Speech (House debate)

{
    "time": "2010-04-20 16:05:00",
    "attribution": {
        "en": "Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark\u2014Frontenac\u2014Lennox and Addington, CPC)",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "content": {
        "en": "<p data-HoCid=\"1883031\" data-originallang=\"en\">Mr. Speaker, today we are talking to the motion put forward by the members of the Bloc Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois. However, I think we all understand that the motion was put forward because the government put forward Bill <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a>, 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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883032\" data-originallang=\"en\">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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883033\" data-originallang=\"en\">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. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883034\" data-originallang=\"en\">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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883035\" data-originallang=\"en\">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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883036\" data-originallang=\"en\">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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883037\" data-originallang=\"en\">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 <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a> seeks to re-establish that principle.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883038\" data-originallang=\"en\">Before I turn to Bill <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a>, 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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883039\" data-originallang=\"en\">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 <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a> seeks to set that situation right. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883040\" data-originallang=\"en\">The Bloc Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois 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 <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a> would accomplish that.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883041\" data-originallang=\"en\">It is worth noting as well that just as Bill <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a> 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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883042\" data-originallang=\"en\">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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883043\" data-originallang=\"en\"> As the Bloc Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois 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. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883044\" data-originallang=\"en\">I want to point out that we have tried in the past in the country to accomplish a version of what the Bloc Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois 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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883045\" data-originallang=\"en\">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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883046\" data-originallang=\"en\">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 Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois 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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883047\" data-originallang=\"en\">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 \u201cto better reflect the principle of representation by population\u201d. However, that was subject to a requirement \u201ca guarantee that Quebec would be assigned no fewer than 25 percent of the seats in the House of Commons\u201d.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883048\" data-originallang=\"en\">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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883049\" data-originallang=\"en\">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.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883050\" data-originallang=\"en\">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 <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a>.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883051\" data-originallang=\"en\"> I encourage all members of the House, including members of the Bloc Qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, to support that and that would mean, by necessity, to vote against the motion.</p>",
