SoVote

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Dec/2/21 4:18:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I noted with great interest that the member for Parkdale—High Park mentioned the fight against all the different kinds of hate we confront in our communities, especially Islamophobia. Being from London, Ontario, this is of great concern to me, and I was very pleased that the House unanimously adopted my motion to push for that summit on confronting and fighting against Islamophobia. That summit, in fact, was held over the summer. However, I am very interested to hear from this member what his government plans to do going forward from the recommendations that came from all the incredible organizations across this country that contributed to that summit, as well as how quickly it will move on those summit recommendations.

123 words

Mr. Arif Virani

Dec/2/21 4:19:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I know the pain the member for London—Fanshawe is speaking of concerning the death of the Afzaal family, so tragically killed in a terrorist attack when a van ran onto the road and struck down the family. That is horror, that is terrorism and that needs to be combatted, and I thank her for moving that Islamophobia summit. In terms of that work, our platform included two very specific commitments, which deal with how people are radicalized to that level of hatred that they can take people's lives. That was, firstly, a commitment to, within 100 days, retable legislation that deals with combatting online hate, and secondly, a commitment to, within 100 days, regulate Internet giants that unfortunately do not just tolerate hate but sometimes propagate it.

132 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Dec/2/21 4:20:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Shefford. I would like to take a moment to thank the volunteers at the Centre d'entraide Saint‑Colomban, the parish of Saint Francis of Assisi in Oka, and the Carrefour d'entraide Saint-Placide for organizing their charity drive. This was a tremendous act of selflessness, and I commend them. In passing, I would also like to commend one of my constituents, Jasmine Bikarski-Lalande. As a new member of Parliament, I was hoping to hear great things here, especially in the Speech from the Throne. To me, that speech was the ideal time for the government to set out its agenda and, without explaining each of its policies in detail, at least share its ambitions for the next four years. I say four years because I hope the Liberals realize that they cannot just call an election whenever they feel like it. I had expectations when reading the Speech from the Throne, and this may have been the academic in me, but I was looking for footnotes because the speech was lacking in content, which bothered me. During the tough election campaign, I met with Mirabel residents who wanted to know why the election had been called and why they would have to go to the polling station in the middle of summer in the middle of a pandemic. These people, these families, these young people, including people from flood-stricken Sainte‑Marthe‑sur‑le‑lac, also talked to me about the environment and climate change. I was expecting to find answers in the throne speech. The Bloc Québécois has been sounding the alarm for years now, saying that the government, whether current or previous, is not doing anything. We are told that we have it all wrong, so we respond that the government is not meeting its targets, and then we are told again that we have it all wrong and that the government is taking action. Did the commissioner of the environment and sustainable development have it all wrong when he indicated in the report he released a few days ago that the government had not delivered? Canada is the laughingstock of the G7. It cannot even meet its own targets and it is using 2005 as the baseline year instead of 1990 so that it can conceal 15 years of unchecked exploitation of dirty oil. That is unacceptable. The other self-respecting countries, including Quebec and the 27 EU countries, use 1990 as the baseline year. Being open-minded, I was curious to see how the minister would explain these facts. The minister told us that it was because of the Harper era. He said this even though the environment commissioner's report covered all the years under the current government. As I said, however, I keep an open mind, so I kept listening. The government told us that the Liberals were taking action, but that the Harper government had been so terrible that we were still suffering the consequences. I decided to do a bit of research to see what this government has done for the climate, and I will admit that it has taken action: it went out west to buy a pipeline that cost $4.5 billion of taxpayers' money. Not being very smart, I did not quite understand why the government did that. The explanation it gave was that the pipeline would be so profitable that the government could use the profits to fight climate change. I am a good researcher, so I checked reports from the Parliamentary Budget Officer. I figured that the federal government must be making money on this, because every 15 minutes, the minister says that the government is taking action on climate change. However, the rate of return on the public money invested in the pipeline is 0.5%. In comparison, as the Conservatives keep saying, the inflation rate is 5%. As members can see, the environment is of virtually no importance to the government. I wanted to make a joke. I wanted to calculate how many trees could be planted with the profits from this pipeline, but I realized that without Alberta's tax relief, the pipeline would be in the red. In order for my joke to work, I would have to go into the forest and tear down trees, which makes no sense. I continued to think about this. I am a very calm and logical person. I told myself that there was surely something going on that I did not understand. There are so many intelligent people in this place who are helping to save the planet. It was at that point that I understood what comes next. What comes next is that the pipeline has to be expanded. We did not figure it out, but Canada has to inject at least another $12 billion of public money into the pipeline. If we expand the pipeline, pump out more oil and increase production, what will happen? There will be more money to combat climate change. This is the kind of thing that makes Quebeckers and Canadians cynical. However, if Canadians and Quebeckers do not fully understand the message that the government is sending, the financial markets do. What message is the government sending the financial markets? It is the following. If you are a foreign company that decides to set up shop in western Canada and you make a bad investment in a pipeline, which, besides being unprofitable is not supported by civil society, the Liberal Party will be there to help you. If the company fails or is no good, the Liberal Party will be there to help. That is what is known as too big to fail. Let us not then be surprised when there are problems and a big part of the country is trapped in this industry. The Bloc Québécois is a party that makes proposals. What this situation shows us is that we must address the issue of the money going out to those provinces and this industry. The facts show that over the past five years, our own banks have invested $700 billion in this industry, money taken from savers, families, people who put money in the piggy bank. We are therefore proposing a green finance platform. It is very simple: We believe that Canadian banks should be required to publicly declare how much they are investing in the oil and gas sector. It is a matter of transparency. They should have to disclose their investments. Nutritional information is disclosed, chemicals are disclosed, the content of feather pillows has to be disclosed, but when we deposit our money with a Canadian financial institution, we cannot find out if our money is brown or green. That is what we are asking for. I know that the Conservatives will not like me. They believe in the free market, but as it happens, I am an economics professor. The first thing we teach CEGEP students is that a market economy only works when there is transparency, when people know where they are putting their money, when they know what they are doing. That is what we are asking for. In conclusion, I just want to say one thing. We know the western provinces are victims. Jean Chrétien himself said that, if he had given as much money to Quebec as he did to Alberta, he would have won every seat in Quebec. I personally think Quebeckers have better judgment than that. Still, the message is there. Western Canada's fossil fuel industry is essentially a state enterprise subsidized and supported by various levels of government. That is why we also want to propose green equalization, which is so important to us. This program, which will benefit provinces that do their utmost to reduce emissions, will take equalization and current oil subsidies into account. We are reaching out and hoping for a little introspection on both sides of the House. I can guarantee that there are not a lot of fingerprints on the dictionary page with the word “introspection”. If we want to fix the problem, we have to admit there is a problem. We are a petrostate. Quebeckers are victims of the petrostate. Quebec's economy is a victim of the petrostate. We need to cap production and reduce it. We need to focus on the future. That is a fact.

