44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 1, 2022 02:00PM
- Jun/1/22 2:09:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in 1672, Intendant Talon granted the seigneury of Verchères to François Jarret, an officer with the Carignan‑Salières regiment.
This little village along the St. Lawrence River saw history being made when 14-year-old Madeleine heroically protected the village from Iroquois attacks. Some even say she saved New France.
Years later, patriot Ludger Duvernay, who was also born in Verchères, founded the Société Saint‑Jean‑Baptiste and organized the first celebration of Quebec's national holiday. We also have another son of Verchères, former premier Bernard Landry, to thank for National Patriots Day.
When we think of Verchères, we also think of its famous rowboats and its dedicated artisans who work hard to keep the knowledge of their predecessors alive.
In 2002, Verchères became a wonderful, idyllic village that people could not help falling in love with. That is why I want to wish everyone from Verchères a happy 350th anniversary.
180 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 2:31:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in concrete terms, the investments made by this government will ensure that families will save thousands of dollars in child care costs, and, in Quebec, the number of day care spaces increased as a result of federal investments.
We will continue to be there to invest and to help families. The Canada child benefit is indexed, which means that there will be more money in the pockets of families that need it every month. We continue to be there to support families facing hardship because of the war in Ukraine and the pandemic recovery.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 2:31:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister said that he wanted to challenge Quebec's legislation on the secularization of the state “given the vast implications for all Canadians across the country”. However, there are no implications for Canada. That is pure nonsense.
This concerns Quebeckers and Quebeckers alone. Quebec's state secularism law is the will of Quebeckers, was passed by Quebec members of Quebec's National Assembly and applies only in Quebec. I think it is quite clear. Canadians have nothing to do with it. It is none of their business. What does the Prime Minister not understand about that?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 2:32:22 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am certain I must have misheard. Surely the hon. member did not mean to suggest that all those who disagree and who are challenging this law before the courts in Quebec are not true Quebeckers.
We will always stand alongside anyone in Canada who wants to defend their fundamental rights, those rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If this does end up before the Supreme Court, the government will be there to defend minority rights, as it always has.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 2:33:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers want to reinforce state secularism where we live, in Quebec. That is for us to decide.
Quebeckers are not telling Canadians what to do in Canada. If the people of Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan, want the state and religion to go hand in hand, that is not our problem. They can go ahead and tattoo “In God We Trust” on their faces if they want. We could not care less. It is none of our business.
Quebeckers want state secularism. That is what we voted for. Why would Quebeckers allow Canadians to force religion back into our state affairs?
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 2:37:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, three RCMP officers were killed in Moncton. Six worshippers were killed inside a Quebec City mosque. Two grandparents and their grandson were murdered in Calgary in 2017. Their killers were given jail sentences of 40 years or more, but the Supreme Court has now capped sentences for mass murderers at 25 years. The Prime Minister likes to say that he has Canadians' backs. Will he stand up for the families of these victims?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 2:45:00 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, not only does the Prime Minister want to challenge Quebec's Bill 21, but the Liberals are even planning to use the case to put Quebec under federal control.
On Friday, his colleague from Mount Royal said that the notwithstanding clause should be completely abolished and that this article has no place in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and should never be used. He wants to take away the only constitutional recourse Quebec has to protect our societal choices from the dictates of the federal government or federally appointed judges.
Will the Prime Minister correct him and reiterate that the notwithstanding clause is important?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 2:46:15 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, cases like Bill 21 are the very reason why the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes a notwithstanding clause.
It is there specifically to prevent Canadian institutions from unilaterally overturning the democratic rights of Quebec and the provinces. It is there specifically to prevent the Prime Minister from blocking Bill 21 and imposing his own vision of state secularism, the vision of a guy who believes that members should pray in Parliament every day.
Will the Prime Minister leave the notwithstanding clause alone or will he place Quebec under federal control?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 2:46:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois may be ready to attack one of our country's fundamental freedoms, freedom of conscience, but I know that the federal government will be there to defend fundamental freedoms such as gender equality and the protection of minorities, including official language minorities across the country.
We will always ensure that the fundamental rights of all Canadians, whether they live in Quebec or elsewhere in Canada, are protected. That is what Canadians expect from this government.
