- Member of Parliament
- Member of the panel of chairs for the legislative committees
- Bloc Québécois
- Thérèse-De Blainville
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 68%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $122,743.44
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑22, which seeks to establish a disability benefit.
I want to say from the outset that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of this bill. We will support it because we strongly believe that urgent action must be taken. Many people with disabilities and their advocacy groups, whom I have met with personally on several occasions, have stated unequivocally that the situation is serious for them.
If there is one thing we should remember, it is that people with disabilities have the right to be recognized, they are full-fledged members of our society and their rights and dignity should not be compromised because of their differences.
I am sorry that I did not think of it sooner, but I would like to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to share my time with our beautiful and beloved artist, the hon. member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix.
181 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would seek the consent of the House to share my time with my esteemed colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 7:50:58 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by saying hello to the people in my riding of Thérèse‑De Blainville, and thanking the many constituents who have sent messages of support for the position taken by my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I on the blockade in downtown Ottawa and in this debate on the Emergencies Act.
People have very legitimate questions, worries and concerns. We have listened carefully, and they have been heard. We also heard their heartfelt pleas that they never again wanted to experience or be afraid of experiencing the worst, that is events such as those of 1970, when the War Measures Act was invoked. The collective trauma and the fear experienced are still vivid and painful memories for an entire nation, namely, the people of Quebec.
I forgot to mention that, in the spirit of solidarity, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Repentigny. We stand twice as united.
Of course, the Emergencies Act is not the same as the War Measures Act. We know the difference. The former is nevertheless the spawn of the latter, as our leader so aptly put it. Although these two acts must not be conflated, they do have one thing in common: They are both special laws. This means that the exception should not be the rule or become the norm in dealing with situations or events that can be resolved using other means, whether political or legal, or through laws already in place. Any government that is even considering using the Emergencies Act must demonstrate unequivocally that all avenues have been pursued and all options have been exhausted.
Isaac Newton said that we should only be certain about what can be proven. I am certain that the Emergencies Act is not necessary because the government and the Prime Minister have failed to prove that it is.
On the first day of debate in the House, the Prime Minister described the Emergencies Act as targeted, proportionate and reasonable. That same day, I described it as the opposite. This act is disproportionate and unreasonable. How can he claim that it is targeted when, in fact, its scope is from one end of Canada to the other, whether we need it or not?
One thing the act requires is consultation with the provinces. Even though seven of them said no, even though the Premier of Quebec said no, even though the National Assembly unanimously said no, the federal government does not care. It does not give a fig. That is bad.
To hear the Prime Minister tell it, this is a law of last resort to be used once options 1, 2 and 3 have all failed. Those options did not fail; they were not even tried.
Plans for a protest at the Parliament of Canada in the national capital were announced over three weeks ago now. We knew a convoy of truckers was coming from as far away as Vancouver, bearing a message for the federal government. What steps did the federal government take to prepare? Nobody knows. Did the federal government analyze the potential impact of the protest based on the messages it was expecting to hear from the protestors? Apparently not. It seems to have opted for a wait-and-see approach, which led the protesters to believe they were welcome in Ottawa and could make themselves right at home.
Once the protesters were settled in in front of Parliament Hill and on main downtown arteries, the only thing the Prime Minister deigned to say was that they were a fringe minority. After that, there was no sign of him. A few days later, things got worse. We acknowledge that. We condemn what happened. We do not tolerate these incidents. At that point, the Prime Minister said that it was not up to the government, that it was up to the City of Ottawa and its police service.
Funnily enough, around the same time, I heard a City of Ottawa police officer saying that the police were speaking to protesters, but that the protesters were not interested in talking to the police because they wanted to speak to the Prime Minister. That short message spoke volumes.
In the House, we urged the government to take action and we proposed such solutions as creating a crisis task force, requesting a meeting with the opposition party leaders and the Prime Minister, and emphasizing that coordinated action was necessary. That would have been possible and, in fact, it proved to be possible when law enforcement coordinated their efforts and took down the protest in front of Parliament Hill in two days. No one had been able to take down that protest for three weeks.
The City of Ottawa requested an additional 1,800 police officers, and the federal government sent them 275 RCMP officers. The Prime Minister and his government had options and chose to let the situation drag on. What is worse, the government now wants our blessing for its inaction and is calling on us to vote in favour of using the Emergencies Act, a piece of legislation designed to be used in exceptional circumstances. We will not support the use of this act, because the evidence is clear that the government dropped the ball. Once again, one too many times, the Prime Minister and his government proved themselves to be incapable of managing conflicts.
