44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 15, 2022 02:00PM
- Jun/15/22 2:44:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it does not end there. The Minister of Foreign Affairs is also in trouble because her staff attended a party at the Russian embassy. What a great idea that was.
The Minister of Public Safety is in trouble too because of his “alternative facts” on the Emergencies Act. What about the Minister of Immigration, who runs a department where permanent residence applications seemingly go to die, or the Minister of Environment, who has become an oil and gas developer?
Ultimately, when all the musicians are playing out of tune, the conductor is always to blame. In this case, the conductor is the Prime Minister.
When will he start looking after his own affairs instead of always meddling in Quebec's jurisdictions?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 2:45:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am here to serve all Canadians, including Quebeckers. That is why we will continue to make investments to help Quebec families and address challenges, whether at our borders or in our health care systems. We will always work in partnership with provincial governments, municipalities, small businesses and Canadians who need help. We know this pandemic has been difficult, but we have been there for Canadians and we will continue to be there.
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 3:16:18 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion:
That the House:
(a) salute the extraordinary work of Mr. Pierre Bruneau as anchor of the TVA network for 46 years, as he will host his last newscast this Thursday evening;
(b) underline the remarkable contribution of Mr. Pierre Bruneau to information in Quebec thanks to his rigour, his dedication and his immense talent as a communicator;
(c) recall his commitment to children with cancer through the Charles-Bruneau Foundation since 1990 and express its gratitude to him; and
(d) wish Mr. Pierre Bruneau good luck in his future projects.
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
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 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
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, 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
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
Madam Speaker, I should apologize because there are indeed MPs from Quebec who are not Bloc Québécois members, but we are the only ones who have not made compromises and do not need to make compromises because our caucus is not Canadian. It represents Quebec exclusively. To hear the sound of a pure, unadulterated symphony, one need only listen to Bloc Québécois members. I recommend that the House do so.
Getting back to my colleague from the riding whose name is impossible to memorize, let me just express my profound respect and admiration for him. The last time he rose in the House to speak to Bill C‑14, he said that British Columbia was a nation and a distinct society. I more or less quoted him verbatim. As I recall, I even invited him to Quebec, and that invitation stands.
I myself am planning to visit British Columbia, where everything looks so gorgeous. I am going next year. I even talked to my wife about it, and she is excited. I want to explore that beautiful part of the country, but I want my colleague to explain to me why it is a nation, because that is what he told the House. We remain friends nevertheless.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I support Bill C-14. I think nearly everyone here supports it.
I remember the debate on the Charlottetown accord. At that time, I was invited by civil society members to campaign with them in favour of the Charlottetown accord. At the same time, I was inspired because there was a real grassroots movement against the Charlottetown accord.
My question is not a simple one. In the opinion of my colleague from La Prairie, should we be trying harder to come up with a constitutional solution that really works for Quebec?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, you are being hard on me. I may stretch these 15 seconds a little.
Quebec faces many difficulties with respect to its values and needs in the Canadian federation. The solution to this problem would have been to simply set a minimum threshold with a percentage to guarantee that Quebec always has the same percentage of representatives in the House. There is no need to open the Constitution. We do not need 50% of the seats.
Patrick Taillon, a well-known constitutional expert, came before the parliamentary committee and told us that we did not need to do that. It is already provided for. I do not have enough time, but I would have said that the Supreme Court recognized, in 1987, the right to adopt clauses like the senatorial clause and the grandfather clause. We could have called it the Quebec clause. It would have been included in this bill and it would have resolved—
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to participate in the debate on Bill C‑14.
The NDP has long supported the principle that Quebec should maintain a consistent proportion of the seats in the House of Commons. That is not what Bill C‑14 would do, but we think that this bill is nevertheless important, to ensure that no ground is lost while we hold a broader debate on the proportion of seats. That is why this bill is worthwhile, and it is urgent, in light of the pending electoral distribution.
