- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Trois-Rivières
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 63%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $100,349.98
- Government Page
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond. All those voices were rather distracting.
As I was saying, the Chinese government arrested two Canadian citizens in China and took trade actions against Quebec and Canadian farmers, all to influence Canadian policy and force the government to give in. These dramatic actions, which were taken openly, constitute aggressive diplomacy. However, to be very clear, China also took more discreet measures and those are the types of measures that Bill C‑70 seeks to counter.
Russia is saber rattling to mask its decline. China is in the final stages of its big project to transform an empire into a country. They are both projecting their power and need to weaken international resistance, hence the interference campaigns abroad, including in Canada. We need the necessary antibodies to prepare ourselves and to guard against that.
The second reason, in addition to the international situation, is the national situation. I am going to share a secret: Do not tell anyone, but an election is coming. I do not know when, but it is coming. Sometimes the leader of the NDP does this funny dance before he grovels or goes into bravado mode. His rhetoric suggests that there will be an election any day now. However, that is not the case. The reality is that we do not know for sure, but it could happen at any time. I am just joking around with my NDP friends, of course.
On election day, the politicians keep quiet and the citizens do the talking. For that to happen, in order for citizens to speak freely, they cannot be targeted by pressure or interference. That is what democratic expression is all about. That said, an election is the ideal time for interference. It can be tempting for a foreign actor to try to replace a hawk with a dove, for example. It is therefore essential that we develop tools for countering foreign interference before the election period, and time is running out.
The third reason is the legislative situation. Canada does not currently have the antibodies to fight off the virus of foreign interference. There is no foreign agent registry, for example, and the various laws governing the operation of the intelligence agencies date back 40 years, before the digital age. Some of our members were not even born yet.
Those laws do not make it possible to analyze the huge amount of information that can be gathered today and process it within a useful time frame. Those laws do a poor job of protecting secret operational intelligence. Those laws do not adequately protect people against threats or intimidation by foreign states. The rules of the justice system have not struck a balance that allows for prosecution, a fair trial and the protection of sensitive intelligence. All of this is what Bill C‑70 seeks to correct. That is why we support it in principle.
In practical terms, Bill C‑70 amends four acts. Part 1 amends the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, which governs the organization better known as CSIS. The amendments clarify data collection and analysis, provide for preservation and production orders, and authorize new search and seizure powers. David Vigneault, director of CSIS, has long been calling for the act's modernization. It was enacted in 1984, before the Internet existed, and has not been amended since. Technology has obviously evolved, and such a legislative change is long overdue. According to David Vigneault, too many authorizations are required, including the approval of the Minister of Public Safety, to analyze the data and decide whether to retain, process or archive them.
In fact, here is the government's description of the Kafkaesque current process:
The totality of this process could require up to five separate submissions for review by the Minister, Intelligence Commissioner, and/or the Court, resulting in a delay of up to six to nine months before CSIS can exploit the data, by which time its intelligence value may have diminished significantly. If CSIS cannot evaluate and apply to retain the dataset within the statutory time limit, it is required to destroy all the data.
It could take six to nine months, but information can be sent instantaneously. Something is not right there. I would remind the House that the election period lasts five weeks. A six- to nine-month delay is not very helpful. That is not all. Currently, CSIS cannot share intelligence outside the federal government. Bill C‑70 would allow that, which is very good. Once the bill comes into force, the provinces, municipalities and territories will be able to receive certain information.
Imagine for a moment that Hydro‑Québec is the victim of foreign interference or espionage. CSIS could disclose certain information to Hydro‑Québec to help the publicly owned corporation protect its critical information. The same goes for warrants under the current CSIS legislation, which are not adapted to the digital age and can sometimes paralyze investigations.
All these aspects of Bill C‑70 seem to be good ideas. We will have to look at it carefully in committee, because the devil is in the details.
We know that total security would require total surveillance. I do not think that we want to go that far.
The restrictions and silos that are paralyzing CSIS, and that this government wants to relax, are there for a reason. Much of this stems from the work of the McDonald commission that examined the RCMP's actions during the October crisis in Quebec. Members will recall the events of October 1970. We certainly remember. The federal government had imprisoned hundreds of people in Quebec, including politicians, intellectuals and artists, causing a true national trauma. In order for the federal government to regain Quebeckers' trust, the Mulroney government replaced the War Measures Act with the Emergencies Act, which had much stricter limits. It eliminated the RCMP's intelligence role with the creation of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, or CSIS. In doing so, it created a wall between intelligence and law enforcement, so as to limit abuses. Now these safeguards are preventing us from combatting foreign interference, and we are being asked to relax them. Okay, we understand that.