1425 words

All Topics

Mr. Tim Louis (Kitchener—Conestoga, Lib.)

Dec/2/21 4:30:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member across and congratulate him on his election. As this is my first time to rise in the 44th Parliament, I would also like to take this time to thank everyone in Kitchener—Conestoga who put their trust in me and elected me to be their representative. I thank the volunteers and everyone who supported me, and most of all my family: my wife, Brenda; my son, Satchel; and my daughter, Brooklyn. I value their trust and will work tirelessly to support them. The world I came from is the world of the arts, and one of the things I respect so much about my colleagues from the Bloc is their absolute support for the arts across Canada and Quebec. I want to give the hon. member a chance to brag about some of the artists and groups from Mirabel who make him so proud to represent them in the House.

157 words

Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Dec/2/21 4:31:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I could answer him with the words of Gilles Vigneault: One world ends, another beginsYou can take back your romanceI think I finally understandWe are no longer from the same land

34 words

Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Dec/2/21 4:31:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a product of Quebec myself, that was beautiful. I know, as we have stood in this House over the last several days, one of the things this member in particular has been talking about is the issue of guns and gangs, which is enveloping major cities across this country, including the city of Montreal. The throne speech did not speak that much about the issue of guns and gangs, and I wonder if the member recognizes that. What are some of the solutions the member has for solving that problem?

93 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Dec/2/21 4:32:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for raising this issue. We have been very clear about our proposal over the past several days. We are asking the minister to create a joint task force immediately, because it is within his authority to do so. The fact that we have to keep asking for this clearly shows that the federal government is not doing its job and that there is a lot more to do. For once we are talking about an issue that falls under Ottawa's jurisdiction, so the federal government needs to assume responsibility and do its job.

