SoVote

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

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Oct/25/22 3:59:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her passion. With regard to the monarchy, I will simply quote the very famous Indiana Jones who said, “That belongs in a museum”. The Bloc Québécois has talked a lot about the money that could be saved, and it is true that $67 million is a lot of money. We could build a lot of social housing and help community groups with that money. Every little bit counts when it comes to helping people. Recently, the group Canadians for Tax Fairness reminded us that, for last year alone, tax loopholes cost us $30 billion, so that is $30 billion that was lost. Why did the Bloc Québécois take all day today in the House to talk about approximately $67 million in savings, when we could have talked about tax evasion and the $30 billion that could potentially be collected?

164 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Oct/25/22 4:00:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question, which gives me the opportunity to talk about other sources of revenue. Why did we not talk about tax evasion today? The reason is that we have already spoken about it at length with my colleague from Joliette, whom I commend. He is waging a massive battle against tax avoidance and tax evasion. Unfortunately, the numbers show that the Liberals opposite are inept when it comes to fighting tax avoidance and tax evasion. That being said, I completely agree with my colleague that this is indeed another source of revenue. When we talk about tax avoidance and tax evasion, it is radio silence from the members opposite, but we are not going to give up, believe me. We could also get money from web giants like GAFAM, who avoid having to pay taxes much too easily.

151 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Oct/25/22 4:01:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. From what I gather, my colleagues in the other parties disagree with Quebec's modern, forward-looking values, and they prefer to live in the past. I respect their choice, but there is something that I do not understand and I would like to hear my colleague's opinion. How can they claim that the issues we want to discuss today are irrelevant and do not warrant the slightest debate in the House of Commons? That type of judgment and thinking they know what is best for Quebeckers is beyond me. Still, we have a concern, which we raised today. Would it be possible to express it without having to face an outcry like we did today?

126 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Oct/25/22 4:02:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles for his question. I believe the Bloc Québécois is also concerned about other issues. Today, on Parliament Hill, the Bloc once again defended employment insurance reform, which is long overdue. It is seasonal workers who are penalized right now, and the Bloc spoke out about it. We did not talk about the monarchy. Today is our opposition day, during which we raised an important issue. I really like the expression “talk and chew gum at the same time”. We can talk today, here in the House, about how much the monarchy everyone is talking about is costing us and about the fact that we do not talk about it—

133 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 4:03:00 p.m.
Watch

Order. Resuming debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, Senate.

