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.

[Sarah Andrews, Director, Government and Media Relations, Friends of Canadian Media]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, committee members.

Friends of Canadian Media is a non-partisan citizens' movement that stands up for Canadian voices in Canadian media. From public broadcasting to news, culture and online civil discourse, we represent hundreds of thousands of everyday citizens from across the country who want to protect and defend Canada's rich cultural sovereignty and the healthy democracy it sustains.

I would like to start by acknowledging Parliament's most recent actions. Bills C‑11 and C‑18 triggered considerable debate, but together these policies represent a necessary and vital impulse to do something, to act rather than to acquiesce, and to react to the eroding impact that foreign tech companies are having on our news, our culture and even our democratic health.

When it comes to the news crisis, many shrug their shoulders and suggest there is nothing to be done, that this crisis represents the irresistible march of time and technology, that we are powerless to act, and that the public doesn't even care, but that is wrong. Every day, our supporters tell us how much they do care and how deeply concerned they are about the future of the news sector. They feel what's being lost, and they want better.

They're not alone. Recent polling we commissioned shows that for all the downsizing and derision, Canadians still turn to so-called traditional media to get their news. Seventy-three percent of adults said they deemed news from television, radio and newspapers to be trustworthy and reliable. By contrast, social media was trusted by only 30% of Canadians. Sadly, nearly 80% of Canadians felt that it's getting more and more difficult to know what is true and what is not.

This last statistic should come as no surprise. With the relentless pace of news layoffs, editorially rigorous and trusted journalism is increasingly being replaced by misinformation and disinformation. Some of it is just sloppy. Some of it is ideological. Some of it is predatory trolling for profit. Some of it is outright malicious and even dangerous.

Here we are, knee-deep in a Canadian news crisis, but perhaps it's time to focus less on the result and more on the cause, because if we follow the money, it is clear that advertising revenues have fuelled this crisis in the news.

Over the past decade, GAFAMs—digital giants like Meta and Google—have made their way into our daily lives. These platforms are increasingly coveted and have used their global reach and unfettered market advantage to cannibalize advertising revenues. Not only have we enabled them to do this, we've encouraged it.

Currently, in Canada, advertising purchased on foreign digital platforms is considered a tax-deductible expense. In 2018, when our organization published our study “Close the Loophole! The Deductibility of Foreign Internet Advertising”, we estimated that $5 billion in advertising was being extracted from our economy. We need to close the gap and encourage Canadian advertisers to choose homegrown platforms.

However, we can't stop there. Programmatic advertising has spawned a veritable misinformation and disinformation economy in which toxic content is fuelled by a near-constant flow of advertising dollars. This disinformation economy is worth several billion dollars, most of which ends up in Google's pockets. The company systematically ignores its own standards and practices designed to ensure that digital ads are not placed on sites offering extreme content and ideas.

We can act by imposing transparency and accountability requirements that would help redirect advertising dollars to trusted sources of information, away from those whose business models allow them to profit from amplifying violence, hatred and disinformation.

We must also provide CBC/Radio-Canada with a sustainable funding model. It is the only broadcaster required by law to produce news in all regions. Unfortunately, however, it is crumbling under the weight of chronic underfunding, compounded by a freeze in the last federal budget. As private broadcasters continue to withdraw from news production, particularly local news, our national public broadcaster must have the resources to fill the void and fulfil its mandate. What's more, if CBC/Radio-Canada were better funded, this could reduce its dependence on advertising.

Before we wrap up and address any questions you may have, we want to answer this committee's central question about whether there is a need for a wider study of the Canadian news ecosystem. Our answer is a definite yes.

However, while that study is taking place, we do encourage Parliament to turn its focus to the advertising economy and its tremendous impact on our news, our culture and our democracy. Canadians are looking to you to take up this task, and we urge you to move swiftly and to take a big swing, because half measures have brought us here, to a news crisis that may quickly become a democratic one, and that would be unacceptable.

Thank you for this opportunity to speak with you today.

Sitting Resumed

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise and speak this evening—although I must say the hour is late, almost 9 p.m.—to join the debate on Bill C‑47.

Before I start, I would like to take a few minutes to voice my heartfelt support for residents of the north shore and Abitibi who have been fighting severe forest fires for several days now. This is a disastrous situation.

I know that the member for Manicouagan and the member for Abitibi—Baie-James—Nunavik—Eeyou are on site. They are there for their constituents and represent them well. They have been visiting emergency shelters and showing their solidarity by being actively involved with their constituents and the authorities. The teamwork has been outstanding. Our hearts go out to the people of the north shore and Abitibi.

Tonight, my colleague from Abitibi-Témiscamingue will rise to speak during the emergency debate on forest fires. He will then travel back home to be with his constituents as well, so he can offer them his full support and be there for them in these difficult times.

Of course, I also offer my condolences to the family grieving the loss of loved ones who drowned during a fishing accident in Portneuf‑sur‑Mer. This is yet another tragedy for north shore residents. My heart goes out to the family, the children's parents and those who perished.

Before talking specifically about Bill C-47, I would like to say how impressive the House's work record is. A small headline in the newspapers caught my eye last week. It said that the opposition was toxic and that nothing was getting done in the House. I found that amusing, because I was thinking that we have been working very hard and many government bills have been passed. I think it is worth listing them very quickly to demonstrate that, when it comes right down to it, if parliamentarians work together and respect all the legislative stages, they succeed in getting important bills passed.

I am only going to mention the government's bills. Since the 44th Parliament began, the two Houses have passed bills C‑2, C‑3, C‑4, C‑5, C‑6, C‑8 and C‑10, as well as Bill C‑11, the online streaming bill. My colleague from Drummond's work on this bill earned the government's praise. We worked hard to pass this bill, which is so important to Quebec and to our broadcasting artists and technicians.

We also passed bills C‑12, C‑14, C‑15, C‑16, C‑19, C‑24, C‑25, C‑28, C‑30, C‑31, C‑32, C‑36 and C‑39, which is the important act on medical assistance in dying, and bills C‑43, C‑44 and C‑46.

We are currently awaiting royal assent for Bill C‑9. Bill C‑22 will soon return to the House as well. This is an important bill on the disability benefit.

We are also examining Bill C‑13, currently in the Senate and soon expected to return to the House. Bill C‑18, on which my colleague from Drummond worked exceedingly hard, is also in the Senate. Lastly, I would mention bills C‑21, C‑29 and C‑45.

I do not know whether my colleagues agree with me, but I think that Parliament has been busy and that the government has gotten many of its bills passed by the House of Commons. Before the Liberals say that the opposition is toxic, they should remember that many of those bills were passed by the majority of members in the House.

I wanted to point that out because I was rather insulted to be told that my behaviour, as a member of the opposition, was toxic and was preventing the work of the House from moving forward. In my opinion, that is completely false. We have the government's record when it comes to getting its bills passed. The government is doing quite well in that regard.

We have now come to Bill C-47. We began this huge debate on the budget implementation bill this morning and will continue to debate it until Wednesday. It is a very large, very long bill that sets out a lot of budgetary measures that will be implemented after the bill is passed.

I have no doubt that, by the end of the sitting on June 23, the House will pass Bill C‑47 in time for the summer break.

What could this bill have included that is not in there? For three years, the Bloc Québécois and several other members in the House have been saying that there is nothing for seniors. I was saying earlier to my assistant that, in my riding of Salaberry—Suroît, we speak at every meeting about the decline in seniors' purchasing power. I am constantly being approached by seniors who tell me—

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I have a letter here, and I think all committee members had this sent to them. As we've been doing these hearings—and they've taken a few meetings—members of the public have sent us information. Some of it is very helpful because it comes from Immigration Canada, so it has some content information.

This one is from the executive director, Denise Mildner, who is from Saskatchewan, the Evermore Centre. It provides data on the back end. I want to read it into the record and make reference to it, because it feeds into my next question. It says:

The voices of many parents have gone unheard. Since 2010, 13,791 children were born abroad and adopted by Canadian parents since bills C-14...and C-37...were passed.

That's going as far back as 2007.

Of these, 63% or 8,632 children were adopted through the Citizenship Stream. Unknowingly, by choosing this route, however, these children do not have the same rights as other Canadians and cannot pass on their citizenship. Regardless of which route was chosen, there should not exist any discriminatory laws against an internationally adopted child.

Does this amendment fix this particular situation, or does it address a different issue of just passing it on and the treatment of the children as Canadian children for the first-generation limit?

Criminal Code

[Ed Fast, Conservative, Abbotsford, BC]

moved that Bill C-314, an act to amend the Criminal Code (medical assistance in dying), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to my private member's bill, Bill C-314, the mental health protection act.

In its very essence, this bill is about reaffirming the dignity and worth of each and every human life. It is about recognizing that it is the most vulnerable among us, the disabled and the mentally ill, to whom we owe the greatest duty: to defend and protect their lives and to provide them with every possible opportunity to live life to the fullest.

Medically assisted suicide was legalized in Canada in 2015 by the Supreme Court's Carter decision and later under the Liberal government's Bill C-14. Under this legislation, medical assistance in dying, or MAID, as it is commonly called, was strictly limited to those consenting adults who had an incurable disease that caused enduring, intolerable suffering that could not be alleviated, and where natural death was reasonably foreseeable, which they call the foreseeability test.

At the time, the government and its supportive stakeholders assured Canadians that this was not a slippery slope, where the scope of MAID would continually be expanded to include more and more vulnerable Canadians. However, not surprisingly, in the intervening eight years since the Carter decision, the government has begun to expand Canada's MAID regime to include more and more defenceless Canadians, most particularly those living with disabilities.

In late 2019, a Quebec lower court judge in the Truchon case ruled that the foreseeability test I just mentioned was unconstitutional, requiring Parliament to respond with additional legislation. Sadly, the Liberal government chose not to appeal the Truchon case to the Supreme Court of Canada, presumably because the decision lined up with the Prime Minister's intent to dramatically expand assisted suicide to other vulnerable Canadians. This leaves us with the perverse situation in which the Supreme Court of Canada, the highest court in the country, has never been allowed to opine on whether the reasonable foreseeability test is constitutional.

In any event, the Liberal government responded to Truchon by tabling Bill C-7, which initially eliminated the foreseeability test but expressly excluded mentally ill persons from being caught up in its MAID regime. Here is what the justice minister said at the time:

The fact that there would be risk of ending the life of a person whose symptoms would have improved...is, in part, why we are of the view that it is safest not to permit MAID on the sole basis of mental illness.... There is also ongoing uncertainty and disagreement as to the potential impact on suicide prevention if MAID were made available to this group.

He went on to say:

...there is no consensus among experts on whether and how to proceed with MAID on the basis of mental illness alone. On a question of such importance and with so much uncertainty and expert disagreement, it is incumbent upon us to proceed with caution and prudence.

Those were our justice minister’s views until the unelected Senate suddenly introduced an amendment that expanded MAID to those Canadians whose sole underlying condition is mental illness. Sadly, the justice minister and the government accepted the amendment without protest and, overnight, became zealous proponents of assisted death for the mentally ill. What happened to the caution and prudence the minister was preaching? What about the impact on suicide prevention the minister was so concerned about? What happened to his view that it was safest not to permit MAID on the sole basis of mental illness?

I agree with the Minister of Justice on one thing, which is that, as he has said, this is indeed a complex issue and is deeply personal. It is deeply personal because it involves life, a precious human life.

I would remind the minister and his government that the issue is also profoundly simple; that is, the principle that all life, all human life is precious and worthy of defence and protection, especially for those who do not have the ability to speak for themselves and have no one to speak for them.

One of the primary functions of government is to protect its citizens, to protect life. In fact, the right to life is expressly enshrined in section 7 of our Charter of Rights. Sadly, the government's Bill C-7 fails to protect the lives of our most vulnerable. It removes the critical safeguards that the original euthanasia legislation included in response to the Carter decision. Removing those safeguards will have irreversible consequences for those who suffer from mental illnesses like depression.

What is equally disturbing is that the Liberal government has also signalled its intention to extend the so-called “treatment option” to minor children. That would arguably make Canada the most expansive, most liberal, assisted suicide jurisdiction in the world. Clearly we are on the slippery slope many of us warned about. Canadians have a right to conclude that the Liberal government has gone too far and too fast in its zeal to implement and expand the scope of assisted death.

My bill will reverse this momentum and repeal the government's decision to extend MAID to the mentally ill. It will put a full stop to the expansion of assisted suicide to mentally disordered persons. Let me be clear. My bill does not in any way reverse the rest of Canada’s MAID regime. Assisted death will remain available for those suffering from irremediable, incurable and intolerable illnesses and diseases. My bill is simply focused on reversing the government’s actions in expanding assisted suicide to include the mentally ill. It would arrest Canada’s slide into normalizing assisted death as an alternative treatment option, something so many of us had predicted would happen.

The evidence from mental health experts is very clear. Contrary to what our justice minister is now saying, there is absolutely no consensus in Canada that the mentally ill should be covered by Canada’s medically assisted death regime. In fact, here is what experts and other stakeholders in the mental health community are saying. John Maher, psychiatrist with Canadian Mental Health Association, states that:

Inducement to suicide while simultaneously denying mental health care to two-thirds of Canadians who urgently need it is an unconscionable failing.

Directly undermining suicide prevention efforts is an insidious and ablest perversion of our mental health care duty.

Drs. Ramona Coelho and Catherine Ferrier, co-founders of Physicians Together with Vulnerable Canadian, penned a statement that was endorsed by over 1,000 physicians. This is part of what it said, “Given that there is no medical evidence to reliably predict which patients with a mental illness will not get better, MAID for mental illness will end the lives of patients who would have recovered…Medicine …would fail in its mission if it were to deliberately end the lives of patients living with mental illness… Legislators must work towards safeguarding the lives of the most vulnerable including those placed at a greater disadvantage because of mental illness.”

Dr. Sonu Gaind, chief of the Department of Psychiatry at Sunnybrook Hospital, Toronto, stated, “The Ministers have provided false reassurances that we can somehow separate people who are suicidal from those who are seeking psychiatric euthanasia. That is simply not true. In my opinion, that is dangerous misinformation coming from our federal Minister of Justice and our federal Minister of Mental Health and Addictions providing a false sense of safety that does not exist.”

Trudo Lemmens, professor and chair in health law at the University of Toronto, said, “I urge Parliament to take very seriously how offering MAID for mental illness deprives disabled persons, particularly those with mental illness, from equal protection against premature death. Persons experiencing mental illness deserve to be protected against premature death by an unreserved focus on ensuring access to all required health care and social support services. Facilitating their death does exactly the opposite.”

Finally, Sephora Tang, psychiatrist and assistant professor in the Department of Psychiatry at University of Ottawa, said, “One cannot prevent suicide while at the same time facilitating it. Placing expectations upon mental health professionals to do both undermines the effective delivery of recovery-oriented mental health care. Canadians deserve to live in a country that is committed to safeguarding the right to life and security of every person. Current MAID legislation fails to achieve this overarching social good.”

Even Canada's justice minister has publicly acknowledged the fact that issues such as irremediability, competency and suicidality are not anywhere close to being resolved to justify such a major policy shift in favour of death. Furthermore, medically assisted death flies in the face of the government’s own promotion of suicide prevention programs, including the recent creation of a national 988 suicide hotline.

It cannot be both ways. It cannot claim, as the Liberal government has, that it wants to prevent suicide deaths on the one hand, when it actively promotes assisted suicide for the mentally ill on the other. Over the last eight years, many of us have expressed our concern and expectation that the Carter decision and BillC-14 would be expanded by future court decisions, and that these decisions would leave more and more vulnerable populations exposed to the reach of medically assisted suicide.

Our concerns were pooh-poohed. We were accused of fearmongering and of misrepresenting the intentions of this Liberal government. Yet, today, the Truchon decision and the travesty of Bill C-7 bear out our concerns. That is why more and more disability groups have set the alarm bells ringing and are vehemently opposing this legislation. They argue that this legislation amounts to a deadly form of discrimination, making it easier for persons with disabilities to die than to live.

We are hearing more and more reports of the poor and homeless approaching food banks to ask for assisted death, not because they are suffering from a grievous illness but because they do not want to go hungry and homeless. The headline in the British magazine The Spectator asked last year, “Why is Canada euthanising the poor?”

The response from some bioethicists appears to be, “Well, why not?” In fact, a new paper by two bioethicists at the University of Toronto makes the case that euthanizing the poor should be socially acceptable. That is indicative of the path on which our country finds itself. It is terrifying.

We also have verified reports of veterans suffering from PTSD who are being counselled by the Liberal government to consider medical assistance in dying rather than being provided with the treatment and supports they need to recover.

These are the vulnerable that the Liberal government promised to protect. Canadians have the right to ask whether this government is exercising the requisite caution and care to avoid unnecessary overreach and ensure that MAID is not abused or misapplied.

Let me conclude. My private member's bill, Bill C-314 gives all of us parliamentarians an opportunity to take a deep breath and reconsider the perilous road we have embarked upon. As I mentioned, my bill simply reverses the expansion of Canada’s assisted death laws to the mentally ill. At the very least, I would ask my colleagues to allow my bill, at second reading, to go to committee where there could be more discussion.

Have we gone too far and too fast with Canada's assisted suicide program? Will we evolve into a culture of death as the preferred option for those who suffer from mental illness or will we choose life?

I implore my colleagues to choose life. I wish them much wisdom as they make that choice.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to stand to give my thoughts on Bill C-39. For those who are watching the debate today, this is the bill to amend the Criminal Code to delay, until March 17 of next year, the repeal of the exclusion from eligibility for receiving medical assistance in dying in circumstances where the sole underlying medical condition is a mental illness.

It has to be stated very clearly, because of the timeline with which we are dealing, that if this bill is not passed, the original sunset clause that was put in place by the old Bill C-7 will come into effect on March 17, which is just over a month away. It is for that reason that I will support the bill and will work with all parties to get the bill passed quickly.

Today's conversation has to happen within the context of the mental health crisis in Canada. We know and have heard, and this is not just from members of Parliament, from many advocates and stakeholders that there is an extreme lack of funding and resources. Clearly, there absolutely must be parity between physical and mental health in funding.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has stated in the House that Canadians should have access to timely evidence-based, culturally appropriate and trauma-informed mental health and substance use services to support their well-being. With that I agree wholeheartedly, but words are not enough. We need to see the requisite resources and funding to follow through those words.

We know that beyond the Canada mental health transfer many advocates have long been calling for legislation to enshrine in law parity between mental and physical health. I am very glad today that I am giving my speech beside the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni, who is our mental health and addictions critic and who has himself tabled Motion No. 67, which calls on the government to develop that legislation and to urgently fulfill its promise to establish that Canada mental health transfer.

In my own riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, many of my fellow citizens are going through extreme struggles with the opioid crisis. They are dealing with trauma. They are dealing with underlying mental health challenges that are simply not being addressed. That is an extreme gap and the cause of an extreme amount of shame for a country as wealthy as Canada to be still having these conversations about the resources that need to be brought to bear in communities like mine.

I have been a member in the House since 2015, so this is now my third Parliament. I have been here for the entirety of the legislative journey of medical assistance in dying. I can remember Bill C-14 and the sometimes difficult debates we had in the House. That legislation was in response to the Carter decision in the Supreme Court, which basically said that to deny people this right was contrary to our charter. It therefore gave the government a timeline to address it with the appropriate legislation.

What is not often talked about with Bill C-14 is that there was a legislative requirement in that act when it received royal assent. There was a five-year statutory review of medical assistance in dying. Unfortunately, that never occurred before the government went ahead in the previous Parliament and introduced Bill C-7, which established a second track for people whose death was not reasonably foreseeable.

The context of today's speech and C-39 is the fact that we have a story here of the government in several instances putting the cart before the horse. It not only introduced Bill C-7 before a statutory review occurred, which was a requirement of Bill C-14, but it then went ahead and accepted a Senate amendment to the bill that ran contrary to its own charter statement. It did that pretty massive expansion to the law without establishing a special joint committee that was a requirement of Bill C-7.

I am intimately familiar with what this process has been because I have not only been a member of the House since 2015, I have not only participated in debate on Bill C-14 and on Bill C-7, but I have also been a member of the special joint committee, both in the previous Parliament and in this Parliament.

The message all along has been that this kind of a review should have occurred before we were dealing with a timeline crunch. It became quite obvious during the special joint committee that too many Canadians, too many professionals in our country had apprehension about mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition for being able to access medical assistance in dying as early as next month. Hence, we have Bill C-39.

I want to go back to the original charter statement that the government released as a part of Bill C-7. That includes a number of important statements as to why the government felt, originally, that mental disorders should be excluded from accessing MAID. It did say in that charter statement that the exclusion was not based on the assumption that individuals who suffered from mental illness lacked decision-making capacity. It also said that the exclusion was also not based on a failure to appreciate the severity of the suffering that mental illness could produce. Rather, it was based on the inherent risks and complexity that the availability of MAID would present to those individuals.

First, that charter statement identified that the evidence suggested that screening for decision-making capacity was particularly difficult. It could be subject to a high degree of error. Second, the statement identified that mental illness was generally less predictable than physical illness with respect to the course that the illness may take over time. Finally, it highlighted the experience that a few of the countries that permitted MAID, namely Belgium, the Netherlands and Luxembourg, for the sole underlying medical condition of mental illness had and some of the concerns relating to the increasing number of these cases and the wide range of mental illnesses in respect to which MAID could be provided.

Again, it really highlighted the fact that precaution was the necessary mode that was required before we embarked on this path. However, the government in its wisdom decided to accept a late stage Senate amendment to the bill after the House, full of its duly elected members, had given a final vote on Bill C-7. As a member at that time, I could not bring myself to accept that Senate amendment. Therefore, I ended up voting against the final version of Bill C-7 because of that.

It also needs to be said, when we are going over the history, that the special joint committee that was a requirement of Bill C-7 got a very late start. It was first brought into being just before the summer recess in 2021. We only had a few meetings before the summer of 2021 and we had the unnecessary election, launched solely at the request of the Prime Minister, in August of that year. This completely wiped out anything that was happening during the 43rd Parliament. That Parliament ceased to exist, and all of the committees that were a part of it did as well.

The new Parliament, the 44th, reconvened later that year, but it was not until around April or May of 2022 that serious discussions started coming together and we could actually get the special joint committee reformed. Again, we have to put that in the context of the impending deadline of March 17, 2023.

An incredible amount of time was wasted, not only from an unnecessary election but also from the delays of getting that committee up and running. We had to twice request an extension of our mandate from both houses of Parliament because the timelines we had been given were completely unrealistic, not only in hearing from as wide a range as possible of witnesses but also in producing a report that would reflect the gravity of the subject matter with which we were entrusted. That has to be highlighted in the debate today on Bill C-39.

I also think it is important because there have been a few narratives around this legislation. It is important to go back to understand what the Criminal Code actually says, and also to put that in the context of the definition of irremediability.

It is important that, in order to be eligible for medical assistance in dying, a person has to meet all of the following criteria: they have to make sure that they are in fact eligible for health services in the province they reside in, they have to be at least 18 years of age and capable of making decisions with respect to their own health, they have to have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, and they have to have made a voluntary request. All these conditions must be satisfied. A person must also give informed consent to receive medical assistance in dying, after having been informed of the means available to relieve their suffering, including palliative care.

Now we get to the definition of a grievous and irremediable medical condition as outlined in the Criminal Code. A person has to meet the following criteria for that definition: it has to be a serious and incurable illness, disease or disability; they have to be in an advanced state of irreversible decline in capability; and that illness, disease or disability, or that state of decline, has to be causing them enduring physical or psychological suffering that is intolerable to them and that cannot be relieved under conditions that they consider acceptable.

Those are the definitions in the Criminal Code, so despite the narratives we hear out there, those conditions must be met or the person administering MAID will have committed a crime. They will be in violation of the Criminal Code of Canada and will get the appropriate punishment as a result.

One of the difficulties is the fact that the term “irremediable” is not a medical or scientific term. It is a term that finds its definition within the Criminal Code. If we go to scientific or medical literature, it is a difficult term to define, and that, I think, is why we are seeing a lot of the apprehension around accessing MAID for mental disorders where the sole underlying medical condition is a mental disorder.

Some witnesses who appeared before our committee expressed the opinion that this should not be permitted, because there cannot be any certainty with respect to the incurability of a mental disorder. However, other witnesses told us that certainty is not required and that there are ways to consider irremediability, for example by looking at the years of treatment that people have had and whether any responses of the patient have actually been positive.

We also have to understand that the respect for personal autonomy in all of this is paramount, and it is has to be a treatment that is acceptable to the individual receiving it. They not only have to express informed consent, but it has to be something acceptable to them as a person.

I now want to talk a little about the special joint committee, which I have had the honour of being a member of, as I previously mentioned.

I think it is important to underline that our committee has struggled with the question of how to balance individual autonomy with protections for the vulnerable. We were tasked with looking at five themes through the passage of Bill C-7 and the motion that guided our work from both the House of Commons and the Senate: how we institute protections for persons with disabilities; the state of palliative care in Canada; advance requests; mature minors; and, of course, the subject of today, mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition and their eligibility with respect to applying for medical assistance in dying.

Our final report is due to be tabled in the House this Friday, February 17. We wrapped up our committee meetings last week and finally approved a draft report. That draft report, as I speak, is going to translation services so that it can be ready for tabling here in the House, and so we will be able to meet the deadline that was given to us.

Before we did that work, we had others who did some important work ahead of us. We had the expert panel that was established. They also wrestled with major concerns, such as incurability, irreversibility, capacity and suicidality, and of course the intersection between structural vulnerability, mental disorder and medical assistance in dying.

That panel report, an important precursor to our work as a special joint committee, did state that assessors in medical assistance in dying should be able to establish incurability and irreversibility with reference to treatment attempts made; the impacts of those treatments; and the severity of the illness, disease or disability. The incurability of a mental disorder cannot be established in the absence of extensive attempts at interventions with therapeutic aims.

This means that someone who has not had access to adequate care would not be eligible for MAID. Therefore, MAID could never be used as a substitute for good psychiatric care. I think that is an important thing we have to realize. There will be safeguards in place, not only with the Criminal Code, but also, we hope, with the standards of practice.

For patients who are considering this, we want to make sure that there has been a long track record of attempts to deal with their illnesses. At the same time, we have heard very clearly that there are many Canadians and many professionals who feel that additional time is needed to make sure we get this right.

One of the witnesses before our special joint committee was the chair of the Government of Quebec's Select Committee on the Evolution of the Act respecting end-of-life care. She explained that Quebec had decided that MAID for mental disorders as a sole underlying medical condition should not be permitted at this time because of the challenges of determining irremediability, as well as the lack of social consensus. Another level of government, this time the Province of Quebec, is also underlining the concerns that many members of Parliament are expressing here today.

I mentioned the final report that will be tabled in the House, but our committee did release an interim report. That interim report was specifically on this subject matter. I will read from our conclusion. It states:

We must have standards of practice, clear guidelines, adequate training for practitioners, comprehensive patient assessments and meaningful oversight in place for the case of [medical assistance in dying for mental disorders as the sole underlying medical condition]. This task will require the efforts and collaboration of regulators, professional associations, institutional committees and all levels of governments and these actors need to be engaged and supported in this important work.

Although some work is already underway to implement the recommendations of the Expert panel, there is concern that more remains to be done to ensure that all necessary steps have been taken to be ready by the March 2023 deadline...

Again, in our interim report, our special joint committee was already, at that time, expressing concern with the upcoming deadline, and I think it is a smart move that we are moving ahead with Bill C-39. If we back that up with the testimony we heard at committee, we had a number of different witnesses who clearly expressed that they had troubles with this deadline and that those standards of practice were not yet ready.

It needs to be underlined again that, if Bill C-39 is not passed, the original sunset clause of March 17 will come into effect. My vote for this bill is occurring because of that very fact. This is aside from the broader conversation we need to have about medical assistance in dying in general. It is support for a bill that is going to extend the deadline by one year so we can make sure that we get these standards of practice right, so we have the necessary time to engage with the broader community.

Motion That Debate Be Not Further Adjourned

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I learned something today.

According to tradition, Quebec’s national holiday is celebrated on June 23 and 24. It is true that Parliament usually does not sit on June 23 except in the case of an emergency, which has only ever happened a few times. June 23 is set aside for emergencies.

This motion could easily have been moved sooner, since the government had all the time it needed. The Bloc Québécois has always been ready to collaborate, especially in the case of Bill C-14, for which it set aside two days to allow Parliament to adjourn on Wednesday and Quebec members in the Bloc Québécois and other parties to celebrate with their constituents.

Our request was legitimate. The government vehemently rejected the fact that Quebecers have a national holiday to celebrate this evening and tomorrow. We asked either not to sit on Thursday or to sit with a Friday schedule so that we could leave the House earlier to celebrate Quebec’s national holiday with our people back home. The government refused. Would the same thing have happened if we had to work on June 30?

