Bill C-14 (Historical)

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation)

This enactment amends section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to provide that, when the number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces in that House are readjusted on the completion of each decennial census, a province will not have fewer members assigned to it than were assigned during the 43rd Parliament. It also includes transitional measures providing for the application of that amendment to the readjustment of electoral boundaries under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act following the 2021 decennial census.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-14

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I got up this morning, I do not know why, but I had a feeling that it was going to be a big day. Now I know why. I just got a second question from my colleague from Winnipeg North. It is enough to wear a body out, but I thank him anyway.

The ability of parliamentary committees to amend bills is a basic rule of the parliamentary system. I did not make it up. We are all here to work on amendments and improve bills so they better reflect what the people of Canada and Quebec want.

In this particular case, it is all about Quebec. Everybody knows that the point of Bill C‑14 is to make sure Quebec does not lose any seats, so it makes sense to listen to what Quebec wants. Since the purpose of this bill is for Quebec to improve its political prospects within the House of Commons, for as long as we are here, we might as well go all in and get the job done properly.

I listened to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North, which I always enjoy doing, but let me read part of the motion he voted for: “any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected”.

He voted in favour of that.

He needs to explain why he does seem to comprehend that Bill C‑14 includes a section to satisfy Quebeckers.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting the manner in which we are having this debate today, and I will be able to expand on that during my comments, but I will say that, when the commission came down indicating that it was looking at reducing the number of seats in the province of Quebec from 78 to 77, the reaction in the Government of Canada, the Liberal caucus, was very swift. We indicated that it could not happen and that we did not support the reduction of the number of seats in the province of Quebec. It was universally felt within the government that it was something that was not acceptable. That is the reason why we have Bill C-14.

I will get the opportunity to expand upon that point when I get the opportunity to address the motion. Historically we have witnessed, whether it is Prince Edward Island or out west, there have been guarantees of numbers. What are the member's thoughts on previous guarantees that were put in place to ensure that jurisdictions would not lose the number of members of Parliament they had?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my father always said that good things come to those who wait, and my colleague will have to wait. I am sorry that my voice does not carry far, but my colleague was told that this motion would be moved and that I would speak for four or five minutes. Since my time has not yet expired, he should pay close attention. He may learn something.

There were two parts to the motion. The number of members from Quebec cannot be reduced, and the proportion of Quebec members in the House cannot be reduced. Those were the two aspects to this motion, and the vast majority of members voted in favour.

Bill C-14 is a step forward. The number of members from Quebec will not be reduced. Confucius said that even the longest journey always begins with a first step. The is the first step.

What we are asking for is the second step. That is obvious. Everyone here, or almost everyone here, has said that they cannot allow Quebec, which is a nation with French as its common language, to have its relative political weight in the House reduced.

The point of this motion of instruction is to allow the Bloc Québécois to table an amendment to Bill C‑14 so that we can finally carry out the mission provided for in the motion tabled in March. That is the bare minimum. The House needs to finally understand that we are not talkers, but doers. That is what I am asking the House to do.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that, during its consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to amend the formula for apportioning seats in the House and include provisions that maintain the Quebec nation's political weight, as the House of Commons recognized on March 2, 2022.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 originally provided that no province would lose any federal ridings in the next electoral redistribution. Let us not forget that the future configuration of Parliament threatened to remove one riding from Quebec, which would have seen its number of seats in the House drop from 78 to 77. The Bloc Québécois obviously let it be known that this was outrageous.

We are now moving this motion of instruction for the following reason. It is true that we do not want to see a decrease in the number of members from Quebec in the House, but we want to go even further by asking for an end to the relative decrease in Quebec's political weight, which has been happening since the start of the 20th century.

Since this bill is already too restrictive to allow for these kinds of amendments, we are forced to propose amendments through a motion of instruction to ensure that it is in order. In this way, Bill C‑14 would become embedded in the parliamentary journey we set out on in June 2021.

Allow me to recap. Last year, in June 2021, we moved the following motion:

That the House agree...that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.

This motion was adopted by the vast majority of members in the House, which was the first step in this legislative journey.

Since that first step, Quebec has not been seen as a province like the others. It is seen as a nation, which we have known for a long time. However, if Quebec is a nation, it should have the same powers afforded to nations. We must therefore take action to protect the Quebec nation, whose common language is French, which is something that a very large majority of members recognized.

The second step was taken in March, when, once again, a large majority of members in the House adopted the following motion, which I will read because it is very important:

That, in the opinion of the House:

(a) any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected...

