44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 1, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/1/22 10:20:28 a.m.
- Watch
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?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 10:33:40 a.m.
- Watch
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.
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 11:51:48 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was very interested in the speech given by my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He spoke a bit about all the work that the NDP has been doing in the House for a long time to ensure that Quebec is properly represented.
A bill introduced in 2012 and sponsored by the NDP member for Compton—Stanstead at the time proposed that Quebec be given this threshold. It was something already in place for many provinces and territories.
Could my colleague for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie comment on the work done by the NDP since then to ensure that Quebec has its place here in the House of Commons?
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 11:53:17 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in support of the motion, as I previously said.
Like many others who have spoken today, I am extremely sad about the events happening, not here in the House or in Ottawa, but on the other side of the world, in Ukraine. Ukrainian civilians are being massacred by the missiles raining down on them, and their cities are under heavy bombardment. As my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said, it is with a heavy heart that I, along with everyone else, see these massacres, the likes of which Europe has not seen in more than a century. We thought they would never happen again.
Our thoughts are with the people of Ukraine and its soldiers. We hope that the dictator responsible for this tragedy and all of this suffering, as well as those around him, will see that what is happening in Ukraine is horrific and will immediately call off this invasion. That is what we all want to see, and Canada is doing its part.
To get back to the motion we are debating in the House today, the idea of a threshold for Quebec just makes sense. I have said this many times. The idea that Quebec’s presence in the House requires that it not lose any seats is normal. These thresholds already exist, as I mentioned earlier. In fact, the territories and New Brunswick, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, Manitoba and Saskatchewan all have thresholds that ensure that they will not lose any seats. If that had not been the case, we might be discussing the loss of seats in Saskatchewan.
The NDP fully supports these thresholds to ensure the preservation of this representation, which is so important for our democracy. With respect to today’s motion, it only makes sense that Quebec have such a threshold for minimum representation in order to ensure that it will always have the same weight in the House and not lose seats. That is normal.
I represent British Columbia, and I would like that province to have more seats, which will likely be the case after the most recent census. British Columbia and Alberta, which are the most under-represented provinces, will receive additional seats. However, in our opinion, that should not mean that other regions of the country should lose seats.
That is the reason why the NDP supports the motion. When we look at what is currently in place for our population, these long-standing traditions are important.
In Atlantic Canada, which is significantly overrepresented, there is one federal MP for every 39,000 inhabitants in Prince Edward Island. New Brunswick has one MP for every 79,000 people. Newfoundland and Labrador has one MP for every 74,000 inhabitants. Nova Scotia has one MP for every 88,000 people.
I will not get into the exceptions that apply to the territories, since the territories are immense and they are extremely well represented. I am thinking here about my colleague, the hon. member for Nunavut, who does extraordinary work in a riding covering an area larger than most countries on Earth. She does her job so well. She is extraordinary, and works tirelessly for her constituents in Nunavut.
Other provinces have also had an exemption. For example, in Manitoba, there is one MP for every 98,000 people and, in Saskatchewan, one for every 84,000 people. In Quebec right now there is one MP for every 109,000 people. In Ontario, there is one for every 123,000 people. In British Columbia, there is one MP for every 125,000 people. Lastly, in Alberta, there is one for every 130,000 people. As members can see, this should be looked at. We make adjustments every 10 years based on the census.
The threshold principle already exists. The motion presented today only makes sense. The current exceptions pertain to much lower thresholds than what we are talking about today with the motion. That is why it only makes sense, and that is why we will be supporting the motion.
The other reason has to do with history. I came to the House in 2004 with Jack Layton’s team. As a New Democrat, I am very proud of our history, not only for our efforts to ensure a place for the Quebec nation in Canada and the Canadian federation, but also for the work the NDP has done, differently from all other parties in Canada, to ensure the survival of the French fact in Canada.
As everyone knows, I represent British Columbia, one of the provinces where the number of francophones is constantly increasing. Many people from francophone countries immigrate to British Columbia. In addition, the Fédération des francophones de la Colombie-Britannique can attest to the presence of a very dynamic network of French-speaking merchants. British Columbia also has a network of school boards, which includes dozens of French-language schools. I want to say that this was put in place by an NDP government.