I repeat, the Bloc Québécois will support Bill C‑70 in principle, but not at the cost of civil liberties. This is an absolutely fundamental issue that demands the utmost vigilance on the part of legislators. We are in favour of passing the bill quickly at second reading, but we would be remiss if we did not conduct a serious study in committee. This must not be rushed through.
I would remind the House that the inefficiencies of the current legislation were designed to protect the people of Quebec from the excesses of the federal government. In light of the current rise in international tensions and the aggressiveness of certain countries, we must not diminish the protection our people enjoy from potential government abuses. Therefore, our work must be guided by a search for balance.
Bill C‑70 also protects certain operational secrets. Again, this is a necessary safeguard against foreign states with hostile intentions. We should not weaken our democracy in the name of protecting it. We saw this happen with the Winnipeg lab incident and, 15 years ago, with the Afghan detainees.
It is very difficult for Parliament to exercise the oversight that it must exercise when it requires access to classified information, not to mention frequent overclassification—as we saw with the Winnipeg lab—which makes sometimes innocuous information secret and hard to obtain. Even the Hogue commission, which was set up to shed light on foreign interference and help counter it, has complained that it did not have access to all the documents it requested because the Prime Minister's Office was reluctant to release them.
Morever, Bill C-70 seeks to better equip the justice system to fight foreign interference, so this bill sets out new offences that cover a broader range of harmful acts. It sets out new procedures that we hope will make it possible to prosecute offences, grant a fair trial and protect intelligence that would be harmful if disclosed.
Again, we are in favour of this in principle. However, these are fundamental issues of justice, and our work must be guided by a quest for balance. I repeat that a lot, because it is very important.
Bill C‑70 will also eliminate the requirement to prove that a criminal act benefited a foreign state or harmed Canada. Simply put, intimidation by a foreign state could become punishable, even if it does not produce the desired result. We are talking about attempts here. That means it will be possible to charge people who intimidate Canadian citizens or their families. People who are originally from totalitarian countries are particularly vulnerable.
Bill C‑70 also provides for consecutive sentences and even life imprisonment for certain offences. I understand the desire to impose harsher sentences, but listen to what the Canadian Civil Liberties Association had to say. It said, and I quote:
The availability of life imprisonment for certain offences introduced under Bill C‑70 is disproportionate and excessive. For example, a person convicted of an indictable offence under the Criminal Code, even as minimal as theft under $5,000, could be sentenced to life in prison if they acted for the benefit of a foreign entity.
I could cite numerous other examples of measures that will need to be closely scrutinized before they are approved or allowed to come into force.
I will end my speech by talking about the foreign agent registry. This registry should have been created a long time ago. The United States created theirs in 1930. Everyone agrees that a registry alone will not prevent foreign interference, but it is an essential tool to have in our tool box. The director of CSIS has said that a registry would be very useful. The European Union is currently working on a transparency register, and there are registries in other countries too. With a registry, it is easier to demonstrate that someone is working on behalf of a foreign state than to prove that the state interfered. Refusal to join the registry would become an offence in itself and it would be easier to punish than the crime of interference.
I am therefore pleased that the government is moving forward with the registry. It will improve the identification of people trying to influence public policy and of persons acting on behalf of a foreign state. I have spent a lot of time studying this topic. In fact, I drafted a bill to create this registry and I was about to introduce it before Bill C‑70 was tabled. However, the registry put forward in Bill C‑70 has gaps that I would like to try to fill in committee.
For example, although foreign agents are required to register, public office holders are not required to declare their interactions with foreign agents. The two-party registration of foreign agents and public office holders would allow for more thorough checks and enhance the registry's effectiveness. Furthermore, foreign agents have to report their contact with certain categories of people, but the list is too narrow to protect things like government-funded research activities, for example. In short, at committee stage, I intend to propose an expansion of the registry's scope to improve its effectiveness.
As a final point, I would like to take a closer look at the very concept of interference. Let us imagine, for example, that a foreign state sent a bunch of people to fill the room during a nomination to influence the choice of candidate. The foreign state would not have intervened directly with the government to influence public policy, but it would have obviously intervened in public political life. Would that situation be covered by the registry? I doubt it.
Another example is the National Microbiology Laboratory in Winnipeg. The Chinese agents working there had no desire to influence public policy. Rather, they wanted to monopolize the fruits of research paid for by Canadian taxpayers. Does Bill C-70 protect us from that? I doubt it.
