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.

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Speaker's Ruling

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

There is one motion in amendment standing on the Notice Paper for the report stage of Bill C-14. Motion No. 1 will be debated and voted upon.

Motions in Amendment

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

moved:

That Bill C-14 be amended by deleting the alternative title.

Madam Speaker, as always, it is a privilege to rise in the House on behalf of my constituents. I will try to be brief and not use up all of my speaking time. I hope that other members will be happy to hear that.

I think we all agree that no one province in our beautiful country should lose a seat when electoral boundaries are redistributed, usually following the census every 10 years. This is essentially how things have been done since our country was formed in 1867.

The last time that a province lost a seat in the House of Commons was in 1966. There was a redistribution in the 1990s, which led to the creation of a third territory, with its own laws and a distinct identity, but that was a unique situation, so I am not counting that.

In reviewing past legislation, I noted only two instances where the number of seats was reduced between elections. A lot of changes were made over a number of years, especially prior to the 1970s, when the process of amending the number of seats was very different from the process in the House today. I will elaborate on that later.

As I said at second reading, the issue was extending the 1985 grandfather clause to the 43rd Parliament. That clause promised that no province would dip below the number of seats held in 1985. That was discussed in committee, and we are now debating a small amendment that I proposed. Essentially, the government is proposing to extend this grandfather clause to the 43rd Parliament, which I agree with, of course.

The three Canadian provinces with the strongest demographic growth are British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. Even with these changes, however, they will continue to be under-represented in the House of Commons.

In 1985, British Columbia had 32 seats, Alberta had 26 and Ontario had 99. At the time of the election in 2019, British Columbia had 42 seats, Alberta had 34 and Ontario had 121. Even with these changes, Ontario will be the most under-represented province in the House of Commons.

I will call the changes proposed in 2012 the Harper formula in honour of the prime minister of the day. The current government is still using the Harper formula because I honestly think it had a lot of good ideas. The Harper formula gave my province, Alberta, and its population nine more seats in the House. That brings us much closer to the proportional representation by population that many Albertans want. I believe they are about 0.5% apart, so we are very close.

British Columbia will continue to be under-represented. It will have only 12.5% of the seats with 13.68% of the population. Even with the grandfather clause from 1985, which will be pushed to the 43rd Parliament, in the next 10, 20 or 30 years this Parliament will have to carry out a more balanced redistribution for Canadians and western Canadians, because our population is growing quickly.

Ontario, the largest province in this country, was the largest province at Confederation. It is still the largest province, and that will not change in the future. Toronto will certainly continue to be the largest city in our country. With each redistribution by the House of Commons, Toronto will post the greatest gains when we ask the province of Ontario how many seats it should have.

I also believe that each redistribution creates tensions among members representing the major cities and those representing the smaller cities and the regions.

There are several commissions that are working on it or that have already produced maps—a first draft, if you will—and they are the commissions in British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. I do not think that Manitoba has returned its maps yet. Ontario has not. In Quebec, of course, the commission is waiting to see whether this bill will be passed. It is the Senate that will examine the issue and decide whether the content of this bill is to the liking of senators. In practice, I think only Nova Scotia has published its maps so far.

This has resulted in a major debate in the House, because representing a region, a territory or a group of small towns or villages is very different. I have colleagues who represent regions that have 20 mayors or 30 boards of directors to talk to. I do not even have one. As I said in the House, until 2019, I did not even have a high school in my riding. Even though I had the largest riding in Calgary, I did not have a public high school, a Catholic school, a private school or a charter school. The first school opened a few years ago, just before the pandemic. My colleagues were surprised that there could be a riding in a big city like Calgary that did not have a high school. That has changed, but I still have only one. I do not have a legion in my riding either. I have colleagues who have 10, 15, 20 or 25 events in their riding on Remembrance Day.

Representing a region is very different from representing a riding in a big metropolitan area like Vancouver, Toronto, Calgary or Edmonton. We need different strategies to represent our constituents well.

I said this during the debates at second reading of this bill, but I will say it again because I promised my constituents. On October 29, I wrote an article on a website called Substack. I sent it to the 8,500 constituents who subscribe to the newsletter I send out every Friday. I told them that if the Liberal government proposed changes to how boundaries are drawn and seats distributed in the House of Commons, I would speak in favour of the principle of representation by population, because that really is extremely important in western Canada.

In the beginning, when Alberta joined the Confederation created by this Parliament, we had seven seats, as did British Columbia. Since then, of course, our province has grown. There are 4.3 to 4.4 million Albertans in our province. I almost said “in our country” because, as I often say, we are a distinct society. I know my Quebec colleagues appreciate that. I know the repercussions. I am thinking of the Charlottetown Accord, the great debates of the 1980s and 1990s in Quebec, and the major Constitutional debates.

I want to make sure that once again I do what I promised my constituents. In the future, the next time seats in the House of Commons are redistributed, Parliament is going to have to take a hard look at representation by population for the people of western Canada. This is really important. We cannot have a country where western Canadians are so under-represented. I think we can all agree to a small difference of 0.5%. That is reasonable. We can absolutely do that. However, no one knows where the Canadian population is going to go in the next few years. No one knows what the economy will look like, or which parts of the country will be more attractive than others.

Once again, I want to say that I agree with this bill. It is a lean bill that reduces changes to the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, so I support this bill.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to congratulate my colleague on his speech, which he delivered in French. I think that is very much to his credit.

