44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 15, 2022 02:00PM
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
Mr. Speaker, the NDP has supported the principle of asymmetrical federalism since 1961. I may not fully understand the term “self-determination”, but we have always tried to ensure that Quebec's need to have more decision-making power is recognized, particularly in relation to federal programs. We have always wanted to protect that with respect to federal programs.
Personally, I think that a confederation can work well when the provinces work together. The federal government does not always play the role of telling the provinces what to do. The federal government can bring the provinces together to collaborate and negotiate in good faith. It can be there to provide funding and support for national initiatives that all the provinces also support.
124 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to debate Bill C-14.
For those who might just be catching up on what Bill C-14 is, it deals with an updating of the grandfather clause of the Constitution from 1867, as reset in 1985. I think at some point in this place we should put forward a grandmother clause. I was just looking at some of my other female colleague MPs in this place.
The grandfather clause says that this is what it is and we are going to keep it the way it was. What we are doing with this bill is saying that the composition of Parliament will not drop below the seat count of the 43rd Parliament. That is basically what we have now: 338 MPs, of which 78 are from Quebec and 121 are from Ontario. My home province of British Columbia will have no fewer than 42 seats going forward under the new, as I rename it, “grandmother clause”.
There are a number of issues to unpack in this bill. The primary one is that the bill is making sure that Quebec does not lose any seats in the current decennial review of representation by population and that we are more or less representing the same numbers of people across the country.
This is no easy effort. This is very difficult. I just attended the public hearing in Victoria, B.C., and the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia was just proposing to add another seat because population redistribution is adding relatively more people to British Columbia than to some other provinces. The commission is proposing to add the new seat in interior British Columbia, which would have a big effect on the members forKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. It would have very little impact on my own riding, but going through that process of staring at the riding map and speaking about representation by population put me very much in mind of some other ideas.
In fact, when I spoke at the public hearing in Victoria about the riding boundaries and the proposals of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, I asked them whether, in the interests of democracy, it is really in the interests of our constituents to add more MPs to the House of Commons year on year? I said to them that when I was first elected to this place in 2011, in the Parliament that I joined and in which I had the honour to stand in Centre Block for the first time, we had 308 members; now we have 338. Does that increase in numbers add to the representation of our constituents, or does it dilute it? Is the notion of adding an MP here and there really effective in representation?
As has come up recently in this debate tonight, I think about our colleagues who represent vast territories. The member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has a territory that I think is two times the size of Germany, but I may be wrong. I remember his predecessor, Nathan Cullen, saying something like that fairly often. When a riding is two times the size of Germany, it is very hard to get around.
Our colleague from Nunavut has an electoral district that takes in three time zones. It is an enormous territory, and commercial aircraft will not get people from one end to the other. They have to either hire private planes or fly from Iqaluit to Ottawa and then go up to Inuvik. It is not easy, and given current demographic trends, the population of Nunavut is not going to be the equivalent of my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, which, under the current proposal from the Electoral Boundaries Commission, would represent 122,000 people, or more than four times the population of Nunavut.
Let us think about what we could do to be creative. I said to the Electoral Boundaries Commission that much more important for democracy and representation by population would be fair voting, proportional representation, so that every voter knows that their vote is going to count. At that point, the very professional, hard-working team that is the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia said that this is beyond their area.
I take it to my colleagues here because it is specifically our area.
What is in the interest of democracy in the 21st century? Is it that we continue to add MPs to pile into this place? I suggest that when we look at the House of Westminster and the Commons chamber there, there are no desks because there is no room. If every MP showed up, they would not fit in the room because 650 MPs would be trying to squeeze into a chamber that would be perfect for about half that number. If we constantly add more MPs, we add to the cost of this place.
Would average Canadians feel they are better served by continually adding to the cost of the House of Commons or by my alternate proposal? It would be less costly to the taxpayer and I believe more efficient in properly representing our constituents if, depending on population, what is called the member's office budget, or MOB, was expanded. It would mean that we would not add more MPs, but MPs who represented higher population areas would be able to have more constituency staff to handle the casework, to make sure that the level of representation we give our constituents is beyond gold standard.
That is what we want to do. We want to be able to respond to the constituents who say they have been on the phone with Service Canada for nine hours, only to be hung up on and the call dropped. We do not have enough people in my office to deal with every single case that comes up, but we try.
