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.

Health

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I should know that he is the member for St. Albert—Edmonton because I was actually posted in Edmonton when I was in the forces. St. Albert is a beautiful community.

The point is that there are many members of Parliament, no doubt, who would realize and see the value of Taiwan's contributions.

With respect to the World Health Organization, on the other hand, we know that members from the government caucus and, I suspect, maybe even members from the Conservative caucus, have a full appreciation of the World Health Organization and the work that it did in the pandemic. The World Health Organization, much like Health Canada, has very strict enforcement and respect for science and health experts. In regard to the pandemic, Taiwan did have a lot to offer. I am not sure, but one member made mention that it was the first country in the world to say that COVID-19 can be passed person to person. That was already part of the debate on the issue. I do not know for a fact that it is the case, but I do know that Taiwan did lead in many ways, as did Health Canada.

Through Health Canada, we have an independent agency that has served Canadians well over the years. During the pandemic, civil servants have played such an incredible role in ensuring that Canada is in a great position to provide the advice that was absolutely necessary for the general public as a whole. I am thinking of individuals who did the science, looked at the World Health Organization, worked with health experts from coast to coast to coast and came up with the recommendations that were necessary, as a country and as a nation. The Prime Minister had daily briefings for Canadians, talking about the importance of, for example, washing our hands, wearing a mask and making sure that people were in protective zones, as we went through a very difficult process at the very beginning.

The World Health Organization took a global approach in ensuring that all countries around the world recognize how important it is to step up to the plate. I think that the World Health Organization was able to benefit from some of the policy initiatives that Health Canada advanced. I do believe that Canada, the European Union, the United States, Taiwan and many other countries, the over 150 countries that participate in the World Health Organization, all have had contributions to make note only at the beginning of the pandemic in 2019, but even today.

We still are not out of the pandemic. It is easy to think we are, but that is not the case. When we listen to Conservative members, we can think of the issue of misinformation. There are members of the Conservative Party who believe that mandates are no longer required, and yet your home province, Madam Speaker, the province of the Conservatives' deputy leader, had a mandatory mask mandate that has just been lifted. That is fairly recent.

If we take a look even back to December, people were starting to think that things were turning around, but curfews were being put in place. Manitoba had additional measures. The demand for rapid testing went through the roof.

We understood as a government the types of things we needed to do. The World Health Organization was a great resource for some countries more than other countries. For developing nations that do not have organizations like Health Canada, it played a critical role as it does today.

My suggestion to members opposite is that they spend less time on the political gamesmanship that we see day in and day out and more time on serving Canadians. Today, there is no reason why, before five o'clock, we could not have passed Bill C-14. There is no reason at all. Yes, the Conservatives will talk and talk about this and that and debate times and so forth, but there is absolutely no reason why. Elections Canada is independent and every member in the chamber is supporting Bill C-14, so there is no reason why it should not be passed. However, the Conservatives, as with this particular concurrence report, are more interested in playing political games and using up government debate time on the legislative agenda.

It was not that long ago when Canadians said that we, as the Liberal Party, were going to be given a new mandate, but part of that mandate meant that it was going to be a minority—

Electoral Representation

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his continued interest in improving Canadian democracy. I would urge him to work with us to pass Bill C-14, which, as he correctly noted, is before the House of Commons now, to ensure that every province has the right representation in the electoral boundaries redistribution process under way.

I know he is very excited to have the report from the Chief Electoral Officer on the most recent election. We share that excitement, and we look forward to working with all colleagues in this House to make elections more accessible in every possible way.

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment.

I would like to come back to the debate.

The motion that the Conservatives proposed would have applied to Quebec and all the provinces. However, in the March 2 debate, the Bloc Québécois suggested that the motion should apply only to Quebec.

We agreed with the principle, but we wanted it to apply to all of the provinces, which is the intent of Bill C‑14. We are therefore very pleased to see that the Liberals modelled this bill on our motion. That is great because it is good for all of Canada.

I would like to remind the member that that suggestion was made during the referendum on the Charlottetown accord. As the member knows very well, Quebeckers voted against it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be participating in the debate on democracy in Canada, our electoral democracy in which every vote is to be counted correctly, but also, and this is important, in which every Canadian has access to quality service because of the presence of a member in their riding.

There are 338 representatives in the House, and each riding has its own characteristics. There are urban ridings that are two or three square kilometres and that are peopled from one end of the riding to the other. They are densely populated. In Canada's Far North and in the northern areas of the provinces, there are vast ridings that are hundreds or even thousands of kilometres long, where people need to be represented effectively and where the MP must play a role.

For that reason, every 10 years, based on demographic change, Elections Canada assesses whether demographic weight has been maintained in all parts of Canada. This has resulted in conflicting opinions. Some will say the number of ridings should be decreased in a certain area or increased in another, and so forth.

Let us be honest. As parliamentarians, in a way, we are in a major conflict of interest. We are judge and jury. It is not up to us to define or carve out electoral districts. Of course, it would be tempting, but it would also be dishonest. Our top priority is to represent the people. That is why we need to be aware of the fact that every riding must be balanced and that every citizen has the right to a representative who can do their job properly.

In 2021, the government was taking a second go at electoral redistribution following the improvements that were made by our government in 2011 when we were in power. Some questions were raised about the electoral map and some public comments were made that were completely valid and relevant in a political debate. That recently led to the introduction of Bill C‑14.

I tried to read the bill's description earlier, and I must admit that it almost put me to sleep. I will therefore summarize it in a few very simple words: The representation of every province will be preserved and no province will lose ridings. As much as possible is being done to balance that reality.

We support Bill C‑14 because, as my colleague rightly pointed out a few minutes ago, the Conservatives moved the following motion in the House on March 2, 2022:

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

That is exactly what the government did. Some may wonder why a bill is needed if a motion was already moved. I can already sense that Canadians watching right now are wondering that same thing. The answer is that, quite simply and unfortunately, one member denied unanimous consent for our Conservative motion that has the exact same purpose as Bill C‑14. That one dissenting voice came from the Green Party.

I cannot wait to find out why the Green Party opposed a motion that would ensure that no province would lose a single seat. I am talking about the member from British Columbia and not the one from the Maritimes. If I had one thing to say about the electoral map, it would be the outrageously long riding names. I have a big problem with that, but that is my own issue. I will not get into that here.

When ridings have long names that just never end, we should do what was done in my neck of the woods, which is to just say Louis‑Saint‑Laurent. It is a universal name. He never harmed anyone, everyone can agree on that. If the name is too long, condense it and choose one everyone can agree on. Several suggestions could be made. I went a bit off topic there, but I still think it is a good idea.

