SoVote

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Mar/1/22 4:45:59 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have the honour to rise today to speak about Quebec's political weight. On October 15, 2021, the Chief Electoral Officer published the new House of Commons seat allocation. This exercise is carried out every 10 years. Under the new allocation, the House would have four new seats for a total of 342 seats, but Quebec would only have 77, thus one less. This would decrease Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons from 23.1% to 22.5%. It would be the first time since 1966 that a province loses a seat. Let us be clear. The Bloc Québécois opposes the reduction in Quebec's political weight. In listening to the debates today, I heard members speak about language, about affection for Quebec, about Quebec's importance and about the friendship between peoples and provinces. Quebec is all for that, but this is about much more than that. Quebec cannot be reduced to just its language, although language is a very strong component of its identity. Quebec is above all one of the founding peoples of the land that became Canada. As such, it deserves consideration that goes well beyond the stupid, malicious, and blind or automatic application of a mathematical formula. Of course, we are not in any way blaming the Chief Electoral Officer here. This is not about placing blame. It is about us having a suggestion to make. The suggestion is to go beyond a standard that is frozen in time. We cannot agree to apply this formula to the letter. The question that we should be asking ourselves throughout today's debate is this: Is this just about one province losing one seat and some of its political weight? Do we want to live in a country that denies representation to a part of its population? Can the blind application of a mathematical formula be the only deciding factor or the only criterion in determining the representation of a nation, the Quebec nation in this case? Demographics is a science that does not lie. People are born and they die. We know what age they are right now and when they can vote. The population of Canada is growing faster than that of Quebec. That is a fact. It is partly due to immigration policies that could be improved since they do not promote Quebec's population growth. Recently, we talked a lot about the unacceptable refusal rate for African students, for example. They were being refused at a rate of about 80%, while anglophone students who applied to come to Quebec were being refused at a rate of approximately 5% to 10%. If the current situation is maintained, and the Chief Electoral Officer's recommendation is implemented, Quebec will be trivialized. It will run the risk of losing its current identity. Unfortunately, that might suit some people, but I still believe that would not be good for anyone. Quebec is a language, a culture, a way of life. Quebec is a potential that radiates around the world. Before I go any further, I would like to suggest some food for thought. A decision of this magnitude cannot be taken lightly. The importance cannot be underestimated before a decision is made. I have heard today that the decision is to be made by an independent commission. Between us, it is ridiculous to believe that it will be a mere administrative decision. Some have said that the Bloc Québécois is making a political proposal today. Of course we are making a political proposal. This is a political debate. I do not think it could be anything other than political, when a political decision must be made. When we have to make a decision, make a choice, which boils down to deciding, expressing a preference and choosing, there are two possibilities. Either there will be an existing rule, or there will not be an existing rule. In this case, there is one: a mathematical formula. However, when we want to make more of an ethical decision, we will ask four questions. The first is whether there is a rule. The answer is yes, there is. The second is whether there is an omission in the rule. That is not the case here. There is no omission. Then we have to ask whether there are two conflicting rules that say two different things. That is not the case here. The fourth question we have to ask is whether the rule is fair in the circumstances. I have to emphasize that point. Is the rule fair in the circumstances? What we have here is an irregular case, where we cannot apply a rule without running the risk of being unjust. Being just is a colossal task, yet it is the task of MPs who will have to decide where they stand on this issue and vote accordingly. Supposing that, in a case I described as irregular just now, the application of the rule would be unjust, we must see, think and do otherwise. If there is no just rule to apply, we have to turn to another element, which we call “values”. We have been brainwashed with great Canadian values for years. Everybody talks about values all the time, but what is a value, if not a statement of preference when there is no rule that can be justly applied? A value is always a good and desirable thing. What values could we point to here that enable us to live together in this state of necessary cohabitation for the time being? I think we need to consider the concept of equity, which is a fair assessment of what each party is entitled to. I will share two examples. Say we have a pie, and we cut it into four slices, and we have one person who is diabetic and another who is not hungry. We might not end up with four equal slices, but it will still be just. Being treated justly is different than being equal. The latter means that everyone is the same. We will agree that we are not all the same. We speak French, we see things differently and live differently. I believe that we should amend the formula for seat allocation. To lose representation is to disappear, and to disappear is to die. To borrow the words of an author I really enjoy, Fernando Pessoa, who is not a philosopher, “To die is to slip out of view”. To avoid slipping out of view, the Bloc Québécois is proposing a motion that breaks down 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; Members are being asked to take a stand on this matter. The second part of the motion states: (b) the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended and the House call on the government to act accordingly. I want to share a few facts. Obviously, the distribution formula is enshrined in the Constitution Act, 1867. That is nothing new. The Chief Electoral Officer, or CEO, does not have the authority to determine the number of seats in the House of Commons. He or she has the power to propose riding boundaries but not to change the number of ridings. The only way to change the number and distribution of seats, set out in section 51 of the British North America Act, is through legislation. As we have heard today, section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which Quebec did not sign, authorizes the federal Parliament to make such changes. It is hard to amend the Constitution, though. Nevertheless, two weeks ago, we were talking about the Constitution in relation to Saskatchewan, and that was not too difficult or painful. Even though it is hard to amend a constitution, I remind members that the Constitution of the Athenians, so dear to Aristotle, served as a model for constitutions. Two thousand years later, that constitution has been amended. It has served as an inspiration and evolved because the context has evolved. Making such a change takes an ingredient called courage, which does not exist in theory, only in practice. Given that we are at the beginning of a process of evaluating electoral reform, I believe that the time has come to seriously address the issue. How do we want to live: by losing or by changing? I very much like the word used by one of the members today who was asking if we could stop changing the representations and if we could “set” a representation. I think that is an option worth exploring. I will again make reference to the ancient Greeks, who had several words to designate time. There was one word for the weather, one for the time for going to work, which was chronos, and there was one word that I like a lot, kairos, meaning the right time. We do not tell flowers when to grow. We have to wait for the right time. That is why it is called that. I should also note that, if we wait too long after the right time, it is no longer the right time. I think this is the right time, at the start of this process, and I think members of the House should exert their influence to send a clear message. I do not believe the members opposite hate Quebec, especially not the member for Outremont. I do not think we are acting against one another, but I do think we need to use the powers we have to approve this motion and vote in favour. I would invite the Conservative members. I see them all here. We always enjoy talking to them. I would invite the New Democrats, the Greens, the independents and the Liberals. We are all here together in the House, and I invite them to recognize the importance of Quebec. I will close with a quote from Maria Ossowska, a Polish philosopher who lived during the Second World War and experienced the atrocities we are familiar with. In 1946, she said that, in ethics and in politics, the important thing was to be decent. She added that being decent is to be well socialized, have an open mind, be intellectually honest, be able to think critically and respect one's own word. The time has come to recognize Quebec's political weight and to acknowledge that the seat distribution formula needs to be changed. Quebec's demographic importance is clearly declining, but we will never be small.

