- 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
- May/1/24 5:16:32 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with this budget, the federal government is responding to a crisis, namely, the housing crisis.
My question for my colleague is this: Does she agree that the money earmarked for housing should be managed by the people who understand the housing crisis? Here is an example: CMHC collects data. I have the honour of representing 39 municipalities. Out of those 39 municipalities, CMHC collects data on only one. The government wants to put out a fire, but it is only spraying water on part of the building.
Does my colleague agree that the money earmarked for addressing the housing crisis should be managed entirely by the Quebec government?
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today we are seeing another phenomenon that keeps happening fairly regularly. We can no longer call it a phenomenon really. I would say it has become routine: another Liberal time allocation motion supported by the New Democratic Party. As we know, imposing time allocation is very democratic. I invite them to consider changing the name of their party.
Bill C‑56 was supposed to be the magic solution to the cost of living crisis we are dealing with. That is what the government said. The government introduced this bill two months ago and failed to convince the opposition parties to adopt it quickly. That must be because the bill is not that good.
I would like my colleague's opinion on the fact that the government, who claims to have a miracle bill to address the housing crisis and the cost of living crisis, is telling us that it needs time allocation and two months to be able to take action.
164 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see such enthusiasm for this bill today. We know that there is no shortage of emergencies, including the housing crisis and the climate crisis, but these topics are not on the government's agenda.
My colleague mentioned several interesting things in his speech. We know that we are not reinventing the wheel today; we are modernizing the Canada-Ukraine Free Trade Agreement, which has been in effect since 2017. The fact is that trade with our trade partner Ukraine has grown significantly.
I have a question for my colleague. There was a whole saga in the House about the standing ovation for a former SS soldier, in yet another blunder committed on the world stage by the federal government, or rather the Liberal government. That all happened in conjunction with the presidential visit, when he was here to sign the agreement on September 22.
It seems to me, or rather I am quite convinced, that the government deliberately waited for President Zelenskyy to come to the House before implementing the new agreement. We are hearing that it is really urgent for us to study this bill today as a priority, and that it must take precedence over the housing crisis, the cost of living crisis and the climate crisis.
I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on something. Does he think the government could have done this sooner? Does he think the government deliberately waited for President Zelenskyy's visit to try to restore its image after all the blunders we have seen, such as Chinese interference and the conflict between Canada and India?
274 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/16/23 11:00:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague on his speech.
We agree that a humanitarian corridor must be urgently set up to save civilians. To be a player, one must work with other players. Unfortunately, Canada is not at the table where decisions are being made by certain players. I am thinking about France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the United States and Italy, who met to speak out against the situation and to find solutions to the crisis that Palestine and Israel are in right now. Canada was not at the table.
I would like my colleague to explain how he thinks his government can establish its credibility on the international stage and take its place not just as an observer, but as a player.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/17/23 4:16:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, and I commend him.
We have a very serious situation right now, and that is the housing crisis. It is indisputable. The entire country is being impacted. Where I live, in the Lower St. Lawrence, in the riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, the vacancy rate in the city of Rimouski is 0.4%. This is a serious situation. There is not enough housing for people of all ages and all financial levels. In the key sector of health care, we are unable to bring in workers to take care of people, and this government's latest budget completely ignores the housing issue.
There are investments for indigenous housing, but there is nothing, zero dollars, to create new housing for people who really need it.
I would like to hear exactly what my colleague thinks about that.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the few seconds I have will not be enough to list the many problems my constituents are having with federal services.
Take immigration. It is unbelievable how much time my team and I spend dealing with immigration issues every week. People are having to take days off so they can attempt to reach Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada staff for updates on their applications. That is why they turn to their MPs for help.
Then there is the passport crisis. People have had to camp out in front of passport offices to get their documents. The government realized how bad this looked, so it sent EI officers to work at passport offices. Now people are waiting even longer for their EI benefits. The government fixed one problem by causing another. What we need is for the government to focus on its own responsibilities, which it is currently failing to carry out.
153 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 9:23:12 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my take-away from my colleague from Timmins—James Bay's speech is that he supports the Emergencies Act because there is a national crisis.
Oddly enough, some former NDP MPs disagree. I would like to quote two former MPs, Svend Robinson and Erin Weir, whose statements appeared in an article published on February 18 in the National Post.
Svend Robinson stated that the NDP caucus in 1970 under Tommy Douglas took a courageous and principled stand against the War Measures Act, and that today's NDP under the member for Burnaby South betrays that legacy and supports Liberals on the Emergencies Act. He says that it is shameful and that a very dangerous precedent is being set.
Mr. Weir stated that it is disappointing to see the federal NDP today support the Emergencies Act when there really is not a national emergency as is settled in that legislation.
I would like my colleague to think about this. My question is as follows. The NDP said that it might stop supporting the Emergencies Act, but only on the basis of various emotional criteria that we are still in the dark about.
I would like my colleague to tell us what those criteria are.
207 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
