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.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C-47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf-sur-Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C-2, C-3, C-4, C-5, C-6, C-8 and C-10, as well as Bill C-11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C-12, C-14, C-15, C-16, C-19, C-24, C-25, C-28, C-30, C-31, C-32, C-36 and C-39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C-43, C-44 and C-46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C-9. Bill C-22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C-13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C-18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C-21, C-29 and C-45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C-47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

Criminal Code

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

moved that Bill C-314, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-314, the mental health protection act.

In its very essence, this bill is about reaffirming the dignity and worth of each and every human life. It is about recognizing that it is the most vulnerable among us, the disabled and the mentally ill, to whom we owe the greatest duty: to defend and protect their lives and to provide them with every possible opportunity to live life to the fullest.

Medically assisted suicide was legalized in Canada in 2015 by the Supreme Court's Carter decision and later under the Liberal government's Bill C-14. Under this legislation, medical assistance in dying, or MAID, as it is commonly called, was strictly limited to those consenting adults who had an incurable disease that caused enduring, intolerable suffering that could not be alleviated, and where natural death was reasonably foreseeable, which they call the foreseeability test.

At the time, the government and its supportive stakeholders assured Canadians that this was not a slippery slope, where the scope of MAID would continually be expanded to include more and more vulnerable Canadians. However, not surprisingly, in the intervening eight years since the Carter decision, the government has begun to expand Canada's MAID regime to include more and more defenceless Canadians, most particularly those living with disabilities.

In late 2019, a Quebec lower court judge in the Truchon case ruled that the foreseeability test I just mentioned was unconstitutional, requiring Parliament to respond with additional legislation. Sadly, the Liberal government chose not to appeal the Truchon case to the Supreme Court of Canada, presumably because the decision lined up with the Prime Minister's intent to dramatically expand assisted suicide to other vulnerable Canadians. This leaves us with the perverse situation in which the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the country, has never been allowed to opine on whether the reasonable foreseeability test is constitutional.

In any event, the Liberal government responded to Truchon by tabling Bill C-7, which initially eliminated the foreseeability test but expressly excluded mentally ill persons from being caught up in its MAID regime. Here is what the justice minister said at the time:

The fact that there would be risk of ending the life of a person whose symptoms would have improved...is, in part, why we are of the view that it is safest not to permit MAID on the sole basis of mental illness.... There is also ongoing uncertainty and disagreement as to the potential impact on suicide prevention if MAID were made available to this group.

He went on to say:

...there is no consensus among experts on whether and how to proceed with MAID on the basis of mental illness alone. On a question of such importance and with so much uncertainty and expert disagreement, it is incumbent upon us to proceed with caution and prudence.

Those were our justice minister’s views until the unelected Senate suddenly introduced an amendment that expanded MAID to those Canadians whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. Sadly, the justice minister and the government accepted the amendment without protest and, overnight, became zealous proponents of assisted death for the mentally ill. What happened to the caution and prudence the minister was preaching? What about the impact on suicide prevention the minister was so concerned about? What happened to his view that it was safest not to permit MAID on the sole basis of mental illness?

I agree with the Minister of Justice on one thing, which is that, as he has said, this is indeed a complex issue and is deeply personal. It is deeply personal because it involves life, a precious human life.

I would remind the minister and his government that the issue is also profoundly simple; that is, the principle that all life, all human life is precious and worthy of defence and protection, especially for those who do not have the ability to speak for themselves and have no one to speak for them.

One of the primary functions of government is to protect its citizens, to protect life. In fact, the right to life is expressly enshrined in section 7 of our Charter of Rights. Sadly, the government's Bill C-7 fails to protect the lives of our most vulnerable. It removes the critical safeguards that the original euthanasia legislation included in response to the Carter decision. Removing those safeguards will have irreversible consequences for those who suffer from mental illnesses like depression.

What is equally disturbing is that the Liberal government has also signalled its intention to extend the so-called “treatment option” to minor children. That would arguably make Canada the most expansive, most liberal, assisted suicide jurisdiction in the world. Clearly we are on the slippery slope many of us warned about. Canadians have a right to conclude that the Liberal government has gone too far and too fast in its zeal to implement and expand the scope of assisted death.

My bill will reverse this momentum and repeal the government's decision to extend MAID to the mentally ill. It will put a full stop to the expansion of assisted suicide to mentally disordered persons. Let me be clear. My bill does not in any way reverse the rest of Canada’s MAID regime. Assisted death will remain available for those suffering from irremediable, incurable and intolerable illnesses and diseases. My bill is simply focused on reversing the government’s actions in expanding assisted suicide to include the mentally ill. It would arrest Canada’s slide into normalizing assisted death as an alternative treatment option, something so many of us had predicted would happen.

The evidence from mental health experts is very clear. Contrary to what our justice minister is now saying, there is absolutely no consensus in Canada that the mentally ill should be covered by Canada’s medically assisted death regime. In fact, here is what experts and other stakeholders in the mental health community are saying. John Maher, psychiatrist with Canadian Mental Health Association, states that:

Inducement to suicide while simultaneously denying mental health care to two-thirds of Canadians who urgently need it is an unconscionable failing.

Directly undermining suicide prevention efforts is an insidious and ablest perversion of our mental health care duty.

Drs. Ramona Coelho and Catherine Ferrier, co-founders of Physicians Together with Vulnerable Canadian, penned a statement that was endorsed by over 1,000 physicians. This is part of what it said, “Given that there is no medical evidence to reliably predict which patients with a mental illness will not get better, MAID for mental illness will end the lives of patients who would have recovered…Medicine …would fail in its mission if it were to deliberately end the lives of patients living with mental illness… Legislators must work towards safeguarding the lives of the most vulnerable including those placed at a greater disadvantage because of mental illness.”

Dr. Sonu Gaind, chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, stated, “The Ministers have provided false reassurances that we can somehow separate people who are suicidal from those who are seeking psychiatric euthanasia. That is simply not true. In my opinion, that is dangerous misinformation coming from our federal Minister of Justice and our federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions providing a false sense of safety that does not exist.”

Trudo Lemmens, professor and chair in health law at the University of Toronto, said, “I urge Parliament to take very seriously how offering MAID for mental illness deprives disabled persons, particularly those with mental illness, from equal protection against premature death. Persons experiencing mental illness deserve to be protected against premature death by an unreserved focus on ensuring access to all required health care and social support services. Facilitating their death does exactly the opposite.”

Finally, Sephora Tang, psychiatrist and assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry at University of Ottawa, said, “One cannot prevent suicide while at the same time facilitating it. Placing expectations upon mental health professionals to do both undermines the effective delivery of recovery-oriented mental health care. Canadians deserve to live in a country that is committed to safeguarding the right to life and security of every person. Current MAID legislation fails to achieve this overarching social good.”

Even Canada's justice minister has publicly acknowledged the fact that issues such as irremediability, competency and suicidality are not anywhere close to being resolved to justify such a major policy shift in favour of death. Furthermore, medically assisted death flies in the face of the government’s own promotion of suicide prevention programs, including the recent creation of a national 988 suicide hotline.

It cannot be both ways. It cannot claim, as the Liberal government has, that it wants to prevent suicide deaths on the one hand, when it actively promotes assisted suicide for the mentally ill on the other. Over the last eight years, many of us have expressed our concern and expectation that the Carter decision and BillC-14 would be expanded by future court decisions, and that these decisions would leave more and more vulnerable populations exposed to the reach of medically assisted suicide.

Our concerns were pooh-poohed. We were accused of fearmongering and of misrepresenting the intentions of this Liberal government. Yet, today, the Truchon decision and the travesty of Bill C-7 bear out our concerns. That is why more and more disability groups have set the alarm bells ringing and are vehemently opposing this legislation. They argue that this legislation amounts to a deadly form of discrimination, making it easier for persons with disabilities to die than to live.

We are hearing more and more reports of the poor and homeless approaching food banks to ask for assisted death, not because they are suffering from a grievous illness but because they do not want to go hungry and homeless. The headline in the British magazine The Spectator asked last year, “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?”

The response from some bioethicists appears to be, “Well, why not?” In fact, a new paper by two bioethicists at the University of Toronto makes the case that euthanizing the poor should be socially acceptable. That is indicative of the path on which our country finds itself. It is terrifying.

We also have verified reports of veterans suffering from PTSD who are being counselled by the Liberal government to consider medical assistance in dying rather than being provided with the treatment and supports they need to recover.

These are the vulnerable that the Liberal government promised to protect. Canadians have the right to ask whether this government is exercising the requisite caution and care to avoid unnecessary overreach and ensure that MAID is not abused or misapplied.

Let me conclude. My private member's bill, Bill C-314 gives all of us parliamentarians an opportunity to take a deep breath and reconsider the perilous road we have embarked upon. As I mentioned, my bill simply reverses the expansion of Canada’s assisted death laws to the mentally ill. At the very least, I would ask my colleagues to allow my bill, at second reading, to go to committee where there could be more discussion.

Have we gone too far and too fast with Canada's assisted suicide program? Will we evolve into a culture of death as the preferred option for those who suffer from mental illness or will we choose life?

I implore my colleagues to choose life. I wish them much wisdom as they make that choice.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand to give my thoughts on Bill C-39. For those who are watching the debate today, this is the bill to amend the Criminal Code to delay, until March 17 of next year, the repeal of the exclusion from eligibility for receiving medical assistance in dying in circumstances where the sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.

It has to be stated very clearly, because of the timeline with which we are dealing, that if this bill is not passed, the original sunset clause that was put in place by the old Bill C-7 will come into effect on March 17, which is just over a month away. It is for that reason that I will support the bill and will work with all parties to get the bill passed quickly.

Today's conversation has to happen within the context of the mental health crisis in Canada. We know and have heard, and this is not just from members of Parliament, from many advocates and stakeholders that there is an extreme lack of funding and resources. Clearly, there absolutely must be parity between physical and mental health in funding.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has stated in the House that Canadians should have access to timely evidence-based, culturally appropriate and trauma-informed mental health and substance use services to support their well-being. With that I agree wholeheartedly, but words are not enough. We need to see the requisite resources and funding to follow through those words.

We know that beyond the Canada mental health transfer many advocates have long been calling for legislation to enshrine in law parity between mental and physical health. I am very glad today that I am giving my speech beside the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, who is our mental health and addictions critic and who has himself tabled Motion No. 67, which calls on the government to develop that legislation and to urgently fulfill its promise to establish that Canada mental health transfer.

In my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, many of my fellow citizens are going through extreme struggles with the opioid crisis. They are dealing with trauma. They are dealing with underlying mental health challenges that are simply not being addressed. That is an extreme gap and the cause of an extreme amount of shame for a country as wealthy as Canada to be still having these conversations about the resources that need to be brought to bear in communities like mine.

I have been a member in the House since 2015, so this is now my third Parliament. I have been here for the entirety of the legislative journey of medical assistance in dying. I can remember Bill C-14 and the sometimes difficult debates we had in the House. That legislation was in response to the Carter decision in the Supreme Court, which basically said that to deny people this right was contrary to our charter. It therefore gave the government a timeline to address it with the appropriate legislation.

What is not often talked about with Bill C-14 is that there was a legislative requirement in that act when it received royal assent. There was a five-year statutory review of medical assistance in dying. Unfortunately, that never occurred before the government went ahead in the previous Parliament and introduced Bill C-7, which established a second track for people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.

The context of today's speech and C-39 is the fact that we have a story here of the government in several instances putting the cart before the horse. It not only introduced Bill C-7 before a statutory review occurred, which was a requirement of Bill C-14, but it then went ahead and accepted a Senate amendment to the bill that ran contrary to its own charter statement. It did that pretty massive expansion to the law without establishing a special joint committee that was a requirement of Bill C-7.

I am intimately familiar with what this process has been because I have not only been a member of the House since 2015, I have not only participated in debate on Bill C-14 and on Bill C-7, but I have also been a member of the special joint committee, both in the previous Parliament and in this Parliament.

The message all along has been that this kind of a review should have occurred before we were dealing with a timeline crunch. It became quite obvious during the special joint committee that too many Canadians, too many professionals in our country had apprehension about mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition for being able to access medical assistance in dying as early as next month. Hence, we have Bill C-39.

I want to go back to the original charter statement that the government released as a part of Bill C-7. That includes a number of important statements as to why the government felt, originally, that mental disorders should be excluded from accessing MAID. It did say in that charter statement that the exclusion was not based on the assumption that individuals who suffered from mental illness lacked decision-making capacity. It also said that the exclusion was also not based on a failure to appreciate the severity of the suffering that mental illness could produce. Rather, it was based on the inherent risks and complexity that the availability of MAID would present to those individuals.

First, that charter statement identified that the evidence suggested that screening for decision-making capacity was particularly difficult. It could be subject to a high degree of error. Second, the statement identified that mental illness was generally less predictable than physical illness with respect to the course that the illness may take over time. Finally, it highlighted the experience that a few of the countries that permitted MAID, namely Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, for the sole underlying medical condition of mental illness had and some of the concerns relating to the increasing number of these cases and the wide range of mental illnesses in respect to which MAID could be provided.

Again, it really highlighted the fact that precaution was the necessary mode that was required before we embarked on this path. However, the government in its wisdom decided to accept a late stage Senate amendment to the bill after the House, full of its duly elected members, had given a final vote on Bill C-7. As a member at that time, I could not bring myself to accept that Senate amendment. Therefore, I ended up voting against the final version of Bill C-7 because of that.

