House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was languages.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as NDP MP for Drummond (Québec)

Lost his last election, in 2021, with 11% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 November 7th, 2017

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Joliette for his well thought out speech.

He spoke about tax havens, and I would like to remind him that several experts have mentioned that they are in effect a legalized scam. I still cannot believe that more information has been revealed last Sunday. After the Panama papers, we now have the paradise papers. We now know that the Liberal Party's top bagmen, the people very close to the Prime Minister, profited from tax schemes that can be described as a legalized scam. The hon. member mentions that it is unbelievable that this is not included in the economic update.

In his opinion, what does it mean that there is nothing in the bill about doing away with tax havens?

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 November 7th, 2017

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

I would like to talk about the environment. As members know, Fiji is presiding over COP23 in Bonn, which is in its first week.

An article currently in Le Devoir is headlined “Commitments too weak to avoid climate disaster.” It issues a warning about our weak greenhouse gas emissions reduction commitments, which could result in disaster situations.

There is a tiny measure for geothermal projects, but does the member not think we should be going much further? For starters, the government needs to eliminate fossil fuel subsidies. It is ridiculous that we are still spending billions of dollars on fossil fuel subsidies, when we made an international commitment quite some time ago to eliminate them. There is nothing to encourage greater emphasis on the energy shift towards renewables.

Why did the update not include a more serious plan? We are currently at COP23, in the middle of a conference on climate change.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 November 6th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to stay calm. My colleague knows that this case is in court. I can assure the member for Winnipeg North that not only will the ruling be in our favour, but the members of the Board of Internal Economy, those who hid behind closed doors to prevent us from saying what we have to say, will owe us an apology. I do not mind saying this. We will defend our case in court. There is no doubt about it.

The truth is that we used to hear about the Panama papers, but we now have the paradise papers. Whose hands are dirty and whose credibility is being questioned in this whole story? It is once again the Prime Minister's chief fundraiser. We did not get any answers about that today during question period. It is disappointing. We need action, but nothing is being done.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 November 6th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona for her extremely important question.

I say this in almost all of my speeches because it is very important, but I forgot to mention it today. The $1.3 billion in subsidies to the fossil fuel industries could quickly be reinvested in renewable energy and energy efficiency. This would help us truly transition to a low-carbon economy, something that needs to be done right now.

Another thing is that the government always forgets the north. This is where renewable energy is most needed, but there is almost nothing in the Liberals' budgets. I will repeat the recommendations from the Green Budget Coalition. They are there in black and white, and this is not the first time the Coalition has said so. It recommends that we take back the money allocated to subsidies for fossil fuels and use it to transition towards clean energy. This is urgent, but unfortunately, the government is still twiddling its thumbs.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 November 6th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I would indeed like to talk about the fight against tax evasion and tax avoidance, as Canadians really want to know what is happening in that regard.

After the Panama Papers, now we see the Paradise Papers, and they include the name of the Prime Minister of Canada’s own chief fundraiser.

So, when the Liberals are asked if they will truly fight tax evasion and why they are not taking action, we understand why. It is because they are too close to those who abuse the system. We need tax reforms to correct this as soon as possible.

Budget Implementation Act, 2017, No. 2 November 6th, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-63, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2017 and other measures.

When it comes to budgets, it is extremely important that we do everything in our power to meet our fellow citizens' sustainability requirements. Sustainable development has three pillars. Yes, one is economic, but there are also the social and environmental pillars. It is through the lens of these three pillars that I will analyze the bill before me.

First, I must point out one troubling fact. Yesterday, we learned from the paradise papers that fundraisers who are very close to the Prime Minister were implicated in this tax haven scheme. However, Bill C-63 contains no concrete measures to fight tax evasion or tax avoidance. It leaves the CEO stock-option tax loopholes untouched and does not demand the co-operation of major corporations.

