44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 7, 2022 10:00AM
- Apr/7/22 3:31:03 p.m.
- Watch
The member was not using his earpiece. The Chair is not to blame. We should not take time away from other questions.
The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I did hear one point from the member opposite about the proportionality that Quebec wanted to—
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/7/22 3:31:26 p.m.
- Watch
We have another point of order.
The hon. member for Manicouagan.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I ask you this question with all humility.
If the member did not hear the question, what is the point of him answering a question he did not hear?
31 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/7/22 3:31:42 p.m.
- Watch
It was not a problem with interpretation. If the member did not use the appropriate tool to hear the question, the House will get the answer he gives.
The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I heard the word “proportion” and that the Bloc Québécois put forward that motion because it wanted to maintain the proportionality of the Quebec members of Parliament in the House. I stand here today as a member of Parliament for British Columbia and my objective is that the proportionality of my province is one day reflected in our chamber. British Columbians only have six Senate seats. British Columbians do not have a guaranteed seat on the Supreme Court. British Columbians pay equalization to other provinces. British Columbians just want an equal say in how our democracy is run.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Qujannamiik, Uqaqtitiji.
This legislation not only protects the number of seats in Quebec but in all provinces and territories. The NDP will continue to ensure Quebec remains fairly represented here at the House of Commons.
My question to the member is this: Should the 1991 Supreme Court case that he just cited also be used to increase indigenous representation?
59 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I think the key thing that needs to be upheld in this chamber is representation by population.
19 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.
I come from a province that for years was under-represented in this House when its population was taken into account. For years, Albertans felt there was an injustice in the way seats were apportioned in the House of Commons, until more seats were finally added in 2011 to allow fair representation for my home province.
Canada has always been a place of competing interests, of give-and-take between provinces and regions. As a nation we have always tried to strike a balance, knowing that compromise is necessary but not always acceptable to everyone.
In theory, we agree with the principle that each member of Parliament should represent a riding with a similar number of electors. It may not be a perfect system, but it allows constituencies to be more or less equal in population size and makes it possible for a member of Parliament to serve his or her constituents without being overwhelmed by the numbers.
Of course, we do make allowances for history. No province can have fewer MPs than it does senators, and we have agreed that no province should have fewer MPs than it did in 1985. That explains why Prince Edward Island has four ridings with a population size of about 35,000 people each, while ridings in Nova Scotia are double that population. In Quebec, most of the ridings have more than 100,000 people, as do all the ridings in Alberta, except for one.
We have accepted this disparity in the name of national unity. The system has worked well on the whole, and, as I mentioned, the number of MPs was expanded in 2011 to allow for more representation in this House, especially for Alberta and Quebec. I have to wonder, therefore, why the government desires to change the rules once more.
As population shifts, so do riding boundaries and representation in this House. That is something we all understand and accept, or maybe not all of us. Looking at the bill, I wonder what sort of precedent it sets and what sort of message it sends about democracy in Canada. How do those who are already feeling jaded about the state of our political system feel about the rules apparently once more not being applied fairly?
In any sports contest, the rules are agreed upon before the game starts. Both teams take to the field knowing what they must do in order to win. They do not pause midway to suggest rule changes because they have decided that the rules they started with were not good enough. I know that may be an imperfect analogy, but I am sure this proposal to redistribute seats and change the 1985 benchmark looks that way to many Canadians. Someone does not like the rules of the game, so they want to change them.
The population of Canada is constantly shifting. Our cities are growing bigger. Some regions are attracting more immigrants than others. The reasons for demographic change are many, varied and complex. In this House we are tasked with finding a balance between competing needs or, more accurately, competing wants. The latest census data, as examined by Elections Canada, would see the addition of four more seats to this House to take into account the increase in our nation’s population. Given the increasing workload of members of Parliament, I doubt there is any member of this House who would disagree with the conclusion that more seats will enable MPs to better serve constituents.
The problem is that under this impartial formula, Quebec would lose a seat in the House of Commons. Those from that province are understandably concerned that their influence will be lessened, though there would still be more MPs from Quebec than from the three prairie provinces combined and Quebec would still have more MPs than it did 20 years ago.
What are we to do here? We could guarantee that Quebec would always have the same number of seats it does now, which is the intent of this bill. There are those who believe it important to recognize the historical importance of Canada’s only francophone province. Would that be enough? What if the population of Quebec continues to shrink? This bill would amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to provide that when the number of seats in the House of Commons is redistributed after each decennial census, no province would have fewer seats than it had in the 43rd Parliament. At some future time, will we want to guarantee an even more uneven distribution of seats as a tribute to what once was? What will the 50th Parliament wish to address, or does our living democracy mean that this House will only tackle this question in the future?
After all, the House of Commons is the people's chamber and should be representative of the population across the country. Conservatives respect the fundamental constitutional principle of representation by population that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1991. However, we acknowledge that sometimes, as is proposed by this bill, there are other considerations, and deciding which considerations are more important is a difficult task.