What I would propose is that we look at the job of a member of Parliament. We do two things in this place. As our opening prayer by the Speaker suggests, we pass laws and make wise decisions, or at least we try. We debate public policy, as we are doing tonight. We also serve, in a completely different way, our constituents in a non-partisan way. We help them with their pensions, their passports, their unemployment insurance, their disabilities, the CRA, their need for help. We all have our issues. We work really hard to help our constituents.
Would we not have better representation if we did not just add to the number of members of Parliament in this place, but expanded the resources for those who are challenged by large population numbers or huge distances? A member of Parliament with a huge terrain to cover would have the budget to have offices in more locations to be more convenient for constituents. Representation by population may not be the most democratic way to ensure that Canadian democracy thrives.
Regardless of political stripe, we should all be troubled by what just happened in Ontario. Almost 60% of eligible voters did not turn out to vote. There are a number of theories for why that happened. That means a majority government that got 40% of the vote of the 43% of people who showed up elected a majority without the majority of public support. In fact, the Doug Ford government in Ontario has the active support, as measured by who went out to vote for him, of 18% of the Ontario public.
I am not blaming Doug Ford. The first-past-the-post voting system does not encourage voting. It is the minority of countries, by the way, that use first past the post. Countries with fair voting see people interested in turning out to vote.
Voter turnout in countries that use a proportional voting system is higher than in countries like ours, with our current voting system.
We could make a really big difference if we revived the Prime Minister's 2015 election campaign promise that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. It is hard to revive that because we had elections in 2019 and 2021, but we could. We could and we should ask what is in the interest of democracy today. Is it adding more MPs to this place, increasing the cogs in the wheels of large political machines where people show up here and are told how to vote by their party whips, or is it making it more democratic by ensuring that everyone here and that Parliament as a whole represent accurately the way Canadians actually voted?
It is not too late to make this change. It is urgent.
I want to close the discussion on Bill C-14 by bringing us back to more fundamental questions: Can we improve the services we provide to our constituents? Can we ensure this place does not just expand forever as we have more population? Can we deliver real democracy that inspires Canadians?
1518 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for sharing some very insightful questions that came up at her public hearing for boundary redistribution. I am very interested because I have one coming up for own riding. I agree it is very troubling to see the level of turnout we just had in the Ontario election.
I also agree with the fact that we need to better support our constituency staff, who are doing incredible work. I am very grateful for the constituency staff I have. They make my job much easier and help so many constituents.
Given the low turnout we saw in Ontario, what would her thoughts be on the Government of Canada looking at a mandatory voting system along the lines of what countries such as Australia have?
137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I had promised another friend I would not mention the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, on which we both served, but one of the things we studied was whether mandatory voting makes a difference. We were tasked with looking at what voting system would be best for Canada. While I was a member of that committee, I discovered that the first time a parliamentary committee had studied first past the post was in 1921, and that parliamentary committee concluded that first past the post was not a system that worked for Canada.
In studying mandatory voting, I concluded it might be an improvement over what we have now, but it does not inspire people to vote. It makes people feel they have to vote, and I would rather inspire them to know their vote is really going to count.
141 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, does the member believe British Columbia should have equal representation in the House of Commons? The band-aid solution we are applying here to Bill C-14 is really just avoiding the big questions our country is facing. Also, I would love to hear some more comments from the member on her interaction with the electoral commission about effective representation in rural Canada.
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to put forward that the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is such a good MP that he should not worry that he needs more people on his team. We, in British Columbia, represent our constituents well, and I do not think mere numbers make that much of a difference. He obviously is not in my party. I worry, actually, about the way the boundary commission proposes to split up Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. As he will know, I am very attached to parts of that riding, particularly Ashcroft, and would like to see good representation continue.
As for the electoral commission, it was a good experience. I have to say, which has also been confirmed with other MPs, we are not finding a lot of our constituents are super interested in showing up at these hearings. Maybe they are not being well advertised. I do not know, but when voting time comes, I worry constituents who have lived in one riding will suddenly say they do not know where to vote. I worry about making too many small changes that are not necessary, such as on Vancouver Island, but I wish the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon very good luck in whatever is happening to his riding.
222 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.
