SoVote

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 4:57:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoyed it. I want to point out that the Bloc talked about the Constitution a number of times and about how Quebec did not sign it. However, it is interesting to note that members also pointed out in this debate just how important the Canadian Constitution is. My question is about the philosophical point my colleague made about “the right time”. We could have debated this issue as part of Private Members' Business. Would that not have been a more appropriate time? Why did the Bloc Québécois choose to move this motion on an opposition day when a private member's bill on the same subject is going to be introduced in just a few weeks?

133 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 4:58:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois felt that this was the wisest choice. There were a number of options available to us, but we believed the moment had come to take action in this regard.

38 words

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Mar/1/22 4:59:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has been a wonderful neighbour to Quebec and vice versa. I cannot help but mention that earlier today, on two occasions, I was very disappointed to hear the Bloc members asking for Bay du Nord to be turned down. Between Saudi Arabia and Russia right now, they produce 20 million barrels of oil a day. Does the member think that Canada would be better off producing some of those 20 million barrels of oil a day in an ethical manner and that we could all be neighbours and friends who benefit from that?

98 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:00:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I will answer candidly. I am not an economist. Oil exists and oil production will continue to exist. We are not against oil as such, but there is a way of seeing the future of the planet that leads us to believe that perhaps we need to mitigate its use. By the way, I believe that oil from Algeria will arrive in Europe before Canadian oil because the infrastructure is already in place. However, I will let the experts respond to this question since I am not one of them and I am not too proud to admit it.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Mar/1/22 5:00:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I would like him to comment on the statements we heard from members opposite. Some are accusing us of quoting sections of the Constitution and, at the same time, saying that we did not sign it. That is an ethical issue. I would like my colleague to explain the work we are doing today.

64 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:01:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a very important point. It is a fact that we did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982. Unfortunately, we are stuck with it in negotiating this type of arrangement. We must refer to something, so we are forced to refer to the Constitution. Our first choice would definitely be to have our own constitution and to look after our own affairs.

67 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 5:01:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have had a lot of discussion from this member and the previous member about the importance of immigration as a factor. When we take a look at what we are doing today and population shifts, the future in good part, in terms of our population growth, is going to be through immigration. Today, with what is happening in Ukraine, we are anticipating that there could be thousands and thousands of refugees. If it was up to me, it would be a rather high number. Does the member feel that the Province of Quebec would be open to receiving people from Ukraine as refugees, as other provinces have indicated an interest to?

114 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:02:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Quebec's premier has already stated that he would like to do so, but I will respond directly to my colleague's question. There is a lot of talk about Ukrainian refugees. Out of solidarity, we really have to do something. We agree. However, we have to admit that Ukraine is not a third world country. People are stuck, and they want to stay there. It is only right that we open the door, but we must also realize that sending aid to Ukraine is also very important.

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Mar/1/22 5:03:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned earlier that no one in the House is evil. I grew up in an anglophone environment, and of course there are no major differences between people on an individual level. Culturally, however, there are some differences. How does my colleague explain, for example, that in many provinces there are not enough schools for francophones at the moment? Some efforts are being made and this has gone all the way to the Supreme Court, but the governments of these provinces are not following through. Something is up. Francophones have voluntarily assimilated just about everywhere, but there is no culpability or desire for redress.

107 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:03:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are facing this concept of institutional completeness. We must recognize that the bills that have passed over the years have favoured bilingualism. Bilingualism treats both languages the same. The fact is, French is in an asymmetrical situation, and it is not true that the two languages are equal or will be considered equal. Not enough resources are being dedicated to French across Canada. Schools and services are lacking. If I went to Winnipeg North, for example, I am not sure I would be served in French. I would be sad, but that might be the case. In Quebec, however, promoting bilingualism means killing the francophonie.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 5:04:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize, but I am going to ask my question in English to make sure I word it correctly. I am interested in why the Bloc will not take up the idea of actually capping the number of seats in the House of Commons. They are constitutionally protected in Quebec to have 75 seats in the House. If the Bloc were to suggest that 338 is where we should leave the number of representatives in the House, that would mean that Quebec would be ultimately constitutionally protected to have 22% representation. Why are they choosing to move in this fashion? I understand they are sovereigntists, but why are we not moving in a fashion to say this is another way of capping the number of MPs in the House and still allowing Quebec to have strong representation that would be guaranteed?

