44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 30, 2024 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I wish the member had provided an answer to many of the questions that others would have of him in regard to the price on pollution. That member actually campaigned in the last election based on, in part, an election platform document that said very clearly that the Conservative Party supported a price on pollution. It is only in the last two years that that member and the Conservative Party have made a flip-flop saying now that they do not support a price on pollution. Who knows? I suspect they might even have some bumper stickers already printed saying they want to axe the tax. Even if that ends up taking more money out of the pockets of Canadians, they are not prepared to abandon that priority. I will give them that much.
I look forward to having that particular debate whenever it comes.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, many things struck me in my colleague's speech. He said that no government in 50 years had invested so much in housing. I do not know the statistics, but it is possible, even probable.
I wonder if he is not a bit embarrassed by the lack of results they have been able to produce with all those investments. Today we need 3.5 million housing units by 2030, after investing $82 billion in the great national housing strategy.
The housing accelerator for municipalities was voted on in the 2022 budget, almost two years ago, and yet not a single door has been built under this program.
I wonder if my colleague is not a bit embarrassed.
119 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do not find it embarrassing at all. Since 2015, we have had a national government that has recognized it has a tangible role to play in housing. That role has continued to grow under this administration to the degree in which we are seeing historic funding and programming to support housing.
However, it is not just the federal government. The provinces also play a critical role, and the Bloc needs to recognize that even the Province of Quebec has non-profit housing supported by federal dollars, but there are also many other things that it and other jurisdictions, whether municipalities, provinces, territories or indigenous communities, can do. It takes a team approach, not just the federal government throwing a whole lot of money at it. That means there has to be a strategy and ongoing discussions, and homes are getting done. A great example of that is getting rid of the GST for purpose-built rentals. We have seen some provinces adopt that very same policy at the provincial level to ensure more purpose-built rentals will be built.
182 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the government member just said that, since 2015, the Liberals have recognized that the federal government needs to be involved in housing. That is not true.
I am the representative for the NDP on HUMA. The housing minister of the very recent past refused to acknowledge that the Liberals have a market-driven lens on their take on housing. I can tell members that it has been damaging to my community of Port Moody—Coquitlam, and they are still doing it.
I think about the rents right now and the seniors in my community who are being displaced by the gentrification. There has been luxury condo after luxury condo that the federal government has loaned money for. It has not spent a dollar on operating, when it needs to subsidize and help those seniors stay in homes. We have seniors living in tents.
I am not going to let the Liberals take a victory lap on the work they have done since 2015 because they have done nothing.
171 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. The federal government provides tens of millions of dollars, likely going into the hundreds of millions, to subsidize non-profit housing units on an annual basis. This government has increased that funding. We are talking about tens of thousands of units across the country. In the province of Manitoba, my best guesstimate is probably somewhere around 20,000 units. Many of those units are for seniors, so to try to give a false impression does a disservice.
The bottom line is that, since 2015, we have had a national government and a Prime Minister who are very much committed to the housing file. I would suggest that he is second to no other prime minister in the last 60 years here in Canada.
130 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/30/24 1:22:42 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle, but soon it will be the riding of Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville.
My hon. colleague made a number of excellent points, including alluding to the election of 2015.
What galvanized me and many other folks in my region was when we were threatened by the previous Harper government with an extension to age 67 in accessing old age security, when we knew that the family allowance was taxable and when people knew that cuts were being made to balance the budget. It was penny-wise and pound foolish, as I like to say, on the backs of Canadian citizens.
I would like to hear more from my colleague about what the world would have been like if we had not won in 2015. Indeed, we need to win again in 2025.
145 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, yes, I would suggest that 2015 was a wonderful year.
The member raises a valid point. If we go back to the last federal election, I can recall the Conservatives saying that they were going to rip up the child care agreements that were being talked about. Today, we have $10 child care. Out of fear, we also had to bring in legislation to ensure that we will have that ongoing funding. However, let there be no doubt, that is on the table with the Conservative Party.
I was sitting in the third party over in the corner of the chamber when Stephen Harper, while he was overseas, made an announcement that he was going to raise the age of the OAS from 65 to 67. One of the very first initiatives we took, back in 2015, was to lower it from age 67 back to age 65.
