SoVote

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Mar/1/22 11:03:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in 1992, the Charlottetown accord failed. Nevertheless, the text of the Charlottetown accord was approved by the House of Commons. The text stated that Quebec would never have less than 25% of the total number of seats in the House of Commons. That is what part of our motion today is based on. Does that mean that the House, by rejecting this part of our motion, also rejects its 1992 decision?

73 words

Hon. Greg Fergus

Mar/1/22 11:03:49 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my friend from Beauport—Limoilou, but I would like to ask her a question. I imagine she was always a great supporter of the Bloc Québécois, which was founded in 1990. How did she vote in the 1992 referendum? What was the Bloc’s official position on that referendum? I myself voted “yes” in the referendum, but I am certain that many of the members of the Bloc urged Quebeckers to vote “no”. There needs to be a little consistency between the positions adopted in 1992 and those adopted today.

107 words

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

Mar/1/22 11:04:45 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on the member's comments about the importance of immigration. Immigration has been very important to my home province of Manitoba. Through the provincial nominee program, we have noticed a great increase in overall numbers. We developed part of the program to ensure that our francophone community would continue to grow. I would ask the member to provide his thoughts on how immigration can ensure healthy francophone communities, not only in the province of Quebec, but also across Canada. Could he comment on how there is always a need for international workers and that it is important for French to be considered in that, too?

112 words

All Topics

Hon. Greg Fergus

Mar/1/22 11:05:35 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer the question asked by my friend from Winnipeg North. I agree with him wholeheartedly. Immigration is truly an extraordinary tool for our culture, our demographic growth and our economic development. As they say, more immigration is always good news. When immigrants arrive here, they create jobs, use fewer social services, establish companies and help diversify our culture. Immigration is extremely important, especially for the francophone community in Manitoba. I also know that Franco-Ontarians were able to maintain their demographic weight thanks to immigration. Consequently, we need to do more to encourage immigration. I hope that I can convince my colleagues from Quebec to support me in this effort to increase francophone immigration levels in Quebec.

123 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec (Calgary Shepard, CPC)

