So V ote

Context: House Hansard - 120 - Oct/28/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

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

Context: House Hansard - 75 - May/19/22

May/19/22 5:08:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to know if there is a quorum.

11 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 64 - May/4/22

May/19/22 4:51:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I also thank my colleague from the NDP who spoke earlier. I would have liked him to go further. He talked about transparency, as well as the need to show scientific evidence and to provide an update. We need to go even further. Once the evidence is provided, a strategy needs to be presented to the public as well. The thing that many people find frustrating is the fact that nobody knows where we are headed, because nobody has up-to-date information. I would like to know whether my colleague agrees and whether he thinks that his government will come up with an exit strategy—

116 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 64 - May/4/22

May/4/22 8:05:28 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Chair, I rise today as a parliamentarian, but also as a woman and as a mother. This is an issue that has impacted my life, so what I have to say is quite personal. Let me begin by saying that I went into politics because I am a woman, but I asked myself one question during my second pregnancy when I found out the baby was a girl. I remember thinking to myself that it was going to be hard to have a girl in this world. I actually thought having a second son would be easier. I say this as a woman, a white woman. If I try to picture what that would be like for an indigenous woman, I cannot even imagine what I might have thought at the time. Indeed, this world we live in is, on the whole, still hard. Just look at the take-note debate we are having this evening. In French, it is called “exploratoire”, but to me that is exactly the wrong thing to call it. We do not need to explore the topic, to take note of it as though it were something new. It is not new. These reflections began about 15 years ago. My daughter is now 14. Roughly 10 years later, I found myself working as coordinator of the Regroupement des femmes de la Côte-Nord, a group that focuses on advocacy and rights organizations. I also found myself working in shelters and addressing gender equality issues and, a little naively, I organized a march with many people, including indigenous women, of course. I would like to salute my friend Béatrice Picard, from Pessamit, as well as Michèle Audette, whom I invited to the march just before she was appointed commissioner. We marched through the streets with other women, and to me at, that point, it was all very theoretical. However, women came up to me on those streets and shared their stories with me, stories that often began with something unthinkable and often had no ending, because, as some of my colleagues have mentioned, some of these people are still missing. We do not know what happened to them, and they may never be found. It was a very symbolic march for me, because I was also there with my daughter. I must say that this is very important for the people of our region, but also for the entire population, both in Quebec and in Canada. Today we are being told that this is a take-note debate and that we are looking at what is happening in committee. I must admit that makes me think of the song “Fatigué”, or tired, by Renaud. There are some topics like this one that we are tired of, not because the topic is unimportant, but because we are still talking about it today. We have to keep talking in the House and bringing up statistics. I do not think we need any more statistics or quotes or commissions to realize that it is time to do something about this. I have a really hard time with this. Earlier one of my colleagues said that we ask questions in the House when we know we will not get a valid response. We are truly engaging in a soliloquy, a dialogue with ourselves, a monologue in the House. I know someone who is here this evening in our gallery who has worked hard for the rights of indigenous peoples. He has done a lot, and I would like to acknowledge him. We are talking about legislation, but not implementation. We need to reach the implementation phase. We often talk about systemic discrimination. In fact, the Indian Act is a prime example. It harms women. We talked about how residential schools are a form of systemic discrimination, institutional discrimination, but they still stemmed from a desire for cultural genocide. Thinking back to the women I marched with who knew people who had disappeared, thinking back to the impact of the residential schools and the Indian Act, I can say that there are multiple factors at play, not just one. I agree with the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations, who is full of good