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 2:50:24 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, we are improving our justice systems to ensure there is less systemic discrimination and racism against indigenous communities and Black Canadians.
We will continue instituting better gun controls to ensure there are fewer victims of violence. I cannot believe that Conservative members from Quebec are still rising in support of relaxing gun control and blocking our attempts to restrict handguns or even military-style assault weapons.
68 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 3:02:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again, yesterday, the Prime Minister refused to give Quebec the immigration powers it is asking for. He justified it by saying that it was “because protecting French and francophone immigration is very important”. Of course it is important. That is exactly why Quebec wants to be responsible for all its immigration. Quebec's future as a nation, where French is the common and official language, hinges on protecting French and francophone immigration.
Does anyone here seriously believe that the federal government is in a better position than Quebec to provide this protection?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 3:02:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as a Quebecker, I know that the federal government has an important role to play in protecting French, not only in Quebec, but also throughout the country. It is precisely for the sake of those French-speaking communities across the country that we must continue to work to ensure francophone immigrants settle everywhere in the country.
As far as Quebec is concerned, we are very happy to work hand in hand with the Quebec government to increase francophone immigration. If that is what the Quebec government wants, we are there to work in partnership with it. Our government is there as a partner to protect the French language and increase Quebec's population.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/1/22 3:03:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, let us recap. The Prime Minister says that he will challenge Bill 21 and that Canada must be able to dictate Quebec's vision on state secularism. He then says that he wants to limit the scope of the notwithstanding clause to ensure that Quebeckers will never again have the right to adopt legislation that upsets Canada. He is saying that Quebec will never get the immigration powers it is calling for so that it can better integrate newcomers.
At this point, what does the Prime Minister have to say to the Quebeckers who want to make their own democratic choices? Is the only option independence?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, individual creators are protected under this legislation. It is the platforms that we are targeting.
Let us not forget that we have been able to protect Quebec and Canadian culture by making Canadian creators more discoverable on platforms, including radio, TV and now the Internet.
We want to ensure that Canadian creators are seen, heard and appreciated. That is exactly what Bill C-11 does, and that is what the Conservatives still do not seem to understand.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-248. I would ask my colleagues to bear with me a little, since they often hear me talk about Quebec, but I am much less familiar with Ontario and the Windsor community. However, I have read a bit about the bill introduced by my colleague from Windsor West and I will gladly support it.
I want to give a little background on the subject and explain why the Bloc Québécois would have taken a different approach if this bill were to apply in Quebec. However, after speaking with my colleague, I understand why he took this approach.
I also want to commend our colleague for his tenacity in championing this project. If I understand correctly, it all began in 2013 when he attended a public meeting organized by local residents. That is when he learned of the importance of preserving Ojibway Shores.
It is not hard to understand why the member for Windsor West is fighting to preserve this 33-acre site, which is home to some very rare plant and wildlife species, including species at risk.
I would say that if there were a parcel of land in need of protection like that in my riding, it is highly likely that I would fight for its preservation. As I was saying, I might not go about it in the same way, but I will come back to that.
For now, let us talk a bit about the Windsor community and its fight over the past few years to protect the Ojibway Shores site. We cannot forget it and we must tell it like it is: The Windsor port authority never really had any intention of protecting and preserving the site. Its goal from the start was to turn it into an industrial development site. For that to happen, the entire natural forest along the banks had to be clear-cut.
Such a project is antithetical to the environmental concerns of the people of Windsor, who even organized a petition to have the development that was planned for 2015 suspended. Our colleague will certainly remember that, having lobbied local, provincial and national environmental advocacy organizations to call on the Department of Transport to take this issue seriously and proceed with the transfer of lands.
In October 2017, a few months later, the Windsor Essex County Environment Committee passed a resolution inviting the municipality of Windsor to ask the federal government to conserve the natural condition, biodiversity and biological function of the Ojibway Shores property as a protected area. The federal government's involvement in this issue is now clearer.
The member for Windsor West even organized a public meeting the following month to call for the transfer of the Ojibway Shores area and to talk about its benefits to the community, as well as the protection of Sandwich Towne.
I can understand why the member was rather disappointed in December 2017 when the minister of transport at the time, our colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, wrote to inform him that the port authority was in discussions with the municipality of Windsor on this matter, and that he would not intervene at that point in time.
