44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 7, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, as always, it is interesting to hear from the member for Winnipeg North. It is also interesting to hear that, although the Liberals have refused to mention the name of former prime minister Stephen Harper, they are very much endorsing the work he did when it came to the representation formula, which was not touching the formula but simply moving the floor with respect to the number of seats for each province. I am sure Prime Minister Harper is appreciating the support he is getting today from the Liberals.
My question is very simple. The Province of Alberta has made it clear, with significant precedent, that we have chosen to elect our senators. Although that is not directly related to the bill at hand, it is an important aspect of the conversation of our institutions being democratically responsive in Canada today. Can the member share if he supports the ability for provinces, whether Alberta or other provinces that choose to go down that path, to elect senators?
169 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, what I know is that Canadians as a whole do not want to get into a constitutional debate. I believe that today the Prime Minister has put into place a system that will see truly independent senators going to the Senate. I see it as very strong positive that we are taking the partisan party politics out of the Senate, and we have seen that in the appointments the Prime Minister has made to date.
77 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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, the member has been very positive in his words with regard to Bill C-14, and we look forward to seeing its passage. I am somewhat curious about recognizing the importance of timing, because there is a timing element to this. As I said, I believe Manitoba and maybe a couple of provinces are already starting to draw their boundaries, with the idea of providing a report and allowing for public consultation all the way up to October.
The quicker the legislation passes, no doubt the easier it will be for Quebec's electoral commission. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on when he would ultimately like to see the bill pass.
117 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, last spring, my colleague, who is a member from Quebec, voted in favour of the Bloc motion recognizing Quebec as a nation with French as its only official language.
The Bloc Québécois believes that if Quebec is a nation, it should have special political weight to protect its specificity. Under this bill, Quebec will be allowed to keep 78 seats but, unfortunately, that will be out of a total of 343. Its political weight in this federation will therefore drop from 23.7% to 22.74%.
As a Quebecker, how can my colleague accept this drop in Quebec's political weight?
108 words
- 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, my colleague's speech was very interesting.
Unfortunately, my French is not up to the question I would like to ask him, so I will switch to English.
He spoke a lot about electoral representation, which is of course why we are here today. I will say that in my province of Alberta, we are expecting to receive three more seats. However, in the last election, in Alberta, 65% of the people voted for the Conservative Party but 97% of the seats are Conservative. In Saskatchewan, only 64% voted for the Conservative Party and it has 100% of the seats. In Canada as a whole, 51% of Canadians did not get a representative they voted for.
I wonder if the member could speak a bit about the value of us looking at proportional representation. The Liberals did promise this in 2015 but did not deliver on it. I wonder if he could speak about how that would help electoral representation.
162 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, I am curious to know where my colleague stands on capping the number of seats in the House. Seats are added every 10 years, but what does he think about adding seats to the House?
38 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, as always it is great to be able to enter into debate. I appreciate very much how my colleague from Quebec outlined the importance of members of Parliament, and of our offices in particular. I know I can compliment not only my staff, but the staff of every member of Parliament across this country who worked significant hours at a time when many government offices, such as Service Canada and whatnot, were closed down. Speaking from my experience and the experience of my office, my office received thousands of calls from people who were desperate for help.
There is an interesting dynamic that exists between rural Canada and many parts of urban Canada. I know it is about five or six hours from corner to corner of my constituency, and I know my colleague from Quebec represents thousands of square kilometres. I am not sure exactly how many thousands.
Would he be able to expand on that unique dynamic that exists, to ensure that we have fair representation that includes the difference between rural and urban?
178 words
All Topics
- 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
Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding electoral representation.
As the member for Calgary Shepardmentioned, this is a bit of an “inside baseball” bill, in the sense that the bill itself and its implications are relatively simple, yet important. I am going to use my time today to talk about the bill, the reasons behind it, and other political implications and choices related to representation.
Every 10 years, the Chief Electoral Officer reviews demographic changes and allocates the number of seats for each province. He determines whether electoral boundaries should be readjusted to reflect population shifts within a province. Section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 sets out the formula for the distribution of seats in the House of Commons among the provinces after each decennial census. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides for drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in each province.
