SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 117 - Oct/25/22

Oct/25/22 11:17:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. This is the issue with having Bloc Québécois members working as federal MPs in the federal Parliament. MPs should consider and focus on the common good in Canada, which obviously includes Quebec. Quebec has twice decided to remain part of the Canadian federation. Our duty is therefore to ensure that Quebeckers are happy in their country. As members from the province of Quebec, we work on issues that affect Quebeckers. However, the issue raised by the Bloc today is of no interest to the people. What the people need is a stronger, more stable economy and lower inflation. That is what is important, and that is what I am working toward.

125 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Oct/25/22 11:18:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was in response to an earlier speech by the leader of the Bloc Québécois. In his speech, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked this open-ended question: Who are Canadians and who are Quebeckers? I thought he was going to talk about moms and dads who are worried about their mortgages, university students who are worried about their future and grandparents who are worried about their retirement fund, but instead he launched into a very interesting historical and philosophical discussion about the differences between people from Quebec and people from the rest of the country. I do not speak for them; I speak for my own province, of course, but I suspect that the differences are much smaller than the similarities among people from coast to coast.

146 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Oct/25/22 11:19:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, when we consider the country from coast to coast to coast, we notice that every community and every region has its own distinct character. Obviously, Quebec is very different because our main language, our only language, is French. Consequently, our way of being and our way of life are very different from other parts of Canada. However, aside from the language component, our daily lives are much the same. When people get up in the morning, they have to pay the bills, buy food and pay for housing. It is the same situation everywhere in Canada, and that is why we must all work together to combat this inflation that is hurting all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

123 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Oct/25/22 11:20:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles for his speech. We are here because our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois decided to present an opposition motion in the House of Commons from which I will read the preamble, which I find interesting. It states that “Canada is a democratic state” and that the “House believes in the principle of equality for all”. I will focus on those two points from the Bloc motion day because I do believe that “Canada is a democratic state” and that the “House believes in the principle of equality for all”. That is why I prefer today to talk about the fact that 100% of Canadians are suffering every day from the cost of inflation caused by the costly New Democrat-Liberal coalition. When we look at the numbers, we realize that 80% of Canadians, including Quebeckers, are worried about their finances and wonder if they will be able to make ends meet at the end of the month and pay their bills and groceries each week, while 72% of Canadians feel they pay too much in taxes. On January 1, 2023, the Liberals are preparing to further increase what they will be taking from the paycheques of Canadians and Quebeckers. They are about to further raise the carbon tax, which will create even more inflation and make absolutely everything cost more. The cost of food alone has risen by more than 11%, something that has not been seen in the last 40 years. In addition, inflation remains at about 7%. There were reports that inflation had come down slightly, but it only came down by 0.1%, primarily because of a drop in the price of gas, but that did not happen everywhere. Unfortunately, people will not benefit from it for long because, very soon, the Liberals will turn that drop into an increase for all Canadians. Let me also quote a few figures from Statistics Canada. Last month, the price of meat was up 7.6% compared to last year, dairy was up nearly 10%, baked goods were up 14.8% and vegetables, 11.8%. These figures do not paint a complete picture, however. It is clear something is going on when you go to the grocery store and see how people have been acting over the past few months. People are looking for products, they cannot find what they are looking for, or they are leaving products on the shelves because they simply cannot afford it. Another change is that people are going to grocery stores as soon as the flyers come out so they can take advantage of the discounts as quickly as possible. That way, they can save money on products that inflation would otherwise prevent them from buying. That is the reality. What is in store for us tomorrow? The Bank of Canada is going to raise its key interest rate again, making housing even more expensive and making home ownership even less likely for young families and young people entering the workforce. That is the reality. We do not know by how much the rate will go up, but it will definitely go up. The Liberals keep saying that they are not responsible for inflation because it is caused by the global economy and all sorts of other reasons and people. However, that is not what the head of the Bank of Canada thinks. According to Mr. Macklem, inflation is the result of many factors that are becoming purely domestic. In other words, inflation in Canada is created by Canada.

613 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/25/22 11:24:29 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert on a point of order.

14 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Oct/25/22 11:24:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think there must be a conspiracy between the Liberals and the Conservatives because the whole lot of them are completely off topic. My colleague is talking about inflation when the topic of the motion is the monarchy. Where is the connection? There may be one because the monarchy costs us dearly and we could, in abolishing it, solve some of the problems we have in Quebec. However, my colleague is still completely off topic.

77 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/25/22 11:24:53 a.m.
Watch

I would like to once again remind members to make sure their speeches make some reference to the motion that is before the House today. I know members have a bit of latitude in their speeches, but they need to reference the motion often. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable may continue.

