44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to share my time with my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert.
When I was asked to come to the House today to talk about Quebec's political weight, I wondered if I would be here for 10 minutes, because it is so simple; we take Quebec's weight and we maintain it. On reflection, though, I thought that if it had not been understood by now, I might have more to say than I thought in the end.
I thought I would use a bit of an educational approach. Let us go back in time to 2006. That year, the Harper government recognized Quebec as a nation in the House. After that, however, not much happened until 2021, except for the decrease in health transfers.
Last June, the House passed a motion that gave Quebec the right to amend its constitution to enshrine in it that Quebec is a nation and that its only official language is French. This meant that the Quebec nation, as well as its history and specificity, were once again recognized.
However, recognizing a nation means recognizing that it has the right to express itself in the House of Commons. It means walking the talk. The House cannot recognize a nation the way it recognizes that it is a nice day outside, that it is a beautiful Monday and that it is humid. When the House recognizes a nation, it has to act accordingly.
Now the government has introduced Bill C-14. At first, I thought that there was hope and that this bill seemed to be a step in the right direction. Still, it is a bill seeking to protect Quebec that was introduced by the Liberals and that may be supported by the NDP, so based on my experience, I had some doubts.
I opened Bill C‑14, and I read that it would guarantee Quebec a certain number of seats, specifically 78, compared to the 77 seats provided for in the last electoral boundary readjustment, which reduced the number of seats for Quebec.
I would like to mention that, without the repeated interventions of the Bloc Québécois, we would not be debating this in the House today. The Liberal government would not have woken up one morning and decided that it was going to protect Quebec's weight. It took the Bloc Québécois to convince it to take a step in that direction.
The problem with Bill C‑14 is that it states an intention, but does nothing to accomplish it. It does not meet its own objective.
Let us continue the lesson. March 2 was a Bloc opposition day. The government knows we use these days wisely. That day, by a vote of 261 to 66, which is decidedly not a close result, since almost everyone voted in favour, apart from a certain pocket of resistance, the House adopted a motion saying the following:
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;
I want to point out that number of seats and political weight are not the same thing. The motion also states that the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended in accordance with the spirit of the motion, which was adopted by the vast majority of duly elected members.
However, we have before us a bill that does not achieve this goal. The bill does not protect Quebec's political weight because it protects the number of seats, not the proportion of seats reserved for Quebec.
I figured that either the government was acting in bad faith or it did not understand what the word “proportion” meant. My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou used to be an elementary school teacher, so I called her to ask what grade kids start learning fractions and division. She told me that it was usually in grade 3, but if the members of Parliament went to a good school, they might have learned about fractions in grade 2. I do not know whether the government is acting in bad faith or whether it does not understand.
I began listening to the Minister of Finance, thinking she must understand, because she has talked about the debt-to-GDP ratio, saying that she does not want to reduce debt, but rather the debt-to-GDP ratio. She understands that there are two components to a ratio. The Minister of Finance understands that. The same applies to per capita GDP: The ratio of per capita wealth can differ based on wealth and the number of people.
It is the same when the NDP talks about fuel-efficient vehicles. What they care about is how much fuel a vehicle uses to travel 100 kilometres, which provides its fuel efficiency. The NDP understands that concept when it comes to winning votes in their riding and for their base, but not when it comes to the issue of Quebec's weight.
When they are talking about hourly wages, the NDP does not tell people to earn $5 an hour and work 70 hours a week. They say that what is important is the wages that a person earns for each hour worked. The NDP understands ratios, logic, elementary school concepts. With this bill, however, all of a sudden, the NDP members have forgotten what they learned in elementary school. They say that Quebec's political weight is not calculated as a given number of seats divided by a total number of seats, but simply as the numerator, the number of seats. I have trouble understanding that.
I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North. The Liberals know how much I appreciate them and their intelligence. Since I cannot believe that they do not understand, I figure they may just be doing half a job. I will give them an even more concrete example.
