SoVote

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:22:05 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I wholeheartedly agree with my colleague. I have been listening to my colleagues in the NDP say that we need to give more consideration to francophones outside Quebec and that the Bloc Québécois does not do that. I do not think that is true. On the contrary, I think that it is at the heart of the Bloc Québécois's agenda, since we have always been concerned about the diversity of all francophones in North America. Would my colleague not agree with me that a strong Quebec, a francophone Quebec nation recognized as such and protected within the Canadian federation, would help these francophone minorities that are not given the weight they deserve in Canada as a whole? The anglophone minorities in Quebec are well protected. However, the same cannot be said for the francophone minorities in western Canada. The Bloc Québécois knows this and has often stood in the House to say so. In my colleague's opinion, is the recognition that the Bloc Québécois is asking for today not a way of strengthening the influence of francophone communities outside Quebec?

200 words

Ms. Christine Normandin

Mar/1/22 12:23:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more with my colleague. This reminds me of a time in my not so distant youth when I was president of the Parti Québécois’s Comité national des jeunes. Some Franco-Ontarians came to see us at the end of a meeting at which we had discussed Quebec independence. They asked us if we often heard the argument that an independent Quebec would forget about the francophone communities outside Quebec. They told us not to buy that argument and that, on the contrary, Quebec would serve as a guiding light when making their future demands. I would also like to come back to a comment that I heard just before, something to the effect that the Bloc Québécois does nothing for francophone communities outside Quebec. However, I spoke just today about immigration and accepting francophone students, the difficulties that we have run into and the battle that we are fighting on this issue. We are doing this not just for Quebec, but also for the benefit of many French-language educational institutions outside Quebec, as was often stated in committee.

