Debates of Oct. 25th, 2022

Opposition motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, there is a thread between what I have been saying throughout this speech and the motion being presented today, as well as in line with the questions from the last intervention.

Each of those questions talked about the legitimacy of a motion like this while the country has strong and very persistent problems. It takes up the time of the House, so it is absolutely critical that we look at the question of the day and wonder why the Bloc would bring the motion today. It is absolutely fair to do that.

It is also fair to talk about our more important issues. As I said, those more important issues relate to what is on the minds of Canadians. Yes, democracy is on their minds. Yes, constitutional monarchy may be a topic brought up once a year.

Fundamentally, people are worried about the cost of living. They are worried about peace in our world. They are worried about affordable housing. They are worried about issues such as ensuring we have good dental care. They want us to address the issue of climate change. Those are the kinds of things they want us to do.

The thread that draws it back to the question is that we have the privilege of doing that because we have a bedrock, fundamental constitutional monarchy that gives us the freedom to be in this place. It gives us the freedom to have this discussion. It gives us the freedom to have a government that is elected. A minority government needs to listen and it needs to be aware of the demands of all parties in the House in an attempt to devise an agenda that will meet the needs of Canadians. We do that because we have a dependable, fundamental, rock-solid constitutional monarchy.

We have confidence in the Crown, which is able to represent something well beyond us. It gets us out of the everyday discussions we have and puts us above politics to the things that matter the most in our society. We are able to do that because we have democratic institutions that we have fought to have for decades. For a century and a half, people have fought to keep this democracy alive and well.

Fundamentally, we gather today as people of privilege. We gather today honouring a past and building toward a future. That future is absolutely dependent upon people having the things they need to live their lives, like affordable housing and a climate that is not racking disaster on their neighbourhoods and communities. We need to ensure that we address the issue of climate change.

We absolutely need to do this and this government will continue to do that because we are bent on delivering for Canadians and Quebeckers. We know what is also on the minds of Quebeckers. We know that they are concerned about the cost of living. We know that Quebeckers are concerned about housing prices. We know that Quebeckers are concerned about climate change. Canadians and Quebeckers share those absolute fundamental goals and desires in society. That is why we address them everyday, and we do that in this place because we have a system of government that Canadians trust. Canadians trust our ability to gather here and do our work with the freedom, grace and dignity they give us.

We know that the economy and fighting climate change go hand in hand, and that is why the government continues to support green innovation in Canada and projects that create—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order.

I am sorry to have to interrupt the member. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert on a point of order.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we have just been subjected to a 10-minute speech on housing, and now my colleague seems intent on talking about climate change for the next 10 minutes. The motion before us today is about the monarchy. That is what it is about. Certain tangents are acceptable, but members should spend at least a little time talking about the subject of the motion.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I was listening to the parliamentary secretary and I know that he made a reference to the monarchy less than two minutes ago. What is more, he does not have 10 minutes remaining in his speech, but rather one minute and 26 seconds. He will have the opportunity to participate in the period for questions and comments.

I would remind members, parliamentary secretaries and ministers that they are to ensure that the discussion is directly related to today's motion when they are making their speech.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has one minute and 30 seconds to conclude his speech.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will argue again that absolutely everything I have said is relevant to this motion, because we have a constitutional monarchy. We have had a constitutional monarchy in the past; I think for as long as I live we will have a constitutional monarchy, and I am glad for that.

Canada has a system of government that works for Canadians. It works to develop the appropriate responses, and it does not get sidetracked on issues that should not take all of our attention. The issues that should take our attention are issues of cost of living, of affordable housing, of human rights and of peace in our world. Those are the kinds of things we can discuss here because we have a constitutional monarchy. They are directly related. They are absolutely embedded in each other, and we will continue to do that.

Canadians will have trust in us when they do not think we are playing games in this place. They will have trust in us when they think we absolutely value what they value and care about what they care about. I will continue to defend that with every member of this House who wants to be part of that very important process.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague talked about the 1982 Constitution and its association with the Crown. He is trying to tell us that the symbols are unimportant, but there are symbols in a democracy. Anyway, we usually get rid of symbols when they outlive their usefulness.

I would remind my colleague that not a single premier of Quebec has ever signed the Constitution since its patriation in 1982, a process in which the Crown played an essential role.

