- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,314.06
- Government Page
- Jun/6/24 4:41:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, although it feels as though she had to stick to a script today. She was repeating talking points. Personally, I am very concerned about the Liberals' lack of transparency on this issue. The NDP is worried.
On the subject of transparency, in March she voted in favour of the NDP motion on the crisis and genocide taking place in Gaza. Among other things, the motion called for an embargo on arms sales to Israel and the Netanyahu government while it is bombing Gaza. The Minister of Foreign Affairs has not issued a notice to Canadian arms exporters about their continuing to sell weapons to Netanyahu's genocidal regime.
In the interests of transparency, how can my colleague explain her government's inaction when she voted for this motion?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/19/24 11:37:25 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoyed his comments about propane and diesel and the French language. This is a prime example of the Conservatives' almost pathological obsession with attacking the price on pollution. It is an obsession that blinds them to the climate crisis, which is real and has an impact on forest fires, droughts and floods.
What does my Bloc Québécois colleague think about the Conservatives not having a climate and environmental plan?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/23 6:31:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to remind us how the former leader of the Conservative Party, who was Speaker of the House, broke with a long tradition of impartiality and neutrality. We all agree that the current Speaker made a monumental mistake, had a lapse of judgment and made a gaffe.
However, the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle broke the standing tradition that once someone has been Speaker of the House, they do not return to partisan activities. Nevertheless, he later became leader of the Conservative Party.
Does he not see that as a contradiction in his own speech?
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I was listening carefully to my colleague's speech. I do not share his concerns or criticisms whatsoever.
It seems as though the Conservative Party has been fearmongering for months. Some words are quite loaded and must be used sparingly, words like dictatorship and oppression or talk of civil liberties being limited. I never saw the CRTC do that while attending hearings in my previous life.
Is the member opposite aware that his criticisms and comments are not based on anything in the bill, and that individual users can continue to express opinions and share their content on social media? I wonder what exactly he is talking about.
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:33:42 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my hon. colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke.
First, in the wake of yesterday's tragedy in a Laval day care, I would like to take a moment to express my thoughts for the children who were victims of a senseless and horrific act, as well as for their parents and families. My thoughts are also with the employees of the day care. I think we need to reflect collectively on the numerous mental health issues. Finally, I hope we will have more details in the next few days.
With that said, I want to start by saying something that may surprise many. I want to thank the Bloc Québécois for introducing their motion on this opposition day. This is not something I usually say, and some may find it a bit funny. However, I think this is a fundamental debate, in the first sense of the word, since we are talking about the fundamental rights and freedoms of the citizens we represent.
This allows us to have a debate about our vision of democracy, a legal, constitutional and political debate, almost a philosophical one. It is important to have this kind of debate in Parliament, and it is also a discussion and a debate for the whole civil society to have. It is a reflection on the actions of our legislatures which also have very tangible consequences in people's lives. We are not building castles in the air or having a disagreement about opposing views. This debate is about the use of a legitimate provision that exists, but that has consequences for people. We must not forget that and we must take it into consideration.
The notwithstanding clause is a compromise. We know about Quebec's exclusion during the night of the long knives. We are not going to dwell on that. It was appalling, especially for René Lévesque and all of Quebec. There were negotiations concerning the notwithstanding clause. There is no denying it, it is true. However, as is the case for any measure, its use can be good or not.
I think that in the past, it was put to good use in the case of Quebec's Charter of the French Language, which, following challenges, was able to benefit from the notwithstanding clause. This also resulted in public debate and review by some courts of the use of this provision. In this case, the notwithstanding clause was used for a common good that stood above others: defending the French language in Quebec in a minority situation in North America. I believe that what is known as Bill 101 has been broadly accepted in Quebec 40 or 50 years after it was passed, no matter who we talk to.
Does this mean that the notwithstanding clause can be used for anything and everything? There is no such thing as absolute. Just as freedom of speech is not absolute, the use of the notwithstanding clause should not be absolute. That is the NDP's view, as progressives.
