Debates of May 16th, 2022

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am deeply humbled and grateful to be here to speak about something fundamental to our country, and that is democracy. The reason I am feeling that so deeply today is because my riding of North Island—Powell River is in deep grief. On May 14, just two days ago, Canada lost an amazing community hero and World War II vet: “Stocky” Edwards, at the ripe age of 100. Our region is deeply shaken by this sad news, and I know that our legions and our military family will be grieving for a long time to come.

Stocky and his wife Toni have been pillars of our community for so long. Now, we will rally around her as she has done so often for all of us. My heart is with Stocky's wife Toni, and with all his family and loved ones.

When Stocky was asked about his tremendous accomplishments in the Second World War, he had no time to brag. His humbleness was one of his many assets that made our region have such deep love and respect for him. His commitment to the people of 19 Wing Comox has been deeply respected, and he and Toni provided a sense of family to so many new military folks in our area. I really want to take this opportunity to honour him and the dedication he had for our country. His loss is one that I will carry with me forever.

I will now return to Bill C-14, which is really about democracy, our boundaries and representation. As the member of Parliament who represents the third-largest riding in British Columbia, I think that it is incredibly important to make sure that our boundaries are strong and clear, that communities are recognized, and that rural and remote communities have strong voices to support them in this process that we are all a part of in the House of Commons.

I also think that it is important to acknowledge that there are challenges of distrust of the government on this issue. The reason I bring that forward is because I was elected in 2015, and during and after that election, I had a lot of hope in the Prime Minister's promise around electoral reform. When the committee was struck, I was incredibly proud of the work that the NDP had done to make sure that the committee was proportional and that it really did reflect the space of the House. I also admired the committee deeply because of the work that it did and how much it met through the summer. That was a huge sacrifice, meaning that the members could not necessarily be in their ridings as much as they wanted to or with their families. They worked very hard and they provided a very profound report to Parliament that gave us a pathway to move forward on some key issues that matter to so many in our country.

I remember that I sent out a mailer to folks in our community and did several town halls in my region to talk about electoral reform. For a rural and remote community of that size, there was a lot of concern about access and voice, and about making sure that the representative was from the area and that those voices were specific and heard.

We had a lot of conversations. I was able to provide a report back to my community about what they had said about electoral reform. What was very interesting to me was the timing. I mailed out to my constituents what they had said about electoral reform, and just a few days before those landed on their doorsteps, the government said that it was not going to follow the report. In fact, it did it in some very disrespectful ways.

What I found interesting was that many constituents who were concerned about electoral reform, and who had a lot of things they wanted to explore further, felt very upset. They were frustrated that they did not get a voice. They felt that their voices were incredibly important in this process in a new way, because they were told they were no longer able to have a voice in the process. It was disappointing. I heard from a lot of constituents that they felt frustrated and that they felt that the Liberals just wanted a ranked ballot, and that was not what they wanted to see in our electoral process.

When we talk about things like proportional representation, we are talking about making sure that every vote counts, that the voices of the whole collective are reflected in our House of Commons.

As I said earlier, as a person who represents rural and remote communities, I wanted to make sure there were opportunities for those voices to be heard and that the process of a proportional system would not lose those voices. They want to see that the local representation and those voices are heard in the House of Commons. They want it to be fair.

There is room to have those discussions, but sadly, the Liberals ignored that opportunity. I really feel, and I have heard this after every election, there is a sense of cynicism that we are never going to get to a place where those voices are heard and where we actually create a system that is more proportional.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona put forward a motion in PROC to discuss the important idea of having a citizens' assembly on electoral reform in the last Parliament. It passed, but unfortunately, because of the election call, a completely uncalled for election in my opinion, the study never happened. We now have to go back to the drawing board.

What is so important about having a citizens' assembly on electoral reform is we need to see citizens engaged. We need to hear those voices. Maybe we need to take it out of the political realm and give voices to people across this country.

