SoVote

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

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

Oct/25/22 11:06:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to raise an issue that the hon. member made reference to, in terms of how he has not had any constituents raising the issue of the Crown with him. In my 10-plus years as a parliamentarian, I cannot recall one incident when someone came to talk to me about our getting rid of the Crown. I just cannot recall any of that nature. When we talk about the constitutional changes, again, I have not had anyone approach me, not that I can recall offhand. Given that as a background and the context of the communities that are having so many challenges, such as the pandemic, inflation and dealing with issues such as seniors, health care, long-term care and mental health, I am wondering if my colleague and friend can provide his thoughts with regard to why we are debating this today.

147 words

Hon. Robert Oliphant

Oct/25/22 11:07:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would agree with the parliamentary secretary. The issues I hear about in Don Valley West are issues of affordability. They can be about affordable housing or housing affordability. They can be about the inclusion of newcomers into the country. The people in Don Valley West, particularly in Thorncliffe Park, are newcomers to this country and looking for a future, yet they are not able to get the kinds of jobs they need to get ahead. They are still fighting to get accreditation in professions in which they want to work. They are still fighting to get engagement in society, because we still have persistent and systemic racism in our society. I recognize that. We need to address these issues day in and day out: economic equality, gender equality and the rights of newcomers to make sure that they have every opportunity and possibility to have a better life in this country. Those are the issues I hear about, not about opening the constitution, not about the monarchy and not about the issues that are on the agenda today. I want to get the House back to the issues, despite the fact that we sometimes have questions from the opposition that are difficult or hard to answer on those issues. We will continue to do it.

218 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

Oct/25/22 11:08:27 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable. The subject today on opposition day is the motion moved by the Bloc Québécois. Is the issue raised in the motion relevant? I could say yes, the same way Canada's intervention in support of Ukraine is relevant, or the treatment of the Uighurs by the Chinese Communist regime is relevant. There is no shortage of important topics in the House of Commons. Everyone has their own opinion on various topics, and the relationship with the monarchy is no different. The real question is, is it essential that this issue be debated at a time when Quebeckers are more concerned about the impact of inflation on their lives? Inflation and interest rates keep going up and up, even though the Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada said not so long ago that there was no need to worry. I wonder how many people and young families decided to buy a house or a new car because interest rates were really low and they had been reassured by their Prime Minister, who was spending taxpayer money recklessly while saying that it was the right time to do it, that interest rates were low and would remain low for a long time. This was an extremely dangerous attitude that is now being confirmed as a disaster. Let me get back to the Bloc Québécois. What are the Bloc members doing today? They want to talk about the monarchy and changing the Constitution that has governed the country for over 150 years. The Bloc used to be the farm team for the Parti Québécois, but it has found a new vocation as the Parti Québécois's big brother. After throwing themselves wholeheartedly into the last Quebec election, the Bloc troops returned to Ottawa disappointed, having only succeeded in getting three Parti Québécois candidates elected. The leader of the Bloc threw his full political weight behind his separatist friends, but the result was very disappointing. That too was a disaster. In a sign of the times, Quebec chose a government that is prioritizing the economy and growth, rather than division. Quite simply, the Bloc claims to speak for Quebec's National Assembly. In the recent election campaign, the Bloc went up against the Coalition Avenir Québec, the party now forming government. Now, the Bloc members are claiming to be the political arm of the National Assembly, whereas in truth, they represent three members of the third or fourth opposition party, which does not even have official status. They do not represent the CAQ government. Is there anyone left who believes in the Bloc Québécois's strategy? When a party is searching for a purpose, a reason to exist, what could be better than talking about the Canadian Constitution? If we pay attention, we see that the Bloc Québécois is proposing that we sever ties with the monarchy. However, what are they proposing instead? Are they suggesting that we swear allegiance to a president of the republic of Canada? In that case, the Bloc's next motion would be about severing ties with the republic. As we can see, the Bloc Québécois is searching for a purpose. The Bloc members are looking for an excuse to justify their presence in the House, which they call a foreign parliament. An hon. member: That is true. Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Madam Speaker, one of my Bloc colleagues just said that it is true. He considers himself to be in a foreign parliament. That is the background for our speeches. I am not making it up. This form of belligerent rhetoric is the Bloc Québécois's standard discourse. The fact remains that today's motion is part of a long tradition of political spinning by the Bloc. The Bloc members get up in the morning and wonder what could get people talking today, what would make a good headline. They find an issue they can spin in a way that will make the news and be fun for them. They try to figure out how they can make the federal parties look bad, meaning the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP. As I always say, the easiest job in Ottawa is being the leader of the Bloc Québécois. They just have to spin issues and will never have to shape the country's destiny. Today, the Bloc Québécois chose to spin an issue so as to help their Parti Québécois friends in the National Assembly. My priority is to influence the Liberal government so it looks after Quebeckers' future properly. The current economic situation and the imminent recession require that federal elected representatives who believe in economic success from coast to coast work together for that common goal. The rhetoric from the leader of the Bloc Québécois is not going to impress anyone whose mortgage is getting so big that the only option is to give the keys to the bank. No one is interested in that rhetoric when groceries cost 11.4% more, when families have to cut back on their meals and when food banks are struggling to meet demand. To use a very Québécois expression, we wonder, “What planet are they living on?” Did the people who voted for the Bloc expect their members of Parliament to be this disconnected? In the last provincial election in Quebec, I expected to see several Bloc members take up the baton of sovereignty and jump into the fray. If they want a country, they need to work from Quebec City. Instead, they chose to stay on the bench and pray hard for the junior team to win. It was a wasted effort, however, as only three members of the Parti Québécois managed to get elected. The dream of a country called Quebec is just that: a dream. As a result, they needed to find a purpose. What better way than wasting an important day in the House of Commons proposing that we create a republic of Canada so they can come back later with another motion to abolish the republic? The Bloc strategy is very easy to understand, and I have just lost 10 minutes of my time explaining it. I would have preferred to find ways to help Quebeckers pay their mortgage and put food on the table for their children.