My colleague did not give up. He made it an election issue in 2019. The votes he received in his riding sent a clear message. He had the support of his constituents on this issue. A few months after the election campaign, my colleague reminded the House that Canada was a signatory to the North American Waterfowl Management Plan, under which Canada, the United States and Mexico committed to protect wetlands and waterfowl. To fund this plan, the United States passed the North American Wetlands Conservation Act, which makes it possible to invest in the protection of wetlands and their wildlife in the three countries.
In September 2020, in the throne speech, the Government of Canada allocated funding to create urban parks across the country. Residents of Windsor felt renewed hope. However, they would have to wait until June 2021, when Windsor's city council voted unanimously in favour of the member for Windsor West's proposal to ask the federal government for help in making the Ojibway Shores area a national urban park.
That part was done, and now we are gathered here to talk about this initiative. This is one more step toward the creation of this urban park and I am really starting to see how important it is. I wanted to give a little bit of background, even though there is a lot more to tell. We would be here for a long time if we had to go over everything. I just wanted us to take the time, as parliamentarians, to consider how long, hard and unnecessarily drawn out it can be to take action to protect the environment. This shows that we will have to continue fighting for a long time to protect the natural areas we care about.
Also, the obstacles faced in these fights are often surprising. As I understand it, the Windsor Port Authority tried to extract $12 million from the Sandwich Towne community benefit fund, which is meant to offset border impacts in challenged neighbourhoods, in exchange for a 30-year lease for the Ojibway Shores site. This proposal was soundly rejected. This simple obstacle is preventing Windsor residents from enjoying an urban park that would protect local ecosystems, and it is a good example of what environmental advocates face in Canada.
My colleagues will have gathered that the Bloc Québécois is in favour of Bill C-248 in principle. According to our information, there is no question about the ecological value of the site or even the importance of creating such a park. In fact, the government has already committed to working with cities to expand urban parks. That should advance the objective of protecting 25% of Canada's land and, in our opinion, this type of project is perfectly aligned with that commitment.
That said, I mentioned earlier that I would have taken a different approach to protecting Ojibway Shores and that I would come back to that later, so that is what I want to talk about now. Some questions come to mind in that regard. Why has the fight to protect this site gone on for so long? Why should Canada, the federal government, own this park? Why should the federal government own as many urban parks as it can?
Why not give the provinces adequate funding to support their urban conservation efforts? That could be one approach. The federal government's role is to provide unconditional funding to the provinces so that they can protect fragile lands.
I am not saying we have anything against the federal government creating this park and taking care of it. That is fine, but I think that if this had been done in Quebec, we might have done things differently. Here is an example. The Lachine Canal in Montreal is an integral part of the city's history, especially for neighbourhoods such as Saint‑Henri, Griffintown and Pointe‑Saint‑Charles, so it would be appropriate, from our perspective, for the City of Montreal and the boroughs involved to manage the Lachine Canal park. They could figure out how to run it, develop it and integrate it with neighbouring urban developments. The vision would be informed by the people who live there, the people in and of that place, the ones who understand why this particular location holds such significance for the area from a cultural and environmental point of view.
I think there is one thing my colleagues will agree with me on. People do not see the federal government as being all that close to them. The federal government deals with major issues, such as monetary policy, borders, international relations and defence, but is it really its role to make sure that the plants in an urban park represent the flora of that neighbourhood? Is it really up to us as parliamentarians and federal public servants to be responsible for managing an urban park?
That is an important question. Still, I think my colleague from Windsor West did a fine job of explaining why this is the way it is being done in this case. Even so, this is an issue worth talking about because, as I said, there may have been other ways to handle this.
I want to reiterate that the Bloc Québécois generally supports this bill. I commend my colleague's tenacity. Having introduced my first bill in the House, I remember how overwhelming it can be. There is something exciting about seeing a project through to the end and being the one to lead it. As I said, my colleague has been championing this project for several years now, so it is nice to hear the different opinions from each party and see people come together for the Windsor community.
I will conclude by saying that I wish my colleague the best of luck in getting his bill passed. He can count on the support of the Bloc Québécois.
1552 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