It is a little ironic considering that in question period today, we in the NDP asked dozens of questions, trying to find out what the Liberal government was going to do to stop billions of dollars from going to tax havens. We were told that the government is going to continue doing the same thing, so there is nothing new. The Liberals are not going to change any laws to stop this tax evasion and put an end to this scam, which is currently legal. Indeed, they are allowing many millionaires and billionaires to put money in tax havens and avoid paying their share of taxes. As a result, Canadians are seeing a reduction in services as well as an increasing fiscal burden, all because some people refuse to contribute what they should. If we had more money, we could do much more than we currently are to complete our shift towards green energy.

In addition, before the budget was presented, we wrote to the Minister of Finance and asked him to include certain provisions to make our society fairer and greener. Unfortunately, none of those provisions were included. I will come back to that in a moment.

Bill C-63 does contain some positive measures. For example, it would change the Canada Labour Code to allow federally regulated employees to request greater flexibility from their employers, and it would also expand the tax incentives for geothermal projects. However, these incentives pale in comparison to the changes that are needed.

COP23, the climate change conference, starts today in Bonn. In 2015, when the Canadian government went to Paris, the Prime Minister said, “Canada is back”, but unfortunately, Canada was back with Stephen Harper's old targets and almost the same measures. There was very little progress.

I want to quote an article from Le Devoir, published on October 31, entitled “UN on Climate: 'Catastrophic' gap between commitments and actions”.

On Tuesday, six days before COP23, the UN's environment chief warned that there is a 'catastrophic' gap between the national greenhouse gas reduction commitments and the reductions that would be needed to keep global warming below 2°C.

In short, there have been some lofty promises, but countries are not taking the necessary measures to follow through on them.

In an economic update, and with the climate change conference opening today, we would have expected a number of measures to support the shift to clean energy. Unfortunately, there is virtually nothing there. We made some recommendations, as I mentioned, in a letter to the Minister of Finance.

The Lancet Commission on pollution and health recently published a very important report. It is an extraordinarily well researched scientific report written by health experts.

I would like to read their conclusions, which are very important. Clearly, when it comes to sustainable development, issues related to society, the economy, and the environment all go hand in hand. We are zeroing in on a huge and serious problem. Indeed, dangerous climate change is having serious consequences on people's health. We are currently talking about pollution, but this is also about climate change. I would like to quote the summary of the report from the Lancet Commission on pollution and health:

Pollution is the largest environmental cause of disease and premature death in the world today. Diseases caused by pollution were responsible for an estimated 9 million premature deaths in 2015—16% of all deaths worldwide—three times more deaths than from AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria combined and 15 times more than from all wars and other forms of violence. In the most severely affected countries, pollution-related disease is responsible for more than one death in four.

Why is fighting climate change and pollution in Canada so important?

Unfortunately, Canada's efforts have been quite weak. We sent a number of recommendations, including, for example, introducing a massive energy efficiency program. A group of people recently came to the Hill to talk to us about the importance of fighting climate change, and one way to do so is by investing in energy efficiency.

Energy efficiency creates jobs because people are needed to do the renovations or other related work. It also improves the living conditions of people living in poorly heated homes by reducing heating or air conditioning costs. Finally, the negative repercussions of pollution and climate change are also reduced. There would be benefits everywhere. The Liberal government has done nothing.

When discussing climate change and the environment, it is also very important to consider all of the recommendations by the Green Budget Coalition regarding the 2018 budget. All of those recommendations should have been adopted by the current government. One of them is very important: international climate change financing.

Clearly, we suffer, but let us think about the countries that suffer the most, the poorest countries. Those countries must be supported so they can adapt to climate change. We are the main emitters, but they are the main victims.

For example, the federal government could increase its financial participation through a tax on bunker fuels used in international aviation and maritime transportation. Aviation and maritime transportation do not currently contribute to the fight against climate change. Taxing the bunker fuels they use would be a way of redistributing money and assisting in international climate financing. There are a lot of other solutions, but my speaking time is ending. I would have liked to have the time to talk about the circular economy that could also be put forward. Those are examples of what is missing in Bill C-63, in this economic review.

