Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 28th, 2023

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mrs. Romanado, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank my colleagues for being here today.

With regard to the comment made by Mr. Berthold, who said that he agreed with all the name changes, I hope that it will be the same for all of the name changes in all of the provinces. That would make our job easier.

I would also like to make another comment about the name changes.

Ms. Dhillon, you mentioned something about the fact that they were moving LaSalle from your riding. I read the report with great interest. It says that the commission decided to slightly modify the names of both electoral districts and remove LaSalle from your riding. The argument was, “We don't want to confuse people, because it's in Minister Lametti's riding.”

My riding is a perfect example. It's Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, and we have Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. With all due respect to the commission, there's an inconsistency about the name changes, because it doesn't make sense. Why doesn't Madame Ferrada's riding not include “Rosemont-Est”?

I'm in agreement with your suggestions. I think the question of identity is an important one in Quebec, and removing LaSalle from your riding's name.... After 10 years, people know which riding they're in, and you don't need to remove their name.

I agree with you, Madame Ferrada, that it is important.

I will give the rest of my time to my colleague, Mr. Fergus, who also has some questions.

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

Thank you to all of you. I completely agree with what you are proposing.

I am very familiar with Ville-Émard. As you said, Minister Lametti, it is an area that is physically distinct and historically important.

The same is true of Saint-Henri in your riding, Minister Miller. I know that, like many Black families, the Ferguses who came from the Caribbean settled in Saint-Henri. It is a historic place for the many people of diverse backgrounds who were welcomed there and who live there. Splitting Saint-Henri in two, would really break up that community of interest.

I would like you both to comment briefly on the importance of maintaining these communities of interest in your respective ridings.

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

Thank you for the question.

I completely agree that Ville‑Émard has welcomed a number of waves of immigrants. It is home to community organizations, churches, parishes and the steel industry in Montreal's downtown, an industrial tradition. It is tied to immigration because Italian immigrants, among others, settled there to work in the factories and in the steel industry.

It is therefore very important. It is physically distinct, but it is also distinct from other parts of Montreal in terms of how members of that community see themselves. People are proud to come from Ville-Émard, like Mario Lemieux, who is one of our most well-known residents.

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

In the past, in the riding of Saint‑Henri—Westmount, as it was called when I was young, there was a lot of economic disparity between Saint-Henri and Westmount, and the people of Saint-Henri felt as though they were not as well represented by their MP because of that.

In the new riding established in 2015, there is a great rapport and a closer connection between La Petite-Bourgogne, Pointe‑Saint‑Charles and Saint‑Henri. Historically, when we talk about the Black anglophone community that settled in La Petite-Bourgogne and Saint‑Henri, this maintains that great dynamic. These people are used to going to see just one MP. If, instead, they have to go see a national hero, Marc Garneau, it would be confusing, even though I am sure he would serve them well.

The newly established community of people from Bangladesh, many of whom are Muslim, also needs to be represented. In my riding office, we are always dealing with immigration applications and intake requests. It would be unfortunate if this community was divided again just to meet statistical requirements. I think there is a human face on all of this. For now, for the reference period, it would be good to maintain that balance taking into account the existing quota

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

Do I have a little bit of time left, Madam Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Not this time, but maybe next time.

Ms. Gaudreau, the floor is yours.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to commend my colleagues for their work. They have shown that they are very familiar with their ridings. After 12 minutes of questions and their opening remarks, they have presented most of their arguments. However, there are a few small things that I would like to take a more detailed look at.

I lived in La Petite-Patrie for a few years and in Ahuntsic in the late 1990s and early 2000s. I know that Montreal has changed, and I no longer recognize the city. I am therefore relying on your knowledge of your community and the people you represent.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is gathering information. The goal here is for you to give us as many documents in support of your arguments as you can so that we can continue to study the report of the federal electoral boundaries commission for Quebec. We hope that the commission will make the necessary corrections following our study.

Mr. Boulerice, in your opening remarks, I believe you mentioned 200 signatures and said that elected officials had given their support, but I didn't see any of that in the documents. Would it be possible for us to get that information for the commissioners and the parliamentarians who are examining the report?

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

Thank you very much for the question.

We are going to send the clerk all of the necessary documentation, including the letter from Le Sud-Ouest borough, the letters from citizens who have expressed their support for this and the petition, which was signed by 200 people in one day. All of this shows that the public and elected officials at all levels are concerned. It also shows that people were taken by surprise. It was not a good surprise. There is a lack of public support for this electoral redistribution. People do not identify with it in their everyday lives and in their community life.

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

We are here to help you. Without that information, the only thing I can look at is the numbers from the last election and the analyses that can be done, which I want to avoid. When I look at the overall pictures, I want to see something other than analyses.

You tabled the objection documents. The committee noted that the witnesses sometimes had differences of opinion or different views. Consultation could change that. I can already hear the commissioners saying that, if we want to keep the community of interest and we do not want to divide the boroughs, then we will have to take a co-operative approach. Could consultation be a first step? Would it help?

I experienced the same thing in my riding, which includes three regions and six regional county municipalities. Imagine if the small municipalities were divided in two. The changes that you proposed are important to you. You want to maintain your boroughs and communities of interest.

The report is not done yet. On one hand, the commissioners have a quota to meet. On the other, they must taken into account the population growth. We cannot predict demographic shifts, but we know that people can move around a lot.