13 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Oct/25/22 4:03:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, today, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hochelaga. I want to start off today's discussion by reflecting on exactly what we are doing here today. Those who are watching, perhaps who do not tune in regularly and may have happened across the channel today displaying the parliamentary proceedings, might wonder what is going on. In a calendar year, based on the composition of the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois gets three sitting days of the House to bring forward issues that are important to the individuals and communities it represents. Today is one of those days, and today is not unique, unfortunately. This is not the first time the Bloc Québécois has done something like this. Today, it has decided to bring forward a motion that we somehow start this constitutional process of removing the monarch from the framework that sets up our parliamentary democratic system. However, the Bloc did something very similar with respect to being completely out in left field just last spring when it brought forward a motion to remove the 15-second prayer at the beginning of the proceedings every day in the House of Commons I mention this not because I do not think these two issues might be important to Bloc members, but I bring these up because I wonder how, when the Bloc Québécois gets three days in a calendar year to bring issues forward, it uses two of those days to talk about the 15-second prayer we have at the beginning of the day and this motion about the monarchy and the current framework of our parliamentary system. This is important to Bloc members, but I cannot believe for one second that it is the most important thing about which their constituents care. I have been the member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands for seven years, and I have never once had somebody come up to me and tell me that I need to do something about the state of our democratic institution, that the head of state needs to be removed. It has never happened, but maybe it is a Quebec thing, and that is fine. My wife and I, and our kids spend a lot of time an hour north of here in Lac-Sainte-Marie, Quebec. I got to know a lot of the locals around there. After a bit of time of interacting with them and some of them finding out I am a member of Parliament, they quite often bring up issues with me. To be fair, they are not always complimentary of the government. They bring up things that the government is up to and they ask me questions about them, but never once have they brought up the issue of the head of state. The Bloc Québécois members will come in here and trumpet on about how it is important that they are able to represent their constituents and whatnot, but they are not representing their constituents. This is a personal and political agenda of the Bloc Québécois. That is why we are doing this today. We are not doing it because they want to represent their constituents and they feel it is very important for them. They are doing it because they feel it is important for their political agenda. For that, the Bloc Québécois members should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. They have wasted two supply days allotted to them in any given year to talk about absolutely irrelevant issues as they relate to what is on the minds of Canadians and Quebeckers. I am not saying people do not have opinions on the head of state or how our parliamentary system and our government should function. All I am saying is that there is no way those members can tell me this is even among the top 20 issues. We just came out of a global pandemic. I criticize the Bloc members quite a bit for the issue around health care transfers and how they always bring it up, but at least it is an issue that has substance to it with respect to what the Quebec provincial government would like to see. However, I cannot accept the idea that somehow this particular issue is one of the priorities of the constituencies represented by Bloc members. Let us just say that Bloc members are fully doing their responsibility to represent those people. I cannot help but ask myself, if they were successful in this, and let us say we could instantaneously, without all the constitutional nightmare around it, be rid of the monarchy, how would this change the lives of Canadians tomorrow morning? How would their lives be any different than they are right now today? Our head of state does not have supreme power. Our head of state, by and large, is a symbolic figure who is there to help guide the manner in which our parliamentary democracy, and our democracy generally speaking, works in our country. The lives of Canadians and Quebeckers, for that matter, would not be different tomorrow morning if the head of state were suddenly not there. I am asking myself why. I cannot help but continue to go back to the same thing. This is not about the constituencies that the Bloc represent. This is about a political wedge issue. It is using one of its three supply days as an opportunity to drive a political wedge in constituencies in Quebec. It should be ashamed because it had an opportunity to actually come here and bring forward ideas, hold government to account, set up and initiate policy that could genuinely improve the lives of Canadians. We heard something quite astounding earlier today in question period. It actually happened twice today. The time that really resonated with people was when the leader of the Bloc Québécois rose in the House and said that he did not mean it. He was, I guess, crossing his fingers. His fingers were crossed behind his back when he swore allegiance to Her Majesty when he was elected. Can members imagine if this were a court of law. He would literally have been committing perjury. He would have perjured himself. That happened earlier as well. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert earlier said the exact same thing. His words were even more egregious. If members of the Bloc Québécois have now finally come to a position where they are willing to admit that they did not mean it, why do the rest of the members not stand up to say the same thing? Did they mean it when they swore allegiance, or were they just pretending too? I would love to hear some of the other members, when they get up to ask me a question, to let me know if they meant it or if they were crossing their fingers too. What a system we live in where it is so expedient for their leader to just get up and say that as though he suddenly can now wipe his hands clean of the responsibilities that he swore allegiance to not even one year ago. It goes without saying, but I certainly will not be voting in favour of this. I think that the Bloc Québécois has done an extreme disservice to the constituents it represents to try to politicize an issue that might play well in Quebec, but it does not anywhere else. I realize that it is only focused on Quebec. I get that it might play well there, but I think the fact that the Bloc Québécois has three days in a year to bring forward very important issues should not be lost on anybody. Rather than bringing forward an important issue, it has used this as an opportunity for political advantage for its own party, which should single out to the constituencies it represents how it actually feels about representing them.

1366 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Oct/25/22 4:12:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands just demonstrated that he is incapable of debating an issue that he seems to be passionate about. He seems to be a staunch defender of the monarchy. I would have liked to hear his arguments in favour of the monarchy instead of listening to his arguments on the relevance of having this debate in the House. He stated his opinion clearly. I would be curious to hear the members in his party from the Acadian region in New Brunswick, for example. Did he ask those members, who represent Acadian populations whose ancestors were deported by the British Crown, how they feel about the monarchy? I would like to hear the member for Kingston and the Islands do something other than say that we are politicizing an issue. News flash, politics is what we do here. I am glad that he realizes that because that is a win for today. I would like him to tell us what we gain from spending $70 million a year to maintain a system that, in his own words, is nothing more than a symbol.

