Debates of April 7th, 2022

Constitution Act, 1867

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking my colleague and congratulating him on his French. I see that he has made an effort and I truly appreciate it.

About what he said after that, of course, people in a democracy should be properly represented. The problem is when you consider a nation or a people as a province.

Quebec has unique needs. Its culture is different, its language is different and it has a different way of looking at the economy, a different way of looking at how we use oil, and a different way of fighting climate change.

These differences must be acknowledged, because Quebec is not a province. Quebec is a nation, and it deserves to be heard.

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

Madam Speaker, I feel like I should remind my colleague that the Bloc Québécois is not Quebec as a whole. The Bloc represents hundreds of thousands of Quebeckers, like other political parties, including those in the House, like the NDP.

We took advantage of the government’s minority status to secure gains for Quebeckers, written in black and white in the agreement we negotiated, including a guarantee that Quebec will retain its 78 seats. Is that enough? Could we do more? Of course we can.

However, we were facing a very clear threat, the loss of a seat for Quebec. I know that he would rather have a root canal than admit this, but does my colleague not agree that, this time, it was the NDP that defended Quebec’s interests?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is absolute nonsense. My colleague says that it is wonderful that the NDP and the Liberals joined forces to get things done. However, does he really think that he represents Quebec when he infringes upon Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions? Quebec does not want anyone to meddle in its affairs, and the only party that is clear on that is the Bloc Québécois, because we listen to Quebeckers, and only Quebeckers.

We do not make compromises. We do not have to discuss with partners, other provinces, in our caucus. The hon. member is the only NDP member from Quebec. When people call Quebeckers racist, he remains silent. There is no compromise. We listen to and represent Quebeckers. We stand up and speak for Quebeckers.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague on his fascinating and impassioned history lesson. His students must have been riveted.

The Liberal and Conservative parties claim to have recognized the Quebec nation. As long as their recognition is symbolic, there is no problem. However, when it has a legislative impact, they and the NDP balk. That is precisely what is happening in the House.

The motion presented by the Bloc on its opposition day said that we did not want to lose any seats or political weight and that they must be maintained. We tabled a bill well before the supposed NDP agreement, and everyone voted for it except for a few Conservatives.

Could my colleague explain the House's logic and coherence, given that it is prepared to symbolically recognize the Quebec nation but not to attach any legislative meaning to that recognition?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the reason is quite clear. We are dealing with people who love to hear themselves talk. They say that they will throw Quebeckers a bone when they want something, but when it is time to take action, they disappear, nothing happens, and they are gone. They talked the talk but do not walk the walk. That is not what makes a person, politician or party great.

My colleague is correct. When it is time to defend Quebec tooth and nail, only the Bloc can do it.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, the bill ensures that Quebec will keep the same number of seats it currently has. Will the hon. member across the aisle support a bill that guarantees the representation of Quebec in the House of Commons?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I must thank my colleague and congratulate her on her French. She speaks it very well.

I want to point something out. The word “Quebec” does not appear in Bill C‑14. This bill applies to all of the provinces to prevent them from losing a seat by at least maintaining the status quo for that province.

It is not necessarily a gift for Quebec. Many provinces are threatened by this and so this bill works to their advantage. They might think that Quebec is getting a little treat, but so are they.

However, this is only half a treat for us. The thing that matters most is our political power, which is not guaranteed in the bill. Quebec's political weight will continue to decline, and that is not what we want.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank our leader for giving us a history lesson.

I am surprised that you did not talk about Maurice Richard, since you are a hockey fan.

Let me be clear. In my life, I have often had to negotiate with workers—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

Order. I would remind the member that she is to address the Chair.

The hon. member can continue.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

I apologize, Madam Speaker. You often have to call me to order.

I was saying that, in my life, I have often had to negotiate. When people advocated for maintaining the status quo during the negotiation of an agreement, I was able to tell the difference between fact and fiction. To me, when the status quo represents a setback, that makes it difficult to reach an agreement. Resisting and fighting for workers and the people of Quebec means being able to distinguish between a real status quo and a false one.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

They are trying to pull a fast one on us. Let us do the math. Under this bill, in 2023 or 2024, Quebec will lose political weight even if it keeps 78 MPs. That is unacceptable.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise today to address one of the fundamental pillars of our democracy. We all recognize the importance of representation. In good part, we have a fairly good appreciation of it because we are all elected officials, and we can understand and appreciate the degree it takes to get elected to the House of Commons and all that is involved.

