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

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

Madam Speaker, I could not hear most of the question, so I will just say this: The first political experience I had in my life was in 1993 when the previous Reform Party talked about the west wanting in. Some of those structural grievances that led to that populous movement relate to what we are discussing here today, which is that British Columbia—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

Madam Speaker, if I understood correctly, the member had no interpretation while I was speaking. I think it is important that he understand the question.

Could we have consent for me to start over?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The member was not using his earpiece. The Chair is not to blame. We should not take time away from other questions.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I did hear one point from the member opposite about the proportionality that Quebec wanted to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have another point of order.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I ask you this question with all humility.

If the member did not hear the question, what is the point of him answering a question he did not hear?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It was not a problem with interpretation. If the member did not use the appropriate tool to hear the question, the House will get the answer he gives.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I heard the word “proportion” and that the Bloc Québécois put forward that motion because it wanted to maintain the proportionality of the Quebec members of Parliament in the House. I stand here today as a member of Parliament for British Columbia and my objective is that the proportionality of my province is one day reflected in our chamber. British Columbians only have six Senate seats. British Columbians do not have a guaranteed seat on the Supreme Court. British Columbians pay equalization to other provinces. British Columbians just want an equal say in how our democracy is run.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

This legislation not only protects the number of seats in Quebec but in all provinces and territories. The NDP will continue to ensure Quebec remains fairly represented here at the House of Commons.

My question to the member is this: Should the 1991 Supreme Court case that he just cited also be used to increase indigenous representation?

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

Madam Speaker, I think the key thing that needs to be upheld in this chamber is representation by population.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

I come from a province that for years was under-represented in this House when its population was taken into account. For years, Albertans felt there was an injustice in the way seats were apportioned in the House of Commons, until more seats were finally added in 2011 to allow fair representation for my home province.

Canada has always been a place of competing interests, of give-and-take between provinces and regions. As a nation we have always tried to strike a balance, knowing that compromise is necessary but not always acceptable to everyone.

In theory, we agree with the principle that each member of Parliament should represent a riding with a similar number of electors. It may not be a perfect system, but it allows constituencies to be more or less equal in population size and makes it possible for a member of Parliament to serve his or her constituents without being overwhelmed by the numbers.

Of course, we do make allowances for history. No province can have fewer MPs than it does senators, and we have agreed that no province should have fewer MPs than it did in 1985. That explains why Prince Edward Island has four ridings with a population size of about 35,000 people each, while ridings in Nova Scotia are double that population. In Quebec, most of the ridings have more than 100,000 people, as do all the ridings in Alberta, except for one.

We have accepted this disparity in the name of national unity. The system has worked well on the whole, and, as I mentioned, the number of MPs was expanded in 2011 to allow for more representation in this House, especially for Alberta and Quebec. I have to wonder, therefore, why the government desires to change the rules once more.

As population shifts, so do riding boundaries and representation in this House. That is something we all understand and accept, or maybe not all of us. Looking at the bill, I wonder what sort of precedent it sets and what sort of message it sends about democracy in Canada. How do those who are already feeling jaded about the state of our political system feel about the rules apparently once more not being applied fairly?

In any sports contest, the rules are agreed upon before the game starts. Both teams take to the field knowing what they must do in order to win. They do not pause midway to suggest rule changes because they have decided that the rules they started with were not good enough. I know that may be an imperfect analogy, but I am sure this proposal to redistribute seats and change the 1985 benchmark looks that way to many Canadians. Someone does not like the rules of the game, so they want to change them.

The population of Canada is constantly shifting. Our cities are growing bigger. Some regions are attracting more immigrants than others. The reasons for demographic change are many, varied and complex. In this House we are tasked with finding a balance between competing needs or, more accurately, competing wants. The latest census data, as examined by Elections Canada, would see the addition of four more seats to this House to take into account the increase in our nation’s population. Given the increasing workload of members of Parliament, I doubt there is any member of this House who would disagree with the conclusion that more seats will enable MPs to better serve constituents.

The problem is that under this impartial formula, Quebec would lose a seat in the House of Commons. Those from that province are understandably concerned that their influence will be lessened, though there would still be more MPs from Quebec than from the three prairie provinces combined and Quebec would still have more MPs than it did 20 years ago.

What are we to do here? We could guarantee that Quebec would always have the same number of seats it does now, which is the intent of this bill. There are those who believe it important to recognize the historical importance of Canada’s only francophone province. Would that be enough? What if the population of Quebec continues to shrink? This bill would amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to provide that when the number of seats in the House of Commons is redistributed after each decennial census, no province would have fewer seats than it had in the 43rd Parliament. At some future time, will we want to guarantee an even more uneven distribution of seats as a tribute to what once was? What will the 50th Parliament wish to address, or does our living democracy mean that this House will only tackle this question in the future?

After all, the House of Commons is the people's chamber and should be representative of the population across the country. Conservatives respect the fundamental constitutional principle of representation by population that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1991. However, we acknowledge that sometimes, as is proposed by this bill, there are other considerations, and deciding which considerations are more important is a difficult task.

This bill reflects a motion that this House considered last month, which stated:

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.

Coming from a province that will receive three more seats in the next redistribution and received additional seats from the last one, I understand the desire of members from an area of the country not blessed with Alberta’s growth to preserve what they have. The question we must ask and hopefully answer is this: Is this the wisest course to take? This Liberal bill preserves the redistribution formula created by the previous Conservative government’s 2011 Fair Representation Act, which added 30 new seats in the House of Commons. That was a huge jump in representation, much larger than the one about to be implemented, and perhaps set the stage for where we find ourselves today. Instead of giving a larger workload to members of Parliament and adding the resources necessary to do the extra work, this House chose to increase its size. How long can we continue to expand in this way?

The Liberal government has made many promises on electoral reform but has failed to even start an honest discussion on what this House should look like a decade or a century from now. We should be having a longer and deeper discussion on how we want to govern ourselves. Until we do, we will be passing this same act, with slight amendments, every decade or so. Is that the way we want to run a country?

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

Madam Speaker, one of the single largest increases in the number of members of the House of Commons was under Stephen Harper. It went from 308 to 338. If we follow the logic of what the member is saying, we would think that it was the previous administration that deferred the decision on something that the member is being somewhat critical of us for not debating today.

Does the member feel this might be a type of ongoing discussion, possibly in the format of an opposition day, in which we could continue to have this debate? I realize there is a need to ultimately see this bill pass so that the Quebec commission is able to continue to do its fine work.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, this bill definitely carries on the legacy that started in 2011 under Prime Minister Harper, and that is what we see going through this bill.

I do not know what the member interpreted from my speech. I tried to outline the historical background of what happened and why we are at this stage. Asking for perfection or for better is something that everybody aims for. That is what I was trying to do here in the speech that I delivered today.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech, my colleague noted that Mr. Harper's government recognized Quebec as a nation. Since then, however, there has been no concrete action.

The bill maintains Quebec's number of seats at 78, but Quebec loses relative weight because increasing the number of MPs in Canada reduces Quebec's weight from 23% to 22.51%.

It is all well and good to maintain the number of seats in Quebec, but if the number of seats elsewhere in Canada is increased, Quebec loses out in the end. What does my colleague think?