Debates of April 7th, 2022

Victims of Tragic Event in Nova Scotia

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Following discussions among representatives of all parties in the House, I understand there is agreement to observe a moment of silence. I now invite the House to rise and observe a moment of silence in memory of the victims of the tragic event that happened two years ago in Nova Scotia.

[A moment of silence observed]

Business of the House

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, there is a tradition in the House to have the Thursday question done by the House leader, so in his stead, I will do so. There is a two-week break coming up for Easter. It is also the month of Ramadan and it is also Passover.

Upon our return, I am wondering if the government House leader could inform the House how he plans to budget the time of the House of Commons.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, let me say to my colleague opposite that I hope he and his family are able to enjoy this time and enjoy Easter. I know we will be celebrating. I will say Ramadan Mubarak to those who are recognizing Ramadan and wish everybody a joyous Passover.

This afternoon, we are going to be continuing with the second reading of Bill C-14, the Quebec electoral representation bill. As members know, at 4 p.m. the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance will be presenting the budget.

When we return after the constituency weeks, we will continue debating the budget for a number of days, which will be Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday. Then after that, it will be the budget implementation act.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Constitution Act, 1867

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak about Bill C-14, the preserving provincial representation in the House of Commons act.

The seat allocation and electoral boundaries readjustment process is an important part of our democracy. Its purpose is to ensure that the House of Commons reflects the changing nature of Canada's demographic profile and that all Canadian voices are heard.

I will admit that this bill is a small change. It is a small compromise to an elaborate electoral formula that has a long history of compromise, competing regional interests and vigorous political debate.

We can debate about tinkering with the formula to appease political interests, but at the end of the day, most members of the House would likely agree that baked into the redistribution is systemic unfairness. This exists because the redistribution formulas were created for a country that no longer exists. The current formula was made for a country that did not see people living in the west at the numbers they do today.

At Canada's founding, the fathers of Confederation had a vision for Canada, how it would be a place for freedom-seeking people around the world and how it would be a place of economic development and prosperity, but I do not think the fathers of Confederation could have foreseen the tremendous growth and prosperity of western Canada. As a British Columbian, I am proud of the contributions my province and the people I represent have made to our country.

While Canada has changed and grown, we continue to be bound by rules for electoral redistribution that are and always will be systemically unfair for Canadians living in certain regions of the country, namely Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario.

Let me share an example to highlight this, but first, to preface this, it is important to note that, in 1991, the Supreme Court reaffirmed that representation by population is fundamental to electoral redistribution. My riding of Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon currently has 101,216 people. The average riding size of the four ridings—

[An hon. member]

I am having trouble hearing him.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is just a little loud in here.

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order. Can we take the conversations outside, please?

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the average riding size of the four ridings in Prince Edward Island is 38,582. Some basic math here shows that, on average, a vote in Prince Edward Island is worth 2.62 times more than a vote in my riding. How is this fair? How is this democratic? How does this live up to the principles upheld in our courts in 1991? Are the concerns of someone from Charlottetown worth 2.62 times more than someone from my riding? Should they be allowed to have 2.62 times the amount of say in the House of Commons?

My riding is significantly smaller than the ridings of my colleagues from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin and Calgary Shepard. The comparison to these ridings is even more extreme. Obviously, I am not naive to the constitutional rules and implications that make this possible, but what I am trying to illustrate here is that there are significant flaws in the way seats are redistributed in Canada. Fundamentally, I believe that one vote in British Columbia should be equal to one vote in Prince Edward Island, to one vote in Quebec and to one vote in Ontario. This is democratic. This is what we should be trying to achieve in Canada, but this is not the case and it should be fixed.

In 1915, the first change was made to the original representation formula by the adoption of the senatorial clause, which is still in effect today. This clause states that a province cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it does in the Senate. It had the immediate effect of guaranteeing four seats for the province of Prince Edward Island instead of the three it would otherwise have had. It still has four seats today.

Every 10 years when the topic of redistribution comes up, we apply duct-tape fixes to a spillway-gate problem. We are elected to the House to be leaders, to have a vision for our country that extends beyond the next time Canadians go to the polls. The actions we take and do not take have a lasting impact on the future of our democratic system. This is the mantle of a member of Parliament, for all of us collectively, and it is the mantle that should weigh heavily on the minds of every single member in the House.

In 2011, the Harper government provided a lump-sum improvement to the under-representation problem by providing 27 seats to British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta respectively. This was a partial fix to our problem, but it still disadvantages those three provinces.

On March 2, I voted against the Bloc Québécois motion that would solidify Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons by redrawing the federal electoral map. My reasoning had nothing to do with Quebec. It had to do with the lack of equal representation in my province of British Columbia.

