Debates of June 2nd, 2022

Instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs Regarding Bill C-14

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, we will get 10 minutes for questions and comments and then I will be able to speak for a full 20 minutes, I understand.

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

Yes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the first thing that comes to my mind is, why the hurry? The Bloc has brought forward a motion, and what they are suggesting is that we stop the debate on it when there is so much more we can talk about with regard to Elections Canada, the role it plays and the possible options. There are other things that can be addressed.

In my opening comments, I was dealing more with specifics. There are other aspects to Elections Canada. On the one hand, the Bloc is bringing forward this motion asking for us to have a debate on it so it can go to committee, and then right away they want to have a vote on it.

Does the member not want to hear what other members have to say about what the Bloc is proposing to do today?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking why we are in such a hurry. Simply put, we have been waiting a long time for the Quebec nation to be recognized.

Earlier, I was talking about the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which was in 1963, if I am not mistaken. It proved to be a failure for us. Then, in 1982, the Quebec nation suffered another setback with the patriation of the Constitution. Then there was Meech Lake and Charlottetown, two more disappointments for the Quebec nation. Then came a referendum, and we were so close to achieving our destiny. In the end, our victory was stolen, perhaps by the sponsorship program, which my colleague may have heard about.

I do not know about him, but we are losing patience, which is perhaps why we are acting quickly.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask for clarification. Today's procedures are little different.

Is the Bloc Québécois MPs' goal to have a vote right away or another day, with or without debate?

I just want clarification as to the procedure for what the Bloc Québécois is asking for at this point.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the procedure is very straightforward. We want this assembly to vote on the motion moved by my colleague. It is as simple as that.

We can talk about it now. We spent an entire day doing so. As members know, there was an opposition day about Quebec's political weight during which we discussed an issue similar to this morning's issue. The House had a chance to vote then.

This is very simple. We want this assembly to vote. It is as simple as that. We do this all day long.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that when I posed the question to the member, right away he made reference to the Constitution. What he is talking about, from his perspective, is that the Bloc would like to have a discussion about the Constitution. I am wondering why that is. I did not even talk at length at all about the Constitution. Whether it was the constitutional agreements that were achieved in the 1970s, the Charlottetown accord or the Meech Lake accord, these are all no doubt important debates, but is it the position of the Bloc today that we should have a constitutional debate?

To the best I can tell, even people in the province of Quebec, like the residents of Winnipeg North, do not want to be talking about the Constitution. What they want to be talking about is Canada's economy. They want to be talking about the pandemic.

I am wondering if my friend could share with the House whether he agrees with me and the government that the priority today is not constitutional change. The priority today is how we can deliver better quality long-term health care and how we can ensure we are creating and supporting the many different industries, such as the aerospace industry, which is so important to the province of Quebec and the province of Manitoba. To me, that is what the legislature should be talking about. That is where the focus of the Bloc party should be, if it wants to be constructive in what it is doing inside the House of Commons. If Bloc members do not want to be constructive and want to be destructive, I suggest maybe they should continue along the line of constitutional debate.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member for Winnipeg North’s approach very interesting.

Actually, I am not the only one to mention the Constitution. Earlier this week, we spoke about Bill 21 on state secularism.

His colleague from Mont-Royal said that the notwithstanding clause should never be applied. However, it is part of the Constitution. Does this colleague not respect his voters, since he talks about the Constitution and says the notwithstanding clause should never be applied?

I spoke earlier of predatory federalism. When it suits them to put Quebec in its place, saying that the notwithstanding clause should be removed, saying that it is not up to Quebec to decide how to manage secularism, the Liberals talk to us about the Constitution. When it comes to Bill 96 to protect the French language, the Liberals are ready to talk about the Constitution and to say that they do not want to hear about the notwithstanding clause.

However, when it comes to recognizing the Quebec nation as we ask, talking about the Constitution is like talking about a shameful disease.

They need to make up their minds. My colleague from Winnipeg North’s remarks are not in line with what his colleagues and the people in his own party are saying.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that we have made an effort here, step by step, and I am concerned. I have no problem with the idea. In fact, we voted in favour of protecting the number of members from Quebec.

