Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Okay, I just want members to know that when we did receive the letter signed by a majority of members on this, the clerk and I did action that because that is a majority of the committee, and we did ask the House of Commons for not only resources for an extra meeting. I've said that moving forward.... Basically, we would like to be in the race for those extra slots moving forward because that's the intention of the committee.

We've also asked for that extra hour at the beginning of each meeting because if you look at the work plan we're suggesting to you, sometimes instead of using two meetings from a report, it is that extra half hour or hour that could help us save a meeting.

I do think there might be an opportunity to actually do a little bit of it all because we will also have to make sure we have witnesses appearing for those extra committees, and we can't mandate their schedules. I do think that the concept of a little bit of flexibility should just be noted for the work that is done on this side of the room.

I'm going to continue with Madam Romanado and Madam Gaudreau. I think Mr. Cooper is on the list again and then Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I believe our guests are outside, so I don't know if we want to take a pause.

The procedural person in me just wants to reiterate that there is no such thing as a friendly amendment because it takes out of the hands of the full committee the decision on whether or not something is acceptable, and the original question is before the full committee.

Originally, the letter asked to hold an additional two-hour meeting, whereas Mr. Cooper's motion speaks to now an additional one three hours in length, so I'm not sure what changed between the time that he submitted the letter, jointly signed by the members of the opposition to say that they would like a two-hour meeting, and then his proposal for a three-hour meeting. Ms. Blaney then comes back with the two-hour original, and I like the idea that Mr. Fergus brought forward.

In terms of resources available in the House, we know that we're going to be going into an intensive session coming back after the break. We have a lot of work to do on every committee. If there's a way that we can maximize our time and our efficiency in terms of adding on, perhaps, an extra hour to each of our meetings, that would not impact the full committee schedule of all the other committees that are meeting, as well as the House, so I agree. The total hours are the same, and I just think it's a question of making sure that we don't bump other committees.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mrs. Gaudreau, you have the floor.

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

Good morning, Chair.

I am concerned about two things. First, there is the efficiency of our work. We could not have known what was on the drawing board a few months ago. I understand that we also need to meet certain deadlines.

Then, when we look at the hours available for a supplementary committee meeting, regardless the committee, we see that there are only two possibilities, Madam Clerk. My concern is the same as that of Mrs. Romanado. Our committee is just as important as any other. Certainly we have an advantage, we have room to manoeuvre based on the support that we have.

You now know my position. I am in favour of what is being proposed, provided it is not to the detriment of other committees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Mr. Cooper is next.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the comments by Madame Gaudreau and would note with respect to House resources that resources are available on Monday evening, and Friday morning and afternoon, so it's not a resource issue to schedule a stand-alone additional two-hour meeting per week.

With respect to the work plan that has been put forward that proposes an additional hour with respect to currently scheduled meetings, I think that should also be considered if we need additional time, in addition to a two-hour stand-alone meeting to deal with issues of foreign interference or redistribution.

It's not a resource issue. This motion does not impact House resources.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I think, Mr. Cooper, that what I find fascinating with you—and I'm going to say it today—is that conversation and discussion are okay as long as you're having it, but when other people are also just throwing it out.... That's what we're doing here; hence, why we're having this conversation.

I will also say to you that this is now a repetitive instance where you suggest that there are resources and the people who are here to provide me support, such as the clerk...and I'll give a shout-out to Sophia, who is the head clerk today and is accompanied by Christine. Both of them had the same reaction: where's this information coming from? As you're obtaining information, and if you're receiving it from the Table, it would be really good for the people who work really hard to keep this committee on its tracks to know this.

Once again, I'm going to repeat that I received a letter and the first thing I did was respond to the clerk and say, “Can we find out what resources are available?” I actually went beyond what was asked in that letter and said, “Can we even just start our meetings earlier to make sure we can accommodate this request, because it's really important work that we're doing?”

I'm not sure how much more I can demonstrate that when members want extra time, and the intention is clear that the majority of members are asking for that, I take this role very seriously.

I have Madam Blaney.

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

Thank you for that, Madam Chair.

