SoVote

Mar/1/22 1:04:47 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. Yes, we must ensure the sustainability of the francophone nation and maintain Quebec's demographic weight. I hope my colleagues in the opposition will call on Quebec to increase francophone immigration, because this is one way to maintain this population in Quebec and throughout Canada.

54 words

All Topics

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/1/22 1:05:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a deep breath before I start my speech. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Manicouagan. Not too long ago, an anglophone journalist asked me whether Bill C-246, which I recently introduced and which would add a so-called Quebec nation clause to the Constitution, was just another frivolous request from Quebec. After a polite pause, she added that, according to some people, this was yet another temper tantrum by Quebeckers who refuse to embrace living in harmony the Canadian way. In response to these comments, all kinds of words came to my mind, words that common decency prevents us from using in this place, as we speak on behalf of our constituents. Although my constituents would not hold it against me if I let loose an avalanche of words that would enhance Quebec's chrestomathy for my many Canadian colleagues looking to learn the language of Leclerc and Vigneault, I will refrain from dipping into that vast inventory of words learned over decades spent in the shadows of chasubles and cassocks. I would rather take a step back. Once I stepped back and calmed down, I could see that the comments of this young journalist were not meant to be disrespectful of Quebec society but unfortunately reflected opinions and ideas that are widespread in the Canadian provinces. It is the fruit of decades of conscious and unconscious efforts to dampen the enthusiasm of the Quebec nation in its quest for autonomy and independence. I cannot really blame that young journalist for her comments, because she was born at a time when the narrative was already well entrenched. The seed had been planted and when the fruit is ripe, we do not think about how it grew. We are living in a time of intellectual laziness where people swallow everything they are served without asking too many questions. In fact, I would go so far as to say that these are rather sad times. What do we do about that? I think that we need to avoid confrontation and focus on education and awareness. We have to explain why Quebec is so focused on its uniqueness, its cultural differences and its different vision on so many issues. This rather reductive perception of the Quebec nation, its political and cultural heritage and its place in the history of this country is regrettable. We need not be surprised at this view and misunderstanding of Quebec, its historic weight and its resulting legitimate aspirations, because this is all built upon misperceptions throughout Canada's institutional and political evolution. We can go all the way back to the origins of Confederation in 1867 to better understand the place Quebec has within the Canadian federation. Again, Quebec is not a province. It is the product and the standard-bearer of one of the two distinct national communities at Canada's very origin. This dualism that people would like to forget or reduce to so little is in fact the foundation of the institutions that we are part of today. Over the past 40 years, almost all of Quebec's aspirations and claims within the Canadian federation have been rejected. After that night in 1982, when all of Quebec was betrayed, all attempts to remedy this situation have failed. Sometimes, these attempts have been symbolic, other times they have been mere administrative accommodations. There are numerous examples. Does all this make the quest to affirm the autonomy of the Quebec people less legitimate? No, because, I would point out, Quebec is more than just a province. Quebec is a nation. That was officially recognized in this place in 2006, as my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount said earlier. Furthermore, as was reaffirmed not that long ago, in June 2021, Quebec is a nation whose only official and common language is French. It is the only one on the North American continent. Our responsibility, as difficult as it may be, is to continue the discussion and the ongoing exchanges unabated, without partisanship, to ensure the message is heard and to have Quebec recognized for what it is. Consequently, the Quebec nation must be much more than just a symbol. Its recognition must be embodied in concrete actions and provisions that go well beyond declarations and intentions. This is what we will have the opportunity to do in a few weeks when we debate Bill C-246, which I mentioned in my opening comments. And that is what we are doing today as well, as a preamble, by debating this motion, which was moved this morning by my leader and colleague, the member for Belœil—Chambly. At the beginning of the Quiet Revolution, Quebec accounted for nearly 30% of the Canadian population. Today, roughly speaking, it accounts for 23%, and this is not getting any better. Indeed, Quebec and Canada must make efforts to correct this trend, and this work must focus on immigration. There is talk of wanting to increase immigration levels. Quebec has its own vision. We want to be able to welcome immigration to Quebec in a coherent and intelligent way. We can say that welcoming 100,000 newcomers is unrealistic if we want to welcome them properly. It is up to Quebec to determine the appropriate number or rate for its immigration capacity. That said, we are also relying on the federal government to not hinder immigration to Quebec. For example, as my colleague from Saint-Jean mentioned earlier, the treatment of student visa applicants from French-speaking Africa and the way they are discriminated against are very concerning. When Quebec declines, French declines. The presence of French in Parliament declines. I say that with the utmost respect and consideration for francophone communities across Canada, who, like Quebec, are fighting every day for the survival of their language and recognition of their language rights within the Canadian federation. It has been recognized that the Quebec nation is one of the two founding peoples. Well, that reality must push us to take action to preserve the French fact, to maintain the Quebec nation's influence here in the House of Commons and around the world. Canada prides itself on having two official languages and we like to say that they are English and simultaneous translation, but we must recognize that French is one as well. The motion we tabled today is intended to protect Quebec's identity, to protect Quebec's political influence, to ensure that Quebec continues to be represented as a nation, here in the House of Comments and within Canadian institutions as long as Quebec does not decide to stand on its own.