Mar/1/22 11:07:08 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Mégantic—L'Érable. I am pleased to be joining the debate on this motion. I would have much loved to have been there, but members can probably hear that I sound a bit ill. I have a cold, so I cannot fly there and take part in this debate in person. I want to outline to my constituents, Albertans, westerners and Canadians how the process works. There is a Yiddish proverb, but I need to introduce how this is going to work first. The Constitution in Canada requires a redistribution of seats every 10 years. This is done based on the political weight of the various provinces. Statistics Canada produces a census. That census was released in February with the data within it. I have two interesting data points I want to note. As an Albertan, I represent the second largest riding by population size in Canada with 163,447 people living here. Many members will know that number is 40% bigger than what the original quotient average was intended to be. My colleague for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin represents 209,431 people in his riding, which is double the number of what an average riding in Canada should have. With that comes double the case files, double the emails and double the phone calls. Essentially it is double everything with the same resources and the same person to represent them all. That is the life of an urban Calgary MP. Edmonton—Wetaskiwin happens to be one of those rare “rurban” ridings. It is both a rural county and the city of Edmonton, which is slowly growing into the county as it builds brand new suburbs, which can seen when driving north on Highway 2. That is the challenge of an urban MP. Then we have the challenges of rural MPs. Those ridings have perhaps fewer people in them, but they have more mayors, more city councillors, more local clubs. Members might be surprised to know that, up until very recently, I did not even have a high school in my riding. Up until 2018, I had no high school in my riding in the city of Calgary. I know that is shocking, but it is not the case for rural MPs. They may have three, four, five, six high schools depending on how big the counties are and which areas they go into. Sometimes small towns have basically everything from kindergarten all the way to grade 11 or grade 12, just in their riding. That brings its own challenges in representation. When we do the redistribution of the Constitution every 10 years, it is based purely on demographic weight, not political weight, all across Canada. There are four rules that are followed when we do redistributions in Canada. As I said, I have a Yiddish proverb, “Don't give me the honey and spare me the sting”. We are westerners, and both of us represent provinces which are under-represented. The honey to us would be to have more seats, and Alberta is looking at three seats in this redistribution. The sting comes with the fact that every redistribution makes lots of people unhappy. There is always the case that not everybody gets everything that they would like based on the formula. Let us talk about the formula that was used. The formula was passed in 2011 and received royal assent in 2012. It is called the Fair Representation Act. It basically acknowledged the fact that the fastest growing provinces in Canada were not gaining enough seats to ensure representation by population. Those three provinces namely were Ontario, British Columbia and my home province of Alberta. In this redistribution, the goal was to ensure that they would catch up in effect. That is why in 2015 we saw the addition of 30 new ridings. It was to try to get closer to what is called “rep by pop” and get closer to the representation that is mandated by the Constitution. In this redistribution, the electoral quotient being used by Elections Canada is 121,891. Of course, there will be some back and forth available here in order to ensure that the smaller towns, counties and regions are well represented and to reduce to the minimal amount possible the distance MPs have to drive to represent their constituents. In Canada there are four rules. The first is a quotient that is used by Elections Canada to determine how many seats per riding should be available. We then apply the senatorial clause, so no province can have fewer members of Parliament than it has senators in the Senate of Canada, that other place. Then we apply the grandfathering clause. In 1985, we basically agreed that no province should lose a seat based on what it had in 1985. There are slower growing provinces. Today this primarily impacts Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. Finally, in 2011-12, we added the representation rule specifically applied to the province of Quebec in order to ensure that it would always have representation by population. I will note that in this redistribution, the population of Quebec, according to Statistics Canada is 22.57% and 22.71% will be the seat count. It is trying to reach that goal of getting to an apportionment representation by population in that particular situation. We have heard some of the challenges that exist in representing very large ridings and representing urban ridings, and the overall challenge of representation as a member of Parliament. I think it is very challenging. Every single formula we agree to at any point will have winners and losers in it, and we are always trying to go for that win-win. In preparing for this debate, I went back to the debates that happened originally in 2011 and 2012 on this particular subject of how we could ensure that we did not just keep increasing the number of MPs, as other Westminster parliaments have done, because we have these rules we have agreed to over the last 40 or 50 years. However, it is always stinging when we have these changes that can happen based on a formula. It is hard to predict what is going to happen just a few weeks from now. It is hard to predict what will happen 10 years from now. Economics bears a great deal of weight on how population movement happens in Canada. My home province of Alberta had a boom in the early 2000s that attracted an enormous number of people to our home province, who settled there and brought their families. We built schools and highways and everything. It was a very attractive point for people to move there, so our population grew incredibly quickly. That is the case for British Columbia today. It is still the case for Ontario. The number one destination for a lot of people who come to Canada remains our major cities, and the biggest city in Canada is Toronto and the greater Toronto region, which continues to attract so many people because of the job opportunities and the economic opportunities it provides. It is also a great place to live, work and play, which I would say all of Canada is. We are in the greatest country in the world, and we should cherish that and make sure that whatever we do here addresses those points and continues that for future generations. In section (b) of the motion the Bloc has proposed, it does not really propose a solution. There is no real solution here for how to fix the problem the Bloc members have identified. They say “political weight”, but I would read into it as preferably “democratic weight”, and it would apply to only one province. However, the second part of the motion does not offer a formula solution, and the Electoral Boundaries Commission, which is this independent commission, is already working. It has already started its work. It has a website we can go to. There are actually commission reports. The commission has already started its work. It is already working, so essentially what the Bloc is asking here is to change the rules of the game once the game has already started, and it would be difficult to direct the commission to change it. I think it is still pretty early in the process. I do not think it is impossible, but we should recognize that since October the commissioners have been appointed and they have been holding consultation meetings already. By August, at the latest, they are supposed to write back and publicly disclose the maps that would be used for the next redistribution, hopefully in time for the next federal election. However, if we go to the Elections Canada's website and the electoral boundaries commission's website, it is saying these changes may not be in place until April 1, 2024. This is a minority Parliament; let us recognize that. The last time a Parliament took it upon itself to discuss this, it was the 2008 to 2011 Parliament, and it was not able to finish it then, which is why it was passed in 2012. I wanted to lay that out. There is a good logical case to be made that no province should be made worse off after redistribution, but we have this formula, a formula that received royal assent in 2012. It is the 11th hour, so to speak, and I know it is stinging for those who believe that no province should lose a seat. We have different constitutional rules and conventions in place to ensure that does not happen. I will be happy to take questions and to continue this debate with colleagues in the chamber.

