Debates of March 1st, 2022

A message from Her Excellency the Governor General transmitting estimates for the financial year ending March 31, 2023, was presented by the President of the Treasury Board and read by the Speaker to the House.

Main Estimates, 2022-23

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Main Estimates, 2022-23.

2022 Report on Federal Tax Expenditures

[Mona Fortier, Liberal, President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, on behalf of the Minister of Finance, in both official languages, a document entitled “2022 Report on Federal Tax Expenditures”.

Official Languages Act

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Minister of Official Languages]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act, to enact the Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act and to make related amendments to other Acts.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Veterans Affairs

[Emmanuel Dubourg, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the first report of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, entitled “Moving Towards Ending Homelessness Among Veterans”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all the members of the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs, the clerk, the analyst, the interpreters and all the staff who supported us during the study that resulted in this report.

Finance

[Peter Fonseca, Liberal, Mississauga East—Cooksville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the second report of the Standing Committee on Finance, entitled “Bill C-8, An Act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update tabled in Parliament on December 14, 2021 and other measures”.

I will take this opportunity to thank the members of the committee, the clerk, the analysts, the interpreters and everybody else who helped make this happen, as well as the legislative clerks who helped with getting this report together.

Questions on the Order Paper

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

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

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Representation of Quebec in the House of Commons

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved:

That, in the opinion of the House:

(a) any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec’s political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected; and

(b) the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended and the House call on the government to act accordingly.

Mr. Speaker, I wish you a very pleasant day, and I would like to inform you that I will be sharing my time.

Discussions on redistribution have been going on for some time. These days, however, current events have an unfortunate tendency to occupy public space and, in many respects, our debates and discussions here.

The Bloc Québécois is moving a motion to protect the Quebec nation's political weight within the Canadian federation, as long as Quebeckers have not chosen to take a different path that will make the Quebec nation a friend of the Canadian nation, rather than a nation subject to another nation. In the meantime, Quebec's political weight must be protected.

I can already hear certain analysts and esteemed colleagues, who are opponents after all, saying that this is not the time to do this, because of the pandemic. I would remind members that we are also facing a climate crisis. Some will also say this is not the right time because of the war going on. Not all that long ago we were talking about emergency measures, but the government changed its mind 44 hours later, so this would not be the time to talk about Quebec's political weight.

The point is that now is the time to talk about it. In light of everything that is going on, we must measure Quebec's weight. We are facing challenges that we can overcome together, freely and without being subject to numbers within institutions where the Quebec nation holds less and less space.

If the affairs of the state could be managed by statistics alone, then we would need to ask ourselves what we are doing here. If lining up three columns of numbers automatically programs the result and the consequences, then we need to ask ourselves what we are doing here.

It is because there are decisions that sometimes stray from the sacred column of numbers that we have elected members. Members are elected to use their judgment, to represent the people who elected them, but they are also elected to use their conscience when an unanticipated situation arises.

Because of the people who are called upon to take action, the values they cherish, and history, we cannot allow decisions to be made by statistics. History is what got us to this point.

For all these reasons, it is unacceptable that Quebec's weight could be reduced within any kind of Canadian institution at this point in time. That is true for everyone.

Imagine that I am a federalist. Members would have to have a very active imagination, but they need not hold their breath as it will not happen. All the same, imagine that I am a Quebecker who aspires to lead the Conservative Party and who is thinking about staging a comeback. If that were the case, I would say that it is important to maintain Quebec's political weight, because that is proof that Canada truly loves Quebec. After all, the Conservative Party was present for the 1995 love-in. In reality, I am at the opposite end of the spectrum, where I am much more comfortable, almost in a state of bliss, and I can say that I am a sovereignist.

In the meantime, we must not allow ourselves to be weakened. Protecting Quebec's political weight is good for everyone who recognizes the existence of the Quebec nation. Not that long ago, on June 16, 2021, the House of Commons voted to recognize Quebec as a nation, with 281 MPs voting in favour and a few voting against. A handful suddenly came down with stomachaches. The House voted to recognize Quebec as a nation, whose only official language and only common language is French.

