SoVote

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Mar/1/22 4:25:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I agree with the motion. In 2015, the Prime Minister promised an end to the current electoral system so that citizens' voices would be better represented. Here we are. Does the member not agree that a proportional electoral system might encourage greater political participation? I thank him in advance for listening to me speak in French.

65 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Mar/1/22 4:26:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for asking her question in such good French. We appreciate it. It was great. It is high time that the voting system were reviewed, in all parliaments for that matter, in order to better consider proportional representation. However, in any reform of the voting system, regional differences must also be taken into account. In a previous question, I mentioned the specificity of the three Canadian territories. They each have their own member, because these regions must be properly represented. However, the population, in mathematical terms, does not justify the member. We do not dispute that. We think it is fine. We want to apply a similar principle to Quebec, because we are francophones, we do not have the same culture, and we often do not have the same values. Sometimes we have the same values, and that is good. However, there are times when we do not share the same interests. That is all.

160 words

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

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/1/22 4:28:23 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

8 words

Mr. Yves Perron

Mar/1/22 4:28:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. That depends on the way the question is asked. If the idea is that we will keep having 75 MPs, but they will represent 25% of the federal Parliament, I will answer yes. Today, we are not necessarily talking about a specific number of MPs. We are talking about relative weight. I have a lot of respect for the people of Nova Scotia, just as I have a tremendous amount of respect for the people of Prince Edward Island and so on. I mean no disrespect, but there is a fundamental difference that people need to understand. They must consider the nationhood aspect. Here in Parliament today, there is the Canadian nation and the Quebec nation. It is not the same nation. These are two nations that are inherently friends, that have a lot of affection for one another and that can work together. That is the reality.

157 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Mar/1/22 4:29:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, under the new proposed redistribution, the House would have 342 members, with four new seats, of which 77 would go to Quebec, who would lose one seat. This would cause Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons to go from 23.1% to 22.5%. It is not the Chief Electoral Officer's fault. He is mechanically applying the formula set out in section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867. However, the number of seats is Parliament's decision, hence our motion today. This would be the first time since 1966 that a province loses seats in the House of Commons, but Quebec's weight has been going down non-stop since the coming into force in 1867 of the British North America Act, which became the Constitution Act. At the time, Quebec had 65 out of the 181 seats, which gave it a political weight of 36%. Today, since 2015, the Quebec nation has had 78 seats out of 338, for a political weight of 23.1%. Now it would drop to 22.5%, which is unacceptable. This is actually just the next chapter of the story that started with the Royal Proclamation of 1763. The purpose of the Quebec Act of 1774 was to prevent French Canadians from joining the American Revolution. The Constitutional Act of 1791 established a territory in which English Loyalists were the majority. Over time, immigration made Canada's anglophone population the majority. Things culminated with the British North America Act of 1867. Throughout Canada's history, British and Canadian governments have openly resorted to military suppression, anglophone immigration, the prohibition of French schools and all kinds of other measures to assimilate francophones and make us the minority. The people originally known as French Canadians dropped from 99% of the population in 1763 to 87% in 1791 and 29% in 1871. The percentage has been in steady decline ever since. As my colleague said, the Constitution Act, 1867, was followed by statutes abolishing French schools in all of the Canadian provinces that now have an anglophone majority. From the start, the Constitution Act, 1867, protected bilingualism in Quebec. The federal government ignored that for a very long time. We are still feeling the effects now with the Official Languages Act. At the end of that period, in the 1960s, the Laurendeau-Dunton Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism was established. André Laurendeau sought to give collective rights to the Quebec nation, but that did not happen. The commission's work led to a multiculturalism act, which somewhat weakened the Quebec identity, as it was seen as one cultural community among many. The commission also resulted in a bilingualism act, which was supposed to protect official language minorities. In Quebec, the anglophone community just happened to be considered the minority, which until then had benefited from colonial privileges and had a very dominant position in Quebec society. Thus, instead of taking action to defend French everywhere, the Canadian government took action in Quebec, the only francophone state, and found nothing better to do than to strengthen English. Today, we are seeing the decline of French, which the Official Languages Act will not reverse. It is nonetheless surprising to note that French has declined with every census and that since the Official Languages Act was passed, the rate of francophone assimilation has increased across the country. The Government of Canada admitted just two years ago that French is on the decline and that it has a responsibility to defend and protect French everywhere, even in Quebec. That is not what we see in the Official Languages Act. Certain principles have been laid down, but the same old approach is being used. I think Quebec is caught in a trap. If we continue to welcome large volumes of immigrants and do not get these newcomers to learn French, francophones will become the minority in Quebec, and the federal government is contributing to that. If we do not increase immigration, Quebec will lose its political weight. We are trapped. Canada has no problem welcoming lots of immigrants, but we know that almost all language transfers among francophones and allophones are to English. I think everyone would agree that English is not at risk in Canada, but French is at risk in Quebec. The only way to survive and to react as a nation is to protect our political weight. With regard to Quebec's population, proportionally speaking, Quebec welcomed nearly twice as many immigrants as the United States and nearly two and a half times more than France. We have seen some projections showing that the demographic weight of francophones in Quebec stands to drop significantly in the next 20 years. However, with the new policy of bringing in more and more immigrants, that decline will happen even more quickly. We need to do something. The Liberals talked about increasing the total number of immigrants received to 430,000 per year. This is significantly more than the 280,000 immigrants the Conservatives proposed to take in. Quebec is a nation. It has an identity that is unique in the world, a history, a particular culture, a way of doing business, a common language. Peoples' right to self-determination is perfectly normal. It would allow us to ensure the future of our language, our culture, our way of life. It is what the right to self-determination is all about. Maurice Séguin, a historian who studied settler colonialism, said that if a people cannot decide for itself its own social, economic, cultural and political development, it is bound for dissolution. I think we have reached a breaking point. We were able to counteract our minority status for a while because Quebec had a very high birth rate, especially prior to the 1960s. However, much like all western countries, our birth rate has declined. We depend more and more on immigration. We need the means to promote the use of French among immigrants, but we are losing even that power. The Canada-Quebec agreement gave us a certain amount of control over economic immigration, but the formula has changed more and more, and the government is mainly giving permanent residence to temporary workers and students. We recently saw that there is a much higher refusal rate for study permits for francophone students from African countries. Basically, I think we are reaching a breaking point. If Quebec wants to continue to developing as a people, we need to at least be able to maintain our political weight in Parliament. That is why we moved this motion and that is why we are asking that any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts be rejected. We are proposing that Quebec always be able to maintain its political weight at 25% because we are a nation. We are the only French-speaking state in America, and we have a duty to resist, to defend French and cultural diversity in the world. We will see the reactions here. I call on all my colleagues to allow Quebec to maintain its political weight. I also call on all my fellow Quebeckers to take stock of the situation. If we do not succeed in doing this and if we do not succeed in amending the Official Languages Act to ensure the future of French, the only solution will be for Quebec to become independent.

