- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
- Nov/7/23 5:25:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. However, I would like to bring the debate back to help for households with the lowest incomes.
I have here a letter from Efficiency Canada that proves that federal environmental programs overlook the fact that Quebec mainly uses electricity, a cleaner form of energy. I am wondering whether the same problem exists with the green fund. Let me explain. The executive director of the Centre d'action bénévole de Farnham, which serves Ange‑Gardien and other communities in my riding of Shefford, would have liked to be able to get money from the green fund to do some renovations. The city had given the organization a nice building, but it needed some TLC. These people did their research into whether they could apply to the green fund. From what they saw, this funding is being distributed in other places, but not in Quebec.
Why not have a program that will really help households and organizations in Quebec? Why not have an environmental program to help make buildings more energy efficient, a program that takes into account other factors besides the fact that the building is heated with electricity? The whole building envelope could be included in programs to really help organizations and individuals in Quebec.
219 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Nov/7/23 4:30:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to bring the NDP leader's attention to a certain aspect of today's motion. This weekend, I met someone in Quebec who is originally from France and who is well versed in environmental issues in Europe. He told me that we cannot keep thinking that everything will be fine with the environment if we do not take drastic action.
Let me explain. We cannot continue to fund the oil companies. He told me that the countries that have seen a real drop in greenhouse gas emissions are the ones that have invested in transition technologies and not in their oil industry.
I would like my colleague to say a few words about funding change by implementing a tax on the excess profits of big oil and gas companies. That would be a way of quietly saying that we are taxing them and trying to phase them out, not giving them billions of dollars in subsidies.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague from Mirabel asked the question earlier. We have entered a new era of magical thinking by the Conservatives who imagine that an exact amount of money will be taken from somewhere and invested elsewhere, as though this can be done with a snap of the fingers. Where do they suggest these revenues be collected?
I mentioned the issue of taxing GAFAM, as did my colleague from Drummond. There is also the issue of tax evasion and tax avoidance. Could the money that is being invested in the oil companies not be invested elsewhere to help other sectors that will be more economically vulnerable in the tough year ahead, such as seniors and health transfers? Where could the government collect this money to be reinvested?
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 1:14:37 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Madam Speaker, I am rather excited to rise today. It is always a pleasure to talk about the environment in the House, especially since I was a member of an ECOSPHERE fair on the environment for more than 10 years.
I ended up there when I was working for Christian Ouellet, whose work inspired me. I tip my hat to him. As an MP, he was the Bloc Québécois deputy critic for the environment and natural resources. I did a lot of research for him for studies on all sorts of environmental aspects when I was working on Parliament Hill. Whenever we talk about the environment, the diversity of what we might find always strikes us. It affects so many aspects of our lives.
When I agreed to be an administrator for the ECOSPHERE fair at the time, I found it really interesting how that helped me see the impact that common household items and personal use items have on the environment. There is a lot of talk about microplastics, construction and renovation materials, what we use for transportation, as well as all the new technology for green vehicles. This touches a very large area of activity. It also gave me the opportunity, over many years, to have many conversations and to attend many conferences on the topic.
That said, today I rise to speak to Bill S-5 on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. I will start by saying that we are in favour of the principle of this bill. However, the Bloc Québécois deems that the Quebec nation has sole jurisdiction over public decisions concerning the environment and our Quebec territory. That was brought up earlier during questions and comments, and my colleague from La Pointe-de-l’Île also said it, rather eloquently: On April 13, 2022, parliamentarians from all parties in Quebec’s National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion asserting the primacy of Quebec’s jurisdiction over the environment. Elected representatives in Quebec unanimously oppose any federal government intervention in environmental matters in Quebec.
The Bloc Québécois fully endorses that position and strongly advocates for the interests and values of Quebec in the federal political arena. For us, that is really crucial, particularly as we have nothing to learn from the federal government when it comes to the environment. Quebec really has a great reputation, as I said. I realized that when working for the former member for Brome—Missisquoi, a great environmentalist who travelled internationally to represent Quebec in green architecture. We even have an international reputation when it comes to environmental matters.
