- 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
- Oct/31/23 12:43:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague. As I said yesterday, housing is a right. Having a roof above one's head is a basic right just like feeding oneself.
As long as housing is viewed through a market lens, the needs of the most vulnerable and low-income people who need housing that costs less than 30% of their income will never be addressed. That is the bare minimum, and it is just not attainable at this time. We are in a crisis.
What we want the government to take away from our motion is that it is completely irresponsible to continue to deny this reality, to have blinders on and to set immigration levels without taking into account integration capacities across Canada.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, since this my first opportunity to give a speech since Parliament resumed, I would like to take the opportunity to say hello to all the people in my riding of Thérèse-De Blainville and to once again tell them that they can count on me. I reiterate my commitment to be a strong voice for them in Ottawa.
When Parliament resumed, I told my constituents that we still do not know what the Liberal government's agenda is, but, for us, it is clear that the very top priority must be the housing crisis and the financial situation of seniors. In the current socio-economic context, our choices and actions must be guided by social solidarity.
The bill before us basically deals with two things: the excise tax, as it pertains to housing, and the Competition Act. This is the government's response to a crisis that has been going on for months and, in some cases, even years. It is nothing new. I am talking about a public finance crisis, a cost of living that is far too high for our constituents and an ongoing housing crisis that is only getting worse.
I am still a little naive, and glad of it. When the government announced its big cabinet shuffle last summer, I figured it would gain some momentum and change course. A big cabinet shakeup was announced to send a message, but instead the news was full of examples of how expensive and difficult life was getting for people. Nothing came out of it. After three days we heard the word “housing”, but that was it.
I can say right now that the Bloc Québécois supports the principle of Bill C‑56. The bill is a rushed response to show that the government is doing something about housing and the cost of living.
I am a little less naive than before, but not by much. Let me say that this bill does not go far enough and is not ambitious enough. It does not address the situation and falls far short of addressing the current situation.
As far as housing is concerned, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, or CMHC, reported in its January 2023 rental market report that renter households are dealing with a significant increase in costs. In 2022, the average rent for a two-bedroom apartment increased by 5.6%, or double the average recorded increase from 1999 to 2022. For new renters it is even worse. The increase is nearly 20%.
If we continue to view housing as an asset then we will never get out of this mess. Housing is a right. Food and housing are basic needs. These are rights. Our response to the housing crisis, for our constituents, needs to be bold.
I think there is a sense of urgency because we are facing a housing crisis that cannot be ignored. The current government has acknowledged this crisis, but the proposed measures, especially this bill that abolishes the GST on new rental housing construction, is a drop in an ocean of needs.
It has been estimated that Quebec will need 1.1 million additional units by 2030. That is six years from now. That is tomorrow. It is an alarming situation that calls for bold, ambitious and powerful measures.
According to CMHC, costs will rise faster in Quebec than anywhere else in Canada. There are several reasons for that, including interprovincial migration and immigration. Quebec will be hit much harder by the housing shortage than other regions. CMHC estimates that housing prices in Quebec will double by 2030 compared to 2019. Who is going to tell Quebeckers that their rent will be nearly double in six years? That 102% increase will be the highest in Canada by 2030, even topping Ontario. Granting a reprieve from the GST may seem like a positive measure at first glance but, in reality, it is inadequate. It is high time we adopted far more structural and ambitious solutions.
The government appointed a federal housing advocate in 2022. She wrote a report that I encourage everyone to read. She herself has repeatedly emphasized that the private sector alone cannot solve the housing crisis. Large-scale construction of social and affordable housing is the only real solution. Unfortunately, this bill offers nothing at all for social housing and does nothing to make housing more affordable. Eliminating the GST on rental housing raises questions. How many rental units will it create? How many affordable units will it create? We do not have answers to those questions. Maybe regulations will provide answers.
The answer from an economic perspective is usually supply and demand. If supply increases, demand will be met and prices will go down. There is no guarantee that prices will go down, though. There is no guarantee that this will make more truly sustainable affordable housing available. Everyone in the sector, including non-profits, co-ops and municipalities, has solutions to these problems. They understand the situation. They are on the ground. They know what is needed.
The Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, of which I am a member, has conducted several studies on housing, the national housing strategy and the CMHC, among others. Some strong recommendations have been made, none of which are about demonizing the private sector. Instead, they suggest that it is time to look at building housing and renovating existing units. It is important to invest in what we already have, which is entirely possible.
The new Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities appeared before our committee. There are currently 4,000 housing units just waiting to be renovated pursuant to the old agreements with the federal government. However, the federal government is not letting any money flow. As my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert said, we could have housing for these people by July, but the government is dragging its feet.
Approximately $82 billion in taxpayers' money was allocated to the national housing strategy, which is now five years old. Because of bureaucracy and red tape, no energetic action has been taken to meet the public's urgent needs. Nothing has been accomplished.
