Bill C-12 (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.

Fair Representation Act

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to speak to this bill, which I think is very important because I believe that citizenship is the foundation of Canadian society.

My riding in the greater Toronto area has more than 200,000 constituents, while other ridings have fewer than 100,000. That is not fair and it is a sort of insult to Canadian citizens in some areas of the country.

This is one of the most important bills the House has considered in the last 10 years or so. The reason for this is I believe the most fundamental foundation for Canadian society is Canadian citizenship. I believe strongly that all Canadian citizens, regardless of their ancestry, religion, creed or race, should be treated equally in our country. However, when we have a situation where in one part of the country there are over 200,000 citizens in a riding and in another part of the country there are fewer than 100,000 citizens in a riding, that flies against the very basic Canadian and constitutional principle that all Canadians are equal and they should all have an equal say in who governs the country.

In fact, I would argue that it is the basis of Confederation. It was the long-held conviction of the first leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, George Brown. His statue stands behind the Parliament Buildings overlooking the Ottawa River. He was leader from 1857 and post-Confederation until 1873. He fought for that principle, both in the united Province of Canada before Confederation and subsequently in Confederation itself. It was in part because of that leader's efforts that Confederation was forged.

However, today we have come a long way from that constitutional and founding principle of the country. The gap between how many voters an MP represents in rapidly growing provinces like British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario and that of an MP who represents a riding in one of the seven other provinces has never been as large as it is today. Never has the gap been so large, since 1867.

Under the current formula, the seats that have been distributed in this chamber, according to the provincial divisions, have reached the point where the average MP in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta represents almost 30,000 more Canadians than MPs in the seven other provinces. This has undermined the very principle on which this chamber is based, representation by population. It flies in the face of the very basic constitutional principle that Canadian citizenship is the basis of our society, that all Canadian citizens should be treated equally and that all Canadian citizens should have a fair and equal say in who represents them in this chamber.

In the 1991 Supreme Court ruling on the proposed changes to the electoral boundaries for the provincial division in the House of Saskatchewan, the court stated:

A system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted....The result will be uneven and unfair representation.

Clearly, we have a problem that needs to be dealt with before the next election and a problem with which Bill C-20, now at third reading, will deal.

We, as the government, have been debating this issue for over four years. The first iteration of a bill to re-apportion the seats in the House was introduced on November 14, 2007. It was Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation). Some two years ago, a second iteration of the bill was introduced as Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation). It was introduced on April 1, 2010.

Therefore, this is the third iteration of the bill with which we have now been presented. We have gone through extensive consultations with stakeholders, with various provinces, with members of Parliament in the debates that we have held in this chamber. It is now time that we deal with this issue, especially considering that the electoral boundaries commissions for the various provinces will be setting up shortly and will be undertaking a review of the proposed boundaries that would be used in the 2015 election.

As I said, this has been a long-standing commitment of the government. The bill also meets the government's commitment with three principles that we outlined in our last election platform, three principles that we had long held to. They are as follows.

First, we need to ensure that the rapidly growing regions of the country, particularly in areas like Calgary and Edmonton, greater Vancouver, the Lower Mainland, and the greater Toronto area, are properly, fairly and equitably represented in the House. That is why the bill would give 15 new seats to Ontario, 6 new seats to Alberta and 6 new seats to British Columbia.

We also committed to a second principle that would ensure that no slower-growing region of the country would lose seats. We have ensured that the provinces whose populations are not growing do not lose their number of seats in each provincial division in the House.

The third principle we committed to was to ensure that the provincial division of Quebec in the House would not under-represented. That is why in Bill C-20 would add three new seats for the provincial division of Quebec to ensure that its representation levels in the House would not fall below average.

The bill upholds those three principles and meets the fundamental requirement that the House be representative of the population of the country.

There have been some criticisms of the bill. I would like to talk about some of the criticisms that the official opposition has levelled at the bill. It is proposing that we fix the number of seats in the House for the provincial division of Quebec at the percentage it had in November of 2006. I cannot strongly disagree enough with that principle.

The first point I want to make to rebut the argument that the provincial division of Quebec should have a certain number of seats is that these seats do not belong to any province. The seats are federal seats. We consult with the provinces because we want their input, but at the end of the day, the seats are accorded to provincial division for administrative purposes. There is no reason why these seats belong to a particular province. They are simply provincial divisions for administrative purposes. The idea that any one provincial administrative division in the House should have a certain fixed percentage of the seats for time eternal flies against the very basic fact of Confederation, which is that this chamber needs to be representative of its population.

We used to have a guaranteed number of seats for a provincial division, or for an administrative division on Parliament Hill. That was for the United Province of Canada. After the rebellions in Lower and Upper Canada in the 1830s, came Lord Durham's report. Out of Lord Durham's report was the fundamental recommendation, acted upon by the authorities, that the Act of Union of 1840 would be implemented.

Out of the act of 1840, we merged the colony of Lower Canada, now Quebec, and the colony of Upper Canada, now Ontario, into the United Province of Canada. That act took effect in 1841. We had a single legislature and the capital bounced around from Kingston to Montreal, where it was burned, and later on to Ottawa. This site was selected as the provincial capital for the provincial legislature.

In that provincial legislature in the unitary state of Canada, as we did not have a federal state at the time, was the guarantee of 42 seats for Canada West, which is now part of the province of Ontario, and 42 seats for Canada East, which is part of the province of Quebec. It was a unitary state and because of the divisions between the francophones and anglophones, it was felt best to guarantee in the unitary state half of the seats for one administrative region and half for the other administrative region.

That operated for the better part of 25 years. Initially, what it meant, because Ontario's population at the time, Canada West, had some 450,000 and Canada East, Quebec, had some 650,000, was that Canada West was overrepresented in this chamber at the beginning of the 1840s and Canada East was under-represented. However, by the time the 1860s had rolled around, the inverse was true. In the 1861 census there were 1.1 million people in Canada East, Quebec, and 1.4 million people in Canada West, Ontario. As a result, there were increasing cries that reform was needed because Canada West felt its voice was under-represented in this unitary state of Canada, in this legislature for which these buildings on Parliament Hill were originally built.

A solution was found after much wrangling and years of debate through the various conferences that took place, and that was Confederation. The deal struck at Confederation was that we would go to a federal system of government with two sovereign orders of government, where the provinces would be responsible for areas within their jurisdiction and the federal government would be responsible for federal matters of jurisdiction as outlined in the Constitution, 1867.

One of the critical elements of this was that the chamber of the people, the House of Commons, in the federal order of government, would be representative of the population. George Brown, the first leader of the Liberal Party, fought for that. Many other members on all sides of the aisle fought for that. It has been the defining characteristic of the House for the better part of 150 years.

Clearly, the bill in front of us would meet that fundamental constitutional principle, but what has been proposed by the official opposition does not.

I want to speak briefly to the proposal made by the New Democratic Party in another regard. I have constantly heard that areas of the country are vast in geography with very little population and that we need to protect those regions because they are huge geographically. That misses the point. The point is this. In the House we represent people, not geography. We have domain over geography and we have domain over citizens, but we represent people not geography. That is the defining characteristic of how we divide divisions in the House.

When we established the non-partisan, arm's-length electoral boundaries commissions for each province, geography was taken into account in terms of whether we would slice down the middle of a municipality or whether we would go along our municipal boundaries. It is taken into account in terms of allowing some flexibility in terms of the geographic vastness in under-populated areas within a province. However, when we accord the number of seats for each provincial division, we do not take the geographic size of that provincial division into account. What we represent in the House is not geography but people.

I also want to speak briefly to the proposal that the Liberal Party has put forward. As I said before, it is a principled, logical proposal. However, it has one fundamental flaw. It would take seats away from five regions of the country: the provinces of Quebec, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland and Labrador and Nova Scotia.

With respect, because the Liberal Party is a third party, it has not garnered a lot of attention. However, I can say convincingly that any government that would introduce a proposal that would bring this into effect at this time in our nation's history would create a crisis among our federation and would create a lot of problems with the different regions of the country, pitting one region of the country against another. For that reason, I cannot support what the Liberal Party has put forward.

Our bill respects the fundamental principle of representation by population. It does so in a way that would not take seats away from slower-growing regions of the country, like the Liberal bill would do. It would ensure that the provincial division of Quebec in the House would not fall below the average of all the provincial divisions.

I want to finish on this thought. This is an incredibly important bill. The House does not currently represent or reflect the galloping heterogeneity of the new Canada. It does not reflect the makeup of our bustling regions like the Vancouver Lower Mainland or the greater Toronto area. It does not reflect the increasing diversity of cities like Calgary and Edmonton. The reason for that is simple. Out of the 30 most populated ridings in the country, these ridings are disproportionately made up of members of visible minority groups.

That is why the bill is so very important. This bill would add new seats to the rapidly growing regions of Toronto, Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver, ensuring that the rapidly growing heterogeneity of this new Canada is properly represented in this House, so that after the next election we could move closer to the dream where everybody in this chamber, en masse, ensemble, reflects the makeup of Canada.

It is also important for another reason, and that is, in a democracy, people need to be properly represented. This bill would ensure that we respect the fundamental basis of Confederation, the fundamental basis of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the fundamental basis of the repatriation that has taken place. It would ensure that we respect the fundamental contract that we have with the Canadian people, which is that Canadian citizenship is the basis of our society and that Canadian citizenship means that we treat all citizens equally, regardless of their race, religion, creed, ancestry or how long they have been here. It also means that Canadian citizens all need to have an equal vote and an equal say in who gets to represent them in this chamber.

That is why this bill is so very important. It strengthens that principle and ensures that Canada is a democracy where citizenship is the basis of our society.

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

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to debate Bill C-20, the Fair Representation Act.

This bill has a history. It dates back to the 39th Parliament and since then it has undergone some revisions and changes. As it currently stands, Bill C-20 illustrates the Conservative government's desire to make some constructive changes to the makeup of this House. The proposals in Bill C-20 also seek to enhance the effectiveness of democracy in Canada and improve representation.

However, what the bill is proposing does not appear to have been well received. It did not take long for reactions from the provincial legislatures to reach Ottawa, and Quebec dismissed the Conservative government's proposals right away. Ontario and British Columbia also raised some legitimate concerns regarding this bill. This response is significant, as it illustrates how poorly balanced the government's approach was regarding the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons.

The provinces reacted as they did because they felt that the initiative was confused and saw that the government was trying to satisfy them with a pittance. It has come up with practically random figures to which the Conservatives are attaching expressions like “fair representation” and “proportional democratic weight”. The very terms for what we are debating are flying around in every direction. The provinces understand very clearly that there is some confusion and that when there is confusion, there is some flexibility and room for negotiation.

This feeling of confusion stems primarily from the successive changes that have been made to the bill over time and that reveal considerable hesitation on the part of the government. After all, at the outset, Quebec was not given any additional seats. The government sensed the danger, however, and had the good sense to change its mind. I am sure my colleagues can imagine how the Quebec National Assembly would have reacted had the government not changed its mind.

The Minister of Industry, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, said: “This bill will move every Canadian province toward representation by population.” This remark was repeated by the parliamentary secretary who just spoke.

I would like to know if the government plans to use this criterion alone for the new seat allocation. If that is the case, it demonstrates an approach that is narrow in vision and not very serious. In fact, strict representation by population is certainly not the only criterion that should be applied when seats are redistributed. It would be a denial of all the things that make Canada what it is. We need only examine all the clauses used to calculate the number of seats to support that. It seems that the minister is denying what is protecting Prince Edward Island's four seats.

The NDP will stand with the provinces that want us to continue fine-tuning Bill C-20. We acknowledge that the government wants to take action and get it right, but we believe that there is too much hesitation on the government's part and therefore that there is room to negotiate.

I am very pleased to be able to debate this bill. The NDP believes that there is a consensus in the House about the importance of fair and intelligent reform of our democratic institutions. After all, we have everything to gain with a more representative Canada.

I am in federal politics because I am convinced that Canada's strength is rooted in its diversity. The problem of fair representation of the provinces in the House comes up regularly because Canada is changing and its Parliament must reflect these changes. This issue seems simple, but is unexpectedly complex. It also stirs up passions and triggers all sorts of hidden emotions.

Canada is more than just the sum of the 10 provinces and 3 territories. Since confederation, two visions of the country have often clashed. These two visions refer to very different and almost opposite sensibilities that we have tried to reconcile as best we can since the beginning of the federal experience. That is the basis for John Saul's idea of a civilization that compromises. As my Canadian history professor used to say, Canada is a community that is always fraught with bickering. As a Quebecker, I know what I am talking about.

The first of these two visions, considers provincial authority as an end in itself. It focuses on the provincial legislature, local distinctiveness, local cultural heritage and, in the case of Quebec, language. Of course the emotional attachment to Canada remains present and real, but confederation is clearly perceived as a supranational entity.

That is clearly the case in Quebec. While it is well known, it is sometimes misunderstood in other parts of Canada: in Quebec, ties to the state are twofold. That is completely normal. Quebec preciously guards the memory of its past and still feels the presence of the other state it once was: New France. Quebec's specificity is so important that this government even took the initiative to give it the status of a nation within Confederation.

Quebec is not the only province in this situation. Take Newfoundland, for example. It was the last province to join Confederation. It had its own currency, flag and national anthem, and its people are still very conscious of their common origin.

Some might even say that Newfoundland has its own language. It joined Confederation 80 years after the founding provinces, after a long history as an independent British dominion. Consequently, Newfoundland had the time to develop a feeling of national allegiance that Ottawa, as a distant and mainland capital, cannot shake, even after 60 years.

I would also like to mention the more subtle case of the Northwest Territories. Northerners live a common frontier experience in a tough environment that is both beautiful and remote. The ethnic balance between aboriginals and non-aboriginals has created a distinct type of country with its own ethnically diverse culture that is incredibly dynamic.

I could go on and on because this is such a fascinating topic, but what I am trying to express is that this vision requires one essential element: balance. When balance is maintained, this decentralist vision does not call into question the relevance of this federal plan and encourages cultural and creative development across our country. The NDP, which is so committed to diversity, is very sensitive to the differences that exist, to varying degrees, in each province.

There is the opposite, highly centralist vision, which sees the federal government as responsible for building the Canadian nation. This vision is behind the notion of nation building. It is a state of mind that promotes unity within the country by focusing on all that is similar at the expense of all that is different. The Constitution Act, 1867, seemed to favour that vision of Canada, but that vision took a hit during the constitutional debates of the 1980s and 1990s. It was, however, the initial cause of sweeping Canada-wide achievements and it is dear to many of our constituents whose values are reflected in it.

It is simplistic to divide the provinces between these two visions. This vision has its roots in the British imperialism that Canada was part of. The Constitution of 1867 was drafted in that vein and we can say without a doubt that Canada as we know it today is a legacy of that time.

Ontario, the most populous province and the most under-represented in this House, has its cultural and political origins in the British colonial era. It is completely justified. The Prairies also find a common cultural foundation in that history. They were constituted as the logical next step in the federal project and steeped in British patriotism. Canada has its history and we do not seek to diminish it.

The Conservative Party clearly favours a more centralist plan. For this government, the federal government and its institutions have the responsibility to build this country. Canada, as the Conservatives see it, has to be moulded from the same clay. Differences have to give way to common elements. It is the Canada of “The Maple Leaf Forever”. Their interpretation is as old as the country itself and meets come people's expectations. However, those who share the decentralist vision feel there is a lack of finesse in these democratic reform bills that the Conservative government is introducing in this House. They all have one thing in common: they all attempt to make fundamental changes to the parliamentary institutions without ever having to touch the Constitution.

Bill C-20 is nothing but a weak attempt at giving this House the semblance of fair representation of the provinces that make up Canada. Bill C-20 is just another attempt at doing something when it is clear that no one really knows what to do. The NDP has a vision. Our party has a deeper understanding of what constitutes Canada's wealth and we want to move forward in respect and collegiality.

For example, the NDP explicitly recognized Quebec's distinct nature in Bill C-312, introduced by my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead. In short, the NDP proposed that we keep the previous formula for calculating how seats are allocated in the House of Commons, while still guaranteeing that Quebec would retain its political weight of 24.35% within the House, the percentage it had when it was recognized as a nation in this House.

As much as we acknowledge that Bill C-20 is a step forward compared to the earlier versions, there is still a lot of work to be done before it will be acceptable. I condemn the fact that the Conservative government does not have enough strength to take action. At first glance, this so-called strong mandate is not translating into a willingness and a vision to truly move Canada forward. It takes guts, initiative and courage to turn words into action.

Yet when it comes to petty politics and pitting the provinces against each other, this government is one of the best. For proof, we need only look at the provinces' reactions to Bill C-20. With this government, it is one step forward, two steps back.

The problem is clear. the provinces want a number of seats that corresponds as closely as possible to their demographic weight. Since Quebec was recognized as a nation within Canada, it is asking to retain its weight at 24.35%.

The NDP is of the opinion that these two requests are fair and must be defended. The NDP believes that, in order for Canada to work better, it is absolutely necessary that the provinces and their unique characters be represented as accurately as possible. Only the NDP can do this because we have a much better understanding of what Canada wants. Our vision is to make Canada a true success, to make it the best country in the world. We want to debate the role of our parliamentary institutions with respect, rigour and, most importantly, a listening ear. This quality is essential.

The basic problems with the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons, namely the chronic under-representation of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia and the concrete recognition through action of the Quebec nation, are far from irreconcilable. However, there are still concerns. The fact that the Ontario premier is not hesitating to speak out shows his concern about this bill, which must be fair to Ontarians. The same goes for the premier of British Columbia, who is asking for no fewer than the seven seats that were provided for in a previous draft of the bill.

The Quebec Minister responsible for the Reform of Democratic Institutions feels the same way. He believes that Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons should not be decreased. In 2006, this House unanimously adopted a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada. The constitutional consequences of that decision are unclear. The NDP wants to maintain Quebec's weight in the House of Commons.

Given its status as a nation within a united Canada, Quebec has a special place and we must reflect that fact. All these examples clearly bring one undeniable fact into focus: the provinces are asking the government to listen to them. If the Conservative government continues to turn a deaf ear, it will soon be perceived within the federation of Canada as a steamroller that has little regard for the provinces. First, it was the Senate; now, it is the House of Commons. A trend is becoming painfully clear.

Not only do we need to move away from the verbal rhetoric of simply stating that Canada is the best country in the world, we also need to take real action to prove it. We need to do justice to Canada's diverse, complex character. Our parliamentary institutions need to reflect that. Openness to compromise and negotiation is essential.

I would like to know the point of undertaking reform if it is only done in half measures. In the wake of a slew of democratic deficits, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is suggesting that we merely apply a band-aid solution. Similar to the arbitrary and constitutionally questionable Senate reform this government wants to implement, this addition of seats to the House of Commons only masks the issues. And when it comes right down to it, no one will be happy.

Why does this government seem unable to successfully reform this country's parliamentary institutions? As the NDP has clearly stated, the first logical step is to consult provincial leaders. We are still at the bill stage and sensible improvements can still be made. But there is still one quality that is painfully lacking in this government: the ability to listen, the decency to listen to the provinces and other interest groups. This is not simply a trivial, procedural issue. We need to ensure that each Canadian citizen has the assurance that the House of Commons is a solid representation of the Canadian reality.

It is quite ironic that, because they have their blinders on, the Conservatives are unable to fully grasp Canada's complexity and diversity. This goes far beyond the simple addition of seats to the House of Commons, as the Conservative government is proposing. Creating more cynicism in and contributing to the alienation of the Canadian people with regard to federal politics is the last thing we want to introduce as legislation in Parliament. But it seems that the government's priority is exactly that.

The formula used to calculate how seats in the House of Commons are allocated is a reflection of Canada's diversity and complex nature. The grandfather and Senate floor clauses are proof of that. The idea of democratic representation goes far beyond these mathematical formulas, but we must look even further than that. The solution being proposed by the Conservative government does not address any of these demands. This bill leaves a number of provinces fundamentally under-represented in this House and it decreases the electoral weight of the Quebec nation.

However, all of these changes can be made, but the Conservatives do not seem to know what to do. To start, they offered some crumbs, then a little bit of meat, but at the end of the day, everyone ends up disappointed. That explains the NDP's disappointment with Bill C-20. The formula used to calculate the seats allocated to each province was changed from what the government presented in the last version of this bill, which was introduced in the previous Parliament. That was already different from the formula that is used now, which dates back to 1985.

I would like to focus on this subject for a moment because I have a hard time following this government's parliamentary gymnastics and acrobatics. First of all, Bill C-12, which was introduced in the House during the previous Parliament, changed the redistribution formula by changing the electoral quotient by which a province's population is divided.

The preamble of Bill C-12 states, and I quote, “Whereas the national average population of electoral districts at the 40th general election was approximately 108,000 persons...”. That is how it was determined that the electoral quotient, in order to divide the province's population—before applying special clauses—would be 108,000. They simply speculated at the time, with the help of estimates from Statistics Canada, about what the redistributed seats might look like using that formula. So this created certain expectations among the provinces. It is not surprising that Bill C-12 never passed.

Then comes along the current bill on fair representation. The Conservative camp has simply shuffled the cards to come up with a new formula for allocating seats to the provinces. Here is where the confusion begins. Here is what Bill C-20 says about the new electoral quotient to be used:

Whereas the electoral quotient for the readjustment that follows the completion of the 2011 decennial census should be 111,166, that number being the average population of the electoral districts on July 1, 2001, which was determined by using the estimate of the population of each province as at that date, multiplied by the average of the rates of population growth of the provinces.

If I understand correctly, the new electoral quotient comes from a mathematical formula that comes from an estimate of the current population that dates back to July 1, 2001. Two questions immediately come to mind. First of all, why use population estimates that are over 10 years old? Why the mathematical acrobatics? Is it because the statistics from back then are more reliable than today's? And second, why use the average rate of increase in the population of the provinces? As we have heard repeatedly in this House, the rates of increase in the population of each province are not all the same.

Ontario is growing faster than any other province. So why this levelling out? How can the government justify creating expectations among the provinces with Bill C-12, only to turn around and crush them so deviously and cunningly with Bill C-20? Did the government really expect the provinces to fall for this trick?

The issue of representation in the House of Commons is complex and goes beyond simple representation by population, a factor that is very important nonetheless. The Supreme Court issued an interesting opinion in this regard. On June 6, 1991, it concluded in The Attorney General for Saskatchewan v. Roger Carter that factors like geography, history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of the Canadian social mosaic.

This means that the bill to redistribute seats in the House of Commons must take other factors into account. No matter what this government says, this exercise in effective representation is not irreconcilable with equal representation of the provinces that have had significant population growth. In short, we must continue to work on this bill, listen to the provinces and arrive at a solution that benefits everyone.

I move, seconded by the member for Welland,

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, because it:

(a) adds and allocates new seats in the House of Commons in a way that would increase regional tensions in Canada;

(b) fails to take into account the need for a nation-building approach to changes in Canada's democratic representation; and

(c) ignores the principle unanimously adopted in this place that the Quebecois represent a nation within a united Canada.

Democratic Representation Act

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

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-312, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (democratic representation).

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to introduce my bill, which would amend 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. For decades, the provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta have been growing quickly, and therefore they are seriously under-represented in the House. This could be the case for a long time if nothing is done. However, despite repeated promises to restore democratic fairness in the country, the Conservatives are dragging their feet. During the last parliament, Bill C-12 was never called for debate by the government. When the government refuses to take action, the New Democrat official opposition rises to the occasion.

In doing so, the NDP is giving a real meaning to the formal recognition of the Quebec nation by the House on November 27, 2006, by proposing protection for Quebec's political weight, as unanimously called for by the Quebec National Assembly. My bill provides for a minimum representation with respect to the number of members for the province of Quebec.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this is the last one. I seek unanimous consent for the following motion. I move: That Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation), shall be deemed to have been read a second time and referred to a committee of the whole, deemed considered in committee of the whole, deemed reported without amendment, deemed concurred in at report stage and deemed read a third time and passed.

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to your ruling yesterday, we are working right now as we speak to comply on that issue and we will be responding in short order.

We will continue debate today on the Bloc opposition motion that began this morning.

Tomorrow, we will call for third reading of Bill C-55, the new veterans charter bill. I appreciate that there has been support for the passage of that bill. It is important for Canada's veterans and I am pleased that we have been able to come together on that.

Following Bill C-55, if time permits, we would debate Bill C-54, protecting children from sexual predators; Bill S-7, the justice for victims of terrorism; Bill C-8, the Canada-Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-12, the democratic representation bill, which is an important bill for my premier in Ontario and particularly for the people in both Alberta and British Columbia; Bill C-46, the Canada-Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-57, improving trade within Canada; Bill C-43, RCMP modernization; Bill C-52, investigating and preventing criminal electronic communications; and Bill C-50, improving access to investigative tools for serious crime.

With respect to the business for next week, I will be, among other places, working hard in my constituency for the people of Ottawa West--Nepean.

Democratic Representation

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today I am presenting a petition signed by 168 Quebeckers who refuse to see Quebec's weight in this House reduced. I presented this same petition before on November 29, 2010, with 143 signatures.

We know that the Conservative government introduced Bill C-12 to increase the number of seats in the House from 308 to 338. These new seats will go to British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. If this happens, Quebec's weight will be reduced from 24% to 22%. We know that in 1867 Quebec's weight was 36%. Quebec was recognized as a nation by this House, but now the government is going in the opposite direction. Clearly, this is one way to muzzle our nation and also to fight the Bloc Québécois, because this is the only way this government has found to try to secure a majority.