My main take-away from the member's speech was his reference to the infamous representation by population. I could not help but think of the Union Act of 1840. There were two nations at that time. Quebec was forced to unite with Upper Canada following the revolt of the Patriotes, and it was given equal political weight with the rest of Canada. In a way, it was recognized that there were two nations, one that was more French-Canadian at the time and one that was more English-Canadian in Upper Canada, and that they should be given equal weight. When did that change?

This changed when the weight of the population became greater in the rest of Canada than it was in Quebec. It is odd. I would like to know what my colleague thinks. That is the vision of John A. Macdonald, where, now that Quebec has less weight on a population level, we will change the rules of the game. A few years later, we had Brian Mulroney, who proposed giving Quebec a stable 25%, regardless of what happened in the future.

I would like to know whether my colleague sides more with Mr. Macdonald or with Mr. Mulroney.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would simply like to remind the member that the Charlottetown accord, which guaranteed that Quebec would never have less than 25% of the total number of seats in the House of Commons, was rejected by 58% of Quebeckers during a national referendum.

I would also like to quickly tell him that we cannot blame Albertans for the mistakes of Ontarians.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his speech and for some of what he has had to say about the importance of representation by population. It made me think of something more recent than the Constitution Act of 1867: the rules for the Conservative leadership race. These do not have representation by population. Each riding in the country, no matter where it is and no matter how many members there are in that region and in those ridings, is accorded an equal number of points. In fact, I believe those points are distributed on a proportional basis, which is a debate perhaps for another time.

Does he feel the Conservative leadership race should be put on hold until they have a representation by population system in place for their party?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a wonderful question. I do not think they use proportional voting in the member's own party.

I will mention this: My colleagues know me to be a contrarian, and perhaps it will surprise the member for Elmwood—Transcona that I actually voted in the 2003 merger between the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada. I was a young Canadian Alliance activist, and I voted no.

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

I will just remind hon. members that partisan politics are not the business of the House.

Questions and comments; the hon. member for Red Deer—Mountain View.

[Earl Dreeshen, Conservative, Red Deer—Mountain View, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member has seen a lot of the country and certainly understands what is taking place. I would like to talk to him about representation by responsibility. He did mention it when he talked about the size of his riding and compared it with some of the rural ridings that we see all around the country. Certainly in Alberta, in one riding we could have 40 different municipalities that one has to be responsible for. It may take hours or days to get there and back.

Could he comment on how that also tends to affect the ability of members of Parliament to represent their communities?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I did mention it. There have been Supreme Court decisions and lower court decisions on this. In Canada, what is most important is what is called effective representation. In court decisions, that has been the way to nuance representation by population, which were the great debates that led to eventual Confederation in 1867. The courts have found that effective representation is a concept that goes beyond that: It asks if a member of Parliament can effectively represent their communities. These are not just a number on a map, and include a whole bunch of communities. It is asking if they can they get around, listen to their constituents and then report back to Ottawa. That is the way it is supposed to work, as opposed to what is often done here, which is that someone stays in Ottawa and then reports back on how good Ottawa is to their place of origin. It should be the other way around.

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

Madam Speaker, I would much prefer to be in Ottawa making these comments, but it is nice that we have the hybrid. It enables me to speak on the floor of the House while I am here in Winnipeg.

We are in an interesting debate in regard to Bill C-14. I am not necessarily surprised that we would see an amendment at this stage. One of the things that I have found over the past number of months is that, at times, we get legislation that one would naturally think would flow through the House of Commons: There would be relatively minimal debate, and we would get it through second reading and into committee.

I do not see this as controversial legislation. I am not exactly sure where the Bloc actually falls on the legislation. I would hope that it would support the province of Quebec getting a guaranteed number of seats, but at the end of the day, I like to think that this is the type of legislation that should ultimately pass through.

Was it necessary, for example, for us to have an amendment? I do not think it was for a report stage amendment. I think that when we get relatively uncontroversial legislation, where it appears that everyone is going to be voting in favour, I would have rather seen a debate on something like, let us say, Bill C-21 and the issue of guns and the safety of Canadians, which is top of mind for a lot of people.

True to form, what I have found is that, whether it is good, rather uncontroversial legislation such as Bill C-14 or if it is controversial or potentially controversial legislation, the Conservatives have one approach in dealing with the government's agenda and that is to prevent it from ultimately passing.

Having said that, I want to recognize a number of points in regard to Bill C-14. Having had the opportunity to speak on the legislation in the past, I want to be very specific on a few things.

One is the need for the legislation. I think it important that we recognize, as has been pointed out, that shifts take place in Canada's population for a wide variety of reasons. One could talk about things such as job opportunities, transfers, the allure of another area, or just people wanting to move to a warmer climate. In my case, they want to come to a nice, cool climate. People change their ridings.

Immigration is such a huge factor. Over the years, Canada continues to grow in good part because of immigration to our country. We are very dependent on immigration. Our birth rate is going down. As we grow as a nation overall, there is natural population shifting that occurs. It comes also in the form of immigration.

As a result, every 10 years, there is an obligation through an independent mechanism, and I want to emphasize that it really is an independent mechanism, that ensures that the ridings reflect the changes we have seen based on census material.

No one was surprised at all that we got a report this year. It was anticipated that we would get a report 10 years after we received the last report.

Going forward, every decade we will continue to receive recommendations from Elections Canada, through the commission, as to the need to change boundaries and possibly add constituencies or do some shifting.