I will conclude with a bit of a broader reflection. Protecting our constituents against interference is a profoundly democratic act. People have the right to control their political life and their social, economic and cultural development. This expression of democracy, which must be exercised freely, without undue pressure or interference, is fundamental to peoples' right to decide for themselves and assert their inalienable right to self-determination.
In committee, we will have disagreements on this or that clause of Bill C‑70, but I think that all the members of the House are united on the need to protect the inalienable right of the Canadian people to control their development without foreign interference. Under Bill C‑70, foreign states will be required to respect that right and stop interfering.
As long as we are requiring respect from others, we need to be honest about being respectful ourselves. Twenty-nine years ago, my people, the people of Quebec, were called to democratically exercise their own right to self-determination in a referendum on independence. What happened? Canada, the federal government, spent more on its campaign than the Yes and No camps combined in Quebec. That is serious interference. I am pleased to see that everyone in the House is, I note, unanimous in agreeing that interference in a people's choice is not good. We are making progress. We are getting somewhere.
I hope that the desire to protect Canadian democracy from foreign interference will engender the same respect for Quebec's democracy, because my people also need to be able to experience their democracy without interference.
2332 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/28/24 2:44:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we will not be lectured to by the party opposite. We know the Liberals. They keep saying that we need to protect the French language, when in fact the federal government is the worst employer in Quebec as far as the use of French in the workplace goes.
Are the Liberals tightening the screws on their own administration to make that stop? No. Are they making regulations to mandate equal status for English and French in federal institutions? No. Are they setting an example by requiring proficiency in French from their own appointees, like the Governor General? No. The bad example is coming from the top.
Would the government agree that, as the old saying goes, a fish rots from the head down?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 2:43:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is laughable.
The federal government is the worst employer in Quebec when it comes to protecting French. Coincidentally, it is the main employer in the Gatineau region. Between 2016 and 2021, the proportion of Gatineau residents working mainly in French went from 77% to 62%. That is a 17% drop in just four years.
We are talking about the ridings of Gatineau , Hull—Aylmer , Pontiac, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, all four represented by Liberal members. Their public service is the worst workplace for French in Quebec. Coincidentally, French is declining everywhere, and more so in Gatineau than elsewhere.
Instead of protecting their colleagues at the APF, will they protect francophones in Gatineau?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 2:41:51 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the minister's correction.
To protect a Liberal who denies the decline of French in Quebec, the Liberals are taking responsibility for the decline of the APF. I could not make this stuff up. That is not all they are responsible for, though. All those new French language enthusiasts at the APF must have read the report released by the Office québécois de la langue française yesterday. Guess which sector has the lowest proportion of workers using French most often in Quebec workplaces? The federal public service.
The Liberals are the primary drivers of workplace anglicization in Quebec. When will they stop driving the decline of French?
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 6:16:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on how often these budget measures interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions. I could give one example after another. It is starting to get ridiculous.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 5:28:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, despite the good intentions of wanting to create health programs and build housing—all good things—I would like to know, on a scale of one to 10, what number best reflects the federal government's contempt for interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/29/24 5:14:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He has a big heart, and it shows in everything he says.
Where this budget talks about health care, it directly infringes on a jurisdiction of the Province of Quebec. Health care is a shared jurisdiction, and the federal government should not interfere with it.
I think that the budget before us shows interference. Despite the good intentions voiced by my colleague, I would like to know how much importance he places on that interference.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou for her passionate and moderate speech that puts things into perspective.
Let us not forget that, in 1997, Quebec brought forward such a plan. It was the work of Pauline Marois, whose courage allowed for great strides to be made.
I also remember that in 2006, my predecessor, Paule Brunelle, took part in the debate at first reading of Bill C‑303.
I would like to ask my colleague if the current bill does Quebec justice or if, on the contrary, it distorts an idea that was the best.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/14/24 5:52:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier for his passionate speech.
I know that he is on a mission for the Francophonie. I am delighted to serve with him on the Assemblée des parlementaires de la Francophonie. I know he cares about this.
His speech earlier sounded more partisan than pro-francophone to me. I know that in the past, his party, which he loves to talk about, actually appointed an anglophone judge to the Supreme Court, which was a bit of a black mark against it.
