44th Parl. 1st Sess.
May 16, 2022 11:00AM
- May/16/22 1:01:05 p.m.
- Watch
It is time to resume debate.
The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C‑14. I will start by talking about the principles that have always underpinned the NDP's work in the House. I will then talk about how we could adapt this chamber to reflect the values of Canadians, thereby ensuring that this place is the House of Commons that Canadians across the country truly want.
Let me get back to Bill C‑14. Ever since the NDP has held seats in this House, it has fought to ensure that all Canadians are represented. We, of course, agree that Quebec should have a guaranteed level of representation in the House of Commons, and that provision is included in the supply and confidence agreement that the member for Burnaby South signed on behalf of the NDP with the Liberal government. This is why the bill before us today would ensure that Quebec has a guaranteed level of representation in the House of Commons. The NDP believes that 78 seats for Quebec is an important and fundamental principle.
As my colleagues know, when we look at the provinces and territories of Canada, such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the provinces of Atlantic Canada, Nunavut, Yukon or the Northwest Territories, we always see this principle of a minimum threshold of representation. It is not a new idea; it has already been implemented. In the agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party, the NDP forced the government to act, because it is important. Obviously, the NDP will be supporting this bill because it makes sense.
Although we will be voting in favour of this bill, we must also remember that it is missing something, and that is the important notion of proportional representation. I will remind the House that a few years ago, in 2015, our Prime Minister promised that the election that had just taken place would be the last non-proportional election, a promise he was quick to break. However, if proportional representation were applied to Quebec, it would greatly change the composition of the House of Commons.
As it did again a few minutes ago during the speech by the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, for whom I have a great deal of respect, the Bloc claims that there should be more Bloc members in the House of Commons. However, that is precisely where the Bloc is failing Quebeckers.
The Bloc Québécois has more members than it would have been entitled to under proportional representation, since it received far fewer votes. The Bloc would have had seven fewer MPs, so those who voted for the Bloc are actually over-represented in the House. Who would have had more MPs with proportional representation? The NDP, which would have a total of eight MPs in Quebec.
The idea of a minimum threshold for Quebec representation is important, but we need to go further. We need to implement proportional representation. If that were the case, there would be fewer Liberal members, fewer Bloc members and more NDP members, because that is what Quebeckers decided in the last election.
When we look at representation in the House, we cannot forget this important element. It is not just about the number of seats. At the end of the day, the members who are elected must be elected in a way that respects the voters' choice. The NDP has been advocating for this principle for years.
For Quebeckers, the fact that we do not have proportional representation means there are fewer New Democrats and more Bloc members in the House than there should be. Far fewer people voted for the Bloc in Quebec, so the number of Bloc members is not representative.
The same goes for the Liberal Party. There should be fewer Liberal MPs representing Quebec in the House. Here again, because we do not have proportional representation, there are more Liberal MPs in Quebec than the number of votes justifies.
The NDP will always advocate for an electoral system in which every vote counts. That is an important principle. When we look at what is happening in other countries, where every vote counts, we see that the most progressive and innovative parties are the ones that end up with the most elected members. This extremely important element should be part of every discussion about representation.
Determining who has the right to vote is another very important element. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, British Columbia, has introduced a bill related to this issue. People 16 and 17 years of age must be allowed to vote. In a few weeks, all members of the House of Commons will be tested for cynicism. Will they say that the right to vote should be extended to 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds?
We already know that these young people are very concerned and that the decisions we make in the House will affect their whole lives. Personally, I have been active within the NDP since I was 14, and I do not accept the argument by some hon. members that 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds should not be allowed to vote because they are too young. They are already working, learning to drive and paying taxes, yet they are not allowed to vote. It is strange. It should not be this way.
That is why I fully support Bill C‑210. All NDP MPs support it. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has already noted that 16- and 17-year-olds have been asking members to vote in favour of this bill. We must expand the right to vote to these people who are already fully contributing to our society.
This is an extremely important part of representation. I hope that every MP will hear the message that young people are sending and give these young Canadians the chance to vote in the next election. Since these young people will be affected the most by the decisions we make or do not make in the House of Commons, it is extremely important that they have the opportunity to have a say in their own future.
This is the fundamental question, when we go beyond the idea that certain regions of our country have minimum representation in the House of Commons. This is something that has already been granted to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Atlantic provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as well as the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, an extraordinary region of our country, and the Yukon. In those regions of the country, we already have a minimum level of representation. What this bill does is simply extend that to Quebec.
It is for that reason, and for historic reasons as well. There is no doubt that Quebec represents a nation in Canada. We voted on this in the House of Commons, and it makes very real sense to adopt this bill.