196 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:24:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to share some thoughts on Quebec's declining political weight. I can already hear the member for Drummond's snarky comments about the extra weight I am carrying around, but this is not about me. It is about Quebec's political weight. Quebec's influence is clearly declining in a number of ways. Losing a seat in the House would be one way. That said, there is something else I would like to touch on. I can see that Quebec is not as influential when I look at the mainstream ideas gaining ground in Canada right now, ideas that do not really apply to Quebec. On the one hand, we have the rise of a kind of conservative populism that denies climate change, has a narrow definition of freedom, is disconnected from Quebec's reality and has nothing to do with Quebeckers' interests. On the other hand, we are seeing the rise of a sort of multicultural political correctness whose adherents view secularism as an obstacle to freedom and pluralism. These two key political viewpoints show that Quebec's voice may not be adequately represented in this assembly. The same goes for economic interests. Quebec's voice is not well represented in this assembly when it comes to economic interests. The majority of our debates are focused on oil and gas. There are two major sectors of activity in Canada. One is the automotive sector, and the other is the oil and gas sector. I hear my Conservative colleagues making connections between the current crisis in Ukraine and big oil's agenda. This does not affect Quebeckers. I look forward to seeing my Conservative colleagues from Quebec stand up to address the issues that affect Quebec a bit more. Just look at the softwood lumber sector. Canada has never wanted to go to battle to come to an agreement with the United States that would be good for Quebec. This is one illustration, one manifestation of Quebec's loss of influence. The same thing goes for Quebec's legitimate aspirations. I will just go over them quickly, but there is Bill 96 on the official and common language of Quebec. Some people have said that this law discriminates against the English-speaking minority, which is probably better treated than any other minority in the whole world. Anglophones make up 8% of Quebec's population, but they get 32% or 33% of the post-secondary education funding. Give me a break. It is the same thing with the challenges to Bill 21, Quebec's secularism bill. The mayors of some municipalities were quick to portray the secularism law as something racist that should be fought. In a way, that is another illustration of Quebec's waning influence. What can stand as a bulwark? Well, Quebec nationalism can. Unfortunately, though, Quebec nationalism gets bad press, and perhaps that is what I want to talk about today. I want us to define together what Quebec nationalism is. This is important, because the bill introduced by the dreaded member for Drummond contains a provision about the nation. I would therefore like us to agree on what we mean by “Quebec nationalism”. First of all, Quebec nationalism is not a bellicose nationalism. There has never been any question of invading Ontario or fighting New Brunswick. Quebec nationalism has absolutely nothing to do with what we understand as bellicose nationalism. In my opinion, the most interesting thesis on Quebec nationalism comes from Léon Dion, the father of another well-known Dion, the one who still had a Quebec conscience. I mean no offence. Léon Dion's thesis is that during the first half of the 20th century, a conservative nationalism emerged in Quebec. It was a nationalism associated with the myth of survival. It is true that it is an identity-based nationalism, in which Quebeckers clung to the reference points they had, that is, their language and their religion. That religion has historically been quite problematic for us, as my grandmother, who was forced to have 18 children, could attest. That is why, today, we understand to some extent why our vision of religion differs from that of Canadians. Léon Dion also talks about a liberal or social-democratic nationalism that is associated with the birth of the Quebec state during the Quiet Revolution. I would like to share a quote from Jean Lesage, who said: “The only power we have is our state, the state of Quebec. We cannot afford the luxury of letting it sit idle.” This quote gets to the heart of Quebec nationalism. When Lesage said this, he was also alluding to a theme he would champion throughout what would become the Quiet Revolution: The Quebec state will be the driving force of our emancipation. When I think of nationalism, I think of the Quebec state protecting a national minority that has a different culture. I want to dispel a myth about Quebec nationalism that has persisted for some 50 years now, which is that Quebec nationalism is a form of withdrawal. I disagree. Hubert Aquin did the best job of debunking that myth about Quebec in 1962. He wrote a response to Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the father of another person we know, who had written a passionate critique of Quebec nationalism in an essay called “La nouvelle trahison des clercs”, or the new treason of the intellectuals. That makes me think of a story that bears repeating. Who here knows the difference between Mr. Trudeau and René Lévesque? During the Second World War, Mr. Trudeau was fortunate to be in Canada, canoeing all kinds of lakes, while René Lévesque was working as a war correspondent for American media outlets. René Lévesque was one of the first journalists to enter Dachau. Meanwhile, Pierre Elliott Trudeau was off canoeing. René Lévesque never equated Quebec nationalism with the type of nationalism based on inward-looking attitudes or aggressive nationalism. Meanwhile, Trudeau senior, who was busy paddling around, did make that dubious connection. End of story. In “La nouvelle trahison des clercs”, Pierre Elliott Trudeau says it is up to us to be our best selves because being better will show English Canada that French-Canadian culture is vibrant. In “La fatigue culturelle du Canada français”, Hubert Aquin offered this magnificent response: “Why should French Canadians have to be better? Why must they 'break through' to justify their existence?” This is one of the bigger Gordian knots in Canada. Why do we have to continually fight to legitimize our existence? This is what Hubert Aquin said. What Hubert Aquin did that was so fantastic is that he debunked the myth of nationalism as a withdrawal into one's identity. He pointed out that the Quebec nation has never been based on a single ethnicity; that the Quebec nation is the result of diasporas of many nationalities; that it is the result of a history founded by French Canadians, of course, but from a plurality of ethnicities. The only thing that these people share is a common culture. When Hubert Aquin responded to Trudeau senior in 1962, he said that the fundamental distinction between English Canada and French Canada is that French Canada is monocultural. French Canada is based on one culture, while English Canada is bicultural. In this sense, according to Hubert Aquin, there is an openness to diversity. This openness is possible as long as Quebec's culture is respected. I will conclude by saying that the best way to protect Quebec culture is to accept the nationalism that goes with it.

1304 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:34:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for his passionate and fascinating speech. I will not be making any comments about his weight. He talked a lot about the importance of nationalism and the fact that it should not be seen as looking inward. I would also like to hear him talk about the fact that we are here for one thing. Nationalism is fine, but until independence has been achieved, and until we are a country, we have a vested interest in being here to defend our interests. Nationalism is one step, it protects us, but it leads us to something much greater for the Quebec nation.

112 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Mar/1/22 12:34:49 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I want to come back to Hubert Aquin. In his essay “La fatigue culturelle du Canada français”, he asked: what will ultimately become of French Canada? That is a question that I have been asking myself for the past 30 years. Could my identity disappear in the distant future? Could the unique place that Quebeckers have in the world disappear? Yes, it could happen if we let things go; if our political weight in the House is reduced; and if we set aside what has sustained us over the past 50 or 60 years: the dream of building a country.

110 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Mar/1/22 12:35:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Jonquière. To some extent, I agree with the Bloc regarding its nationhood. It is not lost on me that the Bloc is arguing this as settlers, whereupon Inuit and first nations have lived and thrived since time immemorial. I agree that linguistic and cultural criteria should be of paramount importance to the electoral redistribution process. I must ask the member what his party will do to ensure that Inuit, first nations and Métis are represented within his party.