Getting back to the crux of the matter, I was saying that we want to preserve that. As I briefly mentioned earlier, all Canadians should be represented by their MP, but the ridings are not the same, geographically speaking.

In the case of my riding, I am very lucky, and some would say it is the most beautiful riding in Canada. I think it is, but I will let people be the judge of that. It is located on the northwestern edge of Quebec City, and the Wendake First Nation, which I very proudly represent here, is right in the middle of it.

My riding is about eight kilometres wide from east to west and about seven or eight kilometres from north to south. If we are being generous, with the Val-Bélair area that sticks out toward the west, it is about 20 kilometres long. In short, if I want to drive across it, there is no problem; it is a quick drive. From one end to the other, it takes me 25 minutes at most, when I have one event in Lebourgneuf and another in Val-Bélair. It is an easy drive, and it is no problem.

However, not everyone is as lucky as I am, and I am not talking about the vast ridings in Canada's north. In southern Canada, there are very large ridings in many provinces, like Saskatchewan. It is the province that is literally at the heart of our country, which is why some people have suggested that the national capital should be located there, but I will let my friends from Regina—Qu'Appelle and other areas make that case themselves.

Almost all of the 14 Saskatchewan members have very large ridings. Take the riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, which roughly forms a square of almost 300 kilometres by 300 kilometres. For viewers in Quebec City, that is like leaving Quebec City and going further than Montreal, almost to the U.S. border. This is a single riding, in the south of the country, not the Far North. This is a concern for many people.

Often, these are the ridings that need federal support the most, but communities with a population of 15,000 to 20,000 or perhaps less than 10,000 do not have easy access to federal services. In many cases, they have good people serving as mayors, councillors and town managers in their community. It is the federal member of Parliament who represents the entire federal government.

I would like to mention my colleague from Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, who has a magnificent riding that stretches over 135 km from Sainte-Brigitte-de-Laval to Deschambault. Their populations may be small, but the dozens and dozens of municipalities in his riding are lively and valuable. When the representatives of these communities have to deal with the federal government, they do not pick up the phone and call the Prime Minister, as mayors of larger cities sometimes do. They turn directly to their member of Parliament. We need dedicated people. That is the balance we want to preserve. Our motion, which greatly inspired the Liberal government, was aimed at maintaining this balance, but above all at ensuring that the people are well represented and that we do not lose any members of Parliament.

We also need to remember that representation is very important. Losing a riding is like losing a piece of our democracy. That word is loaded, it is powerful, but it is particularly relevant. Some might go so far as to say that one person from an inner-city riding is roughly equivalent to three people from a so-called rural riding. However, that is not the reality because these citizens, these communities, need to have direct access to their member of Parliament just as much as everyone else. Moreover, there is the fact that several of these very large ridings that measure hundreds of square kilometres include a number of first nations. If we are to respect first nations, we must also ensure that they have proper, democratic access to this institution, to the House of Commons.

If we merge two huge ridings to make one even bigger one, we risk losing and diluting the quality of the work being done, and not because those doing the work would be doing it in bad faith or would be watering down the quality of their work. Rather, the public would be faced with the fact that they would not have direct access to their member of Parliament as often or as quickly.

That is why we are in favour of this bill. As I was saying, this bill is almost exactly the same as what we proposed on March 2. Unfortunately, that proposal was rejected by one member in the House, which is completely legitimate in parliamentary debate. That is what democracy is all about.

I look forward to hearing those who were opposed to our motion explain why they were against it at that time and why they are now in favour of the Liberal bill, which is quite similar to the motion that we, the Conservatives, moved before.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, MB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-14, which talks about preserving provincial representation in our House of Commons. This is fundamental to who we are as Canada. It defines us as being equitable in how we treat Confederation. Ultimately, this is about ensuring that the overall basis of having equal representation by population is adhered to.

This act would not take away the addition of seats in faster-growing provinces such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, but would ensure that slower-growing provinces, such as Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Nova Scotia, some Atlantic Canada provinces and Quebec, are not shortchanged in the seats they currently have. It goes without saying that all members of the House want to ensure that the numbers we currently have for each province are respected.

If population growth in Manitoba had not kept up over the last number of years, especially if we look back over the last two redistribution periods, and if we had kept to the strict rule of representation by population, Manitoba, Saskatchewan and other provinces may have lost seats. The voice of each province counts. Although representation by region is more adequately represented in the Senate, we need to ensure that all voices from all regions of Canada are heard here. It is for that very reason that I am standing in support of this bill. I want to ensure that Manitoba never loses a seat beyond the 14 it has.

If we look at representation by population, the average riding in Canada currently holds about 100,000 people. My riding of Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman is currently at 109,000. It is at the upper end of the range that is allowed in redistribution, as ridings can be a maximum of 10% above or below population averages within each and every province. The average in Manitoba is now at 100,000, which is about the national average. The bill would ensure that each and every one of us here will represent about 100,000 people so that our voices are equal.

However, we know that in periods between the distribution of ridings and boundary commissions redrawing where boundaries fall, and because of new developments, faster growth in some areas and economic opportunities, riding populations often increase dramatically. We know that some of the ridings in Ontario, Alberta and B.C. represent 140,000, 150,000 or 160,000 people, so we need to make sure that we add seats and members of Parliament to those provinces so that we have an equal number of people represented per riding. That is only fair and something we need to do.

When the Conservatives were in government back in 2011, we brought forward the Fair Representation Act, which set in stone the formulas that are used as we go forward with redistributions by boundary commissions. They are ongoing right now. In Manitoba, we are waiting to hear in the next week from the boundary commission regarding how it is going to redraw boundaries in Manitoba. It is highly probable that some regions of Manitoba will see boundaries change.

One of the ridings in Manitoba where I do not believe the boundaries should be changed too dramatically is the riding of Churchill—Keewatinook Aski. Geographically, that riding represents two-thirds of the province of Manitoba. Although its population has dropped by a couple of thousand people since the last redistribution, I believe the ability to represent that large a geographic area, which gets into remote, rural and northern communities, is incredibly difficult for the member who currently represents the riding, and for any member in the future, for that matter.

There are several first nations there that are fly-in only. Churchill, for example, is only accessible by rail or air. Until recently, before we had the east side road built up on the east side of Lake Winnipeg, all of the first nations in that area were only accessible by winter road, by boat or by plane. It is therefore important that we take some of these conditions into consideration as boundary commissions consider their work.