        "fr": "<p data-HoCid=\"1883031\" data-originallang=\"en\">Monsieur le Pr\u00e9sident, aujourd'hui, nous parlons de la motion pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par les d\u00e9put\u00e9s du Bloc qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois. Toutefois, je pense que nous comprenons tous que cette motion a \u00e9t\u00e9 pr\u00e9sent\u00e9e parce que le gouvernement a pr\u00e9sent\u00e9 le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a>, une mesure l\u00e9gislative qui contribuerait beaucoup \u00e0 r\u00e9tablir la repr\u00e9sentation selon la population \u00e0 la Chambre des communes. Mes propos porteront donc \u00e0 la fois sur la motion et sur le projet de loi.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883032\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je veux que les d\u00e9put\u00e9s se reportent \u00e0 la situation au Canada avant 1867. \u00c0 l'\u00e9poque, la province du Canada \u00e9tait divis\u00e9e en deux: l'Est du Canada et l'Ouest du Canada, aujourd'hui le Qu\u00e9bec et l'Ontario, qui se partageaient \u00e9galement l'assembl\u00e9e l\u00e9gislative. L'absence de repr\u00e9sentation selon la population, l'incapacit\u00e9 de suivre l'\u00e9volution d\u00e9mographique des deux parties de ce qui \u00e9tait alors la province du Canada ont sans doute \u00e9t\u00e9 les principaux facteurs ayant men\u00e9 \u00e0 la conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883033\" data-originallang=\"en\">Lors de la conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration, en 1867, nous avons \u00e9labor\u00e9 un mod\u00e8le semblable \u00e0 celui mis en place dans toutes les grandes et vieilles f\u00e9d\u00e9rations du monde qui ont r\u00e9ussi: soit deux chambres \u2014 un s\u00e9nat et une chambre des communes \u2014 dont l'une comporte un nombre de repr\u00e9sentants \u00e9gal pour chaque r\u00e9gion et l'autre un nombre de repr\u00e9sentants proportionnel \u00e0 la population pour chaque r\u00e9gion.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883034\" data-originallang=\"en\">Au S\u00e9nat du Canada, la repr\u00e9sentation est organis\u00e9e en fonction de quatre r\u00e9gions, soit celles de l'Atlantique, du Qu\u00e9bec, de l'Ontario et de l'Ouest. Chacune de ces r\u00e9gions compte 24 si\u00e8ges. Aux \u00c9tats-Unis, chacun des cinquante \u00c9tats compte deux si\u00e8ges. En Australie, chaque \u00c9tat se voit attribuer 12 si\u00e8ges. En Suisse, chaque canton b\u00e9n\u00e9ficie de deux si\u00e8ges. Je pourrais continuer \u00e0 \u00e9num\u00e9rer ce qui se fait dans les autres f\u00e9d\u00e9rations. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883035\" data-originallang=\"en\">\u00c0 la Chambre basse, c'est la r\u00e8gle oppos\u00e9e qui pr\u00e9vaut, soit la repr\u00e9sentation selon la population, ou, comme le pr\u00e9sentent les Australiens, le principe d\u2019une voix, une valeur. \u00c0 la Chambre basse, le vote de chaque d\u00e9put\u00e9 devrait repr\u00e9senter un nombre \u00e9gal d'\u00e9lecteurs et, par cons\u00e9quent, le vote de chaque \u00e9lecteur canadien devrait avoir un poids \u00e9gal. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883036\" data-originallang=\"en\">Au Canada, contrairement \u00e0 ce qui s'est pass\u00e9 dans les autres f\u00e9d\u00e9rations, nous nous sommes graduellement \u00e9loign\u00e9s de ces deux principes. \u00c0 la Chambre haute, nous avons fait un compromis, heureusement un seul, mais quand l'\u00eele de Terre-Neuve est entr\u00e9e dans la Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration en 1949, elle a \u00e9t\u00e9 int\u00e9gr\u00e9e \u00e0 la r\u00e9gion de l'Atlantique qui, bien qu'\u00e9tant la plus petite r\u00e9gion en termes de population, a re\u00e7u six si\u00e8ges suppl\u00e9mentaires. Par cons\u00e9quent, une r\u00e9gion n'a en r\u00e9alit\u00e9 pas le m\u00eame poids que les autres. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883037\" data-originallang=\"en\">\u00c0 la Chambre des communes, nous nous sommes graduellement \u00e9loign\u00e9s du principe de la repr\u00e9sentation selon la population en modifiant la Constitution, d'abord en 1915, puis en changeant la formule de repr\u00e9sentation en 1946, en 1952, en 1974 et, enfin, en 1985. Mis \u00e0 part certaines exceptions, il est juste de dire que, chaque fois, nous avons de plus en plus oubli\u00e9 le principe selon lequel le vote de chaque Canadien devrait avoir une valeur \u00e9gale. Ce faisant, nous avons fait abstraction du principe fondamental sur lequel repose la Chambre. Le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a> vise \u00e0 r\u00e9tablir la pr\u00e9pond\u00e9rance de ce principe.