Rhéal Éloi Fortin
Rivière-du-Nord, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, this is not my first time speaking in the House to Bill C‑9 . My position, or the position of the Bloc Québécois, is already well known. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to hear that we have no intention of changing our position.”
“A certain amount of evidence must be provided for each of these offences. However, if it can be established that the offence in question was also committed on grounds of hate, then the sentence may be increased significantly. Unfortunately, I think this is a good thing.”
“Naturally, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can handle some of these issues, but Bill C‑9 applies directly to hate by clarifying what needs to be clarified and by doing what I would call a small clean-up of the Criminal Code that was, in some respects, badly needed.”
“However, in this case, I must commend the work of the Minister of Justice , whom I have worked with over the past few months to arrive at this version. It is not perfect, I admit, but it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the current situation in our country.”
“We say that the federal government should simply transfer the money and let the provinces manage it as they see fit, particularly given that the provinces have the necessary jurisdiction and expertise in these areas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague. I cannot recall the name of his riding, but thanks to him, I have an attentive audience. I think this is the first time I have been in the middle of a speech and seen everyone rush into the House to listen to it. I thank my colleague.”
The complete record
Every one of 521 lines we hold for Rhéal Éloi Fortin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 11.
“If it were coming from someone who did not know how to count, it might be understandable, but it is coming from a Prime Minister who was a banker before becoming Prime Minister, who ran the central banks of major countries, including the Bank of England and the Bank of Canada. It is hard to believe that he is gullible, naive or clumsy. This man is clearly competent at managing public finances. Under the circumstances, if he is competent, how should we interpret this move? He is not taking money from tax revenues, because he did not collect any in April, May or June. He is taking money from all Quebeckers and Canadians. He is taking a portion of that money and returning it to citizens in only eight provinces. My colleague from Mirabel spoke earlier about cheating.”
“It is a Canadian people managed by a Canadian government for which the Quebec people are a negligible part. They can do whatever they want with Quebeckers' money, as they can with the rest of Canada's money. As always, Quebec will have to suck it up. That is what we are seeing right now. The government came along and said that there would be no more carbon tax. On April 1, it was cancelled, but on April 22, money was still sent out. I cannot say that the money was returned, since it was never collected. Anyway, the government sent money to the people of eight provinces to compensate them for what they would have had to pay if the carbon tax were still in effect. That is some warped logic.”
“Mr. Speaker, in the early 1980s, René Lévesque, a man I greatly respect and who inspired Quebec and Quebec society as a whole, said that Canada is not a gulag. Once that was said, a number of federalists began to ask why people still wanted to separate from Canada. Why would Quebec want to become a full-fledged sovereign country if, in the end, Canada is not a gulag? Perhaps we should read the second part of his statement, where he said that the federal government is a haphazard system that, all too often, hinders our development. The situation we find ourselves in today, the decision that the Prime Minister of Canada made when he took office on March 14, fully justifies that statement that Canada's federal system is a haphazard system. In Quebec, our problem is that we are a people governed by another people.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mirabel for his speech, which was, as always, well founded, well articulated, very interesting and very clear. That said, I would like to ask him a question, because he has expertise that I do not. To my knowledge, the carbon tax was abolished on April 1, but the carbon exchange that applies in Quebec and British Columbia was still in effect on April 1, and continues to be in effect. Are Quebeckers and British Columbians not, in one way or another, paying a price for decarbonization that the rest of Canada has not been paying since April 1?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talks about fairness when it comes to the carbon tax rebate. Does he agree that this money was paid on April 22 for the period of April, May and June, while the carbon tax was abolished on April 1 by his leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, by order in council? Effective April 1, there was no more carbon tax. The government supposedly reimbursed the taxes that should have been paid during the months of April, May and June, but will not be. Does he agree with that?”