intentions. However, when I asked earlier what had been done for women experiencing violence during the COVID-19 crisis, given that we knew violence was on the rise, and why more funding had not been made available when the government had been able to find money for so many other areas, I was told that cultural centres would be built in a few years. It is interesting. The government cannot do one thing and not do other things; it is complex. We also need cultural centres. When we talk about cultural genocide, we are talking about language and culture. When I hear that in the House, I think we are still overlooking so much. I mentioned our work in committee, where exactly the same thing goes on, when we bring up all the government's spending, budgets and supplementary budgets. I heard it again earlier, when it was said that $60 million has been allocated to British Columbia, and someone was told that $2 million had been allocated to her riding and that it would be so great. I would like to stay above the fray and say that perhaps what we need is drastic action. That is what the people here in the House tonight are expecting. Quebeckers, and Canadians as well, are probably expecting drastic action. We were talking about housing recently in committee. We have known for ages that this is one of the key difficulties that indigenous communities are facing. Housing is connected to many things. In any case, it is a basic need. We keep being told that targets will be met, that it is very difficult to build in the north, and thinking that living there and having a house means that it must be possible to build it. In short, I find that there is a lot of bad faith. I know that we are constrained by our budgets. However, for me, the government is talking a good game and making it look like it is taking action by sprinkling money around, acknowledging that people have been waiting for a plan for three years, and saying that it will be presented soon. Tonight's take-note debate applies a bit of pressure. I do not think that the government can be taken seriously. Personally, even if I am not the right person to ask the question, if I told first nations people in my riding, who make up about 15% of the population, to watch tonight's debate, to listen to everything going on in committee and to consider everything we do here concerning indigenous affairs, I believe that they would not be satisfied. I do not think they would be satisfied with the answer I was given earlier. People are saying that we should not play politics in the House. It is a little hard not to play politics. That is what I heard, but I do not think they would be satisfied. No, they want houses. They want security. They want the same thing everyone does. What we hear in the House is the same old rhetoric. People are saying that they are doing their best, but they are not doing their best. I call on all members of the House, especially the Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations and the government, to show that they truly do want reconciliation. If we want to reconcile with someone, we cannot unilaterally impose terms. That is not how reconciliation works. We must listen to what the other person wants and accommodate their requests. Of course it is hard. Money certainly plays a big part, but I do not think that it is the only factor. I think there are measures that can be taken. I have been in the House for seven years now, and I certainly would not say or imply that I am naive, because I am not. We come to the House because we want to serve our constituents. We are humble, but we very much want to serve them. I feel as though it is one disappointment after another. I find myself thinking, “my God, they are making things up as they go along”. I see a lot of this. When the government does not have a plan, it makes things up. I am disappointed by what I see. If there is one thing the government can do tonight and in the weeks and years to come, maybe it can provide some reassurance about that. What I heard tonight from the minister himself is not satisfactory. My daughter is very young right now and tells me she absolutely does not want children, but I really hope we will all have the courage to do the work to ensure that, when she is a woman a few years from now, she will not ask herself the same question that indigenous women ask themselves, about whether they even want daughters because our girls are always in danger and come into this world without benefiting from the same conditions, the same actual rights. Yes, we do have theoretical rights, but we also have the actual reality of our existence to contend with. I would like every indigenous woman to come into this world knowing they have the same rights and need not fear being assaulted or killed. I would like the government to take concrete action. I expected nothing less from the minister than bold action, but that is not what we saw this evening.

