Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 30th, 2023

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Mr. Bergeron, Ms. DeBellefeuille, and Mr. Garon, thank you for coming today. If you'd like to add anything, please contact the committee clerks, who will pass the information on to the committee members.

I wish you a pleasant afternoon.

For PROC committee members, as the next panel commences...and I know most of the panel are here. As we will get set up, I understand we just want to have a quick conversation in regard to the other study we're doing.

I'll pass the floor over to Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you so much, Chair.

I just want to clarify. I did do a notice of motion about having the special rapporteur come in to talk to us about the work he is doing. It sounds like, from the last conversation in committee, people are open to that, so I was just going to check if we could move forward, add him to the list and move on.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Go ahead, Monsieur Berthold.

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

I'm okay with that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

So there's no problem.

I feel we have everybody's agreement. I'll confirm with our one member from the Bloc, but I do believe that's fine.

As we proceed to inviting witnesses, the letter that was sent to PROC committee members through me was about people who should come on their own, and we will add the Right Honourable David Johnston to the list of people who come on their own. That will be added and is noted for the record.

We're going to begin the second part of the meeting and welcome the second group of witnesses.

We'll pause for about 30 seconds while they set up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

In the second hour, we'll be continuing our study of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec's report.

We have with us today Mr. Luc Berthold, M.P., Mégantic—L'Érable, the Hon. Marie-Claude Bibeau, P.C., M.P., Compton—Stanstead, and Mr. Louis Plamondon, M.P., Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel.

You will each have four minutes for an opening statement after which will proceed to questions from the committee members.

Mr. Berthold, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleagues for allowing me to sit here as a witness today.

After having heard presentations from several of my colleagues, it's now my turn. Thanks also to my two colleagues for being here.

As you will see, it's not particularly complicated. We have each examined our respective districts and everything that affects neighbouring ridings. We agree on the fact that the proposal we are going to make today was unanimously adopted by the three parties, and in particular by the three MPs affected by the changes in the district of Mégantic—L'Érable. It's a very large district, and it neighbours the respective ridings of my two colleagues. We consulted one another and also consulted the population on the recommendations being presented.

I do not intend to repeat the presentation. I sent a letter, which you have all acknowledged. I believe that's what's important. I would just like to underscore the fact that the district of Mégantic—L'Érable currently includes 50 municipalities. The city in the middle is Thetford Mines. I represent three RCMs and the district of Mégantic—L'Érable falls into three administrative regions.

For those who may not know what it's like to be an MP, it means that I meet with three different groups of agricultural producers and three different farm women's circles to serve each of the RCMs. In short, that's a lot of meetings.

Our proposal, however striking it may appear, is to add an RCM to the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable, specifically the RCM of Lotbinière. That would lead to my representing 61 municipalities rather than 50. And yet I'm perfectly at ease with this proposal. It's part of my role.

Unfortunately—and I said so when the members of the commission came here—they had to work under the statute in force at that time. It's true that there were not enough voters in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable. That's why we had to do this work.

The initial proposal included various municipalities in Lotbinière, and following consultation with Mr. Gourde, the MP for Lotbinière, we joined forces to put forward a new proposal, one that would be more in keeping with the wishes of the people and the communities of interest.

The problem we face today, and that's why we are asking the commission to backtrack, has to do with the municipalities that were added to the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable from the riding of Compton—Stanstead. To be perfectly honest, there are very few ties between the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable and these municipalities. Moreover, it would add a fifth RCM to the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable.

In the interest of the people, the elected members and the community itself, it would be preferable for these municipalities remain in the riding of Compton—Stanstead, particularly as there has not been an opportunity to discuss the matter because this transfer had not been part of the initial proposal.

In addition, I would like to keep the municipality of Villeroy, which is already in Mégantic—L'Érable, and add two other municipalities from Lotbinière to avoid splitting the municipalities in the RCM of Lotbinière into three different ridings.

It's rather complex because, if you look at the maps, the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable is shaped like a big banana. We are surrounded by other ridings and it looks as if it would be possible to take municipalities and move them from one riding to another. But it's not as simple as all that.

