Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Good morning. I call the meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 59 of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee is meeting today to continue its study of the Quebec electoral boundaries commission report.

Before I get into welcoming our guests, I want to mention a couple of housekeeping items.

There was a letter circulated with regard to adding time to procedure and House affairs so that we can get a bit more work done. We will be allotting 15 minutes at the end of this meeting for that conversation. Therefore, the two panels will move quickly.

I will say to the clerk that perhaps the second panel will be starting about five to 10 minutes earlier. Can we let them have a heads-up? That way, we can get through committee business really quickly.

I'm also going to suggest that you do not have to use all of your time. If you have extra time, you can give it back to the committee so that we can get through everything very quickly. I am confident our guests are going to be very efficient in providing us with their information.

The clerk and I will maintain a consolidated list of members wishing to speak.

For our first panel, we have Alexis Brunelle‑Duceppe, MP for Lac‑Saint‑Jean, Marilène Gill, MP for Manicouagan, and Mario Simard, MP for Jonquière, who is joining us by video conference.

We have carried out sound tests and everything seems to be working fine.

Each of you will have four minutes to speak, but don't feel you have to use up the entire time.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, welcome. The floor is yours.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Hello everyone. Thank you for having us at this important meeting.

It was a shock to us all to find out that the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec 2022 was planning to repeat the historical error of creating the riding of Jonquière—Alma. Let me read you an excerpt from a letter we received after this news came out. We forwarded it to the committee as well.

No one saw this recommendation coming, and it has caused an uproar among residents and among the elected officials who would be directly affected. Why? Because it's NOT A GOOD IDEA! This proposal would make an already thorny situation even more complicated... Although the name Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean makes it sound like one big region, it's important to bear in mind that it's made up of two separate entities: Saguenay and Lac‑Saint‑Jean. Each entity has its own communities of interest and its own major cities. Alma is one such city; even I personally refer to it as the capital of Lac-Saint-Jean. Lumping Alma and Jonquière together would exacerbate a complicated situation that would just make life harder for everyone. Both for local residents and for the MP.

Who do you think wrote that letter? It was Jean‑Pierre Blackburn, the former ambassador of Canada to UNESCO, former Conservative minister and, most importantly, former MP for Jonquière—Alma. Mr. Blackburn is the person who represented this short-lived riding the longest in the House of Commons, a riding many describe as a historical error.

Let me read you an excerpt from another letter we received.

Imagine how surprised, how flabbergasted, we were when we found out on February 1 that the Commission is now planning to repeat a historical error and add the town of Alma to the riding of Jonquière. We thought this mistake had been fixed in 2013, which is not so long ago. Imagine how surprised, flabbergasted and above all mystified we were by this news, because we had specifically cited the historical error of Alma—Jonquière as an example in our written submission. The idea of going back to that electoral map defies all logic and was not included in the proposals at the public hearings.

That letter came from the Mayor of Alma, Sylvie Beaumont. At the hearings in September, Ms. Beaumont spoke out against the commission's first proposal. Even without being consulted on the proposal we are faced with today, the City of Alma, as well as several other people who spoke at the September hearings, held up the riding of Jonquière—Alma as an example of a mistake that would affect political representation.

Here is the final nail in the coffin. The commission proposal we are looking at today is based purely on one resident's submission. That submission contained several suggestions for redrawing the electoral boundaries of Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, including one suggestion to resurrect the riding of Jonquière—Alma. I want to read you an excerpt from another letter we got after this news came out.

To whom it may concern: My name is Marc Perron and I live in the region of Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean. ... I am deeply disappointed to see which option was selected...and I bitterly regret having suggested it. I would like to officially retract that suggestion.

To recap, the MP who represented that former riding the longest is opposed to bringing it back. The City of Alma, the city that would be most affected by this change, is opposed to bringing it back. Several elected officials who spoke at the hearings in September 2022 cited Jonquière—Alma as an example of a mistake that should never be repeated. Lastly, the suggestion that the commissioners relied on to draft the proposal that brings us here today has been retracted by the person who made it.

In closing, we know that, if all the members approve the commission's proposal, it's more likely to be adopted. Knowing that the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, Mr. Richard Martel, supported the commissioners' first proposal, my colleague from Jonquière and I are reluctantly joining him in endorsing that first proposal, because we know that resurrecting Jonquière—Alma would be even worse.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe.

Ms. Gill, the floor is yours.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to thank all of my colleagues for being here today to listen to us.