1246 words

All Topics

Mr. Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 4:39:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague opposite for his speech. Before 2019, the quotas were approximately 50,000 immigrants per year. In recent years, that number has dropped to 40,000 immigrants per year in Quebec. I am wondering, however, why my colleague does not show as much passion for this issue when the Premier of Quebec, Mr. Legault, seems to be cutting the immigration quotas and reducing Quebec's demographic weight. Is it by cutting quotas that Quebec will develop as a people?

87 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

Mar/1/22 4:40:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first of all, the current Quebec government has not decreased immigration that much. It has more or less stayed the same. Second of all, as I was saying, we have two choices. If we increase immigration without sufficient means to teach these immigrants French and truly integrate them, francophones will become a minority in Quebec. If we reduce immigration, as the member said, our political weight will decrease. I think Quebec, as a nation, should be able to set its own integration policies for newcomers. It should not be penalized for trying to make sure it can integrate the newcomers settling in Quebec.

105 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Mar/1/22 4:41:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to ask a question. It has been interesting to hear this debate. It is a needed discussion on democratic reform in this country to ensure that our democracy is responsive to the demands of a modern nation. I come from Alberta and we are quite under-represented in this place when it comes to representation by population. I find it very interesting that on a day when the Bloc is endeavouring to raise concerns related to Quebec and regional issues, in question period its leader and other members of the party went to great lengths to attack an industry that is well represented and that many of my constituents work in: the energy industry. As I am listening with great interest to the speeches, can the member help me reconcile how talking about regional interests is not simply a Quebec issue, but also has a significant impact on the rest of the country?

159 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

Mar/1/22 4:42:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague and friend from the Conservative Party for his excellent question. I think that the environment needs to be considered here. We are not against Alberta. We are in favour of combatting climate change, and we think we need to reduce our dependence on oil. We are prepared to help Alberta through the energy transition. I do not think it will have a choice. If we want to secure an economic future, we ultimately cannot rely entirely on oil. That does not mean that we need to eradicate oil. We will still need it tomorrow. The issue in Quebec is a little different because we are a nation, a people, with a very different language and culture, and we want to continue to exist, much like the first nations want to continue to exist. We have nothing against the people of Alberta, despite our difference of opinion on environmental issues. I think that debate is the path to serenity.

