Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 9th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Do you want to?

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

You know what? Tom Kmiec's also a member who's very passionate about this issue. I'm going to allow him to explain it in more detail.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, do you want me to jump in at this point to continue this debate, or would you like to make a ruling first in consultation with the clerk?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think since this is a good faith conversation, if you don't mind perhaps providing Mr. Therrien that answer, it might be good for members, and I will continue the work on the side. If you want to, once again, go ahead.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Chair, I'd be happy to.

Through you, I will ask this of Mr. Therrien.

From what I understand of the amendment proposed by the Conservative member from British Columbia, after the application of rule 4 of this section of the Constitution, we would come back to rule 1 to ensure that each province has representation in the House of Commons that is equivalent to the percentage of its population.

For example, if the population of British Columbia represents 11% of the population of Canada, then, after the application of all of the rules, rule 1 would be applied so that British Columbia had 11% of all seats in the House of Commons.

The three provinces affected by this change would be my province, Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. They would have more seats in the House of Commons to make that number equivalent to the percentage that their population represents of the population of Canada. That would be the effect of the amendment that has been proposed.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

All the clauses applied would become null and void.

Is that it?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

No, that's not it at all. They would be applied, but based on the example I gave, if we consider just the population of Nova Scotia or Prince Edward Island—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, you have declared my amendment not to be in order. So if you declare this amendment to be in order, I will challenge your decision.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I have appreciated all the comments and this discussion.

I would say, based on listening to what's been proposed, reading this and speaking with the legislative clerk, I would rule this as inadmissible.

[A voice]

Oh.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm not sure if that's Mr. Vis.

Do you want to reply to that, or are we okay with accepting my ruling?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

That which cannot be done directly may not be done indirectly.

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

I'll just comment that we want to find better consensus with how we distribute power within the House of Commons. I really do strongly believe that, moving forward in 10 years' time, we're going to have to look at what we've been doing with this bill.

I strongly believe that, to find equality within our federation, provinces should not be structurally under-represented at the expense of others, either in the Senate or in the House of Commons. Coming from a part of the country where we only have six Senate seats and we are under-represented in the House of Commons, I have a duty as a legislator to raise that point time and time again.

Where is economic growth going in Canada? It's going to British Columbia because of the economic growth in Asia. Our ports are strategic for the entire country, but British Columbia doesn't have the ability to stand and fight for itself. We have all of these senators making decisions for our province who have no connection to the beauty and splendour of my riding where the two railways meet, for example.

I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Do you accept my ruling?

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

Thank you.

I do accept the ruling.

Please note that your province is under-represented too.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

We may be looking at the future member for the Maverick Party.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to bring us right back for a second and just say thank you for those changes, and thank you for that passion. My initials are “B.C.”, so I have a lot of respect and love for your beautiful province. I can see that this conversation will continue.

For the sake of time and out of respect for your time and attention, I will ask members: Shall clause 2 carry?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

May I ask for a vote, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Certainly.

Mr. Therrien would like a vote.

(Clause 2 agreed to: yeas 10; nays 1)

Thank you.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Yes, Mr. Scheer.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

I just wonder if there might be agreement for the rest of the clauses, instead of recorded divisions—just to test the will of the committee—if we might adopt them on division. If somebody isn't enthusiastically supportive, maybe we could just do them on division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for that suggestion, Mr. Scheer.

Are we okay with proceeding by accepting the rest of the clauses on division?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.