What we are talking about today are our boundaries. Contrary to what we just heard from the Bloc, every 10 years there is a boundary redistribution. When the indications came out about the numbers and the idea that Quebec could actually lose a seat, there was a great deal of concern among Liberal caucus members. There was a great deal of dialogue and an understanding. It did not take much to reach a consensus that we needed to do something about that.

We have heard from the debate thus far, whether it is New Democratic Party members or Conservative Party members, and although we have not heard from any Green Party members yet, I suspect that they also recognize it, that it is so important that we put a guarantee of 78 members for the province of Quebec in the legislation and ultimately for any other province going forward.

Even the province of Manitoba might access what we are attempting to put in today. We do not know what the population will be, but we can hope. I would like to think that on average our population in Manitoba will far exceed the average throughout the rest of Canada, but I cannot guarantee that. No one can. We do not know what the population shifts are going to be over the next number of years. We can speculate.

What provides me a level of comfort is the fact that the House of Commons, from coast to coast to coast, has recognized the importance of establishing that base for many good reasons that have been articulated, whether by the minister responsible or by the other members who have spoken thus far. If we use the province of Quebec as an example, which has really inspired us to bring forward this legislation, we need to recognize the French language and its historic significance here in Canada.

I feel very fortunate being from Winnipeg, where we have a very healthy francophone community in Saint Boniface, Winnipeg and in many rural areas such as St. Pierre Jolys. My family's roots went from Quebec to St. Pierre Jolys to Transcona Yards and, finally, to Winnipeg's north end.

At the end of the day, we have a healthy and vibrant francophone community in the province of Manitoba with, no doubt, members of Parliament, members of the Manitoba legislature and city councillors. In fact, at one point Saint Boniface was a city of its own, but things do change. Populations dictate that we need to take a look at the boundaries. There are special considerations that do need to be looked at. I will use the example of French and the francophone community, which we have recognized in the past through guarantees, such as that for Prince Edward Island that the number of House of Commons seats will never be fewer than what is in the Senate chamber.

We have it in terms of the territories, as was pointed out earlier. We have it in terms of ensuring that there is a base number that has been adjusted to take into consideration what was going to be happening in the province of Quebec, but if this legislation passes, we would address that issue.

I see that as a very strong positive. I would like to think that, if people want to support that idea and ensure we have the base for that, we should receive unanimous consent for this legislation. It will be interesting to see what my friends in the Bloc will do with this particular piece of legislation. I believe that the people of Quebec would, in fact, support the legislation, and I would encourage the Bloc to do likewise.

Elections Canada is recognized around the world as an outstanding, independent institution. In fact, Canada is respected as a very healthy and vibrant democracy. In good part, we owe it to the people of Canada and those who put their names on the ballot, whether they win or lose, and the hundreds of thousands of people who volunteer in the elections process.

All of that comes together and is organized in a apolitical fashion through Elections Canada. Every 10 years, electoral commissions are established. In Canada, we will have 10 of them, one for each province where there will be the redistribution of boundaries. They can be very significant changes. I have gone through boundary changes, both at the federal level and at the provincial level.

There is a great deal of interest from elected officials and from individuals who are looking at whether they want to run in the future as potential candidates. To the public, as a whole, community leaders will be looking and asking where their community will be after the redistribution. In most parts, we want to try to hold communities together.

For example, Tyndall Park is well-identified community in Winnipeg North and I would not want to see Tyndall Park divided. Elections commissions are able to do that more often than not. It is more of a common thing, especially in urban centres, but it is not always done. We could take a look at Winnipeg North and go to Amber Trails. A portion of Amber Trails is actually in another federal riding outside of Winnipeg North, yet it is perceived as one community at the local level.

