44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 7, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, today we are debating the bill on preserving provincial representation in the House of Commons. Understandably, this is very important to me.
Since the tabling of the 2022 budget by the NDP-Liberal government remains the focus of media attention and discussion, it is clear that very little will be said about the bill we are debating today. However, it is important for me to share my comments and opinions on Bill C-14.
People should know that we are currently gathered to debate Bill C-14, a bill that would amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to ensure that no province will have fewer seats than it did in the 43rd Parliament, that is, the preceding Parliament, when the number of seats in the House are readjusted after each decennial census, in future years.
As we know, the House of Commons is the House of the people. It is the House of all Canadians, those from the north, south, east, west, urban areas, rural areas, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, by way of Quebec, Ontario and the Prairies. All Canadians, and I mean all, must be properly represented in the House of Commons. That is why it must be as representative as possible of all Canadian citizens—and it must also represent their differences.
On March 2, I moved a motion in the House. I asked for the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion: “That the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly.”
I have to say that Bill C‑14, which we are studying today, is essentially the same as the motion we moved on March 2 and for which we sought the unanimous consent of the House. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, that I suspect was politically driven, the former Green Party leader enthusiastically denied unanimous consent of the House for this motion. I say “enthusiastically”, because the former Green Party leader even applauded when the motion was defeated. She turned towards some of my colleagues to give a thumbs up, proud of her work. That is what happened. I saw it from where I was sitting. I was paying close attention to what was going on because there was almost unanimous support in the House to adopt this motion. Unfortunately, the leader of the Green Party chose to play politics instead of allowing the House to unanimously adopt this motion, which would have helped the government get Bill C‑14 passed more quickly.
I am nevertheless pleased and happy to see the government's positive response to the motion, even though it was rejected by the Green Party. I am also happy to see that the government has presented a bill that essentially says the same thing as the motion, which is that no province, including Quebec, should lose a seat during an electoral redistribution.
Frankly, this Liberal bill retains the same redistribution formula that was created by the Fair Representation Act in 2011. In fact, I would like to point out that it was the previous Conservative government that created the legislation with the aim of making Canadian democracy more representative, adding 30 new seats to the House of Commons.
Of course, we respect the work done by the independent commissions, which work separately in each province and whose mission is to draw and readjust electoral boundaries. That is not what we are talking about today. We are not talking about boundaries, but I will come back to that because I have a message for the commissions about the redistribution of electoral boundaries in each province.
I think we need to look at this and consider more than one factor in determining how seats should be distributed in each province. We must provide more flexibility so that Canadian voters can be properly represented and know that their voices are being heard when their MP speaks here in the House.
The work of representation in the House is very important to Canadian democracy. This work has been under way since last October. It will make the distribution of seats more representative of Canada's population. As I said, I intend to actively participate in the process in Quebec to ensure that the voices of the people in my riding, as well as those living in the regions, are heard.
I would remind members that the process that is under way will add three new seats in Alberta, one new seat in British Columbia and one new seat in Ontario. Bill C-14 guarantees that no province or territory will lose a riding. I want to point out that, without Bill C-14, Quebec would lose a seat in the proposed electoral redistribution process. Quebec would go from 78 members to 77. That is why we chose to speak and why we wanted to move a motion to say that, in a process like this, we should not be going backwards and taking away what the provinces have gained from the beginning.
When the law was established, no one could have predicted that the population of Canada would not grow more or less evenly everywhere, in all the regions, so a minimum number of seats was allocated per province. Unless I am mistaken, that number dates back to 1985. Now, we need to update the minimum number of MPs per province, and that is what Bill C-14 will do.
I am also pleased to see that because, beyond the partisan debates, the loss of a member, or in other words a seat in the House, would have caused adverse effects and would have made the work of the electoral boundaries commissions more difficult for people in rural or more remote regions of Canada. I will talk more about this later in my speech.
As we know, every day, Canadians, in other words the voters, the people who send us here, rely on their MPs to give them answers, to respond their questions and to help them find solutions in their dealings with various federal government bodies, and sometimes even with other issues. Like all my colleagues here, I am sure, over the past two years, during this unprecedented and unexpected pandemic that has created so many problems for our constituents, I have received calls related to many subjects, including everything from employment insurance services to the Canada Revenue Agency. I have also received requests from constituents who simply did not know where else to turn, people who were in trouble because they had no money because their business had shut down and they did not know how to apply for the various assistance programs. We have really been there to address our constituents' requests. This is also part of our duties as members of Parliament.
To be sure, one of our main roles as MPs is to be here in the House doing our work as lawmakers, which means passing laws, making sure those laws are fit for our society, making sure we represent our constituents, and voting in accordance with our values, with what our constituents want and with what we believe is best for Canada's future. That is our main role.