1629 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

May/4/22 7:33:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is clear that this issue is very important to him. I heard him bring up COVID‑19 twice in response to my colleagues. I would like to know what has been done. We know that crises have serious repercussions in a lot of areas, most notably in cases of violence against women. I would like to know what the government did when it found out that this was already impacting women—

83 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 45 - Mar/24/22

Mar/24/22 5:01:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Fort McMurray—Cold Lake for her speech. The pandemic is constantly evolving and the sixth wave is under way, although it has not quite hit Canada yet. I think it is a little simplistic to say that, because there is no plan or a vote on a plan, all the restrictions should just be lifted. Would the Conservative motion also presume that there is some flexibility and options if the situation were to evolve? I agree that there should be a plan, even though we have not seen one yet. What does my colleague think? I would rather see some nuance, rather than getting caught up in stereotypes.

116 words

Mar/24/22 3:44:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the provinces have plans in place to lift the health restrictions. However, the Conservatives' motion calls on the government to do so “immediately”. To me, that is not necessarily reasonable, and I think this is worth discussing. I would like to know if my colleague agrees with us. What is causing anger and anxiety among the public is the lack of predictability.

66 words

Feb/21/22 10:42:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Brampton North for her speech. She talked about the tools that are now available and that we needed. I would like her to give me a list of the tools that were used and for her to explain to me why they were not necessary in Sarnia, Fort Erie, Vancouver, Quebec City and Coutts.

61 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 10:27:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne for her speech. I would like to pick up on the part where she talked about the Ambassador Bridge. Several people have talked about it this morning. She said that there are still protesters a few blocks away from there. To be clear, these are protesters, not occupiers. This is not a siege. The Ambassador Bridge blockade was dismantled before the Emergencies Act was invoked. There was no need for the act. The situation was dealt with. Why adopt a draconian measure when the authorities already have everything they need to take action?

104 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 8:03:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Cypress Hills—Grasslands for his speech and ask him a question. He talked about respect for his constituents. I think that is the foundation of the work that we do and I dare imagine that is also the foundation of the work the Prime Minister must accomplish. To me, a big part of this crisis in the national capital has to do with the Prime Minister's shortcomings. I would like my colleague's opinion on what could have been done in a way that respects Canadians and Quebeckers.

100 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 7:14:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was a little offended by the presentation from my colleague from Spadina—Fort York. He repeatedly mentioned a lack of education on the part of the protesters and occupiers, saying that perhaps they had attended only the university of social media. I think that is a massive generalization. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I detected some contempt in his remarks, similar to the contempt shown by the Prime Minister. The PM could not even be bothered to come down from his ivory tower to meet with people. That is one of the many things he has not done. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the Prime Minister's inaction and whether it constitutes contempt for all the protesters and occupiers.

132 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 5:40:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this government has clearly not managed to justify anything. If the order does get adopted, there will need to be a report. This government will have to justify its decision. The Prime Minister has treated Ottawa like any other city, when it is a national capital. He let it all escalate. The Prime Minister has been selectively absent and has demonstrated a lack of leadership.

67 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 5:38:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I absolutely denounce the presence of far-right groups, no matter where they are. I have to say that this is not new. When I was 14 years old, I was a part of anti-racist and anti-fascist groups. Far-right groups were around back in 1990. It is now 2022 and there are laws that enable us to combat these groups. This is nothing new. What is happening right now is the result of the Prime Minister's laissez-faire approach. He has been hands-off from the beginning, letting the whole situation escalate before calling in the heavy artillery, even though he did nothing from the outset.

119 words

All Topics

Feb/20/22 5:37:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would say that in reply to the Prime Minister's question asking whether the crisis was over, I would answer that it is over, and it was over well before he took action. I would answer that, three weeks after the start of this protest, he can now come out of hiding and take the true measure of what he thought was an emergency. He could have seen from the very beginning that there was no national crisis. What is a real emergency and a national crisis is that this government needs a leader.