143 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:05:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like what my colleague said. I think his proposal is clear, has merit and should be considered. However, the reason we are doing this today is simple. We are simply offering an answer, a solution to an issue that in the past has not been taken seriously enough. This is our answer to a question that has so far remained unanswered. That is why we are moving forward with this today.

74 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Mar/1/22 5:06:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to the members' speeches, both this member and the members previous to this. New Democrats are firmly in support of ensuring we recognize Quebec and its unique situation, unique culture and unique language. I believe there is a lot more work that has to be done to ensure we continue to recognize nationhood, not just in Quebec but across Canada. I come from the Métis community and I have spent a great deal of time trying to ensure that our languages, the Michif language and the Cree language, continue to survive here in our native land and place. Could the member speak to the importance of ensuring that indigenous people are also granted this form of recognition in this country?

128 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:07:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton for his suggestion. Quebec is willing to recognize a nation from its inception. A nation sets itself apart through, and is defined by, its language, which reflects its culture. We are fully willing to recognize other cultures, nations and languages. We have always been in favour of that. I welcome his suggestion.

60 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/1/22 5:07:38 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

78 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/1/22 5:08:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote, please.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/1/22 5:09:20 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 2, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel on a point of order. An hon. member: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, could we suspend for a minute or two? We have another speaker on their way. We just need another minute so they can get here. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): I am sorry, no. The question has been called.

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, BQ)

Mar/1/22 5:10:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-237

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday evening, Monday, February 28, the Speaker said: I would encourage members who would like to make arguments regarding the requirement for a royal recommendation with respect to [Bill] C-237...to do so at an early opportunity. I am rising on a point of order this evening in relation to that. I admit that I was surprised by this statement. Royal recommendation is the mechanism by which a private member's bill cannot have any financial implications unless it is recommended by the Crown. Financial implications refers to both new expenditures and reallocation of funds for other purposes. Bill C-237, which I am introducing, does not do either. In my view, it is clear that Bill C-237 does not require a royal recommendation and has the potential to be voted on by the House at all stages and implemented, for the following five reasons. First, it does not require any new spending. Second, it does not change the transfer amounts, nor does it change the names of the beneficiaries or how the funding is allocated to them. Third, it does not change the purpose of the transfer. The Canada health transfer will still be dedicated to paying for health care. The same goes for other transfers that are allocated to a province if it has “a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program”. Fourth, it does not force the executive's hand, which retains the latitude and margin of appreciation required to transfer the funds. That prerogative remains in place. The executive will decide whether the province has a comparable program and will determine whether the province is complying with the conditions in the Canada Health Act. Finally, precedents are on my side. There have been many bills that have changed the normative framework without any financial implications. I actually found 31 bills that amend the Canada Health Act, and not one required a royal recommendation. For all these reasons, I believe that Bill C-237 does not require a royal recommendation. Let us examine it in detail. Bill C-237 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in two ways. It provides all interested provinces with the opportunity to opt out of a federal program that falls under the legislative authority of the provinces. In that case, the government can pay the province a transfer equivalent to the contribution that it would have received had it not withdrawn. This means that it is an equal amount or a zero sum. The bill adds that the government will only pay the contribution if the province “has a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program”. In short, the purpose of the transfer does not change either. This mechanism is quite similar to the one that exists in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, for example. If a province has its own program and withdraws from the federal program, it receives the same transfer that it would have received had it not withdrawn. The transfer is unconditional and goes into the province's consolidated revenue fund, but only if it has a comparable program. It is up to the minister to determine whether it has a comparable program. Without any conditions on how the province runs the program, the transfer still serves the same purpose, which is to ensure that students can access financial assistance. This same principle is in Bill C-237, which I introduced. It does not change the amounts or recipients, the distribution of the amounts among them, or the purpose of the transfer. It simply reduces federal control over the management of provincial programs in the provinces' own jurisdictions. Again, this is about provincial management of provincial programs. That is the only thing that is impacted here, and it has little to do with the prerogative of the federal Crown. Bill C-237 proposes a second amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, this one just for Quebec. The federal government has announced that it plans to set conditions applicable to long-term care facilities and retirement homes. I assume that they will be included in the Canada Health Act, since long-term care facilities fall under the definition of “extended health care services” in the act. Since Quebec was the only one to object, Bill C-231 would exempt Quebec, and only Quebec, from the Canada Health Act, much like the proposal by my colleague from Montcalm to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in his Bill C-226 in the 43rd Parliament, which did not require a royal recommendation. The Canada Health Act does not have financial implications per se. It sets out a normative framework, five principles for the government to consider in the Canada health transfer, which is provided for in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. It is the latter act that has financial implications. My bill, Bill C-237, does not change the purpose of the Canada health transfer. It does not change the purpose of the transfer defined in section 24(b) of the fiscal arrangements act as “contributing to providing the best possible health care system for Canadians and to making information about the health care system available to Canadians”. Bill C-237 does not change this section of the act, which sets out the purpose of the transfer. Under the Canada Health Act, the government is responsible for determining whether the provinces are in compliance. In Bill C-237, the government determines whether the province has “a program whose objectives are comparable”. Personally, I would have preferred not to include that clause in Bill C-237, but I realized that this would have changed the purpose of the transfers and could therefore have required a royal recommendation. Bill C-237 has no financial implications in terms of the amounts, their destination, their purpose or the general conditions. Only specific conditions in the Canada Health Act are affected. Madam Speaker, I hear a lot of noise in the House and I am having a hard time delivering my speech.