The number of seats for Quebec rose from 65 in 1867 to 73 in 1947, to 75 in 1976, to 78 in 2015. The number of seats increased, which is a good thing. During that time, however, the size of the House of Commons also increased, and the percentage of seats belonging to Quebec dropped from 36% to 28.6% to 26.6% to 24.9% to 23.1%.
My colleagues can surely see that the number of seats is irrelevant if the size of the House of Commons is increasing. This shows that the bill does not achieve its goal and that it does not live up to its title.
There are special clauses that provide some protection for the weight of the provinces. I have here the Canada Elections Act, and I see that New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have a senatorial clause. Nova Scotia also has a grandfather clause, as does Manitoba. Even Newfoundland and Labrador has a grandfather clause, after deciding very late in the game to become a member of the federation, and after three referendums that yielded three different answers to the question.
It is therefore not unheard of for the government to protect the political weight of a nation. Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon have constitutional protection. We are not reinventing the wheel.
This is the government's idea of protecting Quebec. The same thing always happens, and the Liberal members say nothing. Maybe they are too busy protesting Bill 96 to have time to think about this bill.
The federal government's idea of protecting Quebec is to introduce a law on bilingualism that gives equal weight to English and French in Quebec. We know that when given the option, companies choose English. It is the same thing with Roxham Road. Quebec is told no. It is the same thing for health transfers. The federal government is unreliable. We cannot depend on it.
Our seniors needed money before the election. They got a $500 cheque before the election. However, when it comes time to protect our seniors after the election, what do they get? They get zero, zip, nada, just a pretty graph in the budget that shows that they are not doing so bad. They are drowning in inflation, but all the government will say is that it hopes they know how to swim. The Liberals are unreliable when it comes time to protect Quebec in any way whatsoever.
It is the same story with the Synergie Mirabel seniors' home project in my riding. Sixty people with diminishing abilities are waiting for the Minister of Transport to give them the right to housing. We are still awaiting an answer. The Liberals are still mucking about.
When it comes time to protect Quebec, the federal government is always unreliable. The Liberals' and the federal government's efforts to protect Quebec make me think of a saying: Put a fox in charge of the henhouse and you'll have chicken for dinner every time.
Well, we will not allow ourselves to end up on the dinner table. Quebec's history in the federation is a history of declining political power. That is enshrined in this bill, which is incomplete and does not do what it is supposed to. Quebec needs 25% of the seats in the House, but that is only a temporary measure.
What we ultimately want is for Quebec, as a nation, to have the right to all the tools that a nation should have. Once Quebec is independent, it will have 100% of the seats and will not be reduced to crossing the border to beg Ottawa for scraps.
1643 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the decision to do what they have done with adding and subtracting seats has to do with population. I think that is a big factor that goes into it.
The bill seeks to make sure that Quebec does not lose its seats. In effect, it creates a floor of ridings across the country, with redistribution increasing seats in areas where the population has grown at a more rapid rate. I think it was something put in place by the Stephen Harper government. It has a good legacy there, and so I look forward to seeing what the new ridings they come up with would be and how that is going to impact the distribution of seats in the future as well.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C‑14. I will start by talking about the principles that have always underpinned the NDP's work in the House. I will then talk about how we could adapt this chamber to reflect the values of Canadians, thereby ensuring that this place is the House of Commons that Canadians across the country truly want.
Let me get back to Bill C‑14. Ever since the NDP has held seats in this House, it has fought to ensure that all Canadians are represented. We, of course, agree that Quebec should have a guaranteed level of representation in the House of Commons, and that provision is included in the supply and confidence agreement that the member for Burnaby South signed on behalf of the NDP with the Liberal government. This is why the bill before us today would ensure that Quebec has a guaranteed level of representation in the House of Commons. The NDP believes that 78 seats for Quebec is an important and fundamental principle.