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I obviously agree with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby when he characterized what is really a very unfortunate series of procedural shenanigans the Conservatives have participated in. Why?

In French, they want to be able to tell their colleagues from Quebec who support Bill C‑14 that they are in favour of maintaining the number of seats in Quebec. However, in the House of Commons, and especially in their English remarks, they are doing everything in their power to prevent a vote on this bill. I think that was the reason in this case.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, what is disappointing this evening is the sad spectacle put on by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

The Bloc Québécois will always oppose muzzling opposition parties and taking away their powers. Yesterday, the delay tactics had consequences not just for the House, but for committees as well. A committee on medical assistance in dying was scheduled to discuss two fundamental matters yesterday: the protection of people with disabilities and the issue of mental illness as the sole underlying condition for medical assistance in dying. Witnesses were waiting. We upended all that and had to make people wait, when this committee does not meet very often as it is.

At present, a minister is telling us that what the Conservatives did was appalling. The Liberals themselves, when they were in opposition, used the same tactic and will continue to use it. Neither party is all that credible. At some point, common sense must prevail, and we must act according to our cherished principles of the exercise of parliamentary democracy.

What we are hearing from the minister and from the official opposition will do nothing to convince the people watching that this place is not a circus. Then, they act surprised that people are cynical about the work that we do here in the House. The Bloc Québécois feels that Bill C‑14 offers barely half of what we were asking for. That is another story, but we need to stop acting like this is the place for theatrics.

I would like to see more dignified behaviour here. Instead of telling the Conservatives that what they are saying is appalling, it would be better to tell them that it is more important we keep working. There is no problem with working until midnight. However, members' ability to do so should not be taken away.

We must denounce what the Conservatives did because, if we have a repeat of yesterday's nonsense, the people watching us will wonder what the heck is going on. However, this pretext is being used here to muzzle us. I would like to call for more respect for parliamentary democracy. Otherwise, democracy will rise from the streets.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, far from wanting to silence the official opposition, we are actually trying to help the members have an opportunity to vote on this legislation. We are trying to help them out of the dead end they found themselves in last evening, as our friend for New Westminster—Burnaby pointed out, where they were using a series of absolutely ridiculous measures to ensure that the House was voting on which Conservative member would repeat a speech that was generated the previous time this legislation was brought before the House.

Our Conservative colleague asked what is behind this. I will be very clear on what is behind this. This is about allowing the House of Commons to pronounce itself on Bill C-14, which we think will enjoy broad support in the House, and then allowing the bill to proceed to committee, where our colleagues in committee can hear from witnesses, can debate the legislation and can make amendments if they decide it is necessary. The bill can come back to the House of Commons in the normal legislative process with which we are extremely familiar. Then, finally, our friends in the other place will have an opportunity to study the legislation as well.

The urgency, as I said, is constitutional and under legislation. Every 10 years, after a census, there is a redistribution process that takes place in every province, allowing an independent commission chaired by a justice or a judge from that province, appointed by the chief justice of the province, to look at the question of electoral boundaries and to adjust electoral boundaries for movements in population and for increases in population in some provinces. In this case, if this bill is adopted, we will provide a floor for the number of seats every province will have in this House of Commons. It is particularly important to our friends from the province of Quebec who, under the formula, would have stood to be diminished by one seat, losing one seat in the House of Commons. We think it is important for Canadians and for Quebeckers to know that the representation in 2021 will be the representation used by these commissions in determining the appropriate electoral boundaries. In your great province of Quebec, Madam Speaker, that would be 78 seats.

We wish the Conservative Party would support us in passing this so the commission could do its important work.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think never has the House leader of the official opposition spoken truer words than when, in referring to the Conservative Party, he talked about the decline of the democracy.

We have now seen over the past six months, ever since we passed unanimously the ban on conversion therapy and there was a revolt in the Conservative backbench, that Conservatives have blocked every single piece of legislation. In Bill C-9, teachers and farmers were looking for supports and Conservatives refused to let it through. They are now blocking Bill C-14.

The reality is as we saw it last night. The House leader of the official opposition referred to vigorous debate. What Conservatives wanted us to debate, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars last night, for hour after hour, was which Conservative MP would speak. We had vote—

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the substance of Bill C-14 is worthy of further debate. It is not simply a matter of the number of seats; however, I am not going to debate Bill C-14 here. I think the debate deserves to continue in a truly democratic fashion.

