Evidence of meeting #26 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was quebec.

A video is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Steve Kanellakos  City Manager, City of Ottawa
Renée Amilcar  General Manager, Transit Services Department, City of Ottawa
Tobi Nussbaum  Chief Executive Officer, National Capital Commission
Patrick Leclerc  General Manager, Société de transport de l’Outaouais
Alain Miguelez  Vice-President, Capital Planning, National Capital Commission
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Justin Vaive

11:35 a.m.

City Manager, City of Ottawa

Steve Kanellakos

Thank you. I was just going to ask if it's directed to the city first.

Active transportation is something that the city is very supportive of. Our council is pushing very much for this, and it's in our strategic plans, but we need a balanced network. The way the city operates, in our view, it just can't be pushed to one versus the other. It needs to be balanced. That's the challenge with this particular corridor.

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Do you have anything to add, STO?

11:35 a.m.

General Manager, Société de transport de l’Outaouais

Patrick Leclerc

On the issue of return on investments, we know that investments in public transit have a three to one ratio. In other words, for every dollar invested, we get three dollars back. That ratio is not the same for investments in road development.

For example, regarding Sparks and Wellington Streets and downtown Gatineau, the return will be defined in subsequent steps, to determine what the economic benefits will be, locally.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Thank you for that, but the other part that is important, as was mentioned by STO earlier, is the idea of security. What we saw profoundly during the convoy was a huge concern about threats to our Parliament, to the very foundation of our democracy in Canada.

It sounds like there's an exploration of either going along Wellington or under Sparks Street. What I'm curious about—I'll ask the city first and come back to STO as well—is just what is the analysis process of how to keep people safe, knowing that we're bringing people to the capital, where the foundation of our democracy is. How are we going to ensure that process is as safe as possible and that we don't create risk, both for this place and for the people who would be using that transit?

The last question I have—this will go to the city, and then I'll stop talking—is about the fact that we know that parts of Wellington are blocked off right now. I see in this testimony that there's a request to be able to use that space. Are there any major complaints about that space being blocked off right now, bringing forward any concerns for the city or for the people who use transit?

Those are my two questions.

11:40 a.m.

City Manager, City of Ottawa

Steve Kanellakos

On the first question, as I said in my remarks, city council does prefer the tunnel option under Sparks Street, but it is a very expensive option, so it did direct that we pursue the second choice, which is a tramway on the surface. However, those studies have yet to be done.

On the second question, the closure of Wellington Street certainly has brought some complaints. It has disrupted the historic traffic flow. Mind you, it's not as heavy as it was prepandemic, but it has disrupted the historic traffic flow.

People are adjusting, and you're seeing some of those impacts in other side streets, off-streets, in various modes of transportation because of that.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Can I just add one part? One of the questions I was asking was specifically about security. As you are studying both the tunnel and the tramway, is security for people and the capital an essential part of the study?

11:40 a.m.

City Manager, City of Ottawa

Steve Kanellakos

Security has always been an issue for Wellington Street, but right now it's an exponential concern after what happened last February, and in my view, it will be considered as part of that.

11:40 a.m.

General Manager, Société de transport de l’Outaouais

Patrick Leclerc

We are really stressing the security component, and we were doing this even before the demonstrations that took place in Ottawa. We're working with the specialized security services for everything relating to putting the streetcar line on Wellington Street, for example. For the location of stations, we are taking security into account. For example, I'm thinking of the Langevin Building and the place where vehicles heading for Parliament Hill are inspected. For access to the judicial precinct and the parliamentary precinct, we are working with the security services. That entire component will therefore be handled by experts. The same is true for the component involving putting the tunnel in. We have to think about that.

I'm going to mention one last factor relating to security.

In previous years, there were concerns about explosives being shipped on board rail vehicles. However, what we have seen a lot of in recent years is the use of trucks as rams. That is where security becomes a major issue. It is easier to provide security for a vehicle or a streetcar line than for the thousands of vehicles that drive by the parliamentary precinct.

11:40 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you so much for that exchange.

On behalf of PROC committee members, I would like to thank all of the witnesses for taking the time to be here with us today. Should something come to mind that you would like to share with members, I would encourage you to share it with the clerk, so that it can be circulated. I like to believe that the PROC committee is the most watched committee of all the committees, so I'm sure this is very invigorating. If something comes up, please do send it to us, so that we can consider it.

With that, I hope all of you have a good day and that you keep well and safe.

