- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,314.06
- Government Page
- Nov/20/23 2:31:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, people are struggling to pay their rent and buy groceries. In Montreal, people are coming together to help food banks, which are overwhelmed by the demand. Meanwhile, the CEOs of large corporations are lining their pockets. Loblaw alone made $18 billion in profits in one quarter. That is unprecedented. Their greed knows no bounds, and the Liberals are doing nothing to discourage them.
Tomorrow presents a real opportunity to help people. Will the Liberals have the courage to lower the price of food and tackle the greed of CEOs?
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/23 2:52:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, people should be able to feed themselves and their children. That is a basic need. Right now, thousands of people are no longer able to do that.
Every month, 872,000 Quebeckers access food banks. That is one in 10 people. The Minister of Industry's spineless approach is pathetic. Grovelling before grocery CEOs and begging them to stabilize prices is not going to work. That is why the NDP is bringing the CEOs of the big grocery chains back before MPs so we can keep them accountable.
Will the Liberals force grocery stores to act, or will they just keep sending up prayers?
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to share a story. There are are four grocery stores just a block away from where I live. One of them is a major chain store, like the oligopolies my colleague is talking about. Another one is a small independent grocery store owned by a Portuguese family. All their children work there. Strangely enough, the prices at the small independent store are sometimes half of what the chain store charges. Inflation, however, supposedly affects everyone equally. There has to be something wrong with the logic of the major grocery chains.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks when the Liberals, half-heartedly and almost on bended knee, beg these huge oligopolies to stabilize prices. What is the use of stabilizing prices when prices are already too high and people are going without food?
140 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/26/22 2:31:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the price of groceries is skyrocketing. The price of bread is up 15%, fruit is up 13% and pasta is up 32%. Even a bag of potatoes costs $8.
Families have to tighten their belts. In the meantime, the three major grocery chains are making $3.5 billion. That is $3,500 million. There is no question that grocery prices are increasing because CEOs want to make more profit.
What is the government doing? Nothing. What are the Conservatives calling for? That the government not interfere. Why are the Liberals protecting CEOs' pockets instead of families' pockets?
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
That is very kind.
I will take the next few minutes to review the purpose of this new bill introduced by the former Conservative leader. It is essentially designed to give more work to the Office of the Auditor General of Canada, but to do what? To investigate the Bank of Canada? Why?
As my colleague before me already said, the Bank of Canada is already accountable to Parliament for its own administration, its work, its monetary policies and its decisions through House and Senate committees.
It seems that the reason behind this is to hype up the bill introduced by the member for Carleton, who is pointing the finger at Canada's central bank, accusing it of creating all our inflation woes and blaming it for the current decrease in purchasing power that Quebeckers and Canadians are unfortunately experiencing. As we said earlier, the Bank of Canada is not perfect and we have a duty to criticize it and to demand accountability.
This bill is a thinly veiled threat, an attempt by the Conservatives to intrude on and interfere with the Bank of Canada, an independent body. They are doing this for partisan and political purposes. They want to use the Office of the Auditor General for partisan purposes, in a thinly veiled threat to Canada's central bank.
This bill reeks of populism. I think it is pathetic that they are taking up hours of our time in Parliament to help give a Conservative Party leadership candidate some credibility on this issue.
Of course, from a libertarian or far-right economic perspective, the likes of which can be found in the ranks of the Conservative Party, no one blames anything on big business and the massive profits these companies are making. They think it is perfectly normal for the big oil companies and big grocery chains to profit off the pandemic, the crisis and the supply chain issues by unreasonably increasing prices at the expense of workers, the least fortunate and families that are struggling.
The Conservatives are leaning into right-wing populism and will never explain why billionaires should exist or why companies make billions of dollars at Canadians' expense. Instead, they blame the Bank of Canada.
I do not necessarily agree with dramatically raising interest rates as a way to fight inflation. It has tragic consequences for people who, for example, are already having trouble paying their mortgages and bills. That is one way to do it, but it is really not in the best interests of the poor, workers and the middle class. I will come back to that later if I have time.
