44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 6, 2022 11:00AM
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C‑246.
Since the NDP has already introduced a similar bill in the House of Commons, it will be supporting Bill C‑246.
I will talk about what Bill C‑246 does and does not do. For my 10 minutes of speaking time, I hope to cover the entire file.
As we know, for a long time now, since adopting the Sherbrooke declaration under our former leader, Jack Layton, the NDP has always taken steps to ensure that Quebeckers are represented in the House of Commons and that Quebec's weight is not reduced. In fact, that is part of the traditions of our Confederation. There has long been a floor on the provinces' representation. For instance, each of the territories is allocated one member, even if its population does not necessarily justify this level of representation. In the Canadian Confederation, we have always been able to balance size and representation in the House of Commons. We have to ensure that the territories are represented. It is an important principle that has existed since the founding of our country.
There is also a floor for each of the Atlantic provinces. As everyone knows, Prince Edward Island has four seats in the House of Commons even though the province's population justifies maybe half that many.
The idea is to ensure a minimum level of representation in the House of Commons. Nobody is saying that is bad. Prince Edward Island's population is slightly higher than my riding's, but we are operating on the principle that representation cannot be lower than in the Senate. Some people might think that Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador are overrepresented, but if we look at the number of constituents per MP, that representation principle, the existing floor, is maintained. The same goes for Manitoba and Saskatchewan.
Obviously, if we compare representation in British Columbia, in a riding like mine with 130,000 residents, to representation in other provinces, such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the number of voters per MP is much lower than in mine.
If we look at Quebec, representation for the Quebec nation is about 108,000 people per MP. By comparison, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it is between 76,000 and 80,000 people.
This has been a long-standing principle of our Confederation, and so has the flexibility it allows in terms of representation, which is why the NDP supports Bill C‑246. It is precisely so that Quebec and the Quebec nation can be assured of a minimum of representation in the House of Commons. It just makes sense. There is nothing unusual about this, and the NDP has been advocating for it since we adopted the Sherbrooke declaration. We have even introduced bills to that effect and have always supported similar bills, even when they come from another party. We support this principle. That covers what is in Bill C‑246.
Now I want to talk about what is not in the bill, specifically the whole question of proportional representation. As everyone knows, the NDP has been fighting for proportional representation for quite some time. Yes, we can talk about a certain number of seats for the Quebec nation, the provinces and the territories, but we also really need to look at how these members will be elected.
As we all know, the House of Commons is not elected by proportional representation, and it is unfortunate that Bill C-246 does not include this crucial element. Consequently, not every vote counts.
Because there is no proportional representation, the NDP has been under-represented in Quebec since the last federal election. We should have seven additional members. In other words, based on how Quebeckers voted, they should be represented in the House by eight NDP members. With proportional representation, we would have had eight members from Quebec elected to the House. Other parties would have had fewer. For example, the Bloc Québécois would have had seven fewer members. Without proportional representation in the House, the Bloc is overrepresented, but the NDP is under-represented.
The NDP will of course continue to advocate for this important model. We know that the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois will not support proportional representation because each of those parties benefits from the current electoral system and from the fact that every vote does not necessarily count. For a long time, these parties have always pushed for maintaining the current electoral system even though it is detrimental to voters. I would say that it is particularly detrimental to Quebeckers, as they see that certain parties are overrepresented and the NDP is under-represented.
We went through this in 2015. The Prime Minister rose to say that it was the last time we would have an election with the existing electoral system and that it would be replaced with a proportional voting system. We know very well that it was one of the many Liberal Party promises that he soon forgot about.
Proportional representation is a key element that is not in Bill C‑246, but it is something we must consider if we want to make our institutions more democratic and more effective. The principle that each vote should count is important, no matter whether it is the vote of someone in Shawinigan or in Sherbrooke. I certainly hope that one day, we will have a House of Commons where the number of votes the NDP wins in Quebec is reflected in the number of NDP MPs here in the House.
If we were to implement proportional representation, there were certainly be fewer representatives from the other parties in the House, either from Quebec or from elsewhere in Canada. Furthermore, this voting system would promote co-operation among the parties. We need a system in which all parties can collaborate and work together. Other countries that use a proportional representation system often find that this kind of collaboration creates an environment that fosters innovation, leading to more social services and the adoption of more innovative policies and bills.
1042 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 2:37:42 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, pain at the pumps is a reality across Canada, including in my riding.
As Canadian gas prices soar to record highs, Putin fuels his war by selling Russian energy to the democratic west, yet the Liberal Prime Minister and the New Brunswick Liberal MPs are doubling down on a failed climate agenda that has not met a single emission target.
Will the Prime Minister admit the carbon tax has failed and give Canadians a break at the pumps?
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 2:39:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the member knows very well that in his province of New Brunswick, we have now reduced child care fees by 50%. In fact, that leaves hundreds of dollars each month in the pockets of the mothers he is talking about.
When it comes to the Canada child benefit, for a single mom, that could mean almost $7,000 a year. That is real money for families that need it when it comes to the high cost of living.
We have been there since 2015, and we will continue to be there for them every step of the way.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/6/22 2:50:28 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for his question, as well as for his commitment and leadership on this issue.
While visiting the beautiful area of Miramichi this past week, I was pleased to announce a federal investment of $55 million to connect 11,000 underserved households in New Brunswick to high-speed, affordable Internet.
We are well on our way to connect 98% of Canada by 2026. We know the future of rural Canada lies in affordable, reliable high-speed Internet and we are well on our way.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