1121 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 1:13:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier, based on what the leader of the Bloc Party has said, how important actions were. Today we introduced the official languages modernization act. Yesterday we brought forward debate on Bill C-11 in regard to the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. Both of these pieces of legislation, from a national perspective, would ensure the protection of arts and culture. I know that my Quebec colleagues, in fact all of us, see the true value of that industry in the province of Quebec and how it has enhanced the heritage of Quebec. I am wondering if the member opposite recognizes that one does not necessarily have to be an MP from the province of Quebec, as I am not, as he knows, to advocate for wonderful things for the province of Quebec. I would like to think that members of the Bloc would also advocate for my province when it comes down to the issues.

159 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Mar/1/22 1:14:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Winnipeg North because he mentioned Bill C-11 on broadcasting, which I obviously care a lot about. Today's motion and Bill C-246, which I think are somewhat related because they are similar in purpose, do not criticize the government's work or the intentions and work of members from other parts of Canada. Yes, there are some good provisions in Bill C-11 to protect the discoverability, the showcasing and the presence of francophone content but also content from various communities, such as first nations communities, francophone communities outside Quebec and minority language communities. There are a lot of good things in that bill. In any case, it is what we expect from a government. We expect a government to create laws and regulations for the country as a whole, not just for certain parts of the country. This motion is not criticizing the Liberal government or its work, rather, it is a way of ensuring that Quebec maintains the political weight it deserves as a nation in the coming decades, in the future.

189 words

Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)

Mar/1/22 1:16:17 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond; I enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage. There is no doubt that the NDP will support the motion. However, it was mentioned in the debate earlier that the Bloc Québécois will be introducing a bill in a few weeks that will essentially say the same thing. This means that there will be a debate in a few weeks. I am a bit puzzled. There is currently a climate crisis; last summer’s heat wave in British Columbia killed 600. There is also a housing crisis, which has affected Quebeckers enormously. There is also the problem with health transfers, the war in Ukraine, and the pandemic. There are a lot of crises going on right now, but the Bloc is planning to present the same thing in the next few weeks, so we will debate it twice. There is an opposition day every three months. It seems to me that they could have picked two different topics. Why did the Bloc choose to introduce a motion and a bill on the same topic, when there are so many crises affecting Quebeckers?

198 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Mar/1/22 1:17:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will say that I enjoy working with my colleague at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage meetings. I have two answers to my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby's question. The first thing I would say is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It is pretty incredible, but we can. In his speech this morning, my leader said there would never be a right time. If we wait, there will always be something else. I think there is never a bad time to put this issue on the table. The other thing I want to do is thank my colleague for his advice on the Bloc Québécois's agenda. We can actually make our own decisions, and we will continue to do so. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his suggestions.

