Debates of June 2nd, 2022

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

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

Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting the manner in which we are having this debate today, and I will be able to expand on that during my comments, but I will say that, when the commission came down indicating that it was looking at reducing the number of seats in the province of Quebec from 78 to 77, the reaction in the Government of Canada, the Liberal caucus, was very swift. We indicated that it could not happen and that we did not support the reduction of the number of seats in the province of Quebec. It was universally felt within the government that it was something that was not acceptable. That is the reason why we have Bill C-14.

I will get the opportunity to expand upon that point when I get the opportunity to address the motion. Historically we have witnessed, whether it is Prince Edward Island or out west, there have been guarantees of numbers. What are the member's thoughts on previous guarantees that were put in place to ensure that jurisdictions would not lose the number of members of Parliament they had?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. Yes, there are guarantees. In particular, there is the senatorial clause, which gives Prince Edward Island four members instead of one, and the grandfather clause. It is true.

That precedent is the reason we are proposing a new clause. Since there are already several clauses, we simply want to add a “Quebec clause” to make sure that Quebec always has 25% of the number of seats in the House of Commons.

That is in line with the remarks of my colleague from Winnipeg North.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois House leader. I think that the motion of instruction highlights the important work that the House standing committees do. I trust the committee members to decide what type of motion and amendment regarding Bill C‑14 they might introduce.

I would also like to remind my colleagues that the substance of Bill C‑14 comes, as I believe, from the motion moved in early March by the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. His motion sought unanimous consent to ensure that no province in this country loses a single seat.

I do not really have any questions for the hon. member for La Prairie. I simply wanted to address these remarks to the House and say that I think the motion is reasonable.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all that remains for me to do is to thank my colleague for his words of wisdom and, as always, commend him for the quality of his French. It is impressive. I would like to thank him.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the question that has been implied by the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party seems to be taking the position that one of the ways in which we can expand the scope of legislation is to just bring forward a motion that enables any committee on any piece of legislation to say it would like to go in this direction or that direction. Then, by using a vote in the House, we give a different type of mandate to our standing committees.

I am wondering if this is the principle that the members of the Bloc would advocate for, whether here in the Parliament of Canada or in the parliament of Quebec. Would that very same principle apply so we should be encouraging these types of motions? I am not talking about the motion itself as much as the principle of having a motion that would enable legislation to be changed in committees on the issue of scope. That is one of the reasons why we have standing orders, which are technically what we were supposed to be debating today.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I got up this morning, I do not know why, but I had a feeling that it was going to be a big day. Now I know why. I just got a second question from my colleague from Winnipeg North. It is enough to wear a body out, but I thank him anyway.

The ability of parliamentary committees to amend bills is a basic rule of the parliamentary system. I did not make it up. We are all here to work on amendments and improve bills so they better reflect what the people of Canada and Quebec want.

In this particular case, it is all about Quebec. Everybody knows that the point of Bill C‑14 is to make sure Quebec does not lose any seats, so it makes sense to listen to what Quebec wants. Since the purpose of this bill is for Quebec to improve its political prospects within the House of Commons, for as long as we are here, we might as well go all in and get the job done properly.

I listened to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North, which I always enjoy doing, but let me read part of the motion he voted for: “any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected”.

He voted in favour of that.

He needs to explain why he does seem to comprehend that Bill C‑14 includes a section to satisfy Quebeckers.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to understand the motion's significance.

First of all, I see that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could be given the ability to make more significant amendments to Bill C‑14.

In that case, would the Bloc Québécois potentially accept a motion to guarantee sufficient powers for the province of British Columbia? As members know, British Columbia does not have enough seats in the House.

Will the Bloc Québécois support my province and its powers?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and commend the quality of his French. He told me once that he learned some of that French in Quebec, and that comes through in his strength and passion. We are very pleased to hear it.

If he thinks British Columbia should have more seats, then let him go through all the same steps we did. He needs to start by saying that British Columbia is a nation. Then we will discuss why it may or may not be a nation. That is what I am wondering. Is British Columbia a nation? We can discuss that at length, but I do know one thing: Quebec is a nation.

