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
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and somewhat excited to rise on this beautiful Monday morning in June to speak to Bill C‑246, which was introduced by my valiant colleague from Drummond. This bill would provide that the total number of members from Quebec could not be less than 25% of the total number of members in the House of Commons.
I first want to clarify one thing, since we have heard quite a lot about the idea of representation by population. As a history buff, I have read a lot about these issues. In my humble opinion, it was quite deceitful, back when it all started in 1867, to shift from equal representation between the two so-called founding peoples to proportional representation just as French-Canadians were being outnumbered. I should mention that the notion of founding peoples is, in itself, highly controversial, given that this country and this regime were founded on subjugation. Proportional representation was certainly never considered when the proportion of French-Canadians was higher. I would call this a historical scam.
I have no problem saying that this so-called Confederation, with its two so-called founding peoples, is a historical scam. Canadian Confederation was brought in through the back door. After that, the only natural path to take was to slowly but steadily reduce the Quebec nation to a minority. That minority is now getting smaller and smaller, which will give us an increasingly smaller voice in decision making in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, we are on our way to becoming a minority that will no longer command respect or consideration.
As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois wants to see Quebec become an independent country. However, we are also here to stop our decline. We are here to fight, to make gains, but also to stop our decline, and this bill does that. As long as we are in this system, we have to find ways to stop this decline. We have to cope with our losses, unfortunately.
I want to remind members of one very important detail. Last March, the House adopted a Bloc motion with an overwhelming majority of 261 to 66. The motion stated that “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”. The part about not reducing our political weight in the House is the important part, but it is also the part that seems to be forgotten. That is what our motion said. It is not only about the number of seats, but also about the political weight.
Bill C-14, which is also under debate, is being presented to us as a win, a success. We have heard in the House that the bill in question would not reduce the number of members. However, the number of members means absolutely nothing if the relative weight drops. If Quebec keeps the same number of seats but more seats are added in the House, that means that Quebec's weight is being reduced. That is not hard to figure out. In the end, the exact number of seats is far less important than the relative weight.
We are asking for 25% because, as a so-called founding people and nation recognized as distinct, it does not seem unreasonable to ask for a quarter of the seats. Given Quebec's needs and its distinct interests and values, this does not seem unreasonable. Twenty-five per cent is also what was negotiated as part of the Charlottetown accord in 1992, based on the fact that Quebec is a distinct society. Although the accord never came into force, the text itself was approved by the House of Commons. That agreement was not without problems, however. The Bloc, which was newly created at the time, was against it. The sovereignist movement was against it.
Far from being perfect and satisfactory, the 25% was actually not so bad given the context. We were not upset about the objective. This agreement was proposed by Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party, even though the Reform Party of the time was opposed. It was also supported by John Turner's Liberal Party, although rejected by the centralist wing of the Liberal Party of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The NDP also supported this protection for Quebec's political weight. As the previous speaker reminded us, the NDP member for Compton—Stanstead proposed a rather similar bill in 2011. However, the bar was set a little lower, at 23.9%, representing Quebec's weight at the time.
In 2006, Stephen Harper's government passed a motion making Quebec a nation within a united Canada. This motion was somewhat questionable, as it was assumed that Quebec was not a nation outside of Quebec. Furthermore, the English wording differed from the French wording. However, the motion was a form of recognition of the existence of a Quebec nation.
In June 2021, the House of Commons overwhelmingly recognized Quebec as a French nation. Our national status must have concrete political implications, not just symbolic ones. In particular, there must be consideration for Quebec's difference, its interests and its values in Ottawa's approach, legislation and policies.
We need assurance that Quebec will have the representation it needs to ensure that its interests and values are heard. However, Quebec's weight has been in steady decline, with its demographic share falling from 36% in 1867 to 28.6% in 1947, 26.6% in 1976, 24.9% in 1999 and 23.1% in 2015. The most recent proposal of the Chief Electoral Officer amounts to 22.5%, which makes no sense. We responded with our motion a few months ago. As our demographic weight decreases, it is obvious that our weight in the House will decrease as a result of the legacy of this destructive system known as the 1867 Confederation.
We also know that the government has announced plans to dramatically increase the total number of immigrants. Quebec cannot bring in twice as many immigrants. It is already doing its part, and francization is, for the most part, not up to par as it is, so it is not like we can magically increase Quebec's demographic weight from one day to the next.
Let us remember that Quebec's culture is unique. Ours is the only jurisdiction in North America whose official common language is French. Our origins as a nation go back to the days of New France, to the coureurs des bois. We are a self-made people with a unique social model that reflects our own values. We must have the opportunity to exist as a political entity, not just an insignificant symbolic entity. If Quebec declines, both the French language and our unique culture will decline as well.