Back in 2011, we added 30 new seats because we were caught in a system that dated back to 1985. Ridings were set at 308 for the entire country for that entire time. Ensuring that we can match the number of seats in the chamber with population growth is something that I find necessary and is something that realistically looks at how things are changing in our great nation.

When we look at places such as Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, population does not always keep up. We need to make sure that this representation does not slide down past where we are right now. I would hate to see the provinces of Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and P.E.I., which is guaranteed four seats in the House of Commons, go back to when they joined Confederation and lose seats. In reality, for P.E.I., we would only have one or two members of Parliament based on population, but the voices of members who represent P.E.I count. We sometimes have to balance population with regional and provincial areas of interest. We need to be focused and open-minded at the same time as we talk about the changes in our boundaries.

We respect the independent boundary commissions and the work going on right now. They are going to provide opportunities for Canadians to look at how they redraw boundaries. I know there are a lot of discussions taking place over some of the commissions' reports that have already been released, including for British Columbia, Saskatchewan and other provinces. However, there is going to be an opportunity for the commissioners who drafted the first reports to hear from Canadians, whether they are community leaders, those in municipalities, us parliamentarians or those who have a very strong interest in how we conduct ourselves and how we represent areas in our regions.

When we look at our electoral districts, it is important that we look at what is important from a municipal standpoint. Rurally, boundary commissions sometimes cut municipalities in half and put half a rural municipality or half a community in one riding and half in the other. I have always advocated for the fact that it is best to keep municipalities in one riding so they are completely captured within one riding. It is better for working with members of Parliament.

We also want to make sure we look at trade corridors and communities of like interest, communities that are, for example, all agriculture-based or maybe resource-based. Maybe they are indigenous. Those communities should be lumped together to ensure that their vote matters and that through their members of Parliament, they are heard loud and clear.

I know we are not looking, for some of the issues, at whether this is a permanent solution or just a patchwork. We are concerned that this is coming up late, as boundary commissions are already completing their work, and we wonder if this is going to delay that work.

I will end with this. I am looking forward to a response from the government on how it will ensure that we are not disturbing the critical work that boundary commissions are doing right now.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C‑14. I will start by talking about the principles that have always underpinned the NDP's work in the House. I will then talk about how we could adapt this chamber to reflect the values of Canadians, thereby ensuring that this place is the House of Commons that Canadians across the country truly want.

Let me get back to Bill C‑14. Ever since the NDP has held seats in this House, it has fought to ensure that all Canadians are represented. We, of course, agree that Quebec should have a guaranteed level of representation in the House of Commons, and that provision is included in the supply and confidence agreement that the member for Burnaby South signed on behalf of the NDP with the Liberal government. This is why the bill before us today would ensure that Quebec has a guaranteed level of representation in the House of Commons. The NDP believes that 78 seats for Quebec is an important and fundamental principle.

As my colleagues know, when we look at the provinces and territories of Canada, such as Saskatchewan, Manitoba, the provinces of Atlantic Canada, Nunavut, Yukon or the Northwest Territories, we always see this principle of a minimum threshold of representation. It is not a new idea; it has already been implemented. In the agreement between the NDP and the Liberal Party, the NDP forced the government to act, because it is important. Obviously, the NDP will be supporting this bill because it makes sense.

Although we will be voting in favour of this bill, we must also remember that it is missing something, and that is the important notion of proportional representation. I will remind the House that a few years ago, in 2015, our Prime Minister promised that the election that had just taken place would be the last non-proportional election, a promise he was quick to break. However, if proportional representation were applied to Quebec, it would greatly change the composition of the House of Commons.

As it did again a few minutes ago during the speech by the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, for whom I have a great deal of respect, the Bloc claims that there should be more Bloc members in the House of Commons. However, that is precisely where the Bloc is failing Quebeckers.

The Bloc Québécois has more members than it would have been entitled to under proportional representation, since it received far fewer votes. The Bloc would have had seven fewer MPs, so those who voted for the Bloc are actually over-represented in the House. Who would have had more MPs with proportional representation? The NDP, which would have a total of eight MPs in Quebec.

The idea of a minimum threshold for Quebec representation is important, but we need to go further. We need to implement proportional representation. If that were the case, there would be fewer Liberal members, fewer Bloc members and more NDP members, because that is what Quebeckers decided in the last election.

When we look at representation in the House, we cannot forget this important element. It is not just about the number of seats. At the end of the day, the members who are elected must be elected in a way that respects the voters' choice. The NDP has been advocating for this principle for years.

For Quebeckers, the fact that we do not have proportional representation means there are fewer New Democrats and more Bloc members in the House than there should be. Far fewer people voted for the Bloc in Quebec, so the number of Bloc members is not representative.

The same goes for the Liberal Party. There should be fewer Liberal MPs representing Quebec in the House. Here again, because we do not have proportional representation, there are more Liberal MPs in Quebec than the number of votes justifies.

The NDP will always advocate for an electoral system in which every vote counts. That is an important principle. When we look at what is happening in other countries, where every vote counts, we see that the most progressive and innovative parties are the ones that end up with the most elected members. This extremely important element should be part of every discussion about representation.

Determining who has the right to vote is another very important element. The hon. member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley, British Columbia, has introduced a bill related to this issue. People 16 and 17 years of age must be allowed to vote. In a few weeks, all members of the House of Commons will be tested for cynicism. Will they say that the right to vote should be extended to 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds?

We already know that these young people are very concerned and that the decisions we make in the House will affect their whole lives. Personally, I have been active within the NDP since I was 14, and I do not accept the argument by some hon. members that 16‑ and 17‑year‑olds should not be allowed to vote because they are too young. They are already working, learning to drive and paying taxes, yet they are not allowed to vote. It is strange. It should not be this way.

That is why I fully support Bill C‑210. All NDP MPs support it. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has already noted that 16- and 17-year-olds have been asking members to vote in favour of this bill. We must expand the right to vote to these people who are already fully contributing to our society.

This is an extremely important part of representation. I hope that every MP will hear the message that young people are sending and give these young Canadians the chance to vote in the next election. Since these young people will be affected the most by the decisions we make or do not make in the House of Commons, it is extremely important that they have the opportunity to have a say in their own future.

This is the fundamental question, when we go beyond the idea that certain regions of our country have minimum representation in the House of Commons. This is something that has already been granted to Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Atlantic provinces of Newfoundland and Labrador, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, as well as the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, an extraordinary region of our country, and the Yukon. In those regions of the country, we already have a minimum level of representation. What this bill does is simply extend that to Quebec.

It is for that reason, and for historic reasons as well. There is no doubt that Quebec represents a nation in Canada. We voted on this in the House of Commons, and it makes very real sense to adopt this bill.

