Bill C-312 (Historical)

Democratic Representation Act

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (democratic representation)

This enactment amends the rules in the Constitution Act, 1867 for readjusting the number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces in that House and provides for a minimum representation with respect to the number of members for the Province of Quebec.

Democratic Representation Act

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

moved that Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (democratic representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, the assembly of publicly elected representatives is at the very heart of a representative democracy. In our country, this group of people is responsible for looking out for the entire population and protecting individual rights and freedoms.

This group passes laws that govern all of our daily activities and sets priorities when allocating collective resources. In order to ensure that this process is fair and just for everyone, we must ensure that there is proper representation of all of the different interests making up our Confederation.

The introduction in the House of Commons of a bill to readjust the number of seats is extremely important if we consider the changes that have taken place over the past several years. Indeed, readjusting the number of seats in the House of Commons is a delicate exercise. It is normally done based on an existing formula and on formulas that were used previously, on the completion of every decennial census.

In addition, in accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, the following must be taken into account: the community of interests or community of identity; the historical evolution of previous boundaries; the electoral quotient for the province and the concern that the size be manageable. Adding representatives to the House requires the review of certain characteristics and an assessment of the merit and necessity of considering specific evaluation criteria.

The Supreme Court also provided guidelines for our electoral system in 1991 in the Carter decision. The Supreme Court indicated that the vote of every citizen must be as effective as possible. To be effective, our electoral system must find the right balance between ensuring that the weight of each vote is similar and providing adequate representation of the various communities of interests and geographic characteristics.

Since Confederation, members elected to the Parliament of Canada have reflected our Canadian realities, which are shaped by geography, demographics, identity, history and culture. That is why it is important to categorically admit that this is a tedious, difficult, perhaps even divisive exercise, but that its ultimate and final objective must be to ensure that it is a unifying element.

The first question is: why change the current formula? The answer is that this formula enhances the inequalities between the provinces when it comes to their representation in the House of Commons. Over the past few years, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia have experienced unprecedented demographic growth as a result of immigration and economic development. While some less populous ridings in Canada have 40,000 voters, some ridings in these three provinces have more than 100,000 voters. These regions of Canada deserve an adjustment of their representation in the House of Commons in order to better reflect the changes in their population.

When we consider changing representation within a democratic system like ours, we must do so with caution in order to reflect the understanding and demographic reality of the country. The historic weight of the Quebec nation is of capital importance in calculating these changes to electoral representation.

The purpose of my bill is to correct the flaws in previous attempts to give Quebec the weight it deserves in Canada's Parliament. Quebec wants nothing more and nothing less than before.

There is a historic value to the recognition of Quebec's place in Ottawa. Let us never forget that Quebec is one of the founding nations of this country. Also, millions of Quebeckers are unique in North America because they speak French. This must also be taken into account when the time comes to identify the characteristics of this population.

With this bill, the NDP is taking concrete action in response to a Conservative initiative brought forward during the 39th Parliament. A motion, drafted by the Prime Minister himself, was passed with a large majority in the House of Commons on November 27, 2006. The fifth anniversary of that event was just last Sunday.

Has everyone already forgotten that? I would like to read the motion to the House:

That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.

I would like to point out that the NDP recognized this fact when it adopted the Sherbrooke declaration at its national convention in Quebec City in September 2006. Also, for the past 30 years, all governments in Quebec have recognized the importance of taking a different approach with the people of Quebec because of that nation's distinct nature and status within the complexity of the Canadian community. Technically speaking, I would remind the House that the subject of a motion in the House of Commons calls for dialogue. Once adopted, it becomes, depending on the case, a resolution or order of the House. The November 27, 2006, motion brought forward by the Prime Minister was passed in the form of a resolution. One could therefore deduce that by adopting the motion to recognize the Québécois as a nation within a united Canada, the House of Commons made a formal commitment.

This support does not necessarily involve obligations, but that motion may imply support for initiatives designed to bring it to realization. That is the case with my Bill C-312, and if the House does not respect this motion, the impact might very well be political.

Meanwhile, the government treats democracy poorly, divides Canadians even more on issues of national importance, and tries to split voters who are already concerned about the country's economy. Canadians just cannot understand the Conservatives' attack on young people, whose 15 to 25 group has an unemployment rate of close to 15%. It offers no alternative to their angst regarding the environment, and wants to criminalize minor offences and send them to jail, instead of working to rehabilitate them, a process which begins with the creation of stable jobs.

The government then targets seniors and veterans, leaving them all to fend for themselves. These people cannot believe the government's lack of involvement in the issues of financial security and health care. My bill seeks to unite Canadians from coast to coast around a process that is unavoidably piecemeal, but which respects the diversity and changes that have occurred in Canadian demographics. Indeed, over time, and with a growing country, the population spread itself out unevenly between the provinces, thus creating significant gaps that have led to compromises and concessions to make up for the shortfalls in terms of voters' equality. I am talking about representation by population.

Under section 51 of the Constitutional Act of 1867, the number of seats allocated to each province in the House of Commons is calculated by dividing the total population of each province by a fixed number called the electoral quotient. The number of seats in the House of Commons was to be revised by using that method following each decennial census, beginning with the 1871 census. The Constitutional Act of 1867 also provided that a province could not lose a seat following an electoral redistribution, unless the percentage of its population to the country's total population had diminished by at least 5%, or one-twentieth, between the last two censuses. That is why this requirement was known as the “one-twentieth rule”.

However, during the years following Confederation, people started to fear that the trends in population transfers would lead to a significant loss of representation for certain provinces. To prevent this, in 1915, Parliament introduced the first-ever amendment to the original representation formula by adding section 51A, the senatorial clause, to the Constitution Act, 1867. This provision, which is still in effect, stipulates that a province cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than in the Senate.

The Representation Act, also called the “amalgam formula”, was passed in 1974 in order to guarantee, among other things, that no province could lose any seats. This new formula increased Quebec’s seat allocation from 65 to 75 and ensured that four additional seats would be automatically allocated to the province at each subsequent readjustment so as to take into account Quebec’s population growth. The formula also created three categories of provinces: heavily populated provinces, provinces with medium-sized populations, and provinces with small populations. The heavily populated provinces were to be allocated seats in strict proportion to Quebec, whereas different and more generous rules were established to calculate the number of seats allocated to the provinces with small or medium-sized populations.

The amalgam formula was applied once in 1976 to increase the number of seats in the House of Commons to 282, but the formula has not been reapplied since because projections showed that any further readjustments would increase the number of seats more than is desired.

The formula currently used to calculate the distribution of seats in the House is set out in the Constitution Act, 1985 (Representation). This was the last time the calculation rules were changed. The method currently used to calculate the number of seats allocated to each province is as follows: the Constitution Act, 1985 (Representation) provides that 279 members shall represent the provinces in the House of Commons. Moreover, it allocates one seat to the Northwest Territories, another to the Yukon, and yet another to Nunavut.

The 279 seats allocated to the provinces are the basis upon which the electoral quotient is calculated. The electoral quotient is obtained by dividing the total population of the 10 provinces by 279.

The number of seats allocated to each province is calculated by dividing the population of each province by the electoral quotient.

The Representation Act, 1985, also includes a further guarantee against a province losing seats as a result of a readjustment by supplementing the senatorial clause with a grandfather clause. The latter stipulates that a province is guaranteed no fewer seats in the House of Commons than it had in 1976, during the 33rd Parliament. The current number of 308 members in the House is the result of the readjustment that followed the 2001 decennial census.

In conclusion, Bill C-312 is very simple, but it sends a clear message to elected members of the Canadian Parliament. The citizens of every region of the country want to participate in this democratic exercise called the electoral representation in the House of Commons. We can reach a milestone in Canadian history by finally acknowledging not only Canada's demographic reality, but also its multicultural identity, which elected politicians, both in the federal Parliament and in provincial legislatures, are so fond of.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Long live my country, Canada, where I can freely express myself, so that democracy remains intact, and also Quebec, in this great country which, ultimately, may be a mix of many small nations simply seeking the place that they deserve in a country that is very large, but also slow to move into the 21st century.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to seat redistribution, we have seen the Conservatives' plan in terms of the number of seats and where those seats would be. The Liberal Party of Canada has also provided a plan that sees no increase in the number of members of Parliament. We believe that is what the majority of Canadians would desire, especially in these economic times. We do not need to increase the number of members of Parliament.

Does the NDP actually have a plan that it is prepared to share with the House as to what it would like the make-up to be province by province? After listening to the member's comments, it is very apparent that the NDP does not support representation by population.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

In my speech, I mentioned the various formulas used throughout Canada's history. The differences between large and small provinces must be acknowledged. The provinces must keep their weight and place in the Canadian Parliament. If we do our calculations only on a percentage and a per capita basis, we are going to have distortions. Some provinces will always be overrepresented.

