SoVote

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/1/22 12:07:46 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague’s speech, and I wanted to ask him how a mixed member proportional system of representation would protect Quebec and regional and cultural representation.

31 words

Mr. Peter Julian

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

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:09:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I am scolded for forgetting to inform you, I would like to say that I intend to share my time with my esteemed and excellent colleague from Jonquière. With respect to today’s motion, I will be very honest and start with a confession. Initially, I wondered why it would not be normal that Quebec would lose a seat, since it seemed logical to me, given our smaller demographic weight. That was what I first thought, instinctively. However, at some point, we start asking ourselves questions and digging a bit deeper, and that is exactly what these debates in the House are for. I wondered why it would be justifiable for Quebec to demand a number of seats that is not equivalent to its demographic weight. The first observation we can make is that, basically, the formula used to calculate the number of seats in Quebec is not purely mathematical. There are three examples of this. First, there is the senatorial clause. This clause ensures that no province will have fewer members of Parliament than senators. It ensures four seats for Prince Edward Island even though, technically, because of its population, it should have only one. Second, there is a grandfather clause in the current formula that ensures that no province can have fewer members after a future redistribution than it had in 1985, which is why the Maritimes and Saskatchewan have kept their seats. Third, there is a clause for the territories that allows each of them one MP even though, technically, the total population of the territories would warrant only one MP for all of them combined. Since we are already working outside the scope of a purely mathematical framework, we are wondering whether there is a clause that would allow Quebec to claim a number of seats that is not equivalent to its demographic weight. The answer is no, and that is precisely the problem we are trying to remedy today. Some may be wondering why we are doing this. Our history books show that, when Canada was created, it had two founding peoples. Last October, we marked the very sad anniversary of the creation of Canada's multiculturalism policy in 1971. In somewhat more recent history, the government started dismissing the notion of founding peoples, which had given Quebec some preeminence, and replaced it with Canada's much-touted multiculturalism. Biculturalism was shoved aside by multiculturalism, which muddied the waters and suddenly made Quebec a little less prominent on the map of Canada. Since history always repeats itself to some extent, in 1995, Jean Chrétien's government recognized that Quebec was a distinct society. We are not sure why, but it may have had something to do with the fact that Canada nearly lost a referendum a few months earlier. All of a sudden, Quebec was being recognized as a distinct society. The Bloc Québécois's response was that this was just a mirage. I would like to quote what Lucien Bouchard said in debate the day this resolution was adopted. He said, and I quote: ...from Meech 1 to Meech 2 and from Meech 2 to Charlottetown, Quebec was always offered less and less. Maybe they offered a little less each time because they were tired by their previous effort....How can the Prime Minister think that Quebecers will be pleased to hear him say that he recognizes the fact that they are a distinct society? How can he think that this will make us, Quebecers, happy? We certainly know that we are a distinct society and we have known it for quite some time. What we want is the means to make our own decisions, to plan Quebec's future based on our differences. That is what we want, but we are not getting it. There is nothing to that effect in the resolution. In 2006, it was déjà vu all over again. The Harper government recognized Quebec as a nation. I thought it might be fun to see what Wikipedia had to say about that, and indeed, there is a page on the subject. It is very interesting. At the top, it reads: It is important to note that this motion is symbolic because it does not amend the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that Quebec is one of Canada's provinces. In addition, it was not endorsed by the Senate, the federal Parliament's second house. There has been very little interest in constitutional amendments since the failure of the Meech Lake accord, and politicians find themselves in a situation where all they can do is issue symbolic declarations. I will expand on the symbolic nature of these recognitions shortly. Just last June, the Bloc Québécois got the following motion passed in the House of Commons: That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions and acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation. Back then, we reiterated the importance of walking the talk. Being recognized as a nation is not the end of the story, and that is why we are moving today's motion. I would like to make a brief aside on another subject. Quebec has had its own distinct character for some years on the issue of immigration. The two issues are intrinsically tied together. I will link them at the end of my speech. Quebec shares this jurisdiction with the federal government. Immigration is one of the jurisdictions that fall under both levels of government. For several years now, some of these powers have been decentralized. The first agreements that were signed, such as the Lang-Cloutier agreement in 1971 and the Andras-Bienvenue agreement in 1975, made changes that were more administrative in nature. However, an important first step was already being taken in the area of immigrant selection. For the first time, Canada was forced to consider Quebec's opinion with respect to each new applicant headed for its territory. A little later, in 1979, the Cullen-Couture agreement was signed. In this case, issues involving temporary immigration required discussions between the two levels of government, and that forced them to work together even more. The major breakthrough, when Quebec gained the power to choose a large part of its immigration intake, came from the Canada–Québec Accord relating to Immigration and Temporary Admission of Aliens, which was signed by Ms. McDougall and Ms. Gagnon-Tremblay in 1991 and is more commonly known as the Canada-Quebec accord. This document gives Quebec significant powers to welcome people who are able to work. As a result of the agreement, Quebec finally gained full control over the selection process for economic immigrants, as well as powers over integration and francization. In other words, Quebec can determine the entry volumes of these future permanent residents. One of the reasons we are debating the issue before us today is because it relates to immigration issues, and this has an impact on Quebec's political weight. A few days ago, Paul Journet wrote an article entitled “Quebec is losing its influence”. We often debate immigration thresholds in Quebec. People say it should be between 40,000 and 50,000 immigrants. If we compare Quebec with what Canada is doing, we can see that there really is no comparison. Canada is talking about increasing the number of immigrants it will welcome to its territory from 280,000 to 430,000. Proportionately for Quebec, 40,000 or 50,000 immigrants out of 8.5 million inhabitants represents 5% of the population. For Canada, the threshold of 430,000 immigrants suggested by the Liberals out of 38 million people, minus Quebec's 8.5 million, represents about 1.4% of the population. Population growth due to immigration is three times faster in Quebec than in Canada. This is the result of a choice made by Quebec, which wants to ensure the proper francization and integration of its immigrants. English Canada does not face the same constraint, since English is a more internationally recognized and commonly used language. With that in mind, Quebec is justified in wanting to do something not about Canada's choice of immigration thresholds, but about the direct and indirect consequences that Canada's decisions may have on Quebec. That is exactly what the Bloc Québécois motion today is all about. In fact, when a decision by Canada has a negative impact, for example, if the immigration thresholds are increased and there are not enough resources, this has an impact in Quebec on the processing of our files. In this case, we would like to see more money allocated and more civil servants assigned to the processing of these files. It is the same scenario if it causes the demographic weight of Quebec to decrease. We want representation that is proportional to our special status, which is justified. It is not a whim; it is simply a matter of giving concrete expression to what it really means to be a nation.

