44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 13, 2023 10:00AM
- Jun/13/23 10:35:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member opposite's speech was very personal and compelling. I cannot imagine there is a member of the House who does not feel the same way about this being a crisis and about the need to work on it. This applies to constituents in my area as well.
However, attacking municipalities and saying it is all their fault is not the correct way to go either, in my opinion. We do, for the first time, have a national housing strategy. Part of that is a housing accelerator fund and a rapid housing initiative, working in concert with the municipalities. Often I hear across the way, and from many people, that this is about jurisdiction. Certainly in Alberta and Quebec, we are not to interfere with anything the provinces have jurisdiction over.
I noted in your speech that you talked about your concern that Alberta does not have rent control. Are you advocating for the federal government to get involved in provincial jurisdiction in Alberta, for example, to ensure that there is rent control for people like yourself and others who are facing rental property rent increases?
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:04:32 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, with respect to my comments, maybe I have somewhat neglected the Bloc members, but let me bring them into the debate.
I suspect that the Bloc is supporting federal initiatives on the issue of housing, and that is a positive thing. I would applaud the Bloc's approach in recognizing that the federal government does have a role, as the member opposite waves the report. In that report, there are many suggestions on what the federal government should do on housing.
I am now led to believe, through the Bloc member's question, that the Bloc supports the report, which supports the federal government involvement in housing in the province of Quebec, and that is a positive step forward. At the same time, I would remind the member that, as a government, we have continuously indicated very clearly that we will work with the provinces and municipalities, big and small, to deal with the housing crisis that we face today.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:22:21 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as a member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and someone who has participated in a lot of studies, I can confirm that we are not at all opposed to the idea of a strategy to support and assist the provinces. To start, we need a collective effort at all levels of government to build and deploy affordable and social housing. While this is our priority, we also need the programs to be effective.
We are entitled to ask the question when a major $80-billion investment is made in a policy that fails to produce concrete results. Instead of complicating things, we would even go so far as to say that we may have reached the point where the next step is to directly transfer a percentage of federal revenues to Quebec and the provinces, to let them handle these issues.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:25:52 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, these are fundamental questions.
Fortunately, they are questions that come up when we discuss these matters at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities and here in the House, when someone dares to ask them, that is.
Our communities are full of non-profit organizations, community co-operatives that do amazing work. We must leverage those groups with Quebec and the other provinces. Our goal can be achieved, as long as the appropriate means are used. My colleague is entirely right.
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 11:39:44 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is right, this is a comedy show. Please tell me the members opposite are joking when they say that they have done the most for housing. Ask anyone who is serious about this issue and they will find that laughable. The crisis has never been so severe.
Just this morning I was reading an article in the Journal de Montréal about a 63-year-old couple in Quebec who, for the first time, are going to sleep in their car with their two dogs. They have never experienced anything like this in their lives. There is no such thing as $1,300, $1,500 or $1,800 housing. If there were, it would be directly subsidized by our taxes. Programs are offering affordable housing for $2,000 a month in Montreal.
To say things have never been better sounds like a tag line for the Just For Laughs Festival.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 12:22:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and fellow member of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I also thank her for all her comments at committee that advance the cause of social and affordable housing.
As for her question, I would like to reassure her by noting that a regional county municipality, for example, can apply to the housing accelerator fund. One of the concerns that we had was about serving the vast majority of municipalities, particularly here in Quebec. That is part of the program, and I would be pleased to discuss it with her personally as well.
110 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, as I said, the best time to speak is just before oral question period.
What I was saying is that Quebeckers and Canadians want our country to continue welcoming people fleeing repression or intolerable humanitarian crises. I would like to think that this is the context for Bill S‑8, an act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, to make consequential amendments to other acts and to amend the immigration and refugee protection regulations.
Bill S‑8 is currently at third reading and has been studied and amended by the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs. I had the opportunity to replace my Bloc Québécois colleague from Montarville on that committee and to work with my colleagues from other parties.
Members know that I am among those who believe that, despite differing ideas and political visions, most of the time collaboration helps parliamentary work. We witnessed that recently once again with Bill C‑41. It also demonstrates that despite sometimes having different, and even diametrically opposed, positions, we can work together and get things done. Our work is to find common ground. Everyone knows that politics is the art of compromise.
In short, it is this teamwork that will have helped improve the bill currently before us. I must recognize the remarkable work done by the committee and all the parties that came together to amend Bill S‑8 so that it would not undermine attempts by people who want to escape the war. That was the main objective. Let us not forget that one of the concerns of the organizations was that some people from a sanctioned country might not be able to seek refuge because of the new provisions in this bill.
