- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- NDP
- Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $114,314.06
- Government Page
- Mar/19/24 12:23:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the NDP has not shied away from criticizing those measures, which are actually hidden subsidies to oil and gas companies. My colleague from Timmins—James Bay is introducing an important bill on behalf of our party to ban oil and gas advertising, similar to how we banned tobacco advertising.
At the same time, we have forced the Liberals to do things they had never done before that are going to help average Canadians. For example, people who make less than $70,000 a year will have access to a dentist.
I have given 15 presentations in seniors' residences in Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. People are extremely pleased with our efforts because we are delivering concrete results that will change people's lives and change the face of the world, no pun intended.
136 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/8/23 12:14:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his extremely relevant question.
The NDP is indeed proud to have secured gains that will benefit Quebeckers, such as dental care for seniors and teenagers and housing for indigenous communities. We are making progress on these fronts, but we are also continuing to put pressure on the Liberal government and to condemn oil subsidies. Under the agreement that we negotiated, we will be able to reduce oil subsidies and invest in renewable energy. The two are not mutually exclusive. We do not necessarily want to trigger an election, because we have achieved real gains for people. However, at the same time, we are able to criticize the government and ask it to do more on climate change and to invest in renewable energy.
132 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, tonight we are hearing a lot about fiscal responsibility from the Conservatives. That is nothing new, and we are not surprised. However, they never seem to mention the fact that the Harper government ran deficits eight of the nine years it was in power, and it was not until the ninth year that it balanced the budget. Even then, it was because the government sold off the GM stock that it had bought during the auto crisis.
If the member really wants to eliminate the deficit, what is she going to do? Is she willing to go out and collect more revenue by stopping subsidies to oil companies or taxing billionaires? If not, what public programs and services does she intend to cut?
128 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 5:18:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned the carbon tax.
That is something that the NDP agrees with. However, his government continues to give subsidies to oil and gas companies. On one hand, the government wants to reduce greenhouse gas emissions, but on the other hand, it is using taxpayers' money to continue supporting fossil fuels that produce huge amounts of greenhouse gases.
Does he not think that is a contradictory position?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/7/23 11:35:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would like to circle back to a point that I find particularly relevant, and that is the Liberals' fear or reluctance to go after big oil's profits. There is a double standard towards ordinary Canadians.
We have pointed out that the oil companies have doubled their profits, that the government continues to hand them subsidies and that it does not dare tax them more, despite pleas from the UN Secretary-General.
In my colleague's opinion, why do the Liberals not dare go there, when it is a pretty easy and obvious answer?
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/1/22 2:28:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the weekend, the Minister of the Environment begged the oil companies that are making record profits to invest in renewable energy. Instead of begging, the government should stop throwing billions of dollars in public money at the oil industry. According to a report, except for Japan, Canada leads the G20 in financing oil companies. The Liberals promised to end these subsidies by 2023. That is in two months.
Is there a contingency plan for ending these subsidies, or was it all just talk?
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 4:14:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. The NDP, the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois all agree that there should be a price on pollution. However, everything that the Liberal government does is cancelled out by other decisions it makes that wind up increasing greenhouse gas emissions. I am talking about the Trans Mountain pipeline expansion, the Bay du Nord decision and the increased subsidies for oil companies.
How can the Liberals claim to want to reduce pollution but then approve things that increase pollution?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 5:07:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very easy to explain. This is a Liberal budget, not an NDP one.
When we no longer are the fourth party but the first, we will not present this kind of budget. In the meantime, we are negotiating and attempting to get what we can.
I remind my Bloc Québécois colleagues that they too have supported Conservative or Liberal budgets that contained subsidies for the oil companies or the Trans Mountain purchase. We need to be careful, because both sides have done it.
However, the NDP sought gains for Quebeckers, such as dental care, lower prescription drugs, a definition of affordability and better access to housing.
We can vote in favour of a budget even if we do not agree with everything, as my Bloc Québécois colleagues have often done in the past.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/8/22 11:29:05 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, on the climate crisis, the Liberals still do not get it. In the same week that the IPCC released a report saying that we need to do a complete 180 in the next three years, the Liberals announced an additional $2.6 billion in subsidies to oil companies and approved Bay du Nord, a new fossil fuel project. That is the problem with the Liberals. They think they can solve the climate crisis by giving more money to oil and gas companies. It makes no sense whatsoever.
Why do the Liberals refuse to listen to science and invest in new green jobs?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/4/22 2:27:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, another IPCC report, another clarion call.
Humanity has less than three years to reverse the current greenhouse gas emissions trend in order to ensure the planet's viability. We have to cut current emissions in half by 2030.
We need urgent action, but the Liberals' plan is not good enough. They are counting on technology that does not work, and they are still pouring billions of dollars into fossil fuels. We are not going to hit these targets by increasing fossil fuel production.
Will the Liberals put an end to oil subsidies and invest in clean energy for our children's future?
104 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