However, this is not the only aspect of representation that we need to be tackling. This is where we get to the issue of a reform of our electoral system.

Members know well that if we actually had in place a proportional system of voting, with electoral reform, like so many other countries have, we would actually see in the House of Commons far fewer Conservatives, far fewer Liberals and far more New Democrats. As we know, in the last election Canadians voted in vast numbers for the NDP, and there should be over 60 NDP MPs in the House of Commons, but we do not have proportional voting. Our electoral system, first past the post, ensures that only one of the parties is represented, despite the fact that Canadians divide up in a much more even way between the traditional old parties, the Liberals and the Conservatives, and the New Democrats. Having in place proportional voting, mixed member proportional representation, would make a difference in how the House of Commons is put together.

As we know, in the last two elections, we have seen minority Parliaments that Canadians have decided on, even with the first-past-the-post system. What the NDP has done with that, with the mighty strength of our 25 members of Parliament, is push the government to finally do the right thing. The confidence and supply agreement, as we have seen, has made a significant difference in the lives of Canadians.

We are seeing put into place a national dental care program, something that has been talked about for decades. Now it is finally happening. For decades, we have had a growing homelessness and an affordability crisis in housing, and now finally that is being addressed through the confidence and supply agreement. It is because it is a minority Parliament that the NDP is able to push hard so that Canadians actually get the benefits, finally, after decades of inaction, both from Liberal and Conservative governments. I do not single out one or the other. It has been lamentable, how we have seen massive giveaways to the ultrarich and to the banks and billionaires develop over time. At the same time, Canadians are being neglected. Seniors are being neglected. Families are being neglected, and young people are being neglected.

We have seen a complete lack of respect and responsibility in terms of actually ensuring a future for indigenous peoples. We have seen how, over time, our federal institutions have been eroded, but now, with two consecutive minority Parliaments, Canadians can start seeing that they can have confidence again that the government may actually do the right thing and respond to the affordable housing crisis, respond to the crises we see in indigenous communities, respond to the climate crisis and respond, as well, to the fact that most Canadians are struggling to make ends meet. Things like dental care and pharmacare would make a significant difference in their quality of life.

Putting in place that electoral reform would mean that the House of Commons would actually reflect how Canadians vote, as opposed to a first-past-the-post system where majorities are magnified. Both Conservatives and Liberals have not had 50% of the vote, but they have had far more than 50% of the power; they have had 100% of the power with majority governments. We saw how that acted out in the dismal decade of the Harper government. We have seen how far short the Liberals fell with the majority government, which did virtually nothing for Canadians.

Now, in a minority Parliament situation, which would happen more often and more significantly under an electoral reform and a voting system where every vote counts, we would be able to achieve more for Canadians. The neglect of regular Canadians that we have seen over decades, while hundreds of billions have been given in handouts to banks and billionaires in overseas tax havens, would have to cease, because ultimately the NDP would have a greater representation in the House and be able to push hard for a better response to what working people are going through.

It is not just about electoral reform in the sense of proportional representation; it is also about giving younger people a voice. That is why I want to pay tribute to the member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley for presenting Bill C-210 in the House. All members of Parliament will have to vote on this important initiative. Bill C-210 would give 16- and 17-year-olds the full right as Canadians to finally be able to vote in federal elections.

This is fundamentally important. With the climate crisis, we are seeing things change in our country. Last year, in my area of Burnaby and New Westminster and the Lower Mainland of British Columbia, we saw over 600 people die in the sweltering temperatures of the heat dome provoked by the climate crisis. Many of the people who died were simply unable to leave their apartments and did not have air conditioning in place. The emergency systems were overloaded. Ambulances simply could not keep up. Firefighters stepped in. This occurred over a number of days, as hundreds of people died. I spoke with emergency workers and first responders who said that if it had gone on for another couple of days, it would have led to a collapse of our emergency response system.

Therefore, for governments to not respond to the magnitude of the climate crisis for decades is absolutely irresponsible, and I blame the Conservatives and the Liberals equally. Young people in this country understand that, so by giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote, I believe we will cause a substantial change in voting patterns and the composition of the House of Commons, because young Canadians will no longer accept an ostrich-style response to the climate crisis that is now upon us. Giving 16- and 17-year-olds the right to vote gives them a stake in their own future. The bad decisions that have been made over the last few decades will fundamentally change with an influx of voters who understand what is at stake with respect to the climate crisis.

With respect to representation, this bill, in a very limited scope, does one good thing, but we expect the government to move further on keeping its promises. We all remember in 2015 when the Prime Minister stood up and announced, with the eyes of the nation on him, that it would be the last first-past-the-post election, and won a majority government as a result. He promptly broke that promise and has not had a majority government since, because what Canadians have been saying to him and to the Liberal government is that they simply will not accept a situation in which 30% or 32% of the vote gives 100% of the power. As members well know, a minority Parliament situation allows for real discussions about the future of our country and what Canadians need to be brought to the forefront of the House of Commons.

I have been in this House as an elected member of Parliament in a number of majority Parliaments, and we need to have a Parliament that reflects how Canadians vote. I hope that legislation will be forthcoming in the coming years.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK]

Madam Speaker, it is always an honour and a privilege to rise in the House of Commons. We are here today to continue the debate at second reading for Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. Since our democratic process is the focus of this legislation, I will mention that it is always great to represent the great people back home.

It is also worth mentioning the Canadians of all ages and backgrounds from across the country who watch and follow the proceedings here in Parliament or who participate in our political system in countless other ways. This chamber truly belongs to the people, and we should keep in mind that we are discussing their business particularly today as it relates to each and every voting citizen of Canada.

They are the ones who sent us here. They begin at the age of 18, which we hope reflects a suitable level of maturity. At the point when we treat people, at least in many respects, as legal adults, they have the right to vote in this country. Each of us is supposed to have a say in our future direction as a nation. With that in mind, it remains as important as it has ever been to make sure this ability to vote is effectively and fairly represented.

I am sure members already know, today's debate on the bill to amend the Constitution Act of 1867 does not mean at all that we are reopening the contentious constitutional debates over the last few decades. I will discuss something else related to that in a moment. Although there is no controversial amendment to the written part of our Constitution itself, that should not keep us from appreciating the fact that we are carrying out a task given under our Constitution, which is essential to it.

The year of Canada's Confederation, 1867, is referenced right there in the title of the same act, which created the federal dominion as we know it today. As Canadians who are alive now, we are continuing and developing this democratic representation, which goes all the way back to that time and even before then.

