Marc Garneau

[Fair Representation Act, December 13th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of sharing my time with my colleague from Papineau.

It is a real pleasure to be able to speak to Bill C-20, whose primary purpose is to ensure that the vote of every citizen of this country has the same value. We know that the population is changing. It is declining in some places and growing in others, but overall, the population of the country is growing. Accordingly, every time we have a census, which is every 10 years, we have to do a redistribution and make sure that there is a fair proportion of members for each province.

This majority government had a choice between demonstrating leadership in this matter and taking the route it has taken. Unfortunately, that is going to cost us dearly and it is going to postpone a job that should be undertaken right now.

The government took the lazy and expensive approach and is increasing the number of seats in the House by 30 at a time when Canadians are saying that they do not need more politicians, at a time when Canadians are being asked to accept cuts in government services. The Conservative majority government failed to show the leadership required to provide Canadians with the most sensible option.

I am sure that members know this, but the proportion of seats by province and territory in the Conservative plan and the Liberal plan are virtually identical. Under the Conservative plan with 338 seats, 10.06% of the seats in the House of Commons would be allotted to Alberta. Under the Liberal plan with 308 seats, 10.06% of the seats in the House of Commons would be allotted to the province of Alberta. There are a few small decimal differences in some of the figures, but the plans are virtually identical.

In fact, the Liberal plan ends up with almost exactly the same proportion by province and territory, which is after all what is most important here, the weight accorded to each province. We come out with almost identical figures, yet the Liberal plan would save the taxpayer a considerable amount of money, about $100 million between 2015 and 2020. That is something Canadians would very much want us to do.

A poll was done last week of 1,000 Canadians across Canada that indicated three different choices: to preserve the status quo, in other words not to have Bill C-20; to go with the Conservative plan, which would increase the number of seats by 30; or to go with the Liberal Plan, which would keep the number of seats at 308 but with some redistribution. The results are in. The status quo was endorsed by 22% of Canadians. The Conservative plan was endorsed by 21%. The Liberal plan was endorsed by 57%. That is a fairly clear indication that Canadians want a solution that would not increase the cost and that would not add more MPs to the House of Commons.

Let us talk about some specific points now. First, I would like to talk about the risk of devaluing members by increasing their numbers. I think this is an important point. We all consider ourselves to be representatives of our ridings, but do we have a value? Professor Louis Massicotte of Laval University told the committee that having unduly large numbers of members could reduce the prestige of the office: “…international comparisons indicate that, the more members there are, the more the value of Parliament's role is somewhat reduced”.

Ultimately, this reduces the resources made available to parliamentarians to do their work. In fact, that is what might well happen here. The Conservative government has suggested that it might reduce members' resources in order to fund the increase in the number of members.

Similarly, a recent study done by Professor Paul Thomas and others compared constituency population and the quality of representation in Canada and the United Kingdom, and concluded that people are not more satisfied when they have more elected representatives.

Then there is the question of why the government would increase the number of members when it has contempt for Parliament, something there has been much talk about recently.

Professor Nelson Wiseman from the University of Toronto said to the committee that it is contradictory for the government to increase the number of seats when it is showing so little respect for Parliament anyway. He said:

One of the paradoxes right now is that we're increasing the size of the House of Commons, but we're using time allocation more and more and we're actually giving fewer MPs the opportunity to speak in the House of Commons. To me, that seems to be a contradiction.

It is a contradiction indeed. Why does the government want more MPs when it is using time allocation, cutting off debates, deflecting questions, bullying the House to force through its bills as never before?

Why would there be more members, when the government thinks so little of Parliament? Our Liberal proposal is constitutional.

At the outset of the debate on November 2, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform said that the Liberal plan was unconstitutional. He knows now that it is constitutional. All the experts confirmed this. They confirmed that the Liberal plan is fully constitutional. As Professor Andrew Sancton from the University of Western Ontario said to the committee:

The so-called grandfather clause, which prevents provinces from losing seats from one redistribution to another...was enacted by Parliament alone in 1985. It can just as easily be removed by Parliament acting alone in 2011. In fact, this is exactly what I urge you to do.

Let us now consider the large riding argument.

The Minister of State for Democratic Reform stated that we need more seats because we are a very large country, with very large rural and northern ridings, but we will always have these large ridings. He said that the extra seats will go to the rapidly growing city regions of Vancouver, Calgary, Edmonton and Toronto.

To touch briefly on the NDP proposal, it consists of piling up rules with the aim of pleasing everyone and their dog. The fact that the combination of these rules gives Canadians a House that is even more bloated than what is proposed in Bill C-20, a House that might consist of more than 350 seats, is so embarrassing that the NDP has not had the nerve to make its figures public, even though they have been asked for over and over. That party has no credibility on this point.

By failing to disclose how many seats each province would have under its plan, or what the increase in the total number of members of the House would be, the NDP is mired in vagueness and has ruled itself out of the debate. It has made itself irrelevant.

I will conclude by saying that 20 years ago, thePrime Minister of this country adopted the philosophy reflected in the Liberal approach. It was a wise approach and he should have held to it, but he has unfortunately abandoned it in Bill C-20.