For committee members, you all know that this is the last group of witnesses that we had appearing for this study. We are coming close to the summer adjournment, so I'm guessing....We've not had time to talk about recommendations, but perhaps I'll propose a summary of testimony for us to have available, and then we can see where the committee would go from there. We don't need to decide on that now, but ponder it perhaps among your teams.

Is that a briefing note we want analysts to compile, so that we can then come together to look at whether we are making a recommendation or not, so that work can continue?

The second thing, before we go to vote, the clerk had circulated a study budget for Bill C-14, and if there are no issues with it, we would like to see that approved. It was primarily for headsets, and so forth.

Excellent. We'll see you after the vote, and we will then proceed with clause-by-clause of Bill C-14.

Thank you all.

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I would like to resume the meeting. For the second part of our meeting we are conducting clause-by-clause of Bill C-14. Should members have any technical questions about the clauses of the bill, officials from the Privy Council Office and Elections Canada are present to provide answers as we move through the bill.

We have Robert Sampson here, the general counsel and senior director, legal services from Elections Canada, accompanied by Pierre Desjardins, senior director, electoral redistribution. From the Privy Council Office, we have Rachel Pereira, director, democratic institutions, as well as Nicholas MacDonald, legal counsel, legal services sector. I'm also excited to share that we have a legislative clerk with us, Mr. Jacques Maziade to guide us through the process.

With that, pursuant to Standing Order 75.1, consideration of clause 1, the alternative title, is postponed.

(On clause 2)

12:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

So I'll ask Mr. Therrien whether he would like to propose his amendment. However, I want to inform all members that there is a good chance my decision has already been made.

June 9th, 2022 / 12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

You are not taking my power of persuasion into account, Madam Chair, and you may change your mind.

This will come as no surprise to anyone. I would like to propose an amendment to Bill C-14. You should all have received the text of the amendment in both languages.

I propose that clause 2 of Bill C‑14 be amended by adding the following after line 14, page 1:

(2) Subsection 51(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after rule 4: 4.1 After the application of rules 1 and 2 and section 51A, there shall in respect of Quebec be added any additional members needed so that, after the completion of the readjustment, the total number of members for that province is not less than 25% of the total number of members in the House of Commons.

You have already heard my speech about this. I am just going to summarize my comments, which pretty much cover the subject.

First, this amendment is fundamental and necessary to protect Quebec's political weight. Quebec is a nation. Some will say it is a distinct society, but everyone agrees that there is a specificity that must be protected both for Quebec and for Quebeckers: the fact that we are under constant threat because of factors associated with Quebec's unique geographic features. I'm not talking about a threat in the sense of aggression, meaning that we are mistreated. What I mean is that we are in a situation that makes the continued existence of our nation problematic. For that reason, among others, we are asking for a guarantee that 25% will be a minimum to be retained until Quebec is independent, probably.

It's necessary to guarantee that minimum because Quebec must be properly represented in Ottawa. Some people have argued that this could apply equally to Alberta or British Columbia, for example. The House of Commons has assigned the “nation” label to Quebec. We asked it, by way of a motion, to recognize not only the existence of a Quebec nation, but also the fact that French is the common language. A very large majority of members—I don't have the figures at hand—voted in favour of that motion.

Words have to have meaning. That is parliamentarianism. We don't stop talking, but we also act. We develop bills that come out of our discussions and the considerations we bring before the House. It has to be visible. We have to put our money where our mouths are.

As well, we proposed a motion in the House of Commons in March 2022, which I will summarize very simply. The aim of the motion was to amend two items relating to electoral maps. First, it sought to reject any scenario that would result in Quebec losing members. You are familiar with the history: since 1966, no province has lost members. But after the calculations done by Elections Canada concerning the assignment of seats, we saw that the number of members had dropped from 78 to 77. That was unacceptable, and we said so. Second, the motion went further and stated that the political weight of Quebec in the House of Commons must not be allowed to be reduced.

I could have cited figures for you, because they are available. I will simply say that over the years, the number of seats in the House of Commons assigned to Quebec has gone from 33% of the total number of seats to about 23%, and that percentage is continuing to decline. Even if we take what Bill C-14 is proposing into account, Quebec's political weight will decline, despite the fact that the number of members will be kept at 78.

A constitutional expert, in fact the only one, testified before the committee and told us that we didn't need the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population to make this change.

