SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 117 - Oct/25/22

Oct/25/22 10:02:30 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-215

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in relation to Bill C-215, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine). The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments.

70 words

Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.)

Oct/25/22 10:03:03 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health in relation to Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing. The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House with amendments.

61 words

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

Oct/25/22 10:03:39 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to take the floor this morning as we begin proceedings. The petition I am presenting today deals with the ongoing problem of single-use plastics. The petitioners point out that the current regulations that have been put forward are full of loopholes and would allow such things as individual single-use items like plastic forks to be considered durable if they can be used more than once, as opposed to durable products lasting for years. The petitioners ask the government to review the regulations, tighten them so they focus on the dangerous single-use plastics that are now contaminating our oceans and environment, such as plastic cup lids from single-use cups and so on, and follow the leading examples. The petitioners point to countries such as Chile and many within the European Union that present regulations that Canada could build on. The petitioners ask that the government take meaningful steps to fulfill the promise the government has made to eliminate single-use plastic items.

171 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Oct/25/22 10:04:58 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table petition e-4062. The petitioners recognize the ongoing crisis we have with intimate partner violence, as we now have the fifth year of consecutive increases. In doing so, they call on the government to introduce legislation to make coercive and controlling behaviour a criminal offence in this country and to enact a suite of measures, in concert with the provinces, to provide better supports to those who are survivors of intimate partner violence.

80 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Oct/25/22 10:05:30 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting a petition today from people who, in the preamble, recognize that disability financial support payments in Canada are currently far below the official poverty line of Canada and that 1.5 million disabled Canadians currently suffer every single day in a state of legislated poverty. The petitioners are calling upon the Government of Canada to end the current practice of legislated poverty and establish a federal disability benefit of $2,200 per month.

78 words

Ms. Jenny Kwan (Vancouver East, NDP)

Oct/25/22 10:06:11 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to table a petition initiated by the Women Refugees Advocacy Project. They are calling on the Prime Minister and the minister to provide an expertly designed, culturally sensitive therapeutic program of recovery for trauma, as well as safe, stable housing for Yazidi refugees. I know that earlier this year, Project Abraham and other partners also called for measures to cut red tape and expedite family reunification for Yazidi families. The petitioners are saying that the government must keep its promises to resettle Yazidi survivors of Daesh and support survivors in their healing, especially women who need psychological support.

102 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Oct/25/22 10:06:56 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of petitioners who recognize that the poisoned drug crisis is a public health emergency. They state and make clear that more than 26,690 people across the country have died opioid-related deaths and that groups like the Canadian Public Health Association have recommended drug decriminalization. As a result, the petitioners call on this House to declare a public health emergency due to these deaths, to reframe this crisis as a public health issue and not a criminal justice one, to take a comprehensive, multi-faced approach to this crisis, to listen to recommendations from those on the front lines and to decriminalize drugs across the country.

114 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Winnipeg North, Lib.)

Oct/25/22 10:07:43 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Falun Gong is a traditional Chinese spiritual discipline that consists of meditation, exercise and moral teachings based on the principles of truthfulness, compassion and tolerance. In July 1999, the Chinese Communist Party launched an intensive nationwide persecution campaign to eradicate Falun Gong. Hundreds of thousands of Falun Gong practitioners were detained in forced labour camps, brainwashing centres and prisons, where torture and abuse are routine, and thousands died as a result. There is also the recent issue of forced organ harvesting. The petitioners are asking all parliamentarians to do what they can to become more aware of the issue and do what they can to assist.

108 words

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

Oct/25/22 10:08:38 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

11 words

Stand
Ask

The Speaker

Oct/25/22 10:08:45 a.m.
Watch

Is that agreed? Some hon. members: Agreed.

7 words

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)