When Félix Leclerc died, the member did not know who he was, while Quebec was mourning his loss. I could come up with a whole list of reasons for why Quebec is a nation. I could talk about it all day.

If my colleague can do that with British Columbia, then let him put it to a vote in the House and we can talk about it again later.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to talk a little bit about the Alberta nation.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

This is not a joke, Mr. Speaker. We have a distinct culture, different festivals. We use the same language as some other parts of the country, just like Quebec uses the same language as some other parts of the world.

Does the member agree with me that Alberta is a nation and has the right to be recognized as such?

This is not a joke. It is very serious.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague for his excellent French. We have reached the point where Alberta is a nation.

British Columbia is a nation, Alberta is a nation. We can settle this right now. Why do we not all separate and form a confederation of sovereign states?

We could share an economic space, keep the same currency and each have our own country. Rather than arguing about what divides us, we could meet to talk about what unites us.

I say yes to the sovereignty of Alberta, British Columbia and Quebec with a shared economic space. Vive le Québec libre.

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

Mr. Speaker, it has been an interesting exchange of ideas, particularly during the questions and answers, and in the way Bloc members have this dogged attitude of pursuing their ultimate objective, which is the breakup of Canada.

I see Canada as a great nation. In fact, around the world, we see a great demand from people wanting to come to Canada, and I believe it is because of our diversity. The diversity we have to offer the world is second to none.

In terms of observing what is taking place during the five or 10 minutes of questions and answers, it emboldens me to point out why it is so important that we have a government that governs all of Canada. It is working with the provinces, territories and indigenous leaders, and continues, as we saw during the pandemic, to work with many stakeholders. In the House of Commons, we have a government that is very sensitive to the needs of the different regions and provinces, and I saw that in terms of the Electoral Commission.

I made reference to this in my question to the member from the Bloc. When the Electoral Commission came out suggesting that the province of Quebec would lose a seat, the reaction was immediate for members of the Liberal caucus, and it was from all of us. We did not have to be from the province, even though I would argue that my colleagues from Quebec were quite boisterous about it, to realize how important it was that the province of Quebec did not lose a seat. This was quickly understood and shared with many in the public and within this chamber. The member referred to a vote I participated in, where I voted in the affirmative and showed my support for Quebec to not lose a seat.

I have spoken in the past about the province of Quebec, which is where my ancestral heritage comes from, both on my mother's and father's sides. For generations, my family grew up in and, I would suggest, helped pioneer Quebec. I have a great passion for the province. It also happens to have my second-favourite hockey team: the Montreal Canadiens.

That aside, I recognize the importance of representation, and the fine work that Elections Canada and the commission have done over the years. As we try to understand what is going to be taking place today in terms of the actual debate, it appears that we have the Bloc party working with the Conservative party, and no, I am not dreaming this. It seems as if the Conservative Party is going to be supporting the motion. It will be a blue and light-blue coalition on this particular issue to see it go to committee. I can tell members that this concerns me in a number of ways.

Are we now seeing the stage be set so that when the government is able to pass legislation, we will see future changes be proposed by the double-blue saying that those members want to widen the scope on this legislation that has now passed into second reading?

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, a member from the Bloc asks, “Why not?” I think that we need to be aware of that fact.

What is interesting is this. I suspect that the Conservatives, based on what I witnessed when I was here for second reading of the bill, do not support what the Bloc is proposing to do at committee. In principle, though, it would appear that they are going to support the initiative moving forward to committee. Maybe the coalition on that side has come to an agreement on it, but we will have to wait and see. If I were to wager a quarter, my quarter says it is the double-blue coalition that will attempt to get this to committee.

I have a problem with that. I have a problem because, at the end of the day, where is it going to stop? We have seen how difficult it is for the government to get legislation through the House of Commons, the chamber, because the Conservative opposition members have taken the approach that it does not matter what the legislation is, whether they support it or they do not support it. Unless the government is prepared to bring in time allocation, it is not going to pass going to committee.

