44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 7, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech and for introducing this bill.
I am very pleased to see that one element of the agreement negotiated by our two parties is in this bill. In reading this document, we see that the last line protects Quebec seats. It is good to see this come about quickly.
However, this agreement also included other elements, such as making it easier to vote by providing for a three-day voting period during general elections and easier access to different polling stations.
Why did the minister not include these elements in his bill?
100 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised to hear that someone read the speeches members gave 10 years ago to find out what people thought of the legislative review.
I disagree with what my colleague said about how the system is based exclusively on the proportional representation of the population, because our system functions by exception, with those exceptions being the senatorial clause, the territorial clause for the three northern territories, and the grandfather clause for certain provinces.
Why then do we not come up with a clause to recognize the weight of the Quebec nation in Parliament? Why is my colleague dismissing that idea out of hand when his government is the one that passed a motion in the House to recognize Quebec as a nation?
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would seek the consent of the House to share my time.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the outstanding member for Timmins—James Bay.
I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C‑14 in the House today. I take pride in it because of the negotiations that the NDP, my party, conducted with the Liberal minority government. This is one of our very tangible wins, a victory we achieved by negotiating and getting things for people. In this case, it is a net gain for Quebec and Quebeckers.
That is not all we gained from the agreements. I could go on at length about dental care, prescription drug costs and housing, but Quebec was in danger of losing seats because of a mathematical calculation and dropping from 78 to 77 seats.
There was a consensus in Quebec that, at the very least, we had to hang on to all the seats we have, so that is what the NDP got. By applying pressure and negotiating, we protected Quebec's 78 seats for good. I am very happy about that, and it is one of the good things we achieved thanks to this agreement. The NDP achieved a significant victory for Quebec.
Could we do more? Obviously, we can discuss that at some point, but for now we are not losing any seats, and that is thanks to the NDP. I am not sure if everyone is aware, but I wanted to point that out, because the agreement is quite long. It is three pages long, and that was the last item on the third page, so it meant reading the document to the end, and I am not sure everyone did that. Representation in this Parliament is very important to us and to Quebec in general.
Any discussion about democratic rules is an important debate to have. As parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, we must be fully engaged in these discussions, because this has implications for the vitality of our democratic life, the ground rules, and the justice and fairness ensuing from those rules.
In these troubled times, especially in eastern Europe, it is important to remember how vital democracy is. I would like to commend the courage of all the democrats in Russia who dare to protest the war and who oppose President Putin's autocracy.
When establishing the rules of democracy, it is important to remember that these rules must respect what used to be called, at the time, popular sovereignty, that is, the fact that it is the expression of citizens' choice to send people to represent them, with opinions, political agendas and ideologies, and that all these citizens are considered to be equal. That is the fundamental principle of democracy. Unlike an aristocracy, there is no individual who is above any other, who is appointed by God or who has greater powers than others. All citizens are equal, and that is how we start the discussion on democracy.
Are we all as equal as we think under the first past the post system? I will come back to that. There may be an opportunity to have that discussion.
In a federation, there is more than just the rule of the size and weight of the population. We have set other equally important rules. I will name a few of them because it is important to bear them in mind when having these discussions.
Another rule is the senatorial clause, which states that a province cannot have fewer MPs than senators. It could be called the “P.E.I. clause” for those four MPs.
The territorial clause is also quite easy to understand. It ensures that each of the northern territories has an MP, meaning one for Yukon, one for the Northwest Territories, and now one for Nunavut. Although their demographic weight may not justify it under Elections Canada's rules, it is important and essential to keep it that way.
Lastly, the grandfather clause guaranteed that certain provinces were protected and could not have their number of seats reduced. That is where Bill C‑14 makes a difference.
Quebec will be included in this grandfather clause, as will all the other provinces. For now, this protects Quebec, which was the only province at risk of losing a seat under the current redistribution. This measure will serve Quebec in the very short term, but also in future. We are pleased to see that, following the agreement we negotiated, a bill was quickly introduced to uphold this aspect of the agreement.
We have to ask ourselves if we can go further, and I know there have been discussions. Not so long ago, I had the opportunity to deliver a speech on Bill C‑246, which would maintain Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons at a certain percentage.
This is not a new idea; it was included in the Charlottetown accord that Mulroney's federal government negotiated with the Bourassa government in Quebec. The accord was not adopted, however, so it was not implemented, but the idea has been brought up again.