1137 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Oct/25/22 11:14:58 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague said that he did not understand why it was important to have this debate today. I would simply remind him that, during the worst of the pandemic, there was an opposition day in which the Conservative Party told us that oil was irreplaceable and that we needed a day to celebrate oil. It is clear to me that oil is what excites and motivates the Conservative Party. For us, it is the future of Quebec. My colleague said earlier that the junior team had unfortunately not been elected. What I hear from the Conservative Party in Quebec is that they will not stand up for Bill 21 nor for Bill 96. If there is a party that is out of touch with the interests of Quebec, it is the Conservative Party, as my colleague showed in his speech today.

146 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Oct/25/22 11:15:52 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Jonquière for the question. First, I would remind him that in Quebec, there are still millions of cars on the road, so people need fuel, and that is quite natural until other modes of transportation are established. We know that electric cars generate a lot of pollution at the battery design stage. Once we have hydrogen cars, as we are currently seeing in Australia, that will be wonderful, but for now, we will still need oil for a few years until the transition is complete. These attacks on the oil industry need to stop. In Alberta, this industry has taken extremely strong measures to improve how oil is extracted. If we are talking about gas, which is very important, just look at what is currently happening in Europe. The Russians have tightened the grip on Europe by reducing their gas exports, meaning that countries such as Germany are going to freeze this winter. Talking about oil and gas only makes sense. It is normal.

173 words

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Oct/25/22 11:16:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was here during the leader of the Bloc Québécois's speech. If I am not mistaken, he said or suggested that the Canadian Constitution is some kind of irrelevant foreign beast. However, the Constitution includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which Quebeckers use every day to defend their rights. Does the member opposite agree that the Constitution and the charter are irrelevant to Quebeckers?

73 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Oct/25/22 11:17:30 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. This is the issue with having Bloc Québécois members working as federal MPs in the federal Parliament. MPs should consider and focus on the common good in Canada, which obviously includes Quebec. Quebec has twice decided to remain part of the Canadian federation. Our duty is therefore to ensure that Quebeckers are happy in their country. As members from the province of Quebec, we work on issues that affect Quebeckers. However, the issue raised by the Bloc today is of no interest to the people. What the people need is a stronger, more stable economy and lower inflation. That is what is important, and that is what I am working toward.

125 words

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Oct/25/22 11:18:28 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was in response to an earlier speech by the leader of the Bloc Québécois. In his speech, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked this open-ended question: Who are Canadians and who are Quebeckers? I thought he was going to talk about moms and dads who are worried about their mortgages, university students who are worried about their future and grandparents who are worried about their retirement fund, but instead he launched into a very interesting historical and philosophical discussion about the differences between people from Quebec and people from the rest of the country. I do not speak for them; I speak for my own province, of course, but I suspect that the differences are much smaller than the similarities among people from coast to coast.