We have to beware of the Conservatives and their hidden agenda.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am glad the member brought up the idea of a hidden agenda. Just this week we saw a story in the news that the Liberals and the NDP were plotting behind the scenes and in secret about amendments to the Elections Act, without bringing in two of the major parties in this House. These were secret negotiations to change the Elections Act before the next election.
I am wondering if the member could enlighten us as to exactly what that bill is going to have in it and why the Conservative Party of Canada was not invited to participate in discussions around changing elections in Canada.
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I was at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when the leader of the Conservative Party went to PROC to try to justify electoral reform. There were a lot of manipulations of the Elections Act there. If I only had more time, if I had another couple of minutes, I would be more than happy to expand on my answer.
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Mirabel, whose remarks are always intelligent, relevant and even amusing, although I would not want to put any pressure on him for his 10-minute speech.
I read Bill C‑59 and looked in vain for any substance. I looked for any tangible measures that would help Quebec and Canada to deal with the problems we are facing right now, but I could not find anything. In fact, I am rather discouraged because Canada is currently facing various crises.
There is the language crisis in Quebec. We have often mentioned the fact that the French language is in the process of disappearing. There is only one solution to this problem, and it is an independent Quebec. We will get there. We think that the stars are aligned for the election of a separatist government in Quebec within three years. That means there could be a referendum within five years. We could be saying “so long, pals”. We will not be here anymore. Most members of the House will be happy not to have the Bloc Québécois underfoot anymore. They find us annoying. They wonder what the Bloc members want. They complain that we do not even want to form government, that we just want to defend the interests of Quebeckers, that we are revolutionaries, that we are so annoying, that we are nothing but trouble. If all goes well, in five or six years' time, we will not be around anymore to fix the language crisis.
Then there is the climate crisis. We saw all the forest fires and floods last summer, yet Bill C-59 grants $30 billion in direct and indirect assistance to the oil industry. Why are my Conservative friends always complaining? I would like to remind my friends that, in 2022, the five largest oil companies collectively made $200 billion in profits. Now the government is giving them $30 billion for carbon sequestration, despite the fact that no one can say whether that technology really works. It is investing $30 billion in that.
There is the housing crisis as well, obviously. How can we not mention that? Canada needs to build 3.5 million housing units by 2030. That is a colossal project. One would think that a bill like Bill C‑59 would have some meaningful measures. One would think the government would have come up with a plan to address this crisis. Too bad there is no plan. All the government is going to do is change the name of the department. It is just a propaganda operation. The government is just going to change the name of the department. That is the only thing Bill C-59 has to offer.
I toured Quebec over the last few months. I wanted to see what was happening on the ground. The figures that CMHC has given us on vacancy rates are insane. We know that homelessness in Quebec has doubled since 2018. My colleague was talking about spending earlier. He said that this government has spent more on housing since 2015 than any other previous government. If that is true, then why did homelessness in Quebec double over the same period? I do not think this spending has worked. Quebec needs to build 200,000 housing units a year. Do my colleagues know how many were built last year? Only 39,000 were built, and there was a 7% reduction in housing starts across Canada.
Let us be serious. If the Liberals' strategy were working, we would know. Someone would have said so at some point. Someone would have said, “Wow! Well done!” We are not the only ones criticizing the government on this point. There are organizations, people in the field working with struggling Canadians, and they see it. The only thing I heard on my tour of Quebec was that the $82‑billion federal strategy is not working. In life, it is important to have the humility to say that we tried something and failed. Now we need to use that money differently. We need to invest it in social housing and truly affordable housing. Why are we still spending millions of dollars to build apartments in Montreal that cost $2,000 a month?
No one can afford to rent the units offered under the national housing strategy right now. We just need to stop and think about what we do next.
I also learned something else. The government is not investing enough, but that is not all. Earlier, I spoke about the 10,000 people experiencing homelessness. There is a federal program called Reaching Home that assists organizations and people experiencing homelessness. Not content with knowing that we are getting nowhere and that people all over Quebec will die this winter and are already dying because the federal government has underinvested in housing for the past 30 years, the government is going to reduce that program's budget by 3%. Three per cent may not seem like much, but how can the government even think of doing such a thing at a time when homelessness in Quebec has doubled? Half of these people are in Montreal.
One thing struck me during my tour of Quebec. We used to see homeless people in Quebec City, Montreal and major Canadian cities like Toronto and Vancouver. My colleague was saying earlier how dire the situation is in Edmonton. Right now, however, we are seeing something we have never seen before: tent cities in small towns across Quebec.