164 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Mar/1/22 4:43:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to react to the suggestions that were made by members in their questions to the member for La Pointe-de-l'Île. This brings me to a question that I have for him. It has been suggested to us that instead of asking to increase Quebec's political weight or keep it stable, Quebec should instead increase its immigration intake. My colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île just demonstrated that right now, we are not able to integrate or teach French to all newcomers, which also causes an internal problem. To solve that, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a 25% threshold to be recognized as a nation. We could reconcile almost everything by doing that. That is what the Charlottetown accord proposed back in the day. That is what was proposed to Quebec. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of the fact that this was proposed to Quebec back then and that it seems unacceptable today.

170 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu

Mar/1/22 4:45:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we will see if our colleagues will consider this to be acceptable and we will draw our own conclusions. I hope that things have changed, but the result of the vote will give us our answer.

38 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/1/22 4:45:27 p.m.
Watch

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton, Foreign Affairs; the hon. member for Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, Health; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, COVID-19 Economic Measures. Resuming debate, the hon. member for Trois-Rivières.

71 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/1/22 4:45:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to speak about Quebec's political weight. On October 15, 2021, the Chief Electoral Officer published the new House of Commons seat allocation. This exercise is carried out every 10 years. Under the new allocation, the House would have four new seats for a total of 342 seats, but Quebec would only have 77, thus one less. This would decrease Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons from 23.1% to 22.5%. It would be the first time since 1966 that a province loses a seat. Let us be clear. The Bloc Québécois opposes the reduction in Quebec's political weight. In listening to the debates today, I heard members speak about language, about affection for Quebec, about Quebec's importance and about the friendship between peoples and provinces. Quebec is all for that, but this is about much more than that. Quebec cannot be reduced to just its language, although language is a very strong component of its identity. Quebec is above all one of the founding peoples of the land that became Canada. As such, it deserves consideration that goes well beyond the stupid, malicious, and blind or automatic application of a mathematical formula. Of course, we are not in any way blaming the Chief Electoral Officer here. This is not about placing blame. It is about us having a suggestion to make. The suggestion is to go beyond a standard that is frozen in time. We cannot agree to apply this formula to the letter. The question that we should be asking ourselves throughout today's debate is this: Is this just about one province losing one seat and some of its political weight? Do we want to live in a country that denies representation to a part of its population? Can the blind application of a mathematical formula be the only deciding factor or the only criterion in determining the representation of a nation, the Quebec nation in this case? Demographics is a science that does not lie. People are born and they die. We know what age they are right now and when they can vote. The population of Canada is growing faster than that of Quebec. That is a fact. It is partly due to immigration policies that could be improved since they do not promote Quebec's population growth. Recently, we talked a lot about the unacceptable refusal rate for African students, for example. They were being refused at a rate of about 80%, while anglophone students who applied to come to Quebec were being refused at a rate of approximately 5% to 10%. If the current situation is maintained, and the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendation is implemented, Quebec will be trivialized. It will run the risk of losing its current identity. Unfortunately, that might suit some people, but I still believe that would not be good for anyone. Quebec is a language, a culture, a way of life. Quebec is a potential that radiates around the world. Before I go any further, I would like to suggest some food for thought. A decision of this magnitude cannot be taken lightly. The importance cannot be underestimated before a decision is made. I have heard today that the decision is to be made by an independent commission. Between us, it is ridiculous to believe that it will be a mere administrative decision. Some have said that the Bloc Québécois is making a political proposal today. Of course we are making a political proposal. This is a political debate. I do not think it could be anything other than political, when a political decision must be made. When we have to make a decision, make a choice, which boils down to deciding, expressing a preference and choosing, there are two possibilities. Either there will be an existing rule, or there will not be an existing rule. In this case, there is one: a mathematical formula. However, when we want to make more of an ethical decision, we will ask four questions. The first is whether there is a rule. The answer is yes, there is. The second is whether there is an omission in the rule. That is not the case here. There is no omission. Then we have to ask whether there are two conflicting rules that say two different things. That is not the case here. The fourth question we have to ask is whether the rule is fair in the circumstances. I have to emphasize that point. Is the rule fair in the circumstances? What we have here is an irregular case, where we cannot apply a rule without running the risk of being unjust. Being just is a colossal task, yet it is the task of MPs who will have to decide where they stand on this issue and vote accordingly. Supposing that, in a case I described as irregular just now, the application of the rule would be unjust, we must see, think and do otherwise. If there is no just rule to apply, we have to turn to another element, which we call “values”. We have been brainwashed with great Canadian values for years. Everybody talks about values all the time, but what is a value, if not a statement of preference when there is no rule that can be justly applied? A value is always a good and desirable thing. What values could we point to here that enable us to live together in this state of necessary cohabitation for the time being? I think we need to consider the concept of equity, which is a fair assessment of what each party is entitled to. I will share two examples. Say we have a pie, and we cut it into four slices, and we have one person who is diabetic and another who is not hungry. We might not end up with four equal slices, but it will still be just. Being treated justly is different than being equal. The latter means that everyone is the same. We will agree that we are not all the same. We speak French, we see things differently and live differently. I believe that we should amend the formula for seat allocation. To lose representation is to disappear, and to disappear is to die. To borrow the words of an author I really enjoy, Fernando Pessoa, who is not a philosopher, “To die is to slip out of view”. To avoid slipping out of view, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a motion that breaks down as follows: 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; Members are being asked to take a stand on this matter. The second part of the motion states: (b) the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended and the House call on the government to act accordingly. I want to share a few facts. Obviously, the distribution formula is enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1867. That is nothing new. The Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, does not have the authority to determine the number of seats in the House of Commons. He or she has the power to propose riding boundaries but not to change the number of ridings. The only way to change the number and distribution of seats, set out in section 51 of the British North America Act, is through legislation. As we have heard today, section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which Quebec did not sign, authorizes the federal Parliament to make such changes. It is hard to amend the Constitution, though. Nevertheless, two weeks ago, we were talking about the Constitution in relation to Saskatchewan, and that was not too difficult or painful. Even though it is hard to amend a constitution, I remind members that the Constitution of the Athenians, so dear to Aristotle, served as a model for constitutions. Two thousand years later, that constitution has been amended. It has served as an inspiration and evolved because the context has evolved. Making such a change takes an ingredient called courage, which does not exist in theory, only in practice. Given that we are at the beginning of a process of evaluating electoral reform, I believe that the time has come to seriously address the issue. How do we want to live: by losing or by changing? I very much like the word used by one of the members today who was asking if we could stop changing the representations and if we could “set” a representation. I think that is an option worth exploring. I will again make reference to the ancient Greeks, who had several words to designate time. There was one word for the weather, one for the time for going to work, which was chronos, and there was one word that I like a lot, kairos, meaning the right time. We do not tell flowers when to grow. We have to wait for the right time. That is why it is called that. I should also note that, if we wait too long after the right time, it is no longer the right time. I think this is the right time, at the start of this process, and I think members of the House should exert their influence to send a clear message. I do not believe the members opposite hate Quebec, especially not the member for Outremont. I do not think we are acting against one another, but I do think we need to use the powers we have to approve this motion and vote in favour. I would invite the Conservative members. I see them all here. We always enjoy talking to them. I would invite the New Democrats, the Greens, the independents and the Liberals. We are all here together in the House, and I invite them to recognize the importance of Quebec. I will close with a quote from Maria Ossowska, a Polish philosopher who lived during the Second World War and experienced the atrocities we are familiar with. In 1946, she said that, in ethics and in politics, the important thing was to be decent. She added that being decent is to be well socialized, have an open mind, be intellectually honest, be able to think critically and respect one's own word. The time has come to recognize Quebec's political weight and to acknowledge that the seat distribution formula needs to be changed. Quebec's demographic importance is clearly declining, but we will never be small.

