44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 7, 2022 10:00AM
Madam Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Shepard said some interesting things in his speech, in particular that this makes sense.
What does not make sense is the pattern of institutionalization of the francophone minority, in particular Quebec, that we have seen since Quebec, formerly known as Lower Canada, was integrated into the Canadian Confederation. Back in 1867, Quebec's representation was 36%, but today that figure is just 22%.
There is another thing that makes perfect sense. In the Charlottetown accord that was proposed in 1992, the Progressive Conservative Party gave the Quebec nation 25% of the seats, even though its demographic weight had declined. In 2006, the Harper government recognized the Quebec nation.
Does my colleague agree that the Quebec nation should always retain 25% of the seats in the House, regardless of its demographics?
136 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be taking part in this debate as the representative for the great riding of Timmins—James Bay.
This morning's discussions are very important, because we are talking about the principles of Canadian democracy. The principle of Canadian democracy is based on the need to maintain a balance between individual and collective rights, as well as on respect for Canada's regional differences. This is crucial, and it is especially essential that we respect the unique contributions of Canada's francophone communities.
I represent the great riding of Timmins—James Bay in northern Ontario, and the Franco-Ontarian community has fought very hard for language rights and access to services in French. In Timmins, I have seen the power of the francophone identity at work, developing the entire region while working with anglophones and indigenous communities. For me, that is a symbol of our country's power.
I want to speak this morning on the importance of the bill before us and the reason the New Democratic Party pushed the government in negotiations to maintain the seats in Quebec. It is about a larger principle that we have.
We often talk about representation by population and the right of citizens to be represented, but we know that Canada would not work this way, because we have certain regions that have much larger populations than others. Historically, the compromise that Confederation was built on was respecting that, if we were going to come together, certain smaller regions, for example, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, would be able to maintain their presence with their number of seats.
An hon. member: And Newfoundland and Labrador.
Mr. Charlie Angus: Madam Speaker, as my good colleague says, there is also Newfoundland and Labrador. I should never have left them out. They were the last to the game but brought the best with them.
However, the issue of Quebec is also really important because this is the francophone heartland of North America. They not only have that right as one of the founding nations but it is important to understand that, as the rest of the country grows and develops, and Quebec continues to grow and develop, maintaining that traditional balance is really fundamental.
Representation by population is a principle in Canada, but when we look at the differences in population size, we are dealing with very divergent realities in Canada. For example, in Manitoba, the average riding has about 70,000 people. In New Brunswick, it is about 50,000 to 80,000. In Labrador, it is 26,000 people. Western Arctic has 41,000, and Nunavut has 21,000.
If we say that, because Mississauga—Erindale has a population of 143,361, Nunavut should not have its own separate identity in Parliament, or that Yukon with its 30,000 people should not have a weighted balance, it would, of course, be unacceptable. The issues in the Yukon are fundamentally different from other regions. It is the same thing with Quebec. We need to say that there has to be a balance. We have to have that fundamental principle that we based this nation on.
Of course, we talked about the two founding peoples, which completely ignored the people who were already here. We do need to address the fact that, in our Parliament and in our nation, we have not respected the rights of the original people, and that to have a truly democratic society, we will need to have a much more fulsome revision of how we see our nation based on the rights of the first people and their treaty rights being heard in a much more diverse, democratic form. However, that does not take away the right of Quebec and the francophone community to have a strong presence maintained and supported, and we are sending the message that we recognize this.
One of the principles that we based the democratic representation by population on was sort of representation by population by region. There is this principle that, by region, we are not supposed to have more than a 25% divergence in population, as that would somehow be unfair.
That might work in Manitoba. That might work in New Brunswick. The big failure, of course, is Ontario. Again, there are ridings of 140,000 people down in the suburban belt around Toronto, but in Kenora there is 64,000 people. That is a riding that is bigger than most European countries. My region of Timmins—James Bay is bigger than France and Germany. It is easier for someone in Toronto to fly to Portugal for the weekend than it is for one of my constituents in Peawanuck to fly down to meet me at my office in Timmins.