Oct/25/22 10:09:32 a.m.
Watch

moved: That, given that, (i) Canada is a democratic state, (ii) this House believes in the principle of equality for all, the House express its desire to sever ties between the Canadian State and the British monarchy, and call on the government to take the actions necessary to do so. He said: Mr. Speaker, I must admit, reluctantly, that I am disappointed. I hope no one informs Charles III that his subjects are so slow to rally because he would be disappointed. One would have thought that there would be a massive assembly of MPs primed to protect the British monarchy. I get the feeling that the Bloc members are more passionate about it. Parliament is a democratic institution. In principle, this means that it is the citizens of Quebec and Canada who, through their elected representatives, one riding at a time, make the decisions. The voters choose who is elected. Then again, it is hard to believe that the voters chose His Majesty King Charles III. Still, even though the monarchy is the very pinnacle of power in the structure of Canada's Constitution, we are being told that it is no big deal, it is not the most important issue, it is not a priority and we could be doing other things. Just a few minutes ago, I was telling the media that I can breathe, talk and hold my phone at the same time. I can even stand on one leg if I have to. I can do everything at the same time. We are capable of discussing several subjects. There are parliamentary committees that will be sitting this week to discuss a whole bunch of subjects at the same time. We can debate the most and the least important. I would like to show that today’s topic is important. Parliament is required to decide everything, namely budgets, laws and positions, which are often just principles. The motions we vote on after question period, on unanimous consent, are merely statements of principle. The best evidence of this is that, when the House gives the government a directive, the government usually disregards it. Perhaps the principles we state as principles already have an intrinsic value. There is also the whole question of international relations and perception. There must be people all around the world who are looking at us and wondering what is happening because Canada is supposed to be a modern state. However, its leader is a foreign king, and a conqueror at that. This already presages something deeply serious. They say that the monarchy is symbolic. A $70-million a year symbol, that is not bad. That is quite a symbol. We need to take into account the allocation of these $70 million a year, which, in general, go to lemons and airplane tickets; the monarchy is not on its last lemon. That is a lot of money. There is the distribution of all that in the provinces and Quebec, but we are told that that does not matter. The constitutionalists have at least finished third grade. They are extremely intelligent people who have been debating since the Parti Québécois opened the debate in Quebec on the oath of allegiance. They debate what is necessary and what is not, what is important and what is not, and how to do it or not to do it. I think that these people do not have time to waste. It is because they think that what they are doing is important. What could we do with $70 million? Seniors between the ages of 65 and 75, whom the government stubbornly refuses to help, could use $70 million. People with social housing challenges could use it, too. We realize that the government’s housing measures will help pretty much everybody, but far less in Quebec, because it had already taken action. I have colleagues who would like to hear that we were getting $70 million. For the transition to green energy, $70 million would go a long way. Forestry, fishing, the restoration of ports in eastern Quebec transferred from the federal government to Quebec, all need far more than $70 million. Can we spend the money there? No, but we are pleased to make arrangements for the royal family to visit western Canada on the taxpayer’s dime. We are being told we would have to reopen the Constitution. My God, having to reopen the Constitution to change this. That means it must be really important. In general, when we say the word “Constitution”, especially with a French accent, English Canada goes into a panic. It must be a very important issue, I cannot think otherwise. We need the unanimous consent of the provinces, the Senate and Parliament. That is how important it is. When someone puts 14 locks on their shed, it is because they really like their lawnmower. They are terrified of reopening the Constitution because, in my opinion, no one is comfortable with what is in there. It must be because it is important to keep it just the way it is. They are afraid that reopening the Constitution will lead to Alberta claiming independence or indigenous peoples claiming real rights. For now, we are protecting the British Crown at the expense of our first nations. That must be important. According to the polls, neither Quebeckers nor Canadians want a monarchy. It is not a question of votes. In general, people do not wake up at night—although I know two or three who do—to say that we need to get rid of the monarchy. However, if they are asked, they will say that it is over, that it is a thing of the past, that we need to get rid of it, that it is expensive and that we do not need it. As the magnificent Yvon Deschamps would say, “The monarchy, what is the point?” The people want us to get rid of it. That has to be important. It is the people’s preference. That means that this idea that, on some level, defines who we are, who Canadians and Quebeckers are—and please do not confuse the two—must be something fundamental. It is especially fundamental for Quebeckers because, for Quebeckers and for all those of French descent or who adopted the identity, to varying degrees, of French ancestry, the King of England is the king of the conquering empire. They tell us that that was in 1760, and that we should stop talking about the conquest. They tell us that the Patriotes rebellion was in 1837-38, and that we should stop talking