92 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Mar/1/22 12:36:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have always found similarities in what Quebeckers and indigenous nations have been calling for. Unfortunately, sometimes we get in each other’s way, and we know why. Regarding the two major rounds of constitutional negotiations, Meech and Charlottetown, why did indigenous peoples never managed to gain recognition afterwards, even though they also seek political autonomy? It is because federalists are afraid of setting a precedent. By setting this precedent, they will be forced to grant the Quebec nation the same thing. Unfortunately, it will take courage on the part of people who hold a federalist point of view to offer recognition to the indigenous nations and, by the same token, offer recognition to the Quebec nation as well. We have a lot of things to share together.

131 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:37:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my colleague. He is so eloquent and intelligent and has a passion for literature, the great researchers and the great writers. My question is a little more down to earth. He also comes from a region, Jonquière, which is known as the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region. Could he explain how people living in sparsely populated, rural and remote areas stand to lose the most if the Canada Elections Act is overhauled? There is also the matter of land use, which is at the heart of our discussions.

101 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Simard

Mar/1/22 12:38:18 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my whip is so wise. I did not mention this in my speech, but yes, we must ensure that the distribution between major urban centres and the regions is balanced. I am a country mouse. I come from the regions, and the way we identify politically is different from people in urban areas. We need to have a voice and this needs to be taken into account as well. I am happy that my whip was there to bring this up.

83 words

All Topics

Hon. Marc Garneau (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 12:38:59 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Hochelaga. It is with great pleasure that I rise to discuss an important issue, the readjustment of Canada's federal electoral boundaries. My speech today will focus on a key aspect of the electoral boundaries readjustment process, which has now officially begun. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act sets out the process by which the seats of the House of Commons are redistributed every 10 years. Why every 10 years? It corresponds to the timing of the release of decennial census data, which is used by the Chief Electoral Officer to calculate seat allocation. As all hon. members know, the Chief Electoral Officer used this data to do the necessary calculation in October 2021. Since then, 10 independent commissions have been created, one in each province. These three-member commissions include a chair, who is appointed by the chief justice of the province, and two members, who are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons. I would like to take a moment to thank these distinguished Canadians for agreeing to do this work. The commitment they have made cannot be overstated, and I know all my colleagues agree with that. A cynical person might say that, as MPs, we have a disproportionate level of interest in this process, but I would like to remind members that this work has a direct impact on the way each of us serves Canadians. As a result, public consultations play an essential role in the redistribution process. I am delighted to say that, when the independent electoral boundaries commissions publish their initial boundary proposals, there will be at least one public hearing held in every province. Thanks to these public consultations, Canadians in all 10 provinces will have the opportunity to have their say about the proposals. What is more, members of the House of Commons will have the opportunity to provide input at the public hearings and voice any objections they may have. The electoral boundaries commissions have started to develop an initial series of revised electoral district maps, which will be published in the coming months. Then, pursuant to section 19 of the act, the commissions will publish their respective proposals in the Canada Gazette and at least one newspaper of general circulation. It is important to note that the proposal must include the dates and times of the public hearings. Under the act, the commissions must organize at least one public hearing, and it must be held 30 days after the proposal is published. It is important to note that the commissions can hold more than one public hearing. In fact, history confirms it. During the 2012 redistribution process, 132 public hearings were held in Canada's 10 provinces. It will come as no surprise, but the larger provinces held more public hearings than the smaller ones. For example, there were 31 public hearings in Ontario, 23 in British Columbia, 21 in Quebec and 15 in Alberta. What is more, in order to encourage participation, many of the public hearings were held in the evening. Beyond the Canadians and MPs who made presentations, either orally or in writing, during the public hearings, the commissions agreed to consider comments received by email, fax and other means. Saskatchewan's commission received nearly 3,000 presentations in various forms, including emails, letters and petitions. It is highly likely that the commissions will do everything they can to reach as many people as possible in their province. I think it is also fair to say that, given the rapid changes in the information and communications environment since 2012, the commissions can probably reach an even broader public this time around. In other words, this broad public consultation, which is set to begin between April and October 2022, will allow the commissions to gather valuable information when they are revising and finalizing their proposals. Before getting into the opportunity that MPs have to participate, I must note that in 2012, community groups, municipalities and other organizations submitted many presentations. This contribution is essential, because these stakeholders represent communities' points of view in a way that is different, but equally important for MPs. As I mentioned earlier, all members can present their views at these public hearings. I therefore encourage any member who feels compelled to do so, since we have unique local knowledge of our constituencies and the needs of our constituents. Furthermore, once a commission has submitted a revised report, members may also file written objections with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Once the committee has considered these objections, a copy of the objections and the committee's minutes will be forwarded to the relevant commission. Under section 23 of the act, the commission shall then consider objections that may result in changes to its boundary proposal or to the names of the proposed electoral districts. Before I close, I would once again like to emphasize a point I made at the beginning of my speech: The electoral boundaries commissions are fully independent and responsible for producing and finalizing the boundary proposals. Although the commissions are solely responsible for this important work, as I tried to explain during my speech, there are many opportunities for the public and every member of the House to participate. I want to close by emphasizing that all Canadians deserve to have effective representation in the House of Commons. Does this mean that we have to perfectly match a province's population to the proportion of seats assigned to that province? The answer is no, of course not. Representation must reflect the unique character of Canada. I believe that all members will agree that what is most important here is the notion of effective representation. The commissions will consider the most recent census data, as well as such factors as the importance of protecting communities of interest and historical boundaries. What does effective representation mean to Canadians? It means knowing that their MP is sensitive to their concerns. I know that is something we all take to heart, and it is probably the reason each of us decided to run for public office. We want to serve the Canadians who voted for us. Every day, voters turn to their MPs to obtain advice on a certain number of issues. These issues are quite varied. It could concern progress on an immigration or visa application by a family member. Others want information about federal assistance programs. I do not have to tell my colleagues just how important this point of contact and this representation were during the two years of the COVID-19 pandemic. Now more than ever, we must show leadership and help all Canadians be heard. I hope that my colleagues will join me in encouraging that result.