1807 words

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

Mar/1/22 4:57:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoyed it. I want to point out that the Bloc talked about the Constitution a number of times and about how Quebec did not sign it. However, it is interesting to note that members also pointed out in this debate just how important the Canadian Constitution is. My question is about the philosophical point my colleague made about “the right time”. We could have debated this issue as part of Private Members' Business. Would that not have been a more appropriate time? Why did the Bloc Québécois choose to move this motion on an opposition day when a private member's bill on the same subject is going to be introduced in just a few weeks?

133 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 4:58:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois felt that this was the wisest choice. There were a number of options available to us, but we believed the moment had come to take action in this regard.

38 words

Mr. Clifford Small (Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, CPC)

Mar/1/22 4:59:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador has been a wonderful neighbour to Quebec and vice versa. I cannot help but mention that earlier today, on two occasions, I was very disappointed to hear the Bloc members asking for Bay du Nord to be turned down. Between Saudi Arabia and Russia right now, they produce 20 million barrels of oil a day. Does the member think that Canada would be better off producing some of those 20 million barrels of oil a day in an ethical manner and that we could all be neighbours and friends who benefit from that?

98 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:00:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his question. I will answer candidly. I am not an economist. Oil exists and oil production will continue to exist. We are not against oil as such, but there is a way of seeing the future of the planet that leads us to believe that perhaps we need to mitigate its use. By the way, I believe that oil from Algeria will arrive in Europe before Canadian oil because the infrastructure is already in place. However, I will let the experts respond to this question since I am not one of them and I am not too proud to admit it.

111 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Mar/1/22 5:00:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I would like him to comment on the statements we heard from members opposite. Some are accusing us of quoting sections of the Constitution and, at the same time, saying that we did not sign it. That is an ethical issue. I would like my colleague to explain the work we are doing today.

