44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 7, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/7/22 11:47:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech about the economy.
However, this is just a motion. It is not the Conservatives' budget. It is just a motion designed to help all the people in our ridings, be they in Nova Scotia or Quebec. It is just the Conservatives' straightforward way of trying to help all Canadians.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 11:51:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Conservatives think that the private sector is the solution for everything. That is because they took economics 101, but did not bother with economics 102. Public goods is a real thing.
The governments that are the closest to the people on the ground, providing them with services to support them, are the governments of Quebec and the provinces. That is why I invite our NDP colleagues to support the unconditional increase of health transfers, so that the money goes directly to the provinces. I also invite them to support unconditional transfers for housing, so that the provinces can house people. These solutions rarely come from Ottawa because Ottawa is not in touch with people and Canada is a big country where there is a lot of diversity in the economic structure and in mentalities. The federal government needs to trust Quebec and the provinces and give them the money.
I am not a huge federalist, on the contrary, but if my colleague believes in federalism, he has to believe in the ability of the governments of Quebec and the provinces to help people. That is all.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 1:06:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague. Carbon pricing is certainly a worthwhile way to fight climate change. However, given what we have learned today and what I read in Le Journal de Montréal on the huge profits that oil companies like Suncor will be making—to the tune of almost triple the profits—I think the Conservatives' proposal is shameful. I also think it is shameful that the government is still agreeing to provide funding for carbon capture strategies and has allocated $2.6 billion in the budget for that.
It is going to be you, me and all Quebec and Canadian taxpayers who will be paying for oil companies to produce net-zero oil, which many people feel is completely outrageous.
Does the member agree with me that we need to put an end to oil and gas subsidies as quickly as possible?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 2:05:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in June we celebrate pride and what a well-earned feeling for the entire LGBTQ+ community. They have come a long way and accomplished a lot.
From fighting for decriminalization to fighting for equality, all these battles were fought with determination, courage and love and have made members of the LGBTQ+ community role models in the art of peaceful protest at a time of positive advocacy. That is something else to be proud of.
June is Pride Month. We are proud of who we are, proud of the way we live, proud of who we love and proud to love. The greatest pride is rooted in these two sentiments: self-affirmation and love for others.
In Quebec, pride celebrations are held in August, when our cities are bathed in sunshine, bright colours and rainbows. We will be there with the communities in August, as we are in June, to celebrate pride and to keep fighting together.
Happy Pride Month, everyone.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 2:06:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Lawyers Without Borders is celebrating its 20th anniversary this year. For two decades, it has been advocating for the respect and promotion of fundamental freedoms as defined by international law.
With deep roots in my riding, the magnificent Quebec City, these exceptional legal experts, lawyers and volunteers are the voice for those who, all too often, do not have one. Whether in Africa, Latin America or the Caribbean, their smart, caring and enthusiastic team is working to bring more justice to the world.
I would like to give special recognition to Pascal Paradis, executive director and co-founder of Lawyers Without Borders Canada, who left behind the stability of a large law firm to be true to his convictions.
I wish Lawyers Without Borders Canada continued success and thank them for making us proud through their commitment, intelligence and humanitarianism.
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Quebec's Bill 96 makes federally regulated businesses subject to the Charter of the French Language, but the Liberals' Bill C‑13 contradicts Bill 96 and gives businesses the choice to make French optional.
For the Quebec Community Groups Network, offering this choice already goes too far. Yesterday they demanded that only the federal legislation apply, so that its businesses can continue to operate in English only. Does the minister believe that her allies such as the QCGN care one bit about the decline of French in Quebec?
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
As I have said many times, our government is the first to recognize that French is in decline in Canada, including in Quebec.
That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill, one with teeth, to ensure that we can do our part. The federal government wants to take responsibility and make sure that we are doing everything we can to address this situation, as it is a top priority for the government.
84 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 3:02:13 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, English is not threatened in Quebec or anywhere in North America, and yet that is what the English Montreal School Board believes. It has announced plans to challenge Bill 96, and it is calling on all like-minded groups to provide financial support for its challenge.
I have a simple question for the minister: Does she agree with us that the English Montreal School Board should not get one penny of taxpayer money to challenge Quebec's Bill 96?
84 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 3:02:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, once again, we have been very clear that our government is the first federal party to recognize that French is in decline in Canada, including in Quebec. That is why we are moving forward with an ambitious bill to address this situation.
What is really disappointing is that yesterday, at the Standing Committee on Official Languages, we saw time being wasted in the first hour of the committee meeting. Rather than taking the time needed to begin a thorough analysis of Bill C‑13, we saw members of the opposition, including the Bloc, simply waste that time.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 3:06:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when something comes from the Liberal side, it is always perfect, but when it comes from the opposition parties then it is always disinformation.
I would like to know what the minister thinks about what Quebec's public safety minister said when she announced her strategy to combat gun violence. She said, “To all those gang members terrorizing our citizens...you are going to have to deal with our police officers”. Minister Guilbault wants to enforce the law the way it is meant to be enforced, regardless of colour and without playing political games like the Prime Minister.
