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.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to clarify for my colleague that, while I like his idea, you have just announced the committee's work plan for clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C‑14.

We could reach a compromise by inviting these two constitutional scholars to submit a written brief to the committee which would then be circulated to all committee members.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

I thank my colleague for his question.

Mr. Fergus, I understand the importance you place on the Gatineau tram project. We have spoken about it several times and I have also had discussions with ministers of the Quebec government. I believe that an environmental engineering study is preferred. I was surprised, because it is quite expensive. I am confident that we will be able to talk to the citizens of your riding about this very soon.

I will conclude on the issue of the electoral boundaries commissions. As I said in my opening remarks, in accordance with federal law, independent, non-partisan commissions have been established. I respectfully submit to colleagues that we need to be aware of the important work that these people do. I think Mr. Fergus has made that point. I personally discussed this with Mr. Perrault, the Chief Electoral Officer, a few weeks ago.

I am therefore banking on the wisdom of the committee and our colleagues in the House of Commons to ensure that Bill C‑14 passes third reading and then the Senate. I hope so, as there was a strong consensus at second reading. Mr. Kmiec and other members have referred to this. If it is the will of Parliament to pass the bill, I hope there will be a concern about the need to avoid unreasonable delay in the commission, especially in your province, Mr. Fergus. As has been said, it would not be ideal to have a situation where there are two timelines. It would not be respectful to the members of the commission. In addition, I think it would not produce the important results that the residents of Quebec expect with respect to their new electoral map.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Actually, you anticipated my question. It's tempting to talk about the Gatineau tramway, but I'm going to limit myself to asking a question about Bill C‑14.

That said, if the minister would like to comment on the Gatineau tramway, I would be more than happy to hear him.

I would like to talk about the electoral boundaries commissions. We have heard about several options that are not part of Bill C‑14. I would like to hear more from the minister on this issue. If a decision were made to change his mind at this point and not support the path advocated by the government, what effect would that decision have on the work of the Quebec Electoral Boundaries Commission?

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

I'll just add to that. This is completely related to Bill C-14, because at the heart of Bill C-14, we know as a fact that British Columbia and Alberta especially, and Ontario, do not receive.... It does not live up to the principle of representation by population. It matters to people. The election of members to this House of Commons has an impact on our institutions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'll just remind us that we are here to talk about Bill C-14 with a side of infrastructure, so—

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

The chair is indicating that I should be very brief. I will be.

We believe that legislated floor.... I think it would take Quebec seats to 89 from the 78 with Bill C-14. They would go to 89. We believe that would be ultra vires of Parliament. It would be outside the legislative scope of Parliament. It would probably trigger a series of legal challenges. It would, in our view, be counterproductive to allowing the commissions to do the work they have to do. We expect, as Professor Macfarlane and a number of others have indicated, the courts would conclude that this is, more properly, a constitution-amending formula issue. For the reasons we discussed with Ms. Romanado, we don't think this is the most efficient and effective way to resolve these issues in the very short term.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, to the minister, for that response.

I want to quote Emmett Macfarlane again. I know our chair will be happy. He is an associate professor of political science at the University of Waterloo and a constitutional law expert. He said that the seat allocation formula can be adjusted unilaterally by Parliament “but it has to stay within a reasonable margin for ensuring proportionality.”

I'm wondering, through you, Madam Chair, to the minister, whether Bill C-14, being “minimalist” and “surgical”, as you described it, is in fact within that reasonable margin.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Obviously, Madam Chair, I look forward to announcing a number of important infrastructure investments in both Waterloo and Whitby. Mr. Turnbull and I have talked about some priority projects in his riding, and I look forward to being there this summer with him, hopefully, to announce them.

However, Mr. Turnbull properly identifies the fact that, under the current legislative proposal, Bill C-14, British Columbia would increase by one seat, the province of Alberta by three and his province of Ontario by one. That is by operation of the formula the Chief Electoral Officer has applied following the last decennial census. We take the position that this was a corrective measure to preserve Quebec's 78 seats, but in no way did we want to, as I think you were referring to, Mr. Turnbull, take away from the importance of recognizing the growing populations in those three provinces I mentioned.

You could make the argument that adding one more seat to what had been the formula in Quebec dilutes the seats in those provinces. We don't think that's significant. If you look at a total of 342 seats, one seat in one particular province doesn't, I think, represent a dramatic diminution with respect to the growing populations in those provinces I mentioned, including your own, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. I echo your sentiments with regard to my riding of Whitby. We look forward to projects being approved in Whitby as well.