Order Respecting the Business of the House and its Committees

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

moved:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, beginning on Friday, June 24, 2022, and ending on Friday, June 23, 2023:

(a) members may participate in proceedings of the House either in person or by videoconference, provided that members participating remotely be in Canada;

(b) members who participate remotely in a sitting of the House be counted for the purpose of quorum;

(c) provisions in the Standing Orders to the need for members to rise or to be in their place, as well as any reference to the chair, the table or the chamber shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the virtual and hybrid nature of the proceedings;

(d) the application of Standing Order 17 shall be suspended;

(e) in Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3), and 56.2(2), the reference to the number of members required to rise be replaced with the word “five”;

(f) the application of Standing Order 62 shall be suspended for any member participating remotely;

(g) documents may be laid before the House or presented to the House electronically, provided that:

(i) documents deposited pursuant to Standing Order 32(1) shall be deposited with the Clerk of the House electronically,

(ii) documents shall be transmitted to the clerk by members prior to their intervention,

(iii) any petition presented pursuant to Standing Order 36(5) may be filed with the clerk electronically,

(iv) responses to questions on the Order Paper deposited pursuant to Standing Order 39 may be tabled electronically;

(h) should the House resolve itself in a committee of the whole, the Chair may preside from the Speaker’s chair;

(i) when a question that could lead to a recorded division is put to the House, in lieu of calling for the yeas and nays, one representative of a recognized party can rise to request a recorded vote or to indicate that the motion is adopted on division, provided that a request for a recorded division has precedence;

(j) when a recorded division is requested in respect of a debatable motion, or a motion to concur in a bill at report stage on a Friday, including any division arising as a consequence of the application of Standing Order 78, but excluding any division in relation to the budget debate, pursuant to Standing Order 84, or the business of supply occurring on the last supply day of a period, other than as provided in Standing Orders 81(17) and 81(18)(b), or arising as a consequence of an order made pursuant to Standing Order 57,

(i) before 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at that day’s sitting, or

(ii) after 2:00 p.m. on a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, or at any time on a Friday, it shall stand deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions at the next sitting day that is not a Friday,

provided that any extension of time pursuant to Standing Order 45(7.1) shall not exceed 90 minutes;

(k) if a motion for the previous question under Standing Order 61 is adopted without a recorded division, the vote on the main question may be deferred under the provisions of paragraph (j), however if a recorded division is requested on the previous question, and such division is deferred and the previous question subsequently adopted, the vote on the original question shall not be deferred;

(l) when a recorded division, which would have ordinarily been deemed deferred to immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business on a Wednesday governed by this order, is requested, the said division is deemed to have been deferred until the conclusion of Oral Questions on the same Wednesday, provided that such recorded divisions be taken after the other recorded divisions deferred at that time;

(m) for greater certainty, this order shall not limit the application of Standing Order 45(7);

(n) when a recorded division is to be held, the bells to call in the members shall be sounded for not more than 30 minutes, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of Oral Questions, when the bells shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes;

(o) recorded divisions shall take place in the usual way for members participating in person or by electronic means through the House of Commons electronic voting application for all other members, provided that:

(i) electronic votes shall be cast from within Canada using the member’s House-managed mobile device and the member’s personal House of Commons account, and that each vote require visual identity validation,

(ii) the period allowed for voting electronically on a motion shall be 10 minutes, to begin after the Chair has read the motion to the House, and members voting electronically may change their vote until the electronic voting period has closed,

(iii) in the event a member casts their vote both in person and electronically, a vote cast in person take precedence,

(iv) any member unable to vote via the electronic voting system during the 10-minute period due to technical issues may connect to the virtual sitting to indicate to the Chair their voting intention by the House videoconferencing system,

(v) following any concern, identified by the electronic voting system, which is raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member using the electronic voting system, the member in question shall respond immediately to confirm their vote, either in person or by the House videoconferencing system, failing which the vote shall not be recorded,

(vi) the whip of each recognized party have access to a tool to confirm the visual identity of each member voting by electronic means, and that the votes of members voting by electronic means be made available to the public during the period allowed for the vote,

(vii) the process for votes in committees of the whole take place in a manner similar to the process for votes during sittings of the House with the exception of the requirement to call in the members,

(viii) any question to be resolved by secret ballot be excluded from this order,

(ix) during the taking of a recorded division on a private members’ business, when the sponsor of the item is the first to vote and present at the beginning of the vote, the member be called first, whether participating in person or remotely;

(p) during meetings of standing, standing joint, special, special joint, except the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, and legislative committees and the Liaison Committee, as well as their subcommittees, where applicable, members may participate either in person or by videoconference, and provided that priority use of House resources for meetings shall be established by an agreement of the whips and, for virtual or hybrid meetings, the following provisions shall apply:

(i) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(ii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iii) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of a chair or a vice-chair of a committee, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted,

(iv) public proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website,

(v) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(vi) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) and requests pursuant to Standing Order 106(4) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email; and

(q) notwithstanding the order adopted on Wednesday, March 2, 2022, regarding the Special Joint Committee on the Declaration of Emergency, until the committee ceases to exist and where applicable,

(i) the committee shall hold meetings in person only should this be necessary to consider any matter referred to it pursuant to subsection 61(2) of the act,

(ii) members who participate remotely shall be counted for the purpose of quorum,

(iii) except for those decided unanimously or on division, all questions shall be decided by a recorded vote,

(iv) in camera proceedings may be conducted in a manner that takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in meetings with remote participants,

(v) when more than one motion is proposed for the election of the House vice-chairs, any motion received after the initial one shall be taken as a notice of motion and such motions shall be put to the committee seriatim until one is adopted;

that a message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House has passed this order; and

that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to undertake a study on hybrid proceedings and the aforementioned changes to the Standing Orders and the usual practice of the House.

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise on this motion and talk about the extension of hybrid provisions for one year and the opportunity for the procedure and House affairs committee members to study the issue of either the use or the non-use of those provisions as they deem through their process and their recommendations thereafter.

I will take us back for a moment to March 2020. As the whole business of the pandemic was unfolding, it was about a week before this House shut down when I had a conversation with the House administration at that time asking what the pandemic plan was and what we had on the books. Of course, those who wrote it had put something together, but it became apparent very quickly upon looking at it that the intersection of what was planned with what happened in real life meant that the plan, frankly, was not of much use.

We then began a process, and I want to thank members from all parties, reflecting back on those early days in March 2020, as we attempted to find a way for Canada's Parliament to continue to do its business and to make sure that, notwithstanding the fact that we had this incredible public health emergency that sent people to their homes, Canadians knew that the seat of their democracy continued to function, continued to get bills passed and continued to put supports out there for them.

Before I talk about some of those supports, I want to take a moment to thank the House administration and officials who worked with us to create these tools and innovations to allow our democracy to continue to function. In an incredibly short period of time, an ability was developed to participate and vote virtually. This eventually led to a voting app and other refinements that have enabled members, whether or not they are sick, whether or not they are unable to be at the House for medical or other reasons, to continue to participate in the proceedings of the House and to make sure they are not disenfranchised and their constituents continue to be represented.

Members would remember that Canadians and businesses were reeling in those early days of COVID, and some three million jobs were lost. There was a real state of folks not knowing where things were going to go. Small businesses were left unable to serve their customers and wondering what their future would be. It was specifically because of the provisions we put in place, which all parties worked on with the House administration, that we were able to still get those supports adopted and make historic support available to make sure that businesses and individuals did not fall through the cracks.

Now we see the economy roaring back, and 115% of jobs lost during the pandemic have come back, compared to below 100% for the United States. We see us being a world leader in economic growth, number two in the G7 and trending towards being number one next year. It is absolutely evident that the supports that were put in place to make sure that Canadians did not fall through the cracks were what got us there.

When we think of the bravery of people opening a small business, taking a chance and putting themselves out in the world, putting their shingle out and hoping to survive, there are a lot of things they have to prepare for, such as the possibility that their product may not be as popular as they had hoped, or the long hours that they, and the people they employ, will have to put in to try to make the business successful. Of course, it is not reasonable for folks to expect that a global pandemic will be the thing that shuts them down. It was, in fact, those hybrid provisions that enabled people to get that work done.

The pandemic continues, but before I talk about the continuing pandemic, I will take a moment to talk about all the things that we got done, and not just those historic supports.

As the pandemic came and went, as we thought it was over last November and we thought that things might be returning to a sense of normalcy but we got hit by omicron, the flexibility of Parliament meant that we were able to continue to get the job of the nation done. We can take a look at how much Parliament was able to accomplish from January to June: 14 bills, not including supply, were presented, and we introduced seven bills in the Senate on a range of important issues. Many of the bills that we are passing now or that have just passed through the House are going to the Senate, and it is our hope and expectation, particularly with the great work that was just done on Bill C-28, that the Senate will be able to get that done as well before it rises for the summer. This was all done using the hybrid provisions.

Let us take a look at some of those bills.

Bill C-19 is critical to grow our economy, foster clean technology, strengthen our health care system and make life more affordable for Canadians in areas such as housing and child care.

Bill C-18 would make sure that media and journalists in Canadian digital news receive fair compensation for their work in an incredibly challenged digital environment.

Bill C-11 would require online streaming services to contribute to the creation and availability of Canadian stories and music to better support Canadian artists.

Bill C-21 would protect Canadians from the dangers of firearms in our communities, making sure that we freeze the market on handguns, attack smuggling at the border and implement red flag provisions to address domestic violence.

Bill C-22 was brought forward to reduce poverty among persons with disabilities in Canada and is part of a broader strategy that has seen more than one million Canadians lifted out of poverty. That is particularly remarkable when we think that it was this government that set the first targets ever for poverty reduction. After we set those goals, we have been exceeding them every step of the way, and Bill C-22 is a big part of that strategy.

Bill C-28, which I talked about a minute ago, deals with the extreme intoxication defence. It is a great example of Parliament in a hybrid environment being able to work collaboratively to ensure that we close an important loophole to make sure that the extreme intoxication defence is not used when murder has been committed.

These are just some of the bills that we have been able to put forward, and we have been able to do so in a way that empowered all members of Parliament to be able to participate, whether they had COVID or not.

To give members a sense of the challenges, not only was all of this done using the hybrid system and during the middle of a pandemic, but it was done while dealing with obstruction. We saw all the times the Conservatives obstructed government legislation. In fact, 17 times over the past 14 weeks, the Conservatives used obstruction tactics, using concurrence motions and other tactics to block and obstruct, in many cases, legislation that was supported by three out of the four official parties here. They took the opportunity to obstruct, yet despite that, we have been able to make great progress.

The Conservatives support Bill C-14, yet we ended up spending a night because they were moving motions to hear their own speakers. At the MAID committee looking at medical assistance in dying, where there was incredibly sensitive testimony, witnesses were not able to testify because of the tactics and games that were happening here in this place. However, despite all that, in a hybrid environment we have been able to move forward.

Let us look at last week. Last week there were five members of the Liberal caucus who had COVID, and one of these people was the Prime Minister. I do not know how many members there were in other caucuses, but all were still able to participate in these proceedings. Every day, unfortunately, thousands of Canadians across the country continue to get COVID. Sadly, many of them are in hospitals and, even more tragically, many of them are dying. This pandemic is still very much a reality.

What we have seen over the last two years is that every time we try to start a parliamentary session, we spend weeks debating whether we should or should not continue using the hybrid system. Parliament deserves stability. People are still getting COVID. They have the right to be able to participate in this place, and as has been demonstrated by the incredible amount of work we have been able to get done during the pandemic, from historic supports in the deepest, darkest time of the pandemic to the more recent times dealing with a whole range of legislation that is absolutely critical to Canadians, these provisions allow us to continue to do the work of this nation in extraordinary times.

I do not think we should be in a position such that every time we start Parliament, we continue to have this debate. Canadians need predictability, as we do not know where this pandemic or public health circumstances are going. Canadians need predictability until the House of Commons, through a committee process, can evaluate the utility and usefulness of the provisions outside of a pandemic reality to see if they should be extended or used. We need to have a proper, thorough debate in that venue, hearing from witnesses, hearing from parliamentarians, taking a look at what was accomplished and at what could be done better or differently.

We are already seeing big improvements in everything, from the services that are being delivered to interpretation. I look forward to PROC's work to see whether or not these provisions have utility, but until then, this measure would give us the stability for PROC to do its report and for Parliament to continue to function in incredibly challenging times.

That is why I think it is only prudent to pass this measure now. It is so that Parliament will have the stability to do its work, so Canadians will know this work will not be interrupted, and so we can focus instead on the business of the nation.

Judges Act

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

Mr. Speaker, the member made reference to other legislation, Bill C-5, which is on minimum sentences, and he is very offended by the fact that that legislation was brought forward. Getting rid of minimum sentences does not mean someone who commits an act would get off scot-free. What it does mean is we would be providing more opportunity for judges to use their discretion. Judges, in vast majority, are very well educated and have a very good understanding of the system. They can take a look at the circumstances and are in a better position to be able to give a disposition. I would not want him to give a false impression that, because we are getting rid of minimum sentences, people would get off scot-free. That is just not accurate.

My final thought is regarding the calling of the legislation. Surely to goodness the member would realize that, even though it was introduced and had first reading in December, there are many other legislative agendas. The Conservative Party never approached the government to call for Bill C-9 either. It is here today because the Bill C-14 debate collapsed last night. Bill C-14 was another piece of legislation that was extended because of the Conservative filibuster.

[Tako Van Popta, Conservative, Langley—Aldergrove, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would just underline that this is important legislation. This goes to the very foundation of what Canadian society is. We are a nation that is built on the rule of law. For us to feel that we need to hurry this very important piece of legislation through Parliament just because we are all in agreement is something I disagree with.

I was ready to speak to Bill C-14 today. I did not realize that this was so important to the Liberal government that it wanted to have it on the agenda today. It was introduced months ago. Why was it not here earlier? Why are the Liberals now suggesting that we are the ones who are stalling things? This is important legislation. I want it to be fully debated.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I was actually up in my office and I came down, because I was listening to the member for Kingston and the Islands speak as though there were some dirty little secret around here as to the way things operate. In fact, last night, through a unanimous consent motion, we actually moved Bill C-14 through the process.

It is the government that actually sets the legislative agenda in this place, and it is the government that put Bill C-9 on the Order Paper today as a matter of business in this House. This bill was introduced in October. These are the first hours of debate, and there are 338 members in this House, who represent millions of voices of Canadians across this country, who have things to say on this bill, maybe to make it a little better.

I am sorry if this taxes the patience of the member for Kingston and the Islands. Perhaps if he does not want to be a member of Parliament, he could go be the president of the local soccer association in his riding. We debate things in this place. This is Parliament.

Does the hon. member believe that the voices of Canadians are important in this place and that debate matters?

Motions in Amendment

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I would like her to explain something. On March 2, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion that my colleague supported. The motion sought to maintain Quebec's political weight and not have it lose a seat. The Bloc Québécois then presented Bill C‑246, which was along the same lines as the motion that my colleague supported, but she voted against it.

Today, the government is trying to salvage the situation with Bill C‑14. This bill seeks to preserve the number of seats, but not the political weight, because other seats could be added for other provinces outside Quebec.

I would like my colleague to explain why she voted for the Bloc Québécois motion and then voted against the Bloc Québécois bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, does the member believe British Columbia should have equal representation in the House of Commons? The band-aid solution we are applying here to Bill C-14 is really just avoiding the big questions our country is facing. Also, I would love to hear some more comments from the member on her interaction with the electoral commission about effective representation in rural Canada.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise this evening to debate Bill C-14.

For those who might just be catching up on what Bill C-14 is, it deals with an updating of the grandfather clause of the Constitution from 1867, as reset in 1985. I think at some point in this place we should put forward a grandmother clause. I was just looking at some of my other female colleague MPs in this place.

The grandfather clause says that this is what it is and we are going to keep it the way it was. What we are doing with this bill is saying that the composition of Parliament will not drop below the seat count of the 43rd Parliament. That is basically what we have now: 338 MPs, of which 78 are from Quebec and 121 are from Ontario. My home province of British Columbia will have no fewer than 42 seats going forward under the new, as I rename it, “grandmother clause”.

There are a number of issues to unpack in this bill. The primary one is that the bill is making sure that Quebec does not lose any seats in the current decennial review of representation by population and that we are more or less representing the same numbers of people across the country.

This is no easy effort. This is very difficult. I just attended the public hearing in Victoria, B.C., and the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia was just proposing to add another seat because population redistribution is adding relatively more people to British Columbia than to some other provinces. The commission is proposing to add the new seat in interior British Columbia, which would have a big effect on the members forKamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon and Central Okanagan—Similkameen—Nicola. It would have very little impact on my own riding, but going through that process of staring at the riding map and speaking about representation by population put me very much in mind of some other ideas.

In fact, when I spoke at the public hearing in Victoria about the riding boundaries and the proposals of the Electoral Boundaries Commission, I asked them whether, in the interests of democracy, it is really in the interests of our constituents to add more MPs to the House of Commons year on year? I said to them that when I was first elected to this place in 2011, in the Parliament that I joined and in which I had the honour to stand in Centre Block for the first time, we had 308 members; now we have 338. Does that increase in numbers add to the representation of our constituents, or does it dilute it? Is the notion of adding an MP here and there really effective in representation?

As has come up recently in this debate tonight, I think about our colleagues who represent vast territories. The member of Parliament for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has a territory that I think is two times the size of Germany, but I may be wrong. I remember his predecessor, Nathan Cullen, saying something like that fairly often. When a riding is two times the size of Germany, it is very hard to get around.

Our colleague from Nunavut has an electoral district that takes in three time zones. It is an enormous territory, and commercial aircraft will not get people from one end to the other. They have to either hire private planes or fly from Iqaluit to Ottawa and then go up to Inuvik. It is not easy, and given current demographic trends, the population of Nunavut is not going to be the equivalent of my riding of Saanich—Gulf Islands, which, under the current proposal from the Electoral Boundaries Commission, would represent 122,000 people, or more than four times the population of Nunavut.

Let us think about what we could do to be creative. I said to the Electoral Boundaries Commission that much more important for democracy and representation by population would be fair voting, proportional representation, so that every voter knows that their vote is going to count. At that point, the very professional, hard-working team that is the Electoral Boundaries Commission for British Columbia said that this is beyond their area.

I take it to my colleagues here because it is specifically our area.

What is in the interest of democracy in the 21st century? Is it that we continue to add MPs to pile into this place? I suggest that when we look at the House of Westminster and the Commons chamber there, there are no desks because there is no room. If every MP showed up, they would not fit in the room because 650 MPs would be trying to squeeze into a chamber that would be perfect for about half that number. If we constantly add more MPs, we add to the cost of this place.

Would average Canadians feel they are better served by continually adding to the cost of the House of Commons or by my alternate proposal? It would be less costly to the taxpayer and I believe more efficient in properly representing our constituents if, depending on population, what is called the member's office budget, or MOB, was expanded. It would mean that we would not add more MPs, but MPs who represented higher population areas would be able to have more constituency staff to handle the casework, to make sure that the level of representation we give our constituents is beyond gold standard.

That is what we want to do. We want to be able to respond to the constituents who say they have been on the phone with Service Canada for nine hours, only to be hung up on and the call dropped. We do not have enough people in my office to deal with every single case that comes up, but we try.

What I would propose is that we look at the job of a member of Parliament. We do two things in this place. As our opening prayer by the Speaker suggests, we pass laws and make wise decisions, or at least we try. We debate public policy, as we are doing tonight. We also serve, in a completely different way, our constituents in a non-partisan way. We help them with their pensions, their passports, their unemployment insurance, their disabilities, the CRA, their need for help. We all have our issues. We work really hard to help our constituents.

Would we not have better representation if we did not just add to the number of members of Parliament in this place, but expanded the resources for those who are challenged by large population numbers or huge distances? A member of Parliament with a huge terrain to cover would have the budget to have offices in more locations to be more convenient for constituents. Representation by population may not be the most democratic way to ensure that Canadian democracy thrives.

Regardless of political stripe, we should all be troubled by what just happened in Ontario. Almost 60% of eligible voters did not turn out to vote. There are a number of theories for why that happened. That means a majority government that got 40% of the vote of the 43% of people who showed up elected a majority without the majority of public support. In fact, the Doug Ford government in Ontario has the active support, as measured by who went out to vote for him, of 18% of the Ontario public.

I am not blaming Doug Ford. The first-past-the-post voting system does not encourage voting. It is the minority of countries, by the way, that use first past the post. Countries with fair voting see people interested in turning out to vote.

Voter turnout in countries that use a proportional voting system is higher than in countries like ours, with our current voting system.

We could make a really big difference if we revived the Prime Minister's 2015 election campaign promise that 2015 would be the last election under first past the post. It is hard to revive that because we had elections in 2019 and 2021, but we could. We could and we should ask what is in the interest of democracy today. Is it adding more MPs to this place, increasing the cogs in the wheels of large political machines where people show up here and are told how to vote by their party whips, or is it making it more democratic by ensuring that everyone here and that Parliament as a whole represent accurately the way Canadians actually voted?

It is not too late to make this change. It is urgent.

I want to close the discussion on Bill C-14 by bringing us back to more fundamental questions: Can we improve the services we provide to our constituents? Can we ensure this place does not just expand forever as we have more population? Can we deliver real democracy that inspires Canadians?

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I also have a chance to speak to Bill C-14 later tonight, but as the conversation has been unfolding tonight, new ideas come to mind, and I would like to try some out on the member for Elmwood—Transcona.

When we think about our friend, the member for Nunavut, who is a spectacular member of Parliament, we know that one cannot get from Iqaluit to Inuvik without flying to southern Canada first, unless one hires a private plane. The population is sparse, but the job is enormous. What would the hon. member think about us changing representation by population to something that includes funding for individual MPs reflective of what their actual costs are from serving the people of their riding? This would apply to people in about half of the country. If we cut it off, about half of the territory of this enormous country is represented by 12 MPs. Their jobs are very different from those of the people who represent more concentrated, southern Canadian populations.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this evening to participate in the debate on Bill C‑14.

The NDP has long supported the principle that Quebec should maintain a consistent proportion of the seats in the House of Commons. That is not what Bill C‑14 would do, but we think that this bill is nevertheless important, to ensure that no ground is lost while we hold a broader debate on the proportion of seats. That is why this bill is worthwhile, and it is urgent, in light of the pending electoral distribution.

We must choose to ensure that the new seats reflect the number of seats that we want Quebec to have at the end of this process. Time is of the essence and we must make a decision. It is not a perfect one, but it is the right decision under the circumstances.

This has been an interesting debate. We have heard a lot about representation and some of the important principles that undergird the Canadian electoral system. We know that already in the House of Commons, representation by population is not the only consideration. Just as an example, provinces cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than they have in the Senate. That is already a departure from representation by population. We also know that rural areas tend to be weighted differently in order to ensure that there continues to be a strong role representation in the House of Commons, beyond what representation by population would dictate. Those are just a couple of examples of the way in which representation by population is not the only way that we determine representation in Canada, so there are certainly precedents for looking at other departures from representation by population.

Sometimes people get quite animated in this place during those debates. We just saw an example of that, and we have seen examples from folks in other parties as well who get pretty animated. We have seen some very spirited defences of representation by population, particularly from some of the western Conservative members. That is fair enough. We come here to represent our constituents and the points of view that people have on these matters, and they are rightly an object of concern.

I do think it is important to try to have these debates with a bit of humility, though, because they are very important and foundational debates. For instance, I look at the current Conservative leadership race, and I note with interest that, in their own system, representation by population is not the rule. That is fair enough. Different parties do that differently. In the NDP, we have a one member, one vote system. We do not have any kind of weighting.

In the Conservative Party, they have chosen to have a weighting. That is something that defies representation by population, presumably for good reason. I am not saying the Conservatives should not do that, and I am not saying that they should. What I am saying is that they have made a choice to forego strict representation by population because, presumably, they think it matters to have a proportionate weighting of voices from across the country in the selection of their leader.

Also, when we talk about representation in this place, we sometimes talk about the voting system we have. I have heard Conservatives take very strong positions on that, defending the balloting system that we have and defending the first-past-the-post system that we have. Folks can correct me during questions and comments if I am wrong, but I note with interest that I believe the Conservatives are going to have a preferential ballot in the Conservative leadership race. That is something the Conservatives are very much against in other contexts, but they have seen it to be appropriate for their leadership. Not only are they going to have a preferential ballot, but they are also going to have a preferential ballot that informs a proportional system because leadership candidates will get a number of votes within their riding association proportionate to the percentage of votes they got out of that system. Then, presumably, based on the alternative ballot, as some people fall off, those votes will be successively redistributed within that riding through the points system until they elect a leader.

I note also that the Conservatives are doing this uniquely by mail-in ballot, which is something I listened to many Conservatives talk about in a filibuster at the procedure and House affairs committee in the last Parliament. They were very clear then that they felt mail-in ballots led to fraudulent electoral outcomes. Here we are.

We have a Conservative Party that is using a preferential ballot in a non-representation-by-population system to have proportionate outcomes in a mail-in process, which is why I encourage us to speak to these issues here in the House with some humility, because I think that, in fact, depending on the context, various members do support different kinds of electoral principles.

That is why I think we should be able to have this conversation in a responsible way, in the way I think Canadians would expect mature adults to try to have those conversations: not demonize each other because of the kinds of positions we are putting forward, but try to hear what is important and of value in the other person's position and then try to hammer out a compromise, as was the case originally in 1867. There were compromises made that did not satisfy everyone at the time but that managed to move the Canadian project forward, and there have been many compromises since that have not been perfect and certainly have not pleased everyone. However, Canada has been a constant activity and a constant project of trying to seek consensus and agreement. As difficult as that is, I think it is actually Canada's strength.

We live in a world right now that is rife with conflict. We live in a world right now where people are choosing to end conversation and negotiation in favour of polarization and violence. One of the things that I think have been great about Canada, for all its many faults, because it is not a perfect place, has been its ability to find a way, even among very different peoples, languages, cultures and histories, to take on these important questions of political representation and find a path toward compromise.

We have a lot more work to do. We have work to do in the case of Quebec, which continues to see its proportion of seats decline in the House of Commons, despite its special status within Confederation with its own language, culture, history and contributions. We are also reckoning now, in a much more vigorous way, and appropriately so, with indigenous peoples, and there are questions of political representation that come up with respect to indigenous peoples as well, which is something we have not done a good job of at all in Canada in so many ways over the years. We have had no formal representation of indigenous peoples in this place, and there are no seats set aside. That is a conversation for another day, too.

What I think is important about Bill C-14 is that it is bringing people together from all sides of the chamber to recognize that while we have these larger debates, which are important debates and I do hope we will find good ways of having those debates where we treat each other well and work together on this project of constant negotiation that is Canada, we can at least agree that we should not be taking any steps backwards. I think that, at the very least, this law, if it should pass, would prevent us from taking steps backwards, even as we try to find our way forward.

We are not there yet. I think the debate around this bill has shown the extent to which we are not there in certain regards. However, I think it has been a positive exercise for this place to have occasion to talk about representation in Canada, what it does mean now and what it can mean in the future, and to have been able to do it in the context of a bill that, for all its imperfections and for all the legitimate criticism there is of it, has largely brought people together, because I think it has allowed for a better and a more responsible conversation than we sometimes have in this place.

I am thankful for that, and I am anxious to see this bill pass quickly, because of the time constraints we are under with the boundary redistribution process already taking place. As we head further into the 21st century and face many great challenges, both large challenges that are planetary, in terms of climate change, and also real political challenges here at home, I hope this is a down payment on a better debate for how we find new and better ways of ensuring that all the voices of Canadians are represented in their right proportion here in the House of Commons to build a prosperous future for all of us.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, I support Bill C-14. I think nearly everyone here supports it.

I remember the debate on the Charlottetown accord. At that time, I was invited by civil society members to campaign with them in favour of the Charlottetown accord. At the same time, I was inspired because there was a real grassroots movement against the Charlottetown accord.

My question is not a simple one. In the opinion of my colleague from La Prairie, should we be trying harder to come up with a constitutional solution that really works for Quebec?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I should apologize because there are indeed MPs from Quebec who are not Bloc Québécois members, but we are the only ones who have not made compromises and do not need to make compromises because our caucus is not Canadian. It represents Quebec exclusively. To hear the sound of a pure, unadulterated symphony, one need only listen to Bloc Québécois members. I recommend that the House do so.

Getting back to my colleague from the riding whose name is impossible to memorize, let me just express my profound respect and admiration for him. The last time he rose in the House to speak to Bill C‑14, he said that British Columbia was a nation and a distinct society. I more or less quoted him verbatim. As I recall, I even invited him to Quebec, and that invitation stands.

I myself am planning to visit British Columbia, where everything looks so gorgeous. I am going next year. I even talked to my wife about it, and she is excited. I want to explore that beautiful part of the country, but I want my colleague to explain to me why it is a nation, because that is what he told the House. We remain friends nevertheless.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C‑14.

I want to start by giving an overview of the problem that this bill is designed to fix in part. Every 10 years, the Chief Electoral Officer presents a new distribution of the number of seats in the House of Commons, so there are some things that keep happening every 10 years.

One thing that comes up systematically is that Quebec loses a percentage of its share of seats in the House. Allow me to give a quick background, and I will ask my colleagues to take me at my word. I have the figures and have pored over them like a dog eyeing a steak. Back in 1867, Quebec had 36% of the seats in the House and in 2015, it had 23.1%. That is typical. With the new distribution, Quebec will drop from 23.1% to 22.5%.

My colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said something extraordinary. He is a brilliant Bloc Québécois member, although that is redundant. I see more and more Conservatives looking at us, as though they, too, can be brilliant. I would tell them to be patient because anything is possible. We are extending a light blue hand to their dark blue hand and we are waiting.