101 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Dec/2/21 4:32:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I hope my question will not be considered out of order, because it is not about the throne speech. I know the riding of Mirabel includes Kanesatake. I raised my concerns during question period regarding the toxic waste that is in the riding on the Mohawk territories and in the community of Kanesatake. Does my colleague have anything to add to that?

64 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Dec/2/21 4:33:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is a very emotional issue for us, and I thank the former leader of the Green Party for raising it. At this time, it is difficult to know how much of the area in question is polluted. We expect that the Quebec and federal governments will team up and look into this situation and that by working together, they will stop playing ping-pong on this issue. This is a critical issue for our region, in Oka, Saint‑Benoît, Saint‑Placide, Saint‑Joseph‑du‑Lac and Kanesatake, where the people are the first to suffer. This affects a large part of my riding, and I thank the hon. member for bringing it up in the House.

126 words

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Dec/2/21 4:34:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my learned colleague from Mirabel for his speech. I enjoy hearing him talk about green finance so much that I would like to hear more, in case he wants to tell us something else. I am thinking in particular about the money that banks invest in oil and drilling. I thought that I heard somewhere that this money sits around for a long time and is not used for anything, when it could be put to use for something else. What does my colleague think?

89 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Dec/2/21 4:34:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we are interested in finance that generates long-term investments. Long-term growth is generated by investments that are sustainable. Likewise, long-term pollution is generated by sustained investments in the most polluting markets. We want to increase the banks' transparency because we believe that consumers will respond in an informed way. We also believe that greater use should be made of taxation to ultimately incentivize financial institutions and investment funds to invest in the technologies of the future, as well as to reduce the risks that—

90 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/2/21 4:35:28 p.m.
Watch

Order. The hon. member for Shefford.

