or to increase your income”. Whereas many retirees 65 to 74 do not want to return to work or they would have already done so. Whereas these are the same people who helped build the Quebec and Canada of today. They have made invaluable contributions and now want to receive some help. We, retirees aged 65 to 75, are calling on the federal government to change the eligibility criteria for the guaranteed income supplement to include the following. When inflation exceeds 3%, the following measures will apply: Retirees aged 65 to 75 who earn less than $50,000 in income, as entered on line 199 of their income tax return, can withdraw up to a maximum of $2,500 from their RRIFs without any reduction to their guaranteed income supplement. This measure will apply for the 2022 tax year. An adjustment will consequently be made to non-refundable federal tax credits to increase the amount of deductible pension income to $2,500. Sir, I hope you will defend this new measure like you defended the earnings exemption for self-employed workers in 2019.... I hope the government will get the message.

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for raising those points. You mentioned $2 billion, but when the government slashed transfers in half from 50% to 25%, that represented a lot more than the $2 billion you say you provided. Let me remind you that the federal government's role is to transfer the money to the provinces, not to give that money directly or to opine that one type of care is better than another or that one type of collaboration is better than another. All the federal government is supposed to do is give the money unconditionally. You say that the government has intervened in times of crisis, but the Constitution also says that, in times of crisis, the federal government has an obligation to step up and transfer funds for health care.

Madam Speaker, I talked about the health transfers that all the provinces have requested. Quebec and all the provinces are calling for a new cost-sharing arrangement with an additional $28 billion going to the provinces. The federal government may say that this is not immediately feasible, but it could at least promise to do it in increments. It could make a two-, three- or four-year agreement to reach that 35% target. I would remind the House that health transfers to the provinces were 50% in 1993. This is critically important. It is what the provinces are calling for, and it is becoming increasingly pressing right now. I read a document about Ontario, where the situation is critical. In Quebec, the situation is critical in all hospitals. We need the money that is owed to us. The Constitution very clearly states that the transfers must be unconditional.

Madam Speaker, when it comes to mental health, what is happening is terrible. Mental health problems have increased dramatically, so the amount of money that needs to be invested also needs to increase considerably. Once again, this is a health-related issue, and health is a provincial responsibility. That is very clearly stated in the Constitution, in section 92. If the government wants to be generous, understanding and responsive to the provinces, it should simply transfer the money. Quebec has the knowledge to help people suffering from mental health problems.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to honour the memory of Bill Blaikie, a prominent figure in the New Democratic Party and, more broadly, the Canadian left. When I was elected in 1984, Bill Blaikie had already been the MP for Winnipeg—Transcona for five years. He was a towering figure in the NDP caucus, both figuratively and literally, as he stood at least a head taller than his colleagues. With his loud, carrying voice, Bill Blaikie got noticed. When he spoke, the House went silent. In 2011, when I sat in the Speaker's chair to open the session and preside over the election of the Speaker as the dean of the House, I thought about him. Before me, it was Bill Blaikie who carried out that role as dean of the House. Before that, as members will recall, the Speaker was appointed by the Prime Minister. It goes without saying that I did not measure up. Bill Blaikie was almost a giant, but I tried to have the same upright character. Bill Blaikie was the embodiment of the original NDP, a party that grew from religious roots in the Prairies. Like Tommy Douglas, Bill Blaikie was a pastor and was almost nothing like the slick urban elites who now form the NDP's base. As he used to say, he was close to the little people, those I would describe as regular folks. In 30 years, Bill Blaikie took on just about every role within the NDP, including House leader, interim leader, as well as parliamentary leader when Jack Layton was the unelected party leader. He was also Deputy Speaker, as the House leader was saying. When the NPD lost official party status after the 1993 election, Bill Blaikie was there, like an island of stability. I will never forget his forceful interventions to get recognition for his party, which did not have 12 seats at the time. He and I did not always see eye to eye. Bill Blaikie was a centralist. His vision of Canada did not really embrace Quebec nationalism, much less a special status for Quebec. In all his 30 years as an MP in Ottawa, I never once heard him utter a single word in French. I once asked him why. He jokingly answered, “I have too much respect for the French language to use it with my bad accent. I will leave that to my children, who are managing quite well.” Our confrontations were always respectful when it came to ideas, values, principles. Bill Blaikie was a man of principle, a decent man, a powerful advocate, a person who was deeply respectful to those around him, and an expert on parliamentary procedure. When he had something in mind, he was so well versed in procedure that you better believe that the amendment would be adopted easily. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to offer my condolences to his political family, who owe a great deal to the man who helped them weather the storms over the years with his reassuring presence. I especially want to extend sincere condolences to his family, including his wife and children, in particular his son, Daniel, who currently serves as the member for Elmwood—Transcona, his father's former riding. To my friend Bill, to tease you a little, I will end by quoting a great French author, Alexandre Dumas, who once said that those we have loved may not be where they used to be, but they are with us always, wherever we may be. Farewell, Bill.

