44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 15, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, which he delivered in French. I think that is very much to his credit.
My main take-away from the member's speech was his reference to the infamous representation by population. I could not help but think of the Union Act of 1840. There were two nations at that time. Quebec was forced to unite with Upper Canada following the revolt of the Patriotes, and it was given equal political weight with the rest of Canada. In a way, it was recognized that there were two nations, one that was more French-Canadian at the time and one that was more English-Canadian in Upper Canada, and that they should be given equal weight. When did that change?
This changed when the weight of the population became greater in the rest of Canada than it was in Quebec. It is odd. I would like to know what my colleague thinks. That is the vision of John A. Macdonald, where, now that Quebec has less weight on a population level, we will change the rules of the game. A few years later, we had Brian Mulroney, who proposed giving Quebec a stable 25%, regardless of what happened in the future.
I would like to know whether my colleague sides more with Mr. Macdonald or with Mr. Mulroney.
234 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would simply like to remind the member that the Charlottetown accord, which guaranteed that Quebec would never have less than 25% of the total number of seats in the House of Commons, was rejected by 58% of Quebeckers during a national referendum.
I would also like to quickly tell him that we cannot blame Albertans for the mistakes of Ontarians.
63 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and for some of what he has had to say about the importance of representation by population. It made me think of something more recent than the Constitution Act of 1867: the rules for the Conservative leadership race. These do not have representation by population. Each riding in the country, no matter where it is and no matter how many members there are in that region and in those ridings, is accorded an equal number of points. In fact, I believe those points are distributed on a proportional basis, which is a debate perhaps for another time.
Does he feel the Conservative leadership race should be put on hold until they have a representation by population system in place for their party?
131 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is a wonderful question. I do not think they use proportional voting in the member's own party.
I will mention this: My colleagues know me to be a contrarian, and perhaps it will surprise the member for Elmwood—Transcona that I actually voted in the 2003 merger between the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I was a young Canadian Alliance activist, and I voted no.
74 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 6:42:03 p.m.
- Watch
I will just remind hon. members that partisan politics are not the business of the House.
Questions and comments; the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.
28 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has seen a lot of the country and certainly understands what is taking place. I would like to talk to him about representation by responsibility. He did mention it when he talked about the size of his riding and compared it with some of the rural ridings that we see all around the country. Certainly in Alberta, in one riding we could have 40 different municipalities that one has to be responsible for. It may take hours or days to get there and back.
Could he comment on how that also tends to affect the ability of members of Parliament to represent their communities?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did mention it. There have been Supreme Court decisions and lower court decisions on this. In Canada, what is most important is what is called effective representation. In court decisions, that has been the way to nuance representation by population, which were the great debates that led to eventual Confederation in 1867. The courts have found that effective representation is a concept that goes beyond that: It asks if a member of Parliament can effectively represent their communities. These are not just a number on a map, and include a whole bunch of communities. It is asking if they can they get around, listen to their constituents and then report back to Ottawa. That is the way it is supposed to work, as opposed to what is often done here, which is that someone stays in Ottawa and then reports back on how good Ottawa is to their place of origin. It should be the other way around.
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would much prefer to be in Ottawa making these comments, but it is nice that we have the hybrid. It enables me to speak on the floor of the House while I am here in Winnipeg.
We are in an interesting debate in regard to Bill C-14. I am not necessarily surprised that we would see an amendment at this stage. One of the things that I have found over the past number of months is that, at times, we get legislation that one would naturally think would flow through the House of Commons: There would be relatively minimal debate, and we would get it through second reading and into committee.
I do not see this as controversial legislation. I am not exactly sure where the Bloc actually falls on the legislation. I would hope that it would support the province of Quebec getting a guaranteed number of seats, but at the end of the day, I like to think that this is the type of legislation that should ultimately pass through.
Was it necessary, for example, for us to have an amendment? I do not think it was for a report stage amendment. I think that when we get relatively uncontroversial legislation, where it appears that everyone is going to be voting in favour, I would have rather seen a debate on something like, let us say, Bill C-21 and the issue of guns and the safety of Canadians, which is top of mind for a lot of people.
True to form, what I have found is that, whether it is good, rather uncontroversial legislation such as Bill C-14 or if it is controversial or potentially controversial legislation, the Conservatives have one approach in dealing with the government's agenda and that is to prevent it from ultimately passing.
Having said that, I want to recognize a number of points in regard to Bill C-14. Having had the opportunity to speak on the legislation in the past, I want to be very specific on a few things.