Sometimes we take this democratic institution for granted. That can be true in different ways, such as not fully appreciating that we live in a country where we have the right to vote in the first place, or when some of us do not take the opportunities to exercise the rights we have.

Here, again, we have a new example in front of us. Do we consider, realize or even wonder about how the decisions are made to create our ridings? It is fundamental to know how our system works. It determines where we vote based on where we live, and it can make quite a difference for organizing our lives as citizens at different levels.

Every 10 years, there is a redistribution of ridings. After the most recent census, there is a process carried out by an electoral boundaries commission in each province, which includes seeking feedback from the public. As with any other part of our political system, it can always be good to see our fellow citizens participate however they can. Afterwards, in some cases, there are significant changes where ridings go in or out of existence. Getting the right boundaries for each riding matters because it has to reflect a geography in a given area where local communities exist, along with any other practical realities that they have to deal with.

For example, I will never get tired of saying that life in rural ridings is quite different from life in urban ridings. There is a completely different way of life, which deserves recognition and creates unique conditions for them to be represented as well.

The riding of Cypress Hills—Grasslands, which I am proud to call home and to represent, is a perfect example of this. It has officially existed since 1997, with some variation over those 25 years. Overall, the basic structure of it has worked fairly well for our area as a whole. Covering all of southwest Saskatchewan, along the borders of Alberta and the United States, it is overwhelmingly rural.

There is a lot of farm land and many smaller communities spread out over the 78,000 square kilometres. Driving from one end to the other going across the riding takes three hours, and going diagonally, it takes closer to five hours. Commuting long distances is a fact of life for doing politics, but also for many other activities in every day life.

The city of Swift Current is the largest population centre for a wide radius, and it falls nicely right in the middle, with different parts of the riding in each direction. While meeting the people across Cypress Hills—Grasslands and working to represent them, there has been a clear advantage of averaging the travel time out to every corner of the riding. This has allowed me to more easily move around and have town halls with constituents in all areas of the riding.

In this particular case, it is more than a practical benefit. For this one part of our province, the federal riding more or less matches a region that we just generally call the southwest. It largely captures an area that shares a common way of life and experience, which is distinct from places closer to the bigger cities. I can always go on and on about where I come from, but for now I will move on.

Getting the right number of seats matters too because we need to make sure there is fair representation among the provinces and regions, as well as for all Canadians as equal citizens. That is the concern addressed by the grandfather clause in Bill C-14, which has already received a lot of attention. From what I understand, this is, in principle, an update of a grandfather clause introduced under a previous Conservative government.

As I am sure we all agree, Canadians should be represented fairly in the final outcome of their vote. Balancing seats per province is another important way of making sure this happens. There certainly should be fair representation between regions, so I support Saskatchewan maintaining its 14 seats and no fewer.

However, I will note that Bill C-14 is not following the regular process of redistribution on its own. In fact, the Chief Electoral Officer's most recent allocation of seats would result in Quebec losing one seat. Coming from a province that previously lost four seats, I think it was back in 1966, I can understand their angst at the idea of losing just one seat.

What Bill C-14 is trying to do is prevent that from happening in Quebec. I acknowledge that the House already passed an opposition motion for this to happen, but I do not think that we should ignore this specific context. Coming from Saskatchewan, I understand, again, why they do not want to lose their seat, but this goes to show that there are all kinds of social factors at play when considering the issue of representation. There are many ways to look at how it works in Canada.

One of the most underrated is economic. During the town halls I mentioned earlier, and in my conversations at coffee shops, one of the most common things I hear from constituents is that riding distributions should fix the discrepancies between not only eastern and western Canada, but also urban and rural Canada. When I ask how this should happen, one of the more interesting proposals I have heard from people is to factor in GDP production to reflect the benefit of rural areas. That might be something worth considering. They are getting at something beyond total numbers of population. I come from an area with great economic output, from the agricultural and resource sectors.

To be clear, I am not saying that this is something that we need to absolutely factor in as we move forward, but it is something that I have heard in feedback from constituents as a way they see of being able to balance out, again, the power that does not exist in rural Canada. If we think about representation based on something like GDP, it paints a different picture. We might have a situation where each region strives to utilize its best potential. Quebec, for example, could keep focusing on their hydrogen potential and their green natural gas. Ontario could bolster their nuclear power and manufacturing, while the Prairies could continue to produce the food and fuel for the world.

The world embraces advancing technology, and everyone is happy. Instead, this is how our rural areas are treated politically or otherwise in return for their strong economic contributions. Way too often they are forgotten, ignored or, sometimes, flat out attacked. Along with Cypress Hills—Grasslands, there are other places with huge economic potential, such as Battlefords—Lloydminster, Battle River—Crowfoot or Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, to name a few, that are being held back by the Liberals' failed impact assessment law, which was recently deemed unconstitutional in Alberta court.

We need to think about how electoral boundaries should promote national unity, rather than worsen rural alienation, especially out west in the Prairies. It negatively affects the whole country, not just those who live there.

I hope everyone can agree on these basic principles behind the work that is going on with redistribution in our ridings. I will finish my speech by raising some points of concern with the debate so far. Right now, confidence in our democratic institutions is getting weaker, but the NDP-Liberal coalition keeps undermining public trust. As the redistribution process unfolds, we have heard an NDP member claim that the grandfather clause for Quebec is a result of their deal with the Liberals. It really does seem like a lot more is going on than just confidence and supply votes.

Canadians can only hope that the NDP, as a minority party in fourth place, does not plan to further exploit their privileged position for political gain. Meanwhile, the Bloc has said the grandfather clause is not enough for them. Instead, one member seemed to even hint that separation would be the only path forward for them.

Redistribution is not the place for pushing ideological agendas at the federal level. As it is, I will support this bill going to committee for study, and look forward to seeing what will happen when we get the bill there and having it return to this place.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is not happy because Bill C-14 does not maintain Quebec's political weight. We would like Quebec to have a proportion of the seats, for example 25%. Instead, Quebec will keep the same number of MPs, whereas other areas will get more, which is equivalent to reducing Quebec's political weight.

Does my colleague acknowledge that Quebec forms a nation? Does he believe that we should maintain our political weight?

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

Madam Speaker, having sat on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform with his colleague, I can assure the member that in what we heard during testimony throughout that six months, we did hear a lot about the voting age. We heard a lot about civics engagement. We heard about people wanting people to work together.

Over the last couple of weeks, I have noticed a shift. For instance, my own PMB has the support of four parties, which actually jointly seconded it. We have an agreement with the NDP on supply and confidence motions. This is what Canadians want us to do. They want us to work together.