Recognizing our distinct character means protecting the Quebec nation's weight, not just by ensuring Quebec does not lose any seats, but also by making sure that, whenever seats are added, Quebec gets some too. I am well aware that some people think this is unfair. That is what they said when we were debating our motion a few months ago. People said those whiny Quebeckers were demanding special treatment yet again.
I want to take a moment here to point out that there are specific provisions in the Constitution Act that protect the provinces without anyone taking exception. The senatorial clause, for example, ensures that no province has fewer members of Parliament than senators. This guarantees four seats for Prince Edward Island, even though, by population, it should have just one. The grandfather clause ensures that no province will have fewer members of Parliament after an electoral redistribution than it had in 1985. This protects the number of seats of the maritime provinces and Saskatchewan. There is also a provision that guarantees one member of Parliament for each of the territories, even though the population would warrant just one member for all the territories.
Some observers have said that the addition of a clause to protect Quebec's weight would require constitutional talks and would have to be passed by seven provinces representing 50% of the population. That is incorrect. In 1987, the Campbell decision recognized that there were some legitimate exceptions to ensure effective representation and that Parliament had the power to adopt such exceptions. That is why I believe this bill is both necessary and urgent.
There are real consequences to the loss of political power, in particular the list of competing interests or, at the very least, priority interests for Quebec. Quebec has its National Assembly, which is the only parliament where Quebec has 100% of the seats. There have been innumerable unanimous motions, which I will not go into here.
The nation that had—
1487 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this feels like a bad movie. It is déjà vu all over again. Quebeckers and Canadians elected a minority government in the hope it would have to negotiate each and every one of its bills, which would result in good, well-thought-out bills and allow democracy to function.
However, the smaller opposition party hitched its wagon to the government. That reminds me of the fable of the frog and the ox. The frog wanted to be as big as the ox, so it swelled and swelled. That is what the NDP has been doing for years. It has been puffing itself up and trying to be as big as the ox.
In the fable, though, the frog ends up bursting. Having decided it might be better not to burst like the frog, the NDP decided to be swallowed up by the ox. The New Democrats allowed themselves to be consumed by the ox. They sold their soul to the devil. Now what? They think they can win by constantly gagging the House of Commons, which is the only power available to them as the government's lap dog.
The frog will not burst at this point, but I hope that, come the next election, it will be squelched by Quebec and Canadian democracy.
My question is simple and is directed at the two parties that are constantly voting to invoke closure. Are you not embarrassed about what you are doing to democracy?
248 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for giving me the opportunity to remind the House that there have been 80 speakers and 42 hours of debate, including 15 hours here in the House and 27 in committee.
The fact is that Canadians and Quebeckers need the measures set out in the budget. We are talking about the entire luxury tax, important changes to the Competition Act to protect Canadian businesses, workers and consumers, and the expansion of health care rebates for charitable organizations.
We have had a thorough debate. It is time to move forward for Canadians, and that is exactly what we will do.
105 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have no doubt that the member for Winnipeg North could have continued speaking for some time. I will make him happy and start with his last statement, which referred to child care. We are pleased that this has now been established in the rest of the country and that Quebec has served as the model. That makes us very proud.
I would invite my colleagues in the House to remember this example when the Bloc asks for the right to opt out of the next few Canada-wide programs with full compensation. The right to opt out was a big factor in making this possible, as was recognition of the fact that Quebec already had a good system. For me, it is a mark of respect.
Not only did the federal government take our model and implement it elsewhere, it gave Quebec its share of the money it was owed without telling it what to do. The phrase “without telling it what to do” will come up a few times in my speech today when I speak about the conditions that are set to be imposed in various areas.
I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-19. I will begin by criticizing its huge omnibus format. When the government claims to properly study bills and practise true democracy and freedom of speech, how can it seriously introduce a 500-page bill that amends 37 acts?
Several provisions involving minor amendments to legislation have garnered consensus. However, the bill also proposes other extraordinarily important and complex measures.
For example, there is the employment insurance reform, which, as I have said before, deserves to be studied separately and in depth. The current system helps too few workers in Quebec and Canada, and I find that unacceptable. I do not want to get too deeply into this, but I am not sure that anyone would hire me as an insurance salesman if I tried to sell homeowner’s insurance by telling prospective customers that the company would only pay four times out of ten in the case of a loss. This is what we are telling workers with this program, so an in-depth reform is necessary.
This omnibus bill makes it seem like the Liberal government is taking advantage of its deal with the NDP and the so-called majority it gives them to have a pile of legislation passed quickly. Still, we are more or less in favour of this bill, and we will continue to improve it, as we are doing now.