Mr. Miller, the commission did its work and is prepared to negotiate on certain things. What can we do to help the commission take into account your proposals and act on them?

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

I spoke to Mr. Boulerice two or three times about the challenges and what I was going to propose, and I believe we were on the same wavelength. That being said, we did not talk about the fact that I was prepared to accept the changes proposed by the commission with regard to the Old Port. The purpose of those changes is to try to meet the established standards.

As for my other colleagues, I know that Mr. Garneau signed my letter of support regarding Saint-Henri. I do not necessarily want to speak on behalf of my other colleagues with regard to the redistribution, but I can say this.

I believe that Mr. Guilbeault would be willing to serve the people of the Old Port and Old Montreal in his riding, and I'm sure he would do a really good job.

However, you are right. The MPs who represent the ridings of Montreal and its boroughs and suburbs have not met to discuss a master plan for Montreal. We came to advocate on behalf of our constituents, and that is why I am here today.

I think the highlights are fairly clear. I do not know whether Mr. Boulerice wanted to take over the part of my riding that is going to be taken away from me against my volition. If he wants to leave everything in Ville‑Marie—Le Sud‑Ouest—Île‑des‑Sœurs, then that is okay because I like everyone. The reality, though, is that we need to do something.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, everyone, for being here to talk about these important issues.

Mr. Boulerice, if I could start with you first, as this is a surprise to all of us, could you explain how the redistribution impacts community representation in the ridings in question? You mentioned that there were discrepancies. I'm just wondering if you could explain that a bit more.

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

As my colleagues have explained, these historic districts have their own identity and their own organizations. There is an established neighbourhood life and people have a sense of belonging that we must respect. People who live in Outremont, a well-known name, are proud to live there. The residents of Plateau-Mont-Royal, another well-known neighbourhood, are proud to live there too.

People who currently live on the Plateau-Mont-Royal will now be part of another riding, which will be very confusing for them.

People are also confused about the process itself. During the public consultations, no one proposed what is in the commission's report. The redistribution was completely unpredictable. People are faced with a done deal, and they are not happy about it. In fact, they are concerned and worried.

As MPs for Montreal ridings, my colleagues and I have a responsibility to bring you our constituents' concerns. They feel that this process is essentially an unpredictable grab bag and that the identity of their neighbourhood will end up changing almost immediately after the process is completed.

Is there room for accommodation and some flexibility? Nothing is set in stone. Although it would be easier for us to advise keeping everything as it is because people are happy enough to live with the situation, we are prepared to make small changes to our proposals, if needed. Things are always changing, cities are dynamic.

The proposal now on the table will harm the life of neighbourhoods and communities and confuse people. We don't see the need for that.

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

I guess what I'm trying to get clarity on is this: It sounds as if you're just asking for the status quo. Is that what you're asking? Can you explain why you think that's the best way to move forward?

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

The Island of Montreal has several electoral districts, but only one that has seen a significant population increase that would justify making certain changes. However, the proposed redistribution also has an impact on Outremont and Laurier—Sainte‑Marie, when these ridings should not be affected at this point. The impact is just too great and not commensurate with the demographic changes.

I don't think it's my place to take a map and draw boundaries, but what we are saying is that the consequences or the perverse effects of this redistribution are too significant for us to ignore. People don't want this change. They are worried. They have come to us and they have said it to all levels of government. That's why we are here today to say that this redistribution must be redone, because it just doesn't make sense.

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

Thank you for that.

I'll continue on to Ms. Dhillon, unless there's anything Mr. Boulerice would like to add, of course.

Can you talk about whether you feel the proposed changes to the boundaries or riding names on the Island of Montreal are confusing for citizens and voters?

Perhaps I'll ask that of all of you, as I have two and a half minutes left.

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

Thank you for your question.

They can be confusing. They don't make sense, in a lot of cases.

I'm not going to take up too much time, in order to give a chance for my colleagues....

As I explained, especially in my riding, it's a question of identity and denying the existence of these different identities who live together, work together and see themselves represented and as part of society—part of the population. As I mentioned, adding Dorval and Lachine brings us to the same number of people who live solely in LaSalle. Therefore, keeping LaSalle in the title “Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle” is very important not just in terms of electoral representation but also in terms of identity, humanity and letting people feel.... Especially...as we know from statistics and everything we've seen coming out, these communities already don't have much of a voice. To wipe out that existence—that name—is very hurtful to them.

Thank you so much. I'll pass it to my colleague.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Quickly, to your question....

I want to support my colleague Mr. Boulerice in his request.

When we presented to the commission...or the impact on our riding.... They were actually giving a part of Steven Guilbeault's riding to my riding, which is...there's a CN Rail...separating both of these ridings. We went to the commission and said, “Did you look at this other option? If what you're looking for is that representation, in terms of numbers, you can do both: consolidate the riding neighbourhoods and not give me another totally, completely...neighbourhood.”

I think the commission, for the Island of Montreal, went too hard and strong on the domino effect on the other ridings. For my colleague Mr. Miller's riding, for instance—which is the biggest one in Montreal—I think we could have other options without having such a big impact on other ridings.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We're moving on to the second round of questions.

Mr. Berthold.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

After discussion with the Conservative caucus of MPs from the Island of Montreal, we've decided we got all the answers we needed today. Therefore, I would like to give up my time and thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Very well, Mr. Berthold.

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

Enjoy, this won't happen very often.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I was obviously listening very intently to that comment.

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.