I have a question about the gag orders that are being used week after week. Normally a gag order would be something out of the ordinary in this form of government, but we are seeing them come up repeatedly. Is this by any chance related to Motion No. 11, which we had shoved down our throats?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I think members will find it ironic that we are getting lectures on indignation in that Oscar-winning performance on the other side of the aisle. We should never underestimate our Conservative friends' ability to manufacture outrage and indignation, and talk about loyal opposition and democracy.

We think that Bill C-14, which is the subject of the discussion for the next 25 minutes and not the fabricated outrage of my friend on the other side of the aisle, is about ensuring that every province, including the Speaker's province of Quebec, maintains the electoral representation and the number of seats it had in the House of Commons in 2021. In other words, no province should see a reduction in its representation in the House of Commons.

I was very encouraged, when this bill was first debated, that the Conservative Party showed support for this legislation. Members spoke in favour of the bill as an important gesture recognizing the unique position that the province of Quebec occupies in the Canadian federation, and recognizing that every province should be able to benefit from a grandfather clause, similar to what former prime minister Brian Mulroney did in 1985. We are suggesting in this legislation that the House of Commons and the Senate approve a similar amendment that would allow us to have a 2021 grandfather clause.

That is the subject of this conversation. The Conservatives say they want to support the bill, but they do everything they can to vandalize the legislative process and make sure that Parliament cannot actually proceed to a vote. What we are saying tonight is that it is time for members to stand in their places and vote on this legislation, and we are very confident that the Conservatives, who manufactured this outrage, will in the end stand up and vote for this process. We are making this possible for them tonight.

Finance

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I want to thank the hon. member.

I am not going to thank the government for imposing Motion No. 11 on us, which extends hours to midnight so that we could debate very important topics that Canadians are seized with. If the hon. member wants to spend time debating these, if he wants to extend sittings to midnight, Conservatives, and I said this the very day we debated Motion No. 11, will be here every single night, as the government requires, to debate those issues that are important to Canadians.

We are also going to be debating government legislation tonight, right up until midnight, Bill C-14. When I rose earlier, how many speakers from the government side were willing to debate that? None. Just as we predicted, it will be the opposition debating government legislation. It will be the opposition asking the opposition questions on government legislation. The government put us in this position to debate these issues that are important to Canadians, just like taxes on the moon and the Criminal Code on the moon, and we are going to be here to debate them as long as we need to.

Health

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, although we were supposed to be debating Bill C‑14 today, we nevertheless had to consider the tabling of the committee report.

Last week I attended Taiwan Night with some colleagues, where we were able to discuss the Taiwanese government's concerns on this matter. After the event I invited our Taiwanese friends to come observe this afternoon, but I am disappointed, because I have been hearing members over the past hour asking why we are not talking about something else. I obviously care a lot about Bill C‑14, but it is also important that this report be tabled. We must examine its findings and how it calls on us, as parliamentarians, to do something about this situation.

We have all witnessed the situation in Ukraine and Russia over the past few months, and the expression that comes to mind when I think of that situation is “the thorn in the lion's paw”. NATO has said that it is no one's fault but, at the same time, it is everyone's fault. That same expression comes to mind when I think of relations between Taiwan and China.

I think we need a little flexibility in order to make an informed decision under the circumstances. That is what we need to discuss this afternoon: What can we do to speed up Taiwan's admission to the World Health Organization, or WHO, and the World Health Assembly?

In a community or a group, the first thing to do if we want to be in society is to appreciate the true value of the “other”. The failure to contribute to the admission of entities—or, in this case, independent countries—to associations such as the WHO or the World Health Assembly amounts in some way to denying their existence.

Why do we do this? Generally, we do it strictly on the basis of conviction. We all have convictions, whether it is the Speaker, me or even the member for Winnipeg North. That is what keeps us standing, what we value, and it is often an imperative. However, societies also have convictions. Unfortunately, a conviction is something that we hold very dear, but with little regard for its predictable consequences. Following a conviction is often done at all costs, which is evident in the delay of Taiwan's admission to the bodies I mentioned.

However, when it comes to a conviction, we cannot deny that there are no consequences to our actions. Every action has its consequences. In fact, the consequences are part of the action. For Russia and Ukraine, the consequences are dire. We had good intentions, but good intentions do not count if they are not carried through. We can hope, but if we do not act on that hope, it does not count.

We must justify our conviction about whether we are for or against admitting Taiwan into these organizations. This is what I personally call the ethics of responsibility, the ethics of a form of decision-making that involves considering the foreseeable consequences of a given action.