It also needs to be said, when we are going over the history, that the special joint committee that was a requirement of Bill C-7 got a very late start. It was first brought into being just before the summer recess in 2021. We only had a few meetings before the summer of 2021 and we had the unnecessary election, launched solely at the request of the Prime Minister, in August of that year. This completely wiped out anything that was happening during the 43rd Parliament. That Parliament ceased to exist, and all of the committees that were a part of it did as well.

The new Parliament, the 44th, reconvened later that year, but it was not until around April or May of 2022 that serious discussions started coming together and we could actually get the special joint committee reformed. Again, we have to put that in the context of the impending deadline of March 17, 2023.

An incredible amount of time was wasted, not only from an unnecessary election but also from the delays of getting that committee up and running. We had to twice request an extension of our mandate from both houses of Parliament because the timelines we had been given were completely unrealistic, not only in hearing from as wide a range as possible of witnesses but also in producing a report that would reflect the gravity of the subject matter with which we were entrusted. That has to be highlighted in the debate today on Bill C-39.

I also think it is important because there have been a few narratives around this legislation. It is important to go back to understand what the Criminal Code actually says, and also to put that in the context of the definition of irremediability.

It is important that, in order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, a person has to meet all of the following criteria: they have to make sure that they are in fact eligible for health services in the province they reside in, they have to be at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their own health, they have to have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and they have to have made a voluntary request. All these conditions must be satisfied. A person must also give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying, after having been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.

Now we get to the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition as outlined in the Criminal Code. A person has to meet the following criteria for that definition: it has to be a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; they have to be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and that illness, disease or disability, or that state of decline, has to be causing them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.

Those are the definitions in the Criminal Code, so despite the narratives we hear out there, those conditions must be met or the person administering MAID will have committed a crime. They will be in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada and will get the appropriate punishment as a result.

One of the difficulties is the fact that the term “irremediable” is not a medical or scientific term. It is a term that finds its definition within the Criminal Code. If we go to scientific or medical literature, it is a difficult term to define, and that, I think, is why we are seeing a lot of the apprehension around accessing MAID for mental disorders where the sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder.

Some witnesses who appeared before our committee expressed the opinion that this should not be permitted, because there cannot be any certainty with respect to the incurability of a mental disorder. However, other witnesses told us that certainty is not required and that there are ways to consider irremediability, for example by looking at the years of treatment that people have had and whether any responses of the patient have actually been positive.

We also have to understand that the respect for personal autonomy in all of this is paramount, and it is has to be a treatment that is acceptable to the individual receiving it. They not only have to express informed consent, but it has to be something acceptable to them as a person.

I now want to talk a little about the special joint committee, which I have had the honour of being a member of, as I previously mentioned.

I think it is important to underline that our committee has struggled with the question of how to balance individual autonomy with protections for the vulnerable. We were tasked with looking at five themes through the passage of Bill C-7 and the motion that guided our work from both the House of Commons and the Senate: how we institute protections for persons with disabilities; the state of palliative care in Canada; advance requests; mature minors; and, of course, the subject of today, mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition and their eligibility with respect to applying for medical assistance in dying.

Our final report is due to be tabled in the House this Friday, February 17. We wrapped up our committee meetings last week and finally approved a draft report. That draft report, as I speak, is going to translation services so that it can be ready for tabling here in the House, and so we will be able to meet the deadline that was given to us.

Before we did that work, we had others who did some important work ahead of us. We had the expert panel that was established. They also wrestled with major concerns, such as incurability, irreversibility, capacity and suicidality, and of course the intersection between structural vulnerability, mental disorder and medical assistance in dying.

That panel report, an important precursor to our work as a special joint committee, did state that assessors in medical assistance in dying should be able to establish incurability and irreversibility with reference to treatment attempts made; the impacts of those treatments; and the severity of the illness, disease or disability. The incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of extensive attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.

This means that someone who has not had access to adequate care would not be eligible for MAID. Therefore, MAID could never be used as a substitute for good psychiatric care. I think that is an important thing we have to realize. There will be safeguards in place, not only with the Criminal Code, but also, we hope, with the standards of practice.

For patients who are considering this, we want to make sure that there has been a long track record of attempts to deal with their illnesses. At the same time, we have heard very clearly that there are many Canadians and many professionals who feel that additional time is needed to make sure we get this right.

One of the witnesses before our special joint committee was the chair of the Government of Quebec's Select Committee on the Evolution of the Act respecting end-of-life care. She explained that Quebec had decided that MAID for mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition should not be permitted at this time because of the challenges of determining irremediability, as well as the lack of social consensus. Another level of government, this time the Province of Quebec, is also underlining the concerns that many members of Parliament are expressing here today.

I mentioned the final report that will be tabled in the House, but our committee did release an interim report. That interim report was specifically on this subject matter. I will read from our conclusion. It states:

We must have standards of practice, clear guidelines, adequate training for practitioners, comprehensive patient assessments and meaningful oversight in place for the case of [medical assistance in dying for mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition]. This task will require the efforts and collaboration of regulators, professional associations, institutional committees and all levels of governments and these actors need to be engaged and supported in this important work.

Although some work is already underway to implement the recommendations of the Expert panel, there is concern that more remains to be done to ensure that all necessary steps have been taken to be ready by the March 2023 deadline...

Again, in our interim report, our special joint committee was already, at that time, expressing concern with the upcoming deadline, and I think it is a smart move that we are moving ahead with Bill C-39. If we back that up with the testimony we heard at committee, we had a number of different witnesses who clearly expressed that they had troubles with this deadline and that those standards of practice were not yet ready.

It needs to be underlined again that, if Bill C-39 is not passed, the original sunset clause of March 17 will come into effect. My vote for this bill is occurring because of that very fact. This is aside from the broader conversation we need to have about medical assistance in dying in general. It is support for a bill that is going to extend the deadline by one year so we can make sure that we get these standards of practice right, so we have the necessary time to engage with the broader community.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I learned something today.

According to tradition, Quebec’s national holiday is celebrated on June 23 and 24. It is true that Parliament usually does not sit on June 23 except in the case of an emergency, which has only ever happened a few times. June 23 is set aside for emergencies.

This motion could easily have been moved sooner, since the government had all the time it needed. The Bloc Québécois has always been ready to collaborate, especially in the case of Bill C-14, for which it set aside two days to allow Parliament to adjourn on Wednesday and Quebec members in the Bloc Québécois and other parties to celebrate with their constituents.

Our request was legitimate. The government vehemently rejected the fact that Quebecers have a national holiday to celebrate this evening and tomorrow. We asked either not to sit on Thursday or to sit with a Friday schedule so that we could leave the House earlier to celebrate Quebec’s national holiday with our people back home. The government refused. Would the same thing have happened if we had to work on June 30?

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to other legislation, Bill C-5, which is on minimum sentences, and he is very offended by the fact that that legislation was brought forward. Getting rid of minimum sentences does not mean someone who commits an act would get off scot-free. What it does mean is we would be providing more opportunity for judges to use their discretion. Judges, in vast majority, are very well educated and have a very good understanding of the system. They can take a look at the circumstances and are in a better position to be able to give a disposition. I would not want him to give a false impression that, because we are getting rid of minimum sentences, people would get off scot-free. That is just not accurate.

My final thought is regarding the calling of the legislation. Surely to goodness the member would realize that, even though it was introduced and had first reading in December, there are many other legislative agendas. The Conservative Party never approached the government to call for Bill C-9 either. It is here today because the Bill C-14 debate collapsed last night. Bill C-14 was another piece of legislation that was extended because of the Conservative filibuster.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just underline that this is important legislation. This goes to the very foundation of what Canadian society is. We are a nation that is built on the rule of law. For us to feel that we need to hurry this very important piece of legislation through Parliament just because we are all in agreement is something I disagree with.

I was ready to speak to Bill C-14 today. I did not realize that this was so important to the Liberal government that it wanted to have it on the agenda today. It was introduced months ago. Why was it not here earlier? Why are the Liberals now suggesting that we are the ones who are stalling things? This is important legislation. I want it to be fully debated.

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

Mr. Speaker, I was actually up in my office and I came down, because I was listening to the member for Kingston and the Islands speak as though there were some dirty little secret around here as to the way things operate. In fact, last night, through a unanimous consent motion, we actually moved Bill C-14 through the process.

It is the government that actually sets the legislative agenda in this place, and it is the government that put Bill C-9 on the Order Paper today as a matter of business in this House. This bill was introduced in October. These are the first hours of debate, and there are 338 members in this House, who represent millions of voices of Canadians across this country, who have things to say on this bill, maybe to make it a little better.

I am sorry if this taxes the patience of the member for Kingston and the Islands. Perhaps if he does not want to be a member of Parliament, he could go be the president of the local soccer association in his riding. We debate things in this place. This is Parliament.

Does the hon. member believe that the voices of Canadians are important in this place and that debate matters?

Business of the House

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), at report stage later today, one member of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party be allowed to speak for not more than 10 minutes followed by five minutes for questions and comments, and, at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the question on report stage motion No. 1 be deemed put and negatived on division, the bill be deemed concurred in at the report stage on division and deemed read a third time and passed on division.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments. I would like to thank all members involved and their teams, the clerk, the legislative clerk and the analysts for making this happen so quickly.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of democracy is voting and showing up to this place and participating, and that is of course what we do. Whether it is Bill C-11 or Bill C-21, there will be an opportunity, obviously, to continue debating legislation.

On Bill C-11 specifically, there were nine days at committee and many days at second reading. We have opportunities at third reading, and it will be going to the Senate. It is taking essential action to protect Canadian creators and Canadian heritage. We are proud to support this bill, and part of the thrust and parry of this place is that sometimes we disagree. That is not a representation of a decline in democracy; it is proof of it working.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage of Bill C-5 in respect of mandatory minimums. We will then call second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation.

Tomorrow, we will debate government Motion No. 16 regarding proceedings for Bill C-11, as I was mentioning, on the Broadcasting Act.

When we return next week, we will focus on this government motion debate and continue our work on Bill C-5 and Bill C-11, as well as on Bill C-14 concerning electoral representation.

Bill C-5—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague, I will say that it is certainly not my preference. When we started, we actually had a really good beginning, I think, working with the Conservative opposition on Bill C-3 and on Bill C-4, where ideas came forward. We were able to work together and we were able to find middle ground. Then there was a change. All of a sudden, with Bill C-8 as an example, it took over four months. Consistently, we were told “just a couple more speakers, just a bit more time”. Four months disappeared, and an enormous amount of House time was used.

At a certain point in time, I had to come to the realization that there was no earnest effort to move things through the House, that the interest was in obstruction. We saw that in Bill C-14. Bill C-14 is a bill that the Conservatives support. Even though they support it, they were moving amendments to hear their own members, shutting down the House, moving concurrence motions and using them to obstruct. I am left with one of two choices: get nothing passed or use time allocation. As they obstruct, on the one hand they block any legislation from moving forward and not even allow that as an option; on the other hand, they criticize the only tool we have to actually get legislation done, a tool they used with great frequency.

Constitution Act, 2022 (representation of Quebec)

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his eloquence and his knowledge, which he always very generously shares with us. I would have liked to listen to him for a few more minutes, but the time has come to close the debate on this bill, which I had the honour of introducing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

Throughout the debates, we saw that there were two different understandings of Bill C-246. In good or bad faith, and I would tend to say more often in bad faith, people have pretended they do not understand what is at stake. They ignore or dismiss the fact that what Quebec is asking for is not a whim or anything outlandish; it is also not intended to pick a fight, but rather to ensure appropriate representation in the House of Commons based on recognition of the Quebec nation. I would remind you that this recognition comes with obligations on both sides. It comes with obligations for Quebec, and it comes with obligations for the federal government.

I heard many of my colleagues cite the maritime provinces or Saskatchewan in the discussion on fair representation in the House of Commons. It is true, appropriate and correct. There are mechanisms in place to maintain a minimum number of MPs in parts of Canada that would otherwise be inadequately represented. I am thinking for example of Prince Edward Island and the territories.

What differs from the measures in place for some Canadian provinces and territories is that Quebec is a nation. I am not making this up: It was unanimously recognized by the House of Commons more than once and in more than one way. The federal government recognized the Quebec nation in 2006. It was a motion introduced by Stephen Harper, not the Bloc Québécois. In 1995, Jean Chrétien, the most Liberal of prime ministers, recognized the concept of distinct society. In particular, and this is a very important difference, he said that the House of Commons must take this fact into account in all of its decisions. That is important.

In June 2021, in response to a Bloc Québécois motion, the House of Commons recognized French as the only official language and the common language of the Quebec nation. My point is that recognizing Quebec's status as a nation comes with political obligations, and others as well. For example, Quebec's autonomy must be respected when it comes to development-related decisions. The government must also respect the fact that, on occasion, asymmetrical agreements must be signed based on Quebec's specificity. Quebec's distinctiveness and Quebec society's interests must also be taken into account by the federal government when developing legislation. This is somewhat related to what I was saying earlier with regard to the idea put forward by the Liberal Prime Minister at the time, Jean Chrétien.

It is quite understandable that, this year, the Bloc Québécois is determined to defend Quebec's interests. I repeat, Quebec must have appropriate representation, in keeping with its status as a nation.