6 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Dec/2/21 4:35:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my brilliant economist colleague from Mirabel is a hard act to follow. I do not know if I will be able to reach the bar he set, but I will give it a shot. As I rise today for my first speech in this 44th Parliament, I am filled with immense gratitude. I would like to begin by thanking all of my volunteers, the members of my office team, my family, and my partner. I will stop here with the acknowledgements, not only because I am afraid that I will forget someone, but also because I want to save some time for my speech. However, before I begin, I do want to thank the voters of Shefford for placing their trust in me for a second term in these unusual times. This election was held in the middle of a pandemic, and now we can finally see what it was all for. Here we have a new throne speech. My first impression is that this speech is full of things that interfere in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, such as housing, police reform, mental health, natural resource management, violence prevention, and women's services. As well, it fails to mention major issues like health transfers, the energy transition, green finance, EI reform, agriculture, and, most importantly, seniors. My colleagues will understand that, as the critic for the status of women, gender equality and seniors, my speech will focus on the following areas: seniors, health, women, and the economic recovery. First, I noticed that seniors are completely left out of the Speech from the Throne, even though we have seen that they continue to suffer the effects of the pandemic. Their financial situation, which was already precarious long before the pandemic, has been exacerbated by the crisis, yet there is nothing for seniors aged 65 to 74, the ones the government always leaves behind. The government could have taken advantage of the Speech from the Throne to right another wrong. I am referring to something that simply does not sit well with the seniors' groups I consulted, this idea of creating two classes of seniors: those 75 and up and those 74 and under. They should all be eligible for an OAS increase of $110 per month starting at age 65, as the Bloc Québécois is proposing. It gets worse. In its Speech from the Throne, the government said nothing at all about seniors. I may be repeating myself, but it could have also addressed the GIS clawback that seniors who received the CERB are facing. As early as spring 2020, ACEF groups contacted the Minister of National Revenue to share their concerns on this issue, but they got no response. In August 2021, I sent a letter to the former Minister of Seniors, and my colleague, the member for Joliette, sent a message to the Minister of Finance. The election campaign started, and nothing happened. We have since sent letters to the new Minister of Seniors and the Minister of Finance. Let me stress that our solution is simple. Drastic times call for drastic measures. We want CERB, in this case, to be considered employment income, not an “other benefit”. That is actually what it is. Seniors who had to leave their jobs because of the pandemic were entitled to CERB. They should not have an average of $400 clawed back from their cheques. They should all be entitled to a review of their file based on their actual income. The impact on their monthly income is huge. They have to decide which medications to buy, they cannot afford good food, and they could lose their housing. For some, this is taking a significant toll on their health. If pandemic recovery is still a priority for this government, it should make massive investments in health care and help lift the most vulnerable seniors out of poverty. Instead of interfering in areas under the jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces, as it is attempting to do by setting standards for long-term care homes and mental health, it should focus on what it can and should do: respond to Quebec and the provinces' demand to raise federal health transfers from 22% to 35%. That means increasing transfers from $42 billion to $60 billion, a difference of $28 billion per year. The government has not made its intentions with respect to health transfers clear, but this is an absolutely vital issue, especially in light of events that have exposed what goes wrong when the system is chronically underfunded. Since the 1990s, neither the Conservatives nor the Liberals have invested enough. They have even cut their health transfers. Quebec and Canadian provinces all agree that health transfers should be increased. The only ones objecting to fixing the chronic underfunding of health care systems are the Liberals, who were the only party that voted against a motion on this subject in the House of Commons that had the support of FTQ, CSN, CSQ and CSD leaders. The third point I want to make is about gender-based violence, a topic that is particularly important to me as my party's status of women critic. The national action plan to end gender-based violence is already in place, but a 10-year plan is far too long. The government needs to stop conducting studies and take action by sending the necessary money to Quebec. The federal government may not know what to do, but Quebec does. The Bloc Québécois has always said that funds allocated to combat domestic violence should come from Canada health transfers. Quebec is once again in a class of its own when it comes to family and social policy and the structure of its support network. Quebec has a single, cohesive, integrated network to provide health care services and social programs. The federal government's one-size-fits-all policies often overlap with existing Quebec programs, and it is harder for the Government of Quebec to implement its programs when it does not have full control. This reality cannot be ignored and must be taken into account to ensure that any federal involvement is designed to be effective and to respect the ways in which Quebec is different. The recognition of Quebec's special status needs to be an integral part of the process. Any federal involvement must be positive for Quebec and must support Quebec women and girls. I could have spoken about many other issues, but that is what I hope will be brought forward in the next Parliament, only with a lot more teeth than what we read in this very meagre throne speech. On climate change, the government must not just say that Canada needs to put words into action and that time is of the essence. It must make far more commitments. For example, it must put a cap on oil and gas production, not increase it by focusing on fossil fuels. There is no such thing as clean oil or coal. The Liberals must stop their greenwashing. The government has yet to table a plan with concrete measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reach the 2030 target. It must admit that the Trans Mountain expansion is pointless and cancel this project. The money saved must be used to fund the green transition and a green recovery, as was already proposed by the Bloc Québécois in the post-COVID-19 recovery plan it released when Parliament resumed in September 2020. It proposed creating real green financing by encouraging the banks to invest heavily in the green recovery, clean energy, green technologies and energy efficiency, which will provide real protection for our environment in the long term. We also need to ensure that the economy grows with targeted and prudent spending support, including the extension of support measures, as well as targeted support for affected industries, such as culture and tourism. Both of those economic sectors are so important to Shefford. We will keep a close eye on how Bill C-2 is implemented and propose improvements. We also need to combat inflation and address the very important issue of the labour shortage, for which the Bloc Québécois made seven very worthwhile proposals during the last campaign. We also need to work on family reunification and on a refugee resettlement program, and, really, the issue of immigration in general, since it remains so problematic and takes up so much of my office staff's time. We also need to work on the issue of social housing and homelessness. In closing, I would point out that getting out of this crisis calls for a clear plan, and we saw no such thing in the throne speech. To bring this full circle, let us look at seniors again. One way to protect people from the effects of inflation is to ensure decent purchasing power, especially for seniors. That is why people must be outraged. As the great Quebec humorist Yvon Deschamps once said, one is always better off being rich and healthy than sick and poor. That was true in the 1960s and it is unfortunately still true in 2021 for far too many disadvantaged seniors. We should be appalled by the disregard being shown to those who built Quebec and Canada. We must do something about it.