In retrospect, Quebec is the closest to fair representation that we have in Canada. However, giving Quebec one more seat under the bill so that it would not lose any proportionality in Parliament is a poor solution to an existing problem. The bill would make the under-representation problem marginally worse than it was going to be anyway. Once again, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario representation pay the price.

The reason the bill is before us today is solely in response to the Bloc Québécois motion. As an MP from the west, this drives me and, frankly, makes me a little upset. I predict that we will be here in another 10 years tinkering with this formula again, trying to compromise and appease the greatest amount of political interest. Alternatively, we could use the next 10 years to come up with a permanent solution that can preserve our democracy and last the test of time.

Again, the Supreme Court, in 1991, upheld that representation by population matters. When Confederation took place, nobody ever imagined that British Columbia especially would be as powerful both economically and demographically as it is today.

My argument here today is that our Parliament needs to reflect the reality of the changing demographic nature of Canada. Our Parliament needs to take into account where people are living and working. Our Parliament needs to take into account that all of our systems in our democracy uphold the rights of individuals to have an equal say in the House of Commons.

What we are doing here today is a band-aid solution to a larger problem that we, collectively, have to address.

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

Madam Speaker, the member who just spoke seems to have a differing opinion from the official Conservative caucus position on this. I do not know if he was just expressing his personal position and he will be voting against the legislation, but my understanding was that the official opposition recognizes the true value of the legislation and is going to be voting in favour of it. I would like to assure the member that it was not the Bloc that influenced the government to bring forward the legislation. The Liberal caucus, as a whole, recognizes the true value of ensuring that we give that base floor, something which does not necessarily make the government unique. Even Conservative governments in the past have done the same thing.

I would like him to provide his thoughts regarding how he will be voting on the legislation.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, Conservatives moved a unanimous consent motion around the same time as the Bloc Québécois motion essentially asking for this. In my remarks, I pointed out problems that both the previous Conservative governments and previous Liberal governments have had regarding this issue. In fact, this is an issue that extends beyond political parties. It is about fair representation for all Canadians.

British Columbia is systemically under-represented in the House. Imagine today if Quebec had three seats taken away from it and Quebec was 1% under-represented like British Columbia is today. Every Quebec MP, irrespective of party, would be up in arms. I am doing my duty as a British Columbian to make sure that taxpayers in my province have an equal say.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, I too want to reassure my colleague.

Bill C-14 was not introduced by the Bloc. That is not what we were asking for. We were asking to maintain Quebec's political weight. It is not about the number of seats, but a proportion of the total number of seats.

He will be pleased to hear that I agree with him on several points. The Constitution is outdated. The Senate is outdated. I have a solution for that: Quebec independence. Unfortunately, that will not happen here.

My colleague raised some very good points, particularly regarding the proportionality of votes, which is important, but has he forgotten the notion of nationhood?

Is he telling me that the country we are talking about is not that of Quebeckers? If so, the concept of a founding nation would no longer be taken into account.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I could not hear most of the question, so I will just say this: The first political experience I had in my life was in 1993 when the previous Reform Party talked about the west wanting in. Some of those structural grievances that led to that populous movement relate to what we are discussing here today, which is that British Columbia—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have a point of order.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Madam Speaker, if I understood correctly, the member had no interpretation while I was speaking. I think it is important that he understand the question.

Could we have consent for me to start over?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member was not using his earpiece. The Chair is not to blame. We should not take time away from other questions.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did hear one point from the member opposite about the proportionality that Quebec wanted to—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

We have another point of order.

The hon. member for Manicouagan.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Madam Speaker, I ask you this question with all humility.

If the member did not hear the question, what is the point of him answering a question he did not hear?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It was not a problem with interpretation. If the member did not use the appropriate tool to hear the question, the House will get the answer he gives.

The hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I heard the word “proportion” and that the Bloc Québécois put forward that motion because it wanted to maintain the proportionality of the Quebec members of Parliament in the House. I stand here today as a member of Parliament for British Columbia and my objective is that the proportionality of my province is one day reflected in our chamber. British Columbians only have six Senate seats. British Columbians do not have a guaranteed seat on the Supreme Court. British Columbians pay equalization to other provinces. British Columbians just want an equal say in how our democracy is run.

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Qujannamiik, Uqaqtitiji.

This legislation not only protects the number of seats in Quebec but in all provinces and territories. The NDP will continue to ensure Quebec remains fairly represented here at the House of Commons.

My question to the member is this: Should the 1991 Supreme Court case that he just cited also be used to increase indigenous representation?

[Brad Vis, Conservative, Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Madam Speaker, I think the key thing that needs to be upheld in this chamber is representation by population.

[Ziad Aboultaif, Conservative, Edmonton Manning, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with my colleague, the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock.

I come from a province that for years was under-represented in this House when its population was taken into account. For years, Albertans felt there was an injustice in the way seats were apportioned in the House of Commons, until more seats were finally added in 2011 to allow fair representation for my home province.