Last fall, when the Chief Electoral Officer announced that the new distribution of seats for the House of Commons would result in Quebec losing a seat and falling to 77 seats instead of 78, the Bloc Québécois swiftly opposed that outcome. I will acknowledge that the other parties also recognized that it did not make sense. On March 2, on our opposition day, we moved a motion calling not only for the number of seats not to be reduced, but also for the protection of Quebec's political weight with a 25% threshold. With 266 members of the House voting in favour, the motion was adopted with a very strong majority. Then the Liberals show up with Bill C‑14, which is a half measure that only protects the number of seats.

That is not enough. To protect the Quebec nation, its uniqueness, its identity and francophone culture, which is in decline in North America, not just in Canada and not just in Quebec, we need something stronger, and we need to protect Quebec's political weight. That is why I invite all of my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C‑246.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and somewhat excited to rise on this beautiful Monday morning in June to speak to Bill C‑246, which was introduced by my valiant colleague from Drummond. This bill would provide that the total number of members from Quebec could not be less than 25% of the total number of members in the House of Commons.

I first want to clarify one thing, since we have heard quite a lot about the idea of representation by population. As a history buff, I have read a lot about these issues. In my humble opinion, it was quite deceitful, back when it all started in 1867, to shift from equal representation between the two so-called founding peoples to proportional representation just as French-Canadians were being outnumbered. I should mention that the notion of founding peoples is, in itself, highly controversial, given that this country and this regime were founded on subjugation. Proportional representation was certainly never considered when the proportion of French-Canadians was higher. I would call this a historical scam.

I have no problem saying that this so-called Confederation, with its two so-called founding peoples, is a historical scam. Canadian Confederation was brought in through the back door. After that, the only natural path to take was to slowly but steadily reduce the Quebec nation to a minority. That minority is now getting smaller and smaller, which will give us an increasingly smaller voice in decision-making in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, we are on our way to becoming a minority that will no longer command respect or consideration.

As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois wants to see Quebec become an independent country. However, we are also here to stop our decline. We are here to fight, to make gains, but also to stop our decline, and this bill does that. As long as we are in this system, we have to find ways to stop this decline. We have to cope with our losses, unfortunately.

I want to remind members of one very important detail. Last March, the House adopted a Bloc motion with an overwhelming majority of 261 to 66. The motion stated that “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”. The part about not reducing our political weight in the House is the important part, but it is also the part that seems to be forgotten. That is what our motion said. It is not only about the number of seats, but also about the political weight.

Bill C-14, which is also under debate, is being presented to us as a win, a success. We have heard in the House that the bill in question would not reduce the number of members. However, the number of members means absolutely nothing if the relative weight drops. If Quebec keeps the same number of seats but more seats are added in the House, that means that Quebec's weight is being reduced. That is not hard to figure out. In the end, the exact number of seats is far less important than the relative weight.

We are asking for 25% because, as a so-called founding people and nation recognized as distinct, it does not seem unreasonable to ask for a quarter of the seats. Given Quebec's needs and its distinct interests and values, this does not seem unreasonable. Twenty-five per cent is also what was negotiated as part of the Charlottetown accord in 1992, based on the fact that Quebec is a distinct society. Although the accord never came into force, the text itself was approved by the House of Commons. That agreement was not without problems, however. The Bloc, which was newly created at the time, was against it. The sovereignist movement was against it.

Far from being perfect and satisfactory, the 25% was actually not so bad given the context. We were not upset about the objective. This agreement was proposed by Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party, even though the Reform Party of the time was opposed. It was also supported by John Turner's Liberal Party, although rejected by the centralist wing of the Liberal Party of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The NDP also supported this protection for Quebec's political weight. As the previous speaker reminded us, the NDP member for Compton—Stanstead proposed a rather similar bill in 2011. However, the bar was set a little lower, at 23.9%, representing Quebec's weight at the time.

In 2006, Stephen Harper's government passed a motion making Quebec a nation within a united Canada. This motion was somewhat questionable, as it was assumed that Quebec was not a nation outside of Quebec. Furthermore, the English wording differed from the French wording. However, the motion was a form of recognition of the existence of a Quebec nation.

In June 2021, the House of Commons overwhelmingly recognized Quebec as a French nation. Our national status must have concrete political implications, not just symbolic ones. In particular, there must be consideration for Quebec's difference, its interests and its values in Ottawa's approach, legislation and policies.

We need assurance that Quebec will have the representation it needs to ensure that its interests and values are heard. However, Quebec's weight has been in steady decline, with its demographic share falling from 36% in 1867 to 28.6% in 1947, 26.6% in 1976, 24.9% in 1999 and 23.1% in 2015. The most recent proposal of the Chief Electoral Officer amounts to 22.5%, which makes no sense. We responded with our motion a few months ago. As our demographic weight decreases, it is obvious that our weight in the House will decrease as a result of the legacy of this destructive system known as the 1867 Confederation.

We also know that the government has announced plans to dramatically increase the total number of immigrants. Quebec cannot bring in twice as many immigrants. It is already doing its part, and francization is, for the most part, not up to par as it is, so it is not like we can magically increase Quebec's demographic weight from one day to the next.

Let us remember that Quebec's culture is unique. Ours is the only jurisdiction in North America whose official common language is French. Our origins as a nation go back to the days of New France, to the coureurs des bois. We are a self-made people with a unique social model that reflects our own values. We must have the opportunity to exist as a political entity, not just an insignificant symbolic entity. If Quebec declines, both the French language and our unique culture will decline as well.

Recognizing our distinct character means protecting the Quebec nation's weight, not just by ensuring Quebec does not lose any seats, but also by making sure that, whenever seats are added, Quebec gets some too. I am well aware that some people think this is unfair. That is what they said when we were debating our motion a few months ago. People said those whiny Quebeckers were demanding special treatment yet again.

I want to take a moment here to point out that there are specific provisions in the Constitution Act that protect the provinces without anyone taking exception. The senatorial clause, for example, ensures that no province has fewer members of Parliament than senators. This guarantees four seats for Prince Edward Island, even though, by population, it should have just one. The grandfather clause ensures that no province will have fewer members of Parliament after an electoral redistribution than it had in 1985. This protects the number of seats of the maritime provinces and Saskatchewan. There is also a provision that guarantees one member of Parliament for each of the territories, even though the population would warrant just one member for all the territories.

Some observers have said that the addition of a clause to protect Quebec's weight would require constitutional talks and would have to be passed by seven provinces representing 50% of the population. That is incorrect. In 1987, the Campbell decision recognized that there were some legitimate exceptions to ensure effective representation and that Parliament had the power to adopt such exceptions. That is why I believe this bill is both necessary and urgent.

There are real consequences to the loss of political power, in particular the list of competing interests or, at the very least, priority interests for Quebec. Quebec has its National Assembly, which is the only parliament where Quebec has 100% of the seats. There have been innumerable unanimous motions, which I will not go into here.

The nation that had—

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-246.

I would like to draw attention to the introduction of Bill C-14 and note my support of the government's proposal to update the grandfather clause in the seat allocation formula. This will ensure that no province will ever have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it did in 2021.

This updated clause speaks to the heart of the concerns in Bill C-246, as it would ensure that all provinces continue to have a strong voice in the House of Commons. Specifically, it would ensure that Quebec does not lose a seat, keeps all existing protections in place and continues to allow for incremental seat increases among provinces with growing populations, and all this without disruption to the redistribution of the federal electoral districts in Canada.

As many of us know, the formal process of redrawing the electoral boundaries, a process required under law to take place every 10 years, has begun. I would like to take this opportunity to speak to members about one important aspect of this very detailed and considered process, that is, the independent and non-partisan commissions that are responsible for undertaking this very important work.

For nearly 60 years, independent non-partisan electoral boundary commissions have been responsible for redrawing our electoral maps. These commissions were established in 1964, when Parliament passed the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The act sets out the roles, responsibilities, process and criteria that these commissions must follow when redrawing our federal electoral boundaries. This independent approach was introduced by design to eliminate the risk of political interference in the process and maintain integrity and transparency in our democratic systems and institutions.

Prior to 1964, the House of Commons itself was responsible for fixing the boundaries of electoral districts through a committee appointed especially for that purpose. However, Parliament realized that gerrymandering, a term used to described the manipulation of riding boundaries to benefit members of the governing party, was a significant risk to the integrity of our system. That was and remains unacceptable. The introduction of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was a critical measure put in place to solve that problem.

As outlined in the act, a three-member commission must be established for each province. These commissions are composed of one chairperson and two commissioners. Because this process occurs every 10 years, I would like to remind the hon. members that the government does not recommend or appoint members to these provincial commissions. To be clear, they are independently appointed. In fact, the government's role in the entire process is extremely limited.

For example, the minister is responsible for receiving census data from the chief statistician, for being notified of the appointment of new commissioners and for receiving the final reports from the commission. The minister is also responsible for facilitating the orders in council that are required to proclaim the establishment of the commissions and, similarly, to proclaim the new electoral boundaries as set out by the commission at the conclusion of the process.

It is important to note that, once again, the government does not have any decision-making role or influence when it comes to how electoral boundaries are drawn. This is entirely at the discretion of the independent provincial commissions. The chief justices in each province are responsible for appointing a chairperson for each commission. In addition, the Speaker is responsible for appointing the two other members of the commissions. The chairperson of each commission is a sitting judge or, on a rare occasion, a retired judge. All members set aside their normal work and business to dedicate themselves to this democratic endeavour, and I would like to thank them for their service.

For the commissioners, the act stipulates that they must reside in the province for which they are appointed. The act is also very clear when specifying eligibility:

No person is eligible to be a member of a commission while that person is a member of the Senate or House of Commons or is a member of a legislative assembly or legislative council of a province.

The independence of these commissions is further reinforced through this provision. In practice, the commissioners typically have a background in academia, law or non-elected public service. This knowledge and expertise allow these individuals to undertake this complicated but very important work.

On this 2021 decennial, as required under the act, 10 independent, non-partisan electoral boundary commissions, one for each province, were established on November 1, 2021. With the release of the final census 2021 data on February 9, 2022, the commissions began their review of the boundaries. As necessary, based on population changes and movements within each province, they will develop proposals to redraw electoral districts within each province.

Under the government's proposal, this work will continue uninterrupted. For the Quebec commission, the legislation would ensure that it has the time it needs, as prescribed under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to reconsider its boundaries proposal in progress based on the updated grandfather amendment.

Over the last 10 years, Canada's population has grown by 3.5 million people, from just over 33 million in 2011 to almost 37 million people today. It is essential that these citizens be factored into Canada's federal electoral districts. However, while they will endeavour to reflect changes in population against a province's seat count, the commissions must take into consideration other factors, such as respecting communities of interest and historical patterns. They must also ensure electoral districts maintain a manageable geographic size, including for those ridings that are in rural or northern regions of any province.

Considering these factors is no small feat. Our country is vast. Our communities are diverse and are rich in culture and history. From coast to coast to coast, they form the basis of our identities and our connections.

That is why the act contains provisions to ensure these communities of interest are considered when it comes to determining reasonable electoral boundaries. Respecting communities of interest is not just about preserving the differences between provinces or regions, or between rural and urban settings. It can mean recognizing the difference from one side of a small town to the other.

Canada's history has shown us that redistribution is not just about balancing changes in population. It is also about balancing community history and community geography. It is a delicate balance. It is a balance of multiple and sometimes competing priorities.

Nevertheless, these complex considerations are precisely why these commissions are independent and non-partisan. It is essential that these decisions are made outside of party lines. That way, boundary lines and ridings are established to best serve Canadians, not political parties.

Over the coming months, the commissions will hold public hearings open to the Canadian public, including members of Parliament. We are fortunate, along with all other Canadians, to have the opportunity to engage in a non-partisan, arm's-length process. While the commissions will consider the input they receive, they retain the responsibility to make all final decisions about where the new boundaries will be.

The decisions they will come to over the next several months will be carefully considered. Ultimately, some electoral districts in some provinces may look a little different than they do today. We can rest assured that the decisions will be informed decisions, ones taken by qualified experts and made independently of government.

I would reiterate that this independence is the foundation of our redistribution process. It has served us well for the past 60 years, and no doubt it will continue to do so moving forward. The importance of redistribution is well known to all members of Parliament. The results of these efforts will form the basis of representation in the House of Commons for the next 10 years.

Every Canadian deserves effective representation. Canadians also deserve public institutions that serve their interests, first and foremost. Under the government's proposal and based on the process in place, I am confident that these independent, non-partisan commissions will do just that in the coming months.

In closing, I hope my hon. colleagues will join me in thanking these commissions for undertaking this very important work.

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

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

Madam Speaker, if this motion from the Bloc Québécois passes, I am wondering if my hon. colleague from Halifax would also support some of the provinces, such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, that are structurally under-represented in Canada's Parliament. Would he be open to supporting changes to Bill C-14 that would give us representation by population?

I ask the member to imagine a scenario where Quebec had 1% below the average and lost three seats. That is what we live with every day, and I would love to hear the member's comments on that reality.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak again today on Bill C-14, a bill that we have already spoken on and have already sent away to committee. We find ourselves, or at least some of us in the House, speaking to Bill C-14.

In this bill, the government proposed to update the grandfather clause in the seat allocation formula. That was to ensure that no province would ever have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it did in 2021. That seemed to reflect what the House was asking for at the time, and it was something that Liberal colleagues were asking for in our caucus, and we know that this is also what the Bloc was asking for.

This updated clause speaks to the heart of the concerns that we have heard from Canadians and would ensure that all provinces would continue to have a strong voice in our House of Commons. Specifically, it would ensure that Quebec would not lose a seat. Again, this is what was being asked for. It would keep all existing protections in place and it would continue—

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, but I would very much like him to bring the discussion back to Bill C-14 and Quebec representation.