However, this is not the only aspect of representation that we need to be tackling. This is where we get to the issue of a reform of our electoral system.
Members know well that if we actually had in place a proportional system of voting, with electoral reform, like so many other countries have, we would actually see in the House of Commons far fewer Conservatives, far fewer Liberals and far more New Democrats. As we know, in the last election Canadians voted in vast numbers for the NDP, and there should be over 60 NDP MPs in the House of Commons, but we do not have proportional voting. Our electoral system, first past the post, ensures that only one of the parties is represented, despite the fact that Canadians divide up in a much more even way between the traditional old parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and the New Democrats. Having in place proportional voting, mixed member proportional representation, would make a difference in how the House of Commons is put together.
As we know, in the last two elections, we have seen minority Parliaments that Canadians have decided on, even with the first-past-the-post system. What the NDP has done with that, with the mighty strength of our 25 members of Parliament, is push the government to finally do the right thing. The confidence and supply agreement, as we have seen, has made a significant difference in the lives of Canadians.
We are seeing put into place a national dental care program, something that has been talked about for decades. Now it is finally happening. For decades, we have had a growing homelessness and an affordability crisis in housing, and now finally that is being addressed through the confidence and supply agreement. It is because it is a minority Parliament that the NDP is able to push hard so that Canadians actually get the benefits, finally, after decades of inaction, both from Liberal and Conservative governments. I do not single out one or the other. It has been lamentable, how we have seen massive giveaways to the ultrarich and to the banks and billionaires develop over time. At the same time, Canadians are being neglected. Seniors are being neglected. Families are being neglected, and young people are being neglected.
We have seen a complete lack of respect and responsibility in terms of actually ensuring a future for indigenous peoples. We have seen how, over time, our federal institutions have been eroded, but now, with two consecutive minority Parliaments, Canadians can start seeing that they can have confidence again that the government may actually do the right thing and respond to the affordable housing crisis, respond to the crises we see in indigenous communities, respond to the climate crisis and respond, as well, to the fact that most Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. Things like dental care and pharmacare would make a significant difference in their quality of life.
Putting in place that electoral reform would mean that the House of Commons would actually reflect how Canadians vote, as opposed to a first-past-the-post system where majorities are magnified. Both Conservatives and Liberals have not had 50% of the vote, but they have had far more than 50% of the power; they have had 100% of the power with majority governments. We saw how that acted out in the dismal decade of the Harper government. We have seen how far short the Liberals fell with the majority government, which did virtually nothing for Canadians.
Now, in a minority Parliament situation, which would happen more often and more significantly under an electoral reform and a voting system where every vote counts, we would be able to achieve more for Canadians. The neglect of regular Canadians that we have seen over decades, while hundreds of billions have been given in handouts to banks and billionaires in overseas tax havens, would have to cease, because ultimately the NDP would have a greater representation in the House and be able to push hard for a better response to what working people are going through.
It is not just about electoral reform in the sense of proportional representation; it is also about giving younger people a voice. That is why I want to pay tribute to the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for presenting Bill C-210 in the House. All members of Parliament will have to vote on this important initiative. Bill C-210 would give 16- and 17-year-olds the full right as Canadians to finally be able to vote in federal elections.
This is fundamentally important. With the climate crisis, we are seeing things change in our country. Last year, in my area of Burnaby and New Westminster and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, we saw over 600 people die in the sweltering temperatures of the heat dome provoked by the climate crisis. Many of the people who died were simply unable to leave their apartments and did not have air conditioning in place. The emergency systems were overloaded. Ambulances simply could not keep up. Firefighters stepped in. This occurred over a number of days, as hundreds of people died. I spoke with emergency workers and first responders who said that if it had gone on for another couple of days, it would have led to a collapse of our emergency response system.
Therefore, for governments to not respond to the magnitude of the climate crisis for decades is absolutely irresponsible, and I blame the Conservatives and the Liberals equally. Young people in this country understand that, so by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote, I believe we will cause a substantial change in voting patterns and the composition of the House of Commons, because young Canadians will no longer accept an ostrich-style response to the climate crisis that is now upon us. Giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote gives them a stake in their own future. The bad decisions that have been made over the last few decades will fundamentally change with an influx of voters who understand what is at stake with respect to the climate crisis.