I do not know. I did not do the research on this, but I suspect we might have even had to bring in time allocation on Bill C-14. I do not know that for sure. What I can say is that we now have debate on that bill resurfacing. We are now going to be debating Bill C-14 all over again today because the Bloc wants to have something instituted in it that the members kind of sense, perhaps with accuracy, goes beyond its scope during committee proceedings. At the commission, the commissioners have responsibilities. They have deadlines. They need to meet those deadlines. I think the Conservatives are enabling the Bloc to cause even more confusion within the province of Quebec in regard to meeting some of those deadlines.

The commission came down with numbers. We disagreed and we made an amendment, because we all recognized the value of Quebec not losing a seat. That was unanimous inside this chamber, or at least I believe it was. That sent a fairly significant message to Quebec. I believe it enabled the people of Quebec to better understand and appreciate that, as we go through this process, there are independent commissioners.

The province of Manitoba, for example, is already redrawing the boundaries. The boundaries will be coming out. I am not exactly sure on what day they will be coming out, but they have already looked for public consultation on the 14 ridings in the province of Manitoba and then there will be dialogue and public input. For the province of Quebec, if the commission listens to what has been taking place in the House, it could anticipate that there will be 78 seats to readjust the boundaries with, but there is no guarantee until the legislation passes. That is why we encouraged members, when we were debating Bill C-14, to pass the legislation. By passing the legislation and pushing it through, we are enabling the commission in Quebec to finalize the boundaries.

Now, with what appears to be the support of the Conservative Party, the Bloc at least has found a way to cause some potential mischief in committees. From our perspective, and I would like to think a majority perspective, we not only want the province of Quebec not to lose a seat, but we want to ensure that the commission is able to provide the report that is going to respond to what the people of Quebec want to see in terms of boundary alignments, which is absolutely critical. It is all part of the process. There are deadlines that have to be met that will ultimately see these new boundaries take effect in the next federal election.

I can say first-hand how important that process is in Winnipeg North. Ten years ago, when there were modifications to the boundaries in Winnipeg North, what was proposed was far different from what it is today. In fact, Amber Trails was not in Winnipeg North at all. A good portion of The Maples was excluded, and there we are talking about 10,000-plus people who were excluded from what today is in Winnipeg North. The expansion went north of McPhillips, all the way up to between Kingsbury and Inkster Boulevard. It was completely different from what it is today.

As part of the process, a presentation was provided that included the boundary maps. The public received it and responded, and because of the response provided by the public, the boundaries were dramatically changed, in Winnipeg North at the very least. It had an impact on the ridings of Kildonan—St. Paul and Winnipeg North, which today includes 85% of Amber Trails and all of The Maples. Those communities were clustered back into Winnipeg North.

I say that because I think we need to give more respect to the Province of Quebec and the commission and the fine work that, no doubt, they will be doing. With the riding changes in the city of Montreal, I suspect we will see a number of streets being changed, or in Quebec City or rural municipalities. We have to recognize that the reason this happens in the first place is because of shifting populations and increases in population. Manitoba, for example, is a whole lot more urban today than it was 30 years ago. At the provincial legislature at one time, there was a larger number of seats from rural Manitoba than from the city of Winnipeg. Today, there are more MLAs in Winnipeg than in rural Manitoba, but that is strictly urban-rural. That is not to mention that some rural communities grow more than other rural communities. The population decreases and increases.

The same principle applies to the province of Quebec. Manitoba's population has grown from 1.15 million to close to 1.3 million. The numbers remain relatively the same in terms of the number of seats because there is a guarantee, as has been referenced even by the Bloc. We have taken that into consideration. The best example is the province of Prince Edward Island. When Prince Edward Island came into Confederation, it had four seats. Part of the Constitution says that it retains those four seats.

It is actually the number of senators. Do not quote me on that, but I believe that is what it is. There is a constitutional agreement that enables—

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

It is in Hansard.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Yes, Mr. Speaker, if it is in Hansard it is true. There is a constitutional agreement that enables Prince Edward Island to retain that minimum number of seats. The same principle applies in other jurisdictions. We have three territories to the north, each one having a representative. Who in the chamber would deny that representation?