Where exactly does my colleague stand when it comes to the Charlottetown accord, which guaranteed Quebec 25% of the seats in the House of Commons?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have two quick points that I feel are valid.

I could have been handsome or intelligent. Unfortunately, I am neither. I am trying to see the link between the passionate speech by my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the Bloc Québécois's proposal to broaden the scope of Bill C-14 and study it at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. There may be a link, but I need some clarification.

Second, I do not mean to be critical of my colleague's passionate style, but I would very respectfully like to point out that he is speaking very quickly and that the interpreters are sometimes having a hard time following. It is very important for us to be able to properly hear his comments.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this motion, which I find interesting. We welcome it because it raises an important issue.

The Bloc is calling on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the issue of the political weight of Quebec. We are very open to this possibility because it is a matter of democracy and equality, recognizing the Quebec nation, protecting Quebec in the House and the weight we can have as representatives of our constituents.

I think it is a truly important topic and studying it would not get in the way of parliamentary business on other files and other issues.

I am also very proud of the work done by the NDP as a first step towards protecting Quebec's political weight and place in the House. We made sure that the agreement we negotiated with the minority government guaranteed the protection of the 78 seats allocated to Quebec, which risked losing one, as members will recall. That guarantee is set out in Bill C-14.

I am very proud of this NDP achievement. We can clearly tell Quebeckers that we kept our promise to represent them with this first step in the right direction. They are now protected whereas before they stood to lose some ground. We were there. We kept our promise to defend Quebeckers.

This is an important issue because, when we talk about the political weight of Quebec or a province, we are talking about something that affects all citizens, almost the entire population, not just small groups or one sector.

I find it interesting that we are discussing this today at a time when Ontarians are on their way to the polls, and have been all day, to elect their MPP. I encourage everyone to vote, and it will come as no surprise that I am encouraging Ontarians to support the provincial NDP. I hope that their leader, Andrea Horwath, has a good day, and I hope that she will end the day with a strong caucus. We will be watching the day unfold with great interest.

Speaking of the provinces' political weight, I want to talk about some of the more technical details of our Canadian federation's rather unique system.

There is also the whole issue of immigrants. There are political, administrative and legislative tools that can help, but the basic tool is demographic weight. I think that we are encouraging open and inclusive immigration that enables Quebec to welcome more immigrants and to have the means and resources to help them integrate properly and learn French if necessary.

This is all part of the effort to maintain fair representation for Quebec, which is about 23% right now. This also makes it possible to guarantee the 78th seat.

The NDP is strongly in favour of encouraging a path to citizenship, rather than throwing up roadblocks in the case of temporary workers and permanent residents who come to work in Quebec and Canada. I think we need to set up mechanisms to properly welcome new citizens and to expedite the process, because wait times are extremely long right now. I want to stress that we know that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is currently having a lot of problems. I think that is part of the reflection and debate that we need to have on citizenship in general.

Basically, democracy is a revolutionary principle under which decisions are made by the people, not by a king who rules by so-called divine right and whose family has reigned for centuries by dividing power among aristocrats. A major revolutionary movement occurred in France, obviously, but also in England and the United States, driven by the belief that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law and that it is up to them to choose their leaders and how they will be represented.

Of course, things started out far from perfect. The first democratic system was based on selective suffrage, where only the wealthiest people had the right to vote. People who were too poor to own property or pay taxes could not vote. It was a two-tier system that claimed to promote equality, but that was not an established right.

In our current system, roughly the same number of people are represented in each riding, in order to ensure fairness and equality in the right to vote as expressed in the House or in a Parliament, so that people are not unduly overrepresented or under-represented. There is a genuine concern for fairness and equality. It is one of the basic criteria recognized by Elections Canada for the redistribution of electoral boundaries, which is conducted by the provincial commissions. Is it the only factor? No, it is not.

We live in a system of exceptions, because other criteria apply to representation in the House of Commons. Currently, there are three criteria.

The senatorial clause ensures that no province has fewer MPs than it has senators. This creates significant distortions in representation relative to demographic weight and population size, but it is recognized and accepted. For instance, it clearly and blatantly benefits Prince Edward Island, and that is fine. It was negotiated and agreed to. That is how the system works.

There is the “territorial clause”, or the representation rule, for Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon. It would be difficult to strictly apply the rule to the number of people who live in these ridings, because this would mean that huge territories with their own identities and sense of community could not be represented, or would be drowned out in a riding so large and immense that it would be meaningless. This representation rule is important; it is respected, and it must continue to be respected.

I am thinking in particular of my colleague from Nunavut, who represents communities with a common identity, culture, language and interests. Every day, she fights here in the House to promote and defend the interests of such important communities that have very specific needs in specific contexts.

There is the grandfather clause, which had not applied to Quebec until now. However, the NDP managed to negotiate a guarantee that no province would lose seats in the event of electoral redistribution, immigration, or differences in provincial demographic weights.

Taken together, the senatorial clause, the representation rule and the grandfather clause for four provinces, if memory serves, demonstrate that there are already exceptions in the system and that demographic weight is not the only criterion, but it is controlled, improved or amended in accordance with certain provisions.

This brings us to today's motion, which asks us to consider the possibility of a Quebec clause. As parliamentarians, we recognized that Quebec is a nation, so we must consider the political, democratic and administrative implications of this recognition.

Ottawa and Quebec have already negotiated a number of asymmetrical agreements in the past, and that is to be expected. The NDP recognized the Quebec nation when it adopted the Sherbrooke declaration and other resolutions at its conventions. There is also the notion of asymmetrical federalism, which would allow Quebec to negotiate special powers or agreements with respect to particular issues.

As progressive New Democrats, we support the recognition of the Quebec nation and the idea of asymmetrical federalism. I think that we need to discuss what this means in practical terms in order to think about the potential consequences. If certain clauses were negotiated and drafted for certain provinces and territories in the past, I think we need to be brave and coherent and move forward in this special context.

The idea of protecting Quebec's political weight in the House is neither new or revolutionary.

It was negotiated by Brian Mulroney's Conservative federal government and Robert Bourassa's Liberal Quebec government. The provision was included in the Charlottetown accord. It is nothing new. It was accepted in the past, so it has already been normalized. There were discussions on the subject, and on many others as well, since the Charlottetown accord addressed many other issues. The NDP supported the Charlottetown accord. We reflected on the issue and discussed it, and the NDP accepted it.

I also think that it is in line with the historical view of the two founding nations. Consider the Laurendeau-Dunton commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. Consider also the historic agreement that began by saying that we would be together but that there were two founding nations, one British and the other French. I think we need to bear this in mind in our work and in the representation we have in the House. We must preserve this vision in the Official Languages Act, which recognizes French and English as Canada's two official languages. That is the rule used in the House of Commons. It is not always followed by the Liberal administration or by some companies that are subject to the Official Languages Act, but that is a separate issue.

That being said, I feel uncomfortable saying that we need to respect the concept of two founding nations. Of course it is important but, at the same time, it is historically insulting to the first nations, who were here long before any French or British settlers. We need to keep this concept of two founding nations in mind, and as a Quebecker, I will always defend it, but we must remember that by the time these two founding nations arrived, other nations had been living here for thousands of years. They were shunted aside, forgotten, disrespected. Some were even subjected to cultural genocide, an attempt to annihilate them. Awful things were done, like the residential schools, and that is part of our history.

We must therefore discuss the role and weight of the first nations in our democracy and in the House. Personally, I am open to studying various scenarios, like the system used in New Zealand, where seats are reserved for indigenous New Zealanders. This is another way of looking at things and building a unifying political system and democracy that could correct the historical mistake of thinking that there were only two founding nations.

To strike this balance, which is not an easy thing to do, we need to have an open mind and approach this in a spirit of reconciliation with the first nations and indigenous peoples. This is an issue that I think is important and that the NDP caucus is promoting. We should also have a discussion about the role and the political weight of the first nations in the House.

I want to come back to the issue of equality because, while we are on the topic of democracy, the political system and representation, I will say that, unfortunately, the very idea that all votes are equal is currently not true. This is not because of the provisions of our electoral system that I have just mentioned. It is because our voting system is unfair.

We live with an archaic first-past-the-post system that allows for startling democratic discrepancies between what the people decide and how they are represented in this House.

Let us talk about it. If we want to have the best possible system, we need to be able to talk about proportional voting, which would respect the popular will and the choices of voters. We live in an absurd system where a government can sometimes be elected with less than 40% of the vote. This is a common occurrence. A political party can get 37% or 38% of the vote and 55% to 60% of the seats in the House, which means 100% of the power. That is absurd. A majority of the people voted against a political party, sometimes by 60% or 62%, but that political party is given the keys to absolute power for four years.

In 2015, the Liberals made a promise to change this. The 2015 election was supposed to be the last one under an unfair and archaic voting system.

I sat on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. We travelled the country for a year listening to members of the public, stakeholders from interest groups, local elected officials, university professors and experts. We conducted online surveys and listened to people. Overwhelmingly, everyone saw that the current system is broken, that it does not ensure equality among all Canadians and that the House does not represent the will of the people. Ninety per cent of the witnesses who spoke at committee told us that, and 90% of the briefs we received said the same thing. Then the Liberal government realized that this was going in the wrong direction and that this was not necessarily where they wanted to go, so they conducted an online survey. It was an incredibly biased survey, but 75% of respondents still said they wanted a proportional representation voting system.

At the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, there was an agreement between the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party. We agreed to hold a referendum and suggest that Canadians and Quebeckers adopt a proportional voting system. The majority of committee members reached a consensus to move forward and propose real change. The Liberals shocked us by responding that there was no consensus. They took that work and threw it in the garbage. That was the end of it. Then they walked away. They did that because it was not the direction they wanted to take. It was absolutely false to say that there was no consensus. There was a strong consensus among the witnesses, the people we consulted and the political parties represented on the committee. The Liberals were the only outliers. However, because they were in power, they did what they wanted. They broke their promise, and we missed an historic opportunity.

I believe we need to put this issue back on the front burner. It is important for improving our democratic system. I was saying earlier that a political party can be elected to a position of absolute power with less than 40% of the votes. We have even seen worse. One political party received more votes, but it became the opposition party, while the party that came second in terms of the popular vote got to form government. It is not just a distortion, it is hypocrisy. It goes against the popular will. If we are true democrats who believe that we must represent the people's choice in the House, then we must have a real conversation about adopting a much more suitable voting system, the one used by the vast majority of the world's democracies.

Canada is one of few countries, along with the United Kingdom and the United States, that still has this system. Most other countries have proportional voting systems of one kind or another. We could spend a long time talking about all the different systems, but my point is that proportional representation is much more respectful of the people's will.

I am very happy to be participating in today's debate. I think that our voting system, recognition of the Quebec nation, the political weight of various jurisdictions, communities and nations in the House are major issues, crucial ones. As a democrat, I always enjoy talking about democracy, about the people's power and about how we can improve our system.

I am ready to answer questions, but I do want to say that I think the recommendation in the motion is a good one and that it makes perfect sense to ask a parliamentary committee to study Quebec's political weight. This is an issue we should be talking about in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that there are only seven seats in Newfoundland and Labrador. One would never know it, given the power of the Atlantic caucus. It is exceptionally effective, I must say, and Newfoundland and Labrador is represented exceptionally well in the House and in the committees in terms of the amount of workload that the members carry and their impact on government policy.

However, the member raises a very valid point. People as a whole in Canada understand our federation and why it is important that Prince Edward Island has four seats, and why it is important that we guarantee that the province of Quebec never goes below 78 seats, which is what Bill C-14 would do.

My colleague planted a seed asking about the future, about the province of Newfoundland or other provinces and the representation that they have. There are other opportunities, no doubt, both in opposition and in government, for us to enter into that dialogue. Canadians as a whole understand what is happening, they support it and it is time that we move on.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, in listening to this debate, I think about representation across the country. We are talking about 78 seats in Quebec, but if we think about the rural parts of the country in smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, which is geographically large, but in terms of population, of course, it is small, we have seven seats in the House of Commons. We come here to do our lobbying for the province, vote on different legislation, and so on. We would love to have more seats. In fact, we are dwarfed by provinces like Quebec and Ontario, larger provinces with huge populations, which I understand, but in terms of representation, I think Bill C-14 strikes a good balance. We would also like to encourage more seats in Newfoundland and Labrador. We would love to have another seven, but the reality is that if we were to allow the system to continue as it currently exists, we would fall even further behind in terms of striking a balance in representation.

I would ask my colleague if he sees Bill C-14 as striking a good balance in terms of representation across the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we understand that the legislation is unanimously supported in the House, that everyone wants 78 seats to be maintained. Bill C-14 would guarantee that. It would guarantee the province 78 seats. We should be able to pass that legislation. It should have been done by now, as far as I am concerned, and if the political will was there on all sides of the House to make that happen, it could be done. In fact, we have the power to do it today if we wanted to. I can say that the government's desire would be to see the legislation pass.

In terms of the debate that the member is suggesting, nothing prevents a standing committee to conduct a study of that. They could establish that at any point in time. All they have to do is raise the issue at the most appropriate standing committee. They could raise it at two or three different standing committees, but that is not the essence of what we should be debating today. What we are doing today is ultimately feeding the Conservative agenda, which the Bloc is indirectly supporting by bringing forward yet another motion in a standing committee that will enable them to continue to filibuster, and I do not think that is a good thing for the people of Quebec or Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me enlighten the member. When we first began this discussion, the Conservative Party somewhat indicated that it was sympathetic and would like to see it pass. Then we had another member who seemed to be upset with it asking why we would want it to go to committee. There might be some confusion among the Conservative ranks on this, but I could be wrong in my speculation.