[National Defence, December 12th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, in the beginning the government told us that it would only cost $75 million per F-35. When the experts told us that this was absolutely unrealistic, it changed its story and said we will get the 65 planes for $9 billion. Now we find out that the associate minister of defence is telling us that the number 65 is really not a hard number; the government is looking at it, evaluating it.

Is the minister telling us that the government is now going to buy fewer than 65 airplanes?

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague, with whom I have the pleasure of working on the procedure and House affairs committee, has said that our plan, which gives exactly the same weight as the Conservatives' plan to each of the provinces, is one that would pit provinces against provinces. However, mathematically, the Conservatives' system would continuously increase the number of people every 10 years as the population increases. The government would not dare undertake a redistribution, such as our very sensible and brave plan actually proposes, such as Ontario did, such as New Brunswick is going to do.

An eminent MP in this House of Commons said many years ago:

Canadians are already among the most overrepresented people in the world. A small House offers considerable cost savings, less government and fewer politicians. Clearly, this is what Canadians want.

Those are very wise words. In fact, this particular person is now the Prime Minister and he was advocating not only for the status quo, but also for reducing the number of seats.

I would like to hear from my hon. colleague what he thinks about those wise words.

[Fair Representation Act, December 6th, 2011]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague spoke about his province, Alberta. I want to point out factually that with the government's proposal of 338 seats, Alberta's proportion of seats in the House of Commons would be 10.06%. With the Liberal Party's proposal of keeping it at 308, the Alberta representation would be 10.06%. In other words, they are identical. That is something that is not being explained adequately to Albertans.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague what he thinks of this citation from his Prime Minister, who said:

“Canadians are already among the most overrepresented people in the world....A smaller House offers considerable cost savings, less government and fewer politicians—and clearly this is what Canadians want.

[Petitions, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure to present a second petition calling for a royal commission on the environment and health.

I quote: “We the undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the Government to the following: that during the past 70 years tens of thousands of chemicals, many of which are cancer-causing, have been used in industrial processes and the production of consumer goods; that some of these chemicals now contaminate our air, water and food; that over the last 10-15 years, new technologies, such as those that create genetically modified organisms and nanoparticles, have developed rapidly and are being used in the production of consumer goods; that there have been few independent peer review studies and no transparent, inclusive, in-depth discussion of possible environmental and health impacts of these substances and technologies; that protection of human health and the environment requires rigorous application of the precautionary principle;”

“Therefore, your petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to appoint a royal commission on the environment and health with a mandate to examine and make a certain number of recommendations”.

[Petitions, December 5th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, I have the pleasure to present two petitions today. The first deals with Bill C-4.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the Government of Canada that Bill C-4, the preventing human smugglers from abusing Canada's immigration system act, violates sections 7 and 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and furthermore that Bill C-4 violates Canada's international obligations as set forth in articles 28, 31 and 33 of the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, violates several articles in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, as well as in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the Convention on the Rights of the Child.

The petitioners point out that smuggling is already punishable by life imprisonment or a fine of up to $1 million in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.

For that reason, these petitioners call upon the Government of Canada to withdraw Bill C-4.

[Government Expenditures, December 1st, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, while Canadians are being asked to accept cuts, the government is setting a very bad example. It spends $3 billion more in outside contractors than under the Liberals. It sends military helicopters to pick up a minister at a fishing camp. It has the most expensive cabinet in the history of this country, not to mention an unbelievably bloated Prime Minister's Office that never stops growing.

How can the Prime Minister look Canadians in their eyes and tell them that he is acting responsibly on their behalf?

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague brought up a very good point, which is whether this decision to do away with the single desk is based on any extensive study of the situation. I have not personally seen it. Yes, it is often brought up by members of the government that this is in the name of marketing freedom and I am sure there are some farmers who want the freedom to market their grain. They all have a few acquaintances who have spoken to them and said that they would like to market their grain independently. However, there is also a large number who, for whatever reason, have voted not to go that way and they are concerned that if the Canadian Wheat Board is no longer a monopoly, they will be worse off.

How does the government make the decision? Is it based on its friends saying that it is a good thing to have market freedom or is it based on a serious study that shows that overall, when this legislation is adopted, all farmers or at least the majority of farmers will be better off in this country?

[Marketing Freedom for Grain Farmers Act, November 28th, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague points out that there are some farmers who want to do away with the single desk Canadian Wheat Board. We know that. There are also farmers who would like to keep it. There was a survey. Unfortunately, we do not know what the real numbers are. They seem to be in majority with respect to wheat and a slight majority with respect to barley, but we never did have that plebiscite, so we do not know for sure.

One thing for sure is the government has never, at any time, come across with constructive and reassuring language to those farmers out west who believe that it is important to keep the Canadian Wheat Board single desk. Basically, those farmers have been ridiculed for not wanting to change the way the government wants them to change.

Does my hon. colleague have any reassuring words to give to those farmers who are genuinely concerned about the fact that the Canadian Wheat Board will no longer be a single desk? They believe in that and so far the government has not tried to send any reassuring and comforting words that everything is going to be okay.

[Privilege, November 23rd, 2011]

Mr. Speaker, following up on what the member for Windsor—Tecumseh said, would it be possible for the Liberal Party to also have a copy of the letter that is in question that was mentioned by the President of the Treasury Board?