Madam Speaker, we are winding up debate at second reading of Bill C-237. This bill gives the provinces the right to withdraw when the federal government creates a program that should be the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. I found the term “exclusive” in the Constitution. When we speak of exclusive jurisdictions, we are referring to matters that fall under the authority of either the provinces or the federal government. The term “exclusive” exempts Quebec from the standards and conditions that the federal government imposes before providing funding for health care. There has been a consensus in Quebec for 50 years on this position, which is the basis for the major constitutional crises that have occurred over the years. This week's debate is taking place against the backdrop of the election campaign in Quebec. On Monday, Quebeckers will go to the polls and will have to make a decision about many things. I am thinking of the health care system, which the pandemic demonstrated was fragile and underfunded. One party says there should be more privatization, another wants to make seniors' homes the priority and yet another is counting on existing public services, home care and long-term care centres. This has been top of mind during the campaign, and on Monday, Quebeckers will vote and decide. Usually, when the public makes a decision, that is the end of it. No matter what choice the Quebec nation makes, Canadians will have to agree because Ottawa is imposing all kinds of conditions. It is imposing its own standards on us and wants us to adopt its priorities. I am talking about health, but this is true in all sorts of areas, such as housing, education, family policy and taxation. In fact, it is true in almost all areas. That is what it means to be a minority, even though this House recognized that we were a nation by a nearly unanimous vote a few years ago. The Bloc Québécois wants the right to opt out of federal programs in areas that should be the responsibility of Quebec instead of Ottawa because we want to be masters in our own house. When I introduced Bill C‑237, I hoped to advance the autonomy of Quebec. We are currently being led by a minority government. The Bloc Québécois wants Quebec to be a country, but in the meantime, it wants us to be masters in our own house to the extent possible. That is only natural. The Conservative Party campaigned on respecting provincial jurisdictions. The NDP has its Sherbrooke declaration, which supports Quebec's right to opt out. Between the three parties, we can move Bill C‑237 forward. However, I was bitterly disappointed when we were debating this bill. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie says that he supports the right to withdraw, but only if Quebeckers adhere to the NDP agenda. The Conservative member for Hastings—Lennox and Addington says that she respects provincial jurisdictions, but only if the Liberals agree and grant a royal recommendation. If not, she is against the bill. I want to point out that the Constitution gives exclusive powers to Quebec and the provinces. This means that the federal government must not interfere. This is set out in the Constitution that English Canada adopted, the Constitution that Quebec never signed. Now a Bloc Québécois member, a separatist MP, is standing up in the House and demanding that the federal government respect the Constitution. The Canadian parties are the ones not respecting it. It is all backwards. However, it is not too late. Election platforms are not just documents to be used during an election campaign and then thrown away. I am appealing to the NDP and the Conservative Party to keep the promises they made to Quebeckers during the election campaign. Let Bill C‑237 move on to the next stage. That will give us time to convince the government to grant a royal recommendation. If Bill C‑237 is passed, Ottawa will be free to do as it pleases in areas under its jurisdiction, just as Quebec and the other provinces will be free to act in areas under their jurisdiction. Everyone would respect everyone else's jurisdictions. The key word is “respect”.