Our secondary role has changed a lot over the years, and people now expect their MP to help them deal with the government and support community development and business associations to ensure they feel heard. Most MPs are very far from Ottawa. In my case, it is not so bad, because my riding is about a four-hour drive from Ottawa, five hours if I leave from one place, a little more or less if I leave from another.
That certainly means a lot of time on the road, but Canada is very big from coast to coast to coast. Most people are unable to get to the national capital, so that is the MP's job.
Despite technology, it is clear that many citizens have been frustrated by the lack of information or help from various departments, not to mention that replies are slow in coming, especially for things like employment insurance and Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, inquiries.
As I said, voters count on their MPs for help, support and information. For people in Canada's rural regions, their MP is often the only connection between them and the federal bureaucracy. There certainly are not employment insurance offices everywhere. There is certainly no CRA office or representative in every Canadian community. That is why MPs are working more and more closely with their constituents.
I would say that there was a big difference during the pandemic. Before, people would come to their MP's office, often for passports and occasionally for problems with EI. Many, many people who were in need of these services during the pandemic discovered their MP's office. Although the programs are now over, people are still coming to the MP's office, which is wonderful. However, we cannot have a situation where the MP's office becomes inaccessible because it is overwhelmed by too many requests or because the riding is so big that people are too far away from their MP and cannot reach them quickly.
Connection is important. Reducing the number of MPs in a province would diminish this relationship between constituents and their MP. There definitely needs to be standards and rules in place for determining the number of MPs. However, it is important to highlight the difference between MPs from urban regions and those from rural regions, including the distance that some have to cover and the number of municipalities they represent in the House.
At the end of the day, Quebec is currently the only province that will see a change under the proposed redistribution. That is where Bill C‑14 comes in. It will give the Quebec electoral redistribution commission greater latitude to do its work and propose a new electoral map. I hope that during this review, some thought will be given not only to population, but also to geography. I will come back to that.
As the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, I represent a riding with the same number of voters as a riding in Montreal, but I have to cover an area that is 500 times larger than a riding in a big city. In my riding alone, there are 50 municipalities that I must serve. That means 50 mayors and 50 municipal councils. There are two, three, four or even five times that number of social clubs, not to mention chambers of commerce, business associations, agricultural associations and other groups. All these people want to have access to their MP and want to talk to me.
In a large riding, the MP will be dealing with 50 times the number of groups. For example, MPs for the Quebec City region only have one mayor to deal with. I have 50, and they are all important to me. The mayor of a municipality with 200 people is just as important as the mayor of a municipality with 26,000 people. I have to be just as present for the mayor of a small municipality as for the mayors of big cities. It is very time consuming.
How can MPs in the regions be more effective and do a better job if this difference is not taken into consideration?
If 20 municipalities are added to my riding during this process, it will be nearly impossible to meet all 70 or so mayors and municipal councils. Since each municipal council meets at least once a month, I will not have enough time in a year to meet all of the municipal councils. This ultimately severs the connections between the MP, the federal government and our constituents.
How are we meant to properly follow up on their issues or on all of the projects that councils and residents present to us? To ask that question is to answer it.
The bigger the rural ridings get, the less access these constituents have to their MP. Some might say that this is natural, but I disagree. As I said earlier, the people in our regions do not have direct access to federal government services. Their only point of access is the constituency office.
I hope that the commission that will be responsible for reviewing the electoral boundaries, which will soon be working in Quebec, will take the representation of the regions in Canada into account.
Keep in mind that there is some latitude in the act to allow for a discrepancy between the ridings' average population and what will ultimately be applied. I am not asking that the act be changed, simply that this flexibility be applied as much as possible so that the rural reality is taken into account when electoral maps are being redrawn. This is important, and it is being done. The Constitution itself recognizes this concept, having already established a minimum number of members for each province, despite the fact that some have fewer residents. That is the reality.
Without Bill C-14, there would have been less latitude for the Quebec commission, which would have had to search high and low for citizens no longer in ridings in order to take a seat away from Quebec. This is unacceptable.
A member of Parliament is like a family doctor. It is not that we save lives, because I would not want anyone to think I am comparing myself to a doctor by any means, but, when there are too many patients, it is hard to get an appointment and that is, unfortunately, what is likely to happen if we add in distances and all the rest.
Since the spring of 2020, more and more people have been using platforms such as Zoom, Teams and FaceTime. It may have revolutionized communications. We can indeed have more meetings. I have had more opportunities than ever to meet with town councils because we have this new way of doing things. I use this technology, but there is nothing like a good old-fashioned face-to-face meeting that gives people a chance to talk and really communicate.
To ensure that MPs can represent their constituencies well and do their job in rural ridings that keep getting bigger, the concept of rurality must be part of the electoral boundary redistribution process. Any change to the electoral map that does not take into account geography, demographics, the people's needs, culture and who we are will have an impact on democracy.
I am proud of our regions. I grew up and still live in a region, where I have chosen to stay. It is in my DNA. I was the mayor of a town in the regions, Thetford Mines. I was involved in all kinds of associations, and I have always considered connections between each level of government, municipal, provincial and federal, to be extremely important.