That is, in essence, why we have the legislation today. It is because of the change in populations. In particular, for Quebec, there is a need for us to establish a floor, a minimum number of seats, for the province.

Doing it this way prevents us from having to do a constitutional change, where there is a 7/50 formula in order to enact a change. It addresses, for the most part, the biggest concerns that members of Parliament, on all sides of the issue, have as we recognize how important it is that the province of Quebec not lose any seats. I suspect that is the reason why the legislation would ultimately pass, hopefully unanimously, in the House.

Back in November, there was the establishment of these three-member commissions. We have a national commission. The commission establishes individual commissions of three people in a province, and through those commissions they all have a responsibility. That was done in November of last year, I believe. Those commissions then all have a responsibility to develop the new boundaries, whatever they might look like. They sit around, look at the numbers and the maps and try to provide new boundaries that we could be running the next federal election on.

Each commission operates independently. Manitoba, for example, has a three-member commission, and it operates independently of other aspects of Elections Canada, of political entities and of different stakeholders, such as community members and so forth. It is important to emphasize that it is, in fact, independent.

In developing those boundaries, the commission is tasked with a timeline. That timeline is quickly approaching, and the commissions need to provide a draft of the boundaries. One could be very concerned in regard to the dragging out of Bill C-14. The people who are paying the price for the House of Commons dragging its feet on the passage of this legislation are the people of Quebec. We know we want to see that minimum number of seats for the province of Quebec, and we have consistently said that from day one, as members will recall, when the national commission initially made the recommendation. It was an immediate response that came from not only my Quebec colleagues but from the caucus as a whole: Under no circumstances could we allow the province of Quebec not to have the 78 seats.

Until this legislation passes, that three-member commission in the province of Quebec has its hands tied, at least in good part, as other commissions continue to move forward with drafting boundaries, because the boundaries will change within different provinces. There will be tweaks in the city of Winnipeg, whether Winnipeg North grows more to the north or more in the inner city. This is something I wait for with bated breath, in hopes that we see some changes that the community will in fact support.

Once that draft is finished, the commission has to make it public. Once it is made public, it has to have public hearings that must take place before the end of October, because by mid-December the report has to be finalized.

That is why it is critically important that we pass this legislation. It is so the commission in the province of Quebec can finalize a draft so that it can go to the public, and in turn the public can provide its input so the commission can then provide that final draft by the end of the year.

It is an independent process, and that is why I am supporting Bill C-14. I hope all members would support its quick passage. I see my time has—

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

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was listening to my colleague's speech and, this time, it was interesting to see that he actually had something to say.

His comments were mainly directed at us and he basically told us how good, nice, and kind they are and how they are being charitable and generous, since Quebec will lose one less seat.

That is really something. I am just beside myself.

I have some questions. Parliament recognized Quebec as a nation, and that is supposed to mean something, yet census after census and redistribution after redistribution, Quebec's representation in Canada drops. That just makes me wish all the more that Quebec would become independent and form its own country.

What can my colleague say to those Quebeckers who believe that Quebec should be a country when they see that ultimately we are going backwards all the time?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the first thing I would say is that the Government of Canada responded immediately by recognizing that we do not want to see the province of Quebec diminished in terms of numbers of seats. That is why we have this legislation, even though other opposition parties may see fit to try to delay it or even possibly cause some confusion about it.

What the Bloc members are proposing would require a constitutional change. I do not believe for a moment that Canadians are open to having a round of constitutional debates and discussions on this issue, along with the many other issues that would come out of any sort of a discussion on the Constitution.

I think the most important thing to recognize here is that if we want to support the people of Quebec in going through this independent process, we need to allow them the opportunity of having a basic number of seats and let the commission do the work it needs to do.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport]

Madam Speaker, the member has such a long track record of service in this place, so I have a very broad question for him, because I know he has a lot of knowledge.

This is a complicated thing to figure out, how to best represent our neighbours, given the geography of Canada and how far spread out we are. Could he expand on the importance of ensuring that from a riding size perspective and a population perspective how that representation is important? We are representing people, but we are also representing territory.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, that is a wonderful question.

One of the things that I could add to the debate is to say that we all want to have fair representation for the people and communities which we represent. We are talking about the independence of Elections Canada. We could just as equally be talking about the important services that members of Parliament, elected officials, provide to their constituents through the resources provided to them through the House of Commons, for example, a member's allowance, travel frequency and how convenient it is for members to be able to participate. There is a wide spectrum of things that complement a member's ability to represent the communities they have been elected to represent.

This type of discussion would be very fruitful going forward.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, one of the questions I have follows up on the member's response to his colleague. One of my colleagues is the member for Nunavut. She represents more land mass than any other parliamentarian in the world. It is very difficult for her to reach all of the communities in her riding.

I wonder if he could elaborate on the ways in which we could support members of Parliament in this place who have very, very large ridings. They are expected to work through much more challenging situations than I do in an urban riding.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we talk about how members can best serve their constituents in terms of presentation, or physically, and one of the things I have learned over the last few years is the importance of the Internet and the important role that technology can play, in ensuring there is a heightened sense of equity and fairness in enabling people to be fully engaged and to participate. The hybrid Parliament is an excellent example of that and something we should keep in some form or another.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑14.

I want to start by giving an overview of the problem that this bill is designed to fix in part. Every 10 years, the Chief Electoral Officer presents a new distribution of the number of seats in the House of Commons, so there are some things that keep happening every 10 years.