It is so important, and I have heard from constituents across the board that they want to explore this. They want to make sure their vote counts. They want to be able to vote as they feel, even if that vote will not get them a seat in Parliament. They do not want to feel that their vote is something they throw away.

Constituents also want to make sure that areas are represented fairly. For my riding, as I said earlier, they do not want to feel like the cities of our country are the ones making the decisions. The realities for rural and remote communities can be very different from those of larger cities. That is not to dishonour any of them, but it is to make sure that those voices are heard.

There are a lot of questions. People want to come together and they want to trust one another that they can have these frank conversations and educate each other. I hope the government will start to listen to those voices and take into account that when we have a system that allows people to have a voice, they want to speak out.

When we look at electoral reform and when we look at proportional representation, we know that diversity is engaged with those processes more. That is something we need to be paying attention to, especially as representatives of the House of the common people.

When we talk about that, we want to see as much diversity as we possibly can. We want multiple voices so that when decisions are made, they are made in comprehensive ways that take in all of those different points of view and assessments.

We continue to encourage this to happen. I know that we will continue to do the work. Hopefully we will see a study in PROC that actually gets to what we need to see happen across this country around a citizens' assembly so that the work can start. It is really important. Many people in my riding have come forward and presented this idea to me multiple times with a lot of passion and energy.

I am really happy to discuss this bill. I look forward to hearing from other people.

The last thing I want to mention is the idea of lowering the voting age. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has brought forward legislation for us to all look at and discuss. It is on lowering the voting age to 16. I am very proud to say that in my riding, we are hearing from young people who are supporting this wholeheartedly. They are actively going out and educating people about opening the doors of opportunity for young people to have a voice.

We know that when young people start voting sooner and when they participate sooner, they vote long term. I look forward to that.

I am happy to answer any questions.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I, too, am a big supporter of the private member's bill by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I introduced a very similar bill in the previous Parliament, as did the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, as did Senator McPhedran in the other place.

I sense a resistance to something that is quite sensible. Other countries have lowered the voting age to 16, yet I have a feeling, and I will ask the hon. member if she agrees, that the arguments about empowering 16-year-olds to vote are remarkably similar to the arguments about why women should not have a vote.

We hear people say that kids will not know enough and they will just vote for who their parents voted for. In the argument of suffrage for women, it was said that women would not know enough and they would just vote the way their husbands voted. We really need to examine the reasons and lack of logic in the arguments against 16-year-olds being able to vote.

Let us face it. We do not cut off voting for those who have diminished intellectual capacity as they age. There is no such thing as saying that someone with dementia who is in a home is not allowed to vote. I think 16-year-olds should have the right to vote.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's passion on this issue. I really appreciate the correlation that she made to how we diminish people by the language we use and how that was used against women. It was also used against indigenous people and people of colour. We need to stop this. In my opinion it is ageist.

I have knocked on a lot of doors in my riding. I have been so impressed by how many young people have come to the door to engage in meaningful conversation with me. Their understanding of the issues is profound. Many young people 14 to 17 years of age have dragged a parent out to talk to me on the doorstep. They have wanted to engage their parents in the conversation. They tell their parents, “You have to vote for me if you're not going to vote for yourself.”

There are some barriers. I definitely have seen it in my riding as well. Some people are concerned about this. The reality is that the facts tell us that if people vote when they are young, they are more likely to continue voting. A lot of people are not voting when they turn 18. If we gave them the opportunity at 16, I think it would make a huge difference.

It is important to have those young people engaged in the process, especially when we look at the big issues that we will have to face in the future.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston asked this question of the member earlier. One of the great debates of Confederation between Canadians in Upper Canada and Lower Canada at the time was about representation by population. In a Supreme Court decision regarding a case out of Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court talked about effective representation.