What is more, I am unaware of any Acadian descendants, including myself, who are not deeply offended by the minister's comments and his complacency toward a Crown that is guilty of genocide against Acadians.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is absolutely important for me to reiterate that I did not say symbols were not important. Symbols are very important. The symbolic nature of the Crown continues to edify, continues to support and continues at times to challenge us to be better than ourselves.

My husband is also a descendant of Acadians. I know that story extremely well and I value that story very well. It is an important story. It is a story about the past, and as we move into the future, we want to value every single Canadien et Canadienne, absolutely. We need to do that and we will continue to do it.

[Marty Morantz, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia—Headingley, MB]

Madam Speaker, I can only imagine that Canadians who are tuning in to this debate this morning and watching us here in the House must be very confused and disappointed. Why? It is because they are worried about heating their homes this winter. They are worried about putting food on the table because of food inflation. They are worried about the housing crisis and so many other things.

I know the hon. member addressed this in some of his comments, but I wonder if he could reiterate how important it is that when people tune in to Parliament, in order to maintain the credibility of this place, they expect us to be talking about issues that are relevant to them in their everyday lives, and not about the monarchy.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the fundamental basis of my speech was to ensure that we bring this House back to the matters that Canadians are concerned about. We will disagree on how to solve those problems. We will disagree on whether or not we should have certain taxes or not certain taxes, certain programs or not certain programs, but I do not doubt that anyone in this House is concerned about those.

We go back to our ridings every weekend and hear the stories. We hear people's worries and concerns, and our job is to bring them back to the House today. Not a single resident of Don Valley West has raised the issue of the constitutional monarchy to me. I will be very willing to talk to them if they do, and I will be happy to raise the issue in the House, but right now, that is not what they are talking about. They are talking about bread-and-butter issues. They are also talking about world peace, about Canada's role in the world and about human rights, but not about that issue.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague brought up two words, “freedom” and “privilege”.

Cassidy Caron, president of the Métis National Council, is calling on the Crown to apologize for its participation in residential schools. Paul Andrew, a residential school survivor, said the Queen was also a treaty member and had an obligation to live up to agreements that the Crown has never lived up to, such as the participation of the monarchy in slavery. Not everybody in this place we now call Canada has had that freedom and privilege we are talking about. In fact, many of us, in real time, are still fighting for freedom, still fighting for our rights, still fighting for our privilege, an erasure of genocide and colonial history that the Crown has participated in globally.

I would ask the hon. member if he agrees with me that the Crown has participated in the violent genocide of groups of peoples across the globe.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as the Prime Minister has said repeatedly, there is no more important relationship than our relationship with indigenous Canadians. There is no more important work that we have to do than to get the hard work of reconciliation done. That will take the efforts of every single one of us, and it will take our work, day in and day out, not only to correct the tremendous historical injustices but also to make sure that the current events, the current inclusion, the current dignity and the current economic welfare needs of indigenous Canadians are absolutely met.

I take the challenge. I respect the question, and I will work with the member and everyone in the House who wants to make sure that Crown-indigenous relations are improved and that we continue to have reconciliation.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on a previous question asked by our colleague from Cowichan—Malahat—Langford. If we are going to make progress on the priorities of all Canadians, as the parliamentary secretary spoke about in his speech, we need to fix the way we elect members to the House. The only consistent outcomes of our current voting system are distorted results and disillusioned voters. We need proportional representation in this country.

Can the parliamentary secretary comment on when the governing party will get serious about improving our democracy and following through on what it promised over 1,800 times, that the 2015 election would be the last under first past the post?

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think my speech had more to do with the motion than the question does today. However, I think it is a valid question.

The question of electoral reform should be on all our minds all the time. It was a debate that we had in the 2015-2017 period. It was a hard debate. I had three town halls on electoral reform, three large town halls. It came out that about 50% of my constituents wanted a change to the voting system and 50% did not. Among the 50% who wanted change, there were three different groups of people, and they did not come up with a common idea.

We need to have that discussion. Just like the motion today, I do not think it is on the top of the agenda for Canadians. The issues of cost of living, affordable housing, climate change and human rights really are more important to Canadians than that particular issue, but we will always be open to improving our democracy in a variety of ways.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

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.

[Rob Oliphant, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

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.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

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.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

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.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

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.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

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.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

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?

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

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.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

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.

[Pierre Paul-Hus, Conservative, Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, QC]

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.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

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.