“Mr. Speaker, our colleague from Winnipeg North says that it is more important to first get things right and that it would be better to wait before coming up with a budget. I fail to understand how he can say that. I respect him enough not to believe for one second that he would hand his money over to people who would announce all sorts of spending but promise to tell him how they would finance it only in the fall. No one would do that. My colleague from Winnipeg North is smart enough to agree with me. On what basis is he able to tell us that it is fine to spend money now, that the government will try to figure out how to pay for it over the summer and that they will let us know what they came up with next year?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague would think if I suggested that she invest her savings in a bank whose CEO spent hundreds of millions of dollars without ever making any budget forecasts, without ever checking to see whether he had the necessary funds to pay for these expenditures, even though they are nice expenditures that make people happy. If I told my colleague to invest her savings in this bank, which spends money to make people happy, what would she think? Would my colleague agree to entrust her savings to a bank that is spending extraordinary amounts without checking whether it has the necessary funds to do so?”
“Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech. I agree with a lot of the things she said. I listened to what our colleague from Winnipeg North said. He seemed to be staunchly defending Pierre Poilievre for not tabling figures, for not critiquing or looking at budgets, for believing that it would be all right to spend tens or hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars without drafting a budget or making any calculations ahead of time, and for telling voters that even though he wanted to lower taxes and increase spending, everything would balance out. That seems a bit strange to me. I remember the first thing I taught my children when they were very young. When they wanted to spend money on chewing gum or toys, the first thing I would ask them was how much money they had before they decided to spend it.”
“Nevertheless, he was among the first federal Liberals to want to ensure that the Quebec nation was recognized in the federal Parliament. His commitment to Quebec must be recognized. The Canadian space program and the important role that aeronautics and aerospace play in Quebec's economy, particularly in the greater Montreal area, would not be the same without Marc Garneau's contribution. Marc Garneau left us yesterday. To his family, his friends, his colleagues who served with him, to those who travelled around our blue planet with him, and to those who have chosen to follow in his footsteps and embrace the dream of going into space, I offer, on my own behalf and on behalf of the Bloc Québécois, my sincere condolences. Thank you, Mr. Garneau.”
“Marc Garneau participated in three NASA missions: one mission in the space shuttle Challenger and two missions in the space shuttle Endeavour. He was responsible for manipulating the famous Canadarm during his second mission to space. He was an astronaut. He was an astronaut in a spacesuit, just like the ones we saw in the movies that made us dream big when we were kids. Marc Garneau took the dream that was out of reach for so many young Quebeckers and Canadians and made it a reality. He paved the way for Chris Hadfield, Julie Payette and David Saint-Jacques, to name just a few. He showed us the way to the stars. Of course, politically, we had our disagreements. To be honest, I remember the disagreements more than the agreements.”
“Mr. Speaker, for nearly 15 years, we had the privilege of working alongside a man who left his mark on the history of Quebec and Canada. In the mayhem of parliamentary sparring and our political debates, where partisanship takes over and things heat up rather quickly, far too often we forget the greatness of the women and men we encounter. I am guilty of that. Here in the House, there are women and men who have had breathtaking professional or personal journeys. However, who can boast about having spent 677 hours in space? Who can boast about starting his days by staring down at the Earth from the sky? Marc Garneau is the first Quebecker and the first Canadian to have achieved the absolutely extraordinary accomplishment of going to space. The hon.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his bill. It addresses many of the Bloc Québécois's concerns regarding border security, organized crime and so on. However, there is one thing in this massive bill that bothers me and raises numerous questions, and that is the security of personal information. The bill would significantly expand police powers. Would it not be possible to limit the ability to conduct searches without a warrant? This could include the obligation to prove that obtaining a warrant is impossible. The section about communicating information to other countries is very troubling. My colleague is telling us that there will be measures, eventually. I understand that, but I would like him to tell us more. What will those measures be? This aspect of the bill could be a concern.”
“Mr. Speaker, we know that the Conservatives support buying pipelines. However, the government is not presenting a budget or drafting estimates, yet it is proposing to buy a pipeline to the tune of billions of dollars to produce more oil, when Canadian forests are burning as we speak. Does my colleague think this is the best way to manage affairs of state? Climate change is having an impact both in Quebec and in Canada. There is poverty everywhere, as well as a housing crisis. Just this week, 17,000 families were ordered to evacuate due to the wildfires in Manitoba. Does my colleague believe that this is a responsible way to manage public finances?”
