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

An Act to Provide for the Resumption and Continuation of Postal Services November 23rd, 2018

Madam Speaker, I am sad and very angry to rise today in the House. Normally, I am always happy to speak on behalf of the people of Drummond, Canadians and Quebeckers.

Today's situation unfortunately reminds me of the 2011 crisis. I remember June 23, 2011. I remember rising in the House at 3:33 a.m. to stand up for postal workers, including the mail carriers of the greater Drummond area.

Today, I rise once again in the House, on a Friday evening at 6 p.m., when I should be with the people of Drummond. I should be with the volunteers who worked very hard to set up a passport clinic that helped more than 250 people. I should be there to thank them. I should be with my constituents in Drummond, discussing the importance of climate action at a screening of the film Earth: Seen from the Heart.

I am here this evening because the Liberal government decided to do the same thing the Conservatives did in 2011, but even more undemocratically. Once again, I will have to spend the night here, if necessary, on a Friday night, to stand up for workers. I never thought I would have to do this twice.

This afternoon I was at a press conference with the leader of the NDP, Jagmeet Singh, several of my NDP colleagues, and several postal workers. The postal workers talked about how frustrated they are by the Liberal government's actions. They want to be able to negotiate their own collective agreement, as is their constitutional right, a right that was recognized in a case in Saskatchewan some years ago. They only want to do what they have the right to do.

Of course, Canada Post management tells us there is a crisis, but that is false. There is no crisis, and that is what people need to understand. The Liberal government and Canada Post management manufactured a crisis in order to introduce this illegitimate, anti-democratic special legislation that goes against workers' rights. It is shameful.

The holidays are approaching. The Liberal government says that mail and parcels have to be delivered, so what does it do? Ho! Ho! Ho! It gives a present, not to the public or the workers, but to Canada Post management. That is what is despicable in all this. I am talking about this fake crisis, of course.

On November 21, 2018, members of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers who went to work discovered that the mail backlog had been greatly exaggerated. The Toronto local said that instead of the hundreds of trailers of mail that Canada Post reported, there were about 70, and they could probably be cleared in a few days. Postal workers also saw only one trailer in London, six in Hamilton, two in Halifax, 15 in Moncton, and none in Saint John. This is a legitimate rotating strike.

That means that postal workers are using legitimate pressure tactics. They are making sure that people in Canada, Quebec and the riding of Drummond are not affected. They are even prepared to deliver cheques and family allowances.

That is what they did in 2011. I talked with some postal workers earlier. They told me that they delivered cheques and family allowances without being paid in 2011. Today, it is being said that mail carriers are mean. I think that the successive governments, the Conservatives and Liberals, always like to go after the same people. Right now, they are going after mail carriers.

When it comes to signing international agreements, they go after dairy and cheese producers. These people are getting fed up with always being punished.

What the NPD is asking is clear. We are calling on the government not to intervene and to let the parties freely negotiate in order to come to a better agreement. How can the workers negotiate if they have no more leverage or bargaining power? If the government takes away mail carriers' right to hold rotating strikes, it is taking away all their power. That is the problem.

The NDP wants negotiations between the union and Canada Post to continue because negotiation is the only way Canada Post employees will get enhanced safety and equity on the job.

For example, one worker in Windsor has been working for Canada Post for 21 years. She is a passionate worker and loves what she does, but Canada Post's draconian management methods were endangering her family life and her health. Because of the mandatory overtime she has to do and pressure from management, Joanne sometimes works until 10:30 at night. Working conditions like that and management's performance demands are unrealistic and harmful to workers' health.

We have been hearing some rather surprising facts, and not the nice kind of surprise. It is quite shocking. In the past two years, the rate of accident and injury among Canadian postal workers has gone up by 43%. Any other business whose illness and injury rate went up by 43% would wake up and do something.

This is proof that the government must take the situation seriously and let postal workers negotiate with the tools they have right now and in a way that is fair and does not harm Canadians.

The 42,000 urban mail carriers and 8,000 rural and suburban mail carriers care about their work. I remember very well that in 2011, no one wanted to stop working. It was a lockout. The employees wanted to get back to work, but they also wanted to negotiate their working conditions legally.

