So V ote

Feb/21/22 10:46:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix. I taught political philosophy for 30 years. The democratic ideal is at the heart of my political involvement. That is why I am a sovereignist, because the political sovereignty of the people is the very foundation of the democratic ideal. The debate that is coming to a close today is one of the most serious debates I have ever participated in in the House, because the Emergencies Act is the most powerful and coercive action that a nation governed by the rule of law can impose in a democracy. Government by decree is the antithesis of the exercise of legislative power. Such decrees cannot be made based on feelings, frustration with what others are saying, or ideological differences—whether far left or far right—or simply to cover up incompetence on the pretext of a legal vacuum. It is not with joy in my heart or without emotion that I rise today. I never would have thought that the 10-year-old-boy from a working-class neighbourhood of Montreal who was forced to walk by armoured tanks and soldiers armed with machine guns every morning for the duration of the October crisis, because his school was right next to the police headquarters on Parthenais Street, would end up in the House of Commons 52 years later debating the Emergencies Act. I remember the fear and the intense climate of suspicion that gripped the neighbourhood every time there was a police operation or arrest, whether or not it made the news, involving people we considered to be perfectly ordinary, like us, with no criminal record and far from being terrorists, as we rightly thought. Despite the emotion I am feeling by recalling this memory, I never would have failed in my duty to add my voice to that of my colleagues in this debate that started long before January 29, in the wake of a global health crisis that has affected our lives, everyone's quality of life, that has left thousands of families in mourning, that for two years now has challenged our sense of solidarity and mutual goodwill and that gives new meaning to the old adage, “One person's freedom ends where another's begins”. This should lead us as parliamentarians to be more careful than ever not to set a precedent, but also to be as thorough as possible in order to maintain the increasingly fragile trust the public has in their democratic institutions. The issue here is not the opinions or the interpretation that different people can have of democracy or freedom. As we saw in the streets for 23 days, and in many other countries of the world throughout history, people can say and do many things in the name of freedom and democracy. However, in a country governed by the rule of law and in a self-proclaimed free and democratic society, the legitimacy of the government's power in relation to its citizens must be guided by and measured against a fundamental question that must be answered to prevent abuse of power. What are the limits to the government's power to intervene? My questions arise only out of the desire to understand the necessity of invoking this act. I would point out that it is special legislation, which, let us not forget, was developed in 1988 to replace the War Measures Act so that the executive branch, meaning the government, any government, regardless of its political stripes, can never again claim the absolute power to trample rights and freedoms for political purposes, nor engage in abuse of power with impunity. I recognize that it is not the same act. Much like Thomson and Thompson are not the same, these acts are not the same. With this act, however, the government has brought out the heavy artillery. In 1988, parliamentarians created some safeguards, and one of those safeguards was us, as members of Parliament. We have a duty to question the legitimacy of the Emergencies Act, which was invoked in response to a situation we all now know, when the government stood by for 21 days. To all those who claim we are living in a dictatorship, I do want to point out that totalitarian and dictatorial regimes rarely hold the kinds of debates we have been having today. These types of debates are the essence of a parliamentary democracy, of a representative democracy, but we also have to live up to that responsibility and maintain credibility. Unfortunately, the sequence of events and the failure to implement the necessary measures in response to the siege of the federal capital do not justify these orders. How did we wind up here? According to the Emergencies Act, the government had a responsibility to consult the provinces and report on those consultations to establish that there was a nationwide emergency. Seven out of 10 premiers opposed the use of the Emergencies Act in their provinces because they did not feel it was necessary. Two of the three other premiers said that they did not need this special legislation. What national crisis are the Liberals talking about when they continue to claim that the Emergencies Act must absolutely be confirmed? We are hearing that it is useful, but it must be proven indispensable. Even the Quebec National Assembly saw fit to distance itself from the process and unanimously adopted a motion against the application of the law in Quebec. It reads: That the National Assembly be concerned about the current disruptions in Ontario and around certain federal border crossings; That it affirm that no emergency situation currently justifies the use of special legislative measures in Québec; That it ask the Canadian government to not apply the federal Emergencies Act in Québec; That, lastly, the National Assembly reiterate the importance of close collaboration between the federal government and the Québec government, in particular to ensure peace of mind and safety for citizens in the Outaouais region who are affected by the ongoing demonstrations in Ottawa and who could have to bear the brunt of any further deterioration of the situation. The Government of Canada has ignored the requirement to demonstrate a national emergency. How can it claim a national emergency when seven premiers say they do not need this legislation? How can we draw any other conclusion besides that the usual laws were sufficient? I can understand that the members sitting on the government side feel obliged to support their government's shaky logic and failure to provide the required proofs. However, I am of the opinion that there should be a free vote on such a fundamental issue. This minority government did not do its homework, but because it has the support of the NDP, it does not matter if it fulfills the obligations set out in the act. As we speak, the siege in Ottawa has ended. The so-called national crisis that the government failed to demonstrate no longer exists. In the circumstances, I wonder if the NDP is aware that by voting with the government, it is an accomplice to setting a dangerous precedent by accepting such a low bar and that, one day, a majority government may use it to do something even worse. The government failed to fulfill another requirement, that of demonstrating, in accordance with section 3 of the act, that any other law of Canada, the regular laws, cannot effectively deal with the emergency situation of this alleged national crisis. Not only did the government not prove this, but it did not even try. My colleagues from Joliette and Rivière-du-Nord eloquently and methodically explained that existing legislation was sufficient to resolve the situation and that seven out of 10 premiers were opposed to the invocation of the Emergencies Act in their provinces, because they had the situation under control. This clearly demonstrates that the conditions of section 3 were not met. In conclusion, I invite members of all parties to vote according to the highest principles that should limit the exercise of the government's power to ensure its legitimacy and guarantee the rule of law. This will result in a parliamentary democracy where not only can the general will of the people be expressed, but also where different points of view can be heard, rather than being relegated to the streets.