They want to discredit Canada's central bank in order to give more credit to cryptocurrencies. I do not know whether anyone has been following what has been happening lately with the collapse of cryptocurrencies. They are not governed or controlled by anyone, and no one is accountable to anyone else.
Of course, cryptocurrencies are an unbridled capitalist's dream. I am not sure that this is the kind of society that we want to live in. I am not sure that we should be telling people to trust this virtual currency and that this is how the country's currency is going to be run from now on, because some shadowy forces are controlling the evil Bank of Canada and that this is not in everyone's best interests.
This is really a bill that is being used for partisan purposes, for the leadership race that is going on right now.
If we want to point the finger at those largely responsible for the current price increases, then we must not be afraid to look at the facts and see who exactly is lining their pockets right now at the expense of the average citizen.
The Association des distributeurs d'énergie du Québec recently published a chart to make comparisons between the number of cents in the price at the pump between 2008 and 2022, that is attributable to different factors. In 2008, the price of oil was 84¢, while it is at 91¢ this month, May 2022.
That is not a huge increase. Pollution pricing rose from 1¢ to 9¢. Taxes have gone up, but not that much, just from 45¢ to 60¢. The refining margin, in contrast, has gone up from 9¢ to 48¢. That is the biggest contributor to rising pump prices over the last 15 years, and it is profit for big corporations like Suncor and Imperial Oil, which made billions in profits in the first quarter of this year.
We have to be able to tell people the truth. We have to be able to tell them that there are solutions other than raising interest rates. The NDP has solutions to help people get through this crisis. Increase the GST tax credit, which helps hundreds of thousands of people in Quebec and across Canada, and increase the Canada child benefit, which is a good way to redistribute wealth.
We need to be able to tax these companies that are making billions of dollars in profits so that we can redistribute that money to the people who really need it, people who are suffering right now and struggling to pay their rent and buy groceries.
There are other solutions. I would point out that, in this morning's edition of Le Devoir, a dozen economists went over different ways we could be helping people, including regulating Airbnb rentals, lowering the cost of public transit, building massive numbers of social housing units and bringing in rent control. Not all of these measures would come from the federal government, but there are some excellent ideas and solutions.
What is currently before us is not only unnecessary, but also dangerous for our democratic institutions.
977 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 4:54:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I am very much looking forward to his speech. I think we will have a lot to learn from him on this vital topic.
I am very proud to rise in the House to talk about the environment, the climate emergency and the crisis that is affecting us all and will, unfortunately, continue to affect us throughout the coming years. I will also talk about the concrete solutions the NDP is putting forward in this motion.
We could talk about a lot of things. A lot of people are talking about the price of gas right now. It is hurting a lot of people in many provinces and many regions. People are finding it hard to travel or get to work because it is costing them more and more money. I would like to share some data from a graph I found recently by Gérald Fillion, a Radio-Canada economics reporter. He makes it very clear that claims about the price of gas being connected to the invasion, the war, high government taxes or the carbon market are not true.
Between June 2008 and May 2022, the price of oil went from 84.5¢ per litre to 91¢ per litre. This is not that much. The increase is slightly more dramatic in the carbon market, where the price went from 1¢ per litre to 8.8¢ per litre. The refining margin jumped from 9¢ per litre to 48¢ per litre. The biggest increase in the real cost to consumers at the pump is the refining margin, which is the oil companies' profit.
We could tax these large companies, which are making huge profits. We could put forward very simple solutions, such as those proposed by the leader of the NDP, which include temporarily suspending the GST on heating bills; increasing the GST tax credit, which would help those most in need and a good part of the middle class; and increasing the Canada child benefit, a progressive measure that would once again benefit those most in need, workers and the middle class.
Clearly, the money is there, and the economics reporter's table shows us why oil companies are seeing a dramatic increase in their ability to make profits.
