Claude DeBellefeuille · TranslatePolitics.ca

Government Orders

2026-06-03

“I'm praising my friend because she's great. I want to know why the government ignored us.”

Private Members' Business

2026-05-29

“I'm very happy when a private member's bill lets me say I changed people's lives. Permits and procedures are bad when they make it harder to keep collecting benefits. The government should spend more to expand this. I have my own private member's bill to make the government spend more on what I want too. Letting people keep their own money is not dignified. The government must spend more if we really care.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am quite moved to speak today on the bill introduced by my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour in British Columbia. It is moving because this is a bill that will achieve consensus with financial support from the government and will truly change the lives of people who are experiencing immense suffering. Today, I am moved. I am happy for my colleague. I am happy for him because he managed to convince everyone, including members of the government. Parents who are grieving the loss of a child will be able to continue receiving their employment insurance benefits without having to worry about paperwork and red tape. They will be able to focus on their grief, come together as a family, and receive the support they need without worrying about a missed payment or a letter asking them to explain themselves. I feel that I am participating in a wonderful parliamentary moment today, and it reminds me that one of the reasons that brought me here is that I love making a difference in people's lives. As members of Parliament, we can do that, and this is a fine example of that. The beauty of private members' bills is that they are often based on personal experience, an observation we have made, or a significant need we can address. When we have the privilege of having our name drawn, we realize we have the opportunity to introduce a bill that will make a real difference in the lives of individuals and families. I wanted to commend the member for his perseverance, his tenacity and the way he worked to mobilize us and bring us together on such an important issue. I am also pleased with the important amendments that were proposed. In our view, the royal recommendation was the most important factor because, without it, the bill would have gone through the legislative process more quickly. Clearly, any families who are listening at home, and certainly those who are currently grieving, want us to pass the bill quickly so that they can have peace of mind. I also agree with my colleague from Burnaby North—Seymour that we seem to be on the same page and that it would be really good to expedite passing the legislation so that families can benefit from it. There is also one recommendation that matters to me a lot, the one that extends this privilege to self-employed workers as well. I am going to make a statement. I have spent the past 42 years with the same man. He has been self-employed his entire life. He is an artist, a graphic artist. A lot of people are self-employed, but it has not been that long since self-employed workers in Quebec were allowed to contribute to the Quebec pension plan to qualify for a pension. It might be 20 or so years ago. The whole issue of employment insurance for the self-employed was sticky. I am pleased with this amendment, because it allows workers who chose self-employment access to the same protections as salaried workers. Actually taking them into account is extremely important. It reminds me of the need for EI reform across the board. My colleague from British Columbia managed to get his bill through the legislative process quite successfully, and families are happy with it, but we could have made plenty of other amendments to the Employment Insurance Act that would have righted certain wrongs. I would like to share one that means a lot to me. It concerns women who take maternity leave only to find out when then return to work that their position has been cut. These women are not eligible for EI benefits. In my opinion, this is discrimination. In fact, this has been denounced by all workers' advocacy groups and unions. How can we still accept that, today, a woman who exercised her right to maternity leave is told, upon her return, that she no longer has a job and that she is also denied EI benefits on the grounds that she did not accumulate sufficient hours during her leave? That is something that really needs to be looked at because it is quite unacceptable. I even wonder why the Liberals, now that they have a majority, are not fixing this gender discrimination, since, the last time I checked, men cannot get pregnant. That is something the government could change. My colleague Louise Chabot, who was here during the last Parliament, prepared a bill that included all the necessary changes to reform EI. There is a nice bill that is now dormant and contains all the amendments that could be made to modernize the Employment Insurance Act. Today, we are talking about one specific section, about specific individuals, and that is great, we are very happy about that. However, the work to modernize EI must continue. We believe that EI needs to be completely overhauled. Like my colleague, I also had the privilege of being randomly selected. I will therefore have the pleasure of introducing a bill next week. My bill seeks to increase old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74 who did not receive the increase that those aged 75 and older did. Like my colleague, I am definitely going to take up the torch, because I am surrounded by seniors who have no pension funds, who live solely on their old age pension and who cannot make ends meet because of inflation. Like my colleague, I will also make it my mission to try to convince everyone that seniors between the ages of 65 and 74 deserve the increase too. The government should grant a royal recommendation for our bill too so that vulnerable seniors, those who are not lucky enough to have a pension fund or a job that allowed them to save, can enjoy a dignified retirement. It is up to the Quebec government and the federal government to provide seniors, the people who built the society we have today, with the means to enjoy a dignified retirement. This is the first time I am asking this, but I encourage everyone to seriously consider how we treat our seniors today. Are they really the ones that we are choosing to abandon? Personally, I have lots of ideas on how to fund solutions, but I will come back to them in my speech next week. I want to sincerely and warmly congratulate my colleague for choosing to come to the aid of parents grieving the loss of a child. The worst suffering a parent can experience must be to lose a child while on maternity leave. We have to cut through the red tape and give parents time to grieve. In committee, we unequivocally expressed the view that the benefit period should increase to 50 weeks. It is wrong to think that healing from loss takes only a few weeks. We believe that it would have been advisable to increase the number of weeks of benefits so that people could truly work their way through the grieving process. Together with our colleagues across the way and with our Conservative colleagues, we agreed not to put any obstacles in the way that would prevent the government from backpedaling on the royal recommendation. We were able to agree on fast-tracking it. I sincerely congratulate my colleague. I also want to tell the people listening to us or watching us that all parties in the House of Commons can work together. When parties work in good faith and focus on the common good, we get results that make a difference in people's lives. I want to thank him and wish him all the best. The Bloc Québécois looks forward to voting in favour of the bill.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