If that recognition means anything, the House needs to back up those words with action. Today's motion is a small step. All we are trying to say is that Quebec's weight must not be reduced. We do not want Quebec to lose a seat. That has not happened since 1966, as my esteemed colleague and parliamentary leader will point out.

We will soon introduce a bill to ensure that Quebec's weight—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I ask hon. members who want to have conversations to please take them into the lobbies. Thank you very much.

The hon. member for Beloeil—Chambly.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, they have a leadership race to sort out. They need a bit of a break.

Back to more serious things. I simply want to say that we will be introducing a bill that would protect Quebec's weight within Canadian institutions. This does not mean that we, as good neighbours, no longer wish to work together. We want to continue working together with the Canadian entity, no matter how it is defined in the future.

The Bloc Québécois will introduce a bill because, in the meantime, Quebec needs to have weight to protect the best interests of Quebeckers, to promote Quebec and to be able to defend Quebec's ideas, including the ones that will be studied soon. The Official Languages Act should not be enforced in Quebec, which manages the French language quite well, and, what is more, the Quebec government is the best in the world at protecting its historic minority, the anglophone minority.

We need this weight to defend culture, arts and communications, especially with respect to broadcasting. This topic will be discussed soon and the discussion must reflect Quebec's unique perspective.

In order to do this, we need a voice that cannot be diminished or grow weaker by the day within Canadian institutions. We want to at least maintain what we have, with the expectation to get more.

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

Madam Speaker, I am someone with a very strong passion for the distinct nature of the province of Quebec and an ancestral heritage that comes from the province of Quebec. My question for the leader is from something he made reference to. He is wearing a ribbon on his lapel for what is happening in Ukraine today and in a show of solidarity with the world. I am wondering, given all the things in the world today, why at the very first opportunity for Bloc members to have an opposition day, they would not attempt to address those types of issues. The member made reference to it in his comments and I am wondering if he could expand on why he felt this was the most important thing on the agenda for the Bloc.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, despite the temptation to do otherwise, I will try to maintain what little positive atmosphere we have here. I understand that the member's question was written before he rose and before he even heard the opening of my brief speech.

Of course members will say that now is not the right time. It is never the right time. It will never be the right time for the Quebec nation to have more influence.

However, it is always the right time. In fact, there is no better time, given my colleague's shameful reference to Ukraine. I say “shameful” because we are talking about the right to self-determination, a legitimate right. Self-determination is acquired, but it also must be defended, and Quebec is in an excellent position, as a nation, to tell Ukraine that we stand with them in friendship and solidarity.

[Ron Liepert, Conservative, Calgary Signal Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I recall sitting in the House about a year ago when the leader of the Bloc Québécois stated that oil is dead. As we have seen in the last few days, it is obvious that the member was wrong. It is a situation where we have seen the oil and gas sector become a major contributor again to the Canadian economy, which will help health transfer payments to the Province of Quebec.

I wonder if the leader of the Bloc Québécois would go on record admitting that he was wrong when he said oil is dead. Oil is actually going to help what the member is looking for, which is more federal health transfers to the Province of Quebec, and this ties into exactly what he is asking for today.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, I stand corrected. Obviously, my colleague was not talking about Jean Charest's campaign. Mr. Charest is opposed to pipelines and he is behind the carbon tax. My colleague must have been talking about someone else. That is to his credit because the Conservatives are entitled to their own leadership race.

There is another race, the race for the planet's survival. Some people say that they believe in climate change as long as they do not have to do anything about it. As long as it is pointless and meaningless, they recognize it. However, the reality is that we need to take action. Some members think it is inappropriate to say that oil is dead, but oil has to at least be in intensive care if we want the planet to have a decent future.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for bringing forward today's motion, which the NDP will, of course, support.

This motion is in line with a bill introduced in 2011 by the former NDP member for Compton—Stanstead. That bill sought to guarantee minimum representation in the number of members for the province of Quebec, as is already the case for seven provinces and territories. This is nothing new; most provinces and territories already have minimum representation in the House of Commons. Therefore, we obviously support this motion.

I would like to ask the leader of the Bloc Québécois what he thinks would have happened if the Liberals and Conservatives had supported the bill introduced in 2011. Would we be having this discussion today if they had done the right thing 10 years ago?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Madam Speaker, despite the temptation, I always avoid rewriting history.