In British Columbia, as in Saskatchewan and Manitoba, it was NDP governments that opened the door to ensuring French-language education for all francophone students in the province. We are proud of that legacy. The NDP does not say one thing when it is in Ottawa and another when it is in New Westminster, Winnipeg or Saskatoon. We are consistent with our values when it comes to strengthening official languages across the country. That is what NDP governments have done everywhere they have been and everywhere they are.
Léo Piquette, Elizabeth Weir and Alexa McDonough, New Democrats in other provinces, have also advanced the cause of equality of both official languages. No matter where they are in the country, New Democrats have always been there to strengthen the official languages and the French fact.
The legacy of the New Democrats is different from that of the Liberals or Conservatives, who always talk about strengthening the official languages when they are in Ottawa, but change their minds when they return to their regions. The NDP is consistent; it has values and principles. We are very proud to have maintained these principles for many years.
As I said before, today’s motion only makes sense.
My question is for the Liberals and Conservatives. When the NDP tabled this bill 10 years ago, the Liberals and Conservatives opposed it, despite the fact that the Liberals support the principle of a threshold for Atlantic Canada and the Conservatives support the same principle for Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
We have to be logical and consistent. That is why we will vote in favour of the motion.
1122 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 12:04:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.
She already knows the answer, since she has certainly read the Sherbrooke declaration. In this declaration, the NDP proposed a truly promising future for all Quebeckers and Canadians. The declaration presents an important vision that would allow for the possibility of Quebec receiving compensation from the federal government to establish programs, in its areas of jurisdiction, that Quebeckers want. That has been a guiding principle since the NDP’s agreement.
We are also strengthening the French fact in Canada. NDP governments have always strengthened the French fact, no matter where they are in Canada. We can see it in British Columbia, Yukon, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario. Regardless of the province or territory, NDP governments have always strengthened the French fact in Canada.
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 12:06:33 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would love to share my thoughts on that.
This is where I disagree profoundly with the Bloc Québécois, because Bloc members will never recognize the existence of a vibrant francophone sector outside of Quebec. They have never stood up for Acadians, they have never stood up for Franco-Columbians, and they have never stood up for francophones in western Canada.
As the member knows, in British Columbia, we are seeing the number of francophones increasing. I had the pleasure of participating in so many francophone events, and I see the incredible vitality of the francophone community in British Columbia. We are seeing more and more schools and institutions, as well. These are all good things.
We all need to work together to reinforce our official languages and reinforce the francophone community right across the country. That is something, tragically, that the Bloc will never want to do. It is unfortunate, but we have that responsibility. Of course, the NDP's consistency over the years is something that we hope both Liberals and Conservatives will learn from. We would like to work together to make this country even better.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 12:08:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from London—Fanshawe for her excellent French, and thank her for her excellent question.
It is important. That is something the NDP is fighting for and has been working on for a long time, namely implementing a system where everyone is truly represented. That would completely change the situation for people who vote for the NDP in Quebec, for example. They would be represented by several MPs, because of the large number of voters. That way, peoples’ votes would count, regardless of where in Canada they live. That is something the NDP continues to work on.
I once again thank the hon. member for her question.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 1:16:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond; I enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.
There is no doubt that the NDP will support the motion. However, it was mentioned in the debate earlier that the Bloc Québécois will be introducing a bill in a few weeks that will essentially say the same thing. This means that there will be a debate in a few weeks.
I am a bit puzzled. There is currently a climate crisis; last summer’s heat wave in British Columbia killed 600. There is also a housing crisis, which has affected Quebeckers enormously. There is also the problem with health transfers, the war in Ukraine, and the pandemic. There are a lot of crises going on right now, but the Bloc is planning to present the same thing in the next few weeks, so we will debate it twice. There is an opposition day every three months. It seems to me that they could have picked two different topics.
Why did the Bloc choose to introduce a motion and a bill on the same topic, when there are so many crises affecting Quebeckers?
198 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