Five years have passed since the national housing strategy was launched, and there are still five more years to go. The government needs to do a 180° turn.
When a strategy is not meeting the needs, then it can be changed. That is particularly true when the government is creating programs and funds in which it is prepared to invest $900 million, but then it is waiting and failing to take action.
Given the current crisis, citizens deserve answers from their elected officials. It is time to act. This bill deserves—
1142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 3:01:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, at the rate the government is going, the trees will grow back before workers get help.
Nothing changes. Every time there is a crisis, six out of 10 workers are abandoned by employment insurance. Somehow, the federal government is surprised every time.
We would not urgently need more flexible measures today if the government had reformed EI as promised. History is repeating itself because of its broken promises.
When will it announce emergency measures for all workers affected by the fires, including those who fall through the cracks?
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/23 3:06:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is most certainly not what they are doing. The Prime Minister is hiding. He is letting the crisis drag on, just like Roxham Road, the passport crisis, the border closures during the pandemic, and the 2020 rail blockades. Every time he lets a crisis drag on, other people pay the price. It can be workers, Quebeckers or everyone, but not him.
Will he be proactive for once, answer the union's call and sit down at the bargaining table?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 2:42:34 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there is a discrepancy between what we are hearing and what we are seeing. The passport crisis is not just an administrative fiasco. People are standing out in the rain at their wits' end. People are missing their parents' funerals. People are losing contracts. The minister's message to them? “Your call is important to us.”
When will the people standing in line truly feel their situation is being taken seriously?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 2:41:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is not what is happening; the union is looking for those 600 people. It found five at the Guy‑Favreau complex. So much for that.
The union projects a return to normal only in October. The chaos cannot last another four months. The minister can bring people out of retirement to help. She can transfer resources from other departments. She can create a training blitz for the new employees. At the very least she can let in the people who are sleeping outside and ensure that they are treated humanely, even if that means renting rooms. That is how to manage a crisis.
What is the minister waiting for?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 2:39:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the passport crisis comes as no surprise to anyone.
The union warned the government in January. This was foreseeable. Since 2018, the government has cut 450 jobs in passport offices. In the midst of a crisis, the 600 new hires the minister is talking about do not represent an increase in service. Those hires just bring the number of staff back up to prepandemic levels. We are in the midst of a crisis, and that requires crisis-level effort.
When will the minister deploy enough staff to keep the offices open seven days a week?
98 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/21/22 2:40:35 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, nothing is clear these days. People are being treated like cattle at passport offices. Instead of managing the crisis effectively, security officers at the Guy-Favreau complex reportedly threw out a journalist who was reporting on the line-ups.
If things are so bad that they cannot be shown on TV, the answer is not to kick out the media. The answer is to do a better job of managing the crisis.
When will the government extend hours of operation, reassign public servants, treat citizens with respect and ensure that everyone gets their passport?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am a fan of action. I am not saying that everything is bad, but I just pointed out that there are some big files that the government is not even working on.
I am not the one saying this. We are hearing this from workers. A just and fair transition is not a pipe dream. The government will have to allocate resources. When a door is closed in one industry, another door needs to open. That is the reality.
I am sorry, but the government and the Liberals should at least have the decency to admit that they made a commitment to reform EI back in 2015 and have yet to follow through. It is another broken promise.
Meanwhile, the government waits for a crisis or a pandemic and then improvises some emergency measures. What we need are safe, predictable measures, and the government has failed in that respect.
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 10:55:18 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to the Conservative Party motion.
Does the Liberal government believe that by building pipelines, thereby “allowing Canadian natural gas to displace Russian natural gas”, as the motion calls for, we will will meet the current needs of a serious war and crisis in Ukraine, where thousands of women and children are forced to flee and leave the men behind?
Does my colleague think that is the solution?
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/21/22 7:21:25 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his passionate, fascinating and informative speech.
Yesterday I mentioned the Maple Spring, a big social crisis that occurred in Quebec. I was wondering whether the Emergencies Act, which we will be voting on today, would have applied to Quebec. Indeed, the act states that it will be enforced throughout Canada, regardless of what the provinces and Quebec think of it.
There is a big elephant in the room. The Prime Minister made a thinly veiled threat about this being a confidence vote. Shortly after that, in the media, the NDP leader gave his unequivocal support to this motion.
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/20/22 8:00:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, first of all, I did not falsely conflate the two acts, but the trauma does still remain in our collective psyche. It makes no difference. There is no crisis. That is what is being falsely conflated. The Emergencies Act applies all across Canada to situations that are not crises, like the one we are experiencing.
The situation in Windsor has been resolved because the police managed to resolve it, and yes, it still needs to be stabilized, but the police must do that. We saw that it worked. Do we have to wait for President Biden to call the Prime Minister again to resolve the matter, because that makes it more important?
Jurisdictional issues are not an excuse for incompetence and the inability to coordinate all the resources that would have been necessary to deal with the situation in Ontario.
142 words
All Topics
- 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