This bill reflects a motion that this House considered last month, which stated:
That the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly.
Coming from a province that will receive three more seats in the next redistribution and received additional seats from the last one, I understand the desire of members from an area of the country not blessed with Alberta’s growth to preserve what they have. The question we must ask and hopefully answer is this: Is this the wisest course to take? This Liberal bill preserves the redistribution formula created by the previous Conservative government’s 2011 Fair Representation Act, which added 30 new seats in the House of Commons. That was a huge jump in representation, much larger than the one about to be implemented, and perhaps set the stage for where we find ourselves today. Instead of giving a larger workload to members of Parliament and adding the resources necessary to do the extra work, this House chose to increase its size. How long can we continue to expand in this way?
The Liberal government has made many promises on electoral reform but has failed to even start an honest discussion on what this House should look like a decade or a century from now. We should be having a longer and deeper discussion on how we want to govern ourselves. Until we do, we will be passing this same act, with slight amendments, every decade or so. Is that the way we want to run a country?
1163 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the single largest increases in the number of members of the House of Commons was under Stephen Harper. It went from 308 to 338. If we follow the logic of what the member is saying, we would think that it was the previous administration that deferred the decision on something that the member is being somewhat critical of us for not debating today.
Does the member feel this might be a type of ongoing discussion, possibly in the format of an opposition day, in which we could continue to have this debate? I realize there is a need to ultimately see this bill pass so that the Quebec commission is able to continue to do its fine work.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this bill definitely carries on the legacy that started in 2011 under Prime Minister Harper, and that is what we see going through this bill.
I do not know what the member interpreted from my speech. I tried to outline the historical background of what happened and why we are at this stage. Asking for perfection or for better is something that everybody aims for. That is what I was trying to do here in the speech that I delivered today.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague noted that Mr. Harper's government recognized Quebec as a nation. Since then, however, there has been no concrete action.
The bill maintains Quebec's number of seats at 78, but Quebec loses relative weight because increasing the number of MPs in Canada reduces Quebec's weight from 23% to 22.51%.
It is all well and good to maintain the number of seats in Quebec, but if the number of seats elsewhere in Canada is increased, Quebec loses out in the end. What does my colleague think?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, Quebec was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the law that was passed under the Harper government in 2011.
The hon. member was asking about the fluctuation of the numbers here and there. I think the speech made it very clear how this happened and what the formula should look like. The bill that is presented here is also very clear. We will wait and see what happens with the vote in a few hours.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that for us in the NDP it is critical that Quebec in particular maintains its position in Parliament. I would ask my colleague to share his views once more on the importance of Quebec's role in Parliament and the importance of preserving that role.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the motion that was passed with regard to maintaining the number of seats that the province has right now actually came from our side, from our deputy leader.
It is clear in my speech. I am not sure if the hon. member heard the whole speech, but what I was trying to say today was very clear in the speech.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this is an interesting piece of legislation. I wonder if the member could speak more on the importance of the principle of representation by population, the principle that every Canadian should have a reasonable expectation that their vote counts for the same thing and that if they move to a different part of the country, their voice does not suddenly become more valuable or less valuable. That is just a common-sense proposition of fairness.
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we can never ask for too much justice. This is about justice, about representation, about having equal opportunity for MPs to represent their different areas, and about having equal opportunities for constituents to be fairly represented by MPs and through proper budgets.
44 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Edmonton Manning for sharing his time with me, and I also want to say hi to him from Yosef, who just cut my hair. I know they are good buddies, and I think they sing together, or something like that, so I just want to say hi to him from Yosef.
I will say off the top that I will be voting in favour of Bill C-14. I want to make that clear to the member for Winnipeg North, so that he does not have to stand and ask me that question. This particular bill would clarify that we would be, from now on, using the current number of seats in every province as the floor for this country going forward. That said, I would like to talk a bit about representation, and particularly regional representation. These are issues that have motivated my interest in politics, and they motivate a great many Albertans' interest in politics, and none more so than a fellow from my riding named Edward Goodlife.
I always wish I had Edward Goodlife's last name. I think he has lived a good life. He is a good friend of mine. He moved to Canada from England. He chose Canada. He moved to a little place called Granum, Alberta, and started a nail factory there. He was driving across western Canada through the Prairies and he noticed that all the houses in our part of the country were built out of wood. He said to himself, “All these houses need nails to put them together,” so he decided to start a nail factory in Granum, Alberta.
One of the reasons we know each other is through politics. His motivation for getting involved in politics was a whole litany of issues he had when getting his nail factory started and profitable in Canada, such as issues of regulation and taxation and issues of regional disparity. The story he told me was that it would cost him something like $23 to ship a pallet of nails on the railway to Ontario, yet his competitors in Ontario could ship that same container of nails to Alberta for $8. This is something that I think is called a mill rate on the railway, and I am not 100% sure of all the details of how that worked, but one of the things that really grated against him was the fact that the system seemed to be set up against him.
