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

Business of Supply April 21st, 2016

Mr. Speaker, that was pathetic. Talk about rhetoric. Obviously the new member for Niagara Centre did not get a chance to listen to what his colleague, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia had to say before. He actually read talking points from the election campaign that completely ignored the subject at hand, as did he.

The member talked about the government as if the Conservatives were still in power. This just in: I hate to break it to him, but the Liberals are in charge. They are the government, and they are supposed to find the solutions.

The member had the audacity to say that the Liberals were dealing with it. Oh yeah, how? The problem is there in the galleries. All of these dairy producers, and a lot of them from Ontario, want to know why, when diafiltered milk crosses the border it is not milk, but when they want to put it into cheese, it is milk. How is it getting across the border free and taking $220 million out of the pockets of Canadian farming families?

That is what is happening. The families are worried. The producers are worried. The banks are not lending. The communities are being hurt. Instead of standing up and playing the clown, why do the Liberal members not stand up and defend the dairy producers of their region?

Business of Supply April 21st, 2016

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with the outstanding member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

As I was listening to the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, I got the impression that he regrets ever being elected because now he has to make decisions. True, it is unfortunate that the Liberals were elected, but it is a fact. Now they have to start living up to their responsibilities and stop coming up with excuses.

In the House today, we have dairy producers from Lanaudière, Mauricie, the Outaouais, Quebec City's south shore, and Montérégie. Today I had a chance to speak with producers from Saint-Boniface in Mauricie. They are very disturbed by what the Liberals are saying because the Liberals are using every excuse in the book to justify doing nothing. We do not need to change the law or even the regulations. We need a change in attitude.

When is milk not milk? It is not milk when it is diafiltered milk, of course. According to our border services, it gets through the border because it is not milk. When is diafiltered milk, milk? Well, of course, it becomes milk when it goes into cheese. Indeed, the Canadian Food Inspection Agency requires that cheese be made with milk, the same milk that was not milk when it crossed the border as diafiltered milk. That is the nonsense that the Liberals are trying to sell us here today.

However, this is understandable, because a government reveals its true colours over time. It took some time for us to learn that the Conservatives would always be against the little guy. The Liberals are showing us just how ready they are to get down on their knees before the powerful and well-connected.

We saw this yesterday with the Minister of Transport. He said it was no big deal if Air Canada did not obey the law. It is no big deal if thousands of workers and mechanics with good jobs in the aerospace industry lost their jobs. It is no big deal. Air Canada asked to have the law changed retroactively to have the violations dropped. The Liberals gave in to that request.

We are talking about the same Air Canada that systematically fails to comply with the Official Languages Act. Why? Just ask them, and they will tell you that it is not right that they are the only airline that has to comply with this legislation. The only little problem and the only little thing that Air Canada forgets in all this, is that they came begging for billions of taxpayer dollars. Canadians agreed on the condition that the maintenance is done in Canada and the Official Languages Act is respected.

It took a Liberal government to explain to us that even though Air Canada did not obey the law, there are two laws in Canada: one for the little guy and average Canadians, and another for the all-powerful friends of the regime. That is the Liberal government.

When I hear the drivel and rhetoric coming from the hon. member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, I feel sorry for the people in his region. Many farmers in his region are very worried, as are many people in Abitibi—Témiscamingue. The hon. member for that riding is going to talk later about her riding and the farmers in her region.

This is an unbelievable situation where we lost $220 million last year.

In English, we will often talk about a catch-22. When is milk not milk? It is when it is diafiltered milk. Therefore, the American producers of this product do not have to pay customs duties. That is what our border services have decided. The same government, the same product, and it becomes milk, because the food inspection people say it is no problem. There has to be milk when making cheese, but this stuff is milk. It was not milk when it crossed the border when it would have been taxed, but now it is milk when it is put in cheese. It is not a catch-22; it is a catch-$220 million. That is the problem.

I wish that some of the brain trusts on the other side, like the member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, would actually speak to some of the milk producers. They would understand that the banks in this country are holding back investments for these producers. Why? It is because they do not know whether they are going to be paid back. That is the insecurity in the lives of farming families. That is the insecurity in their communities. That is why the NDP is standing up to fight for the government to start enforcing these laws.

All I heard from the member from New Brunswick, who spoke earlier, and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was empty rhetoric. It boggles the mind. We hear “the government's action plan”, “the policies”, “the financial tools to support”, and blah, blah, blah. Hang on.

Producers have financial tools. We call it the supply management system. We have to maintain it and enforce it. They are not asking the Liberal government for favours. They simply want respect for the law and for themselves.

The financial tools will take care of themselves. The banks will resume lending money to producers. However, as we saw once again, the banks can read this government's intentions.

The Minister of International Trade spends more time supporting American positions than defending Canadian producers. That is her record. She is always looking to curry favour with the Americans.

This same Minister of International Trade said that we should have let Canada's auto industry go bankrupt. She does not seem to be concerned about job losses or families that are struggling and can no longer make ends meet. She is above all that. However, the agricultural producers are told to always obey laws that are often complex.

I was an environment minister, and I can assure members that agricultural producers are familiar with the regulations and legislation, since they are required to abide by them at all times, and that comes at a price.

However, if an American producer wants to cross the border, it comes up with some kind of flim-flammery and looks for a government that is just naive enough to listen. This is the kind of thing that we need to stop.

Can we stop introducing cracks into the supply management system? Can we also stop listening to neo-liberal siren songs from people like the Minister of International Trade, who refuses to defend the supply management system because the Americans do not have such a system?