I would like to talk about cider and, especially, mead. Representatives of both these industries approached us to tell us that the reintroduction of the excise tax on July 1 makes no sense. Australia’s complaint, which led to the reintroduction of the tax, concerned wine, not cider or mead. These financially sound but more marginal productions are expanding and are the pride of several regions of Quebec. They did not deserve to be taxed. Their representatives were very anxious and approached our members to speak on their behalf.
I would like to publicly congratulate my colleague from Joliette who, with his team, did extraordinary work in committee and succeeded in having cider and mead exempted from the definition. I am very proud, we are happy, and this is one of the improvements I was talking about.
We also raised a few concerns voiced by charities, which feared they would be once again subjected to a mountain of paperwork in the restrictions, although the basis of Bill S-216 was positive. We will be keeping a close watch on that. We are keeping a close watch, and we will follow up.
As for the rest of Bill C-19, there are no measures we find strongly objectionable. For that reason, we are more or less in favour of it. Among other things, there is not much about oil subsidies, which is good. There is not much about nuclear energy. We are aware that that is coming but, for now, we have no position on the subject.
The numerous encroachments promised in the Liberal Party's budget, including encroachments on health care with the dental insurance plan, are not yet upon us. This allows us to take a step back and look at what is constructive in the bill. For one thing, it contains urgent measures that we approve of, such as the additional five weeks of EI benefits for seasonal workers. That is a positive measure in our eyes.
The Bloc Québécois offers constructive opposition. When proposals make sense, we are happy and we say so. When they do not make sense, however, we do not say that the government is lousy and that what it is doing makes no sense. We say that we think the government should try looking at the situation from such and such an angle. Quebeckers can count on us to keep doing this.
Obviously, there are the health transfers. We hope to get our way someday, even if it is not looking that way right now. This subject will always remain a bone of contention, but we will take the $2 billion offered, since it will give us some breathing room. The same goes for the $750 million for public transit.
There are also some good intentions, but we will need to work to make sure that they are implemented properly. I am thinking, among other things, about the tax treatment of companies that adopt zero-emission manufacturing processes. We will have to watch out for hidden subsidies for fossil fuels. The Bloc believes that we must eliminate the fossil fuel subsidies and begin transitioning to alternative energy sources. With respect to the ridiculous carbon capture projects for oil wells, we have seen the results they yield in other countries and the disasters they cause when they go wrong, because they do go wrong. I do not think we have the right to go down that rabbit hole. Right now, with climate change being what it is, we need to be diligent, but above all cautious. Let us be smart about this and move in the right direction.
We like the proposed amendments to the Competition Act to prevent collusion and abuse of power. At the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, we studied the problems with competition among shipping container companies. During the pandemic, prices jumped from around $3,000 to more than $25,000 over the course of a year or a year and a half. That is outrageous. The container industry is concentrated in the hands of a few key players, so there is work to be done.
We also need to keep an eye on telecommunications companies' billing practices. I would like to see the hidden fees exposed. I think that that is also something positive.
The important thing is overall consistency. I also think it is good that pension fund managers would be forced to provide details on investments in things like fossil fuels. That is the first step in transitioning to green energy. I encourage anyone who is interested in this to take a look at the Bloc Québécois's platform or to talk to my colleague from Mirabel, who is very familiar with this issue. Our platform contains solutions, and we suggest some approaches that we would like to explore.
The luxury tax is a tricky topic, however. Everyone agrees with the principle of a luxury tax, but we need to be careful about how we proceed. The Bloc Québécois has expressed a number of concerns and reservations about this tax, mainly because we want to protect our aerospace industry. This industry should not have to wait so long for a rebate if it turns out that the tax does not apply.
We need to be smart and consistent here, to ensure that we do not hurt our businesses. I am thinking about the 35% surcharge on Russian fertilizer, for example. Everyone agrees on the principle, but I want to reiterate that when this surcharge is applied to orders placed and paid for in the fall, before the conflict started, it ends up penalizing our producers instead of the Russians. The government does not seem interested in creating an exemption.
If a government wants to impose measures, it needs to make sure they are done right.
1416 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say, from living in Quebec, is that we have had a price on carbon pollution for over a decade. It has existed for a very long time and has helped Quebeckers like me make the transition to electric vehicles. I now own one.
With regard to the affordability of life, I am very proud of the initiatives we put forward to help families get by. The Canada child benefit has been a game-changer. Hundreds of thousands of children have been lifted out of poverty, making life more affordable. It is indexed to inflation so that as the cost of goods goes up, these families will receive more. We cut taxes for middle-class families too, which was the very first thing we did when we came into power, putting hundreds of dollars more into the pockets of families, while increasing taxes on the richest 1%, those who do not need help.