There is no crisis in the country right now that warrants invoking the Emergencies Act. Yes, for the past 24 days there has been a protest-turned-blockade that is interfering with the peace of mind and safety of downtown Ottawa residents. We condemned this protest and continue to do so. However, the situation can and could have been dealt with long before, with the powers that the police already have and with the legislative tools already available.
The Emergencies Act was passed in 1988, over 30 years ago, and to this day it has never been enacted. The fact that the government is invoking it now is proof of its failure in managing the crisis. We cannot endorse it, because this government has failed to demonstrate that it is needed. Nor can it be considered a “just in case” option.
I heard the Minister of Justice say that this legislation is being invoked in case the protesters come back or in case the situation in Windsor becomes destabilized. The Emergencies Act is there to deal with an ongoing situation, not to prevent one in the future or to act retroactively on a past situation. The minister should know that, because it is an essential principle of natural justice.
There is one option that we would support, and that is for the government to withdraw this motion and to admit that it was wrong. That would take courage and humility. If that is not possible, we would be satisfied with an apology from the Prime Minister. We know that he is capable of giving them.
1176 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/6/21 1:03:43 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Mr. Speaker, I would first like to inform you that I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.
Furthermore, as today is December 6, the 32nd anniversary of the tragic Polytechnique massacre, in which 14 women were killed just for being women, I would like to offer my support and solidarity and say that we remember.
Let us return now to Bill C‑3, which is currently under consideration. This is a two-pronged bill: it amends the Canada Labour Code, and it amends the Criminal Code. These two statutes do not address the same issues.
What we do know about this bill is that it stems from a commitment the government made during the last election campaign, the one that should not have happened. During that campaign, the government stated that it wanted to increase the number of sick days for workers who have none and strengthen the Criminal Code with more severe penalties for people who impede the provision of health care or intimidate health care workers.
Since we are talking about two jurisdictions here, and since this bill will definitely be worth studying in committee, I am wondering which would be the best committee to study it.
The government thought it would be a good idea to significantly strengthen the measures set out in the Criminal Code that penalize people who intimidate or harass patients and health care workers, but is that the right solution to this problem?
We will need to examine this bill to be able to answer that question properly. We understand the purpose of the measure, which is to make it clear to health care workers and those who need access to medical care that we will never allow them to be intimidated or afraid to get care. I think everyone understands the message, which may have been necessary.
However, as a health care worker myself, even though it has been some time since I worked in the field, what I am wondering is whether our labour laws, our workplace health and safety laws, also protect the workplace from acts of violence, intimidation and harassment.
Perhaps that should have been considered. Besides the incidents that we all witnessed in Quebec and the provinces, the major unions have been long calling for stronger measures against violence, intimidation and harassment to be included in our labour laws, because employers also have an obligation to provide a safe workplace.
In Quebec, anti-vaxxers have protested in front of primary schools. They have also protested to a lesser extent in front of hospitals and vaccination clinics. The Government of Quebec did not wait for the federal government before it significantly increased fines and public safety measures. That is why we wonder if strengthening the Criminal Code is the right solution.
The Canadian Labour Congress made it clear, and we agree, that we must avoid depriving individuals of the fundamental right to associate, to unionize, to strike, to picket and to mobilize. It is a major right guaranteed by the Constitution, and we must ensure that it is included in this bill.
As for the Canada Labour Code, the Minister of Labour stated in his speech on Friday that there are gaps in the social safety net. That is not news. Canada's antiquated labour laws are sorely in need of attention. Fifty-eight percent, or 580,000, of Canada's workers do not have paid leave, and it is time to give them 10 days of paid sick leave. We could also amend the Canada Labour Code to increase the minimum wage as the government promised in the last budget. That would send a clear message in the current circumstances that we are protecting workers, who should have good working conditions and good wages.
Speaking of gaps in the social safety net, the government has forgotten one important aspect, namely, the employment insurance system. I am thinking specifically of people who are sick. The government is failing thousands of people who have no paid sick leave, no wage loss program and only 15 weeks of sickness benefits. This really is a gap in the social safety net.
Why is the government introducing a bill that targets the Canada Labour Code and the Criminal Code, which are two different systems, rather than strengthening labour laws and the EI system to protect people who are sick and have nothing to fall back on when they become seriously ill?
Why did the government not ensure that the constitutional right to protest and to freedom of expression were properly protected in the Criminal Code, if that were its intention? It will be important to study those two matters in committee.
We support the bill in principle, with a bit of fine-tuning.
802 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