Electoral boundaries must be readjusted whenever a province's representation changes, or when there have been significant population fluctuations in a province, such as a shift from rural to urban areas. The redistribution of electoral boundaries is a federal matter controlled by Parliament.
In October 2021, the Chief Electoral Officer, based on population trends over the past 10 years, set the distribution of seats. The number of seats in the House of Commons was increased from 338 to 342, with British Columbia and Ontario gaining one seat each, Alberta gaining three and Quebec losing one.
This legislation being introduced today amends that decision, as is the ability of Parliament, by creating a constitutional floor: The number of seats any province or territory had in the 43rd election will be the new constitutional floor. The practice of maintaining a certain number of seats in the House of Commons for provinces whose populations were declining in comparison to the national average has been done before.
First, in 1914, the senatorial clause was introduced to ensure that no province would ever have fewer members of Parliament than its number of senators. The second constitutional protection is what is known as the grandfather clause, which came into effect under the Representation Act of 1985. It amended the formula for determining seats and guaranteed that, regardless of what the population of a province or territory might be in the future, it would be constitutionally protected by having no fewer than the seats it had in the House of Commons in 1986.
I should add that a series of adjustments were made between 1914 and 1986 to protect and attempt to ensure equal treatment of the provinces and territories. Initially, the total number of seats was calculated by dividing the population of each province by a fixed number called the electoral quotient, which was itself calculated by dividing the population of the province of Quebec by 65.
The one exclusion to this was called “the one-twentieth rule”, under which no province could lose seats in electoral redistribution unless its share of the national population had decreased by at least 5%, or one twentieth, between the last two censuses. This was appealed in 1946 on the basis of Quebec's desire for representation by population. I may just add that I find it a bit ironic today that we are here debating and driving legislation that would have been a completely different narrative from what those Quebec MPs would have taken in 1940.
All members of Parliament go and research before we come before the House to talk about the principles of the legislation before us. I want to give a tip of the cap to the folks in the House of Commons who have a very detailed history of electoral redistribution and the dynamic of how the number of seats in the House of Commons has changed over time. I give a tip of the cap to the researchers and the folks involved with the House of Commons.
This bill simply does what has already been done many times, which is amend the formula in the Constitution to grandfather the number of seats that existed during the 2021 election. We have already had debates during this session about the possibility of Quebec losing a seat. There seemed to be a consensus about the importance of Quebec's representation and the preservation of its language, culture and identity within Canada.
I am not opposed to the legislation before us, but I want to take this opportunity to put it on the record that I have concerns about the number of MPs that will be added to the House of Commons and to speak to Bill C‑246.
I asked this of the last Conservative member when I stood to ask a question on his remarks. At what point do we consider limiting the number of seats in the House of Commons? I did some research coming into this and found that, historically over time, there was contemplation that by 2001 we would have 400 members of Parliament. Today, we have 338. It is an open question that will inevitably have to be explored beyond the physical dynamics of the House of Commons and how many members of Parliament we can have in this space. It will also be about parliamentary privilege, and allowing individuals to have the space to bring forward issues to debate. Sometimes it is crowded to get on the agenda and to bring remarks forward in this place, because members of Parliament are doing that job.
It is interesting. Right now, in the House of Commons in the U.K., there are 650 members of Parliament. Is that something we want to see in Canada? Is that something that Canadians expect? I do not have the answer, but I pose it as a question here today. It also has a dynamic for how Parliament works. Relatively, when a government forms, whether it be a minority or a majority situation, there might be 150-odd members of Parliament in the government caucus or maybe just over 170, in today's dynamic. If there all of a sudden were 300 government caucus MPs, what would that mean for the dynamic in terms of independence for members of Parliament, their ability to speak and their ability to support the government, but also their ability to bring forward important issues? When we look at how the House of Commons operates in London, there are similarities to here but there are also differences. I raise that for consideration.