1570 words

All Topics

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

Mar/1/22 12:18:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the NDP supports this motion because it is essential that we maintain a constitutional balance in Canada. It is not only a question of representation. Democracy is based on a balance between the regions and the interests of the different communities. For the NDP, it is essential to preserve and ensure Quebec's voice in the House of Commons. Does my colleague also believe in the importance of representation for rural regions and other minority regions in Canada?

80 words

All Topics

Ms. Christine Normandin

Mar/1/22 12:19:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois prefers not to interfere in the business of others. We are here to represent Quebec's interests. If rural areas want to have this debate and submit a proposal, they should present their arguments and we will debate them. However, I do not believe that is the role of Bloc Québécois members.

65 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:20:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Jean for her brilliant speech. Based on the questions we have been hearing since this morning, some of our colleagues seem to have difficulty grasping the difference between Quebec's demographic weight and its political weight. I want to emphasize the fundamental difference. I would therefore like my colleague to elaborate on this point and on the significance that Quebec's political weight will have in future decisions, in particular with respect to protecting our cultural identity.

91 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Mar/1/22 12:21:52 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I noted this from the very beginning. If we think only of the mathematical aspect, we might think that it is unjustified to demand more of a voice. However, if we look beyond the mathematical aspect and remember that the formula already provides for the recognition of other aspects, it is all the more justifiable to demand more of a voice, especially as francophones, in order to defend our 2% minority status in the English-speaking ocean that is North America. Unfortunately, in the past, when the Bloc Québécois was not well represented in the House of Commons, the issue was easily disposed of. That is one more reason to have a large number of seats representative of the Quebec nation in the House of Commons, to make sure that we never again get swept under the rug.

