- Member of Parliament
- Deputy House leader of the Bloc Québécois
- Bloc Québécois
- Saint-Jean
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $109,900.56
- Government Page
- Oct/16/23 11:30:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned a little bit in my speech, I think that two of the actions that can be taken have already been taken by parliamentarians. The purpose of the question was to determine what parliamentarians can do. On the one hand, we must condemn the situation, which we have done unanimously. We must condemn the hateful demonstrations that occurred in various places and the individual hateful comments that are made by the public. We must transcend the debate and lead by example, which I believe we more or less achieved this evening. For the most part the remarks were nuanced and the violence was condemned, and there is a will to protect all civilian lives, regardless of whether they are Palestinian or Israeli and regardless of their religion. I think that is a step in the right direction.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:28:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the short answer is yes. From the outside, the two-state solution is the one I see as the best, but, once again, this is with all the nuance and reserve one must have when perceiving the conflict from the outside. As has been said several times this evening, the two-state solution is not possible as long as Hamas still exists, hence the importance of eliminating Hamas.
To build on a point from the previous question, one of the fears associated with an immediate ceasefire, for example, is that the problem will simply be put off until later. If steps are not taken to eliminate Hamas and ensure that there is fertile ground for political negotiations, which cannot happen with Hamas, human lives may be saved in the short term, but the body count could be even higher in the long term. This is a perfect example of a catch-22. There is no ideal solution to the current conflict. If there were one that would eliminate Hamas while preserving all human lives, it would already have been implemented.
I feel a bit pessimistic with that answer, but at the same time I am perhaps somewhat realistic as well. Unfortunately, realism cannot go by the wayside when we are looking at situations such as this one here tonight.
221 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:24:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Edmonton Strathcona for her question and for her always rousing pleas on behalf of civilians and all those who are in difficult situations, who are experiencing war. I know she cares a lot about that, and I thank her for her work in that regard.
I do not claim to have an answer for her, unfortunately, and I think that it would be wrong for anyone, particularly any outsider, to claim that they have an answer to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which did not start just a few days ago but has been going on for a long time now.
In this context, I cannot imagine, as an outsider myself, coming in and imposing a solution. That is why I was careful not to do so in my speech. I was careful not to impose a solution but to instead suggest limits for a government. I want to make the distinction here between the Government of Israel and the people of Israel because, right now, as we know, the government is more right-wing than it has ever been.
We can hope that, in the near future, both Hamas and the Government of Israel will have to make changes. In that context, I was careful not to suggest a solution. I think it would be presumptuous on my part to do so. Instead, I chose to make suggestions that would set limits on the actions taken by Israel. What we are asking Israel to do is to minimize as much as possible anything that could lead to the loss of civilian life. If that involves a ceasefire, then all the better.
I hope that the analysis will be done because I would like to believe that Israel, unlike Hamas, takes absolutely no pleasure in killing innocent civilians. That is why I am not responding directly to my colleague's question. I am sad to do so because, personally, I was hoping for a ceasefire. However, I am not in a position to impose a solution to a very complex conflict.
347 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:22:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think that any measures that will spare civilian lives must be considered and, ideally, implemented by Israel, because Hamas cannot be expected to do so.
I nevertheless remain realistic. If we want to prevent this from happening again in the future, if we want to entertain the prospect of peace, Hamas also must be eliminated. If there were some way to do this without any loss of human life, it would have been done by now. That is why I am calling for Israel to conduct the strictest possible analysis of everything that can be done to minimize civilian casualties in accordance with humanitarian law.
108 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:12:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is only one way for me to start my intervention tonight, and that is by taking a moment to reflect on the victims of the violence over the last few days. I am talking about both Israeli and Palestinian victims, on Israeli soil and Palestinian soil and elsewhere in the world. I will come back to that second aspect.
Alongside my colleagues in the House who have spoken with one voice, I, too, send my condolences to all those who have lost a loved one in the violence. My thoughts go out to those who have been kidnapped and injured, and to all those who still fear for their lives. Yes, it has been said many times already, but it cannot be said too often.
