Bill C-14

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

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

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

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

moved that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, obviously, I would have liked to have been in the House today in person, but, like many Canadians, I am recovering from a COVID infection, so I am participating virtually from New Brunswick.

I am pleased to speak in the House today to begin the debate at second reading of Bill C-14. Following the decennial census, the Chief Electoral Officer calculates the number of House of Commons seats allocated to each province using the formula specified in Canada's Constitution. This is important to all of us, and I know that I speak for all colleagues when I say that serving as a member of Parliament representing one's constituency in the House of Commons is an immense honour.

As members of Parliament, our job is to serve our constituents. This means listening to their ideas, proposals and concerns, reconciling often opposing viewpoints, navigating challenges and working together to advance the interests of Canadians.

Representation in the House of Commons, and the readjustment of that representation over the years, is particularly important to us because it is the crux of our democratic system.

Although the fathers of Confederation established a representation formula for the House of Commons based on the principle of representation by population or voter equality, Canada grew over the course of its history. Over time, the formula had to be adjusted based on growth rates and population size, which vary from region to region in our country.

Consequently, and given these population differences and the unique nature of our federation, the principle of modified proportionate representation was established as the guiding principle for representation in the House of Commons.

As a result of the changes made over time, today's representation formula takes into account provinces with faster-growing populations while protecting smaller, slower-growing provinces.

This is an important aspect of our democratic system and our federation. It ensures integrity and transparency through an independent, legislated process that is built on the principle of proportional representation but is sensitive to regional representation issues.

The Canadian Constitution requires that the number of seats in the House of Commons and the electoral boundaries be reviewed every 10 years, after each decennial census. This requirement makes it possible to accurately reflect changes and movements in the populations of Canada's provinces.

For this calculation, the Chief Electoral Officer uses the representation formula set out in sections 51 and 51A of the Constitution Act, 1867, and Statistics Canada's population estimates.

We studied all possible options in order to find what we think is the most responsible approach to this process, an approach where no province would have fewer seats than it did in 2021. The seat allocation formula would keep all protections in place and would continue to permit incremental seat increases in provinces such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia due to their growing provincial populations. This updated clause would ensure all provinces continue to have a strong voice in our House of Commons.

Under our government's proposal, the calculation and objectives of the seat allocation formula remain the same. Smaller and slower growing provinces would be protected and provinces with growing populations would continue to see incremental gains. The government's proposed amendment to introduce what can colloquially be known as the 2021 grandfather clause is a considered measure. It would ensure no province would have fewer seats than it did during the 43rd Parliament.

The 2021 grandfather amendment applies to all provinces and creates a new floor for them, should their populations experience a significant shift over time. This is, in a small but impactful way, a significant amendment. Again, I would point out that the seat allocation formula remains exactly the same, keeping other protections in place as well. Furthermore, the proposal continues to permit incremental seat growth in provinces, as I mentioned, due to their growing provincial populations.

I would like to take a moment to remind colleagues of how the formula works and will continue to work. It is a mathematical formula that follows a simple four-step process. The first step in the formula is the initial allocation of seats to the provinces. The electoral quotient is obtained by multiplying the quotient of the last decennial redistribution by the average of the population growth rates of the 10 provinces over the last 10 years.

The 2021 electoral quotient, as established by Elections Canada, is 121,891. This number roughly corresponds to the average riding size across the provinces, although as I mentioned earlier, this does vary considerably, based on the unique circumstances of different jurisdictions across the country. The base number of seats is then obtained by dividing the population of each province by this electoral quotient.

Secondly, the application of special clauses follows. After the initial number of seats per provinces is determined, seat adjustments are made to account for the senatorial clause and the grandfather clause, except that, under our government's proposed legislation, this will become the 2021 grandfather clause, but it works exactly the same way.

The senatorial clause guarantees that each province has no fewer seats in the House of Commons than it has in the Senate. That remains in place. That is obviously important for smaller provinces like mine of New Brunswick.

The 2021 grandfather clause guarantees that each province will have no fewer seats than it had in 2021. This is instead of the 1985 grandfather clause passed during the previous Conservative government of Mr. Mulroney. These rules continue to ensure that our smaller provinces and those with perhaps declining populations continue to be heard in the House of Commons.

The third step in the formula includes the application of the representation rule. The representation rule applies to a province whose population was overrepresented in the House of Commons, relative to its share of the national population at the completion of the previous redistribution process. If a province were to lose its overrepresentation in the House of Commons, relative to its share of the national population, then it is given extra seats to ensure it remains overrepresented in the House.

Quebec is the only province that has benefited from this rule in the past. With our government's amendment in place, Quebec would preserve its seat count at 78. With Quebec at 78 seats, its share of seats in the House would remain higher than its share of national population and the representation rule would not apply.

Once the special clauses and the representation rules are applied, the number of seats in each province is then determined. Finally, three seats are allocated to the territories. This is the final step in allocating the total number of seats in the House of Commons.

Once the number of seats in the House of Commons has been determined, then the process of redrawing the electoral boundaries within each province begins, and this year it is no different.

Electoral boundaries are redrawn in each province in accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Most importantly, the act establishes independent, non-partisan electoral boundaries commissions to redistribute and adjust federal electoral ridings in Canada

The act very clearly defines the roles and responsibilities of these commissions as well as the redistribution process and the criteria the commissions must meet. To ensure neutrality, all timelines and activities are predetermined and transparent. In addition, riding redistribution was set on a 10-year cycle to mitigate the possibility of parties adjusting boundaries to obtain a political advantage.

I would like to make clear that the independence of these commissions is a fundamental element of the electoral boundaries readjustment process. For this reason, the provincial chief justices are responsible for appointing a chairperson for each commission, while the Speaker of the House of Commons, with the advice of Elections Canada, is responsible for independently appointing two other members for each three-person commission in every one of the provinces.

I would like to acknowledge the distinguished Canadians who have agreed to serve as independent commission members tasked with drawing electoral district boundaries and who dedicate much of their time to this important work. Thanks to their expertise, often rooted in academia, law or the public service, they are developing proposals that Canadians and members of Parliament can obviously weigh in on.

Since 2021 was a decennial census year, the redistribution process has already begun. Ten independent, non-partisan electoral boundaries commissions were established by proclamation on November 1 of last year, one for each province. The commissions began their work after the release of the final census data in early February of this year. They are now beginning the process of reviewing the ridings. They will engage in public consultations and decide on changes to constituencies in each province.

The commissions are guided by a highly prescriptive and legislative process that takes approximately 18 to 20 months to complete. They will work to propose a new electoral map for their province by considering criteria such as average population numbers, communities of identity and interest, historical patterns of an electoral district and the geographic size of electoral districts. The commissions are also required to consult with Canadians through public hearings. At these hearings, members of Parliament and the general public are invited to participate and can make presentations to support or oppose particular proposals by commissions.

Following consultations, the commissions are required to submit a preliminary report on the proposed new electoral boundaries to the Speaker of the House of Commons through the Chief Electoral Officer. This is followed by a parliamentary committee study, during which members once again have the opportunity to express their concerns. Members have 30 days to submit objections in writing to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee then considers the objections and submits the final copy of the objections and the minutes of its study to the Speaker of the House. All this information is then provided by the Chief Electoral Officer to the commissions.

Commissions also have to review members' objections and suggestions. However, there is one important detail: Decisions about how boundaries are to be adjusted are the sole responsibility of these independent commissions. The commissions are required to submit a final report to the Chief Electoral Officer along with an electoral map indicating the electoral boundaries in their province. The results of the readjustment process become official once the Governor in Council signs a representation order describing the new electoral districts. However, changes to electoral districts do not become official until the first general election at least seven months after the date of proclamation.

This period gives Elections Canada, political parties, candidates and sitting MPs the time to prepare for the next general election based on these new districts.

The 2022 redistribution process is in its early stages. Our government's bill minimizes any disruption to the ongoing electoral boundaries readjustment process that I have just described. Only the work of the Quebec electoral boundaries commission would be affected and, importantly, this would not delay any of the work in the other nine provinces. The bill also allows for the Quebec commission to readjust its proposal as needed and take the time required to consider the province's seat allocation should the 2021 grandfather clause be adopted in legislation.

Representation matters. Redistribution matters as well. It matters for all Canadians to feel their voices are heard and their concerns are addressed fairly. It matters that they are represented effectively regardless of where they live in Canada.

The electoral boundaries readjustment process is an important feature of our democratic system. It provides an opportunity to reflect on and appreciate how representation works in our democracy and, more generally, the importance of integrity and transparency as founding principles of our democratic systems and institutions.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister. Truthfully, I am glad he explained how the electoral redistribution in Canada will be carried out with the commissions, because now I do not have to do so in my speech later in the House.

I would like to ask the minister to comment on two rulings handed down by the Supreme Court of Canada. The first ruling, handed down in 1991, deals with provincial electoral boundaries in Saskatchewan. In section 3, on the right to vote, the court stated that effective representation in Canada is more important than the concept of one vote per person.

Could the minister comment on that in the context of this legislation?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Calgary Shepard for his question.

Obviously, I share the member's interest in how the application of these democratic principles has evolved as a result of various rulings by lower courts, courts of appeal and, ultimately, the Supreme Court of Canada.

Electoral representation in provincial legislatures often differs from that of the House of Commons, for example, because, as our colleagues know full well, we are a federation. As I tried to explain at the beginning of my speech, within this federation, for all kinds of constitutional historical reasons, the system of representation that has been developed reflects certain unique aspects of the various provinces. That is why we now have a system that I believe has served Canadians well over the years.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the member who moved this motion if, in his opinion, Quebec's political weight is guaranteed.

I am just saying that Quebec's weight has steadily declined over time, and that decline is likely to accelerate. In 1947, Quebec held 28% of the seats, in 1976, 24.6%, in 1999, 24.9%, and in 2015, it held 23.1%.

Even by maintaining the status quo, if we can call it that—it is not because Quebec's representation, Quebec's political weight, continues to decline—does this bill guarantee our specificity in Quebec and our uniqueness?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Thérèse‑De Blainville for her question.

I believe that Quebec's political weight is guaranteed by this bill in that we have changed a clause to guarantee the provinces the same number of seats they had in 2021 during the next electoral redistribution.

We have heard several of our colleagues from the Quebec Liberal caucus in the House talk about the importance of preserving the 78 seats in Quebec, and that is exactly what we will do if this bill is passed.

Quebec's political weight is also represented by having, for example, a Prime Minister of Canada who is also an MP from Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his speech and for introducing this bill.

I am very pleased to see that one element of the agreement negotiated by our two parties is in this bill. In reading this document, we see that the last line protects Quebec seats. It is good to see this come about quickly.

However, this agreement also included other elements, such as making it easier to vote by providing for a three-day voting period during general elections and easier access to different polling stations.

Why did the minister not include these elements in his bill?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie for his question.

He is quite right. In the agreement that our government entered into with his party, the NDP, we agreed to maintain the 78 seats Quebec presently has in the House of Commons. That is exactly what this very targeted bill will do.

As for other enhancements that we have agreed to make, I concur with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie on the need to make it easier to vote by increasing the number of voting days or allowing, for example, access to voting on campus.

In my opinion, all these reforms will have to be made in consultation with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and following the recommendations of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

Given that the electoral redistribution process is already under way, we are presenting a targeted and specific bill to respond to the issue of the provinces' demographic weight and provincial representation. We will definitely have the opportunity to work together on other enhancements.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Surrey—Newton, BC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the minister for his leadership on this file and for his overall leadership over the past many years.

British Columbia has the fastest-growing population. In Surrey, 1,500 people are moving in every month. How would the formula the minister is bringing forward be fair to the people of British Columbia?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, my friend from Surrey—Newton has represented, in a very effective way, the people of Surrey and the people of British Columbia for many years. He raises an essential point that many of our colleagues from British Columbia have discussed with me and with our government: the importance of respecting the formula, as he noted, that adds additional seats to provinces like his, British Columba, and probably, ultimately, to the Surrey region. We will see what the commission decides in British Columbia.

Nothing in this legislation in any way affects provinces such as his, Alberta and Ontario, which have growing populations, from being allocated additional seats under the formula I outlined. Obviously we look forward to the work of the commission in British Columbia to see how those additional seats will reflect population growth in communities as important to Canada as Surrey.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from New Brunswick, the minister, for his efforts and work. This is a big task and I appreciate those efforts.

I know the minister has a great appreciation for a province like New Brunswick, where we have a lot of rural communities and small towns. Some redistribution has been going on. I take it that in this process, that redistribution is being considered and factored in, as is ensuring that while the areas that have an increased population have increased representation, we make sure that our rural areas are not neglected and have proper, solid representation as well.

If the minister could speak to that, it would be most appreciated.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank my friend and colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac, that great New Brunswick constituency. Like him, I represent a rural part of our province of New Brunswick and I completely share his interest and his concern in terms of the importance of ensuring that smaller communities and rural communities are represented adequately. Our province will benefit from the senatorial clause, which will not see New Brunswick seats fall below 10 in any redistribution. That is constitutionally guaranteed.

The commission in our province of New Brunswick will have a difficult job of ensuring that rural communities like the ones he represents or that I and other colleagues represent have a fair and proper representation in our province, but in the same way that it is happening across the country, some of the urban parts of our province are growing at a rate that does not reflect some of the small rural communities.

This is a difficult task that the independent commission in our province will have, but I look forward to working with our colleague from Tobique—Mactaquac and others on these important issues.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be entering the debate on this subject. I am glad the minister covered basically how redistribution works. That way, I do not have to explain how it functions to residents back in Alberta.

One difference of opinion that I have with the minister is that he said this was a substantive piece of legislation. Actually, I would say that it is not a significant piece of legislation, and that is why I like it. It is actually one of the smallest changes that could possibly be made to the redistribution formula and it preserves the entirety of the Fair Representation Act, basically the principles and the substance of what Stephen Harper passed in 2011. That is why I like it: It is such a small change.

The grandfathering clause of 1985 basically ensured that provinces would get the same number of seats that they had before 1985. They could not fall below that number, and this is an update to the 43rd Parliament, so I see no great change in this. The effect is basically what I call the banking of the seats so that no province in the future, should conditions change, would lose extra seats in a future redistribution.

I looked back at 1988. The three fastest-growing provinces were British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. British Columbia had 32 seats; Alberta had 26 seats; Ontario had 99 seats. In the 2019 election, there were 42 seats for British Columbia, 34 seats for Alberta and 121 seats for Ontario. When I looked that up, I saw that it was a 10-seat gain as a floor for British Columbia, an eight-seat gain as a floor for Alberta, and a 22-seat gain for Ontario. We have to admit that Ontario remains heavily under-represented, even with this change to our legislation. It is about 40% of the population. It is a huge province in our Confederation. There is no doubt about that. Ontario was the largest province at the time of Confederation as well, and it continues that history to this day.

There are a couple of points I also want to make on past Supreme Court cases. This often comes up when there is a lot of confusion with the American political culture of one person, one vote. That is not the direct principle that is applied in Canada. In a Saskatchewan electoral boundaries case from 1991, the Supreme Court found in a section 3 charter case that in this country the principle is effective representation, and that looks toward smaller ridings. Ridings are also very expansive in terms of territory. While spatial limits are not directly in the legislation, there is that idea of effective representation.

As the minister said, how we represent our constituents is difficult, and there is a tension between two ideas here. There are those of us who are in very large ridings. I have the second-largest riding in Canada by population size and my colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has over 200,000 people in his riding, so members can imagine the volume of emails, phone calls and meetings we would have to have in order to meet with all of our constituents so that they believe they are being well represented.

On the other side is spatial representation. Many members of Parliament have very large ridings. I am thinking of northern Saskatchewan, the territories and a riding like Labrador. Labrador is a difficult riding to represent in good weather, and I cannot imagine how difficult it is to represent constituents in bad weather when one cannot travel the long distances and has to stay overnight in very remote communities. There is a tension inherent in that type of representation, so I want to recognize that. In this redistribution, we try to aim for effective representation. This small change to the formula would achieve that. There was also the case of Figueroa v. Canada in 2003 that equally looked at that issue.

I want to admit another thing here. I love Yiddish proverbs, as members know, and to a worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish. This is truly something that very few Canadians will pay close attention to. I see the parliamentary secretary to the House leader chuckling at that. This is horseradish. Truthfully, “inside baseball” would be a more common saying, but I love the Yiddish version of it much more and I love horseradish too. I recognize that a lot of Canadians will struggle in recognizing why we are having this prolonged debate on redistribution, so I want to make the point here, because I do believe it is important.

We do these redistributions every 10 years, essentially, and we have been doing them basically since our country was founded in 1867. When I went back through all the Parliaments in the past, I saw that in two Parliaments there was a reduction in the number of seats between one election to the next, in three Parliaments there were an equal number of changes and in 20 Parliaments there was an increase in the number of seats. I want to note some of them.

The first Parliament in which there was a reduction of seats was the Parliament in 1892. In 1892, the redistribution actually reduced seats for three different provinces. That reduction happened to Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The three Parliaments in which there would be an equal number of seats at the next election were 1903, 1933 and 1999.

Parliament has been growing as well. We are sitting in a new chamber as the Centre Block is being renovated, being taken apart and updated for the 21st century in order for us to keep doing our work on behalf of constituents. We have grown a lot.

We had 181 seats at the start of Confederation in 1867, and our parliament has grown to 338 members. With this change to the law, we were set to go to 342 members, but we will actually be going to 343 members if this legislation passes and receives the Governor General's assent. The last major changes I saw were in 1966, when the Parliament went down one seat and there were significant changes all around. In that redistribution, Quebec lost a seat, Nova Scotia lost a seat, Manitoba lost a seat and Saskatchewan actually lost four seats.

That was the last redistribution I could find in which there was a loss of seats to the provinces until 1999. In 1999 there was a seat lost for the Northwest Territories, but that is because it was being split. That does not really count as a loss, because we just split the territory in two and afforded effective representation for Nunavut. I think that is entirely fair. I have never heard anybody complain about that, as they needed their own member of Parliament to represent them properly in this Parliament.

I wanted to bring that here because I wanted to make sure that people understand that this House has continued to grow as our population has grown. We compare ourselves to other chambers all across the world, but I do not think that is an effective comparison. I also do not believe that it is a fair comparison. Often we are compared to the Americans and to the mother Parliament in the United Kingdom. Those are unfair comparisons that we make. This is Canada, and we make the determination of how many seats are needed and how many members of Parliament are needed for us to do our work effectively on behalf of our constituents.

I also want to say that I am a regular reader of The Hub, which is an Ontario-based political dialogue podcast. It also sends out a morning jolt. There was an article this morning by Mark Johnson, who is a former Conservative candidate. He spoke of an idea I have heard quite often, which is that we have enough MPs in this House and that we could not possibly fit any more into this House. I was just looking at the chamber layout; we have seven empty seats in here, so if this change passes and we add five new seats, we can accommodate those five members of Parliament without having to change anything here.

I have probably said this before during the Standing Orders debate: I would be more than fine to move toward the benches model that they have in the United Kingdom. Then we would have more than enough seats for all the members of Parliament to do the work they need to do in this House.

Redistribution, every time it is done, draws its critics. I remember that back in 2011, the Stephen Harper government, the government at the time, had to propose legislation twice before it was able to pass it eventually at the very end of 2011. It was then called the Fair Representation Act. In the current legislation, I see the formula remaining the same and preserving the legacy of Stephen Harper. I know the Liberal government will find itself in the difficult position of preserving the legacy of Stephen Harper in this legislation, as it should.

Density will always keep growing in urban areas. That is a fact of life. That is a reality that Canada and other industrialized nations have experienced for well over 100 years now. There will always be a tension between cities that are growing and need more representation as they grow in population size, versus the regions where increasingly large rural ridings are becoming more and more difficult for members of Parliament to represent because of highway connections and the increasing number of mayors and city councillors and local events members need to go to There are Legion halls to attend and local housing affordability task forces that are created.

These are all the difficulties between urban representation versus rural representation. One is not better than the other; there are just different tensions and different difficulties that every single member of Parliament needs to meet.

In this redistribution that is posted online on Elections Canada's website, there is a quotient that says that the average that Elections Canada uses in calculating redistribution is 121,891.

As I said before, there are over 170,000 people in my riding, and my riding continues to grow. There are still communities being built, just like in the riding of Calgary Rocky Ridge, which is diagonally opposed to mine on the other side of the city of Calgary. It continues to grow as new suburbs and subdivisions continue to be built. That is the case for a lot of my colleagues. We live in growing communities. There are members for British Columbia and Ontario who experience these exact points.

This takes me to another point I want to make. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, moved 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. There was a lone voice in the House that rejected this.

I note that the substance and principle of that idea is inside the Bill C-14 legislation that has been moved. I like to tell constituents back home, as well as my colleagues, that all unanimous consent motions have an impact, whether they are agreed to or not. Some of them make the news and some of them make waves, but they all obviously have an impact. It seems that the minister perhaps took note of that and decided to do it.

I want to talk about the percentages in this redistribution, because Alberta and Albertans would be gaining the most seats of any province in Confederation. We would be gaining three seats in this redistribution, which would take us from 34 seats to 37 seats. This is great news for Alberta. We have been trying to get much closer to representation by population, or as close as we can get to it. In this redistribution, by my count we would have 10.7% of the seats while we have about 11.6% of the population. British Columbia, for example, would have 12.5% of the seats and 13.68% of the population.

We are moving in the right direction. Ten years from now, at the next redistribution debate, the MPs who will be there will have to create a brand new formula to increasingly adjust for the rapidly growing populations in the three fast-growing provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. Perhaps there will be a new province. Perhaps the great province of Manitoba will start to grow at a pace where we should adjust its representation count then. I hope that happens, and I hope they elect a massive number of Conservative members to the House so we can represent them really well in a strong majority national Conservative government, when we earn the right to govern some day.

I also want to talk about Ontario. By my count, with the redistribution Ontario would have 35.5% of the seats and a population size of about 38.9%. Ontario continues to be under-represented, but it is also the province with the most representation in the House, as it was at the very beginning of Confederation.

I will also note that, if this legislation passes, the province of Quebec would continue to have and enjoy a demographic weight equal or proportional to its size in the House of Commons, with 22.7% of the seats to 22.5% of the population. It has it just about right. In fact, the representation rule, created back in 2011 in the Fair Representation Act, ensures that any province that was about to lose any seats would then be apportioned based on the percentage of its population in Canada.

Canada is a fast-growing country, and that rule was introduced equally to all provinces. It would apply to any province in a redistribution to make sure it always had that percentage representation in Canada.

That is why I like this legislation. There is a lot to like for Albertans. We would be banking our seats. We would be gaining the most seats of any province in Canada, and getting closer to that representation by population that I, as a westerner and especially a prairie Canadian, really like to see, because Alberta is a fast-growing province. We are expected to reach that point of getting over five million people within the next decade. I want to make sure my province is well represented here and that we continue to represent it properly by having enough people.

I think all of us will recognize that, over the past four months, representation has been made much more difficult. It has been much tougher to get back to the thousands of emails and hundreds of phone calls we have been receiving. Everybody wants to hear from their member of Parliament. They do not want to hear from a staff member. They do not want to get a stock email. They want that personal, authentic touch point. They want to hear directly from the person they voted for, or voted against, in order to hear their views and opinions, and to talk to the person who represents them in the people's chamber: in the House of Commons. That is entirely fair.

On October 29, I wrote a Substack. I have a Substack newsletter that I send to about 8,500 people in my riding who subscribe to it. I wrote that, should the Liberal government propose to Parliament any changes to the apportioning of seats, away from the Harper 2011 formula, I would make the case for apportioning seats to representation by population for every province in Confederation.

There is the rep-by-pop idea, which I started speaking about, and the Supreme Court decision rendered in 1991 that talked about effective representation, when we do not have a direct one-person, one-vote system. We believe in effective representation, but we strive for representation by population. The percentage of a province's population in Canada should be closely reflected in the number of seats it gets in the House of Commons. I wanted to keep my promise to my constituents and make sure that I raised that issue in the House on their behalf, as I said I would.

Representation by population would ensure that, by my count, Alberta would get an extra three seats, British Columbia would get another four seats and Ontario would get about an extra 10 seats. This is obviously on top of the current ones that are going to be apportioned to them. That would bring us closer and would update that rule, so that the three fastest-growing provinces would be much closer to representation by population.

That is not in this legislation, but despite that, I wanted to make the point that in the future, when members of Parliament look at redistribution again, in perhaps just under 10 years, they will look back at debates, as I did. I looked back at debates from 2011, and I noticed that a few Liberal MPs, who later became cabinet ministers, noted that perhaps we should get rid of the grandfather clause.

Actually, one MP was a former professor from Montreal: Stéphane Dion mentioned it during those debates in 2011. I read those debates because I think that is where we get the most information from. What were people thinking when they passed that legislation?

Again, in 2011, the Stephen Harper government added 30 seats to the House. It was one of the largest redistribution increases ever made, to bring us on the path to ensuring we had that representation by population. It was getting closer to that ideal that many of us in the west, and in Pacific Canada as well, see as the right way of representing constituencies, recognizing that the Supreme Court in 1991 talked about effective representation.

I wanted to make sure I mentioned that, because I told constituents that I would indeed do that, as well.

The issue of under-representation will continue in this country. That is just a fact of life. In five years, even if we added seats today, people would still be complaining about being under-represented because of population movements. People vote with their feet the most. That is how people decide where they want to live and where they want to raise families, where they want to put down deep roots in a community, and where, eventually, they want to be buried and have their future grandchildren live, work, play and contribute to their local communities. People vote with their feet, at the end of the day. There is an entire realm of activities people do before elections to participate in the civic process.

The last point that I will make on the civic process is that the electoral boundaries commissions are the way in the country that we can get involved in the electoral boundaries process. Anybody can get involved and send in information on what they think boundary redistribution should look like for their area, and whether municipalities should be added or removed. I also bring up this fact because there are only three people on these boundaries commissions who make these decisions. People can remind them of difficulties.

If we draw a boundary where there is no easy highway access, how is a member of Parliament supposed to represent the area if they have to, say, do a two-hour detour in order to get to a community? If we are going to only look at population and we have a riding that is about four streets by 12 blocks, that is also difficult to represent if we are going up and down condo towers all the time. There will be very few community events, but maybe we will have an extremely high population size that will lead to hundreds of emails a week.

Before January, I remember that I was getting about, as I calculated, 65 unique emails a day. There was a point during the Emergencies Act, when the government invoked it, that I was getting about 1,000 emails a day from constituents for almost 10 days. I checked, and they were from constituents in the riding. That is an incredible volume of correspondence that I had to get to. It has changed. Email is much easier than it used to be.

I like this legislation. This is legislation I can vote for. I believe that a government that legislates the least damages the population the least. I am a minimalist when it comes to these things. This is the least bad option I can see the government could have moved forward to. For Albertans, it preserves the three seats of weight-gaining in this redistribution, and this is Stephen Harper's Conservative government legacy.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I thank our colleague for Calgary Shepard for his thoughtful presentation. I agree with much of what he said, particularly around the importance of effective representation. Also, regarding people participating in the electoral boundary redistribution process by making presentations, and community groups and municipal leaders taking advantage of public participation with the commissions, I agree with him on that.

I thank him for his willingness to support this legislation and send it to committee. I hope we can work collaboratively.

We deliberately designed, as I said in answer to a question from another colleague, and maybe in this case I agree with him also on the importance of minimalist legislation, something that surgically respects what all members want in relation to a grandfather clause that does not see a loss of seats for any province, so I hope we can work collaboratively on this.

Perhaps I can ask my colleague a question quickly. He talked about effective representation and the importance of big ridings, such as he has. Would he be in favour of potentially increasing resources to members of Parliament to better serve their constituents in the face of those increasing demands as well?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I hope the minister does not agree with me too much publicly, because I still have a caucus to go back to. If members see that the minister agrees, I do not think I will make it out of the caucus meeting in one piece.

I want to recognize the minister for also providing me with a briefing session with Privy Council experts on this piece of legislation, and for the fact that he basically took the unanimous consent motion moved by the deputy leader of the Conservative Party.

I would support more resources for members of Parliament. There is already a system in place for those of us who have very large ridings or large population increases. I would love to hire more people and more interns to serve my constituents.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Calgary Shepard said some interesting things in his speech, in particular that this makes sense.

What does not make sense is the pattern of institutionalization of the francophone minority, in particular Quebec, that we have seen since Quebec, formerly known as Lower Canada, was integrated into the Canadian Confederation. Back in 1867, Quebec's representation was 36%, but today that figure is just 22%.

There is another thing that makes perfect sense. In the Charlottetown accord that was proposed in 1992, the Progressive Conservative Party gave the Quebec nation 25% of the seats, even though its demographic weight had declined. In 2006, the Harper government recognized the Quebec nation.

Does my colleague agree that the Quebec nation should always retain 25% of the seats in the House, regardless of its demographics?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question.

As a francophile from Alberta, my answer to his question would be no, because our country's population is represented proportionally. I remind him that there was a referendum in 1992 and that Canadians voted against this. Furthermore, 58% of Quebeckers voted against the Charlottetown accord, even though it contained this provision to allocate 25% of the seats to the province of Quebec.

We are a bicultural country with two official languages, French and English, and I think that the demographic weight is protected in this legislation.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised to hear that someone read the speeches members gave 10 years ago to find out what people thought of the legislative review.

I disagree with what my colleague said about how the system is based exclusively on the proportional representation of the population, because our system functions by exception, with those exceptions being the senatorial clause, the territorial clause for the three northern territories, and the grandfather clause for certain provinces.

Why then do we not come up with a clause to recognize the weight of the Quebec nation in Parliament? Why is my colleague dismissing that idea out of hand when his government is the one that passed a motion in the House to recognize Quebec as a nation?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the government member for his question. I simply want to remind him that I am not the one who said that. Fifty-eight percent of Quebeckers voted against that in the referendum on the Charlottetown accord in 1992.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Calgary Shepard for the incredible work he has done. It is not a surprise, as he is somebody who dives right into whatever file he has.

I have a question for him, and I apologize if it was already brought up, as I am doing my House duty from the beautiful riding of Cariboo—Prince George.

Does this bill respect the constitutional right to representation by population? I am in one of the largest ridings, at 84,000 square kilometres, and I am proud to represent this riding. I would like to hear my hon. colleague's comment on that.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, I believe this is entirely constitutional. It preserves the idea of effective representation in our country, and it kind of looks to the past this time. It takes the representation formula of 2011 to its logical conclusion, which is basically an increase of 34 seats and preserving one seat for a single province that is about to lose one. The total number of seats the Harper legacy added to this chamber will be 35 in the end. It is entirely constitutional.

Again, a banking of seats would be done in Bill C-14, with the addition of seats so we can get closer to representation by population, which is a philosophical ideal that we should adhere to. The Supreme Court said “effective representation”, and that would be preserved through the electoral boundaries commission process.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciated the comments made by the member with regard to the differentiation between urban and rural, because there is a significant difference in the type of representation there.

I am wondering if the member can expand on this. Is he trying to say between the lines that it should be a smaller percentage of population in rural areas than in the bigger urban areas? Is that what he is trying to indirectly imply?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, there is already a rule that the boundaries commission uses. It can either increase by 25% or decrease by 25% when it is making the final determination on what the map should look like.

I will raise this interesting point. Many of my rural colleagues have schools in their ridings. I did not have a high school in my riding until just a few years ago, which would be shocking for most people to realize. I now have one high school in my entire riding of 170,000-plus constituents, residents, who live there, but I know that my colleagues in the rural regions sometimes have four, five, six or seven high schools because they happen to represent several municipalities where they have regional feeder schools, basically. Others will have perhaps five, six or seven legion halls. I do not have a single legion hall in my entire riding. I had one that closed down before I even became a member of Parliament.

I also only have one cenotaph in my riding. I have seen the schedules for some members on Remembrance Day, and they have two or three days of Remembrance Day ceremonies to go to as they travel their entire ridings to make sure they attend as many of these cenotaph Remembrance Day memorials as they can. That is one way to talk about effective representation.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, from what I gather, my colleague agrees with this motion. That is obvious since Alberta is getting four seats. I guess I would be happy too if Quebec were getting four more seats.