The purpose of this bill is to increase the number of seats in provinces where the Conservatives hope to gain political advantage. The petitioners are therefore asking that a minimum representation threshold of 25% of seats be set for Quebec so that our nation is adequately represented.

Opposition Motion—Representation in Parliament

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate, which serves to expand our reflections on the democratic institutions we need now and will need in the future. Everyone must recognize that there is currently a crisis in terms of traditional democratic representation, not only in Canada and Quebec, but also around the globe. This crisis in representative democracy is even more evident in Canada because of the continued existence of a completely archaic institution: the Senate.

The Bloc Québécois is not afraid of a debate on proportional representation. Everyone knows we do not have a definitive position on this, but we are very open to listening to all kinds of proposals. In a sovereign Quebec, we definitely would not have an archaic institution like the Senate. Perhaps we would have a proportional system or a house to represent the regions. It remains unknown. This allows me to take part in this debate with an open mind regarding the need to improve democratic institutions in all democratic countries.

The motion we are debating, moved by the member for Hamilton Centre, contains two elements. First of all, it talks about a referendum on the question of abolishing the Senate. Second, it proposes appointing a special committee for democratic improvement, whose mandate would be to engage with Canadians to determine what should replace the current system and to advise the government on the wording of a referendum question concerning abolition of the Senate.

We are comfortable with this motion, but on two conditions. The first is that the Senate be abolished only if voted on through a referendum and that, in Quebec, as was the case with Charlottetown in 1992, the referendum be held in accordance with Quebec's Referendum Act, which has already been used three times. This method of consulting the population has proven itself and should help avoid some of the pitfalls experienced in 1995, when the federal government decided not to respect the Referendum Act and made massive investments to support the forces on the no side.

In the debate among Quebeckers, the rules were followed and both the yes and no sides had equivalent means of expressing their points of view. I want to point out right now that we will support the NDP motion, but we must ensure that, in Quebec, the public is consulted in accordance with Quebec laws and regulations. We also agree with abolishing the Senate and with looking at a new voting system that would include elements of the proportional voting system. No other country but Israel has a truly proportional voting system. Most countries with such a voting system have elements of both representation based on ridings and representation based either on regions or on lists presented by political parties. There are a number of possible models. In Quebec during the time of René Lévesque, Robert Burns did some very important work that led to proposed reforms that, unfortunately, were never implemented.

With respect to the debate on a new form of representation in the House including elements of a proportional voting system, there is a set and established rule that Quebec's political weight cannot be less than its current political weight. That is not just one of Quebec's traditional demands. In the Charlottetown accord in 1992, all parties agreed that Quebec's representation within federal institutions should be at 25%. This is nothing new. We are opposed to Bill C-12, which would add 30 seats for the Canadian nation, because the representation of the Quebec nation within federal institutions—essentially this House of Commons—would be less than its current demographic and political weight, which is completely unacceptable for us.

The second condition is that, no matter which model is decided upon, as long as Quebeckers are part of the Canadian political landscape, their political weight within institutions, particularly the House of Commons and future political institutions—who knows, perhaps there might even be proposals to create a house of the regions—must remain as it is now, approximately 25%. That is the spirit as well the actual text of the amendment proposed by my colleague, the member for Québec, who is our democratic reform critic. We want to make it completely clear: the NDP motion will not be acceptable until it is modified by the amendment proposed by the member for Québec.

I would like to come back to the two major elements proposed by the member for Hamilton Centre. I will start with the abolition of the Senate. The Bloc Québécois has been calling for the abolition of the Senate for a very long time. The institution is completely archaic and dates to colonial times; it is a British legacy. High society has always distrusted the public. When the House of Commons was created, a counterbalance was thought to be necessary, as in London, consisting of representatives from society's elite to balance the decisions of those less thoughtful and rational than the elite. At that time, it was a question of the nobility and the upper classes. Now it is a question of Conservative organizers and friends of the regime. That is how it was with the Liberals, and that is how it is now with the Conservatives. It is an undemocratic counterbalance to the House, which is filled with democratically elected representatives of the people. It is completely archaic.

At the time, this fear of allowing the common people, the masses, to make decisions was reflected in American institutions as well. Tradition dictates that the electoral college votes according to the way the people in the various states have chosen their presidential electors. If, in the state of Massachusetts, for example, the majority of voters decide that the Democratic candidate should become president, then the presidential electors of that state will vote against the choice of the people of their state. However, there have been times when the presidential electors did not agree to vote for the candidate that had received the most support. That system was put in place after the American revolution, with the independence of the United States. It created a sort of second class. After the popular vote, there were these presidential electors who chose the president. This goes back to a time when the emerging democracy frightened the ruling elite.

The Canadian Senate is a legacy of that; it is a counterbalance. A few weeks ago, the Senate agreed to the decisions made by the House of Commons. Now, the Conservative-controlled Senate has decided to block bills adopted in the House by the majority of the members elected by the people. This is totally unacceptable. This only further proves the importance of getting rid of this archaic institution.

We have been in favour of abolishing the Senate for a very long time. However, let us not forget that the Senate is part of a constitutional agreement. We can certainly hold a consultative referendum on abolishing the Senate—and I hope the yes side wins—but there will have to be constitutional negotiations with Quebec and the provinces to determine how the Senate will be abolished and what will replace it.

The second element, a proportional voting system, or some of its aspects, will also require constitutional negotiations with Quebec and the provinces. Naturally, the special committee could make a certain number of recommendations and outline some options, but all decisions would require constitutional negotiations. As I have said from the beginning, we have one immutable condition: Quebec's political representation cannot be lowered, and Quebec must maintain its current political weight, at about 25%.

The House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation some time ago. Unfortunately, none of the federalist parties has wanted to implement measures to give tangible expression to this recognition. I introduced a bill on the application of the Charter of the French Language to the corporations and the 250,000 workers under federal jurisdiction in Quebec. We wanted Bill 101 to apply to these 250,000 workers. But once again, all the Liberals and Conservatives opposed this measure. The NDP was divided, but the majority of its members voted to not apply the Charter of the French Language to Quebec corporations under federal jurisdiction.

Although the Quebec nation has been recognized by the House, all federalist parties have always banded together to prevent this recognition from having a tangible expression. For me it is just a symbolic gesture. However, it will prove to be extremely useful when we win the referendum, which should happen soon with the election of the Parti Québécois in Quebec. Because Canada has recognized the Quebec nation, it will have no choice but to recognize Quebec's decision to embrace sovereignty. Although the recognition is symbolic, it is extremely important to Quebec and the sovereignist movement.

The federalist parties have not yet wanted to give tangible expression to the recognition of the Quebec nation. However, the political representation of Quebec regions in the House of Commons, and in any future institution, will have to be 25%. Although this does not appear in the motion, I am opening a door, I am engaging in fictional politics. The special committee could decide to establish a second chamber with different representation from, for example, the Atlantic provinces, Quebec, Ontario, the Prairie provinces and British Columbia. We believe this is imperative and it must be even clearer because the House of Commons has recognized the Quebec nation.

This is an important debate. In my opinion, the Liberal member raised a very important issue. In the debates that were held in Quebec, we discussed at length the difference between members who would be elected on the basis of their ridings and those who would be elected on the basis of the lists suggested by the political parties. There are advantages and disadvantages to both systems. What would be best is a combination of the systems in which proportional representation would be used but the regions and ridings would also have a say in the choice of members.

Personally, I see a problem in having some members be accountable to their constituents on the basis of their riding and others chosen on the basis of a party list. That is why I would prefer, particularly in a sovereign Quebec, that there be both proportional representation in the National Assembly and another chamber where the regions are represented to ensure that the voices of the smallest regions are not completely drowned out by the proportional representation. We could easily have a chamber with proportional representation, like the National Assembly, and another with more regional representation but still chosen via an electoral process. Such a system would ensure that representatives of that chamber would be linked to a region—in my case it would be the Lanaudière region—a little bit like in the American system.

I would like to close by saying that, for us, the best way to guarantee higher democratic standards in Quebec would be for Quebec to become a sovereign nation with full authority. That is our first priority. The Bloc Québécois has proven time and time again that it is not here to reform Canadian institutions or to prevent reform. However, we want it to be understood that our priority is certainly not to work toward the abolition of the Senate or toward a system of proportional representation across Canada but rather to work toward Quebec sovereignty.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the member's question, I would like to, on behalf of the government, add my voice to the voices of the member for Toronto Centre and the member for Winnipeg Centre who spoke about the passing of a distinguished member of the parliamentary press gallery, Jim Travers of The Toronto Star. He was a long-time member of the parliamentary press gallery and a former editor of the Ottawa Citizen. Jim would have been just 63 years old next month. His passing in the hospital was completely shocking and unexpected.

Jim was a top national journalist and a columnist who never was afraid to make his views known on the printed page and on the airwaves as a frequent guest on panel shows and talk radio. He was a passionate Canadian. He loved this country and he was incredibly committed to his craft. Canada has certainly lost a legend.

On behalf of all of us in this place, I offer our sincere condolences to Jim's wife Joan, his sons Patrick and Ben, and to the rest of his family and friends, and his colleagues especially from The Toronto Star who, I know, are deeply saddened by this loss, and, indeed, all of his colleagues in the parliamentary press gallery at this very difficult time. The thoughts and prayers of all Canadians are with Jim's family and many friends.

In terms of parliamentary business for the coming week, today we will continue debate on the NDP opposition motion. I thank my NDP counterpart, the member for Vancouver East, after our difference of opinion. We have worked to make Parliament work and we have come to an agreement that has been satisfactory to both sides. I also thank my opposition colleagues from Ottawa South and Joliette for their assistance and agreement in this matter.

Tomorrow, we will resume and hope to complete debate on Bill C-55, the enhanced new veterans charter that our colleague, the Minister of Veterans Affairs, has introduced. Following Bill C-55, we will move to call Bill C-60, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons).

Next week, we will continue with the business on Friday and, in addition, we will call Bill C-20, the action plan for the National Capital Commission; Bill C-54, the child sexual offences; Bill C-8, the Canada–Jordan free trade agreement; Bill C-12, the democratic representation; Bill C-46, the Canada–Panama free trade agreement; Bill C-57, improving trade within Canada, brought forward by the Minister for Small Business; and Bill C-50, improving access to investigative tools for serious crimes, which is an important bill sponsored by our colleague, the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.

My friend from Ottawa South and the member for Vancouver East mentioned a solicitation for financial funds on parliamentary letterhead.

Mr. Speaker, as the chair of the Board of Internal Economy, I think it would be wise for you to place this issue before the Board of Internal Economy. There have been several complaints about opposition members soliciting campaign funds on government websites and perhaps the board could discuss that at the same time.

With respect to Bill S-10 and Bill C-49, we continue to make our case to Canadians and are working hard to convince the Liberal Party of the wrong decision it has made on these important piece of legislation. We will call for further debate in due course.

Opposition Motion--Representation in Parliament

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, when I assumed the office of Minister of State for Democratic Reform I reviewed the critiques and comments from the people of Ontario, Alberta and B.C., and that is why we introduced Bill C-12, which would increase the number of seats for Ontario to 18, 5 for Alberta and 7 for B.C., respecting the principle of representation by population.

The fact is the NDP, by bringing forward this motion, does not respect the principle of representation by population because it supports 25% of the seats for Quebec, which is completely against what the member just said. I respect the member, but the logic of his argument does not carry through and the numbers do not lie.

We are bringing forward a straightforward piece of legislation for representation by population. We respect Quebec as a nation. That is why we do not want it to lose 24 seats in the Senate, and that is what the NDP is advocating. The NDP is advocating for the loss of 24 seats in the Senate, bringing down Quebec's representation in Parliament. We want to ensure that Quebec's seat total in the entire Parliament of Canada, the House of Commons and the Senate, is not reduced. The Bloc and the NDP are reducing those numbers.

We want to ensure fair representation throughout Canada and NDP members should be ashamed of themselves.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Madam Speaker, this is a very important discussion on the amendment that the Bloc has brought forward.

The member is from British Columbia. I have heard from many British Columbians who feel they are under-represented in the House of Commons, that their vote, compared to votes in my province of Manitoba, is worth less because B.C. has more citizens per riding than Manitoba.

With Bill C-12, the government is trying to ensure, as much as practical, that votes are equal across the country, that every vote has the same impact from the election of an MP perspective. What the member is suggesting is far off that and moves away from the principle of representation by population.

By supporting the Bloc motion, the member is weakening the voice of British Columbia in the Parliament of Canada. How could the member expect to be re-elected because the people of B.C.—

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as the Bloc Québécois critic for democratic reform to speak to the motion moved by the member for Hamilton Centre. The NDP member's motion contains many elements, including the holding of a referendum on the question of amending the Referendum Act in order to abolish the existing Senate and to appoint a special committee for democratic improvement made up of 12 members. The motion also defines how the special committee would operate. Today I would like to focus on point (a), which is the most important and which reads as follows:

the House recognize the undemocratic nature of the current form of representation in the Parliament of Canada, specifically the unnecessary Senate and a House of Commons that does not accurately reflect the political preferences of Canadians;

I would like to examine this point from two angles: the undemocratic nature of the current form of representation in Parliament, specifically the House of Commons, and the unnecessary nature of the Senate. In that regard, we quite agree with the NDP.

Bills on democratic reform have been coming up over and over again for the past few sessions. This time around, we have Bill C-12, which aims to change the formula for calculating the number of members per province to increase the total number of members to 338. The distribution of new seats would be as follows: five more for Alberta, seven for British Columbia and 18 for Ontario. That would give us a total of 338 members, compared to the 308 we have now. This bill, if passed, would have a direct impact on Quebec's weight in the House of Commons, which would drop from 24.3% to 22.19%. Quebec would be even more marginalized compared to its current weight in the House.

It is of the utmost importance to maintain Quebec's weight in the House because Quebec is the only majority francophone state in North America and because Quebeckers are a unique linguistic minority on this continent. Louis Massicotte, a political scientist at Laval University, published an article on federal electoral redistribution entitled “Quelle place pour le Québec? Étude sur la redistribution électorale fédérale”. It is also more important than ever to protect our language and our culture when negotiating free trade agreements. We are talking about the cradle of the Quebec nation, which this House recognized in November of 2006, although, in practice, this means nothing to the Conservative government.

Make no mistake. If the government is insisting on increasing the weight of these particular provinces, it is because they are its stronghold or because it hopes to make political gains there. By going forward with this democratic reform, the Conservative government is claiming that it wants to respect democracy. However, the Conservatives are not fooling anyone. They are masters of flouting democracy. For example, they prorogued Parliament to avoid votes. They failed to follow the House's orders to submit documents, in particular, documents on the transfer of Afghan prisoners. They refused to appear before parliamentary committees. They recommended that unelected senators vote against bills that were passed by a majority of votes in the House, thus going against the will of the people. In 2008, they also failed to abide by their own legislation on fixed election dates.

The government is blatantly misleading the House and the public, as in the case involving the Minister of International Cooperation. I could go on but there are other points I would like to make.

Any recommendation in the House made by a special committee should not only take into account the current demographic weight of Quebec in the House of Commons, but it should also ensure that this weight is maintained because under no circumstance should Quebec's weight be any less than it currently is in the House.

In its current form, the Senate is unnecessary. It is a vehicle for partisan politics. Ever since the minority Conservative government came to power, it has been using this vehicle to introduce bills that the House of Commons opposes, in order to go against the will of the House of Commons. I cited a few examples, but there are many more.

Going against the will of the elected members of the House of Commons is completely anti-democratic in that this opposition comes from people whose legitimacy comes from a partisan appointment, unlike the legitimacy of the members of Parliament, which comes from the people.

We do not have to look too far back to find an example. Just consider Bill C-311. Bill C-311, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, was supported by the Bloc Québécois and the majority of the legitimately elected members of the House of Commons. The bill imposed binding greenhouse gas reduction targets to ensure that Canada respects the IPCC recommendation and the requirement to submit a significant action plan every five years. The Prime Minister allowed the Senate to deny the will of the Parliament of Quebeckers and Canadians by allowing Conservative senators to defeat Bill C-311 without even studying it.

Yet, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister declared that an unelected chamber should not block bills from an elected one. He then did an about-face and is now making use of the Conservative senators. He made sure that he appointed the majority of senators to the Senate to ensure that they would block bills or motions that Parliament had adopted and sent to the Senate and that they would introduce bills before members of Parliament even had a chance to speak to them.

When the seats of Liberal senators opened up, the Prime Minister made sure to appoint loyal Conservatives. By allowing their senators to vote against Bill C-311 without even studying it, the Conservatives created a precedent, a first since 1930, and showed a flagrant lack of respect for our democratic institutions.

The Conservative senators also managed to block certain bills passed by the House and sent to the Senate to be studied. Take, for example, Bill C-288, regarding the tax credit for new graduates working in designated regions, introduced by my colleague from Laurentides—Labelle, or Bill C-232, An Act to amend the Supreme Court Act (understanding the official languages), which would require Supreme Court judges to be bilingual. The Prime Minister could be confident that the senators would vote against these bills. In both cases, the Senate blocked the bills. On May 5, Bill C-288 received the support of a majority of MPs in the House of Commons. For the second time in less than three years, it was sent to the Senate. Since then, it has only been debated twice. Bill C-288 would help thousands of young people who want to study and remain in the regions, some of which are struggling economically.

With Bill C-232, the Conservatives were trying to buy some time. They kept delaying study of the bill until they had a majority in the Senate. The Conservative government is taking advantage of the fact that it controls the Senate in order to dictate its agenda. It is one thing for the Conservative government to oppose a measure, but to recommend that the Senate prevent debate on these two bills is unacceptable.

This shows the Conservative government's contempt for the will of the democratically elected parliamentarians. I should point out that the Liberals were no better and also used some schemes to delay passage of bills. Nonetheless, they never went as far as the Conservatives are going. In 2006, by the way, the Conservatives campaigned on reforming the Senate and making it more legitimate. That was one of the Prime Minister's promises.

That is why this Conservative government introduced a bill to reform Senate terms and limit them to eight years. That bill does nothing to reform this outdated, archaic institution where appointments are strictly partisan. That bill does nothing to remedy the nature of the Senate. The Prime Minister has transformed it into “a permanent office for his organizers, a waiting room for his Montreal candidates, and an absolute circus by the use of his surprising appointments, to describe them politely”, according to Vincent Marissal from La Presse.

The democratic deficit in the Senate and its extraordinarily partisan nature derive from the choices made by the Fathers of Confederation in 1867. From an academic standpoint, the upper house or senate in a federal system must represent the federated entities alongside a lower chamber, in our case, the House of Commons.

According to Réjean Pelletier, a political scientist and a professor in the political science department at Laval University, it is clear that this is not the case in the Canadian Parliament. In 1867, the Fathers of Confederation could have chosen the American model, where senators are elected by state legislatures and all states have equal weight, with the ability to elect two senators for a six-year term.

Instead, the Fathers of Confederation copied the British House of Lords and thus made the Senate a chamber that reviews legislation passed by the House of Commons. So the Senate is a chamber of sober second thought that moderates the overly democratic ways of the lower house, which is subject to pressure and emotional pleas from the public. But it no longer plays that role. What is more, senators were supposed to be appointed by the crown.

The idea of representing and defending the interests of federated entities did not come up in the discussions prior to the signing of the British North America Act. And from that stems our objection to the Senate, with its lack of legitimacy and representation.

Given that the Senate has become a partisan tool for the ruling Conservative Party and that it lacks both legitimacy and representation, it is not surprising that the public is angry about senators' spending.

According to an article by Stéphanie Marin in the January 27, 2011 edition of La Tribune, it would cost $90 million a year to keep the Senate in place. I do not remember the exact number, but I believe that 60% or 70% of Quebeckers supported abolishing the Senate.

We also learned in January that some senators are incurring excessive if not extravagant expenses. Conservative senators have not stopped sending mail-outs despite the fact that, in the spring of 2010, the House of Commons prohibited members from sending these types of mail-outs outside their ridings and specified that the Senate should follow suit.

It is important to note that the total printing budget for the Senate increased from $280,500 to $734,183 in 2008-09. Last month, the senators gave themselves the right to use taxpayers' dollars to continue to send mail-outs in which they can attack members.

To remedy the representation and legitimacy deficits and truly reform the Senate—to create a Senate where senators are actual representatives of Quebec and the provinces who are appointed or elected by legitimate authorities in Quebec, such as Quebec's National Assembly, and in the provinces and where there is equal representation for Quebec and the provinces resulting in a truly effective and non-partisan upper house as they have in other countries—we would have to proceed with a constitutional reform that would require agreement from seven provinces representing at least 50% of the population. We know that this would be practically impossible because we would have to reopen the Constitution.

The Bloc Québécois does not oppose this motion given that the Senate, in its current state, is unnecessary and that the current method of democratic representation has many shortcomings, such as the ones I have already mentioned. However, the Bloc's support for this motion is conditional upon the inclusion of two basic elements. First, Quebec's political weight must not be reduced at all as a result of any democratic reform. Second, under Quebec's referendum legislation, a referendum must be held in Quebec on the abolition of the Senate.

I would like to make two amendments to the NDP's motion. I move, seconded by the member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges:

That the motion be amended:

(a) by adding after the words “the next general election,” the following:

“with the understanding that, in Quebec, such a referendum will be subject to Quebec law, in accordance with the current Referendum Act and as established as a precedent by the 1992 Referendum on the Charlottetown Accord,”;

(b) by adding after the words “recommendations to the House” the following:

“that in no way reduce the current weight of the Quebec nation in the House of Commons”. .

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to the opposition day motion on electoral reform and Senate abolition that was moved by the hon. member for Hamilton Centre.

The motion that we are considering calls on the House to recognize the undemocratic nature of the current form of representation in the Parliament of Canada. It asks that the government propose amendments to the Referendum Act in order to allow the holding of a referendum on the Senate abolition at the same time as the next general election. It also calls for the establishment of a special committee on democratic improvement whose mandate would be to engage with Canadians and make recommendations to the House on how to implement a new electoral system that would combine direct elections with electoral districts and proportional representation.

I would like to thank the hon. member for moving this motion. As Minister of State for Democratic Reform, I am always pleased to have a robust discussion about democratic reform issues and I look forward to today's debate.

While I am grateful that today will bring attention to democratic reform issues, I am disappointed that we will be spending time debating the reforms proposed in this motion, rather than working together to achieve real and attainable goals that this government has already set out on this topic.

For example, I point to the premise that representation in the Parliament in Canada is somehow undemocratic. Canada has a long history of democracy and Canadians are lucky to enjoy the very healthy system for which we all can be very proud. For example, all Canadians over the age of 18 hold the right to vote, there are free and fair elections and the administration of such elections is overseen by the independent Elections Canada. Elections are held on a regular basis, which allows citizens to hold government to account.

Therefore, the comment that this place is undemocratic just does not hold water, especially comparing Canada to other countries. Canada was compared to Egypt earlier. That is just not fair to Canadians or even to the people of Egypt because they are really fighting for even the seeds of democracy.

I would also like to talk about the electoral boundaries. These boundaries are redrawn on a regular basis by an independent commission that ensures ridings are designed in a fair , non-partisan way.

Finally, we have Elections Canada that provides for secret ballots, regulates political financing and ensures the integrity of the entire electoral machine.

Despite all the positive aspects of a democratic system, I do agree that there are fundamental elements that can be improved, and that is the principle of representation by population. The government introduced the democratic representation act to ensure that representation in the House of Commons would be fair and that Canadian votes, to the greatest extent possible, would carry equal weight.

The House of Commons no longer reflects fair representation of all provinces. This is particularly the case in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. The democratic representation act would amend the constitutional formula for the re-adjustment of seats in the House of Commons so that future adjustments would better reflect the democratic representation of faster growing provinces while protecting the seat counts of other provinces.

For example, the province of Ontario would receive approximately 18 more seats, Alberta would receive 5 and British Columbia would receive 7, which, of course, depends on the census results. However, it is a step forward and I hope the NDP will support this government's legislation on representation by population.

On the issue of the unnecessary Senate, our government believes that the Senate does play an important role in our parliamentary system, particularly with respect to the reviewing of legislation and the representation of regions and minority interests. We also believe that members of the Senate perform valuable work.

It is no secret that our government believes that the upper chamber, in its current form, does not reflect the ideals of the 21st century democracy in Canada. Furthermore, we believe the Senate has a legitimacy problem that is directly linked to the method of selection of senators.

Rather than simply doing away with a parliamentary institution, we have advocated for its reform. We believe the Senate should be reformed to become a more modern, accountable and effective chamber that Canadians deserve. In order to move forward with such a reform, we have introduced the senatorial selection act which encourages provinces and territories to establish a democratic process to consult voters on candidates they want for Senate appointments. Provinces, such as Manitoba, have looked into this and have suggested senatorial districts.

The member who moved the motion is very keen on proportional representation. Perhaps that is a method that could be used in the upper chamber.

The upper chamber, I will reflect, is quite different than the lower chamber. In the lower chamber, votes of confidence occur and the first past the post system is much more appropriate. In the upper chamber, perhaps there are other methods and we are open to discussing this with Canadians and other parties. Certainly Bill S-8 reflects our willingness to look at other ways of selecting senators.

The Prime Minister has always been clear that he is committed to appointing elected Senators, and has done so at his only opportunity.

The Prime Minister would appoint senators who are directly selected by the people of the provinces. It is very significant that the Prime Minister is willing to give that power to the people, in effect.

Our government has also introduced legislation that would limit senators to eight years in a non-renewable term. This would allow enough time for senators to gain experience while ensuring that the upper chamber would be refreshed with new ideas on a regular basis.

