Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for your remarks.

I will suspend, and we will get ready for our next panel.

[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.

[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]

Thank you, Minister LeBlanc. We appreciate your being here with us to discuss this important legislation. We, too, look forward to the exchange.

We will have our first round. Six minutes each will go to Mr. Kmiec, Mrs. Romanado, Mr. Therrien and then Ms. Blaney. I would just ask that all comments be made through the chair.

Mr. Kmiec.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

For my first question to the minister, during the second-reading debate on the bill, he said, “We studied all possible options”. I wonder if the minister could explain what those options were that the government considered.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, through you, to Mr. Kmiec, I thank him for the question.

Thank you for your thoughtful presentation as well, Mr. Kmiec, at second reading of the legislation.

Obviously, I'm not going to discuss what options I laid out before cabinet because that would be inappropriate, but it shouldn't surprise colleagues that we were looking for a way to ensure that the representation in the province of Quebec did not diminish. We were conscious of the need not to proceed in a way that would trigger, potentially, a constitutional-amending formula, which is seven provinces out of 10 representing 50% of the population.

Some options that were suggested, in the view of legal advisers, would have triggered that formula, so we thought this was in fact the only surgical, simple way to preserve the number of seats in the House of Commons in the last Parliament.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, the minister called the legislation “minimalist”. I think that's a point of agreement we have. I generally like minimalist legislation that does the least damage possible to our constitutional structures.

During that second-reading debate, the minister also referred to a “principle of modified proportionate representation”.

I wonder if you could explain what that principle means to the Government of Canada as it was applied to the legislation and any future redistribution legislation it might consider.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, thank you.

Obviously, we're considering no further redistribution legislation at this time. We think it's important that commissions be allowed to, as best possible, complete their work in the timelines prescribed by legislation.

With the modified proportionate representation, the riding of Labrador, for example, because of its geography necessarily has fewer electors than a riding in St. John's might in the province of Newfoundland and Labrador. There are obviously the territorial examples, which are long standing. I think of my own province of New Brunswick, which, because of the application of the senatorial clause, has to have 10 members of Parliament. If you divided the population of New Brunswick to try to get to the electoral quotient—the national number—it might be less than 10 MPs, but that's an example where my province will always have 10 members of Parliament or the province of Prince Edward Island will have four. A strict representation by population national formula might lead to a different outcome.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I have some questions, Madam Chair.

On the transitional provisions, it is possible that under this legislation there might be two different representation orders for the next general election, depending on how quickly the Quebec boundaries commission will be able to write up a new set of maps and depending on whether this legislation passes.

I'm wondering—this is for either the PCO officials or the minister—if there is an example in the past of where this has happened and a federal election was held in Canada with two different representation orders affecting different provinces. Also, then, could they speak to the potential cost associated with this legislation and the electoral boundaries commission having to redo some of its work?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, through you, Mr. Kmiec, thank you for that question. I think it strikes at the heart of what is an understandable concern for those who want this to be an appropriate, orderly process.

If Parliament in its wisdom decides to maintain, for example, 78 seats in the province of Quebec, the Quebec electoral boundaries commission will obviously respect that legislated decision of Parliament. Should there be a transitional period where an election were to happen before the Quebec electoral boundaries commission would have completed its work, as Mr. Sutherland just indicated to me, Quebec seats would remain at 78. That is not an ideal situation.

That's why I'm hoping that colleagues in this House and in the other place, if there is a consensus to support this legislation, can do so in a way such that we don't unduly create uncertainty for the commission. These are people who are going to be working extraordinarily hard and are doing serious work, and obviously the uncertainty that they might face is not ideal.

I worry about that, but I don't know, Mr. Kmiec, if perhaps Mr. Sutherland or Ms. Pereira can provide examples of other circumstances where you would have had sort of a hybrid, if you wish, series of maps.

I don't know the answer to that, but maybe Mr. Sutherland or Ms. Pereira does, and we'd be happy, obviously, to reply in writing through the chair if there is more detail that you'd like.

I'll turn to Al.

[Allen Sutherland, Assistant Secretary to the Cabinet, Machinery of Government and Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office]

Madam Chair, just to respond to the question on whether there has ever been a situation where you had two rules existing simultaneously—not to my knowledge. If there is additional information, we would of course be pleased to get it for you.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Okay.