Besides, it is not up to nine Supreme Court judges alone to decide what the criteria or conditions for its use should be. That is why I want to emphasize that this must be a public debate that occurs within our society as a whole. Determining when this provision should be used is part of a healthy and legitimate democratic discussion.
Let me remind the House that it was initially meant to be used exceptionally, almost as a last resort. Today, we see several legislative assemblies, not just the Quebec National Assembly, using it repeatedly, perhaps even abusively, systematically—my colleagues in the Bloc will not necessarily like that last word—but also preventively, which is extremely troubling.
We must ask ourselves whether legislators can, at any time and without ample justification, suspend most rights and freedoms, which are supposed to be protected. Should legislators not be required to give very good reasons to justify its use and to ensure that they can successfully face a court challenge?
Otherwise that would mean that a majority Parliament could do anything and everything, in terms of violating fundamental rights, at any time and without justification. That is something to think about. I know this drives my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois crazy, but French philosopher Albert Camus said, “Democracy is not the law of the majority but the protection of the minority.”
It is a conception of the fundamental rights that must be a bulwark against a wholesale, unrestricted use of a notwithstanding clause that suspends the rights of citizens. It is a bulwark that was used in the past as a legal and permanent protection and has played a role in favour of the right of association, women's right to abortion and the rights of same-sex couples.
We have two extremes. On the one hand, we have Parliament, which is an expression of democracy, and on the other hand, the rule of law and charters that protect citizens. There is a dialogue between the two. These charters are not just the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is also the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, which came before the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let us not forget that. Then there is civil society and the media.
We have to remember that the clause is to be used in exceptional circumstances. It was not intended to be used pre-emptively.
I want to quote some of the judges in Ford. Justice Jacques said that the exercise of the section 33 power must come within the basic principles that define our society. He said that its use deprives the citizen of constitutional legal recourse against encroachment on a right guaranteed by the Constitution, thereby limiting the citizen to only political recourse, meaning that if the people are unhappy, they just have to oust the government. This is a bit of a tautology, because it is the government itself, through its majority, that brought in the notwithstanding clause. This means that more than just political recourse is needed.
In the case of Quebec, it should also be noted that the Superior Court recently wrote that by definition, in a society concerned about respecting the fundamental rights it grants to its members, the notwithstanding clause should be used sparingly and with caution. It added that some may think that its use by the Quebec legislature in this case trivializes it, especially since the clause was used even before there were any legal arguments as to its constitutionality. Pre-emptive use shuts down all discussion and debate and hinders the court's ability to defend fundamental rights.
Justice Blanchard of the Superior Court went on to say that since this involves overriding fundamental rights and freedoms, basic respect for those rights and freedoms should be an argument in favour of a more targeted use of this power, which, after all, should remain exceptional.
It should remain exceptional when used to suspend people's rights and freedoms, but it should also be used exceptionally when it comes to attacking workers' rights.
We have seen Saskatchewan and, more recently, Ontario pre-emptively use the notwithstanding clause to suspend the rights of workers to use pressure tactics and freely negotiate their working conditions and employment contracts. In Ontario, we are talking about 55,000 poorly paid professionals in the education sector who have every right to demand better working conditions and wages. We saw a Conservative government come in and attack the labour movement, trying to break the rights of these workers with what we believe to be a misuse of the notwithstanding clause. I think this discussion is important because we see this slippery slope and how things are sliding. As a union activist, as a leftist, as a supporter of workers' rights, I think we have to ask ourselves whether the notwithstanding clause can be used to attack workers' fundamental rights, their working conditions and the fact that they are demanding a better life.
I think it has been the aim of the social movement for many years to promote the best possible working and living conditions, and to fight poverty and injustice. The improper use of the notwithstanding clause in this area undermines workers' fundamental right to freedom of association and collective bargaining. It is good to question the conditions for the invocation and implementation of this clause, because it is not just limited to Quebec issues; it is an attack on the labour movement, citizens and all workers. That is why we should be asking this fundamental question.