The Environment

2026-05-29

“The Prime Minister's environmental record is so bad that all his environment ministers are abandoning him. Rich oil companies have too much influence. The Liberals shouldn't be proud of this.”

“The Liberals promised to care about the environment. But now their guy wants to use public money for oil. I hope that makes the Liberals feel bad. Any Liberal who goes along with this is also bad.”

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-05-29

“I like you. I want to talk about berry alcohol. I want the government to help some businesses by taxing people less. Why won't the government give them money too?”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, the speech by my colleague, whom I hold in high regard, has given us a glimpse into the beauty of his riding, and it has made me want to spend my summer holidays in that part of the country. I do not know if Tatamagouche is in his riding, but I had the pleasure of taking a short trip to that area. I know that his riding includes cities as well as rural areas, and I am guessing there are berry growers in his riding who produce spirits. My colleagues will hear me talking about this several times today because this ongoing injustice is close to my heart. Three years ago, Justin Trudeau's Liberal government granted an excise duty exemption for mead-based berry spirits and also for apple cider, but not for berry-based spirits. I would like to know if my colleague is willing to pressure his government to add an amendment to Bill C-31 that would make things fair for other berry producers, such as those who make blueberry or maple liqueurs. This is an important issue in rural Quebec. There are many Liberal members from Quebec who know that what I am saying is important. Is my colleague ready to take up the cause in his own province and make it clear to the Minister of Finance that it is time to right this wrong?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I'm going to make a point about how the Bloc Québécois is close with small businesses in Quebec. These businesses are struggling. The government's programs aren't helping them. What should the government have done differently? I'm not going to say. But I want my colleague to talk about it.”

“I want you to explain why our bill is good. It helps local producers. It won't cost much. I want you to convince the government.”

Government Orders

Budget 2025 Implementation Act, No. 2

2026-05-27

“I'm trying to get the government to give a tax break to small producers of blueberry spirits. I want you to say whether it's unfair that they're not getting the same tax break as producers of mead and cider.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I have a very important question for my colleague about the government's amendments to the Excise Tax Act under Bill C-31. We have noticed that none of those amendments address the inequity and injustice between producers of mead and producers of blueberry spirits. A few years ago, the Bloc Québécois persuaded the government to exempt small local and regional producers from the excise tax so that they could make a living from their production. The government granted an exemption to mead and apple cider producers, but it did not grant the same exemption to producers of berry-based or maple spirits. Does my colleague think that the government is making a mistake? By refusing to exempt producers of berry-based spirits from the excise tax, it is limiting the economic development of our regions.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Military Justice System Modernization Act

2026-05-08

“I don't want to be called a social worker anymore. I think victims should decide how to handle their own cases. I'm not sure why the government doesn't agree. I wasn't at the committee meetings.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I am no longer a member of my professional association of social workers, so I cannot use that title anymore. However, I had a very rewarding career as a social worker that helped me to realize that when we are helping or supporting a victim, their consent is important. It is also important to understand how the victim wants to approach the process, how they want to go about it, so that they can feel as though justice has been served for the injuries, violence and harassment they experienced and for their work environment's failure to listen and to provide support. In that sense, I think that the decision should rest with the victims. Since I did not participate in the work of the committee, I would also like to understand why the government did not agree that victims should have the right to make their own decisions.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The government threw out parts that many MPs agreed on. Now the opposition is using the rules to show the government it messed up. I hope the government will use this chance to fix things for the victims.”