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883038\" data-originallang=\"en\">Avant d'aborder le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a>, j'indique bri\u00e8vement jusqu'\u00e0 quel point nous avons mis de c\u00f4t\u00e9 le principe de la repr\u00e9sentation selon la population. Le Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation a r\u00e9cemment publi\u00e9 une \u00e9tude qui r\u00e9v\u00e8le que si on accorde au vote des Canadiens la valeur moyenne de un, on constate, en pratique, qu'une seule province dans tout le Canada affiche une valeur relativement pr\u00e8s de cette moyenne, en l'occurrence le Qu\u00e9bec.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883039\" data-originallang=\"en\">En Ontario, le vote moyen ne vaut que 0,9, ou 90 p. 100, de la moyenne. En Alberta, c'est 0,92, et en Colombie-Britannique, 0,90. Toutefois, du c\u00f4t\u00e9 des provinces les moins peupl\u00e9es, la situation est invers\u00e9e. Un vote en Saskatchewan vaut 1,39. Un vote en Saskatchewan vaut donc 50 p. 100 de plus qu'un vote en Alberta. \u00c0 l'inverse, le vote d'un \u00e9lecteur albertain ne vaut que les deux tiers de celui de son voisin saskatchewanais. Et l'\u00e9cart va continuer \u00e0 se creuser, puisque les \u00e9carts d\u00e9mographiques sont de plus en plus marqu\u00e9s \u00e0 chaque recensement. Le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a> vise \u00e0 rectifier la situation.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883040\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le Bloc qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois veut nous faire croire qu'il veut simplement agir en fonction d'une seule province, mais il s'agit en fait d'une mesure visant \u00e0 pr\u00e9voir une nouvelle exception, une mesure qui nous engage sur la m\u00eame mauvaise voie que nous avons emprunt\u00e9e en 1915, en 1952, en 1974 et ainsi de suite, mais pour une r\u00e9gion diff\u00e9rente du Canada. Il faut que la Chambre des communes revienne aux principes fondamentaux, et c'est l'objectif vis\u00e9 par le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a>.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883041\" data-originallang=\"en\">Il est \u00e9galement important de noter que, tout comme le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a>, qui vise \u00e0 r\u00e9tablir le principe fondamental de la Chambre des communes, le projet de loi propos\u00e9 par le gouvernement au S\u00e9nat permettrait de faire la m\u00eame chose \u00e0 la Chambre haute. \u00c0 l'heure actuelle, la repr\u00e9sentation de la Chambre haute est r\u00e9gionale, mais cette Chambre n'est ni \u00e9lue ni efficace du point de vue de r\u00e9formistes de longue date comme nous. Rappelons-nous le fameux triple E: \u00e9gal, \u00e9lu, efficace. Le S\u00e9nat est relativement repr\u00e9sentatif des r\u00e9gions, mais comme il n'est pas \u00e9lu, il n'est pas efficace. Il ne peut \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9 comme un contrepoids l\u00e9gitime \u00e0 la Chambre basse.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883042\" data-originallang=\"en\">De ce fait, le principe de la repr\u00e9sentation fait d\u00e9faut au S\u00e9nat. Nous devons r\u00e9tablir ce principe jusqu'aux fondements m\u00eames du S\u00e9nat. Ainsi, celui-ci pourra jouer son r\u00f4le de Chambre mod\u00e9r\u00e9e et \u00e9gale de second examen objectif pendant que la Chambre des communes assurera la repr\u00e9sentation d\u00e9mographique de tous les citoyens du pays. Ces deux institutions doivent \u00eatre consid\u00e9r\u00e9es comme un ensemble. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883043\" data-originallang=\"en\">En proposant cette motion, les d\u00e9put\u00e9s du Bloc qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois oublient de tenir compte de cette notion d'ensemble et de nos efforts pour r\u00e9tablir les principes originaux de la Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration dans les deux Chambres.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883044\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je tiens \u00e0 faire remarquer que notre pays a autrefois essay\u00e9 de faire ce que le Bloc qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois propose aujourd'hui dans sa motion. Ainsi, celui-ci ne s'oppose pas \u00e0 la repr\u00e9sentation selon la population pour autant qu'un quart des si\u00e8ges soit r\u00e9serv\u00e9 pour le Qu\u00e9bec ou, apr\u00e8s amendement, pour autant que 24,3 p. 100 des si\u00e8ges soient r\u00e9serv\u00e9s au Qu\u00e9bec.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883045\" data-originallang=\"en\">Le probl\u00e8me, c'est qu'il est impossible d'accorder de fa\u00e7on permanente un poids sup\u00e9rieur \u00e0 l'une des r\u00e9gions du pays sans accorder en contrepartie un poids inf\u00e9rieur aux \u00e9lecteurs d'une autre r\u00e9gion. En fin de compte, la r\u00e9partition des si\u00e8ges est un jeu \u00e0 somme nulle. Nous ne pouvons donner quelque chose \u00e0 l'un sans enlever quelque chose \u00e0 un autre. Pourtant, c'est ce qu'on tente de faire en ce moment.