44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 21, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, first, I share my hon. colleague's concerns, because there have been far too many tragedies related to gun violence, not only in Quebec, but across the country. That is exactly why we urgently need to deal with the situation.
The Conservatives are the ones who have been engaging in obstruction tactics. It is unacceptable. There is a lot of support, I hope, from the Bloc and the other opposition parties, like the NDP, for debating this bill and moving forward with a constructive discussion. However, we must manage the situation, and the only way we can move this debate forward is through the committee's fine work. It is important to ensure the safety of the Canadian public.
122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. Strengthening our efforts in the context of the fight against gun violence is a priority for Quebec. That is why I am in constant contact with my Quebec counterparts, including Minister Guilbault, Mayor Plante in Montreal, and Mayor Marchand in Quebec City, who all support the bill.
Everyone understands that this is a step in the right direction. I want to work with the Bloc Québécois and with all the members to better protect our communities.
88 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we need to talk about the question from the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. Obviously, Quebeckers are watching and listening to the NDP's questions, because we are seeing growing support in Quebec polls. As my colleagues know, if we had proportional representation—
47 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, honestly, I do not have an answer to his question because what the government cares about is working with all members on one of the highest priorities for the country, and that is protecting all Canadians. Even in Quebec, we are working on this bill with the mayor of Montreal, the mayor of Quebec City and my provincial government counterpart in a spirit of co-operation.
We want to continue the debate in committee. That is why we need to move forward in a spirit of co-operation.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a great deal of respect for my colleague's role and the opposition's role. That is exactly why we came up with concrete and practical solutions for Canadians during the pandemic and obtained a consensus in the House. This was done very publicly and I am very proud of the result.
At the same time, with respect to gun violence, I am working with my Quebec counterparts, as I have mentioned several times. We must act. We will continue to debate this bill in committee with all members, including the Bloc members.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 2:03:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am proud to rise on this 21st day of June to honour National Indigenous Peoples Day.
May this, the brightest day of the year, serve as an opportunity to showcase the full spectrum and richness of indigenous language and culture. On this special day, let us become better acquainted with and learn about the diversity and wealth that offer so many pathways to a greater understanding of each other through theatre, knowledge, music, craft, literature, tradition and visual art.
May this day to celebrate the robust identities of indigenous peoples foster respect, dialogue and equality among nations. Today, Quebec as a whole salutes indigenous peoples' heritage and contributions going back thousands of years. They have left their mark on our land and on our existence through the centuries and do so to this day.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to thank my brothers and sisters of the Abenaki, Algonquin, Atikamekw, Cree, Maliseet, Mi'kmaq, Huron-Wendat, Mohawk, Inuit and, of course, Innu and Naskapi nations for glowing so brightly and generously sharing their light with us.
186 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 2:15:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on June 13, a house in the beautiful area of La Baie was destroyed by a major landslide. Since then, 95 homes have had to be evacuated, which means 192 people do not know if or when they will be able to return home.
My region is no stranger to natural disasters. In 1996, 600 residents of La Baie lost all of their worldly possessions in a flood and, in 1971, a landslide in Saint‑Jean‑Vianney destroyed 42 homes and took the lives of 31 people.
History has taught us that people back home are resilient. The concern and compassion expressed today are already being replaced with the courage, determination and solidarity typical of people from Saguenay—Lac-Saint‑Jean.
In closing, I urge authorities from all levels of government to work together to ensure that this disaster becomes just a bad memory as soon as possible. All of Quebec stands with my friends in La Baie.
170 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit out of breath after running over here from the all-important operations committee.
I am pleased to rise on this private member's bill. I want to address all my comments to the bill itself. I am sure the member who presented it is a wonderful parliamentarian. I served with her on OGGO, but I have to say I am not a big fan of this bill. It is almost like it is “bad private members' bills” week. Earlier, I had to speak to Bill C-245, which was talking about bringing the $35 billion in the wasteful infrastructure bank over to be $35 billion to add to the wasteful infrastructure department.
I have to say that with this bill it is like “déjà vu all over again”, to quote Yogi Berra. I recall actually speaking to this bill about four years ago in the 42nd Parliament. I was not a fan of it then, and I am not a fan of it now. The big reason is that I have to wonder, of all the things going on in Quebec right now, or in Canada or around the world, if this is what we should be discussing in the House of Commons and taking up two hours of our time.
For example, I look at issues in Quebec right now. I think in the member's own riding we have an increase in problems at Roxham Road again. We have heard from the Government of Quebec of the incredible strain on its social services from these illegal or irregular crossings, however we wish to term them, but I think that is a bigger, more important issue we should perhaps be debating right now.