However, from what I can see, we have the double blue. The nice thing is they are still the dark blue versus the light blue. At the end of the day, it would appear as if they are coming together to see this thing go to committee if, in fact, they can get it to committee.

I say that because the member moved the motion to say that the vote now be heard and then there was some dialogue that occurred after that. Through that dialogue, we get a better picture of what it is the Bloc really wants to talk about. We saw that. It was the member who raised the issue. I just responded to it.

Constitutional change is what the member from the Bloc has raised. They talk about the need for some of the things that the Bloc would like to see take place, and they would require a constitutional change. Let me suggest to my Bloc friends that Canadians, as a whole, no matter where they live, whether it is Manitoba, Quebec or any other jurisdiction in Canada, do not want the government to have talks about the Constitution. It is just not anywhere on the political agenda.

That is the nice thing about Bill C-14. Bill C-14 will do what every member in the House, from what I understand, wants to see happen, and that is that the province of Quebec not lose a seat, maintaining at minimum 78 seats. In its own mischievous way, the Bloc wants to raise the issue of the Constitution.

As much as the Bloc may want to focus its attention in the chamber on that issue, I can assure people who might be following the debate, or just following the proceedings in the House day by day, that no matter what the Conservative-Bloc coalition comes up with, whether it is character assassination, constitutional debates or whatever else, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister will remain focused on the issues that are important to Canadians.

On the specific issue of Bill C-14, which this motion is dealing with, the Prime Minister has been very clear, through the minister and the entire Liberal caucus, that the baseline is 78 seats.

There is a lot more on the government agenda than Bill C-14. I suspect we are not going to spend our future resources on issues such as constitutional debates over the next 12 months. Canadians are getting through the pandemic. Industries are looking for employees. Concerns are there in the many departments the federal government deals with on a daily basis. Those are the issues that are of critical importance.

Bill C-14 deals with one aspect, and that is the boundary redistribution commission and the report it made public not that long ago indicating the number of seats. I have been around for a few years, and Elections Canada, as an institution, is recognized around the world for the fine work it does. In fact, if we take a look at many other countries around the world, we will find that Elections Canada is often sourced and appealed to in order to assist other countries conduct their elections. A part of that status is that sense of independence, whether it is the creation of the election boundary commissions, the election commissioner, the Elections Act or the putting in place an actual election.

In fact, I made a suggestion earlier today referencing the sense of pride Canadians have in being a bilingual country with both French and English. No matter what region of the country we go to, there is equally a need for us to look at ways in which we can enrich Elections Canada's ability to ultimately not only make changes to boundaries indirectly, but also allow for wider participation in the elections.

When I made the suggestion about languages and having that as a topic on an opposition day, I thought it would have been a wonderful thing to see take place, but in a positive way. The Bloc seems to have a negative twist to things, and its members do not necessarily recognize the true value of Canada's diversity, but I think there is a positive way we could have that debate. I would equally like to see a debate on this if opposition members are looking for other areas in which they can explore and have these types of discussions about Elections Canada and ways we can enhance Elections Canada's role during election periods.

There are many different things we can do with elections. I have participated in debates on PROC, both on boundaries and on election reform, and I know there is a very keen interest in both areas. People understand why we have to have these commissions. These commissions are necessary because of shifting populations. All levels of government have them.

Within the legislation, we often will find variances that take place. For example, in the Province of Manitoba, it is rural versus urban. I have made reference to the fact that at one time we had more rural seats, which were outside the perimeter, than we did within the City of Winnipeg, and now that has changed. However, there are rules that enable rural representation to, in certain areas, have a lower number of voters or population. If we take a look at average populations, we will often find that we might get some at the lower end in rural communities.

I have spoken to commissioners before, and the types of things they have to take into consideration when making the decisions on boundary redistribution are not as simple as drawing a line on a map wherever there are waterways and major streets. It is far from that.

I recall a discussion with a board member on a commission, it was a provincial one, where he indicated that they have to also factor in rapid-growth communities. These are the areas where they anticipate there is going to be a lot of growth, so they do not want to go much above the average, knowing full well that a particular area will continue to grow at an exponential pace.

I also recall a riding change, which occurred in 1988, where a provincial riding was literally cut in half. The same principle applies at the national level, and this is one element that has to be taken into consideration. Another consideration is communities and, as much as possible, we want to keep communities together. I have seen all sorts of boundary changes in the past that often divided communities. I remember one occasion where we saw Weston and Brooklands, just south of Winnipeg North, and many identify those two communities as one. However, at the civic level, they were cut in half along one street. It was presumed to be a natural divide, a “concrete” divide, if I can put it that way, because it is a major artery. In fact, there is a very strong connection between both sides.

This is why I would ultimately argue that, when we take a look at the demographics, the population growth, both today and over the next few years, it is absolutely critical that these commissions are afforded the opportunity to be able to have proper consultations with members of the public. I honestly believe that.

As opposed to attempting to filibuster the bill again at committee stage by saying, “Well, let us expand the scope of the discussion at the committee stage”, when it has already been determined here in the House once before, why not allow the bill, in its simplicity, to pass? This would allow the commission for the Province of Quebec to get down to the job at hand and actually meet with the people of Quebec to get their direct input. If it wants input from the Bloc party, heck, I could probably give that input in where the Bloc party lies on the issue.

It is time for the politicians to allow Bill C-14 out of committee so that it can come back to the House because we do not have that much time. We are already in June, and I think we will be out of here June 23. That does not leave that much time. Members can do the math: How many hours are left to sit in the House?

I do not think that we should be playing games on this issue. Hopefully, at the end of the day, I will inspire members from the Bloc and possibly Conservatives not to filibuster the bill in any way when it comes before a standing committee, so the committee can pass the legislation, get it back in here and get it through third reading so it can go to the Senate and be given royal assent. All of that needs to happen relatively quickly.

For those who might think that this could be, in some twisted way, a filibuster, the legislation is already before the committee. The committee could pass the legislation. It does not need this motion. This motion is not meant to help facilitate the passage of Bill C-14, and the Conservatives, even though they will likely support this motion passing, know that.

At the end of the day, there is a different agenda being played out on the floor of the House of Commons. It has more to do with the gamesmanship of the Bloc and the Conservatives trying to change legislation or the scope of legislation after filibustering that legislation here. It is like they did not have enough filibustering on the floor of the House of Commons and want to do more at committee, in terms of changing the scope, so they bring in an amendment that really has no relevance or the chair would rule it as being beyond the scope of the legislation. If this motion does not pass, that would likely be the ruling of the chair. That is the reason why the members of the Bloc have brought it. I think they are starting to adopt some of the same principles of obstruction as the Conservatives.

My suggestion to the Bloc members is that if they truly care about what the people of Quebec have to say about this legislation, what they should be doing is encouraging the passage of it and joining the Liberal members from Quebec, who want to see this legislation pass and get royal assent, so that the people who live in Quebec, the people who actually contribute to where those lines are going to be drawn, are given the same sort of opportunity to participate as the rest of the people in Canada.

Other commissions are moving forward. Why would the Bloc not allow the people of Quebec that same opportunity? I suspect it is because there might be an alternative agenda. We saw that in the questions and answers of the member who moved the motion, to try to force a vote on this. They are eager to get it passed. They want to get it to committee so that they can cause more issues, which will ultimately cause additional delays. That is part of the motivation of the Bloc. I understand that, but the time will not allow me to expand on that particular point.

I can say that we, in the government caucus, believe that the people of Quebec, the public, need to be able to contribute to the commission on where those boundaries could be, or provide their recommendations in terms of the report that will be provided to the people of Quebec from the commission that has been designated in the province of Quebec.

Let us get it done. Let us pass the legislation out of committee and bring it back for third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the debate, even though at the beginning of the day, many colleagues from both sides of the House anticipated that we would be engaging in a debate on the Standing Orders. Every election cycle there is a date set aside when members can give their opinions on changes to our rules and how we can enhance opportunities to make the chamber more effective, whether it is in the chamber or at committees.

That is technically what we are supposed to be debating today. After going through motions we went on to petitions. I know that some of my colleagues had petitions to bring forward. Then we were meant to go into the Standing Orders debate. I was prepared to speak to the Standing Orders, but now we find that the Bloc has found a way to bring back a debate on Bill C-14 to the floor of the House of Commons, a debate that we have already had. We already debated Bill C-14 in the House of Commons.

It would appear that Bloc members, with the support of the Conservative Party of Canada, are trying to push forward this motion. I am going to know when the vote occurs, but I am speculating my quarter on the fact that the Conservatives and the Bloc have already negotiated this as a part of their double blue coalition. What we will see is an attempt to get this motion passed. When they do that—

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

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have made an effort here, step by step, and I am concerned. I have no problem with the idea. In fact, we voted in favour of protecting the number of members from Quebec.

However, the idea of having percentage representation is based on another principle entirely. It is not the same thing as in Bill C-14. I think that this involves the Constitution.

We debated for an entire day, as the hon. member pointed out. However, the principle proposed in today’s motion is different. We have not had a chance to review it and discuss it.

I think I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North. He is right when he says that this involves the Constitution.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member amplifies the issue of what I think would be a wonderful debate, which is the French language, where it is at and how that language builds our nation in a very positive way. Many different communities from coast to coast to coast are brought together by the French language.

In terms of Election Canada and Bill C-14, it is one of the reasons we had the reaction we did in the Liberal caucus. We want to ensure Quebec has that 78-floor base so that it can never go below that, and I see that as a positive.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am troubled in this debate, although there has been unanimous support for Bill C-14. I think we have responded positively right across all party lines to the concerns of our Quebec colleagues that the voice of Quebec would be reduced within this place.

Obviously, we support the idea of measures to protect Quebec's number of seats in the House.

At the same time, as someone who was elected in 2011 when we had 308 MPs here, I have a larger concern. We are now at 338. Do we constantly expand the number of members of Parliament we have? In the U.K., they have 650-some MPs. Is it really better representation for our constituents that as the population expands, there are more voices? Does that not dilute the voice of each riding if we have more MPs? In a chamber of 650, very few people out of the whole number get to contribute to the debate.

I would rather see, and I put this to the hon. member, fair voting in this country through proportional representation and through limiting the constant growth in the number of MPs. In other words, in the concept of representation by population, we actually may not have better democracy, compared to actually fixing our voting system to have real democracy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, if it is in Hansard it is true. There is a constitutional agreement that enables Prince Edward Island to retain that minimum number of seats. The same principle applies in other jurisdictions. We have three territories to the north, each one having a representative. Who in the chamber would deny that representation?

Clearly, we have seen the types of changes put into place that Bill C-14 is attempting to do, so why add confusion? That is why Elections Canada is charged with ensuring that we have a fair and equitable system. We have the commission, which in a very apolitical fashion comes up with the actual numbers.

When it came up with the number for Quebec, as I pointed out, it was for a wide variety of reasons, the French language being one of them. There is an island of French or francophone uniqueness in North America in the province of Quebec. I am very proud of that fact. I might not have the ability to speak French, but I can still care for the language. It is a part of my personal heritage. I am very proud of the French language. I encourage it in Winnipeg North. I am always amazed when I see immigrants, especially first-generation immigrants, whether of Filipino, Punjabi or Indo-Canadian heritage, who can speak Punjabi, English and French or Tagalog, English and French. I am very proud of the fact that we are a bilingual country.

In the province of Quebec, French is the spoken language, and we have seen how the Minister of Canadian Heritage, many of my Quebec colleagues, and those far beyond appreciate just how important the French language is, not only to the province of Quebec but to all of Canada. It speaks to our diversity. That is why, when the announcement was made that there would be a reduction in the number of seats in Quebec, the reaction within the Liberal caucus, from the Prime Minister to the ministers to the caucus as a whole, was quite swift. In a relatively short period of time, we saw legislation brought forward and introduced and brought to second reading. Then, I suspect through time allocation, it will go to committee stage. We want to see the legislation pass. The need for 78 seats as the bare minimum is something all members appreciate, from what I understand. If it were up to me, I would like to see not only the French language increase, but also the French population.

At the end of the day, I would hope that members will value the independence and fine work that Elections Canada and our commissions have done and allow the people of Quebec to have that full public discussion with the commission with respect to the communities that will make up the federal ridings that are going to represent the people of Quebec here in Ottawa.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a member from the Bloc asks, “Why not?” I think that we need to be aware of that fact.

What is interesting is this. I suspect that the Conservatives, based on what I witnessed when I was here for second reading of the bill, do not support what the Bloc is proposing to do at committee. In principle, though, it would appear that they are going to support the initiative moving forward to committee. Maybe the coalition on that side has come to an agreement on it, but we will have to wait and see. If I were to wager a quarter, my quarter says it is the double-blue coalition that will attempt to get this to committee.

I have a problem with that. I have a problem because, at the end of the day, where is it going to stop? We have seen how difficult it is for the government to get legislation through the House of Commons, the chamber, because the Conservative opposition members have taken the approach that it does not matter what the legislation is, whether they support it or they do not support it. Unless the government is prepared to bring in time allocation, it is not going to pass going to committee.