We must choose to ensure that the new seats reflect the number of seats that we want Quebec to have at the end of this process. Time is of the essence and we must make a decision. It is not a perfect one, but it is the right decision under the circumstances.
This has been an interesting debate. We have heard a lot about representation and some of the important principles that undergird the Canadian electoral system. We know that already in the House of Commons, representation by population is not the only consideration. Just as an example, provinces cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than they have in the Senate. That is already a departure from representation by population. We also know that rural areas tend to be weighted differently in order to ensure that there continues to be a strong role representation in the House of Commons, beyond what representation by population would dictate. Those are just a couple of examples of the way in which representation by population is not the only way that we determine representation in Canada, so there are certainly precedents for looking at other departures from representation by population.
Sometimes people get quite animated in this place during those debates. We just saw an example of that, and we have seen examples from folks in other parties as well who get pretty animated. We have seen some very spirited defences of representation by population, particularly from some of the western Conservative members. That is fair enough. We come here to represent our constituents and the points of view that people have on these matters, and they are rightly an object of concern.
I do think it is important to try to have these debates with a bit of humility, though, because they are very important and foundational debates. For instance, I look at the current Conservative leadership race, and I note with interest that, in their own system, representation by population is not the rule. That is fair enough. Different parties do that differently. In the NDP, we have a one member, one vote system. We do not have any kind of weighting.
In the Conservative Party, they have chosen to have a weighting. That is something that defies representation by population, presumably for good reason. I am not saying the Conservatives should not do that, and I am not saying that they should. What I am saying is that they have made a choice to forego strict representation by population because, presumably, they think it matters to have a proportionate weighting of voices from across the country in the selection of their leader.
Also, when we talk about representation in this place, we sometimes talk about the voting system we have. I have heard Conservatives take very strong positions on that, defending the balloting system that we have and defending the first-past-the-post system that we have. Folks can correct me during questions and comments if I am wrong, but I note with interest that I believe the Conservatives are going to have a preferential ballot in the Conservative leadership race. That is something the Conservatives are very much against in other contexts, but they have seen it to be appropriate for their leadership. Not only are they going to have a preferential ballot, but they are also going to have a preferential ballot that informs a proportional system because leadership candidates will get a number of votes within their riding association proportionate to the percentage of votes they got out of that system. Then, presumably, based on the alternative ballot, as some people fall off, those votes will be successively redistributed within that riding through the points system until they elect a leader.
I note also that the Conservatives are doing this uniquely by mail-in ballot, which is something I listened to many Conservatives talk about in a filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee in the last Parliament. They were very clear then that they felt mail-in ballots led to fraudulent electoral outcomes. Here we are.
We have a Conservative Party that is using a preferential ballot in a non-representation-by-population system to have proportionate outcomes in a mail-in process, which is why I encourage us to speak to these issues here in the House with some humility, because I think that, in fact, depending on the context, various members do support different kinds of electoral principles.
That is why I think we should be able to have this conversation in a responsible way, in the way I think Canadians would expect mature adults to try to have those conversations: not demonize each other because of the kinds of positions we are putting forward, but try to hear what is important and of value in the other person's position and then try to hammer out a compromise, as was the case originally in 1867. There were compromises made that did not satisfy everyone at the time but that managed to move the Canadian project forward, and there have been many compromises since that have not been perfect and certainly have not pleased everyone. However, Canada has been a constant activity and a constant project of trying to seek consensus and agreement. As difficult as that is, I think it is actually Canada's strength.
We live in a world right now that is rife with conflict. We live in a world right now where people are choosing to end conversation and negotiation in favour of polarization and violence. One of the things that I think have been great about Canada, for all its many faults, because it is not a perfect place, has been its ability to find a way, even among very different peoples, languages, cultures and histories, to take on these important questions of political representation and find a path toward compromise.
