- Member of Parliament
- Member of Parliament
- Bloc Québécois
- Shefford
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 66%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $81,135.43
- Government Page
- May/11/23 2:15:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the pathetic circus has returned to the Hill. With their fake smiles and their fake compassion, these anti-choice, anti-women demonstrators have returned. We see once again the generous Conservative donors eagerly waiting to applaud the few members of the official opposition who will come out to encourage them and sing the praises of their holy crusade against women's rights.
They are there, en masse, with their signs, showing their sweetest, most inoffensive faces. However, these are the same people who intimidate doctors in front of abortion clinics, try to make young women feel guilty and threaten staff. They call themselves pro-life, but they have no problem wrecking anyone's life. They are incapable of recognizing that a woman's body belongs to her at all times. They are incapable of recognizing that women do not have to justify the decisions we make about our bodies to anyone.
I am proud to belong to a party that defends women's right to abortion and even more proud to be a member of a nation that has already listened to the cause.
These people have the right to protest, and that is truly their right. However, they should not expect our respect and they shall not have it.
212 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/28/23 12:52:45 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou is always a tough act to follow. It is truly not easy, but I will try to speak today with sensitivity to this situation in Iran, a very complex subject.
As the critic for the status of women, I have been asked about this topic many times, and I am particularly concerned about the situation of Iranian women and girls. Our debate today concerns more specifically the 11th report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. To help people follow my speech, I will read the motion:
That the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration report the following to the House: In light of the downing of Ukrainian International Airlines flight PS 752 by the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), and in light of the killing of Mahsa Amini by the Iranian Guidance Patrol, that the committee demands the government stop issuing visas to all Iranian nationals directly affiliated with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), Iranian Armed Forces, Iranian Guidance Patrol or Iranian intelligence organizations and that, pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee request a response to the report by the government.
I will quickly provide some context, discuss the situation of women in Iran, and reiterate the role we have to play in this.
First, Ukraine International Airlines flight PS752 was shot down over Iran on January 8, 2020. The United States and Iran had started attacking each other after the United States killed a high-ranking Iranian officer, General Qasem Soleimani, near the Baghdad airport on January 3, 2020. Iran also attacked an American airport in Iraq on the night of January 7 to 8, 2020, in retaliation for Soleimani's death. Iran may have been expecting a U.S. counterattack, so its air defence system was on high alert. A total of 176 people died on the downed flight, including 63 Canadians.
I will now turn to the Mahsa Amini affair. The election of Ebrahim Raisi as President of Iran in 2021 marked the rise to power of the most conservative wing of the Combatant Clergy Association. Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei is said to be in ill health and could die soon. For these reasons, authorities are becoming more rigorous in the application of Velayat-e faqih.
Mahsa Amini was a Kurdish Iranian woman who was arrested by the morality police in Tehran on September 13 for allegedly violating Iran's strict female dress code. She was killed by Iran's morality police just for wearing her hijab “improperly”. She died in hospital three days later, on September 16, 2022. Mahsa Amini, a Kurdish Iranian woman, was only 22 years old.
Her death was followed almost immediately by protests on an unprecedented scale for Iran. Iran forces women to wear the hijab. Mahsa Amini was wearing her hijab, but her hair was slightly visible. This was the reason she was arrested and fatally beaten by police. Her death led to major demonstrations against the regime throughout Iran, and more than 500 people have died so far, while many others are determined to overthrow the regime. Mahsa's death sparked nationwide protests, with Iranian women leading the charge, as well as solidarity rallies around the world.
Activists say that Mahsa suffered a head wound while in custody. Iranian authorities deny any physical contact between the police and the young woman and say that they are awaiting the results of the investigation. Iran's largest protests since the 2019 unrest over increased fuel prices were met with a violent crackdown. According to the latest report from the Oslo-based NGO Iran Human Rights, at least 92 people have been killed since September 16. An official report lists some 60 dead, including 12 members of Iran's security forces.
The international community denounced the crackdown, and some countries imposed sanctions. As a reminder, here is the motion I moved in October:
That the House:
(a) reiterate its unconditional support for Iranian women who are peacefully demonstrating for their rights in Iran;
(b) condemn the killings, intimidation, and acts of violence initiated by the Iranian state against protesters who support the women's liberation movement in Iran; and
(c) call on the United Nations to withdraw Iran from its Commission on the Status of Women.