Despite our government's willingness to be flexible on reforms and to work with stakeholders to find common ground, we have not been able to count on the co-operation that is needed from the opposition parties to make Senate reform a reality. Today's motion proposes a referendum on the Senate abolition. I have concerns about this. Specifically, I have concerns about referendums in general and particularly on the issue at hand.

When we talk about referendums, I would note that national referendums have been held only occasionally in Canada. There was the 1992 Charlottetown accord process, there was a referendum in 1942 regarding conscription and in 1898 on prohibition. It is a rarely used vehicle. While referendums can be used and be useful in engaging Canadians on questions of fundamental importance to the country, we have seen from previous experience that they can also be very divisive along regional and linguistic lines.

The motion also proposes to hold referendums at the next general election. As the motion acknowledges, the Referendum Act does not currently permit a referendum to be held at the same time as a general election, an issue that is divisive in itself. Referendums held during general elections can be done more cost effectively but, on the other hand, issues of a referendum can dominate the election period at the expense of the general electoral campaign.

I would also note that the opposition coalition has been threatening a general election within weeks. It would obviously be impossible to implement this motion before the next general election, which could happen within weeks. I hope the opposition does not call an election because it is not in the interests of Canadians and certainly not in the interests of the economy. The government wishes to work with other parties to ensure that the next general election does not happen for a long time.

In 1992, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing found that in jurisdictions where referendums had been held with general elections, voter turnout tends to be lower and those who vote represent a small cross-section of the general population. In fact, in its 1992 report the royal commission found that having referendums at the same time as general elections was not a good idea.

More recently, in November 2009, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs began its review on the Referendum Act. Among other things, the committee was considering this very question. It has not yet completed its study and perhaps it would be more prudent to wait for the recommendations before making a decision on this issue.

On the issue of a referendum on the abolition of the Senate, I must say that I find the idea simplistic. Polls have continuously shown that Canadians support Senate reform. A recent poll on Senate reform found that two-thirds of Canadians would like to directly elect the Senate while only 30% support the abolition of the Senate. As the Prime Minister has said, abolition should be the last resort and all members of Parliament should be focused on making our government's reasonable Senate reform agenda a reality.

Participation in the political process by exercising one's right to vote is a cornerstone of our democracy. Of all forms of civic engagement, voting is perhaps the simplest and most important. That is why the idea of reforming Canada's voting system cannot be treated lightly.

At the outset, I would like say that I find the portion of the motion concerning electoral reform perplexing. The proposal is to create a special committee on democratic improvement that, among other things, would be responsible to engage Canadians, “on how best to achieve a House of Commons that more accurately reflects the votes of Canadians by combining direct election by electoral district and proportional representation”. However, the committee would not be mandated to ask Canadians what voting system they would like to have.

The motion presumes that Canadians are dissatisfied with our current system and eliminates the possibility for voters to propose another system, such as a preferential system which the United Kingdom will hold a referendum on this spring. However, it strongly suggests that the first past the post system will be preferred there as well.

Moreover, while the intent of the motion may be to obtain the views of voters on electoral reform, it did not propose a referendum on electoral reform, even though it prescribes abolishing the Senate. So there is obviously a contradiction in the logic.

Like Senate reform, electoral reform has received much attention in recent years. However, while there seems to be general consensus that the majority of Canadians support some form of Senate reform, this is not necessarily the case when it comes to changing our electoral system.

Voting system reform has been put to voters in three different provinces, British Columbia twice, Ontario and Prince Edward Island, and it has been rejected every single time. After significant citizen engagement efforts in these provinces, particularly British Columbia which included citizen assemblies, voters in each province were given the opportunity to vote in referendums on changes to the electoral system. In each case, they favoured the existing system.

In 2007, the Conservative government completed a series of cross-country consultations as well as a national poll in order to consult Canadians on democratic reform issues, including our electoral system.

The participants, who were broadly representative of Canadians at large, expressed satisfaction with the first past the post system and were disinclined to fundamental change. In particular, they valued the electoral system that produces clear winners, such as single party, majority governments that are more common under first past the post, than other forms of PR. This first past the post system also allows voters to hold governments accountable for their performance.

Although a system of proportional representation is not appropriate for the House of Commons, if the senatorial selection act is passed, provinces would be free to use proportional representation or any other democratic system for selecting Senate nominees that directly consults with the members and citizens of the province. This should be a reason why the NDP should support our Senate reform agenda. I would be interested to hear from them on why they would not.

Not every voting system is perfect, but we have a very good system here in Canada. I agree that there needs to be democratic reform and we are moving forward with democratic reform. We have taken big money out of politics by limiting campaign finances. We are trying to ensure that the House of Commons better reflects the population of the people of Canada and where they live.

This is what Bill C-12 does. It is representation by population, a principle that the vast majority of Canadians support. The Senate is designed to reflect the will of the regions. This is important in a federated model such as Canada where we have 10 provinces and three territories. It is important to have that balance.

We have proposed eight year term limits in the Senate in Bill C-10.

Bill C-10 would allow for the reduction of 45-year terms, which the NDP member correctly suggested there was an accountability and legitimacy issue. This bill would help to address that. Also, Bill S-8 would allow for the people of the provinces to select their senators.

This is a much more practical way to move forward on Senate reform. It is constitutional. It is a step-by-step approach that is easily understood. In fact, one could argue that what the NDP has suggested, which would require a huge constitutional change, is a statement of support for the status quo. All reasonable commentators, including in recent editorials in the Toronto Star, National Post and throughout the media, know there is no political appetite for these types of huge constitutional negotiations, like what occurred in the 1980s and 1990s. People want us to focus on the economy and other priorities of Canadians. They do not want use to get involved with deep constitutional quagmires.

I ask NDP members to take their energy, focus it on moving forward with the government's reform agenda, support Senate reform, support Senate term limits, support Senate elections, support representation by population, support our Bill C-12 and support our other initiatives to increase voter participation and campaign finance reform.

Again, I thank the hon. member for Hamilton Centre for raising this very important issue, and may God keep our land glorious and free.

Business of the House

[John Baird, Conservative, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, boy, have I mellowed. I would not have said such nice things about the Badger even just a few short years ago, but I have mellowed and have become so quiet and soft-spoken since I arrived on Parliament Hill.

I would like to the thank the House leader for the official opposition for his questions.

With respect to Bill S-10, it is an incredibly important piece of legislation that goes after people who traffic in drugs, sell drugs to our children and who traffic in date rape drugs, which is something that is incredibly serious in many parts of the country. We want to see that bill passed and we will move forward on a path to allow it to be passed.

With respect to the bill on human trafficking, we want to see that passed. Again, it is an important piece of legislation. We do not want to provide the Liberal Party with an early opportunity to kill that good piece of legislation. I know they are anxious to kill legislation that is tough on crime, but we are going to stay focused.

Getting back to the business of the House, we will continue today with the Bloc opposition motion.

The parties are currently negotiating a way to proceed with Bill C-59, An Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (accelerated parole review) and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. This is a modified version of what makes up part of Bill C-39, a bill that has been at the public safety committee since October 20, 2010. This is an important piece of legislation. The thrust of it has already received agreement in principle from this House. We will be continuing the negotiations on it, or dances, depending on how one defines that, with all parties on this issue.

Given that Bill C-59 will prevent fraudsters from getting out of jail after serving only one-sixth of their sentence, I hope there is sufficient support to move on this initiative without further delay. Tomorrow, therefore, we will either debate Bill C-59 or a procedural motion relating to Bill C-59.

Following Bill C-59, the government intends on calling Bill C-42, Strengthening Aviation Security Act; Bill C-46, Canada-Panama Free Trade Act; Bill C-55, Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act; Bill C-20, An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission; Bill C-8, Canada-Jordan Free Trade Act; Bill C-57, Improving Trade Within Canada Act; Bill C-50, Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes Act; and Bill C-12, Democratic Representation Act.

I could come back with more if we could get all of these bills passed on Monday.

That is the agenda for next week.

[John Baird, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, we are working hard to make Parliament work. I know that when it comes to Bill C-49, the Liberal House leader and his caucus want to kill Bill C-49. They do not want to send it to committee. We will call Bill C-49 for debate. We will call it for a vote and we look forward to members going on record to take their positions on that very clearly.

The government continues to make Parliament work and has been able to move our legislative agenda forward this week. I thank all members of the House for passing Bill S-6 Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act, which would get rid of the faint hope clause, and make its way through the House of Commons. I think that was a good day. There were a number of victims' representatives in the gallery and I was very proud of that, as I think all members should be. We also passed Bill C-48 Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act, which will move to the other place.

Today we will continue the debate on the report stage of Bill C-46 Canada-Panama Free Trade Act, Following Bill C-46, we will call Bill S-10 Penalties for Organized Drug Crime Act, and Bill C-55 Enhanced New Veterans Charter Act.

Next week we will continue with the unfinished business from this week, plus Bill C-57 Improving Trade Within Canada Act; Bill C-50 Improving Access to Investigative Tools for Serious Crimes Act; Bill C-12 Democratic Representation Act; and Bill C-20 An Action Plan for the National Capital Commission, .

To respond to the Liberal House leader's question, we will have opposition days scheduled for Tuesday, February 8 and Thursday, February 10, which would be for the Bloc Québécois.

I also will be giving priority to any bill that is reported from committee so that we can continue to move the legislative agenda forward.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I will start with the hon. member's last question first.

The member is right, that was an extremely long question. I pointed out to this place that the Liberals were making it a common practice of writing questions that should be divided into several questions rather than just one. The question that I read into the record of this House took over 15 minutes to read. It is an attempt by the Liberal Party, continuous attempts by the Liberals, to obfuscate, to delay the proceedings of this House and to, quite frankly, impede the ability of government departments to get on with important government legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that you, in your wisdom, will rule on that very important point of order as quickly as possible.

With respect to the business today, we will continue with the Liberal opposition motion and business of supply. Tomorrow we will hopefully complete the final stage of C-30, Response to the Supreme Court of Canada Decision in R. v. Shoker Act. Following Bill C-30, we will call, at report stage, Bill S-6, Serious Time for the Most Serious Crime Act.

On Monday, we will continue with any business not concluded this week, with the addition of Bill C-43, Royal Canadian Mounted Police Modernization Act, and Bill C-12, Democratic Representation Act.

On Tuesday, we would like to complete the third reading stage of Bill C-21, Standing up for Victims of White Collar Crime Act.

Next week, we will also give consideration to any bills that are reported back from committee. Further, if time permits, we would also debate next week Bill C-38, Ensuring the Effective Review of RCMP Civilian Complaints Act; Bill C-50; Bill C-51, Investigative Powers for the 21st Century Act; Bill C-53, Fair and Efficient Criminal Trials Act; and Bill C-19, Political Loans Accountability Act.

Finally, on Tuesday evening, we will have a take-note debate on the trade agreement with the European Union, and on that subject, I would ask my colleague, the chief government whip, to move the appropriate motion.

Statistics Act

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank all hon. members for speaking to the bill. I also thank the Speaker for his excellent ruling that the bill does not require a royal recommendation and therefore we hope to be voting on it and getting it to committee as quickly as possible so that we can get this bill into law.

The bill speaks to the government's failure in two ways. What it is doing is harmful and unthinkable. How it has done it is the absolute worst of what we are seeing in the government in terms of its undemocratic approach and its approach to the citizens of this country.

It is the ultimate, top-down, misguided, father-knows-best paternalism that we have seen since coming to this place. This seems to have been on the bucket list of the Prime Minister, who does not want to measure things, does not want to know where there is inequality, does not want to have to remedy things that are wrong, because in some ways that is just what the census is. It is a report card on how we are doing in our country and how we are dealing with inequalities in our country.

The members opposite show audacity trying to prove that it does not really matter and that this is an issue of privacy. I would think the former Chief Statistician would be appalled that the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar would be using his name and a quote from him to defend something that he is so vehemently opposed to. It is a disgrace. She is switching the words about privacy in a way that is dishonest and misleading to Canadians.

The thing about the census is that it is anonymous data. If people do not want the government to know what religion they are, the government will not know what religion they are after they have filled out the census. It is the continued use of the words “intrusive” and “coercive” that have been so destructive. As we learned this morning in the access to information, because of this ongoing litany of “coercive” and “intrusive” from the minister and the members opposite, there is serious concern, and there was serious concern expressed last year, that this ongoing disrespect for the need for a mandatory census will actually do a disservice to the short form census and even that will end up having less accurate data.

As was said this morning by The Canadian Press:

One of the key worries was that people might think that the basic census form, which asks Canadians where they live, their ages, sexes and the language they speak, was also voluntary.

“Many Canadians may interpret the voluntary long form as applying as well to the mandatory short form,” reads the briefing note, released under the Access to Information Act.

“This would, in Statistics Canada's view, create an unacceptable risk to the credibility of the population count derived from the short-form census.”

If fewer people fill out the short form, the statistics agency warned it would affect federal transfers to the provinces and the distribution of Commons seats

That is what the government seems to be trying to confuse us with in terms that even Bill C-12 would not work without a proper response to the census, and it is time that it brought Bill C-12 back to the House as well.

The article goes on to say that the number of Canadians filling out the forms potentially could decrease by as much as 40%.

The word “mandatory” also places an obligation on the government to follow up. I think the most poignant testimony we had at the industry committee this summer was from ITK's Elisapee Sheutiapik, who said there was an amazing partnership that had developed in the Arctic communities, and about how, even though they are a community intimidated by forms, particularly because some of the elders do not speak English, that having someone who has been trained through Stats Canada going house to house, they are very comfortable having that person come and help fill out those forms, and they want to Canadians to know that there is an average of 16 people living in that house and that is unacceptable.

So as we go forward, it is a matter of saying that the government has refused to honour the opposition day motion. We hope that it will, for once, as the Prime Minister said so many times before, honour the will of the House and do the right thing, enshrine it in the Statistics Act and get on with the 2011 census that we all need.

Democratic Reform

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister has been clear and unequivocal in restating our government's commitment to move forward with Bill C-12, the democratic representation bill. We believe that each Canadian vote, to the greatest extent possible, should carry equal weight. That is why we are taking a very principled approach in striking a balance between ensuring fairer representation for the faster growing provinces, while keeping the seat count constant for the remaining provinces.

We ask all coalition partners to support this very important initiative.

[Peter Braid, Conservative, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, our government is committed to democratic representation and to Bill C-12. That is why we support giving B.C., Alberta and Ontario their fair representation in Parliament. Canadians in these fastest growing provinces deserve more representation.

Could the government House leader update this place on the status of Bill C-12, the democratic representation bill.

Democratic Representation

[Maria Mourani, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will present another petition, this one completely acceptable, from a number of people. The petition concerns Bill C-12, which would reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons. All of the signatories are totally opposed to this bill and want the House to know.

I encourage my colleagues to reconsider this bill, which, in some ways, is seen as unfair in Quebec.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am presenting today a petition signed by Quebeckers who refuse to see the weight of Quebec in this House be reduced.

The Conservative government introduced in the House Bill C-12, to increase the number of seats from 308 to 338. But this increase would only be for Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, which would mean that Quebec's weight would be reduced from 24% to 22%. We know that, in 1867, Quebec's weight was 36%. Yet, Quebec was recognized as a nation by this House. Clearly, this is one way to muzzle our nation, and also to fight the Bloc Québécois, because this is the only way this government has found to try to secure a majority.

The petitioners ask that a minimum representation threshold of 25% of seats be set for Quebec, so that our nation is represented adequately in accordance with its political weight.

Opposition Motion—Prorogation

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal opposition day motion covers some things that are already being done. A legislative committee is working on the prorogation issue. Still, the main advantage of this motion is that it gives us the opportunity to discuss the December prorogation again. The government realized that that was a serious mistake, and it is trying to make us forget about it. As this session comes to a close, I believe it is not a bad idea to look at the Conservative government's overall behaviour by means of this motion, which I must say is not the most original motion I have ever heard.

That said, though, I do think the motion gives us a chance to take stock of the anti-democratic behaviour of the Conservative government and the Prime Minister. Of course, we will not vote for this motion if the amendment is not passed, because it would be pretty odd to vote to set up a special committee that would have to report next Wednesday. We reserve our decision on this. The motion is an opportunity to take stock of how this government has behaved in the House since 2006.

Things would have been different if last December had been the first time the government had used prorogation, a perfectly legitimate mechanism in the British parliamentary tradition whereby the Governor General is asked to prorogue the session. We would have understood if the government had asked for a prorogation for the first time because it had nearly completed its legislative agenda and the bills it had introduced over the months had been debated, amended, passed, defeated or what have you.

But December was the second time the government and the Prime Minister used prorogation to avoid answering the opposition's questions and facing up to their responsibilities. So we are completely within our right to criticize and challenge the government's actions, because the only purpose of last December's prorogation was to suppress allegations that Afghan detainees transferred by the Canadian Forces to the Afghan authorities were tortured. We all know about it now, so the government's tactic did not work. But the fact that it did not work is not why it was the wrong thing to do.

Earlier the parliamentary secretary talked about what a waste it would be to create a new committee. Was there any bigger waste this year, in 2010, than the month of parliamentary work the Conservatives made us lose? They supposedly tried to make up for lost time by getting rid of break weeks. That was the biggest waste there ever was.

The money spent on the G8 and the G20, the fake lake and the virtual decor is one thing but this is on an entirely different plane. We are talking here about a month of parliamentary work that could have prevented what happened yesterday when the government pulled out of its hat a bill that was introduced in mid-May. The government did not bring the bill back to the House until June 6 or 7 and told us, a few days before the end of the session, that the bill was absolutely necessary for preventing a notorious criminal, Ms. Homolka, from applying for a pardon.

Why did the government not wake up sooner? In part because we lost a month of parliamentary work as a result of this unnecessary prorogation. And then the government tried, as it has many times before, to push through a bill that we are not prepared to accept without amendments. We voted to refer Bill C-23 to committee in order to study it seriously and to amend it. The government wanted to impose its agenda on us.

The Bloc Québécois stood firm. I am pleased to note that the other opposition parties did so as well. The Liberal Party in particular stood firm for once. We forced the government to accept a compromise that everyone could agree on. The bulk of Bill C-23 will be studied in committee and we will take the time to amend it in order to change what we dislike about it.

Our experience yesterday with the drama invented by the Minister of Public Safety and the Conservative government could have been avoided had we used the month of February to examine bills already introduced and if the government had better planned its work.

I will give an example. Why was it urgent to pass Bill C-2 on the Canada-Colombia free trade agreement? Was it really urgent that it pass? The government devoted all kinds of time, effort and resources to try to ram the bill down the throat of the NDP and the Bloc Québécois, even though our trade with Colombia is very limited. Furthermore, the human rights situation and democratic rights in Colombia are cause for a great deal of concern.

We could have used the parliamentary time to examine Bill C-23 earlier. However, the government decided otherwise. It is its right and responsibility, but it did not make responsible choices. This is all the result of the Prime Minister's decision of December 30, 2009 to prorogue the session until early March.

There is another negative aspect. Thirty-six bills died on the order paper, including 19 justice bills. That is an indication of the hypocrisy of the Conservative's rhetoric on justice. Once again, the government told us that it was proroguing to recalibrate its political and legislative agenda. Perhaps it understood that a number of its bills were not acceptable to Quebeckers and many Canadians. It told us it was proroguing in order to come back refreshed in March.

So, what happened? Two days after the start of the session, the government proposed a budget that was completely unacceptable to Quebec. There was nothing in the budget to meet the needs of the regions or the forestry and aerospace sectors. Nor was there anything for the unemployed in Quebec or in Canada. The government spent one and a half months to present the same, unacceptable budget that it presented in spring 2009.

During that month, no work was done. I wonder what the Conservatives were doing. They probably travelled around handing out cheques. In Quebec, that has led to the Conservatives dropping below 16% in the polls. The fact remains that they acted under false pretences.

That was the latest prorogation. With the other one, just a few weeks after the election, a few days after Parliament returned in November 2008, the Minister of Finance presented an economic statement that was nothing more than an ideological statement. No concrete measures were announced to combat the looming financial and economic crisis. Instead, it was an attack on the opposition parties, and on women's rights in particular. This attack was totally unacceptable to the three opposition parties and to a good number, if not the majority, of Canadians. I can assure you that the majority of Quebeckers were opposed to this dogmatic, ideological and provocative approach.

The government sparked a political crisis a few weeks after the October 2008 election. It should have realized that it was a minority government and that Canadians had given it a minority in the House, especially Quebeckers, who sent a majority of Bloc Québécois members to represent them in Ottawa. The Prime Minister should have realized that a minority government has to work with the opposition parties.

That is not what he did. Instead, he sparked a political crisis and the opposition parties reacted by proposing an NDP-Liberal coalition, supported by the Bloc, on certain conditions that we announced and that were respected by the NDP-Liberal coalition at that time.

A confidence vote was scheduled, and instead of submitting to the decision of the House, the Prime Minister chose to pay another visit to the Governor General to request prorogation and avoid being held accountable. His request was granted, but only after two hours of discussions I must point out.

I suspect that her attitude and the fact that she had the nerve to question the Prime Minister cost Michaëlle Jean her job as Governor General. Of course, we do not know exactly what they talked about, but the conversation took long enough to suggest that she did not say yes right away, which is what often happens, and may have asked for an explanation. At any rate, the House was prorogued once again at the Prime Minister's request to avoid a confidence vote.

The very same thing happened during the September 2008 election. The government built up expectations. We have seen some of that during this session too, particularly in the spring when they paralyzed the committees. Mao Zedong gave us the Little Red Book, and then the Prime Minister gave us a blue book about how any good, self-respecting Conservative can sabotage a committee's work. The government created an artificial paralysis in the committees. The Prime Minister and his Conservative members and ministers, with their sorrowful and utterly false statements, have apparently tried to convince Canadians and Quebeckers that opposition parties were to blame for this paralysis because they blocked committee work on legitimate government bills passed in the House.

After this buildup, the Prime Minister simply triggered an election in an attempt to not have to answer the opposition's questions on a number of issues and, in particular, to not have to respond to the allegations of torture in Afghanistan.

There again, this way of doing things seems fine according to British parliamentary tradition, but it is very questionable in terms of democratic legitimacy. Finally, the government is using all sort of tactics to not have to answer for its actions, to try and impose its backwards, conservative agenda on policy, economic, social and cultural fronts. And if that is not suitable, it provokes the opposition and tries, with measures that are, again, fully legal, to short-circuit the work of Parliament.

I think that it is important to use this opportunity provided to us by the Liberals to remind the public of that. At the same time, I must say that the Conservatives' provocative approach, which is extremely negative and undemocratic, has been encouraged by the Liberals' weakness because the government knew in advance that not all of the Liberal members would be in the House to vote against the budget implementation bill, Bill C-9. Again tonight, we will be voting on supply and it will be interesting to count the number of Liberal members in the House.

Benefiting from this weakness, the Conservatives try to impose their agenda on the opposition—on the Liberal Party in particular—and we have seen this throughout the session.

Another example of extremely questionable Conservative behaviour is the issue of the documents concerning allegations of torture in Afghanistan. A motion had to be passed in the House on December 10, ordering the government to produce a series of relevant documents that would reflect the work done by the Afghanistan committee concerning allegations of torture. The House adopted the motion by only a slight majority. A number of weeks after prorogation, we had to raise this issue and demand these documents again. Each time, the government tried to deflect the question by tabling highly censored documents that showed nothing that would lead us to believe that it was responding to the motion passed on December 10 requiring them to produce documents.

The fact that the requests for the production of documents do not die on the order paper following a prorogation, as government bills do, might come as a surprise for the Prime Minister and the Conservatives. Perhaps the Prime Minister had been misinformed and believed that by proroguing Parliament, the order to produce documents concerning allegations of torture in Afghanistan would disappear. That was not the case.

The opposition did not give up, and questions of privilege had to be raised so that the Speaker could intervene in the matter.

The Speaker's historic decision of April 27, 2010, was very clear: the documents must be handed over, while protecting all information related to national security, defence and international relations, and the opposition has always agreed with that. However, we had to pressure the government further to reach an agreement in principle. We also had to constantly brandish the sword of Damocles—contempt of Parliament—so as to obtain the compromises needed from the government in order to finally implement the mechanism. We only hope that it will be implemented quickly.

This shows how we had to push the government to the wall in order to obtain results that, theoretically, should not have posed a problem, since there had been a democratic majority vote in the House. The government should have simply obeyed the order of the House, yet each time we had to use every means at our disposal to force the government to respect the democratic decision made in the House.

We are still in the same situation today. The House is about to rise for the summer break and we will be in exactly the same position when we come back around September 20.

The government has decided not to let political staff appear before committees anymore. The Prime Minister no longer allows his press secretary and director of communications, Dimitri Soudas, to appear before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics. The committee therefore gave Mr. Soudas an ultimatum: he must appear. But he is hiding. There is bound to be a new children's game called Where's Dimitri? after Where's Waldo? The bailiffs tried to serve him with a subpoena, but he followed the Prime Minister to Europe to avoid it.

The Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics legitimately and legally said that Mr. Soudas had to be aware of the subpoena requiring him to testify before the committee, because the newspapers had written about it. But perhaps Dimitri does not read the papers, which would be an unusual thing for the press secretary and director of communications with the Prime Minister's Office. Dimitri Soudas is well aware he has to testify before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, and the deadline was yesterday.

Today, the committee is starting to write a report that will be tabled in the House. It may be tabled tomorrow, next week or when Parliament resumes. This report will serve as the basis for a new question of privilege and for making a case for contempt of Parliament.