104 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 34 - Feb/19/22

Feb/20/22 5:25:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to offer my most sincere and heartfelt thanks to all municipal and provincial police forces, to the officers of the Parliamentary Protective Service, and to RCMP officers. I am thinking in particular of the Sûreté du Québec officers who were deployed to resolve the impasse, although we cannot yet say it is over. They acted in exemplary fashion at a time when the eyes of the whole world were riveted on Canada—for the wrong reasons, unfortunately. I thank all these people for their dedication. I forgot to mention that I will be splitting my time with the member for Salaberry—Suroît. Speaking of looks, since I just mentioned how all eyes were on Canada, I have always admired the work of editorial cartoonists. The art of editorial cartoons has been part of political discourse since the invention of the printing press in the western world in the late 18th century and early 19th century. It is a counterpoint. An editorial cartoon sums up a political situation with a single, strikingly clear image; the picture tells the whole story. Such a cartoon captures the very essence of a person or event in a humorous way, although that humour can often be biting or cynical. Editorial cartoons are not necessarily designed to convey truth or fact in a single glance, but rather to give the reader pause. Editorial cartoons are meant to inspire necessary and meaningful reflection. A shining example of the mastery of this informative visual art was published yesterday, around the same time, in the Journal de Montréal by cartoonist Ygreck. Of course, I cannot show members this cartoon without breaking the rules of the House, but I will describe it for them instead. Everyone will just have to use their imaginations. Describing something is just a different way of showing it. At the end of my speech, members will see that the things I have said that gave them pause are actually strong arguments as to why I am voting against the order. First of all, I would like to set the stage for the cartoon and talk about where it takes place. First, we have the Prime Minister's office, which has a desk and a chair. The chair is moved to the right to free up space underneath the desk. The desk has a few things on it. On the left, there is a picture frame and a landline telephone. In the frame, there is a photo of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, thePrime Minister's father, who is covering his eyes with his right hand, a gesture of dismay everyone can recognize. It is commonly known as “facepalming”. On the other side of the desk, there is a pink teddy bear—some may see a resemblance with a Care Bear. Behind the teddy bear, there is something that looks like a mug in the shape of a unicorn head. The Emergencies Act is front and centre on the desk and appears to be freshly signed by the Prime Minister, since there is a pen lying across it. When I said that the desk chair was placed to the right, it was to make room below the desk for the Prime Minister, who is hiding there and dressed like Waldo, from the acclaimed “Where's Waldo” puzzle books. I will remind members that the purpose of the game is to find Waldo, who is camouflaged by his surroundings. The Prime Minister is crouching and looks worried, looking out at the readers and asking them, “Is it over?” with his fingers crossed. The Prime Minister is wondering about the state of the country he is supposed to be governing: “Is it over?” Let us focus on certain details concerning the two focal points of the scene I described earlier, the setting and the character. Members will recall that the Emergencies Act looms large on the desk. I remind them that on the left, there is a photo of former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, whose hand seems to be disavowing what his son has done. Although the reasons why Trudeau Sr. invoked such a law are his own and do not interest me anyway—we are talking about a depiction—it goes without saying that the cartoon clearly and colourfully conveys that it is a mistake. In my view, it points out that it is a mistake to use, for the first time in the history of Canada, a legislative measure passed in 1988 that is a modernized version of the War Measures Act, an act that has a significant, and I daresay even traumatic, place in the collective psyche of the Quebec nation. Not only has this new version of the act never even been used by any government, but also, using it now is way out of proportion to the situation. As everyone knows, the blockades in Windsor, Sarnia, Fort Erie, Emerson, Coutts and Vancouver were dealt with before the order was released on February 14. Only Ottawa, specifically the seat of government, not the whole city of Ottawa, was occupied until today. Now the occupation is over. What this means is that an instrument of last resort was ordered to resolve problems that absolutely did not create a need for the Emergencies Act in the first place, because the necessary tools were already available. Moreover, the issues had already been addressed everywhere but in Canada's capital. In addition, six Canadian provinces plus Quebec, whose National Assembly unanimously passed a motion, categorically refused to allow the application of the Emergencies Act on their territory. That was the backdrop against which the government issued its February 14 order to invoke a completely unnecessary and disproportionate measure to address a situation that was no longer even a situation. The whole thing is utterly absurd. To paraphrase my colleague from Joliette, this is like me using a nuclear weapon to destroy a mosquito that did not even land on my arm. Let us turn our attention to the objects sitting to the right of the War Measures Act on the Prime Minister's desk in the cartoon, specifically the pink stuffed animal and the mug in the shape of a unicorn's head. Of course, Ygreck's cartoons about the Prime Minister are often peppered with objects that are reminiscent of childhood and an imaginary world, and that evoke a certain naïveté. In this case, they are used pejoratively, perhaps intended as harsh criticisms of the Prime Minister, as they emphasize what could be described as his magical thinking: believing that his abstract wishes are all it takes to solve concrete problems, without him ever having to do anything. The pink teddy bear and the mythical horned animal, representing the power of love and purity, respectively, reflect the Prime Minister's tendency to refuse to take reality into account, to flee from it, thereby shirking his responsibilities. The Prime Minister's undeniable tendency to shirk responsibility is conveyed by his clothing, as he is dressed like the “Where's Waldo" character, as I mentioned earlier. This is someone who hides in the crowd at all times and is hard to find. He looks like Waldo cowering under his desk, using it like a toy bunker, with his fingers crossed for good luck. The Prime Minister's chair is symbolically empty. Basically, the Prime Minister is nowhere to be found. Indeed, where was the Prime Minister before news of the crisis first broke? When it was first reported that the convoy was about to leave, once the convoy did set off, once it arrived in Ottawa and first settled in and once it became entrenched, the Prime Minister should have been there for Canadians, as he has been happy to repeat ad nauseam for the past few weeks. Yes, he should have been there, even with all his smugness, his arrogance and his contempt. Yes, he should have been there, even in what I would call his selective absence, that fascinating ability that some people have to decide when they will make an appearance without ever being really, fully present. Rainbows or unicorns, I do not believe for one minute that the Prime Minister is that naive. I see a clear lack of leadership, since the most important quality of a leader is the ability to communicate. To communicate like a leader fundamentally means needing to persuade, if not convince, people. To be a leader means not only truly being there, but also being there to take action. A leader has to be an agent. I will conclude with the question asked by the Prime Minister in this cartoon, which captures the essence of what we are seized with today in the House. Legend has it that the fires that have been burning from Quebec City to Vancouver have been put out these past few days by the magical power of the rhetoric surrounding the invocation of the Emergencies Act, which was proportionately inflated by the cosmic emptiness of the Prime Minister and his lack of leadership. Yes, a big balloon, an inflated measure might grab attention, but it is full of air and eventually deflates. To answer the question of the prime minister character who asks whether it is over, I would say—