1429 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 9:56:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, proclaiming the Emergencies Act is the executive branch's measure of last resort. Out of respect for those of us in the legislative branch, and given the gravity of the issues, does my colleague think there should be a free vote on this question?

46 words

All Topics

Feb/21/22 9:28:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, according to some constitutional experts, it is not enough for the Emergencies Act to be useful for the government to proclaim its application. It must be demonstrated that it is necessary and indispensable. Would my colleague agree that this will be difficult if not impossible to demonstrate, given that the conflict has been allowed to worsen for three weeks, and that not all the legal tools available have been deployed?

72 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 20 - Jan/31/22

Feb/21/22 9:01:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to hear the member for Oxford on the fact that the Liberal members are suggesting that the Emergencies Act’s usefulness for coordinating police forces is enough to warrant its use. However, the test is much more important and imposing: It is the necessity and essential nature of the act. Will this legislation be used every time that it is useful for coordinating police forces?

71 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 20 - Jan/31/22

Jan/31/22 3:15:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been consultations among the parties, and I believe you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: That this House salute the dedication of the health care workers who have been tirelessly on the front lines for 22 months administering vaccines and caring for the patients of COVID-19.

58 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 20 - Jan/31/22

Jan/31/22 2:04:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is Suicide Prevention Week, and it is more important than ever to talk about suicide. We are going through a difficult time together, and talking about suicide saves lives. We are all at our wits' end: isolated seniors, people living alone, our children who are making so many sacrifices, our caregivers. However, we must remember that we are in this together, that we are not alone. Lockdown measures will begin to ease this week. We will get through yet another winter. However, if people do not know how they are going make it, if they see no end to this, then they need to speak up, talk to their loved ones and ask for help. They will be surprised at how much of a difference it makes, how much they are loved and just how much support is available to those who need it. If they talk about it, they will be heard.

157 words

Context: House Hansard - 16 - Dec/13/21

Jan/31/22 12:01:02 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the throne speech is ultimately a reflection of the last election, which was useless. Maybe the Liberal government could have taken this opportunity to connect with the people of Quebec, especially seniors. Why does my colleague think the Liberal government insists on creating two classes of seniors, even as inflation surges?

54 words

Context: House Hansard - 16 - Dec/13/21

Dec/13/21 1:27:40 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech, but I would like him to clarify something about maintaining mandatory minimum sentences. Would Bill C‑5 maintain mandatory minimum mandatory sentences for firearms offences? I am thinking of firearms trafficking, firearms importation and exportation, certain restricted or prohibited uses of firearms, and use and authorization related to organized crime. While my colleague may not be able to offer us any guarantees, would he at least be open to maintaining these sentences?

85 words

All Topics

Dec/13/21 11:51:58 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-5

Madam Speaker, I would like to give my hon. colleague a chance to talk about something he failed to mention regarding this bill. Perhaps he has an opinion on this. Does he not believe that, as we face this disturbing opioid crisis, it is important to ensure that addictive behaviours are not criminalized and, with that in mind, the best approach to helping people who are struggling with substance abuse and addiction is to repeal mandatory minimum sentences? That is one aspect of the only approach that works, namely, harm reduction.

