44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 2, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, I am troubled in this debate, although there has been unanimous support for Bill C-14. I think we have responded positively right across all party lines to the concerns of our Quebec colleagues that the voice of Quebec would be reduced within this place.
Obviously, we support the idea of measures to protect Quebec's number of seats in the House.
At the same time, as someone who was elected in 2011 when we had 308 MPs here, I have a larger concern. We are now at 338. Do we constantly expand the number of members of Parliament we have? In the U.K., they have 650-some MPs. Is it really better representation for our constituents that as the population expands, there are more voices? Does that not dilute the voice of each riding if we have more MPs? In a chamber of 650, very few people out of the whole number get to contribute to the debate.
I would rather see, and I put this to the hon. member, fair voting in this country through proportional representation and through limiting the constant growth in the number of MPs. In other words, in the concept of representation by population, we actually may not have better democracy, compared to actually fixing our voting system to have real democracy.
221 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. When I reflect on it, the number of members of Parliament does weighs heavily on my mind personally. What we ultimately want to see is all members of Parliament having a very important role in the chamber. I suspect that if we started to have numbers like 400 or 500, it could diminish.
The way in which we increase or provide services as the population continues to grow is by enhancing the resources that members of Parliament have. For example, members' allowances or their access to finances could be enhanced so that members of Parliament could better serve their constituents. We have seen that if MPs have more resources to serve their constituents, they are able to serve a larger number of people.
What I am glad and grateful for hearing in the member's comments is that the member supports retaining the 78 seats for Quebec. I do appreciate that, because I was not 100% sure, and that is why I could not say that it was unanimous in the House of Commons.
Based on what the member has just said, I am more confident that it is unanimously felt inside the House of Commons today that the Province of Quebec will retain 78 seats at the very least as a base mark here in the House of Commons. I see that as a positive thing, as a commitment to la belle province, a province that all of us no doubt care deeply about and that plays such an important role within our federation.
264 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, during your time speaking, you mentioned the importance of Quebec and the French language to Winnipeg. Perhaps you could expand on that and talk about how important the feeling is that various communities in Manitoba have toward Quebec.
I know that in northern Ontario, places like Dubreuilville or Sturgeon Falls, which are predominantly French, support a lot of what is happening in Quebec. They basically see it as the motherland that they emigrated from, and they see a very strong, united Canada with Quebec in it.
Could you please expand on the feelings of Winnipeg towards maintaining or grandfathering these 78 seats for Quebec?
106 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 11:17:01 a.m.
- Watch
First of all, I know the member for Kingston and the Islands would stand and make sure on a point of order that we run all our questions through the Chair and not use “you” and speak directly to the member, but since he is not here, I thought I would do that myself and remind folks to run comments through the Chair.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the connections that take place interprovincially are truly amazing.
I reference my own heritage from the province, along the St. Lawrence. My great-great-great-grandparents came from that region and moved out to St-Pierre-Jolys, Manitoba. From there, they went to St. Boniface, which became a part of the city of Winnipeg.
The St. Boniface community and many rural communities in Manitoba have very strong ties to the province of Quebec. One thing that holds that tie so closely is the French language. When things take place in the province of Quebec, whether it is an ice storm or the Olympics of many years ago, there is always interest from my home province of Manitoba. There are strong ties between people, and that is one of the nice things about the federation. I believe no matter where we go, we will always find those types of connections.
The general feeling I get is that people are very proud of other aspects of Canada, and I do not think anyone who has that passion for Quebec would want to see Quebec lose a House of Commons seat. Equally, I do not think the Province of Quebec or the people of Quebec would want to see Manitoba lose a seat when we look at electoral boundary changes.
219 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I too share some of the views of my colleague here in the House. I know the French language is extremely important across the entire country. I have four grandchildren who are enrolled in French immersion programs, and they are there because their parents and I as a grandparent encouraged them to do so. One of the things I regret is I did not have the opportunity to study French when I was in school, or at university, for that matter.