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. At the beginning of his speech, he spoke a lot about the need for new housing. However, the housing announced in the budget will not be available for another two or three years, because housing cannot be built instantaneously. Still, there may be a way to help people find housing. For example, in some regions, Airbnb has taken over 20, 25 or 30 housing units so that it can profit off of renting them out by the day or the week. Would this not be a way to control these companies, to ensure that these units remain permanent rental units for residents?

moved that Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act be read the second time and referred to a committee. Madam Speaker, I am very proud to rise today to speak to my bill, Bill C-237, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. The bill addresses the root cause of the tensions and disputes between the federal government and the provinces, Quebec in particular, and that is spending power. The federal government has given itself the power to tell Quebec what to do in its own areas of jurisdiction, under the pretext that it is transferring money to the province. Canada is supposed to be a federation. In a federation, the two levels of government are equally sovereign, but not in the same areas. Section 91 of the Constitution confers powers on the federal Parliament and section 92 confers powers on Quebec and the Canadian provinces. Federal spending that encroaches on provincial jurisdiction calls into question the division of powers and Quebec's autonomy. That is what spending power is. It is the power to tell the other what to do in areas that fall under its exclusive jurisdiction. Respecting Quebec and its autonomy is not a partisan game in Quebec, and this is not new. It was during the creation of the welfare state, as it was known, when the government started developing various social programs, that tensions arose. During the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s, Quebeckers clearly picked a side. They looked to the Government of Quebec to develop the social safety net, and they expected Quebec to be completely free to do that without having to take orders from Ottawa. Quebec Premier Jean Lesage's campaign slogan was “Maîtres chez nous”, masters of our own house, and that is what he was talking about. That is also what the great constitutional talks—Victoria in 1970, Meech Lake in 1987 and Charlottetown in 1992—were all about. In fact, that is what prompted me to get into politics. When English Canada got itself a new Constitution without Quebec, I decided to make the leap. When I ran in 1984, I ran because I wanted us to be masters of our own house. It is for that same reason that I am now introducing Bill C‑237 38 years later. The bill amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in two ways. On the one hand, it provides all interested provinces with the opportunity to opt out of a federal program that falls under the legislative authority of the provinces. In that case, the government can pay the province a transfer equivalent to the contribution that it would have received had it not withdrawn. On the other hand, Bill C-237 adds that the government will only pay the contribution if the province has a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program. This mechanism is quite similar to the one that exists in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, for example. If a province has its own program and withdraws from the federal program, it receives the same transfer that it would have received had it not withdrawn. The transfer is unconditional and goes into the province's consolidated revenue fund, but only if it has a comparable program. It can be comparable, but it does not have to be the same. There is no requirement to respect standards or criteria or to allow interference in our affaires. We have a fair amount of control in this kind of relationship. That is not currently the case under this government or under previous governments. Bill C-237 proposes a second amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act that applies only to Quebec. This amendment would exempt Quebec from the application of criteria and conditions set out by Ottawa in the Canada Health Act. The federal government has announced that it plans to set conditions applicable to long-term care facilities, or CHSLDs. It is talking about a series of so-called national strategies, which we understand to mean “dictated by the federal government”, in such areas as mental health, seniors' health, reproductive health, pharmacare and dental care. The federal government does not develop any services and, in fact, it would not be able to do so. The federal government does not deliver any services either, as it knows nothing about them. It will just transfer the responsibility to the provinces so they will do the work in its place. It is going to hire them like subcontractors, and it is going to use its spending power to tell them what to do. Fifty years ago, Pierre Elliott Trudeau said that “there's no place for the state in the bedrooms of the nation”. Today, his son is saying that the state has its place in every room in the house, which is unacceptable to us. Our house is Quebec, and we do not want Canada deciding on the decor and furniture. As I was saying, it is not a partisan issue in Quebec. I would like to quote Benoît Pelletier, Quebec's minister of intergovernmental affairs in Jean Charest's government, the same Jean Charest who is a Liberal in Quebec and a Conservative in Ottawa. It would be difficult to be any more transparent. Benoît Pelletier said, “I have a great deal of difficulty in reconciling the values underlying the Canadian federation with the idea of a federal spending power that is in no way subject to the division of powers.” The Séguin commission on the fiscal imbalance said the same thing: “The 'federal spending power' displays a singular logic in that the federal government intervenes every time in a field falling under provincial jurisdiction without having to adopt a constitutional amendment.” The current government of François Legault, which was elected on an autonomist platform, is still calling for jurisdictions to be respected. Between autonomist François Legault and Jean Lesage's “masters in our own house”, it is very clear that Quebec does not want the federal government to tell us what to do in areas over which we have exclusive jurisdiction. This is not a constitutional matter. It is, quite simply, a jurisdictional matter. The federal government does not manage the health care system and knows nothing about it. In March, the Bloc leader held a press conference to demand that the federal budget include an increase in health transfers, with no conditions attached. He was accompanied by the entire Quebec health care community: unions, physicians' federations, various health care professionals, everyone. These people, the backbone of the health care system, are all asking for the same thing, and that is a boost in transfers, with no conditions. These people make the health care system function, together with the Quebec government. The last thing they need is the federal government coming in and telling them what to do. This consensus goes far beyond the political parties in Quebec; it includes the entire health care community. I would like to reiterate that all the provincial premiers are unanimously asking for the same thing. That consensus is reflected in Bill C-237. A few weeks ago, the Speaker ruled that my bill requires a royal recommendation. In other words, the House can vote on it at third reading only if the government agrees. We still have second reading, committee and report stage, which gives us several months to convince this government, which, I remind members, is a minority government. Of course, the Bloc Québécois wants Quebec to be a country, but in the meantime, we want to be masters in our own house to the extent possible. The Conservative Party campaigned on a platform of respect for provincial jurisdiction. The NDP had its Sherbrooke declaration, which supported Quebec's right to opt out. Together, the three of us can move Bill C‑237 forward. Today, I am calling on these three parties to do just that. My people built a unique society on our part of the continent. Our distinct nature is evident in our language and our culture, but it is much more than that. Quebec has the highest rate of female labour market participation, the most advanced family policy on the continent, the best wealth distribution and the lowest poverty rates. Almost 80% of the population belongs to the middle class, compared to under 75% in the rest of Canada. How did we make that happen? We did it because we were free to do it. That is all there is to it. The federal government wants to use its spending power to replace our freedom with conditional freedom. It cannot recognize the existence of a nation while simultaneously wanting to control it. Everyone here rejects that brand of paternalism toward indigenous nations, whose right to self-government we recognize. I expect the same level of respect for my nation, the Quebec nation. That is why I urge all members to support my Bill C‑237 so we can have a little more mastery over our own house.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. That is exactly what I said in my speech. Quebec's entire health care community, like every premier in Canada, is calling for health transfers with no conditions because it is the provinces that manage the hospitals, that organize them and the work. The role of the federal government is clearly stated in the Constitution. It consists solely of transferring money to the provinces so that they can provide quality health care services. Seniors in Quebec and everywhere are calling for this. The entire health care community, including doctors, unions, and health care workers, is calling for transfers with no conditions.