1142 words

All Topics

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:48:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his very detailed, educational and informative speech. Unfortunately, I will only speak to the final comments because I cannot summarize all of it. What stood out for me was the notion of effective representation. In that regard, does my colleague believe that, with its motion, the Bloc Québécois is right in wanting to maintain Quebec's weight, its weight as a nation, within Canada?

75 words

Hon. Marc Garneau

Mar/1/22 12:49:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to perhaps inform my colleague that I was one of the three people who first proposed that Quebec be recognized as a nation at a convention of the Quebec section of the Liberal Party of Canada in 2006. Two other Liberals joined me in doing so. I am very pleased that, a few months later, the House gave its unanimous consent to recognize Quebec as a nation. I have always supported this important recognition for my province. I also mentioned how the distribution of seats has an impact on the efficacy of representation. I look forward to hearing what all Canadians have to say about this issue, particularly in my province of Quebec. It is important to hear what they have to say, and we need to recognize Quebec's unique differences.

141 words

Mr. Jacques Gourde (Lévis—Lotbinière, CPC)

Mar/1/22 12:50:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like to ask him the following question. Does he think it makes sense for Quebec to lose a seat in the redistribution of the electoral boundaries? Given that this could set a precedent because no province has ever lost a seat before and given that the same thing could also happen in other provinces, the commission should expect opposition from Quebec and even some of the other provinces. Can the government tell the commission not to bring about this type of scenario?

93 words

Hon. Marc Garneau

Mar/1/22 12:51:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. He raises an important point. Historically, no province has ever lost a seat. That is an extremely important consideration in this discussion between us and with all Canadians. At the same time, as I said, we need to recognize certain historical facts and certain things that are unique in all the provinces. That has already been done in the Constitution Act, 1867. We need to debate it. I look forward to hearing from other members of the House, but also from Quebeckers and people from our other provinces.

99 words

Mr. Taylor Bachrach (Skeena—Bulkley Valley, NDP)

Mar/1/22 12:52:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke to the idea of effective representation, and while it is a little beyond the scope of the current motion, I am curious as to his views on the idea of moving to a truly proportional system in the way we hold elections, such as the mixed-member proportional system that is common in European countries. Could the member share his personal view on that idea?

70 words

Hon. Marc Garneau

Mar/1/22 12:52:44 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have always been very clear, as far back as 2013, that I personally favour a preferential vote approach. I have always said that publicly and that has been my position from the beginning.

36 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Mar/1/22 12:53:10 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question on the same topic as the one from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Perhaps the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount could clarify his response. I am very pleased to hear that he remains opposed to the first-past-the-post voting system. I think he would prefer a preferential ballot system, but the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley asked if he supported a proportional representation voting system in the House.

88 words

Hon. Marc Garneau

Mar/1/22 12:53:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will try to clarify my answer. I told the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley what my personal preferences would be. That is what he asked me and that is what I said. However, we had a debate on what voting methods we should use. That went on for a long time after the 2015 election. As the Liberal Party very aptly put it, there was no consensus in Canada and no large majority in favour of one system over another. That is why we still have the current system.

93 words

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing), Lib.)