We are continually looking for ways to make life more affordable for families and we are going to deliver on that.
180 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Thank you, Madam Speaker. You interrupted my flow.
I was thanking Ali Agougou and encouraging him to keep up the demanding, top-quality work. He is the vice-president of an association representing Quebec honey wine producers. He called my office to tell us that it makes no sense, that these producers are small local operations that do not make enough to export and should therefore not be taxed. Since they should continue to be exempt, he asked us whether the Bloc Québécois could do something.
I immediately contacted our agriculture critic, the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who is Quebec's farming sector's staunchest defender. I also contacted the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who is an international trade expert. I contacted other MPs, including our finance critic, to hear what they had to say. We realized that this was very serious for producers. If Bill C‑19 was not amended, it would have a major economic impact on their sector.
We worked hard, and the producers shared their experience. After that, the committee looked at it. The finance critic really convinced the committee members that this was a good thing, not just for Quebec producers, but for Canadian producers as well. Apple cider and honey wine were exempted from the excise tax through an amendment to Bill C‑19.
When I rise in the House, I say that I speak for the people who elected me. I do this work for Cidrerie du Minot, Frier Orchards, Capsule Temporelle, Cidrerie Hinchinbrooke, Ferme Black Creek—which I see every Wednesday at the farmer's market in Huntingdon— Cidrerie Entre Terre & Pierre, Domaine des Salamandres and Verger Hemmingford.
I am so pleased that I was able to help draw attention to their problem and that, in the end, we are working together to unanimously change Bill C‑19 to their benefit and ours. I am sure that we all like apple cider and honey wine from Quebec. Everyone loves that. That is what people say, and the member for Jonquière agrees with me too, which means I am right.
A member of our caucus discovered other things in this bill, including a change to a provision governing the Social Security Tribunal of Canada. The member could not understand how this change ended up in this omnibus bill since the provision had nothing to do with the budget. In fact, it responded more to a long-standing request from some unions.
Our critic, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville pushed the minister for a timeline for the comprehensive employment insurance reform, which this change was supposed to be part of. We know that the minister has been putting off this reform almost indefinitely, but our member did not give up. She fought and argued at the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities to convince her colleagues that this change was inappropriate, that we should leave it out of the bill and instead take the time to study the matter.
I was once a minister's chief of staff. When drafting a bill, it is important to go out and consult your base to confirm whether what you are presenting makes sense. In this case, it was so absurd that all the unions opposed what was written in the bill. I saw our critic, the member for Thérèse-De Blainville, in committee. She was passionate and thorough. She used to be the president of a major union in Quebec, and she vigorously defended the importance of removing this from the bill, so that all parliamentarians would have time to properly study and improve the EI reform, for the benefit of workers and unions, but also the government.
These contributions and gains are based on rigour, and the members of the Bloc Québécois are certainly rigorous. I heard false accusations this morning about how our party is blocking and obstructing work. That is totally false, as anyone will tell you. Anyone who works directly or indirectly with members of the Bloc Québécois knows that we work to achieve gains, make compromises and get positive results for the well-being of the people we represent in Quebec.
I would like to commend the member for Thérèse-De Blainville for her perseverance and determination. She managed to convince the government, even before the motion was adopted in committee, to remove this from Bill C-19.
I have two minutes left to explain to the House that there is a small amendment that we would have liked to discuss. It has to do with the luxury tax. It must be said that the Bloc Québécois truly agrees with the principle of a luxury tax. However, when we began talking to witnesses and to people in Quebec, we realized that, because of the way it was worded, this clause was going to have major repercussions for the aerospace industry and was expected to cause major problems.
We asked that the luxury tax clause be changed and rewritten. Since we did not want to delay the passage of Bill C‑19, we suggested that the clause be removed rather than kept so that we could take the time to carefully listen to the pros and cons of the luxury tax. Unfortunately, that was not possible. The NDP and the Liberals adopted the clause as written anyway, even though it will really penalize part of Quebec's aerospace industry, which is mainly concentrated in Montreal.
In summary, Bill C‑19 is a big bill. The Bloc Québécois worked very hard and achieved gains for Quebec and Quebeckers. We are very pleased about that. We will soon hear from my colleague, the member for Jonquière, who will tell us more about that. The Bloc Québécois is a political party that is hard-working, thorough, persistent and determined, and we want people to understand that we are here, in the House, to make advances for Quebec and Quebec businesses.
1051 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
