- Sep/27/22 2:59:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, throughout the pandemic, the Prime Minister kept telling Quebec and the provinces that he was prepared to discuss an increase in health transfers, but not until after the pandemic.
The federal government terminated all its health measures yesterday. It is time to address this issue. There is no longer anything to stop the government from tackling the other major public health crisis, namely, the chronic federal underfunding of health care.
The question is simple: When will the Prime Minister convene a summit on increasing health transfers?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Sep/27/22 12:06:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague opposite said that he expected the new Leader of the Opposition to bring in new ideas.
What does the member think about the fact that the new Leader of the Opposition does not know that the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec?
In addition, with inflation as it is, all economists are saying that we need targeted measures. In Quebec, however, there are some people whose livelihoods are at risk. Does my colleague support highly targeted programs to help people like farmers, taxi drivers and truckers?
This is something the Bloc Québécois is proposing.
103 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, as the minister knows, the Bloc Québécois is a vocal advocate for nation-to-nation relations between Quebec, Ottawa and indigenous nations.
The bill, as we understand it, would give indigenous peoples a stronger voice and allow them to be heard. In that sense, we should finally be able to make more realistic progress on reconciliation. We have been talking about it for ages. I remember talking about it in 2015. We were still talking about it in 2019. It is now 2022.
Could the minister tell us whether his hope is that the 94 recommendations will be implemented more quickly with this bill?
111 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague was saying earlier that the bill bypasses the work of Parliament by giving cabinet too much regulatory power.
This bill covers an important topic and principles that we all seem to agree on. What is more, the real work of the bill would be done through the regulations. For all these reasons, would my colleague agree to add a clause to the bill to ensure that parliamentarians are able to review the regulations and provide their input?
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate since this morning, and I think that many members agree on the principle of this bill. However, the bill basically says nothing about the terms and conditions, criteria, process or accountability in particular.
According to my colleague, what mechanism will enable parliamentarians to measure the effectiveness of the regulations that will be enacted to ensure they uphold the fine principle we are discussing this morning?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in a June 15 article in La Presse, Guillaume Parent wrote that the consultations could go on for three years.
What does my colleague think about that? Does she not think that is a rather long time to wait for people who are already in need?
50 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/23/22 10:55:04 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have not heard very many arguments from the government House leader so far.
What I do not understand is why this government is in such a rush to decide about a hybrid Parliament right now, when health measures have been completely relaxed for public transit, precisely where there could be the most problems. I do not understand why we need to decide on this today, when there has been no spike in cases.
I think that we could make this decision when the House resumes, but apparently that is not possible. It seems to be urgent that we decide today on whether to continue with a hybrid Parliament, when that is not the type of work we should be doing here. This is the people's House.
I do not understand. I would like to hear the reasons behind this. I have still not heard any from the government House leader, apart from the fact that he wants to accommodate his team.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member said that Bill C‑21 does not target hunting rifles and that hunters are capable of managing their firearms responsibly.
This bill, however, is a half measure. The member said people should feel safe. As a member from the Island of Montreal, he knows that there are neighbourhoods where people no longer feel safe.
Does he agree that Bill C‑21, while it may be a step in the right direction, should have gone much further and should have included stricter control at the border and joint efforts to fight organized crime and smuggling as well as the registry we have been talking about for weeks that could have given us more control over smuggling and made Montreal's streets safer?
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am not sure I understood. Perhaps something was lost in the interpretation. I do not know, but I am going to ask my colleague to clarify what he said.
He is telling us that it is all right if Bill C‑21 does not address street violence, because statistics show that there are more gun deaths related to suicide than to street violence.
Is the member seriously comparing those two concepts?
Why did he give such a frivolous example?
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, today I am speaking to Bill C-224, sponsored by the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne. This bill provides for the development of a national framework designed to raise awareness of cancers linked to firefighting and to support improved access for firefighters to cancer prevention and treatment, while also designating the month of January as firefighter cancer awareness month.
This bill has some very good points that we fully agree with, as well as some that are not so good, even though they come from a good place. Since we are at the stage of passing the bill in principle, I would like to say from the outset that we will be voting in favour of the principle of Bill C‑224, so that it can be sent to committee to be studied and improved.
We fully support the idea of officially designating January as firefighter cancer awareness month. Firefighting is considered to be one of the most demanding professions, both physically and psychologically. It is important to recognize that and focus on it.