57 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Oct/25/22 11:25:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I refer to the motion. What is driving inflation to this point? Our national debt. The national debt has increased by $100 billion, despite Liberal promises. We remember the promise they made in 2015 to run small deficits for three year and then return to a balanced budget. That was forgotten and there is now a deficit of $100 billion. Before the crisis in Ukraine, the Liberals increased our national debt by $500 billion, $200 billion of which was in no way related to COVID‑19 expenditures. The Prime Minister's mindset was plain to see when he said in his inaugural speech that it was time to borrow because interest rates would remain low for decades to come. I again refer to the motion, which states at point (ii) that the “House believes in the principle of equality for all”. Unfortunately for the poor, the price of inflation means that they cannot buy and acquire goods. That is the reality and I thank the Bloc Québécois for giving me that opening and this opportunity to talk about equality for all, here in Canada, because it is important. Unfortunately, due to the costly NDP-Liberal coalition, that is no longer a reality; the poorest are finding it increasingly difficult to buy most things. Let us talk a bit about the Bloc Québécois. If there is one good thing about their motion today, it is that it shows Quebeckers what the Bloc Québécois's main priority is. Contrary to what I have just said and the concerns of Quebeckers each day, the Bloc Québécois has shown today what its priority is. The Bloc Québécois supports a general federal carbon tax for all Canadians because they refuse to vote in favour of our motion to not increase the carbon tax for all Canadians. How ironic that the Bloc Québécois should support a federal tax on all the provinces. The Bloc Québécois and its leader have always claimed they want to be the voice of Quebec's National Assembly in Ottawa. Unfortunately, what we have just seen proves that the Bloc Québécois talks a good game, but when the time comes to act, it cannot deliver. Quebec just held an election to which the Bloc Québécois devoted all its energy. All the Bloc Québécois members worked really hard. They invested resources, and the leader gave speeches in support of one political party in Quebec's National Assembly, the Parti Québécois. Did the Bloc Québécois, the Bloc members and the party staffers who claim to represent Quebec's National Assembly remain neutral in the recent provincial campaign? The answer is obviously no. They dedicated their hearts, their energy, their resources and their speeches to supporting the candidates from a single political party, Quebec's separatist political party. It is the only party whose ultimate goal is Quebec independence, which is far from the goal shared by all the members of Quebec's National Assembly. I think if we did a quick survey of the National Assembly, we would see that most do not want Quebec independence. In the election, only three Parti Québécois candidates won seats, despite all the resources that the Bloc Québécois had put into campaigning in Quebec. After campaigning against all the other parties represented in the National Assembly, and after Quebeckers only elected three Parti Québécois members, the Bloc Québécois still claims to be the voice of Quebec's National Assembly in Ottawa. That is not true, and the motion is clear proof of that. Rather than talk about Quebeckers who cannot make ends meet, rather than condemn the Liberal government's encroachment on areas of provincial jurisdiction, the Bloc Québécois chose to ask the House of Commons to debate an issue that only got three members elected to the National Assembly. In closing, I just want to state that I speak for many Quebeckers when I say that people do not really care whose face is on the $20 bill. What they care about is having enough $20 bills in their pockets to pay for their groceries at the end of the month.

761 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Oct/25/22 11:30:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for that display of contempt. I feel compelled today to repeat, repeat, repeat that we can do more than one thing at a time, like discuss inflation as well as other topics. I also feel the need to clarify, clarify, clarify that not all anti-monarchists vote for the Bloc. There are also Liberal and Conservative anti-monarchists. My colleague is trying to put all the blame on the Bloc, but I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that there are monarchists on his side who currently agree more with us about abolishing the monarchy.

113 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Oct/25/22 11:31:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's question, and even though he repeated it over and over and over again, I found it difficult to follow his train of thought because, at the very end, he said that we support the monarchy, but that we do not support it. I wish my colleague had listened more carefully to my speech, because what I said is that Quebeckers are currently more concerned about whether they can afford their groceries at the end of each month, not whose face appears on the $20 bill. The Bloc Québécois chose to take a debate that started in the Quebec National Assembly and try to turn it into a debate in the House of Commons today, because the Bloc members still see themselves as white knights and they want to save their little brothers in the Quebec National Assembly. I sadly feel the need to repeat that there are three PQ members in the Quebec National Assembly.