Clearly, we have seen the types of changes put into place that Bill C-14 is attempting to do, so why add confusion? That is why Elections Canada is charged with ensuring that we have a fair and equitable system. We have the commission, which in a very apolitical fashion comes up with the actual numbers.

When it came up with the number for Quebec, as I pointed out, it was for a wide variety of reasons, the French language being one of them. There is an island of French or francophone uniqueness in North America in the province of Quebec. I am very proud of that fact. I might not have the ability to speak French, but I can still care for the language. It is a part of my personal heritage. I am very proud of the French language. I encourage it in Winnipeg North. I am always amazed when I see immigrants, especially first-generation immigrants, whether of Filipino, Punjabi or Indo-Canadian heritage, who can speak Punjabi, English and French or Tagalog, English and French. I am very proud of the fact that we are a bilingual country.

In the province of Quebec, French is the spoken language, and we have seen how the Minister of Canadian Heritage, many of my Quebec colleagues, and those far beyond appreciate just how important the French language is, not only to the province of Quebec but to all of Canada. It speaks to our diversity. That is why, when the announcement was made that there would be a reduction in the number of seats in Quebec, the reaction within the Liberal caucus, from the Prime Minister to the ministers to the caucus as a whole, was quite swift. In a relatively short period of time, we saw legislation brought forward and introduced and brought to second reading. Then, I suspect through time allocation, it will go to committee stage. We want to see the legislation pass. The need for 78 seats as the bare minimum is something all members appreciate, from what I understand. If it were up to me, I would like to see not only the French language increase, but also the French population.

At the end of the day, I would hope that members will value the independence and fine work that Elections Canada and our commissions have done and allow the people of Quebec to have that full public discussion with the commission with respect to the communities that will make up the federal ridings that are going to represent the people of Quebec here in Ottawa.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am troubled in this debate, although there has been unanimous support for Bill C-14. I think we have responded positively right across all party lines to the concerns of our Quebec colleagues that the voice of Quebec would be reduced within this place.

Obviously, we support the idea of measures to protect Quebec's number of seats in the House.

At the same time, as someone who was elected in 2011 when we had 308 MPs here, I have a larger concern. We are now at 338. Do we constantly expand the number of members of Parliament we have? In the U.K., they have 650-some MPs. Is it really better representation for our constituents that as the population expands, there are more voices? Does that not dilute the voice of each riding if we have more MPs? In a chamber of 650, very few people out of the whole number get to contribute to the debate.

I would rather see, and I put this to the hon. member, fair voting in this country through proportional representation and through limiting the constant growth in the number of MPs. In other words, in the concept of representation by population, we actually may not have better democracy, compared to actually fixing our voting system to have real democracy.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments from the member. When I reflect on it, the number of members of Parliament does weighs heavily on my mind personally. What we ultimately want to see is all members of Parliament having a very important role in the chamber. I suspect that if we started to have numbers like 400 or 500, it could diminish.

The way in which we increase or provide services as the population continues to grow is by enhancing the resources that members of Parliament have. For example, members' allowances or their access to finances could be enhanced so that members of Parliament could better serve their constituents. We have seen that if MPs have more resources to serve their constituents, they are able to serve a larger number of people.

What I am glad and grateful for hearing in the member's comments is that the member supports retaining the 78 seats for Quebec. I do appreciate that, because I was not 100% sure, and that is why I could not say that it was unanimous in the House of Commons.

Based on what the member has just said, I am more confident that it is unanimously felt inside the House of Commons today that the Province of Quebec will retain 78 seats at the very least as a base mark here in the House of Commons. I see that as a positive thing, as a commitment to la belle province, a province that all of us no doubt care deeply about and that plays such an important role within our federation.

[Terry Sheehan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Labour]

Mr. Speaker, during your time speaking, you mentioned the importance of Quebec and the French language to Winnipeg. Perhaps you could expand on that and talk about how important the feeling is that various communities in Manitoba have toward Quebec.

I know that in northern Ontario, places like Dubreuilville or Sturgeon Falls, which are predominantly French, support a lot of what is happening in Quebec. They basically see it as the motherland that they emigrated from, and they see a very strong, united Canada with Quebec in it.