Of passports, we hear repeatedly in the House from across the country. In Edmonton, people are actually lining up at 12:30 in the morning to get passports, so that is not quite a day in advance, but it is the same problem in Quebec. We actually heard from Trois-Rivières that calls for help from citizens at the Trois-Rivières constituency office were increasing. They have been approaching decade highs daily for three weeks now. Why are we not talking about a private member's bill addressing that issue?
There is a labour shortage. I recall, actually now for several years, hearing about the labour shortage in Quebec. It is hurting productivity. It is hurting the economy of farmers, retail and aerospace. We cannot get workers in that province. Again, this is directed at the PMB. I would think it is a much more important issue we should be chatting about right now, as well as hurrying up the access to foreign workers.
Of course, there is inflation. It is 6.8%, and we will be hearing new inflation numbers tomorrow. My guess is that it is going to rocket past 7%. We hear in Quebec, again, about the shortage of bodies that is going to be driving wage inflation and making the inflation issue more troublesome. One would wonder if that is not a more important issue to be debating right now than a name change for a riding.
There are border issues and the ArriveCAN app, or “ArriveCAN'T” app, as we call it. This is a quote from the newspaper:
It's time to bid farewell to the ArriveCAN app, say border-city mayors, tourism industry leaders and others who complain Canada's stringent COVID-19 rules for international travellers are encouraging would-be U.S. visitors to spend their tourist dollars at home.
Estelle Muzzi, mayor of the Quebec border community of Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, says that the rules are a drag on border crossings that are vital for the local economies. I think that mayor might actually be in the member's riding. Here we have the mayor saying she has issues with ArriveCAN and passports, and we have to wonder why we are talking about a riding change, especially right now.
With the redistributions, the ridings are going to change completely in Quebec, probably. My own riding is getting split into Edmonton West and Edmonton Winterburn. It would be strange for me to perhaps change the name of my riding right now to “Edmonton West Edmonton Mall” or “Edmonton Kanye West”, as I jokingly call it, knowing that in two years the riding was going to change to Edmonton Winterburn.
Again, we have a lot more important issues we can talk about. I want to give some examples of some PMBs that have come through the House recently from my Conservative colleagues that, perhaps, are better examples of how parliamentarians should be spending their time.
Bill C-296, which is from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, is a PMB to amend the criminal code to find the person convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event—
844 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I understand that the member for Winnipeg North has to get his comments in. I think it has been probably 35 seconds since he actually last spoke in the House, so even when it is nonsensical, he has to get a word in.
These bills I am talking about are much like the other issues I spoke about earlier, which have perhaps more importance to the people of the riding than the one we are talking about. It is unfortunate that the member for Winnipeg North has to stand and try to deflect from what I said is part of a bad private member's bill. Rather than actually discussing the merits of it, he has to try and interrupt me.
Getting back to the example, I am sure it would be something that people in the riding would probably care more about. We know that there is a crime issue: We hear it non-stop in the House. On gun crime in Quebec, we have heard of it in Laval and of shootings in Montreal. The bill perhaps could have been addressing these issues, as well. There is denying parole for persons involved in the crimes of sexual assault, abduction and murder. They would perhaps get 25 years without parole.
Another one that could have been considered instead is from the member for North Okanagan—Shuswap. We have a bill that would amend the Criminal Code by replacing the term “child pornography” with “child sex abuse material”. It would take away the word “pornography”. Why that is important, as the member explained, is that pornography, by and large, whether one is for or against it, generally is done legally and with consent, whereas child pornography, of course, is a disgraceful, disgusting and horrific crime and should not in any way be used with any wording that implies consent.
The member for Simcoe North actually brought forward an important bill. We hear about the housing crisis in Vancouver, and also in Quebec, that is out of control and is being pushed by money laundering. The bill put forward would have tackled the money laundering issue.
From the member's home riding, Senator Housakos brought in Bill S-203. Rather than the bill before us, this is something decent from the Senate. It is a bill that provides for the development of a federal framework designed to support autistic Canadians, their families and caregivers. This is an example of a bill brought through by someone from Quebec into the House that would have tangible, material benefits for the people of Quebec. We have been trying to get a national framework for autism in the six and a half years that I have been in the House. The member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has brought it up several times in a private member's bill that was voted down by this government. This is a perfect example of something that would be fulsome and a help to the riding itself.
