SoVote

Hon. Kamal Khera (Minister of Seniors, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 3:07:32 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-12

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for Scarborough—Agincourt for her work and her advocacy for seniors in her community and in the House. When it comes to supporting the most vulnerable, our government has always been there. That is especially true for low-income seniors. We have committed to supporting seniors who counted on pandemic supports and had their GIS impacted. We are making a major investment through an automatic one-time payment for those affected seniors. We unanimously passed Bill C-12 in the House, and I am confident that the other place will do the same. Seniors know that our government will always be there for them.

113 words

All Topics

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Mar/1/22 3:08:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, more than half of Canadians say they are struggling with the cost of living. Yesterday, a report from the National Housing Council confirmed that the government is not making housing more affordable for Canadians. It also said that the Liberal government's national housing strategy is only meeting a fraction of the existing need. After six years of half measures, the housing affordability gap has only increased and Canadians are paying the price for the government's failures. When will the Liberals stand up for Canadians by cracking down on housing speculators and make the needed investments to build 500,000 units of social and co-op housing?

110 words

Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 3:08:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we thank the housing council for its work, and we commit to closely examining the recommendations contained in the report that it prepared. We are the government that reintroduced federal leadership in the housing sector. We have brought in significant resources through the national housing strategy, which has grown from $40 billion to over $72 billion. The hon. member mentioned the co-op sector. We are the government that saved the co-op sector, after it was abandoned by the Conservatives, to the tune of $318 million, which would guarantee subsidies for a long time for the most vulnerable members of the community.

105 words

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Mar/1/22 3:09:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, last week a man froze to death in a downtown Winnipeg bus shelter in -30°C weather. We have a homelessness crisis in Winnipeg Centre that is costing precious lives. People are forced to sleep out in the cold because the Liberals' national housing strategy fails to fix the housing crisis. People need real solutions. When will the Prime Minister respect the right to housing as a human right, and make adequate investments to ensure nobody else dies because they cannot find a home they can afford?

90 words

Hon. Ahmed Hussen (Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 3:10:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, let me make this absolutely clear. Even if one Canadian finds himself or herself on the street, it diminishes us as a society. I share the grief of the hon. member. I want to reiterate our support for investments in affordable housing. I have lost count of the number of times I have been to Winnipeg, virtually and in person, to make announcements through the rapid housing initiative, the national housing co-investment fund, the affordable housing innovation fund, the rental construction financing initiative, reaching home, the Canada-Manitoba housing benefit and the Canada-Manitoba bilateral agreement on housing. We are doing everything that we can, and we will continue to do more.

115 words

The Speaker

Mar/1/22 3:11:07 p.m.
Watch

I am afraid that is all the time we have for Oral Questions today.

14 words

Ms. Elizabeth May

Mar/1/22 3:11:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It is difficult to hear when there is so much noise in this place. You probably did not know how bad it was. I know we cannot rise in question period on a point of order, but I had to turn my volume up as high as I could to hear the hon. member for Repentigny due to the enormous roar of heckling against her as she spoke. That violates Standing Order 16 and Standing Order 18. I know you are doing your very best to remind people to keep order, but it becomes hard when members cannot hear other members pose questions because of the rudeness and the noise.

119 words

The Speaker

Mar/1/22 3:11:18 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for her intervention. I want to remind all members that when someone else is speaking, as in right now, please respect each other and try to follow the rules of the House, because that is how good debate takes place.

45 words

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 3:12:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During question— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

17 words

Rise

The Speaker

Mar/1/22 3:12:26 p.m.
Watch

Order. Order. We are about to have someone rise on a point of order, so we want to hear what she is saying. The hon. member for Oakville North—Burlington.

31 words

Ms. Pam Damoff

Mar/1/22 3:12:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, during question period, the member for Miramichi—Grand Lake claimed the Minister of Public Safety called the protesters “rapists”. I was present at the public safety committee meeting on Friday and can assure this House that the minister did not say that. I would like you to ask the member to apologize for misleading the House and to retract the statement.

66 words

The Speaker

Mar/1/22 3:13:01 p.m.
Watch

I will take that under advisement and return, but I want to remind hon. members to please check their facts before they say anything in the House and to try not to insult each other. Try to do it with words; we are debating issues, not calling each other names. Are there any other points of order before we continue? We will go to orders of the day.

