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.

Constitution Act, 1867

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

On March 2, I moved a motion in the House. I asked for the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion: “That the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

...

(a) any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec’s political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected;

....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This takes me to another point I want to make. The member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, moved that the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly. There was a lone voice in the House that rejected this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

Constitution Act, 1867

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That, in the opinion of the House:

(a) any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected; and

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

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

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