That said, under our current laws, the federal government has certain environmental protection responsibilities. The Bloc Québécois will do everything in its power to ensure that the federal government properly carries out its duties. That obviously involves updating the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, or CEPA. This is a necessary legislative modernization, and we will give it all the attention it deserves.
We want to point out that Bill S-5 does not constitute a comprehensive review of the CEPA. In fact, not all parts of the act are covered by Bill S-5. The bill includes many elements that are particularly technical, but I will not go there today. Those elements merit serious study by the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, and I think that my colleague from Repentigny, who is on that committee, will do excellent work, supported by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. Together, I am sure they will do a great job on this file. We really want those members to do this work as part of the committee to ensure that the modernized law will truly allow the federal government to fulfill its environmental protection responsibilities, while respecting Quebec’s environmental sovereignty.
The Bloc Québécois has been critical of some of the partisan claims inserted into Bill S-5. We are not fooled by the Liberal government's claim that modernizing the act creates the right to a healthy environment. That is absolutely not the case, even according to the senior public servants who presented Bill S-5 to parliamentarians when it was tabled. First, it should be noted that all the sections pertaining to the right to a healthy environment and to vulnerable populations are found in CEPA's preamble. Their scope is that of the act itself. They have no impact on other Canadian laws. While the bill would add the protection of this right to the federal government's mission, the proposed amendments would not necessarily create a true fundamental right to live in a healthy environment, although that is the crucial point and what more and more people are calling for.
If the government were serious about creating a new right and had any political courage at all, it would propose that the federation partners hold a round of constitutional negotiations to include this right in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Since 2006, Quebec's Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms has stated: “Every person has a right to live in a healthful environment in which biodiversity is preserved”. Once again, Quebec is a trailblazer.
Unlike CEPA, the Quebec charter, in Quebec's political context, is quasi-constitutional in scope. This is not insignificant. Clearly, Quebec does not need Canada's help to promote and protect the fundamental rights of Quebeckers.
When it comes to advancing environmental justice or strengthening environmental protection in Quebec, it is futile to pin our hopes on the Canadian government. Just look at Bay du Nord, for one thing. Look at all the money the federal government is putting into the oil sands. Look at any number of issues. While Quebec is trying move away from oil, put money into a green transition, and support workers, the federal government continues to invest in all these fossil fuels.
Nevertheless, the Bloc Québécois does want to work with all parliamentarians on chemicals management, the list of toxic substances, improved risk management accountability, comprehensive assessment of the cumulative effects of substances, and mandatory labelling requirements to ensure that the repealed act reflects, to the greatest possible extent, the recommendations of stakeholders such as environmental health protection groups and chemical industry partners.
For all these reasons, the Bloc Québécois will be absolutely vigilant in its study of the strengthening environmental protection for a healthier Canada act. Bill S‑5, which amends the 1999 Canadian act, makes related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and repeals the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act, was introduced in the Senate by Senator Marc Gold and went through first reading on February 9, 2022. It is now at second reading, which began on March 1, 2022.
Perhaps the bill does seek to strengthen environmental protection for a healthier Canada, but as I said, it lacks teeth. It lacks something that Quebec has already. The bill is identical to Bill C-28, which was introduced by the environment minister and received first reading on April 13, 2021, before dying on the Order Paper on August 15, 2021, when the 43rd Parliament was dissolved. That brings us back to the impacts of the 2021 election. How many bills died on the Order Paper just for vote-seeking reasons? This bill did, but many others did too. I have risen in the House often to speak out against that election, which traded four quarters for a dollar at a great cost to taxpayers.
If the government were serious about its desire to get things done, it would not always be holding up the work. In August 2020, when it decided to prorogue the House, many reports were shelved, including the report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women on how the COVID-19 pandemic affected women. The 2021 election also resulted in a lot of reports being shelved. We see that there have been delays in far too many areas.