We are leaving off at the same point as where we were at the beginning of this session. The atmosphere in Parliament is rotten, poisoned by the Conservatives' anti-democratic attitude, which has nearly reached the point of provocation a number of times.

Again, what happened yesterday was quite something. At the beginning of the day, the Minister of Public Safety, accompanied by the ineffable Senator Boisvenu, came to tell us that it was Bill C-23 or nothing. At noon, we were told it was Bill C-23 or nothing. Finally, they had to fold.

Instead of trying to get Bill C-23 passed with all its poison pills, it would have been much simpler for the government to tell the opposition parties that it wanted to prevent Ms. Homolka from being able to apply for a pardon, given that she was released from prison five years ago.

The government could have asked that, in light of the seriousness of the acts she committed, we amend the current pardon legislation—that is not actually the title—to change the period of time before an individual is eligible for a pardon to 10 years from the current five years. We would have been open to discussing that, but again, there was a pseudo political crisis provoked by the Conservatives.

I will close by saying that an anti-democratic attitude is poisoning the atmosphere. The government also has an anti-Quebec attitude that is supported more often than not by all Canadian parliamentarians and sometimes by MPs from Quebec in parties other than the Bloc.

I am thinking about the Canada-wide securities commission and Bill C-12 to reduce Quebec's political weight in the House, the GST and QST harmonization, where the government is not just dragging its feet, it has shut the door. I am thinking about the government's attitude with regard to climate change and culture, which is extremely important to Quebec's identity.

There are also the issues of equalization, employment insurance and the guaranteed income supplement. Not only is this government anti-democratic in the way it does things, but it is not meeting the needs of Quebec and the people.

Opposition Motion—Securities Regulation

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to speak on this opposition day. The hon. member from Hochelaga introduced a motion that, in my opinion, is completely relevant to the Conservative government's offensive for a Canada-wide securities commission. I thank him for this initiative and I want him to know that he will have my vote on Monday evening.

It is important to read this motion since it contains all the arguments brought forward by Quebec's business and political circles, as well as by journalists and observers. Seldom have we seen a consensus like this in Quebec with respect to a federal initiative. The whole Quebec nation is against the Conservative government's offensive on the financial sector, which is, moreover, very remarkable and surprising, given the very technical nature of the debate. Sometimes, the public has a hard time understanding all the ins and outs. Despite everything, the consensus in Quebec is very strong.

Both the elected members from Quebec in Ottawa, including the Bloc Québécois members, and the members of the National Assembly played a very important role in this matter by taking leadership and explaining the dangers of the draft securities commission bill proposed by the Conservative Minister of Finance. While it does not happen often, business people are joining forces against this completely unacceptable bill.

Here is the motion:

That this House denounce the government’s unrelenting efforts to marginalize the Quebec nation, in particular by depriving it of the major economic lever of securities regulation, a matter that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces and for which they have established a harmonized regulatory system recognized for its effectiveness by the OECD and the World Bank among others, and that it demand, along with Quebec's National Assembly and the business community in Quebec, that the government immediately withdraw its draft bill.

In starting by saying, “That this House denounce the government’s unrelenting efforts to marginalize the Quebec nation...”, the hon. member for Hochelaga describes very well the context in which the Conservative offensive in the financial sector occurs. If this were the Conservative government’s only attack on the Quebec nation, we might think it was an idée fixe of the finance minister or of the Prime Minister when he studied economics and after doing a paper on it made it his pet subject. If that were the case, we might think we could make them see reason.

It is very clear, though, that this is just one piece of the puzzle, a part of a greater whole, a strategy that is being implemented but has not succeeded thanks to the Bloc Québécois, which is there to block it. The attempt to weaken, undermine and marginalize the Quebec nation can be seen in Bill C-12, which reduces the political weight of the Quebec nation in the House by increasing the number of seats in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta while the government refuses to make any promises about the proportion of MPs from Quebec in the House, as well as in the draft legislation on a Canada-wide securities commission.

Other initiatives are cut from the same cloth, for instance the dismantling of the firearms registry. In question period, my colleague from Ahuntsic reminded the House that three-quarters of Quebeckers are in favour of the firearms registry. Among young people 18 to 24 years old, this proportion rises to 85%. There is a strong consensus therefore. This government, as well as members from other Canadian parties, support the idea, though, and are trying to dismantle what the Quebec nation considers an essential tool. Refusing to listen to Quebec is just another way of marginalizing it.

There is also the bilingual judges issue. The debate currently unfolding in the Senate is surrealistic in tone. Even some francophones have been heard to say that competent people would be held back, when we know very well no unilingual francophone has ever sat on the Supreme Court.

There is something surrealistic about it. The strangest thing, and this is a real paradox, is that very often the Bloc Québécois is the only party that makes a real effort to uphold the 1867 Constitution. The other Canadian parties no longer care about it at all. We do not believe in the Official Languages Act, but at least we push to have French recognized as the equal of English.

In theory, the Official Languages Act should lead all members of the House to support this bill, but it no longer counts. Or it only counts one way. It is a bit like the Supreme Court, as my colleague from Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher said, which like the tower of Pisa always leans one way. We do not have any illusions, therefore, about the decision the Supreme Court will reach on the draft securities commission bill.

In any case, this is not a legal debate but a political debate. It is part of the federal government strategy, especially the Conservative government, to marginalize and weaken the Quebec nation.

I want to finish by saying—and this will certainly please the Transport Minister—that the purpose of the entire economic development strategy orchestrated from Ottawa is also to weaken and undermine Quebec.

This strategy has two pillars. First, oil, the big oil companies—the friends of the Minister of Finance—and traditional motor vehicles using gasoline or hydrocarbon products. Then the financial system, which absolutely must be centred in Toronto. Those are the two pillars of Canada's industrial strategy. Against that background, the concerns and interests of Quebec are marginal and matter little. That is the context for this bill.

In the first part of the motion that the hon. member for Hochelaga put forward, it is very clear that this draft bill is one more aspect of the government's unrelenting efforts to marginalize the Quebec nation, in particular by depriving it of the major economic level of securities regulation, a matter that is under the exclusive legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces. Everyone acknowledges that, even the Minister of Finance. It is perfectly clear in the Constitution of Canada. To be precise, powers in securities matters are given to the provinces as part of their jurisdiction over property and civil rights set out in section 92(13) of the Constitution Act, 1867.

As a result, it is quite obvious that this bill is an attempt to do indirectly what cannot be done directly. There have been a number of attempts along these lines. This is not the first time that a federal government or a minister of finance, whether Liberal or Conservative, has tried to establish a Canada-wide securities commission. They always run up against the very clear statement in the Constitution. I have just mentioned the specific section of the Constitution Act, 1867, which makes it clear that this is under the legislative jurisdiction of Quebec and the provinces.

So they have invented a scheme: voluntary membership in the commission. The scheme fools no one. It is exactly the same method which the Conservatives are now using to change the Senate. They introduce Bill C-10, seeking to limit senators' terms. Then, in the Senate, another bill is introduced saying that senators should be chosen from a list of people who have been publicly elected. They know that the Senate cannot be substantially changed in a direct way without entering into constitutional negotiations with Quebec and the provinces. So they are trying a backdoor way of doing what they cannot do directly. That is exactly what this bill is doing; it is trying to impose a Canada-wide securities commission, contrary to Quebec's exclusive jurisdiction over the area.

As I mentioned earlier, and as a number of experts have also said: the Minister of Finance's voluntary membership is a con job, and it fools no one. Mr. Lortie, a former CEO of the Montreal Stock Exchange, even said so in his report.

They will try to balkanize the system that exists at present. They will ensure that pressure is brought to bear by the financial centres themselves for there to be one securities commission, which is not necessary at present because the system is working very well. That is what is in the motion before this House. This field is under the exclusive legislative authority of Quebec and the provinces, and the provinces and Quebec have put a harmonized regulatory system in place, the effectiveness of which is recognized by the OECD and the World Bank, among others.

It took several years to put this very sophisticated system in place, we have to acknowledge that. It was not easy, but it has been done. We are in the second phase of implementing the passport system, which means that once an issuer has a licence in a province or in Quebec, it may issue in other jurisdictions. That is then recognized by the authority in the other provinces or territories. It is a plan whose effectiveness has been recognized by the OECD. It has identified the Canadian system as the second best system in the world. I will give you the reference. It might be worth it for the Conservatives, particularly those from Quebec, to familiarize themselves with it.

I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify something. When we see that bills of this nature are plainly contrary to the interests of the Quebec nation and members or ministers from Quebec are being used to sell them to Quebeckers, we cannot refrain from stating a fact, and it is not an insult. These Quebeckers are serving a purpose in the sense that they are here to sell a plan that is contrary to the interests of the Quebec nation and could not be sold by a minister who came from Ontario or Alberta.

The Minister of Finance would have no credibility if he tried to sell this plan in Quebec, whether to the business community or to the people of Quebec as a whole. In fact, he was the Minister of Finance of Ontario, which is the only province that is not participating in the passport system. At present, he is the black sheep in our system of securities regulation in Quebec and he would have no credibility. So they have to use Quebec Conservatives. I think that is somewhat unfortunate for them. Their strategy is not working, but it is still sad to see these Quebeckers stoop to that level.

So I said there was an article in issue 43 of the OECD Journal of Economic Studies published in 2006. Since then, the passport system has made enormous progress. Four authors wrote an article entitled Regulation of Financial Systems and Economic Growth in OECD Countries: An Empirical Analysis. It is well worth reading; it is very well documented and very rigorous. They conclude that the financial regulatory system in Canada is the second best in the world. I will give another example. The American system is ranked fourth. The system in the United Kingdom, the leader in the development of the financial sector worldwide, is in fifth place, and Australia is seventh.

This is an extremely effective system and, as I said, it is recognized by the OECD and the International Monetary Fund. It is totally fallacious to talk about the need for a Canada-wide commission on the ground of effectiveness. We have a harmonized regulatory system at present, the passport system, the effectiveness of which has been recognized by the OECD and the World Bank, among others.

As the National Assembly of Quebec has done, the Bloc calls for the bill to be withdrawn.

On May 27, 2010, the day after the Minister of Finance unveiled his draft legislation, a motion was unanimously adopted by the Liberal Party of Québec, a federalist party, the ADQ, an autonomist party that needs to define itself more, and by the Parti Québécois. The motion reads as follows:

That the National Assembly denounce the obstinacy of the federal government in tabling unilaterally a bill to create the Canadian Securities Commission;

That it denounce this invasion into the fundamental jurisdictions of Quebec;

That it recall the opposition of the Quebec business community;

[That, finally,] it urge the Canadian government to reconsider this decision and, failing that, the Canadian Parliament not to pass such an act.

It echoed a first motion unanimously adopted in October 2007, after a document was tabled. If my memory serves me well, it was the finance minister's economic statement in which he first outlined the concept of a national securities regulator. The National assembly unanimously adopted that motion, which read:

That the National Assembly ask the federal government to abandon its Canada-wide securities commission project.

Therefore, the National Assembly, which represents the Quebec nation, is very clear on this matter. There is no doubt about it —it will be a hard-fought battle if the federal Conservative government continues to press on.

In the motion moved by the member for Hochelaga, there is a reference to the fact that the business community wants the bill to be withdrawn. I believe it is worthwhile naming those opposed because not just the member for Hochelaga, the member for Joliette and all Bloc members are against this bill. It is not just the members of the National Assembly who are against this bill. The Association de l'exploration minière du Québec, the Barreau du Québec, the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec, the Cascades Group, the Board of Trade of Metropolitan Montreal, the Quebec City Chamber of Commerce, the Chambre des notaires du Québec, the Chambre de la sécurité financière, the Conseil du patronat du Québec, the Fédération des chambres de commerce du Québec, Fondaction CSN, the QFL Solidarity Fund, the Jean Coutu Group, the Institute for Governance of Private and Public Organizations, the Institut québécois de la planification financière, Université Laval professor Jacques Saint-Pierre, Jean La Couture, corporate director, president of Regroupement des assureurs à charte du Québec, are also opposed. And there are others, such as Power Corporation—

Opposition Motion—Quebec's Traditional Demands

[Jean Dorion, Bloc, Longueuil—Pierre-Boucher, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Saint-Jean, who made a very interesting speech. I will no doubt touch on some of the results of the survey he mentioned, because the truth bears repeating.

I will of course support the Bloc Québécois motion, and I urge all members in this House, particularly those from Quebec, to be realistic and to join us in acknowledging that Canadian federalism cannot be renewed and cannot be reformed. Twenty years after the failure of the Meech Lake accord, which was the umpteenth attempt to reconcile the irreconcilable, it is more clear than ever that the Quebec nation and the Canadian nation have completely opposite views of Quebec's current and future status.

Even now, the Conservative government has insisted on introducing Bill C-12, a bill to amend the electoral map, which would mean that once again, Quebec would have a smaller percentage of representatives in this House. Unfortunately, the Liberals supported this proposal, and lo and behold, even Liberal and Conservative members from Quebec support this bill, which will be detrimental to the interests of the nation they claim to faithfully represent.

This initiative to further reduce Quebec's place in the Canadian system says a lot about the fate that Canada is reserving for the Quebec nation, which is to live as a minority that will become increasingly smaller. Yes, an increasingly smaller minority is all that Canada can offer us for the future.

Beyond all the nice rhetoric used in this House to make us believe that we are considered with a minimum of respect, the polls reveal the real feelings of Canada towards Quebeckers' aspirations. The one that was conducted between March 18 and April 6, to which the hon. member for Saint-Jean referred, shows us once again the harsh reality.

While 73% of Quebeckers want the Canadian Constitution to recognize that Quebec forms a nation, 83% of the respondents in the rest of Canada reject the idea. In other words, only 17% of the Canadian population outside Quebec supports the idea that we, Quebeckers, form a nation and that Canadian public institutions should reflect that reality.

In any case, the willingness of Canadians to find a constitutional arrangement that would be acceptable to Quebec has never been so weak.

When asked if Canada should begin a new round of negotiations to find a satisfactory constitutional agreement for Quebec, 82% of Quebeckers said yes, while 61% of Canadians outside Quebec said no. Similarly, when we talk about negotiating a new division of powers and resources between Quebec and Ottawa to recognize Quebec's special status, close to three out of four Quebeckers, or 73% to be precise, are in favour of the idea, while more than seven out of ten Canadians, or 71%, are opposed to it.

Throughout their history, the protection of the French language and culture has been one of Quebeckers' main concerns. That is truer than ever, as the poll shows. Indeed, 82% of Quebeckers feel that the Quebec government should have more powers to protect the French language and culture on its territory, but almost seven out of ten Canadians, or 69%, oppose the idea.

The gap between the two visions on the linguistic issue is even more glaring when we ask whether the Government of Canada should respect, on the Quebec territory, the provisions of Bill 101, which makes French Quebec's official language.

According to this survey, 90 % of Quebeckers agree, while 74% of Canadians disagree.

I could go on and on about the drastic differences and oppositions between the Quebec outlook and the Canadian outlook which are highlighted in the survey.

Twenty years after the failure of the Meech Lake accord, is it not more evident than ever that it is about time our two nations draw conclusions from these irreconcilable differences?

Allow me to conclude on a more personal note. At the time when the Meech Lake accord failed, I was president of the Montreal Société Saint-Jean-Baptiste, which organizes Quebec national holiday celebrations in Montreal. What an extraordinary outpouring of fervour we witnessed on that day, with hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens following the parade down Sherbrooke Street in Montreal.

The failure of Meech was a test of truth, the kind of truth that is said to set us free. I remember Jean Duceppe, on the evening of the national holiday, shouting to a cheering crowd, “From now on, the future of Quebec will no longer be decided in Newfoundland, Manitoba or elsewhere. It will be decided in QUEBEC, by the QUEBECKERS themselves.”

The motion put forward by the Bloc Québécois today contributes further to the propagation of the truth, the truth that will set us free. Long live a sovereign Quebec. Vive le Québec libre.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his speech, the member for Lévis—Bellechasse said that the Liberals' unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982 was not quite right and that the Liberal Party never asked Quebec whether it agreed with the idea. I should point out that, at the time, 75 Quebec members were Liberals. They could have asked Quebec whether it agreed. I think that MPs from Quebec, who were all Liberal Party members, could have opposed the whole thing.

We are seeing the same thing today. Bill C-12 would further marginalize the Quebec nation within Canada by reducing its political weight in the House of Commons from 36% of the seats in 1867 to 22.4% in 2014.

My question for my colleague is simple. Some Quebec MPs are Conservative Party members. The government wants to reduce Quebec's demographic weight in the House of Commons, but Quebec has told the Conservative Party that it is not in favour of this.

Will the member respect Quebec's will by voting against reducing the province's political weight in the House of Commons? He said that Liberal Party MPs did not consult Quebec. These two approaches have much in common. I would like to know if he plans to respect Quebec's choice.

Opposition Motion—Quebec’s traditional demands

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member forgets that we are a founding people. Canada is what it is today because Quebec was there. We are not going to deny Quebec and to bring it into line. We are going to fight all the way to prevent Quebec from losing seats in the House.

I would like to ask the member if he intends to vote in favour of Bill C-12, whose objective is to reduce the weight of Quebec in the House of Commons.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I found the Liberal member’s speech interesting. They speak in Canada's defence in Quebec, but whenever they have a chance, they will be the first to stab us in the back. They are trying to convince and appease us with every means available in order to bring us back into a united Canada. They say Mr. Bouchard has changed his mind. This does not change the fact that between 1995 and 1997, they spent $330 million to try to buy us off and keep us within Canada. They used all kinds of tricks and ads. In 2006 and 2007, we had the sponsorship scam. Of course, Canada is a beautiful country but if we can leave, we will have our own country.

The Conservatives introduced Bill C-12 to reduce Quebec's political weight. Will the Liberals vote with the Conservatives to reduce Quebec's political weight? They say they want us to stay with them.

Democratic Reform

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to speak today about parliamentary reform.

A growing number of Canadians are disengaging from the political process. When citizens disengage, the very legitimacy of this institution is at risk.

Canadians across the country may not be able to put their finger on exactly what ails our institutions, but they know that something is wrong. That is why I want to commend the Minister of State for Democratic Reform for introducing a number of bills, including Bill C-12, which demonstrates the government's commitment to institutional renewal.

The heart of our democracy is Parliament and the heart of Parliament is question period. Through the national media, millions of Canadians follow question period each and every day. I am optimistic that parliamentary reform can reconnect Canadians who feel disengaged by political behaviour that would not be tolerated around the kitchen table.

That is why I will be introducing Motion No. 517, a proposal that asks the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine specific changes to reform question period. I ask members of the House to consider this motion and to lend it their support.

Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate Term Limits)

[Meili Faille, Bloc, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak about Bill C-10, which was introduced by the Conservative government. This bill would amend the Constitution Act, 1867 by limiting Senate terms.

Earlier, I spoke about Bill C-12, which would reduce Quebec's political weight. The Bloc Québécois is in Ottawa to defend Quebec's interests, and issues related to its political weight here in Ottawa are important. We are fighting for the rights of francophones. As we will see, the people of Quebec and the National Assembly believe that Quebec should be consulted before any constitutional changes take place, especially because Bill C-10 would change the structure of the Senate and shift the political weight for strictly ideological purposes.

The minister's comments about Bloc Québécois members is another example of the Conservatives' preconceived notions. The consultations were sloppy and the introduction of this rushed legislation is not justified. Throughout history, many governments and legislatures have tried to change the Senate.

The public is beginning to seriously question the legitimacy of senators. Newspaper headlines demonstrate this every time there is a new appointment to the Senate. Senators are chosen by the Prime Minister. These are partisan appointments. Each province has a certain number of seats and many people have criticized how they are distributed. Could that chamber be much more effective? Could the measures proposed by the government improve how the Senate operates? I doubt it.

The Bloc Québécois opposes Bill C-10. We wonder about the real intentions of the Conservative government, which for the past few weeks has been introducing one bill after another that aim to change fundamental aspects of our democracy, without the provinces' consent and under false pretexts.

We believe that the Conservatives want to reform the Constitution on the sly by going over the heads of the provinces and Quebec. We have become accustomed to these ploys. Considering the number of times they have hidden obscure and discriminatory provisions in bills, no one can blame us for asking for clarification about their real objectives. Furthermore, why do they bother creating laws and regulations when they are the first to disobey laws and regulations in order to satisfy their partisan appetite?

Limiting Senate tenure is merely the beginning. In order to make any changes regarding the Senate, the Conservative government must consult Quebec and the other provinces.

The changes proposed by the Conservatives serve only to undermine Quebec and the Quebec nation. Our analysis of the concept of open federalism has been extremely disappointing for Quebeckers. There has been no concrete recognition of the Quebec nation and its attributes, and the Conservatives have missed a number of opportunities to restore the balance between the two nations, which only increases the level of scepticism among the people of Quebec.

The open federalism vaunted by the federal government has instead been restrictive for Quebec.

We simply have to look at the bills recently introduced by this government, such as Bill C-12, which reduces Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons, the various proposals for Senate reform or the fact that they have called political party financing into question.

Who is this government really targeting? In order to better understand the Bloc Québécois' position, one must analyze what the Conservative government is proposing, while keeping mind that this government is always trying to diminish Quebec's influence.

I must mention that any reform affecting the powers of the Senate, the method of selecting senators, the number of senators to which a province is entitled or the residency requirement of senators can only be made in consultation with Quebec, the provinces and the territories. Why did the government not think it necessary to seek consent from the key players on an issue that affects the Constitution Act, 1867?

Let us look at this together. What is the impetus to the bill and what does it offer to Quebec? Currently, a senator is appointed by the government, by the Prime Minister, and that appointment is effective until the maximum age of 75, at which point the senator must retire. A person appointed at age 30 would receive a term of over 45 years. The Conservative government is proposing to uphold the retirement age of 75 and, in addition, would impose an eight year term on senators. Despite being appointed for an eight year term, if the senator reaches age 75 during that term, he or she must retire from the Senate. There is another provision whereby no senator can request that their eight year term be renewed.

Although this seems like a good idea, what impact could an eight year term have on democratic life?

If this bill is passed in its current form, it would mean greater turnover of senators. And since senators would still be unelected, there would be an increase in partisan appointments.

It is not a stretch to think that a government could change the composition of the Senate by making partisan appointments, thereby taking control of the Senate and having every government bill passed or defeated according to the whim of that very same government.

It could change the parliamentary agenda of the House of Commons by systematically obstructing bills it did not like or that came from opposition party members.

When they are elected to power, Canada's old parties try to make changes that favour their base. They even contradict what they may have said when they were in opposition. I have an example. The Prime Minister, who questioned the Senate's partiality when he was first elected, is now introducing a bill that will boost partisan appointments. Obviously he has changed his tune, but why? In order to impose a regressive Conservative program and satisfy the Reform Party members of the Conservative Party.

When I read the wording of Bill C-10, I get a better grasp of the government's intentions and, more importantly, a better idea of how it wants to get its legislation passed.

The first paragraph in Bill C-10 provides that the Senate must evolve in accordance with the principles of democracy. That paragraph includes examples of institutions which, over time, have had their structure amended. The second paragraph seeks to explain how the Senate can better reflect the democratic values of Canadians. Finally, it is in the third paragraph that mention is made of the change to Senate terms.

What I find disturbing is that the government mentions too often that Parliament can amend the Constitution. It uses as an example what the government did in 1965, when it set the retirement age for senators.

It is in the fifth paragraph that the Conservative government confirms its intention to ignore Quebec and the other provinces to make changes to the Senate. The fifth paragraph of Bill C-10 reads, “Whereas Parliament, by virtue of section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, may make laws to amend the Constitution of Canada in relation to the Senate;”.

May I remind hon. members that Quebec did not sign the 1982 Constitution? I also remind them that the patriation of the Constitution was done unilaterally, without Quebec's agreement. Lastly, let us not forget that the minimum condition set by successive governments in Quebec on Senate reform has always been clear: there will be no Senate reform without first settling the issue of Quebec's status.

That is why the Bloc Québécois is opposed to Bill C-10. It is very clear that the Conservative government wants to ignore Quebec and the other provinces. Need I remind the House of the reasons why the Bloc Québécois was founded?

It was because of the record of failure in constitutional negotiations that the Bloc Québécois was established. In order to avoid discussing the Constitution with Quebec, the Conservative government claims to have the power, under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, to unilaterally change the provisions dealing with the Senate.

This is yet another attempt by Ottawa to work against the interests of Quebec, and even those of the other Canadian provinces and territories.

In November 2006, the Conservative government tabled a motion recognizing the Quebec nation. Since then, no action has been taken by the government to follow up on that recognition. It looks as though the Conservative government does not want to accept that Quebec is a society that developed by itself and that applies its laws based on its specificity and its own attributes.

I invite parliamentarians to read certain documents to better understand Quebec's claims. I also invite my colleagues to be prudent and vigilant, because by changing the length of senators' terms of office through this bill, the Conservative government is opening the door to various changes to the Senate without obtaining the consent of Quebec, the provinces and the territories.

In the brief submitted by the Government of Quebec in 2007 on federal Senate bills, the Government of Quebec stated that:

...the Senate is an institution whose basic composition forms the very basis of the compromise that created the federation. The Senate is not simply a federal institution in the strictest sense. It is an integral part of the Canadian federal system. The Senate is an institution whose future is of interest to all constitutional players within the federation.

In a press release dated November 7, 2007, the former Quebec minister of Canadian Intergovernmental Affairs, Mr. Benoît Pelletier, a Liberal Quebec minister, reiterated the position of the Quebec government:

The Government of Quebec does not believe that this falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Given that the Senate is a crucial part of the Canadian federal compromise, it is clear to us that under the Constitution Act, 1982, ... the Senate can be neither reformed nor abolished without Quebec's consent.