Back to the matter at hand, Minister, I want to thank you and members of the Privy Council for being here today to testify. It's an important conversation.

It's clear to me that, at this moment in time, Quebec is going to benefit from these changes by not losing a seat, but what was revealing to me about some of your opening remarks was that the surgical—I think you used that word—changes that are being proposed in Bill C-14 are going to benefit all other provinces and territories as well.

Is there any downside for the other provinces and territories, as you see it, Minister, through you, Madam Chair?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

No, we're not contemplating changes other than what's proposed in Bill C-14 to maintain Quebec's 78 seats, as was the case in the previous Parliament. We have no plans to go further in terms of the representation in different provinces.

We're also conscious, as I said in my opening comments, of the work that the commissions are doing and the importance of allowing the commissions to have as much certainty as possible in terms of what number of seats they'll be dividing up per province. We're conscious that doing that at this particular moment doesn't allow them to fulfill their legislative responsibilities in a way that we think would be respectful.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

It is a freeze, Mr. Leblanc.

This is how I understand what you said. I have to say you are an experienced politician. By the way, I wish you would make your answers shorter. You are just so interesting that we forget the point.

Based on what you said, the fact that Quebec is recognized as a nation does not technically give it more powers.

On March 2 in the House, you voted in favour of a motion that had two parts. You knew very well that I would raise this with you. First, the motion called for Quebec not to lose any seats in the House. I have to admit that Bill C‑14 is a victory in that regard. Secondly, the motion called for Quebec not to lose any political weight. In the current version of Bill C‑14, Quebec retains its current 78 seats, but the total number of seats in Canada is increasing from 338 to 343. I am sure your math is good enough to see that this does not protect Quebec's political weight. There is nothing in this bill to protect Quebec's political weight in the short, medium or long term. We can agree on that.

Why did you not take any action, given that the motion was passed by a strong majority? By the way, I did not check, but I am sure you voted for this motion. Mr. Turnbull is indicating that you did. Why was no action taken on this second part of the motion?

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair, and through you I'd like to thank the minister and departmental officials for being here today.

It's tough because Mr. Kmiec actually asked a few of the questions I was hoping to ask.

As a member of Parliament from Quebec, it was very important to me that Quebec not lose a seat. I know that when we had conversations in the Quebec caucus, it was just not an option that Quebec would lose a seat in terms of representation. In terms of Bill C-14, it looks like we are doing what we've done in the past. In the 33rd Parliament and in 2011, we made that little tweak, the adjustment, the small amendment to make sure that seats were not lost.

In the previous panel, one of my colleagues mentioned that this is like a band-aid solution. We have to fix this, and every few years we go through this situation where we're looking at the census data, we're looking at where we are and we keep making those small amendments.

I'm going to ask a question that probably my colleagues are not hoping I'll ask, but is it time that we also start looking at, for instance, what the Bloc has proposed, which is that we increase Quebec's representation or guarantee the 25%, which I believe will require a constitution-amending formula?

Do we need to look at opening up the Constitution to start thinking about the different ways that we are preparing representation across Canada, whether it be the seats in the House of Commons or in the Senate? Could you elaborate a little bit? Thank you.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Chair, thank you, and good afternoon.

I am very pleased to appear before you today to discuss Bill C‑14, Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act.

Madam Chair, you mentioned my colleagues from the Privy Council Office in attendance, so I will not repeat that information.

Madam Chair, as you know, 2021 was a decennial census year, and as such the electoral boundaries redistribution process, as required by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, is currently under way on the basis of the Chief Electoral Officer's calculations.

On October 15, 2021, the Chief Electoral Officer announced the new distribution of seats in the House of Commons allocated to the provinces and territories, based on the constitutional formula and population changes over the last 10 years. The new distribution, as proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer, would see the House increase by four seats, from 338 to 342, with one additional seat for British Columbia, three additional seats for Alberta, one additional seat for Ontario and one seat being lost in the province of Quebec.

The loss of a seat in the House of Commons is significant. We understand the concerns of Quebeckers. This position has been expressed by my Liberal colleagues from Quebec and by other colleagues in the House of Commons.

That is why preserving Quebec's seats in the House of Commons remains a priority for our government. Bill C‑14 is the government's response to this priority.

The bill seeks to amend section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to ensure that no province will have fewer seats than it did in the 43rd Parliament—the last parliament, simply put. It will replace the 1985 grandfather clause, which came in, in 1985, in Mr. Mulroney's first term in Parliament, with a 2021 equivalent. This means Quebec will not lose a seat in this redistribution process.