143 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Mar/1/22 1:18:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by telling my colleague from Drummond how much I admire him and how much I appreciate his work as a member of Parliament. Sometimes we have to say these things to each other as colleagues. He works so hard, and he is so passionate about everything from his role as heritage critic to his sponsorship of Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (representation in the House of Commons), which he introduced on February 8. He introduced the bill to promote and protect the interests of people in his riding, in mine and across Quebec, to protect Quebec's weight in the House of Commons by guaranteeing that 25% of the seats here will belong to Quebeckers because Quebec is a nation. It is therefore with conviction, but also with the certainty that I am doing what is right for Quebeckers and Quebec, that I rise today to debate the Bloc Québécois motion. This motion also addresses Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons, and it reads as follows: That, in the opinion of the House: (a) any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected; and (b) the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended and the House call on the government to act accordingly. Basically, what the Bloc Québécois is asking the House to do is to commit, as we have, to demanding that the government meaningfully protect Quebec's weight. I repeat, Quebec is a francophone nation within a country that is bilingual on paper. The Bloc Québécois is certainly not tabling this motion by chance or on a whim. Like pictures, numbers are worth a thousand words. From 1867 to 2021, Quebec's weight in the House of Commons declined, shrinking from 36% in 1867 to 23.1% in 2015, and it is still declining. At the same time, the number of MPs from Quebec has very slowly and humbly risen, from 65 out of 181 MPs in 1867 to 78 out of 338 MPs in 2015. In the next redistribution, which would take effect in 2024 at the earliest, Quebec's weight would continue to drop, eventually to 22.5%. Moreover, for the first time in history, Quebec would lose a seat, with its number of elected officials dropping to 77 out of 342. For the Bloc Québécois and Quebec, that is unacceptable. Of course, the decennial process of electoral boundaries redistribution is not a surprise, nor are its mechanics. First, the Chief Electoral Officer determines the electoral quotient, that is, the population per electoral district, by assessing the population increase since the last redistribution exercise. Currently, with a population increase of nearly 10% in 10 years, the population per electoral district is almost 122,000. The number of seats allocated to each province and to Quebec is then calculated by dividing the total population of Quebec and the provinces by the electoral quotient of 122,000. However, as the Quebec minister responsible for Canadian relations and the Canadian francophonie, Sonia LeBel, has said repeatedly, there is more to it than a simple mathematical formula. It is important to take into account the real weight of Quebec's representation in the House of Commons. We are francophones; we have a special status and a nation to defend. Quebec's specificity must prevent us from losing seats in the House of Commons. There is more to redistribution than a simple rule of three. If that were the case, Prince Edward Island would have only one member in the next redistribution, and some Prairie provinces would lose members. That is why there are two clauses in addition to the electoral quotient: the senatorial clause and the grandfather clause. I just illustrated this by talking about the Prairies and Prince Edward Island. The third and final aspect is the following. It is the last element for now, but I hope there will be another. This third element shapes the electoral redistribution that the Chief Electoral Officer must adhere to. It is called the representation rule. In other words, when a province does not have enough MPs to represent a riding, then more ridings, more members, need to be added. These clauses and rules were enacted over the past 150 years, roughly, but they are not immutable. I will quote the Canadian Encyclopedia, something I never imagined I would do. It concludes its article on the redistribution of federal electoral districts by focusing on the principle of balance: Although at first glance, this would seem to be a straightforward mathematical exercise, the principle of political equality exists alongside the fact that Canada is a federal state and the idea that effective representation also requires the recognition of distinct communities. Balancing these principles is at the heart of the redistribution process. Quebec is nothing less than a nation of more than eight million people who share a territory, a language, a culture and a vision. In 2006, the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation. This is a nation whose official and common language is French, as the House of Commons recognized in 2021, when it voted in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion to that effect. As long as Quebec is not a country, it will not have all the tools it should have for self-determination, and this will necessarily have political consequences, namely respect for Quebec's autonomy and its national assembly, the signing of asymmetrical agreements, and the acknowledgement of Quebec's distinct character in federal laws and policies. That is what Quebec is calling for today. It is calling on the House to take into account our nation and its corollary, in other words, the defence of its political weight. The Bloc Québécois is waiting for a firm and unequivocal commitment from parliamentarians and wishes to clarify the position of parties in the House. Let us remember the following. In 1992, the Charlottetown accord guaranteed that Quebec would have 25% of the weight in the House of Commons. The former Progressive Conservative Party was in favour of that. The Reform Party of Canada was against it. John Turner supported it, but Pierre Elliott Trudeau was against it. In 2006, the NDP supported it, but what about now? Some Canadian political parties have disappeared, and others have transformed into something different, but the Bloc Québécois has remained true to itself: logical, consistent and always ready to defend Quebec's interests. We want to know if, like Quebeckers, Canadian political parties are worried about the fate of Quebec, if they will reject any electoral redistribution scenario that reduces Quebec's political weight, and if they will act accordingly. To that end, why not add a “nation clause”? That is the role of parliamentarians. To conclude, I would like to quote my leader, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, and the Premier of Quebec, François Legault, who have both made statements since October expressing how Quebec feels about this threat. The Premier of Quebec said that “the Quebec nation deserves a certain degree of representation in the House of Commons, regardless of how many people live in each province”. He said that “this is a test for [the Prime Minister of Canada]. It is all well and good to recognize Quebec as a nation, but now he needs to back that up with action.” We are calling on the Prime Minister of Canada to “protect the proportion of members of Parliament from Quebec”. My leader also pointed out at the beginning of his speech that Quebec's weight has been reduced. Quebec absolutely cannot lose a seat, since this so-called bilingual country cannot allow its institutions to diminish the relative weight of its country's francophone territory. I want to echo what he said. Canada has no idea how big a fight the Bloc Québécois will put up if Quebec's weight continues to decrease while it is still in the federation. If anything, that will make us leave even sooner. I cannot wait until Quebec is able to make its own decisions.