As my colleagues know, when we look at the provinces and territories of Canada, such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the provinces of Atlantic Canada, Nunavut, Yukon or the Northwest Territories, we always see this principle of a minimum threshold of representation. It is not a new idea; it has already been implemented. In the agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party, the NDP forced the government to act, because it is important. Obviously, the NDP will be supporting this bill because it makes sense.
Although we will be voting in favour of this bill, we must also remember that it is missing something, and that is the important notion of proportional representation. I will remind the House that a few years ago, in 2015, our Prime Minister promised that the election that had just taken place would be the last non-proportional election, a promise he was quick to break. However, if proportional representation were applied to Quebec, it would greatly change the composition of the House of Commons.
As it did again a few minutes ago during the speech by the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, for whom I have a great deal of respect, the Bloc claims that there should be more Bloc members in the House of Commons. However, that is precisely where the Bloc is failing Quebeckers.
The Bloc Québécois has more members than it would have been entitled to under proportional representation, since it received far fewer votes. The Bloc would have had seven fewer MPs, so those who voted for the Bloc are actually over-represented in the House. Who would have had more MPs with proportional representation? The NDP, which would have a total of eight MPs in Quebec.
The idea of a minimum threshold for Quebec representation is important, but we need to go further. We need to implement proportional representation. If that were the case, there would be fewer Liberal members, fewer Bloc members and more NDP members, because that is what Quebeckers decided in the last election.
When we look at representation in the House, we cannot forget this important element. It is not just about the number of seats. At the end of the day, the members who are elected must be elected in a way that respects the voters' choice. The NDP has been advocating for this principle for years.
For Quebeckers, the fact that we do not have proportional representation means there are fewer New Democrats and more Bloc members in the House than there should be. Far fewer people voted for the Bloc in Quebec, so the number of Bloc members is not representative.
The same goes for the Liberal Party. There should be fewer Liberal MPs representing Quebec in the House. Here again, because we do not have proportional representation, there are more Liberal MPs in Quebec than the number of votes justifies.
The NDP will always advocate for an electoral system in which every vote counts. That is an important principle. When we look at what is happening in other countries, where every vote counts, we see that the most progressive and innovative parties are the ones that end up with the most elected members. This extremely important element should be part of every discussion about representation.
Determining who has the right to vote is another very important element. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, British Columbia, has introduced a bill related to this issue. People 16 and 17 years of age must be allowed to vote. In a few weeks, all members of the House of Commons will be tested for cynicism. Will they say that the right to vote should be extended to 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds?
We already know that these young people are very concerned and that the decisions we make in the House will affect their whole lives. Personally, I have been active within the NDP since I was 14, and I do not accept the argument by some hon. members that 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds should not be allowed to vote because they are too young. They are already working, learning to drive and paying taxes, yet they are not allowed to vote. It is strange. It should not be this way.
That is why I fully support Bill C‑210. All NDP MPs support it. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has already noted that 16- and 17-year-olds have been asking members to vote in favour of this bill. We must expand the right to vote to these people who are already fully contributing to our society.
This is an extremely important part of representation. I hope that every MP will hear the message that young people are sending and give these young Canadians the chance to vote in the next election. Since these young people will be affected the most by the decisions we make or do not make in the House of Commons, it is extremely important that they have the opportunity to have a say in their own future.
This is the fundamental question, when we go beyond the idea that certain regions of our country have minimum representation in the House of Commons. This is something that has already been granted to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Atlantic provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as well as the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, an extraordinary region of our country, and the Yukon. In those regions of the country, we already have a minimum level of representation. What this bill does is simply extend that to Quebec.
It is for that reason, and for historic reasons as well. There is no doubt that Quebec represents a nation in Canada. We voted on this in the House of Commons, and it makes very real sense to adopt this bill.
However, this is not the only aspect of representation that we need to be tackling. This is where we get to the issue of a reform of our electoral system.