Back to the debate. My colleague said that the francophone nation used to be in the majority. It was decided back then that, because Quebeckers were in the majority, they would split the seats 50-50. As soon as it no longer suited them because there were more of us, they changed their mind. In the old days, Quebeckers had a lot of children—14 or 15 per family. Some parents even put stickers on their kids because they could not remember their names. In 1867, the government decided to change things. Going forward, seat distribution would be determined on the basis of population. At that point, four provinces were created, and Quebec's share of the seats fell to 33%. Our minority status in Canada was institutionalized. That is Lord Durham's political legacy.

In this classic tale, where we lose a certain percentage seats, there was recently a new plot twist. In addition to having fewer seats in percentage terms, Quebec was actually going to lose a seat. That matters. Our number of seats was going to drop from 78 to 77 seats. The Bloc Québécois began to fight, as did the Quebec government and various stakeholders in Quebec, and rightly so. Certain members here from other provinces even thought we were going a bit too far. That is when we began speaking out, because this sort of thing has not happened since 1966. The government eventually began to think that maybe it should not do this, because it did seem a bit crazy. If you want to drown someone in the pool, of course it looks crazy to push their head down and hold them in the water. What looks less crazy is gradually raising the water level in the pool. This way, a nation will eventually die, but quietly. That is what is planned for Quebec. That is what is going to happen.

The fact that Quebec has managed to make French the common language of Quebeckers is no small feat. It was even impossible for the French who failed us in 1760. They left and abandoned us, saying that things were not going well here and that, in any event, the English would take care of us, along with the priests. They thought that we would be speaking English within a generation. Two hundred years later, when France's General de Gaulle saw that Quebeckers were still here and were speaking French, he made the connection and declared, “Vive le Québec libre”.

It is a feat, but as we fight against the odds, in a situation that is becoming increasingly untenable, we will eventually need help to ensure that our nation survives and thrives, so that this nation lives on.

Is it because Quebec is better? No. Quebec is not better than the rest of Canada, but it is different. Beauty is often found in differences. I like going to Toronto. It is not home, but I like it. I like going to New York and France. I like that. It is not home, but I like it.

When the Bloc came to the House last year saying that Quebec is a nation, MPs got on board. I was impressed. We thought we were going to have to fight harder than that. Of course, the motion did not pass unanimously, but the vast majority of members agreed that Quebec is a nation.

Then some other members began getting ideas. I can never remember other people's riding names, which are incredibly long and just keep getting longer. There are 338 of us, and it is getting out of hand. We might as well use acronyms.

Getting back to my point, when we declared that Quebec was a nation, a Conservative member from British Columbia said that his province was also a nation. I told him that I was unaware, that he should explain it to us, prove it to us and bring forward a motion to that effect for us to discuss.

Then one of his colleagues, who was even more worked up than he was, said that Alberta was a nation. I will not say his name, but he did say that Alberta was a nation, and for 30 seconds he tried to convince us of that. I had to wonder.

Quebec is definitely a nation. We have a different language. We like to speak out, loud and clear, in our different language. Members can argue about it and say that language is not a big deal, but actually, it is a big deal. We are a different culture. Quebec has its own writers. I could name a few, and I doubt the other members would have any idea who they are. We had to fight at the leaders' meeting to convey how important Pierre Bruneau is to us.

We have to explain to members who we are. When Jean Leloup won a bunch of trophies, we had to explain to Canada who he was. We have to explain to members who we are. That is normal, because we are different.

Our economy is different. It is based on other aspects that are less developed elsewhere in Canada. The other regions in Canada are not worse than Quebec. They are just different.

Our history is different. When they get to the chapter on 1759, our history teachers dejectedly explain the defeat on the Plains of Abraham. Elsewhere in Canada, history teachers are pleased as punch to talk about 1759, what they call the victory on the Plains of Abraham. Need I say more?

I have two things to point out to my colleagues who say that other provinces are nations. First, when the Prime Minister was elected, he raised his arms and cheerily declared that Canada would be the first post-national state. To the people who say that their provinces are nations, I say that their leader said that they were no longer nations, that the era of nations is over.

One day, someone said to me, without any malice, that Canada is like a boring party, and everyone is just waiting for the first guest to leave so that they can leave too.

Last week, I heard the member from British Columbia say that B.C. was a nation and that Alberta was a nation in his colleague's eyes. My loving response to them is this: Why not make Canada a true confederation of sovereign states that unite as sovereign states, which manage everything within our own respective borders and which would meet to manage our economic relations and share a currency? Instead of coming together and explaining how we are different, we would meet to talk about what unites us all. That is my wish for all of us.

Unfortunately, Bill C‑14 does not reflect what we want. It is either a partial success or a partial failure, depending on whether we see the glass as half full or half empty. To fix this problem once and for all, and we need to agree on the idea that it is once and for all, Quebec would have to be guaranteed at least 25% of the seats in the House, as was proposed in the Charlottetown accord.

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

Madam Speaker, I would much prefer to be in Ottawa making these comments, but it is nice that we have the hybrid. It enables me to speak on the floor of the House while I am here in Winnipeg.

We are in an interesting debate in regard to Bill C-14. I am not necessarily surprised that we would see an amendment at this stage. One of the things that I have found over the past number of months is that, at times, we get legislation that one would naturally think would flow through the House of Commons: There would be relatively minimal debate, and we would get it through second reading and into committee.

I do not see this as controversial legislation. I am not exactly sure where the Bloc actually falls on the legislation. I would hope that it would support the province of Quebec getting a guaranteed number of seats, but at the end of the day, I like to think that this is the type of legislation that should ultimately pass through.

Was it necessary, for example, for us to have an amendment? I do not think it was for a report stage amendment. I think that when we get relatively uncontroversial legislation, where it appears that everyone is going to be voting in favour, I would have rather seen a debate on something like, let us say, Bill C-21 and the issue of guns and the safety of Canadians, which is top of mind for a lot of people.

True to form, what I have found is that, whether it is good, rather uncontroversial legislation such as Bill C-14 or if it is controversial or potentially controversial legislation, the Conservatives have one approach in dealing with the government's agenda and that is to prevent it from ultimately passing.

Having said that, I want to recognize a number of points in regard to Bill C-14. Having had the opportunity to speak on the legislation in the past, I want to be very specific on a few things.

One is the need for the legislation. I think it important that we recognize, as has been pointed out, that shifts take place in Canada's population for a wide variety of reasons. One could talk about things such as job opportunities, transfers, the allure of another area, or just people wanting to move to a warmer climate. In my case, they want to come to a nice, cool climate. People change their ridings.

Immigration is such a huge factor. Over the years, Canada continues to grow in good part because of immigration to our country. We are very dependent on immigration. Our birth rate is going down. As we grow as a nation overall, there is natural population shifting that occurs. It comes also in the form of immigration.

As a result, every 10 years, there is an obligation through an independent mechanism, and I want to emphasize that it really is an independent mechanism, that ensures that the ridings reflect the changes we have seen based on census material.

No one was surprised at all that we got a report this year. It was anticipated that we would get a report 10 years after we received the last report.

Going forward, every decade we will continue to receive recommendations from Elections Canada, through the commission, as to the need to change boundaries and possibly add constituencies or do some shifting.

That is, in essence, why we have the legislation today. It is because of the change in populations. In particular, for Quebec, there is a need for us to establish a floor, a minimum number of seats, for the province.

Doing it this way prevents us from having to do a constitutional change, where there is a 7/50 formula in order to enact a change. It addresses, for the most part, the biggest concerns that members of Parliament, on all sides of the issue, have as we recognize how important it is that the province of Quebec not lose any seats. I suspect that is the reason why the legislation would ultimately pass, hopefully unanimously, in the House.

Back in November, there was the establishment of these three-member commissions. We have a national commission. The commission establishes individual commissions of three people in a province, and through those commissions they all have a responsibility. That was done in November of last year, I believe. Those commissions then all have a responsibility to develop the new boundaries, whatever they might look like. They sit around, look at the numbers and the maps and try to provide new boundaries that we could be running the next federal election on.

Each commission operates independently. Manitoba, for example, has a three-member commission, and it operates independently of other aspects of Elections Canada, of political entities and of different stakeholders, such as community members and so forth. It is important to emphasize that it is, in fact, independent.

In developing those boundaries, the commission is tasked with a timeline. That timeline is quickly approaching, and the commissions need to provide a draft of the boundaries. One could be very concerned in regard to the dragging out of Bill C-14. The people who are paying the price for the House of Commons dragging its feet on the passage of this legislation are the people of Quebec. We know we want to see that minimum number of seats for the province of Quebec, and we have consistently said that from day one, as members will recall, when the national commission initially made the recommendation. It was an immediate response that came from not only my Quebec colleagues but from the caucus as a whole: Under no circumstances could we allow the province of Quebec not to have the 78 seats.

Until this legislation passes, that three-member commission in the province of Quebec has its hands tied, at least in good part, as other commissions continue to move forward with drafting boundaries, because the boundaries will change within different provinces. There will be tweaks in the city of Winnipeg, whether Winnipeg North grows more to the north or more in the inner city. This is something I wait for with bated breath, in hopes that we see some changes that the community will in fact support.

Once that draft is finished, the commission has to make it public. Once it is made public, it has to have public hearings that must take place before the end of October, because by mid-December the report has to be finalized.

That is why it is critically important that we pass this legislation. It is so the commission in the province of Quebec can finalize a draft so that it can go to the public, and in turn the public can provide its input so the commission can then provide that final draft by the end of the year.

It is an independent process, and that is why I am supporting Bill C-14. I hope all members would support its quick passage. I see my time has—

The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), as reported (without amendment) from the committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the parties and if you seek it, I believe you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House, during consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), at report stage later today, one member of each recognized party and a member of the Green Party be allowed to speak for not more than 10 minutes followed by five minutes for questions and comments, and, at the conclusion of the time provided for debate or when no member rises to speak, whichever is earlier, the question on report stage motion No. 1 be deemed put and negatived on division, the bill be deemed concurred in at the report stage on division and deemed read a third time and passed on division.

Procedure and House Affairs

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation).

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report the bill back to the House without amendments. I would like to thank all members involved and their teams, the clerk, the legislative clerk and the analysts for making this happen so quickly.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, the cornerstone of democracy is voting and showing up to this place and participating, and that is of course what we do. Whether it is Bill C-11 or Bill C-21, there will be an opportunity, obviously, to continue debating legislation.

On Bill C-11 specifically, there were nine days at committee and many days at second reading. We have opportunities at third reading, and it will be going to the Senate. It is taking essential action to protect Canadian creators and Canadian heritage. We are proud to support this bill, and part of the thrust and parry of this place is that sometimes we disagree. That is not a representation of a decline in democracy; it is proof of it working.

This afternoon, we will continue with the report stage of Bill C-5 in respect of mandatory minimums. We will then call second reading of Bill C-21, the firearms legislation.

Tomorrow, we will debate government Motion No. 16 regarding proceedings for Bill C-11, as I was mentioning, on the Broadcasting Act.

When we return next week, we will focus on this government motion debate and continue our work on Bill C-5 and Bill C-11, as well as on Bill C-14 concerning electoral representation.

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

We've had some great discussions here over the last few weeks and in Parliament about how we deal with these difficult situations. You know, Mr. Therrien got me thinking a lot about Quebec's place in the history of Canada and also about my own province of British Columbia. People don't remember or they don't know in this room that B.C. joined Confederation largely as an administrative matter. We were developed. If you look at the B.C legislature website as to why B.C. came into existence, it came into existence because of the railway to serve for trade for Ontario and Quebec, Upper and Lower Canada. We were an economic concern. B.C. is home to more indigenous languages and indigenous people than probably any other part of the country. We have a rich history that has formed subsequent to the railway, rich both negatively and positively.

As Mr. Therrien mentioned in his comments and as I raised in the last meeting, with the amount that a taxpayer in British Columbia gives to our federal government, they should receive requisite representation in the House of Commons. I feel in good faith as a westerner and as a British Columbian that I've learned something from the Bloc Québécois: I need to stand up a little more strongly for my province to ensure that we have adequate and effective representation in the House too.

What this amendment to Bill C-14 essentially would do, after the change to the threshold, apply representation by population as it says there: “After the application of rules 1 to 4 and section 51A, in respect of each province, there shall be added, if necessary, a number of members such that the number of members assigned to the province is proportionate to the number of members who would have been assigned in accordance with rule number 1.”

There have been many accommodations for Atlantic Canada with the Senate clause to ensure that Atlantic Canadians are overrepresented. Quebec is fighting for parity. I understand that, but as a British Columbian, I want parity too, and it doesn't sit well with me that my province is structurally under-represented in this federation, along with Alberta and Ontario, so I'm putting this amendment forward in good faith, and I will leave it there.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Therrien.

You will have observed that everyone was listening closely to you. Committee members are sensitive to your comments, as am I. However, as I said, I have made a decision, and nothing in what you have said has changed my mind.

Bill C-14 seeks to amend section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to provide that a province will not have fewer members assigned to it than were assigned during the 43rd Parliament. Amendment BQ‑1 would provide that the total number of members for the province of Quebec may not be less than 25% of the total number of members in the House of Commons.

At page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, we read:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The chair is of the opinion, with respect to Bill C‑14, that assigning 25% of the seats in the House of Commons to Quebec might necessitate a reduction in the number of seats for another province or provinces, and this is contrary to the principles of the bill.

Accordingly, I declare this amendment to be out of order.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

You are not taking my power of persuasion into account, Madam Chair, and you may change your mind.

This will come as no surprise to anyone. I would like to propose an amendment to Bill C-14. You should all have received the text of the amendment in both languages.

I propose that clause 2 of Bill C‑14 be amended by adding the following after line 14, page 1:

(2) Subsection 51(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after rule 4: 4.1 After the application of rules 1 and 2 and section 51A, there shall in respect of Quebec be added any additional members needed so that, after the completion of the readjustment, the total number of members for that province is not less than 25% of the total number of members in the House of Commons.

You have already heard my speech about this. I am just going to summarize my comments, which pretty much cover the subject.

First, this amendment is fundamental and necessary to protect Quebec's political weight. Quebec is a nation. Some will say it is a distinct society, but everyone agrees that there is a specificity that must be protected both for Quebec and for Quebeckers: the fact that we are under constant threat because of factors associated with Quebec's unique geographic features. I'm not talking about a threat in the sense of aggression, meaning that we are mistreated. What I mean is that we are in a situation that makes the continued existence of our nation problematic. For that reason, among others, we are asking for a guarantee that 25% will be a minimum to be retained until Quebec is independent, probably.

It's necessary to guarantee that minimum because Quebec must be properly represented in Ottawa. Some people have argued that this could apply equally to Alberta or British Columbia, for example. The House of Commons has assigned the “nation” label to Quebec. We asked it, by way of a motion, to recognize not only the existence of a Quebec nation, but also the fact that French is the common language. A very large majority of members—I don't have the figures at hand—voted in favour of that motion.

Words have to have meaning. That is parliamentarianism. We don't stop talking, but we also act. We develop bills that come out of our discussions and the considerations we bring before the House. It has to be visible. We have to put our money where our mouths are.

As well, we proposed a motion in the House of Commons in March 2022, which I will summarize very simply. The aim of the motion was to amend two items relating to electoral maps. First, it sought to reject any scenario that would result in Quebec losing members. You are familiar with the history: since 1966, no province has lost members. But after the calculations done by Elections Canada concerning the assignment of seats, we saw that the number of members had dropped from 78 to 77. That was unacceptable, and we said so. Second, the motion went further and stated that the political weight of Quebec in the House of Commons must not be allowed to be reduced.

I could have cited figures for you, because they are available. I will simply say that over the years, the number of seats in the House of Commons assigned to Quebec has gone from 33% of the total number of seats to about 23%, and that percentage is continuing to decline. Even if we take what Bill C-14 is proposing into account, Quebec's political weight will decline, despite the fact that the number of members will be kept at 78.

A constitutional expert, in fact the only one, testified before the committee and told us that we didn't need the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population to make this change.

The minister defended himself at length on this subject. I can't quote his words exactly, and I don't want to misrepresent them. In any event, I have too much respect for the intelligence of committee members to start saying just anything. However, it seems to me that I heard him say that since this issue applied to only one province, Parliament could not make the change without the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. He added that Parliament did not have the power to act in this situation, and that he had therefore ruled this out from the start. I think I have summarized his comments properly.

Patrick Taillon, the constitutionalist, told us at the same meeting that we could make this change without amending the Constitution, since any amendment to the Constitution had to be with the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. He is the only expert who appeared here to offer an explanation on this subject and answer our questions.

Right off, I will tell you that this carries considerable weight. The minister mentioned two other people. I would have liked to meet them, those people, and talk with them.

There's a difference between writing an opinion and defending the opinion before the committee, whether virtually or in person.

I'm not saying there was a lack of organization; I'm stating the facts. He is the only constitutional expert who came here.

As well, that constitutional expert went further and stated that Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons had atrophied. That is very disturbing going forward. It is another fact that we must not ignore.

I am finishing, Madam Chair, but I really want to do things properly, because this is an extremely important issue for Quebeckers.

At the last meeting, I talked about what had opened the door to adding clauses to a constitutional text, and I will repeat that. Since 1987, the courts have recognized that exceptions exist to ensure effective representation and that Parliament has the power to adopt measures for that purpose.

I'm going to mention a few facts. In 1987, this issue was taken before the British Columbia courts. The Supreme Court recognized the fundamental principle of effective representation as a right guaranteed to electors by the charter. Effective representation includes two conditions. First, there must be relative equality, so that the weight of an elector's vote is not disproportionate in relation to another elector's.

Mr. Vis mentioned that at the last meeting, correctly, and wondered why his vote would count for less than another elector's elsewhere. As a general rule, that principle is accepted, but there are times when an individual's political weight changes somewhat, although not astronomically. This isn't about doubling or tripling the number of members for a province. In a case like that, what Mr. Vis said would have been really very important.

In the case before us, we don't want Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons to go from 23% to 30% or 35% or 40%. As Mr. Taillon said, it's possible to make minor changes. I would point out that there are precedents. The senatorial clause, the grandfather clause and the territory clause have been inserted. Changes have been made in the past.

The second condition I referred to deals with respect for natural communities. In other words, factors like geographic characteristics, history and the interests of communities must be taken into consideration.

Based on all of this, I submit that what is proposed in the amendment is in the realm of the possible. In fact, it is in our interest to do this in Bill C-14, because the objective is to reflect Quebec's political weight. Why take baby steps when we can do the work rigorously and ensure that the bill recognizes the need to protect Quebec's political weight, given its exceptional nature? I don't mean that Quebec is better than the other provinces. It's not about Quebec nationalism. Nor am I saying that Quebeckers are better than the other citizens of Canada. You will never hear me say such a thing. We are neither better nor worse than them. It's not that I don't like the citizens in the rest of Canada, but Quebec is different from the other provinces. Our language and our culture, to name just those two characteristics, make up part of our difference, and I want to be sure that this difference is respected.

I will conclude by saying, as the minister also stated, that the opinions of constitutional experts diverge regarding the possibility of making these changes. I would note that our colleague Martin Champoux, the member for Drummond, tabled Bill C‑246, on which we voted yesterday. It is precisely the job of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to determine whether the bill complies with the guidelines adopted by the House of Commons for making the changes proposed by the House of Commons bill. Bizarrely, the subcommittee approved the idea that Bill C‑246, which has exactly the same objective as the objective of my amendment, was a possible mechanism for the Parliament of Canada and the House of Commons without the need to resort to all sorts of other procedures.

I have a lot of respect for the work done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. If I am told that it isn't possible to make these changes, that means that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is not doing its work properly. I have deep respect for the chair and the members of the committee. I know them well, because I have sat on this committee since 2019. I then gave my seat to my brave colleague, Ms. Gaudreau, who represents the riding of Laurentides—Labelle.

For these reasons, I invite you to take into consideration the fact that the Quebec nation is precious and fragile.

The song Le plus beau voyage by Claude Gauthier is a tribute to Quebec's difference. I invite the committee members to listen to it. In the song, Mr. Gauthier talks about a “race in peril”, but that means “people in peril”. That is what we are experiencing in Quebec.

Honestly, I am not wishing for you to experience what Quebeckers are experiencing. Every day, we get up and go into combat to protect our language and our culture, and to ensure that the only francophone state in North America is able to live and survive. We want to make sure that our children and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren never say

“Do you remember when we were French?”

I'm finished, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I would like to resume the meeting. For the second part of our meeting we are conducting clause-by-clause of Bill C-14. Should members have any technical questions about the clauses of the bill, officials from the Privy Council Office and Elections Canada are present to provide answers as we move through the bill.

We have Robert Sampson here, the general counsel and senior director, legal services from Elections Canada, accompanied by Pierre Desjardins, senior director, electoral redistribution. From the Privy Council Office, we have Rachel Pereira, director, democratic institutions, as well as Nicholas MacDonald, legal counsel, legal services sector. I'm also excited to share that we have a legislative clerk with us, Mr. Jacques Maziade to guide us through the process.

With that, pursuant to Standing Order 75.1, consideration of clause 1, the alternative title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much for that exchange.

On behalf of PROC committee members, I would like to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to be here with us today. Should something come to mind that you would like to share with members, I would encourage you to share it with the clerk, so that it can be circulated. I like to believe that the PROC committee is the most watched committee of all the committees, so I'm sure this is very invigorating. If something comes up, please do send it to us, so that we can consider it.

With that, I hope all of you have a good day and that you keep well and safe.

For committee members, you all know that this is the last group of witnesses that we had appearing for this study. We are coming close to the summer adjournment, so I'm guessing....We've not had time to talk about recommendations, but perhaps I'll propose a summary of testimony for us to have available, and then we can see where the committee would go from there. We don't need to decide on that now, but ponder it perhaps among your teams.

Is that a briefing note we want analysts to compile, so that we can then come together to look at whether we are making a recommendation or not, so that work can continue?

The second thing, before we go to vote, the clerk had circulated a study budget for Bill C-14, and if there are no issues with it, we would like to see that approved. It was primarily for headsets, and so forth.

Excellent. We'll see you after the vote, and we will then proceed with clause-by-clause of Bill C-14.

Thank you all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Good morning. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 26 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is meeting today, in the first hour, to continue its work on the operational security of the parliamentary precinct along Wellington Street and Spark Street. In the second hour, the committee will move to clause-by-clause on Bill C-14.

Before we proceed, I would like to propose to committee members a way forward for today, considering that there are votes in the House of Commons this morning.

I would like to propose that during the half-hour bells, which should start in about 15 minutes, we spend 20 to 25 minutes continuing with the witnesses, so that we don't have to call them back. That would also provide you with 5 to 10 minutes to get to the House to be there for the question to be called and to vote.

As for the current rules, after the vote, you would have up to 10 minutes to come back to committee. That would probably bring us to about 12:05, if everything is on time, as I hope it will be. We could then proceed with clause-by-clause, as we had anticipated.

That is the proposal I would like to put forward.

Is there anyone concerned with this proposal?

Bill C-5—Time Allocation Motion

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Madam Speaker, to my hon. colleague, I will say that it is certainly not my preference. When we started, we actually had a really good beginning, I think, working with the Conservative opposition on Bill C-3 and on Bill C-4, where ideas came forward. We were able to work together and we were able to find middle ground. Then there was a change. All of a sudden, with Bill C-8 as an example, it took over four months. Consistently, we were told “just a couple more speakers, just a bit more time”. Four months disappeared, and an enormous amount of House time was used.

At a certain point in time, I had to come to the realization that there was no earnest effort to move things through the House, that the interest was in obstruction. We saw that in Bill C-14. Bill C-14 is a bill that the Conservatives support. Even though they support it, they were moving amendments to hear their own members, shutting down the House, moving concurrence motions and using them to obstruct. I am left with one of two choices: get nothing passed or use time allocation. As they obstruct, on the one hand they block any legislation from moving forward and not even allow that as an option; on the other hand, they criticize the only tool we have to actually get legislation done, a tool they used with great frequency.

[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.

[Patrick Taillon]

On the one hand, if a decision were made that this is the end of the principle of proportional representation, that we no longer want it and want to abrogate it, it is clear that the agreement of seven provinces accounting for 50% of the population would be required.

On the other hand, can very small accommodations or small exceptions to the principle of proportional representation be allowed, confirmed by the jurisprudence and carried out by Parliament under its power to unilaterally amend the 1867 text, a power it has here under Bill C‑14? That is where I say there is some flexibility. Is that flexibility as extensive as what the Bloc Québécois proposes concerning that 25% threshold? That may be the case. Could another threshold be set between the proposed decrease in Bill C‑14 and the 25% threshold? The answer is yes, definitely.

Proportional representation is just one constitutional principle among others, which can support a few developments that are based on jurisprudence on effective representation. The Supreme Court actually said that it did not need a perfect mathematical calculation. It recognized that the complexity of the Canadian federation sometimes called for exploring that limited amount of flexibility I am trying to promote through my testimony.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank Professor Taillon for being here and for his testimony.

I am a member from Quebec. Quebec's population currently accounts for 22.98% of Canada's population. You recommend that the representation percentage be increased to 25%. Since that has to do with the Constitution, approval from seven provinces and territories would be needed.

Mr. Taillon, do you honestly think it would be possible, by the end of this year or the end of June of next year, to hold discussions with provinces and territories and to come to an agreement to increase Quebec's representation percentage to 25%?

Currently, Bill C‑14 guarantees that Quebec and all the other provinces will not lose any seats. However, your recommendation or the Bloc Québécois' recommendation would require the Constitution to be amended.

Do you have any comments on that?

[Patrick Taillon]

There are two parts to the issue.

In terms of comparative law, unfortunately, I have no perfect example in front of me that could answer the member's concerns. In terms of indigenous issues, however, I would be curious to look at New Zealand and Australia, which face difficulties and challenges similar to our own, and also often have incomplete and imperfect solutions. That could be a source of mutual inspiration.

As for the constitutional debate, I'd just like to add that the passage of Bill C‑14, given its content, is already a constitutional debate in itself. The text of Bill C‑14 tells us how the Constitution Act, 1867, will be worded going forward.

The problem is that the Constitution of Canada is complex. It's made up of all sorts of rules. There are some that the Parliament of Canada can amend alone and others that require the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. Given our history and political difficulties, there's a tendency to sweep under the rug all debates that require more than unilateral action by the federal Parliament.

The constitutional debate still exists. It's before us in the the form of Bill C‑14. It's simply that we only take the easiest path: the procedure set out for the federal Parliament to act alone.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I want to welcome the witness, who has come to give us insight on a topic that's very important to Quebec.

I agree entirely with what he said in his opening statement: this bill only masks or temporarily diminishes the decline in Quebec's political weight. It's been known for a while that Quebec is losing political weight. That's clear, and this bill offers no permanent solution.

On the one hand, there's this problem, and on the other hand, there are these draft solutions.

Last year, Parliament accepted the idea not only that Quebec was a nation, but also that French was its common language. I think that's quite clear. It's not a province like the others; it's a nation. It's the only province that's considered to be a nation, so powers have to be tied to that designation as a nation.

In March, we proposed another motion, which was adopted with a large majority, saying that Quebec must not lose any members. Bill C‑14 strengthens that position of the House. However, the motion also said that Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must not be reduced, which the bill does not respect.

Since everyone, with a few exceptions, agrees that Quebec is a nation and that its political weight must be preserved, I think the stage has been set for this bill to go further.

The member for Hull-Aylmer spoke about immigration. Last week, the Legault government asked for more powers in the area of immigration, and the federal government refused, so I don't know why we're talking about that here. I think the matter's closed. There's an impasse in that respect.

I'll ask Mr. Taillon a simple question so he can further clarify this problem. What could Parliament do to guarantee—I did say “guarantee”—that Quebec's political weight within federal institutions was at the very least consistent?

[Patrick Taillon]

The answer is easy: Bill C‑14 already proposes an amendment to the Constitution. Clause 2 of the bill explicitly states how the text of the Constitution Act, 1867, will be worded going forward.

The only difference is that the procedure used for Bill C‑14 gives Parliament the right to do certain things, but not those for which it would need the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. What can't be done here, essentially, is to abolish the principle of proportional representation. There's a difference between abolishing it and slightly amending it, as is being done here for the territories. Can a bit more be done in other situations? That's somewhat the opinion that I've submitted to you.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome Professor Taillon.

I've been reading his many articles in publications, journals and magazines in Quebec for at least 20 years. I admire his way of thinking, although I don't always agree with his conclusions. I must admit that today is one of those times when I don't entirely agree with Professor Taillon's recommendations. However, his ideas and the solutions he proposes certainly merit our close examination.

First, I'd like to thank Professor Taillon for being here with us today. I also want to thank him for recognizing that Bill C‑14 is certainly a better solution than pure popular representation, which would cause Quebec to lose a lot of its demographic weight.

I should note that this situation doesn't affect only Quebec. That's what we're looking at today, but if we rely on demographic projections, in the next redrawing of boundaries, other provinces will probably face the situation that Quebec is now looking at.

I'd like to ask Professor Taillon a question.

You say that there are many complex reasons for the problem. I agree with you on that. In terms of immigration, you say that Quebec has a certain capacity for integration, particularly in terms of the francization of economic immigrants. I'm from a region of Quebec that attracts the second-most newcomers to Quebec, and many of them are from francophone west Africa.

Would it be a good solution for Quebec to increase the number of economic immigrants from francophone countries, like those in Africa, who would come to live in Quebec?

[Patrick Taillon, Tenured Professor, Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the members of this committee for this invitation.