The issue that brings me here today is not a boundary issue. My riding is called “Manicouagan” right now, but I would like to tell you about the new name we would like it to have. This name goes beyond symbolism, and I will explain why.

First, a little background. The riding got the name “Manicouagan” during the 2015 redistribution. Manicouagan was one of two ridings covering Côte‑Nord, which is an administrative region of Quebec. The other was Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute‑Côte‑Nord, which disappeared. In 2015, when the boundaries were redrawn, the riding was named “Manicouagan”. I was already an MP then, and people pointed out to me that this was the name of a regional county municipality, or RCM. It is in fact one of the six RCMs that make up Côte‑Nord. It's also the name of a river, so it's not just the name of a riding.

The name change caused some confusion, especially about the riding boundaries. Some people said they refer to our region as Côte‑Nord. It's a separate administrative region, a huge, 350,000-square-kilometre island that you have to take a ferry to reach. We call ourselves Nord‑Côtiers, North Shore residents. This issue of our sense of identity was raised during the Parliament that was in session from 2015 to 2017, because people already wanted the name Manicouagan to be changed.

The Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec recognized the sense in this and agreed to change “Manicouagan” to “Côte‑Nord” for reasons relating to our sense of identity and geographic boundaries. It even consulted the residents, who were in agreement. The commission listened to that point of view, and the term “Côte‑Nord” has now been incorporated into the proposed name.

However, in the interest of consistency and respect, I want to raise my second topic, namely consultation. The commission is now proposing another name: Manicouagan—Kawawachikamach—Uapishka. I acknowledge the commissioners' good intentions in adding indigenous names to the riding name, even though the origins of the name Manicouagan are unknown. The name is thought to have come from the Jesuits. It wasn't indigenous people themselves who gave it that name, but it's still a name of indigenous origin. So I do salute the commission's good intentions.

My problem is that, despite those good intentions, they didn't consult the public. I am also my party's critic for indigenous affairs, and I know that indigenous people want to be consulted when there are decisions that will affect them. I know that, in this case, the change would be symbolic, but in order for the people to feel like they're really participating and being heard, the riding should be given the name they would like it to have, hence the proposal to include the name “Nitassinan”. Non-indigenous people refer to that area as “Côte‑Nord”. The two names don't mean the exact same thing, but the territories of Côte‑Nord and Nitassinan roughly overlap. Nitassinan is also the name used by the Innu, who account for about 15% of the population of Côte‑Nord. It's their territory.

Our goal is to be consistent, avoid confusion and show respect when it comes to consultation. Those are not empty words, considering the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Given what is supposed to be done soon here, in the House of Commons, to implement that declaration, I have a duty, as an MP and critic for indigenous affairs, to highlight the importance of being consistent and respecting these citizens' identity. They are citizens in their own right who also deserve to feel included in the new riding name. That is why I humbly suggest, on behalf of all affected residents, the name “Côte‑Nord—Nitassinan”.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Gill.

Mr. Simard, the floor is yours.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Hello, esteemed colleagues.

I would like to pick up on what my colleague from Lac‑Saint-Jean was saying earlier. I think we have serious grounds for opposing the commission's proposal. I will start by saying that the commission's decision involved blatant procedural unfairness.

The commission came up with a proposal that was presented to our constituents on July 29, 2022, but the proposal to merge Jonquière and Alma was never presented to residents. If it had been, the regional backlash would have been much stronger than the one we saw against the first proposal.

There is no community of interest between Jonquière and Alma. The proof is that there is a Facebook page for people who are from Saguenay, not Lac‑Saint‑Jean, and another Facebook page for people who are from Lac‑Saint‑Jean, not Saguenay. It's like comparing someone from Montreal to someone from Quebec City, or someone from Toronto to someone from Montreal. These are two fundamentally different communities of interest that this proposal would lump together.

Earlier, my colleague from Lac‑Saint-Jean told you about the letter from Jean-Pierre Blackburn, the former MP. He served for a long time as the MP for the riding of Jonquière—Alma, which existed from 2004 to 2015. Claude Patry also represented this riding as a Bloc Québécois MP. I was his political attaché. Mr. Patry got the electoral map amended in 2013 at the request of Alma's business community and elected officials, who did not want to be part of the riding of Jonquière—Alma anymore. At the time of the 2013 redistribution, this was presented as a historical error.

It was even reiterated that this historical error should not be repeated in this redistribution. That is why the member for Lac‑Saint‑Jean and I were so stunned to see this proposal resurface at the request of a well-meaning resident, Marc Perron, who now says that it was a mistake he wants to retract.