Last month, I also supported a petition presented by the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill that urged non-partisan action. It reads:
We, the undersigned, residents of Aurora, Oak Ridges, and Richmond Hill, Ontario, draw the attention of Leah Taylor Roy, MP for Aurora–Oak Ridges–Richmond Hill to the following and ask for her help in bringing this matter to The House of Commons.
THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Leah Taylor Roy, MP, to: Demand the Canadian Government urgently follow through with the actions against the Iranian regime which includes making the regime, the IRGC and top leaders inadmissible to Canada, expanding sanctions against those responsible for human rights violations and denying them entry to Canada, and investing more money to allow sanctioned Iranian person's assets to be quickly frozen and seized. The Regime and its most senior officials - including the IRGC - be immediately banned from entering Canada, and current and former senior officials present here be investigated and removed from the country as soon as possible.
We also ask that you insist that the Minister of Global Affairs, the Hon. Mélanie Joly, and the Government of Canada, with its partners and allies, have Iran removed from the UN Commission on the Status of Women, which is the principal global intergovernmental body exclusively dedicated to the promotion of gender equality and the empowerment of women.
That is the petition we presented here in the House.
The United States announced economic sanctions against seven high-ranking Iranian officials for their roles in the crackdown. According to a press release from the Treasury Department, Minister of the Interior Ahmad Vahidi, the key figure behind the crackdown, and Minister of Communications Issa Zarepour, the person responsible for the shameful attempt to block Internet access, were two of the individuals sanctioned. Washington had already announced a slew of sanctions against the Iranian morality police and several security officials on September 22.
Iran's strict dress code forces women to wear the Islamic head scarf, but according to videos posted online, women are leading the protests in Iran. Schoolgirls even organized rallies in several regions, where they removed their hijabs and shouted anti-regime slogans.
In a video verified by AFP, bare-headed young girls chanted “Death to the dictator”, referring to Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei, one Monday at a school in Karaj, west of Tehran. Some of these girls lost their lives. Right now, there are allegations that female students were poisoned simply because they decided to protest.
Getting back to the motion, it seeks to sanction members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Iranian armed forces by refusing them visas. However, prohibiting entry to the country is a complex issue, since many people serving in the Iranian armed forces are conscripts.
For example, one Iranian-born man was refused entry to Canada because he served in the armed forces 20 years ago. The United States is also imposing similar restrictions, which many are calling discriminatory.
It would be more reasonable to make decisions on a case-by-case basis. Generally speaking, refusing to issue visas to individuals who are currently on active service seems appropriate, but it is not that simple.
On November 14, 2022, Canada announced that it had designated Iran as a regime that has engaged in terrorism. As a result, tens of thousands of high-ranking officials, including senior members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps, the army and the morality police, were denied entry to Canada. Low-ranking members of these organizations are dealt with on a case-by-case basis, which is a reasonable approach. For example, those who committed war crimes or other crimes would be inadmissible to Canada regardless of their rank.
Because of the conscription in Iran, all men aged 18 and over must serve in the military. It is therefore reasonable that the Canadian government maintain a certain amount of leeway in its sanctions. We do not want to see a case like the one of a family of Iranian refugees in Saskatoon, who are trying to get a brother who remained in Turkey into Canada. The brother was refused entry because of his military service in Iran 20 years ago. There are many of these types of cases in the news.
Keyvan Zarafshanpour, a 38-year-old man, and his family managed to settle in Canada about three years ago, after fleeing religious persecution in Iran. Keyvan’s older brother Kaveh Zarafshanpour is still in Turkey. Canada refused him entry for supporting a terrorist organization because he served his compulsory military service in the IRGC.
Members can see where this is going. That is why a case-by-case approach is important. There are also branches of the Iranian Armed Forces that are designated as terrorist organizations in the United States, but not in Canada.
Clearly, there is a lot we still have to look into. We need to show considerable diplomacy depending on the situation. I think it is better that way. There are still a lot of grey areas.
For example, in an email, the Canada Border Services Agency stated that it processes applications as quickly as possible, adding that the average wait time is eight years. We also need to take into account the time it takes to process applications. In short, the situation is nothing short of deplorable.
In closing, I will say: woman, life, freedom. Women and girls also have the right to freedom of expression. Women and girls also have the right to a secular state where they are no longer murdered for who they are, where they do not see their rights slipping away, and where they can continue to live a dignified life.
1680 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/31/22 3:10:19 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:
That the House:
(a) reiterate its unconditional support for Iranian women who are peacefully demonstrating for their rights in Iran;
(b) condemn the killings, intimidation, and acts of violence initiated by the Iranian state against protesters who support the women's liberation movement in Iran; and
(c) call on the United Nations to withdraw Iran from its Commission on the Status of Women.