I do not know. I did not do the research on this, but I suspect we might have even had to bring in time allocation on Bill C-14. I do not know that for sure. What I can say is that we now have debate on that bill resurfacing. We are now going to be debating Bill C-14 all over again today because the Bloc wants to have something instituted in it that the members kind of sense, perhaps with accuracy, goes beyond its scope during committee proceedings. At the commission, the commissioners have responsibilities. They have deadlines. They need to meet those deadlines. I think the Conservatives are enabling the Bloc to cause even more confusion within the province of Quebec in regard to meeting some of those deadlines.

The commission came down with numbers. We disagreed and we made an amendment, because we all recognized the value of Quebec not losing a seat. That was unanimous inside this chamber, or at least I believe it was. That sent a fairly significant message to Quebec. I believe it enabled the people of Quebec to better understand and appreciate that, as we go through this process, there are independent commissioners.

The province of Manitoba, for example, is already redrawing the boundaries. The boundaries will be coming out. I am not exactly sure on what day they will be coming out, but they have already looked for public consultation on the 14 ridings in the province of Manitoba and then there will be dialogue and public input. For the province of Quebec, if the commission listens to what has been taking place in the House, it could anticipate that there will be 78 seats to readjust the boundaries with, but there is no guarantee until the legislation passes. That is why we encouraged members, when we were debating Bill C-14, to pass the legislation. By passing the legislation and pushing it through, we are enabling the commission in Quebec to finalize the boundaries.

Now, with what appears to be the support of the Conservative Party, the Bloc at least has found a way to cause some potential mischief in committees. From our perspective, and I would like to think a majority perspective, we not only want the province of Quebec not to lose a seat, but we want to ensure that the commission is able to provide the report that is going to respond to what the people of Quebec want to see in terms of boundary alignments, which is absolutely critical. It is all part of the process. There are deadlines that have to be met that will ultimately see these new boundaries take effect in the next federal election.

I can say first-hand how important that process is in Winnipeg North. Ten years ago, when there were modifications to the boundaries in Winnipeg North, what was proposed was far different from what it is today. In fact, Amber Trails was not in Winnipeg North at all. A good portion of The Maples was excluded, and there we are talking about 10,000-plus people who were excluded from what today is in Winnipeg North. The expansion went north of McPhillips, all the way up to between Kingsbury and Inkster Boulevard. It was completely different from what it is today.

As part of the process, a presentation was provided that included the boundary maps. The public received it and responded, and because of the response provided by the public, the boundaries were dramatically changed, in Winnipeg North at the very least. It had an impact on the ridings of Kildonan—St. Paul and Winnipeg North, which today includes 85% of Amber Trails and all of The Maples. Those communities were clustered back into Winnipeg North.

I say that because I think we need to give more respect to the Province of Quebec and the commission and the fine work that, no doubt, they will be doing. With the riding changes in the city of Montreal, I suspect we will see a number of streets being changed, or in Quebec City or rural municipalities. We have to recognize that the reason this happens in the first place is because of shifting populations and increases in population. Manitoba, for example, is a whole lot more urban today than it was 30 years ago. At the provincial legislature at one time, there was a larger number of seats from rural Manitoba than from the city of Winnipeg. Today, there are more MLAs in Winnipeg than in rural Manitoba, but that is strictly urban-rural. That is not to mention that some rural communities grow more than other rural communities. The population decreases and increases.

The same principle applies to the province of Quebec. Manitoba's population has grown from 1.15 million to close to 1.3 million. The numbers remain relatively the same in terms of the number of seats because there is a guarantee, as has been referenced even by the Bloc. We have taken that into consideration. The best example is the province of Prince Edward Island. When Prince Edward Island came into Confederation, it had four seats. Part of the Constitution says that it retains those four seats.

It is actually the number of senators. Do not quote me on that, but I believe that is what it is. There is a constitutional agreement that enables—

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, if I could, I would certainly want to use a unanimous consent motion to give the member more time to speak to this because he was so riveting. I know that you, Madam Speaker, were paying great attention.

We want to ensure that the committee's work is recognized in this House on an important issue, especially with all of the geopolitical issues going on around the world, not the least of which is what is happening in Ukraine, but also the sabre-rattling that is going on in the South China Sea basin as it relates to Taiwan, recognizing the importance of Taiwan and its inclusion in the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization. That is what the committee came back with and that is what we are concurring on today. If that is not important, I do not know what is.

Also, we are hearing a lot from the Liberals about the issue of obstruction. The House hours were extended until midnight tonight. As it stands right now, there are zero Liberal members scheduled to speak tonight to the government legislation. So far on Bill C-14, there have only been three. The prediction that I made in this House on Motion No. 11 is that, in effect, we could have opposition members solely speaking to government legislation and the government not trying to convince Canadians why it is important for these pieces of legislation to pass.

I am wondering if the hon. member has comments as to why there are no scheduled Liberal speakers tonight on an important piece of legislation like Bill C-14.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I should know that he is the member for St. Albert—Edmonton because I was actually posted in Edmonton when I was in the forces. St. Albert is a beautiful community.

The point is that there are many members of Parliament, no doubt, who would realize and see the value of Taiwan's contributions.

With respect to the World Health Organization, on the other hand, we know that members from the government caucus and, I suspect, maybe even members from the Conservative caucus, have a full appreciation of the World Health Organization and the work that it did in the pandemic. The World Health Organization, much like Health Canada, has very strict enforcement and respect for science and health experts. In regard to the pandemic, Taiwan did have a lot to offer. I am not sure, but one member made mention that it was the first country in the world to say that COVID-19 can be passed person to person. That was already part of the debate on the issue. I do not know for a fact that it is the case, but I do know that Taiwan did lead in many ways, as did Health Canada.

Through Health Canada, we have an independent agency that has served Canadians well over the years. During the pandemic, civil servants have played such an incredible role in ensuring that Canada is in a great position to provide the advice that was absolutely necessary for the general public as a whole. I am thinking of individuals who did the science, looked at the World Health Organization, worked with health experts from coast to coast to coast and came up with the recommendations that were necessary, as a country and as a nation. The Prime Minister had daily briefings for Canadians, talking about the importance of, for example, washing our hands, wearing a mask and making sure that people were in protective zones, as we went through a very difficult process at the very beginning.

The World Health Organization took a global approach in ensuring that all countries around the world recognize how important it is to step up to the plate. I think that the World Health Organization was able to benefit from some of the policy initiatives that Health Canada advanced. I do believe that Canada, the European Union, the United States, Taiwan and many other countries, the over 150 countries that participate in the World Health Organization, all have had contributions to make note only at the beginning of the pandemic in 2019, but even today.

We still are not out of the pandemic. It is easy to think we are, but that is not the case. When we listen to Conservative members, we can think of the issue of misinformation. There are members of the Conservative Party who believe that mandates are no longer required, and yet your home province, Madam Speaker, the province of the Conservatives' deputy leader, had a mandatory mask mandate that has just been lifted. That is fairly recent.

If we take a look even back to December, people were starting to think that things were turning around, but curfews were being put in place. Manitoba had additional measures. The demand for rapid testing went through the roof.

We understood as a government the types of things we needed to do. The World Health Organization was a great resource for some countries more than other countries. For developing nations that do not have organizations like Health Canada, it played a critical role as it does today.

My suggestion to members opposite is that they spend less time on the political gamesmanship that we see day in and day out and more time on serving Canadians. Today, there is no reason why, before five o'clock, we could not have passed Bill C-14. There is no reason at all. Yes, the Conservatives will talk and talk about this and that and debate times and so forth, but there is absolutely no reason why. Elections Canada is independent and every member in the chamber is supporting Bill C-14, so there is no reason why it should not be passed. However, the Conservatives, as with this particular concurrence report, are more interested in playing political games and using up government debate time on the legislative agenda.

It was not that long ago when Canadians said that we, as the Liberal Party, were going to be given a new mandate, but part of that mandate meant that it was going to be a minority—

Electoral Representation

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his continued interest in improving Canadian democracy. I would urge him to work with us to pass Bill C-14, which, as he correctly noted, is before the House of Commons now, to ensure that every province has the right representation in the electoral boundaries redistribution process under way.

I know he is very excited to have the report from the Chief Electoral Officer on the most recent election. We share that excitement, and we look forward to working with all colleagues in this House to make elections more accessible in every possible way.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to stand and answer a Thursday question, even when the member opposite is not excited to ask it.

This evening, we will continue, and hopefully complete, debate at second reading of Bill C-13, concerning official languages.

Tomorrow, we will commence debate on Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada. We will return to this debate next Wednesday.

At noon on Monday, we will resume debate on Bill C-14, which deals with electoral representation in Quebec.

Next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Thursday, May 19, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Furthermore, the debate for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will take place on the evening of Monday, May 30.

If the member opposite has any ideas on how to make this place work or has any ideas on how we can improve legislation, I am always here to hear it. Unfortunately, to this point in time, nothing has come forward.

Opposition Motion—Change to Standing Order 30 Regarding the Prayer

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, today I have the opportunity to speak to an opposition motion regarding the text of the religious prayer we say before starting our business in the House.

I must admit that I was surprised when I received the text of this motion last night. As other members of the House have said before me, there are many problems in the world, such as the war in Ukraine, the importance of fighting and addressing climate change, and the importance of ensuring that our social programs meet Canadians' needs.

My hon. colleague from Drummond has put forward a motion that I do not think addresses a very important problem today.

I had the opportunity to review the text, and let me start by saying it also gave me the opportunity to look at the history of our daily prayer. If nothing else, the motion has allowed me to look at some of the history of this place, and again, kudos to the House of Commons team that helps provide some of the history. I thanked them for their work on electoral boundaries and, when we were having a conversation on Bill C-14, the extensive history of the House in this place. I will also give a tip of the cap to them in terms of their history and understanding of how the daily prayer has come to pass.

It is important for the House and for the Hansard to reflect the fact that this is a practice that was started in 1877. This is something that parliamentarians decided was important at the time, and pardon me but I think that tradition in this place carries a lot of importance. Yes, we have to look at ways we can modernize and meet the realities of today. We will undoubtedly have a conversation about the nature of virtual Parliament, the ability for parliamentarians not just to do their work here, physically, in this place, but indeed to use some of those tools virtually, to make it more modern and perhaps even more friendly for our colleagues, particularly for under-represented groups in the House.

It is important to note that the prayer has evolved over time. It has not stayed static since 1877. It is something that has constantly evolved when parliamentarians have had the opportunity to make it better reflect the variety of religions that we worship and respect here in this country, and that is extremely important. The member for Nepean touched upon that just before me, about that particular dynamic.

At the end of the day, the House of Commons has to balance those members in the House who might have religious beliefs and those who may not believe in a particular god or follow a particular religion. When I had the time to reflect about how we conduct ourselves in the House, my thoughts were as follows. When we actually look at the text in question, as I mentioned it has been amended over time through the PROC committee to try to reflect the broad range of religious diversity, but it is also relatively short.

The speakership therefore has about 30 seconds to say the prayer in the House. That is very little time. After that, we have a moment of silence and reflection.

I feel that doing it that way in this place, we can recognize people with certain religious values, while also showing respect for those who would rather think in a non-religious way.

The text of the motion talks about diversity and inclusion. The way the House of Commons works right now is that we have a short prayer for those who might have religious beliefs, and then we have a moment of reflection for all members, such that they are able to reflect and perhaps give strength to whatever might drive them in their daily pursuits. By getting rid of it, I do not think we are giving that same respect for those who might actually hold religious beliefs.

Let me add this. I do not want to seem discomforting or saying that this is the only fashion in which we can work, but if someone is really disrupted by the fact that we have a 30-second daily prayer, perhaps they could step outside of the House and not be part of it for the short 30 seconds it takes, then reconvene and stand here for the minute in which we all reflect in silence, such that they do not have to be part of the prayer. I think that right now there is a healthy balance between the two.

Let me also say that I started my speech speaking in French intentionally, because I dare say there are very few Quebeckers, indeed very few Canadians, whose top priority is the prayer right now. With respect to my colleague from Drummond, who brought this forward, which it is well within his right to do, this is an entire day that we are going to spend on this subject, when there are very pressing, important problems of the day and opportunities that we as parliamentarians should be working collectively to encourage the government to pursue. We are going to be spending time, as I am doing right now, trying to find 10 minutes to rationalize some type of argument on something that I think is quite frivolous.

Let me also say that this is not the place for this debate.

My hon. colleague has the opportunity to present this idea and change to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is responsible for the parliamentary work essentially involving review the actions of the House.

Why is my hon. colleague not presenting his motion to the committee?

Why is it that we are having this debate here, when that could already happen at PROC if it was the will of a majority on the committee to move forward with a particular study? I know there is already a lot of good work that goes on to talk about the issues of the day and how we can improve aspects of this place.

I am going to wrap up with this. We have the war in Ukraine; we have climate change; we have affordability for Canadians, and we have a whole host of issues on the heels of a pandemic. Indeed, we are not completely through the pandemic. I am a little disappointed, I will use that word, that the member for Drummond chose this forum to move this forward. I recognize that it is his parliamentary privilege and that the Bloc Québécois has chosen this forum to bring this forward, but I think that most Canadians, indeed most Quebeckers, if they are watching this, are scratching their heads and asking why this is a good use of parliamentary time. I think most would come to the conclusion that it is not a great use of parliamentary time; it is not the best method; it is not the place where this should be introduced and, unfortunately, we have lost time to discuss and debate other issues that are prevalent to Canadians and more pressing. I will leave it at that.

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I am saying something that is unparliamentary or inappropriate, I would expect the Speaker to call me out on that and tell me to discontinue. I did not hear that in what you said. I understood that you are personally concerned about some of the things I was saying, but I do not think I did that.