1457 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 11:20:43 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like her to talk a little bit more about the Minister of Environment and Climate Change, who was attacking the official opposition, saying that it has no plan, that its plan is non-existent. I would like my colleague to talk about the fact that, despite the price on pollution, the Liberal government is failing to reduce its greenhouse gas emissions.
Is that not a result of all the conflicting decisions, such as Trans Mountain, Bay du Nord and oil subsidies, that are undermining the efforts of this government, which talks out of both sides of its mouth?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/26/22 6:27:15 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Pierrefonds—Dollard for his motion, his speech and his commitment to the Uighur issue, which is also very important to New Democrats.
We certainly support this move. We need to stand up for human rights and speak out against the genocide that the Uighurs are being subjected to, their treatment and forced labour.
If Parliament is speaking with one voice, or almost one voice, what would my colleague like to see the government do now?
83 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:26:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her speech.
As a proud democrat and a proud socialist, I do not mind talking about the monarchy, because I can settle the matter rather quickly and move on to another subject.
In talking about other topics, she focused a bit on the fact that our health care system is being strangled, emergency rooms are overflowing and people are really struggling after two years of living with a pandemic. Federal government transfers for health care are at an all-time low, at 22% or 23% of total system costs. All provincial premiers, including the Premier of Quebec, are calling on the federal government to do more and to quickly and permanently increase health transfers to the provinces.
Does she not think that would have been a good topic of conversation for today?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/29/22 4:41:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. It is funny, the people who keep saying that we need to create wealth before we can redistribute it never really redistribute it.
My colleague talked about people who are suffering, the less fortunate and persons with disabilities. That is very good, but action speaks louder than words.
I have a simple question for my colleague. How can she explain that yesterday the Conservatives refused to refer to committee a bill that seeks to increase support for persons with disabilities? Does that not contradict what she just said?
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:58:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.
As I said earlier today, this feels like déjà vu since we are once again discussing the price on pollution and the carbon tax. It seems like every time the Conservatives run out of things to talk about, they bring up this old chestnut. It seems that the page—
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened closely to the speech made by my colleague from Hochelaga, and I noticed that three important words were missing from her speech: New Democratic Party.
Prior to the election, the Liberals had absolutely no interest in funding dental care for the poor and middle class. We forced the Liberals to provide that coverage. They did not want to offer the Canada housing benefit to the most disadvantaged, who are struggling to pay rent. We forced their hand. They did not want to increase the GST credit. The NDP forced the Liberals to do it.
Now they need to go a step further and tax the richest billionaires and big corporations that are taking advantage of inflation to line their pockets.
They might as well continue using our ideas.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Chair, I am so happy to see so many people rushing into the House to listen to my speech.
20 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to have heard my colleague's speech. The NDP agrees that the French language is in decline in Quebec and Canada. In fact, the government adopted a motion to that effect during the last Parliament, which I remember quite well because I was the one to move the motion.
This bill, which needs much improvement, still achieves something fundamental because, for the first time, it affirms that there is an asymmetry between the status of French and that of English, since French is a minority in Quebec, but also in Canada and across North America. Does the member not think that this recognition of the fact that French is in a minority constitutes progress for the protection of the French language?
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 7:18:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague made a number of very interesting and relevant points in his speech.
As the Bloc's foreign affairs critic, does he not find the foreign and American financial interference to be disturbing? What does he think about the fact that this act allows us to follow the money, as Ed Broadbent said? This money was intended to destabilize democratic institutions. This should concern him, as his party's foreign affairs critic.
Furthermore, I thought that confidence votes applied only to throne speeches, budgets and budget bills. In this case, however, there appears to be a new Liberal category called “whenever the Prime Minister feels like it”.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