I want to talk about another thing. Pay equity, which the Liberal government likes to brag about, is extremely important. It is primarily women mail carriers who work in our rural areas. Those women mail carriers are suffering injustices and are being treated unfairly in terms of working conditions and salary. This needs to be fixed. That is why we should let the union negotiate with Canada Post. We need to let the workers negotiate in good faith. It is extremely important.

That is why I am calling on the government to back down before this injustice.

Agriculture and Agri-Food November 21st, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to congratulate the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford on his work on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. He asked a lot of questions to try and get some answers on genetically modified wheat.

Why are we having this problem today? We are having this problem because we approved some trials in the 1990s and 2000s. That wheat, which was supposed to be carefully regulated, was found in Alberta, in places where it never should have been. When we say that we need to stop fiddling with our health and our food supply, this is what we are talking about.

When we talk about recklessly fiddling with our food supply and our health by playing around with GMOs, we have to think of genetically modified salmon. Canada is the only country in the world where genetically modified salmon can be bought, sold and distributed. No other country allows it. It is ridiculous.

Agriculture and Agri-Food November 21st, 2018

Mr. Speaker, on June 18, I asked a question about genetically modified organisms, or GMOs, a topic that is of great concern to Canadians. More specifically, I asked a question about something that happened in Alberta, where genetically modified wheat had been found along the side of a road.

This is all the more shocking because the cultivation of genetically modified wheat for commercial purposes is not authorized in Canada. Canadians are naturally asking questions, since this is not allowed.

The Liberal government and the Canadian Food Inspection Agency must take this situation very seriously. It is so concerning that Japan and South Korea even said that they would suspend their tender and sale of wheat from Canada.

Canadians are very concerned about GMOs because there is no mandatory labelling and because banned products are popping up, like the genetically modified wheat found in Alberta.

While we are on the subject of agriculture, I would like to mention that the NDP was in Montreal last weekend to support farmers. The NDP's position on fully protecting supply management has always been clear: our food supply must be safeguarded.

Many farmers from in and around Drummond participated in “Garde-manger en danger”, a major demonstration organized by the Union des producteurs agricoles, the Quebec farmers' union. One of the participants in that march against threats to our food security was Karina Poudrier, vice-president of the local branch of the union and a dairy farmer in Notre-Dame-du-Bon-Conseil. Here is what she said during the march:

Every time there is a new free trade agreement, we get the short end of the stick. It's a real shame. ...We feel like we are constantly being shoved aside and being told it won't be so bad. Sooner or later, people are going to have to realize that we are the ones producing food for everyone else.

She also said she would like the government to develop a food policy that encourages people to buy local foods. The NDP has been urging the government to adopt just such a policy for a long time now, but the government has not done it yet.

Getting back to the subject at hand, we have repeatedly called for mandatory GMO labelling. The member for Sherbrooke even introduced a bill on our behalf to make it mandatory. Unfortunately, the Liberal government rejected it.

Why is it against transparency and our right to know what we are putting on our plate? What does it have to hide? We have the right to know plenty of things. Farmers are already being asked to put certain labels on their consumer products, but GMOs are a strong exception.

What will the government do to prevent a repeat of a situation like the one where genetically modified wheat was found in Alberta despite it being banned?

Official Languages November 21st, 2018

Mr. Speaker, Doug Ford's decision to abolish the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner and cancel the project to build a French-language university in Ontario has sent shockwaves through the country. The Prime Minister said he was disappointed and concerned, but he should be doing something about this instead of staying in his corner.

The Liberals keep saying that they are there for Franco-Ontarians.

Will they prove it by contributing their fair share of the funding for the French-language university in Toronto and by calling Doug Ford to convince him to change his mind, as the NDP has been asking for?

Criminal Code November 20th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, the new process is indeed a good thing. We are pleased that the newly appointed judges represent a greater diversity of Canadians.

However, we are disappointed by how long it took and by the outstanding vacancies. That is what we find deplorable.

I would like to reiterate that abolishing mandatory minimum sentences is in the mandate letter of the Minister of Justice. Legal experts Amanda Carling, Emily Hill, Kent Roach and Jonathan Rudin have said that mandatory minimum sentences are a bad idea and that it is impossible for the legislator to know all the different types of offences and the offenders who might commit them. They believe that mandatory minimum sentences do not take into account the fact that some offenders live in abject poverty, have intellectual disabilities or mental health problems, or have been victims of racism or assault.