Those are democratic deficits that have to be recognized. In seat redistribution in Ontario, if we say it is fair to add more seats into Mississauga and more seats into Etobicoke because that is where the population is growing, and that we will take those seats from far northern regions and make them bigger, at a certain point these ridings become unworkable for democratic access. If anybody wants a lesson in this, they could just ask the Speaker in her off time about what she has to travel to represent all her communities. It is a fundamental right of a Canadian citizen to be able to speak to their member of Parliament and get services.
We do know that much of the work that used to be done by the federal government has been devolved to our offices as MPs. We are the immigration service. We are the pension service. For people who are in regions that are so big that it is impossible to access their MP's office or who may only get there once a year, those people are actually facing more of a democratic deficit than others. For example, when I lived in downtown Toronto, I could walk 15 minutes to two different MP offices. That is a huge fundamental difference.
We have an ongoing debate and discussion about democracy in Canada. I would like to say that democracy is not finished business; it is unfinished business. It will change. We have to encourage more diversity. We are not a diverse House yet, yet our nation is increasingly diverse. We have to find ways to make it more diverse. We have to recognize the strengths of rural, isolated northern regions and maintain what democratic access they have, while understanding that urban centres are growing at an explosive rate and understanding that in Canada we have a diversity of languages, which has made us much stronger, but that we were founded on the principle that there was going to be this accord between the anglophone and the francophone communities. That right to bilingual service is important.
As a Franco-Ontarian the Speaker knows this much better than me, but in my region young anglo families want to send their children to the french schools. The growth of the francophone services in the north, to me, is a sign that we are growing in a diverse way and we are building on the fundamental strengths of our nation. We have to add to that strength. The rights of the indigenous communities have been long ignored, but we are seeing transformation there as well.
One of the things that they told us, when Parliament was first formed, was that some of this regional balance would be handled by the Senate. Of course, we were told that the Senate would be this representation for regions. We have Mike Duffy, the famous senator from come-from-away. I do not know when the last time was he ever stepped foot on Prince Edward Island. The two most famous fictional characters on Prince Edward Island are Anne of Green Gables and Mike Duffy, but he got a paycheque and he is there until he is 75.
I would not say that just because someone flipped pancakes at Liberal fundraising breakfasters or was a bagman for the Conservatives they should be in the Senate, but that is supposedly the historical compromise that we created to let them hang out forever and never get fired. We cannot get rid of them. God almighty, look at Pamela Wallin. We are paying those paycheques. To me, that is not democratic.
We have a real opportunity and a necessity in this place to debate how we make more representation, more diverse representation and more democratic representation.
1429 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the best way I can answer that is to reflect on my home province and the francophone community, which has done exceptionally well and continues to grow, and I think that it is because there is a desire from the Manitoba legislature and from all political entities. I believe the French language will always be there in a very real and tangible way, because not only members of Parliament from Quebec but members of Parliament from all regions of the country see the intrinsic value of being a bilingual nation and will continue to fight for the French language, not only in the province of Quebec but in all regions of Canada.
I believe that the more bilingual we are as nation, the healthier we are as a nation. I do not believe that the representation in my home province of Manitoba has deterred, in any way, the growth of French and the desire to see French being spoken.
163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague—whom I have listened to ever since 2015 when I first came to the House, where he has talked up the vitality of francophone communities on the Prairies—I do have a question. If it is true that this vitality exists, notwithstanding the considerable merits of these communities, how can it be that my colleague, who bears a French name, is a unilingual anglophone now?
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member is welcome to come to Winnipeg, and I am more than happy to take him around so he can get that francophone feeling. For example, we could go to École Garden Grove or École Stanley Knowles, where he will see young children speaking French, English and, in many instances, either Punjabi or Tagalog. I could take him specifically to the St. Boniface area, where he would see an enriched, strong French flavour and many monuments to Louis Riel. I know the member is very supportive of that hero. We have a Louis Riel Day. We have the Festival du Voyageur. We have all sorts of special celebrations related to our francophone heritage. I would welcome the member and be happy to drive him around to visit some of those sites if he would like.
140 words
- 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
Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague from Peace River—Westlock asked a key question, namely, why Quebec should have a special privilege, the “nation clause”, recognizing that this founding nation, which is francophone, unique, and has its own culture, deserves a certain political weight in the House of Commons. For me, this is fundamental.
Would my colleague be willing to take a step to ensure that the Quebec nation is heard in the House and that it has 25% of the seats? If not, we will leave.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