There are restrictions and things that have to be taken into consideration. We often hear about vast, rural ridings versus highly concentrated ridings, and what sort of population bases should a representative actually have. Back in 1988, when I was first elected to the Manitoba legislature, I believe there were 26 MLAs in the city of Winnipeg and 31 MLAs in rural Manitoba. Today, if we look at it, there are 31 MLAs in the city of Winnipeg and 26 MLAs in rural Manitoba, as the city of Winnipeg has grown. We see that there is a balance that has been taken into consideration.

If we look at the last provincial boundary redistribution, we will see that out of the 57 ridings, I believe 56 of them actually had modifications to the boundaries. The same principles apply, at least in part, where we will see some fairly significant changes to federal boundaries. After all, there are going to be some new ridings, but there is also going to be significant population shifts. Both of those have to be taken into consideration.

In the last federal redistribution, the map originally proposed for Winnipeg North was actually quite different from what it is today. I remember working with the Progressive Conservative member of Parliament for Kildonan—St. Paul, Joy Smith, on this redistribution. We sat down and talked about how what was being proposed for Winnipeg North did not seem to make too much sense. Having two members of Parliament from different political parties work together helped when it came to the presentation to the commission, and ultimately it was changed.

I suspect a number of the presentations made to the commission were listened to. I say that because there is a process, which the minister made reference to. We know there are going to be new boundaries before the next election, and the process enables the public to have direct input, and when I say “the public”, it includes members of Parliament. The Province of Manitoba is in fact starting the process of drawing the lines for the new boundaries.

Manitoba has 14 ridings. From a percentage point of view overall in Canada, its numbers did not increase to the same degree on a per capita basis as Alberta, Ontario and B.C., so it will remain at 14 seats. I would argue that we have seven or seven and a half urban Winnipeg rural seats and six or maybe six and a half rural urban seats. I look at Kildonan—St. Paul as an urban rural seat.

I know that between the next couple of weeks and October, the independent elections commission will be looking for feedback on the boundaries that will be drawn in the coming days and weeks. The results will be published, and there will be a great deal of interest in what those new boundaries are going to look like. I anticipate that the commission will, as it has in the past, try to accommodate individuals to have in-person meetings as well as submissions of ideas and proposals.

When the final maps come out after the original drawings and consultations, they will ultimately come back to Parliament. I believe they will also go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I would think there would be virtually no changes made. I do not know if that has been the case historically, but I suspect that the only real changes we might see once we get the final report will be of a naming nature. Members of Parliament might reflect on what they heard from the community and might find it appropriate to change the name of the constituency on the final map.

Ultimately, it will pass through the House and come into effect on a certain date. If there is no election before that date, then the new boundaries will take effect.

Then there are party infrastructures, political infrastructures. Political parties will have to reorganize based on the new boundaries, the 340 new ridings, and significant amounts of money will go into those newly constituted ridings in the form of transfers from old ridings. There are all sorts of infrastructure that will need to be worked on to ensure that when the next election comes in 2025, which is at least what we are anticipating, political organizations throughout the country, whether they have elected representatives in Ottawa or not, can participate in each and every political riding. It also affords Elections Canada a way to put its machinery in place.

In other words, it is not simple to do, but it is absolutely necessary. Every 10 years, when Statistics Canada provides the census reports, we will see those significant population shifts and the growth of Canada's population overall. It is somewhere in the neighbourhood of 38 million today, whereas 10 years ago I suspect it was probably closer to 34 million. Members should not quote me on that, but I believe it was around 34 million. Where permanent residents end up landing is, generally speaking, where there will be the need to make some of the changes.

In terms of communities, I could speak of areas in my own community of Winnipeg North where there is a lot more growth. In Winnipeg, it is hard to grow in the inner city unless the growth is upward. Some cities, because of their density, are far more effective in growing upward. Examples are Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal. We can see there is a need there.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Edmonton and Calgary too.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, Calgary is also one.

Part of the discussion today is about space versus density or a rural community versus a high-density urban community. It is a different type of representation. At the end of the day, there are things that have to be considered and that I believe will be considered.