Similarly, everyone in the House has stressed the importance of condemning the actions of Hamas. Again, it bears repeating. Again, it cannot be overstated. Hamas is a terrorist entity. Canada has designated it as such, and the Bloc Québécois supports that designation. Indiscriminate attacks against Israeli civilians, women, men, the elderly, children and babies, are in no way justifiable.
From the perspective of a Parliament that is speaking with one voice, I commend the leader of the Bloc Québécois for taking the initiative to ask for periodic meetings between the leaders of the different parties in the House so that they can ensure that the different political entities' messaging is as aligned as possible and that the current conflict does not become a source of partisan polarization.
Speaking of messaging, I admit that one of my biggest fears right now about what is going on in Israel is that the positions taken by various members will be polarizing. I hope that, here in the House, we will do our best to avoid taking a black-and-white view of the conflict. On the contrary, I hope that we will all be able to have a nuanced discussion.
Again, I commend all parliamentarians who spoke this evening. They all denounced the fact that there are civilian victims on both sides. They all denounced the actions of Hamas, and they all called for a humanitarian corridor to be established in order to avoid causing more civilian casualties. Listening to this evening's speeches, we could sense the members' genuine empathy for all those who are suffering because of this conflict, regardless of their origins or their religion.
This all-encompassing, unconditional empathy can only come from a nuanced discourse, which I hope will help us set an example for the public and put a stop to demonstrations of hatred directed against either group. Unfortunately, we have seen such acts in France, and in the United States, for example, where a six-year-old child was just murdered. We saw it again earlier today in Belgium. They are all collateral victims of the polarization of the situation. The onus is on every single one of us to condemn the hatred that exists outside Israeli and Palestinian territory. We must not fan the flames.
There was a Radio-Canada article this week with the headline Sale temps pour les pacifistes, hard times for pacifists. It recounted stories of long-standing friendships, unlikely friendships between Israelis and Palestinians living in Quebec, friendships driven by the desire to see the two nations one day live in peace. Unfortunately, these friendships are currently being put to the test. Clearly, it is because of the situation on the ground in Israel and Palestine, but it is also because of the hateful demonstrations happening elsewhere in the world that deserve condemnation. The longer the situation in Gaza drags on, the more civilians will lose their lives, and the more I fear that polarization will get worse, bringing even more hatred in its wake.
We all know that it is futile to make any demands of Hamas. A terrorist organization that uses its own people as a human shield has no regard for civilian lives. It has committed unspeakable massacres. War may be an ugly thing, but it has rules, and Hamas has not complied with any of them. Its attack in no way resembled a military intervention. It was pure carnage, a wanton act of brutality calculated to sow terror.
That is why, this evening, members are primarily addressing their requests to the Israeli government, urging it to set up a humanitarian corridor.
U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken said earlier this week that Israel has the right—indeed it has the obligation—to defend itself against these attacks from Hamas and to try to do what it can to make sure that this never happens again, but he added that the way Israel does this matters. As democracies, we are held to higher standards.
Tonight, the Israeli government is being called upon to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, as any democracy must do.
For one thing, the protection of civilian lives is obviously at stake. If nothing is done in the short term, the complete siege of Gaza with no possibility of delivering aid will inevitably result in more loss of life. Because of the blockade, electricity cannot be produced at Gaza's only power station, which has cut the supply of drinking water. Forced to drink sea water, Gazans will see their mortality rate rise sharply.
Without a humanitarian corridor, medical personnel no longer have access to medical equipment to treat the wounded, and the wounded no longer have access to pain medication to ease their suffering. Even though breaks in the bombardments are announced on stretches of roads intended to evacuate civilians, the absence of telephone and Internet networks in the Gaza Strip means that people are not necessarily notified in time for these breaks, or may not be notified at all.
It is also unlikely that the people of Gaza can travel the required distances within the allotted time. Children and seniors cannot travel very quickly, and injured people who are hospitalized and babies in incubators, for example, cannot easily be moved. Adding to these difficulties is the fact that Hamas is holding back the people of Gaza and preventing them from leaving, once again using them as hostages and human shields. The Israeli government cannot ignore these factors when considering its respect for international humanitarian law.