The Government of Quebec is not opposed to modernizing the Senate. However, if an attempt is made to alter the basic characteristics of this institution, the only avenue is engaging in a coordinated federal-provincial constitutional process that will fully engage all constitutional players, including Quebec, the provinces and the territories.

Senate Bill S-8 proposes the appointment of senators by the Prime Minister after elections held by the provinces. This bill is called An Act respecting the selection of senators.

The government claims that it could fundamentally alter the process for appointing senators without necessarily requiring a round of constitutional negotiations.

Although this type of appointment was carried out once in 1990 and there was no challenge, does it justify not consulting Quebec and the provinces?

As I mentioned earlier, the people of Quebec are questioning the usefulness and effectiveness of the Senate in particular. There are certainly many ways to reform the Senate. In March 2010, Quebeckers were polled about the Senate. The results are very interesting and indicative of how they feel about the Senate in its current form.

In looking at the data, we can see that the majority of Quebeckers do not see a value in the Senate as it is currently configured, and 43% of Quebeckers agree with abolishing it. I should point out that only 8% of respondents believe that the Senate plays an important role and that the system for appointing senators works. Only 8%.

Let us talk about the place of francophones in the Senate. Considering the number of francophone senators, the government could consider making changes that would ensure francophones are fairly represented in the Senate. Elections could end up decreasing their representation in the Senate and could create an imbalance for francophone rights in the Senate. This is something that concerns us as well, which is why it is important not to ignore Quebec and the provinces. The bill before us does not take that into account.

If we are going to change the fundamental role of the Senate, why not abolish it altogether? The Bloc Québécois believes that any Senate reforms must be the result of constitutional negotiations.

I have many reasons for believing that the Senate should be abolished. Historically, many upper chambers have been abolished and the operations of these institutions were not affected. The main motivation for provinces to abolish their upper chamber was financial. Second chambers were extremely expensive for the provinces.

That logic should lead us to consider studying this aspect of the Senate. Is the $50 million we spend on Senate operations essential and justified? As with any major reform, abolishing the Senate also requires amendments to the Constitution.

To have a constitutional change approved, the government needs to obtain consent from seven provinces representing at least 50% of Canada's population or the unanimous consent of all the provinces.

Until proven otherwise, Canada is a confederation. Provinces have to be consulted before any amendment to the Constitution, which means that in order to pass Bill C-10, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 by limiting Senate terms, the federal government would have to enter into constitutional negotiations. It is obvious from reading the bill that the Conservative government wants to ignore Quebec. It ignores francophones.

The sixth paragraph in the bill tries to legitimize the Conservative government's position that senators' terms can be amended by regulation.

In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada examined parliament's ability to unilaterally amend constitutional provisions relating to the Senate.

According to its ruling, decisions pertaining to major changes to the essential characteristics of the Senate cannot be made unilaterally. In view of the fact that senators would not be able to renew their terms, we assume that there would be even more partisan appointments and, more importantly, that this change would alter an essential characteristic of the Senate. For that reason, the Bloc Québécois is not in favour of Bill C-10.

It is sad to see that this government is governing according to a Conservative ideology that does not correspond to the values of Quebeckers. I have now been sitting in this House for six years and have seen that the Conservative government is using every means to diminish the influence of Quebec. We need not look too far to find examples. Bill C-12 will reduce Quebec's political weight.

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague something. He wrote an article in Le Devoir this week on euthanasia. I took the time to read the article, and I congratulate him on the ideas he put forward. He has added to the debate on this issue, and I have heard good comments from some of my colleagues.

Never mind whether or not we want to abolish the Senate. He talked about a democratic institution. The government did not act very democratically when it introduced Bills C-10 and C-12, because the members of Quebec's National Assembly unanimously opposed reforming the Senate without first consulting Quebec.

Before introducing the bill in the House for debate, the government should have consulted Quebec and the provinces, as Supreme Court rulings require. If this bill goes ahead, it will be challenged, which will mean legal costs for the provinces and Quebec.

What will be gained by this? Absolutely nothing.

[Roger Pomerleau, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was pleased to hear the member for Berthier—Maskinongé, who gave us a comprehensive reminder of the number of times the Quebec National Assembly has adopted unanimous positions.

I remind the House that a unanimous position at the Quebec National Assembly is the position of the four political parties represented there, which represent both federalists and sovereignists, and these four parties represent all of Quebec. That is what a unanimous position of the Quebec National Assembly means.

The Quebec National Assembly has taken unanimous positions a number of times for or against bills. I will mention some examples that were brought up by my colleague. It took a unanimous position against Bill C-12, which would reduce Quebec's political weight; a unanimous position against the creation of a single securities commission—this came up during question period today—; a unanimous position calling on the government to hand over the $2.2 billion we are owed for harmonizing the GST, which the government refuses to pay. Federalists and sovereignists alike have called for that. We often hear that sovereignists talk about how they never get anything, but federalists are not getting what they are asking for either. The National Assembly also took a unanimous position against Senate reform without consultation with the provinces.

Every time they took a unanimous position, all of the federalist members from Quebec, whether they are Conservative or Liberal, good little Quebec members, elected by Quebeckers and paid by Quebeckers to defend the interests of Quebec in Ottawa, always took Canada's side over Quebec's.

Does my colleague, who is well aware of this, not think that this explains why the Bloc Québécois has been winning elections, the majority of the votes in the House, since 1993?

[Guy André, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose Bill C-10, which was introduced by the government to limit to eight years the tenure of senators who are summoned after October 14, 2008.

As a number of my Bloc colleagues have already explained, Bill C-10 does not take into consideration a unanimous motion passed by the Quebec National Assembly.

We are opposed to Bill C-10. Just as it does with Bill C-12—the side legislation to Bill C-10—which seeks to reduce the political weight of the Quebec nation in the House of Commons, the Conservative government wants to reform the Canadian Constitution without the consent of the Quebec government and its National Assembly. The Conservatives have the support of the Liberals who, unfortunately, still have not learned their lesson from the sponsorship scandal and the 1982 patriation of the Constitution. The government wants to ignore the powers of the Quebec nation and of all the provinces of Canada.

This attempt by the federal government to amend the Senate without consulting the Quebec government shows that it cares very little about the recognition, by the House of Commons, of the Quebec nation.

It is increasingly clear that this recognition was just an election strategy by the Conservative Party, which proposed the motion. Since the Conservative government recognized the existence of the Quebec nation, it has systematically targeted that nation—which it claims to have recognized—and rejected any proposal to give tangible expression to this recognition. It refuses to recognize the language of the Quebec nation, which is a francophone nation. Indeed, when the Bloc Québécois introduced legislation to this effect, the government refused to recognize the French language in all federal institutions. It recognizes Quebec as a nation, but it does not give it any right.

We see this again, here in the House, with respect to securities. The government recognized the Quebec nation, but it interferes in Quebec's jurisdictions.

Instead of giving expression to this recognition, the Conservatives, often with the support of the Liberals, propose changes that only seek to weaken Quebec and to punish it for not voting for them.

Bill C-12, which, like Bill C-10, aims to diminish Quebec's political weight, completely disrespects the Quebec nation. Now they want to call into question political party funding in order to further diminish Quebec's voice, which is expressed by the Bloc Québécois, in the House of Commons. We are the only party, as we have seen again here today, that fully defends the wishes of Quebeckers. Now the Conservatives want to reform the Senate without consulting Quebec and all the provinces.

It is as though we were from another planet. I am a Quebecker; I am from Quebec. Other members come form other provinces like Manitoba, Alberta, Ontario. We are elected in our provinces and we are here to represent our constituents. Yet the Conservatives are introducing and passing bills without consulting the provincial level, the Quebec nation.

It is unbelievable. It could almost be described as collective schizophrenia, as though we are members of this House, yet in no way accountable to the people who elected us.

We believe that any reform affecting the powers of the Senate—the method of selecting senators, the number of senators to which a province is entitled or the residency requirement of senators—can only be made in consultation with the provinces and Quebec.

We are not the only ones to think so. The Supreme Court of Canada has answered that question. In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the capacity of Parliament, on its own, to amend constitutional provisions relating to the Senate. According to a ruling handed down in 1980, any decisions related to major changes affecting the essential characteristics of the Senate cannot be made unilaterally. Thus, any reform affecting the powers of the Senate can only be made in consultation with Quebec and the provinces. The Supreme Court clearly states this. But, no, the government continues to go ahead with a bill that will likely be disputed as far as the Supreme Court. Of course this will cost Quebec and all the provinces a great deal in legal fees.

It is hard to understand why the government has done this. Before making any reforms to the Senate, would it not have made more sense for the government to consult with Quebec and the provinces and work together with those on the front line and with the public? No, it is pushing ahead. Any reform affecting the Senate's powers can only be made in consultation with Quebec and the provinces.

Historically, Quebec's position on the Senate and possible Senate reform has been very clear. Since the unilateral patriation of the Constitution by the Liberals in 1982, successive Quebec governments have all agreed on one basic premise: they have made it very clear that there can be no Senate reform until Quebec's status has been settled. But what are the Conservatives and the Liberals doing? They are pushing ahead.

Why such contempt for this federal parliamentary institution? It is not just sovereignists from Quebec who share my position. Federalists share the same position on Senate reform as sovereignists in Quebec. For example, there is the former Quebec minister for Canadian intergovernmental affairs, Benoît Pelletier. He is a Liberal and every Quebecker and Canadian knows that he is a strong federalist. We all know it. He himself reiterated Quebec's position on this on November 7, 2007. To Mr. Pelletier, it is quite clear that for the Government of Quebec the Senate does not come solely under the federal government's jurisdiction and there cannot be any reform or abolition of the Senate without the consent of the Government of Quebec.

What is more, the very day he made that statement, the National Assembly unanimously adopted a motion. All the parties, the Liberal Party, the ADQ, the right, the sovereignist party, the Parti Québécois, adopted a motion. I want all hon. members from Quebec in the House to listen closely:

That the National Assembly of Québec reaffirm to the Federal Government and to the Parliament of Canada that no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.

Can it be any clearer? That is what was said by Quebec's democratic institution. This government, in a moment of schizophrenia, we might say, has introduced Bill C-10 in the House and unilaterally wants to reform the Senate with the help of the Liberals. What can we say? It is disappointing and distressing. It goes around and around and comes back to life. They are repeating the mistakes of the past.

The members of the Bloc Québécois will defend the following position without hesitation and without compromise: Quebec and the provinces must be consulted about any desire to reform the Senate. As our opposition leader stated in his speech, we are the Halaks of the House. We must once again block the blistering shots on Quebec by the Conservatives and the Liberals. However, as we have demonstrated, we are in great shape. This bill directly attacks the rights of the Quebec nation and its National Assembly and we cannot accept that.

Unfortunately once again, the Quebec members on the Conservative side, in particular the members for Jonquière—Alma and Mégantic—L'Érable—as good tame, token Quebeckers—support this bill. Whose interests do they represent? Certainly not those of Quebec. The unanimous motion from Quebec's National Assembly clearly states that no reform of the Senate may be carried out without the consent of Quebec. They are not defending Quebeckers' interests. They are defending the interests of the House, and have isolated themselves. It is shameful. They are defending the Conservative Party and the Liberals are defending a few of the other provinces in Canada interested in this reform, but they are not defending Quebeckers and that is shameful.

They do not respect the voters and the Quebec nation that they represent. They have voted against other bills. These Quebec members voted against French being the sole language in Quebec and having all Quebec institutions use French. They voted against that. In Quebec, people believe in the right to abortion, but these members, once again, rise and vote against the interests and values of Quebeckers. That is also what they are doing by supporting Bills C-10 and C-12.

No surprise there. Let us not forget that these are the federalists who imposed on Quebec the 1982 constitutional amendments. It is deplorable and disgraceful for this Parliament to defend this bill as it does. The federalists never learn. They do not understand Quebec. They are simply unable to stand up for Quebec and support our desire to have a Quebec nation respected for what it is, which promotes our culture and values within the global community.

As with Bill C-12, the Conservative government and the Liberals are showing how little they care about the recognition by the House of Commons of the Quebec nation, this unique francophone nation.

With bills like that, the federalist parties are clearly showing that they get along extremely well on at least one thing: they will stop at nothing to deny any significance to the recognition of the Quebec nation. To us in the Bloc Québécois, recognizing the existence of a nation is much more than a symbolic gesture or nice words spoken in the House of Commons. Nations have fundamental rights like the right to control their societies' social, economic and cultural development themselves.

However, since recognizing the existence of the Quebec nation, the Conservative government has continued to use every power and means at its disposal to try to impose bilingualism on Quebec, and refused to ensure that corporations under its jurisdiction are required to adhere to the Charter of the French Language. It will not take into account the existence of our national culture in the administration of its laws and the operation of its institutions with cultural or identity significance. It will not even consider letting Quebec have its own radio-television and telecommunications commission to make regulations based on the interests and challenges unique to Quebec.

Of course, the Conservatives and the Liberals will refuse to limit federal spending power, even though that was a promise made by the Conservative Party to buy votes in Quebec. This is shameful.

For the Conservative government, recognizing the Quebec nation does not mean anything, and its will to amend the Senate without the consent of the Quebec government is an example, among many others, of that government's disrespect for Quebeckers' wishes.

In this context, Quebeckers have a very clear view on this issue, and the government should listen to their needs. In a poll conducted in Quebec a short while ago, only 8% of the respondents believed in the Senate's role, which is quite low. According to that same poll, 22% of Quebeckers would prefer an elected Senate, but 43% would rather see that institution abolished altogether, because its annual costs to taxpayers are in excess of $50 million, and they get nothing in return.

CONSTITUTION ACT, 2010 (SENATE TERM LIMITS)

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. minister for his question. I would also like to congratulate him on his article in Le Devoir this week. The article was quite profound.

As for Bill C-10, we are not naive. We understand very well that if it were only a question of Bill C-10 and there were no other bills, this reform by the Parliament of Canada would probably be acceptable, as was the reform to create an age limit of 75 for senators.

However, we know that Bill C-10 is part of a suite of other bills: the bill that is currently before the Senate, which first creates legitimacy through consulting the public and then leads to the actual election of senators. There is also Bill C-12, which aims to diminish Quebec's political weight in the House. Accordingly, Bill C-10 cannot be examined in isolation.

I would like to say to the minister quite frankly that if we were dealing only with Bill C-10 and there was nothing else on the sidelines, we would probably be willing to agree that the Canadian Parliament could carry out this reform, limiting terms to eight years. However, we must take into account the fact that Bill C-10 is not alone, that there is other legislation involved, and that the intent behind that legislation is unacceptable.

I will close by reminding my hon. colleagues that our position is the same as that of Daniel Johnson, Robert Bourassa and René Lévesque. It is the position defended by Gil Rémillard in the days of René Lévesque, as well as the position currently taken by Jean Charest: no major Senate reform—and once again I am taking both bills into account—without constitutional negotiations.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-10, which would limit senators' terms to eight years. I am certain that in opposing this bill, the Bloc Québécois is like a goaltender, defending the interests and values of Quebec. I would even say we are the Halaks of this House.

To my way of thinking, the NDP member who just spoke is somewhat naive about the Conservative strategy. On its own, Bill C-10 may seem like a relatively minor change, but together with the bill currently before the Senate that would require that an election be held before a senator's name is placed on a list, it represents major changes in the nature of the Senate.

The position of the Government of Quebec, which was outlined by Benoît Pelletier when he was minister for Canadian intergovernmental affairs, is that these changes require constitutional negotiations with the provinces and Quebec. The government cannot get around that.

I find it rather deplorable that the government thinks Bill C-10 is acceptable, when another bill concerning the Senate is currently being examined in the other place.

Then there is Bill C-12, which would marginalize Quebec's political influence. Together, these three bills call into question the 1867 Confederation agreement. This is fundamental, and I would even say this is major. If Bill C-10 and the two other bills I mentioned are passed, it would be a clear sign to the Quebec nation that it has no future within the Canadian federation, and that it might be time to step up and move towards sovereignty, in order to take full control over its future.

We cannot consider debating Bill C-10 without considering the bill that is before the Senate and Bill C-12, which we will probably be examining next week. We are therefore not in favour of this bill, because we want such changes to be the result of constitutional negotiations with the provinces and Quebec.

The Conservative government is trying to indirectly do what it cannot do directly by slowly bringing in its Senate reforms, in an attempt to turn it into a chamber that is more legitimate than it is right now. It wants to ensure not only that Quebec is even more marginalized in the House of Commons, but also that all senators from across Canada can speak in the Senate with much more political legitimacy. We will be oppose that fiercely. The former minister of Canadian intergovernmental affairs, Benoît Pelletier, was very clear in 2007. He appeared before the legislative committee to speak about Quebec's traditional position:

The Government of Quebec does not believe that this falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Given that the Senate is a crucial part of the Canadian federal compromise, it is clear to us that under the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Regional Veto Act, the Senate can be neither reformed nor abolished without Quebec's consent.

That was in a press release issued by Quebec's Canadian intergovernmental affairs minister on November 7, 2007. It could not be more clear. Our position is that we want to abolish the Senate, and I believe that that was, until quite recently, the opinion of the NDP as well.

I remember that, seeing that his Senate reform would not get through, the Prime Minister started threatening the Liberals by saying that he would abolish the Senate. I do not know if he was also threatening the NDP. The problem is that if the Prime Minister wants to abolish the Senate, he will have to undertake constitutional negotiations with the provinces and Quebec.

Surely Quebec will want to ensure that in such an important reform of federal institutions, its relative political weight—and I am talking here about the 24.3%, not the 75 members—remains the same, regardless of the changes made to the Senate or to the number of seats in the House of Commons.

In fact, the same day, that is November 7, 2007, the National Assembly unanimously passed the following motion: “That the National Assembly of Québec reaffirm to the Federal Government and to the Parliament of Canada that no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.”

So it is not only sovereignist members who share this opinion, but federalist members from Quebec as well. Everybody in Quebec agrees that the change to the Senate, in fact both changes proposed by the Conservative government require constitutional negotiations despite the ruse employed by the Conservatives.

When the Conservatives realized that their first bill on public consultation to create a pool of candidates from which the Prime Minister would appoint senators would not get through because the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc Québécois were opposed to it, for completely different reasons, they decided to make a small change. The Liberals wanted the rights of their senators to be grandfathered. The NDP wanted the Senate abolished and was wondering why we should change in any way an institution that it wants to see abolished. As for us, we were adamant that such changes could not be made without constitutional negotiations. We will have the opportunity to discuss this further when the Senate is done studying this bill.

The Conservatives have made it optional. The provinces that do not wish to set up an electoral process to consult the people about who should be in the pool of potential senators will have to live with the current practice, partisan appointments by the Prime Minister.

They are attempting, through the back door, to apply pressure to implement a general practice that will become a constitutional convention. Subsequent prime ministers will appoint Senate candidates chosen by popular consultation. Why pick the second, third or fourth candidate when the first garnered the most votes?

We will end up with senators elected for a term of eight years. Perhaps the Conservatives will eventually introduce another bill to reduce the term to four years. It is very possible that in 10 or 15 years we will end up with two chambers, the House of Commons and the Senate, with elected members and elected senators. It would act as a counterweight to the presence of Quebec in the House, already under attack with Bill C-12.

We are not naive. The Conservatives' game plan is obvious and we will oppose Bills C-10 and C-12 with respect to the bill being studied by the Senate.

The Conservatives' game plan is clear because, for a long time, we have been hearing the Prime Minister promise his electoral base in the west that there will be a triple E Senate, one that will be equal, elected, and effective. That is the Conservatives' project. Given that their project is not going over well, they will resort to getting it in through the back door, as is their custom. They will do indirectly what they have been unable to do directly.

I will give another example to show that this is not the exception, but the rule. According to the Constitution, securities commissions are clearly the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. What is the Conservative government doing? It says it is putting in place a single pan-Canadian organization and telling dissenting provincial securities commissions that if they do not want its system, they can keep their own.

We know very well that, with a single securities regulator, there will be a great deal of pressure to integrate dissenting provincial commissions into this process. We are not naive.

Having said that, I am convinced that Quebec will fight until the last, until the moment it decides to become sovereign, because abandoning this important lever is out of the question.

What will happen to Alberta, which is opposed to this? I think we all agree that Alberta is not its own nation. It is part of the Canadian nation. Companies in Alberta would most likely prefer one commission instead of having to register twice, once in Alberta and once in Toronto to get a licence from the minister of finance. A single Canadian securities commission would slowly be built, even though the Constitution is very clear on this subject.

They are going about this indirectly because they cannot do it directly. As I said earlier, protecting our securities commission, from now on known as the Autorité des marchés financiers, is not the problem. We will maintain it no matter what, because when Quebec is a sovereign nation, we will need this type of authority to ensure that businesses have access to Quebec's financial market. We will make agreements, as is usually the case, with this Canadian securities commission if we have to, but we will maintain our own.

We will be following the debate in Canada closely. The federal Conservative government must not, and this is exactly what we are worried about, make registration with a single Canadian commission mandatory while registration with Québec's Autorité des marchés financiers would be optional. That would put an end to this financial authority. I can assure my colleagues that it would be a fierce battle and a constant fight and that we would win in the end, in any case.

We are wary of these bills because we know what the Conservatives are up to: they always try to do indirectly what they cannot do directly. But that is not all. There is also their pathological refusal to recognize the Quebec nation. They will say that the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation in November 2006. In reality, however, since then, every time we seek concrete expression of that recognition, the Conservatives totally and completely refuse, with the complicity of the Liberals most of the time and that of the NDP some of the time.

We understand that the interests of the Canadian nation are the main focus of most of the members in the House, and we do not hold that against them. However, they must also understand that the main focus of the Bloc Québécois members is defending the interests of the Quebec nation. It should be the same for all members from Quebec. Unfortunately, that is not the case. To repeat the comparison I made at the beginning of my speech for the benefit of my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, we are the Halaks of the House. In fact, Slovakia is a good example for us to follow.

As I was saying, the Conservatives have totally and completely refused to recognize the Quebec nation. We introduced a bill to ensure that the Charter of the French Language applies to enterprises under federal jurisdiction. This would include banks, interprovincial transportation, airports and telecommunication companies.

What was the response of most members of the House, representing the Canadian nation for the most part? They completely rejected it. I would point out that a few NDP members supported us, and I encourage them to continue on that path.

When we talk about Quebec culture, and again my colleague from Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert can attest to this, we are constantly told that Quebec culture is a regional culture of the broader Canadian culture.

We do not have a problem with the broader Canadian culture. However, we think that Quebec culture is the culture of the nation of Quebec and not a regional culture. Nonetheless, we are denied that at every turn and the way the arts budget is divvied up is a good example. Another example is the film industry, which is viewed as two entities in Canada: English-language film and French-language film. In fact, there are two types of films: Canadian films with a French-language minority and Quebec films with an English-language minority. This means that Quebec gets penalized in Telefilm Canada's budgets.

Culturally speaking, the government is once again refusing to recognize the nation of Quebec in the way Quebec integrates new arrivals into society. We know this is a challenge faced by all countries that welcome immigrants, such as Canada, Quebec, the United States and Great Britain. We have developed a unique approach in Quebec. It is not an Anglo-Saxon multicultural approach, which Canada has borrowed from Great Britain. Nor is it a U.S.-style melting pot approach, which does not seem to be producing the results American society had hoped for. It is not the republic adopted in France. It is a model we call inter-culturalism, where new arrivals are invited to enrich the common culture. There is only one common culture, though: it is the culture of Quebec with one official language, one common public language, and that is French.

By promoting bilingualism and multiculturalism, the Canadian nation is taking aim directly at the recognition of the Quebec nation and, in a way, interferes with our development and the harmonious integration of newcomers.

As we can see, this is very widespread. As a further example, I could talk about telecommunications, where the same thing is happening. We are prevented from having our own Quebec radio-television and telecommunications commission. Legislation to that effect is currently under consideration. Overflowing with optimism, I trust that this legislation will eventually be passed, that those members from the Quebec nation and from Quebec who just did not get it will see the light and understand that this is a necessary tool to ensure the cultural and linguistic development of Quebec.

A bill will soon be put to a vote, but the last time, it was flatly rejected. It is very interesting to note that Quebec established its radio-television and telecommunications commission before Canada created its own commission. Let us hope this will meet with approval, but again, I am not too confident.

Last I will address the refusal to give tangible expression to the recognition of the Quebec nation in the so-called economic action plan of the Conservatives, where they systematically ignored the needs of Quebec with respect to industries and regions that needed and still need help. I am thinking, of course, of the forestry sector, but the same is true of the aviation industry. A great deal of assistance was provided to the automotive industry—$10 billion—and we had no objection because it did need a shot in the arm. Why is it, however, that when it comes to industries concentrated in Quebec, we have to rely on the marketplace?

Yesterday, during question period, the Minister of State for the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec again said about the forestry crisis, the problems facing the pulp and paper industry, that the issue was just markets. As if the crisis in the automotive industry was not a market issue. If we saw fit to help the automotive industry, notwithstanding the market, we should also help the forestry industry and the aviation industry. On the one hand, Canadian interests are promoted and, on the other hand, the needs and interests of Quebeckers are ignored. That is something that is widespread.