However, the idea of having percentage representation is based on another principle entirely. It is not the same thing as in Bill C-14. I think that this involves the Constitution.

We debated for an entire day, as the hon. member pointed out. However, the principle proposed in today’s motion is different. We have not had a chance to review it and discuss it.

I think I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North. He is right when he says that this involves the Constitution.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my colleague by saying that informed politicians who are familiar with Quebec and Canadian politics would know that we have been talking about these issues for more than 50 years. At some point we need to stop debating; we need to do something.

We are moving this motion today. I do not think it is illegitimate or irrational to ask that a nation like the Quebec nation be ensured 25% representation in the House for the time it remains in Canada. I do not think that this is unreasonable. As I said earlier, it was part of the Charlottetown Accord. We talked about it on our opposition day.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North often uses closure these days to say that we must move things forward. This is the Bloc’s answer to that. It is the Bloc’s closure. We want to move our issues forward. I invite my colleagues to look at it that way, in a spirit of friendship and cordiality.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing is the real motivation behind this: The Bloc wants to have a debate on the Constitution. If the Bloc members are so gung-ho on debating an issue that Canadians do not want to deal with today, why do they not just introduce it as an opposition day motion and make very clear that they want to talk about the Constitution, as opposed to trying to do it through a back door?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out to my colleague from Winnipeg North that he and I are the only ones debating the Constitution. The motion is specifically about Quebec's political weight, not the Constitution. I would also point out that it was his party that raised the constitutional issue by saying that the notwithstanding clause should not be used. It was his party that raised this, not me.

If my colleague wants to be consistent, he should also be talking about secularism, and not the notwithstanding clause.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to address the debate, even though at the beginning of the day, many colleagues from both sides of the House anticipated that we would be engaging in a debate on the Standing Orders. Every election cycle there is a date set aside when members can give their opinions on changes to our rules and how we can enhance opportunities to make the chamber more effective, whether it is in the chamber or at committees.

That is technically what we are supposed to be debating today. After going through motions we went on to petitions. I know that some of my colleagues had petitions to bring forward. Then we were meant to go into the Standing Orders debate. I was prepared to speak to the Standing Orders, but now we find that the Bloc has found a way to bring back a debate on Bill C-14 to the floor of the House of Commons, a debate that we have already had. We already debated Bill C-14 in the House of Commons.

It would appear that Bloc members, with the support of the Conservative Party of Canada, are trying to push forward this motion. I am going to know when the vote occurs, but I am speculating my quarter on the fact that the Conservatives and the Bloc have already negotiated this as a part of their double blue coalition. What we will see is an attempt to get this motion passed. When they do that—

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

Order. The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable is rising on a point of order.

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

Mr. Speaker, the member opposite cannot impute motives or attribute words to other colleagues without evidence. All he is doing right now is spewing rhetoric and making some pretty big assumptions about what is going to happen—

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

Order. I thank the hon. member for his intervention.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, let me enlighten the member. When we first began this discussion, the Conservative Party somewhat indicated that it was sympathetic and would like to see it pass. Then we had another member who seemed to be upset with it asking why we would want it to go to committee. There might be some confusion among the Conservative ranks on this, but I could be wrong in my speculation.

However, from what I can see, we have the double blue. The nice thing is they are still the dark blue versus the light blue. At the end of the day, it would appear as if they are coming together to see this thing go to committee if, in fact, they can get it to committee.

I say that because the member moved the motion to say that the vote now be heard and then there was some dialogue that occurred after that. Through that dialogue, we get a better picture of what it is the Bloc really wants to talk about. We saw that. It was the member who raised the issue. I just responded to it.

Constitutional change is what the member from the Bloc has raised. They talk about the need for some of the things that the Bloc would like to see take place, and they would require a constitutional change. Let me suggest to my Bloc friends that Canadians, as a whole, no matter where they live, whether it is Manitoba, Quebec or any other jurisdiction in Canada, do not want the government to have talks about the Constitution. It is just not anywhere on the political agenda.