190 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/25/22 4:13:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, no, I have not brought it up with any of my colleagues, nor have they, in seven years, brought it up with me, because every time we get together to talk about issues, there are many issues that are so much more important than this. There are issues so much more important than this that we get together to talk about. Forgive me and my colleagues for not having stood up and asked, “By the way, I know we are dealing with all of this other stuff, and there is a global pandemic, along with everything else that is going on, including inflation, which is all a big deal, but by the way, how do we happen to feel about the monarchy? Is that something we are still good with?” No, I am sorry. I have not brought that question to their attention.

147 words

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

Oct/25/22 4:14:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, to start off, I am a bit taken aback by the tone of the member. First of all, as parliamentarians, I think we all should respect important debates, whether we agree with them or not, but, second of all, there are many people, including many in indigenous communities, who have been clear that reconciliation involves decolonization and we should be looking at severing ties with the monarchy. I would encourage the member to actually talk with some folks, perhaps outside of his riding, who have some direct, very horrific experiences with the impacts of colonialism. The Liberals are the ones who promised electoral reform and promised strengthening our democracy, yet we have seen them renege on all of these promises. Is this not an opportunity to stand up take a look at our democracy and all the ways we can strengthen it, including severing our ties with the monarchy?

151 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/25/22 4:15:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the NDP are now using the politicization of this issue to politicize its own issue of electoral reform. There is an irony in that. Just for the record, I am not saying that there are no good arguments. I am pretty much indifferent to the position of the monarchy and how that continues on. However, it is not going to be resolved with a supply day motion presented to the House. The supply day motion that has been presented to the House is only coming from a place of politics. I apologize to the member if my tone does not seem to be in line with what she thinks is respectful, but I do admit that I am extremely frustrated by the fact that the Bloc Québécois, although this might be a very important political issue for them, are using this opportunity just to try to create division and wedge issues within the province their own members are from. That is the reality of the situation, but I certainly agree with her that there are a lot of problems associated with colonization and what that led to. Let us have real, honest discussions about that. If that means moving away from the monarchy, let us talk about that in a productive and constructive way, not in a supply day motion like this. We all know that it is not going to produce the result that they are looking for.

245 words

Mr. Sébastien Lemire (Abitibi—Témiscamingue, BQ)

Oct/25/22 4:17:12 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I just have one question for my colleague from Kingston and the Islands. What is more important and more of a priority than not being subject to another country and another nation?

34 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/25/22 4:17:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is making sure that we can properly take care of Canadians in their time of need and making sure that, when we have inflation at the rates that we do now, we can do everything to support those who are struggling the most. The impacts of inflation right now and the impacts of the pandemic, generally speaking, certainly drove the division between the haves and the have-nots—

72 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 4:17:47 p.m.
Watch

We have to resume debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion.

18 words

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing), Lib.)