Members know well that if we actually had in place a proportional system of voting, with electoral reform, like so many other countries have, we would actually see in the House of Commons far fewer Conservatives, far fewer Liberals and far more New Democrats. As we know, in the last election Canadians voted in vast numbers for the NDP, and there should be over 60 NDP MPs in the House of Commons, but we do not have proportional voting. Our electoral system, first past the post, ensures that only one of the parties is represented, despite the fact that Canadians divide up in a much more even way between the traditional old parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and the New Democrats. Having in place proportional voting, mixed member proportional representation, would make a difference in how the House of Commons is put together.
As we know, in the last two elections, we have seen minority Parliaments that Canadians have decided on, even with the first-past-the-post system. What the NDP has done with that, with the mighty strength of our 25 members of Parliament, is push the government to finally do the right thing. The confidence and supply agreement, as we have seen, has made a significant difference in the lives of Canadians.
We are seeing put into place a national dental care program, something that has been talked about for decades. Now it is finally happening. For decades, we have had a growing homelessness and an affordability crisis in housing, and now finally that is being addressed through the confidence and supply agreement. It is because it is a minority Parliament that the NDP is able to push hard so that Canadians actually get the benefits, finally, after decades of inaction, both from Liberal and Conservative governments. I do not single out one or the other. It has been lamentable, how we have seen massive giveaways to the ultrarich and to the banks and billionaires develop over time. At the same time, Canadians are being neglected. Seniors are being neglected. Families are being neglected, and young people are being neglected.
We have seen a complete lack of respect and responsibility in terms of actually ensuring a future for indigenous peoples. We have seen how, over time, our federal institutions have been eroded, but now, with two consecutive minority Parliaments, Canadians can start seeing that they can have confidence again that the government may actually do the right thing and respond to the affordable housing crisis, respond to the crises we see in indigenous communities, respond to the climate crisis and respond, as well, to the fact that most Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. Things like dental care and pharmacare would make a significant difference in their quality of life.
Putting in place that electoral reform would mean that the House of Commons would actually reflect how Canadians vote, as opposed to a first-past-the-post system where majorities are magnified. Both Conservatives and Liberals have not had 50% of the vote, but they have had far more than 50% of the power; they have had 100% of the power with majority governments. We saw how that acted out in the dismal decade of the Harper government. We have seen how far short the Liberals fell with the majority government, which did virtually nothing for Canadians.
Now, in a minority Parliament situation, which would happen more often and more significantly under an electoral reform and a voting system where every vote counts, we would be able to achieve more for Canadians. The neglect of regular Canadians that we have seen over decades, while hundreds of billions have been given in handouts to banks and billionaires in overseas tax havens, would have to cease, because ultimately the NDP would have a greater representation in the House and be able to push hard for a better response to what working people are going through.
It is not just about electoral reform in the sense of proportional representation; it is also about giving younger people a voice. That is why I want to pay tribute to the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for presenting Bill C-210 in the House. All members of Parliament will have to vote on this important initiative. Bill C-210 would give 16- and 17-year-olds the full right as Canadians to finally be able to vote in federal elections.
This is fundamentally important. With the climate crisis, we are seeing things change in our country. Last year, in my area of Burnaby and New Westminster and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, we saw over 600 people die in the sweltering temperatures of the heat dome provoked by the climate crisis. Many of the people who died were simply unable to leave their apartments and did not have air conditioning in place. The emergency systems were overloaded. Ambulances simply could not keep up. Firefighters stepped in. This occurred over a number of days, as hundreds of people died. I spoke with emergency workers and first responders who said that if it had gone on for another couple of days, it would have led to a collapse of our emergency response system.
Therefore, for governments to not respond to the magnitude of the climate crisis for decades is absolutely irresponsible, and I blame the Conservatives and the Liberals equally. Young people in this country understand that, so by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote, I believe we will cause a substantial change in voting patterns and the composition of the House of Commons, because young Canadians will no longer accept an ostrich-style response to the climate crisis that is now upon us. Giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote gives them a stake in their own future. The bad decisions that have been made over the last few decades will fundamentally change with an influx of voters who understand what is at stake with respect to the climate crisis.