144 words

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

Mar/1/22 12:22:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague. I have been listening to my colleagues in the NDP say that we need to give more consideration to francophones outside Quebec and that the Bloc Québécois does not do that. I do not think that is true. On the contrary, I think that it is at the heart of the Bloc Québécois's agenda, since we have always been concerned about the diversity of all francophones in North America. Would my colleague not agree with me that a strong Quebec, a francophone Quebec nation recognized as such and protected within the Canadian federation, would help these francophone minorities that are not given the weight they deserve in Canada as a whole? The anglophone minorities in Quebec are well protected. However, the same cannot be said for the francophone minorities in western Canada. The Bloc Québécois knows this and has often stood in the House to say so. In my colleague's opinion, is the recognition that the Bloc Québécois is asking for today not a way of strengthening the influence of francophone communities outside Quebec?

200 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Mar/1/22 12:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. This reminds me of a time in my not so distant youth when I was president of the Parti Québécois’s Comité national des jeunes. Some Franco-Ontarians came to see us at the end of a meeting at which we had discussed Quebec independence. They asked us if we often heard the argument that an independent Quebec would forget about the francophone communities outside Quebec. They told us not to buy that argument and that, on the contrary, Quebec would serve as a guiding light when making their future demands. I would also like to come back to a comment that I heard just before, something to the effect that the Bloc Québécois does nothing for francophone communities outside Quebec. However, I spoke just today about immigration and accepting francophone students, the difficulties that we have run into and the battle that we are fighting on this issue. We are doing this not just for Quebec, but also for the benefit of many French-language educational institutions outside Quebec, as was often stated in committee.

