SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Mel Arnold

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • North Okanagan—Shuswap
  • British Columbia
  • Voting Attendance: 69%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $117,514.07

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 74 - May/18/22
Mr. Mel Arnold (North Okanagan—Shuswap, CPC)
  • May/18/22 5:11:41 p.m.
  • Watch
  • Re: Bill C-14 
Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House as the representative of the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap, as always. Finally, after three days of delay, I get to speak to Bill C-14. Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The bill before us today proposes measures to ensure that a province will not have fewer members assigned to it than were assigned during the 43rd Parliament. This proposal is not without precedent. There have been times when the House has agreed to adjust its system of redistribution to ensure that provinces do not lose seats in redistribution, and this is the essence of the legislation we are assessing today. It is not the first time the House has debated this long-standing question: What are the objectives and factors for adjusting or creating federal electoral districts? In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the question, precipitated by a redistribution process in Saskatchewan for adjusting electoral boundaries. In its conclusions, the Supreme Court stated: The content of the Charter right to vote is to be determined in a broad and purposive way, having regard to historical and social context. The broader philosophy underlying the historical development of the right to vote must be sought and practical considerations, such as social and physical geography, must be borne in mind. The court highlighted the ideal of a “free and democratic society” upon which the charter is founded. The Supreme Court also wrote, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation’. The right to vote therefore comprises many factors, of which equity is but one.” Basing voting power or parity on mathematical calculations of populations is important, but these are not the only factors for the House to consider. On June 1, 1872, 150 years ago, the House was debating factors for proposed adjustments to representation in the House of Commons, and Prime Minister John A. Macdonald told the House, “while the principle of population was considered to a very great extent, other considerations were also held to have weight; so that different interests, classes and localities should be fairly represented, that the principle of numbers should not be the only one.” In the 1991 Saskatchewan case, the Supreme Court further explained reasons why parity of voting power, though of prime importance, is not the only factor to consider in ensuring effective representation. In 1991, the Supreme Court wrote: Notwithstanding the fact that the value of a citizen's vote should not be unduly diluted, it is a practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without taking into account countervailing factors. First, absolute parity is impossible. It is impossible to draw boundary lines which guarantee exactly the same number of voters in each district. Voters die, voters move. Even with the aid of frequent censuses, voter parity is impossible. Secondly, such relative parity as may be possible of achievement may prove undesirable because it has the effect of detracting from the primary goal of effective representation. As we examine this bill's legislative proposals for our system of redistribution and determining representation provided to each province, I would like to reflect on effective representation. What did the Supreme Court mean when it wrote, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation’”? The court provided some answers to this question in 1991, when it stated: Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic. These are but examples of considerations which may justify departure from absolute voter parity in the pursuit of more effective representation; the list is not closed. When I reflect on this statement from the court, I see the court highlighting the importance of social fabric and the threads of culture, history, geography and identities interwoven in social fabrics of specific communities, regions and constituencies. I agree that these factors must be considered as constituencies are created or redistributed and as the boundaries of electoral districts are redrawn. Whether we are talking about political boundaries or boundaries such as those the government is drawing on our oceans in a desperate effort to deliver campaign promises, we must reflect on what the purpose is of drawing lines and what the realities are of the societies or waters that we draw lines through. While the Supreme Court stated in 1991 that the determination of political representation and adjustment of electoral boundaries should support the pursuit of “effective representation”, I believe there are some important points to be made today, in 2022, regarding effective representation. Canadians depend on us, their elected representatives, to function in the House as their voices, their advocates and their representatives. Effective representation, I believe, is dependent on each of us being open to the Canadians we represent so that we can understand and advocate for their ever-evolving needs and priorities. That is what each of us as individual members can do to support effective representation and the Canadians who depend on us to do so. However, and I hope members on all sides agree with me on this point, our ability to deliver effective representation to Canadians is severely hampered when Parliament is shuttered and the House of Commons sits silent in adjournment. Last year, in 2021, the House sat for just 95 days. In 2020, the House sat for 86 days. Yes, in 2020, the House's operation was hampered by the arrival of the pandemic. Yes, in 2021, the Prime Minister chose to trigger an unnecessary election and then delayed the return of Parliament for nine weeks. At a time of unprecedented crisis, the Prime Minister chose to shutter one platform that we all need to deliver effective representation to Canadians. It is clear why the House was reduced in its function as a forum for effective representation in 2020 and 2021. However, the same cannot be said for 2019, when the House sat for a mere 75 days, even fewer days than in 2020 and 2021. To put things in a historical perspective, from 1945 to 1975, the House sat an average of 138 days each year. From 1975 to 2015, the House sat for an average of 123 days each year. As we assess the legislation before us today, I hope all members can reflect on the objective that I hope we all share: the goal of providing effective representation for all Canadians. Let us also reflect on the essential role the House plays in facilitating effective representation by providing representatives the forum in which to represent. It is not enough to champion effective representation only in today's debate; we must pursue it every day. While the House was shuttered, I used my time to connect with constituents and hear their concerns in order to be more effective when Parliament resumed sitting. Let us never sit idly by while the Prime Minister shutters the House, which we need for doing our jobs.
1237 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border