1420 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 1:28:11 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who did a great job explaining certain points, even though I disagree with her. She said that Quebec should be a country, or at least I think that is what I heard. We are in the House of Commons, in Ottawa, and we are talking about Quebec's representation within Canadian democracy. I will be an ally to my colleague in ensuring that Quebec is well represented in the House. However, if we are going to move forward, I would like her to confirm that the Bloc Québécois will be satisfied by having Quebec well represented in the House and in Parliament.

112 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Mar/1/22 1:29:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Outremont for her question. I do not want to speak for all my colleagues, but I dare to imagine that the only thing that would satisfy the Bloc Québécois is Quebec's independence. We sit in the House of Commons because Parliament exists in Canada. I send my taxes to Ottawa and of course I want Quebec to be free to benefit from them as it sees fit. When we ask that our nation, which has been recognized, retain its political weight, that is only a half measure. It already makes sense and it should make sense for parliamentarians and for the government. Of course, we will always want more, because we want a country.

126 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Mar/1/22 1:29:55 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for her speech. I would like to ask her if she believes that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should look into the issue of creating a mixed-member proportional voting system and a citizens' assembly. Would that help the democratic reform discussion that we are having today in the House?

62 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Mar/1/22 1:30:37 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. I would like to address two things. Of course, one always wants the best possible representation for the people. However, I have made a clarification several times, and I have quoted the Canadian Encyclopedia, Sonia Lebel and my leader, François Legault. We are saying that representation is necessary, but that it is not a simple mathematical calculation of proportion. Quebec is a nation and this must be taken into account. Obviously, the Bloc Québécois will support anything that improves the democratic process.

100 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Mar/1/22 1:31:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Manicouagan for her speech. There is one thing I want to comment on. She talked about Ms. Lebel and Mr. Legault and what is going on in the National Assembly. Earlier, a Liberal MP once again accused the Bloc Québécois of picking a fight. I actually see us as spokespeople for Quebec's demands. In 2010, the National Assembly adopted a motion to ensure Quebec would not lose any political weight in the House of Commons. As long as we are here, we must champion and speak on behalf of Quebeckers, who just want Quebec, which is a nation and has that special status, to maintain its political weight in the House of Commons. That political weight is important. It must be protected, and we absolutely cannot lose a seat.

