44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 15, 2022 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that the Government of Canada responded immediately by recognizing that we do not want to see the province of Quebec diminished in terms of numbers of seats. That is why we have this legislation, even though other opposition parties may see fit to try to delay it or even possibly cause some confusion about it.
What the Bloc members are proposing would require a constitutional change. I do not believe for a moment that Canadians are open to having a round of constitutional debates and discussions on this issue, along with the many other issues that would come out of any sort of a discussion on the Constitution.
I think the most important thing to recognize here is that if we want to support the people of Quebec in going through this independent process, we need to allow them the opportunity of having a basic number of seats and let the commission do the work it needs to do.
168 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member has such a long track record of service in this place, so I have a very broad question for him, because I know he has a lot of knowledge.
This is a complicated thing to figure out, how to best represent our neighbours, given the geography of Canada and how far spread out we are. Could he expand on the importance of ensuring that from a riding size perspective and a population perspective how that representation is important? We are representing people, but we are also representing territory.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is a wonderful question.
One of the things that I could add to the debate is to say that we all want to have fair representation for the people and communities which we represent. We are talking about the independence of Elections Canada. We could just as equally be talking about the important services that members of Parliament, elected officials, provide to their constituents through the resources provided to them through the House of Commons, for example, a member's allowance, travel frequency and how convenient it is for members to be able to participate. There is a wide spectrum of things that complement a member's ability to represent the communities they have been elected to represent.
This type of discussion would be very fruitful going forward.
131 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, one of the questions I have follows up on the member's response to his colleague. One of my colleagues is the member for Nunavut. She represents more land mass than any other parliamentarian in the world. It is very difficult for her to reach all of the communities in her riding.
I wonder if he could elaborate on the ways in which we could support members of Parliament in this place who have very, very large ridings. They are expected to work through much more challenging situations than I do in an urban riding.
97 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, we talk about how members can best serve their constituents in terms of presentation, or physically, and one of the things I have learned over the last few years is the importance of the Internet and the important role that technology can play, in ensuring there is a heightened sense of equity and fairness in enabling people to be fully engaged and to participate. The hybrid Parliament is an excellent example of that and something we should keep in some form or another.
85 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑14.
I want to start by giving an overview of the problem that this bill is designed to fix in part. Every 10 years, the Chief Electoral Officer presents a new distribution of the number of seats in the House of Commons, so there are some things that keep happening every 10 years.
One thing that comes up systematically is that Quebec loses a percentage of its share of seats in the House. Allow me to give a quick background, and I will ask my colleagues to take me at my word. I have the figures and have pored over them like a dog eyeing a steak. Back in 1867, Quebec had 36% of the seats in the House and in 2015, it had 23.1%. That is typical. With the new distribution, Quebec will drop from 23.1% to 22.5%.
My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said something extraordinary. He is a brilliant Bloc Québécois member, although that is redundant. I see more and more Conservatives looking at us, as though they, too, can be brilliant. I would tell them to be patient because anything is possible. We are extending a light blue hand to their dark blue hand and we are waiting.
Back to the debate. My colleague said that the francophone nation used to be in the majority. It was decided back then that, because Quebeckers were in the majority, they would split the seats 50-50. As soon as it no longer suited them because there were more of us, they changed their mind. In the old days, Quebeckers had a lot of children—14 or 15 per family. Some parents even put stickers on their kids because they could not remember their names. In 1867, the government decided to change things. Going forward, seat distribution would be determined on the basis of population. At that point, four provinces were created, and Quebec's share of the seats fell to 33%. Our minority status in Canada was institutionalized. That is Lord Durham's political legacy.
In this classic tale, where we lose a certain percentage seats, there was recently a new plot twist. In addition to having fewer seats in percentage terms, Quebec was actually going to lose a seat. That matters. Our number of seats was going to drop from 78 to 77 seats. The Bloc Québécois began to fight, as did the Quebec government and various stakeholders in Quebec, and rightly so. Certain members here from other provinces even thought we were going a bit too far. That is when we began speaking out, because this sort of thing has not happened since 1966. The government eventually began to think that maybe it should not do this, because it did seem a bit crazy. If you want to drown someone in the pool, of course it looks crazy to push their head down and hold them in the water. What looks less crazy is gradually raising the water level in the pool. This way, a nation will eventually die, but quietly. That is what is planned for Quebec. That is what is going to happen.
