Julie Vignola

[Committees of the House, October 30th, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, there is no denying that we are in the midst of a housing crisis. There are not enough homes to meet all needs.

Affordable housing is often spoken of as a need. We in the Bloc Québécois prefer to talk about social housing. There is a big difference. I wonder if my colleague and the government are aware of that. Affordable housing is housing that costs 10% less than market price. In the case of social housing, rent is calculated based on the person's income and must not exceed 30% of their income.

Is the government aware of that? When will it finally apply these basic principles to make housing truly accessible?

[Privilege, October 24th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, apart from the unredacted documents that we requested for analysis, the situation we are currently facing stems from the fact that the government delegated some of its management authority to a fund that hands out money. Everything worked well for a while, but things seem to have broken down during the pandemic, with everything everyone was going through. Authorities were delegated, but it seems that the need for audits was overlooked.

My question is this. When authority is delegated, is it relinquished entirely, or is it still necessary to conduct audits? Is it the approach that needs to change instead?

[Privilege, October 24th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the importance of trust. I want to talk about the importance of our role as MPs. Our role is to ensure that what happens in government and in the machinery of government is fair, equitable, proper and ethical. The role of a committee is to assess how things are done and make sure they are done right. Its role is to offer suggestions for modifications and changes, so that processes are better applied.

In this case, what is the point of the Liberals holding on to information instead of working with all parliamentarians to improve processes? Does my esteemed colleague have an idea to explain their interest in withholding information?

[Privilege, October 23rd, 2024]

Mr. Speaker, it was a pleasure to hear my colleague speak. I worked with him on the almighty Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, so it is a pleasure to hear him speak today.

At the beginning of the debate on this question of privilege, we heard the government say that this would be an intrusion into the separation of powers. However, it has been shown that submitting evidence is not the same as ordering an investigation. Therefore, there is no intrusion.

The second reason for not handing over the documents was that there is no warrant. My question is this: Is a warrant really necessary to have the right to submit potential evidence?

[Privilege, October 23rd, 2024]

Madam Speaker, I am going to digress a bit from what we have been hearing for the past two weeks, which has been a bit of mud-slinging. I would invite my colleagues to regain the dignity we must show as we perform our duties.

I appreciated the speech by my colleague, with whom I have had the opportunity to speak on several occasions. It is always pleasant, and we all know how much he loves his lake.

My question is this. We know that money was used, let us say, by the fund to support a company whose owner was the chair of the board that decided whether or not to grant money. We know that. We also know that, to turn over evidence to the RCMP, for example, or the police, a search warrant is not required. If I find evidence somewhere and it could be related to a crime, I do not need to wait for the RCMP to get a search warrant.

Let us get back to the fundamental issue. Aside from the fact that the government refuses to comply with our question of privilege and assure us that the rest of the money was used properly, is the real problem here that public funds must no longer be managed by bodies that are not accountable to the House of Commons?

[Privilege, October 10th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, when I say WE Charity, ArriveCAN, SDTC, McKinsey and other consultants, they all have one thing in common, specifically the delegation of responsibility for implementing a financial support or educational program, consolidating and overseeing app developers, training staff and managers, collecting and analyzing data, improving practices, and so forth.

Perhaps my hon. colleague can give me some answers. Do the scandals stem from a refusal to manage and plan properly, or do all governments simply refuse to be accountable?

[Privilege, October 10th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, during question period, we heard the government respond that it could not provide the documents to the police, to the RCMP, because the RCMP had not issued a warrant. All we want, however, is to submit potential evidence. This is not about imposing a vision or imposing a mandate. This is about providing potential evidence, and the RCMP can do with it what it wants.

We are also talking about the separation of powers. As I just said, we have not given orders to the RCMP. We do not want to order the RCMP to do anything, because the separation of powers is essential in a democracy. I wonder how it is possible that government members cannot grasp the difference, unless this is nothing more than another attempt to create a smokescreen so they can avoid producing unredacted documents.

I would like my colleague to elaborate on these things.

[Committees of the House, October 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my colleague spoke about Bill C‑27. He pointed out that it is not a mammoth bill, but that it should be split in two. That way, we could actually take a comprehensive look at AI and make the necessary amendments, since our country currently has no legislation related to AI.

We are in the most democratic minority government, where everyone can sit around the table to negotiate and discuss. What does my colleague think of the Liberal government's refusal to negotiate and split Bill C‑27?

[Committees of the House, October 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has been talking about Bill C-27 for a while now.

I have a simple question. This bill is not just about AI. It is also about a whole host of other things. However, the subject of AI is important enough to be examined on its own, in its entirety, seriously and without the distraction of other equally important subjects. Perhaps we should focus on one topic in particular and explore it in depth rather than just superficially. That would be a nice change.

Is the government prepared to implement a bill that would seriously consider artificial intelligence in terms of its current importance?

[Committees of the House, October 9th, 2024]

Madam Speaker, the report presented by my colleague today is very important and thought provoking. I want to analyze it a bit further.

In 2023, during an interparliamentary exchange in Edinburgh, I had the pleasure of speaking with AI specialists who told us that it is critical that we create legislation and that even the major AI producers are asking for laws.

Image capture can now be coupled with AI and a desire to misinform the population for political purposes. Foreign interference is troubling, and I find myself wondering whether the combination of capturing images and using AI is facilitating foreign interference. Does this not become a direct threat to democracy? How can we quickly put an end to this threat?