Finally, we must recognize that Quebec is one of the founding people that built this country, and that it is entitled to the representation that it was allocated on previous electoral representation readjustments.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the fact is that Bill C-20 , the fair representation act, laid out very clearly how many seats each province would receive and how those seats would be distributed. After hearing the member's speech, it is not very clear how many seats the provinces would receive.

The member focused on Quebec, but I still do not have any numbers. What are the numbers? Why is he not talking about how many seats each province would receive? Why is he not being clear about the numbers?

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as I already explained, the process is so complex that even the Conservative Party's calculation may be subject to interpretation.

A bill must ensure that each province is well represented, that Quebec's weight is maintained and, more importantly, that the demographic growth of certain provinces, such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, is recognized.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by my colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

He spoke about the Supreme Court's ruling in Carter and also about communities of interests. We want to ensure that Quebec and all communities of interests are effectively represented in the House.

I would like him to expand on the idea of communities of interests and to tell us which communities could be effectively represented in the House.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

A community of interests is a community that can be defined by geographical boundaries and also by its identity. Quebec is one example, but there is also Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and the Prairies, where the people have distinct identities. Communities of interests help clearly identify a population and its democratic weight. These communities make up a very diverse country.

To have a diverse country, we must ensure that these distinct and different communities participate in democracy and in the legislative exercise in this House.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Minister of State and Chief Government Whip]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to participate in the debate on Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (democratic representation), introduced by the hon. member for Compton--Stanstead.

House of Commons representation is a subject that I am pleased to discuss, especially since addressing the significant and increasing under-representation of the fastest growing provinces is a long-standing commitment of this government and the Conservative Party of Canada.

In restoring fair representation in the chamber, our government is focused on three objectives. First, increasing the number of seats now and in the future for the faster growing provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. Second, protecting the seat counts for the smaller provinces. Third, ensuring that Quebec's representation is proportional to its population.

On October 27, 2011, we delivered on our pledge to Canadians with the introduction of Bill C-20, the fair representation act, which seeks to update the formula allocating seats in the House of Commons in a way that is fair for all provinces. The fair representation act offers a principled approach that delivers on our government's three key representation promises. It is fair for all provinces.

The fair representation act currently before the House of Commons, and even though the bill moves every Canadian closer to representation by population, members on this side of the House are the only members who are standing up for all Canadians by voting in favour of the fair representation act.

Today, however, we are debating private member's Bill C-312, the democratic representation act, which also proposes to amend the formula for allocating seats in the House of Commons. While our government's fair representation act presents a nationally applicable formula that brings all provinces closer to representation by population, Bill C-312 cannot make the same claim. Therefore, I cannot speak in support of this bill.

Bill C-312 seeks to amend the formula in the constitution for allocating seats in the House of Commons. Taking cues from our government's legislation from the last Parliament, Bill C-312 proposes that electoral quotient for the first redistribution be set at 108,000. This reflects the approximate average riding population at the 2008 general election. Since we are now in 2011, almost 2012, those numbers are clearly out of date.

Bill C-312 also proposes to add a new rule to the formula that would provide the province of Quebec with a fixed percentage of seats based on Quebec's representation in the House of Commons when the motion recognizing that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada was adopted. This means that, under Bill C-312, Quebec's representation would be set at 24.35% of the seats in the House of Commons.

Although I appreciate my hon. colleague's effort, I have concerns that prevent me from supporting Bill C-312. I will explain.

The primary motive of addressing representation in the House of Commons is to deal with the significant and increasing under-representation of high growth provinces. I have concerns that the bill would not adequately address the under-representation of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. Due to the requirement to fix the representation of Quebec at 24.35% of seats in the House of Commons, the representation for Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario would only marginally improve.

Additionally, I find that the concept of fixing the representation of a single province in the House of Commons is contrary to our constitutional history and principles. The Fathers of Confederation believed that the provinces should be proportionately represented in the House of Commons, meaning that the basis for allocating the seats for provinces should reflect their share of the population.

As a result of this belief, our Constitution provides for the proportionate representation of the provinces, which has become a fundamental principle of our democracy. At the same time, the importance of ensuring protection for slower growing provinces has been recognized through measures such as seat floors. For example, our Constitution currently provides that no province should have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it does in the Senate. While it may be that only certain provinces currently benefit from these guarantees, the protection is provided to all provinces should the situation arise.

Our position on representation in the House of Commons is clear: Any updates to the formula allocating House of Commons seats should be fair for all provinces and nationally applicable.

After reviewing the proposal set out in Bill C-312, I can firmly say that our government's fair representation act is stronger in all areas. The formula proposed in the fair representation act is a principled, nationally applicable formula that brings every province closer to representation by population, because, on this side of the House, we are governing for all Canadians, not just some provinces.

As a result, the fair representation act provides better relative representation for the faster growing provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario than Bill C-312.

Our government's proposal also provides a reasonable increase in the number of seats in the House of Commons, compared with Bill C-312. Following the first adjustment on the fair representation act, the total number of seats in the House of Commons would be 338. Under Bill C-312, it may be as high as 351 members. We make no apologies for addressing the significant and increasing under-representation of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta but we are all conscious of the need to manage the growth of our parliamentary institutions. Growth can be responsibly managed without pitting region against region, Canadian against Canadian, while still moving every province closer to representation by population. The fair representation act would achieve both objectives.

Additionally, our government bill introduces a representation rule. This representation rule would ensure representation by population for slower growth provinces. If a currently over-represented province becomes under-represented as a result of the application of the updated formula, additional seats would be allocated to that province so that its representation is equal to its share of the population. This rule, which would apply equally to all provinces, means that Quebec would be the first province to benefit from this application. The province would receive an additional three seats in the next re-adjustment. Under the fair representation act, Quebec has 23% of the population and would have 23% of the seats in the House of Commons.

When compared to Bill C-312, the fair representation act would provide better relative representation for faster -growing provinces, would ensure protection for slower growing provinces and would guarantee that Quebec's representation is proportional to its population, all while managing the growth of the House of Commons. Simply put, the formula put forward in the fair representation act is better than the proposal we are considering today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party does not support the bill. I will explain why the bill is unconstitutional and impractical.

Let us begin with the first point, that Bill C-312 is unconstitutional.

In permanently fixing the percentage of seats for a province, the NDP is asking Parliament to contradict the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons. This principle is well entrenched in our Constitution. We should all be proud that our Constitution affirms rep-by-pop. That is a fundamental principle of democracy.

Parliament has some leeway in how it applies the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces when dealing with the effective representation of communities and provinces that are in relative decline. In a 1987 ruling, the B.C. Supreme Court stated, “The principle of representation 'prescribed' by the Constitution does not require perfect mathematical representation...”. A year later the B.C. Court of Appeal said that what must be preserved is “the principle, not a specific formula”. That leeway has its limits. Parliament cannot run afoul of the principle of proportionate representation. That would be unconstitutional.

Section 42(1)(a) of the Constitution Act, 1982 states that to amend this principle we need the agreement of Parliament and the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population, the famous 7-50 formula.

Bill C-312 mentions a Supreme Court decision of June 6, 1991, but this ruling applied to the delimitation of ridings, not to the representation of a whole province.

All democratic federations try to accommodate communities while delimiting ridings, but no democratic federation gives extra representation to a whole constitutional jurisdiction on the grounds of its culture or national character. That would be an extraordinary decision requiring a constitutional amendment that Parliament cannot do alone without the consent of its constitutional partners, the provinces. In other words, the NDP and the Bloc are asking Parliament to show disrespect for provincial constitutional jurisdiction.

The NDP and the Bloc are asking Parliament to exceed its jurisdiction regarding the House of Commons reform with Bill C-312.

The Conservatives are asking Parliament to exceed its jurisdiction regarding Senate reform with Bill C-7.

Only the Liberals are consistently respecting the Constitution. We urge all our colleagues in the House to show respect for the basic law of the land, the Constitution of Canada.

This brings me to my second point, that Bill C-312 is impractical. Bill C-312 is not only unconstitutional, it is impractical. It is so impractical that the NDP chose to not release the number of additional seats that would be required in order to fulfill all the rules included in Bill C-312. Those members well know that it would be a very large House indeed.

The first rule is with respect to equitable representation of fast growing provinces. Today, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are likely to be the most under-represented jurisdictions in the world of democratic federations. This is unfair for the Canadian citizens living in these provinces. Furthermore, this under-representation is now so substantial that it is likely to be unconstitutional. We need to redress this issue.

The second rule is the Senate clause, “The right of a province to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators by which the province is entitled to be represented...”. This section of the Constitution can only be changed through our federation members' unanimous decision.

