Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2023

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all the members for being here today, and for their testimony and voicing their concerns within this process. I appreciate that.

Minister Miller, perhaps I'll ask you a couple of short questions in relation to the objection you're raising, which, I think, is to preserve the integrity of the community of interest in your riding.

I wonder whether you have any community support for that, and whether any of the other members of the ridings that would be impacted have also shown any support for what you've proposed today.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

I just want to take a step back and say that we should be really honest with each another. I don't think the people who vote for us go around saying, “I'm a proud resident of”—insert the riding—“Vimy”, or of Ville-Marie. When we say it in public, we're kind of off our communications sometimes when we're saying “as a proud MP for” this thing that anyone outside this, unless they're a keen observer of federal politics, has no reference. I am an MP for downtown Montreal.

However, the names can't be so off kilter or, importantly, misleading. I don't have the legal text for this, but in the case of my colleagues, it seems that residents, at election time, which can be quite stressful, would be misled, and I think that is worth due consideration. Let's also be clear that those boundaries that are put in are inherently artificial, but they can't be hideous. I think that in the case of decisions that just look big visually, and for the communities that are affected that look that way, that also plays into the matter of confusion and then people not being able to get out to the ballot box, wherever it happens to be situated. Heaven knows, in Montreal, those ballot boxes move quickly. I think that looking at that reference point is important for this team's consideration.

I have spoken to Marc Garneau, and he was supportive of this and signed the application I submitted. I have briefly talked to Minister Guilbeault and told him about that addition and he seemed positive as well. In terms of the support at the federal level, that's what I've seen, and I understand that MP Boulerice is supporting at least the park portion with respect to Saint-Henri.

I don't think there's a single person who wants to see Saint-Henri split in two. Mayor Dorais of the borough has written a letter to that effect, and the local councillors have supported it as well. We could absolutely provide written documentation if required. Some of it is already in your hands, but there is more if you need it.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Ryan, could I also add to that with respect to that riding?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Please do, Mr. Lametti. I was going to extend that to you as well.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

My riding is contiguous with Marc's riding as well in a small way, former minister Garneau's riding. What the current situation simplifies is the ability of municipal politicians to deal with only two MPs. They have Minister Miller for the Saint-Henri—Sainte-Anne part of their municipal boundary, and then they have Saint-Paul-Émard, which is mine, so they're dealing with only two MPs.

You're going to add a third MP for a very small portion, and that unnecessarily complicates it. You can understand why Mayor Dorais and the rest of the municipal government of that particular part of the arrondissement in Montreal clearly don't want this to happen.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It's very compelling.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think my time is up. I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you. I appreciate it.

Next is Madame Gaudreau.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

We fully understand the domino effect that would impact the Island of Montreal. I hope that this will be properly explained in the report, for the benefit of the commissioners.

Mr. Boulerice, it's one thing to say that people disagree, but as Mr. Miller and other colleagues have suggested, I wonder if this proposal could be improved. What do you think?

That's the only question I have.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Thank you for the question.

Certainly, the proposal can be improved. However, as I was saying earlier, I don't think it's our place to sit at the drawing board and draw boundaries.

There really could be more flexibility to the process. I think Minister Miller's proposal for Old Montreal could be considered. However, the idea of taking a portion of Plateau Mont-Royal, namely “petit” Laurier-Ouest, and bringing it into Outremont does not make any sense, nor does the idea of splitting Saint-Henri in two. What we're pushing for today includes things that are really important to protecting the interests of our constituents.

We also have a problem with the process. Considering the initial proposals and the public consultations, the final report really comes as a surprise. How did we end up with this report, when it proposes things that were neither in the initial proposals nor in the proposals of those who were consulted? It's as if it was pulled out of thin air. Given this lack of transparency, people may feel they are being ambushed, since no one called for this.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

That explains what may have happened in other ridings, as mentioned by the witnesses who came to committee.

Thank you for your clarifications.

Thank you, Madam Chair. That's it for me.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's great. You said you would take the entire two and a half minutes but you gave me 35 seconds. That's a great gift.

Ms. Blaney, the floor is yours.

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

Wow. This is very exciting. Everybody's working together to get it done.

I'll ask Minister Lametti and Minister Miller the same question again. If you need me to repeat it, I will repeat it.

Do you feel the proposed changes to the boundaries of the riding names on the Island of Montreal are confusing to citizens and voters?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

I don't think they are. In fact, we're lowering the confusion level by maintaining what we currently have. Over 10 years now, people have come to understand the riding names. There's a slight boundary change between Madame Dhillon's and my ridings. We're not opposing that. That's fine. People generally understand. It allows us to work together. Municipal administrations understand which MP they're going to, and I think that's helpful.

My point was that there's a difference in attitude. Verdun and Ville-Émard are both arrondissements of Montreal. They're both on the metro. LaSalle is at the beginning of the suburbs, in a way. It's more car oriented, and off that part of public transit.