I also want to talk about rural members of Parliament. I have a riding that I am very proud to represent. It is 5,000 square kilometres. It is by no means small, but I consider myself lucky compared with other members of Parliament. My good friend in Central Nova has about 10,000 square kilometres to cover. My hon. colleague for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity has a 16,000-square-kilometre riding. That is a lot of territory to cover. We have to be mindful, with respect to all of the electoral redistribution, of the point at which a member of Parliament just becomes too far stretched to adequately represent the communities they are expected to represent in this place, in terms of their presence in the riding, their ability to connect and their ability to physically drive or travel.
Indeed, I have given a couple of examples. I know there are even more challenging circumstances for other members of Parliament, particularly in northern Canada as well.
I want to talk about Nova Scotia's proportionate share. Indeed, I have a colleague beside me from Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the member for Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, as well. As we continue to add seats in this place, yes, some provinces are protected constitutionally in the number of members of Parliament that they will have in the House. In Nova Scotia's example, we will never have any less than 11 members of Parliament, but 11 members of Parliament out of 338 is a certain dynamic and 11 members among 500 members of Parliament is a much smaller proportionate share of the voice that we can bring forward as a province in this dynamic.
We had an opposition day motion from the Bloc Québécois, and I will take the opportunity to speak to Bill C-246 in a moment. The Bloc and the House were strong on maintaining the seats, but they want to make sure that 25% of the House of Commons seats would always be preserved for Quebec. My question is, and I have said it to the Bloc, why do we not look at capping eventually, maybe to 360, 380, or 400? Let us actually look at eventually capping the number of members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Every province and territory in this country has their constitutional protections in force. This would allow there to be a stable footing for some of the things we have talked about.
Yes, the Bloc members want 25%, but as I pointed out to them, if they would have pushed to say let us cap it at 350 members of Parliament, they would have their constitutional floor from today's legislation, assuming it passes, which I am confident it will. They would have been protected at 22%, and that could have been a way to ensure that we do preserve Quebec language, culture and the unique identity within Canada.
I want to speak to Bill C-246. The member of Parliament for Drummond has brought this forward. In essence it not only protects Quebec's 78 seats, but also mandates a requirement that Quebec never have any less than 25% of a proportion of the seats in the House of Commons, regardless of what happens and regardless of the population of the province.
To my sovereignist colleagues across the way, their job is not to protect the identity of Canada. Indeed, they want to separate from Canada, so I would never expect them to do something that is actually beneficial for bringing Canadians together. In fact, sometimes I would argue they would like to wedge and drive divisions in Canada, but we have to understand what this actually represents.
This would not just be a change that could be done within Parliament. This would require a constitutional amendment that would mean a 7/50 formula. For those Canadians who are at home and wondering what the heck the 7/50 is, it essentially means that on constitutional changes such as this, we would have to get the approval of seven of 10 provinces that represent at least 50% of the Canadian population. That is a very high threshold to be able to achieve. That is what we expect to be the legal standard on Bill C-246 if it were to move forward. It is an open question about whether it will, but again in principle, this is problematic.
That type of bill would open up a lot of division in this country, and I think we are all standing here today recognizing Quebec's unique identity within Canada. I do not want to say we are all committed, but I know on this side of the House we are committed to keeping 78 seats in Quebec. In fact, we are protecting everyone right now with a new constitutional floor on the basis of population in 2021, including in Nova Scotia.
Again, this is a continuation of where we already were, but the idea of saying absolutely, regardless of population, despite population decline, they will get 25%, is not ever going to work in this country. It will never pass. It is being introduced in a way to create divide and to try to, I would argue, re-establish the argument about separation in Quebec, which frankly, the Bloc Québécois will know right now is not really high on the agenda, but they are trying to drive that type of narrative.
I think this Parliament understands the importance of Quebec and its political representation in this place. As I have said before, looking at the number of cabinet ministers and their influence, whether they be the Prime Minister or key ministers in the government, Quebec plays an important role in the government of Canada, in this place and, indeed, within the country.