With respect to representation, this bill, in a very limited scope, does one good thing, but we expect the government to move further on keeping its promises. We all remember in 2015 when the Prime Minister stood up and announced, with the eyes of the nation on him, that it would be the last first-past-the-post election, and won a majority government as a result. He promptly broke that promise and has not had a majority government since, because what Canadians have been saying to him and to the Liberal government is that they simply will not accept a situation in which 30% or 32% of the vote gives 100% of the power. As members well know, a minority Parliament situation allows for real discussions about the future of our country and what Canadians need to be brought to the forefront of the House of Commons.
I have been in this House as an elected member of Parliament in a number of majority Parliaments, and we need to have a Parliament that reflects how Canadians vote. I hope that legislation will be forthcoming in the coming years.
2400 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the reason we have this legislation before us today is that a commission was established through the independent agency known as Elections Canada to look at the number of seats and how the boundaries would look in future elections. Upon receiving that report not that long ago, the general consensus, I believe, of the chamber, or at the very least within the Liberal caucus, was that we see this as a piece of positive legislation that addresses a specific need with respect to the commission.
My question for the member is this. How important does he believe it is for the legislation to pass quickly so the commission can continue to work on boundary redistribution in the province of Quebec, where there have been population shifts?
128 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we have seen the Conservatives stand in this House and say they support the legislation, but that they want to debate it. We have seen this since the last election, with the singular difference and distinction of the ban on conversion therapy, which was passed by all four corners of this House in December. That seems to have led to a meltdown within the Conservative ranks. Since then, the Conservatives have been blocking every single piece of legislation before the House and refusing to let anything pass, no matter who would benefit. I find that unfortunate. I hope they will see reason, stop blocking this bill and allow it to go through.
115 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague. What does he say to people who know that their French‑speaking nation is in decline, who are fighting, breathing through a straw and calling for even a modicum of respect to avoid becoming minimized in Quebec? It is all well and good to keep the same number of seats, but what about proportionality?
How are we supposed to interpret the fact that our colleagues are saying that the French‑speaking nation is important when the reality is that our nation is in decline? What are we to say to that?
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is precisely my point. Proportional representation would mean seven fewer Bloc Québécois representatives in the House of Commons and seven more NDP members.
We have to respect Quebeckers' choices. If we look at the percentage of votes, we see that they would have chosen to elect seven more NDP members and seven fewer Bloc Québécois members. However, the Bloc is opposed to a proportional system for Quebec and the rest of Canada.
I do not understand that. The Bloc says we have to respect Quebeckers' choices. That would mean seven more NDP members if we look at proportional representation.
I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois refuses proportional representation in the House of Commons.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the history of Canada has minority Parliaments, or at least never a majority of the population voting for one party. This actually fits with our heritage. I would like the hon. member to reflect on that. The question is whether we should be moving towards where Canadians have always wanted us to be.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I admire my colleague from Windsor West a lot. He is always very incisive and effective in the questions he asks in the House of Commons.
We have had a tradition of ensuring that the regions of our country, provinces and territories have a minimum level of representation. That has been a principle of Confederation. It is something that Canadians work together on.
The bill is an important one. The interesting thing is the refusal of the Conservatives to let it move on, to let it move to committee, to let it move through the various stages of the House of Commons. That is something that is abnormal. Conservatives in the past have tried to work co-operatively with other parties. They certainly did in the last Parliament. That seems to have stopped. I regret that, and I hope the Conservatives will start working again with other parties, allowing legislation to advance so we can get things done for Canadians.
162 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I hope this works. I am going to ask my friend the question I was going to ask the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands about the ways in which our voting system tends to enforce notions of regional difference and further isolate. The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands was saying that rural Canadians do not get represented properly in this country, and partly that is because of first past the post.
In Saskatchewan, in the last election, 20% of voters voted for the New Democratic Party, but none of the members represent that particular viewpoint. If we had proportional representation, we would have members from the governing party probably in cabinet and members of other parties raising the voice of concern for more rural Canadians.
130 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, this an obvious scenario on which the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I agree 100%, that our voting system is simply not working. We have representation from the older parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, that is far beyond the number of Canadians that actually voted for them, and under-representation from other parties. That includes the New Democratic Party. Fundamentally, there should be 60 NDP members of Parliament here. That is how Canadians voted, and the Green Party is another example of that, under-represented in the House of Commons. We need to make sure that representation in the House is proportionate to the votes that Canadians cast, and the NDP will continue to work with other parties to get to that end.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member talks about co-operation and is very excited about the NDP's co-operation with the Liberals. I wonder if he has the same enthusiasm for co-operation with the provinces, which it is incumbent upon the government to undertake.