Ever since childhood, it has been ingrained in our collective imagination that firefighters are real-life superheroes, and for good reason. Firefighters endure extremely difficult working conditions. They are constantly surrounded by hazards such as fire, electricity, chemicals, and toxic fumes. There is the ever-present risk of injury and burns. They often have brushes with death, and some of them even die. They push their bodies to their physical limits. In everything that they do and every move that they make, they are in a race against time, and each passing second wreaks havoc and ratchets up the danger level.
To further complicate matters, a number of recent studies show that firefighters also face invisible threats in the form of toxic chemicals that can cause long-term occupational illnesses, including heart disease, lung damage and cancer, and it is easy to understand why. When firefighters battle a blaze inside and outside a building, they are exposed to dangerous toxic gases. Wearing a respirator helps protect them by minimizing exposure to inhaled chemicals, but particles can stick to and contaminate their protective clothing, mask, boots and gloves, meaning that by touching them, firefighters can become contaminated through their skin. This is a real problem that cannot be ignored and must be addressed quickly. That is why we will vote to accept this bill in principle.
We want firefighters to know that this issue matters to us, that we recognize the amazing work they do and that we are deeply grateful to them. The federal government can play a huge role in many aspects of firefighters' health, and this bill puts forward some very interesting ones, such as the following points that would be in the national framework:
(a) explain the link between firefighting and certain types of cancer;
...
(d) promote research and improve data collection on the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting;
(e) promote information and knowledge sharing in relation to the prevention and treatment of cancers linked to firefighting;
It is very important that the federal government fund research on these cancers and their treatments and make that information widely available. That really is an essential part of the equation that goes hand in hand with collecting data on prevention to increase our knowledge about illnesses related to this profession. What did we know 30 years ago about toxic residues being absorbed through the skin and how serious that could be? Very little.
The federal government also contributes through the memorial grant program for first responders, the heavy urban search and rescue program, and the plan to protect firefighters, which is based on managing and authorizing chemicals.
The problem with Bill C‑224 is that the strategy it proposes is flawed. The work of firefighters generally does not fall under federal jurisdiction, yet two of the bill's suggestions are outlined as though the government did have jurisdiction in these matters.
First, paragraph 3(3)(c) requires the strategic framework proposed by the member for Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne to include measures to “provide for firefighters across Canada to be regularly screened for cancers linked to firefighting”. The idea that professionals exposed to a cancer risk should have access to periodic cancer screening obviously makes sense. That is clear to us. That should happen. The problem is that the federal government has no jurisdiction here, and so it is difficult to imagine that this aspect of the bill would be of any use in advancing our firefighters' worthy cause.
If the federal government wants to ensure that firefighters' cancers are detected in time, it should give the Quebec and provincial health care systems the means to make that happen by increasing health transfers to 35%, with a 6% escalator. This would get the health care systems in Quebec and the provinces back on track and help them detect cancer in firefighters and other patients in time to treat them effectively. That is the federal government's responsibility.
Furthermore, paragraph 3(3)(f) requires the national framework to include measures to “establish national standards to recognize cancers linked to firefighting as occupational diseases”. Unfortunately, while the federal government does have free rein to set national standards for the firefighters under its jurisdiction, such as firefighters working in the armed forces, it cannot under any circumstances set federal standards that would infringe on the jurisdictions of the Quebec and provincial labour boards.
Under the Constitution Act, 1867, workplace safety is a provincial jurisdiction, excluding federally regulated businesses. In Quebec, the Commission des normes, de l'équité, de la santé et de la sécurité du travail, or CNESST, has the authority to compensate workers who contract work-related illnesses. In Quebec, nine cancers are currently recognized as being linked to firefighting. That said, the Bloc Québécois agrees that this is far from perfect and that more needs to be done. Let us be clear: Nine is not enough.
We support these demands from firefighters and believe that what is recognized in other provinces for the same work should logically also be recognized in Quebec. However, that is not for Bill C‑224 to determine. These are recommendations and submissions that will have to be made to the proper authorities. The federal government has no role to play here. If Bill C‑224 were adopted as is, it could wind up causing a jurisdictional battle at the expense of firefighters. The last thing we want to do is exploit them.
According to the Constitution Act, 1867, municipal institutions fall under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. In Quebec, for instance, the responsibilities associated with fire prevention, fire preparedness and firefighting are clearly set out in the Fire Safety Act, which divides the responsibilities among citizens, municipalities, the provincial government and the various fire departments.
We recognize that progress has been made and must continue to be made to ensure that firefighters have better protections, but ultimately, we need to remember that the federal government has no jurisdiction over workplace health and safety or over occupational diseases among firefighters. Interference in jurisdictions is never an effective solution, in the short or long term.
Let us work together to advance this cause and reach out to the authorities who actually have the power to change things. We will vote in favour of the principle of the bill. We want to improve it in committee to ensure that the bill can meet its objectives and protect our firefighters.