The member represents quite a large rural riding in British Columbia, which comes with its own challenges. I wonder if she would speak to that. I represent the second-largest riding by population size in Canada, the largest in Calgary, of course, but it is a fairly small riding. I can drive from one end to the other in 20 minutes. I have one mayor to deal with and two or three city councillors. It is far more complicated for members who have multiple mayors, multiple city councils and large regions to travel through to do that effective representation.

I would like to hear her comments on that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that there are multiple challenges. There are seven ferries in my riding and a lot of areas to cover. It is a great honour for me to do that work. It does mean that I spend a lot of time on the phone or travelling to speak with constituents.

I represent 11 municipalities, over 20 indigenous communities and four regional districts within all of that. It takes up a lot of time, but I have to say that the communities in my riding are extremely effective at bringing issues that matter most to them to my attention.

As we move through this, we have to look at how our democracy works, depending on whether it is for a large rural riding or a smaller urban riding. Both have specific challenges. I think of the member for Nunavut. Although her riding has a small population, it is such a vast area that she has to travel across to spend time with her constituents.

All of us have challenges. It behooves all of us to listen to one another about what those challenges are and make sure that our democracy is reflective of the needs of our constituents. We are all here to serve the people of our ridings. It is important to make sure that their voices are heard. I will continue to do that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the cornerstone of our democracy rests in people's ability to vote. We have heard from constituents over and over again. In particular, in my riding of Vancouver East, my constituents have consistently told me that they want to see a democratic system where every vote counts.

Prior to the 2015 election, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that would be the last first-past-the-post election that we would have. Of course, when the Liberals formed government, that was all but forgotten, even though the House had engaged in extensive work with regard to proportional representation.

I would like to ask the member for her thoughts about that. When the Prime Minister reneges on a promise like that, is the Prime Minister telling Canadians that they cannot trust what he promises? What damage does that do to our democratic system?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. My response is it does break down those opportunities for connection with leadership. People want promises to be followed through on. It was most disheartening for me because of the amount of work that the committee did. It was a significant report.

I really hope that all Canadians take an opportunity to at least read the recommendations. The report talked about the next steps that need to be taken. The minister of the day treated it as if it was too complex and that it did not do what it said it did, which I completely disagree with. These are important things.

We have to follow through on our commitments. We have to let Canadians have a voice in that process. A promise was made, but the promise was not kept. Even the process of how that was laid out was absolutely flawed. It does breed cynicism, which can make all of our jobs much more difficult.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with the hon. member in the time that we have been here, since 2015.

I want to pick up on a point that the hon. member made. I recall when the electoral reform committee was constituted, there was a tremendous amount of work that went into it. The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston was on that committee.

There were recommendations that all of the opposition parties agreed to, not the least of which was to recommend the idea of proportional representation, but again, bring it to Canadians in a referendum.

There can be an argument made as to where we go. I understand that the NDP is in favour of a citizens' assembly, but would she not agree with me and reaffirm that a promise was not kept by the Prime Minister? He did not get his preferred choice of voting, which would have been a ranked system, but more so, the issue of proportional representation, bringing it to Canadians and letting them decide on what type of voting system should be enacted is important.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed my time working with the member on different committees and in different roles. That is something all of us as members of Parliament should spend time talking about, how we work collectively across different party lines on things that matter to our constituents.

I agree that we need to have a process. I do believe in a citizens' assembly, because it is those kinds of conversations that allow people to grow in their knowledge and wisdom on these issues. I know that a proportional system is very different from the current system of first past the post. I believe that we do need to have an education component to that, so that people can ask those hard questions and work out through the process what might be the best system that serves our country.

I definitely have an opinion on that, but it is so important to have citizens doing that work. It is an important piece to take it out of the political realm. There is something to be said for having the communities make those decisions to come forward with recommendations and have politicians definitely listen to them. I look forward to continuing to work on that with the Conservative Party.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 62, I move:

That the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets be now heard.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

On behalf of the official opposition, I ask for a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #94

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion defeated.

The hon. minister is rising on a point of order.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made Monday, May 2, the motion is deemed adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:24 p.m.)