Could you please expand on the feelings of Winnipeg towards maintaining or grandfathering these 78 seats for Quebec?

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

First of all, I know the member for Kingston and the Islands would stand and make sure on a point of order that we run all our questions through the Chair and not use “you” and speak directly to the member, but since he is not here, I thought I would do that myself and remind folks to run comments through the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the connections that take place interprovincially are truly amazing.

I reference my own heritage from the province, along the St. Lawrence. My great-great-great-grandparents came from that region and moved out to St-Pierre-Jolys, Manitoba. From there, they went to St. Boniface, which became a part of the city of Winnipeg.

The St. Boniface community and many rural communities in Manitoba have very strong ties to the province of Quebec. One thing that holds that tie so closely is the French language. When things take place in the province of Quebec, whether it is an ice storm or the Olympics of many years ago, there is always interest from my home province of Manitoba. There are strong ties between people, and that is one of the nice things about the federation. I believe no matter where we go, we will always find those types of connections.

The general feeling I get is that people are very proud of other aspects of Canada, and I do not think anyone who has that passion for Quebec would want to see Quebec lose a House of Commons seat. Equally, I do not think the Province of Quebec or the people of Quebec would want to see Manitoba lose a seat when we look at electoral boundary changes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I too share some of the views of my colleague here in the House. I know the French language is extremely important across the entire country. I have four grandchildren who are enrolled in French immersion programs, and they are there because their parents and I as a grandparent encouraged them to do so. One of the things I regret is I did not have the opportunity to study French when I was in school, or at university, for that matter.

In my view as an MP in Ottawa, the French language today is extremely important. For example, the mayor of Blanc Sablon in Labrador was at a transport committee meeting talking about the fixed link from Newfoundland to Labrador, which is a tunnel that would be a great project to connect Labrador and the island portion of Newfoundland. The important part of that is that the mayor is French, and of course the north shore is very much French, and the people feel like they are losing their identity to a certain extent. They were there in support of that kind of project, because they want to see the highway to Quebec finished and they want to keep that connection. In fact, they want to grow that connection.

I strongly supported them, and I still do, in chasing that kind of project. It is important to them and to the province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

We talk about the balance we need when we talk about the numbers of seats in the House. I ask the member if indeed what we see is a fair balance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member amplifies the issue of what I think would be a wonderful debate, which is the French language, where it is at and how that language builds our nation in a very positive way. Many different communities from coast to coast to coast are brought together by the French language.

In terms of Election Canada and Bill C-14, it is one of the reasons we had the reaction we did in the Liberal caucus. We want to ensure Quebec has that 78-floor base so that it can never go below that, and I see that as a positive.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Winnipeg North, who I find very interesting and enjoy hearing from.

I do not mean to insult him, but I noticed something in his presentation that I see frequently and that I would describe as “predatory federalism”. I apologize for using that phrase, but it means that the Quebec nation and the French language are great as long as they remain a quaint curiosity.

If we look back in history, we have seen this predatory federalism on several occasions. I could even go back to the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which could have led to Quebec being recognized, since Canada was supposed to be a bilingual and bicultural country. However, the federalists got scared and resorted to predatory federalism. They thought that if they granted recognition to Quebec, they would have a problem later on because that recognition could be leveraged for political power. That is why they went with multiculturalism instead.

That was the first time Quebec was rejected, but it was far from the last. Just think of Meech Lake or Charlottetown. Every time Quebec has asked for the political power to which it is entitled as a nation, the federalists have said no and invoked what I call “predatory federalism”. It goes without saying that Quebec is trying to protect itself in response to that.

If they recognize us as a nation, why not give us the power and the potential that belong to a nation? I would remind my colleague from Winnipeg North that this assembly was once prepared to recognize Quebec's political power by giving it 25% of the seats in the Charlottetown accord. Unfortunately, that accord was never adopted because people got scared, as my colleague explained earlier.

I do not see why he is afraid to add a Quebec clause to Bill C‑14. I do not know what scares him about that prospect, other than the fact that it would give Quebec a certain recognition. I believe that is clear enough. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I move:That this question be now put.