“You know we want to help. We like this bill. We just wish you listened to our suggestions. It could have been even better. We agree with the report. Why didn't you take our advice? The government didn't have to do it this way.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague's commentary. I think he realizes that the Bloc Québécois truly cares about helping to improve bills. We always say that if a thing is good for Quebec and good for Canada, so much the better. We always approach bills this way, and we take our work on parliamentary committees seriously. As we have said, we are going to support this bill, but what we had proposed was not a rejection of Justice Arbour's recommendations, quite the contrary. I think that the member for Berthier—Maskinongé and I said as much in our two speeches. We agree with the recommendations, but we think that certain amendments could have improved the bill to provide better support to victims. Unfortunately, the government decided otherwise.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“What a tragedy that women are still being murdered. I'm sad and it's unacceptable. The Bloc supports this military justice bill. It follows recommendations to help victims of sexual misconduct in uniform. We've worked hard and proposed many amendments to improve it, but the government used its majority to throw all our work away. That's an abuse of power. If the government doesn't listen to committee work, what's the point? I hope this isn't how it's going to be for every bill. Why waste our time if they've already decided? I commend my friend Alain for his political career and wish him luck.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, before I begin my speech, I would like to add my voice to those of all women and the entire population of Quebec who, this week, have experienced yet another tragedy: the 10th femicide of the year in Quebec in just four months. It is incredibly sad. It is unacceptable. As we speak, 10 women have been murdered by someone close to them simply for being women. At the beginning of the year, I agreed to join forces with organizations whose primary mission is to support women, so that we can flag this very important message: The next one is still alive. I am joining their efforts. Yesterday, there was a rally in front of the D'Main de Femmes women's centre to say that enough is enough, that this is unacceptable, and that the entire community stands behind all these organizations dedicated to standing up for the cause of women. There are also organizations that help men better manage their anger, because it is together, as a team, that we will be able to build a more humane society and also care for women who are victims of violence. I would like to commend them and also offer my deepest condolences to the family of the woman who was murdered in Gatineau this week, the 10th woman to have been murdered in Quebec since January. I am rising to speak to Bill C-11, which is somewhat related to women's issues. I think that sexual misconduct gave rise to this bill, which is almost the same as legislation that has been introduced before and which addresses serious needs. As my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé said, the Bloc Québécois supports this bill. We have always supported any initiatives to ensure justice and to protect women in uniform who have been the victims of sexual misconduct and who have not always felt as though the military has been on their side since it did not take the necessary steps to look after them. Bill C‑11 amends the National Defence Act and other acts. As I said, the government already attempted to introduce Bill C‑66 in a previous Parliament, but that bill died on the Order Paper. As everyone knows, Bill C‑11 follows the recommendations of former Supreme Court justices Morris J. Fish and Louise Arbour, who, in their report on the issue of sexual misconduct, made several recommendations. Bill C‑11 implements several recommendations, including recommendation number five from the Arbour report, with the aim of removing the Canadian Armed Forces' jurisdiction over the investigation and prosecution of Criminal Code sexual offences committed in Canada. The bill also responds to recommendations made by former justice Morris J. Fish by modifying the appointment process for the three primary judicial or military authorities, namely the Canadian Forces provost marshal, the director of military prosecutions and the director of defence counsel services. The government would select these individuals rather than having the military leadership do so, and those individuals would therefore be immune to any form of blackmail, so to speak. The bill now allows military personnel from the rank of private to that of chief warrant officer to become military judges. Finally, the bill makes other, less substantial changes, including the option for victims to receive help from a victim liaison officer. As we know, when someone wants to report sexual misconduct, harassment or sexual violence, having a neutral party by their side to support them in everything they do is very important. Bill C‑11 has made it through a significant portion of the legislative process, including committee work, and it has been a lot of work. I want to commend my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton for the tremendous work he did on making it possible to improve the bill. On that point, the Bloc Québécois members are proud to have secured amendments that improved the bill. Here are a few examples. We added the option for victims to request that a trial be held before a military court rather than being transferred to a civilian court. We also ensured that the bill clearly stipulated that the government must draw up a plan to create an office of the inspector general for sexual misconduct in the armed forces. We also made a compromise amendment that is more realistic by allowing civilian authorities to transfer cases in accordance with victims' recommendations, rather than imposing an automatic transfer. This would allow for the resolution of contentious cases, such as when there are multiple victims or when transferring the case could jeopardize the possibility of a trial within a reasonable time frame. We also succeeded in amending the bill so that veterans can be appointed as military judges and so that military judges are released from the Canadian Armed Forces. In the meantime, the government secured a majority, as members well know. I would say that there has been an abuse of this majority, which was secured, as we all know, through floor crossers. The committee's work was thorough. The committee listened to victims, who expanded on everything that Justice Arbour had heard and recommended. Victims spoke before the committee and their testimonies were used to form the basis of the amendments that were made to improve this bill. It is understandable, then, that we see this as an abuse of the majority. The government's action is not consistent with what the Prime Minister always tells the media when he does interviews, which is that he expects members to be serious and thorough and that he does not want to see any obstruction. What we are seeing today is a bill whose amendments were completely thrown out by a majority government, which put them to a vote and disputed them. Because of the government's majority, of course, virtually all of our amendments were defeated. Committees do serious work. If the government can do without the work of committees, perhaps it wants to abolish them. If this is happening now, will it also happen with regard to future bills? At the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, we work in relative harmony. I would say that we are working to improve Bill C-22, but I have concerns. I wonder whether I will end up working on amendments that go absolutely nowhere. Will I end up putting effort into a bill whose fate has already been decided by the government? Will the government reject every amendment proposed by the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the New Democratic Party or the Green Party? As we know, our democratic system is designed so that the opposition can help improve bills. In the case of Bill C-11, I think the government really missed the mark. I do not think it was really listening, and that is unfortunate. I hope this does not set the tone for all our work moving forward. I do not appreciate having my time wasted, and neither do most of my colleagues. We do not want to waste our time in committee deliberating, listening to witnesses, and then, in the end, not really knowing whether the government is going to challenge everything that had passed. In closing, as I said, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of Bill C-11 at third reading. The bill addresses a problem that was swept under the rug by both the Harper Conservatives and the Liberals. Even though we agree in principle, we had to speak out against the government's lack of seriousness when it comes to the democratic process in place in parliamentary committees. I would like to use my remaining few seconds to commend the courage of my friend, Alain Therrien, who decided this week to pursue his political career by running in Quebec's next provincial election and confronting the Premier of Quebec. That is to his credit. When he sat here, he was a very active leader in our parliamentary lives. I want to join my Bloc Québécois colleagues in wishing him the best of luck and success in Quebec's next election.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Oral Questions