It is very important to maintain our voices in the House of Commons and to ensure that we can keep accessing the people who can help us and help our voters deal with the giant federal machine even when they do not necessarily have direct access to federal government services close to home in each of our ridings.
I am pleased to see that Quebec will not be losing any seats. I am also happy to say that we will be supporting Bill C-14. However, the work has only just begun.
2622 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, to which I would reply that responsibility for the progress of parliamentary work in the House lies with the government and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.
I hope the government will do everything it can to ensure that this bill is passed very quickly, so that we can then work with the Commission de la représentation électorale du Québec.
The parliamentary secretary should put that question to his colleague right in front of him. This would give us an idea of the importance he wants to attach to the passage of Bill C-14.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague's question is very important. I sincerely think that we need to be having these discussions in the House.
I remember that a similar proposal was made in the context of an accord, the Charlottetown accord. A 25% minimum representation was proposed at the time.
I did some research and looked into what the position of the Bloc Québécois and its leaders was at the time with respect to that accord, which sought to maintain a minimum representation of 25%. I discovered that the Bloc's position at the time was to vote against the accord.
Today I am being lectured, but in the past there was an attempt to maintain this 25% representation and the Bloc contributed to the defeat of that accord. I think that some of my colleagues should do their homework and do some research. They should see the citations I have in front of me. I would be happy to share them with everyone, but I will restrain myself because I am very happy that Quebec will be able to keep 78 MPs for now.
If we want to open a new constitutional debate, it is up to the House. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will think about it this time before making decisions based only on preventing the Canadian confederation from working.
237 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will start on a positive note and congratulate my colleague on her French. She has spoken in French a few times in the House, and her French is better than she thinks. She should speak French more often.
Now for the negative. If the NDP was truly serious about wanting proportional representation, why did they not include it in their agreement with the Liberal government? That is what I am wondering.
It is now essentially one party. Why do they not sit down right now with the Prime Minister and ask him to start over, to make the same promise, the promise he did not keep when he realized it would probably put him at a disadvantage? That benefited one person.
I think that the NDP forgot this small but very important element in its negotiations with the Liberal Party. This afternoon, at 4 p.m., when the budget is tabled, it will be obvious who bought whom in the secret agreement between the NDP and the Liberals.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question.
One day, we will have to think about the maximum number of members in the House. Some legislatures have done so, and I think that we will likely have to do that one day. I very much want to participate in that debate, always keeping in mind the best interests of the voters who send us here to Ottawa to represent them and the work we must do to represent them properly. That said, I do not see how we would be able to have 600 members here if Canada's population were to grow that much.
For now, though, it is important to at least maintain the same number of seats and then eventually settle on a maximum number. We are not there yet, since we have not had the necessary debates. Canadians will have to be involved in the debate. It cannot be held just here in the House.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I recognize that there are some ridings that are much bigger than my own. My colleague's riding of Battle River—Crowfoot is a huge one.
I do not want to be misinterpreted. I am not saying that MPs in big cities work any less. All I am saying is that their work is very different. In ridings like ours, a single meeting can take four hours, so we can talk with a single constituent. That representation is very different for someone in a big city where everything is about an hour from the constituency office. That is a big difference.
This is what the provincial commissions will have to consider when they propose new electoral boundaries. We must use this latitude to make it easier for constituents in rural ridings to access their MP, and I think the existing commissions have that flexibility. The act does not need to be changed; we simply need to make use of the freedom and latitude it already offers.
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/7/22 2:24:52 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we know this NDP-Liberal government is not big on transparency. Recently Canada witnessed a kind of justice more closely associated with the Middle Ages. Nobody knows where or when this phantom trial took place. We also do not know the judge, the accused or the lawyers, and there is no transcription. RCMP investigators and federal prosecutors participated in this North Korea-style travesty of justice.
What role did the Liberal Minister of Justice play in this trial that violated every basic principle of our country's judicial system?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/7/22 2:26:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, today is budget day. It is a parliamentary tradition for the details of the budget to be kept under wraps until it is read by the Minister of Finance in the House. It is even a legal obligation to prevent the disclosure of privileged information. This morning we learned that the member for Burnaby South and unofficial deputy prime minister of the NDP‑Liberal government received a briefing on the content of the budget.
When did this briefing take place? Who was there? Did the members of the NDP branch of the government swear an oath of confidentiality on the secret information they received?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/7/22 2:27:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we did not get a secret briefing. We now know that the NDP members received information on the budget. The Canadian Press reported this morning that the health critic said after receiving a briefing that he was optimistic the government would keep its commitments on dental care and pharmacare in the budget. That is highly confidential information and may influence the stock market value of many companies working in that field.
What exactly do the NDP member and his leader know?
Did they swear an oath before receiving that information, yes or no?
95 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