The fact that Quebec has managed to make French the common language of Quebeckers is no small feat. It was even impossible for the French who failed us in 1760. They left and abandoned us, saying that things were not going well here and that, in any event, the English would take care of us, along with the priests. They thought that we would be speaking English within a generation. Two hundred years later, when France's General de Gaulle saw that Quebeckers were still here and were speaking French, he made the connection and declared, “Vive le Québec libre”.
It is a feat, but as we fight against the odds, in a situation that is becoming increasingly untenable, we will eventually need help to ensure that our nation survives and thrives, so that this nation lives on.
Is it because Quebec is better? No. Quebec is not better than the rest of Canada, but it is different. Beauty is often found in differences. I like going to Toronto. It is not home, but I like it. I like going to New York and France. I like that. It is not home, but I like it.
When the Bloc came to the House last year saying that Quebec is a nation, MPs got on board. I was impressed. We thought we were going to have to fight harder than that. Of course, the motion did not pass unanimously, but the vast majority of members agreed that Quebec is a nation.
Then some other members began getting ideas. I can never remember other people's riding names, which are incredibly long and just keep getting longer. There are 338 of us, and it is getting out of hand. We might as well use acronyms.
Getting back to my point, when we declared that Quebec was a nation, a Conservative member from British Columbia said that his province was also a nation. I told him that I was unaware, that he should explain it to us, prove it to us and bring forward a motion to that effect for us to discuss.
Then one of his colleagues, who was even more worked up than he was, said that Alberta was a nation. I will not say his name, but he did say that Alberta was a nation, and for 30 seconds he tried to convince us of that. I had to wonder.
Quebec is definitely a nation. We have a different language. We like to speak out, loud and clear, in our different language. Members can argue about it and say that language is not a big deal, but actually, it is a big deal. We are a different culture. Quebec has its own writers. I could name a few, and I doubt the other members would have any idea who they are. We had to fight at the leaders' meeting to convey how important Pierre Bruneau is to us.
We have to explain to members who we are. When Jean Leloup won a bunch of trophies, we had to explain to Canada who he was. We have to explain to members who we are. That is normal, because we are different.
Our economy is different. It is based on other aspects that are less developed elsewhere in Canada. The other regions in Canada are not worse than Quebec. They are just different.
Our history is different. When they get to the chapter on 1759, our history teachers dejectedly explain the defeat on the Plains of Abraham. Elsewhere in Canada, history teachers are pleased as punch to talk about 1759, what they call the victory on the Plains of Abraham. Need I say more?
I have two things to point out to my colleagues who say that other provinces are nations. First, when the Prime Minister was elected, he raised his arms and cheerily declared that Canada would be the first post-national state. To the people who say that their provinces are nations, I say that their leader said that they were no longer nations, that the era of nations is over.
One day, someone said to me, without any malice, that Canada is like a boring party, and everyone is just waiting for the first guest to leave so that they can leave too.
Last week, I heard the member from British Columbia say that B.C. was a nation and that Alberta was a nation in his colleague's eyes. My loving response to them is this: Why not make Canada a true confederation of sovereign states that unite as sovereign states, which manage everything within our own respective borders and which would meet to manage our economic relations and share a currency? Instead of coming together and explaining how we are different, we would meet to talk about what unites us all. That is my wish for all of us.
Unfortunately, Bill C‑14 does not reflect what we want. It is either a partial success or a partial failure, depending on whether we see the glass as half full or half empty. To fix this problem once and for all, and we need to agree on the idea that it is once and for all, Quebec would have to be guaranteed at least 25% of the seats in the House, as was proposed in the Charlottetown accord.
1449 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a joy to listen to my Bloc Québécois colleague. I say that in all sincerity, but not without chiding him for mentioning the leaders meeting, which must remain confidential.