One is the need for the legislation. I think it important that we recognize, as has been pointed out, that shifts take place in Canada's population for a wide variety of reasons. One could talk about things such as job opportunities, transfers, the allure of another area, or just people wanting to move to a warmer climate. In my case, they want to come to a nice, cool climate. People change their ridings.
Immigration is such a huge factor. Over the years, Canada continues to grow in good part because of immigration to our country. We are very dependent on immigration. Our birth rate is going down. As we grow as a nation overall, there is natural population shifting that occurs. It comes also in the form of immigration.
As a result, every 10 years, there is an obligation through an independent mechanism, and I want to emphasize that it really is an independent mechanism, that ensures that the ridings reflect the changes we have seen based on census material.
No one was surprised at all that we got a report this year. It was anticipated that we would get a report 10 years after we received the last report.
Going forward, every decade we will continue to receive recommendations from Elections Canada, through the commission, as to the need to change boundaries and possibly add constituencies or do some shifting.
That is, in essence, why we have the legislation today. It is because of the change in populations. In particular, for Quebec, there is a need for us to establish a floor, a minimum number of seats, for the province.
Doing it this way prevents us from having to do a constitutional change, where there is a 7/50 formula in order to enact a change. It addresses, for the most part, the biggest concerns that members of Parliament, on all sides of the issue, have as we recognize how important it is that the province of Quebec not lose any seats. I suspect that is the reason why the legislation would ultimately pass, hopefully unanimously, in the House.
Back in November, there was the establishment of these three-member commissions. We have a national commission. The commission establishes individual commissions of three people in a province, and through those commissions they all have a responsibility. That was done in November of last year, I believe. Those commissions then all have a responsibility to develop the new boundaries, whatever they might look like. They sit around, look at the numbers and the maps and try to provide new boundaries that we could be running the next federal election on.
Each commission operates independently. Manitoba, for example, has a three-member commission, and it operates independently of other aspects of Elections Canada, of political entities and of different stakeholders, such as community members and so forth. It is important to emphasize that it is, in fact, independent.
In developing those boundaries, the commission is tasked with a timeline. That timeline is quickly approaching, and the commissions need to provide a draft of the boundaries. One could be very concerned in regard to the dragging out of Bill C-14. The people who are paying the price for the House of Commons dragging its feet on the passage of this legislation are the people of Quebec. We know we want to see that minimum number of seats for the province of Quebec, and we have consistently said that from day one, as members will recall, when the national commission initially made the recommendation. It was an immediate response that came from not only my Quebec colleagues but from the caucus as a whole: Under no circumstances could we allow the province of Quebec not to have the 78 seats.
Until this legislation passes, that three-member commission in the province of Quebec has its hands tied, at least in good part, as other commissions continue to move forward with drafting boundaries, because the boundaries will change within different provinces. There will be tweaks in the city of Winnipeg, whether Winnipeg North grows more to the north or more in the inner city. This is something I wait for with bated breath, in hopes that we see some changes that the community will in fact support.
Once that draft is finished, the commission has to make it public. Once it is made public, it has to have public hearings that must take place before the end of October, because by mid-December the report has to be finalized.
That is why it is critically important that we pass this legislation. It is so the commission in the province of Quebec can finalize a draft so that it can go to the public, and in turn the public can provide its input so the commission can then provide that final draft by the end of the year.
It is an independent process, and that is why I am supporting Bill C-14. I hope all members would support its quick passage. I see my time has—
1190 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 6:53:58 p.m.
- Watch
Questions and comments, the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech and, this time, it was interesting to see that he actually had something to say.
His comments were mainly directed at us and he basically told us how good, nice, and kind they are and how they are being charitable and generous, since Quebec will lose one less seat.
That is really something. I am just beside myself.
I have some questions. Parliament recognized Quebec as a nation, and that is supposed to mean something. Yet, census after census, and redistribution after redistribution, Quebec's representation in Canada drops. That just makes me wish all the more that Quebec would become independent and form its own country.
What can my colleague say to those Quebeckers who believe that Quebec should be a country when they see that, ultimately, we are going backwards all the time?
145 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that the Government of Canada responded immediately by recognizing that we do not want to see the province of Quebec diminished in terms of numbers of seats. That is why we have this legislation, even though other opposition parties may see fit to try to delay it or even possibly cause some confusion about it.
What the Bloc members are proposing would require a constitutional change. I do not believe for a moment that Canadians are open to having a round of constitutional debates and discussions on this issue, along with the many other issues that would come out of any sort of a discussion on the Constitution.
I think the most important thing to recognize here is that if we want to support the people of Quebec in going through this independent process, we need to allow them the opportunity of having a basic number of seats and let the commission do the work it needs to do.