For the minister, through you, Madam Chair [Technical difficulty—Editor] why they used the 43rd Parliament as the new setting point of the grandfathering clause instead of using a date, like it used to be in 1985? Why isn't it being set after this legislation passes, for example, and setting it at whatever it is at the end of the 44th Parliament?

In this redistribution, Alberta is to get 37 seats, and that would form its new floor for the minimum number of seats that my home province would have in Confederation. I'm just wondering why it's the 43rd Parliament. Why didn't they pick a date or a different Parliament at which to set it?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Mr. Kmiec, that's a very good question. I don't think, out of respect for colleagues, that I want to make up an answer. Again, I'd be happy to look at previous precedents.

Mr. Sutherland did tell me that—to your previous question—in the past, apparently, previous Parliaments have done this in the context of a majority government, so there may have been more certainty in terms of the dates, for the electoral boundaries commission, just to add that.

When we were presented with options by the Privy Council Office, this was thought to be the right way to grandfather the seats that existed, including 78 for the province of Quebec, but we can perhaps provide more information. If there were other precedents, I actually don't know them, Mr. Kmiec.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Minister LeBlanc.

Ms. Pereira, do you have any answers?

[Rachel Pereira, Director, Democratic Institutions, Privy Council Office]

Thank you, Chair.

I would just say that it also provides a measure of clarity, in terms of the number of seats that we are seeking, to reference the 43rd Parliament, in part because the Chief Electoral Officer's calculation was announced in October of 2021. If we were to refer to 2021, that could raise some confusion as to which number of seats we're talking about. Referring to the 43rd Parliament provides that clarity in the act.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think that's an excellent answer. I thank you for that.

Ms. Romanado, you have up to six minutes.

[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, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, Ms. Romanado, thank you for the question and you're right. You were one of my colleagues in caucus who in conversations we had recognized the importance of Quebec not losing a seat and maintaining its 78 seats. You're a member of Parliament from Quebec and I thought your voice was important, and it certainly was important as we drafted this legislation.

I didn't know you were going to ask questions about constitutional amendments. I thought you were going to ask about some effort in a previous Parliament to change the electoral system. I seem to remember that after 2015 we had a happy outing in that regard. That certainly doesn't feel like it's on the agenda either, and to be blunt with you, Ms. Romanado, neither would be opening the Constitution.

Successive governments, including Mr. Harper's and Mr. Chrétien's governments.... Opening the Constitution for something like changing the representational formula that exists now, or changing Senate seat allocations is certainly not a priority for this government. I'm partial to the school that says, even if we had consensus on, for example, an issue as seemingly surgical as that, when one gathers first ministers at a constitutional conference table, they arrive with their own lists and the lists are long and the results are complicated and it sucks a great deal of energy away from issues that we think are important to Canadians and that we should work on with our partners in the federation in a very collaborative way.

We're focused on working with provincial and territorial governments in a way that doesn't require constitutional amendments but that better serves Canadians, and that's the work I'm happy to try to do every day for our government.

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

Those are all the questions I have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Those were excellent questions. I thank you.

Mr. Therrien, you have the floor for six minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I salute the minister and his team. I am very pleased to see them.

My question is for the minister.

Is Quebec a nation? That was the subject of a motion that was passed by the House of Commons.

I hope the minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe he voted in favour of the motion recognizing Quebec as a nation.

Does the minister consider Quebec a nation?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Yes, I accept that Quebec is a nation within a united Canada.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Oh, oh! That was not part of the motion.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

On the evening of the vote, I was at a meeting at a fine restaurant in Montreal, the Queue de cheval. I do not remember the day of the vote, but I know that Mr. Harper was the prime minister. I was not in Parliament for the vote that evening. I do recognize, however, as I hope all members do, that Quebec is a nation, like the Acadian nation.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Okay. Quebec is a nation.

He is referring to the motion in 2006, but I was referring to the one last year, which does not say that Quebec is a nation in a united Canada. What it says is that the common language is French. I do not wish to confuse the minister, but that is what I am talking about.

Does the fact that the House passed a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation have an impact on the powers accorded to Quebec? It is not a token.