[Some hon. members]

It is three seats.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

It does not really matter whether it is three or four. It is still more seats.

We are going to remain at 78 seats. Let us be frank. This bill reduces Quebec's political weight. I would appreciate it if my colleague from Victoriaville would let me—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I see that some members who do not have the floor have decided to join in the discussion, but I would ask them to wait their turn.

The hon. member for Longueuil–Saint-Hubert may ask a quick question.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, in 2010 the Conservatives introduced a bill that diminished Quebec's political weight. The National Assembly, which at that time included the very Liberal former premier Jean Charest, unanimously adopted the following motion:

That the National Assembly reaffirms that Québec, as a nation, must be able to enjoy special protection for the weight of its representation in the House of Commons;

That the National Assembly asks the elected Members from all political parties [in Ottawa] to abandon the passage of any bill whose effect would be to diminish the weight of the representation of Québec in the House of Commons.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I wish I could provide a much longer response, but I do not have enough time.

This was done by Stephen Harper's government in 2011. It added the representation rule that applies to any province that would lose seats in the House. The rule applied only to the province of Quebec.

As a result, Quebec received three additional seats in Parliament after 2011, so I think the demographic and political weight was maintained in 2011.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would seek the consent of the House to share my time.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to split his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the outstanding member for Timmins—James Bay.

I am pleased to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C‑14 in the House today. I take pride in it because of the negotiations that the NDP, my party, conducted with the Liberal minority government. This is one of our very tangible wins, a victory we achieved by negotiating and getting things for people. In this case, it is a net gain for Quebec and Quebeckers.

That is not all we gained from the agreements. I could go on at length about dental care, prescription drug costs and housing, but Quebec was in danger of losing seats because of a mathematical calculation and dropping from 78 to 77 seats.

There was a consensus in Quebec that, at the very least, we had to hang on to all the seats we have, so that is what the NDP got. By applying pressure and negotiating, we protected Quebec's 78 seats for good. I am very happy about that, and it is one of the good things we achieved thanks to this agreement. The NDP achieved a significant victory for Quebec.

Could we do more? Obviously, we can discuss that at some point, but for now we are not losing any seats, and that is thanks to the NDP. I am not sure if everyone is aware, but I wanted to point that out, because the agreement is quite long. It is three pages long, and that was the last item on the third page, so it meant reading the document to the end, and I am not sure everyone did that. Representation in this Parliament is very important to us and to Quebec in general.

Any discussion about democratic rules is an important debate to have. As parliamentarians, as representatives of the people, we must be fully engaged in these discussions, because this has implications for the vitality of our democratic life, the ground rules, and the justice and fairness ensuing from those rules.

In these troubled times, especially in eastern Europe, it is important to remember how vital democracy is. I would like to commend the courage of all the democrats in Russia who dare to protest the war and who oppose President Putin's autocracy.

When establishing the rules of democracy, it is important to remember that these rules must respect what used to be called, at the time, popular sovereignty, that is, the fact that it is the expression of citizens' choice to send people to represent them, with opinions, political agendas and ideologies, and that all these citizens are considered to be equal. That is the fundamental principle of democracy. Unlike an aristocracy, there is no individual who is above any other, who is appointed by God or who has greater powers than others. All citizens are equal, and that is how we start the discussion on democracy.

Are we all as equal as we think under the first past the post system? I will come back to that. There may be an opportunity to have that discussion.

In a federation, there is more than just the rule of the size and weight of the population. We have set other equally important rules. I will name a few of them because it is important to bear them in mind when having these discussions.

Another rule is the senatorial clause, which states that a province cannot have fewer MPs than senators. It could be called the “P.E.I. clause” for those four MPs.

The territorial clause is also quite easy to understand. It ensures that each of the northern territories has an MP, meaning one for Yukon, one for the Northwest Territories, and now one for Nunavut. Although their demographic weight may not justify it under Elections Canada's rules, it is important and essential to keep it that way.

Lastly, the grandfather clause guaranteed that certain provinces were protected and could not have their number of seats reduced. That is where Bill C‑14 makes a difference.

Quebec will be included in this grandfather clause, as will all the other provinces. For now, this protects Quebec, which was the only province at risk of losing a seat under the current redistribution. This measure will serve Quebec in the very short term, but also in future. We are pleased to see that, following the agreement we negotiated, a bill was quickly introduced to uphold this aspect of the agreement.

We have to ask ourselves if we can go further, and I know there have been discussions. Not so long ago, I had the opportunity to deliver a speech on Bill C‑246, which would maintain Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons at a certain percentage.

This is not a new idea; it was included in the Charlottetown accord that Mulroney's federal government negotiated with the Bourassa government in Quebec. The accord was not adopted, however, so it was not implemented, but the idea has been brought up again.

I think there should be some serious discussions on the possibility of another interpretive clause, a Quebec clause. Since Parliament has recognized Quebec as a nation, this clause could be included in order to protect Quebec's democratic weight in the House of Commons.

Furthermore, the House recognized that Quebec is a nation, and the NDP recognized it as well, in its support for the Charlottetown accord at the time, in its Sherbrooke declaration, in its internal documents and, obviously, in its votes in the House. There is this idea of formally recognizing the concept of two founding peoples, which helped create the vision and perception of a bicultural, bilingual federation. That is one of the reasons we still have the Official Languages Act. It is in keeping with that idea.

I must admit that I always feel a little uneasy talking about two founding peoples because this disregards the fact that the first nations and indigenous peoples were already here. Our French and British ancestors were not the first to set foot on this land. There had already been people, nations, communities and cultures here for millennia.

In our discussions of the quality of democratic life and the representation of peoples and nations in the House, I think that we should also take into account the place of the first nations, Inuit and Métis. Other countries do that. I think either Australia or New Zealand does it, probably New Zealand. Perhaps this should be part of our discussion.

Furthermore, in the interest of strengthening our democracy and upholding the equality of our citizens, we should really be discussing proportional representation. Unfortunately, this subject was dismissed by the Liberal government in 2016 when it buried the majority report of the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, of which I was a member. We are one of the few countries in the world without a proportional component to our voting system.

If we had proportional representation, the representation of political movements and parties would be based on a very simple rule: if a party gets 25% of the vote, it should get 25% of the seats. The winner-takes-all nature of the current system creates unacceptable distortions, because a party that wins just 40% of the vote can get 60% or 65% of the seats. That means that the majority who disagreed with the government end up in the opposition, and the government can do pretty much whatever it wants for four years.

We must therefore remember to consider the possibility of proportional voting, as well as the other elements of the agreement that the NDP negotiated to facilitate access to the vote, such as on-campus polling stations, the ability to vote at one of several polling stations on election day, and multi-day voting periods for general elections. These are other measures we should discuss in the future.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like pick up on something the member made reference to. At the very end of his speech, he started talking about the different potential changes we have seen. For example, in the last federal election, we had more engagement with mail-in ballots. When we talk about electoral changes going forward, there are some very important aspects of Elections Canada and the way we implement things to make sure that our elections are fair, effective and engaging.

I am wondering if the member would provide some additional thoughts in regard to voter empowerment and how we can see a higher percentage of people going out to vote.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

It is true, there is still much work to do on this bill. There are still many things that need to be improved in order to make it easier to vote. We could, for example, make it easier to vote by mail and count the votes more rapidly.

Unfortunately, in the last general election, there were no polling stations on university campuses. We know that young people are the least likely to vote during elections, and students are part of that population. Depriving them of access to polling stations on campus had a serious adverse impact. We will have to talk about this. If someone does not know exactly where to go to vote on election day, the ability to go to one of several different polling stations in the same riding without being turned away would facilitate voting.

I think that all of the political parties want to improve our democratic vitality.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Quebec for his speech.

Once again, I would like to take the opportunity to ask a question of the hon. member regarding the importance of ensuring that our rural communities and small towns also maintain proper representation in the House because, obviously, we represent, in these types of communities and small areas, a lot of the GDP. It is where a lot of Canadians' food and resources are developed, grown and sent to market.

With all of our deliberations, and as we make sure that the population is properly represented and distributed in the House, we want to also ensure that the voices of rural Canadians are represented as well. Does he have any thoughts on that matter?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

An urban-rural balance is important. My colleague probably knows that I represent a very urban, densely populated riding, with a population of about 110,000 packed into just 11 square kilometres.

I think that it is important that the electoral boundaries commission's calculations allow for some deviation from the average, so that a riding with a population 20% or 25% lower than the average can still be represented by a member in the House. This would make it possible to account for rural realities in Quebec and Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I enjoyed my colleague's speech, despite our fundamental disagreements. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie explained how an opposition party can achieve gains in a parliamentary system. We do not agree that the bill before us is one of those ways. In fact, even if Quebec keeps the same number of seats, if its weight declines, it declines. That is what people need to realize, and it is important to mention it.

My question to the hon. member will be two-pronged.

First, the Bloc Québécois tabled a bill that would maintain the number of seats in Quebec at 25% of the total at all times. Will my colleague be voting in favour of the bill?

Also, the Bloc Québécois believes that the only way to really maintain our weight over time is if we are able to make all of our own decisions and place all powers in the hands of the only parliament where the Quebec nation holds 100% of the seats. We call that independence. The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite was once in favour of independence. How does he feel about it today?

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his question.

I would remind him that, to achieve sovereignty, he should get himself elected to Quebec's National Assembly, if that is really what he wants.

For now, here, we are trying to defend Quebec and, above all, Quebeckers. I think that the NDP has represented Quebec by keeping Quebec from losing a seat. That is a victory.

With respect to the Bloc Québécois's bill, I would invite my colleague to listen to my speech. He will find all sorts of interesting information in it.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to be taking part in this debate as the representative for the great riding of Timmins—James Bay.

This morning's discussions are very important, because we are talking about the principles of Canadian democracy. The principle of Canadian democracy is based on the need to maintain a balance between individual and collective rights, as well as on respect for Canada's regional differences. This is crucial, and it is especially essential that we respect the unique contributions of Canada's francophone communities.

I represent the great riding of Timmins—James Bay in northern Ontario, and the Franco-Ontarian community has fought very hard for language rights and access to services in French. In Timmins, I have seen the power of the francophone identity at work, developing the entire region while working with anglophones and indigenous communities. For me, that is a symbol of our country's power.

I want to speak this morning on the importance of the bill before us and the reason the New Democratic Party pushed the government in negotiations to maintain the seats in Quebec. It is about a larger principle that we have.

We often talk about representation by population and the right of citizens to be represented, but we know that Canada would not work this way, because we have certain regions that have much larger populations than others. Historically, the compromise that Confederation was built on was respecting that, if we were going to come together, certain smaller regions, for example, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, would be able to maintain their presence with their number of seats.

[An hon. member]

And Newfoundland and Labrador.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, as my good colleague says, there is also Newfoundland and Labrador. I should never have left them out. They were the last to the game but brought the best with them.

However, the issue of Quebec is also really important because this is the francophone heartland of North America. They not only have that right as one of the founding nations but it is important to understand that, as the rest of the country grows and develops, and Quebec continues to grow and develop, maintaining that traditional balance is really fundamental.

Representation by population is a principle in Canada, but when we look at the differences in population size, we are dealing with very divergent realities in Canada. For example, in Manitoba, the average riding has about 70,000 people. In New Brunswick, it is about 50,000 to 80,000. In Labrador, it is 26,000 people. Western Arctic has 41,000, and Nunavut has 21,000.

If we say that, because Mississauga—Erindale has a population of 143,361, Nunavut should not have its own separate identity in Parliament, or that Yukon with its 30,000 people should not have a weighted balance, it would, of course, be unacceptable. The issues in the Yukon are fundamentally different from other regions. It is the same thing with Quebec. We need to say that there has to be a balance. We have to have that fundamental principle that we based this nation on.

Of course, we talked about the two founding peoples, which completely ignored the people who were already here. We do need to address the fact that, in our Parliament and in our nation, we have not respected the rights of the original people, and that to have a truly democratic society, we will need to have a much more fulsome revision of how we see our nation based on the rights of the first people and their treaty rights being heard in a much more diverse, democratic form. However, that does not take away the right of Quebec and the francophone community to have a strong presence maintained and supported, and we are sending the message that we recognize this.

One of the principles that we based the democratic representation by population on was sort of representation by population by region. There is this principle that, by region, we are not supposed to have more than a 25% divergence in population, as that would somehow be unfair.

That might work in Manitoba. That might work in New Brunswick. The big failure, of course, is Ontario. Again, there are ridings of 140,000 people down in the suburban belt around Toronto, but in Kenora there is 64,000 people. That is a riding that is bigger than most European countries. My region of Timmins—James Bay is bigger than France and Germany. It is easier for someone in Toronto to fly to Portugal for the weekend than it is for one of my constituents in Peawanuck to fly down to meet me at my office in Timmins.

Those are democratic deficits that have to be recognized. In seat redistribution in Ontario, if we say it is fair to add more seats into Mississauga and more seats into Etobicoke because that is where the population is growing, and that we will take those seats from far northern regions and make them bigger, at a certain point these ridings become unworkable for democratic access. If anybody wants a lesson in this, they could just ask the Speaker in her off time about what she has to travel to represent all her communities. It is a fundamental right of a Canadian citizen to be able to speak to their member of Parliament and get services.

We do know that much of the work that used to be done by the federal government has been devolved to our offices as MPs. We are the immigration service. We are the pension service. For people who are in regions that are so big that it is impossible to access their MP's office or who may only get there once a year, those people are actually facing more of a democratic deficit than others. For example, when I lived in downtown Toronto, I could walk 15 minutes to two different MP offices. That is a huge fundamental difference.

We have an ongoing debate and discussion about democracy in Canada. I would like to say that democracy is not finished business; it is unfinished business. It will change. We have to encourage more diversity. We are not a diverse House yet, yet our nation is increasingly diverse. We have to find ways to make it more diverse. We have to recognize the strengths of rural, isolated northern regions and maintain what democratic access they have, while understanding that urban centres are growing at an explosive rate and understanding that in Canada we have a diversity of languages, which has made us much stronger, but that we were founded on the principle that there was going to be this accord between the anglophone and the francophone communities. That right to bilingual service is important.

As a Franco-Ontarian the Speaker knows this much better than me, but in my region young anglo families want to send their children to the French schools. The growth of the francophone services in the north, to me, is a sign that we are growing in a diverse way and we are building on the fundamental strengths of our nation. We have to add to that strength. The rights of the indigenous communities have been long ignored, but we are seeing transformation there as well.

One of the things that they told us, when Parliament was first formed, was that some of this regional balance would be handled by the Senate. Of course, we were told that the Senate would be this representation for regions. We have Mike Duffy, the famous senator from come-from-away. I do not know when the last time was he ever stepped foot on Prince Edward Island. The two most famous fictional characters on Prince Edward Island are Anne of Green Gables and Mike Duffy, but he got a paycheque and he is there until he is 75.

I would not say that just because someone flipped pancakes at Liberal fundraising breakfasters or was a bagman for the Conservatives they should be in the Senate, but that is supposedly the historical compromise that we created to let them hang out forever and never get fired. We cannot get rid of them. God almighty, look at Pamela Wallin. We are paying those paycheques. To me, that is not democratic.

We have a real opportunity and a necessity in this place to debate how we make more representation, more diverse representation and more democratic representation.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague gave a very interesting speech. However, his party voted in favour of the motion that was debated on a previous supply day that read in part, and I quote:

...

(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;

....

He cannot be happy that, today, Bill C-14 meets and delivers on only one of the conditions he voted for. If he recognizes Quebec as a nation, he will agree with us and vote in favour of our bill, which will ensure that the Quebec nation's political weight is maintained by allocating 25% of the seats in the House to Quebec.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Obviously, Madam Speaker. I thank my colleague for that great question.

I also appreciate the Bloc Québécois acknowledging the good work the NDP has done to protect their participation in Parliament. That is the result of our negotiations with the Liberal Party.

Yes, we are very proud that we were the ones who said that we were not going to cut any Quebec seats. As for other options my colleague is talking about, he can bring those issues forward. We would be more than happy to look at them.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member briefly talked about rural representation and the fact he was able to reach two members of Parliament in one of Canada's major cities, but representation by population was part of the great debates of Confederation from Robert Baldwin and Louis-Hippolyte LaFontaine. Their statues are right here on Parliament Hill.

That debate, in colonial Parliament, is basically the debate of Confederation. The first part of that debate was about who is responsible to whom. The cabinet is responsible to the House of Commons. The second part was about how the House of Commons is created and who gets to sit here, because originally it was basically a duality between eastern Canada and Upper and Lower Canada.

I wonder if the member may be able to talk more about higher principles that should apply here to the type of representation we need in this chamber. As the three fastest growing provinces gain population, they should receive more members of Parliament, because there is a variety of views from those provinces, and those views should be represented as much as possible, proportionately, here in this chamber.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question.

When we look back on those early debates around Confederation, one of the things that has transformed, now that we have the three territories and the 10 provinces, is that the power has been devolved to the provinces. It is much greater than anyone at that time would have imagined.

It is within the provinces that 80% or 90% of one's engagement with government happens, so the provinces are very strongly represented, in terms of their rights and in terms of how we sit as a federation of various regions. This is an important discussion, and certainly populations are growing in a number of the provinces, but we have fundamental obligations to protect.

I know many people wonder why in God's name Prince Edward Island has so many seats when its population is smaller than the city of Sudbury, but I was not there to sign the original Confederation, so I accept the results. The difference with Quebec is that it is a francophone centre of identity. It is not just a province, and we have recognized in Parliament, including under Stephen Harper, that it is a nation within Canada.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a very simple math question.

How can going from a little over 23% to a little over 22% be described as a gain?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc was upset it was going to lose a seat, and the NDP protected that seat. I think that is a pretty simple thing.

If Bloc members have other plans, they can come to us and we can negotiate on their behalf with the Liberals, but since they just want to sit on the sidelines, I do not know whether they are bringing forward anything or they are just upset, but if they need any help, they can just call us.

We defended that seat; we will defend other rights too.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, with regard to the NDP’s help, Quebec tried in 2011 and elected 59 NDP members. Today there is only one left, and that is enough. I would therefore thank my colleague for his suggestion.

When I began teaching at André-Laurendeau CEGEP in 1993—I am showing my age—I was an economics teacher in the social sciences department. Once, we were discussing which of the sciences was the most important, and an economist, who was far older than I was, said something that struck me. He said that he believed that demographics was more important than most people thought.

My father used to tell me that, if I wanted to understand something today, I had to know about history and the past. Today, I will try to explain things by referring to the past, and I will try to explain why Quebec is in the situation it is today and why demographics works against it. In other words, numerical strength is what most matters in history and in the history of peoples.

Let us start at the beginning. In 1759, the French were defeated on the Plains of Abraham. People wonder why Quebeckers are different from other Canadians, arguing that everyone is the same. Here is the first difference: Quebec’s history books talk about the defeat on the Plains of Abraham. The history books of the vast majority of members in the House talk about the victory on the Plains of Abraham.

When we lost the battle on the Plains of Abraham, there were 65,000 francophones on the territory, not just in Quebec, but across North America. However, there were more than one million anglophones. We were therefore doomed to disappear; we were a people under threat.

Some of the French returned to France, including prominent figures and people in important positions. Those who remained were defenceless and had no political or economic power. The French who left, even if they said they loved those they were leaving, were certain that a few years later no one would be speaking French in North America. We were therefore doomed to disappear. However, here we are, still speaking French today, and we are extremely proud of that.

Now let us take a good look at why we are still speaking French.

The first reason is the revanche des berceaux, the baby boom in Quebec. We were great at making babies, and we had lots of them. To understand why we were so productive, we have to go back to 1665 and Jean Talon, who understood the strength in numbers; since there were not enough of us, he told us to make babies.

I do hope the Quebec government will not adopt that idea and promote the same pro-birth policy, but it is worth saying that people got a cash bonus for their 10th child, a larger bonus for their 12th, and free education for their 26th. Parents did not know all their children and used name tags to keep their names straight.

The concept of a large family therefore became part of our culture, and we were by far the best in the world at it. It allowed us to change our destiny and resist assimilation.

In 1837 and 1838, during the patriots' rebellions, the anglophones who had barred us from political and economic power of course found us irritating. They asked Lord Durham what they should do with us, because they were concerned and had not seen us coming.

Lord Durham analyzed the situation and decreed that the problem was simple and that it was war between francophones and anglophones. That was not necessarily the case, since there were also patriots in Upper Canada. However, that is how he saw the situation. He very amiably said that we were a people without a culture and without a history, and that our salvation—because Lord Durham was a great humanist—was assimilation.

Not in so many words, he recognized the strength in numbers and saw that francophones had to become as small a minority as possible. Numerical strength would get the better of this odd people, because no one understood what was going on with us.

Then came 1867. The creation of Canada as we know it was the destiny predicted by Lord Durham. It institutionalized our minority status. Before that, we were the majority. However, the anglophones thought that, since francophones made up the majority, there should be equal representation of Canada East and Canada West. That way, the francophones would not have more political power than the anglophones.

When francophones became the minority, the anglophones remembered Lord Durham and decided it was time to rely on numerical strength. Consequently, when Canada was created in 1867, our political power dropped to 36%. That is the important thing to remember: Numerical strength is tied to political power. If we leave things as they are, our political power will dissipate into nothing. That is what I am getting at.

From that point on, despite fighting tooth and nail and demonstrating incredible resilience, francophones outside Quebec saw their population become anglicized and their presence and political weight diminish, and they had to fight for essential services in their language. It happened again recently. There are lessons to be learned from history. We saw what happened last week in British Columbia. Franco-Columbians wanted services in French, notably education services, and they moved heaven and earth for their cause. They even fought the federal government.

When the French left in 1759, they thought we were finished. In 1950, however, Félix Leclerc came on the scene. When the French thought we were all but gone, Félix Leclerc started singing songs about who we are and the fact that we speak French. The French were amazed and wondered how we had done it, how we had managed to survive for 200 years. To them, it seemed like a miracle. Yves Duteil even wrote a song for the people of Quebec, one of the most beautiful French-language songs, which salutes the Quebec resistance and pays tribute to Félix Leclerc by imagining him, in the song, as the swallow.

I would like to read some of the lyrics that show just how exceptional Quebec is:

It's a beautiful language on the other side of the world
A bubble of France in the north of a continent
Held in a vice but still so fruitful
Locked in the ice at the top of a volcano
It built bridges across the Atlantic
It left its home for another land
And like a swallow transported by the spring
It returns to sing of its sorrows and hopes
It tells us that in that far-off country of snow
It faced the winds blowing from all directions
To impose its words even in the schools
And that our own language is still spoken there

Quebeckers' bulwark against extinction came in 1960. Before that, Quebec and francophones were barely getting by. Francophones were thought of as hewers of wood and drawers of water, people with no political weight. They had to speak English to be allowed to work in a factory. They had no economic power.

The Quiet Revolution changed everything. That is when we created an extraordinary tool for our own protection, namely the Quebec state. In 1960, the Quebec state began opening political and economic doors for us. Our culture was already flourishing, but now there was a cultural explosion. From then on, we were able to proudly shout to the world who we were.

The Quebec state is our government. It defends and protects us. That must never be forgotten. I know that when Bloc Québécois members are in the House, our rhetoric concerning the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces can sound harsh. There is a very simple reason for that.

Each time the federal government speaks or takes action, we in the House must make sure that it will not diminish the power of our defensive tool. That is why we are like this. Whenever the federal government proposes something, the way we protect ourselves is to say that, if we do not agree, the government should just send us our money and we will manage our affairs on our own. We do not need the federal government to tell us what we need. There is no one better placed to know what a Quebecker wants than a Quebecker.

Things happen here that could hinder or favour our development, as the case may be, because good things do also happen. We are here to keep an eye out and make sure no one diminishes the political power of our people, our nation. This means rejecting any reduction in the number of seats we get, but we need to go even further. Numerical strength must no longer apply because for us, back home, that is a threat. When I talk about “home”, I mean our home, not here. It is a threat, and that is why numerical strength must be separated from political strength. That is essential.

There were two components to our motion of March 1. First, there must be no decrease in the number of seats. Second, there must be no loss of political power in the House for the Quebec nation. I say “Quebec nation” because, last June, the House recognized that Quebec was a nation with French as its common language. We must continue in this direction, not just with words, but with actions. This is not a distinct society like in the Meech Lake accord, where we were given something to pacify us that meant nothing. We do not want to go there again. The Quebec nation, which is recognized here, is a tool that will allow us to support concrete actions that prevent Quebec from being treated like a province like any other, and instead ensure that it is treated like a unique nation on our planet. That is what we need to do here.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member who just laughed thinks it is funny to hear me say that we are a unique nation. Each nation is unique. What has he just figured out? I would like to know.

We tabled Bill C-246, which would finally solve this aspect of the problem. Quebec would be guaranteed 25% of the political weight. That would halt the decline of Quebec's political weight in the House.

Trying to prevent a decrease in the number of members while allowing for an increase in the total number of members is like drowning someone in a bath. We can take the person's head and shove it under water, or we can turn on the tap and get the same result slowly. That is what we are proposing.

What people need to understand is that Quebec and Quebeckers want to be better represented here. I will give an example. In 2011, Mr. Harper was elected by a majority, without Quebec's support. That is how bizarre things have gotten. It is possible to form a majority government in Canada with only five members from Quebec. That is crazy. Say that our political weight decreases. A member from any given party could stand up and say that he or she does not need what Quebeckers are asking for. Things are different where this member lives because Quebec is a nation, but he or she does not care because it is possible to form a majority government without Quebec's support. That is a serious problem.

People need to understand that Quebec is a nation, and that it is only by guaranteeing its political weight that our needs will be listened to, our desires will be heard, and the decisions made by the government will always take Quebec's desires, wants and needs into account. That is what is important.

I will say this in conclusion. We tabled a motion, and the Bloc Québécois's position is very clearly illustrated in the motion. We are not hiding anything. We are saying that we cannot have fewer members, and we do not want less political power.

That is why we are saying that we should be discussing the bill we worked on, Bill C-246, rather than Bill C-14. Our bill is in keeping with the motion adopted by a large majority in the House.

I hope that the members will understand that we need to go further and we need to work better.

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

Madam Speaker, the province of Quebec today has 78 representatives here in the House of Commons. This legislation would ensure that they will have 78 seats going forward. The member makes reference to the needs and desires of the people of Quebec, and I believe that this legislation meets them. However, I do not believe that it will ever meet the needs of the Bloc Québécois because the Bloc Québécois wants to play a destructive force for the federation. The Bloc Québécois does not see what a vast majority of Canadians and a majority of people in Quebec want. They want to see a strong, healthy government that provides progressive services through things such as health care, interprovincial trade and international trade.

I am wondering if my friend could be honest by telling members of the House that there is nothing we could do that would ultimately appease the Bloc, other than the breaking up of Canada.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will not even thank my colleague for his question, because it is nonsense.

It is nonsense when the parliamentary secretary says that we are not in the House to agree with others. I will answer that I have been the House leader for two and a half years and that it is his government's leader he should be talking to. He should ask him how many times in the past two and a half years my party and I have sat down with them. When it was good for Quebec, we agreed with them.

If he thinks we are not good to them, maybe it is because they are not good to Quebec. Maybe that is the problem. When he says that the Bloc Québécois is destructive when it comes to the government, he is saying that he thinks Quebeckers are destructive.

All the Bloc Québécois does in the House is defend Quebeckers and do what Quebeckers want us to do. When the parliamentary secretary speaks out against the Bloc Québécois, he is speaking out against Quebeckers.

[Richard Bragdon, Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague. Much like me, he appears to appreciate the extremely important role of our country’s rural populations.

I apologize for my French. I really need to practise. I hope I will get better with time.

It is so important to recognize in this discussion around redistribution and proper representation within this chamber that all people from Canada, regardless of where they live or their geography, should feel like their voices are being heard within this chamber.

I wonder if the member would have some comments on the absolute importance of ensuring that our rural communities, small towns and remote areas maintain significant representation in the House because of the tremendous contributions they make regarding the very food we eat and the resources and energies we produce as a country. I know he would appreciate, being from the great province of Quebec, the tremendous amounts that even the rural regions of western Canada and Atlantic Canada have provided in resources and transfer payments to his beloved province. I am sure he would want to make sure they were represented.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his French. I see that he has made an effort and I truly appreciate it.

About what he said after that, of course, people in a democracy should be properly represented. The problem is when you consider a nation or a people as a province.

Quebec has unique needs. Its culture is different, its language is different and it has a different way of looking at the economy, a different way of looking at how we use oil, and a different way of fighting climate change.

These differences must be acknowledged, because Quebec is not a province. Quebec is a nation, and it deserves to be heard.

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

Madam Speaker, I feel like I should remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois is not Quebec as a whole. The Bloc represents hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers, like other political parties, including those in the House, like the NDP.

We took advantage of the government’s minority status to secure gains for Quebeckers, written in black and white in the agreement we negotiated, including a guarantee that Quebec will retain its 78 seats. Is that enough? Could we do more? Of course we can.

However, we were facing a very clear threat, the loss of a seat for Quebec. I know that he would rather have a root canal than admit this, but does my colleague not agree that, this time, it was the NDP that defended Quebec’s interests?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. My colleague says that it is wonderful that the NDP and the Liberals joined forces to get things done. However, does he really think that he represents Quebec when he infringes upon Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions? Quebec does not want anyone to meddle in its affairs, and the only party that is clear on that is the Bloc Québécois, because we listen to Quebeckers, and only Quebeckers.

We do not make compromises. We do not have to discuss with partners, other provinces, in our caucus. The hon. member is the only NDP member from Quebec. When people call Quebeckers racist, he remains silent. There is no compromise. We listen to and represent Quebeckers. We stand up and speak for Quebeckers.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his fascinating and impassioned history lesson. His students must have been riveted.

The Liberal and Conservative parties claim to have recognized the Quebec nation. As long as their recognition is symbolic, there is no problem. However, when it has a legislative impact, they and the NDP balk. That is precisely what is happening in the House.

The motion presented by the Bloc on its opposition day said that we did not want to lose any seats or political weight and that they must be maintained. We tabled a bill well before the supposed NDP agreement, and everyone voted for it except for a few Conservatives.

Could my colleague explain the House's logic and coherence, given that it is prepared to symbolically recognize the Quebec nation but not to attach any legislative meaning to that recognition?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the reason is quite clear. We are dealing with people who love to hear themselves talk. They say that they will throw Quebeckers a bone when they want something, but when it is time to take action, they disappear, nothing happens, and they are gone. They talked the talk but do not walk the walk. That is not what makes a person, politician or party great.

My colleague is correct. When it is time to defend Quebec tooth and nail, only the Bloc can do it.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the bill ensures that Quebec will keep the same number of seats it currently has. Will the hon. member across the aisle support a bill that guarantees the representation of Quebec in the House of Commons?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must thank my colleague and congratulate her on her French. She speaks it very well.

I want to point something out. The word “Quebec” does not appear in Bill C‑14. This bill applies to all of the provinces to prevent them from losing a seat by at least maintaining the status quo for that province.

It is not necessarily a gift for Quebec. Many provinces are threatened by this and so this bill works to their advantage. They might think that Quebec is getting a little treat, but so are they.

However, this is only half a treat for us. The thing that matters most is our political power, which is not guaranteed in the bill. Quebec's political weight will continue to decline, and that is not what we want.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank our leader for giving us a history lesson.

I am surprised that you did not talk about Maurice Richard, since you are a hockey fan.

Let me be clear. In my life, I have often had to negotiate with workers—

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

Order. I would remind the member that she is to address the Chair.

The hon. member can continue.

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

I apologize, Madam Speaker. You often have to call me to order.

I was saying that, in my life, I have often had to negotiate. When people advocated for maintaining the status quo during the negotiation of an agreement, I was able to tell the difference between fact and fiction. To me, when the status quo represents a setback, that makes it difficult to reach an agreement. Resisting and fighting for workers and the people of Quebec means being able to distinguish between a real status quo and a false one.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

They are trying to pull a fast one on us. Let us do the math. Under this bill, in 2023 or 2024, Quebec will lose political weight even if it keeps 78 MPs. That is unacceptable.