All the mayors who were consulted, and all the RCMs, agree with the proposal we are now making. We have the support of the people.

I'm willing to answer any questions you may have and any requests for further details. However, our proposal is reasonable and consistent with the communities of interest. It's the outcome of an agreement between the MPs affected. It is not being presented for partisan reasons, but rather to give proper regard to the communities of interest, and because we are very familiar with these communities and know how they work, and with whom they interact.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr.Berthold.

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for giving me the opportunity to explain to the committee why I believe the municipalities of Weedon, Lingwick and Scotstown should remain in the riding of Compton–Stanstead. We're talking here about 3,767 inhabitants. The RCM, the three municipalities involved, and Luc Berthold, the member of Parliament for Lac Mégantic–l’Érable, all support my position.

What I'm asking for is based on the importance of aligning the boundaries of the ridings as closely as possible with those of Quebec's other administrative boundaries. My argument will focus in particular on RCMs, the regional county municipalities, but it is equally applicable to neighbourhoods, municipalities and administrative regions. It rests on the basic underpinnings of electoral redistribution, which means giving consideration to the personality of these municipalities, avoiding unnecessary changes to existing riding boundaries, and giving due regard to each RCM's or each region's sense of belonging, communities of interest and key commercial, industrial and farming ventures.

The municipalities of Lingwick, Scotstown and Weedon have a strong sense of attachment to their RCM of Haut Saint-François. RCMs are at the heart of regional economic, socio-cultural, historic and geographic vitality. RCM's are bodies that maintain the consistency and cohesion of actions by elected representatives, including initiatives under federal government programs. In the name of efficiency and cohesiveness, I recommend not duplicating services provided by teams in the ridings.

One of the considerations mentioned in the act addresses historical relations. For sevearal decades now, the people of Scotstown, Lingwick and Weedon, have primarily been using public services, including health care services, as well as businesses and cultural or sports centres in Cookshire-Eaton, East Angus and Sherbrooke.

Community and economic activity is organized around the RCM. One has only to think of the Chambre de commerce du Haut-Saint-François, the Centre local de développement du Haut-Saint-François, the Carrefour jeunesse-emploi du Haut-Saint-François and the Société d'aide au développement de la collectivité du Haut-Saint-François, the SADC. Residents of Weedon, Lingwick and Scotstown rarely go to Lac-Mégantic ou Thetford Mines for services. The same can be said for work.

The populations of Scotstown, Lingwick and Weedon are part of the collective identity, not only of the RMC of Haut-Saint-François, but also the Estrie administrative region. In this instance, the concept of a territorial whole, which is in the act, should take regional attachment, which is always very strong in Estrie into account. The Union des producteurs agricoles de l'Estrie and the Agence de mise en valeur de la forêt privée de l'Estrie are good examples of this.

For all these reasons, I recommend avoiding the splitting of RCMs, neighbourhoods, municipalities and administrative regions as much as possible when redrawing electoral boundaries. I am therefore asking that Weedon, Lingwick and Scotstown remain in the electoral district of Compton–Stanstead.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Bibeau.

Welcome, Mr. Plamondon. The floor is yours.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Good afternoon.

Thank you for welcoming me here to the committee as a witness.

I'm from the second most beautiful riding in Canada. Of course first place goes to the one you represent.

On the matter of expanding the area by adding three municipalities, I think that my colleague Luc Berthold and hon. minister Bibeau clearly said that these three municipalities have much stronger affinities with their region.

The reason why I've been given these three municipalities is that there is a population shortfall in the riding I represent. The three municipalities together have a population of 2,000. When the members of the commission considered the matter, they did not factor in the latest data for the riding. For example, over the past six months, six major battery production plants have been announced for the City of Bécancour. Last week, Ford made an announcement, and about six months ago, there was an annpuncement from General Motors.

Six similar projects have been announced. They will be worth over $500 million. They will be built on an area equal to three football fields placed end to end. These large factories will attract lots of people to the Bécancour region. What's more, only last week it was decided to rezone 500 building lots to allow for the rapid construction of housing for the people who will be working at these plants.