Bill C‑14, which amends the Constitution Act, 1867, is clever: it masks the decline in Quebec's political weight behind a freeze in the number of seats Quebec has in the House of Commons. Frankly, Bill C‑14 diminishes that decline. Without this bill, Quebec's political weight would drop from 23.1% to 22.5%; with this bill, it drops from 23.1% to 22.8%. In short, that's a difference of 0.3 percentage points in Quebec's political weight.

The reduction in the number of seats, which Bill C‑14 avoids, cannot be confused here with the reduction in Quebec's political weight, which the bill sanctions.

For some, the decline in Quebec's political weight is inevitable. For others, it's possible to take action, and I share that opinion. Bill C‑14 proposes to do something in that sense, but very modestly, very temporarily and without the whole picture of the problem.

The reason for the problem is complex. On the one hand, there is the factual reality, that the demographic decline in Quebec within the federation has practically been a continuous problem since 1867. On the other hand, there are many reasons for that decline. Some are linked to Quebec's political choices. However, those reasons always give rise to the question of whether the federal government's actions are related more to the problem or the solution.

However, it's an even more significant problem, because it will increase over the coming years. It's well known that the current government's policy aims to substantially increase the population of Canada, almost doubling immigration thresholds over the medium term. The targets were 280,000 immigrants per year when the Conservatives were in power. Based on the current objectives, the annual number of immigrants will increase to 430,000, so there's a complete deadlock. Indeed, from Quebec's standpoint, the current policy comes down to the choice of maintaining its political weight by following Canada's pace for immigration, or adopting lower immigration thresholds and thus increasing its ability to integrate immigrants, to be a melting pot for them, an adopted home, and to help them learn French.

There is suddenly the need to consider the issue of reforming the electoral map and Quebec's political weight in the broader context. This is a sensitive issue, one that affects the very nature of the agreement between Quebec and this federation since 1867. The question is what is Ottawa prepared to do to maintain Quebec's political weight. Quebec's representation within federal institutions is not solely a matter for the House of Commons. The House can take action, but action can also be taken elsewhere. I think that, on several fronts, more could be done and done better.

There's another question: what can Ottawa do to improve Quebec's ability to follow a demographic policy similar to that of the rest of Canada? Here again, recent events give us several ideas and reveal several steps that could be taken. Of course, it goes beyond the specific issue addressed in Bill C‑14, but even in the specific and technical context of the electoral map, Parliament could do more than simply freeze the number of seats per province.

After all, Quebec is a nation, as was made clear by a resolution adopted by the House in the 2000s.

Jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada, including its 2014 reference regarding the Supreme Court Act, sanctioned and recognized that national characteristic of Quebec, and did so in a case that affected Quebec's political weight and its representation within a federal institution, the Supreme Court of Canada.

As well, under Bill 96, which has just been passed in Quebec, it will now be stated in black and white in the Constitution Act, 1867, in new section 90Q.1, that “Quebecers form a nation”. That bill, like Bill C‑14, directly and explicitly amends the text of the Constitution.

There are aspects of the makeup of the House of Commons, however, that cannot be amended by Bill C‑14. The principle of proportional representation can only be amended with the support of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. However, the principle of proportional representation is a rule, a principle, a constitutional objective, and, like all other rules, principles and constitutional objectives, it's not absolute. It can be subject to reasonable limits of accommodation. Jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly established that the court's interpretation of proportional representation is not a purely mathematical concept. It has recognized considerable flexibility within each province to tolerate certain discrepancies between certain types of jurisdictions. That type—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is meeting today to consider Bill C-14 for the first half of the meeting.

Today, we welcome Professor Patrick Taillon from the faculty of law at Université Laval.

Welcome Professor Taillon. You have the floor for five minutes to give your presentation.

Constitution Act, 2022 (representation of Quebec)

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his eloquence and his knowledge, which he always very generously shares with us. I would have liked to listen to him for a few more minutes, but the time has come to close the debate on this bill, which I had the honour of introducing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

Throughout the debates, we saw that there were two different understandings of Bill C-246. In good or bad faith, and I would tend to say more often in bad faith, people have pretended they do not understand what is at stake. They ignore or dismiss the fact that what Quebec is asking for is not a whim or anything outlandish; it is also not intended to pick a fight, but rather to ensure appropriate representation in the House of Commons based on recognition of the Quebec nation. I would remind you that this recognition comes with obligations on both sides. It comes with obligations for Quebec, and it comes with obligations for the federal government.

I heard many of my colleagues cite the maritime provinces or Saskatchewan in the discussion on fair representation in the House of Commons. It is true, appropriate and correct. There are mechanisms in place to maintain a minimum number of MPs in parts of Canada that would otherwise be inadequately represented. I am thinking for example of Prince Edward Island and the territories.

What differs from the measures in place for some Canadian provinces and territories is that Quebec is a nation. I am not making this up: It was unanimously recognized by the House of Commons more than once and in more than one way. The federal government recognized the Quebec nation in 2006. It was a motion introduced by Stephen Harper, not the Bloc Québécois. In 1995, Jean Chrétien, the most Liberal of prime ministers, recognized the concept of distinct society. In particular, and this is a very important difference, he said that the House of Commons must take this fact into account in all of its decisions. That is important.

In June 2021, in response to a Bloc Québécois motion, the House of Commons recognized French as the only official language and the common language of the Quebec nation. My point is that recognizing Quebec's status as a nation comes with political obligations, and others as well. For example, Quebec's autonomy must be respected when it comes to development-related decisions. The government must also respect the fact that, on occasion, asymmetrical agreements must be signed based on Quebec's specificity. Quebec's distinctiveness and Quebec society's interests must also be taken into account by the federal government when developing legislation. This is somewhat related to what I was saying earlier with regard to the idea put forward by the Liberal Prime Minister at the time, Jean Chrétien.

It is quite understandable that, this year, the Bloc Québécois is determined to defend Quebec's interests. I repeat, Quebec must have appropriate representation, in keeping with its status as a nation.

Last fall, when the Chief Electoral Officer announced that the new distribution of seats for the House of Commons would result in Quebec losing a seat and falling to 77 seats instead of 78, the Bloc Québécois swiftly opposed that outcome. I will acknowledge that the other parties also recognized that it did not make sense. On March 2, on our opposition day, we moved a motion calling not only for the number of seats not to be reduced, but also for the protection of Quebec's political weight with a 25% threshold. With 266 members of the House voting in favour, the motion was adopted with a very strong majority. Then the Liberals show up with Bill C‑14, which is a half measure that only protects the number of seats.

That is not enough. To protect the Quebec nation, its uniqueness, its identity and francophone culture, which is in decline in North America, not just in Canada and not just in Quebec, we need something stronger, and we need to protect Quebec's political weight. That is why I invite all of my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C‑246.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and somewhat excited to rise on this beautiful Monday morning in June to speak to Bill C‑246, which was introduced by my valiant colleague from Drummond. This bill would provide that the total number of members from Quebec could not be less than 25% of the total number of members in the House of Commons.

I first want to clarify one thing, since we have heard quite a lot about the idea of representation by population. As a history buff, I have read a lot about these issues. In my humble opinion, it was quite deceitful, back when it all started in 1867, to shift from equal representation between the two so-called founding peoples to proportional representation just as French-Canadians were being outnumbered. I should mention that the notion of founding peoples is, in itself, highly controversial, given that this country and this regime were founded on subjugation. Proportional representation was certainly never considered when the proportion of French-Canadians was higher. I would call this a historical scam.

I have no problem saying that this so-called Confederation, with its two so-called founding peoples, is a historical scam. Canadian Confederation was brought in through the back door. After that, the only natural path to take was to slowly but steadily reduce the Quebec nation to a minority. That minority is now getting smaller and smaller, which will give us an increasingly smaller voice in decision making in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, we are on our way to becoming a minority that will no longer command respect or consideration.

As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois wants to see Quebec become an independent country. However, we are also here to stop our decline. We are here to fight, to make gains, but also to stop our decline, and this bill does that. As long as we are in this system, we have to find ways to stop this decline. We have to cope with our losses, unfortunately.

I want to remind members of one very important detail. Last March, the House adopted a Bloc motion with an overwhelming majority of 261 to 66. The motion stated that “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”. The part about not reducing our political weight in the House is the important part, but it is also the part that seems to be forgotten. That is what our motion said. It is not only about the number of seats, but also about the political weight.

Bill C-14, which is also under debate, is being presented to us as a win, a success. We have heard in the House that the bill in question would not reduce the number of members. However, the number of members means absolutely nothing if the relative weight drops. If Quebec keeps the same number of seats but more seats are added in the House, that means that Quebec's weight is being reduced. That is not hard to figure out. In the end, the exact number of seats is far less important than the relative weight.

We are asking for 25% because, as a so-called founding people and nation recognized as distinct, it does not seem unreasonable to ask for a quarter of the seats. Given Quebec's needs and its distinct interests and values, this does not seem unreasonable. Twenty-five per cent is also what was negotiated as part of the Charlottetown accord in 1992, based on the fact that Quebec is a distinct society. Although the accord never came into force, the text itself was approved by the House of Commons. That agreement was not without problems, however. The Bloc, which was newly created at the time, was against it. The sovereignist movement was against it.

Far from being perfect and satisfactory, the 25% was actually not so bad given the context. We were not upset about the objective. This agreement was proposed by Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party, even though the Reform Party of the time was opposed. It was also supported by John Turner's Liberal Party, although rejected by the centralist wing of the Liberal Party of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The NDP also supported this protection for Quebec's political weight. As the previous speaker reminded us, the NDP member for Compton—Stanstead proposed a rather similar bill in 2011. However, the bar was set a little lower, at 23.9%, representing Quebec's weight at the time.

In 2006, Stephen Harper's government passed a motion making Quebec a nation within a united Canada. This motion was somewhat questionable, as it was assumed that Quebec was not a nation outside of Quebec. Furthermore, the English wording differed from the French wording. However, the motion was a form of recognition of the existence of a Quebec nation.

In June 2021, the House of Commons overwhelmingly recognized Quebec as a French nation. Our national status must have concrete political implications, not just symbolic ones. In particular, there must be consideration for Quebec's difference, its interests and its values in Ottawa's approach, legislation and policies.

We need assurance that Quebec will have the representation it needs to ensure that its interests and values are heard. However, Quebec's weight has been in steady decline, with its demographic share falling from 36% in 1867 to 28.6% in 1947, 26.6% in 1976, 24.9% in 1999 and 23.1% in 2015. The most recent proposal of the Chief Electoral Officer amounts to 22.5%, which makes no sense. We responded with our motion a few months ago. As our demographic weight decreases, it is obvious that our weight in the House will decrease as a result of the legacy of this destructive system known as the 1867 Confederation.

We also know that the government has announced plans to dramatically increase the total number of immigrants. Quebec cannot bring in twice as many immigrants. It is already doing its part, and francization is, for the most part, not up to par as it is, so it is not like we can magically increase Quebec's demographic weight from one day to the next.

Let us remember that Quebec's culture is unique. Ours is the only jurisdiction in North America whose official common language is French. Our origins as a nation go back to the days of New France, to the coureurs des bois. We are a self-made people with a unique social model that reflects our own values. We must have the opportunity to exist as a political entity, not just an insignificant symbolic entity. If Quebec declines, both the French language and our unique culture will decline as well.

Recognizing our distinct character means protecting the Quebec nation's weight, not just by ensuring Quebec does not lose any seats, but also by making sure that, whenever seats are added, Quebec gets some too. I am well aware that some people think this is unfair. That is what they said when we were debating our motion a few months ago. People said those whiny Quebeckers were demanding special treatment yet again.

I want to take a moment here to point out that there are specific provisions in the Constitution Act that protect the provinces without anyone taking exception. The senatorial clause, for example, ensures that no province has fewer members of Parliament than senators. This guarantees four seats for Prince Edward Island, even though, by population, it should have just one. The grandfather clause ensures that no province will have fewer members of Parliament after an electoral redistribution than it had in 1985. This protects the number of seats of the maritime provinces and Saskatchewan. There is also a provision that guarantees one member of Parliament for each of the territories, even though the population would warrant just one member for all the territories.

Some observers have said that the addition of a clause to protect Quebec's weight would require constitutional talks and would have to be passed by seven provinces representing 50% of the population. That is incorrect. In 1987, the Campbell decision recognized that there were some legitimate exceptions to ensure effective representation and that Parliament had the power to adopt such exceptions. That is why I believe this bill is both necessary and urgent.

There are real consequences to the loss of political power, in particular the list of competing interests or, at the very least, priority interests for Quebec. Quebec has its National Assembly, which is the only parliament where Quebec has 100% of the seats. There have been innumerable unanimous motions, which I will not go into here.

The nation that had—

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-246.

I would like to draw attention to the introduction of Bill C-14 and note my support of the government's proposal to update the grandfather clause in the seat allocation formula. This will ensure that no province will ever have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it did in 2021.

This updated clause speaks to the heart of the concerns in Bill C-246, as it would ensure that all provinces continue to have a strong voice in the House of Commons. Specifically, it would ensure that Quebec does not lose a seat, keeps all existing protections in place and continues to allow for incremental seat increases among provinces with growing populations, and all this without disruption to the redistribution of the federal electoral districts in Canada.

As many of us know, the formal process of redrawing the electoral boundaries, a process required under law to take place every 10 years, has begun. I would like to take this opportunity to speak to members about one important aspect of this very detailed and considered process, that is, the independent and non-partisan commissions that are responsible for undertaking this very important work.

For nearly 60 years, independent non-partisan electoral boundary commissions have been responsible for redrawing our electoral maps. These commissions were established in 1964, when Parliament passed the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The act sets out the roles, responsibilities, process and criteria that these commissions must follow when redrawing our federal electoral boundaries. This independent approach was introduced by design to eliminate the risk of political interference in the process and maintain integrity and transparency in our democratic systems and institutions.

Prior to 1964, the House of Commons itself was responsible for fixing the boundaries of electoral districts through a committee appointed especially for that purpose. However, Parliament realized that gerrymandering, a term used to described the manipulation of riding boundaries to benefit members of the governing party, was a significant risk to the integrity of our system. That was and remains unacceptable. The introduction of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was a critical measure put in place to solve that problem.

As outlined in the act, a three-member commission must be established for each province. These commissions are composed of one chairperson and two commissioners. Because this process occurs every 10 years, I would like to remind the hon. members that the government does not recommend or appoint members to these provincial commissions. To be clear, they are independently appointed. In fact, the government's role in the entire process is extremely limited.

For example, the minister is responsible for receiving census data from the chief statistician, for being notified of the appointment of new commissioners and for receiving the final reports from the commission. The minister is also responsible for facilitating the orders in council that are required to proclaim the establishment of the commissions and, similarly, to proclaim the new electoral boundaries as set out by the commission at the conclusion of the process.

It is important to note that, once again, the government does not have any decision-making role or influence when it comes to how electoral boundaries are drawn. This is entirely at the discretion of the independent provincial commissions. The chief justices in each province are responsible for appointing a chairperson for each commission. In addition, the Speaker is responsible for appointing the two other members of the commissions. The chairperson of each commission is a sitting judge or, on a rare occasion, a retired judge. All members set aside their normal work and business to dedicate themselves to this democratic endeavour, and I would like to thank them for their service.

For the commissioners, the act stipulates that they must reside in the province for which they are appointed. The act is also very clear when specifying eligibility:

No person is eligible to be a member of a commission while that person is a member of the Senate or House of Commons or is a member of a legislative assembly or legislative council of a province.

The independence of these commissions is further reinforced through this provision. In practice, the commissioners typically have a background in academia, law or non-elected public service. This knowledge and expertise allow these individuals to undertake this complicated but very important work.

On this 2021 decennial, as required under the act, 10 independent, non-partisan electoral boundary commissions, one for each province, were established on November 1, 2021. With the release of the final census 2021 data on February 9, 2022, the commissions began their review of the boundaries. As necessary, based on population changes and movements within each province, they will develop proposals to redraw electoral districts within each province.

Under the government's proposal, this work will continue uninterrupted. For the Quebec commission, the legislation would ensure that it has the time it needs, as prescribed under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to reconsider its boundaries proposal in progress based on the updated grandfather amendment.

Over the last 10 years, Canada's population has grown by 3.5 million people, from just over 33 million in 2011 to almost 37 million people today. It is essential that these citizens be factored into Canada's federal electoral districts. However, while they will endeavour to reflect changes in population against a province's seat count, the commissions must take into consideration other factors, such as respecting communities of interest and historical patterns. They must also ensure electoral districts maintain a manageable geographic size, including for those ridings that are in rural or northern regions of any province.

Considering these factors is no small feat. Our country is vast. Our communities are diverse and are rich in culture and history. From coast to coast to coast, they form the basis of our identities and our connections.

That is why the act contains provisions to ensure these communities of interest are considered when it comes to determining reasonable electoral boundaries. Respecting communities of interest is not just about preserving the differences between provinces or regions, or between rural and urban settings. It can mean recognizing the difference from one side of a small town to the other.

Canada's history has shown us that redistribution is not just about balancing changes in population. It is also about balancing community history and community geography. It is a delicate balance. It is a balance of multiple and sometimes competing priorities.

Nevertheless, these complex considerations are precisely why these commissions are independent and non-partisan. It is essential that these decisions are made outside of party lines. That way, boundary lines and ridings are established to best serve Canadians, not political parties.

Over the coming months, the commissions will hold public hearings open to the Canadian public, including members of Parliament. We are fortunate, along with all other Canadians, to have the opportunity to engage in a non-partisan, arm's-length process. While the commissions will consider the input they receive, they retain the responsibility to make all final decisions about where the new boundaries will be.

The decisions they will come to over the next several months will be carefully considered. Ultimately, some electoral districts in some provinces may look a little different than they do today. We can rest assured that the decisions will be informed decisions, ones taken by qualified experts and made independently of government.

I would reiterate that this independence is the foundation of our redistribution process. It has served us well for the past 60 years, and no doubt it will continue to do so moving forward. The importance of redistribution is well known to all members of Parliament. The results of these efforts will form the basis of representation in the House of Commons for the next 10 years.

Every Canadian deserves effective representation. Canadians also deserve public institutions that serve their interests, first and foremost. Under the government's proposal and based on the process in place, I am confident that these independent, non-partisan commissions will do just that in the coming months.

In closing, I hope my hon. colleagues will join me in thanking these commissions for undertaking this very important work.

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-14

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

Madam Speaker, if this motion from the Bloc Québécois passes, I am wondering if my hon. colleague from Halifax would also support some of the provinces, such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, that are structurally under-represented in Canada's Parliament. Would he be open to supporting changes to Bill C-14 that would give us representation by population?

I ask the member to imagine a scenario where Quebec had 1% below the average and lost three seats. That is what we live with every day, and I would love to hear the member's comments on that reality.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak again today on Bill C-14, a bill that we have already spoken on and have already sent away to committee. We find ourselves, or at least some of us in the House, speaking to Bill C-14.

In this bill, the government proposed to update the grandfather clause in the seat allocation formula. That was to ensure that no province would ever have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it did in 2021. That seemed to reflect what the House was asking for at the time, and it was something that Liberal colleagues were asking for in our caucus, and we know that this is also what the Bloc was asking for.

This updated clause speaks to the heart of the concerns that we have heard from Canadians and would ensure that all provinces would continue to have a strong voice in our House of Commons. Specifically, it would ensure that Quebec would not lose a seat. Again, this is what was being asked for. It would keep all existing protections in place and it would continue—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent.

On behalf of the PROC committee members, I would like to thank both of our guests for joining us today. If anything comes to mind, please do not hesitate to provide it in writing to the clerk so that all committee members can consider it.

With that, I want to give the PROC committee members a heads-up with regard to next week. We discussed the agenda in camera, so it's not really out there. June 6, next Monday, will be the deadline for Bill C-14 amendments, as we will be considering that legislation. For June 7, we have sent out invitations to Professor Carty, Professor Taillon and PCO officials. In the second hour of the June 7 meeting, we will have Minister LeBlanc, accompanied by PCO officials again.

At the June 9 meeting, we will continue the operational security of the parliamentary precinct study—the last meeting for that—followed by clause-by-clause for Bill C-14 in the second hour. I would ask that, for June 9, any edits to version three of the code draft report be shared with all members, so that we can pencil it in the following week, following clause-by-clause. We'll have version three of the code following clause-by-clause for Bill C-14. That's the space we will enter into.

You have also received the draft of the indigenous languages report. I'll start some conversations as to when we can have some feedback on that, so that we can put it into the queue following the version three of the code report. That should, hopefully, bring us into the summer season.

With that, everyone, please keep well and safe.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, but I would very much like him to bring the discussion back to Bill C-14 and Quebec representation.

Where exactly does my colleague stand when it comes to the Charlottetown accord, which guaranteed Quebec 25% of the seats in the House of Commons?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have two quick points that I feel are valid.

I could have been handsome or intelligent. Unfortunately, I am neither. I am trying to see the link between the passionate speech by my colleague from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan and the Bloc Québécois's proposal to broaden the scope of Bill C-14 and study it at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. There may be a link, but I need some clarification.

Second, I do not mean to be critical of my colleague's passionate style, but I would very respectfully like to point out that he is speaking very quickly and that the interpreters are sometimes having a hard time following. It is very important for us to be able to properly hear his comments.

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

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak to this motion, which I find interesting. We welcome it because it raises an important issue.

The Bloc is calling on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to study the issue of the political weight of Quebec. We are very open to this possibility because it is a matter of democracy and equality, recognizing the Quebec nation, protecting Quebec in the House and the weight we can have as representatives of our constituents.

I think it is a truly important topic and studying it would not get in the way of parliamentary business on other files and other issues.

I am also very proud of the work done by the NDP as a first step towards protecting Quebec's political weight and place in the House. We made sure that the agreement we negotiated with the minority government guaranteed the protection of the 78 seats allocated to Quebec, which risked losing one, as members will recall. That guarantee is set out in Bill C-14.

I am very proud of this NDP achievement. We can clearly tell Quebeckers that we kept our promise to represent them with this first step in the right direction. They are now protected whereas before they stood to lose some ground. We were there. We kept our promise to defend Quebeckers.

This is an important issue because, when we talk about the political weight of Quebec or a province, we are talking about something that affects all citizens, almost the entire population, not just small groups or one sector.

I find it interesting that we are discussing this today at a time when Ontarians are on their way to the polls, and have been all day, to elect their MPP. I encourage everyone to vote, and it will come as no surprise that I am encouraging Ontarians to support the provincial NDP. I hope that their leader, Andrea Horwath, has a good day, and I hope that she will end the day with a strong caucus. We will be watching the day unfold with great interest.

Speaking of the provinces' political weight, I want to talk about some of the more technical details of our Canadian federation's rather unique system.

There is also the whole issue of immigrants. There are political, administrative and legislative tools that can help, but the basic tool is demographic weight. I think that we are encouraging open and inclusive immigration that enables Quebec to welcome more immigrants and to have the means and resources to help them integrate properly and learn French if necessary.

This is all part of the effort to maintain fair representation for Quebec, which is about 23% right now. This also makes it possible to guarantee the 78th seat.

The NDP is strongly in favour of encouraging a path to citizenship, rather than throwing up roadblocks in the case of temporary workers and permanent residents who come to work in Quebec and Canada. I think we need to set up mechanisms to properly welcome new citizens and to expedite the process, because wait times are extremely long right now. I want to stress that we know that the Department of Citizenship and Immigration is currently having a lot of problems. I think that is part of the reflection and debate that we need to have on citizenship in general.

Basically, democracy is a revolutionary principle under which decisions are made by the people, not by a king who rules by so-called divine right and whose family has reigned for centuries by dividing power among aristocrats. A major revolutionary movement occurred in France, obviously, but also in England and the United States, driven by the belief that all citizens are equal in the eyes of the law and that it is up to them to choose their leaders and how they will be represented.

Of course, things started out far from perfect. The first democratic system was based on selective suffrage, where only the wealthiest people had the right to vote. People who were too poor to own property or pay taxes could not vote. It was a two-tier system that claimed to promote equality, but that was not an established right.

In our current system, roughly the same number of people are represented in each riding, in order to ensure fairness and equality in the right to vote as expressed in the House or in a Parliament, so that people are not unduly overrepresented or under-represented. There is a genuine concern for fairness and equality. It is one of the basic criteria recognized by Elections Canada for the redistribution of electoral boundaries, which is conducted by the provincial commissions. Is it the only factor? No, it is not.

We live in a system of exceptions, because other criteria apply to representation in the House of Commons. Currently, there are three criteria.

The senatorial clause ensures that no province has fewer MPs than it has senators. This creates significant distortions in representation relative to demographic weight and population size, but it is recognized and accepted. For instance, it clearly and blatantly benefits Prince Edward Island, and that is fine. It was negotiated and agreed to. That is how the system works.

There is the “territorial clause”, or the representation rule, for Nunavut, the Northwest Territories and Yukon. It would be difficult to strictly apply the rule to the number of people who live in these ridings, because this would mean that huge territories with their own identities and sense of community could not be represented, or would be drowned out in a riding so large and immense that it would be meaningless. This representation rule is important; it is respected, and it must continue to be respected.

I am thinking in particular of my colleague from Nunavut, who represents communities with a common identity, culture, language and interests. Every day, she fights here in the House to promote and defend the interests of such important communities that have very specific needs in specific contexts.

There is the grandfather clause, which had not applied to Quebec until now. However, the NDP managed to negotiate a guarantee that no province would lose seats in the event of electoral redistribution, immigration, or differences in provincial demographic weights.

Taken together, the senatorial clause, the representation rule and the grandfather clause for four provinces, if memory serves, demonstrate that there are already exceptions in the system and that demographic weight is not the only criterion, but it is controlled, improved or amended in accordance with certain provisions.

This brings us to today's motion, which asks us to consider the possibility of a Quebec clause. As parliamentarians, we recognized that Quebec is a nation, so we must consider the political, democratic and administrative implications of this recognition.

Ottawa and Quebec have already negotiated a number of asymmetrical agreements in the past, and that is to be expected. The NDP recognized the Quebec nation when it adopted the Sherbrooke declaration and other resolutions at its conventions. There is also the notion of asymmetrical federalism, which would allow Quebec to negotiate special powers or agreements with respect to particular issues.

As progressive New Democrats, we support the recognition of the Quebec nation and the idea of asymmetrical federalism. I think that we need to discuss what this means in practical terms in order to think about the potential consequences. If certain clauses were negotiated and drafted for certain provinces and territories in the past, I think we need to be brave and coherent and move forward in this special context.

The idea of protecting Quebec's political weight in the House is neither new or revolutionary.

It was negotiated by Brian Mulroney's Conservative federal government and Robert Bourassa's Liberal Quebec government. The provision was included in the Charlottetown accord. It is nothing new. It was accepted in the past, so it has already been normalized. There were discussions on the subject, and on many others as well, since the Charlottetown accord addressed many other issues. The NDP supported the Charlottetown accord. We reflected on the issue and discussed it, and the NDP accepted it.

I also think that it is in line with the historical view of the two founding nations. Consider the Laurendeau-Dunton commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. Consider also the historic agreement that began by saying that we would be together but that there were two founding nations, one British and the other French. I think we need to bear this in mind in our work and in the representation we have in the House. We must preserve this vision in the Official Languages Act, which recognizes French and English as Canada's two official languages. That is the rule used in the House of Commons. It is not always followed by the Liberal administration or by some companies that are subject to the Official Languages Act, but that is a separate issue.

That being said, I feel uncomfortable saying that we need to respect the concept of two founding nations. Of course it is important but, at the same time, it is historically insulting to the first nations, who were here long before any French or British settlers. We need to keep this concept of two founding nations in mind, and as a Quebecker, I will always defend it, but we must remember that, by the time these two founding nations arrived, other nations had been living here for thousands of years. They were shunted aside, forgotten, disrespected. Some were even subjected to cultural genocide, an attempt to annihilate them. Awful things were done, like the residential schools, and that is part of our history.

We must therefore discuss the role and weight of the first nations in our democracy and in the House. Personally, I am open to studying various scenarios, like the system used in New Zealand, where seats are reserved for indigenous New Zealanders. This is another way of looking at things and building a unifying political system and democracy that could correct the historical mistake of thinking that there were only two founding nations.

To strike this balance, which is not an easy thing to do, we need to have an open mind and approach this in a spirit of reconciliation with the first nations and indigenous peoples. This is an issue that I think is important and that the NDP caucus is promoting. We should also have a discussion about the role and the political weight of the first nations in the House.

I want to come back to the issue of equality because, while we are on the topic of democracy, the political system and representation, I will say that, unfortunately, the very idea that all votes are equal is currently not true. This is not because of the provisions of our electoral system that I have just mentioned. It is because our voting system is unfair.

We live with an archaic first-past-the-post system that allows for startling democratic discrepancies between what the people decide and how they are represented in this House.

Let us talk about it. If we want to have the best possible system, we need to be able to talk about proportional voting, which would respect the popular will and the choices of voters. We live in an absurd system where a government can sometimes be elected with less than 40% of the vote. This is a common occurrence. A political party can get 37% or 38% of the vote and 55% to 60% of the seats in the House, which means 100% of the power. That is absurd. A majority of the people voted against a political party, sometimes by 60% or 62%, but that political party is given the keys to absolute power for four years.

In 2015, the Liberals made a promise to change this. The 2015 election was supposed to be the last one under an unfair and archaic voting system.