Oil and Gas Industry

2026-05-08

“The Prime Minister is up to something with pipelines and public money. People should be unhappy about this.”

Government Orders

Military Justice System Modernization Act

2026-05-08

“You talk a lot about helping victims. But victims asked for specific changes in the bill. Other parties tried to add those changes. You blocked those changes just because your party has more votes. How can you face those victims now? I don't think you really listen to victims.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I know she is very passionate about this issue. She is standing up for women who have been victims of sexual misconduct while serving in the military. Bill C‑11 addresses many of the recommendations in Louise Arbour's report. Honestly, what surprises me is that some victims appeared before the committee during its study, and the victims themselves were asking for more protection. As a result, the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the NDP all introduced amendments, which were adopted based on the victims' evidence. However, because of its majority in the House, the government rejected them. I do not know how the member can face any of those victims, who must be disappointed today.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Private Members' Business

Silver Alert National Framework Act

2026-05-06

“I'm not sure about this. I want to ask questions first. Quebec already has a system that works. I don't know if changing it would help. I'm open to talking about it more.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, this being Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month, my thoughts go out to my friend Marie-Andrée, who is courageously battling this disease despite the difficulties she faces. I always think of my friend Marie-Andrée when we recognize Multiple Sclerosis Awareness Month, because we obviously need more donations and grants to advance the research, so I want her to know I am thinking of her. Today, we are discussing a bill on a very important topic. I have devoted my entire career to serving seniors, especially those in the process of losing their independence, first as a social worker and then as a manager within Quebec's health and social services network. I am well aware of the issues facing people living with dementia, and I am also well informed about the consequences of having a loved one with dementia. I am therefore pleased, if I may say so, to congratulate the member for introducing a private member's bill on this topic. Basically, we have a lot of questions. We are all in favour of an alert, but we have a lot of questions. The first is that I do not understand how a coordinated system across the country could improve the Quebec system. A former spokesperson for the Montreal police said that there could be up to 12 reports of missing seniors in Montreal every day. I cannot imagine an alarm going off on people's phones every time a senior is reported missing. I have a lot of questions and I hope that we will be able to discuss them with the member to better understand. I do not know whether she intends to use the same system as the Amber alert. In my opinion, that might not necessarily be appropriate for those with dementia, particularly because people may become desensitized and stop paying attention to such alerts if they start receiving a large number of them on their cellphones. I am asking a lot of questions this evening to try to learn more. As the member from Quebec said, Quebec has been using the Amber alert system since 2019. At that time, Liberal minister Marguerite Blais put a pilot project in place and, because of a recent tragedy in Quebec, the silver alert program rolled out across Quebec in February 2026. On April 17, someone from my riding went out for a drive. When a person has frontotemporal dementia, for example, they may appear to be perfectly capable and functional. They are even capable of driving, but there comes a point when they end up completely lost while driving. The alert was triggered quickly, and in just three or four hours, Ontario police found the person on the road and immediately brought them to safety. This is proof that the Quebec system works very well. It is even a model for several other provinces. Since Quebec and Ontario are neighbours, there is a great deal of co-operation and a long-standing tradition of collaboration, I would say, between the Sûreté du Québec and Ontario police forces to ensure a rapid response. As the member said, in order to locate someone, we need to minimize delays and act quickly. I wonder what a national framework might mean for response times in Quebec and Ontario. I see it creating more complications or adding more red tape that could slow down a system that already works quite well in Quebec. That said, I am willing to speak with the member and with the Bloc Québécois critic for seniors, the member for