SoVote

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Mar/1/22 3:25:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot talked about the Quebec nation and making sure that Quebec has enough representation in the House. First, if Quebec wants to have another referendum, the National Assembly should go for another referendum. Based on the language he has been providing today, it seems that is what they want to do. I would encourage him to talk to his premier to do that. Second, we do not talk enough about this in the House of Commons. British Columbia has six or seven seats. British Columbia has no guaranteed seats on the Supreme Court of Canada. The west still wants in, and I am sick and tired of hearing all the time about the needs of Quebec when British Columbia needs its fair share of the federation as well. We pay taxes and the Constitution is representation by population. Quebec needs to recognize that B.C. pays its fair share and B.C. deserves just as much representation.

165 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/1/22 3:26:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague criticize me for promoting the fundamental objective of the Bloc Québécois, which is Quebec's independence. I also heard him fiercely standing up for his fellow citizens. That is what we are doing. He was elected to represent his fellow citizens, just like my colleagues and I were elected to represent ours. We were elected as separatists, knowing that this is not a place where we will be influencing a separatist movement. I want to reassure my colleague that we also want to invite the Quebec National Assembly to launch a separation bid. We are the first to be in favour of it. I ask my colleague to recognize that we were elected as separatists and that it is natural for us to use our platform and our access to federal debates to promote our cause among our fellow citizens. What is wrong with that? We were elected without hiding our objective from anyone. It is clear. I do not want anyone to criticize us for bringing it forward. If my colleague is sick and tired of always hearing about the needs of Quebec, I hope he will join us in advocating for our independence.

205 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Mar/1/22 3:27:26 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot that my youngest daughter was born in Montreal. I thank him for speaking about representation for Canadians and for those in Quebec, and I want to ask him if the Bloc agrees that the first-past-the-post system is no longer serving all people.

58 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Mar/1/22 3:27:53 p.m.
Watch

During its first term in office, the current government promised to reform the electoral system in order to make it more proportional, but that promise was quickly broken. Of course we were in favour of electoral reform, and I have no reason to believe that we would not support it in the future, but on one condition, of course. We will not automatically give our approval because not all electoral reform will necessarily be good. We will not say yes or no to the broad concept of electoral reform. We will examine all the details as soon as a proposal is put forward. For now, it does not seem as though electoral reform is even on the table.

118 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud (Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, BQ)

