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 resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion that BillC-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

[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's 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, NDP, 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 gets into 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, for some of the issues, 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 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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, Conservative, 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

We already have a nay for that.

I recognize the hon. member for Battle River—Crowfoot.

[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, Conservative, 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.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

The hon. Minister of Tourism on a point of order.

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, 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.

[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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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, NDP, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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:

It is available only in English because that is the language it was written in.

That makes no sense. The report was later translated at my insistence, since it was only available 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, 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), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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