I visited the Lower St. Lawrence, where cities have sprung up in places they have never been seen before. There are homeless people on street corners and living in tent cities next to the town hall. There are seniors sleeping in tents. How can we allow such a thing to happen? There are tent cities in Saint‑Jérôme and Longueuil as well. Granby has decided to do something about the situation and set up a shelter. How can something like this be allowed to happen in a G7 country? How can we institutionalize tent cities and allow people to sleep there in wintertime when it is -30 degrees out?
I do not know how that can be allowed. I feel like we are going in the wrong direction. I feel like we have been saying that for years. Naively, I always believed that, in a democracy, people work together to find solutions. Naively, I believed that if the government realized something was not working, it would be willing to try a better solution suggested by someone else. I thought a government was supposed to work for people in need, not pose for photo ops. Ultimately, we have been talking about this for four years. I am not the only one. Many people in the House are concerned about housing and homelessness. Unfortunately, the system is stuck.
There is one basic issue to consider when it comes to homelessness. Obviously, we have to prevent people from freezing to death, but what is the ultimate problem? In the past, there used to be a continuum of services for people experiencing homelessness. Quebec, for one, understood that. There were 24-7 emergency shelters where people could sleep and eat a good meal. There were also shelters where people could stay for up to 90 days, to take the time to reintegrate into society, overcome drug addiction, rejoin the workforce and get back in touch with family. There used to be 90-day shelters. It worked because, at the end of the 90 days, people had access to social housing. They could return to work and get their life back on track. Today, in Quebec, these resources are overwhelmed. Since there is no social housing anymore, people end up staying in the shelters for longer, anywhere from six to nine months, so no new people can get in. We have work to do on a lot of fronts, but we especially need to build housing units.
I have criticized the national housing strategy a lot, and we will continue to do so. I am writing a report on my tour of Quebec, which I will present around February or March. We will make very specific recommendations. All I hope is that someone across the aisle will hear us. During my tour, I was often asked why I, a member of the opposition, was touring Quebec. I was asked why the minister himself was not sitting down with people in Saguenay, Saint‑Jérôme, Rouyn‑Noranda and Gaspé. People wanted to know why the minister and the government were not coming to see how difficult things are on the ground. Instead, it was I, a member of the opposition, who went. My colleagues can be sure that the findings from my report will help us make progress on this issue.
We have solutions that we are going to put forward.
1525 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for that very fiery and timely speech. I always enjoy his contributions to the House.
I know he supported Bill C‑13, a piece of legislation of great importance to Canada and Quebec. It was the first time a government recognized the decline of French in Canada. He also knows that a strong Quebec makes for a strong Canada. It goes both ways. A strong Canada makes for a strong Quebec. I hope Quebec will always be part of our wonderful Canadian family.
Before 2015, the government invested $2.2 billion in French in Canada. That amount is now $4.1 billion. It is almost twice as much. My colleague must be impressed by that. Maybe he should talk about the importance of French in Canada as a whole.
I would like him to comment on that.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, whom I like very much. Indeed, French is in jeopardy across Canada. It is rather sad to see how tough this has become. Maybe $4 billion will help, but I would like to throw a question back to my colleague.
How is it that the government is going to invest $700 million over the next five years for anglophone communities in Quebec? If there is a community that is not in jeopardy, it is the anglophone community, not only in Quebec, but across Canada and North America.
Why spend $700 million to save a community that is not at risk and never will be?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech and his passion for fighting homelessness, for standing up for people and for getting housing that is not just for the super rich, but social housing and truly affordable housing. He is very familiar with the file. It is always interesting to hear him talk about it.
In Canada, we do not have a lot of social or co-op housing. It makes up roughly 3% to 4% of the entire housing stock. In Finland, it is 10%. In Denmark, it is 20%. I think there are examples we can use.
I would like my colleague to talk about Conservative Party leader's position. It seems that his solution to the housing problem is to insult the mayors in Quebec. I would like to know what the member thinks about the Conservative leader's attitude and his lack of real solutions.
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. I did not mention it in my speech, but I too, like many Quebeckers, was truly insulted by the Conservative leader's remarks. Together, Montreal and Quebec City make up roughly half of Quebec's population. The mayor of Montreal and the mayor of Quebec City are therefore two elected representatives of half of Quebec. As a solution, or as an approach to these elected officials, the Leader of the Opposition of this country insults them. He says they are incompetent.