I sat on the Special Committee on Electoral Reform. We travelled the country for a year listening to members of the public, stakeholders from interest groups, local elected officials, university professors and experts. We conducted online surveys and listened to people. Overwhelmingly, everyone saw that the current system is broken, that it does not ensure equality among all Canadians and that the House does not represent the will of the people. Ninety per cent of the witnesses who spoke at committee told us that, and 90% of the briefs we received said the same thing. Then the Liberal government realized that this was going in the wrong direction and that this was not necessarily where they wanted to go, so they conducted an online survey. It was an incredibly biased survey, but 75% of respondents still said they wanted a proportional representation voting system.

At the Special Committee on Electoral Reform, there was an agreement between the Conservative Party, the Bloc Québécois, the NDP and the Green Party. We agreed to hold a referendum and suggest that Canadians and Quebeckers adopt a proportional voting system. The majority of committee members reached a consensus to move forward and propose real change. The Liberals shocked us by responding that there was no consensus. They took that work and threw it in the garbage. That was the end of it. Then they walked away. They did that because it was not the direction they wanted to take. It was absolutely false to say that there was no consensus. There was a strong consensus among the witnesses, the people we consulted and the political parties represented on the committee. The Liberals were the only outliers. However, because they were in power, they did what they wanted. They broke their promise, and we missed an historic opportunity.

I believe we need to put this issue back on the front burner. It is important for improving our democratic system. I was saying earlier that a political party can be elected to a position of absolute power with less than 40% of the votes. We have even seen worse. One political party received more votes, but it became the opposition party, while the party that came second in terms of the popular vote got to form government. It is not just a distortion, it is hypocrisy. It goes against the popular will. If we are true democrats who believe that we must represent the people's choice in the House, then we must have a real conversation about adopting a much more suitable voting system, the one used by the vast majority of the world's democracies.

Canada is one of few countries, along with the United Kingdom and the United States, that still has this system. Most other countries have proportional voting systems of one kind or another. We could spend a long time talking about all the different systems, but my point is that proportional representation is much more respectful of the people's will.

I am very happy to be participating in today's debate. I think that our voting system, recognition of the Quebec nation, the political weight of various jurisdictions, communities and nations in the House are major issues, crucial ones. As a democrat, I always enjoy talking about democracy, about the people's power and about how we can improve our system.

I am ready to answer questions, but I do want to say that I think the recommendation in the motion is a good one and that it makes perfect sense to ask a parliamentary committee to study Quebec's political weight. This is an issue we should be talking about in the House.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that there are only seven seats in Newfoundland and Labrador. One would never know it, given the power of the Atlantic caucus. It is exceptionally effective, I must say, and Newfoundland and Labrador is represented exceptionally well in the House and in the committees in terms of the amount of workload that the members carry and their impact on government policy.

However, the member raises a very valid point. People as a whole in Canada understand our federation and why it is important that Prince Edward Island has four seats, and why it is important that we guarantee that the province of Quebec never goes below 78 seats, which is what Bill C-14 would do.

My colleague planted a seed asking about the future, about the province of Newfoundland or other provinces and the representation that they have. There are other opportunities, no doubt, both in opposition and in government, for us to enter into that dialogue. Canadians as a whole understand what is happening, they support it and it is time that we move on.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, in listening to this debate, I think about representation across the country. We are talking about 78 seats in Quebec, but if we think about the rural parts of the country in smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, which is geographically large, but in terms of population, of course, it is small, we have seven seats in the House of Commons. We come here to do our lobbying for the province, vote on different legislation, and so on. We would love to have more seats. In fact, we are dwarfed by provinces like Quebec and Ontario, larger provinces with huge populations, which I understand, but in terms of representation, I think Bill C-14 strikes a good balance. We would also like to encourage more seats in Newfoundland and Labrador. We would love to have another seven, but the reality is that if we were to allow the system to continue as it currently exists, we would fall even further behind in terms of striking a balance in representation.

I would ask my colleague if he sees Bill C-14 as striking a good balance in terms of representation across the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we understand that the legislation is unanimously supported in the House, that everyone wants 78 seats to be maintained. Bill C-14 would guarantee that. It would guarantee the province 78 seats. We should be able to pass that legislation. It should have been done by now, as far as I am concerned, and if the political will was there on all sides of the House to make that happen, it could be done. In fact, we have the power to do it today if we wanted to. I can say that the government's desire would be to see the legislation pass.

In terms of the debate that the member is suggesting, nothing prevents a standing committee to conduct a study of that. They could establish that at any point in time. All they have to do is raise the issue at the most appropriate standing committee. They could raise it at two or three different standing committees, but that is not the essence of what we should be debating today. What we are doing today is ultimately feeding the Conservative agenda, which the Bloc is indirectly supporting by bringing forward yet another motion in a standing committee that will enable them to continue to filibuster, and I do not think that is a good thing for the people of Quebec or Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me enlighten the member. When we first began this discussion, the Conservative Party somewhat indicated that it was sympathetic and would like to see it pass. Then we had another member who seemed to be upset with it asking why we would want it to go to committee. There might be some confusion among the Conservative ranks on this, but I could be wrong in my speculation.

However, from what I can see, we have the double blue. The nice thing is they are still the dark blue versus the light blue. At the end of the day, it would appear as if they are coming together to see this thing go to committee if, in fact, they can get it to committee.

I say that because the member moved the motion to say that the vote now be heard and then there was some dialogue that occurred after that. Through that dialogue, we get a better picture of what it is the Bloc really wants to talk about. We saw that. It was the member who raised the issue. I just responded to it.

Constitutional change is what the member from the Bloc has raised. They talk about the need for some of the things that the Bloc would like to see take place, and they would require a constitutional change. Let me suggest to my Bloc friends that Canadians, as a whole, no matter where they live, whether it is Manitoba, Quebec or any other jurisdiction in Canada, do not want the government to have talks about the Constitution. It is just not anywhere on the political agenda.

That is the nice thing about Bill C-14. Bill C-14 will do what every member in the House, from what I understand, wants to see happen, and that is that the province of Quebec not lose a seat, maintaining at minimum 78 seats. In its own mischievous way, the Bloc wants to raise the issue of the Constitution.

As much as the Bloc may want to focus its attention in the chamber on that issue, I can assure people who might be following the debate, or just following the proceedings in the House day by day, that no matter what the Conservative-Bloc coalition comes up with, whether it is character assassination, constitutional debates or whatever else, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister will remain focused on the issues that are important to Canadians.

On the specific issue of Bill C-14, which this motion is dealing with, the Prime Minister has been very clear, through the minister and the entire Liberal caucus, that the baseline is 78 seats.

There is a lot more on the government agenda than Bill C-14. I suspect we are not going to spend our future resources on issues such as constitutional debates over the next 12 months. Canadians are getting through the pandemic. Industries are looking for employees. Concerns are there in the many departments the federal government deals with on a daily basis. Those are the issues that are of critical importance.

Bill C-14 deals with one aspect, and that is the boundary redistribution commission and the report it made public not that long ago indicating the number of seats. I have been around for a few years, and Elections Canada, as an institution, is recognized around the world for the fine work it does. In fact, if we take a look at many other countries around the world, we will find that Elections Canada is often sourced and appealed to in order to assist other countries conduct their elections. A part of that status is that sense of independence, whether it is the creation of the election boundary commissions, the election commissioner, the Elections Act or the putting in place an actual election.

In fact, I made a suggestion earlier today referencing the sense of pride Canadians have in being a bilingual country with both French and English. No matter what region of the country we go to, there is equally a need for us to look at ways in which we can enrich Elections Canada's ability to ultimately not only make changes to boundaries indirectly, but also allow for wider participation in the elections.

When I made the suggestion about languages and having that as a topic on an opposition day, I thought it would have been a wonderful thing to see take place, but in a positive way. The Bloc seems to have a negative twist to things, and its members do not necessarily recognize the true value of Canada's diversity, but I think there is a positive way we could have that debate. I would equally like to see a debate on this if opposition members are looking for other areas in which they can explore and have these types of discussions about Elections Canada and ways we can enhance Elections Canada's role during election periods.

There are many different things we can do with elections. I have participated in debates on PROC, both on boundaries and on election reform, and I know there is a very keen interest in both areas. People understand why we have to have these commissions. These commissions are necessary because of shifting populations. All levels of government have them.

Within the legislation, we often will find variances that take place. For example, in the Province of Manitoba, it is rural versus urban. I have made reference to the fact that at one time we had more rural seats, which were outside the perimeter, than we did within the City of Winnipeg, and now that has changed. However, there are rules that enable rural representation to, in certain areas, have a lower number of voters or population. If we take a look at average populations, we will often find that we might get some at the lower end in rural communities.

I have spoken to commissioners before, and the types of things they have to take into consideration when making the decisions on boundary redistribution are not as simple as drawing a line on a map wherever there are waterways and major streets. It is far from that.

I recall a discussion with a board member on a commission, it was a provincial one, where he indicated that they have to also factor in rapid-growth communities. These are the areas where they anticipate there is going to be a lot of growth, so they do not want to go much above the average, knowing full well that a particular area will continue to grow at an exponential pace.

I also recall a riding change, which occurred in 1988, where a provincial riding was literally cut in half. The same principle applies at the national level, and this is one element that has to be taken into consideration. Another consideration is communities and, as much as possible, we want to keep communities together. I have seen all sorts of boundary changes in the past that often divided communities. I remember one occasion where we saw Weston and Brooklands, just south of Winnipeg North, and many identify those two communities as one. However, at the civic level, they were cut in half along one street. It was presumed to be a natural divide, a “concrete” divide, if I can put it that way, because it is a major artery. In fact, there is a very strong connection between both sides.

This is why I would ultimately argue that, when we take a look at the demographics, the population growth, both today and over the next few years, it is absolutely critical that these commissions are afforded the opportunity to be able to have proper consultations with members of the public. I honestly believe that.

As opposed to attempting to filibuster the bill again at committee stage by saying, “Well, let us expand the scope of the discussion at the committee stage”, when it has already been determined here in the House once before, why not allow the bill, in its simplicity, to pass? This would allow the commission for the Province of Quebec to get down to the job at hand and actually meet with the people of Quebec to get their direct input. If it wants input from the Bloc party, heck, I could probably give that input in where the Bloc party lies on the issue.

It is time for the politicians to allow Bill C-14 out of committee so that it can come back to the House because we do not have that much time. We are already in June, and I think we will be out of here June 23. That does not leave that much time. Members can do the math: How many hours are left to sit in the House?

I do not think that we should be playing games on this issue. Hopefully, at the end of the day, I will inspire members from the Bloc and possibly Conservatives not to filibuster the bill in any way when it comes before a standing committee, so the committee can pass the legislation, get it back in here and get it through third reading so it can go to the Senate and be given royal assent. All of that needs to happen relatively quickly.

For those who might think that this could be, in some twisted way, a filibuster, the legislation is already before the committee. The committee could pass the legislation. It does not need this motion. This motion is not meant to help facilitate the passage of Bill C-14, and the Conservatives, even though they will likely support this motion passing, know that.

At the end of the day, there is a different agenda being played out on the floor of the House of Commons. It has more to do with the gamesmanship of the Bloc and the Conservatives trying to change legislation or the scope of legislation after filibustering that legislation here. It is like they did not have enough filibustering on the floor of the House of Commons and want to do more at committee, in terms of changing the scope, so they bring in an amendment that really has no relevance or the chair would rule it as being beyond the scope of the legislation. If this motion does not pass, that would likely be the ruling of the chair. That is the reason why the members of the Bloc have brought it. I think they are starting to adopt some of the same principles of obstruction as the Conservatives.

My suggestion to the Bloc members is that if they truly care about what the people of Quebec have to say about this legislation, what they should be doing is encouraging the passage of it and joining the Liberal members from Quebec, who want to see this legislation pass and get royal assent, so that the people who live in Quebec, the people who actually contribute to where those lines are going to be drawn, are given the same sort of opportunity to participate as the rest of the people in Canada.

Other commissions are moving forward. Why would the Bloc not allow the people of Quebec that same opportunity? I suspect it is because there might be an alternative agenda. We saw that in the questions and answers of the member who moved the motion, to try to force a vote on this. They are eager to get it passed. They want to get it to committee so that they can cause more issues, which will ultimately cause additional delays. That is part of the motivation of the Bloc. I understand that, but the time will not allow me to expand on that particular point.

I can say that we, in the government caucus, believe that the people of Quebec, the public, need to be able to contribute to the commission on where those boundaries could be, or provide their recommendations in terms of the report that will be provided to the people of Quebec from the commission that has been designated in the province of Quebec.

Let us get it done. Let us pass the legislation out of committee and bring it back for third reading.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the debate, even though at the beginning of the day, many colleagues from both sides of the House anticipated that we would be engaging in a debate on the Standing Orders. Every election cycle there is a date set aside when members can give their opinions on changes to our rules and how we can enhance opportunities to make the chamber more effective, whether it is in the chamber or at committees.

That is technically what we are supposed to be debating today. After going through motions we went on to petitions. I know that some of my colleagues had petitions to bring forward. Then we were meant to go into the Standing Orders debate. I was prepared to speak to the Standing Orders, but now we find that the Bloc has found a way to bring back a debate on Bill C-14 to the floor of the House of Commons, a debate that we have already had. We already debated Bill C-14 in the House of Commons.

It would appear that Bloc members, with the support of the Conservative Party of Canada, are trying to push forward this motion. I am going to know when the vote occurs, but I am speculating my quarter on the fact that the Conservatives and the Bloc have already negotiated this as a part of their double blue coalition. What we will see is an attempt to get this motion passed. When they do that—

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have made an effort here, step by step, and I am concerned. I have no problem with the idea. In fact, we voted in favour of protecting the number of members from Quebec.

However, the idea of having percentage representation is based on another principle entirely. It is not the same thing as in Bill C-14. I think that this involves the Constitution.

We debated for an entire day, as the hon. member pointed out. However, the principle proposed in today’s motion is different. We have not had a chance to review it and discuss it.

I think I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North. He is right when he says that this involves the Constitution.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member amplifies the issue of what I think would be a wonderful debate, which is the French language, where it is at and how that language builds our nation in a very positive way. Many different communities from coast to coast to coast are brought together by the French language.

In terms of Election Canada and Bill C-14, it is one of the reasons we had the reaction we did in the Liberal caucus. We want to ensure Quebec has that 78-floor base so that it can never go below that, and I see that as a positive.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am troubled in this debate, although there has been unanimous support for Bill C-14. I think we have responded positively right across all party lines to the concerns of our Quebec colleagues that the voice of Quebec would be reduced within this place.

Obviously, we support the idea of measures to protect Quebec's number of seats in the House.

At the same time, as someone who was elected in 2011 when we had 308 MPs here, I have a larger concern. We are now at 338. Do we constantly expand the number of members of Parliament we have? In the U.K., they have 650-some MPs. Is it really better representation for our constituents that as the population expands, there are more voices? Does that not dilute the voice of each riding if we have more MPs? In a chamber of 650, very few people out of the whole number get to contribute to the debate.

I would rather see, and I put this to the hon. member, fair voting in this country through proportional representation and through limiting the constant growth in the number of MPs. In other words, in the concept of representation by population, we actually may not have better democracy, compared to actually fixing our voting system to have real democracy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, if it is in Hansard it is true. There is a constitutional agreement that enables Prince Edward Island to retain that minimum number of seats. The same principle applies in other jurisdictions. We have three territories to the north, each one having a representative. Who in the chamber would deny that representation?

Clearly, we have seen the types of changes put into place that Bill C-14 is attempting to do, so why add confusion? That is why Elections Canada is charged with ensuring that we have a fair and equitable system. We have the commission, which in a very apolitical fashion comes up with the actual numbers.

When it came up with the number for Quebec, as I pointed out, it was for a wide variety of reasons, the French language being one of them. There is an island of French or francophone uniqueness in North America in the province of Quebec. I am very proud of that fact. I might not have the ability to speak French, but I can still care for the language. It is a part of my personal heritage. I am very proud of the French language. I encourage it in Winnipeg North. I am always amazed when I see immigrants, especially first-generation immigrants, whether of Filipino, Punjabi or Indo-Canadian heritage, who can speak Punjabi, English and French or Tagalog, English and French. I am very proud of the fact that we are a bilingual country.

In the province of Quebec, French is the spoken language, and we have seen how the Minister of Canadian Heritage, many of my Quebec colleagues, and those far beyond appreciate just how important the French language is, not only to the province of Quebec but to all of Canada. It speaks to our diversity. That is why, when the announcement was made that there would be a reduction in the number of seats in Quebec, the reaction within the Liberal caucus, from the Prime Minister to the ministers to the caucus as a whole, was quite swift. In a relatively short period of time, we saw legislation brought forward and introduced and brought to second reading. Then, I suspect through time allocation, it will go to committee stage. We want to see the legislation pass. The need for 78 seats as the bare minimum is something all members appreciate, from what I understand. If it were up to me, I would like to see not only the French language increase, but also the French population.

At the end of the day, I would hope that members will value the independence and fine work that Elections Canada and our commissions have done and allow the people of Quebec to have that full public discussion with the commission with respect to the communities that will make up the federal ridings that are going to represent the people of Quebec here in Ottawa.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a member from the Bloc asks, “Why not?” I think that we need to be aware of that fact.

What is interesting is this. I suspect that the Conservatives, based on what I witnessed when I was here for second reading of the bill, do not support what the Bloc is proposing to do at committee. In principle, though, it would appear that they are going to support the initiative moving forward to committee. Maybe the coalition on that side has come to an agreement on it, but we will have to wait and see. If I were to wager a quarter, my quarter says it is the double-blue coalition that will attempt to get this to committee.

I have a problem with that. I have a problem because, at the end of the day, where is it going to stop? We have seen how difficult it is for the government to get legislation through the House of Commons, the chamber, because the Conservative opposition members have taken the approach that it does not matter what the legislation is, whether they support it or they do not support it. Unless the government is prepared to bring in time allocation, it is not going to pass going to committee.

I do not know. I did not do the research on this, but I suspect we might have even had to bring in time allocation on Bill C-14. I do not know that for sure. What I can say is that we now have debate on that bill resurfacing. We are now going to be debating Bill C-14 all over again today because the Bloc wants to have something instituted in it that the members kind of sense, perhaps with accuracy, goes beyond its scope during committee proceedings. At the commission, the commissioners have responsibilities. They have deadlines. They need to meet those deadlines. I think the Conservatives are enabling the Bloc to cause even more confusion within the province of Quebec in regard to meeting some of those deadlines.

The commission came down with numbers. We disagreed and we made an amendment, because we all recognized the value of Quebec not losing a seat. That was unanimous inside this chamber, or at least I believe it was. That sent a fairly significant message to Quebec. I believe it enabled the people of Quebec to better understand and appreciate that, as we go through this process, there are independent commissioners.

The province of Manitoba, for example, is already redrawing the boundaries. The boundaries will be coming out. I am not exactly sure on what day they will be coming out, but they have already looked for public consultation on the 14 ridings in the province of Manitoba and then there will be dialogue and public input. For the province of Quebec, if the commission listens to what has been taking place in the House, it could anticipate that there will be 78 seats to readjust the boundaries with, but there is no guarantee until the legislation passes. That is why we encouraged members, when we were debating Bill C-14, to pass the legislation. By passing the legislation and pushing it through, we are enabling the commission in Quebec to finalize the boundaries.

Now, with what appears to be the support of the Conservative Party, the Bloc at least has found a way to cause some potential mischief in committees. From our perspective, and I would like to think a majority perspective, we not only want the province of Quebec not to lose a seat, but we want to ensure that the commission is able to provide the report that is going to respond to what the people of Quebec want to see in terms of boundary alignments, which is absolutely critical. It is all part of the process. There are deadlines that have to be met that will ultimately see these new boundaries take effect in the next federal election.

I can say first-hand how important that process is in Winnipeg North. Ten years ago, when there were modifications to the boundaries in Winnipeg North, what was proposed was far different from what it is today. In fact, Amber Trails was not in Winnipeg North at all. A good portion of The Maples was excluded, and there we are talking about 10,000-plus people who were excluded from what today is in Winnipeg North. The expansion went north of McPhillips, all the way up to between Kingsbury and Inkster Boulevard. It was completely different from what it is today.

As part of the process, a presentation was provided that included the boundary maps. The public received it and responded, and because of the response provided by the public, the boundaries were dramatically changed, in Winnipeg North at the very least. It had an impact on the ridings of Kildonan—St. Paul and Winnipeg North, which today includes 85% of Amber Trails and all of The Maples. Those communities were clustered back into Winnipeg North.

I say that because I think we need to give more respect to the Province of Quebec and the commission and the fine work that, no doubt, they will be doing. With the riding changes in the city of Montreal, I suspect we will see a number of streets being changed, or in Quebec City or rural municipalities. We have to recognize that the reason this happens in the first place is because of shifting populations and increases in population. Manitoba, for example, is a whole lot more urban today than it was 30 years ago. At the provincial legislature at one time, there was a larger number of seats from rural Manitoba than from the city of Winnipeg. Today, there are more MLAs in Winnipeg than in rural Manitoba, but that is strictly urban-rural. That is not to mention that some rural communities grow more than other rural communities. The population decreases and increases.

The same principle applies to the province of Quebec. Manitoba's population has grown from 1.15 million to close to 1.3 million. The numbers remain relatively the same in terms of the number of seats because there is a guarantee, as has been referenced even by the Bloc. We have taken that into consideration. The best example is the province of Prince Edward Island. When Prince Edward Island came into Confederation, it had four seats. Part of the Constitution says that it retains those four seats.

It is actually the number of senators. Do not quote me on that, but I believe that is what it is. There is a constitutional agreement that enables—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I got up this morning, I do not know why, but I had a feeling that it was going to be a big day. Now I know why. I just got a second question from my colleague from Winnipeg North. It is enough to wear a body out, but I thank him anyway.

The ability of parliamentary committees to amend bills is a basic rule of the parliamentary system. I did not make it up. We are all here to work on amendments and improve bills so they better reflect what the people of Canada and Quebec want.

In this particular case, it is all about Quebec. Everybody knows that the point of Bill C‑14 is to make sure Quebec does not lose any seats, so it makes sense to listen to what Quebec wants. Since the purpose of this bill is for Quebec to improve its political prospects within the House of Commons, for as long as we are here, we might as well go all in and get the job done properly.

I listened to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North, which I always enjoy doing, but let me read part of the motion he voted for: “any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected”.

He voted in favour of that.

He needs to explain why he does seem to comprehend that Bill C‑14 includes a section to satisfy Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting the manner in which we are having this debate today, and I will be able to expand on that during my comments, but I will say that, when the commission came down indicating that it was looking at reducing the number of seats in the province of Quebec from 78 to 77, the reaction in the Government of Canada, the Liberal caucus, was very swift. We indicated that it could not happen and that we did not support the reduction of the number of seats in the province of Quebec. It was universally felt within the government that it was something that was not acceptable. That is the reason why we have Bill C-14.

I will get the opportunity to expand upon that point when I get the opportunity to address the motion. Historically we have witnessed, whether it is Prince Edward Island or out west, there have been guarantees of numbers. What are the member's thoughts on previous guarantees that were put in place to ensure that jurisdictions would not lose the number of members of Parliament they had?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my father always said that good things come to those who wait, and my colleague will have to wait. I am sorry that my voice does not carry far, but my colleague was told that this motion would be moved and that I would speak for four or five minutes. Since my time has not yet expired, he should pay close attention. He may learn something.

There were two parts to the motion. The number of members from Quebec cannot be reduced, and the proportion of Quebec members in the House cannot be reduced. Those were the two aspects to this motion, and the vast majority of members voted in favour.

Bill C-14 is a step forward. The number of members from Quebec will not be reduced. Confucius said that even the longest journey always begins with a first step. The is the first step.

What we are asking for is the second step. That is obvious. Everyone here, or almost everyone here, has said that they cannot allow Quebec, which is a nation with French as its common language, to have its relative political weight in the House reduced.

The point of this motion of instruction is to allow the Bloc Québécois to table an amendment to Bill C‑14 so that we can finally carry out the mission provided for in the motion tabled in March. That is the bare minimum. The House needs to finally understand that we are not talkers, but doers. That is what I am asking the House to do.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

moved:

That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that, during its consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to amend the formula for apportioning seats in the House and include provisions that maintain the Quebec nation's political weight, as the House of Commons recognized on March 2, 2022.

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 originally provided that no province would lose any federal ridings in the next electoral redistribution. Let us not forget that the future configuration of Parliament threatened to remove one riding from Quebec, which would have seen its number of seats in the House drop from 78 to 77. The Bloc Québécois obviously let it be known that this was outrageous.

We are now moving this motion of instruction for the following reason. It is true that we do not want to see a decrease in the number of members from Quebec in the House, but we want to go even further by asking for an end to the relative decrease in Quebec's political weight, which has been happening since the start of the 20th century.

Since this bill is already too restrictive to allow for these kinds of amendments, we are forced to propose amendments through a motion of instruction to ensure that it is in order. In this way, Bill C‑14 would become embedded in the parliamentary journey we set out on in June 2021.

Allow me to recap. Last year, in June 2021, we moved the following motion:

That the House agree...that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.

This motion was adopted by the vast majority of members in the House, which was the first step in this legislative journey.

Since that first step, Quebec has not been seen as a province like the others. It is seen as a nation, which we have known for a long time. However, if Quebec is a nation, it should have the same powers afforded to nations. We must therefore take action to protect the Quebec nation, whose common language is French, which is something that a very large majority of members recognized.

The second step was taken in March, when, once again, a large majority of members in the House adopted the following motion, which I will read because it is very important:

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...

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, if we allow Quebec's political weight to decline, there will be heightened vigilance. What is vigilance? Vigilance is keeping a close eye out to attenuate or avoid harm. We will have to be vigilant, especially with respect to the French language, culture and the economic Francophonie.

Last weekend, I participated in a meeting to evaluate the Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie's statutes. We had a chance to put some questions to a representative of the OECD, which is headquartered in Paris, and she told us about a set of principles on artificial intelligence. When we read the principles, I asked her who had done the work. She said that people from Egypt, Barcelona, anglophones and some people from Montreal, such as Mr. Bengio, had gone to Paris. I asked her what language people used to talk about the principles in Paris, and she said that the discussion took place in English. Imagine. All those people gathered in Paris, speaking English.

What was interesting was that you could see from reading the principles that the work was bilingual. I have nothing against the English language, but there is a thought process at work in the English language, just as there is a thought process at work in the French language. What I object to is the single mindset. If we are forced to operate more and more in English, we lose some of the thinking involved. Researchers who write and create in French and who translate their own thoughts lose out a little, but it is society as a whole that really loses out.

When I talk about being vigilant and maintaining our political weight, I am also talking about preserving a way of thinking, a capacity to create, a capacity to be different for the common good of all. The appointment of a Governor General who speaks only English and a similar situation in New Brunswick have been denounced in the House.

This also brings to mind the whole Julie Payette scandal from two years ago, when she was Governor General. I asked the Privy Council Office for a copy of the investigation report, but I was told, and I quote:

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

That makes no sense. The report was later translated at my insistence, since it was only available in English. I am not saying that it was conceived in English, but that it was not available in French. I can read English, but this was unacceptable.

It is because of things like this that I talk about vigilance, about monitoring, in order to avoid or mitigate harm. Bill C‑14 does not meet Quebec's demands. With this bill, we do not lose seats, but we begin to disintegrate. At some point, we will assimilate and disappear. What will we be able to say once we have lost our voice? The answer is nothing.

Before we reach the point where we are able to do nothing more than wave in the hope that some benevolent soul offers help, we must act and we must resist. For Quebec, Bill C‑14 is a call to resistance, a call to not give in to uniformity of thought in terms of tastes, ideas, and existence. Fernando Pessoa once said that to die is to slip out of view. With Bill C‑14, Quebec slips out of view.

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-14 today. We are talking about representative democracy, and representative democracy is about being present, being seen and being heard.

The numerous studies on demography tell us that democracies today must have three characteristics to be worthy of this moniker. Those three characteristics are representativeness, trustworthiness and legitimacy.

As far as representativeness is concerned, Bill C‑14 proposes to maintain Quebec's seat count. That is representative, to a degree. However, there is a loss of political weight, so it somewhat misses the mark in terms of representativeness. As far as trustworthiness is concerned, we are living in an untrustworthy world. Finally, as far as legitimacy is concerned, doubts are creeping in about democracy.

It is therefore very important to be able to determine exactly what is coming down the line. There is consensus about maintaining the 78 seats, as requested by Quebec. However, not maintaining Quebec's weight is unacceptable to us. I simply cannot wholeheartedly endorse this bill.

If we allow Quebec's weight to decline, there will—

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C‑14, which seeks to amend the Constitution Act of 1867 for a very simple purpose: to ensure that no province will have fewer seats than it had in 2021. As a member from Quebec, I want to be sure Quebec will not lose a single seat, which is what Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, the CEO, proposed initially.

As my colleagues are well aware, on October 15, the CEO released a proposal for a new House of Commons seat allocation. The process involved no decisions or discretionary power on the part of the CEO. The seat allocation formula is found in the Constitution Act of 1867. The CEO simply followed the four-step procedure.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain the procedure in detail and talk about the proposed change in our bill.

Step one is to determine the initial provincial seat allocation. To do so, the CEO looks at population estimates provided by Canada's chief statistician. The numbers that apply in this case are from the July 1, 2021, population estimates. The CEO compares these estimates to the previous estimates from 2011. This comparison tells us the average demographic growth across the country.