During the first quarter of 2022, in three months, Suncor Energy, Imperial Oil and TC Energy posted $2.95 billion, $1.17 billion and $1.1 billion in profits, respectively.
The Liberals are giving them money. They think that these companies do not have enough. They are taking consumers' and taxpayers' money, even though the government has been promising them since 2009 that it would reduce oil and fossil fuel subsidies. They have still not even begun to do so, other than a few crumbs in the last budget. The government is also behind, in terms of its pairing with Argentina to review progress in phasing out subsidies to oil companies.
What is more, the government found another present in the latest budget in the form of $2.6 billion tax credit for these companies to invest in a technology that most people doubt is even feasible. It is a pointless pursuit, a technological fantasy that distracts us from real solutions for a carbon-free society and economy. Most of the countries that have tried carbon capture have not been successful.
My colleague from Vancouver East asked a good question earlier. With the record profits that these companies are making, can someone explain why they need public money to invest in new technologies? It seems to me that they are on quite solid financial ground. If they believe that it is the right thing to do and want to help reduce greenhouse gases in Canada, it seems to me that they have deep enough pockets to make those investments.
There are two problems. First, the technology is not really reliable nor is it guaranteed. I will come back to that. Second, these companies do not need this money. Unfortunately, it would seem that the Liberals and the Conservatives are addicted to fossil fuels and unable to rid themselves of this dependency and to begin the shift and the transition that is required.
The following saying is erroneously attributed to Einstein: Insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Everyone believes that Albert Einstein said that, but it is not true. Someone else did. It really does not matter, because it is a good saying.
Why do we continue to double down on this economy?
Yes, it provided for communities, families and provinces for decades. No, it will not go away overnight, but it is not the economy of the future. We need to make this transition. We need to invest in training our workforce. We need to invest in green and renewable technologies that will also help create jobs, but we are not doing that. We are doing the same thing we have always done, thinking it will produce different results. That is not going to work. It has not worked for 10 years. It has not worked for 15 years, but the government still insists on giving gifts to these corporations.
Recently the Liberal government was quite proud to boast that Canada's greenhouse gas emissions had declined for the first time in 2020. What happened in 2020? It was the pandemic.
The economy was shut down. Manufacturing, transportation and foreign travel came to a halt. People were holed up in their homes, no longer using their cars or trucks. It took a global pandemic and an economic shutdown for the Liberals to be able to say that GHGs went down over the course of a year. This is nothing to be proud of. I heard the Minister of Environment and Climate Change recently, and I could not believe it. I think we need to be a little more discerning and take a much safer path, one that listens to science and is serious about our collective future, our jobs, our ecosystems and our future generations, but that is not the case here.
Despite all the rhetoric, all the promises made, and the fact that various environment ministers have attended COP24, COP25 and COP26, aid to oil companies from successive Liberal governments has been, on average, higher than the Harper government's financial aid to oil companies. They all told us, with tears in their eyes, that this is important and that they would be able to do things differently.
Unfortunately, we are going to have to continue pushing the Liberals—both in the House and outside—to finally do the right thing, because the measures currently in place will not get us where we need to go. As a reminder, Canada provides more public funding to the fossil fuel sector than any other G20 country. Between 2018 and 2020, there was 14 times more funding for oil and gas than for renewable energies. I hope my colleagues think that is unacceptable. We are not moving in the right direction, and it is important to say it.
The Liberals promised in 2009, before the G20 and the entire world, to end inefficient fossil fuel subsidies. What is sad and incredibly politically cynical is that several years later, the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development has to remind us that there is no definition for an inefficient subsidy. Moreover, it is not the Department of the Environment that determines what is efficient or inefficient, it is the Department of Finance.
For the finance department, it is not rocket science. If it makes money, it is efficient. If we want to reduce greenhouse gases, which is more of an environment and climate goal, we need a clear definition of the goal, which is to be a net-zero society by 2050. We need to take specific steps between now and then so we can see our progress and figure out which measures work and which do not.