Madam Speaker, that is not how I see it. My bill simply says that the federal government will transfer the funds. It will still be perfectly possible to uphold the principles in the Canada Health Act, since they are quite general. This does not open the door to privatizing health care. Since this is a provincial jurisdiction, it is possible that a democratically elected government may decide that one part will go to the private sector, but let us be honest: Even though there is a Canadian law, private sector involvement in health care is widespread throughout Canada.

Mr. Speaker, John William Bosley passed away last Thursday. He was the 31st Speaker of the House of Commons. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I would like to offer my condolences to his wife Mary and daughter Yanette, his family and friends, and members of his political party. Mr. Bosley was elected in 1979 as a member of the opposition, and he was re-elected in 1984 and 1988 as a member of the Progressive Conservative government of the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney. In 1984, Brian Mulroney placed his trust in him by appointing him Speaker at the age of 37. At the time, he was the second-youngest person to hold that position. He presided over the House for two tumultuous years before resigning. I remember the speech he gave on that occasion, lamenting the indiscipline in the House. He feared that this indiscipline would erode public respect for the institution. Looking back, it may be worth asking if his message should be heeded today. It is interesting to note that Mr. Bosley was the very last Speaker to be appointed by a prime minister. He presided over the very first election of a Speaker, his successor. This responsibility is now assigned to the dean of the House, and I have had the honour of taking on this task for the past five years. I am the only sitting member of Parliament to have had the privilege of serving alongside him in 1984 when he was Speaker of the House. I remember him as an intelligent, cultured and compassionate person. He was passionate about finance and about order and discipline. He was personally disciplined but also disciplined in his interactions with his colleagues and in his role as Speaker. I thank John for the many years he devoted to public life. May he rest in peace.

