SoVote

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

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/1/22 3:27:53 p.m.
Watch

During its first term in office, the current government promised to reform the electoral system in order to make it more proportional, but that promise was quickly broken. Of course we were in favour of electoral reform, and I have no reason to believe that we would not support it in the future, but on one condition, of course. We will not automatically give our approval because not all electoral reform will necessarily be good. We will not say yes or no to the broad concept of electoral reform. We will examine all the details as soon as a proposal is put forward. For now, it does not seem as though electoral reform is even on the table.

118 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Mar/1/22 3:28:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you about Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, which was previously the riding of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I will come back to that a little later. I am very pleased to be speaking about this matter today. I was listening to the speeches by my leader and my House leader this morning, and it was music to my ears to hear them stand up for Quebec. I feel sorry for our poor Conservative colleagues who are again going to listen to us defending Quebec and the nation that it is, because that is essentially the topic of the day. As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot was saying, since 2006, we have been reminding the House that Quebeckers form a nation. The House reiterated it last June, when it acknowledged that Quebec forms a nation, and that French is its only official and common language. I believe that when acknowledging this unity and this desire to live together also means acknowledging that we aspire and have the right to a certain form of self-determination and control over our social, economic and cultural development. As long as Quebec is part of Canada, our nationhood has real political implications. In order for consideration of our nationhood to be embedded in the political decisions made in the House of Commons, it is absolutely essential that we have the political weight to express it. I am particularly interested in today's topic because my riding was targeted during the last electoral redistribution 10 years ago. As in 2012, the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, proposed a new redistribution of seats last October. This redistribution would add four seats in total but would take one seat away from Quebec, dropping our seat allocation from 78 to 77. This would be the first time since 1970 that a province would lose a seat in the House of Commons. I think that is totally unacceptable. The only way to avoid this would be to change the formula for calculating the number of MPs and their distribution per province, in order to protect Quebec. Earlier, the member for Drummond introduced a bill in the House to guarantee that the number of members from Quebec cannot be less than 25% of the total number of members. I am sure that he explained the ins and outs of the nation clause that we want to integrate. The principle we are asking the House to adopt today is simple. We want to protect Quebec's political weight. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could be against this. I said that it was important for me to speak. It is not just Quebec's voice that is being weakened, but the voice of eastern Quebec as well. I want to look back at 2012, when the last boundary changes were made. Members for the region stood together to speak out against the elimination of a riding in our area of the country because that is what was proposed: to eliminate the riding that I represent today. The reasons were essentially based on demographics, since the population of the riding was less than the new quotient of about 101,000 residents that was established at the time. The Chief Electoral Officer tried to balance the population counts of the eastern Quebec ridings with the Quebec average by eliminating that riding. The federal electoral boundaries commission for Quebec proposed expanding the boundaries of the already extremely large riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and those of the riding of Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine to make two huge ridings and thus eliminate the riding of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. That would have created two geographically huge ridings, which would become two of the most heavily populated ridings in Quebec. The MPs at the time—Guy Caron, the NDP member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, François Lapointe, the NDP member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, and Jean-François Fortin, the Bloc Québécois MP for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, a predecessor to whom I send my regards, presented a brief to the commission to show how terrible of an idea it was to do away with a rural riding. I got that brief off the shelf and dusted it off because it contains some arguments that are still valid today and that, unfortunately, prove that there is a chance we might end up in the same situation we were in 10 years ago. Eastern Quebec may be targeted and lose its political weight in the House of Commons. I want to review what happened. Fortunately, in 2012, my riding did not disappear. If it had, I would not be here, obviously. They just redrew the riding boundaries. We ended up losing Haute-Gaspésie and gaining part of Chaleur Bay, which is way over on the other side of the peninsula. That led to pointless confusion with people trying to figure out who their MP was every few years. Calling on one's federal MP is not an everyday occurrence. The outcome was a victory for MPs in the region who fought to retain their voters. I would like to go over the reasons why I think rural ridings should not be changed. For one, the territory is huge. My riding alone is almost 15,000 square kilometres. It covers two administrative regions, four regional county municipalities, 56 municipalities and two indigenous communities. It is big, and that makes for challenges that are entirely unlike those associated with urban ridings even though our ridings are a little less populous. In rural areas, MPs must deal with multiple interests and build a consensus to ensure a certain cohesion of regional points of view. In a riding like mine, when a debate involves the interests of the region, I have to consult my 56 mayors, my four reeves, my two indigenous leaders, the four chambers of commerce and all the agricultural and economic unions, and everything else that is part of it. Everyone deserves to be heard, but covering such a large area comes with certain challenges. It is a whole different ball game in an urban riding, where some of my colleagues are dealing with a single mayor or a single provincial member. It is not at all the same. I think that we must be respectful of natural communities, the boundaries of administrative regions and RCMs. We must not split them up. That is just what the 2021 redistribution proposed: splitting up the RCMs. I think we have to be aware of the realities that come with living in a certain political region, whether at the municipal, provincial or federal level. People in a given municipality or other local district are going to form economic, social and political ties just by virtue of sharing the same political community. People often try to justify these redistributions based on demographic forecasts that show a new urban design based densification rather than sprawl. I understand that, but I think it is a bit excessive to base the redistribution on 20-year forecasts, when the boundary review exercise has to be done every 10 years anyway. In addition, the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé regions saw positive net migration in 2021 for the first time in 20 years. I think that also needs to be taken into consideration. It is not the same phenomenon as before. Perhaps this can be viewed as a positive effect of the pandemic, which has allowed people to move to the regions thanks to teleworking, so that also needs to be taken into consideration. I would also like to mention the importance of constituency offices in a region like mine. I may be one of the few federal MPs who have four constituency offices. The reason is simple. My riding is so huge that it would make no sense for someone from Carleton-sur-Mer to drive two hours to be able to get service at the Amqui office, or for the people of Mont-Joli to drive for an hour to get to the Matane office. That would be ridiculous. It is important to me to be able to deliver services to them. Riding offices lend a human face to politics and bring people closer to elected officials. In a way, it is the front line, the first point of contact where we attempt to remedy the failures of the big federal machine. The number of immigration and employment insurance cases dealt with every week by riding offices proves that we need to provide this service to the public. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the work of my very dear colleagues at my riding office: Ariane, Marjolaine and Ghislain. Without them, I would definitely not be able to do this job, and the problems of many people in my riding would not be solved. I am going to go straight to my closing remarks as I see that my time is running out. The 2012 brief concluded as follows: Rural living is not a recognized constitutional right. It is a way of life, an economy, a set of values and interests which, in and of themselves, have a constitutional right to expression through the right to vote equity. With these words, I will implore my colleagues from all parties to accept the idea that, for all the reasons I have just given, Quebec's voice, and especially the voice of eastern Quebec, must not be weakened.

1653 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 38