Also, if the Government of Israel refuses to set up a corridor, I am concerned that the resulting losses will serve to breed more hate. As it has been mentioned, Hamas must be eradicated from Gaza because, otherwise, there will never be any political peace in the region and it will be impossible to negotiate a two-state solution. It is one thing to wipe out Hamas's military capability, ensure that its leaders are eliminated and annihilate its power for physical destruction, which is the objective announced by the Government of Israel, but we also need to ensure that the very idea of Hamas, its disembodied form, is eradicated. If civilian casualties continue to multiply in Palestinian territory, that will only fuel the beast. Hamas, although it cares nothing for civilian life, could fuel the narrative of non-compliance with international humanitarian law in order to breed hate for Israel. It would not be the first time. We might then fear that October 7 was just the beginning or that the unfortunately all-too-familiar cycle will start all over again in four or five years.
Israel has just experienced a tragedy of immeasurable proportions. I cannot even begin to imagine the pain. Tonight, for the sake of the civilian lives that may yet be spared and the possibility that the region may one day live in peace, Canadian parliamentarians are calling on the Israeli government to abide by international law and establish a humanitarian corridor.
1312 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 11:48:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his speech.
As I said just now to the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, it is interesting to hear all the party members' points of view that may be a little different. This evening, though, there is a broad consensus.
We like using discussion as a way to determine our positions. To help me make up my mind, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on the possibility of sanctioning Russia by sending Russian diplomats home.
86 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 11:33:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, it is always nice to hear the different views of the parties in the House on issues that are a bit more divisive.
One of the things we discussed tonight is what to do about Russian diplomats in Canada. Do we expel them or not?
I agree that they are contributing to the disinformation. Even today, it was claimed that the demonstrations endangered the lives of diplomats, even though they were extremely peaceful.
I am curious to hear the views of the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands on those diplomats.
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 10:29:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my esteemed colleague from Montarville. I always enjoy listening to him.
He mentioned in his speech that he was a bit surprised by the very quick international response. We had another surprise earlier today. Switzerland emerged from hundreds of years of sacrosanct neutrality.
I wonder if my colleague shares my impression that this too marks something of a turning point in the way the west is handling this conflict.
73 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 10:01:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his heartfelt and emotional speech. We do indeed feel a sense of unity. The Bloc Québécois has offered its full support to the government today, indicating that we want to work with the government, because this cause is much bigger than all of us.
I would like to know whether my colleague has anything to ask of the opposition. Are there any issues on which he wants us to continue to work together in order to reach the quickest and most peaceful solution possible?
95 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 9:07:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to hear his thoughts on a very specific question.
All day, the Conservatives have been saying that we need to build pipelines to supply Germany and other countries, as a way to sanction Russia. We all hope that the war will be over very soon.
Once peace talks start, will my colleague call for an end to construction on pipelines that are not yet finished?
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 9:00:16 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Chair, I always enjoy listening to my colleague. I would like to go off on a bit of a tangent, though my question is related to this evening's topic.
Many observers of the conflict are pondering whether the international response to the invasion of Ukraine could end up deterring or encouraging China's designs on Taiwan. Should we keep that in mind as we analyze the conflict in Ukraine?
71 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 8:25:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member for Durham said that the last time he rose in the House was on January 31. I too rose on that day to speak to the issue of Ukraine.
At the time, the focus was on diplomacy. Many journalists had pointed out gaps in what was happening in government: high employee turnover, five different ministers in six years, no foreign policy white paper for at least 17 years. Are we at the stage where we need to revisit our diplomacy and use a much clearer, more structured approach?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 8:07:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Thunder Bay—Rainy River said something interesting. He said that the only brother who kills his brother is a madman. Well, a distant cousin who watches the brother kill his brother might also be described as a madman.
What does my colleague think about the possibility of imposing equally severe sanctions on Belarus as are being imposed on Russia?