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday evening, Monday, February 28, the Speaker said: I would encourage members who would like to make arguments regarding the requirement for a royal recommendation with respect to [Bill] C-237...to do so at an early opportunity. I am rising on a point of order this evening in relation to that. I admit that I was surprised by this statement. Royal recommendation is the mechanism by which a private member's bill cannot have any financial implications unless it is recommended by the Crown. Financial implications refers to both new expenditures and reallocation of funds for other purposes. Bill C-237, which I am introducing, does not do either. In my view, it is clear that Bill C-237 does not require a royal recommendation and has the potential to be voted on by the House at all stages and implemented, for the following five reasons. First, it does not require any new spending. Second, it does not change the transfer amounts, nor does it change the names of the beneficiaries or how the funding is allocated to them. Third, it does not change the purpose of the transfer. The Canada health transfer will still be dedicated to paying for health care. The same goes for other transfers that are allocated to a province if it has “a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program”. Fourth, it does not force the executive's hand, which retains the latitude and margin of appreciation required to transfer the funds. That prerogative remains in place. The executive will decide whether the province has a comparable program and will determine whether the province is complying with the conditions in the Canada Health Act. Finally, precedents are on my side. There have been many bills that have changed the normative framework without any financial implications. I actually found 31 bills that amend the Canada Health Act, and not one required a royal recommendation. For all these reasons, I believe that Bill C-237 does not require a royal recommendation. Let us examine it in detail. Bill C-237 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in two ways. It provides all interested provinces with the opportunity to opt out of a federal program that falls under the legislative authority of the provinces. In that case, the government can pay the province a transfer equivalent to the contribution that it would have received had it not withdrawn. This means that it is an equal amount or a zero sum. The bill adds that the government will only pay the contribution if the province “has a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program”. In short, the purpose of the transfer does not change either. This mechanism is quite similar to the one that exists in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, for example. If a province has its own program and withdraws from the federal program, it receives the same transfer that it would have received had it not withdrawn. The transfer is unconditional and goes into the province's consolidated revenue fund, but only if it has a comparable program. It is up to the minister to determine whether it has a comparable program. Without any conditions on how the province runs the program, the transfer still serves the same purpose, which is to ensure that students can access financial assistance. This same principle is in Bill C-237, which I introduced. It does not change the amounts or recipients, the distribution of the amounts among them, or the purpose of the transfer. It simply reduces federal control over the management of provincial programs in the provinces' own jurisdictions. Again, this is about provincial management of provincial programs. That is the only thing that is impacted here, and it has little to do with the prerogative of the federal Crown. Bill C-237 proposes a second amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, this one just for Quebec. The federal government has announced that it plans to set conditions applicable to long-term care facilities and retirement homes. I assume that they will be included in the Canada Health Act, since long-term care facilities fall under the definition of “extended health care services” in the act. Since Quebec was the only one to object, Bill C-231 would exempt Quebec, and only Quebec, from the Canada Health Act, much like the proposal by my colleague from Montcalm to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in his Bill C-226 in the 43rd Parliament, which did not require a royal recommendation. The Canada Health Act does not have financial implications per se. It sets out a normative framework, five principles for the government to consider in the Canada health transfer, which is provided for in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. It is the latter act that has financial implications. My bill, Bill C-237, does not change the purpose of the Canada health transfer. It does not change the purpose of the transfer defined in paragraph 24(b) of the fiscal arrangements act as “contributing to providing the best possible health care system for Canadians and to making information about the health care system available to Canadians”. Bill C-237 does not change this section of the act, which sets out the purpose of the transfer. Under the Canada Health Act, the government is responsible for determining whether the provinces are in compliance. In Bill C-237, the government determines whether the province has “a program whose objectives are comparable”. Personally, I would have preferred not to include that clause in Bill C-237, but I realized that this would have changed the purpose of the transfers and could therefore have required a royal recommendation. Bill C-237 has no financial implications in terms of the amounts, their destination, their purpose or the general conditions. Only specific conditions in the Canada Health Act are affected. Madam Speaker, I hear a lot of noise in the House and I am having a hard time delivering my speech.