I know we're going to have to get to our next panel fairly soon, here, and I appreciate that we had extra time to talk about this, and will have...at the end.

You know, I said it, and I'll say it again: I'm willing to explore the idea of adding an extra hour per committee. I'm willing to explore that, because one of the things that are very important to me is continuing to do what we can to build trust. There's definitely a fear around this table about losing, one way or the other. What would help me understand and feel more faith in the process...because I agree with Mr. Cooper, quite frankly. It's disheartening, to me, to open up...online and see so many newspaper articles exposing yet another thing, and to feel like the transparency is not there.

I understand that, again, we can go into the whole, complex conversation about national security, but it feels.... It's hard. Then, I have to go back and talk to my constituents. I feel a real obligation to get some of this work done. Everybody knows how I feel about a public inquiry, so my recommendation is that we need the subcommittee meeting, where we can look at the options and make a plan. If there's a plan all of us can get behind—or the majority of us can get behind—that allows us to continue to look at foreign interference, there will be an ability for us to test the waters, then decide whether we have faith, after that.

I think, to me.... Again, I'm a planner by nature. Anyone who knows me will tell you that. I appreciate the hard work that went into this plan, but there are some gaps in this plan that should be addressed. If we could build something we can agree on, maybe we could then, at least, take a period of time to check it out and see whether it works with that extra hour. I recognize.... I get asked, all the time, about committees extending time. It's not very easy. There are a lot of frustrations, and we have to honour not our political world but the people who actually do the work to make those committees happen. I want us all to be very careful, because we're asking people to do more work, and there are challenges to that, which we're still working through, on that level.

I'll leave it at that, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I have a list that continues. We will come back. We will go through this panel fairly quickly, do this work—it's also important work—then return to this conversation, as we planned, before the end of the second hour.

Now we are welcoming a second group of witnesses.

We have Mr. Alexandre Boulerice, the member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie, Mrs. Anju Dhillon, the member for Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, Mrs. Soraya Martinez Ferrada, the member for Hochelaga, the Hon. David Lametti, the member for LaSalle—Émard—Verdun and the Hon. Marc Miller, the member for Ville‑Marie—Le Sud‑Ouest—Île‑des‑Sœurs.

Welcome all of you. You each have four minutes to present your opening speech. If you do not want to use all of your speaking time, that is not a problem.

Mr. Boulerice, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Hello colleagues.

It is a bit odd to be here with you testifying before a parliamentary committee. This is a first for me. I hope I do a good job.

I have some important things to put on the table because we were quite surprised, in the bad sense of the word, by the final report on the electoral redistribution in Montreal.

You might think that Montreal is a big city, but in fact it is a collection of neighbourhoods that each have their own identity, their own life, their own history. The electoral redistribution that we have just seen seems artificial and could somewhat disrupt the organic aspect of the neighbourhoods' life, people's identity. It brings in artificial boundaries that will cause a lot of confusion.

Today I will focus on two examples: Plateau Mont‑Royal, Petit Laurier, and Saint‑Henri—Sainte‑Anne.

Taking part of Plateau Mont‑Royal and adding it to the riding of Outremont, when part of Old Montreal is being added to Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, creates something artificial that people will not be able to identify with. This also breaks up the Saint‑Henri neighbourhood. It is not true that the people of Saint‑Henri will feel like they belong to Westmount. That is unrealistic.

The people in my office and I have talked with people from the offices of other elected members at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. Everyone shares the same concerns. In a single day, Plateau‑Mont‑Royal received 200 signatures from citizens who are against the new redistribution. What is more, all the elected members from the Sud-Ouest borough also signed a letter very clearly and officially opposing the new redistribution.

We believe that this will break up neighbourhood life, challenge people's identity and cause a great deal of confusion. I think we are able to respect the demographic evolution of the Island of Montreal by maintaining the current boundaries and number of ridings and avoid this type of artificial mosaic. We were really surprised because this truly did not correspond to what people were saying during the public consultations. I think we should maintain the status quo.

Before concluding, I would like to note that I approve the proposal of my colleague from Hochelaga, which seeks to change the name of the riding because a part of Rosemont is in Hochelaga. This also causes confusion. I think a name change would clarify things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Boulerice.