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member has such a long track record of service in this place, so I have a very broad question for him, because I know he has a lot of knowledge.
This is a complicated thing to figure out, how to best represent our neighbours, given the geography of Canada and how far spread out we are. Could he expand on the importance of ensuring that from a riding size perspective and a population perspective how that representation is important? We are representing people, but we are also representing territory.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a wonderful question.
One of the things that I could add to the debate is to say that we all want to have fair representation for the people and communities which we represent. We are talking about the independence of Elections Canada. We could just as equally be talking about the important services that members of Parliament, elected officials, provide to their constituents through the resources provided to them through the House of Commons, for example, a member's allowance, travel frequency and how convenient it is for members to be able to participate. There is a wide spectrum of things that complement a member's ability to represent the communities they have been elected to represent.
This type of discussion would be very fruitful going forward.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the questions I have follows up on the member's response to his colleague. One of my colleagues is the member for Nunavut. She represents more land mass than any other parliamentarian in the world. It is very difficult for her to reach all of the communities in her riding.
I wonder if he could elaborate on the ways in which we could support members of Parliament in this place who have very, very large ridings. They are expected to work through much more challenging situations than I do in an urban riding.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we talk about how members can best serve their constituents in terms of presentation, or physically, and one of the things I have learned over the last few years is the importance of the Internet and the important role that technology can play, in ensuring there is a heightened sense of equity and fairness in enabling people to be fully engaged and to participate. The hybrid Parliament is an excellent example of that and something we should keep in some form or another.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑14.
I want to start by giving an overview of the problem that this bill is designed to fix in part. Every 10 years, the Chief Electoral Officer presents a new distribution of the number of seats in the House of Commons, so there are some things that keep happening every 10 years.
One thing that comes up systematically is that Quebec loses a percentage of its share of seats in the House. Allow me to give a quick background, and I will ask my colleagues to take me at my word. I have the figures and have pored over them like a dog eyeing a steak. Back in 1867, Quebec had 36% of the seats in the House and in 2015, it had 23.1%. That is typical. With the new distribution, Quebec will drop from 23.1% to 22.5%.
My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said something extraordinary. He is a brilliant Bloc Québécois member, although that is redundant. I see more and more Conservatives looking at us, as though they, too, can be brilliant. I would tell them to be patient because anything is possible. We are extending a light blue hand to their dark blue hand and we are waiting.
Back to the debate. My colleague said that the francophone nation used to be in the majority. It was decided back then that, because Quebeckers were in the majority, they would split the seats 50-50. As soon as it no longer suited them because there were more of us, they changed their mind. In the old days, Quebeckers had a lot of children—14 or 15 per family. Some parents even put stickers on their kids because they could not remember their names. In 1867, the government decided to change things. Going forward, seat distribution would be determined on the basis of population. At that point, four provinces were created, and Quebec's share of the seats fell to 33%. Our minority status in Canada was institutionalized. That is Lord Durham's political legacy.
In this classic tale, where we lose a certain percentage seats, there was recently a new plot twist. In addition to having fewer seats in percentage terms, Quebec was actually going to lose a seat. That matters. Our number of seats was going to drop from 78 to 77 seats. The Bloc Québécois began to fight, as did the Quebec government and various stakeholders in Quebec, and rightly so. Certain members here from other provinces even thought we were going a bit too far. That is when we began speaking out, because this sort of thing has not happened since 1966. The government eventually began to think that maybe it should not do this, because it did seem a bit crazy. If you want to drown someone in the pool, of course it looks crazy to push their head down and hold them in the water. What looks less crazy is gradually raising the water level in the pool. This way, a nation will eventually die, but quietly. That is what is planned for Quebec. That is what is going to happen.
The fact that Quebec has managed to make French the common language of Quebeckers is no small feat. It was even impossible for the French who failed us in 1760. They left and abandoned us, saying that things were not going well here and that, in any event, the English would take care of us, along with the priests. They thought that we would be speaking English within a generation. Two hundred years later, when France's General de Gaulle saw that Quebeckers were still here and were speaking French, he made the connection and declared, “Vive le Québec libre”.
It is a feat, but as we fight against the odds, in a situation that is becoming increasingly untenable, we will eventually need help to ensure that our nation survives and thrives, so that this nation lives on.
Is it because Quebec is better? No. Quebec is not better than the rest of Canada, but it is different. Beauty is often found in differences. I like going to Toronto. It is not home, but I like it. I like going to New York and France. I like that. It is not home, but I like it.