I would like him to tell me if there is anything good in this bill, apart from the fact that the inspiration came from Quebec's brilliant example.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 2:03:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it came as a shock to everyone in the riding of Trois‑Rivières when my friend, Guy Rousseau, executive director of the Société Saint‑Jean‑Baptiste de la Mauricie, announced his retirement.
Guy Rousseau has been a fixture in Trois‑Rivières for 40 years. He served the Conseil central de Trois‑Rivières for a decade, first as a union representative, then as president. He was on the front lines of every battle. It was quite a journey for a liberation theologian.
Guy devoted all of his skill and energy to promoting Quebec culture and the French language. Nary a borrowed word or anglicism was tolerated in his presence, nor in his absence, for that matter.
In 2015, Guy was awarded the Rosaire-Morin prize for individuals whose writings and actions have made a significant contribution to enhancing Quebec's national conscience and championing Quebec's interests.
Guy Rousseau has organized national holiday celebrations in Mauricie and is a tireless advocate for Quebec independence. He leaves a lasting legacy in Trois‑Rivières.
On behalf of myself and of everyone in Trois‑Rivières, I thank him for his years of service to the community.
214 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 12:10:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to start by extending my heartfelt greetings to my constituents in Trois-Rivières, who often contact me about the precarious state of the French language and about immigration. It cannot be said often enough that the latest Official Languages Act is nothing but a bilingualism legislation that is not in Quebec's favour. We need to remember that.
Today's debate is on an NDP motion to remove the GST from home heating. Let us analyze the motion a little deeper. It states that “2023 saw a record fire season due to climate change”. That is a fact, sadly. The motion also mentions that “Canadians continue to struggle with dramatic increases to the cost of living while Canada’s biggest corporations, including oil and gas corporations, post record profits”. That is also a fact. However, the NDP mentions neither banks, who are in the same situation, nor their hobby horse, grocery stores. The motion also mentions “federal government programs aimed at supporting energy efficient retrofits” that are “hard to access”. That part of the motion is somewhat interpretive. I will go through the motion item by item.
At first glance, the motion seems to be talking about social justice and equity. It seems as though the intention of this motion is to provide help to those who need it most, which is keeping with the NDP's usual stance. However, sometimes we need to pay closer attention to determine whether the measures that are actually going to be implemented are consistent with the stated intention. Let me explain.
I will give an example from the business world, because that is what I am familiar with. Over the past 20 years, in the business community, we have been hearing a lot of managerial discourse designed to motivate employees or take advantage of them, as the case may be. Employers have been talking about responsibility when what they mean is accountability. Everyone has been talking about kindness, but it does not mean anything to anyone. Employers have been talking about team work, when employees are actually in competition. People often use big words—and the Leader of the Opposition is an expert in that area—without any real understanding of what those words actually mean.
I would remind my colleagues, who are always happy to hear it, that a word is a construct of sound and meaning. Sometimes the sound changes the meaning, and we can be misled by that. As the saying goes, the end justifies the means. In recent years, we have noticed that people have often been confusing the ends and the means. They think that the means are the ends, which is an error of judgment. When members say that the carbon tax is an end, that is an error of judgment. The carbon tax is simply a means.
Getting back to the NDP motion, it seems noble on the surface. Who would not want to help the least fortunate? Is that really what this is about, though? I was surprised to see a motion like this up for debate this week at this point in the session. For some time now, we have been witnessing the Liberal government in turmoil. It does not know if it is coming or going with its flagship carbon tax initiative. First it says it will apply the tax. Then it says it will not. Then it says it will apply it on some things, but not on others. As the classic song goes, the Liberal government's internal dialogue is basically, “Should I stay or should I go?”
I would even go so far as to say that, in its confusion, the government is dragging its confidence and supply agreement partner down with it. I can see how desperately the NDP is trying to distinguish itself from the Liberals. Removing the GST from heating is not necessarily a bad thing in and of itself, but it has nothing to do with the carbon tax.
Measures already exist for heat pumps and alternative heating systems. Quebec talks about energy equity. There are actually numerous other options. At the end of the day, who is going to pay for heat pumps? It is typical of the NDP to continually ask for measures without concerning themselves with how they will be financed. Funding programs requires revenue, and that revenue usually comes from taxes. We have to be careful. I know that the New Democrats are in favour of taxing oil companies, but let us not confuse reality with obsession. Who will pay for heat pumps? The oil companies, of course.
That will mean more investments in oil so that oil companies can finance the heat pumps in question. This seems to me to be the antithesis of the NDP's usual position.