Oct/25/22 4:17:56 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to speak to the motion that was introduced by the Bloc Québécois today. I thought it was a bit funny last week, because when I found out that it was indeed an opposition day for the Bloc Québécois, I was sure that we would be talking about monarchy. The leader of the Parti Québécois had just made another media appearance in Quebec on his being sworn in after being elected and, given the relationship between the Bloc Québécois and the PQ, it was obvious that the subject of the monarchy would be addressed. Ms. Andréanne Larouche: It did not bother you before. Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada: Nothing escapes the member, Madam Speaker. That said, we are not hiding anything. One of the opposition members recently said that the parliamentary secretary was not advocating for housing in Quebec. Well, the parliamentary secretary has been touring Quebec talking about housing. I have been in constituency offices of Bloc Québécois ridings, and the people were not aware of housing projects and housing programs. Why are the elected officials representing those citizens not telling them about the programs they can benefit from? I actually would have preferred that the Bloc Québécois members use their opposition day to discuss any current programs that they believe are not working. It is true that many people in Quebec are questioning the monarchy. Symbols can indeed be costly, but they also provide stability, and in today's world, we sure could use some stability. After a pandemic and a war, do we not have anything more important to talk about than the monarchy? Can we talk about the 15,000 people in Quebec alone who are on waiting lists for psychological and mental health support? Can we talk about health transfers or about our common goals for a better quality of life in Quebec? I have been the member for Hochelaga for three years. The Bloc members know that, because I beat their candidate twice. To do that, I knocked on 15,000 doors in my riding. No one in Hochelaga wanted to talk to me about the monarchy. Is it important these days? People talked to me about food security. They talked to me about finding a job, a better job. They talked to me about immigrants who arrive here and cannot have their credentials recognized in Quebec. Can we talk about the issues that affect people every day? The problem with the Bloc Québécois's motion is that it takes for granted that the solution would be the one they advocate. Okay, we get rid of the monarchy, but what do we do next? Sorry, but we are going to cause instability. Some are very upset about the cost of $70 million. As far as I am concerned, I would like to know more about all the money that is sent and not used as it should be, including the money sent to the Quebec government. Regarding the monarchy, we take an oath to a structure, a government, a constitutional monarchy. No one in my constituency wants to reopen the Constitution right now. Can we, in this nation, assert ourselves as francophones? Can we debate cultural issues related to the web, talk about the investments we need to make in social housing? The Bloc's opposition day was so predictable that it is actually disappointing. It is just another media stunt. One wonders if even the Bloc's statement today in the House is another media stunt to double down on the topic being presented. The Bloc could raise so many other issues. It is so predictable that it is disappointing. The Bloc could raise so many other issues in the House that are relevant. We can debate and discuss them. Their role across the aisle is to be a government watchdog. The Bloc Québécois should not presume to speak on behalf of all Quebeckers. It should get out there and talk to people. I was at the Maisonneuve market in my riding on the weekend and not one person talked to me about the monarchy. A Bloc Québécois member jokingly suggested that we spend a day talking about the price of fruits and vegetables, but it is because fruits and vegetables have become so expensive at the Maisonneuve market that we are implementing the GST/HST credit and providing support to farmers. There are so many issues that the Bloc Québécois could have talked about today. I find it disappointing and I prefer to be part of a government where I can say that I am a nationalist, francophone and immigrant. When I arrived in Canada, I did not speak French, something that I know is an important issue for the Bloc Québécois. Today, I am a proud francophone Quebecker who thinks that, instead of talking about the monarchy, it is better to talk about the concerns of people in my riding who, every day, are struggling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads and to integrate into a francophone community. That is what I want to talk about, the needs of real people who do not care about the monarchy today. Can we talk about something other than old historical debates? Why not talk about the present and the future? I am disappointed that the subject proposed by the Bloc today was so predictable.

948 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Oct/25/22 4:24:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague repeated herself a lot in her speech. That is fine because she wanted to emphasize her point. When it is your turn, you can choose the topic of debate. The Bloc Québécois usually does not pass judgment, as you have been doing all day long. If you do not like this subject, that is your problem. This subject pertains to our values—

71 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 4:25:04 p.m.
Watch

Order. I would remind the hon. member for Rivière‑des‑Milles‑Îles to address the Chair.

22 words

Mr. Luc Desilets

Oct/25/22 4:25:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the topic of the monarchy relates to our identity as Quebeckers, but it does not reflect who we are and we want nothing to do with it. The member alluded to the fact that the monarchy represents stability. Can she tell me what catastrophe will befall us the day that we get rid of it? Because that day will come.

62 words

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

Oct/25/22 4:25:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think this is simply not the right time to have a debate about the monarchy. There are people in Quebec who are absolutely committed to it, as we can see from what is happening in the National Assembly. However, this is neither the right time nor the right way. This is simply a political gambit, and I do not believe the Bloc Québécois's intentions. Could this not have been discussed in committee instead, or could we even create a committee to discuss it?

91 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Oct/25/22 4:26:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her speech. As a proud democrat and a proud socialist, I do not mind talking about the monarchy, because I can settle the matter rather quickly and move on to another subject. In talking about other topics, she focused a bit on the fact that our health care system is being strangled, emergency rooms are overflowing and people are really struggling after two years of living with a pandemic. Federal government transfers for health care are at an all-time low, at 22% or 23% of total system costs. All provincial premiers, including the Premier of Quebec, are calling on the federal government to do more and to quickly and permanently increase health transfers to the provinces. Does she not think that would have been a good topic of conversation for today?

141 words

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

Oct/25/22 4:26:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. That is exactly what I was saying. There are so many topics. In mental health alone, there are currently 15,000 people on waiting lists in Quebec to see a psychologist. In the current context, after a pandemic, it seems to me that it would have been worthwhile to talk about the mental health of our citizens in Quebec.

69 words