People often talk about the cost of investing in renewable energy or training, but they never talk about the cost of doing nothing. If we do nothing, we will see more droughts, more floods, more forest fires. The climate refugee crisis will get even worse. Not long ago, it was 53°C in India and Sri Lanka. Massive parts of the planet may become uninhabitable. Those people will migrate. Naturally, they will want to survive. That could cause wars to break out. The cost will be exorbitant. The Liberal status quo will not save us.
1455 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/9/22 2:28:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, while people are paying more and more for necessities, there is a bunch of bad apples lining their pockets.
In the seven years that this government has been in power, becoming a first-time homeowner has become an impossible dream, and it is getting harder and harder to find decent housing at an affordable price.
In the meantime, the housing market is overheating and there is a growing number of renovictions. Just yesterday, the federal housing advocate, Marie-Josée Houle, told us that Ottawa could address the crisis by combatting the financialization of housing. Will the Liberals listen?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/21 11:41:10 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with my excellent colleague from Vancouver-East.
I feel compelled to follow up on the comments of my colleague from Longueuil, who very proudly represents the Quebec wing of the Conservative Party, by voting for a motion that is full of holes. I will, however, correct something he said when he stated that the Liberals took up the entire Island of Montreal. All of it? No, there is a little orange dot still holding out against the invader.
An hon. member: There is a little blue dot too.
Mr. Alexandre Boulerice: There is a little blue dot too, Madam Speaker.
We are debating a motion from the Conservative Party that identifies a real problem but offers a bad solution. I think it is important to have this discussion to actually see what the real solutions are for this housing crisis.
The housing crisis has reached catastrophic levels in many Quebec and Canadian towns and cities, particularly in Montreal, where housing prices have skyrocketed in recent years. People are struggling to find housing and are having to change neighbourhoods because they cannot afford to pay $1,400, $1,500 or $1,750 a month in rent. The Liberals have been promising strategies ever since they came to power six years ago, but we have not seen any concrete changes or results on the ground. On the contrary, the situation has only gotten worse following years of Conservative and Liberal neglect.
People who spend more than 30% of their income on rent tend to be poor and vulnerable. In Canada, that is the reality for 1.7 million households, which means the number of people is even higher. This means that 1.7 million families, couples or individuals spend more than 30% of their income on housing. That is serious. It is catastrophic. In Quebec, 38,000 people are waiting for social housing, for truly affordable housing. In Montreal, 23,000 people are waiting, and that number is growing.
I recently had the chance to take part in an event organized by the Front d'action populaire en réaménagement urbain, or FRAPRU, which is well known in Quebec, as well as a coalition called the National Right to Housing Network.
We spent a long while listening to testimony from people who live in unsafe housing, who were victims of renovictions, or who are living in housing that is too small, ill-suited to their needs or poorly lit. All of this was detrimental to their mental, and sometimes physical, health. It was heartbreaking to hear these stories in a country as rich as Canada, a G7 country that could be doing so much better.
We heard stories about five people living in a one-bedroom apartment because it was all they could afford. Every night the parents would pull out the sofa bed to sleep, but it blocked the path the kids would take to go to the bathroom during the night. There were five of them in that one-bedroom apartment. We heard from people who have kids with disabilities but do not have the resources or the means to adapt the entryway for their child, who has to come in the back door. It is dangerous and not well lit. These people are living with mould, with fungi, and their health is affected. This, in turn, overwhelms our health care system, because people are living in unsafe conditions in inadequate housing. It is a big problem.
We were talking about the 1.7 million households that spend more than 30% of their income on housing in Canada. In Rosemont—La Petite Patrie, some people spend more than 40% or 50% of their income on housing. Then, when the price of groceries goes up, they are stretched to the limit. It makes no sense. Three thousand households in Rosemont—La Petite Patrie have to spend more than half of their income on housing. It is completely unacceptable. This has been a failure of the Liberal strategy for years.