Bill S‑8 also ensures that Canada meets its international obligations when it comes to welcoming refugees. This means that individuals targeted by a sanctions regime could claim asylum. However, they would not be able to receive permanent resident status as long as they remain targeted by a sanctions regime. Bill S‑8 therefore fixes the problems that were introduced by the Justice for Victims of Corrupt Foreign Officials Act, which prohibited individuals targeted by a sanctions regime to file a claim for refugee protection. It also allows border officers to turn away individuals who would be targeted by a sanctions regime as soon as they arrive.
That correction is in line with the UN Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, which states that only convictions “by a final judgement of a particularly serious crime [or a crime which] constitutes a danger to the community of that country” are sufficient grounds to remove a refugee from the country or deny them entry. I sense that people are interested in what I am saying.
The bill also now includes a provision that requires it to be reviewed after three years to determine its effectiveness, which is excellent news. That is a fine amendment that will enable us to make changes to the bill, if ever it were to have undesirable effects on certain refugee groups.
In short, it is a good bill that was improved by my colleagues from all parties in order to remedy the situation for certain asylum seekers. This bill will assure those who are fleeing war, corruption and oppression that it is indeed they that we intend to protect from armed conflicts, not those who instigate such conflicts. Those who violate human rights are not welcome in Quebec and Canada. In solidarity with our allies and out of aversion for warmongering regimes and organizations, the Bloc Québécois invites all parties to unanimously vote in favour of this bill so that Quebec and Canada are and remain welcoming nations for asylum seekers, and not safe havens for criminals.
In closing, I will repeat that we are here to do a job. When parties collaborate and move a bill in the right direction by working together, we, the parliamentarians, are judged by the people we represent. Our constituents must be thinking that, for once, parliamentarians are getting along and working together to improve bills for the well-being of the people of Canada, but also for the well-being of people coming from other countries who would like Canada and Quebec to become their new home.
I congratulate my colleagues once again. I want to highlight their work, and I believe that it should become a good example for other committees. It was a pleasure to rise today just before oral question period.
768 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 2:05:29 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a dedicated citizen, Lisette Falker. She recently won the Francine Ruest-Jutras award, a distinction bestowed by the Union des municipalités du Québec to recognize women who demonstrate exceptional leadership in municipal politics and in the governance of Quebec communities.
Ms. Falker was the first city councillor to receive the award. As just one example of her many accomplishments, she wrote a book called Histoires d'élues, which tells the stories of 25 elected women from Lanaudière, in a bid to increase women's political participation. The book was published in collaboration with the Réseau des femmes élues de Lanaudière, where Ms. Falker is a project manager and mentor.
Ms. Falker is also the executive director of Action famille Lavaltrie, which provides support to the families and newcomers with whom we have the pleasure of working.
Ms. Falker is a role model in terms of support for and dedication to women. She is an inspiration for the people of Berthier—Maskinongé and Quebec. Well done.
189 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 2:18:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec, we do not wait for anyone. The Mange ton Saint‑Laurent! collective gets that.
Made up of scientists, such as Mélanie Lemire and Yv Bonnier Viger, renowned chefs and mentors, such as Colombe St‑Pierre, and artists, filmmakers and entrepreneurs, the group hopes that Quebeckers will take ownership of the St. Lawrence River's edible bounty.
To make that happen, it is running a campaign called “I am St. Lawrence” to support our fisheries and encourage us to buy Quebec seafood products. Fully 85% of our high-end seafood products are exported abroad, while we sometimes end up with lower-quality imports.
We vote with our dollars. Let us eat local. Like the thousands of fans of the St. Lawrence River, let us proudly add the “I am St. Lawrence” slogan to all of our communications and demand seafood products labelled as being from the St. Lawrence River.
On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to say a thank you as big as the St. Lawrence River to the collective, which is promoting our food sovereignty. Like all of us, “I am St. Lawrence”.
207 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 3:02:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we understand the seriousness of the challenges that many Canadian workers, including those in Quebec, are facing right now. We are with them on the ground. We encourage all workers impacted by wildfires to apply for EI as soon as possible, even without a record of employment. We are on top of this and we will be there for Canadian workers.
63 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 3:06:41 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, was in Montreal yesterday to announce a significant contribution to social finance, not only for Quebec, but also for the rest of Canada.
Can the minister tell us more about how the social finance fund will help increase the positive impact that social purpose organizations have on our society?
61 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 6:50:40 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am a bit naive. When I first got here, I naively thought that we would be debating. I thought that democracy was the bedrock of ideas, that we would put forward ideas, that the opposition parties would put forward other ideas, that the government would also put forward ideas, that we would debate them all, and that this would lead to amazing bills. People would look at us and say how incredible we are. I thought that was democracy. As I have said many times here, that is not the case. I have lost count of the number of gag orders this government has imposed. Now we have a fundamental proposal that will change how we debate things for the next 10, 15, 20 or 100 years.