Why has the government not accomplished what is set out in the mandate letter?

Criminal Code November 20th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, Icongratulated the government on its new approach to appointing judges. I think that the diversity of the new appointments is a very good thing. The increased number of bilingual judges is also a very good thing. However, the remaining vacancies do need to be filled as soon as possible.

My colleague did not address a very important aspect of my speech, the part about mandatory minimum sentences. It is so important that it was included in the Minister of Justice's mandate letter.

The Liberals have been in power for three and a half years. When will they finally put an end to mandatory minimum sentences?

Criminal Code November 20th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-75, an act to amend the Criminal Code, the Youth Criminal Justice Act and other acts and to make consequential amendments to other acts.

Before I begin my speech, I want to thank the hon. member for Victoria for the excellent work he did on this file in committee. He worked very hard. He proposed many amendments, asked witnesses questions, and made some insightful and very impressive remarks. That is what will fuel my remarks today.

Why are we voting against the bill? The purpose of the bill was to respond to the Jordan decision, but it does not respond to it correctly. That is one of the reasons we are voting against the bill. It does not go far enough, and it fails to achieve what it set out to do. That is the problem.

The stated objective of the bill was to comply with the Supreme Court's 2016 Jordan ruling and to clear the backlog in the justice system, which is very important.

The problem with the Jordan decision is that now the Charter guarantees the right to be tried within a reasonable time. That is fine. The Jordan decision set out a timeframe. The time limit between the laying of charges and the conclusion of the trial was set at 18 months, or 30 months in some cases.

If that deadline cannot be met, situations may arise—much like the notorious cases I mentioned earlier in my question—where real criminals who have committed very serious crimes can be let off without a trial. That is awful. That should never happen again. Our government should be ensuring that it never happens again.

That is why Bill C-75 was so highly anticipated. It should have corrected that situation, but unfortunately, it does not.

One of the major reforms in Bill C-75 is not based on sound evidence, and that is very problematic. The stated objective of the bill is to respond to the Jordan decision. However, we have serious doubts about whether the proposed amendments will actually help reduce case completion times in the criminal justice system.

Many of the proposed measures will likely have the opposite effect and could actually add to the delays.

The Liberals claim that this bill is a bold reform of the criminal justice system, but there is one problem, in addition to what I mentioned just now. The Minister of Justice's mandate letter has something very important in it, something we very strongly believe in: eliminating the mandatory minimum sentencing system. All of the leading legal minds and experts have told us repeatedly that mandatory minimum sentencing is bad for our justice system. It is bad for offender rehabilitation and reintegration, and it undermines judges' ability to exercise their judgment in unique cases.

What does Bill C-75 have to offer on that score? This was in the minister's mandate letter, so we expected the elimination of minimum sentencing to be a key component of the bill, but apparently it does not even bear mentioning.

The Liberals broke their promise, and that is a major disappointment. As I said, defence attorneys and legal academics agree that the reversal of this practice would have been a huge step toward unclogging the court system. Unfortunately, the Liberals chose not to tackle this key issue. That is inexplicable. I do not understand why they made that choice.

My first concern has to do with reducing the use of preliminary inquiries, which are essentially dress rehearsals for trials. They are used in only 3% of cases, so eliminating them in most cases, which is what Bill C-75 proposes to do, will not save a lot of time right away. One could argue that preliminary inquiries help narrow the issues to be presented at trial and that, in some cases, they completely eliminate the need for a trial if the Crown's evidence does not hold up. Eliminating preliminary inquiries is a solution that was proposed to reduce delays, but it will actually do the opposite.

My second concern is about the regressive change to summary offences. Imposing harsher sentences on those who commit less serious crimes, namely increasing the maximum sentence from 18 months to 24, is just one element of this reform. Many accused would be better helped by being given more social support, rather than being criminalized. This amendment would disproportionately affect members of racialized groups and indigenous communities, more specifically those with a low socioeconomic status and those struggling with addiction and mental health issues.