That is the nice thing about Bill C-14. Bill C-14 will do what every member in the House, from what I understand, wants to see happen, and that is that the province of Quebec not lose a seat, maintaining at minimum 78 seats. In its own mischievous way, the Bloc wants to raise the issue of the Constitution.

As much as the Bloc may want to focus its attention in the chamber on that issue, I can assure people who might be following the debate, or just following the proceedings in the House day by day, that no matter what the Conservative-Bloc coalition comes up with, whether it is character assassination, constitutional debates or whatever else, the Government of Canada and the Prime Minister will remain focused on the issues that are important to Canadians.

On the specific issue of Bill C-14, which this motion is dealing with, the Prime Minister has been very clear, through the minister and the entire Liberal caucus, that the baseline is 78 seats.

There is a lot more on the government agenda than Bill C-14. I suspect we are not going to spend our future resources on issues such as constitutional debates over the next 12 months. Canadians are getting through the pandemic. Industries are looking for employees. Concerns are there in the many departments the federal government deals with on a daily basis. Those are the issues that are of critical importance.

Bill C-14 deals with one aspect, and that is the boundary redistribution commission and the report it made public not that long ago indicating the number of seats. I have been around for a few years, and Elections Canada, as an institution, is recognized around the world for the fine work it does. In fact, if we take a look at many other countries around the world, we will find that Elections Canada is often sourced and appealed to in order to assist other countries conduct their elections. A part of that status is that sense of independence, whether it is the creation of the election boundary commissions, the election commissioner, the Elections Act or the putting in place an actual election.

In fact, I made a suggestion earlier today referencing the sense of pride Canadians have in being a bilingual country with both French and English. No matter what region of the country we go to, there is equally a need for us to look at ways in which we can enrich Elections Canada's ability to ultimately not only make changes to boundaries indirectly, but also allow for wider participation in the elections.

When I made the suggestion about languages and having that as a topic on an opposition day, I thought it would have been a wonderful thing to see take place, but in a positive way. The Bloc seems to have a negative twist to things, and its members do not necessarily recognize the true value of Canada's diversity, but I think there is a positive way we could have that debate. I would equally like to see a debate on this if opposition members are looking for other areas in which they can explore and have these types of discussions about Elections Canada and ways we can enhance Elections Canada's role during election periods.

There are many different things we can do with elections. I have participated in debates on PROC, both on boundaries and on election reform, and I know there is a very keen interest in both areas. People understand why we have to have these commissions. These commissions are necessary because of shifting populations. All levels of government have them.

Within the legislation, we often will find variances that take place. For example, in the Province of Manitoba, it is rural versus urban. I have made reference to the fact that at one time we had more rural seats, which were outside the perimeter, than we did within the City of Winnipeg, and now that has changed. However, there are rules that enable rural representation to, in certain areas, have a lower number of voters or population. If we take a look at average populations, we will often find that we might get some at the lower end in rural communities.

I have spoken to commissioners before, and the types of things they have to take into consideration when making the decisions on boundary redistribution are not as simple as drawing a line on a map wherever there are waterways and major streets. It is far from that.

I recall a discussion with a board member on a commission, it was a provincial one, where he indicated that they have to also factor in rapid-growth communities. These are the areas where they anticipate there is going to be a lot of growth, so they do not want to go much above the average, knowing full well that a particular area will continue to grow at an exponential pace.

I also recall a riding change, which occurred in 1988, where a provincial riding was literally cut in half. The same principle applies at the national level, and this is one element that has to be taken into consideration. Another consideration is communities and, as much as possible, we want to keep communities together. I have seen all sorts of boundary changes in the past that often divided communities. I remember one occasion where we saw Weston and Brooklands, just south of Winnipeg North, and many identify those two communities as one. However, at the civic level, they were cut in half along one street. It was presumed to be a natural divide, a “concrete” divide, if I can put it that way, because it is a major artery. In fact, there is a very strong connection between both sides.

This is why I would ultimately argue that, when we take a look at the demographics, the population growth, both today and over the next few years, it is absolutely critical that these commissions are afforded the opportunity to be able to have proper consultations with members of the public. I honestly believe that.