I would like her to explain something. On March 2, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion that my colleague supported. The motion sought to maintain Quebec's political weight and not have it lose a seat. The Bloc Québécois then presented Bill C‑246, which was along the same lines as the motion that my colleague supported, but she voted against it.
Today, the government is trying to salvage the situation with Bill C‑14. This bill seeks to preserve the number of seats, but not the political weight, because other seats could be added for other provinces outside Quebec.
I would like my colleague to explain why she voted for the Bloc Québécois motion and then voted against the Bloc Québécois bill.
160 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:46:35 p.m.
- Watch
The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for a brief response.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, and it will be difficult to answer briefly.
I had issues with the private member's bill designed to protect political weight. I am in favour of the principle, but the idea of a fixed percentage such as 25%, and not some other percentage, is an issue for me.
Maybe I was mistaken, but I am open-minded, which is why I am in favour of the principle. However, I am not in favour of the private member's bill. I am sorry.
91 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Pursuant to order made earlier today, Motion No. 1 at report stage is deemed put and negatived on division.
The bill is deemed concurred in at the report stage on division and deemed read a third time and passed on division.
41 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:47:52 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. deputy government House leader.
6 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:47:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am sure if you canvass the House, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:48:05 p.m.
- Watch
Is it agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:48:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise in the House at this late hour to discuss an issue that has been on the minds of Canadians. Though it has been in the news this week, there is a lot more information, and we have a lot more questions than we have answers from the government. I am pleased that I will have the opportunity to get a response from the hon. parliamentary secretary on what metrics the government has used to arrive at some of the decision points it has taken over the last couple of days.
Yesterday, we heard an announcement that there would be a suspension of some of the COVID-related travel requirements that have been imposed by the government during COVID-19. The suspension signals to us the prospect that these will be brought forward later, so a few questions arise.
What were the metrics the government viewed yesterday that informed that decision? What was hospital capacity yesterday? What was the waste-water surveillance number telling it yesterday across the country? What was the R-naught yesterday telling it across the country? What was the prevalence of COVID-19 detected with the random testing administered at our borders?
These questions, along with other epidemiological indicators the government has been relying on, would have informed the decision that it made yesterday, at least we hope they did. If they did, we are looking for an answer to what those numbers were yesterday. Why are the numbers important? It is because we need to tell Canadians how we will do in the future against that past performance. For that past performance, we will use yesterday as the benchmark.
Part of the concern comes from the day prior, when the government was saying it was unsafe for an individual who was unvaccinated to get on a plane with an individual who had two doses of one of the regular vaccines that have been offered in Canada for COVID, the Pfizer or the Moderna two-dose series. Yesterday, the Minister of Health told Canadians that having two doses is no longer effective, and at the same time said that it is now safe for people with two doses and people with no doses to get on a plane together. That is leaving Canadians with some mixed messages. They are confused.
Canadians want to know why the government made this announcement yesterday, what the conditions would have to be for the government to permanently end mandates and what the conditions would have to be for it to reintroduce them. That is what a lot of people have been asking me today. We are suspending them, but what would it have to look like for the government to reintroduce them?
People are worried about opening a small business this year. They are wondering about how many staff to take on. They are considering travel plans, whether they should fly out to see their mom and dad across the country or visit a loved one. What if we change the rules and they are not allowed to travel back?
The further contradiction that has come to pass is that a Canadian can travel in Canada on an aircraft, vaccinated or unvaccinated, but an unvaccinated individual cannot cross the border and then travel in the U.S. A vaccinated individual can. They can get on a plane and travel with vaccinated and unvaccinated folks. What magically happens at the border that the government does not want to allow folks who have not been vaccinated to come to Canada at this point, when we know that vaccinations are not preventing the transmission of COVID?
I am really looking for answers from the government today on how it arrived at those decisions yesterday and on what would trigger further decisions to end mandates.
638 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:52:50 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his collaboration on the health committee over the last couple of months. It has been challenging. That said, I would just caution that when we use language like “the vaccines do not prevent transmission and do not prevent this and that,” it limits all of those things. It is very well-founded that the vaccines are very, very good at limiting all of those factors and they have been very effective in keeping our communities safe, as the member well knows. He regularly states in the House, and I am glad that it is true, that his riding is one of the most vaccinated ridings in Canada. I am happy to hear that. That is fantastic.