Earlier, I heard the member for Winnipeg Centre say that milk was expensive and that people back home were poor, as though the supply management system were responsible for price increases.

Let us look at the situation in the United States. Producers receive direct subsidies, and these are not reflected in the price of milk at the corner store. However, it is even worse than this, because everyone pays taxes, whether you consume dairy products or not, and these taxes subsidize agricultural production.

Canada's system is much fairer. It is based on the user-pay principle, and production is protected. As a result, the families who own these farms, many of which are in Quebec, have been able to retain ownership of their farms literally for centuries. However, they are worried.

We are talking about human beings, families, and communities who are worried. The Liberal government could eliminate these concerns if it had the courage of its words and convictions.

During the election campaign, the Liberals made all kinds of promises, including a promise to uphold the supply management system. They promised to find a solution to the diafiltered milk problem. It is not a complicated solution. It is simply a matter of enforcing the law equally for everyone. Everyone would benefit.

I have listened to Liberal after Liberal try to justify the unjustifiable. There is a very simple solution here: apply the law equally to everyone.

This diafiltered milk is being allowed in to the tune of $220 million a year now, and it is only going to increase. They cannot have it as milk when it is put into the cheese. They say it is milk, and then it is not milk when it crosses the border. It is milk. It should be under our system of supply management.

We have to start protecting those dairy farming, poultry farming, and egg farming families that have been able to hold onto their farms, thanks to a very fair system of supply management.

Stand up. Defend that system. Start enforcing the law to these American companies.

Air Canada Public Participation Act April 20th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, using the word “clarify” is Orwellian Newspeak.

What the Liberals are doing is let a rich and powerful corporation off the hook for breaking the law, and they are doing it in a retroactive manner that has never before been seen here in the House of Commons. It is properly scandalous for them to claim that this is a clarification.

Thousands of workers lost their jobs because the government is refusing to enforce the Air Canada legislation. When the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount was on the opposition side, he said that Canadians were starting to realize that the government was not honouring what it said about transparency six and a half years earlier. That is quite something.

You heard that right, Mr. Speaker. When that same person stood in the House to criticize the Conservatives, he said that Canadians were starting to realize that what the Conservatives promised six and a half years earlier—to be open, transparent, and accountable—was false. The Conservatives would always shut us down after four or five days of debate, but the Liberals are doing it in one, and they are doing this after only six and a half months in power.

This is identical to the KPMG case. The signal being sent by the government is that there is one law for the rich and powerful and one law for everything else. The basic rule in our society is the rule of law, law that applies equally to everyone. That is being broken by the Liberal government.

Justice April 20th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have been promising to legalize marijuana for the past three years. It was an important part of their election campaign. The NDP has had the same position for the past 40 years, namely, that it should be decriminalized and people should not be sent to prison or saddled with criminal records for personal use. I want to talk about their promise.

Earlier, regarding the veterans issue, it was the Conservatives' fault. Earlier, it was the NDP that did not do enough. Let us talk about the Liberals. They wanted to be in power, and they made a promise. The only response they received was from the Toronto police chief.

Justice April 20th, 2016

Let us talk about messes they promised to clean up, Mr. Speaker.

For more than three years, they promised to legalize marijuana, yet thousands and thousands of Canadians will have criminal records for the rest of their lives because they will not even decriminalize it, something that could have been done overnight.

The simple question for the Prime Minister is this. His minister was in New York, of all places, instead of here today, announcing that maybe in 2017 they will be presenting legislation to finally do something about it. In the meantime, will the Prime Minister at least promise that there will be legislation to remove the criminal records?

Veterans April 20th, 2016

Straight to his talking points, Mr. Speaker. Why are we not surprised?

Here is the question. Master Corporal Paul Franklin lost both legs serving this country bravely in Afghanistan. Every year, like numerous other veterans, he is obliged to fill out a pile of forms to prove that he still has not gotten his legs back. He lost his wheelchair because he could not produce another doctor's note.

The question to the Prime Minister was not what his talking notes are on veterans. The question to the Prime Minister was, what has he done to put an end to this intolerable situation for our veterans?

Veterans April 20th, 2016

Mr. Speaker, the government can be incomprehensibly heartless in its dealings with veterans.

Corporal Paul Franklin lost both of his legs in Afghanistan, but, like many other veterans, he has to fill in a pile of forms every year to prove that he is still missing both legs.

Now that this and other cases have come to light, can the Prime Minister tell us what he has personally done to put an end to this intolerable situation?

Ethics April 13th, 2016

Is there a boat in Panama as well, Mr. Speaker?

When the Prime Minister revealed details about his financial arrangements, it turns out he left a few things out of the picture. The Prime Minister failed to disclose all of the companies that he used to shelter his investments.

Why did the Prime Minister not tell Canadians about all of these companies he was using to shelter his investments and avoid paying his full share of taxes?

Ethics April 13th, 2016

So, Mr. Speaker, when the Prime Minister said that small businesses were just a way for rich people to avoid taxes, he knew of what he spoke.

Perhaps the Prime Minister can give us an answer to the following question. Why did he choose to dismantle one of the investment companies he had used to avoid paying taxes the day after the election, on October 20?

Ethics April 13th, 2016

Our good name includes standing to defend human rights around the world, Mr. Speaker.

The situation in Saudi Arabia has only become worse, and the Prime Minister knows it.

However, let us talk about paperwork. During the election campaign, the Prime Minister said that “a large percentage of small businesses are actually just ways for wealthier Canadians to save on their taxes”.

He seems to have been talking about his own finances. He apparently used four companies to pay less tax.

How much tax did he avoid paying by using four investment companies?