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. Only the specific conditions of the Canada Health Act are affected. The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that playing within these standards does not generate or reallocate an expenditure and therefore does not require a royal recommendation. In the 27 years since the start of the 35th Parliament, when bills began to be tracked in the LEGISinfo parliamentary module, no fewer than 31 private members' bills have proposed amendments to the Canada Health Act. All of them added new conditions. Some required the province to develop new services in order to receive the Canada health transfer. Others imposed requirements on how health services had to be delivered in order to receive the transfer. Others prohibited access to the Canada health transfer for provinces that provide certain free services, in this case abortion. I will let the members guess which party recommended that. The Chair did not require a royal recommendation for any of these bills, not one. Of course, not all of them were on the order of precedence, so the Chair did not have to rule on many of them. However, in some cases, the Chair did have to do so. Take Bill C-282, introduced during the 36th Parliament by the Liberal member for Ottawa—Vanier, the late Mauril Bélanger, a great defender of the rights of Franco-Ontarians. He introduced the bill in response to the crisis surrounding the Montfort Hospital, a francophone hospital in Ottawa that the Ontario government had tried to close. The bill introduced a new condition in the Canada Health Act to set new language requirements for French-language services in the provinces and English-language services in Quebec. If the province did not meet these conditions, the minister could cut the transfer. The bill was placed on the order of precedence without the Chair indicating that it required a royal recommendation. It was subsequently debated. If members consult the March 19, 2003, Hansard, they will see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health spoke on behalf of the Crown in the debate. He never made any mention of a royal recommendation. On the contrary, he asked members to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Official Languages before second reading because “The federal government cannot and must not act unilaterally in a shared provincial jurisdiction. Any decision to broaden the scope of the Canada Health Act requires extensive consultations with the provinces”. In short, he asked the House not to pass the bill, even while recognizing that it had the right to do so. I will give another example, that of Bill C-213, an act to enact the Canada pharmacare act, which was introduced by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and voted on by the House at second reading on February 24, 2021. This bill basically creates a new transfer. According to clause 4 of this bill, “The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions that must be met before a cash contribution may be made in respect of public drug insurance plans.” After setting out the specific conditions, the bill indicates that the minister “may” make a transfer to the provinces to fund a provincial drug program. It is important to note that the bill does not set out a specific amount. I understand that it was specifically written that way so as to not generate any new spending and therefore not require royal recommendation. It worked. Even though the bill created a new transfer, even though it set out specific goals and conditions, it did not require royal recommendation because it did not generate any new spending. If we apply the same logic to Bill C-237, we can come to only one conclusion. This bill does not require a royal recommendation.

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-237, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. Mr. Speaker, the bill I am introducing protects the provinces, especially Quebec, from the biggest threat to their autonomy. This threat is the so‑called federal spending power. First, under this bill, Quebec is exempt from any standards that the federal government imposes under the Canada Health Act, including the upcoming standards on long-term care homes. Second, this bill amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. Quebec and any provinces that so desire will be able to withdraw, with full compensation, from federal programs in their exclusive areas of jurisdiction to regain their autonomy in the areas where they are meant to be autonomous. (Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite all art lovers to visit the Musée des cultures du monde in Nicolet to see the work of Sister Jeanne Vanasse who, at the age of 100, is presenting an exhibition called “La Genèse, un début sans fin”. Sister Vanasse studied at the École des beaux-arts de Québec for four years, in the class of the famous painter Jean Paul Lemieux. In the 1960s, she began exhibiting her paintings and prints in all the major exhibitions in Quebec. In 1967, she submitted her famous thesis on the visual arts to the minister of education. As a teacher at the Cégep de Trois-Rivières, she also participated in study trips to France, Spain and Italy. As she is nearing the end of her journey on this earth, the artist wanted to delve into the beginnings of the world, as if the end and the beginning were one and the same phenomenon. She approaches the entire process with works that express surprising serenity. I applaud her. Many of us will go to visit her exhibition and wish her a happy 100th birthday.

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your appointment. I had the honour of sitting beside you for two years. We do not applaud the same speakers, but we had a very good rapport, and I have fond memories of that. I would also like to congratulate the member for his very interesting speech, during which he raised a point about seniors who received financial assistance during the pandemic through the CERB. That assistance was added to their income, prompting the government to cut the amounts they were getting through the guaranteed income supplement. Some of those people were working one day a week or were self-employed and could earn up to $5,000 before their GIS was reduced. During the pandemic, since everything was closed and no one could work, government guidelines should have allowed these seniors to receive up to $5,000 in assistance from the CERB before their GIS was cut. This would have been a big help to people who were previously receiving $5,000, $6,000, $7,000 or $8,000 in GIS payments. Moreover, even if these people had received too much money, we could have been more humane by spreading the recovery of the overpayment over two or three years instead of one year. This would have allowed some people to survive, as some lost their entire GIS benefit for working one or two days before receiving the CERB. Does my colleague not agree that the government should adopt this solution?