1032 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/1/22 5:18:48 p.m.
Watch

Indeed, there is noise. I am not sure if it is in the House. Some of our colleagues may want to go into the lobbies to continue their discussions so that the hon. member can go on with his point of order.

42 words

Mr. Louis Plamondon

Mar/1/22 5:19:05 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-237

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your intervention. Only the specific conditions of the Canada Health Act are affected. The Speaker has ruled on many occasions that playing within these standards does not generate or reallocate an expenditure and therefore does not require a royal recommendation. In the 27 years since the start of the 35th Parliament, when bills began to be tracked in the LEGISinfo parliamentary module, no fewer than 31 private members' bills have proposed amendments to the Canada Health Act. All of them added new conditions. Some required the province to develop new services in order to receive the Canada health transfer. Others imposed requirements on how health services had to be delivered in order to receive the transfer. Others prohibited access to the Canada health transfer for provinces that provide certain free services, in this case abortion. I will let the members guess which party recommended that. The Chair did not require a royal recommendation for any of these bills, not one. Of course, not all of them were on the order of precedence, so the Chair did not have to rule on many of them. However, in some cases, the Chair did have to do so. Take Bill C-282, introduced during the 36th Parliament by the Liberal member for Ottawa—Vanier, the late Mauril Bélanger, a great defender of the rights of Franco-Ontarians. He introduced the bill in response to the crisis surrounding the Montfort Hospital, a francophone hospital in Ottawa that the Ontario government had tried to close. The bill introduced a new condition in the Canada Health Act to set new language requirements for French-language services in the provinces and English-language services in Quebec. If the province did not meet these conditions, the minister could cut the transfer. The bill was placed on the order of precedence without the Chair indicating that it required a royal recommendation. It was subsequently debated. If members consult the March 19, 2003, Hansard, they will see that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health spoke on behalf of the Crown in the debate. He never made any mention of a royal recommendation. On the contrary, he asked members to refer the bill to the Standing Committee on Official Languages before second reading because “The federal government cannot and must not act unilaterally in a shared provincial jurisdiction. Any decision to broaden the scope of the Canada Health Act requires extensive consultations with the provinces”. In short, he asked the House not to pass the bill, even while recognizing that it had the right to do so. I will give another example, that of Bill C-213, an act to enact the Canada pharmacare act, which was introduced by the member for New Westminster—Burnaby and voted on by the House at second reading on February 24, 2021. This bill basically creates a new transfer. According to clause 4 of this bill, “The purpose of this Act is to establish criteria and conditions that must be met before a cash contribution may be made in respect of public drug insurance plans.” After setting out the specific conditions, the bill indicates that the minister “may” make a transfer to the provinces to fund a provincial drug program. It is important to note that the bill does not set out a specific amount. I understand that it was specifically written that way so as to not generate any new spending and therefore not require royal recommendation. It worked. Even though the bill created a new transfer, even though it set out specific goals and conditions, it did not require royal recommendation because it did not generate any new spending. If we apply the same logic to Bill C-237, we can come to only one conclusion. This bill does not require a royal recommendation.

652 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 38