However, I want to salute him because we share a point of view that he talked about eloquently, as only he knows how, regarding the riding names that are too long. It makes no sense. I invite the House of Commons decision-makers to use Quebec as a model for this. In Quebec, it stops at two names, not more, which is a great idea. I invite everyone to follow the Quebec model.
Speaking of Quebec earlier, that member expressed the hope and the beauty of living in a confederation of sovereign states that work together. The primary objective of the member from that group is to make Quebec a country, to have independence. Okay.
There is a solution for that: On October 3, Quebeckers will have the opportunity to either choose a new government or keep the current one. We will see what they decide and we cannot assume anything. However, we know that one of the parties in the running is focused on achieving independence through a referendum right out of the gate. Why does the member not run for the Parti Québécois in the upcoming election—
235 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:11:20 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for La Prairie.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I enjoy listening to him as well, and we have known one another a long time.
A coach does not ask a good defenceman to go out and play offence if he is good on defence. I came to the House to defend Quebeckers' interests while waiting for the big day. That is the Bloc Québécois's mission. We look after the interests of Quebeckers, we speak on behalf of Quebeckers, we explain what Quebeckers need, we talk about the values of Quebeckers and their political views.
We defend Quebec's interests in the House because they need to be defended until the big day arrives. There are people in Quebec City who are playing offence, making sure that a majority of Quebeckers will one day say “yes, finally”, after always being told no by the federal government. At some point, they will think more positively.
In the meantime, I am the Bobby Orr of Canadian politics.
165 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:12:17 p.m.
- Watch
I will stop the clock for a few seconds to remind the hon. member that there are many Quebeckers in the House.
The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I believe that during his speech, the member for La Prairie said that a member from British Columbia claimed that the province wanted to be a nation. That is not correct, because I think that the member for La Prairie was talking about me.
In fact, it is the member for La Prairie who, in trying to summarize my position, said that I wanted British Columbia to be a nation. Can the member for La Prairie clarify what he meant?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I should apologize because there are indeed MPs from Quebec who are not Bloc Québécois members, but we are the only ones who have not made compromises and do not need to make compromises because our caucus is not Canadian. It represents Quebec exclusively. To hear the sound of a pure, unadulterated symphony, one need only listen to Bloc Québécois members. I recommend that the House do so.
Getting back to my colleague from the riding whose name is impossible to memorize, let me just express my profound respect and admiration for him. The last time he rose in the House to speak to Bill C‑14, he said that British Columbia was a nation and a distinct society. I more or less quoted him verbatim. As I recall, I even invited him to Quebec, and that invitation stands.
I myself am planning to visit British Columbia, where everything looks so gorgeous. I am going next year. I even talked to my wife about it, and she is excited. I want to explore that beautiful part of the country, but I want my colleague to explain to me why it is a nation, because that is what he told the House. We remain friends nevertheless.
217 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I support Bill C-14. I think nearly everyone here supports it.
I remember the debate on the Charlottetown accord. At that time, I was invited by civil society members to campaign with them in favour of the Charlottetown accord. At the same time, I was inspired because there was a real grassroots movement against the Charlottetown accord.
My question is not a simple one. In the opinion of my colleague from La Prairie, should we be trying harder to come up with a constitutional solution that really works for Quebec?
93 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:15:57 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member has 15 seconds to respond.
9 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, you are being hard on me. I may stretch these 15 seconds a little.
Quebec faces many difficulties with respect to its values and needs in the Canadian federation. The solution to this problem would have been to simply set a minimum threshold with a percentage to guarantee that Quebec always has the same percentage of representatives in the House. There is no need to open the Constitution. We do not need 50% of the seats.
Patrick Taillon, a well-known constitutional expert, came before the parliamentary committee and told us that we did not need to do that. It is already provided for. I do not have enough time, but I would have said that the Supreme Court recognized, in 1987, the right to adopt clauses like the senatorial clause and the grandfather clause. We could have called it the Quebec clause. It would have been included in this bill and it would have resolved—
159 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:16:53 p.m.