The whole issue of representation has always been of interest to me. I can recall when the decision was made to reduce the size of the city of Winnipeg from 29 councillors down to 14 or 15. The idea was that if we enhance the ability of members to provide services, it helps them accommodate the growing population. Let there be no doubt that with 338 constituencies, Canada's growth in recent years of over a couple of million people, at the very least, means that the average population of constituencies is going to grow. One of the ways to compensate and ensure that members are able to provide the types of services constituents expect is to ensure that there is adequate financing for members to provide the services that are warranted.

The whole area of boundary redistribution is of great interest to us as a government, to individuals and to Canadians, because it really does matter. The bill before us today reflects the interest of parliamentarians of all political stripes, rural and urban, in recognizing the importance of Quebec retaining 78 seats. I see that as a positive thing and I hope that all members of the House will vote in favour of this legislation.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague is well aware that the House supposedly recognized the Quebec nation as a nation. If Quebec is recognized as a nation, there should be some kind of statute saying so.

The number of seats is one thing, but if the number of seats everywhere else goes up, Quebec will lose its political weight.

If a senatorial clause is good for Prince Edward Island, would my colleague agree that we could have a Quebec clause for the Quebec nation?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I think the best way I can answer that is to reflect on my home province and the francophone community, which has done exceptionally well and continues to grow, and I think that it is because there is a desire from the Manitoba legislature and from all political entities. I believe the French language will always be there in a very real and tangible way, because not only members of Parliament from Quebec but members of Parliament from all regions of the country see the intrinsic value of being a bilingual nation and will continue to fight for the French language, not only in the province of Quebec but in all regions of Canada.

I believe that the more bilingual we are as nation, the healthier we are as a nation. I do not believe that the representation in my home province of Manitoba has deterred, in any way, the growth of French and the desire to see French being spoken.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the government for working with us to ensure Quebec's seat count in the House of Commons remains constant. There is a lot of work to be done that we still have not done when it comes to representation. We can look around the House and see that in terms of gender balance, we have huge issues that we need to overcome, as well as in terms of participation and making sure that every vote counts.

I think about young people especially. We know that the earlier they participate in civil elections, the more they have a lifelong commitment to doing that. I go to Anne Ostwald's class often in my riding, where she teaches social justice, and they talk about issues that are important to them, such as climate justice, as we can imagine. They talk about he looming climate crisis that has impacted them. Housing, the toxic drug supply crisis and reconciliation are all important issues.

We have seen other countries, such as the U.K., Germany and Argentina, adopt a lower voting age of 16. We know how important it is to ensure those voices are heard. To ensure that young people have a seat at the table, will my colleague and will the government support a very important bill that is going to be coming up in the House, Bill C-210, tabled by my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, to lower the voting age to 16 to ensure that young people have a voice on these really critical issues?

My son, River, is 16. He is very well informed and so are his classmates.

I hope that the hon. member and his government will consider supporting this important piece of legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, a number of years ago I actually conducted some discussion on the issue of electoral inform in the Province of Manitoba. I can recall that the issue of 16-year-olds being able to vote was raised in high school settings in the communities of Dauphin and Steinbach in Manitoba, and what really amazed me was that some of the harshest critics of allowing that to occur were the 16-year-olds, the high school students.

I think it is an interesting idea. Where it actually falls, I am not 100% sure. I do not know if the member might have already done this, but he might want to actually do some more canvassing among high school students. If we had more time, I would even welcome the opportunity to share going to a local high school, possibly here in Ottawa or even in Winnipeg, to be able to expand on that particular point, but I am open to all sorts of changes with regard to Elections Canada that would ultimately make our democracy healthier in the future.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have to be honest: I did glaze over a little, or lost focus, I should say, during part of my friend's speech. Maybe it is because I am so used to hearing him talking so much in the House. His voice puts me into a different mode.

I am kind of curious to know if my friend could answer a couple of questions for me. First, in 1991 the Supreme Court, as I am sure he is aware, made a proposal regarding proportional representation by population. Will this legislation impact this idea in any way?

What about the work that is being done already by the commissions across the country in all of the provinces? Can he explain how those will be impacted by this legislation, if at all, as well as explain the impact on the Supreme Court decision in 1991?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect the legislation will be, at least in spirit, moving toward the court decision of 1991. The member's colleague, the official opposition critic, detailed that quite well.

