SoVote

Ms. Leah Gazan (Winnipeg Centre, NDP)

Feb/8/24 3:13:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to intervene on a point of order raised by the member for Winnipeg North this morning respecting Bill C-318, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act and the Canada Labour Code, adoptive and intended parents. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, mentioned the committee process, where I tabled crucial amendments to this legislation that would bring the bill into compliance with Canadian law, specifically with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Let me remind the government that it is the government that passed Bill C-15, which affirms that all legislation going forward has to be compatible with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Not including these important amendments means that the legislation now is not compliant with articles 19, 21 and 22 of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. The member of Parliament for Winnipeg North talked about the amendments being out of scope, but even the sponsor of the bill said that the amendments were absolutely within the scope of what Bill C-318 was trying to do. My colleague, the member for Winnipeg North, also pointed out the need for a royal recommendation for these amendments. I would like to encourage him to reconsider this, considering he has the highest number of kids in care in an urban area in the whole country, 90% who are indigenous. What my colleague failed to mention is that the Liberal government has the power to allow the amendments to proceed by giving notice of a royal recommendation for Bill C-318. In fact, Bosc and Gagnon, at page 839, states the following: ...since Standing Order 79 was changed in 1994, private Members’ bills involving the spending of public money have been allowed to proceed through the legislative process on the assumption that a royal recommendation will be submitted by a Minister of the Crown before the bill is to be read a third time and passed The only ones who can act right now are the Liberals. On their watch, they are not upholding Canadian law, which includes Bill C-15. We are meeting about the red dress right now, about murdered and missing indigenous women and girls. The child welfare system is called the pipeline for becoming murdered and missing. The government's failure is not addressing the 90% of kids in care. It is only the Liberals who can save the lives of indigenous children who are being dropped off at shelters, separated from their families and communities. I am asking them to table a royal recommendation to do the right thing to ensure that Bill C-318 can go to a vote at third reading with the amendments adopted by committee. Although they have mentioned they are putting forth Bill C-59, a similar bill, once again it is not consistent with upholding Canadian law and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. It is in the hands of the Liberals. Lives are in their hands. They need to put forward a royal recommendation. This is a life and death matter. They have to stop playing with indigenous lives and do what is needed now.

541 words

Indigenous

The Speaker

Feb/8/24 3:17:46 p.m.
Watch

I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre for raising this point of order. It is one that the Chair will take and come back to members after I have closely looked at the arguments raised by the hon. member. On a point of order, the hon. member for Regina—Lewvan.

52 words

Mr. Warren Steinley (Regina—Lewvan, CPC)

Feb/8/24 3:18:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a question of privilege arising out of question period today. Standing Order 48 waives the required hour's notice when a breach of privilege occurs during the proceedings of the House. Misleading comments were made on the floor of the House. It is imperative not only to correct the record but to draw a firm line against misleading comments being tossed around in a way the Liberals have done so egregiously. Normally we chalk these things up to debate, but the misrepresentation offered by the government is so egregious that I think it rises to the level of being a prima facie case and a contempt of Parliament. Here are the facts. Here is what I had originally said, in the Hansard transcript: Madam Speaker, as always, one has to be very careful with the Liberals when they talk about truths and untruths. What Dr. Charlebois said was that there has not been enough data collected to see exactly what the effect of the carbon tax is on food prices. He also said— Which the member conveniently omitted. that he called for a pause on the carbon tax to lower food prices. Charlebois has said that.... When one hears a story coming from the Liberals, it is always interesting to listen to the facts. Talking to Mr. McCann, I also asked if the point of a carbon tax is to increase the price so that consumers change their behaviour. He said that this is exactly what the Liberals say the point of a carbon tax is. The truth is that, when it comes to food inflation, food prices and the relationship with the carbon tax, it will come out in the wash that there is a correlation. When one talks to farmers and dairy farmers today, their highest input cost now is the carbon tax and the heating of their barns. If someone does not think that affects the price of what a farmer does, then they should maybe get out of downtown Winnipeg and go to a farm once in their life. As the Speaker will recall from today's question period, what was portrayed as being said is nowhere close to the facts. To find a prima facie case of privilege, three things must be established: the statement must be misleading; the member making the statement must know it is misleading; and the statement must have been offered with the intention to mislead the House. This has happened three times, twice yesterday with the Prime Minister and then, today, with the Minister of Environment. All three of these conditions have been met here because of the wanton and reckless misquoting and misrepresenting by an hon. member. If you agree with me on these points, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion to refer the matter to the procedure and House affairs committee.

484 words

The Speaker

Feb/8/24 3:20:28 p.m.
Watch

I thank the member for Regina—Lewvan for putting his points very clearly. The Chair will take this under advisement and will come back to this House. On the same point of order, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader.