68 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Mar/1/22 3:13:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed and valued colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I had four place names to remember, I who also have four names. Elections Canada recently proposed a plan to redraw the federal electoral map—

52 words

The Speaker

Mar/1/22 3:14:09 p.m.
Watch

I must interrupt the hon. member for a second. I want to remind everyone that there are members speaking in the House right now. I would ask those who want to have discussions to go into the hallways or whisper. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.

48 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/1/22 3:14:29 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada recently proposed a plan to redraw the federal electoral map and give Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia four more seats while taking one seat away from Quebec. This electoral map reform will forever make us, the people of Quebec, a negligible quantity in the Canadian system. While Quebec currently holds 78 out of 338 seats in the current House of Commons, if the proposed reform were to go ahead, Quebec would occupy 77 out of 342 seats in this hypothetical future federal Parliament. Since votes in Parliament are often close, as we have seen on several occasions during this Parliament, Quebec's political weight would be reduced, as it would account for 22% of the total number of members. The trend will be clear. As Quebec's demographic significance decreases, its influence in the House will dwindle away to nothing. Mathematics aside, continuously reducing Quebec's importance within the institution that makes the laws in this country will have real consequences. Quebec will have less and less say. Its interests and values will be more and more diluted, to the benefit of the interests and values of the rest of Canada. Is this not the real consequence of our presence within this system, which has a pattern of perpetually marginalizing us? Prior to the poorly named Confederation, when French Canadians were more numerous than English Canadians, we enjoyed equal representation: Two peoples unequal in number but with the same number of representatives, for as long as French Canadians were in the minority. Then along came the 1867 regime. French Canadians were fewer in number, so parliamentary representation became proportional. It is handy when the conqueror decides what kind of system to set up. In 1867, our ongoing marginalization was baked into the system. In 1867, the Province of Quebec held 36% of the seats in the House. Every time the electoral boundaries were redrawn thereafter, our weight diminished: 28% in 1947, 25% in 1999, 23% in 2015 and, soon, 22%. As time goes by, Quebec will become more deeply submerged in the red tide. As time goes by, Quebec will command less and less fear and respect in Ottawa. As time goes by, we will have to waste energy trying to explain ourselves, make ourselves understood and gain respect. We will have to go to great lengths just to make ourselves a small part of this country's debates. That is why the Bloc Québécois introduced a bill in this session of Parliament to create a “nation clause” that would guarantee that the number of members from Quebec would never be less than 25% of the total number of members in the House. That would be a strict minimum. In 2006, the Canadian government tried to distract Quebec by labelling it as a “nation within a united Canada”. Is it not time to show that words have meaning and they are not just something to be used in the House? Will the House adopt our motion so that this is not just a tool to distract Quebeckers? At least this motion will limit the damage. Let us make one thing perfectly clear. Quebec has never wielded any power in Ottawa. It has not and never will. Canada is controlled by another nation. Even so-called French power is just smoke and mirrors. Even though some Canadian leaders have come from Quebec, their actions and decisions will always be subject to the law of the Canadian majority, and rightly so. The Quebec nation will always be at the mercy of the decisions the majority imposes on us. The only parliament where the Quebec nation holds 100% of the seats is the Quebec National Assembly. We have lost count of how many unanimous motions of the Quebec National Assembly the House of Commons will not even deign to mention or discuss. If “form a nation” means anything, the legislature solely dedicated to representing that nation should be able to say no to laws it does not want, such as the Emergencies Act, which Quebec unanimously rejected. That legislature should also be able to pass 100% of its laws without worrying they will be ripped apart by courts enforcing a constitutional order it never signed or consented to, as was the case with the Charter of the French Language, which is now a mere shadow of its former self. A nation should also be able to stop worrying that its democratic choices, such as Bill 21, the secularism bill, will be subject to a challenge paid for by a state in which it is just a minority. It should be able to choose its own policies, policies that reflect its values and interests in terms of culture, justice, social solidarity, the environment, energy, international relations and trade agreements. When Quebec's National Assembly votes unanimously in favour of increasing health transfers, it should not have to constantly beg a Parliament where Quebec will soon have just 22% of the seats to mercifully send us a portion of the taxes we pay. Being a minority, and a shrinking one at that, in a foreign regime forces us to waste our potential and accept endless ridiculous compromises. Those compromises will end up compromising us as our weight shrinks. That is the fate that awaits us as part of Canada. The regime is increasingly depriving us of our ability to decide for ourselves what we want for ourselves. This regime is beyond reform. Is it better to be 100% yourself or 22% of someone else? Is it better to be a majority or a minority? For me and my colleagues, to ask that question is to answer it. We want Quebec to achieve independence because Canada is not our country. Its choices are its own, not ours. Independence is a question of democracy. There are certainly independent countries where the people are not free, but there is no such thing as a free people who do not have independence. It is as simple as that. The math is very straightforward. A nation that is deprived of its political tools is a neutralized community that is condemned to powerlessness. That is the real problem with the electoral redistribution. We must leave the Canadian state with no rancour because it is not our state. We are not at home in Canada and its institutions. We are tired of the Canadian state undermining our democratic choices in the name of a constitutional regime that has been imposed on us. We are tired of living with societal choices that are not our own, choices that are often even contrary to the ones we would make in the fullness of freedom. Quebec's true history will only begin with the realization of our own country, one that is secular, just, humane, fundamentally free, where we will no longer need to ask for permission from anyone to make the choices that are most consistent with our values and our fundamental interests, in other words, the Republic of Quebec.

