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

[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, NDP, 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.