Mar/1/22 3:28:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am going to tell you about Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, which was previously the riding of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. I will come back to that a little later. I am very pleased to be speaking about this matter today. I was listening to the speeches by my leader and my House leader this morning, and it was music to my ears to hear them stand up for Quebec. I feel sorry for our poor Conservative colleagues who are again going to listen to us defending Quebec and the nation that it is, because that is essentially the topic of the day. As my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot was saying, since 2006, we have been reminding the House that Quebeckers form a nation. The House reiterated it last June, when it acknowledged that Quebec forms a nation, and that French is its only official and common language. I believe that when acknowledging this unity and this desire to live together also means acknowledging that we aspire and have the right to a certain form of self-determination and control over our social, economic and cultural development. As long as Quebec is part of Canada, our nationhood has real political implications. In order for consideration of our nationhood to be embedded in the political decisions made in the House of Commons, it is absolutely essential that we have the political weight to express it. I am particularly interested in today's topic because my riding was targeted during the last electoral redistribution 10 years ago. As in 2012, the Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, proposed a new redistribution of seats last October. This redistribution would add four seats in total but would take one seat away from Quebec, dropping our seat allocation from 78 to 77. This would be the first time since 1970 that a province would lose a seat in the House of Commons. I think that is totally unacceptable. The only way to avoid this would be to change the formula for calculating the number of MPs and their distribution per province, in order to protect Quebec. Earlier, the member for Drummond introduced a bill in the House to guarantee that the number of members from Quebec cannot be less than 25% of the total number of members. I am sure that he explained the ins and outs of the nation clause that we want to integrate. The principle we are asking the House to adopt today is simple. We want to protect Quebec's political weight. I have a hard time understanding how anyone could be against this. I said that it was important for me to speak. It is not just Quebec's voice that is being weakened, but the voice of eastern Quebec as well. I want to look back at 2012, when the last boundary changes were made. Members for the region stood together to speak out against the elimination of a riding in our area of the country because that is what was proposed: to eliminate the riding that I represent today. The reasons were essentially based on demographics, since the population of the riding was less than the new quotient of about 101,000 residents that was established at the time. The Chief Electoral Officer tried to balance the population counts of the eastern Quebec ridings with the Quebec average by eliminating that riding. The federal electoral boundaries commission for Quebec proposed expanding the boundaries of the already extremely large riding of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and those of the riding of Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine to make two huge ridings and thus eliminate the riding of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. That would have created two geographically huge ridings, which would become two of the most heavily populated ridings in Quebec. The MPs at the time—Guy Caron, the NDP member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, François Lapointe, the NDP member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, and Jean-François Fortin, the Bloc Québécois MP for Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, a predecessor to whom I send my regards, presented a brief to the commission to show how terrible of an idea it was to do away with a rural riding. I got that brief off the shelf and dusted it off because it contains some arguments that are still valid today and that, unfortunately, prove that there is a chance we might end up in the same situation we were in 10 years ago. Eastern Quebec may be targeted and lose its political weight in the House of Commons. I want to review what happened. Fortunately, in 2012, my riding did not disappear. If it had, I would not be here, obviously. They just redrew the riding boundaries. We ended up losing Haute-Gaspésie and gaining part of Chaleur Bay, which is way over on the other side of the peninsula. That led to pointless confusion with people trying to figure out who their MP was every few years. Calling on one's federal MP is not an everyday occurrence. The outcome was a victory for MPs in the region who fought to retain their voters. I would like to go over the reasons why I think rural ridings should not be changed. For one, the territory is huge. My riding alone is almost 15,000 square kilometres. It covers two administrative regions, four regional county municipalities, 56 municipalities and two indigenous communities. It is big, and that makes for challenges that are entirely unlike those associated with urban ridings even though our ridings are a little less populous. In rural areas, MPs must deal with multiple interests and build a consensus to ensure a certain cohesion of regional points of view. In a riding like mine, when a debate involves the interests of the region, I have to consult my 56 mayors, my four reeves, my two indigenous leaders, the four chambers of commerce and all the agricultural and economic unions, and everything else that is part of it. Everyone deserves to be heard, but covering such a large area comes with certain challenges. It is a whole different ball game in an urban riding, where some of my colleagues are dealing with a single mayor or a single provincial member. It is not at all the same. I think that we must be respectful of natural communities, the boundaries of administrative regions and RCMs. We must not split them up. That is just what the 2021 redistribution proposed: splitting up the RCMs. I think we have to be aware of the realities that come with living in a certain political region, whether at the municipal, provincial or federal level. People in a given municipality or other local district are going to form economic, social and political ties just by virtue of sharing the same political community. People often try to justify these redistributions based on demographic forecasts that show a new urban design based densification rather than sprawl. I understand that, but I think it is a bit excessive to base the redistribution on 20-year forecasts, when the boundary review exercise has to be done every 10 years anyway. In addition, the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé regions saw positive net migration in 2021 for the first time in 20 years. I think that also needs to be taken into consideration. It is not the same phenomenon as before. Perhaps this can be viewed as a positive effect of the pandemic, which has allowed people to move to the regions thanks to teleworking, so that also needs to be taken into consideration. I would also like to mention the importance of constituency offices in a region like mine. I may be one of the few federal MPs who have four constituency offices. The reason is simple. My riding is so huge that it would make no sense for someone from Carleton-sur-Mer to drive two hours to be able to get service at the Amqui office, or for the people of Mont-Joli to drive for an hour to get to the Matane office. That would be ridiculous. It is important to me to be able to deliver services to them. Riding offices lend a human face to politics and bring people closer to elected officials. In a way, it is the front line, the first point of contact where we attempt to remedy the failures of the big federal machine. The number of immigration and employment insurance cases dealt with every week by riding offices proves that we need to provide this service to the public. I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the work of my very dear colleagues at my riding office: Ariane, Marjolaine and Ghislain. Without them, I would definitely not be able to do this job, and the problems of many people in my riding would not be solved. I am going to go straight to my closing remarks as I see that my time is running out. The 2012 brief concluded as follows: Rural living is not a recognized constitutional right. It is a way of life, an economy, a set of values and interests which, in and of themselves, have a constitutional right to expression through the right to vote equity. With these words, I will implore my colleagues from all parties to accept the idea that, for all the reasons I have just given, Quebec's voice, and especially the voice of eastern Quebec, must not be weakened.