In my view as an MP in Ottawa, the French language today is extremely important. For example, the mayor of Blanc Sablon in Labrador was at a transport committee meeting talking about the fixed link from Newfoundland to Labrador, which is a tunnel that would be a great project to connect Labrador and the island portion of Newfoundland. The important part of that is that the mayor is French, and of course the north shore is very much French, and the people feel like they are losing their identity to a certain extent. They were there in support of that kind of project, because they want to see the highway to Quebec finished and they want to keep that connection. In fact, they want to grow that connection.
I strongly supported them, and I still do, in chasing that kind of project. It is important to them and to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.
We talk about the balance we need when we talk about the numbers of seats in the House. I ask the member if indeed what we see is a fair balance.
269 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the member amplifies the issue of what I think would be a wonderful debate, which is the French language, where it is at and how that language builds our nation in a very positive way. Many different communities from coast to coast to coast are brought together by the French language.
In terms of Election Canada and Bill C-14, it is one of the reasons we had the reaction we did in the Liberal caucus. We want to ensure Quebec has that 78-floor base so that it can never go below that, and I see that as a positive.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Winnipeg North, who I find very interesting and enjoy hearing from.
I do not mean to insult him, but I noticed something in his presentation that I see frequently and that I would describe as “predatory federalism”. I apologize for using that phrase, but it means that the Quebec nation and the French language are great as long as they remain a quaint curiosity.
If we look back in history, we have seen this predatory federalism on several occasions. I could even go back to the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which could have led to Quebec being recognized, since Canada was supposed to be a bilingual and bicultural country. However, the federalists got scared and resorted to predatory federalism. They thought that if they granted recognition to Quebec, they would have a problem later on because that recognition could be leveraged for political power. That is why they went with multiculturalism instead.
That was the first time Quebec was rejected, but it was far from the last. Just think of Meech Lake or Charlottetown. Every time Quebec has asked for the political power to which it is entitled as a nation, the federalists have said no and invoked what I call “predatory federalism”. It goes without saying that Quebec is trying to protect itself in response to that.
If they recognize us as a nation, why not give us the power and the potential that belong to a nation? I would remind my colleague from Winnipeg North that this assembly was once prepared to recognize Quebec's political power by giving it 25% of the seats in the Charlottetown accord. Unfortunately, that accord was never adopted because people got scared, as my colleague explained earlier.
I do not see why he is afraid to add a Quebec clause to Bill C‑14. I do not know what scares him about that prospect, other than the fact that it would give Quebec a certain recognition. I believe that is clear enough. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I move:That this question be now put.
358 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 11:28:08 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, we will get 10 minutes for questions and comments and then I will be able to speak for a full 20 minutes, I understand.
29 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 11:28:18 a.m.
- Watch
1 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the first thing that comes to my mind is, why the hurry? The Bloc has brought forward a motion, and what they are suggesting is that we stop the debate on it when there is so much more we can talk about with regard to Elections Canada, the role it plays and the possible options. There are other things that can be addressed.
In my opening comments, I was dealing more with specifics. There are other aspects to Elections Canada. On the one hand, the Bloc is bringing forward this motion asking for us to have a debate on it so it can go to committee, and then right away they want to have a vote on it.
Does the member not want to hear what other members have to say about what the Bloc is proposing to do today?
142 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking why we are in such a hurry. Simply put, we have been waiting a long time for the Quebec nation to be recognized.
Earlier, I was talking about the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which was in 1963, if I am not mistaken. It proved to be a failure for us. Then, in 1982, the Quebec nation suffered another setback with the patriation of the Constitution. Then there was Meech Lake and Charlottetown, two more disappointments for the Quebec nation. Then came a referendum, and we were so close to achieving our destiny. In the end, our victory was stolen, perhaps by the sponsorship program, which my colleague may have heard about.
I do not know about him, but we are losing patience, which is perhaps why we are acting quickly.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for clarification. Today's procedures are little different.
Is the Bloc Québécois MPs' goal to have a vote right away or another day, with or without debate?
I just want clarification as to the procedure for what the Bloc Québécois is asking for at this point.
61 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the procedure is very straightforward. We want this assembly to vote on the motion moved by my colleague. It is as simple as that.
