Rick Perkins

[Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act, May 18th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, after a few days of trying to deliver my speech in the House, I am pleased to finally rise. I am pleased that the hon. member for Winnipeg North gets to hear it. We had a good conversation about it last night.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act. It deals with how a democracy balances representative democracy with effective representation, and that is at the core of our parliamentary traditions.

Canada, as we know, was formed by compromise, as is our version of how we elect representatives in Parliament. While striving to make each vote have the same weight in a country as large as ours, with a population as dispersed as we have, we have to add other factors to how we determine an electoral district.

At Confederation, my province of Nova Scotia had 19 of the 181 seats in the House of Commons, or 10% of all seats. As the House grew to 208 seats in the late 1800s, Nova Scotia's count rose to 21 seats in Parliament, which was still about 10% of the seats. As we continued to grow again, Nova Scotia began seeing a decrease in its seats in the late 1800s, dropping to 16 seats by 1914 as we began to see the expansion of our country further west. In 1914, the Constitution, as we know, was amended to state that a province could not have fewer seats in the House than it had in the Senate. Nova Scotia has maintained its current 11 seats since 1966, one more than the 10 Senate seats allocated to our province at Confederation.

It is also important to remember that we live in a bicameral system of Parliament at the federal level where we have a legislative chamber tasked with reflecting the regional interests of the country. This is why Ontario and Quebec each have 24 senators, while the Maritimes have 24 and the west has 24. Later on in our history a number of others were added for Newfoundland and the territories.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, changes have been proposed to our boundaries, but the total number of seats will not be changing in this round of redistribution. The province has seen rapid growth, especially in the Halifax area, while experiencing an ongoing depopulation in some of the rural areas, which is not unique to our province, of course.

From end to end, my riding takes about four hours to drive, and people may be surprised by that, along the South Shore and through St. Margaret's Bay. That is only if people drive through the Trans-Canada Highway on the 103. If they take the much more scenic lighthouse route, it will take them a lot longer, but I would encourage people to try to do that.

While my riding may not be the largest in geographic size in Canada, it does highlight the tension inherent in larger ridings when it comes to effective representation. Balancing the need of a member of Parliament's ability to represent communities of interest is an extremely important part of drawing electoral boundaries.

That was reinforced by the Supreme Court of Canada in its ruling of the attorney general for Saskatchewan v. Roger Carter in 1991. In that ruling, the Supreme Court stated, “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.'” It goes on to say, “Effective representation and good government in this country compel that factors other than voter parity, such as geography and community interests, be taken into account in setting electoral boundaries.”

What this means is that for elected officials to provide effective representation, we take a different approach than the one we see in the United States, with its emphasis on representation by population. Ours is on community interest and geography. Large geography, like the north or even like my mostly rural riding, requires a different time and focus than it does for a suburban or urban member of Parliament.

As an example, I have 11 municipalities; that is 11 mayors and all of the councillors. I have more than 11 legions, and almost 12,000 square kilometres to cover. It is not as large as the riding of the previous speaker from Quebec, but it is still a large area to cover.

Indeed, in the run-up to the last election, as I was campaigning, I drove 42,000 kilometres in that campaign and walked 800 kilometres. If we compare that with a GTA riding, and I have lived part of my life in the GTA, that can be as small as five to 10 minutes to drive across or maybe even just two exits on the Gardiner Expressway. My point is that effective representation must be top of mind when it comes to this type of tweak in our electoral system and our representation. In my mind, this bill does that. I know the member for Winnipeg North will be happy to hear me say that.

The grandfathering clause of 1985 basically ensured that provinces would never have fewer seats than they had in 1985, which was 282 nationally, 11 of which were in Nova Scotia. This was to ensure that in the future no provinces would lose any seats despite the change in growth patterns. This bill essentially amends that provision of 1985 by the Mulroney government by bringing it up to the number in 2021 as the minimum number of seats.

It is great to see that in this bill the Liberals are actually protecting the essence of the Fair Representation Act, passed in 2011 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Despite their criticism of these changes at the time, I think it is wonderful to see the government acknowledge that what Stephen Harper brought in still works and is indeed fair.

It is also wonderful to see that this bill reflects the unanimous consent motion that was moved by the Conservative deputy leader, which states, “That the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly.” I am glad the government has acted accordingly. It is clear that the unanimous consent motions that are moved after question period, which we have seen a lot of lately, sometimes are not simply words but do indeed impact the tone of this place and can result in change.