Nonetheless, I think I am only feeding back what I get. This is the Conservative Party, whose members have called the Prime Minister a trust fund baby in the House. It causes me to be critical, and if they cannot take it, I am sorry, but this is the reality of the situation. They had better learn how to do that.

I will get back to the motion. This motion is about making sure that we have the proper tools in place for legislation to get through. We are talking about the budget. We are also talking about Bill C-11, the modernizing of the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-13, an update to the Official Languages Act; Bill C-14, on electoral representatives; and Bill C-18, enhancing fairness in the Canadian online news marketplace. These are the pieces of legislation this government has deemed to be the priority moving forward. What we are seeing from the other side are Conservatives not wanting to let the legislation go through.

I am sorry if my saying that is offensive to anybody, but the reality is that on Bill C-8 alone, there have been 12 days of debate since report stage was introduced. Two Green Party members have spoken to it. Two NDP members have spoken to it. Three Liberals have spoken to it, and five Bloc members have spoken to it. Does anyone know how many Conservatives have spoken to it?

It is more than four or five. Do members think it is ten? No, it is more. Do members think it is twenty, thirty, or forty? No, it is more. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken to Bill C-8 since the report stage of that bill was introduced. They cannot tell me that this is not a political game for the Conservatives to be obstructionist. That is exactly what they are doing, and they do it day in and day out.

The NDP has finally seen beyond it. New Democrats do not want anything to do with it, and they want to actually work on behalf of Canadians. Then they get criticized for not following along with the games the Conservatives are playing. That is literally what happens.

When the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was talking about closure being put on this motion, he said something very interesting, and I would like to read it from the blues. He said, “We [already] just voted on the closure motion to ensure that there is a vote on Motion No. 11. Motion No. 11 is going to be coming into force whether we like it or not. The government, with [their] unholy alliance with the NDP, will get its Motion No. 11 through and we do not feel like it is necessary to sit there and debate this...long, drawn-out process.” Then why are they going to put us through this? They will make every single second of debate go on. They will not let this collapse.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman just said himself that he knows this is going to pass and that debating it is absolutely pointless, yet he wants it to go on. Why is that? It is because he wants to push this on as long as possible, along with the rest of the Conservatives and the Bloc, so that we cannot get legislation debated and ultimately passed. That is not our job here. Our job here is to work on behalf of Canadians. The Conservatives' job is to criticize the legislation, to try to improve the legislation, not to put up roadblock after roadblock at every single opportunity they have, which is what they are doing.

I find it interesting that the Conservatives have on a number of occasions talked about how this government does not want to work. This is not a new motion. The timing of it is slightly earlier than normal, but we always have a motion like this to extend sitting hours. I would like to read some quotes.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable said, on May 28, 2019, to a similar motion, “We are not opposed to working late every evening. We want to work and make progress on files.” In a similar debate two years earlier, on May 30, he said, “We want to work late, and we are prepared to do that and to collaborate with the government”.

The member for Lethbridge on May 1, 2017, said, “The Liberals would like to stop sitting in the House of Commons on Fridays. They would like to move us to a four-day workweek.... The Liberals want Fridays off. They [want to have] a four-day workweek [and that] is more than enough.”

The then leader of the opposition on May 29, 2017, said, “We know they want Fridays off and we know [that this] is a big deal to them. They do not want to be working Fridays. They do not realize that Canadians work five days a week, and many times [they work] more than five days a week.”

We are asking to work more than five days a week, which is exactly what the then leader of the opposition said in May 2017. That is the interesting part about all of this. One cannot help but wonder why, if they want to speak to all of this legislation at great length, and if they want to put up 51-plus speakers on every piece of legislation, they would not be interested in sitting into the evenings to do that. We certainly are. They accused us of not wanting to do it.

Business of the House

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague opposite that I hope he and his family are able to enjoy this time and enjoy Easter. I know we will be celebrating. I will say Ramadan Mubarak to those who are recognizing Ramadan and wish everybody a joyous Passover.

This afternoon, we are going to be continuing with the second reading of Bill C-14, the Quebec electoral representation bill. As members know, at 4 p.m. the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will be presenting the budget.

When we return after the constituency weeks, we will continue debating the budget for a number of days, which will be Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Then after that, it will be the budget implementation act.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, tomorrow morning we will continue with second reading debate of Bill C-13, which would amend the Official Languages Act and enact the use of French in federally regulated private businesses act. On Monday we will have the fifth day of debate at report stage of Bill C-8, which is an act to implement certain provisions of the economic and fiscal update that was tabled in Parliament on December 14. Tuesday shall be an opposition day. Further, Wednesday we plan to start debate on Bill C-14, which concerns electoral representation in Quebec. We will continue debate on Bill C-13 and official languages on Thursday until 4 p.m., at which time the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will be presenting the budget. Friday will be the first day of the budget debate.

Constitution Act, 1867

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my father always told me that history is extremely important. My colleague talked about history when he talked about the current situation, because history helps us understand where we are and where we are going. I too will share a bit of historical background, with all due respect to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

In his 1840 report, Lord Durham said that the francophone people had no future, no culture and no history. That was not a very good start. In 1840, after the Patriotes rebellion, this person was telling us that the salvation of francophones lay in assimilation. By reading what happened next, we see this was the moment that the tragic destiny of Quebec and francophones in Canada was decided.

From 1840 to 1867, there was a Parliament representing eastern Canada, in other words Quebec, and western Canada, meaning Ontario. The catch was that even though Quebec had a larger population, eastern Canada and western Canada got the same number of members. Even though there were more Quebeckers, they did not get more members, but no one took offence to that.

After a while, it became clear that the status of francophones in North America was diminishing because of the influx of immigrants. They became a minority. In 1867, it was announced that representation would henceforth be proportional. That year, the first Parliament opened, but instead of Quebec having 50% of the seats, it dropped to 36%, even though it had had a much larger population for quite some time.

That was the beginning, or rather the continuation, of the decline. To get us to lower our guard, they told us that it was an agreement between two founding peoples, an agreement that would later be broken. They gave us 50% of the seats at first to lull us into a false sense of security.

Yes, there are francophones in the rest of Canada, but they are merely surviving, not thriving. Despite their resilience and their daily struggle to ensure their language reaches their schools, they will never be able to ensure their continued survival. They will decline across Canada.

Just look at the situation today in Manitoba, which is supposed to be a bilingual province. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the rest of Canada, in Ontario, francophones will literally disappear. The only thing stopping francophones outside Quebec from losing the ability to utter the words of Félix Leclerc, to keep speaking the language we hold dear, is their extraordinary courage. It will take a lot of courage.

You are one of the courageous ones, Mr. Speaker. You know what I am talking about.

Quebec was saddled with minority status with respect to economic decisions and everything else until the end of the 1950s. Two things saved Quebec.

The first was the cradle. Quebeckers made babies. They set a world record for baby-making, one for every fence post. We survived because of sheer numbers.

The second came in 1960 with the creation of a Quebec state that finally protected us. It was the Quebec state that allowed us to strengthen the position of the French language in Quebec, which had an impact on the rest of Canada and even Louisiana. Zachary Richard would agree, it is a fact. Quebec, with the Quebec state, protects us. That is a fact.

After being one of the founding peoples, we were confined to the rank of a province, a province like any other. In federal-provincial conferences, we became one of ten in 1949, going from one for one to one for ten. Then multiculturalism was introduced in 1982, which put us on a par with all other cultures. I like other cultures, but the Quebec nation is here, it is present, and it must maintain its place because it deserves to survive.

I will not go into the details of all the numbers, but we are at 23% representation in Parliament. Do people see what the problem is with the Parliament of Canada?

We keep repeating that this Parliament is eroding the power of our legislature. This is a fundamental problem. When we say that Ottawa must not interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions, it is because the Government of Quebec protects us best and knows us best. It was not the Quebec government that said the London attack was caused by Bill 21, but the Prime Minister of Canada. It was not the Premier of Quebec who said that.

The Prime Minister of Canada is not the one protecting us. It is the federal government that has now decided to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. British Columbia's francophones, who demanded that education be of the same quality as that of anglophones, won their case before the Federal Court of Appeal, but this Liberal government wants to reverse the court's decisions.

People in the House are saying that Quebec is a nation. This Parliament even agreed with us and adopted a motion saying that Quebec is a nation with French as the common language. However, those words need to be backed up by action.

We put to the vote a two-part motion seeking to ensure that Quebec does not lose a seat in the House of Commons, and that motion was adopted by the majority. The government understood and acknowledged this with its Bill C‑14. However, what about the second part of the motion?

When we vote on a motion, we vote on the entire motion. The second part of the motion said that Quebec's political weight must not be diminished. It does not take a Ph.D. in math to understand that if we have 78 seats out of a total of 338, when that total eventually goes up to 343, 350, 400 or 500 members, our political power will be diminished. I explained this to my golden retriever and he understood. The government does not seem to understand. Seriously?

What we are asking for is that we use a ratio expressed as a percentage. It is obvious if we want to avoid this decline. It is just that simple. Why are we asking for 25%? It is because that is what was negotiated in the Charlottetown accord. That is where we got it from.

Can this be done without reopening Canada's Constitution? I know that reopening the Constitution is about as easy as eating an apple through a tennis racket. I know that, but we do not need to do it. We can do it in the House with legislative tools. That is where we stand today: We have to use percentages to avoid this slow but steady decline that is undermining our people.

I will quote Claude Péloquin, who said, “Aren't you tired of dying, you idiots?” Sometimes, I think we are dying. Unfortunately, we do not even know it. We are here because half of our taxes are administered by this Parliament, and as long as we are in Canada, we must defend Quebec.

Our dream is not to account for 25% of this Parliament, but 100% of the parliament of our future country.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join this debate as a francophone from western Canada to speak to Bill C‑246, which the Bloc Québécois member has introduced. He certainly has the right to have a debate.

During his speech I heard him say that a nation clause would be added to our Constitution. It is always interesting to see a Bloc Québécois member make an amendment to the Canadian Constitution. I know that for several decades now it has been difficult for members of that party to be convinced that Quebec, as a province, is part of a united Canada. We are certainly united.

I would like to be perfectly clear that this country was founded on two cultures and two languages: French and English. That was the topic of great debate in colonial Parliament for 20 to 30 years before our country was founded. It is that linguistic and cultural duality that our country has been trying, for more than 150 years, to put into practice in the everyday lives of our constituents.

Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. A motion to that effect was adopted in a previous Parliament. I completely agree with that. I support that idea. I have said it many times in the House. I know that my Bloc colleagues have heard me say it. I know that they have also heard me say that Albertans form a distinct society within a united Canada.

There have been many debates with my Quebec colleagues in the House, in my party and in our caucus. When the British North America Act, which gave us our Constitution, was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1867, section 40 stated that the Province of Quebec would have 65 seats upon the founding of our nation. Since then, and on the basis of demographics, we have slowly increased the number of seats in our Parliament to ensure that representation by population would be the guiding principle for the number of seats in our Parliament.

Representation by population was the subject of great debate by the country's responsible government. It was the great debate in the colonial Parliament before our country was founded. Representation by population in every region of our country had to be ensured. The reality of our country is that there are francophones outside Quebec. There is a linguistic duality. Acadians in Nova Scotia are part of our country. Their identity is different from that of Quebeckers, the Métis, Franco-Manitobans and Franco-Albertans. In my caucus, I have colleagues from out west, such as the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and the member for Calgary Midnapore, who speak French. They can hold a conversation in our country's other language, and they often use it.

There are three major issues with this private member's bill, three ideas that this chamber needs to seriously consider.

First of all, this matter has been debated before in a previous Parliament. Jean Rousseau, who was an NDP member of Parliament for Compton—Stanstead in 2012, moved a similar private member's bill, but it came to the same goal in a different manner. It added a different redistribution rule at the end. In that Parliament, members chose to vote against it, and it did not make it into law, obviously.

The Charlottetown accord in 1992 was rejected by Canadians. In the Charlottetown accord, one of the proposals citizens were asked to weigh in on, after politicians had debated it, was whether Quebec as a province should receive 25% of all House of Commons seats. That was rejected by the Canadian population. In fact, 58% of Quebec voters rejected that in the Charlottetown accord.

I was too young to vote, and members might be surprised by that. I was too young to vote in the Quebec referendum as well, but my parents were not, and as I remember, they did vote no in that referendum in 1995.

Another thing to consider is the Fair Representation Act of 2011 that was passed by a previous Parliament and ensured redistribution. It is part of Stephen Harper's legacy to this Parliament. He brought us back, as close as reasonably possible, to ensuring that we have representation by population.

It is part of the legacy that he tried to restore some greater representation to western Canadians, who have very large ridings. Most of us do. I represent the second-largest riding in Canada by population size. My colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has over 200,000 citizens residing in his riding, which is a huge number of people to represent. It is basically double what the average, the quotient, calls for.

The Fair Representation Act also created a rule, the representation rule, that ensured that any province that would lose a seat in a redistribution would then be made whole by having its number of seats made proportional to its demographic weight within Canada. That rule, at the time, applied to the Province of Quebec and ensured that Quebec was represented in proportion to its demographic weight within Canada. That was a new rule that was created. At the time, it added three seats, resulting in the 78 seats that the Province of Quebec enjoys today.

Lastly, I want to bring up this fact, because we Conservatives and our deputy leader, the member of Parliament for Mégantic—L'Érable, moved in this House a unanimous consent motion that was rejected. I want to read it back into the record, because it forms the position of the Conservatives.

The motion was “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.”