1648 words

All Topics

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Mar/1/22 11:16:51 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wonder whether my colleague recognizes that Canada is a federation and that it is a contract, not a nation. It is a contract reached initially between two nations, the French nation and the English nation. I am not ignoring the indigenous nations that were already on the territory, or the many other nations that joined us afterwards at different times and through different means. In the beginning, the Canadian federation was made up of two nations. Does my colleague not recognize that, because of this, we need to maintain the viability of the two nations in the federation, if we do not want to confront Quebec’s fight for independence, which has long been on the table? We do not want to cease to exist, and we wanted to be members of the federation. I personally never wanted it, but that is another story. At a certain point in time, we believed that we wanted to be members of the federation, and being members means preserving our identity.

172 words

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Mar/1/22 11:18:37 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Rivière-du-Nord for his question. Canada was founded as a binational and bicultural country. The two founding peoples of our country were the francophone and the anglophone peoples. As my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord knows, I am a Franco-Albertan, but I am also a child of Bill 101. I lived in Montreal for a while. I think we need to recognize that it is not in the House of Commons that we should be deciding how well we are doing and where the Quebec people and the Quebec nation stand. I completely agree with that. In fact, I always say that Albertans are a distinct society according to the description in the Lake Meech and Charlottetown accords. This is not the first time I am saying this, but we must admit that culture is much more than representation in the House of Commons. The same is true for the francophone fact in Canada. We must recognize that many francophones outside Quebec represent our country’s linguistic and cultural duality.

188 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Mar/1/22 11:19:54 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think it is so profound that we are discussing our democracy in Canada, the voices we can have and who should be at the table as we watch the horrific violence being perpetrated against the democratic people of Ukraine by Putin in Russia. It reminds us in this House how precious and fragile democracy is. I would like to ask my hon. colleague about this historic moment in our nation and around the world, where we have come together to say that the violence that is being perpetrated against the Ukrainian people must be fought at every level. Canada has to have a coherent plan in order to support the people of Ukraine, support refugees, support democracy and ensure that Russia pays a serious price for this attack on the democratic rights of an independent nation.

139 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Mar/1/22 11:20:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not sure how that is related to the redistribution of seats in Canada. However, I will thank the member for Timmins—James Bay. He does not have to tell a Canadian of Polish heritage, someone who was born behind the iron curtain as the son of a member of the Solidarnosc movement, about the behaviour, aggressiveness and military aggression capable by the Kremlin. Absolutely, he is entirely correct. We should be standing with Ukrainians. We should stand with the government in Kyiv, in defending their democracy and defending their institutions. They have a millennial-long history of being in this region and we should stand with them in this moment, just as many eastern Europeans have done in the region by lending aid, lending help, lending support and providing havens for those fleeing the conflict.

140 words

All Topics

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

Mar/1/22 11:21:41 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one of the things we have learned through the census released by Statistics Canada was that, in good part, our future population growth is going to be through immigration. Can the member provide his thoughts on using the immigration policy as one of those tools to enable our provinces to be able to continue to promote culture and heritage?