What are the foreseeable consequences of admitting or not admitting Taiwan to these organizations? We can predict that, if Taiwan is denied admittance, the decision will be postponed, and there will be petitions, more lobbying and, most importantly, people who will not be able to contribute to or benefit from science.

I believe we are heading for the inevitable and that admittance is the best way to go. If we agree to admit Taiwan, I think we will reduce the risk of confrontation in a part of the world that, frankly, is prone to confrontation. I do not have a crystal ball, but when I look at Russia, Ukraine, Finland and Sweden, I see Taiwan on the other side of the crystal ball.

The consequences of denying Taiwan admittance should not be underestimated. We all have our own convictions, and that is fine. When we look at the consequences of having or not having convictions on this issue, we reach the stage that I call the ethics of discussion. I mention this because it is what we do here in Parliament. The ethics of discussion is the ability to discuss objectively in order to reconcile what we want to do with what we end up doing.

This is about reconciling what we want to do with what we end up doing. It is about aligning word with deed. I believe that we should be able make a decision without having unnecessary barriers thrown up, without getting bogged down. We may decide to take action or we may decide not to. Yes, we might make a mistake, but we are not God. The worst mistake is not deciding. The biggest mistake is looking the other way. I often say that the greatest lack of ethics is turning a blind eye.

Certainly, in this case, we are not being asked to make a decision. We are not the WHO. We are being asked to receive the conclusions of a committee that is established under the rules of the House of Commons, one that operates independently and has tabled its report.

Too often in the past, we have seen reports that were not received by the House of Commons, which comes back to haunt us after a while. It makes for even more procedures than necessary.

This afternoon, what are my Taiwanese friends seeing when they are watching us? In the last hour, they have seen people disagreeing about how to move forward. No one has been stubborn about moving forward, but we disagree about the method. Meanwhile, time is passing and people are waiting, yet no decisions are being made.

I believe the report should be presented because I believe Taiwan should be part of the WHO. Why do I believe that? I think it is about social values. Values are things that we find to be good, noble or desirable, but the value we are talking about here is solidarity. Solidarity means unity for common cause. In this case, that common cause is health. Taiwan made a significant contribution with respect to COVID‑19. Taiwan is willing and able to contribute. What may be preventing this report from being presented today is fear, misplaced fear of the Chinese bear. We are a legally constituted Parliament. I believe we should make this decision. This is not a life or death decision; this is about concurring in a report. We should concur in it so we can move forward. This is about solidarity. This is no time to pretend the problem does not exist. This is no time to be stubborn about our convictions just for the sake of being stubborn.

In answer to the concerns raised by my colleague from Winnipeg North, I would like us to adopt this motion quickly so we can move on to Bill C‑14. Bill C‑14 is extremely important to me. What I would suggest today is an entente cordiale among the parties so we can move forward and do our parliamentary work without obstacles of our own making.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-14 is the bill that we were supposed to be debating today. We started it this morning. In essence, Elections Canada is an independent organization. We are bringing forward legislation to ensure that the province of Quebec, a province I am very, very proud of, especially that French factor, gets the minimum 78 seats. In fact, I understand that every member of this chamber wants to make sure that Quebec gets that, but there is one political party that just wants to debate it. Members of that party do not want it to pass it. They just want to filibuster until I do not know when.

Sometimes they need to be shamed into doing the right thing. Hopefully a little shaming here will cause them to allow Bill C-14 to pass. It would be wonderful to see it pass before 5 p.m.

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

Madam Speaker, whenever I hear the hon. parliamentary secretary in high dudgeon because there are political games being played in this place, it is so very Casablanca: “What? I'm shocked. There's gambling going on here?” We have to recall there are political games on all sides. We can all do better. This an important issue. This is a concurrence debate that attaches some significance, but I join the hon. parliamentary secretary in lamenting that we are not debating Bill C-14. This is less a question than a comment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, standing committees pass all sorts of motions. I would argue there is an endless number of wonderful debates that we could be having, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is that the Conservative Party continues to focus its attention on doing whatever it can to prevent the government from being able to debate its legislation or budgetary measures.

The Conservatives could have worked with the government on this particular motion. We could have had a group hug and see if we could pass this with unanimous consent. At the end of day, let us be very clear. This has nothing to do with Taiwan. This has everything to do with Conservatives playing games and filibustering. That is what this is all about. They do not want to debate Bill C-14. Let us vote on Bill C-14 and get it passed.