Shefford, to better understand her intentions. If the goal is to emulate best practices in Ontario and Quebec and encourage other provinces to do more, I would gladly have that discussion, but I still need to be convinced of how this approach would benefit Quebec. There are, after all, organizations that represent many seniors in Quebec. Naturally, they cannot oppose a bill aimed at promoting the well-being of seniors. However, they do have some concerns about the federal government imposing additional requirements. They fear that things will become more complicated. That is what the FADOQ and the AQDR in Quebec have stated quite clearly. I agree with the member. This is not about engaging in a partisan debate between the right and the left. That is not the issue. When things are going well in a province and neither community groups nor police forces are calling for changes to a system that is working, I wonder if this bill a good solution, particularly for Quebec. I remain open to being convinced. Obviously, if the provinces want to adopt a single system, that is their prerogative. It is their decision, and we cannot oppose that. We believe that the provinces are in the best position to implement the criteria to trigger an alert, because they control and coordinate their police and health care systems. Unlike many provinces, Quebec has its own police force, the Sûreté du Québec, which is similar to Ontario's police force, the OPP. Quebec has developed its own communications practice. Could this collaboration, which has been built by experience, be weakened by adding an additional layer with the goal of creating a national approach? Trying to do so often makes the process more complicated. I am not sure whether the Sûreté du Québec or even the Government of Quebec would be willing to reopen the issue of standards, given that Quebec has just adopted its own. Shortly after they were adopted, we had examples of seniors with dementia being found quickly because the silver alert is truly meant to alert the public. The decision of whether to issue an alert is up to the police force, which would be the Sûreté du Québec in this case. I would love to meet with my colleague from Kildonan—St. Paul so I can understand how this bill would benefit Quebec's seniors and so we can start a conversation on this issue. She should also understand that, at present, we are neither for nor against her bill. We are more in an exploratory phase, because we feel that the member's speech, as well as the answers she gave to questions, are not yet comprehensive enough to allow me to continue my deliberations. I would like to congratulate my colleague on introducing this bill, which does address the important need to protect older people and those with dementia who need the wider community to look after them. I invite her to come and discuss this with me and our seniors critic, the member for Shefford, so that we can better understand her intentions and, above all, so that she can reassure us about the model she wishes to develop. The model differs from Amber alerts. As my colleague from Mont-Royal says, we certainly do not want Quebeckers to become desensitized, because they are used to seeing Amber alerts for missing children or very serious disappearances. If we increase the number of alerts, they might think that it is just a false alarm, no big deal, and then they might let their guard down. We want to avoid that at all costs. I invite my colleague to come speak to us and continue the conversation.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“I want to say the bill sponsor did good by raising this issue. Each province should help seniors, especially those with dementia, get through this tough part of life. But Quebec's system is fine, so why do we need a whole national standard? It's not clear to me how that would actually improve things. I'm not from Manitoba, so I'm going to ask the bill sponsor to explain why Manitoba is behind on this. Is it an RCMP resource problem? The real debate should be happening in Manitoba's legislature.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Kildonan—St. Paul on introducing this bill. I commend her for raising awareness about the fact that seniors, especially those living with dementia, need the support of their community and all members of society to help them safely navigate this difficult stage of life. I am curious to know why Manitoba does not have a silver alert system in place. Quebec has a system that works extremely well, and Ontario has one too. The two neighbouring provinces are already working together. I am not convinced that a national standard would improve the alert service we already have in Quebec. I am curious to know what is happening in Manitoba. Does the RCMP have a resource problem? I would like my colleague to explain why this debate is not taking place in the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Canadian Space Launch Act