61 words

All Topics

Mr. Tom Kmiec

Mar/1/22 11:22:13 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Winnipeg North is correct that immigration, historically for the last 150 years, has been the main driver of demographic growth in Canada. In successive waves, we have seen immigrants from eastern Europe add to the mixing pot that is Canada and add to its distinctiveness. I am one of those people and so is my family, who came from different regions and settled in Canada. Absolutely, he is correct, but I think the issue at hand is how we fairly represent people all across Canada and ensure members of Parliament are able to do their work.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold (Mégantic—L'Érable, CPC)

Mar/1/22 11:22:55 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would first like to reiterate the Conservative Party's support for the people of Ukraine. I think this is an extremely dark period in our history. People who were living in happiness just yesterday are living in fear today. I think it is important that we take every opportunity to support these people, salute their courage in resisting Putin's invasion, and let them know that all Canadians are behind them. We are here to discuss democracy in Canada and how Canadians are represented in the House of Commons. This opportunity was given to us by the Bloc Québécois motion that we are debating. The federal electoral map is revised every 10 years, and each time, it challenges many of our preconceived ideas. We must have these discussions, but we must also use each one as an opportunity to remind ourselves of the importance of the role of members in the House of Commons. By way of background, Elections Canada has estimated that the number of MPs from Quebec should drop from 78 seats to 77 in 2024. Conversely, Ontario and British Columbia would each gain a seat, while Alberta would gain three. I want to put partisan politics aside and speak about the role of an MP. Losing a member of Parliament, from any province or region, has negative consequences for the constituents, especially in rural regions, and rural areas are the ones most likely to see their riding disappear. Canadians are looking for answers to their questions and concerns every day. Many are frustrated about the lack of information from different departments. On top of that, the government can be slow to respond, especially over the past two years during the COVID-19 crisis, when no one knew where to turn. The members here in the House of Commons have offices that often fielded calls from constituents asking for help understanding the many measures announced by various governments during that time. Naturally, people turned to their members of Parliament. In many cases, the MP's office was the constituent's only way to connect with the government, because there came a point where they just could not get an answer. Our MPs therefore took over for the government when it was not able to provide answers quickly. This very important connection between constituents and their MPs could be more difficult to maintain if there are no standards to ensure that people living in rural areas can maintain meaningful access to their MP. As the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, I obviously do not represent as many constituents as a member from a Montreal riding. However, my riding is 500 times bigger and contains 50 municipalities. That means 50 mayors, 50 municipal councils, hundreds of social clubs or even seniors' groups, not to mention dozens of chambers of commerce, business associations, agricultural associations and so on. How can one MP have conversations with 50 or more mayors and find time to meet them all? Even if that MP met with just one town council per month—because they all meet around the same time—it would be impossible to meet with all of them over the course of a four-year term in office. There are not enough months. Four years is 48 months, and I have 50 municipalities. If I want to see each municipal council, it is just not possible over the course of a single mandate. Fortunately, we now have Zoom and digital tools that enable us to meet with more people at the same time, but nothing is quite like meeting face to face, connecting with people and having real conversations with the folks we represent. How are we supposed to make sure development and infrastructure projects are moving forward? How are we supposed to cope with the challenge of fitting all that in, doing all that work? The answer is self-evident. My riding is not the only one like this. Many of my colleagues are in exactly the same position with their ridings. Electoral redistribution could reshape these ridings, making them even larger to cover, which will limit Canadians' access to their MPs and to federal government services. MPs are actually a bit like family doctors in the sense that, when they have too many patients, it is hard to get an appointment. The more constituents and territory MPs have to cover, the harder it is for them to hear their constituents' concerns. It is also harder for citizens to access their MPs, the government or the House of Commons to make their wishes known. Quebeckers from the regions, especially those from rural Quebec, also deserve to maintain their political weight in Ottawa, as do rural Canadians across the country. I worry about how the people in my riding and in the regions of Quebec and Canada will be affected by electoral redistribution. If we reduce the number of MPs, people will no longer be able to make their voices heard as much as in the past. For the sake of members' representation and work in rural constituencies, the Prime Minister needs to consider rural Canada and Quebec in his criteria. Any change to the electoral map that does not take into account the geography, demographics or needs of the local population is, in my opinion, doomed to diminish Canadian democracy. Any redistribution that does not take into account the regional reality is also condemned to change our democratic life. At the risk of repeating myself, the proposed redistribution will reduce the weight of rural regions. They will be less represented than urban ridings. I will make a comparison. A member of Parliament from a city is no better than a member from a rural region. The work is simply different. People who live in a major city may have access to the office of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration, because that department has an office in their town. Residents will not go to their MP with questions. They will go to the Department of Citizenship and Immigration. When there are too many problems, they will end up going to the MP, but the first point of contact with the government for people who live in big cities is often the government offices that are there. There are no federal immigration or transportation offices in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable. Such offices do not exist. The only gateway for accessing federal services is the MP's office, so we get a very high volume of calls. I understand that our job is not to represent the government in our ridings, but when people have questions for the federal government and do not have direct access to the government in their riding, they go through their MP. That is the reality of the current situation. The Prime Minister can decide to maintain the number of seats in every riding if he wants to. He can choose not to reduce the number of seats as part of the electoral redistribution that is currently under way. I think the Prime Minister should take what I am saying into consideration. No province should have to lose a seat in any scenario. If that happens today, then it could happen again in 10 or 20 years, and who knows which provinces will be affected by this situation next. Quebec is not the only province affected. There are four other provinces whose representative weight is greater than their demographic weight. They are Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland and Labrador. This is food for thought. We need to maintain the representation of the regions in Parliament so that the voices of all Canadians, no matter who they are, can continue to be heard by their MP. That is the right thing to do, both to protect rural areas and to preserve the uniqueness of Quebec as a nation within Canada. I sincerely believe that, right now, the Prime Minister has an opportunity to do the right thing. He can decide not to reduce the number of MPs in Quebec from 78 to 77, while still giving other provinces more MPs so they are better represented.