143 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Mar/1/22 1:32:04 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for her question. I am disappointed to hear that anyone would try to minimize the impact of the Bloc Québécois's actions or accuse us of picking a fight. I think that is intellectually dishonest. I could make an analogy here, but like any analogy, it may be murky or flawed. Still, Ukraine is not picking a fight right now. We want to stand up for our nation, our people, our values, our self-government and our integrity, and I think that is legitimate. It is legitimate for others, and it is legitimate for Quebec. Standing up for one's rights is not picking a fight.

118 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 1:32:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Laurent. It is a pleasure to rise to address a number of issues with a focus on what is before us right now. I cannot help but think of what is taking place in Europe. A number of members, when they stood up, started off by commenting on it. I would also like to do that, recognizing that what is happening in Ukraine today is top of mind for millions of Canadians from coast to coast to coast. It is something that will have a profound impact throughout the world. The take-note debate last night had no shortage of members of Parliament wanting to contribute to it. This is the type of issue that many Canadians would like to see the House possibly spend more time debating. In looking at the motion that the Bloc has brought before us today, we can kind of sense it. When the leader of the Bloc rose to speak, he made reference to Ukraine. I raise it because we should recognize that this is the very first opportunity that the Bloc has had to bring forward an opposition day motion in 2022. What makes it interesting is that the Bloc also has a private member's bill that deals with the same issue, which is also being scheduled for debate. I am a bit confused as to why they chose this issue: whether it is because of what is happening in the world, with the real threat and possibility of World War III, and the horrendous things taking place in Ukraine today, or whether it is because of local issues. Perhaps it is the pandemic, and providing thoughts and guidance on that. We often hear about the environment. We hear a great deal about housing and so much more, yet the Bloc chose to have this particular debate. I suspect, unfortunately, that it has a lot to do with politics. Let me provide some thoughts on this issue. Every 10 years, there is a readjustment that takes place. There is legislation that ensures there is an independent review of our boundaries and recommendations that follow. It is based, in part, on population shifts. We all know that populations change within municipalities, provinces and territories, obviously, and with interprovincial migration. That happens every year. A couple of years back, we released, through Census Canada, a report that clearly showed that with regard to population growth in Canada, whether over the past decade or into the future, immigration had to be taken into consideration. Future population growth is going to very much depend on immigration. Looking at interprovincial immigration, or migration, to immigration, and reflecting on that over the last decade has ultimately brought us to the point where we are today. Back in October, I believe, the recommendation was to reduce a seat in the province of Quebec. I have said this before in the House. I am very proud of my heritage and lineage that goes back to the province of Quebec. A couple of hundred years ago, my great-grandfathers and grandmothers would have been some of the pioneers in the province of Quebec. We were not the first. As we know, first nations were here before our francophone communities. Migration, at least in some elements, went out west into the province of Manitoba, where I live today and which I proudly represent. My passions, in terms of national policies, very much factor in the province of Quebec. I would not want any member to try to give an impression that unless one is a member of Parliament from Quebec, one does not necessarily care for what is happening in Quebec. I care for the province of Quebec in the same manner in which I care for our prairie provinces, the province of Ontario, the Atlantic provinces, our territories or B.C. We have a lot in common, economically, in terms of things such as the aerospace industry. French is a beautiful language. It is a language that we want to encourage and promote and get more people speaking. The province of Manitoba, and the St. Boniface community in particular, has a very healthy and growing francophone community. While Manitoba had immigration numbers during the nineties that were probably somewhere in the neighbourhood of about 3,000 to 4,000 annually, we have virtually quadrupled that number through the nominee program. Special attention was given to the francophone factor, which is very important, whether in urban Winnipeg through St. Boniface or in rural communities such as St-Pierre-Jolys, where my great-great-grandfather was born. For me, it is taking a look at what we are actually doing. A Bloc member said that this is about action. Today, we had the minister bring forward changes that will have a very positive impact on bilingualism here in Canada with our Official Languages Act. Yesterday, we were debating Bill C-11, which deals with updating or modernizing the Broadcasting Act. Actions do speak louder than words. I think it is important for us to recognize that the province of Quebec is in fact distinct and contributes so much to who we are overall as a nation. That is why it is important that we support arts and culture, such as we have seen in Bill C-11. That is why, in part, we brought forward the legislation that we introduced for first reading today. I understand the magic of 78. We see, in our history, when we have given consideration, for example, to the province of P.E.I. Because of the number of senators it has, it has to have an equal number of members of Parliament. I am very familiar with the grandfather clause that was put in in 1985. I would have welcomed debate on this when the members opposite brought forward the legislation, because we know it is going to be brought in. I question the politics in that they would choose this particular motion when there is so much happening internationally and here in Canada, and that they would use this as the most important public policy issue on their first opposition day. It is for them to ultimately make that determination, and I look forward to seeing the private member's bill being brought forward that I understand deals with the same issue.