1653 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 3:38:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. This is a very important topic. I will ask my question in English to ensure I choose the right words. I am not against the principle of trying to protect francophone culture and language. The fact that I have tried to use the French language is indicative of that. However, what I take issue with regarding the Bloc Québécois, recognizing that they are sovereigntists in the House and do not necessarily want to sit here in Ottawa, is the idea that Quebec does not have influence within the federation. Whether we look at the cabinet of the government on this side or we look at future leaders who try to become Prime Minister in this country, members have to have a propensity in French and they have to have an ability to resonate in Quebec. The member talked about rural members. I am not against adding and keeping 78 seats, by the way, in Quebec, notwithstanding that there has been a loss of seats in other provinces. However, by pushing for proportionality, she is making the argument that rurality does not matter outside of Quebec, that MPs like me would have to have larger ridings and that my representation would not be the same because she believes that Quebec should be absolutely proportionate and the same proportionality cannot exist elsewhere. Can she provide some remarks on that for me?

242 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Mar/1/22 3:40:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question. From what I understand, he is voting in favour of our motion, since he agrees with it. I invite him to do so. I keep hearing the same comment today. People are saying that they do not want to hear about Quebec anymore and that Quebeckers are being annoying with this motion. They are wondering why we would not defend the political weight of other provinces too. I look forward to hearing them move a motion in the House to protect the political weight of other provinces; why not? At this point, according to the new proposed redistribution, Quebec would lose a seat, and we have no choice but to stand up for Quebec and its political weight. I talked about Quebec, but I also talked about eastern Quebec, which could very well be targeted as another part of Quebec. My colleague works within the government so I invite his government to discuss the possibility of protecting provinces such as Nova Scotia; why not? Earlier my colleague was talking about British Columbia. We look forward to hearing them, but for us there is no question that we will always stand up for Quebec.

202 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Mar/1/22 3:41:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my esteemed colleague for her speech. She did a wonderful job explaining how important it is to provide decent service to rural populations. There are other realities, such as regional realities. Perhaps my colleague could expand on that. For example, there are also territories. Everyone gripes about how Quebec always wants everything. The territories each have their own member of Parliament, even though mathematically, their population does not warrant a seat. It is important for the territories to be represented to reflect regional realities. What does my colleague think about that?

95 words

Ms. Kristina Michaud

Mar/1/22 3:42:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is absolutely right. I do not think that demographics should be the only factor determining the distribution of seats in the House of Commons. I think that cultural, historic and regional contexts need to be taken into account, as my colleague pointed out. My region has been designated as a resource region by the Government of Quebec. There are three types of regions: manufacturing regions, resource regions and urban regions. Back home, we extract natural resources and often export them outside Quebec. Our economy is perhaps below the Quebec average. Our voice is important and deserves to be heard in the House of Commons. We must share our concerns to ensure that we get what we are owed. The context and uniqueness of the regions must be taken into account in these kinds of calculations. I would also like to remind members that our net migration was positive. This is a good thing, and it must be taken into account by the Chief Electoral Officer during the redistribution study.