That is the foundation of the Conservative position. We believe, and I think it is a perfectly reasonable position to take, that no province should lose a seat in redistribution. It should not go backward when we are looking at this issue. There are smaller provinces that might face this situation if that was ever changed in the future.

I also recognize, as the parliamentary secretary on the Liberal benches mentioned, that the government has tabled Bill C-14 today as well, which I was combing through as we were voting to try to better understand the contents of that bill. If we look at it, we see that a majority of the content is our unanimous consent motion that was rejected by the House. That is our position: that no province in this country should lose seats in a redistribution.

We have a chamber of 338 members. This chamber used to house 308 members in our old building. I still see a lot of space where we could put more members if it was absolutely needed. I see the Speaker is looking at both sides of the House. There is, indeed, space in this House. Maybe we have to be a bit closer. We cannot do the social distancing rule. The pandemic will eventually be over, and we can do these things in a redistribution bill, so I will be looking forward to receiving a briefing and more information on exactly how Bill C-14 would work.

To return to the private member's bill, I think the mechanics of it are quite important in terms of how such a bill would function and how such a bill would work. Amending the Constitution through a private member's bill is unique, but this House has amended the Constitution. In this Parliament, we amended the Saskatchewan Act to make sure that one of the railway companies would pay its share of taxation in that particular province, so it is not unusual to be doing it in this manner. I know that other members in this House have amended the Constitution in the past, such as to make sure the Speaker's election would be done by preferential secret ballot. That was not the case over 25 years ago. This can be done in this particular situation.

Those are the three concerns I mentioned: the Charlottetown accord vote back in 1992; the history of the Fair Representation Act of 2011, which was part of Stephen Harper's legacy as our prime minister; and the unanimous consent motion that Conservatives pushed that was rejected. That forms the foundation of our position, and I hope to return to the House at some late point and have other members of our caucus join in this debate on this private member's bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, in looking at this particular piece of legislation, one can only ask why the Bloc has chosen to bring it forward knowing full well the government had intentions of bringing in legislation. I would attempt to answer that question by indicating that, from what I have witnessed over the years of the participation of Bloc members, their interest primarily seems to be that of playing a destructive force for Canada as a nation. I can already see some hints of that in some of the comments being made.

I say, “a destructive force,” because I am a very proud Canadian. I recognize the wonders that Canada has to offer in all of its regions, and I am very proud of that. I have made reference in the past to my own ancestral heritage in the province of Quebec, to the number of generations that lived in the province of Quebec and to the expansion into the prairie provinces and so forth, as well as to how Canada as a nation is bilingual and to how important it is to recognize the province of Quebec, its uniqueness and the role it plays in society.

I know we currently have 35 incredible members of Parliament who advocate for the province of Quebec, along with other national interests, on a daily basis. In fact, earlier today we got a sense of that in the passionate delivery of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. My former boss, when he was the government House leader, would often talk with a great deal of passion about the people of Quebec and how important the French dynamic was to our country. I also go to my colleague for Mount Royal and other colleagues I have had who have spoken so eloquently about the important role Quebec plays not only here in Canada, but internationally.

I like to think that the legislation we brought in today, Bill C-14, deals with the concerns my colleagues have been raising within the government. It would ensure that the province of Quebec would never lose a seat in the future. I see that as a very strong positive, as we have made changes to the Constitution in the past and we have seen guarantees in the past.

Once again, through advocacy, we now see a very strong commitment to the number of 78 seats well into the future, and that would not limit it to 78. That would establish a floor. There are many in this chamber, including me, who believe that the province of Quebec will continue to grow. Ultimately, its population could even dictate a larger number than 78, so we are not saying it has to be 78 into the future. It would have the potential to go beyond that.

Why not recognize the value of Bill C-14? What is the need for Bill C-246, which is being proposed? The member already knows that members on the government side are committed to it, because we had the debate earlier this month, which the member even made reference to, where Liberal members from all regions of our country came forward saying that we need to ensure Quebec has that minimum number of seats going forward.

If somehow the Bloc was able to convince a majority of the people in this chamber to do what they are asking for, it would entail a constitutional change that would require the support of 50% of the population and seven of the 10 provinces in order to be approved.

I have been around for constitutional debates. I was a member of the Manitoba legislature for votes related to the Meech Lake accord and for the Charlottetown accord. I do not believe for a moment that the people of Canada, whether they are citizens of Quebec or citizens of my home province of Manitoba, want the House of Commons to be dealing with constitutional matters of this nature, which is what this bill is actually proposing. It would require approval under the 7/50 formula.

There are so many other issues that are out there today, yet the Bloc want to insist on having a constitutional change that would invoke the 7/50 formula. I would hazard a guess that, even if just the constituents of the members that are proposing this were canvassed, they might find that their constituents would not necessarily support a constitutional debate on this issue alone.

I do not say that lightly. That is what I truly believe. When I have canvassed constituents in the past, a number of years ago, on the issue of electoral reform, and the whole issue of numbers, I was very clearly told that this was not something that they want.

As a parliamentarian, we often have a sense of what the pulse of our community is like. I would challenge any member to clearly demonstrate where the political will is matched by the enthusiasm of their constituents for constitutional debates at this point in time, as that is what would be required under the legislation that is being proposed.

We could talk about issues. My friends in the Bloc often talk, for example, about health care and how important it is that the federal government be at the table when it comes to a wide variety of issues in regard to health care. The federal government is at the table. We have the Canada Health Act, which ensures that no matter where Canadians live or in whatever region, they will have a certain quality of health care delivered, based on the five fundamental principles of our Canada Health Act.

Given the pandemic, and the response we received from Canadians in regard to issues such as long-term care, the costs of medication and the issue of mental health, I believe that no matter where one lives in Canada, the debates and concerns of those issues alone would supersede and exceed the need for what is being suggested by members of the Bloc party today.

It is not to be insensitive, in recognizing the importance of the 78 seats. As I said, I personally voted in favour of that earlier this month. I know, as I said earlier, that not only the 35 members of the Liberal caucus who represent Quebec ridings, but also the entire Liberal caucus recognizes the importance of Quebec having those 78 seats, with the potential, as I explained earlier, for growth.

I really believe, and I would encourage other members of other political parties to believe, that there really is no need to even see this bill go to committee because, quite frankly, we would hope that the government's bill, Bill C-14, will make it to committee, at which point in time there will be even more opportunities for the public and stakeholders to provide direct input.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

moved that Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, regarding representation in the House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking you for the thoughtful consideration you have given me by allowing the House to dissolve and those members who wish to do so to go about their business, thus enabling me to make a speech in a quieter setting.

I am honoured to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-246, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, regarding representation in the House of Commons, which I am sponsoring.

Despite what many Canadians and perhaps Canada would like, there are fundamental differences and some deep incompatibilities, I would even say, between Quebeckers and Canadians. There are fundamental differences in how Canadians see their future and how Quebeckers see theirs.

I am not saying that is a bad thing. Let me provide some context. I think it is important to put this in context because every time there are discussions around demands with respect to the status of Quebec within the federation, or about its culture, the values that are unique to the Quebec nation or its language—French is the only official and common language of Quebeckers—words always get twisted and the conversation turns into bickering, if I may borrow the word of the day, with claims that this is coming from a tiresome minority of Quebeckers who refuse to kowtow, drop their pants and hide their pride behind a maple leaf.

Those people know that by cleverly spreading misinformation, they are stoking the fire and stirring up hateful comments by certain fanatics who would like to see Quebec get crushed, give up its identity and join the melting pot of Canadian multiculturalism. I am not generalizing, but those people do exist. There is no shortage of them on social media. All one has to do is post a comment about the French language on Twitter to see the flood of hateful comments that follow.

I would like to give some context on the history of the people of Quebec. For decades, in the 19th and 20th centuries, honest French-Canadian workers suffered silently. The Catholic Church required them to populate Quebec by having eight, 12, 15 or 20 children, and to earn their place in heaven by bowing their heads whenever the boss came by. That was Quebec up until the second half of the 20th century.

Slowly, gradually, word got out that Quebeckers were more than just quaint characters, more than just people who got rowdy every night, that there was more to us than arrowhead sashes and fiddle playing, and that Quebec was rich in culture and talent. Little by little, Quebec stepped out of the darkness, not just the shadows, but out of the deep darkness, and Quebeckers started to rediscover who we are.

At that point, voices started to emerge, urging Quebeckers to stand up, respect themselves and demand the respect of others. This was the golden age of great leaders, orators and personalities who inspired past generations and who continue to inspire generation now.

There were great trade unionists, because we needed union leaders at a time when Quebec was a working-class nation, people like Pepin, Marchand, Charbonneau. There were also some great women, like Laure Gaudreault and Madeleine Parent, not to mention one of Quebec's golden couples, Michel Chartrand and Simone Monet-Chartrand, one of the most adored, respected and celebrated couples in Quebec history.

I have an amusing story about this. In Longueuil, on the south shore facing Montreal, there is a park named after Michel Chartrand that is overrun with deer. My young daughter, who will turn 11 next week, was talking about Michel Chartrand park. I told her about the union leader Michel Chartrand, and she thought he was the deer guy. That is why education is important. It is important to talk about Quebec's history so that my daughter's generation will know that Michel Chartrand is not just the deer guy.

All these men and women inspired Quebec's workers back then through passionate speeches. Chartrand was a passionate man, if ever there was one. We could listen to his speeches again and watch the movie where he was portrayed so well by Luc Picard. These people inspired others with their passionate speeches and unifying actions. It should be inspiring for this government, because passionate speeches and words must be followed up with action. Those people took action.

With their actions, they made Quebeckers realize what another great Quebecker would put into words years later: “We are not a little people. We are closer to something like a great people.”

In the meantime, along came the Quiet Revolution, bringing with it new ideas and inspiring new leaders who proposed social reforms that were more in line with our values. As I often say, our values are neither better nor worse than Canada's. They are just different in many ways.

That led to Quebeckers choosing a secular society because, for us, the only way to respect all religions is to ensure the state has no religion. That is an important nuance to grasp. That is what Quebec secularism means. In Quebec, religion is something personal practised privately that should neither interfere in nor influence the decisions made by the state. Contrary to what many Canadians think, including many of my House of Commons colleagues, Quebeckers welcome and respect people of all origins and all faiths. However, we want to integrate our newcomers while respecting their beliefs but without betraying our fundamental values. I admit there is a major conflict between Quebec state secularism and the idea of multiculturalism that is so dear to Liberals and Canadians.

Following our awakening, we witnessed the growth of a new movement in favour of an option that is appealing enough to have lasted to this day: Quebec independence.

As an aside, and this may not be news to anyone, but I will just say that my colleagues and I do not just carry this idea of becoming a country in our daily work; it permeates our lives. It inhabits us, much like oil inhabits our Conservative friends. We all hope that one day our project will become a reality. We try to discuss it at every opportunity, trying each time to break down prejudices, to avoid smear campaigns that get in the way of sound judgment and healthy conversation.

The idea of an independent Quebec has been around for a while now, so much so that in 1976 the Parti Québécois came to power with the great leader I mentioned earlier, René Lévesque. He is probably my number one idol. This too should come as no great surprise.

I think what happened next is fairly well known to most people here. There was the 1980 referendum, the patriation of the Constitution, the “beau risque”, the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord.

The Charlottetown accord contained a proposal that was written in black and white. Resolution 21, on the composition of the House of Commons, stated: “The composition of the House of Commons should be adjusted to better reflect the principle of representation by population.” Further on, it mentions a redistribution following the 1996 census aimed at ensuring that, in the next election, “no province will have fewer than 95% of the House of Commons seats it would receive under strict representation-by-population”. It goes on to state that “Quebec would be assigned no fewer then 25 percent of the seats in the House of Commons”.

I think it is very important to say so, because it is fundamental in Bill C‑246, which I am introducing today. It is fundamental because what we are proposing is to include a nation clause in the Constitution Act, 1982, so that Quebec does not have to keep standing up for its representation in the House of Commons, whether today, in 10 years, after the next census, or in 20 years, and so forth.

As I alluded to earlier, ideally, we would be having these discussions because Quebec would have made the choice, in the meantime, to fully take matters into its own hands and patriate to Quebec City, in our only national legislature, 100% of the seats we have here.

This morning, by extraordinary coincidence, the government introduced Bill C‑14, probably in response to the Bloc Québécois motion unanimously adopted on March 2, worded as follows:

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; and

(b) the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended and the House call on the government to act accordingly.

This motion was put to a vote and passed unanimously. Now, three weeks later, we have a bill whose only goal is to maintain Quebec's number of seats at 78. That is not bad, but it is a bit like agreeing to give a friend a ride from Montreal to Quebec City but then making, him get out in Saint‑Hyacinthe, not even in Drummondville.

I want to draw members' attention to the fact that Bill C‑14, which the Liberals introduced this morning, is nothing but a watered-down version of what Quebec, Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois are calling for. Bill C‑246, however, addresses the urgent need to protect Quebec's political weight. Since Quebec is a nation, it should have the resources it needs to be represented so long as it decides to remain here in the House of Commons.

Electoral Representation

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, the Liberals and the NDP voted in favour of a Bloc motion stating that the Quebec nation must not lose any political weight in terms of the number of members in Ottawa. Today, they introduced Bill C‑14, which ensures that we will not lose any seats, but they are adding so many more seats elsewhere that we will end up losing some our political weight anyway. They may not be holding us under water, but they are letting the water rise very slowly. That is what they are doing.

Why does the government want to reduce Quebec's political weight?