I will avoid rewriting history by going back to 2011, and I will say instead that I understand that the NDP will support the Bloc Québécois today, and that I imagine the NDP will also support my party's bill when we introduce it.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think it is important to read the motion so that we understand what we are talking about:

That, in the opinion of the House: (a) any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected;

In the motion, there is an “or”, but based on what we are currently seeing, there is an “and”. Quebec is losing its political representation in the House of Commons but—and this is an historic—Quebec will also lose a seat. That has not happened since 1966.

People think that it is understandable that Quebec's demographic representation would cause such a drop. Basically, Quebec is treated as a province, except that we are not a province. We are a nation, and we must be treated as one.

Our culture is different, our language is different, our way of living and doing things are different, and our economy is structured differently. We are more in favour of fighting climate change. At least, that seems obvious to some in the House of Commons.

When I was young, and I was young once, Félix Leclerc passed away. In 1988, Quebec mourned the passing of its poet. The rest of Canada wondered who Félix Leclerc was.

This goes to show just how far apart we are. We are not better—just different. This difference needs to be felt in the House of Commons while we are still here. The dream of every sovereignist and every Bloc Québécois member is to put ourselves out of a job and go to Quebec City, so that half of the taxes we pay are not defended by 22.5% of the people here, but instead by 100% of the people in Quebec City. That is what we want.

I mentioned Félix Leclerc. People may say that that was to be expected in 1988, but since then there has been a referendum, and Canadians have become a little closer, especially after the love-in with Jean Charest.

Last year we lost Michel Louvain. We made a member’s statement about Michel Louvain. In the House, we could sense that people were wondering, “who's that guy?”, “who is Michael Luvine?” Ask any Quebecker who is la belle inconnue, the beautiful stranger. They will say it is la dame en bleu seule à sa table, the lady in blue alone at her table. This is what Quebec is.

Our colleague, the hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, gave an exceptional 10-minute speech last week precisely to explain what Quebec is. I invite everyone to listen to it again. It was simply magnificent.

Let us come back to the fact that Quebec is a nation. Last year, we adopted a motion recognizing that Quebec forms a nation. We passed it here in the House. What is more, we really pushed the envelope. When I left home, my wife said to me, "they will never do that”. I told her that I was confident that it would work, because we have a good leader. In the end, not only was Quebec recognized as a nation, but French was also recognized as the common language of the Quebec nation.

When people voted in favour of this motion, they probably thought that they were throwing us a bone to placate us. It could be that they are tired of hearing us say that we are different. They may have told us that we were a nation just to humour us, while thinking that it would serve no purpose anyway.

That, however is not true; it does serve a purpose. We have to follow up on words, on a label. It has to be useful. We must be consistent when we solemnly vote in the House on opinions, on ideas.

The time has come for these people to speak out. I am talking, among others, about the 35 Liberal members from Quebec in the House. I cannot conceive that these people could vote against the idea that Quebec deserves, at worst, to maintain its political weight in the House and, at best, to improve its situation. We will watch them carefully. It is time for them to follow through on what they voted on.

Yesterday in the House, we were talking about Ukraine, much to the delight of the member for Winnipeg. I asked the Deputy Prime Minister a question, and she stood up in the House and affirmed that Quebec is a nation. She said that right here in the House as we were discussing international policy. Now is the time to walk the talk.

The calculations indicate that Quebec would lose a member, whereas the House as a whole would gain four. That means multiple setbacks for us, and it is not acceptable. People might say it makes sense because our demographic weight is declining, but Quebec cannot be punished by a statistic like that because, as I said, Quebec is a nation. That is what matters.

People might also say it makes sense because we do not bring in enough immigrants. The Liberal government wants to welcome 430,000 immigrants. It does not take a Ph.D. in math to figure out that, if Canada brings in 430,000 immigrants, Quebec has to get 100,000 of them to maintain its political weight. We like immigrants, or course, but to protect the French fact in Quebec, we have to welcome them and enable them to integrate so they can live their lives fully in Quebec. That means making sure those 100,000 people can truly be part of Quebec society.