The third rule is the grandfather clause. Like the government, the NDP does not have the courage and the wisdom to revise this rule enacted by Parliament in 1985, which stops us from reducing the number of MPs representing a province.

The fourth rule is that the proportion of members from the province of Quebec shall remain unchanged from its current representation, which constitutes 24.35%.

Let us try to figure out how these rules would work together. In order to address the fastest growing provinces' under-representation while respecting the grandfather clause and the Senate clause, the government through Bill C-20, proposes to add 30 new seats. That would bring the House to 338 seats. In order to bring Quebec's share to 24.35%, six new seats would need to be added. We would be at 344 seats. Then Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta would be too under-represented again. Once we added seats for them, Quebec would need more seats to stay over the 24.35%, and so on and so forth. Even with the House at 350 seats, we would not reach a fair House with the combination of these rules.

This is for 2011. Let us imagine what it would be like for 2021 or 2031. What kind of ballooning would occur in the House? What would Canadians have to pay for it? If the NDP members claim that we are wrong with our numbers, we challenge them to release their own numbers. I bet they will not do it because they know full well that their numbers are far-fetched.

There is another reason the Liberal caucus cannot support the bill. Both the 308 seat Liberal plan and the 338 seat Conservative plan accept the rules that ensure that any currently overrepresented province does not become under-represented. However, Bill C-312 does not include this rule. Does that mean that for the NDP it would be acceptable that perhaps Manitoba or Nova Scotia would be under-represented? If so, why? Would it be because they are not nations? If this is the case, I want to hear from our colleague from Compton—Stanstead. Can he confirm that he is speaking on behalf of his NDP colleagues from Manitoba and Nova Scotia and that they are okay with the view that their provinces may be under-represented in this House since they are not nations?

Each national party has the obligation to say the same thing in English and in French through our great country. I challenge the NDP to do so on this matter, to start by releasing its numbers.

By the way, if the NDP and the Bloc thought that the motion passed in the House on November 27, 2006, meant that Quebec as a nation within a united Canada should have more weight than other provinces, since those provinces are not nations within a united Canada, why did those two parties not say so when they voted for the motion in the House on November 27, 2006?

In the meantime, we Liberals will, as always, remain consistent. In principle, we will oppose the bill because it is unconstitutional and impractical. We urge all members of Parliament to support the Liberal plan for a fair and balanced House of Commons without adding any seats. Three hundred and eight seats will suffice. Put in the proper context of what is happening in the world today, 308 seats will, in fact, work.

[Glenn Thibeault, NDP, Sudbury, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak in support of Bill C-312, the democratic representation act, introduced by my NDP colleague from Compton—Stanstead.

Over the past few weeks we have heard a number of competing views on how to move forward in regard to seat distribution in this fantastic House.

It seems to be accepted by all the parties in the House, and that is something that is very positive, that we need to ensure that the citizens in the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario have their relative representation in the House of Commons increased. However, the views and the opinions on how we move forward from this point are a little more diverse.

We in the NDP fully believe in representation proportionally, albeit while recognizing the diversity of our country and the founding principles of Canadian Confederation.

It is important to point out that this premise is not only held by the NDP, but it has been recognized by the Supreme Court in its ruling of community of interests. This ruling signifies that Parliament must be mindful that any new electoral law must respect not only the demography of our country, but also its history, culture and geography. The precise wording of the Supreme Court ruling states:

Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic.

It is because of this fact the NDP bill will create the same number of new seats for the under-represented provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, therefore ensuring that the ratio of constituents per MP is significantly lowered, and bringing them much closer to the Canadian average.

However, in designing seat redistribution, we should not try to pit region against region, province against province. Seat redistribution should meet the goal of building a stronger Canada. Because of these, any legislation which deals with seat redistribution must also bring forward legislation which deals with that seat distribution and be mindful of the fact that back in 2006, this House unanimously adopted a motion that recognized Quebec as a distinct nation within a united Canada.

Unfortunately, I am aware that all too many motions pass through this House with overwhelming support, and yet government action never seems to follow. I can think of my own motion on credit cards which passed in 2009, and the motion by my hon. colleague from Hamilton East—Stoney Creek to strengthen pensions. There really has never been anything done to fulfill the will of this House.

I do not believe that this should be the way Parliament operates. While motions are not binding on the government, the government should recognize that they represent the will of democratically elected members, and because of this, I think that the 2006 motion should hold some weight as we now move forward.

Because of this, we in the NDP do not feel that Quebec's proportion of seats in the House of Commons should fall below the level that was represented on the date the Quebec nation motion was passed. Belatedly, the Conservatives have recognized the role of Quebec in a strong, united Canada, but it is far too little and much too late.

The Conservatives' new proposal after the NDP raised this issue would add just three new seats in the House of Commons for Quebec, meaning that the proportion of seats for Quebec would still fall. We need to ensure that Quebec's unique role in our country is recognized and this simply does not do that. Only this NDP proposal would ensure increased representation for the fastest growing provinces, while also recognizing this fact.

I know that some members of Parliament, specifically those in the Liberal caucus, have expressed concern with the cost of introducing new seats into the House of Commons and would seek to redistribute the current seats into a new formula. This, in my opinion, is a dangerous way to move forward. To start, Canada's population is increasing, so keeping the number of seats the same actually has the effect of reducing representation but making each MP represent a higher and higher number of constituents each year.

In my riding of Sudbury, I receive countless requests to attend meetings and events and to help with casework in my riding. My staff and I work tirelessly to ensure that we can meet as many of these requests as possible, but I worry that if we increase the number of constituents each MP represents, this becomes harder and harder for representation. This, I fear, will lead to people becoming more disconnected from representatives and less engaged in the political process as a whole.

We can look to the last election, where we had our young people engaged in the political process. They were so excited to get involved, and we know on this side of the House that the NDP had that involvement. We are thrilled to see them, but if we actually take away this representation, take away their opportunity to meet with their MPs and to meet with their elected officials, we will see this political process start to detiorate.

Second, the cost of adding these additional democratically elected representatives is far less than the government spends each year on the undemocratic and unaccountable Senate. To suggest that adding seats to the House of Commons costs too much but that it is appropriate to pay hefty salaries and provide budgets to an institution filled with mostly partisan insiders is simply absurd.

Democracy is something that Canadians from coast to coast to coast believe in. Of course there is a cost associated with that. However, I believe that in this case the increased cost, which I should point is not a dramatic rise because so much of the infrastructure of Parliament is already in place, is justifiable. If we feel that the overall cost of the institution of Parliament should not increase, I can think of a way to lower the overall cost substantially, although I am not sure that our friends in the other place would be happy with it.

One of my constituents in Sudbury talked about the triple-E Senate and he had a great line. He said he was in favour of a single-E Senate. When I asked what that was, he said “Empty”.

In conclusion, democratic representation is something that is fundamental to us as Canadians, but we need to ensure that people continue to have their voices heard here in Ottawa. This proposal is the only way to ensure people across Canada have effective representation while still recognizing the unique cultural diversity within Canada. I am very happy to support this bill.

[Manon Perreault, NDP, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today is the fourth time I have spoken in the House. This time, it is to support the bill introduced by my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead. I thank him for having introduced such a fair and clear bill. The aim of Bill C-312 is to give each province equal representation. The bill takes into account not only representation by population, but also geographic representation and the notion of communities of interest. Demographics, geography and communities of interest are all factored in.

The Supreme Court recognizes the principle of communities of interest. Democratic representation is more than a matter of numbers. Factors such as geography, community history, community interests and minority representation should be taken into account. This is particularly important in Quebec. Bill C-312 respects the diversity of our nation and recognizes the Quebec people as a nation. Moreover, this House unanimously adopted a motion in November 2006 that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada.

At that time, Quebec held 24.35 % of the seats in the House. I think that we can all agree on the importance of this proportion and accept that it must remain unchanged in order to maintain Quebec's status. Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the point of view of some Conservatives. The Conservatives voted for, and agreed to, the proposition that Quebeckers form a nation five years ago. Since then, we have seen no concrete action on the part of the Conservatives to protect the principles of that motion. We now see what scant importance they attribute to these principles.

Now that they have a chance to protect the Quebec nation and to ensure that the status of Quebec will be protected forever by the principles of the 2006 motion, they are turning their backs on Quebeckers. The NDP is showing leadership, not only by respecting the motion, but also by putting its weight behind the recognition of the Quebec people as a nation.

I want to stress that this seat redistribution bill does not affect just Quebec. In fact, first and foremost, this bill aims to recognize demographic growth in a number of provinces including Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia. These provinces are growing rapidly and this House must respond to demographic change. Moreover, the government has been dragging its heels for several years. It avoided introducing legislation on this issue in the previous Parliament. If only that time had been used to create a bill that would balance the interests of all and make the distribution of seats fairer, then we would have been in agreement. Alas, no. The government has introduced a bill that ignores the unique status of Quebec.