Another major shortcoming of this bill is that it does not propose any measures to address the root causes of crime, such as poverty. In fact, today is national anti-poverty day. Other root causes include addiction, mental health problems and marginalization. There is nothing concrete in the bill to address those factors. Unfortunately, many people end up in the legal system when their situation is actually a result of social problems that we should be addressing. Sometimes those problems are of long standing. Take, for example, the social problems in indigenous communities and mental health problems.

The government needs to sit down with the affected communities to come up with solutions to these problems and try to improve their situation. Unfortunately, this bill has no plan to that effect.

I also want to reiterate that appointing more judges to fill judicial vacancies is absolutely crucial. We can no longer tolerate all these judicial vacancies. This government has been in power for over three years now. These judicial vacancies must be filled.

Let me remind members of the Nick Chan case in Calgary. Everyone is still talking about it today. This notorious gang leader was accused of murder and other serious crimes, but he was let off because his right to be tried within a reasonable time, as laid out in the Jordan decision, had been violated due to the shortage of judges.

This is a very serious problem that the government must address as quickly as possible. Of course, we have an independent judicial appointments process, but that process needs to go a lot faster. The vacancies must be filled, because we simply cannot let other notorious criminals escape prosecution because of a lack of judges.

Criminal Code November 20th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, we are well aware that the government had to respond to the Jordan decision and that that is the purpose of Bill C-75. However, the government failed to do one thing: ensure that delays will no longer be a problem. We need to make sure criminals actually get convicted and serve their time in jail.

Sadly, there is a case going on in Calgary that is very well known. Nick Chan is a notorious gang leader who was accused of murder and other crimes, but he has been released because his right to be tried within a reasonable time, as laid out in Jordan, was violated due to the shortage of judges.

The bill is a first step toward addressing the problem, but it has its flaws, which I mentioned earlier in my speech.

What is the government doing right now to fill those vacant seats and put more judges on the bench?

Request for Emergency Debate November 19th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to request an emergency debate. During question period, the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay and I asked the government what it plans to do about the horrible situation currently going on in Ontario, which is a direct attack on language rights across Canada. Our Canadian identity is at the heart of this issue. One of the pillars of our identity is having two official languages. That is what brings us together across the country. It is what unites us. It is what makes us who we are.

Last Thursday, a draconian cut was made to the Office of the French Language Services Commissioner, an institution that has been around for 30 years. It was going to celebrate its 30th anniversary next year. The French Language Services Commissioner is the watchdog for French-language services for all of Ontario. This is extremely important.

What is more, the plan to build Ontario's first francophone university in Toronto has been cancelled, after more than a decade of work and investment. The board was already named, and the programs were being developed. It was all coming together. The university was set to open in 2020.

What is the federal government's role? Why do we need to have an emergency debate this evening? The reason is simple. The Prime Minister's role in the House and for the country is to defend official language communities across Canada.

This is extremely important because we are talking about the Canadian Constitution, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and federal responsibilities. Section 16(1) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states, and I quote:

English and French are the official languages of Canada and have equality of status and equal rights and privileges as to their use in all institutions of the Parliament and government of Canada.

A little later on, section 16(3) reads, and I quote:

Nothing in this Charter limits the authority of Parliament or a legislature to advance the equality of status or use of English and French.

The entire responsibility for defending official language communities basically rests on the shoulders of our Prime Minister and the current government. That is why this is so important.

There is also the Official Languages Act, which applies to all Canadians across the country. It will soon be the 50th anniversary of the Official Languages Act, which is so important that it has quasi-constitutional status. That is why I am requesting an emergency debate, so that the current government can tell us what it is going to do to stand up for official language communities and francophones across the country and how it is also going to ensure that anglophones in Quebec can continue to thrive.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I am asking you to consider this request for an emergency debate.

Official Languages November 19th, 2018

Mr. Speaker, francophones and francophiles across the country are outraged by the Ontario government's unwarranted decision to eliminate the French Language Services Commissioner and scrap plans for a university in Toronto.

That lack of vision is a direct attack on the Franco-Ontarian community and official languages. The Prime Minister needs to go to the mat to convince Mr. Ford to reconsider his decision and stand up for official languages and francophones.

What are the Liberals going to do to protect minority francophone communities across the country?