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

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to address one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy. We all recognize the importance of representation. In good part, we have a fairly good appreciation of it because we are all elected officials, and we can understand and appreciate the degree it takes to get elected to the House of Commons and all that is involved.

What we are talking about today are our boundaries. Contrary to what we just heard from the Bloc, every 10 years there is a boundary redistribution. When the indications came out about the numbers and the idea that Quebec could actually lose a seat, there was a great deal of concern among Liberal caucus members. There was a great deal of dialogue and an understanding. It did not take much to reach a consensus that we needed to do something about that.

We have heard from the debate thus far, whether it is New Democratic Party members or Conservative Party members, and although we have not heard from any Green Party members yet, I suspect that they also recognize it, that it is so important that we put a guarantee of 78 members for the province of Quebec in the legislation and ultimately for any other province going forward.

Even the province of Manitoba might access what we are attempting to put in today. We do not know what the population will be, but we can hope. I would like to think that on average our population in Manitoba will far exceed the average throughout the rest of Canada, but I cannot guarantee that. No one can. We do not know what the population shifts are going to be over the next number of years. We can speculate.

What provides me a level of comfort is the fact that the House of Commons, from coast to coast to coast, has recognized the importance of establishing that base for many good reasons that have been articulated, whether by the minister responsible or by the other members who have spoken thus far. If we use the province of Quebec as an example, which has really inspired us to bring forward this legislation, we need to recognize the French language and its historic significance here in Canada.

I feel very fortunate being from Winnipeg, where we have a very healthy francophone community in Saint Boniface, Winnipeg and in many rural areas such as St. Pierre Jolys. My family's roots went from Quebec to St. Pierre Jolys to Transcona Yards and, finally, to Winnipeg's north end.

At the end of the day, we have a healthy and vibrant francophone community in the province of Manitoba with, no doubt, members of Parliament, members of the Manitoba legislature and city councillors. In fact, at one point Saint Boniface was a city of its own, but things do change. Populations dictate that we need to take a look at the boundaries. There are special considerations that do need to be looked at. I will use the example of French and the francophone community, which we have recognized in the past through guarantees, such as that for Prince Edward Island that the number of House of Commons seats will never be fewer than what is in the Senate chamber.

We have it in terms of the territories, as was pointed out earlier. We have it in terms of ensuring that there is a base number that has been adjusted to take into consideration what was going to be happening in the province of Quebec, but if this legislation passes, we would address that issue.

I see that as a very strong positive. I would like to think that, if people want to support that idea and ensure we have the base for that, we should receive unanimous consent for this legislation. It will be interesting to see what my friends in the Bloc will do with this particular piece of legislation. I believe that the people of Quebec would, in fact, support the legislation, and I would encourage the Bloc to do likewise.

Elections Canada is recognized around the world as an outstanding, independent institution. In fact, Canada is respected as a very healthy and vibrant democracy. In good part, we owe it to the people of Canada and those who put their names on the ballot, whether they win or lose, and the hundreds of thousands of people who volunteer in the elections process.

All of that comes together and is organized in a apolitical fashion through Elections Canada. Every 10 years, electoral commissions are established. In Canada, we will have 10 of them, one for each province where there will be the redistribution of boundaries. They can be very significant changes. I have gone through boundary changes, both at the federal level and at the provincial level.

There is a great deal of interest from elected officials and from individuals who are looking at whether they want to run in the future as potential candidates. To the public, as a whole, community leaders will be looking and asking where their community will be after the redistribution. In most parts, we want to try to hold communities together.

For example, Tyndall Park is well-identified community in Winnipeg North and I would not want to see Tyndall Park divided. Elections commissions are able to do that more often than not. It is more of a common thing, especially in urban centres, but it is not always done. We could take a look at Winnipeg North and go to Amber Trails. A portion of Amber Trails is actually in another federal riding outside of Winnipeg North, yet it is perceived as one community at the local level.

There are restrictions and things that have to be taken into consideration. We often hear about vast, rural ridings versus highly concentrated ridings, and what sort of population bases should a representative actually have. Back in 1988, when I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature, I believe there were 26 MLAs in the city of Winnipeg and 31 MLAs in rural Manitoba. Today, if we look at it, there are 31 MLAs in the city of Winnipeg and 26 MLAs in rural Manitoba, as the city of Winnipeg has grown. We see that there is a balance that has been taken into consideration.

If we look at the last provincial boundary redistribution, we will see that out of the 57 ridings, I believe 56 of them actually had modifications to the boundaries. The same principles apply, at least in part, where we will see some fairly significant changes to federal boundaries. After all, there are going to be some new ridings, but there is also going to be significant population shifts. Both of those have to be taken into consideration.

In the last federal redistribution, the map originally proposed for Winnipeg North was actually quite different from what it is today. I remember working with the Progressive Conservative member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul, Joy Smith, on this redistribution. We sat down and talked about how what was being proposed for Winnipeg North did not seem to make too much sense. Having two members of Parliament from different political parties work together helped when it came to the presentation to the commission, and ultimately it was changed.

I suspect a number of the presentations made to the commission were listened to. I say that because there is a process, which the minister made reference to. We know there are going to be new boundaries before the next election, and the process enables the public to have direct input, and when I say “the public”, it includes members of Parliament. The Province of Manitoba is in fact starting the process of drawing the lines for the new boundaries.

Manitoba has 14 ridings. From a percentage point of view overall in Canada, its numbers did not increase to the same degree on a per capita basis as Alberta, Ontario and B.C., so it will remain at 14 seats. I would argue that we have seven or seven and a half urban Winnipeg rural seats and six or maybe six and a half rural urban seats. I look at Kildonan—St. Paul as an urban rural seat.

I know that between the next couple of weeks and October, the independent elections commission will be looking for feedback on the boundaries that will be drawn in the coming days and weeks. The results will be published, and there will be a great deal of interest in what those new boundaries are going to look like. I anticipate that the commission will, as it has in the past, try to accommodate individuals to have in-person meetings as well as submissions of ideas and proposals.

When the final maps come out after the original drawings and consultations, they will ultimately come back to Parliament. I believe they will also go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I would think there would be virtually no changes made. I do not know if that has been the case historically, but I suspect that the only real changes we might see once we get the final report will be of a naming nature. Members of Parliament might reflect on what they heard from the community and might find it appropriate to change the name of the constituency on the final map.

Ultimately, it will pass through the House and come into effect on a certain date. If there is no election before that date, then the new boundaries will take effect.

Then there are party infrastructures, political infrastructures. Political parties will have to reorganize based on the new boundaries, the 340 new ridings, and significant amounts of money will go into those newly constituted ridings in the form of transfers from old ridings. There are all sorts of infrastructure that will need to be worked on to ensure that when the next election comes in 2025, which is at least what we are anticipating, political organizations throughout the country, whether they have elected representatives in Ottawa or not, can participate in each and every political riding. It also affords Elections Canada a way to put its machinery in place.

In other words, it is not simple to do, but it is absolutely necessary. Every 10 years, when Statistics Canada provides the census reports, we will see those significant population shifts and the growth of Canada's population overall. It is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 38 million today, whereas 10 years ago I suspect it was probably closer to 34 million. Members should not quote me on that, but I believe it was around 34 million. Where permanent residents end up landing is, generally speaking, where there will be the need to make some of the changes.

In terms of communities, I could speak of areas in my own community of Winnipeg North where there is a lot more growth. In Winnipeg, it is hard to grow in the inner city unless the growth is upward. Some cities, because of their density, are far more effective in growing upward. Examples are Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. We can see there is a need there.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Edmonton and Calgary too.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Calgary is also one.

Part of the discussion today is about space versus density or a rural community versus a high-density urban community. It is a different type of representation. At the end of the day, there are things that have to be considered and that I believe will be considered.

The whole issue of representation has always been of interest to me. I can recall when the decision was made to reduce the size of the city of Winnipeg from 29 councillors down to 14 or 15. The idea was that if we enhance the ability of members to provide services, it helps them accommodate the growing population. Let there be no doubt that with 338 constituencies, Canada's growth in recent years of over a couple of million people, at the very least, means that the average population of constituencies is going to grow. One of the ways to compensate and ensure that members are able to provide the types of services constituents expect is to ensure that there is adequate financing for members to provide the services that are warranted.

The whole area of boundary redistribution is of great interest to us as a government, to individuals and to Canadians, because it really does matter. The bill before us today reflects the interest of parliamentarians of all political stripes, rural and urban, in recognizing the importance of Quebec retaining 78 seats. I see that as a positive thing and I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this legislation.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is well aware that the House supposedly recognized the Quebec nation as a nation. If Quebec is recognized as a nation, there should be some kind of statute saying so.

The number of seats is one thing, but if the number of seats everywhere else goes up, Quebec will lose its political weight.

If a senatorial clause is good for Prince Edward Island, would my colleague agree that we could have a Quebec clause for the Quebec nation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the best way I can answer that is to reflect on my home province and the francophone community, which has done exceptionally well and continues to grow, and I think that it is because there is a desire from the Manitoba legislature and from all political entities. I believe the French language will always be there in a very real and tangible way, because not only members of Parliament from Quebec but members of Parliament from all regions of the country see the intrinsic value of being a bilingual nation and will continue to fight for the French language, not only in the province of Quebec but in all regions of Canada.

I believe that the more bilingual we are as nation, the healthier we are as a nation. I do not believe that the representation in my home province of Manitoba has deterred, in any way, the growth of French and the desire to see French being spoken.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the government for working with us to ensure Quebec's seat count in the House of Commons remains constant. There is a lot of work to be done that we still have not done when it comes to representation. We can look around the House and see that in terms of gender balance, we have huge issues that we need to overcome, as well as in terms of participation and making sure that every vote counts.

I think about young people especially. We know that the earlier they participate in civil elections, the more they have a lifelong commitment to doing that. I go to Anne Ostwald's class often in my riding, where she teaches social justice, and they talk about issues that are important to them, such as climate justice, as we can imagine. They talk about he looming climate crisis that has impacted them. Housing, the toxic drug supply crisis and reconciliation are all important issues.

We have seen other countries, such as the U.K., Germany and Argentina, adopt a lower voting age of 16. We know how important it is to ensure those voices are heard. To ensure that young people have a seat at the table, will my colleague and will the government support a very important bill that is going to be coming up in the House, Bill C-210, tabled by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, to lower the voting age to 16 to ensure that young people have a voice on these really critical issues?

My son, River, is 16. He is very well informed and so are his classmates.

I hope that the hon. member and his government will consider supporting this important piece of legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a number of years ago I actually conducted some discussion on the issue of electoral inform in the Province of Manitoba. I can recall that the issue of 16-year-olds being able to vote was raised in high school settings in the communities of Dauphin and Steinbach in Manitoba, and what really amazed me was that some of the harshest critics of allowing that to occur were the 16-year-olds, the high school students.

I think it is an interesting idea. Where it actually falls, I am not 100% sure. I do not know if the member might have already done this, but he might want to actually do some more canvassing among high school students. If we had more time, I would even welcome the opportunity to share going to a local high school, possibly here in Ottawa or even in Winnipeg, to be able to expand on that particular point, but I am open to all sorts of changes with regard to Elections Canada that would ultimately make our democracy healthier in the future.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to be honest: I did glaze over a little, or lost focus, I should say, during part of my friend's speech. Maybe it is because I am so used to hearing him talking so much in the House. His voice puts me into a different mode.

I am kind of curious to know if my friend could answer a couple of questions for me. First, in 1991 the Supreme Court, as I am sure he is aware, made a proposal regarding proportional representation by population. Will this legislation impact this idea in any way?

What about the work that is being done already by the commissions across the country in all of the provinces? Can he explain how those will be impacted by this legislation, if at all, as well as explain the impact on the Supreme Court decision in 1991?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect the legislation will be, at least in spirit, moving toward the court decision of 1991. The member's colleague, the official opposition critic, detailed that quite well.

With respect to the second part of the question, the only impact this legislation would have on the 10 independent commissions, from what I understand, is with respect to the province of Quebec and its commission, as they will have to wait to see whether or not the bill will pass. If it passes, it will have an impact on that commission. For the rest of the nine other commissions, it should not have any impact.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague—whom I have listened to ever since 2015 when I first came to the House, where he has talked up the vitality of francophone communities on the Prairies—I do have a question. If it is true that this vitality exists, notwithstanding the considerable merits of these communities, how can it be that my colleague, who bears a French name, is a unilingual anglophone now?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is welcome to come to Winnipeg, and I am more than happy to take him around so he can get that francophone feeling. For example, we could go to École Garden Grove or École Stanley Knowles, where he will see young children speaking French, English and, in many instances, either Punjabi or Tagalog. I could take him specifically to the St. Boniface area, where he would see an enriched, strong French flavour and many monuments to Louis Riel. I know the member is very supportive of that hero. We have a Louis Riel Day. We have the Festival du Voyageur. We have all sorts of special celebrations related to our francophone heritage. I would welcome the member and be happy to drive him around to visit some of those sites if he would like.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is interesting to hear from the member for Winnipeg North. It is also interesting to hear that, although the Liberals have refused to mention the name of former prime minister Stephen Harper, they are very much endorsing the work he did when it came to the representation formula, which was not touching the formula but simply moving the floor with respect to the number of seats for each province. I am sure Prime Minister Harper is appreciating the support he is getting today from the Liberals.

My question is very simple. The Province of Alberta has made it clear, with significant precedent, that we have chosen to elect our senators. Although that is not directly related to the bill at hand, it is an important aspect of the conversation of our institutions being democratically responsive in Canada today. Can the member share if he supports the ability for provinces, whether Alberta or other provinces that choose to go down that path, to elect senators?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what I know is that Canadians as a whole do not want to get into a constitutional debate. I believe that today the Prime Minister has put into place a system that will see truly independent senators going to the Senate. I see it as very strong positive that we are taking the partisan party politics out of the Senate, and we have seen that in the appointments the Prime Minister has made to date.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we are debating the bill on preserving provincial representation in the House of Commons. Understandably, this is very important to me.

Since the tabling of the 2022 budget by the NDP-Liberal government remains the focus of media attention and discussion, it is clear that very little will be said about the bill we are debating today. However, it is important for me to share my comments and opinions on Bill C-14.

People should know that we are currently gathered to debate Bill C-14, a bill that would amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to ensure that no province will have fewer seats than it did in the 43rd Parliament, that is, the preceding Parliament, when the number of seats in the House are readjusted after each decennial census, in future years.

As we know, the House of Commons is the House of the people. It is the House of all Canadians, those from the north, south, east, west, urban areas, rural areas, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, by way of Quebec, Ontario and the Prairies. All Canadians, and I mean all, must be properly represented in the House of Commons. That is why it must be as representative as possible of all Canadian citizens—and it must also represent their differences.

On March 2, I moved a motion in the House. I asked for the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion: “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.”

I have to say that Bill C‑14, which we are studying today, is essentially the same as the motion we moved on March 2 and for which we sought the unanimous consent of the House. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, that I suspect was politically driven, the former Green Party leader enthusiastically denied unanimous consent of the House for this motion. I say “enthusiastically”, because the former Green Party leader even applauded when the motion was defeated. She turned towards some of my colleagues to give a thumbs up, proud of her work. That is what happened. I saw it from where I was sitting. I was paying close attention to what was going on because there was almost unanimous support in the House to adopt this motion. Unfortunately, the leader of the Green Party chose to play politics instead of allowing the House to unanimously adopt this motion, which would have helped the government get Bill C‑14 passed more quickly.

I am nevertheless pleased and happy to see the government's positive response to the motion, even though it was rejected by the Green Party. I am also happy to see that the government has presented a bill that essentially says the same thing as the motion, which is that no province, including Quebec, should lose a seat during an electoral redistribution.

Frankly, this Liberal bill retains the same redistribution formula that was created by the Fair Representation Act in 2011. In fact, I would like to point out that it was the previous Conservative government that created the legislation with the aim of making Canadian democracy more representative, adding 30 new seats to the House of Commons.

Of course, we respect the work done by the independent commissions, which work separately in each province and whose mission is to draw and readjust electoral boundaries. That is not what we are talking about today. We are not talking about boundaries, but I will come back to that because I have a message for the commissions about the redistribution of electoral boundaries in each province.

I think we need to look at this and consider more than one factor in determining how seats should be distributed in each province. We must provide more flexibility so that Canadian voters can be properly represented and know that their voices are being heard when their MP speaks here in the House.

The work of representation in the House is very important to Canadian democracy. This work has been under way since last October. It will make the distribution of seats more representative of Canada's population. As I said, I intend to actively participate in the process in Quebec to ensure that the voices of the people in my riding, as well as those living in the regions, are heard.

I would remind members that the process that is under way will add three new seats in Alberta, one new seat in British Columbia and one new seat in Ontario. Bill C-14 guarantees that no province or territory will lose a riding. I want to point out that, without Bill C-14, Quebec would lose a seat in the proposed electoral redistribution process. Quebec would go from 78 members to 77. That is why we chose to speak and why we wanted to move a motion to say that, in a process like this, we should not be going backwards and taking away what the provinces have gained from the beginning.

When the law was established, no one could have predicted that the population of Canada would not grow more or less evenly everywhere, in all the regions, so a minimum number of seats was allocated per province. Unless I am mistaken, that number dates back to 1985. Now, we need to update the minimum number of MPs per province, and that is what Bill C-14 will do.

I am also pleased to see that because, beyond the partisan debates, the loss of a member, or in other words a seat in the House, would have caused adverse effects and would have made the work of the electoral boundaries commissions more difficult for people in rural or more remote regions of Canada. I will talk more about this later in my speech.

As we know, every day, Canadians, in other words the voters, the people who send us here, rely on their MPs to give them answers, to respond their questions and to help them find solutions in their dealings with various federal government bodies, and sometimes even with other issues. Like all my colleagues here, I am sure, over the past two years, during this unprecedented and unexpected pandemic that has created so many problems for our constituents, I have received calls related to many subjects, including everything from employment insurance services to the Canada Revenue Agency. I have also received requests from constituents who simply did not know where else to turn, people who were in trouble because they had no money because their business had shut down and they did not know how to apply for the various assistance programs. We have really been there to address our constituents' requests. This is also part of our duties as members of Parliament.

To be sure, one of our main roles as MPs is to be here in the House doing our work as lawmakers, which means passing laws, making sure those laws are fit for our society, making sure we represent our constituents, and voting in accordance with our values, with what our constituents want and with what we believe is best for Canada's future. That is our main role.

Our secondary role has changed a lot over the years, and people now expect their MP to help them deal with the government and support community development and business associations to ensure they feel heard. Most MPs are very far from Ottawa. In my case, it is not so bad, because my riding is about a four-hour drive from Ottawa, five hours if I leave from one place, a little more or less if I leave from another.

That certainly means a lot of time on the road, but Canada is very big from coast to coast to coast. Most people are unable to get to the national capital, so that is the MP's job.

Despite technology, it is clear that many citizens have been frustrated by the lack of information or help from various departments, not to mention that replies are slow in coming, especially for things like employment insurance and Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, inquiries.

As I said, voters count on their MPs for help, support and information. For people in Canada's rural regions, their MP is often the only connection between them and the federal bureaucracy. There certainly are not employment insurance offices everywhere. There is certainly no CRA office or representative in every Canadian community. That is why MPs are working more and more closely with their constituents.

I would say that there was a big difference during the pandemic. Before, people would come to their MP's office, often for passports and occasionally for problems with EI. Many, many people who were in need of these services during the pandemic discovered their MP's office. Although the programs are now over, people are still coming to the MP's office, which is wonderful. However, we cannot have a situation where the MP's office becomes inaccessible because it is overwhelmed by too many requests or because the riding is so big that people are too far away from their MP and cannot reach them quickly.

Connection is important. Reducing the number of MPs in a province would diminish this relationship between constituents and their MP. There definitely needs to be standards and rules in place for determining the number of MPs. However, it is important to highlight the difference between MPs from urban regions and those from rural regions, including the distance that some have to cover and the number of municipalities they represent in the House.

At the end of the day, Quebec is currently the only province that will see a change under the proposed redistribution. That is where Bill C‑14 comes in. It will give the Quebec electoral redistribution commission greater latitude to do its work and propose a new electoral map. I hope that during this review, some thought will be given not only to population, but also to geography. I will come back to that.

As the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, I represent a riding with the same number of voters as a riding in Montreal, but I have to cover an area that is 500 times larger than a riding in a big city. In my riding alone, there are 50 municipalities that I must serve. That means 50 mayors and 50 municipal councils. There are two, three, four or even five times that number of social clubs, not to mention chambers of commerce, business associations, agricultural associations and other groups. All these people want to have access to their MP and want to talk to me.

In a large riding, the MP will be dealing with 50 times the number of groups. For example, MPs for the Quebec City region only have one mayor to deal with. I have 50, and they are all important to me. The mayor of a municipality with 200 people is just as important as the mayor of a municipality with 26,000 people. I have to be just as present for the mayor of a small municipality as for the mayors of big cities. It is very time consuming.

How can MPs in the regions be more effective and do a better job if this difference is not taken into consideration?

If 20 municipalities are added to my riding during this process, it will be nearly impossible to meet all 70 or so mayors and municipal councils. Since each municipal council meets at least once a month, I will not have enough time in a year to meet all of the municipal councils. This ultimately severs the connections between the MP, the federal government and our constituents.

How are we meant to properly follow up on their issues or on all of the projects that councils and residents present to us? To ask that question is to answer it.

The bigger the rural ridings get, the less access these constituents have to their MP. Some might say that this is natural, but I disagree. As I said earlier, the people in our regions do not have direct access to federal government services. Their only point of access is the constituency office.

I hope that the commission that will be responsible for reviewing the electoral boundaries, which will soon be working in Quebec, will take the representation of the regions in Canada into account.

Keep in mind that there is some latitude in the act to allow for a discrepancy between the ridings' average population and what will ultimately be applied. I am not asking that the act be changed, simply that this flexibility be applied as much as possible so that the rural reality is taken into account when electoral maps are being redrawn. This is important, and it is being done. The Constitution itself recognizes this concept, having already established a minimum number of members for each province, despite the fact that some have fewer residents. That is the reality.

Without Bill C-14, there would have been less latitude for the Quebec commission, which would have had to search high and low for citizens no longer in ridings in order to take a seat away from Quebec. This is unacceptable.

A member of Parliament is like a family doctor. It is not that we save lives, because I would not want anyone to think I am comparing myself to a doctor by any means, but, when there are too many patients, it is hard to get an appointment and that is, unfortunately, what is likely to happen if we add in distances and all the rest.

Since the spring of 2020, more and more people have been using platforms such as Zoom, Teams and FaceTime. It may have revolutionized communications. We can indeed have more meetings. I have had more opportunities than ever to meet with town councils because we have this new way of doing things. I use this technology, but there is nothing like a good old-fashioned face-to-face meeting that gives people a chance to talk and really communicate.

To ensure that MPs can represent their constituencies well and do their job in rural ridings that keep getting bigger, the concept of rurality must be part of the electoral boundary redistribution process. Any change to the electoral map that does not take into account geography, demographics, the people's needs, culture and who we are will have an impact on democracy.

I am proud of our regions. I grew up and still live in a region, where I have chosen to stay. It is in my DNA. I was the mayor of a town in the regions, Thetford Mines. I was involved in all kinds of associations, and I have always considered connections between each level of government, municipal, provincial and federal, to be extremely important.

It is very important to maintain our voices in the House of Commons and to ensure that we can keep accessing the people who can help us and help our voters deal with the giant federal machine even when they do not necessarily have direct access to federal government services close to home in each of our ridings.

I am pleased to see that Quebec will not be losing any seats. I am also happy to say that we will be supporting Bill C-14. However, the work has only just begun.

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

Madam Speaker, the member has been very positive in his words with regard to Bill C-14, and we look forward to seeing its passage. I am somewhat curious about recognizing the importance of timing, because there is a timing element to this. As I said, I believe Manitoba and maybe a couple of provinces are already starting to draw their boundaries, with the idea of providing a report and allowing for public consultation all the way up to October.

The quicker the legislation passes, no doubt the easier it will be for Quebec's electoral commission. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on when he would ultimately like to see the bill pass.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, to which I would reply that responsibility for the progress of parliamentary work in the House lies with the government and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

I hope the government will do everything it can to ensure that this bill is passed very quickly, so that we can then work with the Commission de la représentation électorale du Québec.

The parliamentary secretary should put that question to his colleague right in front of him. This would give us an idea of the importance he wants to attach to the passage of Bill C-14.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, last spring, my colleague, who is a member from Quebec, voted in favour of the Bloc motion recognizing Quebec as a nation with French as its only official language.

The Bloc Québécois believes that if Quebec is a nation, it should have special political weight to protect its specificity. Under this bill, Quebec will be allowed to keep 78 seats but, unfortunately, that will be out of a total of 343. Its political weight in this federation will therefore drop from 23.7% to 22.74%.

As a Quebecker, how can my colleague accept this drop in Quebec's political weight?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague's question is very important. I sincerely think that we need to be having these discussions in the House.

I remember that a similar proposal was made in the context of an accord, the Charlottetown accord. A 25% minimum representation was proposed at the time.

I did some research and looked into what the position of the Bloc Québécois and its leaders was at the time with respect to that accord, which sought to maintain a minimum representation of 25%. I discovered that the Bloc's position at the time was to vote against the accord.

Today I am being lectured, but in the past there was an attempt to maintain this 25% representation and the Bloc contributed to the defeat of that accord. I think that some of my colleagues should do their homework and do some research. They should see the citations I have in front of me. I would be happy to share them with everyone, but I will restrain myself because I am very happy that Quebec will be able to keep 78 MPs for now.

If we want to open a new constitutional debate, it is up to the House. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will think about it this time before making decisions based only on preventing the Canadian confederation from working.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting.

Unfortunately, my French is not up to the question I would like to ask him, so I will switch to English.

He spoke a lot about electoral representation, which is of course why we are here today. I will say that in my province of Alberta, we are expecting to receive three more seats. However, in the last election, in Alberta, 65% of the people voted for the Conservative Party but 97% of the seats are Conservative. In Saskatchewan, only 64% voted for the Conservative Party and it has 100% of the seats. In Canada as a whole, 51% of Canadians did not get a representative they voted for.

I wonder if the member could speak a bit about the value of us looking at proportional representation. The Liberals did promise this in 2015 but did not deliver on it. I wonder if he could speak about how that would help electoral representation.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start on a positive note and congratulate my colleague on her French. She has spoken in French a few times in the House, and her French is better than she thinks. She should speak French more often.

Now for the negative. If the NDP was truly serious about wanting proportional representation, why did they not include it in their agreement with the Liberal government? That is what I am wondering.

It is now essentially one party. Why do they not sit down right now with the Prime Minister and ask him to start over, to make the same promise, the promise he did not keep when he realized it would probably put him at a disadvantage? That benefited one person.

I think that the NDP forgot this small but very important element in its negotiations with the Liberal Party. This afternoon, at 4 p.m., when the budget is tabled, it will be obvious who bought whom in the secret agreement between the NDP and the Liberals.

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

Madam Speaker, I am curious to know where my colleague stands on capping the number of seats in the House. Seats are added every 10 years, but what does he think about adding seats to the House?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question.

One day, we will have to think about the maximum number of members in the House. Some legislatures have done so, and I think that we will likely have to do that one day. I very much want to participate in that debate, always keeping in mind the best interests of the voters who send us here to Ottawa to represent them and the work we must do to represent them properly. That said, I do not see how we would be able to have 600 members here if Canada's population were to grow that much.

For now, though, it is important to at least maintain the same number of seats and then eventually settle on a maximum number. We are not there yet, since we have not had the necessary debates. Canadians will have to be involved in the debate. It cannot be held just here in the House.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always it is great to be able to enter into debate. I appreciate very much how my colleague from Quebec outlined the importance of members of Parliament, and of our offices in particular. I know I can compliment not only my staff, but the staff of every member of Parliament across this country who worked significant hours at a time when many government offices, such as Service Canada and whatnot, were closed down. Speaking from my experience and the experience of my office, my office received thousands of calls from people who were desperate for help.

There is an interesting dynamic that exists between rural Canada and many parts of urban Canada. I know it is about five or six hours from corner to corner of my constituency, and I know my colleague from Quebec represents thousands of square kilometres. I am not sure exactly how many thousands.

Would he be able to expand on that unique dynamic that exists, to ensure that we have fair representation that includes the difference between rural and urban?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that there are some ridings that are much bigger than my own. My colleague's riding of Battle River—Crowfoot is a huge one.

I do not want to be misinterpreted. I am not saying that MPs in big cities work any less. All I am saying is that their work is very different. In ridings like ours, a single meeting can take four hours, so we can talk with a single constituent. That representation is very different for someone in a big city where everything is about an hour from the constituency office. That is a big difference.

This is what the provincial commissions will have to consider when they propose new electoral boundaries. We must use this latitude to make it easier for constituents in rural ridings to access their MP, and I think the existing commissions have that flexibility. The act does not need to be changed; we simply need to make use of the freedom and latitude it already offers.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding electoral representation.

As the member for Calgary Shepard mentioned, this is a bit of an “inside baseball” bill, in the sense that the bill itself and its implications are relatively simple, yet important. I am going to use my time today to talk about the bill, the reasons behind it, and other political implications and choices related to representation.

Every 10 years, the Chief Electoral Officer reviews demographic changes and allocates the number of seats for each province. He determines whether electoral boundaries should be readjusted to reflect population shifts within a province. Section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 sets out the formula for the distribution of seats in the House of Commons among the provinces after each decennial census. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides for drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in each province.

Electoral boundaries must be readjusted whenever a province's representation changes, or when there have been significant population fluctuations in a province, such as a shift from rural to urban areas. The redistribution of electoral boundaries is a federal matter controlled by Parliament.

In October 2021, the Chief Electoral Officer, based on population trends over the past 10 years, set the distribution of seats. The number of seats in the House of Commons was increased from 338 to 342, with British Columbia and Ontario gaining one seat each, Alberta gaining three and Quebec losing one.

This legislation being introduced today amends that decision, as is the ability of Parliament, by creating a constitutional floor: The number of seats any province or territory had in the 43rd election will be the new constitutional floor. The practice of maintaining a certain number of seats in the House of Commons for provinces whose populations were declining in comparison to the national average has been done before.

First, in 1914, the senatorial clause was introduced to ensure that no province would ever have fewer members of Parliament than its number of senators. The second constitutional protection is what is known as the grandfather clause, which came into effect under the Representation Act of 1985. It amended the formula for determining seats and guaranteed that, regardless of what the population of a province or territory might be in the future, it would be constitutionally protected by having no fewer than the seats it had in the House of Commons in 1986.

I should add that a series of adjustments were made between 1914 and 1986 to protect and attempt to ensure equal treatment of the provinces and territories. Initially, the total number of seats was calculated by dividing the population of each province by a fixed number called the electoral quotient, which was itself calculated by dividing the population of the province of Quebec by 65.

The one exclusion to this was called “the one-twentieth rule”, under which no province could lose seats in electoral redistribution unless its share of the national population had decreased by at least 5%, or one twentieth, between the last two censuses. This was appealed in 1946 on the basis of Quebec's desire for representation by population. I may just add that I find it a bit ironic today that we are here debating and driving legislation that would have been a completely different narrative from what those Quebec MPs would have taken in 1940.

All members of Parliament go and research before we come before the House to talk about the principles of the legislation before us. I want to give a tip of the cap to the folks in the House of Commons who have a very detailed history of electoral redistribution and the dynamic of how the number of seats in the House of Commons has changed over time. I give a tip of the cap to the researchers and the folks involved with the House of Commons.

This bill simply does what has already been done many times, which is amend the formula in the Constitution to grandfather the number of seats that existed during the 2021 election. We have already had debates during this session about the possibility of Quebec losing a seat. There seemed to be a consensus about the importance of Quebec's representation and the preservation of its language, culture and identity within Canada.

I am not opposed to the legislation before us, but I want to take this opportunity to put it on the record that I have concerns about the number of MPs that will be added to the House of Commons and to speak to Bill C‑246.