Our National Assembly has stated that bringing in more than 50,000 would be a herculean task. All the parties agreed on that. Bringing in 100,000 is just not realistic, and it puts us in an impossible position. If we play the statistics game, open up and bring people in, we will have problems with Quebec's French character, which will suffer. It would enable us to maintain our power in the House, but it would chip away at the French language, which must be protected. Everyone knows that.

We are being forced to choose between the two. We can respect the concerns of the National Assembly and admit that, in order for immigration to be successful, we must welcome people and ensure that they are well integrated. That means that Quebec's political weight would inevitably shrink, as it has been since 1867. Fewer and fewer Quebeckers are rising in the House to speak. Quebec's political weight in Canada as we know it is already quite weak and is diminishing all the time.

We absolutely must stop this erosion. The only way to do so is to eliminate the responsibility of statistics in assessing the political weight of a nation. That is what we must do now. First we must determine how the problem affects Quebeckers, and then we must come up with a remedy like the one being proposed by the member for Drummond. He introduced a bill in the House that would ensure that Quebec's political weight would be maintained over time because Quebec is a nation. In a way, 77% of the Quebec nation is dominated by a nation that is not ours. When we look at the numbers, it becomes clear that the best way to protect the Quebec nation is to make it a sovereign state.

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

Madam Speaker, the member made reference to the importance of action, and action does speak louder than words. Yesterday, we brought in Bill C-11, which would modernize the Canada Broadcasting Act. Part of the argument for it, as the minister responsible, who is an MP from Quebec, said, is the importance of the francophone and French communities, particularly in Quebec and throughout Canada, and ensuring that there is more content and more investment in the arts community. This government has invested hugely in arts programming, because we recognize it in the province of Quebec. Today, we also have the introduction of the languages bill, which will again ensure that French will continue to be spoken across Canada in record numbers.

Could the member provide his thoughts on those actions?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, did my colleague really say that Bill C‑13 would increase the francophone population of Canada? Is he unaware of the statistics? Has he not understood that since 1867, French has been disappearing from the rest of Canada? If he wants and perceives his country to be bilingual, the best way to achieve that is for Quebec to remain powerful, because it is the representative of the francophonie and an inspiration to the rest of Canada. Francophones in the rest of Canada are in distress and are suffering death by a thousand cuts, yet my colleague says that the situation is rosy in the rest of Canada.

Seriously, I do not even know why I am wasting my breath answering a question like that.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy listening to my colleague from La Prairie, for whom I have a great deal of esteem and respect.

Today's motion is along the same lines as something the NDP proposed in 2011 through our member for Compton—Stanstead. It sets a threshold for Quebec, which just makes sense. We already have thresholds for Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon. There are thresholds in most provinces and territories.

The NDP proposed creating a threshold for Quebec as well, and the Liberals and Conservatives rejected that in 2012. I wanted to ask my colleague why the Liberals and Conservatives rejected something that just makes sense.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

He is on the right track, and he is right to point out what seems obvious. The NDP agrees on this, so it will vote in favour of the motion. The Bloc Québécois is quite pleased and welcomes that.

Now my colleague is asking whether the Conservatives and the Liberals will vote in favour. As I said, I cannot imagine that the 35 Liberal members from Quebec would not agree that their nation and its political weight in the House of Commons deserve to be protected.

I will be really disappointed if those members stand up. They often disappoint me, but I think this really would be the last straw.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech.

He spoke a lot about seat distribution. In 2015, with the redistribution of seats, we gained a seat in Calgary. As my NDP colleague just stated, some provinces gain seats, and others lose them.

I would like to ask my colleague from La Prairie the following: If it were up to him to decide, or if he had to advise the government, which province should lose a seat instead of Quebec?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague and her question.

However, I am somewhat disappointed. When I was a teacher, my students sometimes did not understand what I was saying. Because I am kind, I would always tell them that it was because I had not communicated well. I gave a 10‑minute speech, but I did not communicate well. The answer to my colleague's question lies in what I just said.

To summarize, my colleague spoke of a province and emphasized the term “province”, but Quebec is not a province, it is a nation. People need to understand that. I will repeat: It is not a province, it is a nation.

All I am saying is that no matter what happens in the rest of Canada, which is of no consequence to me, the Quebec nation and its political weight must be protected because Quebec is not like Manitoba—