169 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/25/22 11:32:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not too often I find myself in agreement with members of the Conservative Party on some of these points, so I do not think I will say this too often. I wonder why the Bloc would bring this forward. I think it has a lot more to do with internal politics within the Bloc caucus than it does the reality of life beyond the Bloc caucus here in Ottawa. The reality of life, whether in Quebec, Manitoba or anywhere else in Canada, is that there are issues related to the pandemic. We can talk about inflation or health care. Health care is a major issue in the province of Quebec. They want to see a higher sense of co-operation between the national government and the province on a wide spectrum of issues, if there is any reflection in terms of constituents I represent. Based on the motion brought forward by the Bloc, I wonder if my colleague would agree that it is completely out of touch not only with the people of Quebec but with issues related to Canada—

185 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/25/22 11:33:45 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member is making a speech as opposed to just asking a question, and there are other people who want to ask questions. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

35 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Oct/25/22 11:33:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised that my colleague from Winnipeg North said that he agrees with part of my speech. I hope it is the part where I was speaking about the costly Liberal-NDP coalition, which will result in Canadians receiving a smaller paycheque on January 1. Does my colleague agree with the part where I said that the Liberal Party will soon increase the carbon tax, which will make everything more expensive across the country? I really want to know if he does. I gather that it is that part of my speech and I am very honoured that my colleague has taken that position.

110 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Oct/25/22 11:34:40 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, no one in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is talking about this issue, so I agree with the member on that point. The Bloc motion also fails to mention that any amendment to our relationship with the Crown would also require the unanimous consent of the 10 provinces of Canada. Look at the problems the provinces are dealing with. In British Columbia we have an opioid crisis and a health care crisis. There are all kinds of things. I do not think the provincial governments of Canada would look too favourably on having this interrupt their schedules looking after their constituents' needs.

107 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Oct/25/22 11:35:15 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to have unanimous consent, it would take the consent of at least one province. To have the consent of one province, it would take a province with a separatist government in power. Unfortunately for the Bloc, in the last election the Parti Québécois elected three members to the National Assembly of Quebec.

58 words

The Speaker

Oct/25/22 11:35:35 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Following the presentation earlier today of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health on Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, the Chair wishes to draw the attention of members to a procedural issue related to amendments adopted by the committee during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene in committee matters. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has a responsibility to ensure that certain fundamental rules and practices are properly observed. As Speaker Fraser explained on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates: When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown...no matter how tempting this may be. The two amendments in question relate to part 2 of Bill C-31, which would enact the rental housing benefit act and provide the establishment of a one-time rental housing benefit for eligible persons who have paid rent in 2022 for their principal residence and who apply for the benefit. The first amendment would modify clause 3 of the bill, which proposes to modify, in subsection 4(2) of the rental housing benefit act, the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold set out in paragraph 4(1)(g), by increasing the percentage of the payment to be taken into account for rent payments that include board or other services from 75% to 90%. The second amendment seeks to amend the same clause and proposes to eliminate, in subsection 4(3) of the rental housing benefit act, the rule that would reduce the amount of rent taken into account in the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold. This is set out in paragraph 4(1)(g), paid in 2022 by cohabiting spouses or common-law partners living separately on the reference day. The chair of the committee ruled each amendment inadmissible because they lacked the required royal recommendation. Both decisions were challenged and overturned. The committee then debated each amendment and adopted them. The committee chair was correct in the assessment of both amendments relaxing the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit. This would result in a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill since more people could have access to the benefit. Page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us that: Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. Consequently, these amendments need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation. While the Chair appreciates the difficulties that can arise when examining a bill in committee, it is important to remember that a committee must carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. By adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiatives of the Crown, a committee exceeds its powers. Consequently, the Chair must declare null and void the two aforementioned amendments to clause 3 of Bill C‑31, adopted by the Standing Committee on Health, and direct that the amendments no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House. In addition, I am ordering that a reprint of Bill C-31 be published as early as possible for use by the House at report stage to replace the reprint ordered by the committee. I thank members for their attention.

664 words

All Topics

Ms. Niki Ashton (Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, NDP)