The Conservatives will always push the needle in this place when it comes to advocating for the legislation Canadians want. At the end of the day, Canadians want their fair share. They want to have effective representation so they feel they are not separated from the people they sent to Ottawa to represent them. They do not want to drive for hours to the constituency office. My main constituency office is an hour and a half from one end and two hours from the other, so I had to open up a few other constituency offices in the riding for the first time, as previous members had not done that, to make it more convenient. Constituents do not want to be forgotten by the political establishment of this place in the riding just because they have a long way to go, which is why we need the tweaking under this bill.

Coming out of this pandemic, we are seeing more shifts in population from urban to rural areas. More people are moving out of downtown cores and spreading out into the suburbs and rural parts of this country. Future parliamentarians must remain nimble and always mindful, hopefully, of how these changes will impact their job of effectively representing all Canadians as reflected in our electoral legislation. These shifts are why it is so important that independent commissions are set up every 10 years and that we review and are constantly tinkering with this legislation in order to ensure that we have that balance between proportional representation, community interest and geography.

Canadians should be reminded how important their voices are when it comes to the proposals by their respective boundary commissions. In Nova Scotia, it is a panel of three people who decide the initial proposal, and it is their job to account for the views and feelings of those in our community. We look forward to those public hearings.

This legislation protects the legacy of the Fair Representation Act, ensures that no province will ever decrease in the number of seats it has, and does as little tweaking as possible while upholding, as well as it can, the balance of the principle of effective representation. These are standards that we should and must set for how the electoral map shapes up in the future.

I will be supporting this bill.

[The Economy, May 17th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of gas coming from the government.

Lobster bait costs have more than doubled because of the decisions of the minister. Average fishing fuel costs have gone up 140% since the fall. The government's disastrous policies are increasing bait and fuel costs for fishing, making it more difficult to earn a living. Because of these increased costs, fishermen are now only able to go out every second day. In Nova Scotia, 70¢ from each litre of diesel goes to governments.

It is time to lower gas taxes. When will the government do the right thing and lower gas taxes?

[Service Canada, May 13th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, clearly 500 is not enough. If only there was a way to have a database to track when passports expire. This is why my community is furious. The passport process delays are predictable and unnecessary. To add insult to injury, we are forced to pay an extra $200 as a service charge and, incredibly, another $20 on top of that, not for delivery of the passport but to pick it up at the office. This means more fees, untold sleepless nights and angry Canadians.

When is the government going to assign someone other than the minister to fix the problem?

[Health, May 9th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, Gail and John from the South Shore of Nova Scotia were refused entry into Canada upon their return from Florida, in spite of having vaccine proof and their passports. These Canadians were denied entry because they had not filled out the “no ArriveCAN” app. Like many Canadians, they do not have smart phones. Canadians are being hoisted on the government's phone petard.

Why is the government not allowing Canadians to come home if they do not have a smart phone?

[Committees of the House, May 6th, 2022]

On the point of order, Madam Speaker, I believe I witnessed and saw that the House leader for the official opposition rose first.

[Canada Border Services Agency, May 6th, 2022]

Madam Speaker, we hear more responses with no answers from the government.

The historic town of Lunenburg has taken a massive hit due to reduced tourism numbers, thanks to the pandemic.

International cruise ships have finally returned to Nova Scotia's ports but for some reason, CBSA has not restarted services in Lunenburg, which means that passenger ships cannot dock in the town. There are seven other ports of entry in the province of Nova Scotia where CBSA has restarted services, but Lunenburg is left out.

When will the minister boost the local Lunenburg economy, do the right thing and open the CBSA—

[Hon. John William Bosley, May 4th, 2022]

Mr. Speaker, I too rise today to pay tribute to my friend, the Hon. John Bosley, and mark his death last week. As most of us know, John was the former member of Parliament for Don Valley West and a former Speaker of this House.

It is always sad when we lose a colleague. Despite the partisanship that often divides us, it has been my experience that there is always a degree of collegiality and mutual respect among most members. Of course, Speakers serve this House in a special way and have a unique opportunity to bridge the divide between parties and develop relationships with all members.

It is fitting that the House take a few moments today to honour John Bosley and reflect on his service to this place.