We have a lot more work to do. We have work to do in the case of Quebec, which continues to see its proportion of seats decline in the House of Commons, despite its special status within Confederation with its own language, culture, history and contributions. We are also reckoning now, in a much more vigorous way, and appropriately so, with indigenous peoples, and there are questions of political representation that come up with respect to indigenous peoples as well, which is something we have not done a good job of at all in Canada in so many ways over the years. We have had no formal representation of indigenous peoples in this place, and there are no seats set aside. That is a conversation for another day, too.
What I think is important about Bill C-14 is that it is bringing people together from all sides of the chamber to recognize that while we have these larger debates, which are important debates and I do hope we will find good ways of having those debates where we treat each other well and work together on this project of constant negotiation that is Canada, we can at least agree that we should not be taking any steps backwards. I think that, at the very least, this law, if it should pass, would prevent us from taking steps backwards, even as we try to find our way forward.
We are not there yet. I think the debate around this bill has shown the extent to which we are not there in certain regards. However, I think it has been a positive exercise for this place to have occasion to talk about representation in Canada, what it does mean now and what it can mean in the future, and to have been able to do it in the context of a bill that, for all its imperfections and for all the legitimate criticism there is of it, has largely brought people together, because I think it has allowed for a better and a more responsible conversation than we sometimes have in this place.
I am thankful for that, and I am anxious to see this bill pass quickly, because of the time constraints we are under with the boundary redistribution process already taking place. As we head further into the 21st century and face many great challenges, both large challenges that are planetary, in terms of climate change, and also real political challenges here at home, I hope this is a down payment on a better debate for how we find new and better ways of ensuring that all the voices of Canadians are represented in their right proportion here in the House of Commons to build a prosperous future for all of us.
1546 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, in part because he spoke in French, at least for a bit. I think that is important to acknowledge. I also got a real sense that he is open to this process.
He acknowledged that Bill C‑14 does not fix Quebec's problem. I was happy to hear that, because it is hard to get members from the other parties to admit that. He also went as far as to say that he would be prepared to support our proposal to ensure that Quebeckers have a minimum of 25% of seats, which is a good thing. If all members of the House could agree on that, I think there would be a lot of happy people in Quebec. It might even facilitate some agreements.
However, I did not go into politics to get Quebec 25% of the seats. I did it to make sure Quebec has 100% of the seats and forms its own country.
I know that in the past, the NDP adopted the Sherbrooke declaration, which recognized that Quebec's right to self-determination is fundamental and inalienable. I was wondering how far his party's thinking has come on this issue.
205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the NDP has supported the principle of asymmetrical federalism since 1961. I may not fully understand the term “self-determination”, but we have always tried to ensure that Quebec's need to have more decision-making power is recognized, particularly in relation to federal programs. We have always wanted to protect that with respect to federal programs.
Personally, I think that a confederation can work well when the provinces work together. The federal government does not always play the role of telling the provinces what to do. The federal government can bring the provinces together to collaborate and negotiate in good faith. It can be there to provide funding and support for national initiatives that all the provinces also support.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to debate Bill C-14.
For those who might just be catching up on what Bill C-14 is, it deals with an updating of the grandfather clause of the Constitution from 1867, as reset in 1985. I think at some point in this place we should put forward a grandmother clause. I was just looking at some of my other female colleague MPs in this place.
The grandfather clause says that this is what it is and we are going to keep it the way it was. What we are doing with this bill is saying that the composition of Parliament will not drop below the seat count of the 43rd Parliament. That is basically what we have now: 338 MPs, of which 78 are from Quebec and 121 are from Ontario. My home province of British Columbia will have no fewer than 42 seats going forward under the new, as I rename it, “grandmother clause”.
There are a number of issues to unpack in this bill. The primary one is that the bill is making sure that Quebec does not lose any seats in the current decennial review of representation by population and that we are more or less representing the same numbers of people across the country.
This is no easy effort. This is very difficult. I just attended the public hearing in Victoria, B.C., and the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia was just proposing to add another seat because population redistribution is adding relatively more people to British Columbia than to some other provinces. The commission is proposing to add the new seat in interior British Columbia, which would have a big effect on the members forKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. It would have very little impact on my own riding, but going through that process of staring at the riding map and speaking about representation by population put me very much in mind of some other ideas.
