House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was conservatives.

Last in Parliament August 2018, as NDP MP for Outremont (Québec)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 44% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Democratic Reform February 1st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister obviously never read the report. The MyDemocracy.ca charade did not even ask Canadians if they wanted to change the voting system. However, do members know that at almost every single one of the Prime Minister's town halls, someone asked him about democratic reform?

As the Prime Minister now fabricates evidence to claim Canadians did not want what he got elected on, what expression from Canadians would have been sufficient to get the Prime Minister to respect his own promise?

Democratic Reform February 1st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has abandoned his commitment. He has betrayed Canadians. A political party promises something in order to get elected and to appear progressive, but then, once elected, it shamelessly breaks that promise.

I would call that a massive political deception. What does the Prime Minister call it?

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban January 31st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the question is what we are doing for refugees generally. Whether they are Yazidis, Christian, Muslim, it does not matter. That is the whole point of this debate.

Our American neighbours have just enacted a presidential decree that singles out people on the basis of their religion or their national origin for special treatment. Historically, that has produced tragic results.

The member of Parliament for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation said before that this was all theory. Actually, 2,248 innocent Syrian refugees who have been immediately and indefinitely stranded by Trump's ban is anything but a theory; it is a reality.

That is why, on this side of the House, we asked for this emergency debate. My colleague from Vancouver East obtained that debate, thanks to you, Mr. Speaker. These are rare events, but they are institutionally important because they allow us to shine a light on an issue that cannot be debated otherwise. That is the condition, sine qua non, of this type of debate.

I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your prescience in according this debate. I want to assure Canadians that the New Democratic Party is never going to satisfy itself with vague sentences. We will never use the type of language that has been used. We will call for immediate action and for the Canadian government to finally start standing up to the fascist Donald Trump.

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban January 31st, 2017

Of course, Mr. Speaker. Twitter is not my word; it is a trademark. I cannot help it. I withdraw it unreservedly.

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban January 31st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I was answering my colleague. Earlier your colleague said that there would be no points of order, but I would be pleased to respond to both at once.

We are here this evening to debate an issue of utmost importance to the future of human rights around the world.

When one of the most important democracies adopts an executive order that bans—

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban January 31st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I get the feeling the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation was listening to his colleague from Winnipeg North when he said that I complimented the so-called speech delivered by the Prime Minister on this issue. The Prime Minister did not actually speak to this issue.

When travelling abroad, he has plenty of wonderful things to say about human rights and freedoms. Those rights and freedoms have been guaranteed by the United Nations since the end of the Second World War. Every Canadian prime minister, regardless of political stripe, has had the extraordinary responsibility of representing a country with a long-standing democratic tradition and stating that we will stand up and fight for human rights.

All we got from his Prime Minister was a tweet. I would like to remind my dear colleague that the root word of “Twitter” is “twit”. I can assure him that Canadians expect better. Two thousand two hundred—

U.S. Decision Regarding Travel Ban January 31st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to participate in this emergency debate to address the presidential executive order issued by Donald Trump prohibiting the travel of all refugees and individuals from seven Muslim majority countries in the Middle East and North Africa. Canadians are deeply concerned about President Trump's appalling racist immigration ban.

His fundamentally misguided policies are not just spreading a wave of intolerance around the world. They are also creating devastating implications for thousands of innocent people, travellers, and refugees. The ban will also have a major negative impact on the North American economy.

This ban against individuals based upon race, religion, or country of birth, implemented by our closest neighbour cannot be tolerated by Canada. We have the obligation to speak out. To be very clear, New Democrats unequivocally oppose this ban and condemn it. We denounce this policy, but like many Canadians, we are concerned that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada have not done the same.

The New Democrats requested this emergency debate, and I commend my colleague from Vancouver East for getting it approved. We have also called for a number of practical measures that the government can and must adopt to ensure that Canada does its part, starting with an official statement indicating that Canada does not endorse Donald Trump's Muslim immigration ban. Direct and concrete measures must then be taken to deal with the consequences.

Canada's values of diversity, peace, and inclusion are diametrically opposed to this order and everything it represents.

In unprecedented times like these, our words must be clear and our actions must be real. The world is watching and lives hang in the balance. We must stand up to those who peddle the politics of fear and division, and Canada must step up and do its part. We support the government's initial move to provide temporary resident permits to those who intended to return to the U.S. but can no longer do so because of the ban, but there is much more that Canada can and must do.

Today the NDP is calling for five specific measures. The first is to lift the 1,000 cap on privately sponsored refugee families, which, as we all know, was reached in a single month. That cap, especially at a time when the United States has banned the entry of Syrian refugees indefinitely, is completely unacceptable and contrary to international laws enacted since the Second World War.

Indeed, Canadian citizens who want to help in some way should be able to do so.

There are Canadians who have worked with neighbours and raised tens of thousands of dollars and made plans as private sponsors to bring over Syrian refugees, but now because of the government's cap, they had to phone the Syrian families they had promised to bring over to tell them that they could no longer help them, not for lack of resources or lack of willingness to help, but because of an arbitrary, artificial cap of 1,000 applications which the government could remove today if it wanted to. It is unacceptable and it has to change. There are 2,248 innocent Syrian refugees who have been immediately and indefinitely stranded by Trump's ban. We have the capacity to help these people and we must.