91 words

Dec/8/21 9:08:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, once again the minister is sidestepping the question. The minister wants to impose standards, but he does not have the answers to questions about what is happening on the ground in Quebec. There are 200,000 patients waiting, and some are past the recommended wait time. The good Dr. Legault, of the FMSQ, said that it will take at least 10 years to clear the backlog. He stated, “The federal government quickly allocated significant funds to cushion the impact of the health crisis on the economy and on the public. We hope that the federal government will be able to provide additional funding to the provinces” to “address the needs of the health care system”, whose sustainability he believes is at risk. He added that “this crisis will not go away in one year or two. It will persist for a long time.” Does the minister realize that the longer his government waits to invest and transfer money to health care, by which I mean the $28 billion that everyone has agreed is necessary, the more health care costs will skyrocket and the more patients will suffer?

196 words

Dec/8/21 9:07:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the minister says he wants the pandemic to end as soon as possible, but does he know that at the end of the third wave the lack of cancer screening meant that 10,000 people went undiagnosed? Does he know how many patients were waiting in the middle of the third wave according to the Fédération des médecins spécialistes du Québec, the FMSQ? I would like to note that we have reached the fifth wave.

87 words

Dec/8/21 9:04:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the throne speech was so empty we had a hard time understanding anything about the government's priorities other than its plan to interfere in areas under provincial jurisdiction. Since the minister avoided answering my question, I have to assume he is not aware of the work of the Standing Committee on Health. If he were, he would have known that all the experts confirmed that chronic underfunding, thanks to his government and its predecessors, made the health system so fragile that, when the pandemic hit, all the weak links snapped. Dr. Champagne from Quebec's association of hematologists and oncologists said, “we really need to be concerned about these [diagnostic] delays, because patients and society will pay the price. For 13 of the 17 cancers that were studied, a four-week delay in diagnosis increased the risk of mortality by 6% to 8%”. The pandemic has created two types of victims: COVID‑19 patients and other patients. The latter are collateral victims. Why is the minister failing to see the urgent need to increase health transfers from 22% to 35%?

186 words

Dec/8/21 9:03:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, the election was supposedly necessary and urgent. For those people watching us who do not know, I want to make it clear that it is the Prime Minister who sets out the new ministers' priorities in their mandate letters. The Minister of Health claims to know what the Prime Minister expects of him, so it would be great if he could table his mandate letter in the House soon after he receives it so that we, too, can find out what his priorities are. Having said that, has the minister seen the Standing Committee on Health's work on the pandemic?

104 words

All Topics

Dec/8/21 9:03:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I want to inform the minister that I am my party's health critic. It is 79 days after the election and 43 days since he was appointed, but the minister has not yet received the statement of priorities of his mandate. How does he explain that?

49 words

Context: House Hansard - 12 - Dec/7/21

Dec/8/21 9:02:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Vancouver Kingsway. I would like to start with a simple little question. Has the minister received his mandate letter?

32 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 12 - Dec/7/21

Dec/7/21 3:02:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the COVID testing chaos at airports is straight out of the permit A38 scene in The 12 Tasks of Asterix. Quebec families who have gone through this airport fiasco will surely think of the minister when they watch Ciné-cadeau during the holidays. How is this government going to stop the chaotic management of testing from being “the place that sends you mad”?

68 words

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Dec/7/21 3:00:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last week it appeared as though Ottawa was being proactive at the border, but now we see that it just bungled things up more quickly. The government decided to require COVID‑19 tests for passengers arriving by plane even though it knew that some airports were unable to provide these tests. People are confused and they are worried about having to quarantine somewhere while they wait for a courier to pick up their test. No one knows who will have to quarantine or for how long. What is the government waiting for? When will it straighten out this troubling mess?

103 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 11 - Dec/6/21

Dec/6/21 12:54:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-3

Mr. Speaker, the Quebec government did not wait for the Liberal government to pass a law to deal with these types of protests held near institutions. That said, I would be remiss if I did not remind my distinguished colleague of the reason why we find ourselves discussing Bill C-3 about two weeks before Christmas. Earlier, the government referred to the 2019 report from the Standing Committee on Health on violence faced by health care workers. The report, issued two years ago, pointed out that seven out of 10 workers were experiencing deteriorating mental health. The fear and intimidation is only going to worsen their situation if they return to the system. We are clearly in favour of the principle of such a bill. However, why do we find ourselves today with a government that called an election, dragged its feet on recalling Parliament after the election, and consequently delayed other very important bills, in particular the bill in memory of Émilie Sansfaçon, which sought to give people with cancer up to 50 weeks of EI sickness benefits? This also had an impact on the work of the Special Joint Committee on Physician-Assisted Dying. It had one year to submit its report, but it will have barely four months to discuss such a critical issue. Does my colleague not find it hard to be part of a government that puts off critical and important problems like these?

242 words