1378 words

All Topics

Ms. Louise Chabot (Thérèse-De Blainville, BQ)

Mar/1/22 11:32:47 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I have a really simple question for him. This Bloc Québécois motion and the bill that will accompany it are about doing something major for Quebec. It is not about recognition based on demographics alone, because the demographic situation could change. For example, in terms of demographics, the two provinces with the highest aging populations are Ontario and Quebec, a fact that is not even taken into account in health care funding, by the way. It is more a question of political weight. Quebec has been recognized as a distinct society and as a nation. Do Quebec's political weight and representation in the House deserve to be maintained or even increased?

126 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/1/22 11:34:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Again, I think it is important to understand that a redistribution proposal that takes seats away from any province will have negative effects on the representation of voters in that province. Therefore, we must consider all the factors, such as Quebec's specific character, Quebec's nationhood, demographic weight, the political weight of each province, and Canada's changing demographics. I think all these factors need to be considered when it comes time to redraw the electoral map, but I especially believe that we must never downgrade a province's representation. That is important. We will have the opportunity to discuss this in the coming weeks and to comment on this issue during the consultation being launched by Elections Canada. However, I remind the House that the Prime Minister could say right now that he is going to maintain the number of seats in Quebec at 78, and that is what we are asking him to do.

167 words

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

Mar/1/22 11:35:34 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member made a great deal of reference to rural versus urban. With regard to the current number of seats in the province of Quebec, is he suggesting the numbers are wrong for the 78 seats in the current makeup for rural and urban components, for the city of Montreal versus rural communities? Is he saying that is currently a wrong formula? I would like to hear his thoughts on that distribution.

