Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 7th, 2022

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

Thank you so much, Madam Chair.

As always, through you, I'll be happy to ask the professor some questions. I appreciated his presentation today.

One of the things I spend a lot of time considering and have heard from many indigenous leaders across Canada is the fact that our democracy was very much built on, and continues to be built on, a colonial practice that often silences the voices of the first people of this land. When we talk about fairness and when we talk about looking at democracy in a new way, I think it's very important that we never forget these voices and how they have been isolated.

I think of the many communities I represent. When there is an election within their own community, of course, there is a 90% to 95% participation rate, meaning that indigenous communities are very much connected to a democratic system. What they're not connected to in the same way, I think, is the Canadian democratic system. Part of that is based on the lack of representation.

We know that the House of Commons largely runs on a representation-by-population basis, but there are exceptions like the one you spoke of earlier about provinces having fewer House of Commons seats than Senate seats. In that context, is it important for us to explore representation in a broader context, especially around the first peoples of Canada?

I know there's been a lot of discussion about how those voices can be amplified. The system right now, of course, leaves it up to parties to nominate people and bring forward those voices, but should there be seats in our Parliament and in our Senate that are set aside specifically for indigenous communities to make sure those voices are heard?

[Patrick Taillon]

I thank the member for her question.

You'll understand that my initial presentation focused on the very sensitive issue of Quebec's political weight, which has been declining steadily since 1867. However, the issue of indigenous representation in federal institutions is obviously very important. It confirms the problem I was trying to highlight, that this country or this federation cannot indefinitely avoid certain debates.

There are many indigenous concerns, but a relationship on an equal basis with indigenous peoples cannot be built on a new foundation without there being some constitutional debate. One day, there may be a need to make room for first nations representatives in the Senate, in the House of Commons or in a house dedicated to them, one that would have jurisdiction over certain matters. These are solutions that must be considered.

The fact that there's progress for some must not eclipse the concerns of others. That's why these issues must be addressed as a whole, beyond the simple issue of the electoral map.

Ultimately, there's a way to make more room for representation of indigenous peoples in federal institutions, while making our Senate more representative of the provinces and making adjustments to the distribution of seats in the House of Commons.

The only way to do it is to consider all concerns and find solutions to resolve them. Otherwise, this federation will very quickly fall back into constitutional taboo and the refusal to discuss these issues, which are fundamental. These debates can't be put off indefinitely.

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

I appreciate your comments on that.

You have talked several times about having this debate on the Constitution, which I think would be an interesting thing to move forward with.

I guess I'm curious to know what other countries have had this kind of debate. Are there particular models that you think are more meaningful? As we talk about representation, that is something that is incredibly important. There are a lot of identities in Canada. That's something that Canadians are proud of, but I don't think we always amplify the voices that we should.

We look at our federal systems. We still see continuously that the people who are most prominent continue to be male, white and often straight. If we're going to talk about how to represent identity, how to make sure these voices are heard in a more profound way—and you're talking specifically about a debate in this constitutional realm—can you tell us what that format would look like? Have some countries done it more effectively than others? Do you have any examples for us?

I think, once you answer that, my time will be done.

[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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

We'll now begin the second round of questions. We'll start with Mr. Vis, who will have the floor for five minutes, followed by Ms. Romando for five minutes. Mr. Therrien and Ms. Blaney will then have two and a half minutes each.

Today, because we're hearing from another panel after this one, I will have to interrupt the speakers if the conversation is too long.

Mr. Vis, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Professor Taillon, for being here today.

In your opening remarks, you spoke a lot about the reference to Parliament's decision to recognize Quebec as a nation within a united Canada. It got me thinking back to the days of Confederation and political science 101, when we learned about Cartier and Macdonald and the creation of Canada as we know it today.

In western Canada, we were taught that Cartier and Macdonald, under the BNA Act, had some economic interests in mind, and those economic interests were largely focused in two provinces, Quebec and Ontario. It was also interesting that when I remember looking back at the BNA Act, there was no reference to region, as well as in the original Constitution of Canada, which is obviously still in effect.

In British Columbia...I appreciated your comments about possibly electing a senator, but frankly speaking, if western Canada doesn't get some type of recognition moving forward, there are going to be major constitutional battles. In one respect, I agree with you that we need to have those tough conversations.

One of the things referenced in the Constitution of 1982 are the rights of individuals. I represent individuals who pay just as much tax as individuals in the province of Quebec to the federal government. I have a hard time coming here and saying that our vote is worth less than a Quebecker's.

It's not just me saying this. Donald Savoie, the Canada research chair, has spoken at length about the attempts of the Laurentian elite in Quebec and Ontario—this is Canada; this is serious stuff—and about the concentration of power that was designed in our Constitution of 1867, which still largely exists today in the formation of our public service.

What do you say to a western Canadian who simply wants an equal say in this federation? Secondly, if Quebec had under-representation like British Columbia has, I think Quebeckers would be up in arms. B.C. and Alberta have been up in arms in the past. It happened in 1993, and it's not a far cry, even based on your analysis today, to see that happening again.