Then, the population of each province is divided by the new electoral quotient, which provides the initial provincial seat allocation. Calculations at this stage are based solely on total population and demographic change in the provinces to determine proportional seat allocation. This step results in variations in the number of seats. These entirely mathematical variations have caused a number of problems, which is why the second step protects the provinces' minimum number of seats.

First of all, the senatorial clause, which has been in place since 1915, ensures that provinces do not have fewer seats in the House of Commons than they have in the Senate. Accordingly, provinces that received fewer seats in the initial allocation, such as New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, were given additional seats. Over time, it was considered necessary to further strengthen these protections.

That is why Parliament introduced the grandfather clause in 1985, which today prevents provinces from having fewer seats than they had in 1985. Much like the senatorial clause, provinces that receive fewer seats than they had in 1985 are given additional seats. Under this grandfather clause from 1985, Quebec is guaranteed 75 seats. While at the first stage Quebec received 71 seats, the grandfather clause gives it four additional seats, for a total of 75.

This is what brings me to rise and address the House today. Our government is proposing a small but very important update to the grandfather clause. Bill C-14 seeks to amend this part of the Constitution Act of 1867 so that the threshold in the grandfather clause is changed to be based on the 2021 distribution instead of the 1985 one. It is a thoughtful and targeted proposal that will guarantee that no province will have fewer seats than it had in 2021. This means that Quebec will not lose a single seat in this or any future redistribution.

The third step in the formula is the representation rule, which applies to a province whose population was overrepresented in the House of Commons at the completion of the previous redistribution process, but which becomes under-represented following the above calculations. This clause ensures that the share of seats allocated to a province in this situation remains equal to or greater than its share of the Canadian population.

It is absolutely vital that the debates in the House reflect the cultural and linguistic diversity of our country in both content and language. I am proud to repeat, whenever I have the opportunity, that Quebec is a nation within a united Canada. We must ensure that this nation that co-founded our federation continues to have a strong voice in the House, here in Ottawa. Whether through the 35 Liberal MPs from Quebec, the 32 Bloc Québécois members, the 10 Quebec Conservatives or our one Quebec NDP colleague, both Quebec and Canada as a whole will benefit from the contributions of our Quebec delegation in the House.

I say to my esteemed colleagues that our government is committed to recognizing and protecting Quebec as a nation. It is vital that our country preserve our Quebec culture and our French language, and that involves protecting Quebec's representation in all our institutions, including, of course, the House of Commons. Our Bill C-14 does exactly that.

For Quebec, this means that it would retain 78 seats instead of 77. For the other provinces, this gives them a new reference point limiting future decreases based on upcoming demographic changes. It results in the following allocation of seats: four seats for Prince Edward Island instead of two; seven seats for Newfoundland and Labrador instead of five; 10 seats for New Brunswick instead of seven; 11 seats for Nova Scotia instead of nine; 14 seats for Saskatchewan instead of 10; 14 seats for Manitoba instead of 12; 37 seats for Alberta; 43 seats for British Columbia; 78 seats for Quebec instead of 71; 122 seats for Ontario; and, finally, one seat each for Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, for a total of 343 seats.

This means just one seat would be added to the House of Commons, for a total of 343 seats instead of 342. This proposal reflects the provinces' demographic growth, and it also recognizes the importance of Quebec within our federation. I remind members that this federation was founded on the partnership between two peoples, between what were then known as Upper Canada and Lower Canada, between English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada. Because of our history, we have a duty to safeguard and protect this fragile balance. This proposal does not change the way seats are allocated, and it is consistent with other protections that have been established in the past. We are proposing a solution to protect the seats now, before the next election, without amending the Constitution. This would avoid endless constitutional debates that would result in Quebec losing a seat in the interim.

We are proposing a well-thought-out measure, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, after a few days of trying to deliver my speech in the House, I am pleased to finally rise. I am pleased that the hon. member for Winnipeg North gets to hear it. We had a good conversation about it last night.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act. It deals with how a democracy balances representative democracy with effective representation, and that is at the core of our parliamentary traditions.

Canada, as we know, was formed by compromise, as is our version of how we elect representatives in Parliament. While striving to make each vote have the same weight in a country as large as ours, with a population as dispersed as we have, we have to add other factors to how we determine an electoral district.

At Confederation, my province of Nova Scotia had 19 of the 181 seats in the House of Commons, or 10% of all seats. As the House grew to 208 seats in the late 1800s, Nova Scotia's count rose to 21 seats in Parliament, which was still about 10% of the seats. As we continued to grow again, Nova Scotia began seeing a decrease in its seats in the late 1800s, dropping to 16 seats by 1914 as we began to see the expansion of our country further west. In 1914, the Constitution, as we know, was amended to state that a province could not have fewer seats in the House than it had in the Senate. Nova Scotia has maintained its current 11 seats since 1966, one more than the 10 Senate seats allocated to our province at Confederation.

It is also important to remember that we live in a bicameral system of Parliament at the federal level where we have a legislative chamber tasked with reflecting the regional interests of the country. This is why Ontario and Quebec each have 24 senators, while the Maritimes have 24 and the west has 24. Later on in our history a number of others were added for Newfoundland and the territories.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, changes have been proposed to our boundaries, but the total number of seats will not be changing in this round of redistribution. The province has seen rapid growth, especially in the Halifax area, while experiencing an ongoing depopulation in some of the rural areas, which is not unique to our province, of course.

From end to end, my riding takes about four hours to drive, and people may be surprised by that, along the South Shore and through St. Margaret's Bay. That is only if people drive through the Trans-Canada Highway on the 103. If they take the much more scenic lighthouse route, it will take them a lot longer, but I would encourage people to try to do that.

While my riding may not be the largest in geographic size in Canada, it does highlight the tension inherent in larger ridings when it comes to effective representation. Balancing the need of a member of Parliament's ability to represent communities of interest is an extremely important part of drawing electoral boundaries.

That was reinforced by the Supreme Court of Canada in its ruling of the attorney general for Saskatchewan v. Roger Carter in 1991. In that ruling, the Supreme Court stated, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to 'effective representation.'” It goes on to say, “Effective representation and good government in this country compel that factors other than voter parity, such as geography and community interests, be taken into account in setting electoral boundaries.”

What this means is that for elected officials to provide effective representation, we take a different approach than the one we see in the United States, with its emphasis on representation by population. Ours is on community interest and geography. Large geography, like the north or even like my mostly rural riding, requires a different time and focus than it does for a suburban or urban member of Parliament.

As an example, I have 11 municipalities; that is 11 mayors and all of the councillors. I have more than 11 legions, and almost 12,000 square kilometres to cover. It is not as large as the riding of the previous speaker from Quebec, but it is still a large area to cover.

Indeed, in the run-up to the last election, as I was campaigning, I drove 42,000 kilometres in that campaign and walked 800 kilometres. If we compare that with a GTA riding, and I have lived part of my life in the GTA, that can be as small as five to 10 minutes to drive across or maybe even just two exits on the Gardiner Expressway. My point is that effective representation must be top of mind when it comes to this type of tweak in our electoral system and our representation. In my mind, this bill does that. I know the member for Winnipeg North will be happy to hear me say that.

The grandfathering clause of 1985 basically ensured that provinces would never have fewer seats than they had in 1985, which was 282 nationally, 11 of which were in Nova Scotia. This was to ensure that in the future no provinces would lose any seats despite the change in growth patterns. This bill essentially amends that provision of 1985 by the Mulroney government by bringing it up to the number in 2021 as the minimum number of seats.

It is great to see that in this bill the Liberals are actually protecting the essence of the Fair Representation Act, passed in 2011 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Despite their criticism of these changes at the time, I think it is wonderful to see the government acknowledge that what Stephen Harper brought in still works and is indeed fair.

It is also wonderful to see that this bill reflects the unanimous consent motion that was moved by the Conservative deputy leader, which states, “That the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly.” I am glad the government has acted accordingly. It is clear that the unanimous consent motions that are moved after question period, which we have seen a lot of lately, sometimes are not simply words but do indeed impact the tone of this place and can result in change.

The Conservatives will always push the needle in this place when it comes to advocating for the legislation Canadians want. At the end of the day, Canadians want their fair share. They want to have effective representation so they feel they are not separated from the people they sent to Ottawa to represent them. They do not want to drive for hours to the constituency office. My main constituency office is an hour and a half from one end and two hours from the other, so I had to open up a few other constituency offices in the riding for the first time, as previous members had not done that, to make it more convenient. Constituents do not want to be forgotten by the political establishment of this place in the riding just because they have a long way to go, which is why we need the tweaking under this bill.

Coming out of this pandemic, we are seeing more shifts in population from urban to rural areas. More people are moving out of downtown cores and spreading out into the suburbs and rural parts of this country. Future parliamentarians must remain nimble and always mindful, hopefully, of how these changes will impact their job of effectively representing all Canadians as reflected in our electoral legislation. These shifts are why it is so important that independent commissions are set up every 10 years and that we review and are constantly tinkering with this legislation in order to ensure that we have that balance between proportional representation, community interest and geography.

Canadians should be reminded how important their voices are when it comes to the proposals by their respective boundary commissions. In Nova Scotia, it is a panel of three people who decide the initial proposal, and it is their job to account for the views and feelings of those in our community. We look forward to those public hearings.

This legislation protects the legacy of the Fair Representation Act, ensures that no province will ever decrease in the number of seats it has, and does as little tweaking as possible while upholding, as well as it can, the balance of the principle of effective representation. These are standards that we should and must set for how the electoral map shapes up in the future.

I will be supporting this bill.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is good to have a minimum, as I said. Our gains are preserved and protected. The bill ensures that Quebec has no less than 78 seats in the House of Commons. That is what the government is proposing in Bill C-14. That is fine. What we are saying, however, is that a little something is still missing.

We get to keep our 78 seats, but if the number of seats in the other provinces continues to increase, our political weight will shrink. That is why I am proposing that we make small changes together, that we have discussions to ensure that Quebec's political weight is respected. Merely keeping the 78 seats, as is currently the case, unfortunately does not maintain Quebec's political weight.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this very important issue, which, in a way, was brought forward by the Bloc Québécois. People can say what they will, but the fact is that we devoted an opposition day to this very subject on March 2.

It was the Bloc Québécois that got a motion adopted, with an overwhelming majority, calling on the House to reject any federal electoral map redistribution scenario that would result in the loss of one or more electoral districts in Quebec or a reduction in Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons. The motion called on the government to take action to change the seat distribution formula for the House of Commons.

At the time, some people were surprised that the Bloc Québécois was using its opposition day to discuss the issue. We were told that we were wasting our time, that we could not change anything because it was up to the Chief Electoral Officer to make such decisions and that it was a mathematical formula, so why bother.

I rose to revisit the redistribution planned a decade ago that eliminated the riding that I represent today. Some may say that it is superficial, but that is one of the speeches that has garnered the most attention on my Facebook page. I think that shows that people in Quebec really care about this subject, especially people back home in the Gaspé and the Lower St. Lawrence.

When the Chief Electoral Officer made the announcement, I did not hear a lot of parties in the House of Commons cry foul or say that that they wanted to protect Quebec's political weight at all costs. I only heard members from the Bloc Québécois. In Quebec, we heard the Government of Quebec, who agreed with us.

Finally, I think that the Bloc MPs, with their speeches, ended up raising awareness because, a few weeks later, the government showed up with Bill C‑14. It seems like good news that the government is finally interested in this and is offering a solution. However, when we take another look, we see that something is missing.

The government wants to protect what we have gained and Quebec's 78 seats in the House. That is very good. That is good news. The kicker is that the math is off yet again. The focus is on the number of seats instead of on the political weight, and there is a fundamental difference between the two.

What we understand from this bill is that Quebec will never have fewer than 78 seats. That becomes a minimum of sorts. However, we also understand that the legislation will do nothing to prevent seats from being added in other provinces based on the results of demographic calculations. It is great that we are not losing any seats, but one seat could be added in Ontario, one in British Columbia and three in Alberta, which would mean that Quebec's political weight would drop anyway.

The House has already recognized that Quebec is a nation unto itself. In order for Quebec to take its rightful place and in order for its voice to be heard and taken into account, it needs to maintain its political weight. That is essential, particularly at a time when we have to once again fight to defend and protect our French language. In Quebec, we are accustomed to fighting for our values. Unfortunately, it has practically become a way of life for us.

Members should understand that the representation of a nation and a people goes beyond a simple demographic calculation. Its plans, desires and unique characteristics must be taken into account, as must its language, environmental concerns and intrinsic values. Of course, we would prefer it if Quebec were free to make its own choices, but in the meantime, we cannot allow it to gradually lose its say in the decisions that affect it.

I believe that meaningful political representation is a key part of a healthy democracy. However, in this bill to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, there are some oversights and vagaries that a calculator just cannot take into account.

Earlier I mentioned that Quebec is starting to get accustomed to always having to fight to defend our language and our political weight. During the last electoral redistribution in 2012, my riding of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapedia was directly targeted. At the time, the Chief Electoral Officer determined that this nearly 15,000-square-kilometre riding should be eliminated because of declining populations in the region. He proposed splitting the riding in two and merging part of the riding with Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and the other part with Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine. That move would have created two of the largest ridings by area in all of Quebec.

The proposal was to eliminate my riding without regard for its particularities, for the people who live there, for its uniqueness or for the hours that the member of Parliament would have to travel to meet with their constituents.

As I have said before in the House, my four riding offices are hours of driving away from each other. For example, last Saturday I had to drive four hours to see my constituents and participate in two different activities. This huge riding was supposed to be divided and two even larger ridings created. I think that is the sort of thing that should be taken into consideration. This should be about more than a simple accounting exercise.

Finally, 10 years ago, reason prevailed. A way was found to keep this riding intact. However, 10 years later, even with Bill C-14, we are still at the same point, because I do not think we are approaching the issue from the right angle.

Every region has its own identity that makes it unique; it is not something that can simply be tallied up. It can be seen in special regional traits, in local expressions, in one-of-a-kind communities. I would venture to say that Quebec's representation and political weight is not just something the Bloc cares about. In 2012, when Quebec was about to lose a seat, those who ardently defended it were regionalists. It did not matter what party they belonged to. In fact, one Bloc member and three New Democrats from eastern Quebec fought to defend the weight of their region, and therefore of my region. This March, 262 members of the House supported the Bloc Québécois motion. Unlike Bill C‑14, this motion called for Quebec's political weight to be protected, not just its number of seats. I hope that my colleagues will be consistent when it comes time to vote, and I hope that those who voted against it will change their minds. If Nova Scotia's political weight were under threat, I am sure that Nova Scotian MPs here would stand up for their region. That is exactly what we are doing for Quebec.

Call me an idealist, but I believe that the people of Quebec, especially those of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, deserve better than to be considered a mere ballot-box accounting exercise.

I said that we are not approaching the issue from the right angle and that there are other solutions to consider. The Bloc Québécois offered one up. My very good friend, the member for Drummond, introduced Bill C‑246 to add a new criterion to the seat distribution formula. Basically, it suggests going by a percentage rather than a number of seats. That may seem complicated, but it is easy as pie and, more importantly, realistic. It is called the nation clause. It is similar to the existing Senate clauses and grandfather clauses. Given that Quebec is a nation, this bill would guarantee Quebec 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. In other words, one-quarter of the seats in Parliament would go to one-quarter of the Canadian population, the population of Quebec. This is a simple, sound and clear proposal that establishes a solid base for Quebec's representation in the House.

What I am trying to say is that Quebec's nationhood cannot be quantified. Nationhood can be described, discovered, experienced. Nationhood is language, it is culture, it is the people who live there. It is our desires, our goals, our aspirations.

For Quebeckers, there are some values that are non-negotiable. We believe that gender equality is essential in a society that considers itself to be egalitarian, and that climate change must be tackled now for the generations that will follow us, so all can live in a healthy environment.

We believe that everyone has the right to receive dignified and proper health care; that seniors have the right to the respect they deserve; that first nations must be treated with dignity and respect, be considered as equals and be dealt with on a nation-to-nation basis. We believe that our vibrant and sustainable businesses are the driving force in an economy that addresses our environmental concerns; that all individuals, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, have the right to love and live as they choose; that women have the right to choice, to any choice.

Quebec is all that and more. These are values that are not exclusive to the nation that we are, and I realize that. However, they are the values that we stand up for in the House. They are the values that make us who we are. In order for us to represent them, to defend them well, and to ensure that they are heard in this place, Quebec's political weight deserves to be maintained.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C‑14 is a step forward. It guarantees at least 78 members for Quebec. Nevertheless, Quebec's proportion of the seats will shrink as the number of MPs for Canada grows, and that is fine.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks of Quebec's proportional political weight, its ratio with respect to Canada. How can we protect that?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House as the representative of the good people of North Okanagan—Shuswap, as always. Finally, after three days of delay, I get to speak to Bill C-14.

Today, I rise to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The bill before us today proposes measures to ensure that a province will not have fewer members assigned to it than were assigned during the 43rd Parliament. This proposal is not without precedent. There have been times when the House has agreed to adjust its system of redistribution to ensure that provinces do not lose seats in redistribution, and this is the essence of the legislation we are assessing today.

It is not the first time the House has debated this long-standing question: What are the objectives and factors for adjusting or creating federal electoral districts? In 1991, the Supreme Court of Canada examined the question, precipitated by a redistribution process in Saskatchewan for adjusting electoral boundaries. In its conclusions, the Supreme Court stated:

The content of the Charter right to vote is to be determined in a broad and purposive way, having regard to historical and social context. The broader philosophy underlying the historical development of the right to vote must be sought and practical considerations, such as social and physical geography, must be borne in mind.

The court highlighted the ideal of a “free and democratic society” upon which the charter is founded. The Supreme Court also wrote, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation’. The right to vote therefore comprises many factors, of which equity is but one.”

Basing voting power or parity on mathematical calculations of populations is important, but these are not the only factors for the House to consider.

On June 1, 1872, 150 years ago, the House was debating factors for proposed adjustments to representation in the House of Commons, and Prime Minister John A. Macdonald told the House, “while the principle of population was considered to a very great extent, other considerations were also held to have weight; so that different interests, classes and localities should be fairly represented, that the principle of numbers should not be the only one.”

In the 1991 Saskatchewan case, the Supreme Court further explained reasons why parity of voting power, though of prime importance, is not the only factor to consider in ensuring effective representation. In 1991, the Supreme Court wrote:

Notwithstanding the fact that the value of a citizen's vote should not be unduly diluted, it is a practical fact that effective representation often cannot be achieved without taking into account countervailing factors.

First, absolute parity is impossible. It is impossible to draw boundary lines which guarantee exactly the same number of voters in each district. Voters die, voters move. Even with the aid of frequent censuses, voter parity is impossible.

Secondly, such relative parity as may be possible of achievement may prove undesirable because it has the effect of detracting from the primary goal of effective representation.

As we examine this bill's legislative proposals for our system of redistribution and determining representation provided to each province, I would like to reflect on effective representation. What did the Supreme Court mean when it wrote, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to ‘effective representation’”?

The court provided some answers to this question in 1991, when it stated:

Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic. These are but examples of considerations which may justify departure from absolute voter parity in the pursuit of more effective representation; the list is not closed.

When I reflect on this statement from the court, I see the court highlighting the importance of social fabric and the threads of culture, history, geography and identities interwoven in social fabrics of specific communities, regions and constituencies. I agree that these factors must be considered as constituencies are created or redistributed and as the boundaries of electoral districts are redrawn. Whether we are talking about political boundaries or boundaries such as those the government is drawing on our oceans in a desperate effort to deliver campaign promises, we must reflect on what the purpose is of drawing lines and what the realities are of the societies or waters that we draw lines through.

While the Supreme Court stated in 1991 that the determination of political representation and adjustment of electoral boundaries should support the pursuit of “effective representation”, I believe there are some important points to be made today, in 2022, regarding effective representation.

Canadians depend on us, their elected representatives, to function in the House as their voices, their advocates and their representatives. Effective representation, I believe, is dependent on each of us being open to the Canadians we represent so that we can understand and advocate for their ever-evolving needs and priorities. That is what each of us as individual members can do to support effective representation and the Canadians who depend on us to do so.

However, and I hope members on all sides agree with me on this point, our ability to deliver effective representation to Canadians is severely hampered when Parliament is shuttered and the House of Commons sits silent in adjournment.

Last year, in 2021, the House sat for just 95 days. In 2020, the House sat for 86 days. Yes, in 2020, the House's operation was hampered by the arrival of the pandemic. Yes, in 2021, the Prime Minister chose to trigger an unnecessary election and then delayed the return of Parliament for nine weeks. At a time of unprecedented crisis, the Prime Minister chose to shutter one platform that we all need to deliver effective representation to Canadians.

It is clear why the House was reduced in its function as a forum for effective representation in 2020 and 2021. However, the same cannot be said for 2019, when the House sat for a mere 75 days, even fewer days than in 2020 and 2021. To put things in a historical perspective, from 1945 to 1975, the House sat an average of 138 days each year. From 1975 to 2015, the House sat for an average of 123 days each year.

As we assess the legislation before us today, I hope all members can reflect on the objective that I hope we all share: the goal of providing effective representation for all Canadians. Let us also reflect on the essential role the House plays in facilitating effective representation by providing representatives the forum in which to represent.

It is not enough to champion effective representation only in today's debate; we must pursue it every day. While the House was shuttered, I used my time to connect with constituents and hear their concerns in order to be more effective when Parliament resumed sitting. Let us never sit idly by while the Prime Minister shutters the House, which we need for doing our jobs.

The House resumed from May 16 consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-14—Time Allocation Motion

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, I obviously agree with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby when he characterized what is really a very unfortunate series of procedural shenanigans the Conservatives have participated in. Why?

In French, they want to be able to tell their colleagues from Quebec who support Bill C‑14 that they are in favour of maintaining the number of seats in Quebec. However, in the House of Commons, and especially in their English remarks, they are doing everything in their power to prevent a vote on this bill. I think that was the reason in this case.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, what is disappointing this evening is the sad spectacle put on by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

The Bloc Québécois will always oppose muzzling opposition parties and taking away their powers. Yesterday, the delay tactics had consequences not just for the House, but for committees as well. A committee on medical assistance in dying was scheduled to discuss two fundamental matters yesterday: the protection of people with disabilities and the issue of mental illness as the sole underlying condition for medical assistance in dying. Witnesses were waiting. We upended all that and had to make people wait, when this committee does not meet very often as it is.

At present, a minister is telling us that what the Conservatives did was appalling. The Liberals themselves, when they were in opposition, used the same tactic and will continue to use it. Neither party is all that credible. At some point, common sense must prevail, and we must act according to our cherished principles of the exercise of parliamentary democracy.

What we are hearing from the minister and from the official opposition will do nothing to convince the people watching that this place is not a circus. Then, they act surprised that people are cynical about the work that we do here in the House. The Bloc Québécois feels that Bill C‑14 offers barely half of what we were asking for. That is another story, but we need to stop acting like this is the place for theatrics.

I would like to see more dignified behaviour here. Instead of telling the Conservatives that what they are saying is appalling, it would be better to tell them that it is more important we keep working. There is no problem with working until midnight. However, members' ability to do so should not be taken away.

We must denounce what the Conservatives did because, if we have a repeat of yesterday's nonsense, the people watching us will wonder what the heck is going on. However, this pretext is being used here to muzzle us. I would like to call for more respect for parliamentary democracy. Otherwise, democracy will rise from the streets.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Speaker, far from wanting to silence the official opposition, we are actually trying to help the members have an opportunity to vote on this legislation. We are trying to help them out of the dead end they found themselves in last evening, as our friend for New Westminster—Burnaby pointed out, where they were using a series of absolutely ridiculous measures to ensure that the House was voting on which Conservative member would repeat a speech that was generated the previous time this legislation was brought before the House.

Our Conservative colleague asked what is behind this. I will be very clear on what is behind this. This is about allowing the House of Commons to pronounce itself on Bill C-14, which we think will enjoy broad support in the House, and then allowing the bill to proceed to committee, where our colleagues in committee can hear from witnesses, can debate the legislation and can make amendments if they decide it is necessary. The bill can come back to the House of Commons in the normal legislative process with which we are extremely familiar. Then, finally, our friends in the other place will have an opportunity to study the legislation as well.

The urgency, as I said, is constitutional and under legislation. Every 10 years, after a census, there is a redistribution process that takes place in every province, allowing an independent commission chaired by a justice or a judge from that province, appointed by the chief justice of the province, to look at the question of electoral boundaries and to adjust electoral boundaries for movements in population and for increases in population in some provinces. In this case, if this bill is adopted, we will provide a floor for the number of seats every province will have in this House of Commons. It is particularly important to our friends from the province of Quebec who, under the formula, would have stood to be diminished by one seat, losing one seat in the House of Commons. We think it is important for Canadians and for Quebeckers to know that the representation in 2021 will be the representation used by these commissions in determining the appropriate electoral boundaries. In your great province of Quebec, Madam Speaker, that would be 78 seats.

We wish the Conservative Party would support us in passing this so the commission could do its important work.

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

Madam Speaker, I think never has the House leader of the official opposition spoken truer words than when, in referring to the Conservative Party, he talked about the decline of the democracy.

We have now seen over the past six months, ever since we passed unanimously the ban on conversion therapy and there was a revolt in the Conservative backbench, that Conservatives have blocked every single piece of legislation. In Bill C-9, teachers and farmers were looking for supports and Conservatives refused to let it through. They are now blocking Bill C-14.

The reality is as we saw it last night. The House leader of the official opposition referred to vigorous debate. What Conservatives wanted us to debate, at a cost of tens of thousands of dollars last night, for hour after hour, was which Conservative MP would speak. We had vote—

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think that the substance of Bill C-14 is worthy of further debate. It is not simply a matter of the number of seats; however, I am not going to debate Bill C-14 here. I think the debate deserves to continue in a truly democratic fashion.

I have a question about the gag orders that are being used week after week. Normally a gag order would be something out of the ordinary in this form of government, but we are seeing them come up repeatedly. Is this by any chance related to Motion No. 11, which we had shoved down our throats?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

Madam Speaker, I think members will find it ironic that we are getting lectures on indignation in that Oscar-winning performance on the other side of the aisle. We should never underestimate our Conservative friends' ability to manufacture outrage and indignation, and talk about loyal opposition and democracy.

We think that Bill C-14, which is the subject of the discussion for the next 25 minutes and not the fabricated outrage of my friend on the other side of the aisle, is about ensuring that every province, including the Speaker's province of Quebec, maintains the electoral representation and the number of seats it had in the House of Commons in 2021. In other words, no province should see a reduction in its representation in the House of Commons.

I was very encouraged, when this bill was first debated, that the Conservative Party showed support for this legislation. Members spoke in favour of the bill as an important gesture recognizing the unique position that the province of Quebec occupies in the Canadian federation, and recognizing that every province should be able to benefit from a grandfather clause, similar to what former prime minister Brian Mulroney did in 1985. We are suggesting in this legislation that the House of Commons and the Senate approve a similar amendment that would allow us to have a 2021 grandfather clause.

That is the subject of this conversation. The Conservatives say they want to support the bill, but they do everything they can to vandalize the legislative process and make sure that Parliament cannot actually proceed to a vote. What we are saying tonight is that it is time for members to stand in their places and vote on this legislation, and we are very confident that the Conservatives, who manufactured this outrage, will in the end stand up and vote for this process. We are making this possible for them tonight.

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am deeply humbled and grateful to be here to speak about something fundamental to our country, and that is democracy. The reason I am feeling that so deeply today is because my riding of North Island—Powell River is in deep grief. On May 14, just two days ago, Canada lost an amazing community hero and World War II vet: “Stocky” Edwards, at the ripe age of 100. Our region is deeply shaken by this sad news, and I know that our legions and our military family will be grieving for a long time to come.

Stocky and his wife Toni have been pillars of our community for so long. Now, we will rally around her as she has done so often for all of us. My heart is with Stocky's wife Toni, and with all his family and loved ones.

When Stocky was asked about his tremendous accomplishments in the Second World War, he had no time to brag. His humbleness was one of his many assets that made our region have such deep love and respect for him. His commitment to the people of 19 Wing Comox has been deeply respected, and he and Toni provided a sense of family to so many new military folks in our area. I really want to take this opportunity to honour him and the dedication he had for our country. His loss is one that I will carry with me forever.

I will now return to Bill C-14, which is really about democracy, our boundaries and representation. As the member of Parliament who represents the third-largest riding in British Columbia, I think that it is incredibly important to make sure that our boundaries are strong and clear, that communities are recognized, and that rural and remote communities have strong voices to support them in this process that we are all a part of in the House of Commons.

I also think that it is important to acknowledge that there are challenges of distrust of the government on this issue. The reason I bring that forward is because I was elected in 2015, and during and after that election, I had a lot of hope in the Prime Minister's promise around electoral reform. When the committee was struck, I was incredibly proud of the work that the NDP had done to make sure that the committee was proportional and that it really did reflect the space of the House. I also admired the committee deeply because of the work that it did and how much it met through the summer. That was a huge sacrifice, meaning that the members could not necessarily be in their ridings as much as they wanted to or with their families. They worked very hard and they provided a very profound report to Parliament that gave us a pathway to move forward on some key issues that matter to so many in our country.

I remember that I sent out a mailer to folks in our community and did several town halls in my region to talk about electoral reform. For a rural and remote community of that size, there was a lot of concern about access and voice, and about making sure that the representative was from the area and that those voices were specific and heard.