One thing that comes up systematically is that Quebec loses a percentage of its share of seats in the House. Allow me to give a quick background, and I will ask my colleagues to take me at my word. I have the figures and have pored over them like a dog eyeing a steak. Back in 1867, Quebec had 36% of the seats in the House and in 2015, it had 23.1%. That is typical. With the new distribution, Quebec will drop from 23.1% to 22.5%.

My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said something extraordinary. He is a brilliant Bloc Québécois member, although that is redundant. I see more and more Conservatives looking at us, as though they, too, can be brilliant. I would tell them to be patient because anything is possible. We are extending a light blue hand to their dark blue hand and we are waiting.

Back to the debate. My colleague said that the francophone nation used to be in the majority. It was decided back then that, because Quebeckers were in the majority, they would split the seats 50-50. As soon as it no longer suited them because there were more of us, they changed their mind. In the old days, Quebeckers had a lot of children—14 or 15 per family. Some parents even put stickers on their kids because they could not remember their names. In 1867, the government decided to change things. Going forward, seat distribution would be determined on the basis of population. At that point, four provinces were created, and Quebec's share of the seats fell to 33%. Our minority status in Canada was institutionalized. That is Lord Durham's political legacy.

In this classic tale, where we lose a certain percentage seats, there was recently a new plot twist. In addition to having fewer seats in percentage terms, Quebec was actually going to lose a seat. That matters. Our number of seats was going to drop from 78 to 77 seats. The Bloc Québécois began to fight, as did the Quebec government and various stakeholders in Quebec, and rightly so. Certain members here from other provinces even thought we were going a bit too far. That is when we began speaking out, because this sort of thing has not happened since 1966. The government eventually began to think that maybe it should not do this, because it did seem a bit crazy. If you want to drown someone in the pool, of course it looks crazy to push their head down and hold them in the water. What looks less crazy is gradually raising the water level in the pool. This way, a nation will eventually die, but quietly. That is what is planned for Quebec. That is what is going to happen.

The fact that Quebec has managed to make French the common language of Quebeckers is no small feat. It was even impossible for the French who failed us in 1760. They left and abandoned us, saying that things were not going well here and that, in any event, the English would take care of us, along with the priests. They thought that we would be speaking English within a generation. Two hundred years later, when France's General de Gaulle saw that Quebeckers were still here and were speaking French, he made the connection and declared, “Vive le Québec libre”.

It is a feat, but as we fight against the odds, in a situation that is becoming increasingly untenable, we will eventually need help to ensure that our nation survives and thrives, so that this nation lives on.

Is it because Quebec is better? No. Quebec is not better than the rest of Canada, but it is different. Beauty is often found in differences. I like going to Toronto. It is not home, but I like it. I like going to New York and France. I like that. It is not home, but I like it.

When the Bloc came to the House last year saying that Quebec is a nation, MPs got on board. I was impressed. We thought we were going to have to fight harder than that. Of course, the motion did not pass unanimously, but the vast majority of members agreed that Quebec is a nation.

Then some other members began getting ideas. I can never remember other people's riding names, which are incredibly long and just keep getting longer. There are 338 of us, and it is getting out of hand. We might as well use acronyms.

Getting back to my point, when we declared that Quebec was a nation, a Conservative member from British Columbia said that his province was also a nation. I told him that I was unaware, that he should explain it to us, prove it to us and bring forward a motion to that effect for us to discuss.

Then one of his colleagues, who was even more worked up than he was, said that Alberta was a nation. I will not say his name, but he did say that Alberta was a nation, and for 30 seconds he tried to convince us of that. I had to wonder.

Quebec is definitely a nation. We have a different language. We like to speak out, loud and clear, in our different language. Members can argue about it and say that language is not a big deal, but actually, it is a big deal. We are a different culture. Quebec has its own writers. I could name a few, and I doubt the other members would have any idea who they are. We had to fight at the leaders' meeting to convey how important Pierre Bruneau is to us.

We have to explain to members who we are. When Jean Leloup won a bunch of trophies, we had to explain to Canada who he was. We have to explain to members who we are. That is normal, because we are different.

Our economy is different. It is based on other aspects that are less developed elsewhere in Canada. The other regions in Canada are not worse than Quebec. They are just different.

Our history is different. When they get to the chapter on 1759, our history teachers dejectedly explain the defeat on the Plains of Abraham. Elsewhere in Canada, history teachers are pleased as punch to talk about 1759, what they call the victory on the Plains of Abraham. Need I say more?

I have two things to point out to my colleagues who say that other provinces are nations. First, when the Prime Minister was elected, he raised his arms and cheerily declared that Canada would be the first post-national state. To the people who say that their provinces are nations, I say that their leader said that they were no longer nations, that the era of nations is over.

One day, someone said to me, without any malice, that Canada is like a boring party, and everyone is just waiting for the first guest to leave so that they can leave too.

Last week, I heard the member from British Columbia say that B.C. was a nation and that Alberta was a nation in his colleague's eyes. My loving response to them is this: Why not make Canada a true confederation of sovereign states that unite as sovereign states, which manage everything within our own respective borders and which would meet to manage our economic relations and share a currency? Instead of coming together and explaining how we are different, we would meet to talk about what unites us all. That is my wish for all of us.

Unfortunately, Bill C‑14 does not reflect what we want. It is either a partial success or a partial failure, depending on whether we see the glass as half full or half empty. To fix this problem once and for all, and we need to agree on the idea that it is once and for all, Quebec would have to be guaranteed at least 25% of the seats in the House, as was proposed in the Charlottetown accord.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure and a joy to listen to my Bloc Québécois colleague. I say that in all sincerity, but not without chiding him for mentioning the leaders meeting, which must remain confidential.