Fortunately, the opposition has done its homework and is introducing a fair and clear bill that reflects everyone's interests. Our proposal for seat redistribution is much better because it considers the interests of growing populations, in addition to maintaining and protecting Quebec's unique status.

The approach proposed by the Conservatives would pits regions against one another, as was the case with the gun registry. This government's modus operandi is to favour one region at the expense of another without considering the rest of Canada. This tactic divides Canadians. The bill presented by my colleague from Compton—Stanstead is quite the opposite. It will move Canada forward and make our country stronger and more united. I thank him for it.

Canada must respond to these significant demographic changes. My colleague, the member for Brampton West, knows this better than anyone because he represents more than 170,000 people. The riding covers 109 square kilometres. It must be a real challenge to represent so many people and I congratulate him for his efforts to date.

Our bill would allow the people of Brampton West to be better represented, but not at the expense of the other provinces. First and foremost, Bill C-312 is based on the principle of fairness. It does not favour one province at the expense of others. The legislation would be fair and balanced and would not put any region at a disadvantage. Once again, the NDP is exercising leadership by proposing a sensible solution that takes into account the interests of Canada as a whole.

According to the 2006 census, there were 123,000 people in my riding of Montcalm. I know that this number has increased because the riding is always growing.

I would like to speak a little bit about the riding of Montcalm, which is located in the Lanaudière region, northeast of the greater Montreal area.

It is important to understand that there are two distinct parts of the riding. First, there is the regional county municipality of Montcalm, which has a population of close to 45,000 people. Agriculture is the main activity with over 60% of the area protected by the Quebec Act respecting the preservation of agricultural land. The future of agriculture and food sovereignty are therefore priorities that cannot be ignored. I know some farmers personally, such as Mr. Anctil, who owns a dairy farm, Mr. Tousignant, who has been a grain farmer for many years, and Mr. Levasseur who is a market gardener. We must ensure that these farmers can live off the products of their farms, but we must also implement a Canadian food strategy.

Second, in Mascouche and Terrebonne, there are areas that are urban, semi-rural or agricultural. One of the major issues is the proposed Train de l’Est, which will address the lack of permanent public transit infrastructure serving the area east of Montreal and the northeastern part of the metropolitan area. This is a major project that will include the construction of 11 new stations, various highway and railway bridges, tunnels, footbridges, and several kilometres of train tracks.

The one thing I want to point out is that there are two distinct realities in the riding of Montcalm, each with very different issues.

Now, back to the national level. I cannot imagine what the members from British Columbia and Ontario must do to ensure that their constituents are well represented. They deserve to be represented fairly and properly since everyone has the right to fair representation in the House of Commons.

The member for Compton—Stanstead understands. Now is not the time to be confrontational. Democratic representation is much too important for us to work against each other. We must be united and consider the interests of all regions of Canada. The NDP recognizes that we must allocate more seats because of demographic changes across Canada. We want to move forward to ensure that every citizen is represented in the House. That way, someone in British Columbia will be just as well represented as someone in Quebec, for example. This is important and I hope that the government will take the NDP's clear, fair and balanced plan seriously.

Our plan is not based on the notion of winners and losers. Everyone wins with Bill C-312.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very much in favour of the bill introduced today by my colleague from Compton—Stanstead. Everyone should support it.

Representation in Canada is not about each riding having exactly the same population numbers. That is the way things are in the United States. The electoral districts there are nearly equal in population. Each electoral district, from California to Maine, has exactly the same number of people. In Canada, things are not like that; there are differences. This is very important. In a country as vast as Canada, with so many communities of interest, we cannot have a Parliament with perfect representation. It is understood that in Canada, there is no direct representation by population. If that were the case, every Canadian citizen would vote over the Internet. But that is not the way it works; voting takes place in Parliament. There are representatives in Parliament. We are here to represent our communities and our ridings.

A riding like mine, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, is not, however, a single entity. There is not one, single community that lives in the Gaspé; there are several. There are anglophones, francophones and aboriginals. This is also the case in other ridings, and even more apparent in urban ridings where there are many communities. All of these people must be represented effectively in Parliament.

Representation will never be perfect. In the Carter decision dealing with an appeal regarding provincial electoral distribution in Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court gave us some excellent terms of reference. Once again, I repeat, this was a Supreme Court decision. That decision came from a very prestigious institution, and it has significant meaning. We need to reflect carefully on that and understand the objective of the Carter decision and its repercussions. That decision pointed out that there are communities of interests in Canada. However, we must also have geographical representation. In the end, we need to take several factors into account when creating Canada's electoral ridings.

I must come back to the fact that we cannot have strictly direct representation by population. The Carter decision points out that when we are dealing with communities of interests, they must be properly represented in the House. Canada has several founding nations. Let us not forget that the anglophones are a founding people. And so are the Quebeckers, the francophones. Let us not forget that the francophone community in Canada is not made up of Quebeckers alone. There are also the Acadians, Franco-Ontarians, Franco-Manitobans and Franco-Albertans. Francophones from across Canada must be properly represented.

When creating ridings, even in Alberta, it is not simply a question of population; it is also the fact that the representatives of Alberta must also represent Franco-Albertans. There is a reason the Supreme Court decision in the Carter case in 1991 clearly refers to special communities of interests. The decision was not necessarily referring to Quebeckers. That decision was talking mainly about aboriginal communities in northern Saskatchewan, but the principle is the same across Canada. In the end, what we want is for all communities to be properly represented.

My colleague's bill proposes a kind of balance in the House. It is true that we will never have perfect representation in Canada. What we are really seeking is compromise. We discuss things in Canada. Canada has always been based on the principle of creating consensus. We want to move forward. We will never have a perfect union, but we have a satisfactory union that works quite well.

Canada is probably one of the least uniform countries in the world. It is multi-ethnic and not at all monolithic. Many communities have to be represented in the House.

The bill proposes that communities of interest and community groups be represented in the House. We have to think about that and offer them our support.

In 2006, the government declared that Quebec was a nation. That decision must not be an empty gesture. The House decided that Quebec was a nation because it believed that Quebec deserved that title, which comes with certain obligations. Quebec is very important and carries a lot of weight in Canada. This province represents one of the founding peoples of Canada. That cannot be ignored. We must ensure that Canada's demographic reality is represented. We must also take Canada's history into account in our discussions in the House. Canada's history is very important.

All cultural groups in Canada are here and participate in our democracy. These are very important elements of our democracy. They are what make our democracy so vibrant. Canada has a rather high participation rate, but it is on the decline. The cheap shots that are made in advertisements unfortunately make some people uncomfortable. We absolutely want to get people involved once again in the democratic process in Canada. We must tell them that their member of Parliament is here to represent them in the House. Saying that representation is simply a matter of population completely disregards Canada's history and its cultures, which are so vibrant and vital and which must be represented in the House.

In 2006, the House decided to recognize Quebec as a nation. Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. It is important to remember that, at that time, Quebec had a certain percentage of seats in the House. Quebec is of the opinion that this decision must be given some weight. If the House decided in 2006 that Quebec was one of Canada's founding groups, it should be properly represented in the House. The bill introduced by the member for Compton—Stanstead clearly explains the value of this decision.

We in the NDP firmly believe in the principle of representation. We firmly believe that the people must be well represented in the House of Commons. We must take into account the Supreme Court's decision in Carter. Our bills must clearly reflect this decision. For that to happen, the hon. member's bill must be supported.

I urge all the members of the House to think carefully so that, when the bill comes back to the House for further debate, we will be prepared to tell all Canadians that we are there for them and that the House is here to represent them. We must pass this bill.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the order paper.

The House stands adjourned until next Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2:16 p.m.)

The House resumed from December 2 consideration of the motion that Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (democratic representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my NDP colleagues why they have begun to mimic one of the most unpleasant traits of the Conservatives, which is to fail to respond to objections to their party’s proposals.

We saw this again during question period. When we ask the Conservatives to tell us the number of fighter jets and tell us when the aircraft will be ready, they do not reply. When we ask them to explain why they want to cut pensions when the OECD and all the experts say that it is not necessary, they do not respond.

I would like to invite my NDP colleagues to take pride in not acting like the Conservatives and to answer my objections to this bill, even though they have not responded thus far and have behaved as if these objections had not been raised. This is precisely the same attitude my NDP colleagues took with respect to the abolition of the Senate. The last time I rose in the House, perhaps six or seven times, and asked each NDP member to tell me what majority would be required to abolish the Senate, whether it would be the majority of all Canadians or the majority in each of the provinces, as required in the Constitution, they never responded. So we will see this time.