With respect to representation, this bill, in a very limited scope, does one good thing, but we expect the government to move further on keeping its promises. We all remember in 2015 when the Prime Minister stood up and announced, with the eyes of the nation on him, that it would be the last first-past-the-post election, and won a majority government as a result. He promptly broke that promise and has not had a majority government since, because what Canadians have been saying to him and to the Liberal government is that they simply will not accept a situation in which 30% or 32% of the vote gives 100% of the power. As members well know, a minority Parliament situation allows for real discussions about the future of our country and what Canadians need to be brought to the forefront of the House of Commons.
I have been in this House as an elected member of Parliament in a number of majority Parliaments, and we need to have a Parliament that reflects how Canadians vote. I hope that legislation will be forthcoming in the coming years.
2400 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/16/22 4:39:48 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, over the years one of the things that I have learned, whether it was with Stephen Harper when he was prime minister all the way to today, there are some significant tensions between China and Taiwan and it does have an impact around the world, including Canada. I have full confidence that the Minister of Foreign Affairs is working with the different departments to ensure that first and foremost Canadian interests are met and our Canadian values are espoused around the world. That is something which we in the Liberal caucus take very seriously.
96 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate this opportunity. As I have made clear to my constituents, I will ensure that their voices are always heard in this place. It is an honour to speak to some of the incredibly important issues pertaining to democracy in our country.
Let me unpack a bit what Bill C-14 is about. When it comes to the process of our constituencies, which is part of the reality of our national democratic system, every 10 years, according to our constitutional framework, a census is taken and a redistribution takes place. This is key. As I share often with my constituents, having a fair, clear, transparent and trusted process is absolutely key to ensure that democracy is protected in Canada. That is at the crux or the foundation of what we are talking about here today.
I will have a fair amount to say about the way Alberta feels, but I want to unpack a few aspects of Bill C-14.
An hon. member: We can give you lots of time.
Mr. Damien Kurek: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Manitoba for saying that there is lots of time to ensure that I get these things out.
Having a fair, trusted, transparent process is absolutely key, as many of us in this place know and as I share often with constituents. When they ask if they can trust our election system, I say proudly that we can. We need to be diligent to ensure that we do not see an erosion of that trust. That is absolutely key. I can point to various things that the current Liberal government has done over the last number of years that have contributed to an erosion of trust, but we have strength within our democratic system, and it is the distribution of our electoral boundaries that is a key element of that and why Canadians can trust it.
As many of us in this place are aware, the Chief Electoral Officer, in the second half of last year, released a report. As mandated through the Elections Act, he makes a recommendation to Parliament based on the relevant sections of the Constitution Act, 1867, formerly referred to as the British North America Act prior to the repatriation of 1982.
The Chief Electoral Officer is tasked with ensuring that the fundamental principles of representation by population within the House of Commons are respected. As many of us in this place, politicos across the country, observers, those involved in politics and interested Canadians would have noted, the Chief Electoral Officer provided a report based on the most recent census information to ensure that adjustments were made so that this place accurately reflects the population changes that take place within our country.
I come from a province that has had, over its history, significant growth. It has been a little over a century since Alberta became a province, and it was once a largely unpopulated region. Of course, we have our indigenous history and there were settlers and whatnot, but it has grown significantly to the point that Alberta's population is now more than four and a half million. Because Alberta has had a significant growth in population, it is key that representation by population be reflected within its representation in this place.
When the Chief Electoral Officer released the report this past year, it started that process to address “inequities”, which I say specifically, to ensure that the people of Alberta have representation within this place. Specifically, the recommendation was that Alberta should get three additional seats. Two other provinces also experienced population growth that was higher than the national average and were given an additional seat, and the Chief Electoral Officer recommended that Quebec lose one seat.
