44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 28, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/28/22 12:45:42 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will speak to this Senate bill very briefly today.
The Bloc Québécois will naturally vote in favour of this bill so it can be referred to a committee. I would like to speak about two things very quickly.
The first is the importance of the names given to federal electoral ridings. It is important in terms of representation, because people must feel understood and represented by the name. It is also important for many other reasons, for example so the constituents know who their representative is and can easily understand that there is a link between the general geographic area and the specific place where they live. That is important, and that is essentially the goal of the bill.
The second thing I want to talk about is consultation. For the name of a riding to be recognized as being representative of the people, ideally the people must be consulted. There are different ways to do that, but we must ensure that the elected officials of a riding, the main organizations and the stakeholders agree on the name. From what I have heard, no such consultations were held. I will say a little bit more about that and members will understand why, especially in reference to the commission. Therefore, right from the outset, there is a problem with the legitimacy of the bill. Holding prior consultations would have been advantageous for the bill, as for any other bill, to ensure that the work being done is really aligned with what the people are asking for.
As I was saying earlier, the purpose of the bill was to correct a mistake, namely, the fact that Lacolle is not part of the riding of Chateauguay—Lacolle. A mistake was made when the riding names were last changed. Lacolle is part of the Saint‑Jean riding, so clearly there is a mistake that needs to be corrected. At the same time, correcting a mistake does not mean correcting it by making another mistake.
Let me explain. Adding “Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville” is causing confusion for the people in the riding. They might even think that it refers to a neighbouring riding because there is an RCM with that name. As members know, people sometimes confuse federal, provincial and municipal ridings, as well as regional county municipalities and even administrative regions. My riding is a good example. It covers an entire administrative region of Quebec. In short, to paraphrase what the people from the Roussillon RCM are saying, what they really want, as an RCM, is for people to have a sense of belonging. That is most likely what people want for a federal riding too.
The Roussillon RCM submitted a brief that talks about this, saying that this bill, which renames the riding “Chateauguay—Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville”, is causing some confusion. This brief was submitted to the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission on October 5, 2022. The RCM's recommendation expressed some concerns about the name change. It states that this decision would be confusing for the citizens of the city of Châteauguay and the towns within Roussillon, an RCM located in that riding—because Roussillon is split. This would undermine Roussillon RCM's strategic positioning and its efforts to create a sense of belonging and build its presence and its profile throughout Quebec.
Those are some of the RCM's strategic objectives for the coming years. For the residents of this regional municipality, this is detrimental to their desire of showcasing the RCM. It could leave the residents feeling as though they are not part of the Roussillon RCM, but rather the Jardins‑de‑Napierville RCM.
That is the essence of their brief. It was simply to reiterate the idea that we need to consult our constituents, the people who are affected when we make a change like this.
I will address my second point a little more quickly, because in referencing the brief I have already touched on it. I want to talk about the relevance of introducing the bill. I know it originated in the Senate, but it is being brought back here and sponsored in the House. It is a question of relevance, in the sense that this very issue is already part of the work being done on the readjustment of federal electoral districts. There is already a proposal on the table for the exact same name. I humbly submit that the work is being done twice. We are working in parallel on the same issue while, once again, there is already an opportunity through the commission to make a change and to make a decision on this side.
As members of Parliament, we are also called on, invited to and encouraged to make proposals ourselves. That is one thing. This would be an opportunity to use the time in the House for another bill that might be more worthwhile and relevant to the riding itself and to the surrounding ridings.
To sum up, I think we need to question the legitimacy of the bill with respect to the way the people are represented as well as its very relevance given that we are already working on exactly the same issue at the commission.
As I was saying earlier, the Bloc Québécois will not oppose to this bill, but I still wanted to make a few comments that may be useful to me and to all of my colleagues for the work we have to do in the House.
939 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to rise on Bill S-207 today. For my colleague from Châteauguay—Lacolle, it is a name that has defined her in the House for some time now. However, the concern of this bill is that the name does not correctly identify the riding and the people whom she represents. This is an injustice for any member of Parliament or any representative for there not to be a clear correlation as to who her people are and whom she represents.
I know it was mentioned by the previous speaker in the House that this bill is unnecessary, but that is in the eye of the beholder. It is up to the constituents of Châteauguay—Lacolle and to the member who is sponsoring this bill as to whether something is necessary. The Senate has looked at the bill and found that there is legitimacy to having this name change, and there absolutely is.