Perhaps if we adopt this threshold that we're discussing today, recognizing the 43rd Parliament as the new standard-bearer for representation in the House of Commons, but also did something afterwards to improve the allocation of seats in western Canada, do you think that's something many people in Quebec would accept?

[Patrick Taillon]

Let's be factual. Western provinces and Quebec are not under-represented in the House of Commons, as proportional representation applies. However, there is under-representation in the Senate, and that is a real problem and a real challenge, but it has unfortunately become a constitutional taboo.

In the House of Commons, the principle of proportional representation is the result of a historic compromise negotiated in 1867. Through the Act of Union, to propagate an assimilation policy of French Canadians, Lord Durham recommended a principle of equal representation, which made it possible to under-represent francophones' political weight at the time. Francophones from Quebec in particular and from Canada in general were under-represented from 1840 until the demographic shift of 1850, and that was a great historic injustice. That is why, in 1867, they rallied to the idea that proportional representation contained a certain ideal of justice in the distribution of seats, but that, on the other hand, it should be part of a nation-to-nation pact.

However, Quebec never could have anticipated that the result of that Confederation would be Regulation 17 or a disregard for Manitoba's language rights. It was naive in its belief that the development of the Canadian west would perpetuate the political weight of francophones and anglophones, as was the case in that small Canada with four partners created in 1867.

The results did not make it possible to implement the pact made in 1867 and the related promises. As a result, the relationship between Quebec and Canada is now on the decline. Is that decline Quebec's or Canada's fault? That is a political debate I will not engage in. How to improve the situation? It is not simple.

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

Thank you, Professor Taillon.

I think you nailed it there. Quebec never anticipated the population distribution that we have today. I think that's the constitutional void that we find ourselves in. In the context of changing the threshold to protect seats in Quebec, it's a problem unless we do what you actually talked about, another constitutional discussion with the provinces.

The band-aid that we're applying today to address the problem—and it's not just Liberal governments that are guilty of this; it's Conservative governments too—is only going to have to be ripped off in 10 more years. We're going to be having the exact same discussion until we reach some sort of new and agreed-upon equity among the provinces, especially I might add those that pay equalization. We're going to be basically waiting for another Reform Party or another Bloc Québécois Party, maybe a second separatist party in the House of Commons, to erupt and fight for their perceived regional rights.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Taillon, do you want to use the 15 remaining seconds to make a comment?

[Patrick Taillon]

No, I don't want to take up too much time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Romanado, you have three minutes and 15 seconds.

[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]

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]

Perfect.

Thanks very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thanks very much.

Mr. Therrien, Ms. Blaney shared her speaking time with you, so you now have the floor for four minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, history is repeating itself. History is like a broken record, especially when we do not learn from it. Today's debate is exactly the same as the one surrounding the Meech Lake accord, when we talked about Quebec as a distinct society. If the Meech Lake accord has not worked, it is because English-speaking Canada wanted to make sure that the concept of a distinct society would not confer any powers and because they thought Quebeckers were pretty stupid to buy into the idea that Quebec would have certain powers simply by virtue of being a distinct society. So were had.

People say that...

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

A point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

One moment, Mr. Therrien. We all know the rules on how our committee works. So...

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I did not say that; that is what people thought.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

People think a lot of things.

I think we should keep listening to the witness and ask him questions about...

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I am getting there, Madam Chair.

It is the same thing when people here talk about the concept of a nation. Jacques Parizeau described it as a trinket. When we presented the motion on the concept of the Quebec nation to the House, people said it would easily pass. The motion was indeed passed by a strong majority. People wanted to make sure it would be a trinket, a little toy that Quebeckers would enjoy playing with. We then found ourselves in the situation of having to reiterate that, if we accept that Quebec is a nation, certain actions are required to support that idea.

My colleague from Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon said he cannot understand why Quebeckers should have more powers when he pays the same taxes as they do. Why does he not speak out about Prince Edward Island having four times the representation? That province should really have just one MP, but it has four. He does not make a fuss about that because it is not in his interests to do so.

The history of Quebec has shown us repeatedly that Quebec had to be treated as a minority and that this approach should not be blocked. The Constitution Act, 1867, institutionalized our minority status and, what this member said continues in that vein.

I would like to know what the witness thinks about the historical debate on the process to establish both Quebec and all Francophones in Canada as minorities.

[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.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much, Mr. Taillon. We appreciate your being with the committee today and for sharing your observations. Should you have any further comments, please send them to the clerk, who will in turn forward them to the members of the committee.

Have a nice day and stay safe.

Mr. Fergus.

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

I wish to raise a small point of order, Madam Chair.

I have a lot of respect for my colleagues Mr. Therrien and Mr. Vis. I would just like to remind them of Standing Order 18, which encourages parliamentarians to use appropriate language that does not provoke strong emotions to ensure that we respect one another.

With the good will of all members of the committee, we have created a very collegial atmosphere. That is something we created under your leadership, Madam Chair. I think it is important that we use more moderate language.