The member for Lévis—Lotbinière has a bill that would bring changes to the EI Act and increase from 15 to 52 weeks the maximum benefits paid because of illness, injury or quarantine. This is an issue that affects all Canadians. In my previous life, as we call it, before I got into this, I was in the hotel business. I also had a side involvement as an employment insurance appeals commissioner: We would hear appeals for EI. I did this for two years, and it was very enjoyable. We would hear from people who came before the tribunal who had been cut off from EI, or were not eligible for EI, and were suffering from cancer, MS or ALS. They were from all walks of life. Here is a bill being brought forward from a member from Quebec. It is something that would have helped everyone in the riding who had been sick.
I realize that I am running out of time, but I have a lot more examples of what I consider better bills. Again, I served with the member on the all-important OGGO committee, and these criticisms are directed specifically at the bill and not at the member. I understand her reasons behind putting the bill through.
I just think that when a member has a once-in-a-Parliament chance to bring forward a bill that would be helpful to the members of her community, it would be something different from this. It should be something meaningful to the people in the community and help people, as opposed to something as relatively meaningless as a name change.
784 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to talk about the issues and priorities that matter to Quebeckers.
The bill we are debating this evening is a unique one, given that it has to do with changing the name of a riding. I sympathize with the idea and think the new name is quite lovely. “Les Jardins-de-Napierville” has a nice ring to it.
However, as other members have mentioned, the problem is with the decision to prioritize this issue over other challenges faced by families, workers, seniors and students in our communities.
Time in the House is limited, and this time is a precious commodity used for advancing issues that are important to the people we represent, our constituents. I am sure that the people of what is currently known as the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle are very happy about this initiative and will be happy with the new name, but we are spending a lot of time to change a name that could have been changed through other means, for example, through the Commissioner of Canada Elections.
There are many people who are struggling and suffering right now. There are plenty of challenges that I think deserve, as a matter of priority, the benefit of the House's time and the potential debates between parliamentarians.
I met with representatives of the Unifor union recently, and I would like to talk about a problem that affects a lot of people, namely, offshoring of jobs. It affects several sectors but is particularly prevalent in the telecommunications sector. This is related to something that is very topical and that may even affect people in my Liberal Party colleague's riding. For the first time in its history, the union representing Bell Canada clerical workers has a strike mandate. A total of 4,200 people in Ontario and Quebec are going to engage in a labour dispute, perhaps for the first time, because they are fed up with seeing their jobs sent overseas. A few years ago, this unit had 15,000 clerical workers at Bell Canada. Has there been less work to do at Bell Canada in the last 20 or 25 years? Of course not, but the jobs are being moved to the Philippines, Morocco and Tunisia. These people want to have the means to continue working here in Canada, at home, because it is still necessary.
The most infuriating thing about this is that companies like Bell Canada get federal subsidies to cover part of their development and infrastructure. They owe nothing in exchange, and jobs are being relocated to other countries. I think that this is an issue we as parliamentarians should address and find solutions for.
Unifor has proposed a solution that would not necessarily entail obligations to keep jobs in Canada right away. I personally would be prepared to go there, and I believe the NDP would as well. At the very least, we must demand transparency from companies that receive tax dollars and then send jobs offshore. Transparency would reveal information about which jobs have been offshored and details about contracts and why those jobs did not stay in Canada.
I would like to draw the attention of the House to this possible imminent labour dispute, which could start in about two weeks and will affect thousands of people in Quebec and Ontario. Offshoring jobs is a serious issue that I think deserves our time, as well as solutions and ideas from members of all parties.
As we are speaking of the federal government's role, we could also spend more time talking about the quality of the federal government's services overall. In many respects, quite a few government organizations and departments have become dysfunctional and completely inefficient.
I spoke about this another time, but I want to come back to this subject. There is a woman in my riding who qualified for employment insurance and has been waiting for her cheque since February. It is now June. That is a rather long time. She has been forced to borrow money from friends and family and to rack up debt on her credit card to pay for groceries and rent. These are ineffective strategies. I believe that, as parliamentarians, we have a responsibility to put pressure on a government to provide its services. I am not telling my colleagues anything new. The passport delays right now are absolutely appalling. It is a catastrophe.
People are waiting in line for 24 or even 36 hours. They are becoming frustrated and anxious. It is not simply a matter of saying that they are just travellers and vacationers anyway, so it is no big deal. First of all, they have a right to this service. The government is failing to deliver on time. Second, after two years of the pandemic, many people have saved up enough money to be able to afford a dream vacation for their children and their family abroad. Now they are losing the thousands of dollars they invested in that trip. They are being robbed by a government that cannot meet the demand, when this situation was foreseeable.