The first question that I would ask the NDP about this bill is this. If the NDP thought that the House motion of November 27, 2006 meant that Quebeckers, being a nation within a united Canada, should have more weight than other provinces' voters, since the other provinces' voters are not part of a nation within a united Canada, why did the New Democrats not say that when they voted for the motion in the House on November 27, 2006?

Why did they not come straight out and say that they would be voting for this motion and that this would mean that Quebeckers, as members of a nation, should have more weight than the other provinces’ voters? And why did they not say so in French and in English everywhere in Canada? That is my first question.

The second question is this. Both the Liberal plan for 308 seats in the House and the ballooned 338-seat plan of the Conservative Party, which has become the law of the land unfortunately, accept the rule that ensures that any currently overrepresented province will not become under-represented. Bill C-312 does not include this rule. Does this mean it would be acceptable to the NDP if, perhaps, either Manitoba or Nova Scotia became under-represented and, if so, why? Is that because they are not nations? Is that the logic of the NDP?

And if that is the logic, then they should say so, in English and in French, in Nova Scotia, Manitoba and everywhere else.

They would just have to say to Manitobans that they would be under-represented because they are not a nation within Canada. They should say that everywhere. I want to hear that from my colleague from Compton—Stanstead, the sponsor of this bill. Can he confirm that he is speaking on behalf of his NDP colleagues from Manitoba, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick? Are they are okay with the view that their provinces may be under-represented in the House, since they are not nations? I hope to get an answer to this question.

The third question is the following: is the NDP going to produce some numbers at last? According to its plans, how many members of Parliament would make up the House? It has no reason not to release its numbers. All the other parties have. When you propose something, you have to say what it will look like. Actually, it is a bit difficult to understand what it would look like. If the representation of a province is set in stone, regardless of demographic trends, it can lead to rather complex arithmetical complications.

If Quebec is guaranteed 24.35% of the seats in the House, regardless of what the demographics of Quebec are, that means that other provinces will go down in percentage, since the total has to add up to 100%. Otherwise, it is an arithmetical impossibility. Only in hockey can we have 110%. The NDP has to understand that.

The New Democrats have to show us their numbers. How do they get 100%? Which provinces have to give up seats so that one province is overrepresented based on their calculations?

I want to mention that in this bill, the NDP would keep the rule of equitable representation for the fast growing provinces. They want to correct the under-representation of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. I think it is right to do so. They would keep the Senate clause that no province can have fewer seats than its existing number of senators. It is in the Constitution: we have no choice and have to respect that rule. They would keep the grandfather clause, like the Conservatives, which is a mistake, because then we cannot subtract from the number of seats of provinces but only add to them. They also have a fourth rule that Quebec will remain at 24.35%.

The first three rules mean there will be 30 more seats in the House. That is what the Conservatives decided to do, and so the next time there will 338 seats. The additional rule of Quebec at 24.35% means that we would then have six more seats, or 344.

But if we add those six seats for Quebec, then Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario are underrepresented again in terms of the objective. Alberta is no longer making any progress. So we end up with 344 seats and we do not achieve the objective we were seeking. So we have to add seats for Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. But then, Quebec will no longer have 24.35%. So we have to add seats for Quebec. And in this little game, even if there were 350 seats, we would not be able to satisfy the four rules proposed by the NDP in its plan. And that is for 2011. Imagine how distorted things could get in 2021 and 2031.

Each national party has an obligation to say the same thing in English and French throughout our great country. I challenge the NDP to do so in this matter, starting by releasing its numbers.

The fourth and last question is whether this bill is constitutional. In permanently fixing the percentage of seats of a province, the NDP is asking Parliament to contradict the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons. This principle is well entrenched in our Constitution. Yes, Parliament has some leeway in how it applies the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces when dealing with the effective representation of communities and provinces in relative decline. That is true. However, that leeway has its limits: parliament cannot run afoul of the principle of proportionate representation. That would be unconstitutional.

While Bill C-312 mentions the Supreme Court decision of June 6, 1991, we have said again and again to our NDP colleagues, but without receiving any answer from them, that this ruling applied to the delimitation of ridings, not to the representation of the whole province. All democratic federations try to accommodate communities while delimiting ridings, but no democratic federation gives extra representation to a whole constitutional jurisdiction on the grounds of its cultural or national character. That would be an extraordinary decision, requiring a constitutional amendment that Parliament cannot do alone without the consent of its constitutional partners, the provinces. In other words, the NDP and the Bloc are asking Parliament to show disrespect for provincial constitutional jurisdiction.

The NDP and the Bloc are asking Parliament to exceed its jurisdiction regarding House of Commons reform with Bill C-312. The Conservatives are asking Parliament to exceed its jurisdiction regarding Senate reform with Bill C-7. Only the Liberals are consistently respecting the Constitution.

We urge all our colleagues in this House to show respect for the basic law of the land, the Constitution of Canada. In the meantime, we Liberals will as always remain consistent in principle. We will oppose this bill because it is unconstitutional and impractical.

The next time there is an opportunity, we urge all members of Parliament to support the Liberal plan to freeze the number of seats in this House, because otherwise we will have to extend Parliament as far as the Rideau Canal if we are to fit in all members in the House.

In conclusion, I have asked my questions. Will I get any answers?

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by responding to some of what the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville said.

The member's vision of the country has never convinced Quebec nor the other provinces. When he was at the head of his party, he lost lots of seats. I have no problem with more seats as long as the people in those seats actually have power.

Hal Herbert, the member for my riding in the 1970s, wrote an excellent little memoir called “Confessions of a trained seal”. He called himself a trained seal because the prime minister he served under exercised centralizing powers on his members. We have seen that increasing over the years under Trudeau, Mulroney, Chrétien, Martin and the current Prime Minister. They have all centralized power within the Prime Minister's Office, so I take none of the questions from this member seriously.

I am very pleased to address the bill introduced by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead. This bill reflects our values as Quebeckers and Canadians, namely the values of justice and of a just country. I am a Quebecker and I am proud of that. I am a 14th generation Quebecker. The St-Maurices arrived in the 17th century with the Carignan-Salières regiment. The Nicholls arrived in the 19th century with the great migration of British, Scottish and Irish people.

I am proud to be a member of the Quebec nation. I am proud to say that it was the member for York—that was the name of my riding in the 18th century—Michel-Eustache-Gaspard-Alain Chartier de Lotbinière, who introduced the use of French in the Parliament of Lower Canada. He was Speaker of the House at the time.

Asking permission to use French in government is a tradition that continues today. It points to some historical realities. The first was that there were not large populations of anglophones in the colonies at that time. The second was the idea of fairness that existed at that time.

I would like to quote the member at that time. He stated:

Since the majority of our constituents are placed in a special situation, we are obliged to depart from the ordinary rules and forced to ask for the use of a language which is not that of the empire; but, being as fair to others as we hope they will be to us, we should not want our language eventually to banish that of His Majesty’s other subjects.

This moment in our history is immortalized on a painting located above the Speaker's chair in Quebec's National Assembly. I am mentioning it because this is something that gives concrete expression to the notion of a Quebec nation. I should also point out that the second Marquis de Lotbinière referred to a Canadian idea of justice that existed in our country at the time and which is unique to Canada.

I want to refer to another painting. That one is hanging on the wall of our caucus room, the Railway Committee Room. It shows our nation's founders, the Fathers of Confederation. It was their idea that this new experience, this Confederation, should be a partnership between nations. John A. Macdonald and George-Étienne Cartier were able to create a nation based on the principles of peace, order and responsible government. The term “order” replaced the word “well-being”, which reflected the concept of Canadian justice, of fairness, which is fundamental to this country.

The painting to which I am referring is from Robert Harris. It shows the Fathers of Confederation, but it also shows the flaws in this vision of justice, because there are no women or aboriginals. It may also have marked the beginning of new injustices.

I will return to these injustices in a little while.

The two partners of united Canada, Canada East and Canada West, were fearful of American expansion at the end of the American Civil War. Macdonald was afraid of getting overwhelmed by the American juggernaut. Likewise Cartier went against the grain of those who were asking for republicanism in French Canada. The predecessors of the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville were asking for republicanism in the presence of his party. Cartier was afraid of his home becoming Louisiana, a state that had been assimilated over the years in a nation that did not value bilingualism. They came together as partners. Cartier was assured by his partners in Canada West that the nation would go forward as equal partners. Here I would like to talk of the injustices of Confederation.

The idea of fairness was not only the right to language but also right to religion, continuation of one's culture and communities of interest.

Exactly two years after Confederation, we had the Red River standoff, in what is now Manitoba. As we know, the Canadian administration was not fair to the francophones and Metis of these camps.