In fact, when I spoke at the public hearing in Victoria about the riding boundaries and the proposals of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, I asked them whether, in the interests of democracy, it is really in the interests of our constituents to add more MPs to the House of Commons year on year? I said to them that when I was first elected to this place in 2011, in the Parliament that I joined and in which I had the honour to stand in Centre Block for the first time, we had 308 members; now we have 338. Does that increase in numbers add to the representation of our constituents, or does it dilute it? Is the notion of adding an MP here and there really effective in representation?
As has come up recently in this debate tonight, I think about our colleagues who represent vast territories. The member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has a territory that I think is two times the size of Germany, but I may be wrong. I remember his predecessor, Nathan Cullen, saying something like that fairly often. When a riding is two times the size of Germany, it is very hard to get around.
Our colleague from Nunavut has an electoral district that takes in three time zones. It is an enormous territory, and commercial aircraft will not get people from one end to the other. They have to either hire private planes or fly from Iqaluit to Ottawa and then go up to Inuvik. It is not easy, and given current demographic trends, the population of Nunavut is not going to be the equivalent of my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, which, under the current proposal from the Electoral Boundaries Commission, would represent 122,000 people, or more than four times the population of Nunavut.
Let us think about what we could do to be creative. I said to the Electoral Boundaries Commission that much more important for democracy and representation by population would be fair voting, proportional representation, so that every voter knows that their vote is going to count. At that point, the very professional, hard-working team that is the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia said that this is beyond their area.
I take it to my colleagues here because it is specifically our area.
What is in the interest of democracy in the 21st century? Is it that we continue to add MPs to pile into this place? I suggest that when we look at the House of Westminster and the Commons chamber there, there are no desks because there is no room. If every MP showed up, they would not fit in the room because 650 MPs would be trying to squeeze into a chamber that would be perfect for about half that number. If we constantly add more MPs, we add to the cost of this place.
Would average Canadians feel they are better served by continually adding to the cost of the House of Commons or by my alternate proposal? It would be less costly to the taxpayer and I believe more efficient in properly representing our constituents if, depending on population, what is called the member's office budget, or MOB, was expanded. It would mean that we would not add more MPs, but MPs who represented higher population areas would be able to have more constituency staff to handle the casework, to make sure that the level of representation we give our constituents is beyond gold standard.
That is what we want to do. We want to be able to respond to the constituents who say they have been on the phone with Service Canada for nine hours, only to be hung up on and the call dropped. We do not have enough people in my office to deal with every single case that comes up, but we try.
What I would propose is that we look at the job of a member of Parliament. We do two things in this place. As our opening prayer by the Speaker suggests, we pass laws and make wise decisions, or at least we try. We debate public policy, as we are doing tonight. We also serve, in a completely different way, our constituents in a non-partisan way. We help them with their pensions, their passports, their unemployment insurance, their disabilities, the CRA, their need for help. We all have our issues. We work really hard to help our constituents.
Would we not have better representation if we did not just add to the number of members of Parliament in this place, but expanded the resources for those who are challenged by large population numbers or huge distances? A member of Parliament with a huge terrain to cover would have the budget to have offices in more locations to be more convenient for constituents. Representation by population may not be the most democratic way to ensure that Canadian democracy thrives.
Regardless of political stripe, we should all be troubled by what just happened in Ontario. Almost 60% of eligible voters did not turn out to vote. There are a number of theories for why that happened. That means a majority government that got 40% of the vote of the 43% of people who showed up elected a majority without the majority of public support. In fact, the Doug Ford government in Ontario has the active support, as measured by who went out to vote for him, of 18% of the Ontario public.
I am not blaming Doug Ford. The first-past-the-post voting system does not encourage voting. It is the minority of countries, by the way, that use first past the post. Countries with fair voting see people interested in turning out to vote.