I understand the feeling of concern that my friends and colleagues, within this party and other parties, have when it comes to our voices not being heard and to reduced representation. I know that members of the Conservative caucus, when an opposition motion was brought forward by the Bloc Québécois, had outlined opposition to Quebec losing a seat. There was, I believe, an almost even split when it comes to how the Conservative caucus felt on that matter.
As a side note, the fact that there are those divides within the Conservative caucus speaks to how democracy is truly represented well within the Conservative Party of Canada. We disagree on things. In fact, as I reflect over my now close to two and a half years since being elected, a lot of issues come up, whether they relate to issues of the day or policy, that Conservatives will not necessarily clearly agree on. We agree on lots of the big-picture stuff; that is why we are Conservatives, but we may disagree on aspects of it, and that is okay. I note that it is concerning to me that other parties within this place seem to be unable to express those differences. They look at that disagreement as a weakness, but I would suggest, certainly given the feedback that I hear from Canadians, that it is in fact a strength.
The debate on that motion took place, and the Conservatives, endeavouring to show leadership on the national stage, moved a motion to address concerns. The Leader of the Opposition voted in favour of the Bloc motion because of the dynamics associated with the province of Manitoba, which she represents, and the concern that if a precedent were set, rural areas or smaller provinces may at some point lose representation.
I understand how that can be a concern. I live in a very fast-growing and populous province, and I am proud of that, but I do live in a rural region. The largest community in my constituency has about 18,000 people. Then it is down to 10,000, a couple with around 5,000 and then more than 60 self-governing municipalities ranging in size from 132 people up to 18,000.
Since the agricultural revolution, there has been a trend toward urbanization. The concern I hear often is about the divide that exists when it comes to ensuring that rural Canada, rural Alberta and the region I specifically represent still have a voice and the ability to be heard so that our democracy is responsive to the realities that exist in a jurisdiction where there may be some stagnation of growth.
As we are now faced with Bill C-14, I note that the Conservative compromise is basically what the Liberals have moved forward in Bill C-14. I further note that this speaks to the maturity, ability and competence represented within Canada's official opposition.
Bill C-14, very simply, would amend the floor for the minimum number of seats that a province would have within our electoral system. It was set in the 1988 census, if my memory holds true, and is current up until this point. Until the bill is passed, this is the current floor, and in most provinces that looks a little different, including Quebec. The bill would basically change the floor from the current status quo.
Conservatives proposed that compromise because it got to the heart of the matter in ensuring that there would not be that feeling of disenfranchisement in jurisdictions that may not be as fast-growing, while also respecting the fact that representation by population is a key and foundational part of Canada's democratic infrastructure.
I would be remiss if I did not engage in the very relevant conversation of democratic reform within this place. When I look at our nation's history, I see the fathers of Confederation, those who laid the foundation and framework for what our country is today, very clearly and in the first lines of what is now known as the Constitution Act, 1867, but was then known as the British North America Act. When Canada became a nation, on July 1, 1867, the constitutional framework very clearly said it would be a government similar in construct to that of the British government, with the Westminster system of Parliament.
Now, it went on to acknowledge something that is very important, and that is the regional realities within Canada. In 1867, there were four provinces in the federation, which had a very different regional reality than we face today, as our country has grown significantly. However, that regional reality does exist.
My submission here today, and certainly what I hear often from constituents, is the fact that we have inequity in our democratic infrastructure, which includes the House of Commons, the House of the common people, which is similar in construct to that of the United Kingdom. Its representation is by population. The key balance to that is ensuring that there is a regional counterweight, so to speak. Unfortunately, that has not evolved as our country has grown.
My submission today is that, as we talk about the need for democratic reform and this specific amendment to the Constitution to address some of the feelings of alienation, which Alberta certainly knows well, we have to be willing to have the conversation to address the inequity that exists in the other place, Canada's Senate. It is based on and is similar in construct and procedure to the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, but its members are appointed through a somewhat different mechanism, with that regional representation.