This bill is not just about Quebec. The 2021 grandfather amendment being proposed would apply, obviously, to all provinces, raising their minimum number of seats and protecting them in the event of a shift in population in the years to come.

Colleagues, this is a small but, we think, impactful amendment. It will preserve Quebec's 78 seats in the House of Commons, while respecting incremental gains in the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.

Furthermore, I would point out that in Bill C-14, the seat allocation formula, the way in which seats are calculated, remains exactly the same with all existing protections. For example, the senatorial clause, the representation rule and the territorial clause, obviously, remain firmly in place.

Ten electoral boundaries commissions were proclaimed on November 1, 2021, one for each province. These are independent, non-partisan commissions. The independence of these commissions is in fact fundamental to the electoral boundaries review process.

I wish to take this opportunity to thank them for their service and work and the members of the various commissions right across the country.

The commissions began their work following the release of the final census data in early February of this year. As they prepare their electoral boundary proposals, they will hold public consultations before submitting reports to Parliament for consideration and will ultimately decide on the changes to be made within each province.

In order to ensure that Bill C-14's new grandfather clause applies to the current redistribution process, the bill includes a number of transitional provisions to ensure what we hope would be smooth implementation. I've obviously had a conversation with the Chief Electoral Officer, Monsieur Perrault, in this regard. For example, upon coming into force, Bill C-14 would require the Chief Electoral Officer to recalculate the number of seats in the House of Commons with the updated 2021 floor. This means the Quebec electoral boundaries commission would prepare a boundary proposal that takes into account the new seat allocation—in other words 78 seats. However, they will have the same 10-month time frame as other commissions to complete their work in the ongoing redistribution process as required by legislation.

The transitional provisions additionally ensure that the work of other provincial boundary commissions can continue to advance uninterrupted. This approach will ensure, should Quebec's electoral boundaries commission require more time to complete their work as a result of this recalculation, that they will not delay the implementation of the work completed by other provincial commissions.

Finally, Madam Chair, I think it's important that colleagues are considering this legislation. I thank you and the members of your committee for the work you're doing. Our government is obviously committed to working with all parties and all members of the House on this important issue. I look forward to our conversation in the 50 minutes that remain.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will now resume for the second part of the meeting.

We're going to continue with the second panel, as we continue our work on Bill C-14. We have with us Minister LeBlanc, accompanied by PCO officials, Allen Sutherland and Rachel Pereira.

Mr. LeBlanc, we'll give you up to five minutes for your opening comments.

Welcome to the PROC committee.

[Patrick Taillon]

It is a complex issue, but it is clear that, from the 1890s to the early 1960s, there was an intentional, voluntary and accepted policy of suppressing the French fact in Canada, especially outside Quebec. This dark time in our history is having demographic consequences now, which affects Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons.

The promises made in 1867 were not kept. Quebec was happy to rally around the principle of proportional representation. Quebec thought it was fair after the injustice it had suffered in 1840. Yet it was also part and parcel of the idea that this country was founded on a pact between two nations, and the idea that the future development of this federation would uphold this thinking. This however was subsequently betrayed.

That history has now been written and there is nothing we can do about it. There are however things we could do now to boost federalism and to give the provinces greater influence in federal institutions. In this regard, I think there are a lot of solutions in the Senate. They are solutions that would give Quebec and the other provinces a stronger voice. In other words, far too much power is concentrated in the Prime Minister's Office. If this power were somewhat federalized, Quebec would benefit. It could choose its own senators to represent it. I am not saying Quebec could elect its senators, but it could choose them, and they would then be appointed by the prime minister of Canada. The same would apply for the other provinces. That would be a winning solution for everyone.

In the House of Commons, proportional representation based on the 1867 compromise must not become a strict mathematical calculation that is designed to steadily confirm Quebec's decline. There is some leeway available. The proof is that Bill C‑14 shows some creativity in order to reduce that decline by 0.3%. How long will that last though? It will certainly not be a long time. The House of Commons will probably have to reopen that debate again in a few years.

That said, there is clearly some leeway. A government and a Parliament that wanted to take a few more steps on this issue could do so, but the broader issue would also have to be addressed. Ways would have to be found to prevent francophones across the country and in Quebec from losing political weight. Quebec remains the only province with a francophone majority and the only province with a civil law tradition. So it is a province with a particular blueprint for society. How does the federation go about integrating this somewhat unique province? That is the crux of the debate.