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883046\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je suis persuad\u00e9 que cela n'est pas intentionnel et qu'il s'agit d'une initiative de bonne foi, mais, en fait, le Bloc qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois propose actuellement de dire aux habitants de ma province, ainsi qu'\u00e0 ceux de la Colombie-Britannique et de l'Alberta, qu'ils seront toujours sous-repr\u00e9sent\u00e9s, que leurs votes auront toujours une valeur moindre, qu'ils auront toujours un nombre de si\u00e8ges moins \u00e9lev\u00e9 toutes proportions gard\u00e9es, qu'ils devront accepter le fait qu'ils ont moins de valeur sur le plan d\u00e9mocratique et qu'ils seront en quelque sorte priv\u00e9s de leurs droits. Il est clair que cela n'est pas conforme \u00e0 l'accord sur la Conf\u00e9d\u00e9ration auquel ont adh\u00e9r\u00e9 nos anc\u00eatres.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883047\" data-originallang=\"en\">On a d\u00e9j\u00e0 tent\u00e9 de le faire, comme je l'ai dit. En 1990, dans le cadre de l'accord de Charlottetown, on a tent\u00e9 de rajuster la composition de la Chambre des communes \u00ab de fa\u00e7on \u00e0 mieux refl\u00e9ter le principe de la repr\u00e9sentation proportionnelle \u00e0 la population \u00bb. Toutefois, l'accord comportait \u00e0 cet \u00e9gard une disposition voulant que \u00ab le Qu\u00e9bec [ait] la garantie de ne pas avoir moins de 25 p. 100 des si\u00e8ges \u00e0 la Chambre des communes \u00bb.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883048\" data-originallang=\"en\">Cette disposition a fait appara\u00eetre toute une s\u00e9rie d'autres consid\u00e9rations. Le principe selon lequel une petite province ne devrait pas avoir un nombre plus \u00e9lev\u00e9 de r\u00e9sidants par circonscription qu'une grosse province et ne devrait pas \u00eatre sous-repr\u00e9sent\u00e9e par rapport \u00e0 une grosse province a d\u00fb \u00eatre mis de c\u00f4t\u00e9 parce qu'il allait \u00e0 l'encontre du principe voulant que le Qu\u00e9bec ait 25 p. 100 des si\u00e8ges. Un probl\u00e8me fondamental serait apparu et se serait aggrav\u00e9 au fil du temps si l'accord avait \u00e9t\u00e9 adopt\u00e9.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883049\" data-originallang=\"en\">Je veux attirer l'attention de la d\u00e9put\u00e9e sur une derni\u00e8re r\u00e9flexion. \u00c0 une \u00e9poque, dans les ann\u00e9es 1940, la tendance d\u00e9mographique \u00e9tait inverse. La population du Qu\u00e9bec augmentait rapidement. Celle de l'Ontario et d'autres provinces \u00e9tait stable en raison d'une baisse du taux de natalit\u00e9 au cours des ann\u00e9es 1930 et du ralentissement de l'immigration durant la Crise de 1929 et la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Compte tenu de cette situation, lorsqu'est venu le temps de revoir la r\u00e9partition des si\u00e8ges, la repr\u00e9sentation de l'Ontario et des provinces de l'Ouest aurait d\u00fb s'en trouver diminu\u00e9e. On aurait pu r\u00e9gler ce probl\u00e8me en gelant la repr\u00e9sentation proportionnelle aux taux o\u00f9 elle \u00e9tait. Par contre, le Qu\u00e9bec aurait alors \u00e9t\u00e9 priv\u00e9 de la repr\u00e9sentation qu'il m\u00e9ritait. </p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883050\" data-originallang=\"en\">Heureusement, on a trouv\u00e9 une solution plus judicieuse. On a augment\u00e9 le nombre total de si\u00e8ges \u00e0 la Chambre. Le Qu\u00e9bec avait le nombre de si\u00e8ges qu'il m\u00e9ritait et l'Ontario et d'autres provinces n'\u00e9taient pas priv\u00e9es de si\u00e8ges. La mesure l\u00e9gislative que nous proposons dans le projet de loi <a data-HoCid=\"4394503\" href=\"/bills/40-3/C-12/\" title=\"An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)\">C-12</a> est anim\u00e9e du m\u00eame esprit que celle de 1946.</p>\n<p data-HoCid=\"1883051\" data-originallang=\"en\">J'encourage tous les d\u00e9put\u00e9s, y compris les d\u00e9put\u00e9s du Bloc qu\u00e9b\u00e9cois, \u00e0 appuyer cette mesure, ce qui veut dire, par le fait m\u00eame, \u00e0 voter contre la motion.</p>"
    },
    "url": "/debates/2010/4/20/scott-reid-1/",
    "politician_url": "/politicians/scott-reid/",
    "politician_membership_url": "/politicians/memberships/1382/",
    "procedural": false,
    "source_id": "3106262",
    "h1": {
        "en": "Government Orders",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "h2": {
        "en": "Business of Supply",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "h3": {
        "en": "Opposition motion\u2014Representation of Quebec in the House of Commons",
        "fr": ""
    },
    "document_url": "/debates/2010/4/20/",
    "related": {
        "document_speeches_url": "/speeches/?document=%2Fdebates%2F2010%2F4%2F20%2F"
    }
}