Voter turnout in countries that use a proportional voting system is higher than in countries like ours, with our current voting system.
We could make a really big difference if we revived the Prime Minister's 2015 election campaign promise that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. It is hard to revive that because we had elections in 2019 and 2021, but we could. We could and we should ask what is in the interest of democracy today. Is it adding more MPs to this place, increasing the cogs in the wheels of large political machines where people show up here and are told how to vote by their party whips, or is it making it more democratic by ensuring that everyone here and that Parliament as a whole represent accurately the way Canadians actually voted?
It is not too late to make this change. It is urgent.
I want to close the discussion on Bill C-14 by bringing us back to more fundamental questions: Can we improve the services we provide to our constituents? Can we ensure this place does not just expand forever as we have more population? Can we deliver real democracy that inspires Canadians?
1518 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I would like her to explain something. On March 2, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion that my colleague supported. The motion sought to maintain Quebec's political weight and not have it lose a seat. The Bloc Québécois then presented Bill C‑246, which was along the same lines as the motion that my colleague supported, but she voted against it.
Today, the government is trying to salvage the situation with Bill C‑14. This bill seeks to preserve the number of seats, but not the political weight, because other seats could be added for other provinces outside Quebec.
I would like my colleague to explain why she voted for the Bloc Québécois motion and then voted against the Bloc Québécois bill.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:59:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as always, it is a pleasure and privilege to rise in this place.
Today, I want to talk about Alberta and our economic recovery. For decades, Alberta has played an oversized role in Canada's economy, largely in part due to the oil and gas sector. During boom times, Alberta's GDP was the largest in Canada, the largest in North America and among the largest in the world. Even during the busts, Alberta workers were contributing more per capita to the building of Canada than any other province. For over 50 years, Alberta workers have helped make Canada a prosperous country. Now, Alberta workers need help and this government needs to be there for them.
Albertans know that climate change is real, and we know that our future cannot depend on oil and gas. Even now, when postpandemic demand is rising and Russia's illegal war in Ukraine is driving up the price of oil and natural gas, even now when fossil fuel corporations are making record profits while gouging Canadians at the pumps, even now we know that our future is not in oil and gas, because the jobs are simply not there.
When Alberta Conservatives were handing billions in corporate tax cuts to the sector over the past three years, oil and gas companies were laying off workers. When this government gave billions for oil well cleanup, it did nothing to create jobs or to mitigate pollution. Every day the evidence becomes clearer and clearer: Handing out public money to these massive corporations does not create jobs and it does not help workers. All it does is line the pockets of foreign investors.
Instead, this government needs to help Alberta. It needs to invest in Alberta to diversify our economy. For Canada to meet its climate obligations, for Canada to have a sustainable economy, for Canada to build an equitable and prosperous future for all, Canada needs to invest right now to help diversify Alberta's economy before it is too late.
This government has made multiple promises to workers for a just transition. We heard promises in 2019, and we heard promises in 2021, but we just have not seen it yet. I stand in this place and say that it is not unusual for us to hear the right words from this government and not see the work follow through to make the actions happen.
There have been massive investments in Quebec's and Ontario's economies, but when it comes to Alberta, this government is missing. If it needs help determining what to do, I am here to help. There is a lot of opportunity in Alberta to develop a greener and more diversified economy. There is opportunity to create jobs right now and to bridge to the jobs of the future.
Right now, oil and gas workers need financial support through the transition and targeted education and retraining. Rachel Notley did it with coal by listening to workers and their communities. The formula is there.
Many of the impacted communities are indigenous where investment in post-secondary education and indigenous-run programs would have the greatest impact, programs like the Peace Athabasca Delta Institute, which needs federal investment to build an environmental monitoring and research facility. Instead of throwing money at oil companies for site cleanup, those funds should be directed to the Indian Resource Council's first nations site rehabilitation program to create jobs and economic opportunity where it matters the most. The Building Trades of Alberta's path forward program needs to retrain indigenous workers as well.
598 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