The minister defended himself at length on this subject. I can't quote his words exactly, and I don't want to misrepresent them. In any event, I have too much respect for the intelligence of committee members to start saying just anything. However, it seems to me that I heard him say that since this issue applied to only one province, Parliament could not make the change without the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. He added that Parliament did not have the power to act in this situation, and that he had therefore ruled this out from the start. I think I have summarized his comments properly.

Patrick Taillon, the constitutionalist, told us at the same meeting that we could make this change without amending the Constitution, since any amendment to the Constitution had to be with the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. He is the only expert who appeared here to offer an explanation on this subject and answer our questions.

Right off, I will tell you that this carries considerable weight. The minister mentioned two other people. I would have liked to meet them, those people, and talk with them.

There's a difference between writing an opinion and defending the opinion before the committee, whether virtually or in person.

I'm not saying there was a lack of organization; I'm stating the facts. He is the only constitutional expert who came here.

As well, that constitutional expert went further and stated that Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons had atrophied. That is very disturbing going forward. It is another fact that we must not ignore.

I am finishing, Madam Chair, but I really want to do things properly, because this is an extremely important issue for Quebeckers.

At the last meeting, I talked about what had opened the door to adding clauses to a constitutional text, and I will repeat that. Since 1987, the courts have recognized that exceptions exist to ensure effective representation and that Parliament has the power to adopt measures for that purpose.

I'm going to mention a few facts. In 1987, this issue was taken before the British Columbia courts. The Supreme Court recognized the fundamental principle of effective representation as a right guaranteed to electors by the charter. Effective representation includes two conditions. First, there must be relative equality, so that the weight of an elector's vote is not disproportionate in relation to another elector's.

Mr. Vis mentioned that at the last meeting, correctly, and wondered why his vote would count for less than another elector's elsewhere. As a general rule, that principle is accepted, but there are times when an individual's political weight changes somewhat, although not astronomically. This isn't about doubling or tripling the number of members for a province. In a case like that, what Mr. Vis said would have been really very important.

In the case before us, we don't want Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons to go from 23% to 30% or 35% or 40%. As Mr. Taillon said, it's possible to make minor changes. I would point out that there are precedents. The senatorial clause, the grandfather clause and the territory clause have been inserted. Changes have been made in the past.

The second condition I referred to deals with respect for natural communities. In other words, factors like geographic characteristics, history and the interests of communities must be taken into consideration.

Based on all of this, I submit that what is proposed in the amendment is in the realm of the possible. In fact, it is in our interest to do this in Bill C-14, because the objective is to reflect Quebec's political weight. Why take baby steps when we can do the work rigorously and ensure that the bill recognizes the need to protect Quebec's political weight, given its exceptional nature? I don't mean that Quebec is better than the other provinces. It's not about Quebec nationalism. Nor am I saying that Quebeckers are better than the other citizens of Canada. You will never hear me say such a thing. We are neither better nor worse than them. It's not that I don't like the citizens in the rest of Canada, but Quebec is different from the other provinces. Our language and our culture, to name just those two characteristics, make up part of our difference, and I want to be sure that this difference is respected.

I will conclude by saying, as the minister also stated, that the opinions of constitutional experts diverge regarding the possibility of making these changes. I would note that our colleague Martin Champoux, the member for Drummond, tabled Bill C‑246, on which we voted yesterday. It is precisely the job of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to determine whether the bill complies with the guidelines adopted by the House of Commons for making the changes proposed by the House of Commons bill. Bizarrely, the subcommittee approved the idea that Bill C‑246, which has exactly the same objective as the objective of my amendment, was a possible mechanism for the Parliament of Canada and the House of Commons without the need to resort to all sorts of other procedures.

I have a lot of respect for the work done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. If I am told that it isn't possible to make these changes, that means that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is not doing its work properly. I have deep respect for the chair and the members of the committee. I know them well, because I have sat on this committee since 2019. I then gave my seat to my brave colleague, Ms. Gaudreau, who represents the riding of Laurentides—Labelle.

For these reasons, I invite you to take into consideration the fact that the Quebec nation is precious and fragile.

The song Le plus beau voyage by Claude Gauthier is a tribute to Quebec's difference. I invite the committee members to listen to it. In the song, Mr. Gauthier talks about a “race in peril”, but that means “people in peril”. That is what we are experiencing in Quebec.

Honestly, I am not wishing for you to experience what Quebeckers are experiencing. Every day, we get up and go into combat to protect our language and our culture, and to ensure that the only francophone state in North America is able to live and survive. We want to make sure that our children and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren never say

“Do you remember when we were French?”