- Watch
Order. we must resume debate.
The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to participate in the debate on Bill C‑14.
The NDP has long supported the principle that Quebec should maintain a consistent proportion of the seats in the House of Commons. That is not what Bill C‑14 would do, but we think that this bill is nevertheless important, to ensure that no ground is lost while we hold a broader debate on the proportion of seats. That is why this bill is worthwhile, and it is urgent, in light of the pending electoral distribution.
We must choose to ensure that the new seats reflect the number of seats that we want Quebec to have at the end of this process. Time is of the essence and we must make a decision. It is not a perfect one, but it is the right decision under the circumstances.
This has been an interesting debate. We have heard a lot about representation and some of the important principles that undergird the Canadian electoral system. We know that already in the House of Commons, representation by population is not the only consideration. Just as an example, provinces cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than they have in the Senate. That is already a departure from representation by population. We also know that rural areas tend to be weighted differently in order to ensure that there continues to be a strong role representation in the House of Commons, beyond what representation by population would dictate. Those are just a couple of examples of the way in which representation by population is not the only way that we determine representation in Canada, so there are certainly precedents for looking at other departures from representation by population.
Sometimes people get quite animated in this place during those debates. We just saw an example of that, and we have seen examples from folks in other parties as well who get pretty animated. We have seen some very spirited defences of representation by population, particularly from some of the western Conservative members. That is fair enough. We come here to represent our constituents and the points of view that people have on these matters, and they are rightly an object of concern.
I do think it is important to try to have these debates with a bit of humility, though, because they are very important and foundational debates. For instance, I look at the current Conservative leadership race, and I note with interest that, in their own system, representation by population is not the rule. That is fair enough. Different parties do that differently. In the NDP, we have a one member, one vote system. We do not have any kind of weighting.
In the Conservative Party, they have chosen to have a weighting. That is something that defies representation by population, presumably for good reason. I am not saying the Conservatives should not do that, and I am not saying that they should. What I am saying is that they have made a choice to forego strict representation by population because, presumably, they think it matters to have a proportionate weighting of voices from across the country in the selection of their leader.
Also, when we talk about representation in this place, we sometimes talk about the voting system we have. I have heard Conservatives take very strong positions on that, defending the balloting system that we have and defending the first-past-the-post system that we have. Folks can correct me during questions and comments if I am wrong, but I note with interest that I believe the Conservatives are going to have a preferential ballot in the Conservative leadership race. That is something the Conservatives are very much against in other contexts, but they have seen it to be appropriate for their leadership. Not only are they going to have a preferential ballot, but they are also going to have a preferential ballot that informs a proportional system because leadership candidates will get a number of votes within their riding association proportionate to the percentage of votes they got out of that system. Then, presumably, based on the alternative ballot, as some people fall off, those votes will be successively redistributed within that riding through the points system until they elect a leader.
I note also that the Conservatives are doing this uniquely by mail-in ballot, which is something I listened to many Conservatives talk about in a filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee in the last Parliament. They were very clear then that they felt mail-in ballots led to fraudulent electoral outcomes. Here we are.
We have a Conservative Party that is using a preferential ballot in a non-representation-by-population system to have proportionate outcomes in a mail-in process, which is why I encourage us to speak to these issues here in the House with some humility, because I think that, in fact, depending on the context, various members do support different kinds of electoral principles.
That is why I think we should be able to have this conversation in a responsible way, in the way I think Canadians would expect mature adults to try to have those conversations: not demonize each other because of the kinds of positions we are putting forward, but try to hear what is important and of value in the other person's position and then try to hammer out a compromise, as was the case originally in 1867. There were compromises made that did not satisfy everyone at the time but that managed to move the Canadian project forward, and there have been many compromises since that have not been perfect and certainly have not pleased everyone. However, Canada has been a constant activity and a constant project of trying to seek consensus and agreement. As difficult as that is, I think it is actually Canada's strength.