64 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:01:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a very important point. It is a fact that we did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982. Unfortunately, we are stuck with it in negotiating this type of arrangement. We must refer to something, so we are forced to refer to the Constitution. Our first choice would definitely be to have our own constitution and to look after our own affairs.

67 words

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

Mar/1/22 5:01:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we have had a lot of discussion from this member and the previous member about the importance of immigration as a factor. When we take a look at what we are doing today and population shifts, the future in good part, in terms of our population growth, is going to be through immigration. Today, with what is happening in Ukraine, we are anticipating that there could be thousands and thousands of refugees. If it was up to me, it would be a rather high number. Does the member feel that the Province of Quebec would be open to receiving people from Ukraine as refugees, as other provinces have indicated an interest to?

114 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:02:32 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, Quebec's premier has already stated that he would like to do so, but I will respond directly to my colleague's question. There is a lot of talk about Ukrainian refugees. Out of solidarity, we really have to do something. We agree. However, we have to admit that Ukraine is not a third world country. People are stuck, and they want to stay there. It is only right that we open the door, but we must also realize that sending aid to Ukraine is also very important.

90 words

All Topics

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Mar/1/22 5:03:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague mentioned earlier that no one in the House is evil. I grew up in an anglophone environment, and of course there are no major differences between people on an individual level. Culturally, however, there are some differences. How does my colleague explain, for example, that in many provinces there are not enough schools for francophones at the moment? Some efforts are being made and this has gone all the way to the Supreme Court, but the governments of these provinces are not following through. Something is up. Francophones have voluntarily assimilated just about everywhere, but there is no culpability or desire for redress.

107 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:03:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we are facing this concept of institutional completeness. We must recognize that the bills that have passed over the years have favoured bilingualism. Bilingualism treats both languages the same. The fact is, French is in an asymmetrical situation, and it is not true that the two languages are equal or will be considered equal. Not enough resources are being dedicated to French across Canada. Schools and services are lacking. If I went to Winnipeg North, for example, I am not sure I would be served in French. I would be sad, but that might be the case. In Quebec, however, promoting bilingualism means killing the francophonie.

108 words

All Topics

Mr. Kody Blois (Kings—Hants, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 5:04:47 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I apologize, but I am going to ask my question in English to make sure I word it correctly. I am interested in why the Bloc will not take up the idea of actually capping the number of seats in the House of Commons. They are constitutionally protected in Quebec to have 75 seats in the House. If the Bloc were to suggest that 338 is where we should leave the number of representatives in the House, that would mean that Quebec would be ultimately constitutionally protected to have 22% representation. Why are they choosing to move in this fashion? I understand they are sovereigntists, but why are we not moving in a fashion to say this is another way of capping the number of MPs in the House and still allowing Quebec to have strong representation that would be guaranteed?

143 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:05:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I like what my colleague said. I think his proposal is clear, has merit and should be considered. However, the reason we are doing this today is simple. We are simply offering an answer, a solution to an issue that in the past has not been taken seriously enough. This is our answer to a question that has so far remained unanswered. That is why we are moving forward with this today.

74 words

Mr. Blake Desjarlais (Edmonton Griesbach, NDP)

Mar/1/22 5:06:20 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have listened attentively to the members' speeches, both this member and the members previous to this. New Democrats are firmly in support of ensuring we recognize Quebec and its unique situation, unique culture and unique language. I believe there is a lot more work that has to be done to ensure we continue to recognize nationhood, not just in Quebec but across Canada. I come from the Métis community and I have spent a great deal of time trying to ensure that our languages, the Michif language and the Cree language, continue to survive here in our native land and place. Could the member speak to the importance of ensuring that indigenous people are also granted this form of recognition in this country?

128 words

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:07:00 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Edmonton for his suggestion. Quebec is willing to recognize a nation from its inception. A nation sets itself apart through, and is defined by, its language, which reflects its culture. We are fully willing to recognize other cultures, nations and languages. We have always been in favour of that. I welcome his suggestion.

60 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/1/22 5:07:38 p.m.
Watch

Is the House ready for the question? Some hon. members: Question. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): The question is on the motion. If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

78 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Mar/1/22 5:08:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we would request a recorded vote, please.

9 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/1/22 5:09:20 p.m.
Watch

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, March 2, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions. The hon. member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel on a point of order. An hon. member: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, could we suspend for a minute or two? We have another speaker on their way. We just need another minute so they can get here. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès): I am sorry, no. The question has been called.