With respect to the second part of the question, the only impact this legislation would have on the 10 independent commissions, from what I understand, is with respect to the province of Quebec and its commission, as they will have to wait to see whether or not the bill will pass. If it passes, it will have an impact on that commission. For the rest of the nine other commissions, it should not have any impact.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague—whom I have listened to ever since 2015 when I first came to the House, where he has talked up the vitality of francophone communities on the Prairies—I do have a question. If it is true that this vitality exists, notwithstanding the considerable merits of these communities, how can it be that my colleague, who bears a French name, is a unilingual anglophone now?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member is welcome to come to Winnipeg, and I am more than happy to take him around so he can get that francophone feeling. For example, we could go to École Garden Grove or École Stanley Knowles, where he will see young children speaking French, English and, in many instances, either Punjabi or Tagalog. I could take him specifically to the St. Boniface area, where he would see an enriched, strong French flavour and many monuments to Louis Riel. I know the member is very supportive of that hero. We have a Louis Riel Day. We have the Festival du Voyageur. We have all sorts of special celebrations related to our francophone heritage. I would welcome the member and be happy to drive him around to visit some of those sites if he would like.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is interesting to hear from the member for Winnipeg North. It is also interesting to hear that, although the Liberals have refused to mention the name of former prime minister Stephen Harper, they are very much endorsing the work he did when it came to the representation formula, which was not touching the formula but simply moving the floor with respect to the number of seats for each province. I am sure Prime Minister Harper is appreciating the support he is getting today from the Liberals.

My question is very simple. The Province of Alberta has made it clear, with significant precedent, that we have chosen to elect our senators. Although that is not directly related to the bill at hand, it is an important aspect of the conversation of our institutions being democratically responsive in Canada today. Can the member share if he supports the ability for provinces, whether Alberta or other provinces that choose to go down that path, to elect senators?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what I know is that Canadians as a whole do not want to get into a constitutional debate. I believe that today the Prime Minister has put into place a system that will see truly independent senators going to the Senate. I see it as very strong positive that we are taking the partisan party politics out of the Senate, and we have seen that in the appointments the Prime Minister has made to date.

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

Madam Speaker, today we are debating the bill on preserving provincial representation in the House of Commons. Understandably, this is very important to me.

Since the tabling of the 2022 budget by the NDP-Liberal government remains the focus of media attention and discussion, it is clear that very little will be said about the bill we are debating today. However, it is important for me to share my comments and opinions on Bill C-14.

People should know that we are currently gathered to debate Bill C-14, a bill that would amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to ensure that no province will have fewer seats than it did in the 43rd Parliament, that is, the preceding Parliament, when the number of seats in the House are readjusted after each decennial census, in future years.

As we know, the House of Commons is the House of the people. It is the House of all Canadians, those from the north, south, east, west, urban areas, rural areas, from Newfoundland to British Columbia, by way of Quebec, Ontario and the Prairies. All Canadians, and I mean all, must be properly represented in the House of Commons. That is why it must be as representative as possible of all Canadian citizens—and it must also represent their differences.

On March 2, I moved a motion in the House. I asked for the unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion: “That the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly.”

I have to say that Bill C‑14, which we are studying today, is essentially the same as the motion we moved on March 2 and for which we sought the unanimous consent of the House. Unfortunately, for some unknown reason, that I suspect was politically driven, the former Green Party leader enthusiastically denied unanimous consent of the House for this motion. I say “enthusiastically”, because the former Green Party leader even applauded when the motion was defeated. She turned towards some of my colleagues to give a thumbs up, proud of her work. That is what happened. I saw it from where I was sitting. I was paying close attention to what was going on because there was almost unanimous support in the House to adopt this motion. Unfortunately, the leader of the Green Party chose to play politics instead of allowing the House to unanimously adopt this motion, which would have helped the government get Bill C‑14 passed more quickly.

I am nevertheless pleased and happy to see the government's positive response to the motion, even though it was rejected by the Green Party. I am also happy to see that the government has presented a bill that essentially says the same thing as the motion, which is that no province, including Quebec, should lose a seat during an electoral redistribution.