I'm finished, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you for your comments, Mr. Therrien.

You will have observed that everyone was listening closely to you. Committee members are sensitive to your comments, as am I. However, as I said, I have made a decision, and nothing in what you have said has changed my mind.

Bill C-14 seeks to amend section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to provide that a province will not have fewer members assigned to it than were assigned during the 43rd Parliament. Amendment BQ‑1 would provide that the total number of members for the province of Quebec may not be less than 25% of the total number of members in the House of Commons.

At page 770 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, we read:

An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill.

The chair is of the opinion, with respect to Bill C‑14, that assigning 25% of the seats in the House of Commons to Quebec might necessitate a reduction in the number of seats for another province or provinces, and this is contrary to the principles of the bill.

Accordingly, I declare this amendment to be out of order.

12:30 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

Obviously, Madam Chair, I understand your position, but I don't agree with it. Madam Chair, you know that I have deep respect for what you do and what you are.

With all due respect, I challenge the decision of the chair.

12:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Right.

Mr. Clerk.

12:35 p.m.

The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Justin Vaive

The question is, shall the Chair's ruling be sustained?

(Ruling of the chair sustained: yeas 10; nays 1 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Thank you.

Mr. Vis.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

Madam Chair, I would like to move another amendment that will be circulated electronically right at this very moment. Our staff will pass it out, so I'll just hold my comments until everyone has a chance to receive it. You're going to have to check the admissibility.

Should I start talking about why I'm doing it right away?

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

Jennifer O'Connell Liberal Pickering—Uxbridge, ON

Madam Chair, do we have it electronically for those of us online?

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

It's being shared around.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

It's been sent electronically to the clerk.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

Excellent. He will hit forward, because he is just passing it around to the people in the room.

I am asking Mr. Vis to commence his comments in the interest of time.

12:35 p.m.

Conservative

Brad Vis Conservative Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC

We've had some great discussions here over the last few weeks and in Parliament about how we deal with these difficult situations. You know, Mr. Therrien got me thinking a lot about Quebec's place in the history of Canada and also about my own province of British Columbia. People don't remember or they don't know in this room that B.C. joined Confederation largely as an administrative matter. We were developed. If you look at the B.C legislature website as to why B.C. came into existence, it came into existence because of the railway to serve for trade for Ontario and Quebec, Upper and Lower Canada. We were an economic concern. B.C. is home to more indigenous languages and indigenous people than probably any other part of the country. We have a rich history that has formed subsequent to the railway, rich both negatively and positively.

As Mr. Therrien mentioned in his comments and as I raised in the last meeting, with the amount that a taxpayer in British Columbia gives to our federal government, they should receive requisite representation in the House of Commons. I feel in good faith as a westerner and as a British Columbian that I've learned something from the Bloc Québécois: I need to stand up a little more strongly for my province to ensure that we have adequate and effective representation in the House too.

What this amendment to Bill C-14 essentially would do, after the change to the threshold, apply representation by population as it says there: “After the application of rules 1 to 4 and section 51A, in respect of each province, there shall be added, if necessary, a number of members such that the number of members assigned to the province is proportionate to the number of members who would have been assigned in accordance with rule number 1.”

There have been many accommodations for Atlantic Canada with the Senate clause to ensure that Atlantic Canadians are overrepresented. Quebec is fighting for parity. I understand that, but as a British Columbian, I want parity too, and it doesn't sit well with me that my province is structurally under-represented in this federation, along with Alberta and Ontario, so I'm putting this amendment forward in good faith, and I will leave it there.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

12:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Bardish Chagger

I thank you for coming to us with this amendment in good faith.

I'm going to suspend the committee for a couple moments so I can debate this out with legislative clerk to figure out if it's within the scope of the bill or not. It's adding a number of seats across the board, for which I understand there might be a need for royal.... I need to figure out where we are.

Monsieur Therrien.

12:40 p.m.

Bloc

Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC

I would have liked our colleague to explain to us in detail what the effect of this amendment is. I read it and I understand it, but I want to make sure that everyone understands what it means, because it's somewhat subtle. I would like him to give us an example with figures.

What is the concrete effect of what he is proposing?

He explained what prompted him to propose that amendment, but he did not explain exactly what it meant. I'd like him to tell us exactly what he wants. Then we will be able to debate whether the amendment is in order, but before that, I'd like him to give us some specifics.