SoVote

Mar/1/22 3:23:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech. I am going to ask my question in English to make sure I get the words right. I am sympathetic to the idea that we have to preserve, promote and continue to support particularly the French culture, the language and the dynamic in Quebec. As I listen today, there has been a notion in this House that Quebec is the first province ever to lose a seat under redistribution. That is false. In Nova Scotia, we used to have 21 members of Parliament. We are now down to 11. Quebec, like other provinces, has the ability to protect its seats, in the sense that Quebec will never have fewer than 75 members of Parliament. I take notice that they want to fight to maintain the seat; I am okay with that. In Nova Scotia, we have the largest Gaelic-speaking population outside of Scotland. We have a unique history. Will the member also fight for proportionality for Nova Scotia, so that Nova Scotia will always keep a certain percentage of seats in this House regardless of the dynamics of the population of the country?

194 words

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 3:38:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. This is a very important topic. I will ask my question in English to ensure I choose the right words. I am not against the principle of trying to protect francophone culture and language. The fact that I have tried to use the French language is indicative of that. However, what I take issue with regarding the Bloc Québécois, recognizing that they are sovereigntists in the House and do not necessarily want to sit here in Ottawa, is the idea that Quebec does not have influence within the federation. Whether we look at the cabinet of the government on this side or we look at future leaders who try to become Prime Minister in this country, members have to have a propensity in French and they have to have an ability to resonate in Quebec. The member talked about rural members. I am not against adding and keeping 78 seats, by the way, in Quebec, notwithstanding that there has been a loss of seats in other provinces. However, by pushing for proportionality, she is making the argument that rurality does not matter outside of Quebec, that MPs like me would have to have larger ridings and that my representation would not be the same because she believes that Quebec should be absolutely proportionate and the same proportionality cannot exist elsewhere. Can she provide some remarks on that for me?

242 words

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 4:27:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the way I see it, there are a couple of different ways we could come at this issue. The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands has suggested that we actually cap the number of members of Parliament. The Quebec representation right now makes up about 23% of the seats in this House. Quebec does have a constitutional protection of 75 seats, so there will never be fewer than 75 seats for Quebec in the House of Commons. Would the member support the proposition of capping the number of seats in this place, recognizing that Quebec's portion would never go under 75 seats, and therefore Quebec would always maintain somewhere between 20% and 23% of the composition of the House? When I look around from the perspective of a Nova Scotia MP, there is a lot of influence from Quebec, and I support that, and it is important, but would the member support the idea of capping it and then protecting, on the constitutional basis—

168 words

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 5:04:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize, but I am going to ask my question in English to make sure I word it correctly. I am interested in why the Bloc will not take up the idea of actually capping the number of seats in the House of Commons. They are constitutionally protected in Quebec to have 75 seats in the House. If the Bloc were to suggest that 338 is where we should leave the number of representatives in the House, that would mean that Quebec would be ultimately constitutionally protected to have 22% representation. Why are they choosing to move in this fashion? I understand they are sovereigntists, but why are we not moving in a fashion to say this is another way of capping the number of MPs in the House and still allowing Quebec to have strong representation that would be guaranteed?

143 words