89 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:14:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Beauport—Limoilou for her important question.
As politicians, we definitely needed to listen to the different voices that were heard loud and clear during the protest. This was not about commenting, taking sides or taking a stand. Our goal was to bring the various parties together.
My colleague talked about the lessons we can learn from all of this. What we need to remember is that we need to listen, but more importantly, that we need to bring everyone together, for example, through the all-party committee we talked a lot about.
We could have brought many people together, held—
109 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:12:57 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, indeed, I addressed this issue.
The Prime Minister should not have been acting like a political commentator, making inappropriate comments. He should have acted like a political leader, led an all-party committee to get everyone around the same table, and come up with a peaceful solution.
All he accomplished by doing that, as I said, was to make the situation worse. That is typical of him. We saw it with the Wet'suwet'en crisis. The Prime Minister has this tendency to let things drag on and let crises escalate, hoping that everything will magically resolve itself.
That is not how things work. We need a leader who can bring people together to find solutions in a crisis.
121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:11:19 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
I think I have demonstrated in my speech that this is not a national crisis, but one that is limited to Ottawa.
Elsewhere, such as in Quebec City, the crises that occurred were resolved, because there was co-operation. Right now, both the police and the governments have all the tools that they need to act. In Quebec City, there was coordination between the Quebec department of public security and the mayor, who had the political will, who showed leadership, and who warned protesters that unruly behaviour would not be tolerated. There was none, because there was coordination with the Quebec City police. This was also the case elsewhere, in different places, and in different positions.
The necessary tools were available, and the Emergencies Act was not. All it does is add fuel to the fire and feed hatred and division.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 7:01:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by commending my colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert for his passionate speech and, more importantly, for finally agreeing to share his time with me.
It is with great concern that I rise today to participate in this historic debate. I would like to begin with a quick question. How do my colleagues feel when they see the images of the charging horses and the confrontations that have been playing on a loop on television for hours now?
Personally, I am wondering how we got to this point. I know that I am not the first one to say it, and that many of my colleagues have already talked about this, but I want to reiterate that we are still against applying the Emergencies Act across Canada.
First of all, I want to remind members that I have a degree in applied policy studies from the Université de Sherbrooke, which has helped make me a staunch democrat. I cannot help but wonder and worry about the message that the government is sending with the use of this measure, which undermines our democratic system.
Second, I will address the risk of radicalization, and third, I will talk about respect for jurisdictions and the demands of Quebec and the provinces and territories. One thing is certain, I will not be standing on a soap box, like some others have tried to do.
From the standpoint of democracy, we must ask ourselves whether this act really should have been invoked. In order to invoke the Emergencies Act, the government must demonstrate two things. First, it must demonstrate that a dangerous and urgent situation exists. Second, it must demonstrate that ordinary laws cannot adequately address the situation.
As to the first condition, yes, there is indeed a dangerous and urgent situation. That situation is limited to Ontario, however, and specifically to Ottawa. The Bloc Québécois is not against applying the act, but it should be applied only where there is an occupation, which did not happen in Quebec. I know other members have already made this point in the debate, but it is worth repeating: This use of this act is not to be taken lightly. Its application must therefore be measured and balanced.
Another thing that worries me is that a broader application of this law than necessary could set a dangerous precedent. At this point, I have a few more questions. For example, why is the Prime Minister determined to apply this law everywhere, especially when he himself has said many times that it will not be used where it is not necessary?
The Prime Minister also stated, here in the House and in the supplementary documents pertinent to the motion, that he was concerned that other blockades would be set up elsewhere in Canada, particularly given the galvanizing effect of social media. As I will argue later, I believe that this legislation is actually one of the things fuelling support for protesters on social media.
No matter how hard I try to look at this issue from every angle, I simply do not see the real and imminent danger of the current situation in Ottawa happening elsewhere. Such historic legislation should never be invoked “just in case”.
I can only assume that the debate would be quite different if the motion had been limited to the province of Ontario. The government could have easily obtained a majority of votes in Parliament. The only reason we are here debating this now is that the government dragged its feet, as it has too often done since the beginning of its mandate.
This could have been addressed using ordinary legislation, with proper coordination and effective collaboration among police forces, as we have seen in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada. Why did the government not emulate what was done elsewhere in Canada and in Quebec before invoking the Emergencies Act?