The NDP likes to say it will tax profits. I am not against that. However, profits exist for a reason. Take a risk and sometimes that risk is rewarded. Taxing excess profits is fine, but we need a definition of “excess”.
Basically, when we talk about helping the most disadvantaged, we are talking about equity. Equity, when defined, is a fair assessment of what each person is entitled to. What are lower-income families entitled to? What are the people entitled to when they benefit from the GST credit because heating is included in the rent? That could be troublesome.
I would like to propose that we act according to what is right, or social justice, in other words, that we do the right thing at the right time, in the right way and for the right reasons. I do not think that is what is happening here. Honestly, I believe that the stated intention of helping the less fortunate is nothing more than a smokescreen for the NDP's veiled attempt to hold on to votes or win votes as it goes through challenging times. Passing the NDP motion would be a mistake, if not a failure. For the NDP, it would amount to a subtle betrayal of its own principles.
In light of the various arguments and given my conviction that its purported purpose is not directly related to its concealed aim or stated intention, the Bloc Québécois will vote against the NDP motion.
1070 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Conservative Leader of the Opposition, whose innuendo is calculated to deceive the public, does not really like what the polls say in Quebec. When he speaks of Quebec, he speaks in French and when he speaks in English, he speaks of the NDP to make his point.
We must separate fact from fiction. When they talk about the carbon tax that does not apply to Quebec, that is nothing but a sham. When they make no distinction between hunting weapons and assault weapons, that is nothing but a sham.
Is the leader of the official opposition actually able to separate fact from fiction?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/5/23 2:39:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that did not answer my question, but anyway. The Liberal solution is full of holes. We have a Prime Minister who hides the truth from citizens and who wants to force the opposition leaders to join him in his secretive practices. He wants to let them in on the secret, while keeping Quebeckers and Canadians in the dark.
The Liberals are looking at this problem from the wrong angle. The problem is not that the public knows that China is interfering in democracy. On the contrary, the problem is that China is able to continue interfering behind the scenes. The problem is the darkness, not the light.
When will the government launch an independent public inquiry?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/28/23 11:39:35 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, at this point, the ties between the Prime Minister and the Trudeau Foundation are clear. His family, his friends and his staff are involved, as we heard in committee this morning.
The ties between the Chinese government and the foundation are also clear after a $140,000 donation was made. The Trudeau Foundation is a collection of Liberal Party friends, and that is why it is of interest to China. All Quebeckers understand this.
One question remains: Who can trust anyone from the foundation to investigate Beijing's attempts to get close to Liberal circles?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I commend and thank the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for her hard work and her abiding passion. She is the epitome of environmental activism. We do not always agree, but I welcome her contributions.
The French Revolution introduced the concepts of liberty and equality and, in its wake, started a movement in support of those concepts. Since the liberties of some groups sometimes clashed with the liberties of others, there was inevitably a reckoning around the imbalance that was created among the various parties, an imbalance that lead to inequality.
There is no doubt that the federal government has a responsibility to the people of Canada. Some citizens experience inequalities in their relationship with the environment. While we recognize that inequalities do exist, we cannot at this point conclude that these inequalities are attributable to race alone.
The Bloc Québécois supports the intention expressed in the title and preamble of Bill C-226, a bill that seeks to advance environmental justice. If Parliament is to pass new legislation, we believe that the concept of environmental justice must be the main subject or central concept, so to speak.
The living conditions that some individuals and communities in Canada find themselves in—and I am thinking here of drinking water, for one—are unacceptable. Governments must live up to their responsibilities in that regard. That is why we think that the House is justified in expressing its desire to act against the environmental inequality and discrimination covered in Bill C‑226 and why we think that it should study these phenomena in greater depth in order to understand the mechanisms and explore possible solutions.
I would now like to talk about three assumptions.
The first is that, if Parliament is to pass a new law, we believe that the concept of environmental justice must be the main subject and central concept, the foundation on which we build, the starting point.
Second, there is no doubt that the federal government has a responsibility to certain populations in Canada who are facing inequalities in their relationship with the environment.
Third, the living conditions that some individuals and communities in Canada find themselves in, including their access to drinking water, are unacceptable, and governments need to live up to their responsibilities.
Before I talk about environmental justice, it is important to talk about justice itself. What is justice? Although everyone talks about justice, it is not an easy concept to understand or define. Is justice equality? Is it equivalency? Is it legality? Is it equity? What is justice?