However, I want to salute him because we share a point of view that he talked about eloquently, as only he knows how, regarding the riding names that are too long. It makes no sense. I invite the House of Commons decision-makers to use Quebec as a model for this. In Quebec, it stops at two names, not more, which is a great idea. I invite everyone to follow the Quebec model.

Speaking of Quebec earlier, that member expressed the hope and the beauty of living in a confederation of sovereign states that work together. The primary objective of the member from that group is to make Quebec a country, to have independence. Okay.

There is a solution for that: On October 3, Quebeckers will have the opportunity to either choose a new government or keep the current one. We will see what they decide and we cannot assume anything. However, we know that one of the parties in the running is focused on achieving independence through a referendum right out of the gate. Why does the member not run for the Parti Québécois in the upcoming election—

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

The hon. member for La Prairie.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy listening to him as well, and we have known one another a long time.

A coach does not ask a good defenceman to go out and play offence if he is good on defence. I came to the House to defend Quebeckers' interests while waiting for the big day. That is the Bloc Québécois's mission. We look after the interests of Quebeckers, we speak on behalf of Quebeckers, we explain what Quebeckers need, we talk about the values of Quebeckers and their political views.

We defend Quebec's interests in the House because they need to be defended until the big day arrives. There are people in Quebec City who are playing offence, making sure that a majority of Quebeckers will one day say “yes, finally”, after always being told no by the federal government. At some point, they will think more positively.

In the meantime, I am the Bobby Orr of Canadian politics.

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

I will stop the clock for a few seconds to remind the hon. member that there are many Quebeckers in the House.

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

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

Madam Speaker, I believe that during his speech, the member for La Prairie said that a member from British Columbia claimed that the province wanted to be a nation. That is not correct, because I think that the member for La Prairie was talking about me.

In fact, it is the member for La Prairie who, in trying to summarize my position, said that I wanted British Columbia to be a nation. Can the member for La Prairie clarify what he meant?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I should apologize because there are indeed MPs from Quebec who are not Bloc Québécois members, but we are the only ones who have not made compromises and do not need to make compromises because our caucus is not Canadian. It represents Quebec exclusively. To hear the sound of a pure, unadulterated symphony, one need only listen to Bloc Québécois members. I recommend that the House do so.

Getting back to my colleague from the riding whose name is impossible to memorize, let me just express my profound respect and admiration for him. The last time he rose in the House to speak to Bill C‑14, he said that British Columbia was a nation and a distinct society. I more or less quoted him verbatim. As I recall, I even invited him to Quebec, and that invitation stands.

I myself am planning to visit British Columbia, where everything looks so gorgeous. I am going next year. I even talked to my wife about it, and she is excited. I want to explore that beautiful part of the country, but I want my colleague to explain to me why it is a nation, because that is what he told the House. We remain friends nevertheless.

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

Madam Speaker, I support Bill C-14. I think nearly everyone here supports it.

I remember the debate on the Charlottetown accord. At that time, I was invited by civil society members to campaign with them in favour of the Charlottetown accord. At the same time, I was inspired because there was a real grassroots movement against the Charlottetown accord.

My question is not a simple one. In the opinion of my colleague from La Prairie, should we be trying harder to come up with a constitutional solution that really works for Quebec?

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

The hon. member has 15 seconds to respond.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, you are being hard on me. I may stretch these 15 seconds a little.

Quebec faces many difficulties with respect to its values and needs in the Canadian federation. The solution to this problem would have been to simply set a minimum threshold with a percentage to guarantee that Quebec always has the same percentage of representatives in the House. There is no need to open the Constitution. We do not need 50% of the seats.

Patrick Taillon, a well-known constitutional expert, came before the parliamentary committee and told us that we did not need to do that. It is already provided for. I do not have enough time, but I would have said that the Supreme Court recognized, in 1987, the right to adopt clauses like the senatorial clause and the grandfather clause. We could have called it the Quebec clause. It would have been included in this bill and it would have resolved—

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

Order. we must resume debate.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to participate in the debate on Bill C‑14.

The NDP has long supported the principle that Quebec should maintain a consistent proportion of the seats in the House of Commons. That is not what Bill C‑14 would do, but we think that this bill is nevertheless important, to ensure that no ground is lost while we hold a broader debate on the proportion of seats. That is why this bill is worthwhile, and it is urgent, in light of the pending electoral distribution.

We must choose to ensure that the new seats reflect the number of seats that we want Quebec to have at the end of this process. Time is of the essence and we must make a decision. It is not a perfect one, but it is the right decision under the circumstances.

This has been an interesting debate. We have heard a lot about representation and some of the important principles that undergird the Canadian electoral system. We know that already in the House of Commons, representation by population is not the only consideration. Just as an example, provinces cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than they have in the Senate. That is already a departure from representation by population. We also know that rural areas tend to be weighted differently in order to ensure that there continues to be a strong role representation in the House of Commons, beyond what representation by population would dictate. Those are just a couple of examples of the way in which representation by population is not the only way that we determine representation in Canada, so there are certainly precedents for looking at other departures from representation by population.

Sometimes people get quite animated in this place during those debates. We just saw an example of that, and we have seen examples from folks in other parties as well who get pretty animated. We have seen some very spirited defences of representation by population, particularly from some of the western Conservative members. That is fair enough. We come here to represent our constituents and the points of view that people have on these matters, and they are rightly an object of concern.