Prior to the NDP's committing to support this legislation, can the member share with us what consultations, that he knows of, have taken place between the federal government and the provinces? As for the work that is already ongoing with respect to the boundaries commission, has that been adjusted, altered or worked into the planning of the potential implementation of this legislation?
Further, Canadians have a guaranteed right to representation by population. What is the member's thinking with respect to Canadians' existing rights and the government's responsibility to partner, co-operate and communicate with the provinces instead of an “Ottawa knows best” or a “Liberal-NDP knows best” approach?
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am a little flabbergasted, quite frankly. I gather, though I may have misunderstood, that the Conservative member, for whom I have a lot of respect, is calling into doubt the whole essence of how we have composed the House of Commons, including the minimum representation that Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and the territories get.
If the idea is that the Conservatives are turning against that, which the member seemed to imply, that would be a serious shift in how we have composed the House of Commons. We have given those areas of this country a minimum representation, not based on representation by population but on a varied historical background. I will have to clarify with the member later, but I hope he was not renouncing Conservative policy in that regard.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up with my hon. colleague. He raised concerns about the fact that the Conservatives seem to have lost their way as a credible voice, trying to pit region against region, obstructing work that is badly needed in the House of Commons, and now promoting crazy things like bitcoin. I guess it is fair to say that bitcoin is crazy, is it not, after the crash? However, this is their new economic policy.
Can my hon. colleague explain what has happened in the ranks of the Conservative Party?
94 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would simply suggest this: We should not take financial or economic advice from the member for Carleton, because if we had, we would have lost half our wealth since he began his leadership campaign.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.
I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-14, which talks about preserving provincial representation in our House of Commons. This is fundamental to who we are as Canada. It defines us as being equitable in how we treat Confederation. Ultimately, this is about ensuring that the overall basis of having equal representation by population is adhered to.
This act would not take away the addition of seats in faster-growing provinces such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, but would ensure that slower-growing provinces, such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, some Atlantic Canada provinces and Quebec, are not shortchanged in the seats they currently have. It goes without saying that all members of the House want to ensure that the numbers we currently have for each province are respected.
If population growth in Manitoba had not kept up over the last number of years, especially if we look back over the last two redistribution periods, and if we had kept to the strict rule of representation by population, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and other provinces may have lost seats. The voice of each province counts. Although representation by region is more adequately represented in the Senate, we need to ensure that all voices from all regions of Canada are heard here. It is for that very reason that I am standing in support of this bill. I want to ensure that Manitoba never loses a seat beyond the 14 it has.
If we look at representation by population, the average riding in Canada currently holds about 100,000 people. My riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is currently at 109,000. It is at the upper end of the range that is allowed in redistribution, as ridings can be a maximum of 10% above or below population averages within each and every province. The average in Manitoba is now at 100,000, which is about the national average. The bill would ensure that each and every one of us here will represent about 100,000 people so that our voices are equal.
However, we know that in periods between the distribution of ridings and boundary commissions redrawing where boundaries fall, and because of new developments, faster growth in some areas and economic opportunities, riding populations often increase dramatically. We know that some of the ridings in Ontario, Alberta and B.C. represent 140,000, 150,000 or 160,000 people, so we need to make sure that we add seats and members of Parliament to those provinces so that we have an equal number of people represented per riding. That is only fair and something we need to do.
When the Conservatives were in government back in 2011, we brought forward the Fair Representation Act, which set in stone the formulas that are used as we go forward with redistributions by boundary commissions. They are ongoing right now. In Manitoba, we are waiting to hear in the next week from the boundary commission regarding how it is going to redraw boundaries in Manitoba. It is highly probable that some regions of Manitoba will see boundaries change.
One of the ridings in Manitoba where I do not believe the boundaries should be changed too dramatically is the riding of Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. Geographically, that riding represents two-thirds of the province of Manitoba. Although its population has dropped by a couple of thousand people since the last redistribution, I believe the ability to represent that large a geographic area, which gets into remote, rural and northern communities, is incredibly difficult for the member who currently represents the riding, and for any member in the future, for that matter.
There are several first nations there that are fly-in only. Churchill, for example, is only accessible by rail or air. Until recently, before we had the east side road built up on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, all of the first nations in that area were only accessible by winter road, by boat or by plane. It is therefore important that we take some of these conditions into consideration as boundary commissions consider their work.
Back in 2011, we added 30 new seats because we were caught in a system that dated back to 1985. Ridings were set at 308 for the entire country for that entire time. Ensuring that we can match the number of seats in the chamber with population growth is something that I find necessary and is something that realistically looks at how things are changing in our great nation.