97 words

All Topics

Mr. Louis Plamondon (Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, BQ)

Mar/1/22 5:10:06 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-237

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday evening, Monday, February 28, the Speaker said: I would encourage members who would like to make arguments regarding the requirement for a royal recommendation with respect to [Bill] C-237...to do so at an early opportunity. I am rising on a point of order this evening in relation to that. I admit that I was surprised by this statement. Royal recommendation is the mechanism by which a private member's bill cannot have any financial implications unless it is recommended by the Crown. Financial implications refers to both new expenditures and reallocation of funds for other purposes. Bill C-237, which I am introducing, does not do either. In my view, it is clear that Bill C-237 does not require a royal recommendation and has the potential to be voted on by the House at all stages and implemented, for the following five reasons. First, it does not require any new spending. Second, it does not change the transfer amounts, nor does it change the names of the beneficiaries or how the funding is allocated to them. Third, it does not change the purpose of the transfer. The Canada health transfer will still be dedicated to paying for health care. The same goes for other transfers that are allocated to a province if it has “a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program”. Fourth, it does not force the executive's hand, which retains the latitude and margin of appreciation required to transfer the funds. That prerogative remains in place. The executive will decide whether the province has a comparable program and will determine whether the province is complying with the conditions in the Canada Health Act. Finally, precedents are on my side. There have been many bills that have changed the normative framework without any financial implications. I actually found 31 bills that amend the Canada Health Act, and not one required a royal recommendation. For all these reasons, I believe that Bill C-237 does not require a royal recommendation. Let us examine it in detail. Bill C-237 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in two ways. It provides all interested provinces with the opportunity to opt out of a federal program that falls under the legislative authority of the provinces. In that case, the government can pay the province a transfer equivalent to the contribution that it would have received had it not withdrawn. This means that it is an equal amount or a zero sum. The bill adds that the government will only pay the contribution if the province “has a program whose objectives are comparable to those of a federal program”. In short, the purpose of the transfer does not change either. This mechanism is quite similar to the one that exists in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act, for example. If a province has its own program and withdraws from the federal program, it receives the same transfer that it would have received had it not withdrawn. The transfer is unconditional and goes into the province's consolidated revenue fund, but only if it has a comparable program. It is up to the minister to determine whether it has a comparable program. Without any conditions on how the province runs the program, the transfer still serves the same purpose, which is to ensure that students can access financial assistance. This same principle is in Bill C-237, which I introduced. It does not change the amounts or recipients, the distribution of the amounts among them, or the purpose of the transfer. It simply reduces federal control over the management of provincial programs in the provinces' own jurisdictions. Again, this is about provincial management of provincial programs. That is the only thing that is impacted here, and it has little to do with the prerogative of the federal Crown. Bill C-237 proposes a second amendment to the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act, this one just for Quebec. The federal government has announced that it plans to set conditions applicable to long-term care facilities and retirement homes. I assume that they will be included in the Canada Health Act, since long-term care facilities fall under the definition of “extended health care services” in the act. Since Quebec was the only one to object, Bill C-231 would exempt Quebec, and only Quebec, from the Canada Health Act, much like the proposal by my colleague from Montcalm to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act in his Bill C-226 in the 43rd Parliament, which did not require a royal recommendation. The Canada Health Act does not have financial implications per se. It sets out a normative framework, five principles for the government to consider in the Canada health transfer, which is provided for in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act. It is the latter act that has financial implications. My bill, Bill C-237, does not change the purpose of the Canada health transfer. It does not change the purpose of the transfer defined in section 24(b) of the fiscal arrangements act as “contributing to providing the best possible health care system for Canadians and to making information about the health care system available to Canadians”. Bill C-237 does not change this section of the act, which sets out the purpose of the transfer. Under the Canada Health Act, the government is responsible for determining whether the provinces are in compliance. In Bill C-237, the government determines whether the province has “a program whose objectives are comparable”. Personally, I would have preferred not to include that clause in Bill C-237, but I realized that this would have changed the purpose of the transfers and could therefore have required a royal recommendation. Bill C-237 has no financial implications in terms of the amounts, their destination, their purpose or the general conditions. Only specific conditions in the Canada Health Act are affected. Madam Speaker, I hear a lot of noise in the House and I am having a hard time delivering my speech.

1032 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/1/22 5:18:48 p.m.
Watch

Indeed, there is noise. I am not sure if it is in the House. Some of our colleagues may want to go into the lobbies to continue their discussions so that the hon. member can go on with his point of order.

42 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 38