44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 28, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/28/22 11:16:36 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Bloc Québécois and my own family, I would like to acknowledge World Stroke Day, which is held every year on October 29.
In Quebec alone, approximately 20,000 people have a stroke, and some 130,000 people who have had a stroke live each day with physical and psychological damage that affects their motor skills, their communication and even their emotions.
Strokes can affect anyone, young or old, at any time in their lives. My own family lives with the consequences of this medical condition on a daily basis, as my youngest son, Ulysse, had a stroke at the time of his birth.
I would like to thank all the people and organizations that work to prevent and treat stroke, and who give time, money and love to help us live better, healthier and longer lives.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 11:26:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is another day at the Public Order Emergency Commission in Ottawa, and there is new proof that the police never wanted the act to be invoked. An exchange of text messages between the RCMP commissioner and her OPP counterpart reveals that, on February 5, the police became wary of the federal government's intentions. This is what the RCMP commissioner said about the Emergencies Act: “Not something I want.”
Why did the government invoke the most extreme of Canadian laws against the wishes of the RCMP?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 11:27:52 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the commissioner's text messages also reveal that in the first week of the occupation of Ottawa, on February 5, the federal government was considering invoking the Emergencies Act. February 5 was prior to the blockade of the Ambassador Bridge in Windsor, which began on February 7. When the federal government claims that it resorted to emergency measures because the crisis was national in scope, that is untrue. The Emergencies Act has never been invoked because it is supposed to be the last resort.
Why did the government use it as a first resort and against the advice of the police?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to Bill S‑207.
Of course, the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. It is not against this bill. I will not be using all of my speaking time, but I would like—
49 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will speak to this Senate bill very briefly today.
The Bloc Québécois will naturally vote in favour of this bill so it can be referred to a committee. I would like to speak about two things very quickly.
The first is the importance of the names given to federal electoral ridings. It is important in terms of representation, because people must feel understood and represented by the name. It is also important for many other reasons, for example so the constituents know who their representative is and can easily understand that there is a link between the general geographic area and the specific place where they live. That is important, and that is essentially the goal of the bill.
The second thing I want to talk about is consultation. For the name of a riding to be recognized as being representative of the people, ideally the people must be consulted. There are different ways to do that, but we must ensure that the elected officials of a riding, the main organizations and the stakeholders agree on the name. From what I have heard, no such consultations were held. I will say a little bit more about that and members will understand why, especially in reference to the commission. Therefore, right from the outset, there is a problem with the legitimacy of the bill. Holding prior consultations would have been advantageous for the bill, as for any other bill, to ensure that the work being done is really aligned with what the people are asking for.
As I was saying earlier, the purpose of the bill was to correct a mistake, namely, the fact that Lacolle is not part of the riding of Chateauguay—Lacolle. A mistake was made when the riding names were last changed. Lacolle is part of the Saint‑Jean riding, so clearly there is a mistake that needs to be corrected. At the same time, correcting a mistake does not mean correcting it by making another mistake.
Let me explain. Adding “Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville” is causing confusion for the people in the riding. They might even think that it refers to a neighbouring riding because there is an RCM with that name. As members know, people sometimes confuse federal, provincial and municipal ridings, as well as regional county municipalities and even administrative regions. My riding is a good example. It covers an entire administrative region of Quebec. In short, to paraphrase what the people from the Roussillon RCM are saying, what they really want, as an RCM, is for people to have a sense of belonging. That is most likely what people want for a federal riding too.
The Roussillon RCM submitted a brief that talks about this, saying that this bill, which renames the riding “Chateauguay—Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville”, is causing some confusion. This brief was submitted to the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission on October 5, 2022. The RCM's recommendation expressed some concerns about the name change. It states that this decision would be confusing for the citizens of the city of Châteauguay and the towns within Roussillon, an RCM located in that riding—because Roussillon is split. This would undermine Roussillon RCM's strategic positioning and its efforts to create a sense of belonging and build its presence and its profile throughout Quebec.
Those are some of the RCM's strategic objectives for the coming years. For the residents of this regional municipality, this is detrimental to their desire of showcasing the RCM. It could leave the residents feeling as though they are not part of the Roussillon RCM, but rather the Jardins‑de‑Napierville RCM.
That is the essence of their brief. It was simply to reiterate the idea that we need to consult our constituents, the people who are affected when we make a change like this.
I will address my second point a little more quickly, because in referencing the brief I have already touched on it. I want to talk about the relevance of introducing the bill. I know it originated in the Senate, but it is being brought back here and sponsored in the House. It is a question of relevance, in the sense that this very issue is already part of the work being done on the readjustment of federal electoral districts. There is already a proposal on the table for the exact same name. I humbly submit that the work is being done twice. We are working in parallel on the same issue while, once again, there is already an opportunity through the commission to make a change and to make a decision on this side.
As members of Parliament, we are also called on, invited to and encouraged to make proposals ourselves. That is one thing. This would be an opportunity to use the time in the House for another bill that might be more worthwhile and relevant to the riding itself and to the surrounding ridings.
To sum up, I think we need to question the legitimacy of the bill with respect to the way the people are represented as well as its very relevance given that we are already working on exactly the same issue at the commission.
As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois will not oppose to this bill, but I still wanted to make a few comments that may be useful to me and to all of my colleagues for the work we have to do in the House.
939 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