Canada has always been a place of competing interests, of give-and-take between provinces and regions. As a nation we have always tried to strike a balance, knowing that compromise is necessary but not always acceptable to everyone.

In theory, we agree with the principle that each member of Parliament should represent a riding with a similar number of electors. It may not be a perfect system, but it allows constituencies to be more or less equal in population size and makes it possible for a member of Parliament to serve his or her constituents without being overwhelmed by the numbers.

Of course, we do make allowances for history. No province can have fewer MPs than it does senators, and we have agreed that no province should have fewer MPs than it did in 1985. That explains why Prince Edward Island has four ridings with a population size of about 35,000 people each, while ridings in Nova Scotia are double that population. In Quebec, most of the ridings have more than 100,000 people, as do all the ridings in Alberta, except for one.

We have accepted this disparity in the name of national unity. The system has worked well on the whole, and, as I mentioned, the number of MPs was expanded in 2011 to allow for more representation in this House, especially for Alberta and Quebec. I have to wonder, therefore, why the government desires to change the rules once more.

As population shifts, so do riding boundaries and representation in this House. That is something we all understand and accept, or maybe not all of us. Looking at the bill, I wonder what sort of precedent it sets and what sort of message it sends about democracy in Canada. How do those who are already feeling jaded about the state of our political system feel about the rules apparently once more not being applied fairly?

In any sports contest, the rules are agreed upon before the game starts. Both teams take to the field knowing what they must do in order to win. They do not pause midway to suggest rule changes because they have decided that the rules they started with were not good enough. I know that may be an imperfect analogy, but I am sure this proposal to redistribute seats and change the 1985 benchmark looks that way to many Canadians. Someone does not like the rules of the game, so they want to change them.

The population of Canada is constantly shifting. Our cities are growing bigger. Some regions are attracting more immigrants than others. The reasons for demographic change are many, varied and complex. In this House we are tasked with finding a balance between competing needs or, more accurately, competing wants. The latest census data, as examined by Elections Canada, would see the addition of four more seats to this House to take into account the increase in our nation’s population. Given the increasing workload of members of Parliament, I doubt there is any member of this House who would disagree with the conclusion that more seats will enable MPs to better serve constituents.

The problem is that under this impartial formula, Quebec would lose a seat in the House of Commons. Those from that province are understandably concerned that their influence will be lessened, though there would still be more MPs from Quebec than from the three prairie provinces combined and Quebec would still have more MPs than it did 20 years ago.

What are we to do here? We could guarantee that Quebec would always have the same number of seats it does now, which is the intent of this bill. There are those who believe it important to recognize the historical importance of Canada’s only francophone province. Would that be enough? What if the population of Quebec continues to shrink? This bill would amend the Constitution Act, 1867 to provide that when the number of seats in the House of Commons is redistributed after each decennial census, no province would have fewer seats than it had in the 43rd Parliament. At some future time, will we want to guarantee an even more uneven distribution of seats as a tribute to what once was? What will the 50th Parliament wish to address, or does our living democracy mean that this House will only tackle this question in the future?

After all, the House of Commons is the people's chamber and should be representative of the population across the country. Conservatives respect the fundamental constitutional principle of representation by population that was affirmed by the Supreme Court in 1991. However, we acknowledge that sometimes, as is proposed by this bill, there are other considerations, and deciding which considerations are more important is a difficult task.

This bill reflects a motion that this House considered last month, which stated:

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.

Coming from a province that will receive three more seats in the next redistribution and received additional seats from the last one, I understand the desire of members from an area of the country not blessed with Alberta’s growth to preserve what they have. The question we must ask and hopefully answer is this: Is this the wisest course to take? This Liberal bill preserves the redistribution formula created by the previous Conservative government’s 2011 Fair Representation Act, which added 30 new seats in the House of Commons. That was a huge jump in representation, much larger than the one about to be implemented, and perhaps set the stage for where we find ourselves today. Instead of giving a larger workload to members of Parliament and adding the resources necessary to do the extra work, this House chose to increase its size. How long can we continue to expand in this way?

The Liberal government has made many promises on electoral reform but has failed to even start an honest discussion on what this House should look like a decade or a century from now. We should be having a longer and deeper discussion on how we want to govern ourselves. Until we do, we will be passing this same act, with slight amendments, every decade or so. Is that the way we want to run a country?

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

Madam Speaker, one of the single largest increases in the number of members of the House of Commons was under Stephen Harper. It went from 308 to 338. If we follow the logic of what the member is saying, we would think that it was the previous administration that deferred the decision on something that the member is being somewhat critical of us for not debating today.

Does the member feel this might be a type of ongoing discussion, possibly in the format of an opposition day, in which we could continue to have this debate? I realize there is a need to ultimately see this bill pass so that the Quebec commission is able to continue to do its fine work.