We can talk about it now. We spent an entire day doing so. As members know, there was an opposition day about Quebec's political weight during which we discussed an issue similar to this morning's issue. The House had a chance to vote then.
This is very simple. We want this assembly to vote. It is as simple as that. We do this all day long.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when I posed the question to the member, right away he made reference to the Constitution. What he is talking about, from his perspective, is that the Bloc would like to have a discussion about the Constitution. I am wondering why that is. I did not even talk at length at all about the Constitution. Whether it was the constitutional agreements that were achieved in the 1970s, the Charlottetown accord or the Meech Lake accord, these are all no doubt important debates, but is it the position of the Bloc today that we should have a constitutional debate?
To the best I can tell, even people in the province of Quebec, like the residents of Winnipeg North, do not want to be talking about the Constitution. What they want to be talking about is Canada's economy. They want to be talking about the pandemic.
I am wondering if my friend could share with the House whether he agrees with me and the government that the priority today is not constitutional change. The priority today is how we can deliver better quality long-term health care and how we can ensure we are creating and supporting the many different industries, such as the aerospace industry, which is so important to the province of Quebec and the province of Manitoba. To me, that is what the legislature should be talking about. That is where the focus of the Bloc party should be, if it wants to be constructive in what it is doing inside the House of Commons. If Bloc members do not want to be constructive and want to be destructive, I suggest maybe they should continue along the line of constitutional debate.
289 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member for Winnipeg North’s approach very interesting.
Actually, I am not the only one to mention the Constitution. Earlier this week, we spoke about Bill 21 on state secularism.
His colleague from Mont-Royal said that the notwithstanding clause should never be applied. However, it is part of the Constitution. Does this colleague not respect his voters, since he talks about the Constitution and says the notwithstanding clause should never be applied?
I spoke earlier of predatory federalism. When it suits them to put Quebec in its place, saying that the notwithstanding clause should be removed, saying that it is not up to Quebec to decide how to manage secularism, the Liberals talk to us about the Constitution. When it comes to Bill 96 to protect the French language, the Liberals are ready to talk about the Constitution and to say that they do not want to hear about the notwithstanding clause.
However, when it comes to recognizing the Quebec nation as we ask, talking about the Constitution is like talking about a shameful disease.
They need to make up their minds. My colleague from Winnipeg North’s remarks are not in line with what his colleagues and the people in his own party are saying.
215 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I think that we have made an effort here, step by step, and I am concerned. I have no problem with the idea. In fact, we voted in favour of protecting the number of members from Quebec.
However, the idea of having percentage representation is based on another principle entirely. It is not the same thing as in Bill C-14. I think that this involves the Constitution.
We debated for an entire day, as the hon. member pointed out. However, the principle proposed in today’s motion is different. We have not had a chance to review it and discuss it.
I think I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North. He is right when he says that this involves the Constitution.
127 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my colleague by saying that informed politicians who are familiar with Quebec and Canadian politics would know that we have been talking about these issues for more than 50 years. At some point we need to stop debating; we need to do something.
We are moving this motion today. I do not think it is illegitimate or irrational to ask that a nation like the Quebec nation be ensured 25% representation in the House for the time it remains in Canada. I do not think that this is unreasonable. As I said earlier, it was part of the Charlottetown Accord. We talked about it on our opposition day.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North often uses closure these days to say that we must move things forward. This is the Bloc’s answer to that. It is the Bloc’s closure. We want to move our issues forward. I invite my colleagues to look at it that way, in a spirit of friendship and cordiality.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is the real motivation behind this: The Bloc wants to have a debate on the Constitution. If the Bloc members are so gung-ho on debating an issue that Canadians do not want to deal with today, why do they not just introduce it as an opposition day motion and make very clear that they want to talk about the Constitution, as opposed to trying to do it through a back door?
78 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out to my colleague from Winnipeg North that he and I are the only ones debating the Constitution. The motion is specifically about Quebec's political weight, not the Constitution. I would also point out that it was his party that raised the constitutional issue by saying that the notwithstanding clause should not be used. It was his party that raised this, not me.
If my colleague wants to be consistent, he should also be talking about secularism, and not the notwithstanding clause.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