Frankly, this Liberal bill retains the same redistribution formula that was created by the Fair Representation Act in 2011. In fact, I would like to point out that it was the previous Conservative government that created the legislation with the aim of making Canadian democracy more representative, adding 30 new seats to the House of Commons.

Of course, we respect the work done by the independent commissions, which work separately in each province and whose mission is to draw and readjust electoral boundaries. That is not what we are talking about today. We are not talking about boundaries, but I will come back to that because I have a message for the commissions about the redistribution of electoral boundaries in each province.

I think we need to look at this and consider more than one factor in determining how seats should be distributed in each province. We must provide more flexibility so that Canadian voters can be properly represented and know that their voices are being heard when their MP speaks here in the House.

The work of representation in the House is very important to Canadian democracy. This work has been under way since last October. It will make the distribution of seats more representative of Canada's population. As I said, I intend to actively participate in the process in Quebec to ensure that the voices of the people in my riding, as well as those living in the regions, are heard.

I would remind members that the process that is under way will add three new seats in Alberta, one new seat in British Columbia and one new seat in Ontario. Bill C-14 guarantees that no province or territory will lose a riding. I want to point out that, without Bill C-14, Quebec would lose a seat in the proposed electoral redistribution process. Quebec would go from 78 members to 77. That is why we chose to speak and why we wanted to move a motion to say that, in a process like this, we should not be going backwards and taking away what the provinces have gained from the beginning.

When the law was established, no one could have predicted that the population of Canada would not grow more or less evenly everywhere, in all the regions, so a minimum number of seats was allocated per province. Unless I am mistaken, that number dates back to 1985. Now, we need to update the minimum number of MPs per province, and that is what Bill C-14 will do.

I am also pleased to see that because, beyond the partisan debates, the loss of a member, or in other words a seat in the House, would have caused adverse effects and would have made the work of the electoral boundaries commissions more difficult for people in rural or more remote regions of Canada. I will talk more about this later in my speech.

As we know, every day, Canadians, in other words the voters, the people who send us here, rely on their MPs to give them answers, to respond their questions and to help them find solutions in their dealings with various federal government bodies, and sometimes even with other issues. Like all my colleagues here, I am sure, over the past two years, during this unprecedented and unexpected pandemic that has created so many problems for our constituents, I have received calls related to many subjects, including everything from employment insurance services to the Canada Revenue Agency. I have also received requests from constituents who simply did not know where else to turn, people who were in trouble because they had no money because their business had shut down and they did not know how to apply for the various assistance programs. We have really been there to address our constituents' requests. This is also part of our duties as members of Parliament.

To be sure, one of our main roles as MPs is to be here in the House doing our work as lawmakers, which means passing laws, making sure those laws are fit for our society, making sure we represent our constituents, and voting in accordance with our values, with what our constituents want and with what we believe is best for Canada's future. That is our main role.

Our secondary role has changed a lot over the years, and people now expect their MP to help them deal with the government and support community development and business associations to ensure they feel heard. Most MPs are very far from Ottawa. In my case, it is not so bad, because my riding is about a four-hour drive from Ottawa, five hours if I leave from one place, a little more or less if I leave from another.

That certainly means a lot of time on the road, but Canada is very big from coast to coast to coast. Most people are unable to get to the national capital, so that is the MP's job.

Despite technology, it is clear that many citizens have been frustrated by the lack of information or help from various departments, not to mention that replies are slow in coming, especially for things like employment insurance and Canada Revenue Agency, or CRA, inquiries.

As I said, voters count on their MPs for help, support and information. For people in Canada's rural regions, their MP is often the only connection between them and the federal bureaucracy. There certainly are not employment insurance offices everywhere. There is certainly no CRA office or representative in every Canadian community. That is why MPs are working more and more closely with their constituents.

I would say that there was a big difference during the pandemic. Before, people would come to their MP's office, often for passports and occasionally for problems with EI. Many, many people who were in need of these services during the pandemic discovered their MP's office. Although the programs are now over, people are still coming to the MP's office, which is wonderful. However, we cannot have a situation where the MP's office becomes inaccessible because it is overwhelmed by too many requests or because the riding is so big that people are too far away from their MP and cannot reach them quickly.