The bill is identical to Bill C‑28, as I said. This bill, which amends the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, is divided into 12 parts. We could come back to it in a much more precise way, but it is also important to mention that in 2017, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development published a report containing 87 recommendations, including the following: recognize and enforce the right to a healthy environment, address exposures of vulnerable populations to toxic substances, and recognize the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The government dragged its feet on this UN declaration for far too long. Canada was one of the last countries to sign on. It is really sad.
My time is running out. I had so much more to say, but I will just add that on the weekend, I met with Thibault Rehn, from Vigilance OGM. He was proud of the work the Bloc Québécois is doing in denouncing all this and calling for better traceability.
He also told me how proud it makes him to hear us talk about what we eat, what we put in our bodies, the work of the member for Berthier—Maskinongé at the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, and the work of the Bloc Québécois in general when it comes to the environment. I realize that I get fired up when I talk about the environment, I could have said a lot more—
1633 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 12:22:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, what worries me about this Conservative motion is the tax that could benefit oil companies. If we truly want to be free from the rising cost of oil, then we need to be less dependent on oil overall. My colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot illustrated this quite well. Right now, we need to be talking about investing in a green energy transition and divesting ourselves of oil.
How does my colleague explain his support for a government that, unfortunately, continues to invest in Bay du Nord and in the oil industry?
Also, we have not truly embarked on a transition. How does my colleague feel about the Liberals' failure to take action on the energy transition, which is an important step in distancing ourselves from this industry?
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/17/22 12:52:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby for his speech. I really feel for the people of British Columbia who have had to deal with the terrible, direct effects of climate change.
The member says he wants to go the extra mile to protect our environment, so how can he support a budget and a government that continue to perpetuate greenwashing, trying to convince us that “environment” and “Bay du Nord” go hand in hand and that “green oil” exists? This is brainwashing, and it is wrong.
If my colleague really wants to do something for the environment, perhaps his party should stop supporting the budget. I marched with Mothers Step In on Mother's Day this year. They are very disappointed with the Conservatives for denying climate change, with the Liberals for not doing enough and with the party supporting it.
155 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/26/22 1:54:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague put two words together that made me cringe. He said “clean oil”. We can agree that the oil from the oil sands in western Canada is anything but clean. In any case, those two words, side by side, are a good example of greenwashing.
We need to leave that behind. We have nothing against the fact that we need to invest in research and development to be able to propose much greener alternatives. Did the budget not miss the opportunity to invest in helping workers and industries in western Canada get out of the oil sector and focus on much greener industries?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/22/22 1:53:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about what his government has done with respect to green or energy-efficient retrofits. That is good. In the meantime, however, the numbers indicate that his government continues to invest heavily in the oil industry and in pipelines.
Would it not be better to invest that money in programs that help the victims of inflation, people with fixed incomes like seniors, including by increasing old age security starting at age 65, instead of 75 like his government is preparing to do?
Would it not be better to invest that money in the energy transition, in research and development, in much greener programs?
If that money were invested in those two things, it would go a long way to helping people deal with the problem of inflation.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 5:14:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my colleague has already said, no European leaders have asked us for Canadian gas.
Worse still, is this entire debate not becoming one big greenwashing exercise, even though there is no such thing as green oil or green gas?
Instead, we should be thinking about a transition, which is what the European leaders are asking of us. I would like my colleague's thoughts on that.
70 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/3/22 4:00:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech.
However, he used somewhat of a strong word, “activist”, as if all the people who are currently demanding that action be taken to reduce our carbon footprint were all activists.
The UN Secretary-General said this week that it was important, if not essential, to accelerate the energy transition. Ukrainian and other European leaders are telling us that they do not need the oil, and that we should be moving away from fossil fuels and fighting climate change.