As opposed to attempting to filibuster the bill again at committee stage by saying, “Well, let us expand the scope of the discussion at the committee stage”, when it has already been determined here in the House once before, why not allow the bill, in its simplicity, to pass? This would allow the commission for the Province of Quebec to get down to the job at hand and actually meet with the people of Quebec to get their direct input. If it wants input from the Bloc party, heck, I could probably give that input in where the Bloc party lies on the issue.

It is time for the politicians to allow Bill C-14 out of committee so that it can come back to the House because we do not have that much time. We are already in June, and I think we will be out of here June 23. That does not leave that much time. Members can do the math: How many hours are left to sit in the House?

I do not think that we should be playing games on this issue. Hopefully, at the end of the day, I will inspire members from the Bloc and possibly Conservatives not to filibuster the bill in any way when it comes before a standing committee, so the committee can pass the legislation, get it back in here and get it through third reading so it can go to the Senate and be given royal assent. All of that needs to happen relatively quickly.

For those who might think that this could be, in some twisted way, a filibuster, the legislation is already before the committee. The committee could pass the legislation. It does not need this motion. This motion is not meant to help facilitate the passage of Bill C-14, and the Conservatives, even though they will likely support this motion passing, know that.

At the end of the day, there is a different agenda being played out on the floor of the House of Commons. It has more to do with the gamesmanship of the Bloc and the Conservatives trying to change legislation or the scope of legislation after filibustering that legislation here. It is like they did not have enough filibustering on the floor of the House of Commons and want to do more at committee, in terms of changing the scope, so they bring in an amendment that really has no relevance or the chair would rule it as being beyond the scope of the legislation. If this motion does not pass, that would likely be the ruling of the chair. That is the reason why the members of the Bloc have brought it. I think they are starting to adopt some of the same principles of obstruction as the Conservatives.

My suggestion to the Bloc members is that if they truly care about what the people of Quebec have to say about this legislation, what they should be doing is encouraging the passage of it and joining the Liberal members from Quebec, who want to see this legislation pass and get royal assent, so that the people who live in Quebec, the people who actually contribute to where those lines are going to be drawn, are given the same sort of opportunity to participate as the rest of the people in Canada.

Other commissions are moving forward. Why would the Bloc not allow the people of Quebec that same opportunity? I suspect it is because there might be an alternative agenda. We saw that in the questions and answers of the member who moved the motion, to try to force a vote on this. They are eager to get it passed. They want to get it to committee so that they can cause more issues, which will ultimately cause additional delays. That is part of the motivation of the Bloc. I understand that, but the time will not allow me to expand on that particular point.

I can say that we, in the government caucus, believe that the people of Quebec, the public, need to be able to contribute to the commission on where those boundaries could be, or provide their recommendations in terms of the report that will be provided to the people of Quebec from the commission that has been designated in the province of Quebec.

Let us get it done. Let us pass the legislation out of committee and bring it back for third reading.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, according to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, defending the Quebec nation means playing politics and obstructing Parliament.

I will be frank: Earlier, I referred to history, by saying that in 1963, Quebec was sidelined by the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission. In 1982, when the Constitution was repatriated, Quebec was sidelined. In the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, Quebec was sidelined.

I was referring to what I called predatory federalism. I did not want to launch a constitutional debate. The only people who launch constitutional debates these days are the hon. member for Mont-Royal, who said that the notwithstanding clause should be removed from the Constitution, and the Prime Minister, who is prepared to defy a legitimate Quebec law, Bill 21 on secularism, and to try to stop Quebec from legislating on the French language. These are the only people who are prepared to talk about the Constitution.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, what I know is that the Prime Minister is a great defender of the French language. I know that first-hand, not only in the province of Quebec but in all regions of our country. We understand. We can have that debate. I would encourage the members, if it is the French-language debate that the member wants to see, to bring it forward in a motion.

I would suggest to my colleague across the way that having that debate could be a positive experience for all of us here in the House of Commons. For the people of Quebec or the people of Saint-Boniface and Saint-Pierre-Jolys in my home province, there is a very strong French connection. There is a high sense of pride in the language from coast to coast to coast. If that is what the member would like to debate, I am happy to debate it.