43 words

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

Feb/8/24 3:20:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I see that you were very generous in listening to what the member across the way was saying. I had the opportunity to witness the exchange. From my perspective, it is very much a dispute over the facts at best. I would suggest that what was being suggested as a point of order or a matter of privilege is just a matter of debate that should have, in all likelihood, stayed inside the committee. I realize that the member might have been embarrassed, but it does not justify bringing it into the chamber.

95 words

Privilege

The Speaker

Feb/8/24 3:21:31 p.m.
Watch

On the same point of order, the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

14 words

Hon. Andrew Scheer (Regina—Qu'Appelle, CPC)

Feb/8/24 3:21:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have just a few points I want to address. First of all, it was the government that decided to bring something from committee into the House of Commons by allegedly repeating what was said. He did not say it, and that is the whole point. Usually the Speaker does not arbitrate the veracity of statements that are made, but previous Speakers have indicated that members must be very judicious in their words. Completely fabricating a statement to try to give the impression that a member from an opposition party actually supported something as egregious as the carbon tax does rise to the level where the Speaker should have an interest in order to preserve the integrity and the reputation of members. If not, we could all just come here and make things up, saying, “Oh, the member for Winnipeg North said this at committee. He said that carbon taxes were terrible and that the Prime Minister is responsible for car theft increases,” even if he did not say anything like that. I do think there are some very unique and special circumstances where the Speaker should look at just how diametrically opposed what was actually said is compared to what the Liberals' paraphrasing of that is. I do believe that my colleague's point rises to that level.

223 words

Paraphrasing

The Speaker

Feb/8/24 3:22:53 p.m.
Watch

I would like to thank the hon. member for Regina—Qu'Appelle for raising this point, and I would also like to thank the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader who I had not had an opportunity to thank until this point. The Chair has heard what needs to be said. I will come back. I am really quite convinced that the Chair has heard very well pointed-out arguments in regard to what was raised in this matter. I will come back to the House with a ruling. I will look very carefully at what was raised here today by the member for Regina—Lewvan and supported by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, I will also reflect upon what was raised by the parliamentary secretary, and come back to this House. The matter is now closed.

142 words

The Speaker

Feb/8/24 3:24:20 p.m.
Watch

I appreciate that, and I think that was the original point that was raised by you, as well as by the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle. I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to do that. We will review all transcripts to make sure we take a look at that.

52 words

Mr. Warren Steinley

Feb/8/24 3:24:20 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would ask, for the sake of being transparent, if I could table the original comments on the floor of the House of Commons. Also, the member from Winnipeg who talked about the point of order said it happened in committee, but it actually happened in the House of Commons. His interjection was actually wrong.

57 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara (Vaughan—Woodbridge, Lib.)

Feb/8/24 3:25:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, a wonderful and good afternoon to all esteemed and learned members in this House. This new funding will enable the provinces and municipalities that are facing an increased demand for shelter spaces to better respond to that demand. It will also help to prevent asylum seekers from ending up homeless. What is more, as part of “Reaching Home: Canada's Homelessness Strategy”, the federal government has committed nearly $4 billion over nine years to fight homelessness across the country. Do we not all have the fundamental right to a safe place to live? These are not the only ways the federal government is taking action to respond to the consequences of the increase in asylum claims. When these claims put increased pressure on Canada's shelter system, we worked with the provinces and municipalities that were most affected to transfer asylum seekers who needed temporary housing from provincial shelters and churches to hotel rooms paid for by Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada, or the IRCC. Since the end of last month, we have approximately 4,000 hotel rooms in six provinces that are safely housing some 7,300 asylum seekers. In addition to extending the interim housing assistance program, or IHAP, we introduced the interim federal health program so that asylum seekers can receive health care coverage to meet their immediate and essential medical needs. IRCC has also implemented a temporary public policy that provides asylum seekers with timely access to open work permits, allowing them to enter the Canadian labour market faster and to support themselves while they wait for a decision on their asylum claim. Finally, the federal government continues to implement innovative immigration measures to address housing shortages, category-based selection and regional immigration programs. These programs are essential to attracting the workers the construction sector needs to start projects and build new housing. Immigration is one of Canada's defining characteristics. We are a welcoming country, where newcomers can feel as though they are an integral part of the community. We are a country where we understand that immigration contributes to the growth of our economy, to our diversity and to the building of our communities. In short, the federal government is listening to its provincial and municipal partners and will continue to do so in order to make sure that Canada remains a safe place for the world's most vulnerable people seeking refuge. Canadians expect no less of us. This opposition motion deals with immigration. My parents were immigrants to this country, this country we are blessed to call home. I will always be proud to rise on behalf of them and the millions of newcomers who have made Canada home as we debate policies that bring newcomers here to Canada and get them working, contributing to our economy, building their family and strengthening, most importantly, our social fabric.