When the Bloc came to the House last year saying that Quebec is a nation, MPs got on board. I was impressed. We thought we were going to have to fight harder than that. Of course, the motion did not pass unanimously, but the vast majority of members agreed that Quebec is a nation.
Then some other members began getting ideas. I can never remember other people's riding names, which are incredibly long and just keep getting longer. There are 338 of us, and it is getting out of hand. We might as well use acronyms.
Getting back to my point, when we declared that Quebec was a nation, a Conservative member from British Columbia said that his province was also a nation. I told him that I was unaware, that he should explain it to us, prove it to us and bring forward a motion to that effect for us to discuss.
Then one of his colleagues, who was even more worked up than he was, said that Alberta was a nation. I will not say his name, but he did say that Alberta was a nation, and for 30 seconds he tried to convince us of that. I had to wonder.
Quebec is definitely a nation. We have a different language. We like to speak out, loud and clear, in our different language. Members can argue about it and say that language is not a big deal, but actually, it is a big deal. We are a different culture. Quebec has its own writers. I could name a few, and I doubt the other members would have any idea who they are. We had to fight at the leaders' meeting to convey how important Pierre Bruneau is to us.
We have to explain to members who we are. When Jean Leloup won a bunch of trophies, we had to explain to Canada who he was. We have to explain to members who we are. That is normal, because we are different.
Our economy is different. It is based on other aspects that are less developed elsewhere in Canada. The other regions in Canada are not worse than Quebec. They are just different.
Our history is different. When they get to the chapter on 1759, our history teachers dejectedly explain the defeat on the Plains of Abraham. Elsewhere in Canada, history teachers are pleased as punch to talk about 1759, what they call the victory on the Plains of Abraham. Need I say more?
I have two things to point out to my colleagues who say that other provinces are nations. First, when the Prime Minister was elected, he raised his arms and cheerily declared that Canada would be the first post-national state. To the people who say that their provinces are nations, I say that their leader said that they were no longer nations, that the era of nations is over.
One day, someone said to me, without any malice, that Canada is like a boring party, and everyone is just waiting for the first guest to leave so that they can leave too.
Last week, I heard the member from British Columbia say that B.C. was a nation and that Alberta was a nation in his colleague's eyes. My loving response to them is this: Why not make Canada a true confederation of sovereign states that unite as sovereign states, which manage everything within our own respective borders and which would meet to manage our economic relations and share a currency? Instead of coming together and explaining how we are different, we would meet to talk about what unites us all. That is my wish for all of us.
Unfortunately, Bill C‑14 does not reflect what we want. It is either a partial success or a partial failure, depending on whether we see the glass as half full or half empty. To fix this problem once and for all, and we need to agree on the idea that it is once and for all, Quebec would have to be guaranteed at least 25% of the seats in the House, as was proposed in the Charlottetown accord.
1449 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a joy to listen to my Bloc Québécois colleague. I say that in all sincerity, but not without chiding him for mentioning the leaders meeting, which must remain confidential.
However, I want to salute him because we share a point of view that he talked about eloquently, as only he knows how, regarding the riding names that are too long. It makes no sense. I invite the House of Commons decision-makers to use Quebec as a model for this. In Quebec, it stops at two names, not more, which is a great idea. I invite everyone to follow the Quebec model.
Speaking of Quebec earlier, that member expressed the hope and the beauty of living in a confederation of sovereign states that work together. The primary objective of the member from that group is to make Quebec a country, to have independence. Okay.
There is a solution for that: On October 3, Quebeckers will have the opportunity to either choose a new government or keep the current one. We will see what they decide and we cannot assume anything. However, we know that one of the parties in the running is focused on achieving independence through a referendum right out of the gate. Why does the member not run for the Parti Québécois in the upcoming election—
235 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:11:20 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for La Prairie.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I enjoy listening to him as well, and we have known one another a long time.
A coach does not ask a good defenceman to go out and play offence if he is good on defence. I came to the House to defend Quebeckers' interests while waiting for the big day. That is the Bloc Québécois's mission. We look after the interests of Quebeckers, we speak on behalf of Quebeckers, we explain what Quebeckers need, we talk about the values of Quebeckers and their political views.
We defend Quebec's interests in the House because they need to be defended until the big day arrives. There are people in Quebec City who are playing offence, making sure that a majority of Quebeckers will one day say “yes, finally”, after always being told no by the federal government. At some point, they will think more positively.
In the meantime, I am the Bobby Orr of Canadian politics.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:12:17 p.m.
- Watch
I will stop the clock for a few seconds to remind the hon. member that there are many Quebeckers in the House.
The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