I asked this of the last Conservative member when I stood to ask a question on his remarks. At what point do we consider limiting the number of seats in the House of Commons? I did some research coming into this and found that, historically over time, there was contemplation that by 2001 we would have 400 members of Parliament. Today, we have 338. It is an open question that will inevitably have to be explored beyond the physical dynamics of the House of Commons and how many members of Parliament we can have in this space. It will also be about parliamentary privilege, and allowing individuals to have the space to bring forward issues to debate. Sometimes it is crowded to get on the agenda and to bring remarks forward in this place, because members of Parliament are doing that job.

It is interesting. Right now, in the House of Commons in the U.K., there are 650 members of Parliament. Is that something we want to see in Canada? Is that something that Canadians expect? I do not have the answer, but I pose it as a question here today. It also has a dynamic for how Parliament works. Relatively, when a government forms, whether it be a minority or a majority situation, there might be 150-odd members of Parliament in the government caucus or maybe just over 170, in today's dynamic. If there all of a sudden were 300 government caucus MPs, what would that mean for the dynamic in terms of independence for members of Parliament, their ability to speak and their ability to support the government, but also their ability to bring forward important issues? When we look at how the House of Commons operates in London, there are similarities to here but there are also differences. I raise that for consideration.

I also want to talk about rural members of Parliament. I have a riding that I am very proud to represent. It is 5,000 square kilometres. It is by no means small, but I consider myself lucky compared with other members of Parliament. My good friend in Central Nova has about 10,000 square kilometres to cover. My hon. colleague for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity has a 16,000-square-kilometre riding. That is a lot of territory to cover. We have to be mindful, with respect to all of the electoral redistribution, of the point at which a member of Parliament just becomes too far stretched to adequately represent the communities they are expected to represent in this place, in terms of their presence in the riding, their ability to connect and their ability to physically drive or travel.

Indeed, I have given a couple of examples. I know there are even more challenging circumstances for other members of Parliament, particularly in northern Canada as well.

I want to talk about Nova Scotia's proportionate share. Indeed, I have a colleague beside me from Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the member for Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, as well. As we continue to add seats in this place, yes, some provinces are protected constitutionally in the number of members of Parliament that they will have in the House. In Nova Scotia's example, we will never have any less than 11 members of Parliament, but 11 members of Parliament out of 338 is a certain dynamic and 11 members among 500 members of Parliament is a much smaller proportionate share of the voice that we can bring forward as a province in this dynamic.

We had an opposition day motion from the Bloc Québécois, and I will take the opportunity to speak to Bill C-246 in a moment. The Bloc and the House were strong on maintaining the seats, but they want to make sure that 25% of the House of Commons seats would always be preserved for Quebec. My question is, and I have said it to the Bloc, why do we not look at capping eventually, maybe to 360, 380, or 400? Let us actually look at eventually capping the number of members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Every province and territory in this country has their constitutional protections in force. This would allow there to be a stable footing for some of the things we have talked about.

Yes, the Bloc members want 25%, but as I pointed out to them, if they would have pushed to say let us cap it at 350 members of Parliament, they would have their constitutional floor from today's legislation, assuming it passes, which I am confident it will. They would have been protected at 22%, and that could have been a way to ensure that we do preserve Quebec language, culture and the unique identity within Canada.

I want to speak to Bill C-246. The member of Parliament for Drummond has brought this forward. In essence it not only protects Quebec's 78 seats, but also mandates a requirement that Quebec never have any less than 25% of a proportion of the seats in the House of Commons, regardless of what happens and regardless of the population of the province.

To my sovereignist colleagues across the way, their job is not to protect the identity of Canada. Indeed, they want to separate from Canada, so I would never expect them to do something that is actually beneficial for bringing Canadians together. In fact, sometimes I would argue they would like to wedge and drive divisions in Canada, but we have to understand what this actually represents.

This would not just be a change that could be done within Parliament. This would require a constitutional amendment that would mean a 7/50 formula. For those Canadians who are at home and wondering what the heck the 7/50 is, it essentially means that on constitutional changes such as this, we would have to get the approval of seven of 10 provinces that represent at least 50% of the Canadian population. That is a very high threshold to be able to achieve. That is what we expect to be the legal standard on Bill C-246 if it were to move forward. It is an open question about whether it will, but again in principle, this is problematic.

That type of bill would open up a lot of division in this country, and I think we are all standing here today recognizing Quebec's unique identity within Canada. I do not want to say we are all committed, but I know on this side of the House we are committed to keeping 78 seats in Quebec. In fact, we are protecting everyone right now with a new constitutional floor on the basis of population in 2021, including in Nova Scotia.

Again, this is a continuation of where we already were, but the idea of saying absolutely, regardless of population, despite population decline, they will get 25%, is not ever going to work in this country. It will never pass. It is being introduced in a way to create divide and to try to, I would argue, re-establish the argument about separation in Quebec, which frankly, the Bloc Québécois will know right now is not really high on the agenda, but they are trying to drive that type of narrative.

I think this Parliament understands the importance of Quebec and its political representation in this place. As I have said before, looking at the number of cabinet ministers and their influence, whether they be the Prime Minister or key ministers in the government, Quebec plays an important role in the government of Canada, in this place and, indeed, within the country.

I want to make sure that all members of Parliament get the opportunity to speak on this. It was an absolute privilege to be able to do some of the research and look into the legislation.

I will just take an opportunity to thank the minister of intergovernmental affairs for bringing this forward. He, of course, also holds the portfolio of the minister for communities and infrastructure. What a tremendous job to balance two very difficult portfolios, so I thank him on the record for his leadership within the government and for his continued advocacy for the people of Beauséjour. I do believe that he is going on 20-plus years in Parliament, which is, I think, a tremendous commitment to public service.

Of course, my predecessor Scott Brison also served for 21 years in this place. It shows that these individuals are committed to making a difference for their constituents, Canada and the world.

I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues, who I watched today as they listened with utmost curiosity, having detailed questions for me to answer in just a moment.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a few points on which I actually completely agree with my colleague from across the way, one being that we very often wonder what the motivation is for our sovereignist colleagues in the House, although we know what their motivation is. However, I also want to mention that the House of Commons truly is the people's chamber, and it should be representative of the population across the country. I have said that in a number of my interventions in debates, that this is the House. It is the people's House and the 338 members of Parliament who have been elected to represent those electors carry the voice of those electors to this House. This House should represent the population of our country.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if he is aware of whether the provinces with the fastest growing populations, such as my province of British Columbia, and Alberta and Ontario, were consulted. Far too often we hear, when we are on the doorsteps during elections, that the election is over by the time it gets to the western provinces. Were those provinces consulted?

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

Madam Speaker, I would not pretend to speak for the minister of intergovernmental affairs in terms of the work that was undertaken. We had the opportunity in this House to debate an opposition day motion, and I know a number of Conservative colleagues and, indeed, everyone has had the chance to speak to it.

The member raised an important point about how we balance representation. I would submit to this House that there has never been a true representation by population, and that has always been because Canada was a compromise from day one in 1867. Even as we added provinces during Confederation, and as the member opposite's province joined, which I believe was in 1870, there was a negotiation about what was fair and equitable at the time.

I do not think there has ever been pure representation by population. Certainly, sitting as a member of Parliament with 11 seats in Nova Scotia, I think we would be closer to 8 or 9 without it. I really want to make sure that all regions of the country have a voice with representation. I think today's legislation and where we are is fair and equitable at this time.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we often hear the argument that Quebec is well represented because we have the Prime Minister and ministers.

I would simply like to point out to my colleague that the Island of Montreal is experiencing a serious housing crisis, with 25,000 people waiting for low-income housing. However, the Island of Montreal is represented by the Prime Minister and six senior ministers, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. This is significant, but despite this, the crisis has continued for seven years, so having ministers is not the answer to everything.

I want to talk about the French language. My colleague must be sensitive to this in Nova Scotia. According to the numbers, the status of French in Quebec is so precarious that the percentage of people whose mother tongue is French may drop to just 69% by 2036, which might as well be tomorrow. If we do not use this bill as an opportunity to protect our political weight, if we do not stand up for ourselves, we will never be able to protect the French language. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

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

Madam Speaker, first of all, I agree that policies must be adopted to preserve the French language. That is why I try very hard to speak French here and to learn the language. Policies favouring francophone immigration are also very important, not only in Quebec, but also outside Quebec, elsewhere in Canada, to preserve the French language.

With regard to what my colleague said about ministers and the problems in Montreal, my answer is simple. The Legault government and many of the MNAs have a hand in this, but I think some other social problems are at play, and opportunities do exist. I find that part of the question a little odd.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, this bill protects the number of seats not only in Quebec, but also in all the other provinces. How important does the member think this is for his own province?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for using French in the House.

Of course the legislation is neutral in the sense that all of the provinces and territories are reflected in the Constitution. To me the question that remains is this. How many members will be added to the House?

For Nova Scotia, 11 members are protected by the Constitution, but having just 11 members out of 500 in the House would reduce the proportion of representation we have in the House.

I think that in future we will have to determine the number of MPs in the House of Commons both from a parliamentary privilege perspective and a logistics perspective.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has been an advocate here in this House. I want to mention that I come from a riding that represents over 100,000 square kilometres. Could the member consider that and think about what it is like to overlap with over 500 other elected representatives, whether they are MLAs, town councillors, county councillors or band councils? It is something.

There is representation by responsibility. Trying to simultaneously get funding for five pools and recreation centres is a major challenge. It is an interesting discussion.

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

Madam Speaker, a tip of the cap to the member, as I have 5,000 square kilometres and that makes me look like small peanuts compared to the member opposite is dealing with. I salute him and can appreciate how difficult those challenges are.

As I mentioned in my speech, I believe this is a very important point about the rurality of our country and ensuring that members of Parliament who are expected to represent these areas can do so adequately. I think it is an open question, notwithstanding calling this member's advocacy into question, on the actual size. As he mentioned, working with 500 elected officials is extremely challenging.

I want to separate the conversation around the amount of seats within a province or territory versus how we actually distribute within those provinces. As we see migration of larger numbers in urban areas, perhaps urban MPs will have to take on a larger proportion of constituents so we can make some of these rural ridings smaller geographically to make sure there is that equity.

Right now, I know, for example, in Nova Scotia, and I do not pretend to know the federal aspect, there is a proportion of variance that is allowed when we look at these different elements. Perhaps that has to be extended even further to allow urban areas to have more constituents in a smaller place, and then also allow people, like this member, to have a more reasonable size and scope of geography to cover.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for working with us to ensure Quebec's seat count in the House of Commons remains constant. Clearly there is a lot of work to do, especially around representation. We can look at gender balance and the important work that needs to be done to address that, as well as participation in our electoral system. We know the Liberal government ran on a platform in 2015 to make it the last unfair election. It still has not implemented a proportional system, and as a result, we still have lower turnout.

One thing I think about is young people. We are talking about really important issues critical to them such as climate justice, reconciliation, overdoses and the toxic drug supply crisis that is claiming lives in our country. We know that the younger people participate in elections and are involved in civic participation, they have a lifelong commitment to it. We have seen Austria, Germany and the U.K. lower the voting age to 16.

Does my colleague agree that if someone can drive, work and pay taxes, all of which can be done in this country at age 16, they should be able to vote? My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley has put forward a bill to the House, Bill C-210. Will he be supporting that bill, which is a very important bill, to lower the voting age to 16? We know people who are 16 in this country, who are contributing to this country and whose futures are at stake, need a seat at the table.

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

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of different elements in the commentary.

First of all, around first past the post, the election commitment in 2015 was about its being the last election by first past the past. My understanding, although I was not here in the 42nd Parliament, is that there was the idea of doing a ranked ballot. The NDP rejected that offer, so it is a bit rich for that member to step up and suggest the government did not put something on the table to be able to make a change.

I want to address the question that is fundamental, which is the voting age at 16. I am one of the youngest members of Parliament in the House. I try every day, as part of engaging individuals in my riding, to engage with youth. It is important to make sure they have an understanding of the democratic process. Indeed, some of the issues we are talking about today will have profound impacts on them as they become adults and move forward. In principle, I support moving it toward the age of 16. I look forward to reviewing Bill C-210 and speaking to that later in this session.

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

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

I rise to speak on Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. More specifically, what this bill would do is amend what is known as the grandfather clause. By way of background, the grandfather clause has been part of our Constitution since 1986, with the passage of the Representation Act, 1985. Very simply, what the grandfather clause does is establish a floor in terms of the allocation of seats by province in terms of the redistribution process that takes place every 10 years. The floor that the grandfather clause sets is that no province shall be allocated fewer seats in future redistributions than that province had in 1985.

Bill C-14 is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation in that it amends the grandfather clause by establishing an updated floor, a floor of 2015 as opposed to 1985. More specifically, it would ensure that no province will receive an allocation of fewer seats than that province had in 2015, in the 43rd Parliament, in any future redistribution. What that means for my province of Alberta is that it increases the floor in terms of the minimal number of seats that Alberta will be allocated in any redistribution by 13, the 13 seats that Alberta gained between 1985 and 2015.

When we look at the issue of allocating seats across Canada, a foundational principle of our democratic process is representation by population. Representation by population is based upon the notion that the weight attached to the vote of each Canadian should be equal, regardless of what region of Canada they live in. It is a principle that was adopted by the fathers of Confederation in 1867, and it is a principle that is enshrined in our Constitution.

While it is a principle that is foundational, achieving pure representation by population is not practical. Indeed, it is not entirely desirable in regard to a number of factors, including the vastness of Canada. With respect to the impracticability of achieving pure representation by population, one need look no further than our Constitution. For example, the senatorial clause of 1915 guarantees that every province shall have at least the same number of seats in the House of Commons as it has senators. That is why, for example, the province of Prince Edward Island is guaranteed four seats in the House of Commons because it has four senators, notwithstanding the fact that the province of Prince Edward Island has fewer than 160,000 people.

Indeed, my riding of St. Albert—Edmonton is almost as large as Prince Edward Island. My friend and colleague down the road in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin represents a riding of more than 200,000 people, 40,000 or 50,000 more people than Prince Edward Island. One might say to simply rescind or repeal the senatorial clause, but of course that requires the unanimous consent of the provinces. Prince Edward Island, I am sure, will be in no hurry to offer its consent.

Achieving pure representation by population is not practicable, but it is also important to take into account what the Supreme Court of Canada provided for in the Saskatchewan boundaries reference case of 1991. That case dealt with the boundary redistribution in the province of Saskatchewan that tended to disproportionately favour rural areas at the expense of more populous urban areas. The court looked at section 3 of the charter, which guarantees the right of every Canadian to vote, and in the context of the redistribution of boundaries in the province of Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court determined that the overriding principle is one of effective representation.

In terms of effective representation, the court recognized such factors as geography, communities of interest and so on. However, that being said, the court did stress the importance of representation by population. To that end, I would cite Madam Justice McLachlin, who said:

What are the conditions of effective representation? The first is relative parity of voting power. A system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted.

In order to have effective representation, what we must have, to the greatest degree possible, is representation by population. That is where we have moved significantly towards, thanks to the leadership of Prime Minister Harper and the previous Conservative government with the passage of the Fair Representation Act.

The Fair Representation Act replaced the 1985 formula that established an electoral quotient, which is the first step in terms of determining the allocation of seats, with a new formula that sets a new electoral quotient. The problem, very simply, with the 1985 formula is that, although it was thought to be fair in 1985, it did not allow for the allocation of seats by province to keep up with population growth among the fastest-growing provinces. As a result, the fastest-growing provinces were denied their right to fair, proportionate representation in the House of Commons. It created, over time, a representation gap.

Take, for example, my province of Alberta. Alberta gained nearly one million people between 1988 and 2004, yet in the span of nearly 20 years with one million new Albertans, Alberta only gained two seats in the House of Commons. So significant was the representation gap at the time that the Fair Representation Act was introduced, some analysis established that the three fastest-growing provinces in Canada, namely Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, were among the most under-represented provinces or states in the industrialized world, according to analysis at the time from the Mowat Centre.

The Fair Representation Act addressed the representation gap significantly by establishing a new formula that better takes into account population growth, all the while respecting the overriding principle of effective representation. What that has meant in the last two redistributions is an increase in representation for the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

My province of Alberta has gained nine seats in the span of 10 years. Ontario gained 18 seats in the first redistribution. The province of British Columbia gained eight seats. That gap is being closed thanks to the legacy of Prime Minister Harper and the formula provided in the Fair Representation Act.

In closing, I will say that this legislation, I am pleased to see, would not in any major way impact the Harper formula. It would maintain the Harper formula, and in that regard it maintains a significant step forward in achieving something much closer to representation by population, which the Supreme Court has said is essential for having effective representation.

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

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I may not always agree on discussion points and politics, but I do respect his ability to stand before the House without notes to recite his speeches and bring forward his points.

I just had a Q and A with the member of Parliament for Peace River—Westlock, my hon. colleague's colleague, about the rurality of the country and the fact that his riding is 100,000 square kilometres. He talked about effective representation, and we talked about the challenges, of course, notwithstanding the fact that there has been a rural-urban shift. It is important to take into consideration those elements so that rural MPs can still represent their constituents in a reasonable fashion.

Would the member agree that with the current structure, when we look at the dynamic within the provinces and territories, we have to make sure that rural representation remains an important piece, particularly with the size and geography of federal ridings at this point?

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

Madam Speaker, in short, I absolutely concur with my colleague from Kings—Hants that we need to take into allowance issues of population and geography, as my friend, the member for Peace River—Westlock, outlined. He represents 100,000 square kilometres, an area that comprises 500 municipal, provincial and band officials, and that is taken into account in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It takes into account the factors the Supreme Court specifically cited in the Saskatchewan reference case in terms of establishing and maintaining effective representation.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's intervention today was very detailed and fact-based, and I appreciate his attention to detail.

He talked about the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin having 200,000 constituents in his riding, and something I have been thinking a lot about is the nature of representation when we look at the difference between rural and urban. I wonder if the member would be able to speak to that. Considering the difference in priorities and the different challenges that rural and urban ridings face, would he be interested in making sure, as we determine the three new seats in Alberta, that we have urban and rural priorities in line?

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

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Edmonton is quite right when she speaks of the Edmonton—Wetaskiwin riding, which takes in the deep south of suburban Edmonton and has a farming and small-town component. That is something the boundaries commission of each province takes into account among the factors they consider in drawing boundaries, including having regard for communities of interest. They are ensuring, to the greatest degree possible, that the boundaries of each riding align with communities of interest, and at the same time, they are trying to maintain, as best as possible, roughly equal population sizes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Order, please. We need to hear the question.

The hon. member for St. Albert—Edmonton.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[An hon. member]

I am having trouble hearing him.

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

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Can we take the conversations outside, please?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Madam Speaker, I too want to reassure my colleague.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

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

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

Could we have consent for me to start over?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

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

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We have another point of order.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

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

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

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

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

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

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

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtittiji.

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

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

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

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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly.

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

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

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

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

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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

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

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

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

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

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

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

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, Quebec was one of the biggest beneficiaries of the law that was passed under the Harper government in 2011.

The hon. member was asking about the fluctuation of the numbers here and there. I think the speech made it very clear how this happened and what the formula should look like. The bill that is presented here is also very clear. We will wait and see what happens with the vote in a few hours.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to indicate that for us in the NDP it is critical that Quebec in particular maintains its position in Parliament. I would ask my colleague to share his views once more on the importance of Quebec's role in Parliament and the importance of preserving that role.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, the motion that was passed with regard to maintaining the number of seats that the province has right now actually came from our side, from our deputy leader.

It is clear in my speech. I am not sure if the hon. member heard the whole speech, but what I was trying to say today was very clear in the speech.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is an interesting piece of legislation. I wonder if the member could speak more on the importance of the principle of representation by population, the principle that every Canadian should have a reasonable expectation that their vote counts for the same thing and that if they move to a different part of the country, their voice does not suddenly become more valuable or less valuable. That is just a common-sense proposition of fairness.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, we can never ask for too much justice. This is about justice, about representation, about having equal opportunity for MPs to represent their different areas, and about having equal opportunities for constituents to be fairly represented by MPs and through proper budgets.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Edmonton Manning for sharing his time with me, and I also want to say hi to him from Yosef, who just cut my hair. I know they are good buddies, and I think they sing together, or something like that, so I just want to say hi to him from Yosef.

I will say off the top that I will be voting in favour of Bill C-14. I want to make that clear to the member for Winnipeg North, so that he does not have to stand and ask me that question. This particular bill would clarify that we would be, from now on, using the current number of seats in every province as the floor for this country going forward. That said, I would like to talk a bit about representation, and particularly regional representation. These are issues that have motivated my interest in politics, and they motivate a great many Albertans' interest in politics, and none more so than a fellow from my riding named Edward Goodlife.

I always wish I had Edward Goodlife's last name. I think he has lived a good life. He is a good friend of mine. He moved to Canada from England. He chose Canada. He moved to a little place called Granum, Alberta, and started a nail factory there. He was driving across western Canada through the Prairies and he noticed that all the houses in our part of the country were built out of wood. He said to himself, “All these houses need nails to put them together,” so he decided to start a nail factory in Granum, Alberta.

One of the reasons we know each other is through politics. His motivation for getting involved in politics was a whole litany of issues he had when getting his nail factory started and profitable in Canada, such as issues of regulation and taxation and issues of regional disparity. The story he told me was that it would cost him something like $23 to ship a pallet of nails on the railway to Ontario, yet his competitors in Ontario could ship that same container of nails to Alberta for $8. This is something that I think is called a mill rate on the railway, and I am not 100% sure of all the details of how that worked, but one of the things that really grated against him was the fact that the system seemed to be set up against him.

In order for him to compete with folks who were manufacturing nails in Ontario, he had to pay three times more in shipping costs than people in Ontario shipping their goods in this direction, particularly nails. He could compete with them here, but he had to work fairly hard. When he tried to break into new markets, particularly in eastern Canada, he was up against that.

It is these kinds of stories and sentiments that bring the frustration we have whenever we get talking about representation in this country. The Bloc members have brought into this debate, and I am not sure where they got it, the idea of proportionality and that somehow Quebec should own 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. I am happy to see that the government did not put into this legislation the maintenance of one particular seat. I am supportive of that, but this idea of proportionality is very interesting and comes up very often in my conversations around northern Alberta.

This idea of proportionality comes up often, and people show me graphics all the time. I see them on Facebook and places like that. People have made graphics showing the proportion of the seats based on regions of the country, and they come to my office and are very upset about this. I will say to them that there is nothing in our system that says anything about proportionality of seats.

Our system is based on having the House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons is based on the number of electors, and the Senate is supposed to be a representation of the landowners, provincial interests or those kinds of things. We could perhaps say that, in the case of the Senate, there should be some redistribution of the Senate seats or an addition of new Senate seats so that provincial representation was perhaps weighted equally or on percentage of land mass, percentage of taxation income, resource revenue or something. We can have that discussion, but that is not what this bill is about. Those are some of the things that come up often. Proportionality is not something that comes into the seating in the House of Commons.

The other thing that is fascinating, and that many Canadians, particularly from either Quebec or Ontario, do not think about, is how close they live to Parliament and Ottawa. I have the privilege of touring school groups through the House of Commons. They come up from southern Ontario to have a tour of the House of Commons, and I am happy to oblige by doing that. I note and tell them all the time that they are fortunate that they live a four- or five-hour drive from Ottawa. Growing up and in my high school years, in grade three and grade six we went to the legislature buildings in Edmonton, but I never had the opportunity to do a field trip to Ottawa with my class. That is something that, being from Alberta, we just did not have the opportunity to do.

We see that borne out in lobbying efforts and the way that these systems are set up. Ottawa is a distant place for Albertans. Ottawa is not something that we think about. It is not in our lives every day, and because it is far away we do not necessarily have access to that place as somebody who lives a lot closer has. Sometimes we, who are from northern Alberta, realize that the decisions made in Ottawa are often influenced by the people who live near to it. That makes sense because they are closer. They have access. They can drive there in an afternoon and make their case, whereas people in northern Alberta do not. It is a 3,600-kilometre tour from my house to Ottawa. It takes three and a half days to drive there, and it is an expensive endeavour.

All of these things lead to the sense of a lack of representation in Ottawa. It is not even necessarily that we have more people voting for fewer people, which is the case, but also the distance of it. That is just a reality. Other than perhaps moving the Parliament buildings to Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver or Peace River, that is going to be the reality.

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon was making some great points around this as well, and the fact that the representation in our part of the country feels quite a bit different than it does for people who live close to Ottawa. We want to make sure that representation happens. Having a hard and fast rule on representation by population is just a matter of fact, in the same way that Quebec and Ontario being close to Ottawa is a matter of fact. I am happy to support this particular bill, but I would just point out that there are other things that are matters of fact that we cannot change and that we should not necessarily worry about. The same thing goes for representation by population. That is the way the system is set up, and we should work hard to maintain that principle here in this place.

With that, I am looking forward to the budget this afternoon and to having Alberta's interests represented, in particular northern Alberta's. One of the major reasons that I got involved in politics was to represent Alberta in Ottawa, and I am pleased to do so today here in this Parliament.

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

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental flaw in terms of what the member is talking about.

It is a whole lot easier to get from Edmonton or Calgary, let us say, to Ottawa than it is from many Ontario communities. In fact, one might have to take a long drive to an airport to take another airplane to come to Ottawa: Canada's capital.

My concern is that, number one, the member should not try to give the impression that one has to live close to Ottawa to have influence. I like to consider that I carry some influence, as the member no doubt carries influence, and I am from Winnipeg.

One does not have to be from Ottawa in order to have influence. That is my suggestion to the member. Second, with respect to the bill itself, would the member not recognize that the simplicity of the bill is to ensure that we recognize that no province should have a reduction in the number of seats based on the last federal election? Would he not agree, simply put, that this is a good thing and something worth voting for?

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did note, right off the top of my speech, that I was supporting this bill. I even noted that I was doing that for the benefit of the member for Winnipeg North, so I am pleased that he listened to my speech.

The other point I would make is that my point all around distances to Ottawa was not so much that we can change that but that this is a matter of fact. We cannot change the fact that Ontario is closer to Ottawa than Alberta is. We should just respect these things that are a matter of fact and respect the idea that representation by population is a matter of fact.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thought the member really nailed it, especially with his description of the challenges of the factory owner at the beginning. This country has a unique history: some provinces in the east came together to create the country, but western Canada was always viewed as kind of a colonial possession. It has been a long struggle to work toward some degree of recognition of provincial equality.

Would the member want to comment on some of the legacy of that history, in terms of Senate representation and other things? These really come from the fact that it was originally central and eastern Canada that formed the country, but they viewed the west very much as a kind of colonial appendage instead of as an equal partner.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for his question. That is indeed the case. I would just recognize that P.E.I., for example, negotiated its way into Confederation, as did B.C. That is not as much the case for Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Alberta, which were more creations of the federal government—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

Photos in the chamber are not allowed, and a minister of the Crown should know that.

The hon. member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue.

[Sébastien Lemire, Bloc, Abitibi—Témiscamingue, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague from Peace River—Westlock asked a key question, namely, why Quebec should have a special privilege, the “nation clause”, recognizing that this founding nation, which is francophone, unique, and has its own culture, deserves a certain political weight in the House of Commons. For me, this is fundamental.

Would my colleague be willing to take a step to ensure that the Quebec nation is heard in the House and that it has 25% of the seats? If not, we will leave.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the reality is that the proportion was never part of the discussion. I do not ever remember hearing anything about the proportion. The other thing I would just note for the member is that northern Alberta has one of the largest French-speaking diasporas. It has been there since before Quebec was even founded.

Since the 1700s, we have had Quebec communities in northern Alberta. These communities are thriving. These are born French-speaking people, and places like Falher, Guy, Marie-Reine and St. Isidore have all been amazing French communities that are thriving. We see people emigrate from around the world to northern Alberta.

The French population of Alberta is actually growing, not necessarily in proportion to the rest of the province, but it is a growing population. I would hope that Quebec would see growth in its population and then it could maintain its seats as well.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, some of the things that Parliament can do to augment the representation and balance are things such as more money for rural and larger geographic areas or larger populations. Most recently, the government has limited MPs and their offices to five immigration enquiries, which actually makes it disproportionate. I would like the member's thoughts on the other things we could do to make things more balanced for representing Canadians, even though we might have disproportionate populations.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, once again the member has highlighted one of the things that are a matter of fact. The number of immigration queries that we have has no bearing on where we come from in the country. I would say that the government has totally mishandled the immigration file in this country, leading to the fact that my office has to deal with an inundation of immigration cases as likely the member's does as well. Limiting that to five cases per office seems ridiculous because there is not necessarily any correlation between one member's office having more or less just based on where they are in the country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That will finish our discussion of Bill C-14. We will come back when we have the opportunity. We will take a few moments for the minister to arrive in the chamber.

It being 4:06 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means Proceedings No. 3, concerning the budget presentation.

The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to share my time with my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert.

When I was asked to come to the House today to talk about Quebec's political weight, I wondered if I would be here for 10 minutes, because it is so simple; we take Quebec's weight and we maintain it. On reflection, though, I thought that if it had not been understood by now, I might have more to say than I thought in the end.

I thought I would use a bit of an educational approach. Let us go back in time to 2006. That year, the Harper government recognized Quebec as a nation in the House. After that, however, not much happened until 2021, except for the decrease in health transfers.

Last June, the House passed a motion that gave Quebec the right to amend its constitution to enshrine in it that Quebec is a nation and that its only official language is French. This meant that the Quebec nation, as well as its history and specificity, were once again recognized.

However, recognizing a nation means recognizing that it has the right to express itself in the House of Commons. It means walking the talk. The House cannot recognize a nation the way it recognizes that it is a nice day outside, that it is a beautiful Monday and that it is humid. When the House recognizes a nation, it has to act accordingly.

Now the government has introduced Bill C-14. At first, I thought that there was hope and that this bill seemed to be a step in the right direction. Still, it is a bill seeking to protect Quebec that was introduced by the Liberals and that may be supported by the NDP, so based on my experience, I had some doubts.

I opened Bill C‑14, and I read that it would guarantee Quebec a certain number of seats, specifically 78, compared to the 77 seats provided for in the last electoral boundary readjustment, which reduced the number of seats for Quebec.

I would like to mention that, without the repeated interventions of the Bloc Québécois, we would not be debating this in the House today. The Liberal government would not have woken up one morning and decided that it was going to protect Quebec's weight. It took the Bloc Québécois to convince it to take a step in that direction.

The problem with Bill C‑14 is that it states an intention, but does nothing to accomplish it. It does not meet its own objective.

Let us continue the lesson. March 2 was a Bloc opposition day. The government knows we use these days wisely. That day, by a vote of 261 to 66, which is decidedly not a close result, since almost everyone voted in favour, apart from a certain pocket of resistance, the House adopted a motion saying the following:

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;

I want to point out that number of seats and political weight are not the same thing. The motion also states that the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended in accordance with the spirit of the motion, which was adopted by the vast majority of duly elected members.

However, we have before us a bill that does not achieve this goal. The bill does not protect Quebec's political weight because it protects the number of seats, not the proportion of seats reserved for Quebec.

I figured that either the government was acting in bad faith or it did not understand what the word “proportion” meant. My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou used to be an elementary school teacher, so I called her to ask what grade kids start learning fractions and division. She told me that it was usually in grade 3, but if the members of Parliament went to a good school, they might have learned about fractions in grade 2. I do not know whether the government is acting in bad faith or whether it does not understand.

I began listening to the Minister of Finance, thinking she must understand, because she has talked about the debt-to-GDP ratio, saying that she does not want to reduce debt, but rather the debt-to-GDP ratio. She understands that there are two components to a ratio. The Minister of Finance understands that. The same applies to per capita GDP: The ratio of per capita wealth can differ based on wealth and the number of people.

It is the same when the NDP talks about fuel-efficient vehicles. What they care about is how much fuel a vehicle uses to travel 100 kilometres, which provides its fuel efficiency. The NDP understands that concept when it comes to winning votes in their riding and for their base, but not when it comes to the issue of Quebec's weight.

When they are talking about hourly wages, the NDP does not tell people to earn $5 an hour and work 70 hours a week. They say that what is important is the wages that a person earns for each hour worked. The NDP understands ratios, logic, elementary school concepts. With this bill, however, all of a sudden, the NDP members have forgotten what they learned in elementary school. They say that Quebec's political weight is not calculated as a given number of seats divided by a total number of seats, but simply as the numerator, the number of seats. I have trouble understanding that.