You have the floor, Mrs. Dhillon.

[Anju Dhillon, Liberal, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair

Thank you to the whole committee for having us here today.

I have a situation that's also overlapping with Minister Lametti's riding. We both have “LaSalle” in our riding name.

Removing it from my riding, Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle, would be absolutely unacceptable. It makes no sense whatsoever. Half the population in my riding of Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle lives in LaSalle. Of that population, more than half is ethnically diverse. They're visible minorities with different religions, ethnic backgrounds and languages. They will not see themselves represented at the federal level. This will be very harmful.

I was born and raised in LaSalle. I'm here as an MP, and right now I don't see myself in that riding representation with this removal of the word “LaSalle” from the riding. I will not see myself in that riding representation, so I can just imagine what other people who have less of a voice than I do will feel. It will be denying their existence, denying that they are part of the riding and part of the federal landscape. My population in LaSalle that is contained within the boundaries of Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle is approximately 60,000. Minister Lametti has about 17,000 people in his section of LaSalle that is contained in the electoral boundary of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun.

The other thing is that there is already much confusion between our offices. Constituents reach out to Minister Lametti's office as well. With the removal of the word “LaSalle”, his staff is going to be so overburdened when people think that he represents all of LaSalle. Already.... If 65,000 people start calling the office or at least half of them need help, we're going to have a big problem. There's an overlapping problem.

I'm not speaking for you, Minister Lametti, but it's a huge issue.

These are some of the things we have to keep in mind. Added together, the amount of people in Dorval and Lachine is the amount of people who are in the part of LaSalle that is part of my riding. This is something that is very important to look at. It makes no sense to remove the word “LaSalle”. Like I said, it will deny the existence of half the population of the riding and of all those visible minorities and ethnic and religious minorities who exist in the riding.

That's about it. Thank you so much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you so much.

Madame Martinez Ferrada, you have the floor.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

This is also my first time appearing as a witness before a committee.

Following representations we made in 2022 during consultations held by the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec, the latter published its report in February 2023. It refers to a consolidation by the commissioners of the identity and territorial boundaries of Rosemont‑Est in the federal representation of Hochelaga. However, no name change was made and no explanation was provided. As my colleague said, Rosemont‑Est has been part of the riding of Hochelaga since 1988, but half the population in that riding is not represented by that name, hence the confusion with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.

The argument used for not changing the names is the need to avoid repetition. However, let me share some examples of name changes found in the rest of the country. Take for example Edmonton‑Centre, Edmonton—Manning and Edmonton—Mill Woods—Beaumont. There is also Burnaby‑North—Seymour and Burnaby‑South, as well as Winnipeg‑Centre and Winnipeg‑North. I think that respect for the identity of the name also refers to the people it represents. This is extremely important to us.

Like the good student I was in school — it is not true, I was not a good student — I would like to go over the questions you sent us and answer them in a structured way.

You asked us for the reason behind our opposition. As I said, it is the name of the riding of Hochelaga. It is truly a big win for people's identity to see the name Rosemont‑Est become part of the name of the riding. This name received the support of the community, including of the Rosemont Community Development Corporation, an umbrella organization representing all the community organizations in the neighbourhood, as well as of the mayor of the Rosemont—La Petite Patrie borough, François Limoges. The name will not have demographic consequences other than the boundary and consolidation of the neighbourhood on which the commissioners have already made their statement in their reports. There will be no domino effect on the surrounding ridings. I have no other argument to make than the one I already presented to the commissioner, to which no one objected.

I think we need to strengthen the sense of belonging. Only the boundary is at play here. There is also the identity question of the name of the riding. Half the territory that is represented is not represented by its name. Again, this causes confusion among the constituents in the neighbouring sector, that of my colleague.

Our letter of objection is supported by some of my colleagues. Several MPs signed it, including, of course, the member for the neighbouring riding. Our logic is not partisan and seeks to ensure that the entire territory and the people who are represented are also represented by the name of their riding.

Thank you, Chair.

Honourable colleagues, I thank you for your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Lametti, you have the floor.