If Minister Guilbault agrees with our position and the Prime Minister thinks our position is racist, does he also believe that Minister Guilbault and the Quebec government are racist?
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 3:07:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have spoken several times with my Quebec counterpart, Minister Guilbault, and we will continue to exchange views on Bill C‑21. Minister Guilbault announced her support for this bill. She said that it was a step in the right direction for the protection of Quebeckers and even all Canadians.
We must start debating this bill so we can implement measures to protect Canadians, and I hope that the Conservatives will now change course.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 6:08:31 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, like me, the member represents a rural riding, and she described the reality of her constituents and the citizens of Quebec by talking about the distances they travel for recreation, leisure and work.
I agree with the principle of the proposed measure in paragraph (a) of the motion, “temporarily suspending the Goods and Services Tax (GST) collected on gasoline and diesel”, but my concern is that it is not targeted. For example, members of the House would benefit from this measure, but it would be a better idea if it targeted low-income Canadians. What does my hon. colleague think?
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 6:11:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, and I thank my colleague for asking it. I am perhaps one of those people who believe that citizens pay taxes for a reason, and that they pay them to the federal government in exchange for services.
I would like to remind members just how long it currently takes to get a passport. If an individual is a victim of EI fraud and their file is blocked, it takes a long time to get services and the money they are owed. It takes a long time for the federal government to transfer the money it owes to the provinces and to Quebec, especially for health care.
Instead of eliminating or suspending a tax, because I believe they have a purpose, I would perhaps propose an exchange whereby the federal government would provide the service that Quebeckers and the people who pay this tax are entitled to. I believe that the government could be more proactive in the way it provides these services.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 6:28:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North. I will answer his question the same way I answered his colleague's.
I believe we need to review the taxation of big banks in Quebec. We need to ensure that we stop investing in the oil and gas sector. The consequences are huge. Why not review equalization and make it greener?
The pollution we generate in the system needs to be offset by higher equalization payments. I think it is a win-win. The greenest provinces would get more. Now that is a solution.
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 6:59:02 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will take this opportunity to talk about something that I know the member is very proud of, as am I, which is the national child care program.
The national child care program is now going to make day care affordable for hundreds of thousands of people from coast to coast to coast. It is going to enable people to enter into the workforce, and it will have a profound impact.
I am very proud of the fact that this administration and the minister responsible were able to get the provinces and territories onside. We have, for the very first time, a very progressive, national program in regard to child care. If members want to get a sense of just how well it is going to work into the future, they can look at the positive impact it had when it was brought in by the Province of Quebec.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 8:03:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères for his speech. We sat beside one another in the previous Parliament.
I would like to hear his comments on the fact that budget 2022 completely overlooks the importance of having an intercity transportation service. For example, here in British Columbia, we lost the bus system and the same is true in the Maritimes. I do not think it is as big of a problem in Quebec.
What does he think of the fact that the federal government has ignored the needs of citizens in more remote regions?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 8:05:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her very relevant question. It gives me a chance to add to what I said earlier.
I talked about the fact that the government basically stole $342 million from Quebec by deciding not to give it the money it should have received under the agreement. Of that $342 million, $293 million was supposed to be spent on public transit, so Quebec has lost out on $293 million for public transit because of a unilateral decision by the government opposite. There is a lot to be angry about.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 9:03:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the question.
The question is quite vague. If the member wants me to raise a question with the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, Infrastructure and Communities, I will.
I think that the Government of Canada has a very strong relationship with the provinces and territories, especially Quebec. Given the pandemic and the initiatives to help the health care systems and networks, among other things, the relationship between the Government of Canada and the provinces and territories is very solid.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 9:06:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-4
Madam Speaker, I should let you know that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
I want to start by congratulating my colleague from Kings—Hants on his French. He delivered half his speech in French earlier, and it was really impressive. I want to congratulate him and encourage all my colleagues to learn the second official language. By “second official language”, I do not mean that French is the second official language, but it is the second language of an English speaker. In my case, English is my country's second official language. I just wanted to make that clear.
We are here to talk about budget items and votes for various departments, including Justice Canada. As we all know, my colleague from Fundy Royal moved a motion about that department. As a result, we are talking about judicial processes, the administration of justice in Canada, the Supreme Court of Canada and decisions that affect everyone.
More specifically, I want to talk about a decision handed down a few weeks ago that had broad repercussions across the country, especially in the region where I am from, Quebec City. The Supreme Court of Canada struck down a law on consecutive sentencing that had been duly passed by this Parliament in 2011 and had been in force until the Supreme Court's ruling.
This decision is in connection with the Quebec City mosque tragedy that occurred on January 29, 2017. I will recap those sad events. Anyone who was directly or indirectly affected by this incident remembers exactly where they were when they heard the news. People were gathered at the mosque, united by their faith, their charity and the communion of spirit, when a crazed gunman, a nameless criminal, walked in and emptied his gun, killing six men at that mosque. Our thoughts are with the 19 injured worshippers who survived, and with the loved ones of the six people who lost their lives.