In order for him to compete with folks who were manufacturing nails in Ontario, he had to pay three times more in shipping costs than people in Ontario shipping their goods in this direction, particularly nails. He could compete with them here, but he had to work fairly hard. When he tried to break into new markets, particularly in eastern Canada, he was up against that.
It is these kinds of stories and sentiments that bring the frustration we have whenever we get talking about representation in this country. The Bloc members have brought into this debate, and I am not sure where they got it, the idea of proportionality and that somehow Quebec should own 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. I am happy to see that the government did not put into this legislation the maintenance of one particular seat. I am supportive of that, but this idea of proportionality is very interesting and comes up very often in my conversations around northern Alberta.
This idea of proportionality comes up often, and people show me graphics all the time. I see them on Facebook and places like that. People have made graphics showing the proportion of the seats based on regions of the country, and they come to my office and are very upset about this. I will say to them that there is nothing in our system that says anything about proportionality of seats.
Our system is based on having the House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons is based on the number of electors, and the Senate is supposed to be a representation of the landowners, provincial interests or those kinds of things. We could perhaps say that, in the case of the Senate, there should be some redistribution of the Senate seats or an addition of new Senate seats so that provincial representation was perhaps weighted equally or on percentage of land mass, percentage of taxation income, resource revenue or something. We can have that discussion, but that is not what this bill is about. Those are some of the things that come up often. Proportionality is not something that comes into the seating in the House of Commons.
The other thing that is fascinating, and that many Canadians, particularly from either Quebec or Ontario, do not think about, is how close they live to Parliament and Ottawa. I have the privilege of touring school groups through the House of Commons. They come up from southern Ontario to have a tour of the House of Commons, and I am happy to oblige by doing that. I note and tell them all the time that they are fortunate that they live a four- or five-hour drive from Ottawa. Growing up and in my high school years, in grade three and grade six we went to the legislature buildings in Edmonton, but I never had the opportunity to do a field trip to Ottawa with my class. That is something that, being from Alberta, we just did not have the opportunity to do.
We see that borne out in lobbying efforts and the way that these systems are set up. Ottawa is a distant place for Albertans. Ottawa is not something that we think about. It is not in our lives every day, and because it is far away we do not necessarily have access to that place as somebody who lives a lot closer has. Sometimes we, who are from northern Alberta, realize that the decisions made in Ottawa are often influenced by the people who live near to it. That makes sense because they are closer. They have access. They can drive there in an afternoon and make their case, whereas people in northern Alberta do not. It is a 3,600-kilometre tour from my house to Ottawa. It takes three and a half days to drive there, and it is an expensive endeavour.
All of these things lead to the sense of a lack of representation in Ottawa. It is not even necessarily that we have more people voting for fewer people, which is the case, but also the distance of it. That is just a reality. Other than perhaps moving the Parliament buildings to Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver or Peace River, that is going to be the reality.
The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon was making some great points around this as well, and the fact that the representation in our part of the country feels quite a bit different than it does for people who live close to Ottawa. We want to make sure that representation happens. Having a hard and fast rule on representation by population is just a matter of fact, in the same way that Quebec and Ontario being close to Ottawa is a matter of fact. I am happy to support this particular bill, but I would just point out that there are other things that are matters of fact that we cannot change and that we should not necessarily worry about. The same thing goes for representation by population. That is the way the system is set up, and we should work hard to maintain that principle here in this place.
With that, I am looking forward to the budget this afternoon and to having Alberta's interests represented, in particular northern Alberta's. One of the major reasons that I got involved in politics was to represent Alberta in Ottawa, and I am pleased to do so today here in this Parliament.
1347 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in terms of what the member is talking about.
It is a whole lot easier to get from Edmonton or Calgary, let us say, to Ottawa than it is from many Ontario communities. In fact, one might have to take a long drive to an airport to take another airplane to come to Ottawa: Canada's capital.
My concern is that, number one, the member should not try to give the impression that one has to live close to Ottawa to have influence. I like to consider that I carry some influence, as the member no doubt carries influence, and I am from Winnipeg.
One does not have to be from Ottawa in order to have influence. That is my suggestion to the member. Second, with respect to the bill itself, would the member not recognize that the simplicity of the bill is to ensure that we recognize that no province should have a reduction in the number of seats based on the last federal election? Would he not agree, simply put, that this is a good thing and something worth voting for?
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I did note, right off the top of my speech, that I was supporting this bill. I even noted that I was doing that for the benefit of the member for Winnipeg North, so I am pleased that he listened to my speech.
The other point I would make is that my point all around distances to Ottawa was not so much that we can change that but that this is a matter of fact. We cannot change the fact that Ontario is closer to Ottawa than Alberta is. We should just respect these things that are a matter of fact and respect the idea that representation by population is a matter of fact.
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