about the Patriotes. However, if we are swearing an oath today to the King of England, it is because we are still a conquered people, who had to swear an oath to the then king of the conquering British Empire, an empire that was incredibly racist and engaged in slavery. That is not trivial. Can we start adding the word “important” to the sentence? I feel like asking what they are afraid of when it comes to reopening the Constitution, but I think I have already answered that question: No one can identify with Pierre Trudeau’s Constitution. There are 338 ridings in Canada and, when we add more, it will be to the detriment of Quebec. There are approximately 100,000 people in each riding and around 60,000 to 70,000 electors, so if not everyone votes, only 50,000 or so voters per riding vote in elections. They never choose a king. They always choose a member of Parliament and, as a result, the leader of the country. They never voted for a king. I do not know anyone who said they voted for Charles, for example. I have not seen that happen, and yet, at the top of Canada’s food chain, there is the Crown. That must be important. Are not the tens of thousands of people in every riding more important than an expensive, frivolous monarchy? Are they not more important than a foreign king who knows nothing about us—I am not sure that he would pass the test immigrants have to take in Canada, not to mention Quebec—and who is a descendant of the king who crushed us with his cannon balls and muskets? That must be important. The Prime Minister says that the state is democratic and secular, and he is protecting a king who is the head of a Church. That must be important for the Prime Minister. It is important, but it is unjustified. It is obsolete, not to say archaic, reactionary, paleontological, backward and humiliating. It will anger some people that I call the monarchy backward. The people who are angry prove that I am right. It makes no sense. We need to get out from under it because it is important. There are more important things. To name them one at a time, it is true that it is more important to go to the Supreme Court to fight Quebec's secular values. It is true that it is much more important to go to the Supreme Court to fight Quebec's efforts to strengthen the promotion of French. It is true that it is much more important to open new maritime territories to oil drilling when we know that the North Atlantic right whale is endangered. It is true that it is much more important to hand out contracts to Liberal friends for Roxham Road. It is true that it is much more important to meddle in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions, especially when it comes to health transfers. If I am wrong and it is not important, why do we not get out from under it quickly, easily and light-heartedly and move on enthusiastically to something else? The Liberal Party's Quebec lieutenant worked himself up to such a fever pitch that he now has a sore throat. Neither he nor the Prime Minister have answered any of the basic questions. Canadians and Quebeckers nevertheless have the right to know whether, when the Prime Minister and his Quebec lieutenant swore the oath, they swore it to a foreign king, a conqueror, a spoiled, ridiculous man. I have had a good life, but no one has ever ironed my shoelaces. With great discipline, not only did I learn how to tie them, but I also learned to put toothpaste on my toothbrush. It took a while, but I succeeded. Canadians, Quebeckers and Quebec voters in the case of the lieutenant and the admiral, have the right to know whether they swore the oath to the British Crown or the Canadian people. The monarchy is not important. However, is an oath important? Swearing loyalty and allegiance is a serious matter. What is there more important than a solemn oath of allegiance? Let us say it is not important. Does that mean that the commitments these people make to their voters are not important? Does it mean that they can frivolously ignore their commitment to their voters, like they frivolously ignore their commitment to the sovereign? Is it not important? It seems important to me. On the other hand, the Bloc Québécois says that an oath given under duress is meaningless. If it does not come from the heart, it has no value. The Bloc's members swear an oath under duress in order to be able to enter Canada's Parliament to expose to Canada what, in many ways, is a lack of respect for Quebec, for the French language, and for the values of secularism and equality, the hypocrisy of a system created to drown us slowly in institutions where our space and our weight is almost inexorably dwindling. That is no small matter. We come here to speak out against the fact that the government is not doing anything about environmental issues, despite the threat looming over the entire planet. We are here to speak out against the fact that the government's ultimate allegiance is perhaps to the lobbies. Spoiler alert: The Bloc Québécois is not sincere in swearing allegiance to the Queen. However, the Bloc Québécois is irrevocably sincere, heart and soul, in its pledge and commitment to Quebeckers, and to the Quebec nation alone. If the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP are not sincere, then their constituents have the right to know. For our part, we are stating that we no longer want to be subjects of the empire that conquered us, because we live in a democracy. A foreign king and religious leader: That is as important as it is unacceptable. We invite members to free themselves and us from the monarchy; otherwise, we will show Quebeckers who we are and who they are. I invite all members to think carefully about this before praying for the English King tomorrow, just a few hours before voting on the Bloc Québécois's motion. This motion is a test of the sincerity of this solemn oath. It is a test of loyalty to our citizens and constituents. It shows that an oath to a foreign monarch and religious leader takes precedence over a pledge to members' constituents. There is no question that the Bloc Québécois is at the service of Quebeckers and only Quebeckers.