At the end of the trial, the Hon. François Huot, the trial judge, handed down a 40-year sentence, which might have surprised some people. As I was saying earlier, a law had been passed by Parliament allowing for cumulative sentences. A criminal who killed three people would be sentenced to three times 25 years.
I want to say that this is a Canadian law. All too often, I have heard people refer to it as a Conservative law. This law was passed by a Conservative government, but it was kept in place by the current government. To be more specific, the 2011 law was applied up until 2015 by the Conservative government, for more than three and a half years. However, this law remained in force from 2015 until the recent ruling by the Supreme Court of Canada, which is almost seven years. Therefore, this law was accepted and applied by the current Liberal government for almost twice as long as the previous Conservative government.
I wanted to clarify that because, as I was drafting this speech, I came across articles that described the law as a relic of the Harper era, as though that were a bad thing. God knows Canada sure had some good years when the Conservative government was running the country.
If the Liberals hated the law so much, all they had to do was set it aside and repeal it, just as they did in other cases. In fact, during this government's first months in power, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, our leader at the time, gave me the tremendous responsibility of being our party's labour critic. In that capacity, I spoke to Bill C‑4, which repealed two laws governing transparency and democracy in unions, laws that had been passed under the previous Conservative government. The duly elected Liberal government had made a campaign promise to repeal those two laws. Having won a majority, it introduced a bill and repealed them. However, the Liberal government chose to maintain the consecutive sentencing law that is still attributed to the Harper era.
Let us get back to the sequence of events. Justice François Huot pronounces a final guilty verdict and imposes a prison sentence of 40 years, in other words, 25 years plus 15 years. He rewrites Canada's cumulative sentencing law as he sees fit, noting that he was uncomfortable with the “25 years plus 25 years plus 25 years” approach. He says himself in his ruling that he adapted the law as he saw fit and imposed a sentence of 40 years. It was a fairly extensive document, 246 pages long. He also examined the case law in more than 195 countries.
The Court of Appeal was asked to review that ruling. It struck it down. The three judges found that this was a bad piece of legislation, that it was unconstitutional. In the end, the Supreme Court ruled against this law, saying that it was totally unfair, unconstitutional and ultimately—and I am paraphrasing here—had no place in the Canadian judicial process.
One can disagree with a law, even a law that has been upheld by the Liberal government. However, there is a reality when it comes to crime, when it comes to murder, or what we call mass murder. I dislike that expression, but there is no doubt what it means: a compulsive killer emptying a gun on innocent victims. We have seen it too many times in our country. Once is one time too many. Having been through the mosque attack—I knew some of the people—I say we must think of the victims. This is about more than just the court case, the robes and the Supreme Court. It is about more than the legal process and the courts. We are talking about men and women who are suffering.
I would like to read an article by Dominique Lelièvre that was published in the Journal de Québec on Friday, May 27, just a few hours after the Supreme Court decision. The author quotes survivors and victims' loved ones:
Orphans of the Sainte-Foy mosque may pass their father's killer on the streets of Quebec City 20 years from now, laments the Muslim community, which is disappointed in the Supreme Court's decision....
“In our opinion, this ruling does not consider the magnitude of the atrocity and the scourge of mass killings proliferating in North America, nor does it recognize the hateful, Islamophobic and racist nature of the crime,” said Mohamed Labidi, president of the organization [the CCIQ], at the mosque on Sainte-Foy Road where six worshippers were brutally gunned down in January 2017.
“Although we are disappointed in this decision by the highest court in the land, it does enable us to close this legal chapter. Now we want to focus on the future.”
What troubles the survivors and the victims' loved ones most is that the children of these victims might one day encounter the murderer.
“That is the biggest fear of the victims' families. The Parole Board might delay his release and take this into account, but that's our real fear, that the orphans who will become men and women will come face to face with their father's killer when he is free,” said Mr. Labidi. He vowed to stand by these children when the time comes....
When contacted by Le Journal, Aymen Derbali, a father who was left severely disabled after miraculously surviving being shot seven times during the attack, said that he “respects” the court's decision, although he was “very disappointed” in the ruling.
“What worries me as a citizen is that this encourages future criminals to commit mass murder, since the sentence would be the same,” he said.
All the same, this decision was the culmination of a long saga that will help him close this painful chapter of his life. He wants to dedicate all of his energy to his family, to his children's future and to his humanitarian aid projects.
“I'm turning the page. I started this process a little while ago, but with this decision... Finally, there was a decision. The law will be enforced the same way across Canada,” he said with a sigh.
...
Boufeldja Benabdallah, the co-founder of the CCIQ, suggested that the court did not sufficiently account for the pain experienced by the victims' loved ones, compared to the offender's right to rehabilitation.
“The Supreme Court made a purely legal observation that, in our opinion, did not take into account the humanity of these families. It took into account the humanity of a murderer who will have to be rehabilitated later on.... Today, it feels like the balance has been upset,” he said.
Now that all the legal appeals have been exhausted, he says that he wants to do something worthwhile by continuing to advocate for communal harmony, which he says has grown immensely in the past five years, like a healing balm on the scars of the tragedy.
People did not just come the day after the attack but reached out to us over the past five years, and we too made the effort to reach out to them.
1572 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