The Nicolet region, in the centre of the riding, is experiencing the largest residential development in its history. In the Saurel region there are currently three construction projects under way for residential buildings: one for 763 units, a second for 400 units and a third for 466 units. Not only that but three other projects are awaiting authorization. This would mean that within four or five months, in Saurel alone, there will be at least 2,200 more people living in these units, with two persons per unit.

This means that the population deficit of approximately 2,000 people mentioned in the commission's report will have been completely dealt with in Saurel, partly offset in Nicolet and largely offset in Bécancour. Within three years, there will be at least 5,000 more workers in the riding. I therefore fully agree that these three municipalities, which have no affinity with the riding I represent, should remain in the riding represented by Mr. Berthold. I trust that the members of the commission will understand.

The big problem will no doubt be in with the name change. For years, the riding has been identified by its three RCMs: Bécancour, Nicolet and Saurel. However, although there was nothing said about it during the testimony, when the initial meetings were being held and even when the final report was being prepared, it was decided to add the Abenaki community to the name of the riding. We are in agreement with that, of course, but there are two such communities: Odanak and Wôlinak.

It was therefore proposed that the City of Nicolet be replaced by Odanak. Nicolet has existed for 350 years—we celebrated this last year—and it is older than Canada. So the city has been there for a long time.

The Odanak community does not agree because it pointed out that there is also Wôlinak. I therefore wrote to the grand Council of the Wabanaki nation, Which represents both communities. I have given you a copy of the letter. It says that the Abenaki people would like to add their name to the riding without removing the name "Nicolet".

Every time I was in contact with the commissioner, Mr. Chamberland, he repeated that Odanak was going to be added. There was never any intent to remove Nicolet. This whole story almost led to a revolt in the riding. If you could only see the number of letters—I didn't send you all of them—from the people in the municipalities who wrote me in support of keeping Nicolet in the name of the riding.

Let's get back to the word "Abenaki", the name of the nation. The Abenaki people want that name added to the riding's name, but in the Abenaki language. That would mean spelling it : "Alnôbak" or "Aln8bak", making the name of the riding "Alnôbak—Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel" or "Aln8bak—Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel".

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Plamondon.

I know that the members of this committee were wondering why I didn't say anything when the bell went off.

Mr. Plamondon, you're the MP with the most experience here in the House of Commons. That's why it's a bit difficult for me today to interrupt you. However, the next time we hear the bell, we will have to end the meeting.

We are now getting to the rounds of questions.

Mr. Gourde, you have the floor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Berthold.

There was the matter of three municipalities, Val-Alain, Leclercville and Villeroy. The municipalities of Val-Alain and Leclercville are in the RCM of Lotbinière.The second proposal was to incorporate them into the riding represented by Mr. Plamondon. Villeroy is adjacent to these two municipalities. It was part of the riding you represent, but according to the second proposal, it would be incorporated into the one represented by Mr. Plamondon.

My understanding is that in the municipalities of Val-Alain and Leclercville, which I still represent, people would really like to remain in the RCM of Lotbinière. They regretfully accepted the idea of leaving the RCM, which would lose half of its area, to be added to the federal riding of Mégantic—L'Érable, which covers the same area as Quebec's riding of Lotbinière—Mégantic.

Mr. Berthold, how important do you think it is for the community of interest in the RCM of Lotbinière to remain in Lotbinière?

And tell me more about the close ties that exist between the municipalities of Val-Alain, Leclercville and Villeroy, from the economic standpoint, and also in terms of the communities of interest.

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

As you mentioned, an attempt is being made to splinter this RCM. Previously, when the first proposal was made, the people in the RCM of Lotbinière found it somewhat shocking to see that their RCM was being split in two. Further to some communication efforts, we managed to arrange for it to more closely resemble the provincial riding so that the residents could end up dealing with the same people they were accustomed to. The provincial riding is Lotbinière-Frontenac. It's already a pairing that shares affinities. However, there are no economic, social, cultural or other affinities with the riding represented by my colleague Mr. Plamondon.

The people of Lotbinière clearly want to remain where they are. There is a sense of belonging that they don't want to lose by finding themselves in a riding located in another administrative region. We're talking about the Centre-du-Québec region. Once again, it would mean some additional problems for them. Even though it's at the provincial level, the people they would have to deal with would no longer be the same. They don't want that.