This motive is clearly valid. We have the support of our community. While the riding of Jonquière—Alma wasn't presented to the public, which is obviously extremely unfair from a procedural standpoint, I can confirm that the Jonquière—Alma proposal did come up for discussion in 2013.

During the 2013 redistribution, a number of people said they disliked the riding of Jonquière—Alma, because it created such a hassle for the MP and for socio-economic and political stakeholders. That's why this historical mistake or blunder was fixed. Now the commission is making the same mistake all over again.

Will our proposal have a domino effect on other ridings? I should note that when the commission presented its first proposal, the MP who represents Alma and I opposed it, while the MP for Chicoutimi supported it.

As far the riding of Jonquière—Alma goes, the lesser evil would be to revert to the initial proposal. It has its flaws, to be sure, but at least in that proposal, Alma, which is the cultural and economic hub of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, wouldn't be tacked on to another region, Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

At the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, four minutes can go by pretty fast.

Now we'll move to questions and comments and get more information.

Let's start with the six-minute round, starting with Mr. Gourde, followed by Mr. Fergus, Mr. Therrien and then Ms. Blaney.

I will now turn the floor over to Mr. Gourde.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe or Mr. Simard, or both.

If I understand you correctly, the first proposal was opposed by certain people in the riding and by the two of you. The commission then came up with a second proposal, which hasn't met with universal approval either.

What led the commissioners to change the first proposal? Did you tell them it was okay, originally?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

I'm not sure I understand your question. Are you asking me what led the commissioners to change their minds?

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Yes, exactly.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

There was a backlash against the first proposal, because it would have taken some communities away from the riding of Lac‑Saint‑Jean and transferred them to the riding of Jonquière.

The proposed riding name of “Jonquière—Alma” never came up. The only reason the commissioners thought of it was that one resident suggested reviving the riding of Jonquière—Alma. But the resident who made the suggestion on which the commissioners based the proposal we're debating today has since retracted his suggestion. The commissioners really have no grounds to pursue this idea of bringing back the riding of Jonquière—Alma. Mr. Perron has retracted his suggestion, so it's as if it had never been made. In my opinion, his suggestion is null and void.

The reason we're fighting so hard against this Jonquière—Alma proposal is that it was never discussed. As Mr. Simard so aptly pointed out, however, it did come up for discussion in 2013. At the time, people from all over Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean spoke out against the creation of the riding of Jonquière—Alma.

In 2013, the commission fixed a historical mistake. So why is that, 10 years later, that same commission is repeating a mistake it fixed itself? I feel like I'm a bad movie right now. The commission needs to do its homework. Unfortunately, we are now forced to support the first proposal, because it couldn't be worse than the one creating the riding of Jonquière—Alma.

We know creating Jonquière—Alma is a bad proposal, and the proof is that the commission itself decided to fix that mistake in 2013. I think consistency is important, especially when it comes to political representation.

Mr. Simard, do you have anything to add?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I'll be brief.

What happened is that the commission responded to the objections from the public and MPs by presenting a proposal that was worse than the initial proposal. This proposal, which was never discussed with political stakeholders in the region, repeated the historical error of Jonquière—Alma. Today, all of the stakeholders, including a former MP and minister, Jean‑Pierre Blackburn, are saying that this prospect is intolerable. Furthermore, Marc Perron, the person who brought up the idea of Jonquière—Alma, has retracted his own suggestion. It's clear that—

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Simard.

My next question is a pretty important one.

You're suggesting going back to the initial proposal, but would it have been possible to come up with a satisfactory proposal, different from the first and second proposals, that all parties could have agreed on?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

For us, the trouble is that the commission didn't present the Jonquière—Alma proposal to the residents. It made it hard for us to create a new proposal that the commission would have to examine from scratch. We're well aware that, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, fundamental changes are a little harder to achieve.

I think the option most likely to be acceptable to everyone, including residents of our region and the commissioners, is to go back to the first proposal. It may not have been perfect, but it was less harmful to our region.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

I'm done, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Gourde used four and a half minutes.

Mr. Fergus, it's your turn.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also want to thank the witnesses, our colleagues from the House of Commons, for their presentations.

Ms. Gill, you canvassed your constituents about the riding name and sent us the petition.

How many people are in favour of the new name you're suggesting, Côte‑Nord—Nitassinan?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

There's a lot to unpack in what you just said.

We used householders to tell voters about the commissioners' proposal and then explain the name Côte‑Nord—Nitassinan, which had already circulated in our riding. Just over 1,100 households in my area responded positively. That's what I sent you all.

