Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Fergus.

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

Madam Chair, thank you for the opportunity to ask one last question.

The temptation is great, if not immense—

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

You want to talk about the Gatineau tram, don't you?

[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?

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much, Minister.

I also thank Ms. Pereira and Mr. Sutherland.

It is at the next sitting of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee this Thursday that we will be doing clause-by-clause consideration of the bill. We would like to see this bill come back to the House very quickly.

I wish you a good day. I hope you stay healthy and safe.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Before we continue, I'll give the floor to Mr. Therrien for a moment.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, after listening to the minister's testimony, I would like to ask the committee to invite one, if not both, of the constitutional scholars to whom the minister referred. That would help us understand the guiding principle behind the minister's position on the bill and the amendment that we are going to propose.

Since the constitutional expert who appeared before the committee today told us something else, I am being a good sport and I think it would be important to invite that other constitutional expert or those other two constitutional experts so that we can ask them questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Mr. Fergus.

[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.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

That doesn't suit me, because I would have liked to ask them questions, naturally.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

What I am going to suggest is that the subcommittee of PROC, which determines the agenda, has advanced our way forward. We saw Mr. Vis refer to a document that was presented. The public is well aware of this legislation and has been providing briefs. I don't know that we need to impose on witnesses. We did have an opportunity to invite witnesses, and we provided leniency to ensure that.... Actually, the witness we had today was after the deadline, and we also invited another one, whom Mr. Vis had recommended, who declined. On that point, then, I would like to say that we are going to continue.

I know that many people are watching this testimony and this committee—I understand that we have the highest ratings—so I'm sure that the two people whose names were mentioned will be able to consider if they want to submit documents. I would say to anyone watching that the clerk would love to have any documents presented to committee for members to consider, but on Thursday we have committed to starting clause-by-clause, and that is how we will proceed.

Mr. Therrien, I always enjoy your suggestions and the fact that we can always find compromise in the way we move forward.

Have a good day, everyone. Thank you.