196 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:24:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to share some thoughts on Quebec's declining political weight. I can already hear the member for Drummond's snarky comments about the extra weight I am carrying around, but this is not about me. It is about Quebec's political weight. Quebec's influence is clearly declining in a number of ways. Losing a seat in the House would be one way. That said, there is something else I would like to touch on. I can see that Quebec is not as influential when I look at the mainstream ideas gaining ground in Canada right now, ideas that do not really apply to Quebec. On the one hand, we have the rise of a kind of conservative populism that denies climate change, has a narrow definition of freedom, is disconnected from Quebec's reality and has nothing to do with Quebeckers' interests. On the other hand, we are seeing the rise of a sort of multicultural political correctness whose adherents view secularism as an obstacle to freedom and pluralism. These two key political viewpoints show that Quebec's voice may not be adequately represented in this assembly. The same goes for economic interests. Quebec's voice is not well represented in this assembly when it comes to economic interests. The majority of our debates are focused on oil and gas. There are two major sectors of activity in Canada. One is the automotive sector, and the other is the oil and gas sector. I hear my Conservative colleagues making connections between the current crisis in Ukraine and big oil's agenda. This does not affect Quebeckers. I look forward to seeing my Conservative colleagues from Quebec stand up to address the issues that affect Quebec a bit more. Just look at the softwood lumber sector. Canada has never wanted to go to battle to come to an agreement with the United States that would be good for Quebec. This is one illustration, one manifestation of Quebec's loss of influence. The same thing goes for Quebec's legitimate aspirations. I will just go over them quickly, but there is Bill 96 on the official and common language of Quebec. Some people have said that this law discriminates against the English-speaking minority, which is probably better treated than any other minority in the whole world. Anglophones make up 8% of Quebec's population, but they get 32% or 33% of the post-secondary education funding. Give me a break. It is the same thing with the challenges to Bill 21, Quebec's secularism bill. The mayors of some municipalities were quick to portray the secularism law as something racist that should be fought. In a way, that is another illustration of Quebec's waning influence. What can stand as a bulwark? Well, Quebec nationalism can. Unfortunately, though, Quebec nationalism gets bad press, and perhaps that is what I want to talk about today. I want us to define together what Quebec nationalism is. This is important, because the bill introduced by the dreaded member for Drummond contains a provision about the nation. I would therefore like us to agree on what we mean by “Quebec nationalism”. First of all, Quebec nationalism is not a bellicose nationalism. There has never been any question of invading Ontario or fighting New Brunswick. Quebec nationalism has absolutely nothing to do with what we understand as bellicose nationalism. In my opinion, the most interesting thesis on Quebec nationalism comes from Léon Dion, the father of another well-known Dion, the one who still had a Quebec conscience. I mean no offence. Léon Dion's thesis is that during the first half of the 20th century, a conservative nationalism emerged in Quebec. It was a nationalism associated with the myth of survival. It is true that it is an identity-based nationalism, in which Quebeckers clung to the reference points they had, that is, their language and their religion. That religion has historically been quite problematic for us, as my grandmother, who was forced to have 18 children, could attest. That is why, today, we understand to some extent why our vision of religion differs from that of Canadians. Léon Dion also talks about a liberal or social-democratic nationalism that is associated with the birth of the Quebec state during the Quiet Revolution. I would like to share a quote from Jean Lesage, who said: “The only power we have is our state, the state of Quebec. We cannot afford the luxury of letting it sit idle.” This quote gets to the heart of Quebec nationalism. When Lesage said this, he was also alluding to a theme he would champion throughout what would become the Quiet Revolution: The Quebec state will be the driving force of our emancipation. When I think of nationalism, I think of the Quebec state protecting a national minority that has a different culture. I want to dispel a myth about Quebec nationalism that has persisted for some 50 years now, which is that Quebec nationalism is a form of withdrawal. I disagree. Hubert Aquin did the best job of debunking that myth about Quebec in 1962. He wrote a response to Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the father of another person we know, who had written a passionate critique of Quebec nationalism in an essay called “La nouvelle trahison des clercs”, or the new treason of the intellectuals. That makes me think of a story that bears repeating. Who here knows the difference between Mr. Trudeau and René Lévesque? During the Second World War, Mr. Trudeau was fortunate to be in Canada, canoeing all kinds of lakes, while René Lévesque was working as a war correspondent for American media outlets. René Lévesque was one of the first journalists to enter Dachau. Meanwhile, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was off canoeing. René Lévesque never equated Quebec nationalism with the type of nationalism based on inward-looking attitudes or aggressive nationalism. Meanwhile, Trudeau senior, who was busy paddling around, did make that dubious connection. End of story. In “La nouvelle trahison des clercs”, Pierre Elliott Trudeau says it is up to us to be our best selves because being better will show English Canada that French-Canadian culture is vibrant. In “La fatigue culturelle du Canada français”, Hubert Aquin offered this magnificent response: “Why should French Canadians have to be better? Why must they 'break through' to justify their existence?” This is one of the bigger Gordian knots in Canada. Why do we have to continually fight to legitimize our existence? This is what Hubert Aquin said. What Hubert Aquin did that was so fantastic is that he debunked the myth of nationalism as a withdrawal into one's identity. He pointed out that the Quebec nation has never been based on a single ethnicity; that the Quebec nation is the result of diasporas of many nationalities; that it is the result of a history founded by French Canadians, of course, but from a plurality of ethnicities. The only thing that these people share is a common culture. When Hubert Aquin responded to Trudeau senior in 1962, he said that the fundamental distinction between English Canada and French Canada is that French Canada is monocultural. French Canada is based on one culture, while English Canada is bicultural. In this sense, according to Hubert Aquin, there is an openness to diversity. This openness is possible as long as Quebec's culture is respected. I will conclude by saying that the best way to protect Quebec culture is to accept the nationalism that goes with it.

1304 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:34:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for his passionate and fascinating speech. I will not be making any comments about his weight. He talked a lot about the importance of nationalism and the fact that it should not be seen as looking inward. I would also like to hear him talk about the fact that we are here for one thing. Nationalism is fine, but until independence has been achieved, and until we are a country, we have a vested interest in being here to defend our interests. Nationalism is one step, it protects us, but it leads us to something much greater for the Quebec nation.