There's a difference, and people understand it. We serve our constituents well, and the current names help us to do that.

[Marc Miller, Liberal, Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs, QC]

I wouldn't have said anything different.

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

Excellent. I'm done.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much, everyone.

Josh Oliverio is joining us here from the Waterloo region. He's a young person who has a podcast on political decision-making and youth. It was really interesting for him to be able to see this discourse take place as to how politics also functions, aside from what sometimes makes the headlines. The tone of the conversation and the important work we're doing with redistribution is an experience he will enjoy.

I'm really grateful to all of you for the work today.

On behalf of PROC members, we appreciate the work done by Mr. Boulerice, Madame Dhillon, Madame Martinez Ferrada, Minister Lametti and Minister Miller. If you have anything else to add, please send it to the clerk, and it will be circulated around.

With that, we wish you a great day.

To PROC members, we're going to continue our earlier conversation regarding the motion.

I don't have a speaking list, but I have Mrs. Romanado, who is the person on my list, followed by Mr. Cooper.

Mrs. Romanado.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to move an amendment to Mr. Cooper's motion. I drafted it in English. I'll do it in English, and then in French—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Do you have it in both official languages?

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

I have it written. I don't have an email that I can send you, but I will read it slowly. I will read the English, and then the French.

Is that okay, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I just want to confirm.

I understand Mr. Cooper moved a motion. Mrs. Blaney offered a friendly amendment to change it from three hours to two hours. Mr. Cooper accepted that. I understand that Mr. Fergus offered a friendly amendment to have one hour and one hour instead of two hours. Mr. Cooper did not accept that, but you did not move an amendment.

There was confusion in saying we already have an amendment, which we do not. We have a motion that has a friendly amendment on the floor, and now Mrs. Romanado is offering an amendment.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to propose that, the committee, in relation to its study of foreign interference in elections, beginning the week this motion is adopted, “add an additional hour to its regularly scheduled meetings, during each House sitting week to accommodate this study.”

The request by Mr. Cooper was to add an additional two hours every sitting week to this study. I am proposing two hours every week for this study, but I'm prescribing that it be added to the currently scheduled meetings we have. The rationale to that is, as you all know, we are going into the end of the session and we have a lot of legislation that comes in. We have a lot of issues that every committee is going to want to finish before the end of June.

I do not want to take up all the leftover available spots every week, because.... I'm not saying our work is not important, but all of the work that the House does is important. To minimize impact, my suggestion is we add an additional hour to all of our current scheduled meetings. I think that is something that can be accommodated. We get the two hours that Mr. Cooper is asking for, which is great, and we also make sure that we're not impacting the rest of the committees.

Madam Chair, I know how competent you are in terms of scheduling. I will leave it to the chair, who is responsible for the agenda, to then schedule our meetings accordingly, based on the will of the committee to see witnesses and so on.

That is my proposal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I have an amendment on the floor.

Mr. Cooper is on my list. Did you want to speak to the amendment?

Go ahead, Mr. Cooper.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Yes, thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate Ms. Romanado's submission. However, I believe that we need stand-alone meetings. I think it works better from a scheduling standpoint. It's cleaner.

I want to confirm, based upon my previous submission, that my whip's office conferred with the head clerk and, in the normal course, there are two slots that are available. One is on Tuesday evening and another is on Friday afternoon. Those were slots that had been previously designated to the Special Joint Committee on Medical Assistance in Dying.

There's also another slot on Thursday evening that is mostly available, but would not be available when the Board of Internal Economy meets on Thursday at another point of the week, resulting in the need to move that committee to that Thursday evening slot.

Again, I underscore, based upon the information I have, that there are the resources to have a stand-alone meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'll say I take information from the clerk and the analysts, and when they tell me that, I will believe them. I have confidence that they know how to obtain resources.

I try not to meddle in their work in that sense, but thank you for that clarification, Mr. Cooper.

Go ahead, Mrs. Blaney.

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

I'm torn by this. I think, again, I will talk about the fact that we would need to put together a schedule that makes sense.

We have to ask questions like, if we extend by an hour twice a week, do we want committee meetings to be focused for the three hours on one subject? Are we okay with mixing those? The committee needs to have a bit more say on that for me to be open to this discussion.

The other part that would be helpful for me is to understand from the clerk what is easier. Is it easier for us to extend twice a week by an hour? Is it easier to get resources? Will the resources be more reliable?

I heard what Mr. Cooper said, and I understand quite clearly what he's saying. I just want to have a better awareness. Is it easier to extend by an hour, or is it the same amount of complexity to have an extra meeting that's two hours long? We're making some assumptions here, and I want to know clearly if one way is easier.

I have to be honest. In my life, for scheduling, an extra hour twice a week would be easier for me, personally, to put in my schedule. However, I think that we have to have a discussion about how we would schedule it and what would work. If we were going to move in that direction, what would make it feel more accessible or friendly to members of the opposition?

Those are my thoughts.