2026-04-28

“The government puts details in regulations instead of in the bill. That's dodgy. Why would they do that?”

“You talk a lot. The Bloc works hard for Quebec. That's good. I have a real question. This bill lets the government change definitions anytime it wants without debate. That's bad. Why does this bill give the government so much power to change things without asking Parliament?”

Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, it is always fascinating to listen to my colleague opposite talk about all of the bills tabled by the government in the House. I have to admit that he is a great public speaker. That said, what surprised me about his speech is that he talked about how hard-working the Bloc Québécois is and about how the Bloc takes its work seriously. Over the past six years, we have said that the Bloc Québécois is the adult in the room, and I think everyone agrees with that. That is not surprising because we did not change our way of doing things and we will not change it, even if the government does have a majority in the House and in committee. The Bloc Québécois wants to improve bills. Our guiding principle is that if a measure is good for Quebec, then we will support it, and all the better if it is good for the rest of Canada. We are rather proud of that because we are diligent and hard-working professionals. My question for my colleague is this: The bill says that some definitions will be established by regulation, but it make me rather uneasy to give the government the power to establish definitions by regulation. It gives the executive a lot of leeway to change the regulations as it sees fit, without parliamentary debate. Could my colleague explain why the public servants who drafted this bill are insisting that some rather important definitions in the bill be established by regulation?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Government Orders

Government Business No. 9—Changes to the Standing Orders

2026-04-27

“That was a nice speech. Whips work hard. Some committees are stuck. Liberals are stalling them on purpose. They don't want transparency. We don't mind a committee having more Liberals, but seven is too many. It's an abuse of power. I want to know if the opposition whip agrees with me.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by the chief opposition whip. Having served as a whip myself, I know that it is a very demanding role that also requires a thorough understanding of parliamentary procedures. I have a question for my colleague. As we speak, there are two or three committees that are at a standstill, including the Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities, the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Liberals are filibustering and refuse to discuss issues that require transparency and testimony so that we can examine matters that are somewhat sensitive but necessary. Right now, it is the Liberals who are filibustering in the committees. We are not opposed to committees having a majority, but we believe that seven Liberal members is excessive. It is an abuse of power. We wonder if the official opposition whip feels the same way we do.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

“The Prime Minister says nice words about working together. But the government does the opposite. What if there is a scandal? The government changed the rules. Liberals can now block transparency and stop any discussion they don't like in committee.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to talk to us about a few things in a little more detail. The Prime Minister sweet-talked us about collaboration, openness, and partnership. He put up a nice facade, wore a nice suit, gave a nice performance. However, behind the scenes, on the floor of the House of Commons, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons is doing the exact opposite of what the Prime Minister publicly announced to the media, in front of reporters. Can my colleague tell me what will happen if a scandal is uncovered and we want to learn more? The matter will be impossible to discuss in any committee because the Liberals will reject the motion. They will block transparency. Can my colleague elaborate on the current issue of transparency and accountability?

View on ourcommons.ca ↗