To learn about and understand a concept, there is nothing like a bit of exploration to figure out what we are talking about. The concept of comprehension is interesting in and of itself. The roots of the word are cum and prehendere, which means “grasp the whole”. Comprehending means grasping the whole.
In a debate like this, we cannot have tunnel vision or a partial vision of the whole. Equality means we are all the same. Equivalence means we are all equal. Legality implies conforming to a standard. What do we do when there are no standards? The reason for our debate today is to determine whether there will be a standard.
In the absence of guidance, what we need to strive for is equity. Equity is the fair assessment of what each individual should get. I would add that it is the fair assessment of what each individual should get, but without letting ideology get in the way. Equity is a more perfect form of justice because it considers exceptions. When we introduce a rule or a law, we are essentially drawing a straight line between two points. However, by drawing a straight line, we are excluding people who are near the line, but not on the line. As a result, they are excluded often. Equity adapts in order to do justice to the greatest number of people, to do justice to everyone.
This bill strikes a good balance and includes some compensation. Our objective should be to ensure that Bill C-226 provides equity to all and does justice to all.
Before concluding, I would like to flag three major problems with Bill C‑226.
First, the bill will probably not have any significant impact on the populations affected by pollution that the bill's proponents say they want to help. We are skeptical.
Second, the proposed pan-Canadian approach is not in line with Quebec's reality and goes against the clearly expressed will of Quebec's National Assembly.
Third, Bill C‑226 focuses less on advancing real environmental justice and more on introducing the concept of environmental racism into Canadian discourse and law to secure an ideological victory in order to serve a cause.
In conclusion, I will reiterate what was said by my esteemed and irreplaceable colleague from Mirabel, whose community is going through a disastrous situation with respect to environmental injustice. His riding includes the neighbouring municipalities of Oka and Kanesatake, where the tension could be cut with a knife.
There is a recycling company that is depositing toxic and hazardous materials, or allowing them to be deposited, in a landfill located on indigenous territory, yet the federal government is not doing a thing about it. It is not lifting a finger. By failing to take action, Ottawa is allowing the residents of the nearby municipalities of Oka, Saint‑Placide and Saint‑Benoît in Mirabel to be called racist for complaining about the landfill located on indigenous territory, when they, too, are victims of this inaction. Residents are legitimately afraid to drink the water or to use it for their crops. The situation is serious.
In this case, we need to put things in perspective and not call this environmental racism when it basically boils down to inaction and deliberate indifference on the part of the federal government and the RCMP. I mention the RCMP because the media has repeatedly reported and proved that Kanesatake is controlled by criminal groups and that the band council is not taking action.
This is a clear case of environmental injustice, and the federal government already has the means to act in this matter. The people of Oka are entitled to clean drinking water too. Something needs to be done soon.
1068 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/17/23 11:54:49 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, a report from The Globe and Mail laid bare the full extent of China's interference in the 2021 federal election. According to the article, secret services carried out a major operation involving illegal campaign contributions and media manipulation.
This is extremely worrisome, but it would be a mistake to challenge the legitimacy of the election and merely consider it a partisan issue. The real issue is how easy it was for these foreign actors to manipulate our elections. This needs to be addressed transparently, but the government has been denying there was any interference and hiding the truth for months.
Quebeckers want to know whether the government is ever going to take this threat seriously.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 4:40:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. What does he think about the assault on Quebec's jurisdictions that the NDP motion is proposing today?
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/16/23 4:11:24 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the NDP member for her passion, spirit and ardour.
She has good intentions. However, I have to say that she showed a serious lack of discernment. Quebec would not be subject to such a plan. I think that her ideology is completely overshadowing the debate and that she believes that anything connected to the private sector is automatically evil. Could she please show some discernment?
69 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:31:51 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Barrie—Innisfil, with whom I have the pleasure of working on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, is asking a fundamental question.
The division created by the current Prime Minister is unprecedented and it reaches an unacceptable level. It is an insult.
A few days ago, I was looking at a photo book on Quebec at home. Some of the people photographed are wearing a veil and others are not, but everyone lives in harmony. Harmony prevailed and there were no problems until someone started to create problems around these things.
Frankly, I believe that the current Prime Minister is inciting division. He contributes to citizens distancing themselves from others.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:30:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Winnipeg North; I would have been disappointed if he had not asked me a question. I always appreciate his questions, which have a way of sparking debate.
The province of Quebec makes its own laws for the benefit of Quebeckers, which is totally permissible under the notwithstanding clause. We are not talking about prioritizing rights, we are talking about making decisions according to our own culture, identity and prerogative.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