The government wanted to put in place a townships system, instead of concessions. This would erase a culture built over a period of more than 300 years, as well as an agreement between the British, the French and the aboriginals. This sent the message to Quebec that it should shut up and be a quiet partner.

The execution of Louis Riel, following the Northwest Rebellion in Saskatchewan, had the effect of cooling relations between francophones, anglophones and aboriginals. The rebirth of Quebec nationalism dates back to that era. Canada's westward expansion was achieved at the expense of francophones and aboriginals to promote the English culture, with a Canadian touch.

So, our partnership suffered setbacks. We accepted the changes. We are open to an increase in the number of seats for the other provinces, but the agreement between the three founding nations must be respected. We must respect the 24.35% rule.

We have to continue the idea of fairness and carry forward a progressive vision of this country, a vision that includes all three nations. I am supporting my colleague's bill because it does support this foundation of the country in 1867 for a certain amount of seats for Quebec to show the importance of this founding nation within a united Canada.

I would like to conclude by saying that the proposed law would be the beginning of the future of our country. It would build a country that would heal the tensions that have built up since Confederation as well as the problems we had after Confederation between francophones, first nations and anglophones. It would recognize that Quebec holds a special place within our Confederation. Quebec needs to be recognized in terms of the seats it has in this House in order to continue the message of Quebec for the rest of the country.

[Isabelle Morin, NDP, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in this House today and I thank my colleague from Compton—Stanstead for introducing this bill. I know he is very concerned about democratic, fair representation everywhere in Canada. I thank him for his passion.

The bill my colleague has introduced supplements the government’s Bill C-20. The population is growing in the West and in Ontario, and we agree that the number of seats in those regions needs to be increased. That is not the problem. However, we want to protect the voice of minorities.

Under our Constitution, there must be geographic, demographic and community of interest representation. Quebec is a community of interest by reason of its language, its culture and its difference from the rest of Canada. We saw that in the last election, in fact. It is a distinct community from the rest of Canada. On this side of the House, we think it is important to stand up for that community.

The Supreme Court of Canada has held that factors like geography, history, the interests of the community and the representation of minority groups must be taken into consideration in order to guarantee that legislative assemblies truly represent the diversity of the Canadian mosaic. That is what is in issue in my colleague’s bill.

Certainly there is an imbalance; it has been observed in recent years. There are ridings where there are a lot of people. That is the case in my riding, where the population is much larger. It is easier when ridings are all equal or there is more or less the same number of people. That is why we agree on increasing the number of seats in Alberta and Ontario, but we think that three seats for Quebec are really not sufficient.

My colleague’s bill is an attempt to meet these Canadian needs. What is essential is to recognize the province whose population is considered to be a nation. My colleague from Vaudreuil—Soulanges who just spoke made a connection with the three founding nations. So we cannot wave the Quebec nation away with the back of our hand. Quebec has 24.35% of the seats, but what is wanted now is to increase the number of seats in other provinces. No more thought is being given to the fact that this province is a distinct nation and its number of seats is not being increased so it retains the same weight in the House. My colleague’s Bill C-312 supplements the Conservatives’ bill, to build a strong and united Canada, where everyone feels they are represented.

The motion to recognize Quebec as a nation was adopted five years ago by the Conservative government, with the help of all the other parties in this House. It is time to take action to protect that nation within our country. The government’s bill weakens the Quebec nation. It is time to work together to protect that nation.

For some time, we have seen that the Conservative government does not like Quebec very much. There is the firearms registry, and the contempt for the French language. A letter was sent on January 12 by a Mr. Paul White, the president of the Conservative Party Association in Brome-Missisquoi. He is a Conservative. I am going to quote what he says in his letter, in which he seems to be quite angry:

Today the voice of Quebec is virtually absent in Ottawa’s halls of power, or if present, it is a voice grown mighty small, and mighty easy to ignore.

He continued:

Since the election of May 2, 2011, many Quebec observers have concluded that [the Prime Minister] has consciously decided to ignore Quebec, now that he has convincingly demonstrated that he can win a majority without it.

He closes his letter by saying:

In politics as in life, you deserve what you tolerate. And most Quebec Conservatives are fed up.

It was a Conservative member who said that. This tells us why Quebeckers feel rejected.

The bill of the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead strikes a balance by stating that Quebec is a nation, which has been recognized by all the parties. In 2012, the National Assembly of Quebec even unanimously passed a resolution recognizing “that Quebec, as a nation, must be able to enjoy special protection for the weight of its representation in the House of Commons”.

Even my New Democrat colleagues who do not live in Quebec are in full agreement with that. Quebec is not the main priority for some parties right now. This is not a matter of partisanship, but of acknowledging our history; Canada has three founding peoples and, traditionally, Quebec has always carried a certain weight. When we voted to recognize Quebec as a nation, this weight was 24.35%. On this side of the House, we think it is imperative to maintain this percentage because it is what gives a voice to the people of Quebec.

Currently, questions are being raised about the French language and we are trying our best to defend the voice of Quebeckers, but we are being rejected by the government, which wants to add a large number of seats in provinces other than Quebec and further reduce Quebec's weight. We condemn this behaviour.

I support my colleague's bill fully and in good conscience. I hope that the Conservatives and the Liberals will vote with us for this bill that defends Canadians—not just Quebeckers—and our history. It is important that at some point we say that Quebec's voice needs to be defended.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am particularly pleased and proud to be able to rise in the House to support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead.

I feel that this bill addresses some major concerns of Quebeckers and that it is a step forward. As the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine has just pointed out, this bill is a logical, concrete and direct extension of recognizing Quebec as a nation. Otherwise, this concept, adopted by the House, would become an empty gesture and of no benefit to Quebeckers.

I would also like to point to the questions and comments of the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, who, in my view, asked some legitimate questions that can add value to the discussion and to this debate.

First, why did the New Democrats not say right from the start in 2006 that they wanted to go in this direction? I cannot answer for the people who were there at the time. I have been the elected member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie since May 2, 2011. But I can give you a recent example that explains why the NDP voted against the Conservatives' Bill C-20. There were a number of reasons, but one of the main reasons was that the bill reduced Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons. And as Quebeckers and New Democrats, we considered that it made no sense and that the Quebec nation was not respected. That is the first answer I can give him.

Second, for many years, the Constitution has provided for situations in which certain parts of the country are under-represented, with the rule that a province cannot have fewer members of Parliament than senators. Prince Edward Island is an example. So are communities in different situations, such as areas in the north, which are huge, but very sparsely populated. No strict mathematical rule, whereby every voter has the same weight, applies at the moment to the representation of Quebeckers and Canadians in the House. That does not exist and it is reasonable for it not to exist because it would be unfair in historical, linguistic, cultural and sociological terms. That is what the bill introduced by the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead is trying to accommodate.

So there is no arithmetical rule, as the Supreme Court acknowledged in its 1991 decision. I hope I will have the time to come back to that. As there is a straight line back to factors that have already been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, there is no problem, in our view.

The hon. member wants exact figures. I have no figures to give him, but I have a formula. Politics and demographics are a bit like chemistry: they react and move.

The proposal is that an electoral divisor will be calculated after each decennial census, that is, in 2011, 2021, 2031. The former divisor is multiplied by the total population of the provinces according to the most recent decennial census. That product is then divided by the total population of the provinces according to the previous decennial census. The present electoral divisor would be 108,000 people. With that formula, Quebec's political weight remains at 24.35% of the population. I doubt if that last section will necessarily get me quoted on the national news because it is not really exciting. But the important concept is to repeat an exercise every 10 years in order to make sure that Quebec's political weight in the House remains the same. For us, it is vitally important that the recognition of Quebec as a nation does not become either a dead issue or a fine example of words in the House that lead to no concrete change.

On November 27, 2006, the House of Commons recognized Quebec as a nation. In order to give meaning to this recognition, there must be some concrete action. We are open to proposals that will allow British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario to get a number of seats that will adequately reflect their demographic growth. However, it is critical that Quebec's representation in the House remain at 24.35%, because the Conservatives are systematically showing contempt and disregard for Quebec, for the vision of Quebec and Canadian progressive and social democrats in the House.

I am going to provide a few examples before quoting court rulings, and also Quebec and Canadian laws which show that the recognition of a community of interest must sometime take precedence over mere numbers and arithmetic rules.

This exists and this is where we are headed. If we recognize communities of interest, what about a nation, which is indeed a very powerful community of interest?

Let us get back to the fact that the Conservatives are not doing anything to meet Quebec's demands. They are even doing the opposite of what Quebeckers are asking. The Conservative government is definitely not respecting Quebeckers' fair share when it comes to the opportunities fund for persons with disabilities. Indeed, since it was created, only 3% of the subsidies have been given to Quebec, while 85% of the $67 million allocated by the federal government were paid in Conservative ridings.