To me, what we are really debating is a political manouevre to try to get legislation held up at committee stage, when we should not be doing that. We need that legislation to pass through committee.

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

Madam Speaker, apart from expressing his love for the French language, why does my colleague oppose the recommendation that a parliamentary committee review Quebec’s political weight and, by extension, its citizen representation and the foundations of democracy?

As elected members of Parliament, are there other more important subjects for us than the quality of our democratic life and respect for Quebec communities and the Quebec nation? Why is he opposed to this? I find it pretty benign.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we understand that the legislation is unanimously supported in the House, that everyone wants 78 seats to be maintained. Bill C-14 would guarantee that. It would guarantee the province 78 seats. We should be able to pass that legislation. It should have been done by now, as far as I am concerned, and if the political will was there on all sides of the House to make that happen, it could be done. In fact, we have the power to do it today if we wanted to. I can say that the government's desire would be to see the legislation pass.

In terms of the debate that the member is suggesting, nothing prevents a standing committee to conduct a study of that. They could establish that at any point in time. All they have to do is raise the issue at the most appropriate standing committee. They could raise it at two or three different standing committees, but that is not the essence of what we should be debating today. What we are doing today is ultimately feeding the Conservative agenda, which the Bloc is indirectly supporting by bringing forward yet another motion in a standing committee that will enable them to continue to filibuster, and I do not think that is a good thing for the people of Quebec or Canada.

[Churence Rogers, Liberal, Bonavista—Burin—Trinity, NL]

Madam Speaker, in listening to this debate, I think about representation across the country. We are talking about 78 seats in Quebec, but if we think about the rural parts of the country in smaller provinces like Newfoundland and Labrador, which is geographically large, but in terms of population, of course, it is small, we have seven seats in the House of Commons. We come here to do our lobbying for the province, vote on different legislation, and so on. We would love to have more seats. In fact, we are dwarfed by provinces like Quebec and Ontario, larger provinces with huge populations, which I understand, but in terms of representation, I think Bill C-14 strikes a good balance. We would also like to encourage more seats in Newfoundland and Labrador. We would love to have another seven, but the reality is that if we were to allow the system to continue as it currently exists, we would fall even further behind in terms of striking a balance in representation.

I would ask my colleague if he sees Bill C-14 as striking a good balance in terms of representation across the country.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, the member mentioned that there are only seven seats in Newfoundland and Labrador. One would never know it, given the power of the Atlantic caucus. It is exceptionally effective, I must say, and Newfoundland and Labrador is represented exceptionally well in the House and in the committees in terms of the amount of workload that the members carry and their impact on government policy.

However, the member raises a very valid point. People as a whole in Canada understand our federation and why it is important that Prince Edward Island has four seats, and why it is important that we guarantee that the province of Quebec never goes below 78 seats, which is what Bill C-14 would do.

My colleague planted a seed asking about the future, about the province of Newfoundland or other provinces and the representation that they have. There are other opportunities, no doubt, both in opposition and in government, for us to enter into that dialogue. Canadians as a whole understand what is happening, they support it and it is time that we move on.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is just amazing. I think there is a picture of my colleague from Winnipeg North beside the definition of “bad faith” in the dictionary. In fact, I am eager to check the latest edition to make sure.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North speaks of the maritime provinces, and I think that is good. I think it is a magnificent region of Canada. It is wonderful to visit. However, I am trying to remember when in history Prince Edward Island or Newfoundland, for example, were recognized as nations. I would like to remind my colleague that the goal, the idea and the intention of what the Bloc Québécois is proposing is that we walk the talk. It has been recognized that Quebec is a nation. It has been recognized that Quebec has its own identity, an identity it must protect, and that it should be given the tools to protect its unique identity and its values. That is precisely what we are talking about today.

Can my colleague tell me in a few words whether, yes or no, he understands the importance Quebecers place on this principle of defence—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. I have to give the member time to answer, and we are running out of time.

The hon. parliamentary secretary has roughly 30 seconds to answer.