Does my colleague think that all of these people are activists?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/21 4:49:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, in my lifetime, I have fought against the idea of transporting more oil in pipelines. When it comes to pipelines leaking, it is not a matter of “if”, but “when”. That sums up the entire problem with respect to the environment. That is why we need to stop investing in any new pipelines and embark on an energy transition.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/2/21 4:35:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my brilliant economist colleague from Mirabel is a hard act to follow. I do not know if I will be able to reach the bar he set, but I will give it a shot.
As I rise today for my first speech in this 44th Parliament, I am filled with immense gratitude. I would like to begin by thanking all of my volunteers, the members of my office team, my family, and my partner. I will stop here with the acknowledgements, not only because I am afraid that I will forget someone, but also because I want to save some time for my speech. However, before I begin, I do want to thank the voters of Shefford for placing their trust in me for a second term in these unusual times. This election was held in the middle of a pandemic, and now we can finally see what it was all for.
Here we have a new throne speech. My first impression is that this speech is full of things that interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, such as housing, police reform, mental health, natural resource management, violence prevention, and women's services. As well, it fails to mention major issues like health transfers, the energy transition, green finance, EI reform, agriculture, and, most importantly, seniors.
My colleagues will understand that, as the critic for the status of women, gender equality and seniors, my speech will focus on the following areas: seniors, health, women, and the economic recovery.
First, I noticed that seniors are completely left out of the Speech from the Throne, even though we have seen that they continue to suffer the effects of the pandemic. Their financial situation, which was already precarious long before the pandemic, has been exacerbated by the crisis, yet there is nothing for seniors aged 65 to 74, the ones the government always leaves behind.
The government could have taken advantage of the Speech from the Throne to right another wrong. I am referring to something that simply does not sit well with the seniors' groups I consulted, this idea of creating two classes of seniors: those 75 and up and those 74 and under. They should all be eligible for an OAS increase of $110 per month starting at age 65, as the Bloc Québécois is proposing.
It gets worse. In its Speech from the Throne, the government said nothing at all about seniors. I may be repeating myself, but it could have also addressed the GIS clawback that seniors who received the CERB are facing.
As early as spring 2020, ACEF groups contacted the Minister of National Revenue to share their concerns on this issue, but they got no response.
In August 2021, I sent a letter to the former Minister of Seniors, and my colleague, the member for Joliette, sent a message to the Minister of Finance. The election campaign started, and nothing happened. We have since sent letters to the new Minister of Seniors and the Minister of Finance.
Let me stress that our solution is simple. Drastic times call for drastic measures. We want CERB, in this case, to be considered employment income, not an “other benefit”. That is actually what it is.
Seniors who had to leave their jobs because of the pandemic were entitled to CERB. They should not have an average of $400 clawed back from their cheques. They should all be entitled to a review of their file based on their actual income. The impact on their monthly income is huge. They have to decide which medications to buy, they cannot afford good food, and they could lose their housing. For some, this is taking a significant toll on their health.
If pandemic recovery is still a priority for this government, it should make massive investments in health care and help lift the most vulnerable seniors out of poverty. Instead of interfering in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, as it is attempting to do by setting standards for long-term care homes and mental health, it should focus on what it can and should do: respond to Quebec and the provinces' demand to raise federal health transfers from 22% to 35%. That means increasing transfers from $42 billion to $60 billion, a difference of $28 billion per year.
The government has not made its intentions with respect to health transfers clear, but this is an absolutely vital issue, especially in light of events that have exposed what goes wrong when the system is chronically underfunded. Since the 1990s, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have invested enough. They have even cut their health transfers.
Quebec and Canadian provinces all agree that health transfers should be increased. The only ones objecting to fixing the chronic underfunding of health care systems are the Liberals, who were the only party that voted against a motion on this subject in the House of Commons that had the support of FTQ, CSN, CSQ and CSD leaders.
The third point I want to make is about gender-based violence, a topic that is particularly important to me as my party's status of women critic.