The Conservative government definitely did not give its fair share to Quebec's shipyards. The Conservatives chose companies in Nova Scotia and British Columbia for the construction of new warships but, once again, there was nothing for Quebec, which was ignored.

The Conservative government did not respect Quebec's position and its approach to rehabilitating young offenders. That approach works and it is a model for the world. The Quebec justice minister, Jean-Marc Fournier, clearly opposed this bill, which absolutely does not reflect Quebeckers' values and their approach to justice. On December 5, the Conservatives turned their backs on Quebeckers yet again.

The Conservative government did not respect Quebec's position on the environment. December 12, 2011, was a dark day. That is when the Conservatives decided that Canada would pull out of the Kyoto protocol, which is supported by a large majority of Canadians and and also a majority of Quebeckers. Climate change is an important issue for all those who look to the future and who want our planet to remain healthy.

The Conservative government definitely did not respect Quebec's position on the gun registry. On February 15, the Conservatives passed a bill abolishing the register. They even celebrated their victory. That register was created at the initiative of Quebeckers, following the evil and despicable killings at École Polytechnique.

The Conservatives rejected at second reading the bill to protect French in Quebec companies under federal jurisdiction. Yesterday once again, the Conservatives turned their back on Quebeckers. Remember that on April 22, 2010 the Quebec National Assembly passed a unanimous resolution reaffirming that Quebec, as a nation, must be able to enjoy special protection for the weight of its representation in the House of Commons. That resolution calls for elected members here, from all federal political parties, to abandon the passage of any bill whose effect would be to reduce the weight of Quebec’s representation in this House.

This is a clear message that we as New Democrats want to send to all Quebeckers and also to all the elected members of the National Assembly: we are going to carry this message and defend Quebec's interests.

The weight that Quebec had when it was officially recognized as a nation by this House was 24.35%. That proportion adds value to any calculation of the representativeness of seats in the House of Commons. Why? Because any good researcher in fact knows that social science calculations must of course take account of numerical, of arithmetic factors, but also of qualitative factors. Quebec is Canada’s link to the Francophonie, the extension of its culture throughout the world, the influence of its social policies all across the country and even beyond.

That is why this strength, this solidarity that characterizes us, requires effective representation in the House of Commons, that is to say, electoral legislation that will take account of the following three factors in its calculations: demographic representation, appropriate geographic representation, and representation of a community of interests. In that regard, it is my pleasure to quote from the 1991 decision of the Supreme Court:

The content of the Charter right to vote is to be determined in a broad and purposive way, having regard to historical and social context. [Recognition of the nation of Quebec is the historical and social context.] The broader philosophy underlying the historical development of the right to vote must be sought and practical considerations, such as social and physical geography, must be borne in mind.…

The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to "effective representation". The right to vote therefore comprises many factors, of which equity is but one. The section does not guarantee equality of voting power. [There is a distinction between "equity" and "equality".]

Relative parity of voting power is a prime condition of effective representation. Deviations from absolute voter parity, however, may be justified on the grounds of practical impossibility or the provision of more effective representation. Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies represent the diversity of our social mosaic.

In Canada, with the aboriginal nations, we are a nation with two founding peoples. I want to return to the spirit of the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission with a binational, bicultural spirit. The best way to respect the notion of two founding peoples is to vote in favour of Bill C-312 and secure the weight Quebec carries.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a golden opportunity to speak today to Bill C-312. My colleague from Compton—Stanstead introduced this bill when were still debating Bill C-20 on readjusting the number of seats in the House. The NDP introduced Bill C-312 as an amended version.

We were unshakeable in our opposition to the government’s bill. It rebuffed any attempts at conciliation. As a result, our party voted against Bill C-20, even though it contained desirable elements. Bill C-20 was of course referred to the Senate and it went through like a shooting star with no sign of resistance.

Is it at all useful to continue to debate and promote our version? Yes, it certainly is. This is definitely a very good time to restate how we differ from the government. Most of all, this discussion will allow us to warn the government on several points, and one in particular. The Constitution of Canada is very old in terms of politics. How many different constitutions have most European countries had since 1867? Ours was written at a time when most Canadians lived in Ontario and Quebec. From scattered British colonies, an attempt was made to build a political entity that was considered more viable and competitive given the rise of the United States of America. Visionaries built a railway across the continent and flew a Union Jack at each end. And there you have modern Canada. That is the country we live in.

When drafting the Constitution, the Fathers of Confederation sought above all to strike an equitable balance between the interests of the two most populous provinces, Ontario and Quebec. They had lived side by side ever since the conquest of New France, and the dynamics were well established.

I believe that the very soul of the 1867 Canadian Constitution was the harmonization of the interests of Upper and Lower Canada in a venture that included the maritime provinces. The Constitution was what led to a sovereign country that had legitimacy in the eyes of the outside world. Any discussion must be firmly anchored in the foundations established in 1867; otherwise it would be meaningless.

For a few months now, the population in the west of the Confederation has exceeded the population in the east. This is a first in our country’s history. I would like to take advantage of my opportunity to speak to congratulate our fellow citizens at the other end of Canada. Alberta, whose beginnings were so difficult, is now a prosperous and progressive land. It contributes enormously to the country through its wealth of human and physical resources. British Columbia, which had initially resisted joining Confederation, became a symbol of Canada’s beauty and open-mindedness. For all these reasons, I congratulate them.

This Parliament is finally getting around to providing them with a more flexible way of giving them more seats in the House. It was decided to increase their relative weight within our democracy to allow for a fairer distribution. Representation by population is one of the foundations of our current system; the NDP is delighted that this should be the case. The House will also be more crowded than the kitchen in a Soviet apartment on a holiday, but that is all to the good. The more the merrier.

However, these additions are made to a system that is ill-suited to them. Indeed, there is a clear opposition between rep by pop and communities of interests. Rep by pop is a calculation, it is the beginning of the distribution and sharing. Communities of interests are the adjustments that are necessary so that the sense of belonging, which is the most fundamental aspect of politics, is respected in this sharing. Again, Bill C-20 did not at all take communities of interests into consideration. By contrast, Bill C-312, adds this fundamental notion.

If someone does not understand what I am saying, he or she should pretend to be a Quebecker for a moment. Whether he or she chooses to be Alexandrine, Jean or Pierre for a minute, he or she will see what I mean.

We are a distinct nation in a supranational entity. The dynamics are different. Anyone who refuses to see this obvious fact is deeply mistaken.Consequently, it often happens that one goes to the right while the other moves to the left. If we do not consult each other, we could end up doing more of less anything.

That said, it is obvious to the outside world that we are all passengers on the same big ship. Whether we want or not, wherever Canada goes, Quebec follows: that is the nature of things. At least, we try with all the goodwill in the world.

However, this time we are facing a very serious problem, precisely because we did not consult each other. Bill C-20 went through Parliament like the Millennium Falcon. The Conservatives are adopting an overly simplified attitude, whereby they think they are right and good, while we members of the stubborn opposition, are bad and wrong. There is no room for discussion.

Meanwhile what does the Quebec wing of the government do? It shuts up and continues to look shameful.

If people still have trouble seeing things from our perspective, let me explain briefly. The government decided, without consulting us, that Quebec's democratic weight within the Canadian Confederation can be reduced. Since 1982 and the constitutional capers that led to years and years of bickering, and ultimately to neechee vo nyet—nothing at all—it is my job to warn the House.

What about the Quebec members of the Conservative Party? Why have they not said a word about this move to cripple Quebec's democratic status? I do not want to be a Cassandra crying “Death, Death!” but I do believe that the bill was an almost deliberate attack on Quebec. The government goes about this quietly and gradually in order to weaken Quebec. As I have said before in the House, they are taking away a tiny piece now, but they will not stop there. Quebec members are opposed to this, or at least those who can express themselves freely are.

I am really upset about this. As a Quebecker and as a Canadian, I cannot help but think of the opportunity this House missed to fully embrace the best that Canada has to offer. Over the past few months, the NDP has clearly demonstrated that its understanding of the Canadian question is utterly unlike that of the Conservatives and Liberals. Over the past few weeks, it has become obvious that toxic old-school politics are still going strong in Ottawa. In fact, it is getting worse, with cheating, fraud and bickering ruling the day. This comes as no surprise, because it is the only political culture they understand. It is in their DNA. We will see whether the Canadians who have been lied to remember. To Quebeckers, the answer will come naturally: “Je me souviens”. I remember.

To us, difference and diversity are our collective wealth. We have to respect, protect, cherish and, above all, fight for it.