1278 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 4:41:09 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, given that Bill C‑5 mixes two issues, diversion for addiction and simple possession of drugs, and mandatory minimum sentences, I will ask my colleague a two-part question.
First, with respect to mandatory minimum sentences, does she not believe that, in the current context of gun violence in Montreal and other areas, it would have been better for the government to accept the Bloc Québécois's amendment, which involved maintaining these minimums but giving judges, whose prerogative is to determine the sentence, the possibility of deviating from them in mitigating circumstances?
I will limit myself to this first question, Mr. Speaker, as you are indicating that my time is up.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/14/22 3:37:53 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Mr. Speaker, during the debate on Bill C-5, I often heard colleagues from all parties state that they were in favour of diversion and preventing addicts from being criminalized. However, the problem with this bill is that it combines two completely different issues.
Can my colleague tell me why he thinks the government combined these two issues into one bill?
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C‑282, An Act to amend the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act (supply management).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my great pleasure to introduce, seconded by my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, a bill whose purpose is to take the symbolic support of the majority of MPs in the House and make it tangible to protect supply management from further dilution in future international trade negotiations.
With the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement with Europe, the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, and the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, the government really did a number on this agricultural system. Food producers and processors are still assessing the scale of the damage caused by the implementation of these three trade agreements.
Very simply, this bill would amend section 10 of the Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development Act by adding provisions to exclude supply management from negotiations.
I hope a majority of members will once again vote in favour of this bill, which our agriculture and agri-food sector is eagerly awaiting.
188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:45:01 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I would like to begin by reassuring my colleague. I did not say that she was illogical; I said that I was having a hard time understanding her logic, which is not the same thing.
That said, the Bloc Québécois stands up every day to tell the government that Bill C-5 is not enough and that we need to fight organized crime and create a registry of criminal organizations. Given what the hon. member was saying about borders and the current shortcomings in the fight against organized crime, I presume that she supports our bill and will vote for it.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:41:25 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I am having a hard time understanding my colleague's logic. Bill C‑5 is not yet in effect, but she is saying that six people will die today. The current approach is rigid prohibition, rigid enforcement, an approach that has never worked.
Does she know that harm reduction specifically means focusing police and judicial resources in order to fight back against traffickers and criminal organizations?
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:28:30 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I want tell my colleague that I truly appreciated his enlightening speech. We both served on the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying. I want to tell him that I agree with his analysis of the work that judges do, especially with respect to sentencing.
I would like him to tell me about some of the negative effects of minimum sentences with respect to these changes, because minimum sentences do have negative effects.
Can he provide some examples to help us understand why judges should have full responsibility over sentencing, which is the nature of their job?
101 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 1:12:27 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned Portugal. He raised the issue of the financial resources that must support such a process. João Goulão was the author of this reform in Portugal. In response to someone who asked if they should go ahead with this diversion, or decriminalization, as he called it, he replied that, if the means were not there, and if the necessary funding was not provided for frontline resources, it would be better to leave the problem to the justice system.
I would like to ask my colleague if he feels the government is willing to inject the necessary funds to support a reform seeking to resolve such fundamental problems as the opioid crisis.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 12:59:56 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, I will try to remain calm. I am not sure I properly understood the intervention of my colleague, who cynically described people with addictions as criminals who deserve mercy from the government.
Is the Conservative member aware of what is happening around the world in the fight against addiction? Does he know how many heroin addicts there were in Portugal before diversion programs and decriminalization were brought in? There were 100,000. Today, there are only 15,000.
I would like the member to clarify what he meant and drop the cynicism toward people addicted to heroin or other substances.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/9/22 12:45:12 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill C-5
Madam Speaker, it certainly was not the idea of the century for the government to introduce within Bill C‑5 two completely different problems, but my colleague did not say much about the issue of diversion measures for addiction. I want to know what he thinks about the fact that we are criminalizing people with addictions. Does he really think that this is the answer to ending the opioid crisis, for example, when this same approach has been used for about 50 years?
I would like his thoughts on that.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/7/22 5:54:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have already asked one of her colleagues this question, but perhaps this member could answer it.
I have previously spoken with several economists, including Bernard Landry, who was one of my mentors. We have already been in situations where we would have liked to eliminate the gas tax. As he explained, the problem with this approach is that there is no way of ensuring that what is being removed would not go into the pockets of the oil companies. We have no way of ensuring that that money would get to consumers.
Could the member explain how she would make sure this happened, or what she would do to guarantee that the consumer was not the one left to pay again?
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