Quebec is opposed to Bills C-10 and C-12 and to the bill that is currently being studied in the Senate. A motion regarding Bill C-12 was unanimously passed in the National Assembly last week. Quebec's government is a Liberal and therefore a federalist government. Its leader, Jean Charest, once sat in the House as a member of the Conservative Party. He was part of the Special Senate Committee on Senate Reform in 2007. In a memorandum from May 31, 2007 we read:

The Government of Quebec is not opposed to modernizing the Senate. [Obviously, that is the position of Quebec Liberals.] But if the aim is to alter the essential features of that institution, the only avenue is the initiation of a coordinated federal-provincial constitutional process that fully associates the constitutional players, one of them being Quebec, in the exercise of constituent authority.

On one hand, a piecemeal approach to reform is not acceptable. On the other hand, reform would require constitutional negotiations.

I will finish by quoting another excerpt from the Government of Quebec's report:

The Government of Quebec, with the unanimous support of the National Assembly, therefore requests the withdrawal of Bill C-43 [a bill proposing an elected Senate]. It also requests the suspension of proceedings on Bill S-4 [which became Bill C-19 and then Bill C-10 on Senate term limits, the bill before us now] so long as the federal government is planning to unilaterally transform the nature and role of the Senate.

My colleagues can rest assured that the Bloc Québécois will shoulder its responsibilities, just as we hope the Canadiens and Halak will do tonight.

Constitution Act, 2010 (Senate term limits)

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are discussing Senate reform, which would see senators appointed for eight years. We have to ask ourselves the following question: should changes affecting the essential characteristics of the Senate be made unilaterally by Parliament or should they be part of the constitutional process involving Quebec and the provinces?

The Supreme Court of Canada has answered that question. In the late 1970s, the Supreme Court of Canada considered the capacity of Parliament, on its own, to amend constitutional provisions relating to the Senate. Its decision Re: Authority of Parliament in Relation to the Upper House [1980], 1 S.C.R. 54 establishes the principle that major changes, affecting the essential characteristics of the Senate, cannot be made unilaterally. As hon. members can see, the Supreme Court has ruled on this issue.

Any reform affecting the powers of the Senate, the method of selecting senators, the number of senators to which a province is entitled or the residency requirement of senators can only be made in consultation with the provinces and Quebec.

Let us see how certain political players have looked at this issue. In 2007, the former Quebec minister for Canadian intergovernmental affairs, Benoît Pelletier, not exactly a sovereignist, reiterated Quebec's traditional position as follows:

The Government of Quebec does not believe that this falls exclusively under federal jurisdiction. Given that the Senate is a crucial part of the Canadian federal compromise, it is clear to us that under the Constitution Act, 1982, and the Regional Veto Act, the Senate can be neither reformed nor abolished without Quebec's consent.

That is what a Liberal government member said about the issue in 2007. That same day, the National Assembly—every single MNA, including members of the Parti Québécois, the ADQ and the Liberals—unanimously passed the following motion:

That the National Assembly of Québec reaffirm to the Federal Government and to the Parliament of Canada that no modification to the Canadian Senate may be carried out without the consent of the Government of Québec and the National Assembly.

This is not just about consultation. I know that Canada's Conservative Prime Minister would like to have full control over the Senate and appoint senators for eight-year terms, but for that he needs to do more than just consult with Quebec and the provinces. He needs to obtain consent from the provinces, specifically from seven provinces representing more than 50% of Canada's population.

Traditionally and historically, Quebec's position on the Senate and possible Senate reform has been very clear. Since the unilateral patriation of the Constitution, successive Quebec governments have all agreed on one basic premise: they have made it very clear that there can be no Senate reform until Quebec's status has been settled.

In 1989, Mr. Bourassa, the former Quebec premier, said that he did not want to talk about Senate reform until the Meech Lake accord was signed.

In 1992, Gil Rémillard said that Quebec would not sign an agreement on Senate reform until it was satisfied with the results of negotiations on distinct society, power sharing and federal spending power. More recently, Quebec's Liberal government—a federalist government, I should point out—participated in the Special Committee on Senate Reform in 2007. It wrote the following in its May 31, 2007, submission:

The Government of Quebec is not opposed to modernizing the Senate. But if the aim is to alter the essential features of that institution, the only avenue is the initiation of a coordinated federal-provincial constitutional process that fully associates the constitutional players, one of them being Quebec, in the exercise of constituent authority.

The Government of Quebec, with the unanimous support of the National Assembly, therefore requests the withdrawal of Bill C-43 [a bill proposing an elected Senate]. It also requests the suspension of proceedings on Bill S-4...

Bill S-4 became Bill C-19 and then Bill C-10 on Senate term limits.

This is the fourth time the government has tried to bring a Senate reform bill before the House. The Liberal government spoke out against this for constitutional reasons.

And do not forget that on November 7, 2007, the National Assembly unanimously passed its motion. I think it is clear that if Ottawa wishes to reform the Senate, it must reopen the constitutional debate, sit down with Quebec and the provinces and negotiate with them in order to come to an agreement. It cannot act unilaterally. As I said before, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on this issue.

if it truly wants to recognize Quebec, the government must also make sure to take a second issue into account. We know only too well that the Conservative government does not want to recognize Quebec. If it recognized the Quebec nation, it would also recognize the various political figures that have spoke about this issue.

We also want Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons to be maintained. But the Conservative government wants to increase the number of seats by 30, including 20 in Ontario, which would reduce Quebec's political weight. We are told that we will always be guaranteed 75 members. But 75 out of 308 is not the same as 75 out of 338.

Furthermore, the entire population of Quebec opposes this. We are very surprised and very frustrated by the actions of this government, which finally decided to recognize the Quebec nation. That was a sham; it was nothing but empty rhetoric. It does not really mean anything at all. When this government can diminish Quebec's political weight and ignore Quebec's wishes to not reform the Senate for constitutional reasons, it will do so. This is nothing but smoke and mirrors.

If the government was serious about democratic legitimacy, it would ensure that Quebec maintained its current representation in the House of Commons, that is, 24.35% of the seats. If 30 more seats are added, Quebec's representation would drop to under 22%. It is crucial that Quebec be represented not only based on its demographic weight, but also based on its historical significance and its social, economic and cultural distinctiveness. That is why we want Quebec's political weight to be preserved, and do not want to be left with just 75 seats. It is also because of Quebec's historical significance and because the Conservative government recognized the Quebec nation. If it wants to show consistency, it must ensure that the Quebec nation's representation is proportionate to its historic, economic and cultural significance, proportionate to its weight and what it is.

Moreover, the Conservative government is contradicting itself. On the one hand, it claims that it wants to increase the legitimacy of institutions, but on the other hand, it is trying to muzzle Quebec by introducing bills that will reduce the political weight of the Quebec nation. Clearly, the supposed recognition, as I mentioned earlier, was nothing more than empty rhetoric, since the Conservatives are incapable of taking any concrete action that would suggest true recognition.

It must be said that since the creation of the Canadian confederation, Quebec’s weight has declined constantly. I would point out that Quebec had 36% of the seats in 1867; if this bill were adopted, that would fall to 22.4%.

The members of the National Assembly are also in favour of the principle of maintaining Quebec’s weight. On Thursday, April 22, all members of that body, federalist and sovereignist, voted unanimously in favour of a motion against decreasing Quebec’s weight. Similar measures were adopted when previous bills were introduced by this Conservative government, which was trying to dilute the weight of Quebec. As well, the Quebec people also reject this bill, which would diminish the weight of Quebec. In fact, an Angus Reid poll conducted on April 7 shows that 71% of the population of Quebec opposes Bill C-12, which seeks to diminish Quebec’s weight. Now, 71% is a lot of people.

So the consensus in Quebec is that it is important to maintain Quebec’s relative representation in this House. That includes all of the members of the National Assembly and the 49 members of this House, two thirds of the members for whom Quebeckers voted. We are elected representatives, and we have democratic, popular legitimacy. This government’s refusal to take Quebec’s demands into account is only the last in a long series of examples demonstrating that recognition of the Quebec nation means nothing to this government.

If it were truly serious when it talks about reforming the democratic legitimacy of institutions, the government would abolish the Senate and ensure that the weight of the Quebec nation, which has been officially recognized, is kept at 24.3%. In addition, as I said before, it would reform the democratic legitimacy of institutions by ensuring it has the support of seven provinces that together represent 50% of the Canadian population and acknowledging that a majority of Quebeckers oppose these issues.

Business of the House

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. House leader of the official opposition as to the future business for the remainder of this week and up until Thursday of next week.

We will continue today with the debate at second reading of Bill C-10, Senate term limits. Following Bill C-10, I will call Bill C-12, democratic representation. I will continue with this lineup tomorrow.

Next week, we will call Bill C-4, Sébastien's law, Bill C-16, ending house arrest for property and other serious crimes by serious and violent offenders, and Bill C-13, fairness for military families. All of these bills are at second reading.

Tuesday, May 4, will be an allotted day. I am looking forward to the motion that my hon. colleague and his party will select for that opposition day. I note there are some nine allotted days in this parliamentary period, and obviously there are many important issues that the opposition has to choose from, including the east coast shellfish industry.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague has indicated, I know we have some visitors who we are looking forward to seeing in the chamber shortly, so I will keep this brief as well.

When we get to government orders, following the visit, I will call Bill C-4, Sébastien's law, which proposes to protect the public from violent young offenders. Following Bill C-4, we will call Bill C-13, fairness for military families.

We will continue with that business tomorrow.

Next week it would be my intention to begin second reading debate on Bill C-11, the balanced refugee reform act, Bill C-10, Senate term limits and Bill C-12, democratic representation.

Next Wednesday, April 28, shall be an allotted day.

As for the take note debate, that is under advisement.

Opposition motion—Representation of Quebec in the House of Commons

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I really find this debate to be what many of us came to the House for. It is striking that the members of at least three of the parties in this House today are unified in their support for a free and democratic country that is unified and strong.

However, I would say that the underlying bill, Bill C-12, the democratic representation act, which was introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform on April 1, would restore fair representation in the House of Commons, whereas the motion before the House today would result in unfairness and further compromise the core democratic principle of representation by population.

The current constitutional formula for readjusting House seats every 10 years was introduced in 1985. Its effect basically penalizes the faster growing provinces by preventing them from gaining seats in proportion to their population.

As a result, Ontario, Alberta and my home province of British Columbia have become significantly under-represented in our House. In contrast, all other provinces rely on seat guarantees for their seat counts even though their populations do not necessarily justify that number of seats. This means that the faster growing provinces have more populace ridings than slower growing provinces.

Based on 2006 census, ridings in Ontario, Alberta and B.C. had, on average, over 26,000 more constituents than ridings in the slower growing provinces. In the next readjustment of seats, based on projections for the 2011 consensus, this number is projected to increase to almost 30,000.

The current formula is moving the House further away from the principle of representation by population and the democratic concept of one person, one vote. This is unfair for Canadians in faster growing provinces who may feel that their vote is diluted because their provinces are significantly under-represented in this House.

This is totally consistent with the people's love for Quebec.

I like to tell people that I have spent a lot of time in Quebec. I worked for the Quebec government and my three children went to a French immersion school.

I believe that what makes us unique is the special role of Quebec in our Federation, and that would continue to be protected given the constitutional provisions that we have in play. Bill C-12 anticipates that Quebec will continue to have its minimum number of seats. We will continue to have a minimum number of seats in the Supreme Court of Canada that come from Quebec. In the Senate and elsewhere through our Federation, Quebec interests will have unique and special representation.

However, Bill C-12, the democratic representation act, would restore fair representation in the House of Commons. It would correct the unfairness in the current formula by establishing a maximum average riding populating per province of 108,000 for the next readjustment of seats. This was approximately the national average riding population at the time of the last general election.

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not debating that bill today, but I will answer the member's question in a general way. There are some elements of that bill that are supportable, but I would express the concern that it could become a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.

That is why our party has put to the government and to other parties the idea of sending that bill to committee to look at its broader scope before it is actually agreed to in principle. That can be done in this House. We have that kind of provision.

Bill C-12 would be a good candidate for that because it does touch on a whole variety of issues that could be examined. If a committee could be given that task, it may be able to find some consensus about how to go about that.

We are not debating that bill specifically today but it is there. We will approach that bill the same way we are approaching this debate, and that is based on the principles of democratic representation and the need for fairness to happen.

[John Weston, Conservative, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was delighted to hear the remarks of the member for Vancouver East.

We heard her refer to various things which we have in common, such as a common commitment to balance, a common commitment to equality, and a common commitment to a specialness for the province of Quebec.

Quebec is protected in so many ways in our constitutional provisions. Under the bill, it would have a minimum number of seats in the federation and it would continue to have a minimum number of seats in the Supreme Court of Canada. The French language continues to be protected in our federation in so many ways. There are conventions under our system that protect Quebec's representation.

Like me, my colleague comes from a province where the population is growing fast. She, like me, represents a population of 120,000 or more people. Given that, where does she stand on Bill C-12?

[Libby Davies, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague from Hamilton Centre was just getting warmed up, and he could have gone another 10 minutes or another full spot. I really appreciate the comments he has made.

As our spokesperson in the NDP caucus and the critic for democratic electoral reform, I know the member has put a lot of thought and care into not only this motion and what it really means and what the consequences are but he has put a lot of thought and care into the file overall.

Within our caucus we have really terrific debates about this and many issues, but on this issue we do see it as a very fundamental principle. We are here in this House as individual members of Parliament. We are here because people voted for us. We are here because we got the most amount of votes of all the candidates in each of our ridings.

However, as soon as we become immersed in this system, we begin to realize very quickly that the system is very far from perfect. In fact, there are huge flaws that actually create an environment in our Parliament that is actually not representative.

Having this debate today on the motion that has been brought forward by the Bloc is actually very important because it does provide us with an opportunity to debate this issue about representation in terms of Quebec, its history and its place in our country, but also in terms of other provinces and territories, and as the member just said, communities of interest.

I am member from British Columbia. I represent an urban riding, Vancouver East. There are probably about 120,000-plus people. I am from one of the provinces that is very under-represented. We know that there is a bill that will at some point soon come before us that deals in some way with this issue of representation by population. However, as the member for Hamilton Centre has pointed out, even that bill will not really address some of the fundamental issues that are before us.

I think this is a time to have a thoughtful discussion and to talk about principles of democracy. One of the things that I am really glad about is that we have organizations like Fair Vote Canada that point out to us that Canada is actually now in a minority in that we still use the first past the post system. There are more than 80 countries that use the fair voting system, or what is often called proportional representation or PR.

Fair Vote Canada says:

Fair voting systems have many variations but the core principle is the same: to get as close as possible to treating every voter equally—or in other words, to create true representative democracy.

I think that is a very important principle. It is something that we in our party uphold very strongly. We have been very strong advocates for proportional representation.

We also believe that there is a principle of representation by population. As we have heard during the debate today, we also recognize very clearly that in this Parliament, regardless of the political party that we are a part of, at least for three of the parties, we are here looking at the ways we build our nation. If we believe in our federal system, we have to look at the realities of the diversity of this country and not only in terms of geography.

We are probably one of the most unique places in the world faced with that kind of geography where we have 80% of our population living within 100 kilometres of the 49th parallel. We have remote communities, vast areas of this country, that still have the right to representation.

We do have this incredible conundrum that on the one hand we uphold the principle of representation by population. We also recognize that there are distinct characteristics of our country, whether it is a small province like Prince Edward Island that is guaranteed, under the Constitution, four seats in this House, or whether it is the specific recognition given to Quebec that has been expressed many times in this House as well as by the court system and certainly by the people of Quebec themselves.

When we put all of these things into the mix, it does produce a very complex situation. However, it is not impossible to move forward in a way that addresses the principles in terms of ensuring that there is increased representation for provinces that are under-represented right now, those being B.C., Alberta and Ontario, while at the same time balancing Quebec's historic place within the federation, which we in our party believe must be respected.

That is why, in approaching this motion today, we did have very thoughtful discussions. Maybe it would have been easy to dash that motion and say that this is just a political game and political optics by a advereignist party, and that it is designed to confuse or entrap. We decided to approach this in a thoughtful way to try and examine the principle that the members of the Bloc are putting forward, and ask ourselves if we support that principle.

Do we believe that ensuring the history and tradition of the reflection regarding the representation from Quebec in the House must be a key principle in however we move forward? We came to the conclusion within our caucus that yes, that is a principle that must be upheld. It is not necessarily mutually exclusive to the other principles that we also believe in, in terms of ensuring that other places and regions in Canada that are under-represented must also be addressed.

It makes for a difficult situation, but I believe that if we approach these things on a basis that is thoughtful and based on strong elements and principles about our country, its diversity, its geography and communities of interest, then we should be able to put our brain power together to configure something that actually represents a balance of those principles.

That is what we bring to the debate on this motion today. We are certainly aware that there is another bill that will be coming before us. The committee that Bill C-12 gets referred to should have a very broad scope to look at that bill and to examine these principles that I have just been talking about, and that may be articulated in various ways.

The worst thing would be to have a bill that becomes a take-it-or-leave-it bill or an either-or bill. That has happened so many times. It is very interesting to us to know what the political agenda of the Conservative government is because it so often offers these unilateral propositions. It is this or it is nothing. It is yes or no. It is black or white.

When we come to something as complex and as historically weighted in the history of our country, as we move forward to the future, I do not think we can take that approach. In some respects, the motion that is before us today from the Bloc, that we are supporting with the amendment because we think it clarifies that historical position, is the opening round of what that debate will be about. How we approach that will be very important.

We come to this with a sense of good faith. We come to it with a sense of the principles we have outlined about representation by population, about the place of Quebec, about communities of interest, and the notion of reforming our democratic systems so that we actually can get to that place where every voter is equal in the sense of having a system that represents the way they are actually voting. Those things are not impossible if we put our minds to it. We look forward to the ongoing debate, support for the motion as amended, and the bill that will come before us.

Our caucus has a pretty strong notion of what this vision is about and what we want to see within our country within that diversity. We are willing to work very hard to take the steps to achieve it. We hope that other members of this Parliament, regardless of political stripe, are willing to do the same.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Québécois, I stand corrected, Mr. Speaker. Fair enough; I never would suggest that I am an expert on these matters, so I will take any correction that needs to be made. It is Québécois.

The issue that we are hearing now from many on the Quebec side in particular is the Quebec National Assembly. I stand to be corrected again, but my understanding is it was unanimous that it maintain its relative weight, which is the amendment. The Bloc wanted to go to 25. The numbers are not that big, so it was a matter of principle. For us, the 25 gets into the Charlottetown accord, which did not carry, et cetera.

To make the point that the percentage weight that Quebec has now in this place should continue, we believe is the next piece of having declared the Québécois a nation within a united Canada. If this were easy, it would have been done a long time ago. If this were not difficult, Quebec would have signed on to the Constitution. Quebec is part of Canada in every legal sense there is, but we still do not have the signature of a Quebec premier on our Constitution. We want that.

I say with the greatest of respect to my colleagues in the Bloc, I know that they saw success as when they could leave. They felt they could leave when they had their own independent Quebec. That is their goal. My goal is to have the Bloc leave because it lost the debate and Quebec has fully embraced Canada and accepted its full participation and place within our great country.

I say all of this with the greatest respect. I am looking at one of the Bloc members for whom I have the greatest respect. I have travelled with him. I have been with him on committee. I know the kind of work he does. I think he is an outstanding parliamentarian. I hope I am not saying anything that is giving offence because what we have is a difference of ideas, not a lack of respect for one another.

Why has that not already happened? Why has Quebec not realized that we are a wonderful country and it should embrace the rest of us? People should go to Quebec and immerse themselves in its culture and then take a look at how Quebeckers view the world, that lone outpost of the francophone language, culture and many other aspects which is surrounded by the rest of us.

When my daughter looks at a map of Canada I want her to look at the same map that I do. I want my grandchildren and future generations to always look at a map and see Canada in all its beauty. I do not want to see a day and I do not want anything I do here as a parliamentarian for whatever time I am here to lead to the possibility that some day there would be a map of Canada and a great big hole in the middle of it because Quebec has left. As much as the Bloc cherishes that, that is our nightmare scenario.

Therefore, we did take the step of saying that it is a recognized nation within a united Canada. Some of us took some heat back home, but I am not aware of anyone here who has suggested that we reverse that. Therefore, if we meant it when we all stood in our places and cast the most precious thing the public has given us, and that is our vote, and we cast that vote in favour of making that declaration, what does it say if the very next thing we do is rejig the House in such a way that Quebec's relative weighted strength is less than it was when we declared it to be the entity that it is?

It means there would be a movement away from pure representation by population. Okay, but we are already there. We do not have pure representation by population and we will not have pure rep by pop under the current formula and we will not have pure rep by pop under Bill C-12.

Take a look at P.E.I. My city of Hamilton that I love so much has a little over 500,000 people. We could probably put the population of P.E.I. in Hamilton about three times over. P.E.I. has four guaranteed House seats and four guaranteed Senate seats. Do we want to talk about unfair? There is a 20 minute speech, but that is not the issue. Taking that on and pointing it out why it is not rep by pop and it is a horrible thing gets us nowhere. We have done that because it was one more piece of nation building.

That is what this is about. As my leader, the member for Toronto—Danforth, has said, it is about trying to create the winning conditions for Canada in Quebec. If we meant it when we said that we were going to give Quebeckers the respect of the nationhood title, then we owe them the respect of making sure that their relative weight here is the same as when we made that declaration.

That is not going beyond what we have already done in other parts of the country to recognize regions, communities of interest and other things that do not necessarily fit rep by pop. This is about nation building. It is about wanting to win that struggle between sovereignty and choosing Canada.

This is a good move for Canada and I am prepared to defend this position anywhere in the country.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, today we are talking to the motion put forward by the members of the Bloc Québécois. However, I think we all understand that the motion was put forward because the government put forward Bill C-12, a law that would go some distance to restoring representation by population in the House of Commons. Therefore, I will be referring to both the motion and the bill as I proceed.

I want members to cast their minds back to the situation that existed in Canada prior to 1867. At that time, the province of Canada had two parts, Canada east and Canada west, what are today Quebec and Ontario, which were frozen into equal shares of the legislative assembly. The lack of representation by population, the lack of an ability to reflect the changing population numbers of the two component parts of what was then the province of Canada was arguably the leading force behind the move toward confederation.

In confederation in 1867, we developed a model that was the same model used in all of the world's major successful, long-lasting federations, a model of having two houses, a senate and House of Commons, in which one house had equal representation by region and the other house had equal representation by population.

In the case of Canada, there are four regions in the Senate, the Atlantic, Quebec, Ontario and the west. Each of them is given 24 seats. In the case of the Americans, it is two seats for each of their fifty states. The Australians give 12 seats for each of their states. In Switzerland, it is two seats for each canton. I could go on describing the other federations.

In the lower house, the opposite rule prevails, representation by population, or, as the Australians put it, one vote-one value. In the lower house, every member's vote should reflect an equal number of constituents and, therefore, every Canadian elector's vote should be equal in weight to that of every other Canadian elector.

What has happened in Canada, unlike these other federations, is we have gradually moved away from those two principles. In the upper house we have made one compromise and, fortunately, only one, but when Newfoundland was brought into confederation in 1949, it was brought into the Atlantic region, in population terms the smallest region, and was given six extra seats. Therefore, one region actually does not have equal weight by region.

In the House of Commons, we have repeatedly moved further and further away from the idea of representation by population through amendments to the Constitution, first in 1915, to the formula in 1946, in 1952, in 1974 and, finally, in 1985. With some limitation, it is accurate to say that each time we moved further and further away from the idea that every Canadian's vote should have equal weight, the foundational principle of the House was being set aside. Bill C-12 seeks to re-establish that principle.

Before I turn to Bill C-12, I want to talk for a moment about just how far we have moved from representation by population. A recent study was put out by the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation. It points out that if the average Canadian vote is given a value of one, we will find that only one province in the entire country has a relatively close value to that number, and that is Quebec.

In Ontario the average vote is only worth 0.9 or 90% of the average, 0.92 in Alberta and 0.90 in British Columbia. On the other hand, if we look at some of the smaller provinces, we will see a wide variation from that. A vote in Saskatchewan is worth 1.39. Measured against a vote in Alberta, that means that a vote in Saskatchewan is worth 50% more or, to flip it around, a voter in Alberta has a vote that is worth only two-thirds as much as a vote in Saskatchewan. The trend is for that to continue with each census getting more and more extreme. Bill C-12 seeks to set that situation right.

The Bloc Québécois is attempting to say is that it just wants to move aside for one province. That is in fact an effort to lock in one more exception, to go down the same wrong path, although in the service of a different part of the country, a path that we went down in 1915, 1952, 1974 and so on. What needs to happen is a return to the foundational principle in the lower house. Bill C-12 would accomplish that.

It is worth noting as well that just as Bill C-12 seeks to start re-establishing the foundational principle of the House of Commons, the Senate legislation proposed by the government does the same thing for the upper house. Right now we have an upper house which represents on the basis of region, but it is not an elected house and it is not, as we old Reformers would say, an effective house. Remember the famous triple E, equal, elected, effective? It has some element of equality by region, but it is not elected at all, therefore is not effective. It is not seen as a legitimate counterweight to the lower house.

Because of that fact, the representation principle based in the Senate is absent. We need to correct both that principle and set it straight to a foundational level where the Senate can operate as a sober and equal house of second thought and where the House of Commons can function to provide representation by population for everybody across the country. These two have to be seen as a package.

As the Bloc Québécois members are proposing this, they are forgetting that there is a package at work here, an effort to set straight the original foundational Confederation deal in both houses.

I want to point out that we have tried in the past in the country to accomplish a version of what the Bloc Québécois has done today with its motion, which is to say that it is not opposed to representation by population as long as one-quarter of the seats are reserved for Quebec, or as it has amended its motion, 24.3% are preserved for Quebec.