Mar/1/22 12:54:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, today it is my turn to rise in the House to address one of the important processes of our democracy: electoral redistribution. Indeed, the official process of redistribution of electoral districts must, by law, take place every 10 years. For 60 years, independent, non-partisan electoral boundaries commissions have been responsible for redrawing our electoral maps. These commissions were created in 1964 when Parliament passed the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. This independent approach was introduced to avoid the risk of political interference in this important process. It is an approach that aims to maintain the integrity and transparency of our democratic systems and institutions. Moreover, we have seen, through several events in recent years, and again recently, how fragile the public's confidence in our democratic institutions can be. This is why it is so important to properly follow the process of redrawing the electoral map. While this process has already begun, Elections Canada has already made a proposal that, as a member from Quebec, I find surprising. No matter what anyone says or does, it is not the federal government's decision to reduce Quebec's weight in the House. This proposal comes from a completely independent institution and is not a political matter. Still, for the Bloc Québécois, this is another way of trying to create debates and disputes between Quebec and the federal government. The fact is, the Bloc Québécois is not the only party making sure Quebec's voice is heard in the House. The Bloc Québécois is not the only party fighting for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois certainly does not have a monopoly on being Québécois. As a proud member from Quebec and a proud Quebecker, fighting for Quebec is what I do and have done every day since being elected. The people taking action for Quebec are not the ones on the opposition benches; they are the ones in government. Since 2015, that is exactly what we have been doing every day: delivering concrete results. We are making a difference in the lives of all Quebeckers. We invested a record $1.8 billion to build housing and tackle the housing crisis affecting all of Quebec, especially our wonderful metropolis. We signed a $6-billion agreement to create thousands of child care spaces in Quebec because we know there is a shortage of spaces for Quebec families. We invested $172 million to take effective action in partnership with cities against homelessness in Montreal and elsewhere in the province. We will connect all Quebeckers to high-speed Internet thanks to record investments in Canada-Quebec operation high speed. We were there with the Canadian Armed Forces to help seniors in long-term care homes at the height of the pandemic. Our armed forces also supported the vaccination campaign during the pandemic in Quebec. That is what we have been doing. We take concrete action for Quebeckers ever day. Getting things done for Quebec comes from having Quebec MPs in government. I am very proud to be part of a team of 35 Liberal MPs who are getting results for Quebec every day. What this motion is trying to do, to some extent, is to show that the federal government is disconnected from Quebeckers and that it does not hear their concerns. Quebec's political weight has always been important, and it will not be eroded in 2022 under our government, which is there for Quebec. We must not politicize this debate. Unfortunately, it is being implied that the federal government has contempt for Quebeckers, but the reality is quite different. I still remember an announcement that our government made in 2017. For the first time, the federal government invested $2.4 million to fund Quebec's national holiday. The Bloc Québécois may have already forgotten that this was the first time the federal government funded Quebec's national holiday, that federal money was invested in the national holiday. It was also our government that invested $750,000 to develop Espace René-Lévesque in New Carlisle, the hometown of one of our great democrats from Quebec. I would like the Bloc Québécois to admit that and to commend the federal government on such initiatives, which preserve the memory of René Lévesque. It will also be our Liberal government that will bring forward the modernization of the Official Languages Act to protect our beautiful French language. We are also taking action to protect the French language and francophone culture on major digital platforms. These are several examples of how the Liberal Party is taking concrete action for Quebec. We still have a lot of work to do, but I can assure the House that the 35 members from Quebec on this side are working hard to improve the lives of Quebeckers. Whether it is to defend our culture, our languages, our progressive values, or the desire to leave a green future, we will always be there to fight for Quebec. We all agree that the demographic weight of a francophone nation must be preserved. However, I do think that it is a shame that we have politicized this debate today instead of taking a more unanimous stance.

902 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/1/22 1:00:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am extremely disappointed with the tone taken by my colleague from Hochelaga today. I do not know what mood she was in when she read the Bloc Québécois motion. I do not see where she got the impression that it criticizes the work of the government or the work of the members from Quebec, regardless of political stripe. Nothing could be further from the truth. Members from Quebec of all political stripes should see this motion as an opportunity to work better for Quebec, to come up with the tools to continue to work better for Quebec, and to better represent its interests. We have plenty of opportunities to criticize what the government is doing, but I can assure the House that there is nothing of the sort in the motion that we have tabled today. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the possibility of losing a seat here in the House of Commons and the real impact that this could have on Quebec’s political weight and on the work that members from Quebec, regardless of political stripe, can do for their constituents in the House of Commons.

206 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 38