Could the member elaborate a bit on how Bill C-14 would help reinforce the belief Canadians have that parliamentarians are here for them to work together to do what is in their best interests?

[Mike Morrice, Green, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time this afternoon with the member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

I am glad and honoured to offer comments on Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act with respect to electoral representation. I will start by talking a bit about what is in the bill, followed by what I am disappointed to see is not in it.

As has been shared in this place, the bill focuses on ensuring that when the number of members of the House of Commons is readjusted every 10 years, provinces will not have a fewer number of representatives than were assigned in the 43rd Parliament. As their populations might grow, some might be assigned more.

This is very reasonable and has been done before, 1985 being one recent example that has been shared quite a few times in this place. In fact, a province has not lost a seat since 1966. It is reasonable that we continue to build on the principle of representation by population, while also being sensitive to regional representation issues and the size of ridings to ensure that MPs can best support their constituents.

My only question on the core substance of what is in the bill is that it refers to the 43rd Parliament specifically. My question for the governing party is this: Why not create an evergreen version of the bill? If we want the most amount of time in this place focused on the greatest issues facing Canadians, why continue every 10 years to do this process for the census review? I would expect to see parliamentarians in 10 years' time probably having a similar conversation. It seems more efficient to simply say that we would ensure no province's allocation is ever reduced. Of course, as the review is done, some allocations might be increased based on population.

I will now move to what is not in the bill, and I will start with promises made just a few weeks ago in the Liberal-NDP supply and confidence agreement. It included three additional promises to make elections more democratic and more accessible. I wish these promises made so recently were included. What a wonderful opportunity to follow through on these very recent promises made: expanding election day to three days of voting to make sure that more folks can get out to vote, allowing folks to vote at any polling place in their electoral district and improving the process of mail-in ballots knowing that so many Canadians across the country are looking to that process.

I have heard the governing party say that this last piece was really important and that it wanted to move more quickly on it. Well, in my view, all four of them are really important, and I would encourage the governing party to look into how quickly it can move forward on following through with the promises made just a few weeks ago.

More than that, let us recognize that the bill is really just working within an existing winner-take-all system that leads here: Millions of Canadians's votes are not reflected in the makeup of the elected parliamentarians in this place. For my part, I spent the last number of years knocking on door after door in my community, and one of the most difficult conversations I had was with neighbours of mine who told me, “You know what? I'm not planning to vote at all. My vote doesn't count. It hasn't counted before, and I have given up on the partisan, toxic nature of that place. Move on.”

It was a sad moment to recognize that so many, not only in Kitchener but across the country, have just given up on our democracy. I recognize that they are looking for our parliamentarians to say that every single vote should count. Addressing this means bringing in legislation for proportional representation in the way that so many other democracies around the world have, and recognizing that the percentage of seats in this place should recognize the percentage of people who voted for a party.

The good news here is that this promise has been made before. However, in this case, the promise dates back over 100 years. It was first promised by a Liberal government in 1921. It is a promise that was repeated over 1,800 times in 2015 by the governing party, which said it would make sure that every vote counted.

Many Canadians are familiar with the line that 2015 would be the last first-past-the-post election. There was so much excitement. I know there are some members in this place today who have also been pushing for this over the last seven years, from all parties. In fact, a member of the Conservative Party fairly recently publicly shared her support for moving toward proportional representation.

This is why I am disappointed that seven years later, there is still no mention of proportional representation in this bill or any others, recognizing that in other parliaments around the world, moving to proportional representation has led to more diversity among elected representatives. It has led to a more stable governance. It has led to more collaborative approaches, wherein parliamentarians are incentivized to work together to get things done on behalf of constituents across the country.

Of course, it provides more power to the elector. What do I mean by that? As one example, some members of this place will know that it is a real priority for neighbours of mine in Kitchener Centre to see more ambitious action on climate. We should be addressing the climate crisis as the existential threat that it is. A recent poll showed that 66% of Canadians across the country want to see more ambition from the federal government when it comes to action on the climate crisis. Of course, that 66% looking for more ambitious action on climate is not fully represented in this place. Why? It is because we do not have seats in this place that represent Canadians across the country.

I will again put a call out to the governing party to follow through on this promise. Whether it is from seven years ago or 100 years ago, I encourage the governing party to follow through on it.

The last piece of disappointment is with respect to a private member's bill that the governing party has not yet promised to support, but I hope it does. It is Bill C-210, from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley. He is putting forward legislation that other members of this place have previously put forward, including the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands and I believe the member for Vancouver Kingsway.

The bill calls on us to reduce the voting age to 16 years old. It is calling for this place to engage young people in their future and recognize that so much of what is discussed here, whether it is with respect to the housing crisis, the climate crisis or many of our priorities, is going to affect young people more than anyone else. Not only is it the right thing to do to align the voting age alongside so many other powerful marks we offer for young people to recognize as they grow into adulthood, but what a meaningful change it would be to ingrain voting habits at a younger age, recognizing that it is young people who are often heading off to post-secondary education.

In our current structure of allowing young people to vote at 18, often the first time to vote is soon after they have moved out into a community they might not know as well. Would it not be more advantageous for a young person to vote for their first time in their home community, where they have grown up, with a parent to have that kind of support and to ingrain good voting habits at a young age?

I will continue to encourage all members of this place to support Bill C-210. Knowing it is not included in the government's legislation, there is another opportunity for members in this place to support voting at a younger age.

I will summarize by saying again that I will be supporting Bill C-14 because it is a reasonable piece of legislation, recognizing it does have wide support from many parties in this place. I would encourage the governing party to go further and recognize there is so much more we could do specifically when it comes to ensuring that this place better reflects the interests of Canadians across the country.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for his speech. He did not say much about the substance of Bill C-14, but I have one question for him.

What advice should we be giving the commissioners who will be redrawing Quebec's boundaries, in order to avoid mistakes? I am certain they are watching right now.

Could my colleague point the commissioners in the right direction?

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

Madam Speaker, I trust that the member is familiar with Bill C-14, the bill he is debating today. In anticipation that the Bloc will be supporting the legislation, my question for him is related to whether or not he will be voting for it. Does he agree there is a need to see the bill pass so that the people of Quebec are able to see a redistribution of the boundaries?

With regard to the content of his speech, I can assure the member that our current Prime Minister, as well as Liberal prime ministers throughout the ages, has been there not only to protect the important identity and French distinctness of the province of Quebec, but also to ensure that the beautiful French language continues to grow and prosper throughout our great country.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, I obviously really enjoyed my colleague's answer.

