Bill C-14

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.

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to expand on the question from the previous member. When I look at Toronto, we have more than 20 members representing a riding that, arguably, as I have driven from one side of it to the other, is not that different.

Is there a question we should be asking at this time about that? Certainly we need more people to support that many individuals regarding services, but do we really need that many members?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a good question from my friend, the member for Sarnia—Lambton. There are different challenges that members of Parliament face in representing urban and rural areas. They are taken into account, having regard for additional resources for the members who represent larger ridings by population and by virtue of their geography. However, I underscore that when we allocate seats and draw boundaries, the principle that must be respected to the greatest degree possible is representation by population.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, we are discussing representation in the House, and I talked earlier about the important work we need to do on gender balance and proportionality. I talked a lot about young people and the lack of opportunities for them to have a seat at the table. We know that at 16 years old, young people can drive a car, work and pay taxes in this country. We also know that if they participate at a young age, they have a better chance of voting in the future.

As to my question for my colleague, there is a bill before the House, Bill C-210, tabled by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley. Does the member support allowing those who can drive—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order, please. We need to hear the question.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me say, in short, that I believe in principle that the voting age of 18 is the most appropriate age. However, I do look forward to debate on the bill.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-14, the preserving provincial representation in the House of Commons act.

The seat allocation and electoral boundaries readjustment process is an important part of our democracy. Its purpose is to ensure that the House of Commons reflects the changing nature of Canada's demographic profile and that all Canadian voices are heard.

I will admit that this bill is a small change. It is a small compromise to an elaborate electoral formula that has a long history of compromise, competing regional interests and vigorous political debate.

We can debate about tinkering with the formula to appease political interests, but at the end of the day, most members of the House would likely agree that baked into the redistribution is systemic unfairness. This exists because the redistribution formulas were created for a country that no longer exists. The current formula was made for a country that did not see people living in the west at the numbers they do today.

At Canada's founding, the fathers of Confederation had a vision for Canada, how it would be a place for freedom-seeking people around the world and how it would be a place of economic development and prosperity, but I do not think the fathers of Confederation could have foreseen the tremendous growth and prosperity of western Canada. As a British Columbian, I am proud of the contributions my province and the people I represent have made to our country.

While Canada has changed and grown, we continue to be bound by rules for electoral redistribution that are and always will be systemically unfair for Canadians living in certain regions of the country, namely Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

Let me share an example to highlight this, but first, to preface this, it is important to note that, in 1991, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that representation by population is fundamental to electoral redistribution. My riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon currently has 101,216 people. The average riding size of the four ridings—

[An hon. member]

I am having trouble hearing him.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is just a little loud in here.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Can we take the conversations outside, please?

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the average riding size of the four ridings in Prince Edward Island is 38,582. Some basic math here shows that, on average, a vote in Prince Edward Island is worth 2.62 times more than a vote in my riding. How is this fair? How is this democratic? How does this live up to the principles upheld in our courts in 1991? Are the concerns of someone from Charlottetown worth 2.62 times more than someone from my riding? Should they be allowed to have 2.62 times the amount of say in the House of Commons?

My riding is significantly smaller than the ridings of my colleagues from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin and Calgary Shepard. The comparison to these ridings is even more extreme. Obviously, I am not naive to the constitutional rules and implications that make this possible, but what I am trying to illustrate here is that there are significant flaws in the way seats are redistributed in Canada. Fundamentally, I believe that one vote in British Columbia should be equal to one vote in Prince Edward Island, to one vote in Quebec and to one vote in Ontario. This is democratic. This is what we should be trying to achieve in Canada, but this is not the case and it should be fixed.

In 1915, the first change was made to the original representation formula by the adoption of the senatorial clause, which is still in effect today. This clause states that a province cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it does in the Senate. It had the immediate effect of guaranteeing four seats for the province of Prince Edward Island instead of the three it would otherwise have had. It still has four seats today.

Every 10 years when the topic of redistribution comes up, we apply duct-tape fixes to a spillway-gate problem. We are elected to the House to be leaders, to have a vision for our country that extends beyond the next time Canadians go to the polls. The actions we take and do not take have a lasting impact on the future of our democratic system. This is the mantle of a member of Parliament, for all of us collectively, and it is the mantle that should weigh heavily on the minds of every single member in the House.

In 2011, the Harper government provided a lump-sum improvement to the under-representation problem by providing 27 seats to British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta respectively. This was a partial fix to our problem, but it still disadvantages those three provinces.

On March 2, I voted against the Bloc Québécois motion that would solidify Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons by redrawing the federal electoral map. My reasoning had nothing to do with Quebec. It had to do with the lack of equal representation in my province of British Columbia.

In retrospect, Quebec is the closest to fair representation that we have in Canada. However, giving Quebec one more seat under the bill so that it would not lose any proportionality in Parliament is a poor solution to an existing problem. The bill would make the under-representation problem marginally worse than it was going to be anyway. Once again, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario representation pay the price.

The reason the bill is before us today is solely in response to the Bloc Québécois motion. As an MP from the west, this drives me and, frankly, makes me a little upset. I predict that we will be here in another 10 years tinkering with this formula again, trying to compromise and appease the greatest amount of political interest. Alternatively, we could use the next 10 years to come up with a permanent solution that can preserve our democracy and last the test of time.

Again, the Supreme Court, in 1991, upheld that representation by population matters. When Confederation took place, nobody ever imagined that British Columbia especially would be as powerful both economically and demographically as it is today.

My argument here today is that our Parliament needs to reflect the reality of the changing demographic nature of Canada. Our Parliament needs to take into account where people are living and working. Our Parliament needs to take into account that all of our systems in our democracy uphold the rights of individuals to have an equal say in the House of Commons.

What we are doing here today is a band-aid solution to a larger problem that we, collectively, have to address.

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

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke seems to have a differing opinion from the official Conservative caucus position on this. I do not know if he was just expressing his personal position and he will be voting against the legislation, but my understanding was that the official opposition recognizes the true value of the legislation and is going to be voting in favour of it. I would like to assure the member that it was not the Bloc that influenced the government to bring forward the legislation. The Liberal caucus, as a whole, recognizes the true value of ensuring that we give that base floor, something which does not necessarily make the government unique. Even Conservative governments in the past have done the same thing.

I would like him to provide his thoughts regarding how he will be voting on the legislation.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives moved a unanimous consent motion around the same time as the Bloc Québécois motion essentially asking for this. In my remarks, I pointed out problems that both the previous Conservative governments and previous Liberal governments have had regarding this issue. In fact, this is an issue that extends beyond political parties. It is about fair representation for all Canadians.

British Columbia is systemically under-represented in the House. Imagine today if Quebec had three seats taken away from it and Quebec was 1% under-represented like British Columbia is today. Every Quebec MP, irrespective of party, would be up in arms. I am doing my duty as a British Columbian to make sure that taxpayers in my province have an equal say.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too want to reassure my colleague.

Bill C-14 was not introduced by the Bloc. That is not what we were asking for. We were asking to maintain Quebec's political weight. It is not about the number of seats, but a proportion of the total number of seats.

He will be pleased to hear that I agree with him on several points. The Constitution is outdated. The Senate is outdated. I have a solution for that: Quebec independence. Unfortunately, that will not happen here.

My colleague raised some very good points, particularly regarding the proportionality of votes, which is important, but has he forgotten the notion of nationhood?

Is he telling me that the country we are talking about is not that of Quebeckers? If so, the concept of a founding nation would no longer be taken into account.