1581 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

Dec/2/21 4:44:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, where I could agree with the member is that there are a couple of issues, both health care and environment, which are very important issues to Canadians. Where I tend to disagree with the member is on the issue of a plan. Just because an opposition member says there is no plan, does not mean there is not a plan. Actually, it is quite the opposite. There is a detailed plan. All one needs to do is read it or listen to members from the Liberal caucus who are standing up and speaking. There is a plan and it is tangible. Even during the election, independent sources made it very clear that the Liberal Party had the best plan when it came to the environment. Would the member not agree that Canadians in all regions, including the province of Quebec, recognize that the national government needs to play a stronger role in long-term care facilities and mental health, both of which are very important issues for my constituents and, I would argue, for her constituents too. Does she not agree that the federal government does have a role to play, given that constituents of both our ridings want to see that?

204 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Dec/2/21 4:45:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the less said about studies showing who had the best plan for the environment, the better. We heard all sorts of things. In the last Parliament, we saw that when the time comes to give a bill some teeth and ensure that the objectives are not just fine words, it is important to include specific targets in a bill in order to hold the minister accountable. We were not able to do that. The Liberals opposed it in the last Parliament. The government continues to make massive investments in oil and the coal industry. We saw what happened in Glasgow. Clearly, with regard to the environment, the Liberals will have to try a little harder to walk the talk. As for mental health, the federal government is meddling in Quebec's jurisdiction. I am tired of the federal government's paternalistic attitude, its lecturing and its attempts to interfere in health care, which is our jurisdiction. Why does it not transfer health care to us? Believe me, Quebec will be able to— The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): Order. Questions and comments. The hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

197 words

Mrs. Karen Vecchio (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC)

Dec/2/21 4:46:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is wonderful to see you back in the chair. It is also wonderful to ask a question of my colleague, who I have worked very closely with when it comes to women's issues. Throughout this pandemic, we have seen an increase in the number of deaths and in domestic violence cases, which have gone up rampantly. We have seen huge changes in these numbers. I wonder if the member could share with me some of her solutions to this. As we know, there has been nothing and we continue to see a rise in this. What are some of the things the government can do to ensure the safety of women?

115 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Dec/2/21 4:47:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what we saw most often during the pandemic was women trapped 24 hours a day with their abuser, women who had trouble breaking out of that cycle of violence. As I mentioned in my speech, 10-year action plans take too long, because the time to act is now. We have had 18 femicides in Quebec this year, and that is far too many. The money could go through Quebec, which already has an all-party committee in place and an action plan to fight violence against women, but implementing it will obviously depend on the transfers Quebec receives. Ottawa therefore needs to transfer funds to Quebec. The same thing goes for housing, because the other problem is that we have to find somewhere for these women to stay. Right now, there is a freeze on funding transfers for women's shelters, so these women are having trouble finding a place to live. That is why I mentioned in my speech how important it is that we take action and transfer money for more housing so that Quebec can implement its action plan to fight violence against women. Ottawa will soon be introducing legislation related to the Department of Justice that will require careful consideration by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. I know that my colleague and I will meet again on that committee, and I look forward to working with her.

240 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Dec/2/21 4:48:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my dear colleague from Shefford. I want to ask her a question because she talked about the Trans Mountain pipeline. I am all for getting rid of that pipeline. We cannot meet the Paris targets if we increase oil sands production. However, many members seem to be misunderstanding something. I will say this in English because I want it to be really clear. There are two pipelines. There is the old one, which is leaky and was bought in the 1960s. It was, until the floods, bringing crude oil from Alberta to a refinery in Burnaby. That one I do not think anyone had any trouble with. It had been running for a long time, it was just old, and we spent way too much money for it. The one everyone wants stopped is the expansion that would carry a different product for purposes of export in tankers. It is diluted bitumen, which is a product that is inherently of low value, does not have markets, is impossible to clean up should it spill and massively—

181 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Dec/2/21 4:49:48 p.m.
Watch

I really apologize, but I have to give the member the opportunity for a very short answer. The hon. member for Shefford has 10 seconds remaining.

26 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche

Dec/2/21 4:49:55 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in my lifetime, I have fought against the idea of transporting more oil in pipelines. When it comes to pipelines leaking, it is not a matter of “if”, but “when”. That sums up the entire problem with respect to the environment. That is why we need to stop investing in any new pipelines and embark on an energy transition.

65 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 9