There is not much to say on this bill. People can merely look at the map and they will see clearly that Lacolle is not situated in this riding. However, Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle is situated in the riding. How insulting is it to constituents when they hear themselves being represented by a particular name? It further emphasizes that “Ottawa knows best” approach.
The commissioner up here decided in the last redistribution that this was going to be the name. At that time, the NDP member who was the representative of that riding did not contest the name, and I do not know why. There could have been many reasons for that, and maybe we will not really know why that member did not take a keen interest in making sure that their voters were identified properly and knew who their member of Parliament was.
That brings us to this point, and we have been at this point several times. This bill has unfortunately had to go through this process several times and has not made it to the end. We have heard debate in the House as to why this change is necessary and important, and we have heard debate regarding this name change in the other place as well.
The previous speaker said that it is futile and unnecessary at this point because, once again, we are at that 10-year mark when redistribution is happening again and there are further name changes happening. I argue that, if it were not for the member who is the sponsor of this bill, that would have never happened. It is because of the work that has been done through this private member's bill that the commission has become alerted to the fact that this is very important and we should take names very seriously.
I can point to some examples in the redistribution process that are happening today as well for Ontario. The name of my riding of Brampton North is completely being switched and changed to another name, just when the constituents were getting used to the fact that these are our boundaries and this is the name we go by. I would say that the previous redistribution commission did a good job at simplifying the names and making it clearly understandable as to where the voters lived and who represented them.
However, in this redistribution the names are being completely switched. It is unfair to constantly be confusing voters as to whom they need to be going to in a time of need, and that is what we are there for. Often times, when we are not in the House, we are in our constituencies attending to people's worries and concerns, which are often emergency situations.
For my riding, there is often lots of confusion. After the last redistribution, there was immense confusion as to where things stood and whom they needed to go to. They recalled whom they voted for last time and felt that they should be coming to me because my predecessor was the one I had defeated, so it just made natural sense. Therefore, having a name that helps constituents imagine what their boundaries may be if they are not in possession of an actual map is important.
Currently, like I said, my riding is Brampton North. In this redistribution process, Brampton East is being renamed Brampton North. Brampton East no longer exists and Brampton North is now Brampton East. Brampton North is going to be different, Brampton—Chinguacousy, apparently. This is quite confusing. I know I, my other Brampton colleagues and other presenters at the commission have made the argument that, if a new district is being added, a new constituency, there is no need to change around all of the previously existing names. A new name should just be created for the new riding.
I can really relate to my colleague on the need for the name change. I understand why it is so important for her and her constituents to be granted this change. I think it is their right to be identified properly and for it to be acknowledged that they are important within Canada. It is important that we know who they are and what their concerns are, and that they know who to go to when they need change. This would help clear up a lot of confusion.
I would ask that the members in the House support the bill, regardless of what their personal feelings may be, and regardless of whether they feel there could be a matter that is more important to them that could have been raised. I know I have heard comments like that made. However, this is really important to the voters of Châteauguay—Lacolle. The new name for the riding is Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville. I believe this is what the constituents want. This is what the voters want. This is what the House should agree to grant them.
The residents of Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, among others, communicated these concerns. They communicated them before the commission last time. They communicated them again this time. It just happens to be that with private member's bills this process can be tedious and can take some time. Members do not get to choose the timing. I know a lot of constituents who may be watching at home do not recognize what system we have in Parliament in order for a member to bring forward a private member's bill, but I think it is important for them to know.
Oftentimes I have constituents who come up and ask why I do not bring something forward or say that it would be great if I had a bill passed under my name that helped the community in some way or another, or they ask why a member got to do something or why they seemed to be working harder than I was on a matter. It is important for constituents to know that it is really hard to get a private member's bill. We have a lottery system that comes up every Parliament. After every election, there is a new lottery system. There is no preference given to any members as whether it is something they have been trying to do for many Parliaments and have not been able to accomplish or whether it is a new idea. We have had new members who have spent a few weeks in Parliament who have had to get up and figure out what private member's bill to bring forward.
I would say this colleague of mine has spent a long time, over two Parliaments, trying to get this to the finish line. We respect that. She was able to use her name drawn in the first lottery system for private member's bills. She was also able to use the work she was able to do with the Senate to get the Senate to recognize the bill and bring it to the House. I think we should recognize all the hard work that she has done to almost get this to the finish line.
All of us in this House should support this piece of the legislation and let the voters have what they would like. Let them be represented by who they feel they are. That is really important. I do not think any of us would like to be called something we are not. I would definitely not want to be the member for Mississauga if I was representing Brampton. We should all understand that feeling.