179 words

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

Mar/1/22 3:43:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my friend and colleague from Alfred-Pellan, who is also a member of our Quebec caucus's leadership team. I am very happy to have the chance to speak to an issue as important as redrawing Canada's federal electoral map. This is an important topic, one that lies at the heart of our democratic life from coast to coast to coast. In Canada, our democratic institutions and our Constitution, first and foremost, provide powerful mechanisms to ensure that Canadians feel adequately represented within Canada's Parliament. The official process for redrawing the electoral map is an extremely important one. The law states that it must be done every 10 years, and that is why we are debating this issue today. Before we get any further into the debate, I think it is worth reminding the House and all Canadians about various parts of that process. First of all, the process is the outcome of more than 60 years of independent, non-partisan commissions. I think all Canadians can be proud of the fact that Canada has this process. The act defines the roles, responsibilities and criteria that these commissions must meet when redrawing federal electoral boundaries. Prior to 1964, the House of Commons itself was responsible for setting electoral boundaries, through a committee appointed specifically for this purpose. However, Parliament realized that gerrymandering—a term used to describe the manipulation of electoral boundaries—was still a significant risk to the integrity of our system. This was and is unacceptable. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was a key measure introduced to address this very problem. The government's role in the whole process is extremely limited. It is important to note, once again, that the government has no decision-making role or influence over the proposal we received from the independent commissions. The operative word here is “proposal”. It is simply a proposal. The commissions will continue to work independently in proposing new federal electoral boundaries. I want to reassure all the elected members of the House that our government has heard the concerns of Quebeckers regarding the Elections Canada proposal. Now that this background is clear, let us return to the motion before us today. Today's motion has to do with Quebec, in particular, and how many seats it has in Parliament. I want to be very clear. As a member from Quebec, as a proud Quebecker and a proud Canadian, I believe it is absolutely essential that Quebec continue to have strong representation in the House and in all of our federal institutions. It is part of our Canadian identity. I agree with my colleagues. We need to work together to make sure that Quebec does not lose a seat. If there is a government that recognizes the importance of Quebec and the Quebec nation in our federation, it is no doubt our Liberal government. During the past three elections, the Liberal Party has represented Quebeckers the best, going by the number of seats it holds in the House, the number of votes it received and, most importantly, its actions. The list of what the Liberal government has done for Quebec is long. We have invested $1.8 billion in housing in Quebec, $6 billion in child care for Quebec, $600 million in Quebec's aerospace industry, and so on. Over the past two years, the action we have taken in Quebec during the pandemic has been important and even vital for our seniors, families, businesses and regions. I am very proud of that. Since 2015, the government has not just stood up for the interests of Quebec. Since 2015, the government has made decisions, passed legislation and provided funding. The Liberal Party has taken meaningful action to the benefit of all Quebeckers. We can count on the parliamentary group that works the hardest to best represent Quebeckers to do even more. We are the only party that wants to act and that can act for all the regions of Quebec, and that is what we will keep doing. The same goes for this file. We will do this work properly, by analyzing all the factors that have to be taken into consideration. We will not improvise a response on the back of a napkin. The government will do its job and propose an initiative that takes into account its democratic principles. Let me be clear to our Quebec constituents that they can count on the government to ensure that Quebec and Quebeckers are properly represented in Parliament. Speaking of representation, I want to acknowledge the strong voice of our Quebec Liberal caucus and our 35 elected members for defending the interests of Quebec within the Canadian government. I am obviously thinking above all about the Prime Minister, the member for Papineau and proud Quebecker. I am thinking about our wonderful Quebec lieutenant, the Minister of Canadian Heritage and member for Honoré-Mercier. We can always count on him to promote the interests of Quebec at the highest decision-making levels. I am thinking about our Minister of Health and member for Québec, who is responsible for our policies to fight the pandemic. I am thinking about our Minister of Foreign Affairs, the member for Ahuntsic-Cartierville, who is currently at the UN representing Canada and doing remarkable work on our response to the war by Russia against Ukraine. I am thinking about our Minister of Innovation, Science and Industry, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain, who is ensuring that we invest in our future, whether with the Lion Electric buses or Medicago vaccines. I am thinking about our Minister of Environment and the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie, my riding's neighbour. I see the incredible efforts he is making to ensure that we respond to this issue that is a priority for Quebeckers and that we leave a healthy planet for our children. I am thinking about our ministers of Justice, Agriculture, Sports, and Crown-Indigenous Relations. I would like to mention all our ministers and Quebec MPs, but that would take me well beyond my time. I will conclude that defending the place of Quebec, of our Quebec nation, within a united Canada and ensuring that Quebec's voice is heard at the highest levels of our government and our institutions is a priority for me and for our government. We will stand up for Quebec, as we have from the beginning.

1089 words

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/1/22 3:52:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have just heard a tribute to the Liberal Party. It is practically a complete list of Quebec's Liberal ministers. Throughout her speech, my colleague stated that it is not a political decision. She ended by naming every Liberal MP in Quebec. I would like to know if that is political, yes or no?