I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North. The Liberals know how much I appreciate them and their intelligence. Since I cannot believe that they do not understand, I figure they may just be doing half a job. I will give them an even more concrete example.

The number of seats for Quebec rose from 65 in 1867 to 73 in 1947, to 75 in 1976, to 78 in 2015. The number of seats increased, which is a good thing. During that time, however, the size of the House of Commons also increased, and the percentage of seats belonging to Quebec dropped from 36% to 28.6% to 26.6% to 24.9% to 23.1%.

My colleagues can surely see that the number of seats is irrelevant if the size of the House of Commons is increasing. This shows that the bill does not achieve its goal and that it does not live up to its title.

There are special clauses that provide some protection for the weight of the provinces. I have here the Canada Elections Act, and I see that New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have a senatorial clause. Nova Scotia also has a grandfather clause, as does Manitoba. Even Newfoundland and Labrador has a grandfather clause, after deciding very late in the game to become a member of the federation, and after three referendums that yielded three different answers to the question.

It is therefore not unheard of for the government to protect the political weight of a nation. Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon have constitutional protection. We are not reinventing the wheel.

This is the government's idea of protecting Quebec. The same thing always happens, and the Liberal members say nothing. Maybe they are too busy protesting Bill 96 to have time to think about this bill.

The federal government's idea of protecting Quebec is to introduce a law on bilingualism that gives equal weight to English and French in Quebec. We know that when given the option, companies choose English. It is the same thing with Roxham Road. Quebec is told no. It is the same thing for health transfers. The federal government is unreliable. We cannot depend on it.

Our seniors needed money before the election. They got a $500 cheque before the election. However, when it comes time to protect our seniors after the election, what do they get? They get zero, zip, nada, just a pretty graph in the budget that shows that they are not doing so bad. They are drowning in inflation, but all the government will say is that it hopes they know how to swim. The Liberals are unreliable when it comes time to protect Quebec in any way whatsoever.

It is the same story with the Synergie Mirabel seniors' home project in my riding. Sixty people with diminishing abilities are waiting for the Minister of Transport to give them the right to housing. We are still awaiting an answer. The Liberals are still mucking about.

When it comes time to protect Quebec, the federal government is always unreliable. The Liberals' and the federal government's efforts to protect Quebec make me think of a saying: Put a fox in charge of the henhouse
and you'll have chicken for dinner every time.

Well, we will not allow ourselves to end up on the dinner table. Quebec's history in the federation is a history of declining political power. That is enshrined in this bill, which is incomplete and does not do what it is supposed to. Quebec needs 25% of the seats in the House, but that is only a temporary measure.

What we ultimately want is for Quebec, as a nation, to have the right to all the tools that a nation should have. Once Quebec is independent, it will have 100% of the seats and will not be reduced to crossing the border to beg Ottawa for scraps.

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

Madam Speaker, listening the member reminded me of a discussion that was held in the Prairies a number of years ago when I had a western separatist tell me that western Canada should leave the rest of Canada.

I believe we have a healthy federation with people who understand the true value of a united Canada in all regions of our country. The legislation we have before us today is there to protect the interests of the people of Quebec, just as other changes have taken place for the other provinces the member made reference to in his comments.

At times there is a need for constitutional changes, as we have seen in the past with other changes, whether they were in the territories, P.E.I. or Nova Scotia, and adjustments have been made to ensure regional interests. That is, in fact, what is happening today. We are seeing a minimum number of seats established for the province of Quebec, and that is a good thing.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a Monday. Only the member for Winnipeg North could tell us that the federation is healthy and he hangs out with separatists. I find that hilarious.

He voted to recognize the nation. It is not my fault that the Quebec nation belongs to Quebec and that the Canadian nation decided to have nine provinces. There are other places where nations are recognized, such as the UN General Assembly, where each one has a seat, but I can understand him not liking that. That may be why Canada has not been able to get a seat on the UN Security Council.

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

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing from my colleague from Mirabel.

I am very familiar with his part of the country, which, as we all know, is experiencing a housing crisis.

What I find harder to understand is the Bloc Québécois's attitude toward Bill C‑14, which establishes a minimum number of seats for Quebec in the House of Commons. That is an important aspect.

I almost get the sense that he opposes the bill even though it will guarantee a minimum number of seats, which is something that was extremely important to Quebec.

I have lived in several parts of Québec, including Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, the Eastern Townships, Montreal and the Outaouais. I feel there is a consensus, including in the National Assembly of Quebec, that Bill C‑14 on the minimum number of seats should be passed.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I used to work as an educator. I taught for many years.

As I explained to the House, we still have work to do, and Bill C‑14 does not meet its objectives, because political weight means a certain number of seats as a proportion of the total. Kids learn that in grade two or three.

The only thing the member's comments convince me of is that we need to ensure that education is properly funded.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.

The commissioners need to work on boundary redistribution in Quebec. The bill is going to set the number of ridings at 77 or 78.

Does my colleague think it is important to set this number as soon as possible?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière, who is also my office neighbour. He knows how much I like him.

The Liberals enjoy making us sit until two o'clock in the morning. They say they like to debate and move things forward. If we work quickly and effectively, we will be able to determine exactly the right thing in time.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, of course I really liked the speech given by my colleague, who is always very passionate and very engaged.

He talked about the different areas that Quebec has to constantly fight for, such as seniors, health and language.

When it comes down to it, would the Bloc Québécois and Quebec not be better off with just a single seat, but one at the UN? He mentioned that at the end of his speech.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, spending a weekend in Charlevoix does not make one an expert on Quebec.

Quebeckers know that we can do two things at once, and they support our efforts to defend Quebec's political weight. The correct weight would be 100%, and we would no longer be here.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I obviously really enjoyed my colleague's answer.

I am pleased to be discussing this issue. I will start by making a connection with Bill C-14. The connection may be a little hard to understand at first, but my colleagues will see where I am going with this.

I am deeply outraged right now. Usually, when I am outraged, I tend to get excited and raise my voice in the House. I will try to remain calm while discussing a fundamental matter, something that happened this weekend.

I have been a member of the House for two years now, and I have heard many of our Liberal friends tell us that they are aware of the decline of the French language in Quebec and that its survival is a priority for them. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was the minister of official languages in the last Parliament, tried to win us over here in the House by saying that French was in danger, that her government was aware of that, and that it was going to do something about it and table a bill with teeth.

Suddenly, the Liberals called an election and everything stopped, even though they had told us that it was a very important issue for them. They called an election, and it cost $600 million to go back to square one.

Now here we are. We have a new Minister of Official Languages who also spoke about how important the issue is and said that her government was aware of that. The Prime Minister and all of the members across the aisle said the same thing. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the vast majority of members in the House even voted to recognize Quebec as a nation whose sole official language is French.

That was a few months before the election. Obviously, they were going after seats in Quebec, in particular those held by the Bloc Québécois. They had to make a show of being interested.

For two years, the government buddied up to us, saying that it understood that French was in decline in Quebec and across Canada, and that it was going to introduce legislation to fix that. However, the federal government is not the only government that can pass legislation on French. Right now, Quebec is preparing to pass legislation on French. Quebec is trying to give teeth to Bill 101, to make French the language of instruction. Bill 101 has been undercut 200 times by the Supreme Court of Canada based on a charter that Quebec never signed.

This weekend, we saw seven Liberal members of the federal government protest in Montreal against Bill 96. By chance, although there is no such thing as chance, the members protesting in Montreal on the weekend were among the nine Liberal members who had abstained from the vote to recognize Quebec as a nation. Most of them represent Montreal ridings.

The hon. member for Vimy even posted the following on Twitter: “Today I stood with my colleagues for the Bill 96 protest.”

That is something. We are working to improve the fate of French, and the government says that it is aware of the problem, but then government members go to Quebec to protest against legislation that would put some teeth back into Bill 101, teeth that it lost because of the charter.

What the member said next is particularly interesting. She said, and I quote, “Students, regardless of their background, should have access to an education in the language of their choice.”

Bill 101 is likely the most important piece of legislation that has ever been voted on in the history of Quebec. The great Camille Laurin, René Lévesque, Jacques Parizeau and all of the MNAs and ministers that made up the first Lévesque government led one of the first reforms to Bill 101, because even René Lévesque had a problem with that. I will explain why. Before Bill 101, 90% of immigrants who came to Quebec went to school in English. People settled here and chose to learn English. We were losing the battle, and so legislation was needed.

Earlier, I mentioned René Lévesque. It was humiliating for him to have to legislate on an issue that is taken for granted everywhere else on earth. If someone goes to Germany, they do not ask whether they need to learn German. If someone goes to Spain, they do not ask whether they need to learn Spanish. If someone goes to Poland, they do not ask whether they need to learn Polish. In Quebec, however, the language issue was a problem, so legislation had to be passed. That is what we did.

Our Liberal friends, those who do not recognize the Quebec nation, those who have a problem with the fact that there is a common language in Quebec, are attacking one of the core principles of Bill 101, after 50 years of struggle of strife.

There are children of Bill 101 everywhere. There have been television shows on the subject. People come from around the world and learn French. Our Liberal friends want to tear that down. Personally, I think it is shameful. I am outraged. The Liberals are talking out both sides of their mouth.

Does the Minister of Official Languages agree? Does she take responsibility for members of her own government going to protest in Montreal against one of the most important laws ever passed by Quebec? I am eager to hear what the hon. Minister of Official Languages has to say.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister gave speeches with his hand on his heart. He visited my riding, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, three times. He really wanted the Liberals to win the riding. I took them on, and I am the one proudly representing the riding of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

When the Prime Minister came to my riding, he spoke of language and culture. He said that these were two subjects that were important to the Liberals. He said that they were going to protect the language and culture. However, on the weekend, we witnessed an absolutely appalling spectacle. I am totally outraged, but I must contain myself. I am eager to hear what the Minister of Official Languages and the Prime Minister have to say about this.

This brings me to Bill C-14. In fact, the two are connected. What does the bill say? It talks about “minoritizing” Quebec. In fact, Bill C‑14 institutionalizes the minoritization of Quebec.

I am certain my hon. colleague is better at math than I am, since he is an economist, but this equation is easy. Quebec has 78 out of 338 members; with this bill, it would have 78 out of 343. We would have less weight, which means that Quebec would have less clout to defend its language.

The logical corollary is that we should have more members from Quebec. It is obvious that there must be more Bloc Québécois members in the House to stand up for language and culture.

Last week we discussed Bill C-11. We heard our Conservative friends quote one single academic—St. Michael Geist, pray for us—saying that Canada was going to become a dictatorship where freedom of speech would be abolished. That is what they said. Heaven help me. I was so sick of hearing it that I was nearly ready to sign something so that they would stop repeating it. I was very close to saying yes, that is right, I agree.

It is chilling to realize that we have to fight constantly to protect culture in Quebec.

When we spoke about Bill C‑11, we mentioned how Quebec artists are at a disadvantage on the major platforms. Two years ago, at the ADISQ gala, Pierre Lapointe said he had launched a successful song on social media. It was streamed one million times, but he was paid only $500. That is outrageous.

Quebec is home to artists who are known the world over. We have filmmakers, musicians, actors and directors, including Robert Lepage, yet all this culture is wasting away because the web giants are taking up all the space.

In conclusion, Bill C‑14 aims to minoritize Quebec. In its current version, it is difficult to accept. We will see how we are going to fight it.

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

Madam Speaker, I trust that the member is familiar with Bill C-14, the bill he is debating today. In anticipation that the Bloc will be supporting the legislation, my question for him is related to whether or not he will be voting for it. Does he agree there is a need to see the bill pass so that the people of Quebec are able to see a redistribution of the boundaries?

With regard to the content of his speech, I can assure the member that our current Prime Minister, as well as Liberal prime ministers throughout the ages, has been there not only to protect the important identity and French distinctness of the province of Quebec, but also to ensure that the beautiful French language continues to grow and prosper throughout our great country.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague tells me that the Prime Minister will work to preserve culture.

I hope that he will say so to the hon. member for Vaudreuil—Soulanges, the hon. member for Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, the hon. member for Mont-Royal, the hon. member for Vimy, the hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard, the hon. member for Saint-Laurent and the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Louis, who were all present at the protest against Bill 96 in Montreal this past weekend.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He did not say much about the substance of Bill C-14, but I have one question for him.

What advice should we be giving the commissioners who will be redrawing Quebec's boundaries, in order to avoid mistakes? I am certain they are watching right now.

Could my colleague point the commissioners in the right direction?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asks a good question, but the essence of my speech is that we do not want to lose our political weight.

Who would want to lose political weight? Who would want to lose representation? Who would want to lose a presence here, where decisions are made that affect people's everyday lives? That is what we want to maintain. We want to maintain Quebec’s political weight. Numbers are one thing. We can always discuss them, but what is essential for us is to maintain our political weight so that we can fight for the issues I mentioned.

There are about a hundred of them. The hon. member for Mirabel named several earlier. If we were not here, nothing would be done about these issues.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, the reality is that the French language is in decline in Canada. We believe this bill is essential, not only out of respect for Quebec, but for French across Canada.

Does my colleague believe that this is part of the solution for reversing the decline of the French language in Canada?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, to answer my hon. colleague, I will quote Pierre Bourgault, who said in his day that to fight for French in Quebec—but this is also true for Canada—is to fight for all the languages of the world against the hegemony of one. In this case we are talking about English.

Obviously it is a problem across the country. The numbers on French outside Quebec attest to the failure of the Official Languages Act that was introduced in 1969. We have to work on strengthening it. We have to work for French outside Quebec, but working for French in Quebec is just as important.

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

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the speech by my colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, but I have a question for him.

He would like there to be more Bloc Québécois MPs, but the Bloc is already overrepresented if we are talking about proportional representation in Quebec. Under proportional representation, there would be seven fewer members for the Bloc Québécois and seven more members for the NDP.

My question is simple. Does my colleague agree with implementing proportional representation in order to have every Quebecker's vote count?

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will answer by asking another question.

In the 20 years I spent fighting for French in Quebec, there was one thing that I found very fascinating: There were never any federalists at the protests. My hon. colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île can attest to that.

It is odd. That should be a given. Preserving culture should also be important to Quebeckers who believe in Canada, but that is not the case at present. That is something that has always somewhat bothered me. I hope it will be different in the future.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

I am glad and honoured to offer comments on Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act with respect to electoral representation. I will start by talking a bit about what is in the bill, followed by what I am disappointed to see is not in it.

As has been shared in this place, the bill focuses on ensuring that when the number of members of the House of Commons is readjusted every 10 years, provinces will not have a fewer number of representatives than were assigned in the 43rd Parliament. As their populations might grow, some might be assigned more.

This is very reasonable and has been done before, 1985 being one recent example that has been shared quite a few times in this place. In fact, a province has not lost a seat since 1966. It is reasonable that we continue to build on the principle of representation by population, while also being sensitive to regional representation issues and the size of ridings to ensure that MPs can best support their constituents.

My only question on the core substance of what is in the bill is that it refers to the 43rd Parliament specifically. My question for the governing party is this: Why not create an evergreen version of the bill? If we want the most amount of time in this place focused on the greatest issues facing Canadians, why continue every 10 years to do this process for the census review? I would expect to see parliamentarians in 10 years' time probably having a similar conversation. It seems more efficient to simply say that we would ensure no province's allocation is ever reduced. Of course, as the review is done, some allocations might be increased based on population.

I will now move to what is not in the bill, and I will start with promises made just a few weeks ago in the Liberal-NDP supply and confidence agreement. It included three additional promises to make elections more democratic and more accessible. I wish these promises made so recently were included. What a wonderful opportunity to follow through on these very recent promises made: expanding election day to three days of voting to make sure that more folks can get out to vote, allowing folks to vote at any polling place in their electoral district and improving the process of mail-in ballots knowing that so many Canadians across the country are looking to that process.

I have heard the governing party say that this last piece was really important and that it wanted to move more quickly on it. Well, in my view, all four of them are really important, and I would encourage the governing party to look into how quickly it can move forward on following through with the promises made just a few weeks ago.

More than that, let us recognize that the bill is really just working within an existing winner-take-all system that leads here: Millions of Canadians' votes are not reflected in the makeup of the elected parliamentarians in this place. For my part, I spent the last number of years knocking on door after door in my community, and one of the most difficult conversations I had was with neighbours of mine who told me, “You know what? I'm not planning to vote at all. My vote doesn't count. It hasn't counted before, and I have given up on the partisan, toxic nature of that place. Move on.”

It was a sad moment to recognize that so many, not only in Kitchener but across the country, have just given up on our democracy. I recognize that they are looking for our parliamentarians to say that every single vote should count. Addressing this means bringing in legislation for proportional representation in the way that so many other democracies around the world have, and recognizing that the percentage of seats in this place should recognize the percentage of people who voted for a party.

The good news here is that this promise has been made before. However, in this case, the promise dates back over 100 years. It was first promised by a Liberal government in 1921. It is a promise that was repeated over 1,800 times in 2015 by the governing party, which said it would make sure that every vote counted.

Many Canadians are familiar with the line that 2015 would be the last first-past-the-post election. There was so much excitement. I know there are some members in this place today who have also been pushing for this over the last seven years, from all parties. In fact, a member of the Conservative Party fairly recently publicly shared her support for moving toward proportional representation.

This is why I am disappointed that seven years later, there is still no mention of proportional representation in this bill or any others, recognizing that in other parliaments around the world, moving to proportional representation has led to more diversity among elected representatives. It has led to a more stable governance. It has led to more collaborative approaches, wherein parliamentarians are incentivized to work together to get things done on behalf of constituents across the country.

Of course, it provides more power to the elector. What do I mean by that? As one example, some members of this place will know that it is a real priority for neighbours of mine in Kitchener Centre to see more ambitious action on climate. We should be addressing the climate crisis as the existential threat that it is. A recent poll showed that 66% of Canadians across the country want to see more ambition from the federal government when it comes to action on the climate crisis. Of course, that 66% looking for more ambitious action on climate is not fully represented in this place. Why? It is because we do not have seats in this place that represent Canadians across the country.

I will again put a call out to the governing party to follow through on this promise. Whether it is from seven years ago or 100 years ago, I encourage the governing party to follow through on it.

The last piece of disappointment is with respect to a private member's bill that the governing party has not yet promised to support, but I hope it does. It is Bill C-210, from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He is putting forward legislation that other members of this place have previously put forward, including the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I believe the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

The bill calls on us to reduce the voting age to 16 years old. It is calling for this place to engage young people in their future and recognize that so much of what is discussed here, whether it is with respect to the housing crisis, the climate crisis or many of our priorities, is going to affect young people more than anyone else. Not only is it the right thing to do to align the voting age alongside so many other powerful marks we offer for young people to recognize as they grow into adulthood, but what a meaningful change it would be to ingrain voting habits at a younger age, recognizing that it is young people who are often heading off to post-secondary education.

In our current structure of allowing young people to vote at 18, often the first time to vote is soon after they have moved out into a community they might not know as well. Would it not be more advantageous for a young person to vote for their first time in their home community, where they have grown up, with a parent to have that kind of support and to ingrain good voting habits at a young age?

I will continue to encourage all members of this place to support Bill C-210. Knowing it is not included in the government's legislation, there is another opportunity for members in this place to support voting at a younger age.

I will summarize by saying again that I will be supporting Bill C-14 because it is a reasonable piece of legislation, recognizing it does have wide support from many parties in this place. I would encourage the governing party to go further and recognize there is so much more we could do specifically when it comes to ensuring that this place better reflects the interests of Canadians across the country.

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

Madam Speaker, having sat on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform with his colleague, I can assure the member that in what we heard during testimony throughout that six months, we did hear a lot about the voting age. We heard a lot about civics engagement. We heard about people wanting people to work together.

Over the last couple of weeks, I have noticed a shift. For instance, my own PMB has the support of four parties, which actually jointly seconded it. We have an agreement with the NDP on supply and confidence motions. This is what Canadians want us to do. They want us to work together.

Could the member elaborate a bit on how Bill C-14 would help reinforce the belief Canadians have that parliamentarians are here for them to work together to do what is in their best interests?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with how important it is to see more respectful discourse in this place.

To the member's point, when this bill was last debated on April 7, I read some of the Hansard record on it, given that on that particular day there was another major event happening with respect to the federal budget. I recognize that for this piece of legislation there was more respectful discourse in this place. I also recognize that for private members' bills, including her own, I see opportunities for that.

I celebrate that while first past the post will never get us far enough, the supply and confidence agreement is an example of parliamentarians recognizing that this is what Canadians have voted for within first past the post. Let us see more parliamentarians working together to get things done. That is exactly what we should see here and it is what Canadians expect of all parliamentarians. For my part, that is exactly what I am committed to continuing to do.

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

Madam Speaker, the hon. member referenced the electoral reform committee and the study that was done. I know that the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands was on that committee. The hon. member was not here, but there was a consensus among opposition parties to bring proportional representation to the House, with the caveat that a referendum be put to Canadians with an understanding, of course, that it is not parliamentarians who own the voting system in this country; it is Canadians. It was a reasonable proposal on the part of the opposition members, yet the Liberal government voted against it at the time because ranked ballots were not its preferred choice.

I am wondering if the member could comment on his disappointment, which we all had, that we did not get to that point because of the government.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, while the House leader for the official opposition is right that I was not in this place, I deeply share in his disappointment over that broken promise from back in 2017.

The opportunity for moving toward proportional representation, in my view, was stated pretty plainly, as I mentioned, over 1,800 times. In my view, we saw wide consensus from the committee and saw how clearly the Prime Minister put forward that commitment in the 2015 campaign. I note that the need for consensus was only added after the campaign; it was not one of the commitments made. The commitment made was to make sure that every vote counted and that this was the last of first past the post.

On the subject of a referendum, many across the country have been calling for a citizens' assembly, recognizing that this is a way for it to be non-partisan, to be independent, to take political interests out and to put the interests of Canadians first and foremost.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not happy because Bill C-14 does not maintain Quebec's political weight. We would like Quebec to have a proportion of the seats, for example 25%. Instead, Quebec will keep the same number of MPs, whereas other areas will get more, which is equivalent to reducing Quebec's political weight.

Does my colleague acknowledge that Quebec forms a nation? Does he believe that we should maintain our political weight?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will answer in English so that I get my words exactly right.

I do recognize that Quebec is a nation within Canada. I recognize that the Bloc is concerned with this. I recognize what the Bloc shares in terms of the political weight. I also think it is important to ensure we have proportional representation across the country.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House of Commons. We are here today to continue the debate at second reading for Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. Since our democratic process is the focus of this legislation, I will mention that it is always great to represent the great people back home.

It is also worth mentioning the Canadians of all ages and backgrounds from across the country who watch and follow the proceedings here in Parliament or who participate in our political system in countless other ways. This chamber truly belongs to the people, and we should keep in mind that we are discussing their business particularly today as it relates to each and every voting citizen of Canada.

They are the ones who sent us here. They begin at the age of 18, which we hope reflects a suitable level of maturity. At the point when we treat people, at least in many respects, as legal adults, they have the right to vote in this country. Each of us is supposed to have a say in our future direction as a nation. With that in mind, it remains as important as it has ever been to make sure this ability to vote is effectively and fairly represented.

I am sure members already know, today's debate on the bill to amend the Constitution Act of 1867 does not mean at all that we are reopening the contentious constitutional debates over the last few decades. I will discuss something else related to that in a moment. Although there is no controversial amendment to the written part of our Constitution itself, that should not keep us from appreciating the fact that we are carrying out a task given under our Constitution, which is essential to it.

The year of Canada's Confederation, 1867, is referenced right there in the title of the same act, which created the federal dominion as we know it today. As Canadians who are alive now, we are continuing and developing this democratic representation, which goes all the way back to that time and even before then.

Sometimes we take this democratic institution for granted. That can be true in different ways, such as not fully appreciating that we live in a country where we have the right to vote in the first place, or when some of us do not take the opportunities to exercise the rights we have.

Here, again, we have a new example in front of us. Do we consider, realize or even wonder about how the decisions are made to create our ridings? It is fundamental to know how our system works. It determines where we vote based on where we live, and it can make quite a difference for organizing our lives as citizens at different levels.

Every 10 years, there is a redistribution of ridings. After the most recent census, there is a process carried out by an electoral boundaries commission in each province, which includes seeking feedback from the public. As with any other part of our political system, it can always be good to see our fellow citizens participate however they can. Afterwards, in some cases, there are significant changes where ridings go in or out of existence. Getting the right boundaries for each riding matters because it has to reflect a geography in a given area where local communities exist, along with any other practical realities that they have to deal with.

For example, I will never get tired of saying that life in rural ridings is quite different from life in urban ridings. There is a completely different way of life, which deserves recognition and creates unique conditions for them to be represented as well.

The riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, which I am proud to call home and to represent, is a perfect example of this. It has officially existed since 1997, with some variation over those 25 years. Overall, the basic structure of it has worked fairly well for our area as a whole. Covering all of southwest Saskatchewan, along the borders of Alberta and the United States, it is overwhelmingly rural.

There is a lot of farm land and many smaller communities spread out over the 78,000 square kilometres. Driving from one end to the other going across the riding takes three hours, and going diagonally, it takes closer to five hours. Commuting long distances is a fact of life for doing politics, but also for many other activities in every day life.

The city of Swift Current is the largest population centre for a wide radius, and it falls nicely right in the middle, with different parts of the riding in each direction. While meeting the people across Cypress Hills—Grasslands and working to represent them, there has been a clear advantage of averaging the travel time out to every corner of the riding. This has allowed me to more easily move around and have town halls with constituents in all areas of the riding.

In this particular case, it is more than a practical benefit. For this one part of our province, the federal riding more or less matches a region that we just generally call the southwest. It largely captures an area that shares a common way of life and experience, which is distinct from places closer to the bigger cities. I can always go on and on about where I come from, but for now I will move on.

Getting the right number of seats matters too because we need to make sure there is fair representation among the provinces and regions, as well as for all Canadians as equal citizens. That is the concern addressed by the grandfather clause in Bill C-14, which has already received a lot of attention. From what I understand, this is, in principle, an update of a grandfather clause introduced under a previous Conservative government.

As I am sure we all agree, Canadians should be represented fairly in the final outcome of their vote. Balancing seats per province is another important way of making sure this happens. There certainly should be fair representation between regions, so I support Saskatchewan maintaining its 14 seats and no fewer.

However, I will note that Bill C-14 is not following the regular process of redistribution on its own. In fact, the Chief Electoral Officer's most recent allocation of seats would result in Quebec losing one seat. Coming from a province that previously lost four seats, I think it was back in 1966, I can understand their angst at the idea of losing just one seat.

What Bill C-14 is trying to do is prevent that from happening in Quebec. I acknowledge that the House already passed an opposition motion for this to happen, but I do not think that we should ignore this specific context. Coming from Saskatchewan, I understand, again, why they do not want to lose their seat, but this goes to show that there are all kinds of social factors at play when considering the issue of representation. There are many ways to look at how it works in Canada.

One of the most underrated is economic. During the town halls I mentioned earlier, and in my conversations at coffee shops, one of the most common things I hear from constituents is that riding distributions should fix the discrepancies between not only eastern and western Canada, but also urban and rural Canada. When I ask how this should happen, one of the more interesting proposals I have heard from people is to factor in GDP production to reflect the benefit of rural areas. That might be something worth considering. They are getting at something beyond total numbers of population. I come from an area with great economic output, from the agricultural and resource sectors.

To be clear, I am not saying that this is something that we need to absolutely factor in as we move forward, but it is something that I have heard in feedback from constituents as a way they see of being able to balance out, again, the power that does not exist in rural Canada. If we think about representation based on something like GDP, it paints a different picture. We might have a situation where each region strives to utilize its best potential. Quebec, for example, could keep focusing on their hydrogen potential and their green natural gas. Ontario could bolster their nuclear power and manufacturing, while the Prairies could continue to produce the food and fuel for the world.

The world embraces advancing technology, and everyone is happy. Instead, this is how our rural areas are treated politically or otherwise in return for their strong economic contributions. Way too often they are forgotten, ignored or, sometimes, flat out attacked. Along with Cypress Hills—Grasslands, there are other places with huge economic potential, such as Battlefords—Lloydminster, Battle River—Crowfoot or Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, to name a few, that are being held back by the Liberals' failed impact assessment law, which was recently deemed unconstitutional in Alberta court.

We need to think about how electoral boundaries should promote national unity, rather than worsen rural alienation, especially out west in the Prairies. It negatively affects the whole country, not just those who live there.

I hope everyone can agree on these basic principles behind the work that is going on with redistribution in our ridings. I will finish my speech by raising some points of concern with the debate so far. Right now, confidence in our democratic institutions is getting weaker, but the NDP-Liberal coalition keeps undermining public trust. As the redistribution process unfolds, we have heard an NDP member claim that the grandfather clause for Quebec is a result of their deal with the Liberals. It really does seem like a lot more is going on than just confidence and supply votes.

Canadians can only hope that the NDP, as a minority party in fourth place, does not plan to further exploit their privileged position for political gain. Meanwhile, the Bloc has said the grandfather clause is not enough for them. Instead, one member seemed to even hint that separation would be the only path forward for them.

Redistribution is not the place for pushing ideological agendas at the federal level. As it is, I will support this bill going to committee for study, and look forward to seeing what will happen when we get the bill there and having it return to this place.

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

Madam Speaker, in a minority situation, the government is always looking for opposition members to recognize the importance of passing legislation.

The people of Quebec are in a holding pattern because the commission needs a green light with regard to this particular legislation. Could the member provide his thoughts on how important it is that the House of Commons deals with this legislation in a quick fashion? It would be wonderful to see it pass this week, before the break. Would the member not agree that the House should do whatever it could to get it passed this week?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, when we look at the political balance in this country, where ridings are and where new ridings are going to be popping up, we see there have been a few more seats added to the west.

We need to make sure that we do the due diligence to a bill like this. I am all for working together to get bills passed, to get the bills done, but I do not think we should be rushing through a bill like this. This is a very important bill. I think my colleagues from Quebec would agree that this a very important bill and a very timely bill. Having seen some provinces get their redistribution maps, and not every province has so far, I think there is a lot more to be done before we rush through passing a bill such as this.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to know if my colleague agrees that by keeping the number of Quebec MPs the same and increasing the number of MPs elsewhere, Quebec's political weight will not be maintained.

Does he agree that Quebec should maintain its political weight?

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, I think the decision to do what they have done with adding and subtracting seats has to do with population. I think that is a big factor that goes into it.

The bill seeks to make sure that Quebec does not lose its seats. In effect, it creates a floor of ridings across the country, with redistribution increasing seats in areas where the population has grown at a more rapid rate. I think it was something put in place by the Stephen Harper government. It has a good legacy there, and so I look forward to seeing what the new ridings they come up with would be and how that is going to impact the distribution of seats in the future as well.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is always great to watch how testy the Conservatives get when they find out that people can actually come to Parliament and get things done. It is a minority Parliament, and one of the principles of minority government is that people work together.

However, what I see from the Conservatives is relentless opposition, relentless disinformation and relentless attempts to block things. We came here, and we told people that, if we were to be elected, we would get them national dental care, and we got that. While we were at it, for the people of Quebec, we said that we would make sure they would not lose a seat, and we got that. I know that upsets the Bloc because it is now sitting here doing nothing, but this is how Parliament works.

We can either show up to throw rocks, or we can get something done. We came here to get stuff done.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, well, the one thing they have gotten done is they sacrificed their principles on lots of other areas, so that is up to them to decide. Conservatives have supported different government legislation over time. We do not support everything the government does, but it is our job to always rise in this place, go through legislation and point out the flaws, as we have over the last couple of years. There were many times during the pandemic when we pointed out that there were some flaws with some of the support programs coming out. There was a rush to get them approved so they were just approved, but then we had to come back and relegislate, because nobody had bothered to listen to us.

When we actually do due process on legislation, we go through it and provide the scrutiny that Canadians expect the opposition to do. It does not matter what party one belongs to, the opposition's job is to scrutinize what the government is doing, not to hold its hand through the process and make sure its agenda gets through. It is to make sure that the appropriate measures are in place and that Canadians get the best possible outcome in each particular piece of legislation.