1440 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 1:03:40 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canadian Environmental Protection Act, 1999, to make related amendments to the Food and Drugs Act and to repeal the Perfluorooctane Sulfonate Virtual Elimination Act.
Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.
104 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 1:04:25 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Joliette on a point of order.
10 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 1:04:36 p.m.
- Watch
- Re: Bill S-5
Mr. Speaker, I would like your guidance on a procedural matter.
I thought the government was not allowed to move a notice of time allocation during Private Members' Business.
29 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 1:04:51 p.m.
- Watch
It can be done. It is perfectly acceptable.
The hon. member for Northumberland—Peterborough South.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege and honour to rise in the House.
Today, we are talking about a private member's bill for renaming the riding of Châteauguay—Lacolle to include Napierville. I want to talk a bit about that community and why I believe it is important that it get recognized. Of course, it is famous for its fruits and vegetables and has a beautiful rural countryside. There are many beautiful things about it, so I am glad to see that like all the great towns and beautiful areas in Quebec that get recognized, it is being recognized as well.
I also want to talk in general about my riding. It is composed of a number of areas, and one of them is Clarington, where I live, which did not make the cut for the name. I have a beautiful countryside as well, so perhaps it is a little akin to Napierville as it is another beautiful rural area.
Members of the Bloc made the excellent point that perhaps there are more poignant things we could be talking about in this House. I certainly do not want to be rude in any way, so I will underscore the wonderful countryside and beautiful people of Napierville. As for getting their moment in the sun, my understanding is that after the redistribution, they will, but as I said, it is not the most poignant of PMBs.
I just want to go through some of the things we can talk about in a private member's bill, if the Speaker will give me that bit of indulgence.
I have had the opportunity to raise a couple of private member's bill in this House, one of which was to give an exemption on propane and natural gas to farmers, who, of course, are paying thousands of dollars in carbon tax every year. I was glad to see that it made it through the House, but it fell apart when the government unfortunately called a needless, unnecessary and very expensive election. I am glad to see that it is being brought forward by one of our fellow Conservative members, the member for Huron—Bruce, if I have that correct, and that it is now back in front of the agriculture committee. It is Bill C-234, which will provide tremendous relief and save farmers thousands of dollars.
As we know, in Napierville and elsewhere in Canada farming is among one of the hardest but most important occupations we can have. Of course, without farmers we do not eat, so one of the ideas I would throw out is that perhaps we could have more private member's bills to help farmers.
We are going through an incredible food crisis and this spring will be very challenging. For most people in Canada, it will be okay. For the people in this House, who are earning good salaries, it will not be fun to go to the grocery store but they will be okay. I am worried about the people who are economically challenged, not just in Canada but across the world. We will see, if the forecasts are correct, some record-breaking starvation.
We have already seen the pain that Canadians are going through right now because of the lack of food production and because of inflation, with 1.47 million Canadians going to food banks in March 2022. That is a record high; it has never been higher. Twenty per cent of Canadians are now going to food banks on a regular basis and 60% of Canadians are failing to put food on their tables. These are the types of issues we need to be discussing. These are the types of issues we should be helping people with in rural areas across this country from coast to coast to coast.
By the way, the government was good enough to respond to my private member's bill by putting part of it into the budget, but unfortunately, instead of just giving farmers and the people in Napierville an exemption, it tried to put in a credit system. The challenge with how these debt-credit systems work is that, like the carbon tax, some of the money always seems to get stuck in Ottawa. Can members imagine that? It is so strange. These millions of dollars flow into Ottawa and are all supposed to flow out, but somehow they get stuck here in Ottawa. It is funny because that same money seems to flow pretty easily to Liberal insiders, friends and family, like with the arrive scam app worth $54 million. We still do not know where that money went. My goodness.
I could just imagine what the NDP or the Liberals would be saying if a private company took $54 million and had no idea from people who did not have even the obligation or the right to pick where that money came from. We need to be looking at this from the viewpoint of helping all Canadians going forward.
Another private member's bill that I worked on, with Senator Omidvar, was Bill S-216, which would help charities. There was a barrier, a Canadian problem called “direction and control” in charity law, which stopped Canadian charities from giving out money and working with other institutions around the world. Once again, do members know what the response of the Liberal government was? It put it in its budget.
I think I am singlehandedly driving a lot of the Liberal policy here. Maybe, to the member's credit, perhaps just having me talk about her private member's bill will mean the Liberals will also put that in the budget. There are odder things. I think there was some money to go to land control on the moon in one budget, and there is the arrive scam app, so certainly the Liberals could put this in the budget as well. However, that was another good idea for things we could put into PMBs that would help Canadians from coast to coast to coast.