The motion before us speaks to this real housing problem and to the issue facing young families and young couples who want to buy their first home. It is becoming increasingly difficult. Condos and houses often sell for more than they are listed on the market for. This creates a kind of bubble of speculation that is completely crazy.
The Conservatives may be identifying a real problem, but they seem to be unable to say certain words. For example, they are unable to say the words “social housing”. It seems that social housing is on their lips. They just cannot say it.
The proposed solutions in the motion before us are extremely ideological.
That being said, some aspects of the motion make sense. The NDP is also against taxing capital gains on the sale of a primary residence, but the motion does not offer any real solution to this problem. Everything in the opposition motion is highly ideological and tied to market forces. If there is greater demand then we simply need to increase supply and, like magic, the prices will automatically drop.
Anyone who knows this file and works on the ground, including groups and organizations, knows full well that although part of the problem can be solved by the lucrative market, in other words the supply of profit-driven products, the most effective solution is indisputably more non-market housing.
Such housing does not generate profit. It is community housing, low-income housing, co-operative and social housing. This kind of social housing has to be incorporated in project plans. A developer proposing a project should be required to build social housing, and the federal and Quebec governments should have to provide money to get that social housing built.
There is no solution that does not include not-for-profit housing. Social housing is crucial. That is why the Conservatives' solution is flawed and fails to address what really needs to be done. The Conservatives have their ideological blinders on. They are all about capitalism no matter the cost, and nothing else is even worth considering.
Regarding non-market solutions, members touched on the fact that new co-ops are not being built. That is essential. I had a chance to be at the Montreal premiere of a documentary called Le coop de ma mère by filmmaker Rosemont Ève Lamont. The documentary made it clear just how well those solutions have worked. Co-operatives that were built in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s are still around today, and they are great places to live. Anything considered profit is reinvested in maintaining and upgrading the co-op spaces for the people who live there.
This is also a lesson about working together, participatory democracy, and collective empowerment. The residents of co-operatives become collective owners of the co-operative, and that changes their lives. Without these co-operatives, these people would not be able to live in these neighbourhoods or in these communities. This is something that the NDP is calling for.
I would like to tell my Bloc Québécois colleagues, who seem to want to vote for the Conservative motion, that the NDP is going to move an amendment that I think is in line with the speeches we have heard. We want to add the following to the motion: investments for non-market, non-profit affordable housing; investments to create co-operatives; and the construction of 500,000 new homes, affordable housing, and social housing over the next 10 years. The Liberals are promising 160,000 social housing units, but the NDP is proposing half a million. We are also proposing to create a “for indigenous, by indigenous” housing strategy, which is not in the Conservative motion or in the Liberal’s national housing strategy action plan, even though they have been promising it for years.
These are concrete things that the NDP is putting forward in response to the flaws in the Conservative proposal. I really hope that there will be consistency between what is said and what is done, and that we can count on the support of the Bloc Québécois. These NDP amendments would make for a much more meaningful and logical motion, when it comes to practical solutions.
In this regard, as I spoke earlier with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and member for Hochelaga, based on the rules in place, which were set by the Liberals, housing that is considered affordable is not affordable at all. We recently learned that, according to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, a Montreal home that costs $2,200 a month is considered affordable. People are being taken for fools.
We need to put our heads together and we need to consider the right to housing as a fundamental right for which someone could go to court when housing is inadequate. It is a life-changing thing, and I think that as parliamentarians we need to make a significant effort to invest in social housing and truly affordable housing. That is a priority for the NDP.
1558 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/9/21 11:02:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague and I are also riding neighbours, although we are not separated by a river.
I thank her for her speech, but it was just a long litany of projects, programs and figures, along with a whole lot of lip service. That is unfortunate, since there appears to be a disconnect between what she said and the realities of the housing crisis.
I would remind her that the Liberals' definition of “affordable housing” considers $2,225 a month to be affordable rent in Montreal. Would the people of Hochelaga consider $2,225 a month affordable? If not, what will the parliamentary secretary do to change the definition?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