Connection is important. Reducing the number of MPs in a province would diminish this relationship between constituents and their MP. There definitely needs to be standards and rules in place for determining the number of MPs. However, it is important to highlight the difference between MPs from urban regions and those from rural regions, including the distance that some have to cover and the number of municipalities they represent in the House.

At the end of the day, Quebec is currently the only province that will see a change under the proposed redistribution. That is where Bill C‑14 comes in. It will give the Quebec electoral redistribution commission greater latitude to do its work and propose a new electoral map. I hope that during this review, some thought will be given not only to population, but also to geography. I will come back to that.

As the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, I represent a riding with the same number of voters as a riding in Montreal, but I have to cover an area that is 500 times larger than a riding in a big city. In my riding alone, there are 50 municipalities that I must serve. That means 50 mayors and 50 municipal councils. There are two, three, four or even five times that number of social clubs, not to mention chambers of commerce, business associations, agricultural associations and other groups. All these people want to have access to their MP and want to talk to me.

In a large riding, the MP will be dealing with 50 times the number of groups. For example, MPs for the Quebec City region only have one mayor to deal with. I have 50, and they are all important to me. The mayor of a municipality with 200 people is just as important as the mayor of a municipality with 26,000 people. I have to be just as present for the mayor of a small municipality as for the mayors of big cities. It is very time consuming.

How can MPs in the regions be more effective and do a better job if this difference is not taken into consideration?

If 20 municipalities are added to my riding during this process, it will be nearly impossible to meet all 70 or so mayors and municipal councils. Since each municipal council meets at least once a month, I will not have enough time in a year to meet all of the municipal councils. This ultimately severs the connections between the MP, the federal government and our constituents.

How are we meant to properly follow up on their issues or on all of the projects that councils and residents present to us? To ask that question is to answer it.

The bigger the rural ridings get, the less access these constituents have to their MP. Some might say that this is natural, but I disagree. As I said earlier, the people in our regions do not have direct access to federal government services. Their only point of access is the constituency office.

I hope that the commission that will be responsible for reviewing the electoral boundaries, which will soon be working in Quebec, will take the representation of the regions in Canada into account.

Keep in mind that there is some latitude in the act to allow for a discrepancy between the ridings' average population and what will ultimately be applied. I am not asking that the act be changed, simply that this flexibility be applied as much as possible so that the rural reality is taken into account when electoral maps are being redrawn. This is important, and it is being done. The Constitution itself recognizes this concept, having already established a minimum number of members for each province, despite the fact that some have fewer residents. That is the reality.

Without Bill C-14, there would have been less latitude for the Quebec commission, which would have had to search high and low for citizens no longer in ridings in order to take a seat away from Quebec. This is unacceptable.

A member of Parliament is like a family doctor. It is not that we save lives, because I would not want anyone to think I am comparing myself to a doctor by any means, but, when there are too many patients, it is hard to get an appointment and that is, unfortunately, what is likely to happen if we add in distances and all the rest.

Since the spring of 2020, more and more people have been using platforms such as Zoom, Teams and FaceTime. It may have revolutionized communications. We can indeed have more meetings. I have had more opportunities than ever to meet with town councils because we have this new way of doing things. I use this technology, but there is nothing like a good old-fashioned face-to-face meeting that gives people a chance to talk and really communicate.

To ensure that MPs can represent their constituencies well and do their job in rural ridings that keep getting bigger, the concept of rurality must be part of the electoral boundary redistribution process. Any change to the electoral map that does not take into account geography, demographics, the people's needs, culture and who we are will have an impact on democracy.

I am proud of our regions. I grew up and still live in a region, where I have chosen to stay. It is in my DNA. I was the mayor of a town in the regions, Thetford Mines. I was involved in all kinds of associations, and I have always considered connections between each level of government, municipal, provincial and federal, to be extremely important.

It is very important to maintain our voices in the House of Commons and to ensure that we can keep accessing the people who can help us and help our voters deal with the giant federal machine even when they do not necessarily have direct access to federal government services close to home in each of our ridings.

I am pleased to see that Quebec will not be losing any seats. I am also happy to say that we will be supporting Bill C-14. However, the work has only just begun.