112 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Mar/1/22 12:34:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I want to come back to Hubert Aquin. In his essay “La fatigue culturelle du Canada français”, he asked: what will ultimately become of French Canada? That is a question that I have been asking myself for the past 30 years. Could my identity disappear in the distant future? Could the unique place that Quebeckers have in the world disappear? Yes, it could happen if we let things go; if our political weight in the House is reduced; and if we set aside what has sustained us over the past 50 or 60 years: the dream of building a country.

110 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Mar/1/22 12:35:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Jonquière. To some extent, I agree with the Bloc regarding its nationhood. It is not lost on me that the Bloc is arguing this as settlers, whereupon Inuit and first nations have lived and thrived since time immemorial. I agree that linguistic and cultural criteria should be of paramount importance to the electoral redistribution process. I must ask the member what his party will do to ensure that Inuit, first nations and Métis are represented within his party.

92 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Mar/1/22 12:36:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have always found similarities in what Quebeckers and indigenous nations have been calling for. Unfortunately, sometimes we get in each other’s way, and we know why. Regarding the two major rounds of constitutional negotiations, Meech and Charlottetown, why did indigenous peoples never managed to gain recognition afterwards, even though they also seek political autonomy? It is because federalists are afraid of setting a precedent. By setting this precedent, they will be forced to grant the Quebec nation the same thing. Unfortunately, it will take courage on the part of people who hold a federalist point of view to offer recognition to the indigenous nations and, by the same token, offer recognition to the Quebec nation as well. We have a lot of things to share together.

131 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:37:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my colleague. He is so eloquent and intelligent and has a passion for literature, the great researchers and the great writers. My question is a little more down to earth. He also comes from a region, Jonquière, which is known as the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. Could he explain how people living in sparsely populated, rural and remote areas stand to lose the most if the Canada Elections Act is overhauled? There is also the matter of land use, which is at the heart of our discussions.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

Mar/1/22 12:38:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my whip is so wise. I did not mention this in my speech, but yes, we must ensure that the distribution between major urban centres and the regions is balanced. I am a country mouse. I come from the regions, and the way we identify politically is different from people in urban areas. We need to have a voice and this needs to be taken into account as well. I am happy that my whip was there to bring this up.