I do think it is important to try to have these debates with a bit of humility, though, because they are very important and foundational debates. For instance, I look at the current Conservative leadership race, and I note with interest that, in their own system, representation by population is not the rule. That is fair enough. Different parties do that differently. In the NDP, we have a one member, one vote system. We do not have any kind of weighting.

In the Conservative Party, they have chosen to have a weighting. That is something that defies representation by population, presumably for good reason. I am not saying the Conservatives should not do that, and I am not saying that they should. What I am saying is that they have made a choice to forego strict representation by population because, presumably, they think it matters to have a proportionate weighting of voices from across the country in the selection of their leader.

Also, when we talk about representation in this place, we sometimes talk about the voting system we have. I have heard Conservatives take very strong positions on that, defending the balloting system that we have and defending the first-past-the-post system that we have. Folks can correct me during questions and comments if I am wrong, but I note with interest that I believe the Conservatives are going to have a preferential ballot in the Conservative leadership race. That is something the Conservatives are very much against in other contexts, but they have seen it to be appropriate for their leadership. Not only are they going to have a preferential ballot, but they are also going to have a preferential ballot that informs a proportional system because leadership candidates will get a number of votes within their riding association proportionate to the percentage of votes they got out of that system. Then, presumably, based on the alternative ballot, as some people fall off, those votes will be successively redistributed within that riding through the points system until they elect a leader.

I note also that the Conservatives are doing this uniquely by mail-in ballot, which is something I listened to many Conservatives talk about in a filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee in the last Parliament. They were very clear then that they felt mail-in ballots led to fraudulent electoral outcomes. Here we are.

We have a Conservative Party that is using a preferential ballot in a non-representation-by-population system to have proportionate outcomes in a mail-in process, which is why I encourage us to speak to these issues here in the House with some humility, because I think that, in fact, depending on the context, various members do support different kinds of electoral principles.

That is why I think we should be able to have this conversation in a responsible way, in the way I think Canadians would expect mature adults to try to have those conversations: not demonize each other because of the kinds of positions we are putting forward, but try to hear what is important and of value in the other person's position and then try to hammer out a compromise, as was the case originally in 1867. There were compromises made that did not satisfy everyone at the time but that managed to move the Canadian project forward, and there have been many compromises since that have not been perfect and certainly have not pleased everyone. However, Canada has been a constant activity and a constant project of trying to seek consensus and agreement. As difficult as that is, I think it is actually Canada's strength.

We live in a world right now that is rife with conflict. We live in a world right now where people are choosing to end conversation and negotiation in favour of polarization and violence. One of the things that I think have been great about Canada, for all its many faults, because it is not a perfect place, has been its ability to find a way, even among very different peoples, languages, cultures and histories, to take on these important questions of political representation and find a path toward compromise.

We have a lot more work to do. We have work to do in the case of Quebec, which continues to see its proportion of seats decline in the House of Commons, despite its special status within Confederation with its own language, culture, history and contributions. We are also reckoning now, in a much more vigorous way, and appropriately so, with indigenous peoples, and there are questions of political representation that come up with respect to indigenous peoples as well, which is something we have not done a good job of at all in Canada in so many ways over the years. We have had no formal representation of indigenous peoples in this place, and there are no seats set aside. That is a conversation for another day, too.

What I think is important about Bill C-14 is that it is bringing people together from all sides of the chamber to recognize that while we have these larger debates, which are important debates and I do hope we will find good ways of having those debates where we treat each other well and work together on this project of constant negotiation that is Canada, we can at least agree that we should not be taking any steps backwards. I think that, at the very least, this law, if it should pass, would prevent us from taking steps backwards, even as we try to find our way forward.

We are not there yet. I think the debate around this bill has shown the extent to which we are not there in certain regards. However, I think it has been a positive exercise for this place to have occasion to talk about representation in Canada, what it does mean now and what it can mean in the future, and to have been able to do it in the context of a bill that, for all its imperfections and for all the legitimate criticism there is of it, has largely brought people together, because I think it has allowed for a better and a more responsible conversation than we sometimes have in this place.

I am thankful for that, and I am anxious to see this bill pass quickly, because of the time constraints we are under with the boundary redistribution process already taking place. As we head further into the 21st century and face many great challenges, both large challenges that are planetary, in terms of climate change, and also real political challenges here at home, I hope this is a down payment on a better debate for how we find new and better ways of ensuring that all the voices of Canadians are represented in their right proportion here in the House of Commons to build a prosperous future for all of us.

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

Madam Speaker, I also have a chance to speak to Bill C-14 later tonight, but as the conversation has been unfolding tonight, new ideas come to mind, and I would like to try some out on the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

When we think about our friend, the member for Nunavut, who is a spectacular member of Parliament, we know that one cannot get from Iqaluit to Inuvik without flying to southern Canada first, unless one hires a private plane. The population is sparse, but the job is enormous. What would the hon. member think about us changing representation by population to something that includes funding for individual MPs reflective of what their actual costs are from serving the people of their riding? This would apply to people in about half of the country. If we cut it off, about half of the territory of this enormous country is represented by 12 MPs. Their jobs are very different from those of the people who represent more concentrated, southern Canadian populations.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I certainly do think that the question of how we resource MPs is a very important one. We need to recognize how, depending on what riding one represents in the country, one can have a very different experience as an MP, and the community or communities one serves in those ridings are going to have very different experiences of having an MP.

