Bill S-207

An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle

This enactment changes the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle to “Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville”.

An Act to Change the Name of the Electoral District of Châteauguay—Lacolle

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

moved that Bill S-207, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say what an honour it is for me to sponsor Senator Dalphond's Bill S‑207 in the House. The bill would change the name of my riding from Châteauguay—Lacolle to Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville.

I would like to remind the House why this bill was introduced. The name Châteauguay—Lacolle is a historical error dating back to the previous electoral redistribution. The name of the municipality of Lacolle is in the riding name, but the city of Lacolle is not in the riding. A correction is therefore in order, and the best name is Châteauguay—Les Jardins-de-Napierville because the vast majority of municipalities in the RCM of Jardins-de-Napierville are in my riding and the other municipalities in the area I represent makeup the greater Châteauguay region.

The simple fact that the municipality of Lacolle is not in my riding and that this bill would result in a complete representation of my riding should suffice to convince my hon. colleagues here in the House that this name change is necessary.

However, some of my colleagues might be surprised that I am once again introducing this bill. Some may have thought that the issue was resolved because the House unanimously agreed to pass the bill in 2017. I will explain why the House needs to pass the bill again, after it already had the support of all members of Parliament.

This bill was first introduced in the 42nd Parliament as Bill C‑377. It was unanimously supported by the House of Commons, made it through committee without amendment, was passed at third reading and then sent directly to the Senate.

The bill was sailing from one legislative step to the next. However, the Senate committee was just preparing to study Bill C‑377 as the 42nd Parliament was drawing to a close, so there was a race against time to get the bill passed. Unfortunately, the Senate committee did not have time to study the bill before Parliament was dissolved. This meant that the bill, which my constituents had been waiting for, died on the order paper right before the finish line.

Today, I am continuing what the House started four years ago by introducing Bill S‑207. The bill has already been approved by the Senate, and once approved by the House, it will pass at last.

I would like to remind my colleagues in the House why this bill is crucial to the residents of my riding. I will tell the story behind it, which speaks to its fundamental necessity.

This name change has been close to my heart since the beginning of my political career. I committed to getting the name changed the first time I spoke in the House of Commons in 2015.

Since being elected, I have always encouraged achievements that benefit the people of Châteauguay—Lacolle. Whether it is through investments in local infrastructure that have a direct impact on my constituents or through financial assistance to help many farms in my region go green, I have long been at the service of the people I represent on a daily basis. Today, by introducing this bill, I am again at their service.

I could go into much more detail about the circumstances that led to my constituency being misnamed. However, as my time is limited, I am counting on the goodwill of my colleagues here in the House to support Bill S‑207, a crucial bill for my constituents.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, why now? With the redistribution that is happening, is this an important time for this to be coming up?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it was actually a question that I faced back in 2018. It is because it is important to my constituents. It does have to do with this error in the fact that there is a municipality that finds itself in my name that is not in the riding. Yes, there is a separate process going on, but that is something that is separate from this House. As Senator Dalphond graciously had Bill S-207 adopted in the Senate, I am seizing on this opportunity to make this happen and I count on the member's support.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. She represents a region that is dear to my heart. My grandfather was from Saint‑Édouard, just outside Napierville.

However, I find it hard to understand why we are using time in the House of Commons to talk about this issue when there are other tools and processes for achieving this goal.

Is there not something more fundamentally important we could discuss, something that could directly help the people in her riding?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague. Saint‑Édouard is in my riding and is one of the municipalities in the RCM of Jardins-de-Napierville. It is truly a cornerstone of the region.

Frankly, my constituents have been asking me for this name change since my first election campaign. It was the late mayor of Napierville, Jacques Délisle, who first suggested it, and this bill is, in part, in honour of the late mayor, who was highly regarded and respected in the region.

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

Mr. Speaker, in the 2015-19 Parliament, my predecessor attempted, by similar means, to change the name of my riding, Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot, to Saint‑Hyacinthe—Acton, so that all constituents would feel represented.

Unfortunately, the bill died in the luxurious sleepy hollow known as the Senate. I do not want my colleague's bill to meet the same fate. I am going to try to take advantage of the current redistribution process to also propose changing the name of my riding.

However, if I were to propose a bill to change the name of my riding, could I count on my colleague's support?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I do remember the very good discussions I had with my colleagues about the fact that it is important for constituents to feel represented by the name of their riding. It is not a frivolous matter. It is truly symbolic.

My colleague can count on my support if he ever introduces a bill on the same subject in the House.

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

Mr. Speaker, although I share my colleague from Peace River—Westlock's curiosity about why this would take priority at a time when there are so many important issues facing our country, I want to ask a question more broadly about the need for democratic reform in this country.

