Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2022

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That is a perfectly appropriate conversation. Colleagues might have different opinions on the legal meaning of the motion. In public policy, there are all kinds of examples of how the federal government seeks to support minority language communities.

On the other hand, while the House of Commons determined that Quebec is a nation, that does not change the Canadian Constitution. That is a completely different debate, as we discussed earlier with Ms. Romanado.

I accept that our government recognizes this in the way it applies public policies. It is a recognition that we must bear in mind. Moreover, it is one of the reasons that we decided to keep 78 seats in Quebec.

[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?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

That is an excellent question.

I salute Mr. Therrien, who is also an experienced politician with good judgment. I can see that in the way he asks his questions. He is trying to back me into a corner. I accept that and the lawyer in me even admires it. I was so poor in math and science that I decided to study law, and did not even study tax law.

That said, Mr. Therrien is right, we interpreted the motion in order to protect Quebec's political weight. If the number of seats had dropped from 78 to 77, that would not in our view have protected Quebec's political weight.

Obviously, we are not going to start discussing amending the Constitution or go before the courts to determine whether a bill passed by the House of Commons is unconstitutional.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

The representation level is higher if we have 78 seats out of 338, as opposed to 78 out of 343. So we can agree that this decreases Quebec's political weight.

There are certain clauses, such as the senatorial clause, the grandfather clause, and the territorial clause. In 2011, the Constitution was significantly changed by the Fair Representation Act. This type of thing is possible. I could read out a list of things that prove that we do not need constitutional reform to adopt these kinds of clauses. That is established in section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. The constitutional expert Mr. Taillon confirmed earlier that, barring a major change, the Constitution does not have to be reopened to make a minor change such as the Quebec clause that we are proposing, namely, to increase Quebec's minimum representation from 23% to 25%.

I will ask my question again, now that we know that we do not have to reopen the Constitution to adopt such a clause and that this argument cannot be used as an excuse. Why did you not accept this clause?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Perhaps because we were inspired by the remarks of Benoît Pelletier, a professor of constitutional law at the University of Ottawa and a former minister in the Quebec government. Allow me to read out the following remarks by him:

...guaranteeing Quebec a specific share of seats in the [House of] Commons, regardless of its share of the population, would clearly go beyond what Parliament can do on its own.

“That's a 7-50 amendment [of the Constitution]”....

Many other experts said the same thing.

I like Mr. Therrien, but I do not agree that we have that much leeway in a bill of the House of Commons or the Senate. He might have different views and I recognize that.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

We have never had to reopen the Constitution for the senatorial clause, the grandfather clause or the territorial clause, nor to make changes to the Constitution as was the case in 2011. Now you are quoting Mr. Pelletier. The difference between Mr. Taillon and Mr. Pelletier is that Mr. Taillon was present and we were able to ask him questions. I would have liked to ask Mr. Pelletier questions about that as well, so he could convince me that we need to amend the Constitution, because I do not agree. History is stubborn and shows that we have changed the level of representation four times, for various reasons, without ever having to reopen the Constitution. I cannot see why we would have to do so now.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

We can spend a lot of time quoting other experts. Emmett Macfarlane, for example, a political science professor at Waterloo University and constitutional law expert, made the same remarks as Mr. Pelletier.

The important thing is not to reduce the number of seats Quebec has. We have been very clear about that. As to guaranteeing a set percentage, regardless of demographic change, I will leave that for my friends from the other provinces to discuss.

I would have been very happy for New Brunswick to be facing the problem of a growing population, as is the case in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. Unfortunately, that is not the case. As Mr. Therrien said, we are protected by the senatorial clause in any case.

In short, we consider this a surgical and appropriate way of maintaining Quebec's 78 seats.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's a very interesting conversation today, and I thank the witnesses for being here with us.

The bill is important in terms of ensuring that Quebec and other provinces don't lose representation in the House of Commons.

Given the reality of Quebec's unique history, culture, language and role in Confederation, is the government contemplating changes that would also protect Quebec's share of seats in the House of Commons?

[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.

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

Thank you for that, Madam Chair, through you.

The next question I have is around the reality that the format we're talking about is very colonial. We have a long-standing history here in Canada of colonialism and often extinguishing the voices of indigenous communities. We know that some other countries have explored expanding their electoral processes to make sure that the voices of indigenous communities are heard.

We also know that, statistically, if you look at elections that happen within indigenous communities, the voter turnout is extremely high, but we don't see that reflected in the other elections that happen in our country. Is there any discussion at this point about how we can amplify the voices of indigenous communities? Is there any sort of goal towards having representation in both places in this Parliament to amplify those voices and make sure that those voices are represented?

I look at New Zealand as a specific example. We know that this is incredibly important. If we're going to talk about reconciliation in a meaningful way, it has to happen at all levels. Of course, having those voices represented here, the first voices of this country, would make a more wholesome and collaborative process. Is there any work being done exploring that and looking at systems that are working in other countries and how they may work in Canada?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, Ms. Blaney, I think, correctly identifies a challenge that all of us need to reflect on. She mentioned both places, the House of Commons, obviously, and our friends in the other chamber, in the Senate.

We have tried through the Senate appointment process to appoint a number of indigenous persons to the Senate. In talking to my colleagues in the Senate, I think they have contributed enormously to the conversations and to the work of that legislative chamber, but we can always do more.

Ms. Blaney correctly identified other jurisdictions. New Zealand—you're absolutely right—is in many ways a leader in this domain. I'm going by memory that some provinces in Canada, in the case of indigenous persons or even other minority groups—I'm thinking of the francophone communities in Nova Scotia—have decided deliberately in their legislatures to ensure that the electoral map reflects a way to hear those voices, as Ms. Blaney properly said, that are often not adequately or easily heard in a typical electoral redistribution cycle.