We had a lot of conversations. I was able to provide a report back to my community about what they had said about electoral reform. What was very interesting to me was the timing. I mailed out to my constituents what they had said about electoral reform, and just a few days before those landed on their doorsteps, the government said that it was not going to follow the report. In fact, it did it in some very disrespectful ways.

What I found interesting was that many constituents who were concerned about electoral reform, and who had a lot of things they wanted to explore further, felt very upset. They were frustrated that they did not get a voice. They felt that their voices were incredibly important in this process in a new way, because they were told they were no longer able to have a voice in the process. It was disappointing. I heard from a lot of constituents that they felt frustrated and that they felt that the Liberals just wanted a ranked ballot, and that was not what they wanted to see in our electoral process.

When we talk about things like proportional representation, we are talking about making sure that every vote counts, that the voices of the whole collective are reflected in our House of Commons.

As I said earlier, as a person who represents rural and remote communities, I wanted to make sure there were opportunities for those voices to be heard and that the process of a proportional system would not lose those voices. They want to see that the local representation and those voices are heard in the House of Commons. They want it to be fair.

There is room to have those discussions, but sadly, the Liberals ignored that opportunity. I really feel, and I have heard this after every election, there is a sense of cynicism that we are never going to get to a place where those voices are heard and where we actually create a system that is more proportional.

The member for Elmwood—Transcona put forward a motion in PROC to discuss the important idea of having a citizens' assembly on electoral reform in the last Parliament. It passed, but unfortunately, because of the election call, a completely uncalled for election in my opinion, the study never happened. We now have to go back to the drawing board.

What is so important about having a citizens' assembly on electoral reform is we need to see citizens engaged. We need to hear those voices. Maybe we need to take it out of the political realm and give voices to people across this country.

It is so important, and I have heard from constituents across the board that they want to explore this. They want to make sure their vote counts. They want to be able to vote as they feel, even if that vote will not get them a seat in Parliament. They do not want to feel that their vote is something they throw away.

Constituents also want to make sure that areas are represented fairly. For my riding, as I said earlier, they do not want to feel like the cities of our country are the ones making the decisions. The realities for rural and remote communities can be very different from those of larger cities. That is not to dishonour any of them, but it is to make sure that those voices are heard.

There are a lot of questions. People want to come together and they want to trust one another that they can have these frank conversations and educate each other. I hope the government will start to listen to those voices and take into account that when we have a system that allows people to have a voice, they want to speak out.

When we look at electoral reform and when we look at proportional representation, we know that diversity is engaged with those processes more. That is something we need to be paying attention to, especially as representatives of the House of the common people.

When we talk about that, we want to see as much diversity as we possibly can. We want multiple voices so that when decisions are made, they are made in comprehensive ways that take in all of those different points of view and assessments.

We continue to encourage this to happen. I know that we will continue to do the work. Hopefully we will see a study in PROC that actually gets to what we need to see happen across this country around a citizens' assembly so that the work can start. It is really important. Many people in my riding have come forward and presented this idea to me multiple times with a lot of passion and energy.

I am really happy to discuss this bill. I look forward to hearing from other people.

The last thing I want to mention is the idea of lowering the voting age. The member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley has brought forward legislation for us to all look at and discuss. It is on lowering the voting age to 16. I am very proud to say that in my riding, we are hearing from young people who are supporting this wholeheartedly. They are actively going out and educating people about opening the doors of opportunity for young people to have a voice.

We know that when young people start voting sooner and when they participate sooner, they vote long term. I look forward to that.

I am happy to answer any questions.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot on his speech. I am not disappointed at having voted in favour of the motion so that he could be heard.

Let me draw a parallel between Bill C‑14, which we are debating this evening, and Bill C‑246, which I recently introduced in the House of Commons. There is a link, a parallel between the two bills. Bill C‑14 obviously stems from the Bloc Québécois bill that I introduced regarding Quebec's political weight within Canada.

My colleague voted against the March 2 motion moved by the Bloc, which said more or less the same thing as our bill. The goal is to recognize that Quebec is a nation and that, as a nation, it must be given the tools to be able to properly represent itself for as long as it chooses to be part of this Parliament.

Does my colleague agree that Quebec is a nation and that, notwithstanding the inequities, injustices or inequalities there may be between the provinces, Quebec should have the tools to protect its unique identity?

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate my colleague from Manitoba for saying that there is lots of time to ensure that I get these things out.

Having a fair, trusted, transparent process is absolutely key, as many of us in this place know and as I share often with constituents. When they ask if they can trust our election system, I say proudly that we can. We need to be diligent to ensure that we do not see an erosion of that trust. That is absolutely key. I can point to various things that the current Liberal government has done over the last number of years that have contributed to an erosion of trust, but we have strength within our democratic system, and it is the distribution of our electoral boundaries that is a key element of that and why Canadians can trust it.

As many of us in this place are aware, the Chief Electoral Officer, in the second half of last year, released a report. As mandated through the Elections Act, he makes a recommendation to Parliament based on the relevant sections of the Constitution Act, 1867, formerly referred to as the British North America Act prior to the repatriation of 1982.

The Chief Electoral Officer is tasked with ensuring that the fundamental principles of representation by population within the House of Commons are respected. As many of us in this place, politicos across the country, observers, those involved in politics and interested Canadians would have noted, the Chief Electoral Officer provided a report based on the most recent census information to ensure that adjustments were made so that this place accurately reflects the population changes that take place within our country.

I come from a province that has had, over its history, significant growth. It has been a little over a century since Alberta became a province, and it was once a largely unpopulated region. Of course, we have our indigenous history and there were settlers and whatnot, but it has grown significantly to the point that Alberta's population is now more than four and a half million. Because Alberta has had a significant growth in population, it is key that representation by population be reflected within its representation in this place.

When the Chief Electoral Officer released the report this past year, it started that process to address “inequities”, which I say specifically, to ensure that the people of Alberta have representation within this place. Specifically, the recommendation was that Alberta should get three additional seats. Two other provinces also experienced population growth that was higher than the national average and were given an additional seat, and the Chief Electoral Officer recommended that Quebec lose one seat.

I understand the feeling of concern that my friends and colleagues, within this party and other parties, have when it comes to our voices not being heard and to reduced representation. I know that members of the Conservative caucus, when an opposition motion was brought forward by the Bloc Québécois, had outlined opposition to Quebec losing a seat. There was, I believe, an almost even split when it comes to how the Conservative caucus felt on that matter.

As a side note, the fact that there are those divides within the Conservative caucus speaks to how democracy is truly represented well within the Conservative Party of Canada. We disagree on things. In fact, as I reflect over my now close to two and a half years since being elected, a lot of issues come up, whether they relate to issues of the day or policy, that Conservatives will not necessarily clearly agree on. We agree on lots of the big-picture stuff; that is why we are Conservatives, but we may disagree on aspects of it, and that is okay. I note that it is concerning to me that other parties within this place seem to be unable to express those differences. They look at that disagreement as a weakness, but I would suggest, certainly given the feedback that I hear from Canadians, that it is in fact a strength.

The debate on that motion took place, and the Conservatives, endeavouring to show leadership on the national stage, moved a motion to address concerns. The Leader of the Opposition voted in favour of the Bloc motion because of the dynamics associated with the province of Manitoba, which she represents, and the concern that if a precedent were set, rural areas or smaller provinces may at some point lose representation.

I understand how that can be a concern. I live in a very fast-growing and populous province, and I am proud of that, but I do live in a rural region. The largest community in my constituency has about 18,000 people. Then it is down to 10,000, a couple with around 5,000 and then more than 60 self-governing municipalities ranging in size from 132 people up to 18,000.

Since the agricultural revolution, there has been a trend toward urbanization. The concern I hear often is about the divide that exists when it comes to ensuring that rural Canada, rural Alberta and the region I specifically represent still have a voice and the ability to be heard so that our democracy is responsive to the realities that exist in a jurisdiction where there may be some stagnation of growth.

As we are now faced with Bill C-14, I note that the Conservative compromise is basically what the Liberals have moved forward in Bill C-14. I further note that this speaks to the maturity, ability and competence represented within Canada's official opposition.

Bill C-14, very simply, would amend the floor for the minimum number of seats that a province would have within our electoral system. It was set in the 1988 census, if my memory holds true, and is current up until this point. Until the bill is passed, this is the current floor, and in most provinces that looks a little different, including Quebec. The bill would basically change the floor from the current status quo.

Conservatives proposed that compromise because it got to the heart of the matter in ensuring that there would not be that feeling of disenfranchisement in jurisdictions that may not be as fast-growing, while also respecting the fact that representation by population is a key and foundational part of Canada's democratic infrastructure.

I would be remiss if I did not engage in the very relevant conversation of democratic reform within this place. When I look at our nation's history, I see the fathers of Confederation, those who laid the foundation and framework for what our country is today, very clearly and in the first lines of what is now known as the Constitution Act, 1867, but was then known as the British North America Act. When Canada became a nation, on July 1, 1867, the constitutional framework very clearly said it would be a government similar in construct to that of the British government, with the Westminster system of Parliament.

Now, it went on to acknowledge something that is very important, and that is the regional realities within Canada. In 1867, there were four provinces in the federation, which had a very different regional reality than we face today, as our country has grown significantly. However, that regional reality does exist.

My submission here today, and certainly what I hear often from constituents, is the fact that we have inequity in our democratic infrastructure, which includes the House of Commons, the House of the common people, which is similar in construct to that of the United Kingdom. Its representation is by population. The key balance to that is ensuring that there is a regional counterweight, so to speak. Unfortunately, that has not evolved as our country has grown.

My submission today is that, as we talk about the need for democratic reform and this specific amendment to the Constitution to address some of the feelings of alienation, which Alberta certainly knows well, we have to be willing to have the conversation to address the inequity that exists in the other place, Canada's Senate. It is based on and is similar in construct and procedure to the House of Lords in the United Kingdom, but its members are appointed through a somewhat different mechanism, with that regional representation.

In Canada's early days, there was more of that regional balance. However, it has not kept up. Alberta has six senators when the province of Ontario and the province of Quebec both have 24. I bring that up because that does not truly represent regional balance.

Alberta, specifically, is under-represented in this place, when one does the math on the number of people. Even after these changes are implemented, and there is the addition of three seats, after whenever Parliament considers and presumably implements the changes associated with the electoral boundaries commissions across Canada, Alberta will remain somewhat under-represented, although it would take a step in the right direction with three additional seats for our province.

I know the Liberals are quick to dismiss this, which I hear about so often. I know I had a take-note debate when one of the parliamentary secretaries, who happened to represent a riding from the greater Toronto area, was unfortunately dismissive of the concerns related to why Senate reform is so very important. If there was that fair regional balance, it would be very easy for those regions of our country that are less populated, and that have unique regional dynamics, to have that clear representation in a place that has, in most capacities, other than the ability to introduce bills of spending, the exact same authority as the House of Commons. That piece is missing.

As I have mentioned, I hear from constituents who are feeling that concept of western alienation in Alberta. It is a real thing. Any of the Liberal-NDP members or otherwise who dismiss that, do so at their own peril, because Albertans have expressed to me, and not just to me but to many other colleagues from Alberta and across the country, that they understand it as a very real concern, so to be willing to have that conversation is absolutely fundamental.

I would further note that there are some incredible people who serve and have served in Canada's Senate, and I am proud to sit in a caucus with a number of them. However, I hear quite often that, as the Prime Minister has promised to fix the process, Albertans have said very clearly that they do not want to participate. I say that because Alberta elects its senators, which has been dismissed by members of the government. I bring that up in this debate because it is part of the process of ensuring that democracy is responsive. I fully respect that not every province may want an elected Senate, but I would think that the very minimum level of respect that should be offered to a jurisdiction such as the province of Alberta would be for the leader of the country to respect the fact that we have chosen to do things a little differently.

In the case of Alberta, in coordination with either a provincial or municipal election, we elect senators in waiting. There are currently three of them, and they were elected just this past October. They ran in campaigns and made their case to the people of Alberta, who got to choose. That is key. Democracy worked.

Unfortunately, the Prime Minister and the government have refused to acknowledge both the validity of those elections and their importance. They will say they fixed the process. They blame Stephen Harper and suggest that somehow Albertans simply need to be educated on these matters. There is a very clear precedent, set not just by Stephen Harper, but by a number of prime ministers, that shows this process actually works. It is the minimum level of respect that should be offered to the province of Alberta.

I would simply note this: When I have asked questions about this in question period, the members opposite have suggested that somehow the Prime Minister's process is superior. I will not go into an explanation at length as to why I would suggest that is patently false, but what I would share with members today is that the best system, the best formula, is always democracy and the people making the choices. I will also note for the record, as I am sure many Canadians are watching, that at least two of the senators in waiting have filed their paperwork through the Prime Minister's transparent process, and I say “transparent” sarcastically. It is key that respect be offered to the province of Alberta.

As we debate and have the conversation around Bill C-14 and the specific reasons why the debate is important, which I hope I have been able to outline adequately for the House, we need to be willing to ensure that our democratic infrastructure in this country is preserved. This is certainly a unique position, having the confidence of members of this place to be heard. I appreciate that affirmation as, since I was first elected, I have assured the people of Battle River—Crowfoot that I would be heard in this place.

I would note that it was the Prime Minister, the leader of the Liberal Party, the leader of the NDP and the coalition partnership, who chose to vote against me being heard. I think my views on the Liberals and the NDP are quite well known. I would suggest that speaks to how I am affirmed in my need, my desire and the confidence of the people of Battle River—Crowfoot to continue being heard in this place in whatever way possible to ensure that the interests of east central Alberta are heard within the House of Commons.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I do appreciate this opportunity. As I have made clear to my constituents, I will ensure that their voices are always heard in this place. It is an honour to speak to some of the incredibly important issues pertaining to democracy in our country.

Let me unpack a bit what Bill C-14 is about. When it comes to the process of our constituencies, which is part of the reality of our national democratic system, every 10 years, according to our constitutional framework, a census is taken and a redistribution takes place. This is key. As I share often with my constituents, having a fair, clear, transparent and trusted process is absolutely key to ensure that democracy is protected in Canada. That is at the crux or the foundation of what we are talking about here today.

I will have a fair amount to say about the way Alberta feels, but I want to unpack a few aspects of Bill C-14.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Bill C-14—Notice of Time Allocation Motion

[Randy Boissonnault, Liberal, Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, an agreement could not be reached under the provisions of Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation).

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that the west wants to be heard, the west wants in and I am so pleased that tonight there was a small representative sample of what that means for the good people of Battle River—Crowfoot.

I rise today to speak to this very important issue, Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867—

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Finance

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great question. I want to thank the hon. member.

I am not going to thank the government for imposing Motion No. 11 on us, which extends hours to midnight so that we could debate very important topics that Canadians are seized with. If the hon. member wants to spend time debating these, if he wants to extend sittings to midnight, Conservatives, and I said this the very day we debated Motion No. 11, will be here every single night, as the government requires, to debate those issues that are important to Canadians.

We are also going to be debating government legislation tonight, right up until midnight, Bill C-14. When I rose earlier, how many speakers from the government side were willing to debate that? None. Just as we predicted, it will be the opposition debating government legislation. It will be the opposition asking the opposition questions on government legislation. The government put us in this position to debate these issues that are important to Canadians, just like taxes on the moon and the Criminal Code on the moon, and we are going to be here to debate them as long as we need to.

Health

[René Villemure, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, although we were supposed to be debating Bill C‑14 today, we nevertheless had to consider the tabling of the committee report.

Last week I attended Taiwan Night with some colleagues, where we were able to discuss the Taiwanese government's concerns on this matter. After the event I invited our Taiwanese friends to come observe this afternoon, but I am disappointed, because I have been hearing members over the past hour asking why we are not talking about something else. I obviously care a lot about Bill C‑14, but it is also important that this report be tabled. We must examine its findings and how it calls on us, as parliamentarians, to do something about this situation.

We have all witnessed the situation in Ukraine and Russia over the past few months, and the expression that comes to mind when I think of that situation is “the thorn in the lion's paw”. NATO has said that it is no one's fault but, at the same time, it is everyone's fault. That same expression comes to mind when I think of relations between Taiwan and China.

I think we need a little flexibility in order to make an informed decision under the circumstances. That is what we need to discuss this afternoon: What can we do to speed up Taiwan's admission to the World Health Organization, or WHO, and the World Health Assembly?

In a community or a group, the first thing to do if we want to be in society is to appreciate the true value of the “other”. The failure to contribute to the admission of entities—or, in this case, independent countries—to associations such as the WHO or the World Health Assembly amounts in some way to denying their existence.

Why do we do this? Generally, we do it strictly on the basis of conviction. We all have convictions, whether it is the Speaker, myself or even the member for Winnipeg North. That is what keeps us standing, what we value, and it is often an imperative. However, societies also have convictions. Unfortunately, a conviction is something that we hold very dear, but with little regard for its predictable consequences. Following a conviction is often done at all costs, which is evident in the delay of Taiwan's admission to the bodies I mentioned.

However, when it comes to a conviction, we cannot deny that there are no consequences to our actions. Every action has its consequences. In fact, the consequences are part of the action. For Russia and Ukraine, the consequences are dire. We had good intentions, but good intentions do not count if they are not carried through. We can hope, but if we do not act on that hope, it does not count.

We must justify our conviction about whether we are for or against admitting Taiwan into these organizations. This is what I personally call the ethics of responsibility, the ethics of a form of decision-making that involves considering the foreseeable consequences of a given action.

What are the foreseeable consequences of admitting or not admitting Taiwan to these organizations? We can predict that, if Taiwan is denied admittance, the decision will be postponed, and there will be petitions, more lobbying and, most importantly, people who will not be able to contribute to or benefit from science.

I believe we are heading for the inevitable and that admittance is the best way to go. If we agree to admit Taiwan, I think we will reduce the risk of confrontation in a part of the world that, frankly, is prone to confrontation. I do not have a crystal ball, but when I look at Russia, Ukraine, Finland and Sweden, I see Taiwan on the other side of the crystal ball.

The consequences of denying Taiwan admittance should not be underestimated. We all have our own convictions, and that is fine. When we look at the consequences of having or not having convictions on this issue, we reach the stage that I call the ethics of discussion. I mention this because it is what we do here in Parliament. The ethics of discussion is the ability to discuss objectively in order to reconcile what we want to do with what we end up doing.

This is about reconciling what we want to do with what we end up doing. It is about aligning word with deed. I believe that we should be able make a decision without having unnecessary barriers thrown up, without getting bogged down. We may decide to take action or we may decide not to. Yes, we might make a mistake, but we are not God. The worst mistake is not deciding. The biggest mistake is looking the other way. I often say that the greatest lack of ethics is turning a blind eye.

Certainly, in this case, we are not being asked to make a decision. We are not the WHO. We are being asked to receive the conclusions of a committee that is established under the rules of the House of Commons, one that operates independently and has tabled its report.

Too often in the past, we have seen reports that were not received by the House of Commons, which comes back to haunt us after a while. It makes for even more procedures than necessary.

This afternoon, what are my Taiwanese friends seeing when they are watching us? In the last hour, they have seen people disagreeing about how to move forward. No one has been stubborn about moving forward, but we disagree about the method. Meanwhile, time is passing and people are waiting, yet no decisions are being made.

I believe the report should be presented because I believe Taiwan should be part of the WHO. Why do I believe that? I think it is about social values. Values are things that we find to be good, noble or desirable, but the value we are talking about here is solidarity. Solidarity means unity for common cause. In this case, that common cause is health. Taiwan made a significant contribution with respect to COVID‑19. Taiwan is willing and able to contribute. What may be preventing this report from being presented today is fear, misplaced fear of the Chinese bear. We are a legally constituted Parliament. I believe we should make this decision. This is not a life or death decision; this is about concurring in a report. We should concur in it so we can move forward. This is about solidarity. This is no time to pretend the problem does not exist. This is no time to be stubborn about our convictions just for the sake of being stubborn.

In answer to the concerns raised by my colleague from Winnipeg North, I would like us to adopt this motion quickly so we can move on to Bill C‑14. Bill C‑14 is extremely important to me. What I would suggest today is an entente cordiale among the parties so we can move forward and do our parliamentary work without obstacles of our own making.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-14 is the bill that we were supposed to be debating today. We started it this morning. In essence, Elections Canada is an independent organization. We are bringing forward legislation to ensure that the province of Quebec, a province I am very, very proud of, especially that French factor, gets the minimum 78 seats. In fact, I understand that every member of this chamber wants to make sure that Quebec gets that, but there is one political party that just wants to debate it. Members of that party do not want it to pass it. They just want to filibuster until I do not know when.

Sometimes they need to be shamed into doing the right thing. Hopefully a little shaming here will cause them to allow Bill C-14 to pass. It would be wonderful to see it pass before 5 p.m.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Speaker, whenever I hear the hon. parliamentary secretary in high dudgeon because there are political games being played in this place, it is so very Casablanca: “What? I'm shocked. There's gambling going on here?” We have to recall there are political games on all sides. We can all do better. This an important issue. This is a concurrence debate that attaches some significance, but I join the hon. parliamentary secretary in lamenting that we are not debating Bill C-14. This is less a question than a comment.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, standing committees pass all sorts of motions. I would argue there is an endless number of wonderful debates that we could be having, but that is not the issue here. The issue here is that the Conservative Party continues to focus its attention on doing whatever it can to prevent the government from being able to debate its legislation or budgetary measures.

The Conservatives could have worked with the government on this particular motion. We could have had a group hug and see if we could pass this with unanimous consent. At the end of day, let us be very clear. This has nothing to do with Taiwan. This has everything to do with Conservatives playing games and filibustering. That is what this is all about. They do not want to debate Bill C-14. Let us vote on Bill C-14 and get it passed.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I could, I would certainly want to use a unanimous consent motion to give the member more time to speak to this because he was so riveting. I know that you, Madam Speaker, were paying great attention.

We want to ensure that the committee's work is recognized in this House on an important issue, especially with all of the geopolitical issues going on around the world, not the least of which is what is happening in Ukraine, but also the sabre-rattling that is going on in the South China Sea basin as it relates to Taiwan, recognizing the importance of Taiwan and its inclusion in the World Health Organization and the International Civil Aviation Organization. That is what the committee came back with and that is what we are concurring on today. If that is not important, I do not know what is.

Also, we are hearing a lot from the Liberals about the issue of obstruction. The House hours were extended until midnight tonight. As it stands right now, there are zero Liberal members scheduled to speak tonight to the government legislation. So far on Bill C-14, there have only been three. The prediction that I made in this House on Motion No. 11 is that, in effect, we could have opposition members solely speaking to government legislation and the government not trying to convince Canadians why it is important for these pieces of legislation to pass.

I am wondering if the hon. member has comments as to why there are no scheduled Liberal speakers tonight on an important piece of legislation like Bill C-14.

[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.

The House resumed from April 7 consideration of the motion that BillC-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, I am always happy to stand and answer a Thursday question, even when the member opposite is not excited to ask it.

This evening, we will continue, and hopefully complete, debate at second reading of Bill C-13, concerning official languages.

Tomorrow, we will commence debate on Bill C-18, an act respecting online communications platforms that make news content available to persons in Canada. We will return to this debate next Wednesday.

At noon on Monday, we will resume debate on Bill C-14, which deals with electoral representation in Quebec.

Next Tuesday and Thursday shall be allotted days.

Finally, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4), I would like to designate Thursday, May 19, for consideration in committee of the whole of the main estimates for the Department of Public Works and Government Services. Furthermore, the debate for the Department of Fisheries and Oceans will take place on the evening of Monday, May 30.

If the member opposite has any ideas on how to make this place work or has any ideas on how we can improve legislation, I am always here to hear it. Unfortunately, to this point in time, nothing has come forward.

Opposition Motion—Change to Standing Order 30 Regarding the Prayer

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, today I have the opportunity to speak to an opposition motion regarding the text of the religious prayer we say before starting our business in the House.

I must admit that I was surprised when I received the text of this motion last night. As other members of the House have said before me, there are many problems in the world, such as the war in Ukraine, the importance of fighting and addressing climate change, and the importance of ensuring that our social programs meet Canadians' needs.

My hon. colleague from Drummond has put forward a motion that I do not think addresses a very important problem today.

I had the opportunity to review the text, and let me start by saying it also gave me the opportunity to look at the history of our daily prayer. If nothing else, the motion has allowed me to look at some of the history of this place, and again, kudos to the House of Commons team that helps provide some of the history. I thanked them for their work on electoral boundaries and, when we were having a conversation on Bill C-14, the extensive history of the House in this place. I will also give a tip of the cap to them in terms of their history and understanding of how the daily prayer has come to pass.

It is important for the House and for the Hansard to reflect the fact that this is a practice that was started in 1877. This is something that parliamentarians decided was important at the time, and pardon me but I think that tradition in this place carries a lot of importance. Yes, we have to look at ways we can modernize and meet the realities of today. We will undoubtedly have a conversation about the nature of virtual Parliament, the ability for parliamentarians not just to do their work here, physically, in this place, but indeed to use some of those tools virtually, to make it more modern and perhaps even more friendly for our colleagues, particularly for under-represented groups in the House.

It is important to note that the prayer has evolved over time. It has not stayed static since 1877. It is something that has constantly evolved when parliamentarians have had the opportunity to make it better reflect the variety of religions that we worship and respect here in this country, and that is extremely important. The member for Nepean touched upon that just before me, about that particular dynamic.

At the end of the day, the House of Commons has to balance those members in the House who might have religious beliefs and those who may not believe in a particular god or follow a particular religion. When I had the time to reflect about how we conduct ourselves in the House, my thoughts were as follows. When we actually look at the text in question, as I mentioned it has been amended over time through the PROC committee to try to reflect the broad range of religious diversity, but it is also relatively short.

The speakership therefore has about 30 seconds to say the prayer in the House. That is very little time. After that, we have a moment of silence and reflection.

I feel that doing it that way in this place, we can recognize people with certain religious values, while also showing respect for those who would rather think in a non-religious way.

The text of the motion talks about diversity and inclusion. The way the House of Commons works right now is that we have a short prayer for those who might have religious beliefs, and then we have a moment of reflection for all members, such that they are able to reflect and perhaps give strength to whatever might drive them in their daily pursuits. By getting rid of it, I do not think we are giving that same respect for those who might actually hold religious beliefs.

Let me add this. I do not want to seem discomforting or saying that this is the only fashion in which we can work, but if someone is really disrupted by the fact that we have a 30-second daily prayer, perhaps they could step outside of the House and not be part of it for the short 30 seconds it takes, then reconvene and stand here for the minute in which we all reflect in silence, such that they do not have to be part of the prayer. I think that right now there is a healthy balance between the two.

Let me also say that I started my speech speaking in French intentionally, because I dare say there are very few Quebeckers, indeed very few Canadians, whose top priority is the prayer right now. With respect to my colleague from Drummond, who brought this forward, which it is well within his right to do, this is an entire day that we are going to spend on this subject, when there are very pressing, important problems of the day and opportunities that we as parliamentarians should be working collectively to encourage the government to pursue. We are going to be spending time, as I am doing right now, trying to find 10 minutes to rationalize some type of argument on something that I think is quite frivolous.

Let me also say that this is not the place for this debate.

My hon. colleague has the opportunity to present this idea and change to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which is responsible for the parliamentary work essentially involving review the actions of the House.

Why is my hon. colleague not presenting his motion to the committee?

Why is it that we are having this debate here, when that could already happen at PROC if it was the will of a majority on the committee to move forward with a particular study? I know there is already a lot of good work that goes on to talk about the issues of the day and how we can improve aspects of this place.

I am going to wrap up with this. We have the war in Ukraine; we have climate change; we have affordability for Canadians, and we have a whole host of issues on the heels of a pandemic. Indeed, we are not completely through the pandemic. I am a little disappointed, I will use that word, that the member for Drummond chose this forum to move this forward. I recognize that it is his parliamentary privilege and that the Bloc Québécois has chosen this forum to bring this forward, but I think that most Canadians, indeed most Quebeckers, if they are watching this, are scratching their heads and asking why this is a good use of parliamentary time. I think most would come to the conclusion that it is not a great use of parliamentary time; it is not the best method; it is not the place where this should be introduced and, unfortunately, we have lost time to discuss and debate other issues that are prevalent to Canadians and more pressing. I will leave it at that.

[Pierre Deschamps, Lawyer and Ethicist, As an Individual]

Good evening, everyone.

Thank you for inviting me to testify.

This evening I will be discussing advance requests for medical assistance in dying.

Advance requests for medical assistance in dying make it possible for capable persons to consent in advance to the provision of medical assistance in dying where they are in a state of life or health incompatible with their values, such as a state of advanced dementia preventing them from recognizing family members or from performing their activities of everyday life. Such requests are now made as part of a relaxing of the rules governing access to medical assistance in dying, as may be seen in the way Canadian legislation has evolved on the matter.

I would like to draw your attention to a few historical facts.

Bill C‑14 made it possible for persons to agree to have a physician or nurse practitioner inflict death on them with their consent, provided they gave their consent at the time the medical assistance in dying was administered. This constituted an exception to, or a derogation from, the rule stated in section 14 of the Criminal Code that prohibits a third party from inflicting death on a person even where that person has given consent. This development was accompanied by the legislator's introduction of safeguards that restricted or limited the circumstances in which medical assistance in dying may be provided based on the eligibility criteria developed at that time.