I want to make sure that all members of Parliament get the opportunity to speak on this. It was an absolute privilege to be able to do some of the research and look into the legislation.
I will just take an opportunity to thank the minister of intergovernmental affairs for bringing this forward. He, of course, also holds the portfolio of the minister for communities and infrastructure. What a tremendous job to balance two very difficult portfolios, so I thank him on the record for his leadership within the government and for his continued advocacy for the people of Beauséjour. I do believe that he is going on 20-plus years in Parliament, which is, I think, a tremendous commitment to public service.
Of course, my predecessor Scott Brison also served for 21 years in this place. It shows that these individuals are committed to making a difference for their constituents, Canada and the world.
I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues, who I watched today as they listened with utmost curiosity, having detailed questions for me to answer in just a moment.
2266 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, there are a few points on which I actually completely agree with my colleague from across the way, one being that we very often wonder what the motivation is for our sovereignist colleagues in the House, although we know what their motivation is. However, I also want to mention that the House of Commons truly is the people's chamber, and it should be representative of the population across the country. I have said that in a number of my interventions in debates, that this is the House. It is the people's House and the 338 members of Parliament who have been elected to represent those electors carry the voice of those electors to this House. This House should represent the population of our country.
I want to ask my hon. colleague if he is aware of whether the provinces with the fastest growing populations, such as my province of British Columbia, and Alberta and Ontario, were consulted. Far too often we hear, when we are on the doorsteps during elections, that the election is over by the time it gets to the western provinces. Were those provinces consulted?
192 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would not pretend to speak for the minister of intergovernmental affairs in terms of the work that was undertaken. We had the opportunity in this House to debate an opposition day motion, and I know a number of Conservative colleagues and, indeed, everyone has had the chance to speak to it.
The member raised an important point about how we balance representation. I would submit to this House that there has never been a true representation by population, and that has always been because Canada was a compromise from day one in 1867. Even as we added provinces during Confederation, and as the member opposite's province joined, which I believe was in 1870, there was a negotiation about what was fair and equitable at the time.
I do not think there has ever been pure representation by population. Certainly, sitting as a member of Parliament with 11 seats in Nova Scotia, I think we would be closer to 8 or 9 without it. I really want to make sure that all regions of the country have a voice with representation. I think today's legislation and where we are is fair and equitable at this time.
200 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we often hear the argument that Quebec is well represented because we have the Prime Minister and ministers.
I would simply like to point out to my colleague that the Island of Montreal is experiencing a serious housing crisis, with 25,000 people waiting for low-income housing. However, the Island of Montreal is represented by the Prime Minister and six senior ministers, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. This is significant, but despite this, the crisis has continued for seven years, so having ministers is not the answer to everything.
I want to talk about the French language. My colleague must be sensitive to this in Nova Scotia. According to the numbers, the status of French in Quebec is so precarious that the percentage of people whose mother tongue is French may drop to just 69% by 2036, which might as well be tomorrow. If we do not use this bill as an opportunity to protect our political weight, if we do not stand up for ourselves, we will never be able to protect the French language. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.
198 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, I agree that policies must be adopted to preserve the French language. That is why I try very hard to speak French here and to learn the language. Policies favouring francophone immigration are also very important, not only in Quebec, but also outside Quebec, elsewhere in Canada, to preserve the French language.
With regard to what my colleague said about ministers and the problems in Montreal, my answer is simple. The Legault government and many of the MNAs have a hand in this, but I think some other social problems are at play, and opportunities do exist. I find that part of the question a little odd.
112 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this bill protects the number of seats not only in Quebec, but also in all the other provinces. How important does the member think this is for his own province?
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for using French in the House.
Of course the legislation is neutral in the sense that all of the provinces and territories are reflected in the Constitution. To me the question that remains is this. How many members will be added to the House?
For Nova Scotia, 11 members are protected by the Constitution, but having just 11 members out of 500 in the House would reduce the proportion of representation we have in the House.
I think that in future we will have to determine the number of MPs in the House of Commons both from a parliamentary privilege perspective and a logistics perspective.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