As for Villeroy, the ties are with the municipality of Plessisville, whether for entertainment, the economy, groceries or anything else. There are therefore no direct links. That's why we recommend not going in that direction and instead keeping these three municipalities in the riding of Mégantic—L'Érable.

As I said earlier, the area looks like a big banana, but people need to know that we're also going to represent a larger population. In my proposal, I requested a name change, which will surprise people. My current riding is Mégantic—L'Érable, but we're talking here about four RCMs. To make sure that people understand that the riding represents a huge area, I'm going to propose the name "Appalaches—Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière" to the commission.

That way, when people contact our office, they will know they're dealing with a very large riding. We don't have enough resources to have a full-time office in each of the RCMs. Yet people need to feel a sense of belonging In this riding. The only way to accomplish that, in view of the fact that we cover so many administrative regions, RCMs, is to include the name that represents them in the name of the riding. That might well give them a feeling of attachment.

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

The riding of Lévis—Lotbinière is a victim of its own success. Its population has increased enormously and now stands at 125,000. However, the riding will have to give up a portion of its population. That's why the RCM next to your riding has to be split. For the next redistribution, however, which will be in 10 years, we hope it will be back together again. That will no doubt be within the riding you are currently representing, Mr. Berthold.

Do you believe that this reunification is important? The RCM of Lotbinière has been together for 20 years. For this group of small municipalities, it's virtually the only factor that represents a form of unity. It's been overwhelmed by large centres. The idea that they might all be reunited again in 10 years is important. to them.

Do you think the committee needs to take note of this?

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

It's important not to divide the RCM of Lotbinière Into three parts, because it is indeed hoping to be back together in this same riding the next time the electoral map is redrawn.

It's important. I think that it's one of the things that the commission need to take into consideration. I can only hope that they will accept the unanimous proposals made by all the municipalities involved, which we are representing here today.

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

I'll conclude by thanking Ms. Bibeau and Mr. Plamondon for keeping an open mind with regard to Mr. Berthold's proposal. Otherwise, it would have been difficult. Thank you sincerely for being so obliging.

I have no further questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much, Mr. Gourde.

Ms. Romanado, you have the floor.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank my colleagues for being with us today. I'd also like to thank them for answering most of the questions that were raised. It's as if Mr. Berthold was somewhat aware of how we go about doing things!

[Some hon. members]

Oh, Oh!

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

I have only one question about the riding names that were proposed.

In the report, there were some comments from citizens saying that the riding names were too long. The commission therefore tried to shorten some of them by removing some of the city or regional names.

I'd like to know what you think of that, Mr. Plamondon, given that you suggested adding some names.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

I checked and found that there were 25 names in Canada that were just as long. One such example is Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes. That's pretty long.

There's also West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

In Quebec, we have Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d'Orléans—Charlevoix; Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques; Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Soeurs; and Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, to mention only a few.

So there are some long names, and it's fine to have names like that because, as Mr. Berthold was saying earlier, they actually designate the region where people live and enable them to know where to go when they occasionally might need services from MPs.

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

We worked hard in my office to find a single name that would cover all of the communities in Lotbinière, l'Érable, and Lac-Mégantic, among others. Our riding begins at the river and goes all the way to the American border. Les Appalaches is all very well, but this region doesn't cover the whole riding. We couldn't come up with a name that, on its own, would give people a sense of affinity. It's not that we didn't try, because I know that every time I have to refer to the name of my riding, it's going to use up half my speaking time, and you know how I like to talk.

So we spent a lot of time searching, and the only solution we came up with to help people readily know where they would have to go to vote in federal elections, and who their MP is, was to add Lotbinière to the name of the riding. Even though we, as MPs, want everyone to know who we are, it's impossible. People need to know the name of their riding, who their MP is and where their riding office is, in the event that they need help to deal with a problem.

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

All right.

Ms. Bibeau, do you have anything to add?

[Marie-Claude Bibeau, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

That's kind of you, but I believe we've covered everything.

Thank you.