There is already some provision made and some recognition of that disparity between different MPs, depending on the nature of their riding, but I know, having heard from some of the members of our caucus who represent very large ridings, particularly those in the north, that the resourcing conventions we already have are inadequate to the task. We have only to sit down with them to talk about their experiences to know they are inadequate. It is certainly something that we should be looking at trying to remedy.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed my colleague's speech, in part because he spoke in French, at least for a bit. I think that is important to acknowledge. I also got a real sense that he is open to this process.

He acknowledged that Bill C‑14 does not fix Quebec's problem. I was happy to hear that, because it is hard to get members from the other parties to admit that. He also went as far as to say that he would be prepared to support our proposal to ensure that Quebeckers have a minimum of 25% of seats, which is a good thing. If all members of the House could agree on that, I think there would be a lot of happy people in Quebec. It might even facilitate some agreements.

However, I did not go into politics to get Quebec 25% of the seats. I did it to make sure Quebec has 100% of the seats and forms its own country.

I know that in the past, the NDP adopted the Sherbrooke declaration, which recognized that Quebec's right to self-determination is fundamental and inalienable. I was wondering how far his party's thinking has come on this issue.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has supported the principle of asymmetrical federalism since 1961. I may not fully understand the term “self-determination”, but we have always tried to ensure that Quebec's need to have more decision-making power is recognized, particularly in relation to federal programs. We have always wanted to protect that with respect to federal programs.

Personally, I think that a confederation can work well when the provinces work together. The federal government does not always play the role of telling the provinces what to do. The federal government can bring the provinces together to collaborate and negotiate in good faith. It can be there to provide funding and support for national initiatives that all the provinces also support.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to debate Bill C-14.

For those who might just be catching up on what Bill C-14 is, it deals with an updating of the grandfather clause of the Constitution from 1867, as reset in 1985. I think at some point in this place we should put forward a grandmother clause. I was just looking at some of my other female colleague MPs in this place.

The grandfather clause says that this is what it is and we are going to keep it the way it was. What we are doing with this bill is saying that the composition of Parliament will not drop below the seat count of the 43rd Parliament. That is basically what we have now: 338 MPs, of which 78 are from Quebec and 121 are from Ontario. My home province of British Columbia will have no fewer than 42 seats going forward under the new, as I rename it, “grandmother clause”.

There are a number of issues to unpack in this bill. The primary one is that the bill is making sure that Quebec does not lose any seats in the current decennial review of representation by population and that we are more or less representing the same numbers of people across the country.

This is no easy effort. This is very difficult. I just attended the public hearing in Victoria, B.C., and the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia was just proposing to add another seat because population redistribution is adding relatively more people to British Columbia than to some other provinces. The commission is proposing to add the new seat in interior British Columbia, which would have a big effect on the members for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. It would have very little impact on my own riding, but going through that process of staring at the riding map and speaking about representation by population put me very much in mind of some other ideas.

In fact, when I spoke at the public hearing in Victoria about the riding boundaries and the proposals of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, I asked them whether, in the interests of democracy, it is really in the interests of our constituents to add more MPs to the House of Commons year on year? I said to them that when I was first elected to this place in 2011, in the Parliament that I joined and in which I had the honour to stand in Centre Block for the first time, we had 308 members; now we have 338. Does that increase in numbers add to the representation of our constituents, or does it dilute it? Is the notion of adding an MP here and there really effective in representation?

As has come up recently in this debate tonight, I think about our colleagues who represent vast territories. The member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has a territory that I think is two times the size of Germany, but I may be wrong. I remember his predecessor, Nathan Cullen, saying something like that fairly often. When a riding is two times the size of Germany, it is very hard to get around.

Our colleague from Nunavut has an electoral district that takes in three time zones. It is an enormous territory, and commercial aircraft will not get people from one end to the other. They have to either hire private planes or fly from Iqaluit to Ottawa and then go up to Inuvik. It is not easy, and given current demographic trends, the population of Nunavut is not going to be the equivalent of my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, which, under the current proposal from the Electoral Boundaries Commission, would represent 122,000 people, or more than four times the population of Nunavut.

Let us think about what we could do to be creative. I said to the Electoral Boundaries Commission that much more important for democracy and representation by population would be fair voting, proportional representation, so that every voter knows that their vote is going to count. At that point, the very professional, hard-working team that is the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia said that this is beyond their area.

I take it to my colleagues here because it is specifically our area.

What is in the interest of democracy in the 21st century? Is it that we continue to add MPs to pile into this place? I suggest that when we look at the House of Westminster and the Commons chamber there, there are no desks because there is no room. If every MP showed up, they would not fit in the room because 650 MPs would be trying to squeeze into a chamber that would be perfect for about half that number. If we constantly add more MPs, we add to the cost of this place.

Would average Canadians feel they are better served by continually adding to the cost of the House of Commons or by my alternate proposal? It would be less costly to the taxpayer and I believe more efficient in properly representing our constituents if, depending on population, what is called the member's office budget, or MOB, was expanded. It would mean that we would not add more MPs, but MPs who represented higher population areas would be able to have more constituency staff to handle the casework, to make sure that the level of representation we give our constituents is beyond gold standard.

That is what we want to do. We want to be able to respond to the constituents who say they have been on the phone with Service Canada for nine hours, only to be hung up on and the call dropped. We do not have enough people in my office to deal with every single case that comes up, but we try.