When we look at places such as Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, population does not always keep up. We need to make sure that this representation does not slide down past where we are right now. I would hate to see the provinces of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and P.E.I., which is guaranteed four seats in the House of Commons, go back to when they joined Confederation and lose seats. In reality, for P.E.I., we would only have one or two members of Parliament based on population, but the voices of members who represent P.E.I count. We sometimes have to balance population with regional and provincial areas of interest. We need to be focused and open-minded at the same time as we talk about the changes in our boundaries.
We respect the independent boundary commissions and the work going on right now. They are going to provide opportunities for Canadians to look at how they redraw boundaries. I know there are a lot of discussions taking place over some of the commissions' reports that have already been released, including for British Columbia, Saskatchewan and other provinces. However, there is going to be an opportunity for the commissioners who drafted the first reports to hear from Canadians, whether they are community leaders, those in municipalities, us parliamentarians or those who have a very strong interest in how we conduct ourselves and how we represent areas in our regions.
When we look at our electoral districts, it is important that we look at what is important from a municipal standpoint. Rurally, boundary commissions sometimes cut municipalities in half and put half a rural municipality or half a community in one riding and half in the other. I have always advocated for the fact that it is best to keep municipalities in one riding so they are completely captured within one riding. It is better for working with members of Parliament.
We also want to make sure we look at trade corridors and communities of like interest, communities that are, for example, all agriculture-based or maybe resource-based. Maybe they are indigenous. Those communities should be lumped together to ensure that their vote matters and that through their members of Parliament, they are heard loud and clear.
I know we are not looking, for some of the issues, at whether this is a permanent solution or just a patchwork. We are concerned that this is coming up late, as boundary commissions are already completing their work, and we wonder if this is going to delay that work.
I will end with this. I am looking forward to a response from the government on how it will ensure that we are not disturbing the critical work that boundary commissions are doing right now.
1241 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's question, it was not that long ago when the electoral commission brought forward the number of seats in the distribution of the provinces. The legislation we have today is a direct result of an independent agency, as it should be, and I suspect it will pass unanimously. That is what I am expecting to see on this legislation.
There is something I do not quite understand, and maybe the member opposite can explain to people who might be following the debate, in particular those in the commission, because this does matter. The Quebec commission requires the legislation to pass. The longer we hold off on passing the legislation, there more it could, no doubt, have an impact.
Why would the Conservative Party not want to see this legislation pass? It is not like it is that unique. We already have things of this nature for other jurisdictions. The member made reference to Manitoba, our own home province.
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member for Winnipeg North that back on March 2, the Conservatives brought forward a motion that was passed unanimously. The motion read, “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.”
That was on March 2. What took the member so long to bring this forward? He should not be blaming the Conservatives for holding up having a fulsome discussion on this piece of legislation, when the Liberals waited until the last minute before boundary commissions are supposed to be wrapping up their work.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for sharing in his intervention the piece on the geography of ridings. As members know, as the member of Parliament for Nunavut I have a huge riding. I have 25 mayors, 25 communities with schools and 25 communities with health centres, and I cannot visit all 25 communities in one fiscal year. It would take me more than one fiscal year to visit all of my communities, so this discussion on the barriers of geography is an important one for me.
I wonder if the member would share more on why it is important to ensure that larger ridings have more MPs to make sure that all of our communities can be heard.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Nunavut. I have some familiarity with her riding. My mother was born in Chesterfield Inlet and spent a number of years up in Pangnirtung. It is a part of Canada that I really love.
I have travelled around a bit in Nunavut, and I know how far apart places are and how expensive it is to get from one community to another. Their voices need to be heard just as much as the voices of somebody living in downtown Toronto or Winnipeg or here in Ottawa. We have to make sure that we find ways to better communicate with our constituents and ensure that they are getting the representation they deserve.
As I mentioned in my comments earlier, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, a northern riding in Manitoba, covers two-thirds of the province of Manitoba. In my riding, I have 70-plus communities, 32 municipalities, two first nations and 27 Métis locals, and I need to get around to them. It is difficult for me to get to every one of those communities over a year once or twice, and that is in a riding of 26,000 square kilometres. When we look at northern Manitoba, the Northwest Territories and Yukon, we see they are very challenging, and we always have to consider them as we make these types of decisions.
231 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.
Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo encompasses a somewhat urban centre in Kamloops, but it also has a number of smaller communities, such as Vavenby, Clearwater, Barriere, 100 Mile House and 70 Mile House. I wonder if the member can comment, based on his experience, about the importance of remembering the rural areas to ensure their ongoing representation so that this is not just a focus on what might otherwise become urban sprawl in the larger centres.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