Finally, with respect to my ideas for private member's bills, we have the international human rights act. The international human rights act contains a number of clauses, one of which will force the Department of Foreign Affairs to publicize the names of individuals who are being held as prisoners of conscience. These are individuals who are held just because of their beliefs, because they are pursuing things like freedom, liberty, democracy, LGBTQ2 rights and indigenous rights around the world. They are being held in prison just because they are pursuing freedom for others.
It would also force the government to respond when Magnitsky act sanctions are called for by a parliamentary committee. If a parliamentary committee says, “We need Magnitsky act sanctions put on this person,” then the department has 40 days to respond. It does not have to do it, but it has to tell us why it is or why it is not imposing Magnitsky sanctions. It is a very reasonable thing.
To go back half a step, the Magnitsky act sanctions are sanctions the government can put on individuals who are committing vile human rights crimes. When the legislation was initially passed, there were many instances in Venezuela, Russia and other countries where these sanctions were used. However, these sanctions have stopped being used.
I see that I am running a little short of time, which is a shame, because I could really talk about the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle for hours and hours. It is an absolutely beautiful part of the world. However, I did think of another name for the riding, which is Roxham Road. This has been a serious issue for Canadians, for Quebeckers, and so while I say that a little in jest, it takes nothing away from this serious issue that I hope the Liberal government will listen and respond to.
I like all of the people of Napierville.
I hope they have an absolutely fabulous time and I look forward to their being fully recognized as everyone in Canada should be, regardless of what they believe, who they love or who they are.
1375 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 1:14:43 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Châteaugay—Lacolle has the floor for her right to reply.
17 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate the speeches I have heard today.
I acknowledge my colleague from Manicouagan, who has such a nice riding name. I wish my colleague from Brampton North good luck with the boundary redistribution. I would also like to acknowledge my colleague from Northumberland—Peterborough South. I am an anglophone too and some names are difficult to pronounce even in English. However, the fact remains that that name represents my hon. colleague's riding, and that is what I want to talk about in my speech today.
I am very pleased to rise again in the House to support Bill S‑207, which seeks to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle. It is a necessary change to correct a misunderstanding. Although this misunderstanding was not ill-intentioned, it still caused problems for my constituents seven years ago. I still remember well what happened during my 2015 election campaign. It takes a lot of time and effort to make the necessary corrections, but it is worth doing because it is important for my constituents.
There are other ways to make the necessary corrections. I will talk about them in a moment. Despite that, I am pleased to sponsor Bill S‑207, which originated in the Senate. Thanks to the work we have done since 2015, I am confident that the name of my riding will finally be changed to Châteauguay—Les Jardins‑de‑Napierville.
I will say it again even though it has been mentioned several times before: The name Châteauguay—Lacolle is inaccurate because the municipality of Lacolle is actually in the riding of my hon. colleague from Saint‑Jean. It is just as important to make this correction for the people of Lacolle, who live in the riding of Saint‑Jean. It is Saint‑Bernard‑de‑Lacolle that is in the boundaries of my riding.
During the 2015 election, several people expressed concern over this name, saying that it caused confusion and interfered with their sense of belonging and the pride that residents of Saint‑Bernard‑de‑Lacolle had for their community.
The late mayor of Napierville, Jacques Délisle, was behind this new name. He is the one who suggested the name at the time. It is true that it is the name of an RCM, but it is also an expression that designates our region in general. The words “Les jardins” or “the gardens” evoke a beautiful agricultural region. Municipalities such as Saint‑Cyprien‑de‑Napierville are found in the regional county municipality of Jardins‑de‑Napierville. It is true that the name “Napierville” adds something extra.
It is important to remember that this proposal does keep the name “Châteauguay”, evoking not only the most populous municipality in my riding, but also the greater Châteauguay Valley area, which includes several municipalities. It truly is an inclusive name.
Again, I want to thank my colleagues who have spoken out in favour of this bill today. I look forward to announcing to my constituents in Châteauguay—Lacolle that they are now part of the Châteauguay—Les‑Jardins-de-Napierville riding.
565 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 1:19:14 p.m.
- Watch
The question is on the motion.
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. member for Châteauguay—Lacolle.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/28/22 1:19:55 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made Thursday, June 23, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 2, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.
It being 1:19, the House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 1:19 p.m.)
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