I think there should be some serious discussions on the possibility of another interpretive clause, a Quebec clause. Since Parliament has recognized Quebec as a nation, this clause could be included in order to protect Quebec's democratic weight in the House of Commons.
Furthermore, the House recognized that Quebec is a nation, and the NDP recognized it as well, in its support for the Charlottetown accord at the time, in its Sherbrooke declaration, in its internal documents and, obviously, in its votes in the House. There is this idea of formally recognizing the concept of two founding peoples, which helped create the vision and perception of a bicultural, bilingual federation. That is one of the reasons we still have the Official Languages Act. It is in keeping with that idea.
I must admit that I always feel a little uneasy talking about two founding peoples because this disregards the fact that the first nations and indigenous peoples were already here. Our French and British ancestors were not the first to set foot on this land. There had already been people, nations, communities and cultures here for millennia.
In our discussions of the quality of democratic life and the representation of peoples and nations in the House, I think that we should also take into account the place of the first nations, Inuit and Métis. Other countries do that. I think either Australia or New Zealand does it, probably New Zealand. Perhaps this should be part of our discussion.
Furthermore, in the interest of strengthening our democracy and upholding the equality of our citizens, we should really be discussing proportional representation. Unfortunately, this subject was dismissed by the Liberal government in 2016 when it buried the majority report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, of which I was a member. We are one of the few countries in the world without a proportional component to our voting system.
If we had proportional representation, the representation of political movements and parties would be based on a very simple rule: if a party gets 25% of the vote, it should get 25% of the seats. The winner-takes-all nature of the current system creates unacceptable distortions, because a party that wins just 40% of the vote can get 60% or 65% of the seats. That means that the majority who disagreed with the government end up in the opposition, and the government can do pretty much whatever it wants for four years.
We must therefore remember to consider the possibility of proportional voting, as well as the other elements of the agreement that the NDP negotiated to facilitate access to the vote, such as on-campus polling stations, the ability to vote at one of several polling stations on election day, and multi-day voting periods for general elections. These are other measures we should discuss in the future.
1333 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
It is true, there is still much work to do on this bill. There are still many things that need to be improved in order to make it easier to vote. We could, for example, make it easier to vote by mail and count the votes more rapidly.
Unfortunately, in the last general election, there were no polling stations on university campuses. We know that young people are the least likely to vote during elections, and students are part of that population. Depriving them of access to polling stations on campus had a serious adverse impact. We will have to talk about this. If someone does not know exactly where to go to vote on election day, the ability to go to one of several different polling stations in the same riding without being turned away would facilitate voting.
I think that all of the political parties want to improve our democratic vitality.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
An urban-rural balance is important. My colleague probably knows that I represent a very urban, densely populated riding, with a population of about 110,000 packed into just 11 square kilometres.
I think that it is important that the electoral boundaries commission's calculations allow for some deviation from the average, so that a riding with a population 20% or 25% lower than the average can still be represented by a member in the House. This would make it possible to account for rural realities in Quebec and Canada.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.
I would remind him that, to achieve sovereignty, he should get himself elected to Quebec's National Assembly, if that is really what he wants.
For now, here, we are trying to defend Quebec and, above all, Quebeckers. I think that the NDP has represented Quebec by keeping Quebec from losing a seat. That is a victory.
With respect to the Bloc Québécois's bill, I would invite my colleague to listen to my speech. He will find all sorts of interesting information in it.
101 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I feel like I should remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois is not Quebec as a whole. The Bloc represents hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers, like other political parties, including those in the House, like the NDP.
We took advantage of the government’s minority status to secure gains for Quebeckers, written in black and white in the agreement we negotiated, including a guarantee that Quebec will retain its 78 seats. Is that enough? Could we do more? Of course we can.
However, we were facing a very clear threat, the loss of a seat for Quebec. I know that he would rather have a root canal than admit this, but does my colleague not agree that, this time, it was the NDP that defended Quebec’s interests?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/7/22 2:33:38 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just a few days ago, the IPCC released an alarming report.
This is an emergency. The future of our children and grandchildren is at risk. We must take bold action.
The Minister of Environment took action: He approved a new fossil fuel project. He will continue to hand out billions of dollars to oil and gas companies. He could have said no to this project, but he said yes to more oil and more emissions.
Does the minister understand that an additional billion barrels of oil is not a green project?
93 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