480 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Feb/8/24 3:29:38 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question that I previously asked the former minister of housing, Mr. Hussen, during question period here in the House. It has to do with the Century Initiative, which, when it was launched, announced a goal of increasing Canada's population to 100 million by 2100. Before the government announced that number, which is absolutely mind-boggling, did anyone ask the Minister of Housing for his thoughts? This morning, the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce announced that we are no longer just 3.5 million housing units short, but based on the new immigration targets that Canada adopted, we are five million housing units short. I would remind the House that only 250,000 housing units were built last year. Does my colleague think that the Minister of Housing was involved in the discussions?

143 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/8/24 3:30:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the issue of housing construction is very important, not only for immigrants, but also for every Canadian who wants to be able to buy a home. We must ensure that our infrastructure here in Canada is robust. We must ensure that builders have those approvals in place, which is what we are doing with the housing accelerator fund, to ensure that they can put shovels in the ground and build the homes that not only newcomers want and need but also Canadians want and need in our communities. We need to make sure we can absorb newcomers and they have a place to call home and so forth. We know our immigration system is between two different streams, permanent and temporary residents, and we always need to balance the needs of workers and the need to build a better and better country we are all blessed to call home.

151 words

Mr. Adam Chambers (Simcoe North, CPC)

Feb/8/24 3:31:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a couple of years ago the immigration department released a study in which it questioned whether Canada had a diversified immigrant pool or not. Also, it has recently been suggested that if one was trying to undermine the great Canadian consensus on immigration, the policies the government has implemented would be indistinguishable from those meant to destroy the consensus on immigration. I wonder if the member could reflect on whether he thinks Canada is losing faith in its immigration system and to what extent, if any, the government policies and what it has done in the last few years have contributed to that consensus.

106 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/8/24 3:32:17 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Canada is home to millions of newcomers from all over the world who have come here to build a better future for themselves and add to Canada's future. We always need to maintain the consensus that folks are coming here; they are working, thriving and learning, and their kids are going to have a very bright future. On the immigration policies of not only our government but past governments, we always need to evaluate them and make sure the integrity of the system is robust, that newcomers are coming here on an efficiency basis, that they are being welcomed, that our economic capacity can absorb them and that the supply labour is great. It is not only that, but that we are nation building, and that is what our immigration should always be about. It should be about nation building and making Canada a better and better place to call home.

154 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Feb/8/24 3:33:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I recently met with representatives from a group known as the Table de concertation des organismes au service des personnes réfugiées et immigrantes. They are absolutely overwhelmed, they need money and people, and they want more resources to help asylum seekers and refugees, but they are not getting any answers from the federal government. Does my colleague think that more could be done to help these organizations, which are essential to helping newcomers integrate?

80 words

Mr. Francesco Sorbara

Feb/8/24 3:33:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is very important for us to help the most vulnerable people in our country. That includes those people who have come to this country to receive help and apply for asylum. If they receive refugee approval to be here, to stay here and to build a better future, we need to make sure we have the resources in place, not only at the beginning but as we go along. The whole world is continuing to face a migratory problem because of climate change, war and a number of reasons. We know there are literally millions of people, if not tens of millions, who would love to come to Canada this afternoon if they could, to call this beautiful and blessed country home so we can all build a better future for ourselves and our families.