74 words

All Topics

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/1/22 11:36:11 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. What I am saying is that it is much more difficult to have enough residents to reach the Elections Canada targets in a rural area. Municipalities must be added. For example, we would have to go from 50 to 75 municipalities to strike a balance. What I am asking is for Canada's rural reality to be considered. Our country is the second largest in the world. It would be appropriate for our standards and rules to take this into consideration and for us to ensure that citizens are represented.

99 words

All Topics

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

Mar/1/22 11:36:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I would like to ask him a question. Quebec's political weight is already part of the criteria that must be met in order for Quebec to be brought back into the Constitution, in particular as part of the Charlottetown accord, which guaranteed that Quebec would never have less than 25% of the total number of seats in the House of Commons. This agreement was negotiated by a Conservative government. As the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, would it not make sense for the member to defend this position, which was put forward by his own government?

108 words

Mr. Luc Berthold

Mar/1/22 11:37:18 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I believe that the government must keep a minimum of 78 Quebec members in the House of Commons to ensure representation, and that it must also take into account the demographic reality. As for the recognition of nationhood, that is an issue we must continue to debate, and it is one that Quebeckers and MPs will always continue to debate.

69 words

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

Mar/1/22 11:37:53 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this important debate. I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby, who will have some very interesting things to say. I look forward to hearing him. Like many of my colleagues in the House, I would like to take a few moments to express our solidarity with the Ukrainian people who have been living through very dark days for almost a week. They have been suffering a brutal assault by a dictator, Vladimir Putin. I feel especially concerned, as the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, since my riding is the area in Montreal where there is the Parc de l'Ukraine, the Ukrainian Orthodox Basilica and the Ukrainian Festival every year, which I attend with Quebeckers and Montrealers of Ukrainian origin. We are all very shaken. We are here to support Ukrainians as well as to support the peace process. Today’s debate is important because it brings up the question of Quebec’s place in the federation and Quebec’s signing of the Constitution, as well as Quebec’s political weight in the House and in Parliament. I will come back to that a little later. This raises fundamental questions about democracy and the equality of citizens. We are lucky enough to live in a democratic system in which people express themselves because of a notion of popular sovereignty that leaves it up to the people to decide. We must respect the equality of people, of men and women. The notion of democracy stems from the principle that human beings are born free and equal in rights. The democratic notion of equality—one citizen, one vote—is not always observed in a certain sense, sometimes for the wrong reasons, but sometimes for the right ones. We tend to forget the bad reasons because we are all too often used to them, unfortunately. Our electoral system is designed so that not all votes are equal. Some votes are lost or do not count in a first-past-the-post system like ours, rather than in a proportional system. Many votes do not make it to Parliament and do not get expressed. I will use Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie as an example. Last fall, there was a general election. I was lucky enough to be re-elected for a fourth time, but with just under 50% of the votes, 49%, to be exact. This means that 50% of the people of Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie did not vote for the NDP. Are these people represented in the House of Commons? Hopefully, their vote was taken up elsewhere in other ridings. Since members can be elected with 35% or 40% of the votes, the majority of citizens who voted in an election are often not represented by the members sitting here, in the House. This is becoming more common and, very often—this is practically the rule—we end up with a government that represents a minority of citizens who voted for it. A party can win an election with 37% or 38% of the vote and have a majority government with 65% of the seats in the House and impose its views on Parliament for four years. If we had a proportional system, if the Liberals had kept their promise and changed the electoral system as they promised in 2015, we might not be where we are today. There have even been situations in our history, on a number of occasions, where the party with the most votes did not form the government. The party that came second, based on the total number of votes, had the majority of the seats. This is an absurd democratic contradiction. I do not understand why the Conservative Party does not get more worked up; the Conservatives got more votes than the Liberals in the last two elections and yet they