We hope to be long gone by then, because Quebec will have become independent. Nevertheless, the fact of the matter is that this proposal is going to be adopted, changing all the rules of the game with the wave of a magic wand. We have just a few hours to debate huge changes to how we conduct debates here. I think that is totally unacceptable.
196 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 8:57:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his important question. I would like my colleague from the province of Quebec to know that I have worked in that area too.
I worked at a pulp and paper mill in B.C., Repap Industries, during the summer for many years. I do understand and acknowledge what shift work means, whether people work four on and four off or four 10-hour days, or whether someone works nights, afternoons or a morning schedule. I worked shift work at a grain elevator every summer, so I do appreciate the member's comments.
We are debating Government Business No. 26 this evening, the permanent changes to the Standing Orders. I think we can all say we have had the experience of utilizing the hybrid option for quite a period of time. We know it does provide enhanced flexibility for members. The member is correct. On the weekends, we do get to go to a lot of events, but we are home with our family members. My hat goes off to the police officers, the firefighters and anyone who works shift work all the time. They certainly have my utmost respect, and they always will.
200 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:06:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I have a lot to say about that.
At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, we do indeed work in a collegial manner. As members know, we in the Bloc Québécois lead with our conscience. We analyze whether something is good for Quebec, for our values. If it is, we vote in favour. If it is not, we vote against it.
That is what happened at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We voted for what is happening right now, which is the real defence of democracy. We are talking about the hybrid Parliament, and democracy means consultation. We used resources to consult experts and obtain results in order to establish a possible hybrid Parliament with rules.
That is being trampled on. With just a few days to go before we rise for the summer, all of a sudden a motion is being rushed through, without any real consultation. Once again, consistent with the list I provided earlier, I am unfortunately very disappointed in the government.
183 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:08:00 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize very much to my colleague that I am not speaking French, but it is late in the House tonight, and my French is not up to the task. However, I work very well with the member on the ALS caucus, and I appreciate the work she does in the House very much.
Obviously, I do not agree with some of the things that the member has brought forward, but one of the things I am worried about is the health of our interpreters and the health of the people who are working to support us. It is a challenge for me and something that I struggle with, because I do not understand how the Parliament of Canada cannot adequately resource the committees for the work that we need to do. This is something that we need to get to the bottom of, and I think that there are solutions there.
I strongly believe in a hybrid Parliament, because I strongly believe that it makes it easier for women and others for whom it may not be as easy to be in this place. It makes it easier for them to be represented here. I think that is one of the most important things that we can do as parliamentarians.
I wonder if the member could talk about the fact that we do not have the resources necessary. Quebec is a lot closer to Ottawa than Alberta is. Certainly, for me, having a hybrid Parliament is really important. Is there a way for us to come up with the resources necessary to make sure that a hybrid Parliament could work?
273 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:26:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I just want to acknowledge the excellent work of my colleague from Red Deer—Lacombe.
This evening, in his speech, with his parliamentary experience, he talked about the many years he has been a member here, both on the opposition side and the government side. He learned to operate within this parliamentary life that calls for a lot more than just standing up, giving speeches and sharing his positions. Parliamentary life is bringing the voice of the people back home here to Parliament, joining it to the other voices we hear across the country, throughout Quebec, in British Columbia, in the Atlantic provinces, in northern Quebec, to be able to have discussions between colleagues about what everyone is going through. After that, we can make more informed decisions on how we are going to vote, the bills we will support, the discussions we will have in committee. This allows us to see what is happening and what people are experiencing in this wonderful country from coast to coast to coast. Indeed, to me, this is a great country from coast to coast to coast.
At present, the government is proposing 50 permanent changes to the Standing Orders, to make permanent a situation that was temporary during COVID‑19. The pandemic was a terrible time. Fortunately, the technology made it possible for us to continue debating. If not for the technology, the government would have preferred that we adopt the majority of laws without debate, without discussion, without committee meetings, because it would have made things much easier for it. However, the technology helped us get through the situation.
The technology also has its faults. We see it today with the arrival of artificial intelligence. People believe that it may revolutionize the world and help everyone, but it is raising many concerns. Hybrid Parliament is not without its faults. The main fault of the 50 amendments that the government is proposing to change the way members work together in this chamber to make Canada a better place is the fact that these changes will impose a new way for the House to carry out its work, breaking a tradition that goes back many years. Major changes to how we work in the House are usually made by consensus.