How can anyone think that this man, once in power, would have any solutions? At some point, he will have to sit down with decision-makers from other levels of government to find solutions to this crisis. I do not see how he could possibly find any solutions.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to wish you a happy new year. I know it is a little late, but people say that it is like RRSPs: We have the first 60 days of the year to offer our best wishes. I wish all my colleagues a very happy new year.
I find it fascinating that we are starting this new session with a debate on the economic statement. It is curious, because during the holidays, the Conservative leader was very interested in budget issues; he spoke of them often. Since we are starting off nice and slow and we seem to have a pretty good atmosphere, I thought I would tell a joke. What is the difference between Quebeckers and the leader of the official opposition? Well, they are both in the wrong country. At some point, we Quebeckers will need to get our independence. The Conservative leader is living in a conspiracy theory. We heard him over the break. The glasses have come off. All he needs now is the orange tan and the blonde hair.
The dictionary says that a conspiracy is someone who thinks there is a secret agreement against someone or something. The Conservative leader toured Quebec saying that the Bloc Québécois supports 100% of the Liberals' economic policies. The Conservative leader's tone, the unpleasant, disrespectful tone he had over the holidays, which he has here in the House, and his gratuitous attacks on everyone that have no basis in fact, clearly show us that the Conservatives' best strategy is to say that offence is the best defence. Why? There is one party in the House that supports each and every Liberal policy. I am not talking about the NDP, whose members are Liberals by definition. I am talking about the Conservatives. It is even worse for Quebec Conservatives.
A Conservative member from Quebec is basically just a Liberal. Both parties have a fetish for oil. Some people have a foot fetish, while others, like the Conservatives and the Liberals, have an oil fetish. Bill C‑59 gives oil companies $18 billion in subsidies, or what the Liberals are referring to as tax credits and clean investments. How do they define “clean”? For them, clean means building nuclear reactors paid for with Quebeckers' tax dollars—both the Liberals and the Conservatives are compulsive taxers—so that we stop cleaning up the oil sands with gas and so that we can export gas. I hope that the Conservatives and Liberals get cleaner than that when they shower. It is all the same.
The carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. They sounded so foolish that they stopped saying it. There is a reason why they are against the carbon tax in the other provinces. If there is no more carbon tax, then emissions will rise, and they will be able to impose more taxes on Quebeckers and give more subsidies to oil companies with Quebeckers' tax dollars. Those are their equalization payments. The Quebec Conservatives, like the Liberals, are people who live only for western Canada and dirty oil.
The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, the OECD, has said that the storage tax credit is an illusion. It has no role to play in any structured solution to global warming. Bill C‑59 provides $12.5 billion in carbon storage investments. Who is in agreement about these subsidies? The Liberals and the Conservatives are. The Conservatives have supported the Liberals' economic policies at every turn.
That is interference in Quebec's affairs. It is funny, though. Trampling all over Quebec, meddling in its affairs and engaging in interference are practically Liberal hallmarks. The Liberals have a lot of experience in this regard and, as the bill shows, unique expertise too. They tell us that they are going to put together a department of municipal affairs, an undertaking that has failed before. To listen to the Liberals, it would almost seem that no stop sign or speed bump could possibly be installed in any residential neighbourhood without the federal government's help. Complicating existing structures, picking more fights and adding more phases to negotiations, only to build no housing and make no progress, is classic Liberal behaviour. As the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert aptly said, it is what Liberals do.
We thought the Conservatives were different, but no. Unfortunately, the Leader of the Opposition may have had a little too much time on his hands during the holidays. What did he do? He managed to outdo the Liberals when it comes to meddling. He went to Longueuil, Montreal and Quebec City to insult the mayors and demonstrate his total lack of knowledge of how the system works. Quebec municipalities receive their funding from Quebec City and the transfers go to Quebec City. This king of meddling, the Conservative king of meddling, is the guy who, when he was a minister, built nothing but housing slabs—no deliverables, no construction. The Leader of the Opposition could not even recognize a two-by-four in a hardware store. Who supports the Liberals' economic policies? The Conservatives do.
Here is something surprising. When half of Quebec was being insulted during the holiday season, where were the Quebec Conservatives? Were they off buying turkeys by the dozen and attending tons of New Year's Eve parties? They were absolutely nowhere to be seen.