138 words

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Feb/8/24 3:34:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House and have the opportunity to respond to the opposition motion concerning our shared responsibility in welcoming newcomers. I would first like to share a little reflection with the House. When I read the text of the Bloc Québécois motion, I wondered why the Bloc Québécois would move such a motion. After researching the various programs and agreements currently in place, I concluded that using an opposition day to move this motion was unnecessary, because the mechanisms and tools for collaboration between the Quebec government and the Government of Canada have already been put in place to address the Bloc's concerns. I will explain. First, it is important to note that since 2015, the Government of Quebec has received more than $4.4 billion in federal funding through the Canada-Quebec accord relating to immigration and temporary admission of aliens to support its immigration needs. It is also important to note that the federal government has allocated more than $700 million this year alone. As a Nova Scotia MP, I understand the importance of Quebec's place in the federation. That is a very impressive number. We can see that the federal government is co-operating with Quebec. In Nova Scotia, it is different. I believe that this initiative could also be a good idea in the other regions of Canada in order to meet their specific needs. The governments of Canada and Quebec have a long history of working together to advance shared immigration priorities. Quebec's immigration powers are enshrined in the 1991 Canada-Quebec accord. I would like to get into the details of the Canada-Quebec accord. Quebec is the only province that receives an annual grant from the federal government to compensate for the delivery of settlement services to newcomers. In all other provinces and territories, the federal government provides annual funding directly to settlement service providers in local communities, who provide services directly or indirectly to newcomers in those regions. Funding is therefore available directly to the Government of Quebec. I think that is important to say in the circumstances. Quebec receives an annual adjustment to regularly update the amount of federal funding. The funding formula takes into account net federal spending on immigration, as well as the number of non-francophone newcomers who have arrived and settled in Quebec, compared to the previous year. The accord ensures Quebec's integration capacity by guaranteeing that the federal grant cannot decrease from one year to the next, regardless of the proportion of permanent immigrants requested by the province. The grant must either remain constant or increase. The amount granted in a given year becomes the basis for calculating the following year. I would like to note that the value of Canada's grant to Quebec continues to increase. This is very important in order to continue offering programs, subsidies and resources for integrating newcomers in Quebec. In fact, it has more than doubled from $387 million in 2016 to over $724 million this year. Quebec is not required to tell the federal government how it spends the funds it receives. However, under the Canada-Quebec accord, the province is required to provide settlement and integration services comparable to those in the rest of the country. It is very important that a strong relationship between governments, with public servants and with the elected ministers responsible for this portfolio be sustained. The agreement defines the bilateral relationship between Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada and Quebec. Its main objectives are to preserve Quebec's demographic weight within Canada and support the integration of immigrants in the province while respecting Quebec as a distinct society. I mentioned the principle that recognizes Quebec's distinct character within our federation. The accord aims to ensure co-operation between the governments of Canada and Quebec throughout the immigration process in all immigration categories. The federal government is responsible for setting national immigration standards and objectives, including national levels of permanent immigration, admission criteria, and conditions for granting citizenship. It must also ensure that Canada's international humanitarian obligations are respected. The Government of Quebec has the right to decide the number of permanent immigrants it wants to welcome every year. I will say it again: The Government of Quebec is allowed to figure out the number of newcomers it wants to welcome to the province based on federal thresholds. It retains the right to exceed this figure by 5% of the Canadian total for demographic reasons, in order to protect the Quebec identity, but also the French language, of course. We understand the importance of protecting the French language in this context as well. However, recently, Quebec asked to meet only 10% of Canada's target for permanent immigrants, even though its population represents 22.5% of the country's population. The Legault government decided that Quebec's desire was to maintain a low level in relation to the federal total. That is Quebec's right and it is a decision based on capacity. At the same time, it was the Government of Quebec's decision. I am a little confused. Why is the Bloc Québécois moving an opposition motion today in relation to the decisions made by the Legault government? Is the Bloc Québécois opposed to the Legault government's measures and decisions to accept a relatively low number of newcomers in relation to Quebec's percentage of the Canadian population? I understand that Quebec and Canada have a special relationship given its place in Confederation. I am a Nova Scotia MP. The accord contains different tools and mechanisms to ensure that a certain relationship exists, in addition to certain mechanisms and tools for managing the newcomer arrival process in Quebec and in the federation. I see no need for this motion. Both governments are following the proper procedures.

999 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Feb/8/24 3:44:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague is confused because someone else wrote his speech for him and he has not read the 1991 Canada-Quebec accord. He is talking about amounts that Quebec receives without explaining that Quebec has immigration responsibilities that the other provinces do not. This is compensation for work performed by Quebec. He is practically claiming that Quebec is getting gifts, while ignoring the fact that the Couture-Cullen and McDougall-Tremblay agreements, entered after the 1991 accord, make no provision for refugees. The $470 million requested by Quebec is meant to pay for refugee integration. Refugees come under the jurisdiction of the federal government, not the Legault government. Now that my colleague has received an explanation about agreements he has not read, is he willing to go see the Minister of Immigration and tell him to get out his cheque book and pay up the $470 million that Ottawa owes Quebec for matters under Ottawa's jurisdiction, but currently being paid for by Quebec?

167 words

Mr. Kody Blois

Feb/8/24 3:46:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the thing is that Nova Scotia and all of the provinces and territories in the federation are responsible for managing certain services. My speech was very direct. Federal funding is available for the Government of Quebec. When it comes to refugees, of course, Quebec is having more issues as a result of Roxham Road and other crossings. However, the Minister of Immigration recently announced several million dollars in funding, not just $1 million. I think he announced close to $4 million to improve resources for refugees. I expect that some of that funding will go to Quebec. I am sure that my colleague will contact the Minister of Immigration about that.

115 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 278