1580 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 34 - Feb/19/22

Feb/19/22 9:53:01 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake for her speech. I would like to hear her speak about the War Measures Act and the Emergencies Act. We have heard several times that they are not the same, and I could not agree more. In my view, both existed and both still exist. There are still links between them. In the House of Commons, it does not do to pretend that certain things do not exist. I will give an example that I really like: the 1982 Constitution. Quebec suffered the consequences of not signing the Constitution Act of 1982. We did not sign it, but it still exists. I wonder if the member would speak to the relevance of the Emergencies Act and point out some links to the War Measures Act that was implemented during the First World War, the Second World War and the October crisis of 1970.

155 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 33 - Feb/17/22

Feb/19/22 8:20:02 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes for his comments. I would like to ask him a simple question. Why was the Quebec government able to control and resolve a similar situation in two days, without using the Emergencies Act?

49 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 33 - Feb/17/22

Feb/17/22 4:39:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I must say, I was a little taken aback by the arrogance of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie when he talked about my leader and the Bloc Québécois. I think my colleague is being disingenuous. He implied that the Bloc leader is not looking at the act in an intellectually honest way, when what we said is that these are two different laws. At this point, it is like using a bazooka to kill a fly, after all. The Prime Minister had three weeks to take action under existing legislation, but he did not lift a finger. Now we are being put in a position that no one wants to be in. I would like to know whether the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is aware that Quebec as a whole, that is, his own National Assembly, opposes the use of the Emergencies Act on Quebec territory. We do not need it. My colleague does not represent only himself. He represents Quebeckers, so he should take that into account in his comments.

183 words

All Topics