Official Languages November 3rd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Official Languages tabled a report yesterday that calls on the government to give the Commissioner of Official Languages greater powers to enforce the law.

That was suggested by our former commissioner, Graham Fraser. It is clear to him and to the committee that we cannot simply rely on the willingness of institutions and Air Canada. The commissioner's current powers are definitely inadequate.

Will the government act on the committee's recommendations for once and strengthen the commissioner's powers?

National Kindness Day November 3rd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise in the House today to draw attention to my Motion No. 146 to instate a national kindness day. Through this motion we want the federal government to recognize November 13 as national kindness day. The primary goal of this initiative is to build a just, open, and respectful society.

This citizens' initiative, driven by the Association québécoise de défense des droits des personnes retraitées et préretraitées, the AQDR, is the result of much hard work.

Several members of the AQDR are here on the Hill today. I want to acknowledge the president of AQDR, Jacqueline René, the vice-president, Daniel Mailhot, Louise Rajotte and Lucie Rajotte, strong champions, as well as all the stakeholders directly or indirectly involved in the AQDR.

We hope that we can work together to have November 13 recognized as national kindness day.

Official Languages November 2nd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I will make every effort to attend the briefing, where I hope to ask many good questions.

I would like to come back to what was said about the use of French as an official language in the public service and the failure to respect linguistic duality. The Commissioner of Official Languages told #ONFR that she received three times the number of complaints:

In the past five years, the number of complaints filed with our office has risen steadily. We have also noted a new phenomenon: an increase in complaints from the federal public service, which represented more than half of last year's complaints. That is very concerning.

The parliamentary secretary mentioned some of the aspects studied by the government. It must now take concrete action to ensure better access to both official languages in the public service. First, there should be an official languages commissioner—

Official Languages November 2nd, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise once again on the subject of the Official Languages Act and respect for our official language minority communities across the country.

On June 1, I asked the Minister of Canadian Heritage about her rather dismal record when it comes to official languages. A number of issues were raised, including the partisan appointment of Madeleine Meilleur, which was quite a fiasco. Despite all her great qualities, Ms. Meilleur was not the right choice for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages. She finally came to that conclusion herself and withdrew. Another issue were some errors that appeared in the French version of the Prime Minister's biography, not to mention the fact that the use of French is dwindling in the public service. A report was recently published about that.

Let us talk about the Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages. For nearly four days, we had no Commissioner of Official Languages. That is unbelievable. June 17 was the end of the interim commissioner's mandate, and during all that time, we had no idea what was happening. Parliamentarians and Canadians had no Commissioner of Official Languages to address their concerns to. It was a dark time in the history of official languages, and right on the eve of the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, which is coming up next year.

Four days later, the Minister of Heritage finally decided to extend the mandate of Ghislaine Saikaley, the acting commissioner of official languages. She has a new six-month contract now that the first six-month acting period has ended. The Minister of Canadian Heritage seemed to indicate that it would take roughly four months for everything to be resolved. July, August, September, and October have passed. We should have a new official languages commissioner by now, but we do not. Today, November 2, we still do not have any news about the process for appointing the official languages commissioner. The deadline is fast approaching and there is no progress, unfortunately.

What is more, the use of French is declining in the public service. This year, the commissioner received three times as many complaints about linguistic requirement violations in the federal public service. The absence of bilingualism in some management or supervisory positions prevents public servants from working in French. This is quite serious. I could go on about this because there is a lot to say on the matter, but since I am running out of time I will talk about something very serious that happened last week.

After supporting the bill on the bilingualism of Supreme Court justices three times, the Liberals unfortunately decided to vote against it now that they are in power. It is incomprehensible. They have no reason to oppose a bill that seeks to enhance the appointment criteria for Supreme Court justices to make sure they understand both French and English, the two official languages. That is why I have introduced two more bills, Bills C-381 and C-382, that seek to improve access to justice in both official languages.