The problem is we cannot say we will overweight the proportional value for one part of the country permanently without having the effect to permanently underweight votes in another part of the country. Ultimately sharing the representational pie is a zero sum game. We cannot give to one without taking from another, and that is effectively what is being done.

Although I am sure it is not the intention, and I am sure this is done with good will, the reality is what the Bloc Québécois has proposed to do is to say to everyone in my province and also in British Columbia and Alberta that they should be permanently under-represented, their votes should permanently be worth less, they should permanently have a lower proportion of the representational pie. They should accept that they are less of a democratic participant and to this extent disenfranchised. Clearly that is not in keeping with the Confederation deal to which our ancestors all agreed.

This was tried once before as I mentioned. It was tried in 1990 with the Charlottetown accord, an accord that stated they were seeking to adjust the House of Commons “to better reflect the principle of representation by population”. However, that was subject to a requirement “a guarantee that Quebec would be assigned no fewer than 25 percent of the seats in the House of Commons”.

Once they said that, a whole series of other things kicked in. The principle that no small province should have a larger number of people per riding than a large province and should be under-represented as compared to a large province had to be set aside wherever it conflicted with the principle that Quebec had 25% of the seats. Fundamentally, a problem was created which would, had this been adopted, become worse and worse over time.

I want to draw the attention of member to one last thought. There was a time in the 1940s when the population trend was reversed. At that time, Quebec's population was rapidly increasing. That of Ontario and other provinces had been flat due to a lower birth rate during the 1930s and a lack of immigration during the Depression and the second world war. When it came time for redistribution, Ontario's representation and that of the western provinces was to fall. This could have been resolved by freezing our proportional representation at the levels they were at. That would have resulted in Quebeckers being deprived of some of the representation they deserved.

Happily a wiser solution was found. The total number of seats in the House was increased. The Quebeckers enjoyed the numbers they deserved and Ontarians and others were not deprived of actual seats. That spirit, which animated our legislation in 1946, animates again the legislation being proposed in Bill C-12.

I encourage all members of the House, including members of the Bloc Québécois, to support that and that would mean, by necessity, to vote against the motion.

[Paule Brunelle, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this motion on this Bloc Québécois opposition day. It is a motion that seeks to condemn the marginalization of the Quebec nation. The key point to retain is that Quebec really is a unique nation through its history, its values and its language. Quebeckers have always known this and they are very proud of it. For over 400 years, on North American soil, we have been fighting to preserve this unique culture and we are defending our rights to express ourselves in the language of Molière on an Anglo-Saxon continent. For us, it has been an ongoing battle to preserve both the quality of the language and its presence in all our institutions.

In 2006, the Conservative government recognized Quebec as a nation. Too little, too late, some would say. We had to wait almost 140 years for the federal Parliament to recognize the people of Quebec. We are talking about 140 years of denying the existence of a culture that transcends our borders and resonates around the world today.

The Conservatives still have the same old habits: a lot of promises, a lot of talk, but very few results. This recognition seems more like lip service. It shows no real willingness to allow for the full development of the people of Quebec. Fairness for Quebec as a founding people is being a nation free to express its priorities and make its own choices. For that to be possible, it is vital that Quebec keep a political weight that takes its national reality into account.

Unfortunately, the federal government does not share the same vision. In 2007, the Conservatives introduced a bill to change the electoral map, with the result that the voice of the Quebec nation within the Canadian federation was weakened. Last April, they did it again with a similar new bill. By constantly seeking to marginalize the Quebec nation, the federal government is sending Quebeckers the message that, in its view, democratic representation is, above all, representation for other Canadians at the expense of Quebec's fundamental interests. As we said earlier, it is not surprising that, right now, Quebeckers feel that this situation is profoundly unfair.

Section 51 of the Constitution guarantees 75 seats for Quebec. However, this guarantee in no way protects the political weight of Quebec because these 75 seats are constantly weakened by the addition of seats elsewhere in Canada. Furthermore, in a majority decision handed down in 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada wrote: “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'“.

In Quebec's case, “effective representation“ is a guarantee that its unique and distinct nature will be preserved and, consequently, that it will get the political tools it needs to achieve that. In the Canadian logic of nation building, there is no place for the Quebec national reality. Due to Quebec's special status, the 1992 Charlottetown accord guaranteed that the province would always have at least 25% of the seats in the House of Commons, but it failed. For Quebec, it was not enough, and for the rest of Canada, it was far too much.

Reneguing on its good intentions at the time, today, the federal government does not hesitate to introduce a bill that would reduce Quebec's representation in Ottawa to less than 22%. We must go back more than half a century, to 1952 to be exact, to see the last increase in Quebec's representation in the House of Commons. Since then, the total number of seats in the House keeps on rising while that of Quebec remains the same.

In 2007, with its bill C-56, the Conservative government tried to add 22 new seats outside Quebec. Bill C-12, introduced last April by the Conservatives, adds another 30 new seats in three provinces: Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

If you look at statistics for the last five years, you will see that the population of Ontario increased by 550,000, while the populations of Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec increased by 350,000, 260,000 and 250,000 respectively.

Elsewhere, there has been almost no change. Why is it that the first three provinces are entitled to 18, 7 and 5 additional seats respectively, while Quebec gets nothing, even though it has a quarter of a million more citizens? Why would Quebec see its representation go from 24.3% to 22.7% of all seats when it has 23.2% of the population?

In our view, the Conservative strategy is clear. Not only will these new seats allow the election of a majority government, but they will also continue to isolate Quebec and to marginalize the Quebec nation. That is why it is unacceptable to the Bloc Québécois.

Quebeckers are unanimous on this point. In a motion, the National Assembly demands that the federal government abandon the idea of introducing a bill that will reduce Quebec's weight in the House of Commons. This issue is not of concern to politicians only. An Angus Reid poll of April 7, 2010 showed that 71% of Quebeckers were against such bill.

I would like to conclude by saying that it is important, in recognizing the Quebec nation, to acknowledge the representation of its elected members and its fair weight in the Canadian federation.

[Claude Guimond, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when the constituents of Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques elected me in 2008, they did so knowing full well that I would defend their interests at all costs in this House. I have often stood up to denounce government decisions that went against the needs of my constituents and that of Quebeckers. I want you to know that I keep the promises I make to my constituents and that I will continue doing so with no strings attached. That is why I stand up again today because I strongly disagree with the Conservative government's desire to reduce Quebec's political weight in this parliament. I will give concrete examples of what could happen if the bill were adopted.

Considering the importance that members opposite give to regional development, and considering that the Bloc Québécois is the only party that suggests ideas and concrete solutions to enrich and expand regions, they would be the ones with the most to lose if Bill C-12, which we are criticizing today, were adopted. Not only would it be detrimental to the regions, but also to Quebec, which would experience major losses. Without the important contribution of the Bloc Québécois or Quebec's substantial representation in this House, I cannot imagine where we would be with issues like the environment, unemployment insurance, the forestry crisis, land use, and so on. These are concrete examples of the issues that could be affected.

Considering that there are huge differences between the interests of Quebec and western Canada—of which we have concrete examples every day in this House—and that for political reasons, the Conservatives and the Liberals prefer, first and foremost, to meet demands from western Canada, it is crucial that Quebec maintain its current political weight. That is the minimum. Oil sands and gifts to the oil industry and banks are not part of our everyday life nor so we ever want them to be.

Although Quebec's National Assembly and the members of the Bloc Québécois are asking the federal government to provide timely assistance to people affected by the forestry crisis, the Conservatives insist on subsidizing the automotive industry, mainly concentrated in Ontario, with billions of dollars, and give crumbs to Quebec and its forestry industry. Without the strong presence of the Bloc Québécois, or with Quebec's political weight reduced, we can only imagine the emphasis this House would put on this issue. It would be tragic.

Injustices like those are much too numerous. One need only think of maintaining and developing the regions, such as the eastern part of Quebec, where my riding is located. The Conservatives have the opportunity to make amends and to allocate the necessary funds, for instance to pursue a project submitted under the broadband Canada program, designed to favour the expansion and the availability of communication services like high-speed Internet to the greatest number of communities, mainly rural ones like my own. And yet, the Conservatives keep on postponing the announcement of the grants. As a result, far too many citizens, businesses and communities are left hanging. Are the Conservatives aware of the fact that rural citizens are not second-class citizens? What would become of them if Quebec could not count on its significant proportion of members in the House of Commons?

With a reduced Quebec representation in the House, there is no doubt that the Conservatives and the Liberals would more often create smokescreens with the sole objective of marginalizing the Quebec nation, which they are constantly trying to do.

With Quebec's political weight reduced, how would we press the Conservative government to compensate Quebec by granting the $2.2 billion it is owed for harmonizing its sales tax with the federal one, even though it compensated Ontario to the tune of $4.3 billion?

I will give another example. It is the same for the maritime provinces, which were each granted almost $1 billion in 1997. However, not a dime was given to Quebec, which was the first province to harmonize its tax.

I will say it again: Quebec must, at least, maintain its current political weight in this House because the interests of Quebec and Canada differ too much on too many issues.

Here is another example regarding agriculture. As our leader so aptly put it, there are two distinct agricultural models in Canada: the Quebec model and the one developed in western Canada. Of course, be they Quebeckers or Canadians, producers and consumers share certain common objectives. Agricultural producers from Quebec and Canada agree, for instance, on the dire need for farm income support, a matter on which the Prime Minister's government seems to lack a sense of urgency. There are also fundamental differences between the agricultural models in Quebec and Canada.

In Canada, the majority of producers prefer to rely on exportation, but in Quebec, because of the type of productions and small farms we have, the main stay is production for the local market, which explains the need for Quebec to build on the development of collective mechanisms like supply management. If we want to uphold the idea that we should rely upon the development of collective mechanisms, it is important and crucial that Quebec have a strong representation in this House.

One has to draw the same conclusion as concerns the environment. In Copenhagen, Canada took a rigid position in defending the tar sands at the expense of all the efforts Quebec has made since 1990. How could we fight for Quebec’s interests without the support of a solid proportion of Quebec members in the House, and not token Quebec government members who are unfortunately all too many in this House?

These examples show how much Quebec stands to lose if Bill C-12 is passed.

The interests of Quebec are at stake, of course, but so are the interests of the regions in Quebec. We should avoid at all costs weakening their political weight, so that they can still have an important voice in political fora to be able to express their concerns. Not to mention the place that Quebec as a nation has been given in this House. As my colleagues have eloquently explained, the recognition of Quebec as a nation has no meaning for this House. And the decision to decrease the weight of Quebec in the House of Commons is just the last in a long series of examples that show this.

[Diane Bourgeois, Bloc, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques.

Today, we are discussing the following motion presented and amended by the Bloc Québécois:

That the House denounce the fact that the government seeks to marginalize the Quebec nation by introducing a bill to decrease Quebec’s political weight in the House, and call on the government not to enact any legislation that would reduce Quebec's current representation in the House of Commons of 24.35% of the seats.

This motion is in response to the fact that the Conservative Party has introduced, on three occasions, a bill or motion to diminish the political weight of Quebec in this House.

The Conservatives recognized the Quebec nation to some extent. However, they have since systematically attacked this nation and rejected any proposal to give tangible expression to that recognition.

They introduced Bill C-12, which would further marginalize the Quebec nation in Canada.

In 1867, when the Canadian Confederation or federation came together, Quebec's weight was 36% in terms of seats. At this rate, we will have only 22.4% of the seats in 2014. This government will no longer engage in open federalism but will be muzzling the provinces.

Every time a bill has been introduced to reduce Quebec's political weight in the House, Quebec's National Assembly has taken a stand and unanimously demanded withdrawal of the bill. First, there was Bill C-56, then Bill C-22, and now Bill C-12. More than 85% of Quebec's elected representatives are against this bill. We must examine the current provisions.

Since 1867, what steps have reduced Quebec's political weight?

The British North America Act enacted in 1867 contained two extremely important sections.

Section 51 established the House of Commons' representation system and said that a province would maintain the same number of seats even if its relative population decreased. And we should not forget that when Upper and Lower Canada were united, each had the same number of seats.

Then there is section 52:

The Number of Members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada, provided the proportionate Representation of the Provinces prescribed by this Act is not thereby disturbed.

Two sections in the British North America Act, sections 51 and 52, ensured that seat distribution amongst the provinces in the House could be changed only by London and it ensured that the number of seats would remain the same, even if a province's population dropped. That was in 1867.

In 1907, the territories became an exception to these rules. Federal territories gained the right to be represented in the House even though their population did not warrant it under proportional representation.

Then, in 1915, Prince Edward Island joined. It had a small population. It asked for additional protection, which was added in 1915 and stated that a province could not have fewer members of the House of Commons than senators. This protection has been maintained over the years. The changes between 1867 and 1915 gave way to other means of stemming the loss of seats for provinces with slow population growth.

Section 51 of the act that was patriated along with the Constitution says that there is a ceiling. I think that it is important to point out that for some provinces, population losses in demographic terms were ignored. Furthermore, at the time, London had the power to amend the act. Now that the Constitution has been patriated, we have had the power since 1949 to amend it and to make our own laws here in the House of Commons, as long as seven provinces representing 50% of the population plus one agree with any constitutional change. I think that is important because there is some doubt about whether the current Conservative government has the right to introduce a change to the Representation Act in terms of ridings. Does it have that right? The government says that it does. It is hiding behind democracy and claiming that its proposal would ensure better representation for the people of three provinces. However, we do not believe that that is its real agenda. It is trying to accommodate certain provinces to ensure that the people of those provinces elect federalist Conservative and Liberal members and that, as a result, Quebec loses its political weight in this federation. The Conservative government is trying to raise the ceiling used to calculate each province's population-based representation because it wants to give more seats to the provinces with the fastest-growing populations.

Since 1985, twelve additional seats have been given to six provinces with low demographic growth rates. Today, seven provinces benefit from the system that was brought in, but as everyone knows, Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia are at a disadvantage. The Conservative government can find a legitimate way to fix the problem, but it must protect provinces whose population is declining relative to the whole. We believe that, by focusing too closely on approximating pure representation by population, the government is in danger of violating paragraph 42(1)(a), which, as we saw earlier, enshrines modified proportionate representation.

As I said earlier, since 1982, when the Constitution was patriated, the consent of at least seven provinces has been required to make changes to representation in the House of Commons. We believe that if the government wants to bring in representation by population, it will have to seek the support of seven provinces representing half of Canada's population because this matter falls under the Constitution of Canada.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Edmonton Centre, AB]

Mr. Speaker, our government believes that, to the greatest extent possible, each Canadian's vote should carry equal weight. That is the principle behind Bill C-12. It would be violated by passage of the hon. member's motion today.

We want to restore the principle of representation by population to the House of Commons. Every few years, of course, it is going to get a little bit out of whack because some provinces grow and some provinces do not. Hopefully no province shrinks, but the rate of growth is obviously different. It is simply a matter of fairness and a matter of making sure every Canadian's vote carries equal weight, whether that Canadian is from British Columbia, Alberta, Ontario, Quebec or wherever.

[Laurie Hawn, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to today's opposition day motion, which has been moved by the member for Joliette.

The issue before the House today is fundamentally important for our democracy, and that is representation in the House of Commons.

All hon. members and indeed all Canadians can agree that representation in this House must be fair. This means two things: it must be fair for every province in the federation and it must be fair for all Canadians regardless of the province in which they live. Our government introduced the democratic representation act on April 1 to bring fairness back to the people's House.

In a country as vast and diverse as ours, finding that balance is not always easy. Competing equities must be considered to ensure fairness. Nevertheless fairness for all provinces and for all Canadians must be the overriding objective. That is why the motion put forward by the member for Joliette is so misguided and why I urge all members to vote against the motion today.

I will focus my remarks on the historic representation of Quebec in the House of Commons and provide some background on the distribution of seats in the House. This will provide better context for our debate and demonstrate that the member's motion is, in fact, unnecessary.

In contrast, Bill C-12, the democratic representation act, strikes the right balance for the democratic representation of all provinces and all Canadians.

At Confederation, the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons was paramount. It was this principle, combined with equality of reasonable representation in the Upper House, that made the union of Canada in one dominion possible.

The Constitution Act of 1867 reflected the principle of representation by population, or rep by pop as it is commonly known. It included a formula for readjusting seats in the House every 10 years.

That formula allocated 65 seats to Quebec and allocated seats to other provinces in proportion to their respective populations. In other words, representation in the House was rep by pop, with the average riding population in Quebec used as the standard to determine the representation of other provinces. The Confederation formula also included protection against a loss of seats if a province's population were to rapidly decline.

Although the seat allocation formula has changed over time, the following two elements of the formula have remained stable since Confederation. The first element is that there is an allocation of seats based on population. It is pretty simple. The second is that there is protection against the loss of seats for provinces whose populations are in relative decline. That is also pretty simple. That formula has never provided a guaranteed percentage of seats for any single province.

I cannot imagine that anyone in this House disputes that smaller provinces may need more seats than may be justified by their populations, to help enhance their representation in this House, and we have heard some examples. However, by definition, this means that other provinces will have a reduced representation.

Again we are faced with a question of fairness. Is it fair for smaller provinces to be under-represented or for a larger province that already has a significant proportion of seats to accept some under-representation to enhance the representation of smaller provinces?

I love P.E.I. for many reasons. It is a beautiful, historic province. It has tremendously friendly people, who were wise enough to elect a great representative in our fisheries minister. I envy P.E.I. MPs. In Edmonton Centre, I have as many constituents as the entire population of Prince Edward Island. Each P.E.I. MP has about 35,000 constituents. In round numbers, I have 130,000. I really envy them because if I had that few constituents, I would know them all on a first-name basis.

It is the same with the seats in the north, obviously granting its size.

But there are some common sense reasons there could be some disparity in the number of seats. P.E.I. is an example and the north is another example.

Under the current formula, P.E.I. gets three of its four seats from seat protections rather than population size. According to a strict rep by pop formula, P.E.I. is over-represented in this House, but I believe we could all agree that this is fair in a House of more than 300 members.

The same rationale does not apply to a province that already has 18 times as many seats as P.E.I. and the second largest number of seats in the House. Yet this is exactly what the member for Joliette would ask us to support.

To look at it another way, Quebec is the second-largest province in the country, and yet the populations of its ridings are much smaller than the medium-sized provinces of Alberta and British Columbia. Is it fair that it takes an average of at least 17,000 more Albertans to elect an MP from that province than it does to elect an MP from the province of Quebec?

Now to return to the terms of the motion before the House today, the member for Joliette suggests that Quebec members of Parliament must hold at least 25% of the seats in this House. Members will recall that such a 25% guarantee was proposed as part of the Charlottetown Accord in 1992.

Let us remember that Quebec's share of the provincial population at that time, according to the 1991 census, was slightly over 25%. Yet the Charlottetown Accord was unsuccessful and was ultimately rejected by the people of Quebec. The demographic reality has changed significantly since 1992, and it continues to change. That makes a 25% guarantee even more unrealistic. According to the 2006 census, Quebec's share of the provincial population has fallen to slightly less than 24%. Based on currently available population projections, its share will fall further to 23.2% in the 2011 census and further still to 21.6% by the 2031 census.

That could change. There is no question about that. At the same time, we are experiencing rapid and significant population growth in other provinces, which are prevented from gaining seats that recognize their growth. To support the motion before the House today would further penalize these growing provinces and further undermine the principle of fairness that must underscore representation in the House.

Let us look at one final example. If the current formula is not changed, after the 2011 census, British Columbia will only have about half the seats Quebec has, even though it will have close to 60% of its population. Looked at another way, Quebec will have twice as many seats as B.C., but its share of seats will be greater than its share of the provincial population. In contrast, B.C.'s share of seats will be less than its share of the population by an even larger margin. As a result, an MP from B.C. would be called upon to represent 15,000 more constituents on average than an MP from Quebec.

To accept the member for Joliette's motion, more than 75 seats would have to be given to Quebec to give it 25% of House seats, widening these disparities even more. I am not sure any Canadians, whether they are from British Columbia, Quebec or any other province, would consider this fair, and I do not believe that any member could think so either. Under Bill C-12, even after the adjustments that are suggested, Quebec will still have fewer constituents per riding than the growing provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

We can all agree that fairness should be the cornerstone of representation in the House of Commons. For that representation to be fair, seats in an elected assembly must be based primarily on population and reflect the demographic realities of our country. Compromises must also be made to ensure effective representation for all Canadians across Canada. Bill C-12 would balance our desire to bring the House closer to the fundamental democratic principle of representation by population while continuing to protect the seat counts in slower-growing provinces such as Quebec.

Simply stated, the motion before the House today would take us even further from that core democratic principle. That is why I oppose the motion and I urge all other hon. members to do the same.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Bloc motion is, in large part, a reaction to Bill C-12, which would give more seats to Ontario, B.C. and Alberta. We have certain regions where votes are worth more in one region than another. For example, in Saskatchewan votes are worth 54% more than they are in B.C. and in New Brunswick they are worth 38% more than they are in Ontario.

However, we need two kinds of equality. We need equality in the number of votes per MP but we also need equality in the weight of all votes by party. To elect one Bloc member it takes about 28,000 votes on average, for a Conservative about 36,000, for a Liberal 47,000, for an NDPer 67,000 and for the Green Party zero votes for a million.

Will the Liberals be supporting proportional representation by party?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today in this debate on the joint motion of the Bloc Québécois and the NDP.

Before getting into debate, I would like to address a comment to my colleague, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform. He said, “Quebec we love you”, and “Thank you Quebec”, but perhaps his government should do something positive for Quebec instead of just saying nice things.

Before addressing the basic principle of our democracy—one person, one vote—I have to say that my colleagues from the Bloc are really trying my patience.

The Bloc Québécois members always try to poison discussions and have Quebeckers believe that they are there for them. In my sense, that is not true. They make it clear that they want a sovereign Quebec and, to me, a sovereign Quebec means no seats for Quebec.

They are calling for more seats for Quebec, while at the same time wanting none. As I said, no seats for Quebec. That is hypocrisy. There is an old saying that you cannot have your cake and eat it too. Everyone knows that the Bloc does not want any seats for Quebec, be it in the House of Commons, in the Senate or in government. The Bloc states its objective honestly, but there is something hypocritical about putting forward a motion like the one before us this morning.

The Bloc Québécois leader toured the rest of Canada to meet Canadians and explain his blueprint to them. He was convinced from the start that it was a lost cause. Why did he undertake this tour if he was convinced from the start that it was a waste of time?

In an interview with a journalist from the daily newspaper Le Devoir, the Bloc leader expressed this negative mindset in these terms:

There is nothing that Canada can offer or change. Canada cannot be reformed. The federalists have said it themselves, “The fruit is not yet ripe” or “the soil is not fertile”. We are not discussing this any more; it is over. The only solution for the Quebec nation is sovereignty. Quebec is not against Canada; it is even a good solution for Canada, instead of having these endless debates.

How generous.

I have been told that I made a mistake in saying that this was a joint Bloc Québécois and NDP motion, since the Bloc amended its own motion and not the NDP. I will correct that and say that I am talking about the motion that has been entirely presented by the Bloc Québécois.

The only solution good enough for the Bloc is its own. It thinks that outside its own party, there is no salvation. However, the Bloc Québécois does not represent all of Quebec. Not every Quebecker supports sovereignty. Even the former leader of the Bloc Québécois, Lucien Bouchard, does not believe that he will see sovereignty in his lifetime. Quebeckers deserve much more. They deserve recognition and representation that reflect the important role they play in Canada.

The government has introduced Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation). The Conservative government introduced a similar bill in the second session, before the Conservatives decided to hide from their problems and prorogue Parliament. Who can forget the famous prorogation?

This bill would amend 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.

Why is the Bloc so eager to pass a motion on representation in Quebec, when it knows very well that we will be discussing every single one of these issues during the debate on Bill C-12? The Bloc is using this forum to convince Quebeckers that it is the only party that knows the truth and that it is the only messenger.

They want to get political mileage out of it. Why, on their allotted day, are they not tackling the problems of concern to Quebeckers, like the economy, jobs, pensions, health care and employment insurance, among other things?

No, the Bloc is using this day it has been given to pursue its campaign strategy and not to advance the cause of Quebeckers. It is here to advance its own cause and its own very specific solutions.

We, the Liberals, want to advance issues that are important to Quebeckers and to Canadians, and we want to debate the entire question of representation in the debates on Bill C-12. We will participate actively in discussions about Bill C-12, and we will very probably vote in favour of the bill at second reading so it can be studied in depth in committee.

We, the Liberals, want to debate it on its merits and hear experts tell us about all the ins and outs of the broad principle of representation. It is an important but also very complex value that must be studied in its entirety. We must not limit the study to representation as it relates to Quebec. Canada is a whole, whatever the Bloc may think. What affects Quebec also affects all the other regions of Canada. We do not live in a vacuum. Our economy and our trade extend far beyond our borders.

I would now like to talk about the great democratic rights set out in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In particular, I would be remiss if I did not mention the right to vote. I would like to quote section 3 of the charter on the right to vote: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.”

There is a fundamental principle in our democracy: one person, one vote. In a federation, that principle generally applies to the lower chamber. In Canada, the broad principle of one person, one vote is applied to the House of Commons. In a federation, regional interests are often represented in an upper chamber. In Canada, representation of regional interests is found in the Senate.

Under the Canadian Constitution, Quebec has 25% of the seats in the Senate. That is a constitutional guarantee.