Let us move on to the Liberal policy on asylum seekers. Ottawa owes Quebec $470 million. Why is that? Quebec welcomed 65,000 asylum seekers in 2023, or 45% of all asylum seekers, even though we represent only 22% of the Canadian population. We welcome them with open arms, as best we can, with all the resources at our disposal. When Quebec asks to be compensated for its contribution, the Liberals reply that they are not an ATM, as if Quebeckers do not pay taxes to Ottawa.
How many Conservatives from Quebec rose to defend the Premier of Quebec when he made this request? Not a single one, because the Quebec Conservatives are red from head to toe. They could almost run for the NDP; there would be no difference.
That is what is happening in the House. Only one party is worthy of Quebeckers' trust. We see that on the ground; we feel it. Only one party is consistent, only one party stays true, only one party does not spend its time flip-flopping, sloganeering and campaigning two years ahead of an election: the Bloc Québécois.
The Bloc Québécois is the only party that will always stand up for seniors and demand an OAS raise for everyone over 65 so as to put an end to the two classes of seniors the Liberals created.
Only one party is demanding an end to fossil fuel subsidies. Not even the NDP is calling for that; only the Bloc Québécois is.
Only one party called for the CEBA repayment deadline to be extended to keep small and medium-sized businesses afloat. That was us. Even the Conservatives did not join our efforts to save businesses and innovators, the people who make up the industrial and commercial fabric of our cities, our towns and our regions.
Only one party is calling for a media fund. The Conservatives want to shut down the media, and the Liberals are staying mum.
Only one party is calling for an emergency homelessness fund. The only thing the Conservatives want to do about homelessness is speed up global warming so that the winters are not so hard on the homeless. Only one party is doing that. As the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert says, only one party is calling for an affordable housing acquisition fund for our non-profit organizations in Quebec.
Bearing all that in mind, who really supports the Liberals' economic policies in the House? The Conservative members from Quebec do. Quebeckers will remember that.
Quebeckers can see that and they are smart. We appeal to Quebeckers' intelligence, and that is to our credit. We will continue to do so. We will continue to be trustworthy. When the election comes, Quebeckers will understand that we have been steadfast and consistent, and that we have worked for them.
Should a day come when Quebeckers grow tired of making agonizing choices about which bad party they should vote into power in Ottawa, there is a solution: We can vote for independence, pack up and leave, and let the other provinces and territories resolve their issues as a family.
1448 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, especially when we consider the expression “the enemy of my enemy is my friend”. He spent most of his speech making completely valid attacks against the Conservatives. Just before I ask my question, since we are joking around here, I want to say “hello, bonjour” to you, Mr. Speaker, and wish you a happy new year. I am saying that because we are all Quebeckers and we, on this side of the House, also speak for Quebeckers.
I wanted to point out a few contradictions. When he was the environment minister for the Parti Québécois government, the leader of the Bloc Québécois approved oil exploration off Anticosti Island. He also approved other things that I believe go against the principles that the Bloc Québécois is advocating for today.
Why did the members of the Bloc Québécois vote against our budget? By so doing, they voted against the investments in housing that we made for Quebec.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised that the member for Châteauguay—Lacolle is happy to hear me say that the Conservatives are as bad as the Liberals. Apparently, they take compliments any way they can.
I did my Ph.D. in Ontario. I am bilingual. In Quebec, we greet people in French. I think that is one of our selling points, something that makes us valuable. I understand that the member is very comfortable with the fact that her government will be pouring $800 million of public money, including Quebeckers' money, into English-speaking organizations to defend English in Quebec over the next few years. She may have political reasons for doing so. I think it is appalling.
I will conclude by saying that I am very proud that Quebec's CO2 emissions trading system was implemented by our leader when he was the environment minister, and I think history will remember that.
157 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his attacks on the Conservatives, on the next government. He got some good practice in. It will come as no surprise that the Conservatives may very well form the next government.
I would like my colleague to lay out the costs of all the demands he made in his speech so we can have an idea of where to head with future budgets.
72 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when his leader was attacking all the mayors in Quebec over the holidays, my colleague went into hiding.
Sometimes we have to bug them a bit to get a reaction.
I will take just a few seconds to tell my colleague that Bill C‑59 provides two years' worth of equalization payments in subsidies for the oil companies. I will give him a chance to think about that.
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