I am pleased to be discussing this issue. I will start by making a connection with Bill C-14. The connection may be a little hard to understand at first, but my colleagues will see where I am going with this.

I am deeply outraged right now. Usually, when I am outraged, I tend to get excited and raise my voice in the House. I will try to remain calm while discussing a fundamental matter, something that happened this weekend.

I have been a member of the House for two years now, and I have heard many of our Liberal friends tell us that they are aware of the decline of the French language in Quebec and that its survival is a priority for them. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, who was the minister of official languages in the last Parliament, tried to win us over here in the House by saying that French was in danger, that her government was aware of that, and that it was going to do something about it and table a bill with teeth.

Suddenly, the Liberals called an election and everything stopped, even though they had told us that it was a very important issue for them. They called an election, and it cost $600 million to go back to square one.

Now here we are. We have a new Minister of Official Languages who also spoke about how important the issue is and said that her government was aware of that. The Prime Minister and all of the members across the aisle said the same thing. As my colleague mentioned earlier, the vast majority of members in the House even voted to recognize Quebec as a nation whose sole official language is French.

That was a few months before the election. Obviously, they were going after seats in Quebec, in particular those held by the Bloc Québécois. They had to make a show of being interested.

For two years, the government buddied up to us, saying that it understood that French was in decline in Quebec and across Canada, and that it was going to introduce legislation to fix that. However, the federal government is not the only government that can pass legislation on French. Right now, Quebec is preparing to pass legislation on French. Quebec is trying to give teeth to Bill 101, to make French the language of instruction. Bill 101 has been undercut 200 times by the Supreme Court of Canada based on a charter that Quebec never signed.

This weekend, we saw seven Liberal members of the federal government protest in Montreal against Bill 96. By chance, although there is no such thing as chance, the members protesting in Montreal on the weekend were among the nine Liberal members who had abstained from the vote to recognize Quebec as a nation. Most of them represent Montreal ridings.

The hon. member for Vimy even posted the following on Twitter: “Today I stood with my colleagues for the Bill 96 protest.”

That is something. We are working to improve the fate of French, and the government says that it is aware of the problem, but then government members go to Quebec to protest against legislation that would put some teeth back into Bill 101, teeth that it lost because of the charter.

What the member said next is particularly interesting. She said, and I quote, “Students, regardless of their background, should have access to an education in the language of their choice.”

Bill 101 is likely the most important piece of legislation that has ever been voted on in the history of Quebec. The great Camille Laurin, René Lévesque, Jacques Parizeau and all of the MNAs and ministers that made up the first Lévesque government led one of the first reforms to Bill 101, because even René Lévesque had a problem with that. I will explain why. Before Bill 101, 90% of immigrants who came to Quebec went to school in English. People settled here and chose to learn English. We were losing the battle, and so legislation was needed.

Earlier, I mentioned René Lévesque. It was humiliating for him to have to legislate on an issue that is taken for granted everywhere else on earth. If someone goes to Germany, they do not ask whether they need to learn German. If someone goes to Spain, they do not ask whether they need to learn Spanish. If someone goes to Poland, they do not ask whether they need to learn Polish. In Quebec, however, the language issue was a problem, so legislation had to be passed. That is what we did.

Our Liberal friends, those who do not recognize the Quebec nation, those who have a problem with the fact that there is a common language in Quebec, are attacking one of the core principles of Bill 101, after 50 years of struggle of strife.

There are children of Bill 101 everywhere. There have been television shows on the subject. People come from around the world and learn French. Our Liberal friends want to tear that down. Personally, I think it is shameful. I am outraged. The Liberals are talking out both sides of their mouth.

Does the Minister of Official Languages agree? Does she take responsibility for members of her own government going to protest in Montreal against one of the most important laws ever passed by Quebec? I am eager to hear what the hon. Minister of Official Languages has to say.

During the election campaign, the Prime Minister gave speeches with his hand on his heart. He visited my riding, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, three times. He really wanted the Liberals to win the riding. I took them on, and I am the one proudly representing the riding of Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

When the Prime Minister came to my riding, he spoke of language and culture. He said that these were two subjects that were important to the Liberals. He said that they were going to protect the language and culture. However, on the weekend, we witnessed an absolutely appalling spectacle. I am totally outraged, but I must contain myself. I am eager to hear what the Minister of Official Languages and the Prime Minister have to say about this.

This brings me to Bill C-14. In fact, the two are connected. What does the bill say? It talks about “minoritizing” Quebec. In fact, Bill C‑14 institutionalizes the minoritization of Quebec.

I am certain my hon. colleague is better at math than I am, since he is an economist, but this equation is easy. Quebec has 78 out of 338 members; with this bill, it would have 78 out of 343. We would have less weight, which means that Quebec would have less clout to defend its language.

The logical corollary is that we should have more members from Quebec. It is obvious that there must be more Bloc Québécois members in the House to stand up for language and culture.

Last week we discussed Bill C-11. We heard our Conservative friends quote one single academic—St. Michael Geist, pray for us—saying that Canada was going to become a dictatorship where freedom of speech would be abolished. That is what they said. Heaven help me. I was so sick of hearing it that I was nearly ready to sign something so that they would stop repeating it. I was very close to saying yes, that is right, I agree.

It is chilling to realize that we have to fight constantly to protect culture in Quebec.

When we spoke about Bill C‑11, we mentioned how Quebec artists are at a disadvantage on the major platforms. Two years ago, at the ADISQ gala, Pierre Lapointe said he had launched a successful song on social media. It was streamed one million times, but he was paid only $500. That is outrageous.

Quebec is home to artists who are known the world over. We have filmmakers, musicians, actors and directors, including Robert Lepage, yet all this culture is wasting away because the web giants are taking up all the space.

In conclusion, Bill C‑14 aims to minoritize Quebec. In its current version, it is difficult to accept. We will see how we are going to fight it.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I always enjoy hearing from my colleague from Mirabel.

I am very familiar with his part of the country, which, as we all know, is experiencing a housing crisis.

What I find harder to understand is the Bloc Québécois's attitude toward Bill C‑14, which establishes a minimum number of seats for Quebec in the House of Commons. That is an important aspect.

I almost get the sense that he opposes the bill even though it will guarantee a minimum number of seats, which is something that was extremely important to Quebec.

I have lived in several parts of Québec, including Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, the Eastern Townships, Montreal and the Outaouais. I feel there is a consensus, including in the National Assembly of Quebec, that Bill C‑14 on the minimum number of seats should be passed.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to share my time with my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert.