Throughout the COVID-19 pandemic, the Government of Canada has been supporting Canadians and the Government of Canada has implemented policies and public health measures to prevent the spread of infection. We have provided access to vaccines to minimize serious illness and death and we have worked hard to preserve health system capacity and reduce transmission to protect high-risk populations.
Just yesterday, as a result of all this good work, the Government of Canada was able to announce that we are suspending the vaccine mandate for federally regulated transportation sectors as well as federal employees.
With better levels of immunity from vaccination, the wider availability of antiviral drugs and lower hospitalization rates, Canada is now better equipped to effectively manage the COVID-19 pandemic and reduce pressure on the health care system.
While the suspension of vaccine mandates reflects an improved public health situation in Canada at this point in time, the COVID-19 virus continues to evolve and circulate in Canada and globally. COVID-19 remains a public health threat and staying up to date with vaccinations, including booster doses, remains the best line of defence against serious illness, hospitalization and death.
Because vaccination rates and virus control in other countries vary significantly, current vaccination requirements at the border will remain in effect. This will reduce the potential impact of international travel on our health care system and serve as an added protection against any future variant.
Vaccination continues to be one of the most effective tools to protect Canadians, including younger Canadians, our health care system, as well as our economy, and, as my colleague mentioned, to prevent lockdowns and to prevent more disruptions to small businesses.
The Public Health Agency of Canada has been providing guidance and advice related to the pandemic for more than two years. The agency will continue to review Canadian and international evidence and data from vaccine manufacturers to support public health decision-makers and program implementation. Additionally, it will work to address barriers to vaccination and improve confidence in the COVID-19 vaccine program through communication efforts.
The public health experts' guidance and advice regarding vaccine mandates was and will continue to be informed by the latest scientific evidence available. Effectiveness, availability and the uptake of vaccines and the evolving domestic and international epidemiological situation, hospital and ICU capacity, long-range modelling, as well as the effectiveness of other public health measures to keep Canadians safe are also taken into consideration.
This pandemic is not over. I think we can all agree on that. Staying up to date with vaccinations, including booster doses, is absolutely critical. The Public Health Agency of Canada is working with provinces, territories, indigenous communities and stakeholders to examine vaccination strategies in both the short and the long term.
While my colleague was asking me the question, I did look up some numbers. In the worst weeks of this pandemic in Canada, we were averaging upward of 200 deaths per day. That is a massive number and a huge tragedy. Today the numbers are lower, thanks to all of the public health measures, and we are averaging 32 deaths a day, based on a seven-day average. This pandemic is clearly not over. If at any other time in our parliamentary careers or in our adulthood, we were experiencing something that causes 30 Canadian deaths a day, I think we could all agree it is of great concern.
A year or two ago, when we started talking about vaccinations, we all agreed in the House that vaccinations should not be a political issue. We all had to work together to ensure that our communities had all of the information necessary. We had a good campaign and I think we all have to recognize that the campaign is not over. We need to work together to keep our communities safe.
768 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:56:59 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, another contradiction I want to address with the parliamentary secretary is that, two days ago, the Prime Minister announced that he tested positive for COVID-19. I was pleased to see him participate in proceedings in the House today, which tells us that it is mild, as he said on social media.
His office has now signalled that next week he is going to be travelling to Rwanda, to Germany and to Spain. This is inside 10 days. Someone who returns to Canada and is COVID-positive must self-isolate for 10 days. We have heard from the government over and over again that it wants to be cautious. Everything is about the precautionary principle.
What is the message the government is sending to Canadians when someone, within 10 days of being diagnosed with COVID, is going to travel to multiple countries and is going to travel by aircraft? Really, is that the cautious message the government says it has been sending?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/15/22 7:58:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Canada's health measures have been and will continue to be based on review, analysis, expert opinion and science. We are going to continue to take into account the evolving scientific evidence related to the virus and its characteristics as well as its epidemiology. We will also consider emerging variants of concern, the value and impact of public health interventions and the impact of vaccination and vaccine effectiveness as we move forward. Again, staying up to date with vaccinations, including booster doses, remains the best line of defence against serious illness, hospitalization and death.
The waves of this pandemic have risen and fallen for more than two years now, and as they rise and fall, we shift our priorities accordingly. We continue to respond to the challenges that we face in the ongoing management of COVID-19.
I thank the member for his conversation tonight.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