57 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Mar/1/22 3:52:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Elections Canada's proposal has nothing to do with partisanship or politics. What the Bloc Québécois is doing today, however, is certainly political. I remind members once again that we are here in the House to represent all Canadians, including Quebeckers. That is what I do, and that is what the 35 government members who represent Quebec do every day.

66 words

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

Mar/1/22 3:53:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this debate today is difficult for me because I have a problem with the idea that we continually revisit our boundaries. I certainly support representation by population, but my riding has been changed over the years, and we keep adding more and more MPs to this place. At some point, we have to consider whether we can keep the number of MPs capped at some level. I do not want what the U.K. Parliament looks like. The Parliament of Westminster has over 650 people who can never be in the chamber at the same time. I am just wondering if we can re-examine the process. It is the law and it is the way the Elections Act works, but can we re-examine this? The Bloc Québécois raises a good point: It is going to lose the representation for Quebec as a nation in Canada. However, so too does the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon have a good point. What about British Columbia? We need to get a handle on representation by population, perhaps through fair voting and getting rid of first past the post.

196 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Mar/1/22 3:54:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague raised some very important and complex points in her question. I would have to say that it is obviously our democracy that is at stake. I think this is something we will have to debate in the House and we will have to hear from members across all parties to find a more comprehensive solution than the one proposed in the motion before us, moved by the Bloc Québécois.

77 words

Ms. Bonita Zarrillo (Port Moody—Coquitlam, NDP)

Mar/1/22 3:55:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to reiterate what was mentioned by the Bloc, and that is that this is Elections Canada and a non-partisan issue. Regardless of who is representing those ridings now, we are talking about whether it makes sense for the boundary to change and additional ridings to be introduced or taken away. In my opinion, we are talking now about representation of all people, not which party represents someone. I am concerned that might be influencing the decision on the other side of the aisle. Almost three-quarters of Canadians believe that first past the post is no longer serving them. Does the Liberal member agree that we need to start looking at the proportional representation model?

120 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Mar/1/22 3:56:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very open to the idea of discussing the way Canada's democracy works, but I think that all systems around the world have problems. It will ultimately be up to members of Parliament and Canadians to decide how they want to proceed with our democracy. I think the situation in Ukraine and Russia has us thinking about the importance of democracy here, in Canada, and around the world.

72 words

Hon. Mark Holland (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 3:56:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I give notice that, with respect to consideration of Government Business No. 9, at the next sitting of the House a minister of the Crown shall move, pursuant to Standing Order 57, that the debate be not further adjourned.