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

Madam Chair, honourable colleagues, thank you.

Above all, I want to say that I support Mrs. Dhillon's proposal concerning the word “LaSalle“, which designates a territory shared between our two ridings without this causing any confusion. This represents a reality on the ground, a bit like in Edmonton or in other parts of Canada where a name is shared.

As far as I am concerned, I would like to put the work “Émard” back in the name of the riding LaSalle—Émard—Verdun. The recent Report of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec proposes removing this word, but Ville‑Émard represents a significant part of my riding. In fact, 35% of my electors live there. What is more, Ville‑Émard is distinct in several ways, including historically, since it has an industrial history, which is not really the case for Verdun or LaSalle. It also has a distinct history with respect to immigration, especially when it comes to the Italian population, but also other populations.

It's physically distinct, too. It's an enclave created by the Lachine Canal, by the aqueduct in Montreal and by a major highway, so it's always been physically distinct as well from the other three parts of the riding.

I have the support, as you will have noted in my letter, from l'arrondissement du Sud-Ouest, and in particular Mayor Benoit Dorais, who also outlines the historic and distinct difference that Ville-Émard has always had from other parts of the Sud-Ouest, including Verdun, as well as the Mayor of Verdun, Marie‑Andrée Mauger.

I note that it was part of the name of the riding from 1988 to 2015 when it was LaSalle—Émard, and I note that, in 2015, there was an attempt to remove Émard from the name. At that point, the charge was led by an NDP member of Parliament, Hélène LeBlanc, to reinsert Émard back in the name, and I'm trying to do the same thing. Briefly, it represents the reality. There are three distinct parts of the riding. People see the three distinct parts of the riding, and they understand the three distinct parts of the riding. It's not confusing. It's not too long, and it should stay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Lametti.

Mr. Miller, the floor is yours.

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

Madam Chair, thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak to the proposed boundaries for my riding, Ville‑Marie—Le Sud‑Ouest—Île‑des‑Sœurs, in the Commission's report.

Just as Mr. Boulerice did, I would like to express my concerns about moving the boundary north of the riding in the Saint‑Henri neighbourhood. Its current position goes from the Ville‑Marie Expressway to Rue Notre‑Dame. In fact, we are splitting an historic neighbourhood in two.

Saint‑Henri is a unique and dynamic community whose history precedes that of Canada by several centuries. Recognized in Quebec literature and music, Saint‑Henri has survived urbanization, industrial transformations and the evolution of economic forces, while conserving its unique identity. Dividing this community between two federal ridings would make it more difficult and more confusing for residents, and the countless community organizations that serve them, to access federal programs.

The residents of Saint‑Henri are currently served by one member at the provincial National Assembly, by one municipal councillor in the Sud‑Ouest borough of the City of Montreal, and by a single federal member of Parliament. Although Saint‑Henri has been part of various federal ridings over the years, this neighbourhood has remained intact in a single federal riding for at least the past 40 years. Moving the boundary north to Rue Notre‑Dame would divide this community along the heart of its socio-economic core. What is more, the Ville‑Marie Expressway, which is elevated, would create a significant physical barrier that would diminish participation in elections. In the wake of the reorganization of Montreal, Westmount has a different municipal government than the City of Montreal. This means that the northern part of Saint‑Henri would be part of a separate and distinct municipality.

This request not to change the northern boundary of the riding has the support of municipal representatives, including Mayor Dorais. In fact, the clerk should have received a letter from the mayor indicating his objection.

Saint‑Henri is a community with a strong and unique identity. Not only should the community be fully maintained, but its residents deserve to have easy access to federal services and programs. Even if maintaining the northern border increases the number of residents in the riding, it is important to note that the population of the riding of Ville‑Marie—Le Sud‑Ouest—Îles‑des‑Soeurs would still be well below the quota for ridings in the Province of Quebec.