146 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus

Oct/25/22 11:19:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, when we consider the country from coast to coast to coast, we notice that every community and every region has its own distinct character. Obviously, Quebec is very different because our main language, our only language, is French. Consequently, our way of being and our way of life are very different from other parts of Canada. However, aside from the language component, our daily lives are much the same. When people get up in the morning, they have to pay the bills, buy food and pay for housing. It is the same situation everywhere in Canada, and that is why we must all work together to combat this inflation that is hurting all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

123 words

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Oct/25/22 11:20:02 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles for his speech. We are here because our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois decided to present an opposition motion in the House of Commons from which I will read the preamble, which I find interesting. It states that “Canada is a democratic state” and that the “House believes in the principle of equality for all”. I will focus on those two points from the Bloc motion day because I do believe that “Canada is a democratic state” and that the “House believes in the principle of equality for all”. That is why I prefer today to talk about the fact that 100% of Canadians are suffering every day from the cost of inflation caused by the costly New Democrat-Liberal coalition. When we look at the numbers, we realize that 80% of Canadians, including Quebeckers, are worried about their finances and wonder if they will be able to make ends meet at the end of the month and pay their bills and groceries each week, while 72% of Canadians feel they pay too much in taxes. On January 1, 2023, the Liberals are preparing to further increase what they will be taking from the paycheques of Canadians and Quebeckers. They are about to further raise the carbon tax, which will create even more inflation and make absolutely everything cost more. The cost of food alone has risen by more than 11%, something that has not been seen in the last 40 years. In addition, inflation remains at about 7%. There were reports that inflation had come down slightly, but it only came down by 0.1%, primarily because of a drop in the price of gas, but that did not happen everywhere. Unfortunately, people will not benefit from it for long because, very soon, the Liberals will turn that drop into an increase for all Canadians. Let me also quote a few figures from Statistics Canada. Last month, the price of meat was up 7.6% compared to last year, dairy was up nearly 10%, baked goods were up 14.8% and vegetables, 11.8%. These figures do not paint a complete picture, however. It is clear something is going on when you go to the grocery store and see how people have been acting over the past few months. People are looking for products, they cannot find what they are looking for, or they are leaving products on the shelves because they simply cannot afford it. Another change is that people are going to grocery stores as soon as the flyers come out so they can take advantage of the discounts as quickly as possible. That way, they can save money on products that inflation would otherwise prevent them from buying. That is the reality. What is in store for us tomorrow? The Bank of Canada is going to raise its key interest rate again, making housing even more expensive and making home ownership even less likely for young families and young people entering the workforce. That is the reality. We do not know by how much the rate will go up, but it will definitely go up. The Liberals keep saying that they are not responsible for inflation because it is caused by the global economy and all sorts of other reasons and people. However, that is not what the head of the Bank of Canada thinks. According to Mr. Macklem, inflation is the result of many factors that are becoming purely domestic. In other words, inflation in Canada is created by Canada.

613 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/25/22 11:24:29 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert on a point of order.

14 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Oct/25/22 11:24:32 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think there must be a conspiracy between the Liberals and the Conservatives because the whole lot of them are completely off topic. My colleague is talking about inflation when the topic of the motion is the monarchy. Where is the connection? There may be one because the monarchy costs us dearly and we could, in abolishing it, solve some of the problems we have in Quebec. However, my colleague is still completely off topic.

77 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/25/22 11:24:53 a.m.
Watch

I would like to once again remind members to make sure their speeches make some reference to the motion that is before the House today. I know members have a bit of latitude in their speeches, but they need to reference the motion often. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable may continue.