In Canada's early days, there was more of that regional balance. However, it has not kept up. Alberta has six senators when the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec both have 24. I bring that up because that does not truly represent regional balance.
Alberta, specifically, is under-represented in this place, when one does the math on the number of people. Even after these changes are implemented, and there is the addition of three seats, after whenever Parliament considers and presumably implements the changes associated with the electoral boundaries commissions across Canada, Alberta will remain somewhat under-represented, although it would take a step in the right direction with three additional seats for our province.
I know the Liberals are quick to dismiss this, which I hear about so often. I know I had a take-note debate when one of the parliamentary secretaries, who happened to represent a riding from the greater Toronto area, was unfortunately dismissive of the concerns related to why Senate reform is so very important. If there was that fair regional balance, it would be very easy for those regions of our country that are less populated, and that have unique regional dynamics, to have that clear representation in a place that has, in most capacities, other than the ability to introduce bills of spending, the exact same authority as the House of Commons. That piece is missing.
As I have mentioned, I hear from constituents who are feeling that concept of western alienation in Alberta. It is a real thing. Any of the Liberal-NDP members or otherwise who dismiss that, do so at their own peril, because Albertans have expressed to me, and not just to me but to many other colleagues from Alberta and across the country, that they understand it as a very real concern, so to be willing to have that conversation is absolutely fundamental.
I would further note that there are some incredible people who serve and have served in Canada's Senate, and I am proud to sit in a caucus with a number of them. However, I hear quite often that, as the Prime Minister has promised to fix the process, Albertans have said very clearly that they do not want to participate. I say that because Alberta elects its senators, which has been dismissed by members of the government. I bring that up in this debate because it is part of the process of ensuring that democracy is responsive. I fully respect that not every province may want an elected Senate, but I would think that the very minimum level of respect that should be offered to a jurisdiction such as the province of Alberta would be for the leader of the country to respect the fact that we have chosen to do things a little differently.
In the case of Alberta, in coordination with either a provincial or municipal election, we elect senators in waiting. There are currently three of them, and they were elected just this past October. They ran in campaigns and made their case to the people of Alberta, who got to choose. That is key. Democracy worked.
Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the government have refused to acknowledge both the validity of those elections and their importance. They will say they fixed the process. They blame Stephen Harper and suggest that somehow Albertans simply need to be educated on these matters. There is a very clear precedent, set not just by Stephen Harper, but by a number of prime ministers, that shows this process actually works. It is the minimum level of respect that should be offered to the province of Alberta.
I would simply note this: When I have asked questions about this in question period, the members opposite have suggested that somehow the Prime Minister's process is superior. I will not go into an explanation at length as to why I would suggest that is patently false, but what I would share with members today is that the best system, the best formula, is always democracy and the people making the choices. I will also note for the record, as I am sure many Canadians are watching, that at least two of the senators in waiting have filed their paperwork through the Prime Minister's transparent process, and I say “transparent” sarcastically. It is key that respect be offered to the province of Alberta.
As we debate and have the conversation around Bill C-14 and the specific reasons why the debate is important, which I hope I have been able to outline adequately for the House, we need to be willing to ensure that our democratic infrastructure in this country is preserved. This is certainly a unique position, having the confidence of members of this place to be heard. I appreciate that affirmation as, since I was first elected, I have assured the people of Battle River—Crowfoot that I would be heard in this place.
I would note that it was the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party, the leader of the NDP and the coalition partnership, who chose to vote against me being heard. I think my views on the Liberals and the NDP are quite well known. I would suggest that speaks to how I am affirmed in my need, my desire and the confidence of the people of Battle River—Crowfoot to continue being heard in this place in whatever way possible to ensure that the interests of east central Alberta are heard within the House of Commons.
2512 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