41 words

All Topics

Mr. Angelo Iacono (Alfred-Pellan, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 3:57:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as a member from Quebec, it is my duty to participate in today's discussion on my Bloc Québécois colleague's motion. I want to tell him that the current formula has a very interesting history and is the result of many amendments and historical considerations in which Quebec plays an important role. As my mother always said, you must know where you are coming from to know where you are going. That lesson stayed with me, and I want to begin with a review of the fascinating history that led to the current formula. Early on, in 1867, the British North American Act, which was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867, divided the 181 seats of the House of Commons between its four founding provinces. At that time, Ontario had 82 seats, Quebec had 65, Nova Scotia had 19 and New Brunswick had 15. In order to ensure that each province's representation in the House of Commons continued to reflect its population, the act stated that the number of seats allocated to each province would be recalculated after each decennial census, starting with the 1871 census. The total number of seats was to be calculated by dividing the population of each province by a fixed number, referred to as the “electoral quotient”. This quotient was to be obtained by dividing the population of Quebec by 65, the number of seats in the House of Commons that Quebec was guaranteed by the Constitution. The formula was to be applied with only one exception and that was the “one-twentieth rule”, under which “no province could lose seats in a redistribution unless its share of the national population had decreased by at least five percent...between the last two censuses.” It was not until more than 40 years later that the formula was changed for the first time. In 1915, the first change was made by the adoption of the senatorial clause. Still in effect today, this clause states that “a province cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it does in the Senate”. In 1915, it had the immediate effect of guaranteeing four seats to the province of Prince Edward Island, which still has four seats today. Thirty years later, in 1946, a second change was made to the formula. The new rules divided 255 seats among the provinces and territories based on their share of Canada's total population rather than on the average population per electoral district in Quebec. Canada is a diversified country, and, since the population of all provinces had not increased at the same rate, certain provinces have lost seats. Nova Scotia, Manitoba and Saskatchewan all lost seats after the 1951 census. A third change was made: the “15% clause” was adopted to prevent a too-rapid loss of seats in some provinces. Under this rule, no province could lose more than 15% of the number of seats to which it had been entitled at the last readjustment. The same three provinces, plus Quebec, however, all lost seats after the 1961 census. These same four provinces, plus Newfoundland, would also have lost seats after the 1971 census, so legislation was introduced to resolve this situation in 1974. The fourth change was actually a new formula. Concern over the continuing loss of seats by some provinces prompted Parliament to adopt the Representation Act, which, among other things, guaranteed that no province could lose seats. As in the pre-1946 rules, Quebec was used as the basis for calculations, but there were three differences. First, Quebec would henceforth be entitled to 75 seats instead of 65. Second, the number of seats assigned to Quebec was to grow by four at each subsequent readjustment in such a manner as to slow down the growth in the average population of an electoral district. Third, three categories of provinces were created: large provinces, those having a population of more than 2.5 million; intermediate provinces, those with populations between 1.5 million and 2.5 million; and small provinces, with populations under 1.5 million. Only the large provinces were to be allocated seats in strict proportion to Quebec; separate and more favourable rules were to apply to the small and intermediate provinces. The amalgam formula was applied only once, leading to the establishment of 282 seats in the House in 1976. Following the 1981 Census, calculations revealed that the amalgam formula would result in a substantial increase in the number of seats in the House of Commons both immediately and after subsequent censuses. For example, with the traditions of that time, the formula would have increased the size of the House to 369 seats after 2001. In passing the Representation Act, 1985, on electoral representation, Parliament changed the formula again and also brought into effect a new grandfather clause. This new clause, which is still in effect, guarantees each province no fewer seats than it had in 1976 or during the 33rd Parliament, in 1985. This clause was not the only change, however. The revised formula for calculating seats involved several steps. Starting with the 282 seats in the House of Commons in 1985, one seat was allocated to the Northwest Territories, one to the Yukon and one to Nunavut, leaving 279 seats. The total population of the 10 provinces was divided by 279 to obtain the electoral quotient. The initial number of seats for each province was calculated by dividing the total population of each province by the quotient. If the result left a remainder higher than 0.50, the number of seats was rounded up to the next whole number. Then, the senatorial clause and grandfather clause were applied to obtain the final seat numbers. As we all know, more recently, in 2011, the Conservative government changed the formula once again. The 2011 change was made to tackle the significant under-representation of fast-growing provinces, namely Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, which the 1985 formula could not address. The change also aimed to ensure that over-represented provinces would not become under-represented after applying the new formula. The representation rule was introduced and gave additional seats to Quebec, which would have otherwise become under-represented. The number of seats for slower-growing provinces was maintained. Ontario was allotted 15 additional seats, British Columbia and Alberta each gained six seats, and Quebec received 3 more seats. Since 2021 was a decennial year, following the Chief Electoral Officer's seat calculations, the House of Commons will continue to evolve. My colleagues will be looking forward to the results of the independent boundaries redistribution process that is currently under way.

1125 words

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

Mar/1/22 4:07:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will take advantage of the fact the member, my colleague and friend, is a Quebec member of Parliament. Yesterday, we had a wonderful debate with respect to the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. I think Bill C-11 is a wonderful piece of legislation that is going to help us see growth in the arts industry, which I know is a very important industry for my colleague. I wonder if he could provide his thoughts as to why it is important that the national government continue to support our arts community. That is something the bill will do by modernizing the Broadcasting Act.

106 words

All Topics

Mr. Angelo Iacono

Mar/1/22 4:08:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am the son of immigrants, and I am very proud to have been born in Quebec. I understand the notion of culture very well. I live out my Italian and Quebec cultures at home for my son Gabriel. I must say that this is the most beautiful thing I have done, because culture is an asset that determines where we want to go. As I was saying earlier, my mother used to tell me that you have to know where you come from to know where you want to go.

93 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 38