SoVote

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Bloc Québécois

Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques
Quebec
Voting Attendance: 68%
Expenses Last Quarter: $115,154.34

Government Page

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Nov/1/22 11:10:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. It is always very interesting to listen to him. As he mentioned, the issue of transparency seems to be in the Liberal Party's DNA. I can certainly recall some of the scandals, such as the sponsorship scandal. More recently, public confidence in the institution and in the Liberal Party was shaken again because of the WE scandal. That $900-million contract was awarded to members of the Prime Minister's family who were very close to him. In addition, an untendered contract for respirators worth nearly $240 million was awarded to a former Liberal Party MP. Today we are talking about the untendered contracts for the ArriveCAN app. The situation is understandable, but it is always the opposition parties' responsibility to raise the public's concerns about this transparency. My colleague from Trois‑Rivières spoke about the culture of avoidance and cover-ups. I would like him to explain how the government could be proactive in improving public confidence in institutions and, hopefully, in the Liberal Party.

181 words

All Topics

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

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas

Mar/24/22 11:52:22 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his invitation to comment. Just because health measures are lifted or the Canadian government decides to go in another direction, it does not mean this will have any influence or significant impact on what neighbouring countries, particularly the United States, decide to do. I would add that the Liberal government prides itself on being a strong advocate for science and evidence, but Canada is the only G7 country that cannot produce its own COVID-19 vaccine. There has been a lack of investment in science and research over the past few years. The Liberals need to walk the talk in the next budget.

111 words

All Topics

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

Mr. Maxime Blanchette-Joncas (Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, BQ)

Feb/19/22 7:04:44 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue. This crucial debate is not to be taken lightly. It was prompted by an event that will go down in the history of the Canadian federation, though not as one of its most glorious moments. Let me say off the top that I am against the use of the Emergencies Act as set out in the orders, and I am definitely against its use in Quebec. To support my argument, I will review what the act does. As its name suggests, the Emergencies Act is a tool of last resort that can only be used when a situation is so imminent, so overwhelming and so insurmountable a threat, that it is strictly impossible for the government to control it under existing legislation. The consequence of the application of the act is that the executive may, by order, impose measures to ensure the safety of Canadians, the territorial integrity of the country and the protection of the constitutionally established order. This may include prohibiting movement or assembly, regulating the use of specified property, taking control of public services, imposing fines or even summary imprisonment. Given the potentially antifreedom and undemocratic nature of the measures that can be imposed, Parliament has taken care to specify an exhaustive list of situations that can justify invoking the act. Accordingly, the only grounds for the government to invoke the Emergencies Act are as follows. The first is a public welfare emergency. It should be noted that since the act came into force, none of the devastating floods, winter ice storms or wildfires that Canadians and Quebeckers have faced has led the government to use these extraordinary powers. In addition to natural disasters, the definition of a public welfare emergency also includes disease. It is especially pertinent to note that the global health crisis resulting from the COVID-19 pandemic did not require the invocation of the Emergencies Act, even though it has caused over 35,000 deaths in Canada and nearly six million deaths worldwide to date, and it is about to mark its ill-fated second anniversary. Despite their exceptional nature, the actions taken to respond to the needs created by this unprecedented crisis were possible without resorting to the Emergencies Act. Third, the declaration of an international emergency, which is defined as a situation or acts of coercion involving the use of force between countries, may constitute grounds for invoking the Emergencies Act. Similarly, if Canada were to go to war, that may justify the use of the exceptional measures allowed under the Emergencies Act. The fourth and final rationale provided as justification for a government giving itself these extraordinary powers is that of a public order emergency. Since that term is rather vague, the legislator was good enough to provide a definition in section 16 of the act: public order emergency means an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency; For the members who are wondering what a national emergency is, section 3 of the Act specifies that it: ...is an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature that (a) seriously endangers the lives, health or safety of Canadians and is of such proportions or nature as to exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it, or (b) seriously threatens the ability of the Government of Canada to preserve the sovereignty, security and territorial integrity of Canada and that cannot be effectively dealt with under any other law of Canada. That is significant. My colleagues will agree that the wording is very explicit as to how severe the circumstances must be to justify invoking the Act. Whether it is invoked for one or the other of the reasons I just mentioned, it is an extremely serious measure that must not be taken lightly by the government. It should be a last resort—a tool to be used only after we tried to turn off the leaky tap, used every tool in the box and called in the plumber, but the tap is still leaking. This is the first time since the Emergencies Act was passed in 1988 that a Prime Minister of Canada has felt the need to resort to the special powers it confers. Its previous incarnation, the War Measures Act, was invoked only three times, specifically, during the First World War, during the Second World War, and during the episode of October 1970, an episode that deeply scarred the people of Quebec. To be fair, I would like to note that the two pieces of legislation are not comparable and we have to be careful about comparing everything from that perspective. The Emergencies Act requires the government to show that it is facing a dangerous and urgent situation that it finds impossible to deal with it under ordinary laws. The government failed to demonstrate any such thing in the statement of reasons it submitted to parliamentarians. Even worse, it did not even try to do so, since it has remained completely silent on the topic. I want to explain to members why. It is simply because there is no good reason to justify using this special legislation. There is no legal vacuum preventing the government from resolving the crisis in Ottawa. The vast majority of protests and blockades that we have seen over the past few weeks have been brought under control or removed without the use of the federal Emergencies Act. The Sarnia, Fort Erie, Coutts and Ambassador Bridge blockades were successfully removed. All of those border crossings are now back up and running, and trade with the United States has been re-established, so it seems that law enforcement was able to put an end to these protests without needing to use any special powers. What is it about the Ottawa protest that makes it so unstoppable that it cannot be dealt with under the existing legislative framework? What laws are insufficient to resolve the crisis? Why do those laws not allow us to deal with the situation effectively? We do not know. The government has never said. What is more, before invoking the Emergencies Act, the Prime Minister dragged his feet for two long weeks rather than trying to resolve the crisis. How can he claim, after—

1069 words

All Topics

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Maxime Blanchette-Joncas