1807 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 4:57:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoyed it. I want to point out that the Bloc talked about the Constitution a number of times and about how Quebec did not sign it. However, it is interesting to note that members also pointed out in this debate just how important the Canadian Constitution is. My question is about the philosophical point my colleague made about “the right time”. We could have debated this issue as part of Private Members' Business. Would that not have been a more appropriate time? Why did the Bloc Québécois choose to move this motion on an opposition day when a private member's bill on the same subject is going to be introduced in just a few weeks?

133 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 4:58:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois felt that this was the wisest choice. There were a number of options available to us, but we believed the moment had come to take action in this regard.

38 words

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Mar/1/22 4:59:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has been a wonderful neighbour to Quebec and vice versa. I cannot help but mention that earlier today, on two occasions, I was very disappointed to hear the Bloc members asking for Bay du Nord to be turned down. Between Saudi Arabia and Russia right now, they produce 20 million barrels of oil a day. Does the member think that Canada would be better off producing some of those 20 million barrels of oil a day in an ethical manner and that we could all be neighbours and friends who benefit from that?

98 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:00:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I will answer candidly. I am not an economist. Oil exists and oil production will continue to exist. We are not against oil as such, but there is a way of seeing the future of the planet that leads us to believe that perhaps we need to mitigate its use. By the way, I believe that oil from Algeria will arrive in Europe before Canadian oil because the infrastructure is already in place. However, I will let the experts respond to this question since I am not one of them and I am not too proud to admit it.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Mar/1/22 5:00:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I would like him to comment on the statements we heard from members opposite. Some are accusing us of quoting sections of the Constitution and, at the same time, saying that we did not sign it. That is an ethical issue. I would like my colleague to explain the work we are doing today.

64 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:01:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a very important point. It is a fact that we did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982. Unfortunately, we are stuck with it in negotiating this type of arrangement. We must refer to something, so we are forced to refer to the Constitution. Our first choice would definitely be to have our own constitution and to look after our own affairs.

67 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 38