The national action plan to end gender-based violence is already in place, but a 10-year plan is far too long. The government needs to stop conducting studies and take action by sending the necessary money to Quebec.
The federal government may not know what to do, but Quebec does. The Bloc Québécois has always said that funds allocated to combat domestic violence should come from Canada health transfers.
Quebec is once again in a class of its own when it comes to family and social policy and the structure of its support network. Quebec has a single, cohesive, integrated network to provide health care services and social programs. The federal government's one-size-fits-all policies often overlap with existing Quebec programs, and it is harder for the Government of Quebec to implement its programs when it does not have full control.
This reality cannot be ignored and must be taken into account to ensure that any federal involvement is designed to be effective and to respect the ways in which Quebec is different.
The recognition of Quebec's special status needs to be an integral part of the process. Any federal involvement must be positive for Quebec and must support Quebec women and girls.
I could have spoken about many other issues, but that is what I hope will be brought forward in the next Parliament, only with a lot more teeth than what we read in this very meagre throne speech. On climate change, the government must not just say that Canada needs to put words into action and that time is of the essence. It must make far more commitments. For example, it must put a cap on oil and gas production, not increase it by focusing on fossil fuels. There is no such thing as clean oil or coal. The Liberals must stop their greenwashing.
The government has yet to table a plan with concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reach the 2030 target. It must admit that the Trans Mountain expansion is pointless and cancel this project. The money saved must be used to fund the green transition and a green recovery, as was already proposed by the Bloc Québécois in the post-COVID-19 recovery plan it released when Parliament resumed in September 2020. It proposed creating real green financing by encouraging the banks to invest heavily in the green recovery, clean energy, green technologies and energy efficiency, which will provide real protection for our environment in the long term.
We also need to ensure that the economy grows with targeted and prudent spending support, including the extension of support measures, as well as targeted support for affected industries, such as culture and tourism. Both of those economic sectors are so important to Shefford.
We will keep a close eye on how Bill C-2 is implemented and propose improvements. We also need to combat inflation and address the very important issue of the labour shortage, for which the Bloc Québécois made seven very worthwhile proposals during the last campaign.
We also need to work on family reunification and on a refugee resettlement program, and, really, the issue of immigration in general, since it remains so problematic and takes up so much of my office staff's time. We also need to work on the issue of social housing and homelessness.
In closing, I would point out that getting out of this crisis calls for a clear plan, and we saw no such thing in the throne speech.
To bring this full circle, let us look at seniors again. One way to protect people from the effects of inflation is to ensure decent purchasing power, especially for seniors. That is why people must be outraged.
As the great Quebec humorist Yvon Deschamps once said, one is always better off being rich and healthy than sick and poor. That was true in the 1960s and it is unfortunately still true in 2021 for far too many disadvantaged seniors.
We should be appalled by the disregard being shown to those who built Quebec and Canada. We must do something about it.
1581 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/1/21 4:23:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as the critic for status of women, I would like to congratulate you. I am very happy to see a woman in the chair.
That being said, I would like to make a comment. Then, I will ask my colleague from Regina—Qu’Appelle a question.
He spoke about what the U.S. President did about the Keystone XL pipeline after he was elected. Perhaps the U.S. President understands something that even the Conservatives do not seem to understand, namely that it is important that we make a green shift toward using less oil, not more. It is important to invest in a green recovery, a recovery that will truly allow us to develop new green technologies. Perhaps that is it. That is my comment, but, at the same time, my colleague spoke about investments.
I would like us to invest in green technology. I would also like my colleague to reassure me; in times of fiscal restraint, if there is a sector that should not suffer cuts, it is the health care sector. Unfortunately, both the Liberals and the Conservatives have had a tendency to make cuts to health care in times of fiscal restraint, and that is why we are in this situation today.
Does my colleague not think that it is important to reinvest massively in health transfers, up to 35%, just as it is important to invest in green technologies? Regardless of the state of the economy at the end of the pandemic, these two sectors will need investments.
258 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