Oct/25/22 11:42:18 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. I am pleased to speak in Parliament today in support of this motion. I believe that it is time for us to take the next step in asserting and strengthening our democracy, in part by ending our ties with the monarchy. We are living in an important time. We are seeing attacks against democratic institutions and processes around the world. We here in Canada need to look at what we can do to strengthen and reinforce our own democracy. We cannot sit idly by. It is time for us in Canada to reflect on our own institutions and our own processes. It is time to ask, how democratic are we in reality? It is 2022, and we have a king. We have been independent since 1867. We have had our own foreign policy since the 1930s. We repatriated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. In 2022, we still have a king. I think it is legitimate to debate this question, about whether we should keep moving toward a more democratic system. I recognize that there are people in this country who do support the monarchy and there are people with emotional connection. My own grandmother, who was born in England, camped out to witness the coronation of the Queen in 1953. My grandmother felt a direct connection going back to World War II, when during the Nazi bombardments the Queen and the monarchy were a symbol for many in England of the resistance at that time. For many indigenous peoples, the relationship with the Crown is of significance. That is with whom the treaties were signed. It is a relationship going back in history and we must acknowledge this. However, the question is this. Here, in 2022, are we not at the point where we can elect or select our head of state, rather than having the head of state represented by the British Crown? The answer should be yes. We need to view this question through a modern lens in 2022. We must acknowledge the second-ever National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which has built on the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, making it clear that we must recognize the truth when it comes to Canada's ugly history of colonization. That colonization is rooted in the Crown's control, to its benefit. With the Indian Act, the reserve system, the residential school system, the pillaging of indigenous resources and the genocide of indigenous peoples, the devastating impacts of colonization are still evident today. Reconciliation means carrying on a journey of decolonization and this must include ending our ties with the British monarchy. The monarchy is a symbol of colonialism for many indigenous peoples and for many people who have come to Canada from around the world. Many people left countries for a better life because of the conflict, impoverishment and repression waged by the British Crown. Many left from countries that had struggles for independence and where resistance was brutally quashed by Britain and those who served the British Crown, including India, Malaysia and Cyprus. The list of countries goes on. Reconciliation also means embarking on the path to decolonization. It means severing ties with the monarchy. I am thinking about all the people who left their countries in search of a better future because of the wars, economic hardships and repressive measures inflicted on them in the name of the British Crown. We must be clear. The monarchy is a symbol of colonialism, a symbol of slavery, a symbol of oppression, a symbol of repression and a symbol of conflict. We know that in recent years the monarchy has engaged in a fair bit of public relations. It has said sorry for some things, but sorry will not cut it. Countries like Jamaica are demanding reparations from Britain. Countries like Barbados have done away with the monarchy entirely. It is time for Canada to boldly take a step forward on the path to decolonization and away from the monarchy. There are steps we can take right now. Elected members of Parliament are asked to swear allegiance to the King. This is an anachronism that we can get rid of. I would like to point out that Sol Mamakwa, an NDP colleague in Ontario, and many Québec Solidaire and Parti Québécois members in the Quebec National Assembly have refused to swear allegiance to the King. We should be swearing an oath to the Canadians who sent us here. I have long had many people asking me why Canada is not an independent country and why we do not swear allegiance to Canadians instead of to the Queen or the King. However, we need to do more. How democratic is it to have an elected House of Commons and an unelected Senate, a Senate modelled on the House of Lords, whose duty is to check our democratic excesses? While there are good people in the Senate, it is profoundly undemocratic. We have to recognize that. I believe the logical thing to do is abolish the Senate, and I am proud that the NDP has always stood for the abolition of the Senate. Canada lectures other countries around the world on the importance of being a democratic country, of having a democracy. Of course we have an elected House of Commons, but we cannot lecture other countries because we are far from having a perfect system. We have a king, we have a Senate where senators are appointed and we have a Parliament that is elected through a first-past-the-post system, where parties like the Liberal Party form a government with less than 33% of the popular vote. We must strengthen our democracy. We must bring in electoral reform to ensure that the voices of Canadians and the will of the Canadian people are truly reflected in their houses of government across our country. We have made some small steps to bring our House into the modern era, including bringing in a hybrid Parliament, but the reality is that the foundations of our Canadian democracy, and certainly our institutions, have a long way to go to be able to strengthen the democracy we claim to believe in. With all due credit to Quebec parliamentarians, we should pay tribute to the leaders of the Quiet Revolution and finally become masters in our own house. It is time for Canada to move into the modern era, one that is rooted in reconciliation and committed to decolonization and strengthening our democracy. This ought to include ending our ties with the British monarchy.

1121 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Oct/25/22 11:50:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. It is interesting to see someone who has decided to actually participate in the debate. The Bloc Québécois has opened the door and invited the members of the House to take part in a debate capable of generating comments as intelligent as the ones made by my colleague. How would she characterize the attitude of the Conservatives and Liberals who simply want to ignore the debate, despite the fact that people have been talking about the public's dissatisfaction with institutions? That dissatisfaction is often the result of institutions being maintained even though they are outdated. Should their attitude be characterized as: (a) lack of courage; (b) crass complacency inherent in a colonial attitude; (c) total ignorance of history; (d) all of the above?

137 words

Ms. Niki Ashton

Oct/25/22 11:51:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would have to go with (d) all of the above. I am concerned about the fact that very few members are willing to talk about the important matter before the House today. Let us be clear. The King is a symbol that is part of our history and the reality of colonization. If we truly believe in democracy and decolonization, we will take steps that include our ties with the monarchy. As I said, there are a lot of other things we should do to strengthen our democracy. We must have the courage to do them.

99 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Oct/25/22 11:52:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has put interesting comments on the record today. I suspect this is just about putting them on the record, unless the member is prepared to indicate that at the end of the day, Senate reform and changing our system of head of state require a constitutional change. Does the member believe the NDP would like to have a constitutional debate imposed upon Canadians and parliamentarians at all levels? Is this what she believes we should be focusing our attention on? I do not.

88 words