That is what I will—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

It is time to resume debate.

The hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C‑14. I will start by talking about the principles that have always underpinned the NDP's work in the House. I will then talk about how we could adapt this chamber to reflect the values of Canadians, thereby ensuring that this place is the House of Commons that Canadians across the country truly want.

Let me get back to Bill C‑14. Ever since the NDP has held seats in this House, it has fought to ensure that all Canadians are represented. We, of course, agree that Quebec should have a guaranteed level of representation in the House of Commons, and that provision is included in the supply and confidence agreement that the member for Burnaby South signed on behalf of the NDP with the Liberal government. This is why the bill before us today would ensure that Quebec has a guaranteed level of representation in the House of Commons. The NDP believes that 78 seats for Quebec is an important and fundamental principle.

As my colleagues know, when we look at the provinces and territories of Canada, such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the provinces of Atlantic Canada, Nunavut, Yukon or the Northwest Territories, we always see this principle of a minimum threshold of representation. It is not a new idea; it has already been implemented. In the agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party, the NDP forced the government to act, because it is important. Obviously, the NDP will be supporting this bill because it makes sense.

Although we will be voting in favour of this bill, we must also remember that it is missing something, and that is the important notion of proportional representation. I will remind the House that a few years ago, in 2015, our Prime Minister promised that the election that had just taken place would be the last non-proportional election, a promise he was quick to break. However, if proportional representation were applied to Quebec, it would greatly change the composition of the House of Commons.

As it did again a few minutes ago during the speech by the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, for whom I have a great deal of respect, the Bloc claims that there should be more Bloc members in the House of Commons. However, that is precisely where the Bloc is failing Quebeckers.

The Bloc Québécois has more members than it would have been entitled to under proportional representation, since it received far fewer votes. The Bloc would have had seven fewer MPs, so those who voted for the Bloc are actually over-represented in the House. Who would have had more MPs with proportional representation? The NDP, which would have a total of eight MPs in Quebec.

The idea of a minimum threshold for Quebec representation is important, but we need to go further. We need to implement proportional representation. If that were the case, there would be fewer Liberal members, fewer Bloc members and more NDP members, because that is what Quebeckers decided in the last election.

When we look at representation in the House, we cannot forget this important element. It is not just about the number of seats. At the end of the day, the members who are elected must be elected in a way that respects the voters' choice. The NDP has been advocating for this principle for years.

For Quebeckers, the fact that we do not have proportional representation means there are fewer New Democrats and more Bloc members in the House than there should be. Far fewer people voted for the Bloc in Quebec, so the number of Bloc members is not representative.

The same goes for the Liberal Party. There should be fewer Liberal MPs representing Quebec in the House. Here again, because we do not have proportional representation, there are more Liberal MPs in Quebec than the number of votes justifies.

The NDP will always advocate for an electoral system in which every vote counts. That is an important principle. When we look at what is happening in other countries, where every vote counts, we see that the most progressive and innovative parties are the ones that end up with the most elected members. This extremely important element should be part of every discussion about representation.

Determining who has the right to vote is another very important element. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, British Columbia, has introduced a bill related to this issue. People 16 and 17 years of age must be allowed to vote. In a few weeks, all members of the House of Commons will be tested for cynicism. Will they say that the right to vote should be extended to 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds?

We already know that these young people are very concerned and that the decisions we make in the House will affect their whole lives. Personally, I have been active within the NDP since I was 14, and I do not accept the argument by some hon. members that 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds should not be allowed to vote because they are too young. They are already working, learning to drive and paying taxes, yet they are not allowed to vote. It is strange. It should not be this way.

That is why I fully support Bill C‑210. All NDP MPs support it. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has already noted that 16- and 17-year-olds have been asking members to vote in favour of this bill. We must expand the right to vote to these people who are already fully contributing to our society.

This is an extremely important part of representation. I hope that every MP will hear the message that young people are sending and give these young Canadians the chance to vote in the next election. Since these young people will be affected the most by the decisions we make or do not make in the House of Commons, it is extremely important that they have the opportunity to have a say in their own future.

This is the fundamental question, when we go beyond the idea that certain regions of our country have minimum representation in the House of Commons. This is something that has already been granted to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Atlantic provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as well as the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, an extraordinary region of our country, and the Yukon. In those regions of the country, we already have a minimum level of representation. What this bill does is simply extend that to Quebec.

It is for that reason, and for historic reasons as well. There is no doubt that Quebec represents a nation in Canada. We voted on this in the House of Commons, and it makes very real sense to adopt this bill.

However, this is not the only aspect of representation that we need to be tackling. This is where we get to the issue of a reform of our electoral system.

Members know well that if we actually had in place a proportional system of voting, with electoral reform, like so many other countries have, we would actually see in the House of Commons far fewer Conservatives, far fewer Liberals and far more New Democrats. As we know, in the last election Canadians voted in vast numbers for the NDP, and there should be over 60 NDP MPs in the House of Commons, but we do not have proportional voting. Our electoral system, first past the post, ensures that only one of the parties is represented, despite the fact that Canadians divide up in a much more even way between the traditional old parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and the New Democrats. Having in place proportional voting, mixed member proportional representation, would make a difference in how the House of Commons is put together.

As we know, in the last two elections, we have seen minority Parliaments that Canadians have decided on, even with the first-past-the-post system. What the NDP has done with that, with the mighty strength of our 25 members of Parliament, is push the government to finally do the right thing. The confidence and supply agreement, as we have seen, has made a significant difference in the lives of Canadians.

We are seeing put into place a national dental care program, something that has been talked about for decades. Now it is finally happening. For decades, we have had a growing homelessness and an affordability crisis in housing, and now finally that is being addressed through the confidence and supply agreement. It is because it is a minority Parliament that the NDP is able to push hard so that Canadians actually get the benefits, finally, after decades of inaction, both from Liberal and Conservative governments. I do not single out one or the other. It has been lamentable, how we have seen massive giveaways to the ultrarich and to the banks and billionaires develop over time. At the same time, Canadians are being neglected. Seniors are being neglected. Families are being neglected, and young people are being neglected.

We have seen a complete lack of respect and responsibility in terms of actually ensuring a future for indigenous peoples. We have seen how, over time, our federal institutions have been eroded, but now, with two consecutive minority Parliaments, Canadians can start seeing that they can have confidence again that the government may actually do the right thing and respond to the affordable housing crisis, respond to the crises we see in indigenous communities, respond to the climate crisis and respond, as well, to the fact that most Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. Things like dental care and pharmacare would make a significant difference in their quality of life.

Putting in place that electoral reform would mean that the House of Commons would actually reflect how Canadians vote, as opposed to a first-past-the-post system where majorities are magnified. Both Conservatives and Liberals have not had 50% of the vote, but they have had far more than 50% of the power; they have had 100% of the power with majority governments. We saw how that acted out in the dismal decade of the Harper government. We have seen how far short the Liberals fell with the majority government, which did virtually nothing for Canadians.

Now, in a minority Parliament situation, which would happen more often and more significantly under an electoral reform and a voting system where every vote counts, we would be able to achieve more for Canadians. The neglect of regular Canadians that we have seen over decades, while hundreds of billions have been given in handouts to banks and billionaires in overseas tax havens, would have to cease, because ultimately the NDP would have a greater representation in the House and be able to push hard for a better response to what working people are going through.

It is not just about electoral reform in the sense of proportional representation; it is also about giving younger people a voice. That is why I want to pay tribute to the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for presenting Bill C-210 in the House. All members of Parliament will have to vote on this important initiative. Bill C-210 would give 16- and 17-year-olds the full right as Canadians to finally be able to vote in federal elections.

This is fundamentally important. With the climate crisis, we are seeing things change in our country. Last year, in my area of Burnaby and New Westminster and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, we saw over 600 people die in the sweltering temperatures of the heat dome provoked by the climate crisis. Many of the people who died were simply unable to leave their apartments and did not have air conditioning in place. The emergency systems were overloaded. Ambulances simply could not keep up. Firefighters stepped in. This occurred over a number of days, as hundreds of people died. I spoke with emergency workers and first responders who said that if it had gone on for another couple of days, it would have led to a collapse of our emergency response system.

Therefore, for governments to not respond to the magnitude of the climate crisis for decades is absolutely irresponsible, and I blame the Conservatives and the Liberals equally. Young people in this country understand that, so by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote, I believe we will cause a substantial change in voting patterns and the composition of the House of Commons, because young Canadians will no longer accept an ostrich-style response to the climate crisis that is now upon us. Giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote gives them a stake in their own future. The bad decisions that have been made over the last few decades will fundamentally change with an influx of voters who understand what is at stake with respect to the climate crisis.

With respect to representation, this bill, in a very limited scope, does one good thing, but we expect the government to move further on keeping its promises. We all remember in 2015 when the Prime Minister stood up and announced, with the eyes of the nation on him, that it would be the last first-past-the-post election, and won a majority government as a result. He promptly broke that promise and has not had a majority government since, because what Canadians have been saying to him and to the Liberal government is that they simply will not accept a situation in which 30% or 32% of the vote gives 100% of the power. As members well know, a minority Parliament situation allows for real discussions about the future of our country and what Canadians need to be brought to the forefront of the House of Commons.

I have been in this House as an elected member of Parliament in a number of majority Parliaments, and we need to have a Parliament that reflects how Canadians vote. I hope that legislation will be forthcoming in the coming years.

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

Madam Speaker, the reason we have this legislation before us today is that a commission was established through the independent agency known as Elections Canada to look at the number of seats and how the boundaries would look in future elections. Upon receiving that report not that long ago, the general consensus, I believe, of the chamber, or at the very least within the Liberal caucus, was that we see this as a piece of positive legislation that addresses a specific need with respect to the commission.

My question for the member is this. How important does he believe it is for the legislation to pass quickly so the commission can continue to work on boundary redistribution in the province of Quebec, where there have been population shifts?

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

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, we have seen the Conservatives stand in this House and say they support the legislation, but that they want to debate it. We have seen this since the last election, with the singular difference and distinction of the ban on conversion therapy, which was passed by all four corners of this House in December. That seems to have led to a meltdown within the Conservative ranks. Since then, the Conservatives have been blocking every single piece of legislation before the House and refusing to let anything pass, no matter who would benefit. I find that unfortunate. I hope they will see reason, stop blocking this bill and allow it to go through.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a simple question for my colleague. What does he say to people who know that their French‑speaking nation is in decline, who are fighting, breathing through a straw and calling for even a modicum of respect to avoid becoming minimized in Quebec? It is all well and good to keep the same number of seats, but what about proportionality?

How are we supposed to interpret the fact that our colleagues are saying that the French‑speaking nation is important when the reality is that our nation is in decline? What are we to say to that?

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

Madam Speaker, that is precisely my point. Proportional representation would mean seven fewer Bloc Québécois representatives in the House of Commons and seven more NDP members.

We have to respect Quebeckers' choices. If we look at the percentage of votes, we see that they would have chosen to elect seven more NDP members and seven fewer Bloc Québécois members. However, the Bloc is opposed to a proportional system for Quebec and the rest of Canada.

I do not understand that. The Bloc says we have to respect Quebeckers' choices. That would mean seven more NDP members if we look at proportional representation.

I do not understand why the Bloc Québécois refuses proportional representation in the House of Commons.

[Brian Masse, NDP, Windsor West, ON]

Madam Speaker, the history of Canada has minority Parliaments, or at least never a majority of the population voting for one party. This actually fits with our heritage. I would like the hon. member to reflect on that. The question is whether we should be moving towards where Canadians have always wanted us to be.

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

Madam Speaker, I admire my colleague from Windsor West a lot. He is always very incisive and effective in the questions he asks in the House of Commons.

We have had a tradition of ensuring that the regions of our country, provinces and territories have a minimum level of representation. That has been a principle of Confederation. It is something that Canadians work together on.

The bill is an important one. The interesting thing is the refusal of the Conservatives to let it move on, to let it move to committee, to let it move through the various stages of the House of Commons. That is something that is abnormal. Conservatives in the past have tried to work co-operatively with other parties. They certainly did in the last Parliament. That seems to have stopped. I regret that, and I hope the Conservatives will start working again with other parties, allowing legislation to advance so we can get things done for Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, I hope this works. I am going to ask my friend the question I was going to ask the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands about the ways in which our voting system tends to enforce notions of regional difference and further isolate. The hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands was saying that rural Canadians do not get represented properly in this country, and partly that is because of first past the post.

In Saskatchewan, in the last election, 20% of voters voted for the New Democratic Party, but none of the members represent that particular viewpoint. If we had proportional representation, we would have members from the governing party probably in cabinet and members of other parties raising the voice of concern for more rural Canadians.

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

Madam Speaker, this an obvious scenario on which the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I agree 100%, that our voting system is simply not working. We have representation from the older parties, the Liberals and Conservatives, that is far beyond the number of Canadians that actually voted for them, and under-representation from other parties. That includes the New Democratic Party. Fundamentally, there should be 60 NDP members of Parliament here. That is how Canadians voted, and the Green Party is another example of that, under-represented in the House of Commons. We need to make sure that representation in the House is proportionate to the votes that Canadians cast, and the NDP will continue to work with other parties to get to that end.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member talks about co-operation and is very excited about the NDP's co-operation with the Liberals. I wonder if he has the same enthusiasm for co-operation with the provinces, which it is incumbent upon the government to undertake.

Prior to the NDP's committing to support this legislation, can the member share with us what consultations, that he knows of, have taken place between the federal government and the provinces? As for the work that is already ongoing with respect to the boundaries commission, has that been adjusted, altered or worked into the planning of the potential implementation of this legislation?

Further, Canadians have a guaranteed right to representation by population. What is the member's thinking with respect to Canadians' existing rights and the government's responsibility to partner, co-operate and communicate with the provinces instead of an “Ottawa knows best” or a “Liberal-NDP knows best” approach?

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

Madam Speaker, I am a little flabbergasted, quite frankly. I gather, though I may have misunderstood, that the Conservative member, for whom I have a lot of respect, is calling into doubt the whole essence of how we have composed the House of Commons, including the minimum representation that Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Newfoundland and Labrador and the territories get.

If the idea is that the Conservatives are turning against that, which the member seemed to imply, that would be a serious shift in how we have composed the House of Commons. We have given those areas of this country a minimum representation, not based on representation by population but on a varied historical background. I will have to clarify with the member later, but I hope he was not renouncing Conservative policy in that regard.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up with my hon. colleague. He raised concerns about the fact that the Conservatives seem to have lost their way as a credible voice, trying to pit region against region, obstructing work that is badly needed in the House of Commons, and now promoting crazy things like bitcoin. I guess it is fair to say that bitcoin is crazy, is it not, after the crash? However, this is their new economic policy.

Can my hon. colleague explain what has happened in the ranks of the Conservative Party?

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

Madam Speaker, I would simply suggest this: We should not take financial or economic advice from the member for Carleton, because if we had, we would have lost half our wealth since he began his leadership campaign.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-14, which talks about preserving provincial representation in our House of Commons. This is fundamental to who we are as Canada. It defines us as being equitable in how we treat Confederation. Ultimately, this is about ensuring that the overall basis of having equal representation by population is adhered to.

This act would not take away the addition of seats in faster-growing provinces such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, but would ensure that slower-growing provinces, such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, some Atlantic Canada provinces and Quebec, are not shortchanged in the seats they currently have. It goes without saying that all members of the House want to ensure that the numbers we currently have for each province are respected.

If population growth in Manitoba had not kept up over the last number of years, especially if we look back over the last two redistribution periods, and if we had kept to the strict rule of representation by population, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and other provinces may have lost seats. The voice of each province counts. Although representation by region is more adequately represented in the Senate, we need to ensure that all voices from all regions of Canada are heard here. It is for that very reason that I am standing in support of this bill. I want to ensure that Manitoba never loses a seat beyond the 14 it has.

If we look at representation by population, the average riding in Canada currently holds about 100,000 people. My riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is currently at 109,000. It is at the upper end of the range that is allowed in redistribution, as ridings can be a maximum of 10% above or below population averages within each and every province. The average in Manitoba is now at 100,000, which is about the national average. The bill would ensure that each and every one of us here will represent about 100,000 people so that our voices are equal.

However, we know that in periods between the distribution of ridings and boundary commissions redrawing where boundaries fall, and because of new developments, faster growth in some areas and economic opportunities, riding populations often increase dramatically. We know that some of the ridings in Ontario, Alberta and B.C. represent 140,000, 150,000 or 160,000 people, so we need to make sure that we add seats and members of Parliament to those provinces so that we have an equal number of people represented per riding. That is only fair and something we need to do.

When the Conservatives were in government back in 2011, we brought forward the Fair Representation Act, which set in stone the formulas that are used as we go forward with redistributions by boundary commissions. They are ongoing right now. In Manitoba, we are waiting to hear in the next week from the boundary commission regarding how it is going to redraw boundaries in Manitoba. It is highly probable that some regions of Manitoba will see boundaries change.

One of the ridings in Manitoba where I do not believe the boundaries should be changed too dramatically is the riding of Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. Geographically, that riding represents two-thirds of the province of Manitoba. Although its population has dropped by a couple of thousand people since the last redistribution, I believe the ability to represent that large a geographic area, which includes remote, rural and northern communities, is incredibly difficult for the member who currently represents the riding, and for any member in the future, for that matter.

There are several first nations there that are fly-in only. Churchill, for example, is only accessible by rail or air. Until recently, before we had the east side road built up on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, all of the first nations in that area were only accessible by winter road, by boat or by plane. It is therefore important that we take some of these conditions into consideration as boundary commissions consider their work.

Back in 2011, we added 30 new seats because we were caught in a system that dated back to 1985. Ridings were set at 308 for the entire country for that entire time. Ensuring that we can match the number of seats in the chamber with population growth is something that I find necessary and is something that realistically looks at how things are changing in our great nation.

When we look at places such as Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, population does not always keep up. We need to make sure that this representation does not slide down past where we are right now. I would hate to see the provinces of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and P.E.I., which is guaranteed four seats in the House of Commons, go back to when they joined Confederation and lose seats. In reality, for P.E.I., we would only have one or two members of Parliament based on population, but the voices of members who represent P.E.I count. We sometimes have to balance population with regional and provincial areas of interest. We need to be focused and open-minded at the same time as we talk about the changes in our boundaries.

We respect the independent boundary commissions and the work going on right now. They are going to provide opportunities for Canadians to look at how they redraw boundaries. I know there are a lot of discussions taking place over some of the commissions' reports that have already been released, including for British Columbia, Saskatchewan and other provinces. However, there is going to be an opportunity for the commissioners who drafted the first reports to hear from Canadians, whether they are community leaders, those in municipalities, us parliamentarians or those who have a very strong interest in how we conduct ourselves and how we represent areas in our regions.

When we look at our electoral districts, it is important that we look at what is important from a municipal standpoint. Rurally, boundary commissions sometimes cut municipalities in half and put half a rural municipality or half a community in one riding and half in the other. I have always advocated for the fact that it is best to keep municipalities in one riding so they are completely captured within one riding. It is better for working with members of Parliament.

We also want to make sure we look at trade corridors and communities of like interest, communities that are, for example, all agriculture-based or maybe resource-based. Maybe they are indigenous. Those communities should be lumped together to ensure that their vote matters and that through their members of Parliament, they are heard loud and clear.

I know we are not looking at whether this is a permanent solution or just a patchwork. We are concerned that this is coming up late, as boundary commissions are already completing their work, and we wonder if this is going to delay that work.

I will end with this. I am looking forward to a response from the government on how it will ensure that we are not disturbing the critical work that boundary commissions are doing right now.

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

Mr. Speaker, to answer the member's question, it was not that long ago when the electoral commission brought forward the number of seats in the distribution of the provinces. The legislation we have today is a direct result of an independent agency, as it should be, and I suspect it will pass unanimously. That is what I am expecting to see on this legislation.

There is something I do not quite understand, and maybe the member opposite can explain to people who might be following the debate, in particular those in the commission, because this does matter. The Quebec commission requires the legislation to pass. The longer we hold off on passing the legislation, there more it could, no doubt, have an impact.

Why would the Conservative Party not want to see this legislation pass? It is not like it is that unique. We already have things of this nature for other jurisdictions. The member made reference to Manitoba, our own home province.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind the member for Winnipeg North that back on March 2, the Conservatives brought forward a motion that was passed unanimously. The motion read, “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 was on March 2. What took the member so long to bring this forward? He should not be blaming the Conservatives for holding up having a fulsome discussion on this piece of legislation, when the Liberals waited until the last minute before boundary commissions are supposed to be wrapping up their work.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Uqaqtittiji, I would like to thank the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman for sharing in his intervention the piece on the geography of ridings. As members know, as the member of Parliament for Nunavut I have a huge riding. I have 25 mayors, 25 communities with schools and 25 communities with health centres, and I cannot visit all 25 communities in one fiscal year. It would take me more than one fiscal year to visit all of my communities, so this discussion on the barriers of geography is an important one for me.

I wonder if the member would share more on why it is important to ensure that larger ridings have more MPs to make sure that all of our communities can be heard.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member for Nunavut. I have some familiarity with her riding. My mother was born in Chesterfield Inlet and spent a number of years up in Pangnirtung. It is a part of Canada that I really love.

I have travelled around a bit in Nunavut, and I know how far apart places are and how expensive it is to get from one community to another. Their voices need to be heard just as much as the voices of somebody living in downtown Toronto or Winnipeg or here in Ottawa. We have to make sure that we find ways to better communicate with our constituents and ensure that they are getting the representation they deserve.

As I mentioned in my comments earlier, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, a northern riding in Manitoba, covers two-thirds of the province of Manitoba. In my riding, I have 70-plus communities, 32 municipalities, two first nations and 27 Métis locals, and I need to get around to them. It is difficult for me to get to every one of those communities over a year once or twice, and that is in a riding of 26,000 square kilometres. When we look at northern Manitoba, the Northwest Territories, Nunavut and Yukon, we see they are very challenging, and we always have to consider them as we make these types of decisions.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo.

Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo encompasses a somewhat urban centre in Kamloops, but it also has a number of smaller communities, such as Vavenby, Clearwater, Barriere, 100 Mile House and 70 Mile House. I wonder if the member can comment, based on his experience, about the importance of remembering the rural areas to ensure their ongoing representation so that this is not just a focus on what might otherwise become urban sprawl in the larger centres.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think all of us, especially those who represent mixed areas of urban and rural, do not want to allow the urban area to become a louder voice than that of the rural population. For those of us who represent rural areas, our hearts and souls will always be with the farmers and remote northern communities. We have to make sure their voices are heard loud and clear.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be participating in the debate on democracy in Canada, our electoral democracy in which every vote is to be counted correctly, but also, and this is important, in which every Canadian has access to quality service because of the presence of a member in their riding.

There are 338 representatives in the House, and each riding has its own characteristics. There are urban ridings that are two or three square kilometres and that are peopled from one end of the riding to the other. They are densely populated. In Canada's Far North and in the northern areas of the provinces, there are vast ridings that are hundreds or even thousands of kilometres long, where people need to be represented effectively and where the MP must play a role.

For that reason, every 10 years, based on demographic change, Elections Canada assesses whether demographic weight has been maintained in all parts of Canada. This has resulted in conflicting opinions. Some will say the number of ridings should be decreased in a certain area or increased in another, and so forth.

Let us be honest. As parliamentarians, in a way, we are in a major conflict of interest. We are judge and jury. It is not up to us to define or carve out electoral districts. Of course, it would be tempting, but it would also be dishonest. Our top priority is to represent the people. That is why we need to be aware of the fact that every riding must be balanced and that every citizen has the right to a representative who can do their job properly.

In 2021, the government was taking a second go at electoral redistribution following the improvements that were made by our government in 2011 when we were in power. Some questions were raised about the electoral map and some public comments were made that were completely valid and relevant in a political debate. That recently led to the introduction of Bill C‑14.

I tried to read the bill's description earlier, and I must admit that it almost put me to sleep. I will therefore summarize it in a few very simple words: The representation of every province will be preserved and no province will lose ridings. As much as possible is being done to balance that reality.

We support Bill C‑14 because, as my colleague rightly pointed out a few minutes ago, the Conservatives moved the following motion in the House on March 2, 2022:

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 exactly what the government did. Some may wonder why a bill is needed if a motion was already moved. I can already sense that Canadians watching right now are wondering that same thing. The answer is that, quite simply and unfortunately, one member denied unanimous consent for our Conservative motion that has the exact same purpose as Bill C‑14. That one dissenting voice came from the Green Party.

I cannot wait to find out why the Green Party opposed a motion that would ensure that no province would lose a single seat. I am talking about the member from British Columbia and not the one from the Maritimes. If I had one thing to say about the electoral map, it would be the outrageously long riding names. I have a big problem with that, but that is my own issue. I will not get into that here.

When ridings have long names that just never end, we should do what was done in my neck of the woods, which is to just say Louis‑Saint‑Laurent. It is a universal name. He never harmed anyone, everyone can agree on that. If the name is too long, condense it and choose one everyone can agree on. Several suggestions could be made. I went a bit off topic there, but I still think it is a good idea.

Getting back to the crux of the matter, I was saying that we want to preserve that. As I briefly mentioned earlier, all Canadians should be represented by their MP, but the ridings are not the same, geographically speaking.

In the case of my riding, I am very lucky, and some would say it is the most beautiful riding in Canada. I think it is, but I will let people be the judge of that. It is located on the northwestern edge of Quebec City, and the Wendake First Nation, which I very proudly represent here, is right in the middle of it.

My riding is about eight kilometres wide from east to west and about seven or eight kilometres from north to south. If we are being generous, with the Val-Bélair area that sticks out toward the west, it is about 20 kilometres long. In short, if I want to drive across it, there is no problem; it is a quick drive. From one end to the other, it takes me 25 minutes at most, when I have one event in Lebourgneuf and another in Val-Bélair. It is an easy drive, and it is no problem.

However, not everyone is as lucky as I am, and I am not talking about the vast ridings in Canada's north. In southern Canada, there are very large ridings in many provinces, like Saskatchewan. It is the province that is literally at the heart of our country, which is why some people have suggested that the national capital should be located there, but I will let my friends from Regina—Qu'Appelle and other areas make that case themselves.

Almost all of the 14 Saskatchewan members have very large ridings. Take the riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, which roughly forms a square of almost 300 kilometres by 300 kilometres. For viewers in Quebec City, that is like leaving Quebec City and going further than Montreal, almost to the U.S. border. This is a single riding, in the south of the country, not the Far North. This is a concern for many people.

Often, these are the ridings that need federal support the most, but communities with a population of 15,000 to 20,000 or perhaps less than 10,000 do not have easy access to federal services. In many cases, they have good people serving as mayors, councillors and town managers in their community. It is the federal member of Parliament who represents the entire federal government.

I would like to mention my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who has a magnificent riding that stretches over 135 km from Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval to Deschambault. Their populations may be small, but the dozens and dozens of municipalities in his riding are lively and valuable. When the representatives of these communities have to deal with the federal government, they do not pick up the phone and call the Prime Minister, as mayors of larger cities sometimes do. They turn directly to their member of Parliament. We need dedicated people. That is the balance we want to preserve. Our motion, which greatly inspired the Liberal government, was aimed at maintaining this balance, but above all at ensuring that the people are well represented and that we do not lose any members of Parliament.

We also need to remember that representation is very important. Losing a riding is like losing a piece of our democracy. That word is loaded, it is powerful, but it is particularly relevant. Some might go so far as to say that one person from an inner-city riding is roughly equivalent to three people from a so-called rural riding. However, that is not the reality because these citizens, these communities, need to have direct access to their member of Parliament just as much as everyone else. Moreover, there is the fact that several of these very large ridings that measure hundreds of square kilometres include a number of first nations. If we are to respect first nations, we must also ensure that they have proper, democratic access to this institution, to the House of Commons.

If we merge two huge ridings to make one even bigger one, we risk losing and diluting the quality of the work being done, and not because those doing the work would be doing it in bad faith or would be watering down the quality of their work. Rather, the public would be faced with the fact that they would not have direct access to their member of Parliament as often or as quickly.

That is why we are in favour of this bill. As I was saying, this bill is almost exactly the same as what we proposed on March 2. Unfortunately, that proposal was rejected by one member in the House, which is completely legitimate in parliamentary debate. That is what democracy is all about.

I look forward to hearing those who were opposed to our motion explain why they were against it at that time and why they are now in favour of the Liberal bill, which is quite similar to the motion that we, the Conservatives, moved before.

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

Mr. Speaker, what has become very clear is that both Conservative speakers have said that they support the legislation. Both made reference to the fact that they brought forward a unanimous consent motion to do exactly what this legislation says.

We recognize the importance of passing the legislation. I thought it was virtually unanimous in the chamber. The member said there is a Green member who does not support it, but everyone else seems to be supporting the legislation. The reality is that what is preventing it from being passed today is that the Conservatives will not stop talking about it. If they stopped talking about it, we could actually pass this legislation in the next few minutes. All the Conservatives have to do is agree to allow the legislation to pass.

Will the member agree with me that it is time to pass this legislation?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I love the expression “look who is talking”: look who is talking about the fact that we are making speeches here in the House of Commons. He is not the king or the queen; he is the god of speakers in the House of Commons. He is speaking on everything all the time, and now he is asking questions and asking why we are talking about this. We get inspiration from the member.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in fairness to myself, I know when to stop speaking so legislation can pass.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

That is not a point of order.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Kitchener Centre.

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is a nice change to see such strong agreement in this place among different parties. I am glad to see that.

I am rising to share something with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent. He mentioned a few times, as some of his colleagues have, that a member of the Green Party, the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, is in opposition to this motion. I want to let the member know that on that particular day, my understanding is that the reason for that was that consent was not shared beforehand, to seek that by email. We are working on that. That has been changed.

I am rising to let the member know that and to assure him, as he has been asking, that there was support from both Greens and we would appreciate being told about future UC motions.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry if I misled the House when I said that the member is coming from the Maritimes. I apologize and retract my words.

I do accept the explanation from my colleague. Obviously, there is some concern. I was there. I was just feet away from my colleague from the Green Party in British Columbia. I have a lot of respect for her. She is a strong voice for Canadian democracy and I hope that this time she will support the will that we had, as Conservatives, in tabling that very important motion. I remember she said no. I also remember that from other people on the other side. I am pleased to hear that the Green Party will support the spirit of our March 2 motion.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether my colleague agrees with me on the following. Quebec's political weight will drop if we keep the same number of members in Quebec and increase the number of members everywhere else.

Can we count on his support to change that?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment.

I would like to come back to the debate.

The motion that the Conservatives proposed would have applied to Quebec and all the provinces. However, in the March 2 debate, the Bloc Québécois suggested that the motion should apply only to Quebec.

We agreed with the principle, but we wanted it to apply to all of the provinces, which is the intent of Bill C‑14. We are therefore very pleased to see that the Liberals modelled this bill on our motion. That is great because it is good for all of Canada.

I would like to remind the member that that suggestion was made during the referendum on the Charlottetown accord. As the member knows very well, Quebeckers voted against it.

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to rise on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo. My colleague from Louis-Saint-Laurent has shown himself again to be a brilliant orator.

The Liberal Party has called on the Conservatives to expedite this matter, ostensibly because democracy demands it and that is the will. What does my colleague say to the fact that the Liberal Party has curtailed and cajoled debate in this House over the last two weeks in order to further its own aims, rather than having democracy as a whole in mind?

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when we are talking about a democratic system, and that is exactly what we are talking about today, we shall respect the right of a member of Parliament to speak on an issue. That is what we are trying to have.

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

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The next member to speak is the hon. member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, but first we have a point of order from the deputy House leader for the official opposition.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 62, I move that the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot be now heard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could provide clarification regarding Motion No. 11 and whether we can have a recorded vote at this time.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

It is not a dilatory motion and therefore it is in order.

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

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #93

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I declare the motion carried.

[Cheryl Gallant, Conservative, Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock was trying to influence my vote while we were voting, and I could not hear whether or not my vote was recorded as in favour of the motion.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for the clarification.