Bill C‑7 added an exception to that rule by permitting persons to receive medical assistance in dying even if, at the time it is administered, those persons are unable to consent to it, provided they have signed a prior written agreement with a physician waiving the requirement to consent to medical assistance in dying at the time it is provided. Here again, the legislator established safeguards to protect the person who is to receive medical assistance in dying.

It is now being proposed that persons who do not yet have a grievous and irremediable medical condition, but who anticipate having such a condition, should, if in a given situation such as a state of advanced dementia preventing them from recognizing family members or performing their activities of everyday life, be allowed to receive medical assistance in dying in circumstances in which — and I want to emphasize this — they, although conscious, are unable to consent to the provision of medical assistance in dying.

By legislating on this matter, Canada would be joining a very small number of countries that have accepted that a person may receive medical assistance in dying by means of an advance request. I am referring to the Netherlands and Belgium, which have very different statutes on this issue.

In the Netherlands, advance requests for medical assistance in dying are authorized, but, between 2017 and 2019, there were only two or three cases per year of persons suffering from advanced dementia who received euthanasia in accordance with their advance medical directives.

In Belgium, an advance euthanasia directive takes effect only if a person is irreversibly unconscious at the time of euthanasia. In other words, that person must be in an irreversible coma. From 2016 to 2020, between 22 and 33 persons per year received euthanasia in accordance with their advance medical directives.

Unlike Belgium, Canada is currently considering the possibility of providing medical assistance in dying to a person who has made an advance request, not where that individual is in an irreversible coma, which presupposes a total loss of consciousness, but where a person with a grievous and irremediable medical condition such as advanced dementia is still conscious, even if only minimally so, but incapable of giving free and informed consent to the provision of medical assistance in dying.

In such circumstances, Parliament would be asked to validate or sanction under criminal law the possibility for a person who makes an advance request for medical assistance in dying to receive such assistance if the conditions that individual has established as activation triggers of his declaration are met.

While the drafting of an advance request for medical assistance in dying entails its own difficulties, particularly with regard to the identification of factors that may determine when it should take effect, activation of the declaration presents challenges in many areas: the medical condition required for consideration to be given to providing such assistance; the provision of medical assistance in dying to an incapable or more or less unconscious person; the severity of the person's cognitive losses; the family members who would be called upon to commence the assessment process leading to the provision of medical assistance in dying; and the medical and other assessments required to determine whether the person has reached a point where his or her previously expressed wishes must be considered.

Here the challenge for legislators is to design robust safeguards that will protect persons who have made advance requests for medical assistance in dying — such requests are generally made many years before the condition that may potentially give rise to their activation appears — from abuses such as medical assistance in dying that is provided too early or in haste under pressure from family members or medical staff who sympathize with the state of mental deterioration of the person, who will thus be put in a highly vulnerable position.

In addition to Parliament's intervention in criminal law, there can be no doubt that provincial statutes, as in Quebec's case, will be required to determine the circumstances in which an advance request for medical assistance in dying may be activated when a person is considered incapable of giving consent yet is still conscious, even if minimally so.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Okay.

Would you be able to provide to the committee—through you, Madam Chair—what you think the costing will be for this?

I know it will come in future supplementary estimates, but is that something you could provide to the committee ahead of time? I think that should be something for the committee to consider.

I support Bill C-14. I'll vote for it. I said so publicly on the floor of the House too, just so we're clear. It's nothing new, but I'd like to know the costing.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

There's legislation before the House right now, Bill C-14, on a change to the distribution of seats.

I would like to know whether you've taken into account in these estimates the possibility that the House might pass this legislation on to the Senate and that the Senate would pass it, and then the electoral boundaries commission in Quebec would have to redo its work.

In the anticipation of this possibility, are additional resources being set aside for this task?

Extension of Sitting Hours and Conduct of Extended Proceedings

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Madam Speaker, if I am saying something that is unparliamentary or inappropriate, I would expect the Speaker to call me out on that and tell me to discontinue. I did not hear that in what you said. I understood that you are personally concerned about some of the things I was saying, but I do not think I did that.

Nonetheless, I think I am only feeding back what I get. This is the Conservative Party, whose members have called the Prime Minister a trust fund baby in the House. It causes me to be critical, and if they cannot take it, I am sorry, but this is the reality of the situation. They had better learn how to do that.

I will get back to the motion. This motion is about making sure that we have the proper tools in place for legislation to get through. We are talking about the budget. We are also talking about Bill C-11, the modernizing of the Broadcasting Act; Bill C-13, an update to the Official Languages Act; Bill C-14, on electoral representatives; and Bill C-18, enhancing fairness in the Canadian online news marketplace. These are the pieces of legislation this government has deemed to be the priority moving forward. What we are seeing from the other side are Conservatives not wanting to let the legislation go through.

I am sorry if my saying that is offensive to anybody, but the reality is that on Bill C-8 alone, there have been 12 days of debate since report stage was introduced. Two Green Party members have spoken to it. Two NDP members have spoken to it. Three Liberals have spoken to it, and five Bloc members have spoken to it. Does anyone know how many Conservatives have spoken to it?

It is more than four or five. Do members think it is ten? No, it is more. Do members think it is twenty, thirty, or forty? No, it is more. Fifty-one Conservatives have spoken to Bill C-8 since the report stage of that bill was introduced. They cannot tell me that this is not a political game for the Conservatives to be obstructionist. That is exactly what they are doing, and they do it day in and day out.

The NDP has finally seen beyond it. New Democrats do not want anything to do with it, and they want to actually work on behalf of Canadians. Then they get criticized for not following along with the games the Conservatives are playing. That is literally what happens.

When the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman was talking about closure being put on this motion, he said something very interesting, and I would like to read it from the blues. He said, “We [already] just voted on the closure motion to ensure that there is a vote on Motion No. 11. Motion No. 11 is going to be coming into force whether we like it or not. The government, with [their] unholy alliance with the NDP, will get its Motion No. 11 through and we do not feel like it is necessary to sit there and debate this...long, drawn-out process.” Then why are they going to put us through this? They will make every single second of debate go on. They will not let this collapse.

The member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman just said himself that he knows this is going to pass and that debating it is absolutely pointless, yet he wants it to go on. Why is that? It is because he wants to push this on as long as possible, along with the rest of the Conservatives and the Bloc, so that we cannot get legislation debated and ultimately passed. That is not our job here. Our job here is to work on behalf of Canadians. The Conservatives' job is to criticize the legislation, to try to improve the legislation, not to put up roadblock after roadblock at every single opportunity they have, which is what they are doing.

I find it interesting that the Conservatives have on a number of occasions talked about how this government does not want to work. This is not a new motion. The timing of it is slightly earlier than normal, but we always have a motion like this to extend sitting hours. I would like to read some quotes.

The member for Mégantic—L'Érable said, on May 28, 2019, to a similar motion, “We are not opposed to working late every evening. We want to work and make progress on files.” In a similar debate two years earlier, on May 30, he said, “We want to work late, and we are prepared to do that and to collaborate with the government”.

The member for Lethbridge on May 1, 2017, said, “The Liberals would like to stop sitting in the House of Commons on Fridays. They would like to move us to a four-day workweek.... The Liberals want Fridays off. They [want to have] a four-day workweek [and that] is more than enough.”

The then leader of the opposition on May 29, 2017, said, “We know they want Fridays off and we know [that this] is a big deal to them. They do not want to be working Fridays. They do not realize that Canadians work five days a week, and many times [they work] more than five days a week.”

We are asking to work more than five days a week, which is exactly what the then leader of the opposition said in May 2017. That is the interesting part about all of this. One cannot help but wonder why, if they want to speak to all of this legislation at great length, and if they want to put up 51-plus speakers on every piece of legislation, they would not be interested in sitting into the evenings to do that. We certainly are. They accused us of not wanting to do it.

Constitution Act, 1867

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

That will finish our discussion of Bill C-14. We will come back when we have the opportunity. We will take a few moments for the minister to arrive in the chamber.

It being 4:06 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Ways and Means Proceedings No. 3, concerning the budget presentation.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Edmonton Manning for sharing his time with me, and I also want to say hi to him from Yosef, who just cut my hair. I know they are good buddies, and I think they sing together, or something like that, so I just want to say hi to him from Yosef.

I will say off the top that I will be voting in favour of Bill C-14. I want to make that clear to the member for Winnipeg North, so that he does not have to stand and ask me that question. This particular bill would clarify that we would be, from now on, using the current number of seats in every province as the floor for this country going forward. That said, I would like to talk a bit about representation, and particularly regional representation. These are issues that have motivated my interest in politics, and they motivate a great many Albertans' interest in politics, and none more so than a fellow from my riding named Edward Goodlife.

I always wish I had Edward Goodlife's last name. I think he has lived a good life. He is a good friend of mine. He moved to Canada from England. He chose Canada. He moved to a little place called Granum, Alberta, and started a nail factory there. He was driving across western Canada through the Prairies and he noticed that all the houses in our part of the country were built out of wood. He said to himself, “All these houses need nails to put them together,” so he decided to start a nail factory in Granum, Alberta.

One of the reasons we know each other is through politics. His motivation for getting involved in politics was a whole litany of issues he had when getting his nail factory started and profitable in Canada, such as issues of regulation and taxation and issues of regional disparity. The story he told me was that it would cost him something like $23 to ship a pallet of nails on the railway to Ontario, yet his competitors in Ontario could ship that same container of nails to Alberta for $8. This is something that I think is called a mill rate on the railway, and I am not 100% sure of all the details of how that worked, but one of the things that really grated against him was the fact that the system seemed to be set up against him.

In order for him to compete with folks who were manufacturing nails in Ontario, he had to pay three times more in shipping costs than people in Ontario shipping their goods in this direction, particularly nails. He could compete with them here, but he had to work fairly hard. When he tried to break into new markets, particularly in eastern Canada, he was up against that.

It is these kinds of stories and sentiments that bring the frustration we have whenever we get talking about representation in this country. The Bloc members have brought into this debate, and I am not sure where they got it, the idea of proportionality and that somehow Quebec should own 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. I am happy to see that the government did not put into this legislation the maintenance of one particular seat. I am supportive of that, but this idea of proportionality is very interesting and comes up very often in my conversations around northern Alberta.

This idea of proportionality comes up often, and people show me graphics all the time. I see them on Facebook and places like that. People have made graphics showing the proportion of the seats based on regions of the country, and they come to my office and are very upset about this. I will say to them that there is nothing in our system that says anything about proportionality of seats.

Our system is based on having the House of Commons and the Senate. The House of Commons is based on the number of electors, and the Senate is supposed to be a representation of the landowners, provincial interests or those kinds of things. We could perhaps say that, in the case of the Senate, there should be some redistribution of the Senate seats or an addition of new Senate seats so that provincial representation was perhaps weighted equally or on percentage of land mass, percentage of taxation income, resource revenue or something. We can have that discussion, but that is not what this bill is about. Those are some of the things that come up often. Proportionality is not something that comes into the seating in the House of Commons.

The other thing that is fascinating, and that many Canadians, particularly from either Quebec or Ontario, do not think about, is how close they live to Parliament and Ottawa. I have the privilege of touring school groups through the House of Commons. They come up from southern Ontario to have a tour of the House of Commons, and I am happy to oblige by doing that. I note and tell them all the time that they are fortunate that they live a four- or five-hour drive from Ottawa. Growing up and in my high school years, in grade three and grade six we went to the legislature buildings in Edmonton, but I never had the opportunity to do a field trip to Ottawa with my class. That is something that, being from Alberta, we just did not have the opportunity to do.

We see that borne out in lobbying efforts and the way that these systems are set up. Ottawa is a distant place for Albertans. Ottawa is not something that we think about. It is not in our lives every day, and because it is far away we do not necessarily have access to that place as somebody who lives a lot closer has. Sometimes we, who are from northern Alberta, realize that the decisions made in Ottawa are often influenced by the people who live near to it. That makes sense because they are closer. They have access. They can drive there in an afternoon and make their case, whereas people in northern Alberta do not. It is a 3,600-kilometre tour from my house to Ottawa. It takes three and a half days to drive there, and it is an expensive endeavour.

All of these things lead to the sense of a lack of representation in Ottawa. It is not even necessarily that we have more people voting for fewer people, which is the case, but also the distance of it. That is just a reality. Other than perhaps moving the Parliament buildings to Winnipeg, Edmonton, Vancouver or Peace River, that is going to be the reality.

The member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon was making some great points around this as well, and the fact that the representation in our part of the country feels quite a bit different than it does for people who live close to Ottawa. We want to make sure that representation happens. Having a hard and fast rule on representation by population is just a matter of fact, in the same way that Quebec and Ontario being close to Ottawa is a matter of fact. I am happy to support this particular bill, but I would just point out that there are other things that are matters of fact that we cannot change and that we should not necessarily worry about. The same thing goes for representation by population. That is the way the system is set up, and we should work hard to maintain that principle here in this place.

With that, I am looking forward to the budget this afternoon and to having Alberta's interests represented, in particular northern Alberta's. One of the major reasons that I got involved in politics was to represent Alberta in Ottawa, and I am pleased to do so today here in this Parliament.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too want to reassure my colleague.

Bill C-14 was not introduced by the Bloc. That is not what we were asking for. We were asking to maintain Quebec's political weight. It is not about the number of seats, but a proportion of the total number of seats.

He will be pleased to hear that I agree with him on several points. The Constitution is outdated. The Senate is outdated. I have a solution for that: Quebec independence. Unfortunately, that will not happen here.

My colleague raised some very good points, particularly regarding the proportionality of votes, which is important, but has he forgotten the notion of nationhood?

Is he telling me that the country we are talking about is not that of Quebeckers? If so, the concept of a founding nation would no longer be taken into account.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-14, the preserving provincial representation in the House of Commons act.

The seat allocation and electoral boundaries readjustment process is an important part of our democracy. Its purpose is to ensure that the House of Commons reflects the changing nature of Canada's demographic profile and that all Canadian voices are heard.

I will admit that this bill is a small change. It is a small compromise to an elaborate electoral formula that has a long history of compromise, competing regional interests and vigorous political debate.

We can debate about tinkering with the formula to appease political interests, but at the end of the day, most members of the House would likely agree that baked into the redistribution is systemic unfairness. This exists because the redistribution formulas were created for a country that no longer exists. The current formula was made for a country that did not see people living in the west at the numbers they do today.

At Canada's founding, the fathers of Confederation had a vision for Canada, how it would be a place for freedom-seeking people around the world and how it would be a place of economic development and prosperity, but I do not think the fathers of Confederation could have foreseen the tremendous growth and prosperity of western Canada. As a British Columbian, I am proud of the contributions my province and the people I represent have made to our country.

While Canada has changed and grown, we continue to be bound by rules for electoral redistribution that are and always will be systemically unfair for Canadians living in certain regions of the country, namely Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

Let me share an example to highlight this, but first, to preface this, it is important to note that, in 1991, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that representation by population is fundamental to electoral redistribution. My riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon currently has 101,216 people. The average riding size of the four ridings—

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Business of the House

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague opposite that I hope he and his family are able to enjoy this time and enjoy Easter. I know we will be celebrating. I will say Ramadan Mubarak to those who are recognizing Ramadan and wish everybody a joyous Passover.

This afternoon, we are going to be continuing with the second reading of Bill C-14, the Quebec electoral representation bill. As members know, at 4 p.m. the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will be presenting the budget.

When we return after the constituency weeks, we will continue debating the budget for a number of days, which will be Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Then after that, it will be the budget implementation act.

Constitution Act, 1867

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

I rise to speak on Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. More specifically, what this bill would do is amend what is known as the grandfather clause. By way of background, the grandfather clause has been part of our Constitution since 1986, with the passage of the Representation Act, 1985. Very simply, what the grandfather clause does is establish a floor in terms of the allocation of seats by province in terms of the redistribution process that takes place every 10 years. The floor that the grandfather clause sets is that no province shall be allocated fewer seats in future redistributions than that province had in 1985.

Bill C-14 is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation in that it amends the grandfather clause by establishing an updated floor, a floor of 2015 as opposed to 1985. More specifically, it would ensure that no province will receive an allocation of fewer seats than that province had in 2015, in the 43rd Parliament, in any future redistribution. What that means for my province of Alberta is that it increases the floor in terms of the minimal number of seats that Alberta will be allocated in any redistribution by 13, the 13 seats that Alberta gained between 1985 and 2015.

When we look at the issue of allocating seats across Canada, a foundational principle of our democratic process is representation by population. Representation by population is based upon the notion that the weight attached to the vote of each Canadian should be equal, regardless of what region of Canada they live in. It is a principle that was adopted by the fathers of Confederation in 1867, and it is a principle that is enshrined in our Constitution.

While it is a principle that is foundational, achieving pure representation by population is not practical. Indeed, it is not entirely desirable in regard to a number of factors, including the vastness of Canada. With respect to the impracticability of achieving pure representation by population, one need look no further than our Constitution. For example, the senatorial clause of 1915 guarantees that every province shall have at least the same number of seats in the House of Commons as it has senators. That is why, for example, the province of Prince Edward Island is guaranteed four seats in the House of Commons because it has four senators, notwithstanding the fact that the province of Prince Edward Island has fewer than 160,000 people.

Indeed, my riding of St. Albert—Edmonton is almost as large as Prince Edward Island. My friend and colleague down the road in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin represents a riding of more than 200,000 people, 40,000 or 50,000 more people than Prince Edward Island. One might say to simply rescind or repeal the senatorial clause, but of course that requires the unanimous consent of the provinces. Prince Edward Island, I am sure, will be in no hurry to offer its consent.

Achieving pure representation by population is not practicable, but it is also important to take into account what the Supreme Court of Canada provided for in the Saskatchewan boundaries reference case of 1991. That case dealt with the boundary redistribution in the province of Saskatchewan that tended to disproportionately favour rural areas at the expense of more populous urban areas. The court looked at section 3 of the charter, which guarantees the right of every Canadian to vote, and in the context of the redistribution of boundaries in the province of Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court determined that the overriding principle is one of effective representation.

In terms of effective representation, the court recognized such factors as geography, communities of interest and so on. However, that being said, the court did stress the importance of representation by population. To that end, I would cite Madam Justice McLachlin, who said:

What are the conditions of effective representation? The first is relative parity of voting power. A system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted.

In order to have effective representation, what we must have, to the greatest degree possible, is representation by population. That is where we have moved significantly towards, thanks to the leadership of Prime Minister Harper and the previous Conservative government with the passage of the Fair Representation Act.

The Fair Representation Act replaced the 1985 formula that established an electoral quotient, which is the first step in terms of determining the allocation of seats, with a new formula that sets a new electoral quotient. The problem, very simply, with the 1985 formula is that, although it was thought to be fair in 1985, it did not allow for the allocation of seats by province to keep up with population growth among the fastest-growing provinces. As a result, the fastest-growing provinces were denied their right to fair, proportionate representation in the House of Commons. It created, over time, a representation gap.

Take, for example, my province of Alberta. Alberta gained nearly one million people between 1988 and 2004, yet in the span of nearly 20 years with one million new Albertans, Alberta only gained two seats in the House of Commons. So significant was the representation gap at the time that the Fair Representation Act was introduced, some analysis established that the three fastest-growing provinces in Canada, namely Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, were among the most under-represented provinces or states in the industrialized world, according to analysis at the time from the Mowat Centre.

The Fair Representation Act addressed the representation gap significantly by establishing a new formula that better takes into account population growth, all the while respecting the overriding principle of effective representation. What that has meant in the last two redistributions is an increase in representation for the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

My province of Alberta has gained nine seats in the span of 10 years. Ontario gained 18 seats in the first redistribution. The province of British Columbia gained eight seats. That gap is being closed thanks to the legacy of Prime Minister Harper and the formula provided in the Fair Representation Act.

In closing, I will say that this legislation, I am pleased to see, would not in any major way impact the Harper formula. It would maintain the Harper formula, and in that regard it maintains a significant step forward in achieving something much closer to representation by population, which the Supreme Court has said is essential for having effective representation.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding electoral representation.

As the member for Calgary Shepardmentioned, this is a bit of an “inside baseball” bill, in the sense that the bill itself and its implications are relatively simple, yet important. I am going to use my time today to talk about the bill, the reasons behind it, and other political implications and choices related to representation.

Every 10 years, the Chief Electoral Officer reviews demographic changes and allocates the number of seats for each province. He determines whether electoral boundaries should be readjusted to reflect population shifts within a province. Section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 sets out the formula for the distribution of seats in the House of Commons among the provinces after each decennial census. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides for drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in each province.

Electoral boundaries must be readjusted whenever a province's representation changes, or when there have been significant population fluctuations in a province, such as a shift from rural to urban areas. The redistribution of electoral boundaries is a federal matter controlled by Parliament.

In October 2021, the Chief Electoral Officer, based on population trends over the past 10 years, set the distribution of seats. The number of seats in the House of Commons was increased from 338 to 342, with British Columbia and Ontario gaining one seat each, Alberta gaining three and Quebec losing one.

This legislation being introduced today amends that decision, as is the ability of Parliament, by creating a constitutional floor: The number of seats any province or territory had in the 43rd election will be the new constitutional floor. The practice of maintaining a certain number of seats in the House of Commons for provinces whose populations were declining in comparison to the national average has been done before.

First, in 1914, the senatorial clause was introduced to ensure that no province would ever have fewer members of Parliament than its number of senators. The second constitutional protection is what is known as the grandfather clause, which came into effect under the Representation Act of 1985. It amended the formula for determining seats and guaranteed that, regardless of what the population of a province or territory might be in the future, it would be constitutionally protected by having no fewer than the seats it had in the House of Commons in 1986.

I should add that a series of adjustments were made between 1914 and 1986 to protect and attempt to ensure equal treatment of the provinces and territories. Initially, the total number of seats was calculated by dividing the population of each province by a fixed number called the electoral quotient, which was itself calculated by dividing the population of the province of Quebec by 65.

The one exclusion to this was called “the one-twentieth rule”, under which no province could lose seats in electoral redistribution unless its share of the national population had decreased by at least 5%, or one twentieth, between the last two censuses. This was appealed in 1946 on the basis of Quebec's desire for representation by population. I may just add that I find it a bit ironic today that we are here debating and driving legislation that would have been a completely different narrative from what those Quebec MPs would have taken in 1940.

All members of Parliament go and research before we come before the House to talk about the principles of the legislation before us. I want to give a tip of the cap to the folks in the House of Commons who have a very detailed history of electoral redistribution and the dynamic of how the number of seats in the House of Commons has changed over time. I give a tip of the cap to the researchers and the folks involved with the House of Commons.

This bill simply does what has already been done many times, which is amend the formula in the Constitution to grandfather the number of seats that existed during the 2021 election. We have already had debates during this session about the possibility of Quebec losing a seat. There seemed to be a consensus about the importance of Quebec's representation and the preservation of its language, culture and identity within Canada.

I am not opposed to the legislation before us, but I want to take this opportunity to put it on the record that I have concerns about the number of MPs that will be added to the House of Commons and to speak to Bill C‑246.

I asked this of the last Conservative member when I stood to ask a question on his remarks. At what point do we consider limiting the number of seats in the House of Commons? I did some research coming into this and found that, historically over time, there was contemplation that by 2001 we would have 400 members of Parliament. Today, we have 338. It is an open question that will inevitably have to be explored beyond the physical dynamics of the House of Commons and how many members of Parliament we can have in this space. It will also be about parliamentary privilege, and allowing individuals to have the space to bring forward issues to debate. Sometimes it is crowded to get on the agenda and to bring remarks forward in this place, because members of Parliament are doing that job.

It is interesting. Right now, in the House of Commons in the U.K., there are 650 members of Parliament. Is that something we want to see in Canada? Is that something that Canadians expect? I do not have the answer, but I pose it as a question here today. It also has a dynamic for how Parliament works. Relatively, when a government forms, whether it be a minority or a majority situation, there might be 150-odd members of Parliament in the government caucus or maybe just over 170, in today's dynamic. If there all of a sudden were 300 government caucus MPs, what would that mean for the dynamic in terms of independence for members of Parliament, their ability to speak and their ability to support the government, but also their ability to bring forward important issues? When we look at how the House of Commons operates in London, there are similarities to here but there are also differences. I raise that for consideration.

I also want to talk about rural members of Parliament. I have a riding that I am very proud to represent. It is 5,000 square kilometres. It is by no means small, but I consider myself lucky compared with other members of Parliament. My good friend in Central Nova has about 10,000 square kilometres to cover. My hon. colleague for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity has a 16,000-square-kilometre riding. That is a lot of territory to cover. We have to be mindful, with respect to all of the electoral redistribution, of the point at which a member of Parliament just becomes too far stretched to adequately represent the communities they are expected to represent in this place, in terms of their presence in the riding, their ability to connect and their ability to physically drive or travel.

Indeed, I have given a couple of examples. I know there are even more challenging circumstances for other members of Parliament, particularly in northern Canada as well.

I want to talk about Nova Scotia's proportionate share. Indeed, I have a colleague beside me from Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the member for Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, as well. As we continue to add seats in this place, yes, some provinces are protected constitutionally in the number of members of Parliament that they will have in the House. In Nova Scotia's example, we will never have any less than 11 members of Parliament, but 11 members of Parliament out of 338 is a certain dynamic and 11 members among 500 members of Parliament is a much smaller proportionate share of the voice that we can bring forward as a province in this dynamic.

We had an opposition day motion from the Bloc Québécois, and I will take the opportunity to speak to Bill C-246 in a moment. The Bloc and the House were strong on maintaining the seats, but they want to make sure that 25% of the House of Commons seats would always be preserved for Quebec. My question is, and I have said it to the Bloc, why do we not look at capping eventually, maybe to 360, 380, or 400? Let us actually look at eventually capping the number of members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Every province and territory in this country has their constitutional protections in force. This would allow there to be a stable footing for some of the things we have talked about.

Yes, the Bloc members want 25%, but as I pointed out to them, if they would have pushed to say let us cap it at 350 members of Parliament, they would have their constitutional floor from today's legislation, assuming it passes, which I am confident it will. They would have been protected at 22%, and that could have been a way to ensure that we do preserve Quebec language, culture and the unique identity within Canada.

I want to speak to Bill C-246. The member of Parliament for Drummond has brought this forward. In essence it not only protects Quebec's 78 seats, but also mandates a requirement that Quebec never have any less than 25% of a proportion of the seats in the House of Commons, regardless of what happens and regardless of the population of the province.

To my sovereignist colleagues across the way, their job is not to protect the identity of Canada. Indeed, they want to separate from Canada, so I would never expect them to do something that is actually beneficial for bringing Canadians together. In fact, sometimes I would argue they would like to wedge and drive divisions in Canada, but we have to understand what this actually represents.

This would not just be a change that could be done within Parliament. This would require a constitutional amendment that would mean a 7/50 formula. For those Canadians who are at home and wondering what the heck the 7/50 is, it essentially means that on constitutional changes such as this, we would have to get the approval of seven of 10 provinces that represent at least 50% of the Canadian population. That is a very high threshold to be able to achieve. That is what we expect to be the legal standard on Bill C-246 if it were to move forward. It is an open question about whether it will, but again in principle, this is problematic.

That type of bill would open up a lot of division in this country, and I think we are all standing here today recognizing Quebec's unique identity within Canada. I do not want to say we are all committed, but I know on this side of the House we are committed to keeping 78 seats in Quebec. In fact, we are protecting everyone right now with a new constitutional floor on the basis of population in 2021, including in Nova Scotia.

Again, this is a continuation of where we already were, but the idea of saying absolutely, regardless of population, despite population decline, they will get 25%, is not ever going to work in this country. It will never pass. It is being introduced in a way to create divide and to try to, I would argue, re-establish the argument about separation in Quebec, which frankly, the Bloc Québécois will know right now is not really high on the agenda, but they are trying to drive that type of narrative.

I think this Parliament understands the importance of Quebec and its political representation in this place. As I have said before, looking at the number of cabinet ministers and their influence, whether they be the Prime Minister or key ministers in the government, Quebec plays an important role in the government of Canada, in this place and, indeed, within the country.

I want to make sure that all members of Parliament get the opportunity to speak on this. It was an absolute privilege to be able to do some of the research and look into the legislation.

I will just take an opportunity to thank the minister of intergovernmental affairs for bringing this forward. He, of course, also holds the portfolio of the minister for communities and infrastructure. What a tremendous job to balance two very difficult portfolios, so I thank him on the record for his leadership within the government and for his continued advocacy for the people of Beauséjour. I do believe that he is going on 20-plus years in Parliament, which is, I think, a tremendous commitment to public service.

Of course, my predecessor Scott Brison also served for 21 years in this place. It shows that these individuals are committed to making a difference for their constituents, Canada and the world.

I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues, who I watched today as they listened with utmost curiosity, having detailed questions for me to answer in just a moment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

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

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

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

...

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

....

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Business of the House

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

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

Constitution Act, 1867

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

That, in the opinion of the House:

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

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

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

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

Electoral Representation

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, three weeks ago, the Liberals and the NDP voted in favour of a Bloc motion stating that the Quebec nation must not lose any political weight in terms of the number of members in Ottawa. Today, they introduced Bill C‑14, which ensures that we will not lose any seats, but they are adding so many more seats elsewhere that we will end up losing some our political weight anyway. They may not be holding us under water, but they are letting the water rise very slowly. That is what they are doing.

Why does the government want to reduce Quebec's political weight?

Constitution Act

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, for the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation).

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)