I have some examples. One: the inability to protect French. The bill introduced by my colleague from Trois-Rivières on the use of French in federally regulated enterprises was defeated. This is a bilingual country, but only sometimes. Two: the inability to protect the first nations—the sorry example of Attawapiskat and the last minute resolution to Shannen's dream. Fortunately, the government was smart enough to follow our lead on that initiative. Three: the unilateral reduction of Quebec's weight in the House. I could go on.

Maintaining Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons at the same level it was when the motion recognizing Quebec as a nation in a united Canada was adopted, is more than just a number or a number of MPs. It is a guarantee that my difference is respected. In essence, Bill C-20 is the government's way of telling Quebec that resistance is futile.

Respect for the French language, respect for Quebec, respect for first nations civilization: that is the NDP's vision for this country. That is our plan for a truly strong and united Canada.

As a result of this pell-mell approach, Canada will fall apart. A nation is a group of people who see themselves reflected in a common past and who want to extend that experience into the future. Will we think otherwise one day? That question might never be answered.

In closing, I would say that after successive Liberal and Conservative governments, the image of a great and beautiful Canada that was created in 1867 is starting to crack. That bothers me. I will leave the status quo of petty politics to the other parties because we have better things to do in the NDP. Here is to the new generation of politicians who will bring this country back to its rightful place. Here is to a party that respects difference and democracy.

[Ève Péclet, NDP, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am in fact very pleased to rise today in this House and to tell all my colleagues, particularly those from Quebec, just how proud I am that we are able to stand up for Quebec's level of representation in our democratic system and champion the Quebec culture and what it brings to Canada from an historical standpoint.

Allow me to put things into context. As everybody knows, Bill C-20 was passed before Christmas. This brought Quebec's representation in this House from 24.35% to about 23%. In fact, the bill provided for the addition of seats in several provinces of Canada, which is quite legitimate, while reducing Quebec's political weight within the House of Commons.

For the Conservatives, who love to talk about laws and law enforcement, I would like to present an argument that has never been successfully challenged and that is still contemporary. It is very important to understand that the Supreme Court stated that, according to the Constitution, representation by population is a constitutional principle. However, this is not called into question at all by this bill. The governments, parliamentarians and legislators must also take into consideration historical and cultural criteria when it comes to the representation of members in this House.

For example, there was a debate on Bill C-7 regarding the selection of senators. I made a number of remarks when I rose to speak about that bill. I stated that the role that the Constitution conferred upon the Senate is one of regional representation. In fact, the Senate was created to enable the regions that had less weight in the House of Commons to be better represented in another chamber. But that was never achieved; it was never honoured. The idea, of course, was to ensure that rights are conferred upon our country's minorities, to some of its cultures and its peoples, in order that they may have a voice in our democratic system.

We have had to fight. The NDP had to fight to get the government to give Quebec more seats. We reminded the government that in 2006 it had passed a motion recognizing Quebec as an integral part of Canada while maintaining its nationhood status, in other words, that it is a distinct nation within a united Canada. The government was very clear about this. Yet, today, the government once again refuses to give Quebec the place it deserves within the House of Commons. The NDP and my colleague from Compton—Stanstead want to fight so that Quebeckers maintain the voice to which they are entitled in this House.

This bill does not render invalid the addition of other seats in other provinces: on the contrary. What does this do? It tells Quebeckers—in line with everything this government has claimed since it was elected in 2006—that Quebec has a place here, that it has the right to a percentage of representation. And we want it to keep that same percentage of representation, since the Government of Canada has itself recognized Quebec as a nation within Canada. That percentage is 24.35%. Bill C-20 reduces this percentage by a little more than one percentage point. But what are they thinking, on the government side? They are being asked for a little more than one percentage point. It is not as if we were asking for an increase from 24.35% to 50%. We are simply asking them to keep their word.

It is quite simple: let them keep the promise they made to all Quebeckers in 2006 when they recognized that Quebec is a nation. And the Supreme Court said in 1991 that consideration must be given to historical and cultural criteria when talking about democratic representation within Canada. So this is clear. I fail to understand why the government wants to flout these principles. It is clear, plain and specific. Quebec is a nation. The Conservatives recognized this in 2006. In 1991, the Supreme Court recognized that account must be taken of cultural and historical criteria. It is clear and specific, it is in our democracy and in our history, it is right there in front of them.

Once again, I hope that my colleagues in the government will vote in favour of this bill. If they do not, it will show that they are once again going to flout not only Quebeckers' and Canadians' desire to have democratic representation in the House, but also a Supreme Court ruling and principles that have been established for years.

The government is inconsistent in its actions. In 2006, it claimed that Quebec is a nation. Everyone was happy; we had been asking for this for a long time. Thank you very much. But right after that, we saw that respect for the French language in this Parliament completely collapsed. I am truly outraged today, for I am ashamed to see the government’s scorn of language rights. We saw this yesterday, when they refused to vote for a bill that would allow Quebeckers to work in certain federal institutions in their own province in compliance with their language rights.

The government is not even prepared to recognize this or to take action to help Quebeckers and ensure that the French language is respected. It claims that French is part of our country and our history, but that is where it ends. There is no action, no funding. The government claims that there will be a commission to examine the French language, but it has never been created, and no funds have been invested for that purpose. It will probably be created in 2014 or 2025, or who knows when. Perhaps it will never be created at all. Empty words.

Emptiness is what the government gives us. I hope that the Conservatives will wake up, give themselves a slap in the face and realize that it is time they recognize that Quebec is part of Canada. Even though Quebeckers refused to vote for the Conservatives, the Government of Canada is supposed to represent all Canadians. Whether in British Columbia, the Yukon or Quebec, it is supposed to respect the rights of all Canadians.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would sincerely like to thank all the MPs of this 41st Parliament who took part in this democratic exercise, which was made possible through the reading of a private member’s bill. Given how this government operates, it is almost a miracle that we are still entitled to speak in the House. I do not have the impression that the Conservatives have ever listened to how they sound when they speak; otherwise they would ask themselves questions about the meaning of the words “honesty” and “democracy”.

I would particularly like to congratulate my colleagues who supported the undertaking set in motion so long ago to grant nation status to the province of Quebec. Indeed, this nation, Quebec, which was recognized in 2006 in a motion moved by the current Prime Minister, and adopted by a large majority during the 39th Parliament, is at the core of this bill. In giving recognition to this status, Canada’s Parliament gave Quebec the historic weight it deserves as one of the founding peoples.

Subclause 2(3) is the important one. The proportion of members from the province of Quebec shall remain unchanged from the representation that it had on November 27, 2006, when the motion was adopted in the House of Commons recognizing that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada. However, I sometimes get the impression that the current government is trying to divide Quebec, and that is extremely regrettable.

Nevertheless, the introduction in the House of Commons of Bill C-312 for readjusting the number of members of the House of Commons in order to ensure that Quebec should maintain the same relative political weight is of key importance in the stability and unity of our country. It is important to mention here that the distribution of seats in the House of Commons has always taken the following into consideration: the community of interests, which was mentioned by several of my colleagues; historical development; the electoral quotient, which we recognize; and ensuring that a riding should not be too vast in size.

As a result, the addition of more representatives to the House involves a number of special arrangements that must be factored in. Giving consideration and value to one evaluation criteria rather than another must be judicious and in harmony with our traditions and customs. Among other things, the representatives elected to Canada's Parliament must reflect our Canadian realities, which pertain to geography, demography, identity, history and culture.

It is important to admit that this exercise of adjusting the number of seats and, therefore, adjusting the democratic representation may be unpleasant and difficult, considering all the factors hitherto enumerated. In any event, nobody doubts the importance of new legislation, which is long overdue both in the eyes of the public and our elected representatives. The urgency stems from the demographic explosion of provinces such as Ontario, Alberta, and British Columbia.

That does not present a problem in our eyes. Those regions of Canada deserve a readjustment of representation in the House in order to better reflect variations in population. The historical weight of the Quebec nation is hugely important at this time when calculating these modifications. Quebec's place in Canada, especially its representation in the House of Commons must be respected in order to ensure that Quebeckers can see themselves reflected in the composition of the House.

In closing, Bill C-312 is extremely simple. It includes a clause that is extremely important. The purpose of bill C–312 is to enable Quebec to keep its rightful place within the great Canadian family. Quebeckers are, however, increasingly worried about this government that was elected—and listen closely to what I am about to say—by 39% of Canadian voters. For those who have tried to convince us over recent days that 900,000 more people voted in the last election, I would tell them that the total number of voters did not even exceed 60% of those electors entitled to vote.

This government listens to neither elected representatives nor Canadians, and especially not Quebeckers. Thank you to everybody, including my wife who is listening to me on CPAC. I wish everybody a long and prosperous life!

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It being 6:30 p.m., the time provided for the debate has expired.

The vote is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, a recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Wednesday, March 7, 2012, immediately after the time provided for private members' business.