are in opposition, instead of forming the government. That does not seem to bother them. We in the NDP are troubled by this because it touches on a fundamental issue, the equality of citizens. There may be good reasons for not observing that equality of votes. The electoral system is a very bad reason, because it could be changed quite easily. Most democracies in the world have done so. However, there are good reasons. There are criteria we can use to decide how and when people will be represented. As mentioned earlier in this debate, certain criteria already exist in our system. For example, we have to evaluate a number of things. Some of my colleagues from the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have mentioned the senatorial clause, which ensures that Prince Edward Island, for example, cannot have fewer MPs than it has senators. In fact, that was a condition for its entry into Confederation. There is the grandfathering clause that applies to certain provinces; this has also come up. Finally, we have the territorial clause, which says that the territories must be represented even though they have far fewer constituents than more densely populated ridings like mine. I must also point out that Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is a tiny riding, but 110,000 people live there. That is a lot of people per square kilometre. The territories should have their own MPs even though they have less than half that population spread over a huge area often as big as a number of European countries. These MPs also represent indigenous and Inuit communities, who must be represented to have a voice in the House. All these criteria need to be examined, which is perfectly normal. That is why an automatic demographic formula is not applied as a basic mathematical rule, but rather a series of exceptions. More criteria are applied, and sometimes for very good reasons. This system of accommodation means that we can and we must have this kind of discussion, which was brought about by today's motion. I will refrain from giving a long history lesson and going back to Upper and Lower Canada, but let us not forget that Quebec did not sign the Constitution of 1982. That is problematic. I am very proud of my party leader, who said at a federal NDP convention that that was a historic mistake, which must be resolved one day, one way or another. That said, attempts have been made to heal the scars, the wounds inflicted on René Lévesque and the entire Quebec population. There were two attempts during my teenage years, just as I was beginning to take an interest in politics. There was the Meech Lake Accord attempt between 1987 and 1990, which was rejected, and the Charlottetown Accord that was negotiated afterwards. I will not rehash all of Quebec’s historical claims and the criteria. There are a number of them, and they are not all mutually exclusive. However, one of the considerations in the Charlottetown Accord was Quebec’s political weight in Parliament, which was set at 25%. This was negotiated by the Conservative government of then prime minister Brian Mulroney. This agreement was approved by my party, the NDP. This is nothing new. The issue of Quebec’s political weight in the House should not be seen as something original or new. There are precedents that were negotiated by the Conservatives and supported by the NDP. I think that this needs to be part of our debate on this motion. Since the House formally recognized Quebec as a nation, I think that we could have a Quebec clause recognizing that Quebec is a nation and that, as a result, like other Senate provisions, territorial provisions or grandfathering provisions, could be applied to the distribution of seats and that this would not come at the expense of the representation of other provinces. Since Parliament recognized that Quebec is a nation, and that Quebeckers or French Canadians were one of the two founding peoples, then this needs to be meaningfully expressed and have an impact. It would make sense that a Quebec provision—I am not saying it would be the only one—would be one of them. As a proud Quebecker, I will be pleased to support this motion. I would not want to support the political undermining of Quebec. I hope that my Liberal and Conservative colleagues in Quebec feel the same way. Immigration is an important and necessary tool to maintain Quebec’s demographic weight, but there are also other ways to do it, and this one would be very effective.

1451 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/1/22 11:48:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech. It is clear that he has a great deal of love for Quebec and the Quebec nation. I heard him refer to a Quebec clause. I am the sponsor of a bill introduced by my party, Bill C-246, which also focuses on Quebec's political weight and proposes a nation provision that seeks to preserve, as the motion we are moving today in the House of Common does, Quebec's political weight within the Canadian federation until such time that Quebec takes a decision on its future. I would like to know whether my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has read Bill C-246, which I introduced a few weeks ago, and whether he recognizes the nation provision to be the same as the Quebec clause he proposes in his speech. I would also like to take this opportunity to ask him whether he will or will not approve and support the bill.

171 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 38