83 words

All Topics

Hon. Marc Garneau (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 12:38:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Hochelaga. It is with great pleasure that I rise to discuss an important issue, the readjustment of Canada's federal electoral boundaries. My speech today will focus on a key aspect of the electoral boundaries readjustment process, which has now officially begun. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act sets out the process by which the seats of the House of Commons are redistributed every 10 years. Why every 10 years? It corresponds to the timing of the release of decennial census data, which is used by the Chief Electoral Officer to calculate seat allocation. As all hon. members know, the Chief Electoral Officer used this data to do the necessary calculation in October 2021. Since then, 10 independent commissions have been created, one in each province. These three-member commissions include a chair, who is appointed by the chief justice of the province, and two members, who are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. I would like to take a moment to thank these distinguished Canadians for agreeing to do this work. The commitment they have made cannot be overstated, and I know all my colleagues agree with that. A cynical person might say that, as MPs, we have a disproportionate level of interest in this process, but I would like to remind members that this work has a direct impact on the way each of us serves Canadians. As a result, public consultations play an essential role in the redistribution process. I am delighted to say that, when the independent electoral boundaries commissions publish their initial boundary proposals, there will be at least one public hearing held in every province. Thanks to these public consultations, Canadians in all 10 provinces will have the opportunity to have their say about the proposals. What is more, members of the House of Commons will have the opportunity to provide input at the public hearings and voice any objections they may have. The electoral boundaries commissions have started to develop an initial series of revised electoral district maps, which will be published in the coming months. Then, pursuant to section 19 of the act, the commissions will publish their respective proposals in the Canada Gazette and at least one newspaper of general circulation. It is important to note that the proposal must include the dates and times of the public hearings. Under the act, the commissions must organize at least one public hearing, and it must be held 30 days after the proposal is published. It is important to note that the commissions can hold more than one public hearing. In fact, history confirms it. During the 2012 redistribution process, 132 public hearings were held in Canada's 10 provinces. It will come as no surprise, but the larger provinces held more public hearings than the smaller ones. For example, there were 31 public hearings in Ontario, 23 in British Columbia, 21 in Quebec and 15 in Alberta. What is more, in order to encourage participation, many of the public hearings were held in the evening. Beyond the Canadians and MPs who made presentations, either orally or in writing, during the public hearings, the commissions agreed to consider comments received by email, fax and other means. Saskatchewan's commission received nearly 3,000 presentations in various forms, including emails, letters and petitions. It is highly likely that the commissions will do everything they can to reach as many people as possible in their province. I think it is also fair to say that, given the rapid changes in the information and communications environment since 2012, the commissions can probably reach an even broader public this time around. In other words, this broad public consultation, which is set to begin between April and October 2022, will allow the commissions to gather valuable information when they are revising and finalizing their proposals. Before getting into the opportunity that MPs have to participate, I must note that in 2012, community groups, municipalities and other organizations submitted many presentations. This contribution is essential, because these stakeholders represent communities' points of view in a way that is different, but equally important for MPs. As I mentioned earlier, all members can present their views at these public hearings. I therefore encourage any member who feels compelled to do so, since we have unique local knowledge of our constituencies and the needs of our constituents. Furthermore, once a commission has submitted a revised report, members may also file written objections with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Once the committee has considered these objections, a copy of the objections and the committee's minutes will be forwarded to the relevant commission. Under section 23 of the act, the commission shall then consider objections that may result in changes to its boundary proposal or to the names of the proposed electoral districts. Before I close, I would once again like to emphasize a point I made at the beginning of my speech: The electoral boundaries commissions are fully independent and responsible for producing and finalizing the boundary proposals. Although the commissions are solely responsible for this important work, as I tried to explain during my speech, there are many opportunities for the public and every member of the House to participate. I want to close by emphasizing that all Canadians deserve to have effective representation in the House of Commons. Does this mean that we have to perfectly match a province's population to the proportion of seats assigned to that province? The answer is no, of course not. Representation must reflect the unique character of Canada. I believe that all members will agree that what is most important here is the notion of effective representation. The commissions will consider the most recent census data, as well as such factors as the importance of protecting communities of interest and historical boundaries. What does effective representation mean to Canadians? It means knowing that their MP is sensitive to their concerns. I know that is something we all take to heart, and it is probably the reason each of us decided to run for public office. We want to serve the Canadians who voted for us. Every day, voters turn to their MPs to obtain advice on a certain number of issues. These issues are quite varied. It could concern progress on an immigration or visa application by a family member. Others want information about federal assistance programs. I do not have to tell my colleagues just how important this point of contact and this representation were during the two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now more than ever, we must show leadership and help all Canadians be heard. I hope that my colleagues will join me in encouraging that result.

1142 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:48:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his very detailed, educational and informative speech. Unfortunately, I will only speak to the final comments because I cannot summarize all of it. What stood out for me was the notion of effective representation. In that regard, does my colleague believe that, with its motion, the Bloc Québécois is right in wanting to maintain Quebec's weight, its weight as a nation, within Canada?

75 words

Hon. Marc Garneau

Mar/1/22 12:49:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to perhaps inform my colleague that I was one of the three people who first proposed that Quebec be recognized as a nation at a convention of the Quebec section of the Liberal Party of Canada in 2006. Two other Liberals joined me in doing so. I am very pleased that, a few months later, the House gave its unanimous consent to recognize Quebec as a nation. I have always supported this important recognition for my province. I also mentioned how the distribution of seats has an impact on the efficacy of representation. I look forward to hearing what all Canadians have to say about this issue, particularly in my province of Quebec. It is important to hear what they have to say, and we need to recognize Quebec's unique differences.

141 words

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC)

Mar/1/22 12:50:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him the following question. Does he think it makes sense for Quebec to lose a seat in the redistribution of the electoral boundaries? Given that this could set a precedent because no province has ever lost a seat before and given that the same thing could also happen in other provinces, the commission should expect opposition from Quebec and even some of the other provinces. Can the government tell the commission not to bring about this type of scenario?

93 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 38