Furthermore, if we look back a bit to try and see what we could have done, we will see that the Emergencies Act was not needed to settle the rail blockades of 2020, the Oka crisis, the crisis at Caledonia, the events of September 11, the COVID‑19 pandemic or any other dispute in Canadian history.
Using the act too liberally or too broadly, or applying it needlessly, poses a real risk of sending the wrong message to the political class, and above all to Canadians.
The government has been aware of the facts for a long time now, since some protesters turned into occupiers who were here to say. It simply continued to say that the responsibility of managing this crisis fell to the Ottawa police. On February 6, the City of Ottawa declared a state of emergency and, the very next day, the Ottawa police asked the province and the federal government for reinforcements. That was more than 12 days ago.
The Bloc Québécois wanted constructive action from the start. If the government had listened even just a little bit, if it had truly wanted to show political leadership, and if it had sat down at the table with representatives, if it had established a plan to intervene or simply helped come up with a plan, we probably would not be here.
I was listening to a constitutional expert this morning. He explained quite clearly that we already had the means to intervene. The highway safety code, the City of Ottawa bylaws, the Criminal Code and a tripartite collaboration would have allowed the different police services to coordinate in order to reinforce existing laws.
The declaration of the state of emergency in Ontario by the Ford government on February 11 had already given significant powers to the Ottawa police and the provincial police. Again, the federal government should have realized that, but instead it decided to bury its head in the sand and hide when the situation was serious.
At this time it seems that the blockades might be over before the Emergencies Act is implemented. We therefore cannot really link the act to the end of the blockades.
What is more, each crisis includes a risk of radicalization. Obviously, we hope that everything will end without violence, but we are also aware that as the number of protesters decreases, the closer we get to the hard core, even extremist, group. These are very likely people who have nothing to do with the spirit of the January 29 protest. The remaining participants in the crowd are increasingly unstable and unpredictable. We are right to wonder what ideas the occupiers will leave with, because they currently feel emboldened by their supporters and have financial backing. We have seen how well organized they are.
This summer, I was reading a book about the new age of violent extremism and radicalization in western democracies entitled Le nouvel âge des extrêmes? Les démocraties occidentales, la radicalisation et l'extrémisme violent, edited by David Morin and Sami Aoun in collaboration with Sylvana Al Baba Douaihy. I am interested in this issue, especially since it was studied last spring at the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, of which I am the vice-chair, and the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security, where I have participated as a substitute. The tone is set from the first paragraph of the introduction, and it has informed my arguments on the effects of the Emergencies Act, which runs the risk of throwing fuel on the fire. In his book entitled The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth History 1914-1991, published in 1994, Eric John Hobsbawn wrote that the century was not ending well. You do not need to be a prophet of doom to recognize that the 21st century is not off to a much better start.
In the last two decades we have seen a wave of Islamist terrorists, several civil and international conflicts, millions of victims and displaced people, a major migrant crisis, the rise of violent far-right populism and the acceleration of climate change. To this bleak portrait we must now add the COVID-19 pandemic, which caused a global health crisis.
Furthermore, Quebec said that it wanted nothing to do with this act. The protest held in Quebec's capital showed that problems can be prevented when there is strong political will. I want to commend law enforcement for their professionalism and for their exemplary responses. The question here is not so much about the Emergencies Act itself as it is about the reasons why the situation got to this point. The question answers itself.
I have one last thing to say. When I think of the Liberal government, the image that keeps coming to mind is of a firefighter arsonist. The Prime Minister has favoured the wait-and-see approach. He let the situation drag on and deteriorate but did nothing. True to form, he stood by and watched it all happen. He also insulted and dismissed the protesters by tarring them all with the same brush. Now, he has invoked the Emergencies Act to make it seem that he is putting out the fire he himself started, but instead he is adding fuel to the fire, stoking the flames of hate and division.
1563 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Dec/8/21 7:08:00 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-3
Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to something my colleague mentioned in his speech. I have already had the opportunity to ask questions about Bill C-3. Obviously, nobody can be against sick days and apple pie.
My colleague gave two examples related to the right to protest that are of particular interest to me. The first example, specifically protests in front of abortion clinics, is of particular interest to me as the critic for status of women. Indeed, those protesters can sometimes do more harm than good, since the women who need to attend those clinics are often going through an already difficult and intensely private experience.
My hon. colleague also drew a parallel with a previous bill, Bill C-205. As a member representing a rural riding, I have heard a lot about the harm protesters have caused to animals.
Can my colleague talk about the need to balance the right to protest with the fact that these protests sometimes do far more harm than good?
170 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