We have a point of order from the member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there was a lot of confusion as the vote happened with respect to the two hon. members, and I seek unanimous consent to change my vote from yes to no so that the member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock can be heard.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that the west wants to be heard, the west wants in and I am so pleased that tonight there was a small representative sample of what that means for the good people of Battle River—Crowfoot.

I rise today to speak to this very important issue, Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. Minister of National Revenue on a point of order.

[Diane Lebouthillier, Liberal, Gaspésie—Les-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am tabling the government's responses to Order Paper Questions Nos. 447 to 455.

Bill C-14—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation).

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

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

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate this opportunity. As I have made clear to my constituents, I will ensure that their voices are always heard in this place. It is an honour to speak to some of the incredibly important issues pertaining to democracy in our country.

Let me unpack a bit what Bill C-14 is about. When it comes to the process of our constituencies, which is part of the reality of our national democratic system, every 10 years, according to our constitutional framework, a census is taken and a redistribution takes place. This is key. As I share often with my constituents, having a fair, clear, transparent and trusted process is absolutely key to ensure that democracy is protected in Canada. That is at the crux or the foundation of what we are talking about here today.

I will have a fair amount to say about the way Alberta feels, but I want to unpack a few aspects of Bill C-14.

[An hon. member]

We can give you lots of time.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Manitoba for saying that there is lots of time to ensure that I get these things out.

Having a fair, trusted, transparent process is absolutely key, as many of us in this place know and as I share often with constituents. When they ask if they can trust our election system, I say proudly that we can. We need to be diligent to ensure that we do not see an erosion of that trust. That is absolutely key. I can point to various things that the current Liberal government has done over the last number of years that have contributed to an erosion of trust, but we have strength within our democratic system, and it is the distribution of our electoral boundaries that is a key element of that and why Canadians can trust it.

As many of us in this place are aware, the Chief Electoral Officer, in the second half of last year, released a report. As mandated through the Elections Act, he makes a recommendation to Parliament based on the relevant sections of the Constitution Act, 1867, formerly referred to as the British North America Act prior to the repatriation of 1982.

The Chief Electoral Officer is tasked with ensuring that the fundamental principles of representation by population within the House of Commons are respected. As many of us in this place, politicos across the country, observers, those involved in politics and interested Canadians would have noted, the Chief Electoral Officer provided a report based on the most recent census information to ensure that adjustments were made so that this place accurately reflects the population changes that take place within our country.

I come from a province that has had, over its history, significant growth. It has been a little over a century since Alberta became a province, and it was once a largely unpopulated region. Of course, we have our indigenous history and there were settlers and whatnot, but it has grown significantly to the point that Alberta's population is now more than four and a half million. Because Alberta has had a significant growth in population, it is key that representation by population be reflected within its representation in this place.

When the Chief Electoral Officer released the report this past year, it started that process to address “inequities”, which I say specifically, to ensure that the people of Alberta have representation within this place. Specifically, the recommendation was that Alberta should get three additional seats. Two other provinces also experienced population growth that was higher than the national average and were given an additional seat, and the Chief Electoral Officer recommended that Quebec lose one seat.

I understand the feeling of concern that my friends and colleagues, within this party and other parties, have when it comes to our voices not being heard and to reduced representation. I know that members of the Conservative caucus, when an opposition motion was brought forward by the Bloc Québécois, had outlined opposition to Quebec losing a seat. There was, I believe, an almost even split when it comes to how the Conservative caucus felt on that matter.

As a side note, the fact that there are those divides within the Conservative caucus speaks to how democracy is truly represented well within the Conservative Party of Canada. We disagree on things. In fact, as I reflect over my now close to two and a half years since being elected, a lot of issues come up, whether they relate to issues of the day or policy, that Conservatives will not necessarily clearly agree on. We agree on lots of the big-picture stuff; that is why we are Conservatives, but we may disagree on aspects of it, and that is okay. I note that it is concerning to me that other parties within this place seem to be unable to express those differences. They look at that disagreement as a weakness, but I would suggest, certainly given the feedback that I hear from Canadians, that it is in fact a strength.

The debate on that motion took place, and the Conservatives, endeavouring to show leadership on the national stage, moved a motion to address concerns. The Leader of the Opposition voted in favour of the Bloc motion because of the dynamics associated with the province of Manitoba, which she represents, and the concern that if a precedent were set, rural areas or smaller provinces may at some point lose representation.

I understand how that can be a concern. I live in a very fast-growing and populous province, and I am proud of that, but I do live in a rural region. The largest community in my constituency has about 18,000 people. Then it is down to 10,000, a couple with around 5,000 and then more than 60 self-governing municipalities ranging in size from 132 people up to 18,000.

Since the agricultural revolution, there has been a trend toward urbanization. The concern I hear often is about the divide that exists when it comes to ensuring that rural Canada, rural Alberta and the region I specifically represent still have a voice and the ability to be heard so that our democracy is responsive to the realities that exist in a jurisdiction where there may be some stagnation of growth.

As we are now faced with Bill C-14, I note that the Conservative compromise is basically what the Liberals have moved forward in Bill C-14. I further note that this speaks to the maturity, ability and competence represented within Canada's official opposition.

Bill C-14, very simply, would amend the floor for the minimum number of seats that a province would have within our electoral system. It was set in the 1988 census, if my memory holds true, and is current up until this point. Until the bill is passed, this is the current floor, and in most provinces that looks a little different, including Quebec. The bill would basically change the floor from the current status quo.

Conservatives proposed that compromise because it got to the heart of the matter in ensuring that there would not be that feeling of disenfranchisement in jurisdictions that may not be as fast-growing, while also respecting the fact that representation by population is a key and foundational part of Canada's democratic infrastructure.

I would be remiss if I did not engage in the very relevant conversation of democratic reform within this place. When I look at our nation's history, I see the fathers of Confederation, those who laid the foundation and framework for what our country is today, very clearly and in the first lines of what is now known as the Constitution Act, 1867, but was then known as the British North America Act. When Canada became a nation, on July 1, 1867, the constitutional framework very clearly said it would be a government similar in construct to that of the British government, with the Westminster system of Parliament.

Now, it went on to acknowledge something that is very important, and that is the regional realities within Canada. In 1867, there were four provinces in the federation, which had a very different regional reality than we face today, as our country has grown significantly. However, that regional reality does exist.

My submission here today, and certainly what I hear often from constituents, is the fact that we have inequity in our democratic infrastructure, which includes the House of Commons, the House of the common people, which is similar in construct to that of the United Kingdom. Its representation is by population. The key balance to that is ensuring that there is a regional counterweight, so to speak. Unfortunately, that has not evolved as our country has grown.

My submission today is that, as we talk about the need for democratic reform and this specific amendment to the Constitution to address some of the feelings of alienation, which Alberta certainly knows well, we have to be willing to have the conversation to address the inequity that exists in the other place, Canada's Senate. It is based on and is similar in construct and procedure to the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, but its members are appointed through a somewhat different mechanism, with that regional representation.

In Canada's early days, there was more of that regional balance. However, it has not kept up. Alberta has six senators when the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec both have 24. I bring that up because that does not truly represent regional balance.

Alberta, specifically, is under-represented in this place, when one does the math on the number of people. Even after these changes are implemented, and there is the addition of three seats, after whenever Parliament considers and presumably implements the changes associated with the electoral boundaries commissions across Canada, Alberta will remain somewhat under-represented, although it would take a step in the right direction with three additional seats for our province.

I know the Liberals are quick to dismiss this, which I hear about so often. I know I had a take-note debate when one of the parliamentary secretaries, who happened to represent a riding from the greater Toronto area, was unfortunately dismissive of the concerns related to why Senate reform is so very important. If there was that fair regional balance, it would be very easy for those regions of our country that are less populated, and that have unique regional dynamics, to have that clear representation in a place that has, in most capacities, other than the ability to introduce bills of spending, the exact same authority as the House of Commons. That piece is missing.

As I have mentioned, I hear from constituents who are feeling that concept of western alienation in Alberta. It is a real thing. Any of the Liberal-NDP members or otherwise who dismiss that, do so at their own peril, because Albertans have expressed to me, and not just to me but to many other colleagues from Alberta and across the country, that they understand it as a very real concern, so to be willing to have that conversation is absolutely fundamental.

I would further note that there are some incredible people who serve and have served in Canada's Senate, and I am proud to sit in a caucus with a number of them. However, I hear quite often that, as the Prime Minister has promised to fix the process, Albertans have said very clearly that they do not want to participate. I say that because Alberta elects its senators, which has been dismissed by members of the government. I bring that up in this debate because it is part of the process of ensuring that democracy is responsive. I fully respect that not every province may want an elected Senate, but I would think that the very minimum level of respect that should be offered to a jurisdiction such as the province of Alberta would be for the leader of the country to respect the fact that we have chosen to do things a little differently.

In the case of Alberta, in coordination with either a provincial or municipal election, we elect senators in waiting. There are currently three of them, and they were elected just this past October. They ran in campaigns and made their case to the people of Alberta, who got to choose. That is key. Democracy worked.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the government have refused to acknowledge both the validity of those elections and their importance. They will say they fixed the process. They blame Stephen Harper and suggest that somehow Albertans simply need to be educated on these matters. There is a very clear precedent, set not just by Stephen Harper, but by a number of prime ministers, that shows this process actually works. It is the minimum level of respect that should be offered to the province of Alberta.

I would simply note this: When I have asked questions about this in question period, the members opposite have suggested that somehow the Prime Minister's process is superior. I will not go into an explanation at length as to why I would suggest that is patently false, but what I would share with members today is that the best system, the best formula, is always democracy and the people making the choices. I will also note for the record, as I am sure many Canadians are watching, that at least two of the senators in waiting have filed their paperwork through the Prime Minister's transparent process, and I say “transparent” sarcastically. It is key that respect be offered to the province of Alberta.

As we debate and have the conversation around Bill C-14 and the specific reasons why the debate is important, which I hope I have been able to outline adequately for the House, we need to be willing to ensure that our democratic infrastructure in this country is preserved. This is certainly a unique position, having the confidence of members of this place to be heard. I appreciate that affirmation as, since I was first elected, I have assured the people of Battle River—Crowfoot that I would be heard in this place.

I would note that it was the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party, the leader of the NDP and the coalition partnership, who chose to vote against me being heard. I think my views on the Liberals and the NDP are quite well known. I would suggest that speaks to how I am affirmed in my need, my desire and the confidence of the people of Battle River—Crowfoot to continue being heard in this place in whatever way possible to ensure that the interests of east central Alberta are heard within the House of Commons.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot on his speech. I am not disappointed at having voted in favour of the motion so that he could be heard.

Let me draw a parallel between Bill C‑14, which we are debating this evening, and Bill C‑246, which I recently introduced in the House of Commons. There is a link, a parallel between the two bills. Bill C‑14 obviously stems from the Bloc Québécois bill that I introduced regarding Quebec's political weight within Canada.

My colleague voted against the March 2 motion moved by the Bloc, which said more or less the same thing as our bill. The goal is to recognize that Quebec is a nation and that, as a nation, it must be given the tools to be able to properly represent itself for as long as it chooses to be part of this Parliament.

Does my colleague agree that Quebec is a nation and that, notwithstanding the inequities, injustices or inequalities there may be between the provinces, Quebec should have the tools to protect its unique identity?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member from the Bloc and his confidence in the vote that was had.

We disagree on the future of our country. I have been asked many times by Albertans whether I support Alberta remaining a part of this country, and I often share that I do. I believe that one can be a proud Albertan and a proud Canadian, but the fact that those questions are being asked speaks to the failures of a Liberal government that has left Canada more divided than ever.

Notwithstanding the disagreements I have with the Bloc, I do understand and appreciate the need for regional autonomy. The provinces would have the tools they need to do what is best for the regions they represent, to ensure that there is fair representation, to ensure that there is that regional balance, and to ensure, and this is important, that Ottawa gets out of the way of provinces. The streets and office towers in our national capital city should not be dictating the very specific intricacies of how our provinces are run, and I would suggest that this significant overreach is a huge part of why there is huge frustration in both of our provinces.

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

Madam Speaker, although what we are discussing tonight does not engage the Senate, the member's speech did, and I have always had this problem on the question of how we would reform the Senate. If we allow senators to have the authority and the recognized legitimacy to block votes by being themselves elected, as opposed to a vestige of the British Empire and our equivalent of the House of Lords, if they have legitimacy, then this place would become logjammed.

Has the hon. member fully considered the downsides of the Senate feeling it has the right, through legitimate election, to block legislation that has been passed in this place?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, let me clarify one thing. I am talking about the choices Alberta has made as a province, and I would suggest it is key for the federal government, regardless of party, to respect what a province may choose in determining the best path forward for how senators from that province would be elected.

Our constitutional framework is clear. Outside of a few very small exceptions, the Senate represents near equal authority to this place, and it is that counterbalance, often called the chamber of sober second thought, that has the ability to block government legislation. By tradition, it does not.

I would suggest that, when it comes to Canada's democratic infrastructure, democracy reigns supreme. We have to ensure that people have their voices heard, and certainly when it comes to making that choice, I would trust the Canadian people, as I would trust the people from Alberta, to ensure that the right people are put in the right positions to ensure that the current inequity that exists can be addressed.

[Mike Lake, Conservative, Edmonton—Wetaskiwin, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is fitting that the member is talking about being heard. My constituency has 209,000 people. It is roughly the same size in population as P.E.I., which has four Liberal members of Parliament. It does not matter how hard I work or how hard my staff work. I can come in here and debate all day long. I could even debate as much as the hon. deputy House leader. Still, when it comes time for our voice to count, it is during votes, and my vote counts for one vote and the P.E.I. MPs' count for four Liberal votes every single time. We have a government that is presiding over a country less united than at almost any other time in our history.

I would love to hear the hon. member, from a neighbouring constituency, talk about the disaffection Albertans are feeling from their government, that absolute lack of being listened to, and the impact it is having on the people of our province.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is fitting to be asked that question by the member in this place. Each member has equal standing in terms of the number of votes that they have and the ability to participate as a member of Parliament.

As the member pointed out, there are 209,000 people in the constituency of Edmonton—Wetaskiwin. I represent approximately 110,000 people. The inequity that Albertans feel is very real. I know the member for Calgary Shepard had spoken on this before. I believe he represents around 170,000 people. There are many examples, across Alberta especially, where this has to be addressed. When Canadians do not feel served or represented, it causes a disaffection that chips away at the very foundation of what our institutions and our democracy are supposed to be. That is why ensuring that this place, the House of the common people or the people's place, has that representation by population to ensure that voices ultimately are heard.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, one of the things that has always troubled me is that the foundational deal under which Canada was set up was equal representation for regions in the Upper House and representation by population in the Lower House. We have seen a very significant departure from representation by population, or rep by pop, in the Lower House, but in the Upper House we have seen a departure as well in the same direction. There are 24 senators for Ontario, 24 for Quebec, 24 for the western provinces and more than 30 for the Atlantic region, despite the fact that the Atlantic region has less than half the population of the next-smallest region.

Going back to the idea of the triple-E Senate, which was explored in the 1990s, would it make sense to advocate for all of the regions to at least have the same number of senators as the Atlantic region has?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know the member for Kingston's long history of advocating for reforms and, I would suggest, maybe not just reforms but for ensuring that the evolution of our democratic infrastructure keeps pace with the demands of where our country is at.

Definitely, when the foundation of our country was laid, the idea of regional representation was very clearly marked out. As our nation has grown and evolved, as provinces have been added, as the population has expanded and as industries have drawn employees from around the world, we have to ensure that our democratic institutions keep pace with that. If trust is lost, it can be incredibly difficult to regain, so we have to be willing to have what admittedly would be difficult conversations. We have to be able to have them to ensure that our country can succeed, or else we will end up divided and I certainly do not want to see that.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, the member touched base a bit on Senate reform, specifically on Alberta having a vote last year in order to choose its own senators. We know that in the past, senators who were voted on from Alberta had been appointed to the Senate. What made it different this time regarding why those senators were not appointed?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

We will have a brief answer from the member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, the answer is very brief: Liberals.

It is unfortunate, because that has caused a further disenfranchisement and further alienation that needs to be addressed. I say with the utmost seriousness that if it is not addressed, our country could be torn apart. I do not think anybody in this place wants that, notwithstanding one party for which that is its objective. The vast majority of people in this place do not want to see our country torn apart, so respect has to be brought back to the conversation.

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

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am deeply humbled and grateful to be here to speak about something fundamental to our country, and that is democracy. The reason I am feeling that so deeply today is because my riding of North Island—Powell River is in deep grief. On May 14, just two days ago, Canada lost an amazing community hero and World War II vet: “Stocky” Edwards, at the ripe age of 100. Our region is deeply shaken by this sad news, and I know that our legions and our military family will be grieving for a long time to come.

Stocky and his wife Toni have been pillars of our community for so long. Now, we will rally around her as she has done so often for all of us. My heart is with Stocky's wife Toni, and with all his family and loved ones.

When Stocky was asked about his tremendous accomplishments in the Second World War, he had no time to brag. His humbleness was one of his many assets that made our region have such deep love and respect for him. His commitment to the people of 19 Wing Comox has been deeply respected, and he and Toni provided a sense of family to so many new military folks in our area. I really want to take this opportunity to honour him and the dedication he had for our country. His loss is one that I will carry with me forever.

I will now return to Bill C-14, which is really about democracy, our boundaries and representation. As the member of Parliament who represents the third-largest riding in British Columbia, I think that it is incredibly important to make sure that our boundaries are strong and clear, that communities are recognized, and that rural and remote communities have strong voices to support them in this process that we are all a part of in the House of Commons.

I also think that it is important to acknowledge that there are challenges of distrust of the government on this issue. The reason I bring that forward is because I was elected in 2015, and during and after that election, I had a lot of hope in the Prime Minister's promise around electoral reform. When the committee was struck, I was incredibly proud of the work that the NDP had done to make sure that the committee was proportional and that it really did reflect the space of the House. I also admired the committee deeply because of the work that it did and how much it met through the summer. That was a huge sacrifice, meaning that the members could not necessarily be in their ridings as much as they wanted to or with their families. They worked very hard and they provided a very profound report to Parliament that gave us a pathway to move forward on some key issues that matter to so many in our country.

I remember that I sent out a mailer to folks in our community and did several town halls in my region to talk about electoral reform. For a rural and remote community of that size, there was a lot of concern about access and voice, and about making sure that the representative was from the area and that those voices were specific and heard.

We had a lot of conversations. I was able to provide a report back to my community about what they had said about electoral reform. What was very interesting to me was the timing. I mailed out to my constituents what they had said about electoral reform, and just a few days before those landed on their doorsteps, the government said that it was not going to follow the report. In fact, it did it in some very disrespectful ways.

What I found interesting was that many constituents who were concerned about electoral reform, and who had a lot of things they wanted to explore further, felt very upset. They were frustrated that they did not get a voice. They felt that their voices were incredibly important in this process in a new way, because they were told they were no longer able to have a voice in the process. It was disappointing. I heard from a lot of constituents that they felt frustrated and that they felt that the Liberals just wanted a ranked ballot, and that was not what they wanted to see in our electoral process.

When we talk about things like proportional representation, we are talking about making sure that every vote counts, that the voices of the whole collective are reflected in our House of Commons.

As I said earlier, as a person who represents rural and remote communities, I wanted to make sure there were opportunities for those voices to be heard and that the process of a proportional system would not lose those voices. They want to see that the local representation and those voices are heard in the House of Commons. They want it to be fair.

There is room to have those discussions, but sadly, the Liberals ignored that opportunity. I really feel, and I have heard this after every election, there is a sense of cynicism that we are never going to get to a place where those voices are heard and where we actually create a system that is more proportional.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona put forward a motion in PROC to discuss the important idea of having a citizens' assembly on electoral reform in the last Parliament. It passed, but unfortunately, because of the election call, a completely uncalled for election in my opinion, the study never happened. We now have to go back to the drawing board.

What is so important about having a citizens' assembly on electoral reform is we need to see citizens engaged. We need to hear those voices. Maybe we need to take it out of the political realm and give voices to people across this country.

It is so important, and I have heard from constituents across the board that they want to explore this. They want to make sure their vote counts. They want to be able to vote as they feel, even if that vote will not get them a seat in Parliament. They do not want to feel that their vote is something they throw away.

Constituents also want to make sure that areas are represented fairly. For my riding, as I said earlier, they do not want to feel like the cities of our country are the ones making the decisions. The realities for rural and remote communities can be very different from those of larger cities. That is not to dishonour any of them, but it is to make sure that those voices are heard.

There are a lot of questions. People want to come together and they want to trust one another that they can have these frank conversations and educate each other. I hope the government will start to listen to those voices and take into account that when we have a system that allows people to have a voice, they want to speak out.

When we look at electoral reform and when we look at proportional representation, we know that diversity is engaged with those processes more. That is something we need to be paying attention to, especially as representatives of the House of the common people.

When we talk about that, we want to see as much diversity as we possibly can. We want multiple voices so that when decisions are made, they are made in comprehensive ways that take in all of those different points of view and assessments.

We continue to encourage this to happen. I know that we will continue to do the work. Hopefully we will see a study in PROC that actually gets to what we need to see happen across this country around a citizens' assembly so that the work can start. It is really important. Many people in my riding have come forward and presented this idea to me multiple times with a lot of passion and energy.

I am really happy to discuss this bill. I look forward to hearing from other people.

The last thing I want to mention is the idea of lowering the voting age. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has brought forward legislation for us to all look at and discuss. It is on lowering the voting age to 16. I am very proud to say that in my riding, we are hearing from young people who are supporting this wholeheartedly. They are actively going out and educating people about opening the doors of opportunity for young people to have a voice.

We know that when young people start voting sooner and when they participate sooner, they vote long term. I look forward to that.

I am happy to answer any questions.

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

Madam Speaker, I, too, am a big supporter of the private member's bill by the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. I introduced a very similar bill in the previous Parliament, as did the hon. member for Vancouver Kingsway, as did Senator McPhedran in the other place.

I sense a resistance to something that is quite sensible. Other countries have lowered the voting age to 16, yet I have a feeling, and I will ask the hon. member if she agrees, that the arguments about empowering 16-year-olds to vote are remarkably similar to the arguments about why women should not have a vote.

We hear people say that kids will not know enough and they will just vote for who their parents voted for. In the argument of suffrage for women, it was said that women would not know enough and they would just vote the way their husbands voted. We really need to examine the reasons and lack of logic in the arguments against 16-year-olds being able to vote.

Let us face it. We do not cut off voting for those who have diminished intellectual capacity as they age. There is no such thing as saying that someone with dementia who is in a home is not allowed to vote. I think 16-year-olds should have the right to vote.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's passion on this issue. I really appreciate the correlation that she made to how we diminish people by the language we use and how that was used against women. It was also used against indigenous people and people of colour. We need to stop this. In my opinion it is ageist.

I have knocked on a lot of doors in my riding. I have been so impressed by how many young people have come to the door to engage in meaningful conversation with me. Their understanding of the issues is profound. Many young people 14 to 17 years of age have dragged a parent out to talk to me on the doorstep. They have wanted to engage their parents in the conversation. They tell their parents, “You have to vote for me if you're not going to vote for yourself.”

There are some barriers. I definitely have seen it in my riding as well. Some people are concerned about this. The reality is that the facts tell us that if people vote when they are young, they are more likely to continue voting. A lot of people are not voting when they turn 18. If we gave them the opportunity at 16, I think it would make a huge difference.

It is important to have those young people engaged in the process, especially when we look at the big issues that we will have to face in the future.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston asked this question of the member earlier. One of the great debates of Confederation between Canadians in Upper Canada and Lower Canada at the time was about representation by population. In a Supreme Court decision regarding a case out of Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court talked about effective representation.

The member represents quite a large rural riding in British Columbia, which comes with its own challenges. I wonder if she would speak to that. I represent the second-largest riding by population size in Canada, the largest in Calgary, of course, but it is a fairly small riding. I can drive from one end to the other in 20 minutes. I have one mayor to deal with and two or three city councillors. It is far more complicated for members who have multiple mayors, multiple city councils and large regions to travel through to do that effective representation.

I would like to hear her comments on that.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree that there are multiple challenges. There are seven ferries in my riding and a lot of areas to cover. It is a great honour for me to do that work. It does mean that I spend a lot of time on the phone or travelling to speak with constituents.

I represent 11 municipalities, over 20 indigenous communities and four regional districts within all of that. It takes up a lot of time, but I have to say that the communities in my riding are extremely effective at bringing issues that matter most to them to my attention.

As we move through this, we have to look at how our democracy works, depending on whether it is for a large rural riding or a smaller urban riding. Both have specific challenges. I think of the member for Nunavut. Although her riding has a small population, it is such a vast area that she has to travel across to spend time with her constituents.

All of us have challenges. It behooves all of us to listen to one another about what those challenges are and make sure that our democracy is reflective of the needs of our constituents. We are all here to serve the people of our ridings. It is important to make sure that their voices are heard. I will continue to do that.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, the cornerstone of our democracy rests in people's ability to vote. We have heard from constituents over and over again. In particular, in my riding of Vancouver East, my constituents have consistently told me that they want to see a democratic system where every vote counts.

Prior to the 2015 election, the Prime Minister promised Canadians that would be the last first-past-the-post election that we would have. Of course, when the Liberals formed government, that was all but forgotten, even though the House had engaged in extensive work with regard to proportional representation.

I would like to ask the member for her thoughts about that. When the Prime Minister reneges on a promise like that, is the Prime Minister telling Canadians that they cannot trust what he promises? What damage does that do to our democratic system?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, that is an important question. My response is it does break down those opportunities for connection with leadership. People want promises to be followed through on. It was most disheartening for me because of the amount of work that the committee did. It was a significant report.

I really hope that all Canadians take an opportunity to at least read the recommendations. The report talked about the next steps that need to be taken. The minister of the day treated it as if it was too complex and that it did not do what it said it did, which I completely disagree with. These are important things.

We have to follow through on our commitments. We have to let Canadians have a voice in that process. A promise was made, but the promise was not kept. Even the process of how that was laid out was absolutely flawed. It does breed cynicism, which can make all of our jobs much more difficult.

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

Madam Speaker, I really enjoy working with the hon. member in the time that we have been here, since 2015.

I want to pick up on a point that the hon. member made. I recall when the electoral reform committee was constituted, there was a tremendous amount of work that went into it. The member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston was on that committee.

There were recommendations that all of the opposition parties agreed to, not the least of which was to recommend the idea of proportional representation, but again, bring it to Canadians in a referendum.

There can be an argument made as to where we go. I understand that the NDP is in favour of a citizens' assembly, but would she not agree with me and reaffirm that a promise was not kept by the Prime Minister? He did not get his preferred choice of voting, which would have been a ranked system, but more so, the issue of proportional representation, bringing it to Canadians and letting them decide on what type of voting system should be enacted is important.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I have enjoyed my time working with the member on different committees and in different roles. That is something all of us as members of Parliament should spend time talking about, how we work collectively across different party lines on things that matter to our constituents.

I agree that we need to have a process. I do believe in a citizens' assembly, because it is those kinds of conversations that allow people to grow in their knowledge and wisdom on these issues. I know that a proportional system is very different from the current system of first past the post. I believe that we do need to have an education component to that, so that people can ask those hard questions and work out through the process what might be the best system that serves our country.

I definitely have an opinion on that, but it is so important to have citizens doing that work. It is an important piece to take it out of the political realm. There is something to be said for having the communities make those decisions to come forward with recommendations and have politicians definitely listen to them. I look forward to continuing to work on that with the Conservative Party.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Pursuant to Standing Order 62, I move:

That the hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets be now heard.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

On behalf of the official opposition, I ask for a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #94

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

I declare the motion defeated.

The hon. minister is rising on a point of order.

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I move:

That the House do now adjourn.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made Monday, May 2, the motion is deemed adopted.

Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning, pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 9:24 p.m.)

The House resumed from May 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House as the representative of the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap, as always. Finally, after three days of delay, I get to speak to Bill C-14.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The bill before us today proposes measures to ensure that a province will not have fewer members assigned to it than were assigned during the 43rd Parliament. This proposal is not without precedent. There have been times when the House has agreed to adjust its system of redistribution to ensure that provinces do not lose seats in redistribution, and this is the essence of the legislation we are assessing today.

It is not the first time the House has debated this long-standing question: What are the objectives and factors for adjusting or creating federal electoral districts? In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the question, precipitated by a redistribution process in Saskatchewan for adjusting electoral boundaries. In its conclusions, the Supreme Court stated:

The content of the Charter right to vote is to be determined in a broad and purposive way, having regard to historical and social context. The broader philosophy underlying the historical development of the right to vote must be sought and practical considerations, such as social and physical geography, must be borne in mind.

The court highlighted the ideal of a “free and democratic society” upon which the charter is founded. The Supreme Court also wrote, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation’. The right to vote therefore comprises many factors, of which equity is but one.”

Basing voting power or parity on mathematical calculations of populations is important, but these are not the only factors for the House to consider.

On June 1, 1872, 150 years ago, the House was debating factors for proposed adjustments to representation in the House of Commons, and Prime Minister John A. Macdonald told the House, “While the principle of population was considered to a very great extent, other considerations were also held to have weight; so that different interests, classes and localities should be fairly represented, that the principle of numbers should not be the only one.”

In the 1991 Saskatchewan case, the Supreme Court further explained reasons why parity of voting power, though of prime importance, is not the only factor to consider in ensuring effective representation. In 1991, the Supreme Court wrote:

Notwithstanding the fact that the value of a citizen's vote should not be unduly diluted, it is a practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without taking into account countervailing factors.

First, absolute parity is impossible. It is impossible to draw boundary lines which guarantee exactly the same number of voters in each district. Voters die, voters move. Even with the aid of frequent censuses, voter parity is impossible.

Secondly, such relative parity as may be possible of achievement may prove undesirable because it has the effect of detracting from the primary goal of effective representation.

As we examine this bill's legislative proposals for our system of redistribution and determining representation provided to each province, I would like to reflect on effective representation. What did the Supreme Court mean when it wrote, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation’”?

The court provided some answers to this question in 1991, when it stated:

Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic. These are but examples of considerations which may justify departure from absolute voter parity in the pursuit of more effective representation; the list is not closed.

When I reflect on this statement from the court, I see the court highlighting the importance of social fabric and the threads of culture, history, geography and identities interwoven in social fabrics of specific communities, regions and constituencies. I agree that these factors must be considered as constituencies are created or redistributed and as the boundaries of electoral districts are redrawn. Whether we are talking about political boundaries or boundaries such as those the government is drawing on our oceans in a desperate effort to deliver campaign promises, we must reflect on what the purpose is of drawing lines and what the realities are of the societies or waters that we draw lines through.

While the Supreme Court stated in 1991 that the determination of political representation and adjustment of electoral boundaries should support the pursuit of “effective representation”, I believe there are some important points to be made today, in 2022, regarding effective representation.

Canadians depend on us, their elected representatives, to function in the House as their voices, their advocates and their representatives. Effective representation, I believe, is dependent on each of us being open to the Canadians we represent so that we can understand and advocate for their ever-evolving needs and priorities. That is what each of us as individual members can do to support effective representation and the Canadians who depend on us to do so.

However, and I hope members on all sides agree with me on this point, our ability to deliver effective representation to Canadians is severely hampered when Parliament is shuttered and the House of Commons sits silent in adjournment.

Last year, in 2021, the House sat for just 95 days. In 2020, the House sat for 86 days. Yes, in 2020, the House's operation was hampered by the arrival of the pandemic. Yes, in 2021, the Prime Minister chose to trigger an unnecessary election and then delayed the return of Parliament for nine weeks. At a time of unprecedented crisis, the Prime Minister chose to shutter one platform that we all need to deliver effective representation to Canadians.

It is clear why the House was reduced in its function as a forum for effective representation in 2020 and 2021. However, the same cannot be said for 2019, when the House sat for a mere 75 days, even fewer days than in 2020 and 2021. To put things in a historical perspective, from 1945 to 1975, the House sat an average of 138 days each year. From 1975 to 2015, the House sat for an average of 123 days each year.