Fast-tracking refugee claims is the second point. We must do so for those who had been accepted by the United States before the ban and those who were about to be accepted.

Canada should help those refugees who have been left behind because of the ban and put a system in place that ensures the rapid approval of claimants in Canada's refugee system, because the security requirements are quite similar.

We also need to work with the international community to address any weaknesses in the refugee resettlement process. Thousands of refugees will no longer be able to find asylum because of Donald Trump's anti-immigration and anti-Muslim order. Canada should work with its international partners and come up with a plan to increase the number of refugees welcomed here until that ban is lifted.

Those are the NDP's initial proposals. These measures could be taken immediately and could provide significant support to everyone affected by President Trump's executive order regarding immigration and travel. We can no longer assume that refugees in the United States will be given a fair process. We must do our part, lift the cap limiting refugees here, and work with the international community to help the many refugees left in the lurch by this ban.

Canada must get guarantees for people travelling to the United States, specifically, that they will be allowed to enter that country without any additional undue prejudice.

Again, we are urging the government to join us in condemning this ban and to take action to help the thousands of vulnerable people impacted by it. Instead, what have we received from the government? I was shocked today when I looked at the transcript of the new point man, the member of Parliament for Orléans, a former general, someone who has been around for a long time. For him to be seeking to find excuses is, for me, intolerable, especially when we know that he is supposed to represent the best of Canada in dealing with the U.S.

What did he have to say specifically when he was asked about this racist ban on Muslims? He said, “That’s up to the United States to—to actually decide for themselves. It’s within the legal remit of the president to issue executive orders.”

On CBC Radio's The Current this morning on whether Canada needs to change its own policies in light of the U.S. policy changes, the member for Orléans said, “An adage of keep calm and carry on, or another one is, you know, ice water in the veins, until such time as clarity is provided, either by us or by interaction with the Americans. I think that's the wisest course.” Really? Keep calm and carry on: is that the best the government has to offer?

I listened to the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North as he stood to justify the inaction of the Liberals by reading a tweet by the Prime Minister. Is that our foreign policy? Is that what Canada standing up for human rights on the world stage boils down to in this era with the Liberal government?

We on this side of the House are clear that we are against singling people out because of their religion, banning them because of their religion or their country of origin, edicts being sent out, so-called presidential orders, governing by decree. Like my colleague from Vancouver East who brought this debate forward, I never thought I would see that happen in my lifetime, but I do know what happens when dealing with someone with that type of fascist behaviour if we do not stand up to be counted.

The NDP will stand up to be counted. We are not afraid to call a spade a spade. It is time to say no to Donald Trump, to say yes to human rights, and for the Government of Canada to say no to these racist policies.

Resignation of Members January 31st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, today I rise on behalf of the NDP to bid farewell to two colleagues who, together, have served the Canadian people in the House for almost four decades: the hon. member for Saint-Laurent and the hon. member for Markham—Thornhill.

It is a privilege and an honour to be elected to this place, but it is also often a tumultuous path. They served through good political times and bad, which is something that many of us can relate to. They also served with so much dignity that they are models for every person in the House. It is with gratitude and respect that we return that honour to them today.

The hon. member for Saint-Laurent was made a minister by Jean Chrétien in 1996 after winning a by-election. He has won a seat in every federal election since then. He has held the positions of leader of the Liberal Party, minister of the environment, minister of intergovernmental affairs, and minister of foreign affairs. He has been a long-time advocate of electoral reform, which was one of his priorities, and he has extensively studied proportional representation, which, as members know, the NDP staunchly supports.

He is admired by everyone for his dedication, passion, and commitment to public service, and we are deeply grateful for his contribution to our country and to the House.

The hon. member for Markham—Thornhill was elected to this place in 2000. A brilliant economist, he has served as minister of national revenue, minister of immigration, refugees and citizenship, minister of national defence, and minister of veterans affairs. A real progressive, he was also, very early on, a strong advocate for same-sex marriage.

We seldom meet gentlemen like him. We will miss him very much.

It was he who successfully nominated Nelson Mandela as the second honorary citizen in Canadian history, and anyone who knows him will say that he is incredibly hard-working and seems to be everywhere one goes on the Hill. He is a member emeritus of the smokers' club at the back door, and that caucus has just lost one of its longest-standing members.

His tenacity is widely appreciated and his fluent bilingualism and willingness to reach across party lines to work together are respected by all members of the House. He is a man of strong principle, who has always served the public first and foremost.

On behalf of the entire NDP caucus and all Canadians, I thank both of them for their dedication. They have left their mark on this place. We will miss them, but we wish them all the best in the future. I am convinced, knowing them as I do, that we will be hearing about them and we will follow with great interest their future endeavours.

On behalf of all of us, thank you again and we wish you all the best.

Democratic Reform January 31st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's failure to answer speaks for itself.

The Prime Minister used to love to say that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post, but he will not say it anymore, and neither will his newly minted minister for democratic reform. Will the Prime Minister publicly call for his new minister to begin finally drafting legislation to change the voting system, or now that he is Prime Minister, does he no longer feel it is important?

Democratic Reform January 31st, 2017

Mr. Speaker, no more words, enough is enough. That is too easy. It is time to take action.

The Prime Minister has repeated ad nauseam that 2015 would mark the last election under the current system. However, recently he has seemed to back out of his formal and solemn commitment.

Can the Prime Minister finally admit that he has broken his promise and betrayed his commitment?