A consensus means that we agree, that we are working together. This can take time. It can take a while, especially when we are talking about opposing political parties that are not always on the same wavelength. One thing everyone must understand, however, is that we are all here to represent our constituents. We are all here to stand up for our values. We are all here to stand up for our principles in our various political parties. We are on the parliamentary playing field, where we exchange ideas and where these exchanges have been going on for decades in a relatively specific way, based on rules that sometimes seem a bit exaggerated. It is precisely the role of parliamentarians to try to convince other parliamentarians that their point of view is better than any other one. That is how it works.
These are the kinds of discussions that should normally take place to amend the Standing Orders. We should have taken the time to do that. Yes, today's technology allows us to do things that were not possible before. However, these changes should have been made by consensus. All parties should have had time to submit proposals. As long as we do not all agree on a change, we wait and put it off until later.
In terms of the voting app, we nearly reached a consensus. We were almost there. That could have been one change. The first change that could have been made was the remote voting app. We support using this application. I know that my Bloc Québécois colleagues were somewhat reluctant to extend it to all votes, but it was a step in the right direction.
Unfortunately, in committee, when the time came to continue these discussions, one party—which is in the minority—and another party—which has an even smaller minority—decided to join forces and vote for these changes. They chose to work together to make sure things changed. That was the end of consensus.
In the past, there was a majority government. I had just been elected shortly before that.
The majority Liberal government tried to unilaterally change the rules in a rather absurd way with a motion known as Motion No. 6. It was moved in response to altercations that occurred between the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party whip at the time. The Prime Minister and the Conservative whip got into a spat and I would say that the Prime Minister practically assaulted him.
Then, the government said that it was going to put an end to all this nonsense by changing the rules, but that did not happen because all of the opposition parties stood up and decided that the motion was not up to snuff. Still today, we would expect changes like these to require the consensus of all members of the House, particularly given that the government is in a minority position. Unfortunately, that is not the case.
I would even say that the Liberals are braver than usual because they have the support of the NDP. Why are they braver? They now know that they form one party and they have the support of another party; with two out of four parties, that should be enough to change the rules. Canadians will probably not really realize that the government did not listen to the majority of the House, that we did not work on consensus.
This emboldened the Liberals and made the NDP forget their role as opposition. The NDP basically decided to become a full-fledged member of the government in many ways. These changes to the rules are probably part of some negotiation between the Liberals and the NDP to get things that we saw in the budget and to get all sorts of other benefits for a very minor party that is doing business with a party that has a few more members.
That is where we are at. The NDP members are forgetting that they are members of the opposition. They are letting the Liberals do the dirty work of changing the rules without reaching a consensus, but there is one thing the NDP is forgetting. Their party is going to remain an opposition party. There will be a change of government, but they will still be in opposition. That is just the way it is. Unfortunately, the party will have to relearn how to become an opposition party, just under the rules it agreed to change when it decided to support the Liberal Party. It will pay for that, one day. Unfortunately, in the meantime, democracy is paying the price.
Democracy pays the price because the hybrid Parliament is a form of Parliament that we are just getting to know. We should have had more time to do a full cycle and look at the pros and cons and come to a consensus.
That is why the Conservatives proposed setting an end date, but not just some random date we pulled out of a hat. We are proposing that the temporary measures come to an end one year after the election of the next government. That would give the next government enough time to see what worked and try to come to an agreement with all parliamentarians on whether the changes should become permanent. This is not something that should be done at the last minute, as my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle said earlier.
This is not something that should be done at the last minute as the summer looms and all the bills are being rushed through with the Liberals' gag orders. We must operate by consensus. That is what gives the Standing Orders longevity. Imposing changes opens the door for successive governments to make changes to the Standing Orders. They will believe that anything goes because the Liberals will have broken the basic rule. According to the Liberals, when they want to change how we work in a democracy, how parliamentarians vote and do their job, there is no need for a consensus and they can do it provided they have one more member than all the other parties.
Unfortunately, it is an NDP member this time. How sad. I believe that it would be better for the Liberals and the NDP to say that they have heard the official opposition and the other parties, that they will take a break, pause this reform and try to obtain a consensus. Small steps take us further than a giant leap into the void.
1476 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/13/23 10:54:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about adapting. I totally agree that we have to adapt on a daily basis.
On the other hand, neither Quebec nor any other province has a hybrid legislature. I would like it if he could name two or three countries in the world that operate in hybrid mode.
Some MPs are giving the excuse that their constituency is remote. My colleague's riding, Lac-Saint-Jean, is a seven-hour drive away. The ridings of MPs from British Columbia are a six-hour flight away. Where is the logic?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