I first met John Bosley when I came to Ottawa as a young staffer after the 1984 election, working for then member of Parliament Bill Attewell, from the neighbouring riding of Don Valley East, and then later for the Hon. Barbara McDougall. I got to know John very well over the years. I also served on his board in Don Valley West for a decade.

Here are some stories about John.

The riding of Don Valley West was actually redistributed in 1976. It was then called Don Valley, and the Conservative member of Parliament was a fellow named James Gillies, or Jim Gillies to most of us. Jim was going to run again. The Hon. Michael Wilson lived in Don Valley West, and he wanted to run in Don Valley West, where he lived. James said he was going to stay and run again in the 1979 election, so Michael Wilson had to find another riding. He ended up fighting a contested nomination in Etobicoke Centre, winning that, and going on to win the election and become Canada's finance minister.

Shortly after Michael Wilson won the nomination in Etobicoke Centre, Jim Gillies decided not to run. That irritated Michael Wilson a little bit, but it gave the opportunity to a young real estate agent in Don Valley West. The Bosley family had a big real estate business, and of course that is always a great set-up if one wants to run for Parliament. John had already had signs up throughout the riding for years with his name on it. He was elected for the first time in 1979 and, of course, re-elected through the 1993 election.

In 1983, when Brian Mulroney became leader of the Conservative Party, he appointed a number of task forces. One of them was on Revenue Canada. They travelled the country, and John was co-chair of that one with Perrin Beatty. They travelled the country in 21 communities, hearing from Canadians about Revenue Canada issues. One of the big recommendations from that was the taxpayer bill of rights. When Brian Mulroney got elected as Prime Minister in 1984, one of the first pieces of legislation brought to this House was the Revenue Canada taxpayer bill of rights, so before John even became Speaker of this place, he had already had an impact on public policy.

John cared deeply about this House as a fundamental pillar of our democracy. While that may be somewhat obvious, he believed that as the Speaker he could bring people together. It was a tough time, with 211 new Conservatives, 40 Liberals and 30 NDP members. He tried all he could to bring this place together. It was a very, very difficult time. He was sort of known for pointing at members during that period of time.

I would ask all members, as they leave the chamber, to go down to the portraits of the former Speakers, take a look at the wall and reflect on the contribution that the Hon. John Bosley made, not only to this place but to his community of Don Valley West in Toronto.

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, absolutely, the fiduciary responsibility for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission should go, like all other fiduciary responsibility in international agreements, back to Foreign Affairs and allow DFO to manage the policy element of it. Of course, during all the years when the Harper government was in DFO, we actually paid all our bills for the Great Lakes Fishery Commission, unlike the NDP-Liberal coalition, which believes that we should take the bill that we get from our neighbours in a treaty, throw it in the garbage and let them carry the weight.

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the question from the deputy House leader for the Liberal-NDP government.

The answer to that question is this: What is obstructionist is Motion No. 11, which takes away democracy in the House, threatens prorogation at any time, and removes quorum from the standard, 400 years since Magna Carta, of parliamentary democracy. Those are the things that are undemocratic.

It is quite shocking, actually, that the party of Tommy Douglas, of Ed Broadbent and of Jack Layton has sidled up to the government to reduce democracy in this country in a coalition government, ignoring the will of the Canadian public, who only voted for a minority government and who did not vote for the socialist agenda to be implemented by the Liberal government.

[Committees of the House, May 3rd, 2022]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Winnipeg North cares about the invasive species in Manitoba; anyone who is a responsible member of Parliament will care about the destruction of our natural biodiversity.

Obviously, even though I am seasoned, I was not actually here during those days. I can only look at the record of the current government for the last seven years of promising to bring in money to implement invasive species programs, actually allocating it in the budgets, as it did in 2017, giving it to DFO, and then DFO using only half of it for invasive species and mysteriously putting the rest off somewhere else.

After we pressured the government to actually pay the bills and not be a deadbeat, it finally put it, again, in this year's budget. It is almost the same amount of money: Last time it was $43.8 million, and this time it is $48 million. It is almost the same wording, saying it is going to invasive species, but again, as I said in my speech, I doubt the government will live up to that. DFO will find some other purpose for it. Perhaps it will go to the 178% in senior executive growth in six years in DFO rather than invasive species.