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/28/22 6:48:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her thoughts on the following.
We know that the Ukrainians are fighting with extraordinary strength, courage and resilience. While 500,000 people have left Ukraine so far, it is possible that in future, that number could be closer to five million. We hope not, but it could happen.
In order to be prepared and avoid the same unfortunate mistakes that have been made recently, including in Afghanistan, I would like the minister to tell us in what ways the Canadian Armed Forces are ready to play a humanitarian role in welcoming people leaving Ukraine, in collaboration with the other NATO countries and the countries bordering Ukraine.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:55:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for the question.
I will take this opportunity to mention that we work really well together at the Standing Committee on National Defence.
That is part of what all members want to work on, in other words, recruitment and retention within the Canadian Armed Forces. It is about improving the image of the forces, which has been tarnished over the past few years. It is important for the protection of Canadians and Quebeckers here at home, but also for our ability to respond internationally when required, especially in a context of climate change. There is a risk of increasing pressure on many levels. Is it not the role of the forces to intervene in those cases? It is worth discussing.
However, we will not be able to intervene if there is no one in the forces, and we see that is currently a challenge.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:52:58 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, in fact, the Bloc Québécois's position is to not close the door entirely on the use of weapons.
Nor did I say that that should follow diplomatic efforts. Both things can actually be done in parallel. They have to be done in parallel, because if there is a shipment of weapons, the message needs to be properly received.
We can send weapons and maybe irritate Russia more than anything else. However, if we do this and say we are prepared for the consequences, then there are things that can be done on their side so that we can talk. Both approaches have to be taken at the same time.
I am not trying to prioritize which of these things needs to be done first. I believe they can and should be done at the same time.
143 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:49:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank my colleague for his very good question.
As my esteemed colleague from Montarville already mentioned, we do not think that sending arms to support Ukraine will make Russia shake in its boots. That is not going to have a tangible impact on the ground.
I will refer back to my speech, specifically to the idea that sending arms does more than just send a message. In that context, we must ensure that the message is properly perceived and received. That is more the role of diplomacy.
At present, I believe that mixed messages are being sent. I do not believe that sending arms alone will have a tangible impact. It is more about the message this sends, and we must ensure that it is clear.
129 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:46:14 p.m.
- Watch
I am so sorry. I will keep reading:
“...a more active and visible Canadian presence internationally”, said a former diplomat who represented Canada in Africa and also wishes to remain anonymous.
Also coming under fire is the Prime Minister's bad habit of appointing deputy foreign affairs ministers who have never served in an embassy abroad. “The fact that the vast majority of top officials at the Pearson building have never set foot in an embassy is an outrage”, said an internal source.
Former diplomat Ferry de Kerckhove [who makes frequent media appearances] feels it is time Canada's diplomatic corps found its bearings. The best way to do that is to produce a white paper on Canada's foreign policy. The last comprehensive review dates back to 2005; that is 17 years ago.
I hope this evening's debate will prove to be useful, an opportunity for us to acknowledge the importance of diplomacy and of funding it appropriately, investing in it to ensure it has a clear, overarching mission. We also need a clearer foreign policy because we never know when we will need to use diplomacy.
Credibility is not established in a day; I believe that goes double in times of crisis. I think what we need to acknowledge this evening is that we still have work to do. I hope that is the takeaway from today's debate.
236 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:38:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I thank all my colleagues for staying so late. We are starting things off with a bang today. The fact that there was unanimous consent to have this debate may indicate how important the Ukraine file is, as many have pointed out.
I would like to come at the issue from a different angle. I do not want to talk about what can be done now. This evening's debate in the House may change very little with respect to what needs to be done right away, but perhaps we should give some thought to the future, because current events are exposing some issues with the government's response.
Government members talked about the importance of diplomacy and deterrence. However, when diplomacy is not properly coordinated or not assertive enough, it is hard to then send an unequivocal message of deterrence. That is clear from the fact that the Prime Minister is still refusing to have a leader-to-leader discussion with Russia.