What I would propose is that we look at the job of a member of Parliament. We do two things in this place. As our opening prayer by the Speaker suggests, we pass laws and make wise decisions, or at least we try. We debate public policy, as we are doing tonight. We also serve, in a completely different way, our constituents in a non-partisan way. We help them with their pensions, their passports, their unemployment insurance, their disabilities, the CRA, their need for help. We all have our issues. We work really hard to help our constituents.

Would we not have better representation if we did not just add to the number of members of Parliament in this place, but expanded the resources for those who are challenged by large population numbers or huge distances? A member of Parliament with a huge terrain to cover would have the budget to have offices in more locations to be more convenient for constituents. Representation by population may not be the most democratic way to ensure that Canadian democracy thrives.

Regardless of political stripe, we should all be troubled by what just happened in Ontario. Almost 60% of eligible voters did not turn out to vote. There are a number of theories for why that happened. That means a majority government that got 40% of the vote of the 43% of people who showed up elected a majority without the majority of public support. In fact, the Doug Ford government in Ontario has the active support, as measured by who went out to vote for him, of 18% of the Ontario public.

I am not blaming Doug Ford. The first-past-the-post voting system does not encourage voting. It is the minority of countries, by the way, that use first past the post. Countries with fair voting see people interested in turning out to vote.

Voter turnout in countries that use a proportional voting system is higher than in countries like ours, with our current voting system.

We could make a really big difference if we revived the Prime Minister's 2015 election campaign promise that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. It is hard to revive that because we had elections in 2019 and 2021, but we could. We could and we should ask what is in the interest of democracy today. Is it adding more MPs to this place, increasing the cogs in the wheels of large political machines where people show up here and are told how to vote by their party whips, or is it making it more democratic by ensuring that everyone here and that Parliament as a whole represent accurately the way Canadians actually voted?

It is not too late to make this change. It is urgent.

I want to close the discussion on Bill C-14 by bringing us back to more fundamental questions: Can we improve the services we provide to our constituents? Can we ensure this place does not just expand forever as we have more population? Can we deliver real democracy that inspires Canadians?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands for sharing some very insightful questions that came up at her public hearing for boundary redistribution. I am very interested because I have one coming up for own riding. I agree it is very troubling to see the level of turnout we just had in the Ontario election.

I also agree with the fact that we need to better support our constituency staff, who are doing incredible work. I am very grateful for the constituency staff I have. They make my job much easier and help so many constituents.

Given the low turnout we saw in Ontario, what would her thoughts be on the Government of Canada looking at a mandatory voting system along the lines of what countries such as Australia have?

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

Mr. Speaker, I had promised another friend I would not mention the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, on which we both served, but one of the things we studied was whether mandatory voting makes a difference. We were tasked with looking at what voting system would be best for Canada. While I was a member of that committee, I discovered that the first time a parliamentary committee had studied first past the post was in 1921, and that parliamentary committee concluded that first past the post was not a system that worked for Canada.

In studying mandatory voting, I concluded it might be an improvement over what we have now, but it does not inspire people to vote. It makes people feel they have to vote, and I would rather inspire them to know their vote is really going to count.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the member believe British Columbia should have equal representation in the House of Commons? The band-aid solution we are applying here to Bill C-14 is really just avoiding the big questions our country is facing. Also, I would love to hear some more comments from the member on her interaction with the electoral commission about effective representation in rural Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put forward that the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon is such a good MP that he should not worry that he needs more people on his team. We, in British Columbia, represent our constituents well, and I do not think mere numbers make that much of a difference. He obviously is not in my party. I worry, actually, about the way the boundary commission proposes to split up Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon. As he will know, I am very attached to parts of that riding, particularly Ashcroft, and would like to see good representation continue.

As for the electoral commission, it was a good experience. I have to say, which has also been confirmed with other MPs, we are not finding a lot of our constituents are super interested in showing up at these hearings. Maybe they are not being well advertised. I do not know, but when voting time comes, I worry constituents who have lived in one riding will suddenly say they do not know where to vote. I worry about making too many small changes that are not necessary, such as on Vancouver Island, but I wish the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon very good luck in whatever is happening to his riding.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I would like her to explain something. On March 2, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion that my colleague supported. The motion sought to maintain Quebec's political weight and not have it lose a seat. The Bloc Québécois then presented Bill C‑246, which was along the same lines as the motion that my colleague supported, but she voted against it.

Today, the government is trying to salvage the situation with Bill C‑14. This bill seeks to preserve the number of seats, but not the political weight, because other seats could be added for other provinces outside Quebec.

I would like my colleague to explain why she voted for the Bloc Québécois motion and then voted against the Bloc Québécois bill.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The member for Saanich—Gulf Islands for a brief response.

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

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good question, and it will be difficult to answer briefly.

I had issues with the private member's bill designed to protect political weight. I am in favour of the principle, but the idea of a fixed percentage such as 25%, and not some other percentage, is an issue for me.

Maybe I was mistaken, but I am open-minded, which is why I am in favour of the principle. However, I am not in favour of the private member's bill. I am sorry.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Pursuant to order made earlier today, Motion No. 1 at report stage is deemed put and negatived on division.

The bill is deemed concurred in at the report stage on division and deemed read a third time and passed on division.

(Bill concurred in at report stage, read the third time and passed)

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. deputy government House leader.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am sure if you canvass the House, you will find unanimous consent to see the clock at midnight.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.