I was absolutely astonished to hear the Prime Minister tell us, in response to a question today, that he saw this coming. He obviously did not see it coming, because if he had, he would have prepared for it and put some resources into it. What we are seeing now is horrible. People are shouting at security guards. The rules are chaotic and contradictory, and they differ from one office to another. The police have even had to intervene.
These are all key issues.
The government's failures are affecting the businesses in my Liberal colleague's riding. All the delays at Immigration Canada are causing major problems, whether they have to do with permanent residency applications, work visas, student visas, temporary worker permits or other things. I am sure that there are many family farms in her riding that are unable to keep up because they need these temporary workers. It is taking a long time. We are experiencing a labour shortage and these businesses do not have the means to quickly find workers for the upcoming summer and for the harvest at the end of the summer, in August and September.
The labour shortage is causing major challenges, and the government is unable to make these services essential for economic development, but also out of respect for the people who are waiting for these documents and whose applications are getting lost in a federal bureaucracy that seems rather disorganized these days.
One major issue that I am sure also affects people in the Châteauguay and Napierville region is the housing crisis. Rent prices are ridiculously high. I am very proud of the NDP's negotiation with the minority government. The agreement contains a new definition of affordable housing. Real affordable housing will be built through projects funded by the CMHC. I am very proud of that, and this will make a difference in the future. It will help my constituents and my colleague's constituents as well.
People who are looking to buy their first home or who are wondering whether they will be able to keep their homes, in light of what is going on, also have concerns. We could have used this time today to talk about the solution, about support for homeowners or potential homeowners who have concerns. What are they concerned about? They are concerned about the high likelihood of an interest rate hike.
According to a recent survey, one in four homeowners is genuinely worried that they will have to sell their home if interest rates go up slightly. We are not talking about a 5% increase, but a few percentage points. These interest rates would look like ones we have seen before—
1317 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there are two important groups that support this bill.
The first is PolyRemembers, which was founded after the shooting at École polytechnique in Montreal in 1989, where 14 young women were killed. The other represents survivors of the Quebec City mosque, who also applauded the bill. That should count for a lot when we are making a decision.
There have been other shootings in Canada, and I am not sure if other groups support this bill. In Quebec, it is clear that the bill has the support of these groups. Does the fact that these people applaud the bill and want it passed count for anything for my colleague?
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill, and I will start with a confession. I am surprised to find myself agreeing with many of the criticisms expressed by Conservative members. This does not happen very often when it comes to firearms.
The Bloc Québécois supports Bill C-21 and will obviously try to improve it in committee. However, it does not address any of the current problems that are affecting cities, particularly Montreal. There is nothing in the bill to address the shootings on our city streets that are scaring our children. This is very serious.
The bill puts a freeze on the acquisition of new legal handguns. This is good and might help, but these weapons represent barely 5% of the weapons used in violent crimes. According to Montreal's police service, the SPVM, 95% of the handguns used in violent crimes are illegal. Bill C‑21 contains nothing more than a few watered-down measures to tackle this problem.
Where are the measures to increase resources for border services so they can curb the trafficking of illegal weapons? Where are the additional patrols? I know that I repeat this often, but I would like to remind the House that the Government of Quebec recently provided $6 million to increase patrols in the Akwesasne area.
The federal government is nowhere to be found. It must propose something to tackle this issue, whether it is resources, money, a special task force, I do not know. The bill does nothing to deal with the violent crimes currently being committed in our cities.
We are faced once more with a government that claims to be doing something and tries to give the impression that it is taking action while actually doing very little. Ideally, the longer it can make this last, the more satisfied it is, because it can repeat 100 promises three or four times in different election campaigns.
I am going to take the example of assault weapons, which can fire ammunition at insane speeds and which no one needs in real life. These weapons are a problem. The current government claims that it has already done its job by prohibiting them. It often repeats this claim in its speeches, saying that it is a good thing.
In reality, in May 2020, the government cobbled together a list seemingly at random, containing several models of weapons whose names seemed to have been picked out of a hat. Then the government declared that those weapons were prohibited. However, similar models that are just as or even more dangerous continue to be legal. This approach pushed the manufacturers of these weapons to adapt and develop other models since then.
We need to work intelligently, and for that to happen, the government needs to listen to the opposition once in a while. The opposition is not always right, but it often is right, and it makes good suggestions.
For example, we said that there was no need to make a list of weapons, but that we should consult experts and define what an assault weapon is. Once the legal framework is established, if a weapon fits in this framework, it will be banned and considered illegal, no matter what weapons manufacturers invent five or 10 years from now. That seems so logical to me, so I do not understand—
566 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