1181 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 3:23:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I am going to ask my question in English to make sure I get the words right. I am sympathetic to the idea that we have to preserve, promote and continue to support particularly the French culture, the language and the dynamic in Quebec. As I listen today, there has been a notion in this House that Quebec is the first province ever to lose a seat under redistribution. That is false. In Nova Scotia, we used to have 21 members of Parliament. We are now down to 11. Quebec, like other provinces, has the ability to protect its seats, in the sense that Quebec will never have fewer than 75 members of Parliament. I take notice that they want to fight to maintain the seat; I am okay with that. In Nova Scotia, we have the largest Gaelic-speaking population outside of Scotland. We have a unique history. Will the member also fight for proportionality for Nova Scotia, so that Nova Scotia will always keep a certain percentage of seats in this House regardless of the dynamics of the population of the country?

194 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/1/22 3:24:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think that basically, every province can fight its own battles. I have no problem with that. If Nova Scotia and New Brunswick want to make an issue of this, that can be discussed, no problem, on condition that Quebec does not lose its democratic weight in the House. That is what needs to be taken into account: if the weight is increased for other provinces, then logically, it should be increased for Quebec as well. Yes, there may be provinces that have lost some democratic weight in the past, but the fundamental issue is the claim that Quebec is a nation. This was recognized by the House. Will these words ever have any meaning? It is time to prove it.

123 words

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Mar/1/22 3:25:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot talked about the Quebec nation and making sure that Quebec has enough representation in the House. First, if Quebec wants to have another referendum, the National Assembly should go for another referendum. Based on the language he has been providing today, it seems that is what they want to do. I would encourage him to talk to his premier to do that. Second, we do not talk enough about this in the House of Commons. British Columbia has six or seven seats. British Columbia has no guaranteed seats on the Supreme Court of Canada. The west still wants in, and I am sick and tired of hearing all the time about the needs of Quebec when British Columbia needs its fair share of the federation as well. We pay taxes and the Constitution is representation by population. Quebec needs to recognize that B.C. pays its fair share and B.C. deserves just as much representation.

165 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/1/22 3:26:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague criticize me for promoting the fundamental objective of the Bloc Québécois, which is Quebec's independence. I also heard him fiercely standing up for his fellow citizens. That is what we are doing. He was elected to represent his fellow citizens, just like my colleagues and I were elected to represent ours. We were elected as separatists, knowing that this is not a place where we will be influencing a separatist movement. I want to reassure my colleague that we also want to invite the Quebec National Assembly to launch a separation bid. We are the first to be in favour of it. I ask my colleague to recognize that we were elected as separatists and that it is natural for us to use our platform and our access to federal debates to promote our cause among our fellow citizens. What is wrong with that? We were elected without hiding our objective from anyone. It is clear. I do not want anyone to criticize us for bringing it forward. If my colleague is sick and tired of always hearing about the needs of Quebec, I hope he will join us in advocating for our independence.

205 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Mar/1/22 3:27:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot that my youngest daughter was born in Montreal. I thank him for speaking about representation for Canadians and for those in Quebec, and I want to ask him if the Bloc agrees that the first-past-the-post system is no longer serving all people.

58 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 38