57 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Oct/25/22 11:25:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I refer to the motion. What is driving inflation to this point? Our national debt. The national debt has increased by $100 billion, despite Liberal promises. We remember the promise they made in 2015 to run small deficits for three year and then return to a balanced budget. That was forgotten and there is now a deficit of $100 billion. Before the crisis in Ukraine, the Liberals increased our national debt by $500 billion, $200 billion of which was in no way related to COVID‑19 expenditures. The Prime Minister's mindset was plain to see when he said in his inaugural speech that it was time to borrow because interest rates would remain low for decades to come. I again refer to the motion, which states at point (ii) that the “House believes in the principle of equality for all”. Unfortunately for the poor, the price of inflation means that they cannot buy and acquire goods. That is the reality and I thank the Bloc Québécois for giving me that opening and this opportunity to talk about equality for all, here in Canada, because it is important. Unfortunately, due to the costly NDP-Liberal coalition, that is no longer a reality; the poorest are finding it increasingly difficult to buy most things. Let us talk a bit about the Bloc Québécois. If there is one good thing about their motion today, it is that it shows Quebeckers what the Bloc Québécois's main priority is. Contrary to what I have just said and the concerns of Quebeckers each day, the Bloc Québécois has shown today what its priority is. The Bloc Québécois supports a general federal carbon tax for all Canadians because they refuse to vote in favour of our motion to not increase the carbon tax for all Canadians. How ironic that the Bloc Québécois should support a federal tax on all the provinces. The Bloc Québécois and its leader have always claimed they want to be the voice of Quebec's National Assembly in Ottawa. Unfortunately, what we have just seen proves that the Bloc Québécois talks a good game, but when the time comes to act, it cannot deliver. Quebec just held an election to which the Bloc Québécois devoted all its energy. All the Bloc Québécois members worked really hard. They invested resources, and the leader gave speeches in support of one political party in Quebec's National Assembly, the Parti Québécois. Did the Bloc Québécois, the Bloc members and the party staffers who claim to represent Quebec's National Assembly remain neutral in the recent provincial campaign? The answer is obviously no. They dedicated their hearts, their energy, their resources and their speeches to supporting the candidates from a single political party, Quebec's separatist political party. It is the only party whose ultimate goal is Quebec independence, which is far from the goal shared by all the members of Quebec's National Assembly. I think if we did a quick survey of the National Assembly, we would see that most do not want Quebec independence. In the election, only three Parti Québécois candidates won seats, despite all the resources that the Bloc Québécois had put into campaigning in Quebec. After campaigning against all the other parties represented in the National Assembly, and after Quebeckers only elected three Parti Québécois members, the Bloc Québécois still claims to be the voice of Quebec's National Assembly in Ottawa. That is not true, and the motion is clear proof of that. Rather than talk about Quebeckers who cannot make ends meet, rather than condemn the Liberal government's encroachment on areas of provincial jurisdiction, the Bloc Québécois chose to ask the House of Commons to debate an issue that only got three members elected to the National Assembly. In closing, I just want to state that I speak for many Quebeckers when I say that people do not really care whose face is on the $20 bill. What they care about is having enough $20 bills in their pockets to pay for their groceries at the end of the month.

761 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Oct/25/22 11:30:24 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable for that display of contempt. I feel compelled today to repeat, repeat, repeat that we can do more than one thing at a time, like discuss inflation as well as other topics. I also feel the need to clarify, clarify, clarify that not all anti-monarchists vote for the Bloc. There are also Liberal and Conservative anti-monarchists. My colleague is trying to put all the blame on the Bloc, but I would like to know what he thinks about the fact that there are monarchists on his side who currently agree more with us about abolishing the monarchy.

113 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Oct/25/22 11:31:23 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's question, and even though he repeated it over and over and over again, I found it difficult to follow his train of thought because, at the very end, he said that we support the monarchy, but that we do not support it. I wish my colleague had listened more carefully to my speech, because what I said is that Quebeckers are currently more concerned about whether they can afford their groceries at the end of each month, not whose face appears on the $20 bill. The Bloc Québécois chose to take a debate that started in the Quebec National Assembly and try to turn it into a debate in the House of Commons today, because the Bloc members still see themselves as white knights and they want to save their little brothers in the Quebec National Assembly. I sadly feel the need to repeat that there are three PQ members in the Quebec National Assembly.

169 words

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

Oct/25/22 11:32:20 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not too often I find myself in agreement with members of the Conservative Party on some of these points, so I do not think I will say this too often. I wonder why the Bloc would bring this forward. I think it has a lot more to do with internal politics within the Bloc caucus than it does the reality of life beyond the Bloc caucus here in Ottawa. The reality of life, whether in Quebec, Manitoba or anywhere else in Canada, is that there are issues related to the pandemic. We can talk about inflation or health care. Health care is a major issue in the province of Quebec. They want to see a higher sense of co-operation between the national government and the province on a wide spectrum of issues, if there is any reflection in terms of constituents I represent. Based on the motion brought forward by the Bloc, I wonder if my colleague would agree that it is completely out of touch not only with the people of Quebec but with issues related to Canada—

185 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Oct/25/22 11:33:45 a.m.
Watch

The hon. member is making a speech as opposed to just asking a question, and there are other people who want to ask questions. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.

35 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Oct/25/22 11:33:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a little surprised that my colleague from Winnipeg North said that he agrees with part of my speech. I hope it is the part where I was speaking about the costly Liberal-NDP coalition, which will result in Canadians receiving a smaller paycheque on January 1. Does my colleague agree with the part where I said that the Liberal Party will soon increase the carbon tax, which will make everything more expensive across the country? I really want to know if he does. I gather that it is that part of my speech and I am very honoured that my colleague has taken that position.

110 words

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

Oct/25/22 11:34:40 a.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, no one in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is talking about this issue, so I agree with the member on that point. The Bloc motion also fails to mention that any amendment to our relationship with the Crown would also require the unanimous consent of the 10 provinces of Canada. Look at the problems the provinces are dealing with. In British Columbia we have an opioid crisis and a health care crisis. There are all kinds of things. I do not think the provincial governments of Canada would look too favourably on having this interrupt their schedules looking after their constituents' needs.

107 words