2261 words

All Topics

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

Oct/25/22 10:27:36 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the point the Bloc leader referenced. Here we are getting through a pandemic and serious inflation-related issues, which the government is attempting to address on a daily basis through a multitude of different budgetary measures and legislation. There are so many things on the minds of Canadians, whether it is our seniors, our health care system or having a job. The separatist party here in the House of Commons wants to focus on constitutional change. Does the member really believe, given the priorities I just emphasized, that now is really the time to open up the Constitution? Does he believe Canadians want the constitutional debate to occur today?

118 words

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet

Oct/25/22 10:28:31 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I forgot to acknowledge the absolutely amazing role the Queen played during the pandemic. She helped us so much. How could we possibly have gotten through the pandemic without Her Majesty? If we really need to set priorities, the member could have chosen to stand with the Bloc tomorrow rather than ask me a question that does not really have any bearing on the issue. It would have been quicker.

72 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Oct/25/22 10:29:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not understand why the leader of the Bloc decided to introduce this motion here today. Quebeckers are concerned with other, more important problems, such as the cost of gas, food and heating, and immigration at Roxham Road. Does the leader of the Bloc believe that the matter he is raising is more important than inflation and immigration at Roxham Road?

64 words

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet

Oct/25/22 10:29:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have no qualms about recognizing that, when the Conservative Party has priorities, they are clear: The Conservative Party talks about inflation and oil, and that is all. However, there are parliamentary committees discussing many different subjects simultaneously. During question period, we ask questions about many different subjects on the same day. It is a big challenge, and the answers have to be read out, but we are capable of talking about multiple subjects. We are a Parliament. There are 338 members here. We all went to school. Most of us know how to read. Can we talk about more than one subject at a time? If not, this country is even more dysfunctional than I thought.

119 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

Oct/25/22 10:30:25 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, when we look at the preamble of today's motion, it is something everyone in the House could agree on, that “Canada is a democratic state,” and that we do believe, very much, “in the principle of equality for all”. However, in what the motion is calling for, the Bloc has missed a clear opportunity, especially if it believes in the preamble. If we really want to tackle equality in Canada and uphold our democracy, we have to look at how we elect members to this legislature and to provincial legislatures. We can look to the provincial election in Quebec. There are four opposition parties, each with between 12% and 15% of the vote, yet they have wildly different seat counts. We can also look at how we elect members to the House of Commons, where there are, again, wildly different seat counts compared to the percentages of Canadians who voted for them. If we all truly believe in the principles of the preamble, why would the Bloc not tackle something such as democratic reform here in the House? If we truly believe in equality for all Canadians, we should look at a proportional voting system to ensure it would be foundational here in the House of Commons.

214 words

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet

Oct/25/22 10:31:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in 2015, the Prime Minister said it would be the last time Canadians voted in that kind of election, but once he got comfortable on that branch, he realized that chopping it off would bring about his own downfall. As a result, the system has not changed since then, and I fully agree that we should consider some form of proportional representation. Unlike a New Democrat, however, I myself would never presume to tell Quebec how to proceed, because Quebec is capable of having its own debate. As to the other issue, which is truly not important or a priority, someone needs to explain to me how a political party can get behind burning Adventures of Tintin books while supporting a monarchy whose empire was built on slavery and racism.

132 words

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

Oct/25/22 10:32:29 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Beloeil—Chambly for proposing this topic for debate in the House today. However, what he is suggesting is just half a proposal, merely seeking to abolish our constitutional monarchy. Does he have any alternatives to propose? We currently have a head of state, who is the monarch. We have a head of government, who is the Prime Minister. Does the Bloc Québécois believe that the Prime Minister should be promoted and also serve as head of state? The vast majority of Canadians have no problem with our existing constitutional monarchy. Things are totally different in Europe. In France, the system recognizes an elected president as head of state. In the United States, the head of state and the head of government are the same man, and I say “man” because, unfortunately, this has always been the case. What does the Bloc Québécois propose?

161 words

Mr. Yves-François Blanchet

Oct/25/22 10:33:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we would gladly take part in a discussion of this nature at any time. I would immediately rule out giving any more powers to the current Prime Minister. A little trouble is fine, but to ask for more would be madness. Furthermore, some degree of independence is needed, and I think that is feasible. As members know, one nation, or better still, two nations, that have the technological capacity to go into space should be able to come up with an alternative to a king who has no idea who we are as a people. This could be the subject of some discussion. If it were up to me, Canada and Quebec would each have their own constitution. Quebec could then start thinking about one that is uniquely Québécois, one that Quebeckers can identify with, and I sincerely hope this happens, but one never knows.

151 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Oct/25/22 10:34:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague, the member for Beloeil—Chambly and, incidentally, leader of the Bloc Québécois and my distinguished friend, on his speech. Our Conservative and Liberal colleagues will spend the day saying that there are other, more important priorities to deal with. That is absolutely true, but when governing a country, it is essential to be able to deal with more than one issue at a time, issues both big and small. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this. Does he agree that this inability to simultaneously address issues of varying importance when leading a country demonstrates absolute incompetence? Does it worry him that this seems to be the case with the current government?

129 words