Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2023

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

We have all heard reactions from constituents and elected members alike.

The main thing is that any desire to amalgamate Alma and Jonquière is to truly misunderstand Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean. Earlier, some people were wondering why we had not tabled a third proposal. It would absolutely be a disaster if the Commission decided not to listen to our third proposal and moved forward with Jonquière—Alma.

Wanting to ensure that the Jonquière—Alma proposal does not pass, we prefer to turn to the initial proposal, even if it is not ideal. We know that this initial proposal will receive support from the three MPs and some of the population from our region to protect us from a Jonquière—Alma amalgamation.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I have a question for the member from Manicouagan.

You talked about consultations earlier. Have you done anything to pursue that? If so, please elaborate.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I have in many ways and several times.

As far as the recent consultations with all elected members from the region are concerned, everyone agrees, without exception. We talked with Innu leaders. They came together and they obviously agree. Everyone, including the public, was consulted to the best of our abilities. That is what I have to say about the consultations.

I would also like to emphasize something I mentioned earlier. I must admit that the commissioner truly showed good will by adding indigenous names to the riding name. However, the chiefs were not consulted on this, nor was the indigenous population. In the current context of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, where the public wants to get closer to indigenous peoples, I think these consultations would have been important. In my opinion, it should not be the other who chooses indigenous names, but rather the indigenous populations. That, in my humble opinion, is what should have been done, hence our proposal.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I have one last question for Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe or Mr. Simard.

We know that there is clearly a community of interest in Lac‑Saint‑Jean, and in Saguenay as well.

Is there one between Alma and Jonquière?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I have yet to see a community of interest between Alma and Jonquière.

In 2013, it was clear, it was the not the MP who approached the public about changing the map, it was the public who approached the MP. I remember hearing a group of businesspeople saying that they were poorly served by Jonquière—Alma because the MP focused more on Jonquière than Alma and did not attend as many events there. Throughout Claude Patry's entire time in office it was very difficult to reconcile the interests of the people of Jonquière with those of the people of Alma.

I was saying earlier that this fracture was quite obvious. The people who come from Lac‑Saint‑Jean do not consider themselves as being from Saguenay. To someone from outside the region, this may seem insignificant, but back home it is a rather strong identity. Either you come from Saguenay or you come from Lac‑Saint‑Jean. If we combine these two communities, distortions will be made to the detriment of the public and their representation. There is no doubt about it.

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

Might I remind you that, again, the 2013 commission corrected that mistake. A decade later, do we want to restore that mistake? I would be surprised because in 10 years, another commission will again correct this mistake.

This is not a game. We are not playing ping-pong here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Blaney, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank all the members who are here today and behaving so nicely.

I have one question, so I will be able to give you back some time. Hopefully, that will be helpful later on. on.

My one question is for Madame Gill.

It seemed to me, in the letter I read from the nation, that they were hoping that the indigenous name would be first. I don't know whether you answered this already, but I'm wondering why it is not first. As the first people...it just makes sense.

If you could help me understand that, I would appreciate it.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

I am not sure why. We will have to look into it. I did not want to get involved in that, just like I did not want to intervene during the Commission's process because I preferred for the people to speak. I preferred to gather their opinions and present them later.

However, usually, riding names are composed in alphabetical order. I am thinking of the riding of one of my colleagues, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, whose name I can remember simply because the elements of the name are in alphabetical order. I think the decision to go in alphabetical order is an arbitrary one. I do not want to propose anything because I do not think that this needs to come from me. I just want to speak on behalf of the people, so this is what I am passing on.

I talked about consistency, cohesion and respect. If changes need to be made in the order of precedence, then it will be up to all the people concerned to decide. Unfortunately, these are not pictographic signs. The idea does not come across in a single image, but instead in two steps. That might be the topic of another discussion, but that is not for me to say. It is just an observation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Perfect, thank you very much.

We will now start the second round of questions, for those who have any. Let's begin with the Conservatives.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, Mr. Brunelle‑Duceppe and Mr. Simard have done a great job explaining their point of view. We have everything we need to prepare our report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

Mrs. Romanado, you have the floor.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Chair.

First, I want to thank you very much for your presentation.

I have a very simple question for the three members before us.

Have you shared your suggestions and objections with your colleagues from the other parties? If so, what do they think?

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

Thank you for the question.

We have proof that Mr. Martel supported the Commission's initial proposal since he literally wrote a letter and submitted a brief on this during meetings in September. As such, there was no need to talk to him in preparation for this meeting since he had already officially confirmed his support for the Commission's initial proposal and that is fine with us.

Mr. Simard, do you want to add anything?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Quickly, I just want to say that I indicated to Mr. Martel, the member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, that we would go back to the first proposal to get consensus from the three MPs, since he tabled a letter indicating that he accepted the initial proposal. Us three members accept the initial proposal and I indicated that to Mr. Martel during a discussion.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

Mrs. Gill, do you have anything to add?

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

In my case it is a bit different. Since there is no redistribution, this does not affect the bordering ridings. There was already Canada-wide approval for adding indigenous names. Every member whose riding borders mine supports this change because the choice of name, Côte‑Nord—Nistassinan, belongs to the people who live on the territory, and not the people outside. What is more, with respect to the First Nations, discussions were held between the chiefs, nation to nation.

I do not want to interfere in that either. I am reporting what I was told. Obviously, the Innu nation agrees.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

That is all.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Therrien, you have the floor.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

Your position is very clear. Having lived there, I understand that just about everyone agrees on this. I might even say that everyone agrees with your objections.

I would like you to take turns sharing your thoughts on the impact that the last proposal will have specifically on the RCMs.

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

Alma, which is the largest town in the RCM of Lac‑Saint‑Jean‑Est, ended up uprooted in a federal riding, Saguenay. It became immediately apparent that this made no sense. Provincially, Alma is part of the Lac‑Saint‑Jean riding. It is only on the federal electoral map that Alma was not part of the territorial entity of Lac‑Saint‑Jean, since, as far as the RCMs and provincial ridings are concerned, it is part of that territory.

As elected members, as parliamentarians and Quebeckers, I think we all know the difference between Saguenay and Lac‑Saint‑Jean. We adore the people from Saguenay. The proof is that I am still with my friend from Jonquière. Now, just because we adore them does not mean that—

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

We are not the same.

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

Correct, we are not the same.

Mr. Simard, perhaps you could elaborate.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

I would like to talk about the RCMs.

The town of Saguenay in and of itself may be considered an RCM. It would end up with the largest municipality in the Lac‑Saint‑Jean‑Est RCM, which is totally incongruous. What is more, the Fjord‑du‑Saguenay RCM would end up joined with Lac‑Saint‑Jean.

From the point of view of redistributing RCMs, the suggestion of recreating the Jonquière—Alma riding is worse than the first proposal. On a federal level, this redistribution would make it very difficult to coherently plan socio-economic issues.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

If I could use the speaking time that others did not, that would be great. It would be a good way to close on this.

I will try to sum up your position: the three MPs support the first proposal, the interest communities are quite distinct from one another, the population is behind you and the RCMs would be hampered by the first proposal; accordingly, you are standing behind the first proposal.

Is there anything that was misunderstood that might refute what you said?