We live in a world right now that is rife with conflict. We live in a world right now where people are choosing to end conversation and negotiation in favour of polarization and violence. One of the things that I think have been great about Canada, for all its many faults, because it is not a perfect place, has been its ability to find a way, even among very different peoples, languages, cultures and histories, to take on these important questions of political representation and find a path toward compromise.
We have a lot more work to do. We have work to do in the case of Quebec, which continues to see its proportion of seats decline in the House of Commons, despite its special status within Confederation with its own language, culture, history and contributions. We are also reckoning now, in a much more vigorous way, and appropriately so, with indigenous peoples, and there are questions of political representation that come up with respect to indigenous peoples as well, which is something we have not done a good job of at all in Canada in so many ways over the years. We have had no formal representation of indigenous peoples in this place, and there are no seats set aside. That is a conversation for another day, too.
What I think is important about Bill C-14 is that it is bringing people together from all sides of the chamber to recognize that while we have these larger debates, which are important debates and I do hope we will find good ways of having those debates where we treat each other well and work together on this project of constant negotiation that is Canada, we can at least agree that we should not be taking any steps backwards. I think that, at the very least, this law, if it should pass, would prevent us from taking steps backwards, even as we try to find our way forward.
We are not there yet. I think the debate around this bill has shown the extent to which we are not there in certain regards. However, I think it has been a positive exercise for this place to have occasion to talk about representation in Canada, what it does mean now and what it can mean in the future, and to have been able to do it in the context of a bill that, for all its imperfections and for all the legitimate criticism there is of it, has largely brought people together, because I think it has allowed for a better and a more responsible conversation than we sometimes have in this place.
I am thankful for that, and I am anxious to see this bill pass quickly, because of the time constraints we are under with the boundary redistribution process already taking place. As we head further into the 21st century and face many great challenges, both large challenges that are planetary, in terms of climate change, and also real political challenges here at home, I hope this is a down payment on a better debate for how we find new and better ways of ensuring that all the voices of Canadians are represented in their right proportion here in the House of Commons to build a prosperous future for all of us.
1546 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I also have a chance to speak to Bill C-14 later tonight, but as the conversation has been unfolding tonight, new ideas come to mind, and I would like to try some out on the member for Elmwood—Transcona.
When we think about our friend, the member for Nunavut, who is a spectacular member of Parliament, we know that one cannot get from Iqaluit to Inuvik without flying to southern Canada first, unless one hires a private plane. The population is sparse, but the job is enormous. What would the hon. member think about us changing representation by population to something that includes funding for individual MPs reflective of what their actual costs are from serving the people of their riding? This would apply to people in about half of the country. If we cut it off, about half of the territory of this enormous country is represented by 12 MPs. Their jobs are very different from those of the people who represent more concentrated, southern Canadian populations.
172 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I certainly do think that the question of how we resource MPs is a very important one. We need to recognize how, depending on what riding one represents in the country, one can have a very different experience as an MP, and the community or communities one serves in those ridings are going to have very different experiences of having an MP.
There is already some provision made and some recognition of that disparity between different MPs, depending on the nature of their riding, but I know, having heard from some of the members of our caucus who represent very large ridings, particularly those in the north, that the resourcing conventions we already have are inadequate to the task. We have only to sit down with them to talk about their experiences to know they are inadequate. It is certainly something that we should be looking at trying to remedy.
152 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, in part because he spoke in French, at least for a bit. I think that is important to acknowledge. I also got a real sense that he is open to this process.
He acknowledged that Bill C‑14 does not fix Quebec's problem. I was happy to hear that, because it is hard to get members from the other parties to admit that. He also went as far as to say that he would be prepared to support our proposal to ensure that Quebeckers have a minimum of 25% of seats, which is a good thing. If all members of the House could agree on that, I think there would be a lot of happy people in Quebec. It might even facilitate some agreements.
However, I did not go into politics to get Quebec 25% of the seats. I did it to make sure Quebec has 100% of the seats and forms its own country.
I know that in the past, the NDP adopted the Sherbrooke declaration, which recognized that Quebec's right to self-determination is fundamental and inalienable. I was wondering how far his party's thinking has come on this issue.
205 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