As we assess the legislation before us today, I hope all members can reflect on the objective that I hope we all share: the goal of providing effective representation for all Canadians. Let us also reflect on the essential role the House plays in facilitating effective representation by providing representatives the forum in which to represent.

It is not enough to champion effective representation only in today's debate; we must pursue it every day. While the House was shuttered, I used my time to connect with constituents and hear their concerns in order to be more effective when Parliament resumed sitting. Let us never sit idly by while the Prime Minister shutters the House, which we need for doing our jobs.

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

Madam Speaker, what we need to highlight here is that this particular piece of legislation will, in all likelihood, receive unanimous support of the House of Commons. Every member from all political parties is going to be supporting it, yet the Conservatives continue to play theatrics, causing issues to delay the passage of legislation.

Why does the Conservative Party want to spend so much time on a piece of legislation that everyone in the chamber will be supporting when we could, in fact, be debating other pieces of legislation that might be a bit more controversial, which the Conservatives could be opposing?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the question is really this: Why did the member for Winnipeg North's government shut down debate hours early last night? We could have been through this debate. The real reason we are here debating this is because this is our right. It is our expectation, and the expectation of the people we represent, to be able to debate the legislation the government puts forward, which we continually see as flawed legislation. We want to use this opportunity, as the official opposition, to question the legislation to make sure that it is the best that it can be for the people of Canada whom we represent.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑14 is a step forward. It guarantees at least 78 members for Quebec. Nevertheless, Quebec's proportion of the seats will shrink as the number of MPs for Canada grows, and that is fine.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of Quebec's proportional political weight, its ratio with respect to Canada. How can we protect that?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, the proportional weight of representation is an interesting one coming from a member from the Bloc Québécois, the only party that has seats only in one part of the country and that does not represent the rest of Canada. Therefore, that proportional weight of representation the member is speaking about is a challenging piece coming from that member, who is a member from the other side of the country, when I hear from constituents that they are disappointed that, by the time the vote count reaches British Columbia, the election decision has sometimes already made before votes get counted in British Columbia.

I spoke in my speech about the parity of votes per se not being the only thing that is a deciding factor. It is also about representation of all of the other factors as well, so we have effective representation.

[Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I commend the member for making the distinction between equality and equity, as somebody who does support proportional representation and this notion that one vote equals one vote. However, I do recognize the need for providing equity rights within the context of communities of interest and minority groups.

Could the hon. member perhaps expand on other areas within the country and within the Canadian context, beyond the Quebec example, where equity would be needed to be investigated by the House in order to provide effective representation of Canadians?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I spoke about in my speech, effective representation is one factor that needs to be considered when we consider that some urban ridings may take only 15 minutes to cross from one end of the riding to another versus ridings in the country that could take hours and sometimes a full day to cross to get from one destination to another. Those are factors that also need to be considered with the electoral district redistribution plan, so people in every part of this country can feel that they have effective representation in the House.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this very important issue, which, in a way, was brought forward by the Bloc Québécois. People can say what they will, but the fact is that we devoted an opposition day to this very subject on March 2.

It was the Bloc Québécois that got a motion adopted, with an overwhelming majority, calling on the House to reject any federal electoral map redistribution scenario that would result in the loss of one or more electoral districts in Quebec or a reduction in Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons. The motion called on the government to take action to change the seat distribution formula for the House of Commons.

At the time, some people were surprised that the Bloc Québécois was using its opposition day to discuss the issue. We were told that we were wasting our time, that we could not change anything because it was up to the Chief Electoral Officer to make such decisions and that it was a mathematical formula, so why bother.

I rose to revisit the redistribution planned a decade ago that eliminated the riding that I represent today. Some may say that it is superficial, but that is one of the speeches that has garnered the most attention on my Facebook page. I think that shows that people in Quebec really care about this subject, especially people back home in the Gaspé and the Lower St. Lawrence.

When the Chief Electoral Officer made the announcement, I did not hear a lot of parties in the House of Commons cry foul or say that that they wanted to protect Quebec's political weight at all costs. I only heard members from the Bloc Québécois. In Quebec, we heard the Government of Quebec, who agreed with us.

Finally, I think that the Bloc MPs, with their speeches, ended up raising awareness because, a few weeks later, the government showed up with Bill C‑14. It seems like good news that the government is finally interested in this and is offering a solution. However, when we take another look, we see that something is missing.

The government wants to protect what we have gained and Quebec's 78 seats in the House. That is very good. That is good news. The kicker is that the math is off yet again. The focus is on the number of seats instead of on the political weight, and there is a fundamental difference between the two.

What we understand from this bill is that Quebec will never have fewer than 78 seats. That becomes a minimum of sorts. However, we also understand that the legislation will do nothing to prevent seats from being added in other provinces based on the results of demographic calculations. It is great that we are not losing any seats, but one seat could be added in Ontario, one in British Columbia and three in Alberta, which would mean that Quebec's political weight would drop anyway.

The House has already recognized that Quebec is a nation unto itself. In order for Quebec to take its rightful place and in order for its voice to be heard and taken into account, it needs to maintain its political weight. That is essential, particularly at a time when we have to once again fight to defend and protect our French language. In Quebec, we are accustomed to fighting for our values. Unfortunately, it has practically become a way of life for us.

Members should understand that the representation of a nation and a people goes beyond a simple demographic calculation. Its plans, desires and unique characteristics must be taken into account, as must its language, environmental concerns and intrinsic values. Of course, we would prefer it if Quebec were free to make its own choices, but in the meantime, we cannot allow it to gradually lose its say in the decisions that affect it.

I believe that meaningful political representation is a key part of a healthy democracy. However, in this bill to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, there are some oversights and vagaries that a calculator just cannot take into account.

Earlier I mentioned that Quebec is starting to get accustomed to always having to fight to defend our language and our political weight. During the last electoral redistribution in 2012, my riding of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapedia was directly targeted. At the time, the Chief Electoral Officer determined that this nearly 15,000-square-kilometre riding should be eliminated because of declining populations in the region. He proposed splitting the riding in two and merging part of the riding with Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and the other part with Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine. That move would have created two of the largest ridings by area in all of Quebec.

The proposal was to eliminate my riding without regard for its particularities, for the people who live there, for its uniqueness or for the hours that the member of Parliament would have to travel to meet with their constituents.

As I have said before in the House, my four riding offices are hours of driving away from each other. For example, last Saturday I had to drive four hours to see my constituents and participate in two different activities. This huge riding was supposed to be divided and two even larger ridings created. I think that is the sort of thing that should be taken into consideration. This should be about more than a simple accounting exercise.

Finally, 10 years ago, reason prevailed. A way was found to keep this riding intact. However, 10 years later, even with Bill C-14, we are still at the same point, because I do not think we are approaching the issue from the right angle.

Every region has its own identity that makes it unique; it is not something that can simply be tallied up. It can be seen in special regional traits, in local expressions, in one-of-a-kind communities. I would venture to say that Quebec's representation and political weight is not just something the Bloc cares about. In 2012, when Quebec was about to lose a seat, those who ardently defended it were regionalists. It did not matter what party they belonged to. In fact, one Bloc member and three New Democrats from eastern Quebec fought to defend the weight of their region, and therefore of my region. This March, 262 members of the House supported the Bloc Québécois motion. Unlike Bill C‑14, this motion called for Quebec's political weight to be protected, not just its number of seats. I hope that my colleagues will be consistent when it comes time to vote, and I hope that those who voted against it will change their minds. If Nova Scotia's political weight were under threat, I am sure that Nova Scotian MPs here would stand up for their region. That is exactly what we are doing for Quebec.

Call me an idealist, but I believe that the people of Quebec, especially those of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, deserve better than to be considered a mere ballot-box accounting exercise.

I said that we are not approaching the issue from the right angle and that there are other solutions to consider. The Bloc Québécois offered one up. My very good friend, the member for Drummond, introduced Bill C‑246 to add a new criterion to the seat distribution formula. Basically, it suggests going by a percentage rather than a number of seats. That may seem complicated, but it is easy as pie and, more importantly, realistic. It is called the nation clause. It is similar to the existing Senate clauses and grandfather clauses. Given that Quebec is a nation, this bill would guarantee Quebec 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. In other words, one-quarter of the seats in Parliament would go to one-quarter of the Canadian population, the population of Quebec. This is a simple, sound and clear proposal that establishes a solid base for Quebec's representation in the House.

What I am trying to say is that Quebec's nationhood cannot be quantified. Nationhood can be described, discovered, experienced. Nationhood is language, it is culture, it is the people who live there. It is our desires, our goals, our aspirations.

For Quebeckers, there are some values that are non-negotiable. We believe that gender equality is essential in a society that considers itself to be egalitarian, and that climate change must be tackled now for the generations that will follow us, so all can live in a healthy environment.

We believe that everyone has the right to receive dignified and proper health care; that seniors have the right to the respect they deserve; that first nations must be treated with dignity and respect, be considered as equals and be dealt with on a nation-to-nation basis. We believe that our vibrant and sustainable businesses are the driving force in an economy that addresses our environmental concerns; that all individuals, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, have the right to love and live as they choose; that women have the right to choice, to any choice.

Quebec is all that and more. These are values that are not exclusive to the nation that we are, and I realize that. However, they are the values that we stand up for in the House. They are the values that make us who we are. In order for us to represent them, to defend them well, and to ensure that they are heard in this place, Quebec's political weight deserves to be maintained.

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

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging, in one sense, that from what I understand, Bloc members are supporting this bill.

The government, the Liberal caucus, in working with opposition parties, has recognized just how important it is that we make this change, and it is not the first time, as we have seen similar changes made in the past for other regions. However, it is important to maintain the 78 seats, and this legislation will hopefully receive unanimous consent once the chamber votes.

Would the member not, at the very least, acknowledge that this legislation shows a strong sense of commitment to the province of Quebec, and other provinces, which could find themselves in a similar situation going forward?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is good to have a minimum, as I said. Our gains are preserved and protected. The bill ensures that Quebec has no less than 78 seats in the House of Commons. That is what the government is proposing in Bill C-14. That is fine. What we are saying, however, is that a little something is still missing.

We get to keep our 78 seats, but if the number of seats in the other provinces continues to increase, our political weight will shrink. That is why I am proposing that we make small changes together, that we have discussions to ensure that Quebec's political weight is respected. Merely keeping the 78 seats, as is currently the case, unfortunately does not maintain Quebec's political weight.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not really have a question for the member, but I do have a comment.

I listened carefully to her speech. There were some parts that I agreed with, but we disagree when it comes to political weight. I think that the weight of the population is what matters most for the province. I come from Alberta and we still do not have the number of seats we should have in the House of Commons, based on our demographic weight.

I remind the member that, on March 2, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, sought unanimous consent for the following: “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.”

I think that is where the government got this idea. That is the comment I would like to add to the member's speech.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. His French is very good, by the way.

That was kind of the point of my speech, that we cannot rely solely on demographic data. I understand what he is saying. My riding, for example, is nearly 15,000 square kilometres. It is an immense territory. Yes, it will have roughly the same number of constituents as a Montreal riding that occupies three or four square blocks. However, there are special characteristics and different qualities that need to be taken into account. We must not rely on a mathematical calculation alone.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the ultimate bastion of the French language in North America, Quebec plays an important role in the structure of our society.

In the member's opinion, how important is Quebec's representation in the House to the survival of French in Quebec and Canada?

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear my colleagues speak French in the House. That is the point I wanted to make. Canada is bilingual, and that is more or less what we hear.

The mere fact that there are a lot of Bloc Québécois members in the House means that a lot more French is spoken. There are a lot more members who are defending the French language and who want to fight for its survival in Quebec and across Canada.

I think that significant representation like this could be very beneficial for the French language.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, after a few days of trying to deliver my speech in the House, I am pleased to finally rise. I am pleased that the hon. member for Winnipeg North gets to hear it. We had a good conversation about it last night.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act. It deals with how a democracy balances representative democracy with effective representation, and that is at the core of our parliamentary traditions.

Canada, as we know, was formed by compromise, as is our version of how we elect representatives in Parliament. While striving to make each vote have the same weight in a country as large as ours, with a population as dispersed as we have, we have to add other factors to how we determine an electoral district.

At Confederation, my province of Nova Scotia had 19 of the 181 seats in the House of Commons, or 10% of all seats. As the House grew to 208 seats in the late 1800s, Nova Scotia's count rose to 21 seats in Parliament, which was still about 10% of the seats. As we continued to grow again, Nova Scotia began seeing a decrease in its seats in the late 1800s, dropping to 16 seats by 1914 as we began to see the expansion of our country further west. In 1914, the Constitution, as we know, was amended to state that a province could not have fewer seats in the House than it had in the Senate. Nova Scotia has maintained its current 11 seats since 1966, one more than the 10 Senate seats allocated to our province at Confederation.

It is also important to remember that we live in a bicameral system of Parliament at the federal level where we have a legislative chamber tasked with reflecting the regional interests of the country. This is why Ontario and Quebec each have 24 senators, while the Maritimes have 24 and the west has 24. Later on in our history a number of others were added for Newfoundland and the territories.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, changes have been proposed to our boundaries, but the total number of seats will not be changing in this round of redistribution. The province has seen rapid growth, especially in the Halifax area, while experiencing an ongoing depopulation in some of the rural areas, which is not unique to our province, of course.

From end to end, my riding takes about four hours to drive, and people may be surprised by that, along the South Shore and through St. Margaret's Bay. That is only if people drive through the Trans-Canada Highway on the 103. If they take the much more scenic lighthouse route, it will take them a lot longer, but I would encourage people to try to do that.

While my riding may not be the largest in geographic size in Canada, it does highlight the tension inherent in larger ridings when it comes to effective representation. Balancing the need of a member of Parliament's ability to represent communities of interest is an extremely important part of drawing electoral boundaries.

That was reinforced by the Supreme Court of Canada in its ruling of the attorney general for Saskatchewan v. Roger Carter in 1991. In that ruling, the Supreme Court stated, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to 'effective representation.'” It goes on to say, “Effective representation and good government in this country compel that factors other than voter parity, such as geography and community interests, be taken into account in setting electoral boundaries.”

What this means is that for elected officials to provide effective representation, we take a different approach than the one we see in the United States, with its emphasis on representation by population. Ours is on community interest and geography. Large geography, like the north or even like my mostly rural riding, requires a different time and focus than it does for a suburban or urban member of Parliament.

As an example, I have 11 municipalities; that is 11 mayors and all of the councillors. I have more than 11 legions, and almost 12,000 square kilometres to cover. It is not as large as the riding of the previous speaker from Quebec, but it is still a large area to cover.

Indeed, in the run-up to the last election, as I was campaigning, I drove 42,000 kilometres in that campaign and walked 800 kilometres. If we compare that with a GTA riding, and I have lived part of my life in the GTA, that can be as small as five to 10 minutes to drive across or maybe even just two exits on the Gardiner Expressway. My point is that effective representation must be top of mind when it comes to this type of tweak in our electoral system and our representation. In my mind, this bill does that. I know the member for Winnipeg North will be happy to hear me say that.

The grandfathering clause of 1985 basically ensured that provinces would never have fewer seats than they had in 1985, which was 282 nationally, 11 of which were in Nova Scotia. This was to ensure that in the future no provinces would lose any seats despite the change in growth patterns. This bill essentially amends that provision of 1985 by the Mulroney government by bringing it up to the number in 2021 as the minimum number of seats.

It is great to see that in this bill the Liberals are actually protecting the essence of the Fair Representation Act, passed in 2011 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Despite their criticism of these changes at the time, I think it is wonderful to see the government acknowledge that what Stephen Harper brought in still works and is indeed fair.

It is also wonderful to see that this bill reflects the unanimous consent motion that was moved by the Conservative deputy leader, which states, “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.” I am glad the government has acted accordingly. It is clear that the unanimous consent motions that are moved after question period, which we have seen a lot of lately, sometimes are not simply words but do indeed impact the tone of this place and can result in change.

The Conservatives will always push the needle in this place when it comes to advocating for the legislation Canadians want. At the end of the day, Canadians want their fair share. They want to have effective representation so they feel they are not separated from the people they sent to Ottawa to represent them. They do not want to drive for hours to the constituency office. My main constituency office is an hour and a half from one end and two hours from the other, so I had to open up a few other constituency offices in the riding for the first time, as previous members had not done that, to make it more convenient. Constituents do not want to be forgotten by the political establishment of this place in the riding just because they have a long way to go, which is why we need the tweaking under this bill.

Coming out of this pandemic, we are seeing more shifts in population from urban to rural areas. More people are moving out of downtown cores and spreading out into the suburbs and rural parts of this country. Future parliamentarians must remain nimble and always mindful, hopefully, of how these changes will impact their job of effectively representing all Canadians as reflected in our electoral legislation. These shifts are why it is so important that independent commissions are set up every 10 years and that we review and are constantly tinkering with this legislation in order to ensure that we have that balance between proportional representation, community interest and geography.

Canadians should be reminded how important their voices are when it comes to the proposals by their respective boundary commissions. In Nova Scotia, it is a panel of three people who decide the initial proposal, and it is their job to account for the views and feelings of those in our community. We look forward to those public hearings.

This legislation protects the legacy of the Fair Representation Act, ensures that no province will ever decrease in the number of seats it has, and does as little tweaking as possible while upholding, as well as it can, the balance of the principle of effective representation. These are standards that we should and must set for how the electoral map shapes up in the future.

I will be supporting this bill.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I heard the member talk about, which I honestly was not familiar with, was the Supreme Court ruling with respect to communities of interest in the makeup of the ridings. I wonder if he could tell the House a bit more about that ruling, how it came to be and what the issue was leading up to it.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, it was a ruling with regard to redistribution that was done in the province of Saskatchewan. It was challenging the way the makeup of that redistribution was done, and whether or not it was truly reflecting representation through population or a demographic approach. It went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court looked back at the history of what we had done since Confederation, and the variations of the constitutional amendments that we made. It then said that, because of the geography in our original intent, in a country as large as Canada at that time and certainly today with a sparse population, we had to bring other issues into play, such as communities that had similar perspectives.

For example, in my riding, Shelburne County, Queens County and Lunenburg County are all known as the South Shore, and have been for about 270 years. There is a history behind the British settlement that is reflected in the values and makes it easier for whoever represents my riding, or the member's riding, for example. Having a community interest allows the member of Parliament to reflect those views a little more easily than if we had diametrically opposed views. The Supreme Court said we have to take—

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

We have to give other opportunities for questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

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

Madam Speaker, I really love my colleague's riding and enjoy talking to him about protecting wild salmon and of course the lobster stocks in his riding. However, today we are talking about a very important issue. We know the bill is not perfect. I am glad to hear that my Conservative colleague is going to be supporting the bill, because we certainly wanted to see the bill come forward as part of the supply agreement with the Liberals.

There is still more work that needs to be done. The bill is not perfect. Does my colleague agree that we need to work harder together not only to safeguard the number of seats in Quebec, but also the proportion of seats in Quebec, as well?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and note that his parliamentary assistant is from my riding, so I know he has a great attachment to it, even with family.

With regard to protecting proportions, as I went through in my speech, we see that Nova Scotia has dropped from 21 to 11 seats over the course of Confederation. If we had frozen in time Nova Scotia's proportion of seats at that, I think there would be a lot of members here today who would think that was unfair relative to the way the population has grown.

I do not think it is fair to set a percentage for any particular province on the number of seats it should have that would bind us totally in the future, because we see, over 100 years, the way the population shifts. We try to reflect that as best we can. We have as close as possible the quality of vote while still reflecting the fact that we see now, and will see in the next 100 years, more demographic shifts that will change the weight or influence. It would overweight Nova Scotia's seats if we were still at 21 and Quebec, for example, was at 78.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I think we can all agree with some of the things he said, including, of course, maintaining the number of seats in Quebec.

However, I would like to draw his attention to the concept of political weight, that is, the percentage of seats among all other seats in Canada. This was ably explained by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Several members in the House have obviously recognized the Quebec nation. I know that there have already been similar challenges for Nova Scotia's Acadian community and that new proposals have been made to create new ridings for the Acadian community. Certain groups in the community have obtained recognition of their specific characteristics.

That is what we are asking for in the House today and with the Bloc Québécois proposals. We are asking for recognition and respect for the Quebec nation, as well as assurances that we—

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

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to give the other member an opportunity to respond.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets for about 15 seconds.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I know that Quebec and the Bloc Québécois had an opportunity, with the Charlottetown Accord, to enshrine a set percentage of 25% of the seats to Quebec in the Constitution. That was an option for the country. Quebec voted 58% against the Charlottetown Accord in the referendum, and I believe the Bloc Québécois at the time campaigned against the Charlottetown Accord, which enshrined 25%. I find it a little confusing that the Bloc now is asking for something in this legislation that the members actually opposed in terms of how they voted and what they campaigned on in 1992.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C‑14, which seeks to amend the Constitution Act of 1867 for a very simple purpose: to ensure that no province will have fewer seats than it had in 2021. As a member from Quebec, I want to be sure Quebec will not lose a single seat, which is what Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, the CEO, proposed initially.

As my colleagues are well aware, on October 15, the CEO released a proposal for a new House of Commons seat allocation. The process involved no decisions or discretionary power on the part of the CEO. The seat allocation formula is found in the Constitution Act of 1867. The CEO simply followed the four-step procedure.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain the procedure in detail and talk about the proposed change in our bill.

Step one is to determine the initial provincial seat allocation. To do so, the CEO looks at population estimates provided by Canada's chief statistician. The numbers that apply in this case are from the July 1, 2021, population estimates. The CEO compares these estimates to the previous estimates from 2011. This comparison tells us the average demographic growth across the country.

Then, the population of each province is divided by the new electoral quotient, which provides the initial provincial seat allocation. Calculations at this stage are based solely on total population and demographic change in the provinces to determine proportional seat allocation. This step results in variations in the number of seats. These entirely mathematical variations have caused a number of problems, which is why the second step protects the provinces' minimum number of seats.

First of all, the senatorial clause, which has been in place since 1915, ensures that provinces do not have fewer seats in the House of Commons than they have in the Senate. Accordingly, provinces that received fewer seats in the initial allocation, such as New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, were given additional seats. Over time, it was considered necessary to further strengthen these protections.

That is why Parliament introduced the grandfather clause in 1985, which today prevents provinces from having fewer seats than they had in 1985. Much like the senatorial clause, provinces that receive fewer seats than they had in 1985 are given additional seats. Under this grandfather clause from 1985, Quebec is guaranteed 75 seats. While at the first stage Quebec received 71 seats, the grandfather clause gives it four additional seats, for a total of 75.

This is what brings me to rise and address the House today. Our government is proposing a small but very important update to the grandfather clause. Bill C-14 seeks to amend this part of the Constitution Act of 1867 so that the threshold in the grandfather clause is changed to be based on the 2021 distribution instead of the 1985 one. It is a thoughtful and targeted proposal that will guarantee that no province will have fewer seats than it had in 2021. This means that Quebec will not lose a single seat in this or any future redistribution.

The third step in the formula is the representation rule, which applies to a province whose population was overrepresented in the House of Commons at the completion of the previous redistribution process, but which becomes under-represented following the above calculations. This clause ensures that the share of seats allocated to a province in this situation remains equal to or greater than its share of the Canadian population.

It is absolutely vital that the debates in the House reflect the cultural and linguistic diversity of our country in both content and language. I am proud to repeat, whenever I have the opportunity, that Quebec is a nation within a united Canada. We must ensure that this nation that co-founded our federation continues to have a strong voice in the House, here in Ottawa. Whether through the 35 Liberal MPs from Quebec, the 32 Bloc Québécois members, the 10 Quebec Conservatives or our one Quebec NDP colleague, both Quebec and Canada as a whole will benefit from the contributions of our Quebec delegation in the House.

I say to my esteemed colleagues that our government is committed to recognizing and protecting Quebec as a nation. It is vital that our country preserve our Quebec culture and our French language, and that involves protecting Quebec's representation in all our institutions, including, of course, the House of Commons. Our Bill C-14 does exactly that.

For Quebec, this means that it would retain 78 seats instead of 77. For the other provinces, this gives them a new reference point limiting future decreases based on upcoming demographic changes. It results in the following allocation of seats: four seats for Prince Edward Island instead of two; seven seats for Newfoundland and Labrador instead of five; 10 seats for New Brunswick instead of seven; 11 seats for Nova Scotia instead of nine; 14 seats for Saskatchewan instead of 10; 14 seats for Manitoba instead of 12; 37 seats for Alberta; 43 seats for British Columbia; 78 seats for Quebec instead of 71; 122 seats for Ontario; and, finally, one seat each for Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, for a total of 343 seats.

This means just one seat would be added to the House of Commons, for a total of 343 seats instead of 342. This proposal reflects the provinces' demographic growth, and it also recognizes the importance of Quebec within our federation. I remind members that this federation was founded on the partnership between two peoples, between what were then known as Upper Canada and Lower Canada, between English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada. Because of our history, we have a duty to safeguard and protect this fragile balance. This proposal does not change the way seats are allocated, and it is consistent with other protections that have been established in the past. We are proposing a solution to protect the seats now, before the next election, without amending the Constitution. This would avoid endless constitutional debates that would result in Quebec losing a seat in the interim.

We are proposing a well-thought-out measure, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's speech.

This bill is about amending the Constitution. I think what she meant to say was that this is not an amendment that would require the agreement of seven of the 10 provinces, or 50% plus one of the Canadian population.

Speaking of population, Alberta is under-represented in the House based on its democratic weight and the weight of its seats. The member said that there should be 37 members from Alberta. It is true that based on the redistribution carried out under former prime minister Stephen Harper, we have nine new seats in the House that have been added since 2012. In reality, based on Alberta's demographic weight, it should have 40 seats.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. What does she see happening in the future? Would she agree with me that we need to ensure the western provinces are well represented in the House?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate that question. I think that it is absolutely true that we need to continue to protect western representation in the House.

I am also prepared to listen to any proposal my colleague may want to make. I do not know if he proposed an amendment to our Bill C‑14 to that effect, but I would be pleased to discuss that with him.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Outremont for her speech. As people know, I think debate in the House is very important. We have different arguments, but at least we are able to debate them.

That reminds me that, when my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was delivering her speech, my colleague from Winnipeg North did not listen for one second. To add insult to injury, he then asked a question on a speech that he did not listen to.

The question I want to ask my colleague is quite simple. Does this not prove that Quebec's political weight is not important to the Liberals?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not agree at all with my colleague on that point. During my 10-minute speech, I talked about how important it is.

Every member of our caucus agrees. Our government introduced this bill because we believe that the political weight is important. As I have said many times, Quebec's representation in the House is paramount. I hope that the Bloc will support our proposal because our bill seeks to ensure that Quebec does not lose any seats in the House. It is important.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague, the member for Outremont, to be a very strong member of the foreign affairs committee, and I have enjoyed working with her on that committee.

My question is in regard to what she would recommend or what steps we could take to deal with the fact that in Canada we are increasingly seeing urbanization, yet we still have a strong need for rural representation. How do we balance the needs of our rural communities to be well represented with the increasing urbanization of our country?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the incredible work she has done on the foreign affairs committee. I would have to agree it is an issue we need to turn our minds to. I can cross my riding, which is in the heart of Montreal, in about an hour. I understand for many of my rural colleague MPs it could take between seven and eight hours to cross their ridings.

Making sure rural Canada is well represented is absolutely a priority. What we are seeing is a demographic shift. I have seen in Quebec, over the course of the pandemic, that many people living in urban centres have moved to more rural areas. We need to continue to follow the data and see that every Canadian is well represented in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, why does the parliamentary secretary believe it is so important we pass this legislation, given that we have these active commissions going on across the country?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, the process is indeed under way, and I believe it is urgent we get to a vote on this bill. I was quite disappointed to see, over the course of the last number of days, opposition members on the Conservative side trying to delay the vote on this bill. It is critical we settle the matter once and for all.

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

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-14 today. We are talking about representative democracy, and representative democracy is about being present, being seen and being heard.

The numerous studies on demography tell us that democracies today must have three characteristics to be worthy of this moniker. Those three characteristics are representativeness, trustworthiness and legitimacy.

As far as representativeness is concerned, Bill C‑14 proposes to maintain Quebec's seat count. That is representative, to a degree. However, there is a loss of political weight, so it somewhat misses the mark in terms of representativeness. As far as trustworthiness is concerned, we are living in an untrustworthy world. Finally, as far as legitimacy is concerned, doubts are creeping in about democracy.

It is therefore very important to be able to determine exactly what is coming down the line. There is consensus about maintaining the 78 seats, as requested by Quebec. However, not maintaining Quebec's weight is unacceptable to us. I simply cannot wholeheartedly endorse this bill.

If we allow Quebec's weight to decline, there will—

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

I apologize to the member for interrupting, but I must ask the House to quiet down. I would like to hear the member.

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

Madam Speaker, if we allow Quebec's political weight to decline, there will be heightened vigilance. What is vigilance? Vigilance is keeping a close eye out to attenuate or avoid harm. We will have to be vigilant, especially with respect to the French language, culture and the economic Francophonie.

Last weekend, I participated in a meeting to evaluate the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie's statutes. We had a chance to put some questions to a representative of the OECD, which is headquartered in Paris, and she told us about a set of principles on artificial intelligence. When we read the principles, I asked her who had done the work. She said that people from Egypt, Barcelona, anglophones and some people from Montreal, such as Mr. Bengio, had gone to Paris. I asked her what language people used to talk about the principles in Paris, and she said that the discussion took place in English. Imagine. All those people gathered in Paris, speaking English.

What was interesting was that you could see from reading the principles that the work was bilingual. I have nothing against the English language, but there is a thought process at work in the English language, just as there is a thought process at work in the French language. What I object to is the single mindset. If we are forced to operate more and more in English, we lose some of the thinking involved. Researchers who write and create in French and who translate their own thoughts lose out a little, but it is society as a whole that really loses out.

When I talk about being vigilant and maintaining our political weight, I am also talking about preserving a way of thinking, a capacity to create, a capacity to be different for the common good of all. The appointment of a Governor General who speaks only English and a similar situation in New Brunswick have been denounced in the House.

This also brings to mind the whole Julie Payette scandal from two years ago, when she was Governor General. I asked the Privy Council Office for a copy of the investigation report, but I was told, and I quote:

“The report...was produced in English [and] is being released in the language in which it exists.”

That makes no sense. The report was later translated at my insistence, since it was available only in English. I am not saying that it was conceived in English, but that it was not available in French. I can read English, but this was unacceptable.

It is because of things like this that I talk about vigilance, about monitoring, in order to avoid or mitigate harm. Bill C‑14 does not meet Quebec's demands. With this bill, we do not lose seats, but we begin to disintegrate. At some point, we will assimilate and disappear. What will we be able to say once we have lost our voice? The answer is nothing.

Before we reach the point where we are able to do nothing more than wave in the hope that some benevolent soul offers help, we must act and we must resist. For Quebec, Bill C‑14 is a call to resistance, a call to not give in to uniformity of thought in terms of tastes, ideas, and existence. Fernando Pessoa once said that to die is to slip out of view. With Bill C‑14, Quebec slips out of view.

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

It being 6:16 p.m., pursuant to order made Tuesday, May 17, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

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

Madam Speaker, I would request that we carry that unanimously.

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

On division.

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

The vote is therefore carried on division.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader (Senate) had asked if we could have the vote carried unanimously, and the response to that was no, they would like to have a recorded vote.

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

No. We actually said, “On division.”

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes. There is a difference between—

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

The hon. parliamentary secretary said, “Unanimously.” That was the request I received. The hon. member for Barrie—Innisfil then said, “On division.”

I was asking for guidance because it is the first time I have been faced with that. I was told that it would be carried on division.

The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader (Senate).

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

Madam Speaker, in that case I would request a recorded division.

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

I do not think we can go back. I have already said, “On division.”

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

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the Table and you can obviously correct me if I am wrong, but I requested unanimous carrying of the vote; it was rejected; the Conservatives then put forward the option of having it carried on division, and I am now rejecting that and asking for a recorded division. I could be wrong. Please correct me.

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

The table officers confirm that I did say that it was carried on division, so that is how it stands.

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

Madam Speaker, I believe if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:30 p.m. so we can move to Private Members' Business.

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

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

It being 6:32 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.