Canada is advocating for strong diplomacy as the primary weapon for resolving the crisis, but its diplomatic efforts still seem to lack a common thread. Many observers have criticized Canada for flying blind and lacking a clear strategy. Others have also recently criticized the revolving door at the Department of Foreign Affairs, a problem that has been highlighted by the crisis. The department has had five different ministers in six years, with everything that goes along with that in terms of different entourages, approaches and personalities.
One thing is for sure: Canada cannot stand by doing nothing in the context of the crisis with Ukraine. It was called upon to take action. It had to do something. It could not stand idly by. However, it seems that Canada was not necessarily ready to take the action that was needed, or to do so in a consistent manner. As we like to say back home, it is time to walk the talk. In this case, however, maybe that saying needs to be flipped around, because it seems that the government's words and actions do not line up, which is a bit frightening.
The problem with taking action is that it can be misinterpreted. Another problem is that even if the action is clear, it may contradict other actions. I feel like raising some of the actions that were taken in the context of the crisis that seem to be contradictory.
There has been talk of extending and expanding Operation Unifier. It may seem like a good thing to send more troops to Ukraine to help train the army that is already in place. However, in the context of the crisis, that may send an overly optimistic message. We are sending troops for purposes other than combat, who will help with medical and security training for local troops. If the crisis boils over, we can expect that operation to be suspended and our troops to be withdrawn since they are not combat troops, whereas the troops that we are training in Ukraine may be mobilized if a conflict erupts. By taking that action, we are acting as though we expect the Russians not to take any military action, yet we are presenting this action as a response to a potential Russian invasion.
Another action the government has taken is to provide a $120‑million loan, but no one has mentioned the fact that there is a clause prohibiting the money from being used to procure military equipment, such as lethal equipment. Without getting into a debate about this equipment, it seems to me that this provision is somewhat of a slap in the face to Ukraine, which is specifically asking for military support. Again, we seem to be sending the message that we will help Ukraine but also hope there will be no crisis. The money will be used to support the economy, because Russia is threatening to destabilize the country, but this money will not be used to counter the Russian threat if the crisis comes to a head.
These actions seem unduly optimistic in contrast with the government's stated positions, such as recalling non-essential embassy staff, which even caused Russia to say that we must stop our alarmist rhetoric on the development of the crisis.
We seem to be sending mixed messages with the $120‑million loan, not to mention that the message itself is rather problematic. We are not responding to Ukraine's request for military equipment. Once again, without getting into a debate about the crux of the matter, it begs the question. A democratic nation, and an ally at that, is asking for support in the form of military equipment to respond to a threat from an authoritarian regime, and Canada is dithering. Meanwhile, Canada continues to send arms to Saudi Arabia. What message does that send?
The question is, why are we sending arms to Saudi Arabia while refusing to send any to Ukraine?
I am not here to debate the merits of the actions that have been taken, but it is worth remembering that these measures will not have any real consequences on the ground. Canada is not in a position to stand up to Russia, which is heavily armed and ready to go. The actions we take are about sending a message, but it seems as though, once again, the message is not clear.
This crisis has underscored a number of problems with our diplomacy. Many observers have pointed out that Canada may be doing itself a disservice by taking a soft power approach out of keeping with such a serious crisis.
I want to share a long excerpt from an article published today, in which Joël‑Denis Bellavance spoke about the state of Canadian diplomacy:
Mr. Trudeau does not give the impression that foreign policy is a priority for him. That's too bad, because he has raised expectations around the world since coming to power. He missed a perfect opportunity to make it clear that “Canada is back!” He does not have any strong personalities on his team, with the exception of Chrystia Freeland, who can lead the charge in asserting—
1035 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/22 10:24:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I want to elaborate on the question that was just asked.
We are talking about higher numbers of troops on the Ukrainian border. We are somewhat concerned that Russia will use other tactics to ultimately annex Donbass, mainly by supporting the rebel troops in that area.
How can diplomacy have a role to play when things are being done in a clandestine way? I do not know if my colleague wants to comment on that possibility, which is nonetheless real.
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