We have no plans, no legislation, in that regard at the moment, but I take note that the Chief Electoral Officer—I was in the cabinet meeting this morning—released a report or his recommendations on a number of elements of the two previous general elections.

Obviously, Madam Chair, if this committee or other committees of the House had ideas or wanted to pursue that, then we would be interested in those conversations, but I don't want to pretend that we have legislation pending or cabinet decisions around anything in that regard at this moment.

As I say, we're conscious that we're at the front end of an electoral boundary redistribution process, so we want to, out of respect for the legislated timelines in that process, not widen the conversation to the point where the electoral boundaries commissions won't be able to do their work. Perhaps, following that process, again, if colleagues wanted to bring those kinds of issues forward, we would be more than happy to work with colleagues, because we do recognize exactly the challenge that Ms. Blaney properly pointed out.

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

Those are all my questions today.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Blaney.

We will now proceed with five minutes for Mr. Vis, followed by five minutes for Mr. Turnbull.

Then Mr. Therrien will have the floor for two and a half minutes, followed by Ms. Blaney, who will also have two and a half minutes.

Mr. Vis.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you to Mr. Sutherland, former clerk-at-the-table of the House of Commons David Gussow submitted testimony to this committee. He talked about the challenge of dealing with increased disproportionality. He wrote, “The current bill will increase that disproportionality from 44 to 46 seats for three of the provinces. For proportionality Alberta should have 8 more seats...British Columbia should have 10 more seats...and Ontario should have 28 more seats...for a total of 46 seats.”

Based on the commentary I've already heard from the minister, I acknowledge the challenging position any government is in dealing with changes to the representation in the House of Commons and avoiding a constitutional amendment.

What type of advice did the Privy Council Office provide the government in respect of the structural under-representation of the three provinces referenced?

[Allen Sutherland]

Madam Chair, I thank the honourable member for his question.

You have seen this in the earlier commentary by Professor Taillon. There is in the development of this legislation an attempt to balance and reconcile different aspects of our federation.

The first is the issue of what is sometimes called “representation by population” and sometimes called “proportionate representation”. That is clearly a defining feature of the legislation, but the other feature of the legislation is to provide protections to small and slower-growing provinces to make sure they get adequate representation.

When we developed the advice for the minister, we considered options that attempted to balance those two things. I only looked at it briefly so the honourable member will forgive me if I have it slightly wrong, but I think he was providing an illustrative example that if those provinces had the same representation as Quebec, that would be the number of seats they would have.

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

I believe that's correct, yes. Thank you.

Madam Chair, all of the other committee members posed my questions to this great panel.

If you will indulge me, Madam Chair, because we have a minister before us, I will kindly thank the minister for approving the Dominic LeBlanc centre for aquatic excellence in the district of Kent. I would like to ask the minister if we could have a quick comment on the challenges that small communities like the District of Kent are facing with respect to inflation.

This is a good faith question, through you, Madam Chair.

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

Madam Chair, through you, thank you to Mr. Vis for the question. Naming an aquatic centre after me seems a bit counterintuitive. I don't look like somebody who's spent a lot of time swimming laps in a pool. I'm flattered by your enthusiasm.

You're absolutely right. I represent a series of small, rural communities in New Brunswick. It is a challenge. We've talked about this with respect to projects in your riding, Mr. Vis, on the infrastructure space. It is a challenge to have smaller communities develop or have the capacity to apply to federal programs. In many cases, they're very technical and complicated. A net-zero attestation clause ensured that many small communities, at least in the initial rounds, weren't able to benefit from these programs. I'm happy that ones that are important to you did, but I think we have a lot of work to do as a government to ensure that the infrastructure investments are shared with communities big and small across the country.

I had this conversation at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities meeting in Regina with a series of mayors from small, rural communities last week, on Friday.

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

Thank you, Minister, through you, Madam Chair.

Following up on MP Romanado's point, do you foresee the Parliament of Canada in 10 years going through the exact same exercise that we're going through today?

[Dominic LeBlanc, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

If the current law is maintained, there will be a redistribution process after every decennial census, so in 10 years, yes.

I'm going by memory, but I was surprised. If you take the projected population increases in the current.... If you look at the last 10 years and project the same population movements over the next 10, I would have instinctively thought that the number of seats in the House of Commons 10 years from now would dramatically increase. It was a surprisingly small number, assuming—as I say—that some future Parliament doesn't, in its wisdom, change those formulas.

This is a conversation that Parliament will have every 10 years. We think that's the proper thing to reflect the movements of populations across the country.

It was six seats. The projections would say,

if the trend continues, as Bernard Derome used to say on election night,

we would expect there to be six more seats 10 years from now. Of course, that would depend on a whole series of demographic factors.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Minister.

I know we're not here to talk about infrastructure, but when you make that announcement in Kent, we welcome one in Waterloo as well. I do not need a response at this time, but you should definitely ponder it.

Mr. Turnbull, you have five minutes.

[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]

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, 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]

Madam Chair, we believe it absolutely is.

The legal advice we have indicates it is entirely within Parliament's purview to make this sort of reasonable, modest adjustment, which previous Parliaments have made. Professor Macfarlane and others, in their wisdom and based on their experience, have confirmed this. A scholar from the University of Waterloo, Madam Chair, is obviously somebody we'd want to listen to. He's not from the University of New Brunswick—I'll concede that. In spite of that, I think his opinion carries considerable weight.