Alberta is significantly under-represented, both in this place and in Canada's Senate. I am wondering if the member would agree that this is an inequity that needs to be addressed. Although the most recent redistribution does take a small step in the right direction, the current inequity is not wholly addressed. Would the member agree that it needs to be?

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his thoughtful question, and it can be answered in part by the question that was asked earlier. There is a process going on now that is the thoughtful place for that kind of discussion, where MPs indeed can present their views in front of the commissioners. This was not done, unfortunately, in this case. This was an omission that occurred in the last redistribution. That is why I am here today: to correct a wrong.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill S-207, An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Châteauguay—Lacolle, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Kelly McCauley, Conservative, Edmonton West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am a bit out of breath after running over here from the all-important operations committee.

I am pleased to rise on this private member's bill. I want to address all my comments to the bill itself. I am sure the member who presented it is a wonderful parliamentarian. I served with her on OGGO, but I have to say I am not a big fan of this bill. It is almost like it is “bad private members' bills” week. Earlier, I had to speak to Bill C-245, which was talking about bringing the $35 billion in the wasteful infrastructure bank over to be $35 billion to add to the wasteful infrastructure department.

I have to say that with this bill it is like “déjà vu all over again”, to quote Yogi Berra. I recall actually speaking to this bill about four years ago in the 42nd Parliament. I was not a fan of it then, and I am not a fan of it now. The big reason is that I have to wonder, of all the things going on in Quebec right now, or in Canada or around the world, if this is what we should be discussing in the House of Commons and taking up two hours of our time.

For example, I look at issues in Quebec right now. I think in the member's own riding we have an increase in problems at Roxham Road again. We have heard from the Government of Quebec of the incredible strain on its social services from these illegal or irregular crossings, however we wish to term them, but I think that is a bigger, more important issue we should perhaps be debating right now.

Of passports, we hear repeatedly in the House from across the country. In Edmonton, people are actually lining up at 12:30 in the morning to get passports, so that is not quite a day in advance, but it is the same problem in Quebec. We actually heard from Trois-Rivières that calls for help from citizens at the Trois-Rivières constituency office were increasing. They have been approaching decade highs daily for three weeks now. Why are we not talking about a private member's bill addressing that issue?

There is a labour shortage. I recall, actually now for several years, hearing about the labour shortage in Quebec. It is hurting productivity. It is hurting the economy of farmers, retail and aerospace. We cannot get workers in that province. Again, this is directed at the PMB. I would think it is a much more important issue we should be chatting about right now, as well as hurrying up the access to foreign workers.

Of course, there is inflation. It is 6.8%, and we will be hearing new inflation numbers tomorrow. My guess is that it is going to rocket past 7%. We hear in Quebec, again, about the shortage of bodies that is going to be driving wage inflation and making the inflation issue more troublesome. One would wonder if that is not a more important issue to be debating right now than a name change for a riding.

There are border issues and the ArriveCAN app, or “ArriveCAN'T” app, as we call it. This is a quote from the newspaper:

It's time to bid farewell to the ArriveCAN app, say border-city mayors, tourism industry leaders and others who complain Canada's stringent COVID-19 rules for international travellers are encouraging would-be U.S. visitors to spend their tourist dollars at home.

Estelle Muzzi, mayor of the Quebec border community of Saint-Bernard-de-Lacolle, says that the rules are a drag on border crossings that are vital for the local economies. I think that mayor might actually be in the member's riding. Here we have the mayor saying she has issues with ArriveCAN and passports, and we have to wonder why we are talking about a riding change, especially right now.

With the redistributions, the ridings are going to change completely in Quebec, probably. My own riding is getting split into Edmonton West and Edmonton Winterburn. It would be strange for me to perhaps change the name of my riding right now to “Edmonton West Edmonton Mall” or “Edmonton Kanye West”, as I jokingly call it, knowing that in two years the riding was going to change to Edmonton Winterburn.

Again, we have a lot more important issues we can talk about. I want to give some examples of some PMBs that have come through the House recently from my Conservative colleagues that, perhaps, are better examples of how parliamentarians should be spending their time.

Bill C-296, which is from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, is a PMB to amend the criminal code to find the person convicted of abduction, sexual assault and murder of the same victim in respect of the same event—

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

The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think we have to be somewhat cautious when we say, “We do not like this bill, and here are all the alternatives”, then list off a bunch of other issues. I am just suggesting that if we were to apply that principle, we could really be off topic on a wide variety of things, so this is more of a caution.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would just point out that, typically in this type of debate, members are provided broad latitude. On the particular matter, as the member for Winnipeg North often points out, I am sure that the arc of the member's speech will eventually come back to why the bill ought to have been replaced with something more meaningful, as the member for Edmonton West is trying to point out.

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

I welcome the member's input on this matter. I will also caution folks that we need to stick to the bill as best we can, but we do provide a lot of leeway in those discussions.

The hon. member for Edmonton West.