When I was asked to come to the House today to talk about Quebec's political weight, I wondered if I would be here for 10 minutes, because it is so simple; we take Quebec's weight and we maintain it. On reflection, though, I thought that if it had not been understood by now, I might have more to say than I thought in the end.

I thought I would use a bit of an educational approach. Let us go back in time to 2006. That year, the Harper government recognized Quebec as a nation in the House. After that, however, not much happened until 2021, except for the decrease in health transfers.

Last June, the House passed a motion that gave Quebec the right to amend its constitution to enshrine in it that Quebec is a nation and that its only official language is French. This meant that the Quebec nation, as well as its history and specificity, were once again recognized.

However, recognizing a nation means recognizing that it has the right to express itself in the House of Commons. It means walking the talk. The House cannot recognize a nation the way it recognizes that it is a nice day outside, that it is a beautiful Monday and that it is humid. When the House recognizes a nation, it has to act accordingly.

Now the government has introduced Bill C-14. At first, I thought that there was hope and that this bill seemed to be a step in the right direction. Still, it is a bill seeking to protect Quebec that was introduced by the Liberals and that may be supported by the NDP, so based on my experience, I had some doubts.

I opened Bill C‑14, and I read that it would guarantee Quebec a certain number of seats, specifically 78, compared to the 77 seats provided for in the last electoral boundary readjustment, which reduced the number of seats for Quebec.

I would like to mention that, without the repeated interventions of the Bloc Québécois, we would not be debating this in the House today. The Liberal government would not have woken up one morning and decided that it was going to protect Quebec's weight. It took the Bloc Québécois to convince it to take a step in that direction.

The problem with Bill C‑14 is that it states an intention, but does nothing to accomplish it. It does not meet its own objective.

Let us continue the lesson. March 2 was a Bloc opposition day. The government knows we use these days wisely. That day, by a vote of 261 to 66, which is decidedly not a close result, since almost everyone voted in favour, apart from a certain pocket of resistance, the House adopted a motion saying the following:

That, in the opinion of the House:

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

I want to point out that number of seats and political weight are not the same thing. The motion also states that the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended in accordance with the spirit of the motion, which was adopted by the vast majority of duly elected members.

However, we have before us a bill that does not achieve this goal. The bill does not protect Quebec's political weight because it protects the number of seats, not the proportion of seats reserved for Quebec.

I figured that either the government was acting in bad faith or it did not understand what the word “proportion” meant. My colleague from Beauport—Limoilou used to be an elementary school teacher, so I called her to ask what grade kids start learning fractions and division. She told me that it was usually in grade 3, but if the members of Parliament went to a good school, they might have learned about fractions in grade 2. I do not know whether the government is acting in bad faith or whether it does not understand.

I began listening to the Minister of Finance, thinking she must understand, because she has talked about the debt-to-GDP ratio, saying that she does not want to reduce debt, but rather the debt-to-GDP ratio. She understands that there are two components to a ratio. The Minister of Finance understands that. The same applies to per capita GDP: The ratio of per capita wealth can differ based on wealth and the number of people.

It is the same when the NDP talks about fuel-efficient vehicles. What they care about is how much fuel a vehicle uses to travel 100 kilometres, which provides its fuel efficiency. The NDP understands that concept when it comes to winning votes in their riding and for their base, but not when it comes to the issue of Quebec's weight.

When they are talking about hourly wages, the NDP does not tell people to earn $5 an hour and work 70 hours a week. They say that what is important is the wages that a person earns for each hour worked. The NDP understands ratios, logic, elementary school concepts. With this bill, however, all of a sudden, the NDP members have forgotten what they learned in elementary school. They say that Quebec's political weight is not calculated as a given number of seats divided by a total number of seats, but simply as the numerator, the number of seats. I have trouble understanding that.

I see the hon. member for Winnipeg North. The Liberals know how much I appreciate them and their intelligence. Since I cannot believe that they do not understand, I figure they may just be doing half a job. I will give them an even more concrete example.

The number of seats for Quebec rose from 65 in 1867 to 73 in 1947, to 75 in 1976, to 78 in 2015. The number of seats increased, which is a good thing. During that time, however, the size of the House of Commons also increased, and the percentage of seats belonging to Quebec dropped from 36% to 28.6% to 26.6% to 24.9% to 23.1%.

My colleagues can surely see that the number of seats is irrelevant if the size of the House of Commons is increasing. This shows that the bill does not achieve its goal and that it does not live up to its title.

There are special clauses that provide some protection for the weight of the provinces. I have here the Canada Elections Act, and I see that New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island have a senatorial clause. Nova Scotia also has a grandfather clause, as does Manitoba. Even Newfoundland and Labrador has a grandfather clause, after deciding very late in the game to become a member of the federation, and after three referendums that yielded three different answers to the question.

It is therefore not unheard of for the government to protect the political weight of a nation. Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon have constitutional protection. We are not reinventing the wheel.

This is the government's idea of protecting Quebec. The same thing always happens, and the Liberal members say nothing. Maybe they are too busy protesting Bill 96 to have time to think about this bill.

The federal government's idea of protecting Quebec is to introduce a law on bilingualism that gives equal weight to English and French in Quebec. We know that when given the option, companies choose English. It is the same thing with Roxham Road. Quebec is told no. It is the same thing for health transfers. The federal government is unreliable. We cannot depend on it.

Our seniors needed money before the election. They got a $500 cheque before the election. However, when it comes time to protect our seniors after the election, what do they get? They get zero, zip, nada, just a pretty graph in the budget that shows that they are not doing so bad. They are drowning in inflation, but all the government will say is that it hopes they know how to swim. The Liberals are unreliable when it comes time to protect Quebec in any way whatsoever.

It is the same story with the Synergie Mirabel seniors' home project in my riding. Sixty people with diminishing abilities are waiting for the Minister of Transport to give them the right to housing. We are still awaiting an answer. The Liberals are still mucking about.

When it comes time to protect Quebec, the federal government is always unreliable. The Liberals' and the federal government's efforts to protect Quebec make me think of a saying: Put a fox in charge of the henhouse
and you'll have chicken for dinner every time.

Well, we will not allow ourselves to end up on the dinner table. Quebec's history in the federation is a history of declining political power. That is enshrined in this bill, which is incomplete and does not do what it is supposed to. Quebec needs 25% of the seats in the House, but that is only a temporary measure.

What we ultimately want is for Quebec, as a nation, to have the right to all the tools that a nation should have. Once Quebec is independent, it will have 100% of the seats and will not be reduced to crossing the border to beg Ottawa for scraps.