We then have to ask whether the Bloc itself believes in its own motion. It was against the referendum on the Charlottetown accord. To the Bloc, there is only one solution: no seats for Quebec in the House of Commons, zero seats. In the Senate, Quebec has 25% of the seats. What is the Bloc proposing instead? Abolishing the Senate, which amounts to no seats, zero seats, for Quebec in the Senate.

Every election, the Bloc fights to have Quebec ultimately get no seats in government. Zero seats.

I reject this fake indignation, this playing at having their delicate sensibilities offended, that the Bloc members in Ottawa wrap themselves in. Those same members are trying to convince us today that they are fighting for Quebec to have a place in Ottawa, when everything they do demonstrates that they are trying to eliminate Quebec’s place in Canada.

We all know that their objective is clear: no representation for Quebec in Ottawa; but we, the Liberals, believe in the principle that is dear to our democracy: one person, one vote. Those rights and freedoms, and the right to vote that is part of them, were won by our parents, our grandparents and our great-grandparents, who fought many battles for them.

In passing, I would say that in my own family, my great-grandfather, Isidore Proulx, and his son, my grandfather, Edmond Proulx, who were both elected in eastern Ontario, came here to the House of Commons to fight for their rights. I think we can say they succeeded, since I grew up in eastern Ontario entirely in French.

More than 40 years ago, I chose to come and live in Quebec. I am proud of that and very happy about it, but there were past battles that also proved successful.

I am thinking as well of the struggle that women waged for the right to vote and of the struggle to enable tenants and aboriginals to vote. Over the decades, all the discriminatory practices preventing various categories of people from voting were eliminated. How many countries have fought to enjoy our great democratic rights and how many citizens of these countries put their personal safety at risk in order to vote? We cannot turn this into an electoral football. We must carefully study any changes to representation and the right to vote in a comprehensive way that is fair to all Canadians.

I would like to take a closer look now at the general principle behind representation. Elections Canada has prepared an instructive brochure on this called “Representation in the House of Commons of Canada”. It is available to all and makes it easier to understand the principle. We all know about one person, one vote. The Canada Elections Act specifically prescribes it. In addition, this representation must be effective. That is why we have such things as ridings.

The boundaries of the ridings are revised from time to time to reflect changes in their population and in the particular interests of each riding. I well remember the last revision of the electoral map because I sat on the committee set up to make the recommendations. The boundaries are not based purely on a mathematical formula. Regional characteristics are also considered, such as demography, urban and rural populations, and so forth. Just ask our colleague from the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst, because he can go on about it for hours.

Proportional representation is therefore not the only principle governing the distribution of seats in the House of Commons. Canada resulted from a desire to create a federation of provinces, the presumption being that each would be fairly represented, if not always equally. That is the basis, therefore, on which we calculate the number of seats that each province will get, rather than just a simple mathematical formula based on population.

In the Senate, we wanted regional representation, as I said earlier. During the course of the negotiations, Quebec and the Maritimes were concerned that the House of Commons would be dominated by Ontario interests because of its large population. In order to provide some balance in the Senate, an equal number of seats were therefore allotted to all three regions of the country. This equality of regional representation was preserved when the West was added. Today, each region therefore has about 25% of the seats in the Senate.

The House of Commons, however, did not take the same path. In the 1960s, it had 264 seats; in the 1990s, 282 seats; and with further expansion, it now has 308 seats. Through all this, the number of Quebec seats remained constant, while its proportion of the population declined. Quebec has often been the subject of special discussions. I would like to mention again the Charlottetown agreement. It contained a clause providing that Quebec would have no fewer than 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. History shows, though, that the referendum failed to achieve the results that the federalists hoped for, including the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party. The opponents on the federal scene were the Bloc Québécois and the Reform Party. History shows that the Bloc has always opposed fair representation for Quebec in the Canadian federation.

Today, Quebec represents 23.2% of the Canadian population and holds 24.35% of the seats in the House of Commons. If the new formula proposed by the Conservatives were adopted, Quebec would then have 22.2% of the seats in the House, even though its population, as I was saying, accounts for 23.2% of the Canadian population.

If we compare the situation of Ontario with that of Quebec, we see that Ontario represents 38.7% of the population, although it holds only 34.3% of the seats in the House. Alberta represents 10.9% of the population and has 9.1% of the seats; British Columbia, 13.25% of the population and 11.7% of the seats.

This calculation demonstrates the difficulty of coordinating the concept of proportional representation with the regional realities of the Canadian federation.

I recall that a bill was withdrawn a few years ago because on one hand it under-represented Ontario, and on the other hand it diluted the representation of Quebec. In other words, these are not new concerns.

If we look at the distribution of the 308 seats in today’s House of Commons, we see that Newfoundland and Labrador hold seven seats, Prince Edward Island four, Nova Scotia 11, New Brunswick 10, Quebec 75, Ontario 106, Manitoba 14, Saskatchewan 14, Alberta 28, and British Columbia 36. Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon each hold one seat.

With the formula proposed by the Conservatives, Ontario would have 124 seats, Alberta 33 and British Columbia 43, for a grand total of 338 seats. However a number of provinces have expressed concern about the representation proposed by the Conservative government.

We absolutely need an informed and open-minded study of this bill in order to respond to Ontario’s cry for more seats, as evidenced in the Fairness for Ontario campaign.

We also need to be aware of the feeling of alienation in the western provinces, particularly Alberta and British Columbia. However, neither can we allow ourselves to dilute the weight of Quebec and the Atlantic provinces. I feel that we will have to be open-minded toward all these demands, and call upon all of our creativity to respond to the needs of each of the regions of Canada.

I also think it would be more sensible to study this whole issue in a responsible, serious and respectful manner in committee. I do not believe that the atmosphere in which this motion is being tabled is conducive to good discussion. What it does instead is to discredit federalism with Quebeckers, something which is not constructive.

If the Bloc Québécois had been serious about the place of Quebec, its leader would have renounced—that’s right, “renounced”—Quebec separation during his pilgrimage through the rest of Canada. He would instead have argued for better representation of Quebec within the House of Commons.

In other respects, one must admit that the Conservatives’ bill is worrying. It is in fact being tabled with an election in mind, and would have the substantial effect of reducing the representation of Quebec. What are the Conservatives going to tell us? They will repeat to us over and over that the current representation formula penalizes the provinces experiencing strong growth. I will admit that, but they have not always been in favour of fair representation. They are the ones who in 2007 tabled the bill on strict representation of one person, one vote. If that bill had been passed, only 10 additional seats would have been given to Ontario, even though the population requires a larger number.

Here is the question: what did the Conservative members from Ontario do? They stayed quiet in their seats and acted against the interests of the population they represented at the time.

The Liberal Party will vote against this motion of the Bloc Québécois, which I regard as opportunistic. We Liberals will continue to work to improve the balance between the great democratic principle of representation based on population and the principle of regional representation within the Canadian federation. Quebec deserves effective representation with which it can identify. And that is what we will offer it.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Madam Speaker, I disagree with the premise of everything the member said.

I am going to focus again on Bill C-12 and the benefits that it brings to British Columbia. By allowing British Columbia to have the seats it deserves, the democratic will of the people of British Columbia will choose who will be their representatives in the House of Commons. I note that most of the time British Columbians choose Conservatives.

Having said that, more along those lines of effective representation, this motion comes from the Bloc. I can say that one member from the Conservative Party from Quebec has done more for Quebec in one day than the entire Bloc number of MPs, which is around 50, have done in the last 20 years. One Conservative member has done more for Quebec than the entire Bloc Québécois has done in its entire history. Therefore, if one wants effective representation, it would probably be a good idea to vote for a federal party even if it is the NDP which is sometimes effective.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak out against the opposition motion on representation in the House of Commons.

As the House knows, I introduced Bill C-12, the democratic representation act, on November 1, 2010. This important bill will restore fairness in the House of Commons. The motion before the House today would do the opposite. It would compromise the fundamental democratic principle of representation by population.

The issue of representation in the House is fundamentally important to Canadian democracy. As a democratic state we must strive to ensure representation in the House is fair and respects fundamental democratic principles.

In Canada, as in any other democratic society, the overriding principle must be representation based upon population.

First, representation should be based on the population. The Supreme Court of Canada has stated that relative parity of voting between citizens should be the primary consideration in democratic representation.

While mathematical parity is impossible to achieve in a diverse country such as Canada, our government believes to the greatest extent possible we should strive to ensure each Canadian has equal weight when he or she votes. This means we should seek to correct any undue inequalities in the average population size of ridings in one province as compared to another. Where such inconsistencies exist, there must be a justifiable reason. This leads to the second principle of representation that we must keep in mind, which is effective representation in a federation.

Canada's 10 provinces vary widely in population, geographic makeup and demographic growth. Therefore, the primary principle of representation by population may need adjustment to ensure the voices of smaller provinces continue to be effective and they are not drowned out by larger ones.

Our bill guarantees that Quebec and all the other provinces will keep their seats.

We recognize it is important for the voices to be heard in this place, the national Parliament, and to some degree, the enhanced representation for the smaller provinces has always been accepted on that basis. Of course, because there is a finite number of seats in the House, the enhanced representation for some provinces will impact the representation for others. The question must always be the degree of the impact that is acceptable, keeping in mind the fundamental and primary principle of representation by population.

The third principle that must inform representation in the House is ensuring, on a forward-looking basis, that future growth in the membership of the House of Commons is reasonable. While it is often said that there is no unreasonable place for democracy, we must be mindful that unnecessary growth in the House will result in concrete costs to the public purse. The question becomes again: What is fair? What approach will recognize the population growth in certain parts of the country from one census to the next? What approach will ensure that Canadians living in provinces of rapid growth will receive fair representation?

We considered each of these principles while developing the democratic representation act. It was our duty, as the government for all Canadians, to bring a national perspective to this task. Indeed, this is a perspective that every member of Parliament, as a member of Canada's House of Commons, should bring to this issue. As I will explain shortly, we believe we have struck the right balance between competing principles, which will correct the unfairness of the existing formula for readjusting the seats in the House.

Let me talk about the current formula. The existing formula for readjusting seats was introduced in 1985. However, in light of demographic changes in the country, this formula is no longer adequate. Returning to the three principles I outlined, the 1985 formula does not strike a good balance. In short, it sacrifices the primary principle of representation by population for the other two and does so at the expense of faster growing provinces.

As a first step, the formula requires that each province, based on its population, gets a share of the 279 seats, which was the number of seats in the 33rd Parliament. As a second step, the 1985 formula protects any province from losing the number of seats it had in the 33rd Parliament even if its population is in relative decline. This is known as the grandfather clause.

This is also in addition to the constitutional provision that prevents any province from having fewer MPs than it has senators, which is known as the senatorial clause. The effects of this formula have been profound. Simply put, the formula sacrifices the primary democratic principle of representation by population in favour of an arbitrary ceiling that is based on the size of the House of Commons three decades ago.

While this does constrain the size of the House, it does so at the expense of three faster-growing provinces alone, limiting the number of seats they can receive from one readjustment to the next. At the same time, the other seven provinces receive extra seats to maintain their seat counts under the 1985 formula. These extra seats further reduce the relative representation of faster-growing provinces that are already being penalized by the formula's ceiling. This will only worsen for Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia as each subsequent readjustment is done.

Accordingly, Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia have become extremely underrepresented in the House of Commons.

This means that faster-growing provinces have more populous ridings than slower-growing provinces. Based on the 2006 census, ridings in Ontario, Alberta and B.C. had, on average, more than 26,000 more constituents than ridings in slower-growing provinces. The voices of Canadians in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta are diminished each time the population of those provinces increases.

The next readjustment of seats is based on projections for the 2011 census. This number is projected to increase to almost 30,000. That is 30,000, with the average riding population of Ontario, Alberta and B.C. being about 120,000 constituents, obviously significantly more people than the average.

In short, the current formula is moving the House as a whole further away from the principle of representation by population and is also sacrificing effective representation of citizens in faster-growing provinces. Our government is taking a principled approach that strikes a balance between restoring fairer representation for faster-growing provinces and protecting the seat counts in slower growing provinces.

Bill C-12, the democratic representation act, would restore fair representation in the House of Commons and strike a better balance between the democratic principles I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. First, the new formula would correct undue disparities in the average population of ridings in faster-growing provinces compared to slower-growing provinces.

Bill C-12 would establish a maximum average riding population of 108,000 for the next readjustment of seats. This was approximately the national average riding population at the time of the last general election. This is significantly less than the average riding populations for these provinces under the current formula, which I mentioned would be more than 120,000 constituents per member or 30,000 more constituents on average. Put another way, it cuts in half the disparity in average riding size between slower- and faster-growing provinces compared to the current formula.

Bill C-12 ensures Canadians in faster-growing provinces will no longer feel their vote does not count as much as that of Canadians in other provinces. It brings the House much closer to the primary principle of representation by population.

At the same time, Bill C-12 would continue to ensure the second principle of democratic representation, that of effective representation. It would continue to protect the seat counts of slower-growing provinces. This means that the seven slower-growing provinces, including Quebec, would continue to receive more seats than their populations would otherwise merit. Bill C-12 would strike a reasonable and fair balance by ensuring all provinces continue to have a critical mass of seats necessary to ensure effective representation in the House.

What is more, Bill C-12 would adopt a fair and reasonable approach in limiting the overall growth in the House of Commons in subsequent readjustments. Under the proposed bill, the maximum average riding population of 108,000 that is used as the standard in the next readjustment following the 2011 census would be increased based on the overall rate of growth in the total provincial population.

Essentially, what this means is that provinces would only receive additional seats if their populations were growing more rapidly than the provincial average. This would ensure that future growth in the House is constrained but in a principled manner that recognizes population changes in the country.

As a whole, I believe it is clear that Bill C-12 is true to all three key principles of democratic representation. The bill would correct the problems with the existing formula that has moved us too far away from the primary principle of representation by population. The bill would provide fair and democratic representation in the House for all provinces, and yet it would ask for fairness.

The member for Joliette is asking the House to denounce Bill C-12 before it has even had a chance to be debated.

The motion before the House today simply wants a guarantee of 25%, or 24.3.%, of the House's seats for the province of Quebec. Let us look at the proposal in the context of the three principles I have established for democratic representation.

First, this guarantee of a certain percentage of seats is not based on any measure of population at all and would in fact abandon the principle of representation by population in the House.

Let us consider the demographic context. This idea was proposed in 1992 in the Charlottetown accord at a time when, according to the 1991 census, Quebec's share of the population was actually over 25%. However, according to the 2006 census, Quebec's share of the population has fallen. Based on currently available projections, the population of Quebec will unfortunately continue to fall to about 21.6% by the 2031 census. Even the current formula with all its distortions to the principles of representation by population is inadequate under the terms of today's motion.

Currently Quebec has 24.4% of the House seats if we include the territorial seats. After the next readjustment under the current formula it would have 23.8%. A guarantee of 25%, or 24.3% as the amendment said, would take us even further away from representation by population in the House.

Let us consider the second principle, effective representation, particularly for smaller provinces in the federation.

The only way to accept the member's proposition for a guaranteed percentage of seats in the House for Quebec is to take Quebec's actual share of the provincial population, which will be much less than that. It would take away representation from other provinces in Canada. Unless the member is actually suggesting we further aggravate the alarming under-representation of faster-growing provinces, this would include impairing the representation of provinces that are much smaller than Quebec.

It must be remembered that under both the current formula and the proposed formula in Bill C-12, Quebec is already receiving more seats than its population justifies to maintain its current seat count of 75. In comparison to Quebec's guaranteed 75 seats, the 6 smallest provinces have fewer than 15 seats each. That is less than one-fifth of Quebec's seats. I would challenge the member opposite to explain to the residents of these provinces that the effectiveness of their representation will not be compromised by today's motion.

Quebec also has 11 more seats than the medium-sized provinces of Alberta and B.C. put together. Yet, based on the 2006 census, Quebec has roughly the same population as Alberta and B.C. combined. If B.C. and Alberta are added together, Quebec has 11 more seats even though the population of the two provinces is greater. Nevertheless, the terms of the member's motion would ensure Quebec gets even more seats. This is not acceptable if we wish to have a democracy based on representation by population in the House.

Today's opposition motion accuses the government of marginalizing the Quebec nation by introducing Bill C-12, but this is not true. Bill C-12 seeks to restore fairness in representation for all provinces and all Canadians through a principled formula that will bring the House as a whole closer to representation by population.

Quebec will continue to have its seat count protected and will receive extra seats if its population merits. These extra seats mean that the average riding in Quebec would continue to have fewer constituents than Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. As we move forward, the number of constituents in the average Quebec riding will be fewer than the average seats in Alberta, British Columbia or Ontario.

On average, Quebec ridings have 2,000 fewer voters than ridings in Ontario. Protecting the number of seats also means that Quebec's relative importance in the House will increase over time.

From an objective point of view, Quebec will continue to have a major influence in the House because it will be the second largest province in terms of number of seats, to reflect the fact that it is the second largest province.

I would also like to remind the hon. opposition member that our government was the first to recognize that Quebec is a nation.

I understand the Bloc does not care if Ontario, Alberta or British Columbia are under-represented. The Bloc is only interested in Quebec. However, our government believes in working for all Canadians and believes that all Canadians should be represented fairly in the House of Commons.

It is interesting that the Bloc is asking for 25% or 24% of the seats in the House when for 20 years the Bloc has been fighting to bring Quebec down to zero seats in the House of Commons. The Bloc wants Quebec to have no seats in the House of Commons.

The other parties, particularly the government party, want Quebec to have 75 seats, a representative share in the House of Commons, because Quebec is a strong member of this great united country. Representation in the House must be guided by democratic principles that ensure fairness for all provinces.

Bill C-12, the democratic representation act—

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is the finest example of the fiction of Canadian Confederation. It is not provinces that are represented in this House, but nations. The Quebec nation has the right to its political weight. It is false to say that we have representation by population in this House.

I mentioned that Prince Edward Island has four members in this House when that province has the population of a large neighbourhood in Montreal. We know that other reasons were taken into consideration and we are arguing that recognition of the Quebec nation be a similar reason for maintaining our political weight because of what it represents.

We are not opposed to adding 30 seats to the Canadian nation. They can divide them up as they wish. That is their problem. However, we must maintain our political weight. That means that if 30 seats are added, Quebec must be given additional seats to maintain its representation at 24.3% of this House.

This is so obvious to everyone in Quebec. The member for Hochelaga corrected me. I said more than two thirds, but he did the math, which shows that 87% of elected representatives from Quebec, whether they sit in the House of Commons or the National Assembly, are opposed to Bill C-12 and are asking that Quebec's political weight be maintained.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I was thinking of Conservatives only, but if I were to add several Liberals, that number would go up. We want to make it perfectly clear that maintaining the current political weight refers to the relative weight of members representing Quebec in the House, which is 24.3%, not the absolute weight, which is 75 seats. I have heard some Conservative members claim that they are maintaining Quebec's weight because there will never be fewer than 75 seats. Clearly, they do not know how to count. If the Canadian nation gets 30 more seats, that will unquestionably reduce Quebec's relative weight in the House.

That is totally obvious to Quebeckers and the Quebec nation. Of the Quebec members who have spoken to date in the House, 49 have condemned any reduction of Quebec's political weight. In the Conservative caucus, the token Quebeckers, including the members for Lévis—Bellechasse and Beauce, have defended the indefensible. As token Quebeckers, who do they really represent? They represent the Canadian nation, the Prime Minister and the Conservative Party.

Unfortunately, I have not heard from Liberal members, but I hope that they take this opportunity to speak up and ensure that Quebec's rights are upheld in the House.

Forty-nine members of the House spoke in favour of maintaining the current political weight, Quebec's relative weight, as did the 125 members of the National Assembly. That means that two-thirds of Quebec's elected representatives in both the House of Commons and the National Assembly condemn the Conservative government's proposal and call on it to withdraw Bill C-12. There is a very strong consensus in Quebec when it comes to this issue.

An Angus Reid survey taken April 7, 2010, indicated that 71% of Quebeckers are opposed to Bill C-12. That is a very broad consensus; Quebeckers are practically unanimous. Only 15% of Quebeckers support the bill, and that number is approximately equal to the current Conservative vote. It is a very small number that continues to shrink.

It is understandable that all of Quebec wants Bill C-12 to be withdrawn and wants to keep Quebec from being marginalized in the House, especially given that the House of Commons recognized the Quebec nation in 2006. In fact, there are not 10 provinces and territories represented in the House, but two nations—Canada and Quebec. But Bill C-12 gives Canada another 30 seats and does not give Quebec a single one. This is completely unacceptable.

We have been recognized as a nation, so we need to be given the means to be heard. The current relative weight of Quebec's members must be maintained. If we simply took the demographic proportions into consideration, it is obvious that there would only be 75 of us in a sea of Canadian members who would be defending the interests of their nation, which is completely legitimate. But our voices would never be heard in the House.

However, proportionality is not the rule. If it were, Prince Edward Island would not have four members. Other factors come into play and the Supreme Court has said this many times. One of these elements, which is new, is the House's recognition of the Quebec nation in 2006.

It is unfortunate to see the Conservative members defending the indefensible, but again, they are simply the mouthpieces for their party, which has refused to make businesses under federal jurisdiction accept French as the working language and refused to adopt Quebec's integration model for newcomers. If the House does not acknowledge and pass this motion, Quebeckers will have only one choice, that which the Bloc Québécois stands for, Quebec sovereignty. Then we would have 100% of the power, not the 24.3% that the Conservatives are proposing, but 100% of the power to make our own laws.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

moved:

That the House denounce the fact that the government seeks to marginalize the Quebec nation by introducing a bill to decrease Quebec’s political weight in the House, and that it affirm that Quebec Members of Parliament, who represent a nation, must hold at least 25% of the seats in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

I would like to begin by saying how proud I am to rise in the House today to move the Bloc Québécois motion, because I feel that we are doing the work for which Quebeckers have elected a majority of Bloc members to the House six times since 1993.

In 1993, 1997, 2000, 2004, 2006 and 2008, a majority of Bloc members were elected in Quebec to represent and defend the interests and values of the Quebec nation.

Today, we are opposing the Conservative government's Bill C-12, which is designed to further marginalize the Quebec nation in the House of Commons. This reduction in the Quebec nation's political weight in the House is completely unacceptable to Quebeckers.

When the Canadian Confederation was created in 1867, Quebec held 36% of the seats. If Bill C-12 were passed, that proportion would decrease to 22.4%, which is less than the Quebec nation's current demographic weight within Canada. That is an unacceptable decline compared to Quebec's current representation of 24.3%.

This bill is a direct attack on the rights of the Quebec nation. That is why we are putting forward the following motion, which the Speaker already read, but which I will reread:

That the House denounce the fact that the government seeks to marginalize the Quebec nation by introducing a bill to decrease Quebec’s political weight in the House, and that it affirm that Quebec Members of Parliament, who represent a nation, must hold at least 25 percent of the seats in the House.

This motion is our response to Bill C-12, which is the latest manifestation of a Conservative obsession. The Conservatives are almost aggressive in the way they keep introducing legislation to marginalize the Quebec nation.

Bill C-12 is the latest example of this obsession, but the government previously introduced Bill C-56 and Bill C-22, not to mention the ones it introduced to amend the terms of senators, in violation of the Canadian Constitution, which requires constitutional negotiations with the provinces, particularly Quebec.

The Quebec minister responsible for government affairs was very clear when he said that Quebec would never agree to unilateral changes, even to the Senate. We would like to see the Senate abolished, but that must be subject to constitutional negotiations. The government can open up this Pandora's box if it wants to, but it cannot act unilaterally. The House of Commons is not able to amend the current rules, particularly those governing the Senate.

Bill C-12 is another example of the Conservatives' obsession. Every time the federal government has introduced such bills, the Quebec National Assembly has unanimously adopted a motion denouncing the Conservative government's actions and calling on the government to withdraw its bills. I have these motions here, and I think it is worth reading them.

Regarding Bill C-56, on May 16, 2007, the National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion:

THAT the National Assembly ask the Parliament of Canada to withdraw Bill C-56, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, introduced in the House of Commons last 11 May;

Bill C-56 essentially had the same objective as Bill C-12: the political marginalization of Quebec.

Regarding Bill C-22, another example of the Conservatives' obsession with marginalizing Quebec's political weight, the National Assembly adopted the following motion on October 7, 2009:

THAT the National Assembly demand that the Federal Government renounce the tabling of any bill whose consequence would be to reduce the weight of Québec in the House of Commons.

The National Assembly unanimously spoke out against these two previous bills and called for the government to withdraw them, and we are sure that it will do the same thing with Bill C-12 as soon as it has the opportunity.

We want to align our motion as closely as possible with the last motion I just read, which was passed on October 7, 2009, so we will amend our own motion on this opposition day. The amendment will be presented by my colleague and friend, the member for Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, to make it clear that it is out of the question for the Quebec nation to lose any political weight in the House of Commons. We want to maintain our current weight. However, we know that some members of the House indulge in intellectual dishonesty. I will not name names, but I do have several members—nine or ten at least—in mind.

Democratic Representation

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this morning, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform tabled Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, our government's commitment to restore the democratic principle of representation by population right here in the House of Commons.

This legislation will update the current formula that was designed in 1985 and will restore fair representation in the House to all Canadians, regardless of the province in which they live. That is because we believe that each Canadian's vote should carry equal weight.

Over time, representation of Canadians from the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia was underrepresented. Our government has taken a principled approach that strikes a balance between restoring fair representation for faster-growing provinces while protecting the seat counts of slower-growth provinces.

We believe that all Canadians deserve to be represented in the people's House, this House of Commons. This bill is about giving the new Canada a new voice for the millions of new Canadians who have entered these three new provinces.