From the beginning, we've been talking about representation a lot, so I would add that the name is supported by the Assemblée des préfets de la Côte‑Nord, which is made up of all the elected or appointed wardens. Resolutions to that effect have been approved by all the elected officials in Côte‑Nord. I'm referring to elected officials, not chiefs, but there was also a letter in favour of the name Côte‑Nord—Nitassinan that was signed by the assembly of Innu chiefs.

Overall, both residents and their indigenous and non-indigenous representatives agree on the name.

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

Great.

Could you tell us about the meaning of this indigenous name?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I'm no linguist, and my Innu is very limited, but Nitassinan refers to the territory, our land, the land. It's a powerful term, obviously, given the relationship that first nations, Inuit and Métis people have with the land. For them, it's meaningful.

Beyond that, the land means the entire territory, which is immense, and it's not just one place. Certain places can be important, but the name “Nitassinan” covers all of it, just as the name “Côte-Nord” covers all of it. I think that's important.

Speaking personally, I think that putting the two territories on an equal footing and connecting them is a wonderful idea. Naturally, they agree and they're behind the proposal.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Brunelle-Duceppe and Mr. Simard, I know your area well, and I can imagine how controversial the proposal to create the riding of Jonquière—Alma must have been.

My question is similar to the one Mr. Gourde asked. I would imagine the residents of Alma are not too keen to be merged with Lac‑Saint‑Jean and that whole region. What can we do? Is there another option you can propose? Do you just want to go back to the initial proposal and say that you'll accept it in spite of all its faults?

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Yes, Alma definitely does not want to get lumped in with a Saguenay riding. One of the reasons for that is that the people of Alma know that their political weight will shrink the second they're incorporated into the riding of Jonquière, given that Alma would go from the most populous city in its current riding of Lac‑Saint‑Jean to the least populous city in the new riding.

We were told that the stage that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is currently at is not the time to propose new maps. We were told that what we could do was support the initial proposal. That proposal caused a backlash, but much less of a backlash than the Jonquière—Alma suggestion would have caused had it been presented. That's what you need to bear in mind.

Since the MP for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord sent a letter expressing support for the commissioners' initial proposal during the September hearings, my colleague from Jonquière and I decided that, in order to avoid repeating the historical error of Jonquière—Alma, we would support that first proposal too. We're doing it reluctantly, of course, but with the goal of avoiding a repeat of the disaster that happened in the past and was eventually fixed. The three MPs from the Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean region will therefore support the first proposal.

You're all MPs yourselves, so you know exactly what communities of interest mean, and you're in a position to ensure that that mistake is not made again. We beg you to write in your report that this scenario must be avoided at all costs. We have the backing of several highly credible stakeholders, including the MP who represented the former riding of Jonquière—Alma the longest in the House of Commons during the 10 years it existed. He wrote a letter addressed to you, the parliamentarians, saying that bringing back this riding was not a good idea.

We urge you to do your work in a non-partisan way. The person who wrote that letter was a Conservative MP, not a Bloc MP.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Therrien, you have the floor.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Welcome to the witnesses who are here with us in person or by Zoom.

I have lived in Lac‑Saint‑Jean, Saint‑Félicien and Saint‑Prime. I know the region well. When I saw this proposal, honestly, I nearly fell off my chair. I cannot fathom this disrespect for Lac‑Saint‑Jean and its unique characteristics and the Saguenay, which is different in so many ways. To take the capital of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, Alma, and put it in the Saguenay region is to not understand the region.

Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe, how are people reacting? I had a strong reaction. I can only imagine the reaction of people who are still there who were not consulted. I would like your thoughts on the reaction of people on the ground. It must be appalling.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much for the question.

Indeed, on February 1, my phone battery died rather quickly because everyone was calling me in complete shock. There is a document that we did not have time to table before the committee. It is a resolution by the Alma municipal council, which passed on the deadline for tabling documents. I will read you the most important part.

The resolution is rather long, but the most important part is this passage proposed by councillor Frédéric Tremblay and seconded by councillor Véronique Fortin.

THAT the municipal council call on the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec to ensure that the Town of Alma, the largest town in Lac‑Saint‑Jean, remains in the riding of Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

This motion was passed unanimously. That speaks volumes about the fact that we have the community's support and how important it is not to let this happen. We need to do our work as parliamentarians and ensure that, in the report, the restructuring of the riding is not approved.

Mr. Simard can speak to this.