“Mr. Speaker, thank you for ruling on the matter. However, I would submit that the rules state that when we share our time with another member, we must state that at the beginning of our speech. Our colleague from Winnipeg North announced that he was sharing his time with another member of the Liberal Party. He never mentioned the member for Vancouver East . If we stick to this interpretation, it seems to me that she should not have been recognized. The only way to legitimize her turn to speak is to place it where it should have been, which, according to the order, is 45th.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to clarify something with you. When our colleague from Vancouver East took the floor earlier, she did so as an independent member. According to the order of speakers, she was 45th. She spoke and proposed an amendment. You then recognized the member for Saint-Laurent , who would therefore have been 46th in line. I just want to make sure that this is considered as such. Otherwise, this puts all those who spoke before the 45th speaker at a real disadvantage. In short, can you confirm that your interpretation is that the member for Vancouver East spoke as an independent member when she was the 45th speaker?”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree with my NDP colleague that the housing crisis is a terrible thing, in Quebec and Canada alike. This is everyone's business. Just yesterday, I learned that some 17,000 people in Manitoba have been evacuated because of wildfires. That is another 17,000 people who need somewhere to live. Meanwhile, the government's response to these wildfires caused by climate change is to buy another pipeline so Canada can export more oil. Does my colleague think that makes sense, or should we be focusing on climate change instead and redirecting our efforts toward green energy instead of selling oil, when we know the consequences of that?”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. We are talking about fiscal responsibility. Our Conservative colleague was right to bring up the fact that we still do not have a budget, even though the government is planning expenditures. The government is likely about to make a significant expenditure. There is talk of building pipelines across Canada. I remember Trans Mountain and the announcement the government made at the time about how it was going to buy and resell the pipeline and make money. As far as I know, that pipeline has not been sold, yet there is talk of building another one. Does my colleague think it would be fiscally responsible for the government to spend money on buying a new pipeline when it has not yet managed to sell the first one and it has not yet tabled a budget?”
“I thank Johanne for everything she has given to the Bloc Québécois and for everything she has given to each and every one of us. I hope she gets to go back home to the Laurentians but comes back to see us often. I wish our friend a happy retirement. We miss her already.”
“Mr. Speaker, it was a stroke of genius to ask Johanne Régimbald to join the Bloc Québécois's little team on the Hill. That is how the member for Montcalm , the former member for Repentigny and I ended up securing the services of a multi-talented woman with an unparalleled sense of values and responsibilities. Every party boasts about having a rare gem on their team. I am sorry for the other political parties, but the rarest gem on the Hill is our Johanne. Obviously, inevitably, we lost her to the leader's office, where her expertise once again served everyone's interests. Aside from professionalism and efficiency, the word that first comes to mind when we think of Johanne is “kindness”. She took the entire team under her wing and, for 10 years, we have felt confident at all times.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the voters of Rivière-du-Nord for their renewed trust. I assure the House, as I assure my constituents, that I will do what it takes to be worthy of it. I would also like to congratulate my colleague on her recent election, and you on your election and appointment as Speaker of the House. I am confident that it is a wise appointment. The throne speech talks about creating a single Canadian economy. I heard my colleague talk about the people of Prescott—Russell—Cumberland. I wonder if these people support the fact that the economic authority of the Government of Ontario might one day come under that of the federal government. Are her constituents comfortable with this declaration giving the federal government some sort of precedence over their provincial government in Ontario?”
“Mr. Speaker, this is an interesting debate. Yesterday, I heard my leader ask the Prime Minister several questions about the throne speech. I also heard my colleague from Drummond ask, as my leader did yesterday, whether the Liberals or the Conservatives can offer any assurances that the measures resulting from the throne speech will be implemented with proper respect for the jurisdictions of Quebec and the other provinces. Although I listened to the ensuing procedural arguments, I did not hear an answer. Could we have that answer?”