1069 words

All Topics

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Mar/1/22 1:42:45 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I too am proud of my heritage, as the member for Winnipeg North said. Of course, my last name, Gill, is quite British—Gills were kidnapped, raised, and adopted by Abenaki people—and here I am in the House to represent Quebec. As my colleague from Drummond said earlier, we are able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We now have proof that Canada is deciding what is good for Quebec. They are telling the Bloc Québécois that it should not be using this opposition day to talk about what it wants to talk about, namely, what concerns Quebec. I find it a bit ill-advised to put it that way. We are also being told that we have an urgent crisis. I completely agree that what is happening in Ukraine right now is truly a crisis, but we can multitask. I would add that I find it rather odd to be lectured by a party who was unable to manage a street and is now talking about a war outside Canada. I would like to know whether the member for Winnipeg North agrees with our motion.

201 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/1/22 1:43:57 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if they were to read what the leader of the Bloc Party had to say and the preamble to the question the member asked, they too would recognize that their priorities might be a little out of place. In both cases, they referenced what is happening at the international level. Regarding the motion at hand, the member is going to find out exactly what I will do in good time. At the end of the day, there will be a vote. I can assure the member that, even though I am not a member of the Quebec legislature, I am someone who respects the needs of all communities, particularly those of the province of Quebec. I will always be an advocate for Quebec.

127 words

Ms. Lori Idlout (Nunavut, NDP)

Mar/1/22 1:45:06 p.m.
Watch

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji. I represent 25 remote fly-in communities, 25 communities with mayors, 25 communities with airports and 25 communities with any number of schools, including a French school in Iqaluit. The land mass of my riding extends from Alberta to Quebec. The discussion on seat distribution is of particular interest to me, and I realize the member thinks that the timing is not the best. Does the member agree that the representation criteria and seat distribution should be expanded to include the vastness of the land mass in Canada?

90 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/1/22 1:45:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, to a certain degree, we do that already. Each territory is given one member of Parliament. Looking at the population of the three territories compared to the Canadian average, it is very obvious that it is given, as well it should be. Territories and provinces need representation, and it would not be appropriate to have one member of Parliament representing three territories.

64 words

Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP)

Mar/1/22 1:46:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the crisis in Ukraine is about democracy. The Conservatives keep using it to claim that we should be pumping oil production, which I think is abusive, but my colleague surprised me when he said there is a crisis in Ukraine and chastised the Bloc for talking about the democratic set-up of the House. The fight in Ukraine is about democracy. It is about the right of people to make decisions about how their democracy is going to be maintained. I welcome this decision by the Bloc. The Bloc has a right to bring this forward and should not be chided for it. This is a fair conversation. Why does my hon. colleague think that, just because we are talking about the international crisis, we cannot talk about improving democracy at home?

134 words

All Topics

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/1/22 1:47:24 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is just a personal opinion. If I were in opposition and did not want to dabble in the international crisis, I would be talking about issues such as health care transfers, the environment or housing. It is my personal opinion the the Bloc and opposition parties will do what the Bloc and opposition parties will do. However, I suspect if the Bloc were to canvass its constituents, this might not necessarily be the primary issue they want it to deal with, given that it also has a private member's bill that will be debated on the very same issue.

103 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 38