My friends, I note that the during the reference period my riding underwent the highest population increase in Quebec at 35%. Sacrifices certainly need to be made. I would like to close my speech on a non-partisan note. I did the intellectual exercise of looking at this northern section, which would be separated and added to the riding of Notre‑Dame‑de‑Grâce—Westmount. The people in this northern section do not usually vote for the Liberal Party of Canada compared to the people in the rest of my riding. I will let you guess who they vote for and I assure you that is it not the Conservatives. No matter, this is not a partisan effort. We want to strive to fully maintain the integrity of Saint-Henri.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Miller.

Everyone stayed within their speaking time.

We will now begin the round of questions.

Mr. Berthold, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

I thank my colleagues for being here today.

I must admit that the entire Conservative caucus of Montreal spent a lot of time studying the changes proposed by the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec. We arrived at some conclusions.

First, we do not object to the various requests for name changes. We think the members and constituents of each riding are in the best position to determine the name of their riding. I, myself, come from a rural region and I will be in your position on Thursday, since 14 municipalities of my riding are going to be transferred to other administrative regions.

To me, the idea of maintaining the status quo does not hold water because the population of Quebec is changing.

Mr. Boulerice, I would like to know what you propose for redoing the map of Montreal while respecting the Commission's mandate, which is to ensure equitable representation to many people. Many members in numerous regions of Quebec and Canada will have to make sacrifices. Some ridings will get bigger and communities with no ties to one another will be grouped together. Unfortunately, your proposal of doing nothing and leaving things be, is hard to understand. I think that the commissioners will also have a hard time accepting that.

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

Thank you for that good question. I must admit, it is a key question.

What we are seeing is that on the Island of Montreal, one riding in particular has experienced a significant demographic increase, which has a domino effect on many ridings where it would be easy to keep things the way they are without a problem. It is this domino effect that concerns us and we think the current situation is manageable.

I am talking only about the proposed changes for Montreal. I cannot talk about the proposed changes for your riding or certain rural regions that I have not looked at. In Montreal, however, these changes will have many adverse effects and would stem from a single riding.

What is more, the demographic weight of Montreal compared to the rest of Quebec has remained identical since 2012. The demographic rapport between Montreal and the regions has therefore remained the same, as has the number of ridings. I think the current situation is manageable.

It is not just the number of inhabitants that needs to be considered. It is the notion of community of interest, mentioned in the legislation, that is not being respected and that is what we are emphasizing. For example, the people from Plateau‑Mont‑Royal, who live east of Boulevard Saint‑Denis to Parc Laurier will never say that they live in Outremont. They would be quite surprised to hear that. This will cause a great deal of confusion among the population when it comes to federal services and the services provided at federal riding offices. That is what we absolutely want to avoid.

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

Mr. Miller, is there anything you wanted to add?

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

Yes.

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

That is an important question, actually. We know that Montreal is a vibrant city. People move from one area to another. Some ridings are changing because of immigration. There is no partisanship in my questions and comments today. I just want to understand.

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

I understand that your reality is very different from mine, particularly when it comes to the people you represent and the distances, obviously. Perhaps moving a border by a hundred metres or so doesn't change much for you, but, as Mr. Boulerice was saying, it does for communities of interest.

When I looked at the revised version of the map proposed by the commission, I saw that my riding would lose Old Montreal and the Old Port, which is not what I want. However, I am prepared to accept that decision because there is a community of interest there. Given that the population of my riding grew by 35% during the reference period, sacrifices need to be made. However, this still needs to be done properly. I do not like to lose voters, but I am prepared to make a sacrifice for the reasons you set out.

The first proposal drew a jagged line through Ville-Marie in downtown Montreal. That did not make any sense and the commission actually decided to change its decision. However, the commission split Saint‑Henri in two, which no one is happy about. That doesn't make any sense either, particularly because the deviation between the population of the riding and the electoral quota does not exceed the established quota of 25%.

The reality in downtown Montreal and Montreal in general is quite different. There is a lot of turnover. There are a lot of people who move on July 1. Accessibility is not about geography in downtown Montreal. It is about communication. People need to know where their polling station is in order to vote, for example. It is not at the church where people have been going to vote after dinner for the past 40 years without even looking at the card. People in Montreal need to look at the card because things change and there is a lot of confusion. It is therefore very important to maintain the integrity of the ridings for a certain length of time given the circumstances.