Bill C-14

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation)

This enactment amends section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to provide that, when the number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces in that House are readjusted on the completion of each decennial census, a province will not have fewer members assigned to it than were assigned during the 43rd Parliament. It also includes transitional measures providing for the application of that amendment to the readjustment of electoral boundaries under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act following the 2021 decennial census.

[Patrick Taillon]

On the one hand, if a decision were made that this is the end of the principle of proportional representation, that we no longer want it and want to abrogate it, it is clear that the agreement of seven provinces accounting for 50% of the population would be required.

On the other hand, can very small accommodations or small exceptions to the principle of proportional representation be allowed, confirmed by the jurisprudence and carried out by Parliament under its power to unilaterally amend the 1867 text, a power it has here under Bill C‑14? That is where I say there is some flexibility. Is that flexibility as extensive as what the Bloc Québécois proposes concerning that 25% threshold? That may be the case. Could another threshold be set between the proposed decrease in Bill C‑14 and the 25% threshold? The answer is yes, definitely.

Proportional representation is just one constitutional principle among others, which can support a few developments that are based on jurisprudence on effective representation. The Supreme Court actually said that it did not need a perfect mathematical calculation. It recognized that the complexity of the Canadian federation sometimes called for exploring that limited amount of flexibility I am trying to promote through my testimony.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank Professor Taillon for being here and for his testimony.

I am a member from Quebec. Quebec's population currently accounts for 22.98% of Canada's population. You recommend that the representation percentage be increased to 25%. Since that has to do with the Constitution, approval from seven provinces and territories would be needed.

Mr. Taillon, do you honestly think it would be possible, by the end of this year or the end of June of next year, to hold discussions with provinces and territories and to come to an agreement to increase Quebec's representation percentage to 25%?

Currently, Bill C‑14 guarantees that Quebec and all the other provinces will not lose any seats. However, your recommendation or the Bloc Québécois' recommendation would require the Constitution to be amended.

Do you have any comments on that?

[Patrick Taillon]

There are two parts to the issue.

In terms of comparative law, unfortunately, I have no perfect example in front of me that could answer the member's concerns. In terms of indigenous issues, however, I would be curious to look at New Zealand and Australia, which face difficulties and challenges similar to our own, and also often have incomplete and imperfect solutions. That could be a source of mutual inspiration.

As for the constitutional debate, I'd just like to add that the passage of Bill C‑14, given its content, is already a constitutional debate in itself. The text of Bill C‑14 tells us how the Constitution Act, 1867, will be worded going forward.

The problem is that the Constitution of Canada is complex. It's made up of all sorts of rules. There are some that the Parliament of Canada can amend alone and others that require the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. Given our history and political difficulties, there's a tendency to sweep under the rug all debates that require more than unilateral action by the federal Parliament.

The constitutional debate still exists. It's before us in the the form of Bill C‑14. It's simply that we only take the easiest path: the procedure set out for the federal Parliament to act alone.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I want to welcome the witness, who has come to give us insight on a topic that's very important to Quebec.

I agree entirely with what he said in his opening statement: this bill only masks or temporarily diminishes the decline in Quebec's political weight. It's been known for a while that Quebec is losing political weight. That's clear, and this bill offers no permanent solution.

On the one hand, there's this problem, and on the other hand, there are these draft solutions.

Last year, Parliament accepted the idea not only that Quebec was a nation, but also that French was its common language. I think that's quite clear. It's not a province like the others; it's a nation. It's the only province that's considered to be a nation, so powers have to be tied to that designation as a nation.

In March, we proposed another motion, which was adopted with a large majority, saying that Quebec must not lose any members. Bill C‑14 strengthens that position of the House. However, the motion also said that Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must not be reduced, which the bill does not respect.

Since everyone, with a few exceptions, agrees that Quebec is a nation and that its political weight must be preserved, I think the stage has been set for this bill to go further.

The member for Hull-Aylmer spoke about immigration. Last week, the Legault government asked for more powers in the area of immigration, and the federal government refused, so I don't know why we're talking about that here. I think the matter's closed. There's an impasse in that respect.

I'll ask Mr. Taillon a simple question so he can further clarify this problem. What could Parliament do to guarantee—I did say “guarantee”—that Quebec's political weight within federal institutions was at the very least consistent?

[Patrick Taillon]

The answer is easy: Bill C‑14 already proposes an amendment to the Constitution. Clause 2 of the bill explicitly states how the text of the Constitution Act, 1867, will be worded going forward.

The only difference is that the procedure used for Bill C‑14 gives Parliament the right to do certain things, but not those for which it would need the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. What can't be done here, essentially, is to abolish the principle of proportional representation. There's a difference between abolishing it and slightly amending it, as is being done here for the territories. Can a bit more be done in other situations? That's somewhat the opinion that I've submitted to you.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to welcome Professor Taillon.

I've been reading his many articles in publications, journals and magazines in Quebec for at least 20 years. I admire his way of thinking, although I don't always agree with his conclusions. I must admit that today is one of those times when I don't entirely agree with Professor Taillon's recommendations. However, his ideas and the solutions he proposes certainly merit our close examination.

First, I'd like to thank Professor Taillon for being here with us today. I also want to thank him for recognizing that Bill C‑14 is certainly a better solution than pure popular representation, which would cause Quebec to lose a lot of its demographic weight.

I should note that this situation doesn't affect only Quebec. That's what we're looking at today, but if we rely on demographic projections, in the next redrawing of boundaries, other provinces will probably face the situation that Quebec is now looking at.

I'd like to ask Professor Taillon a question.

You say that there are many complex reasons for the problem. I agree with you on that. In terms of immigration, you say that Quebec has a certain capacity for integration, particularly in terms of the francization of economic immigrants. I'm from a region of Quebec that attracts the second-most newcomers to Quebec, and many of them are from francophone west Africa.

Would it be a good solution for Quebec to increase the number of economic immigrants from francophone countries, like those in Africa, who would come to live in Quebec?

[Patrick Taillon, Tenured Professor, Constitutional Law, Faculty of Law, Université Laval, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank the members of this committee for this invitation.

Bill C‑14, which amends the Constitution Act, 1867, is clever: it masks the decline in Quebec's political weight behind a freeze in the number of seats Quebec has in the House of Commons. Frankly, Bill C‑14 diminishes that decline. Without this bill, Quebec's political weight would drop from 23.1% to 22.5%; with this bill, it drops from 23.1% to 22.8%. In short, that's a difference of 0.3 percentage points in Quebec's political weight.

The reduction in the number of seats, which Bill C‑14 avoids, cannot be confused here with the reduction in Quebec's political weight, which the bill sanctions.

For some, the decline in Quebec's political weight is inevitable. For others, it's possible to take action, and I share that opinion. Bill C‑14 proposes to do something in that sense, but very modestly, very temporarily and without the whole picture of the problem.

The reason for the problem is complex. On the one hand, there is the factual reality, that the demographic decline in Quebec within the federation has practically been a continuous problem since 1867. On the other hand, there are many reasons for that decline. Some are linked to Quebec's political choices. However, those reasons always give rise to the question of whether the federal government's actions are related more to the problem or the solution.

However, it's an even more significant problem, because it will increase over the coming years. It's well known that the current government's policy aims to substantially increase the population of Canada, almost doubling immigration thresholds over the medium term. The targets were 280,000 immigrants per year when the Conservatives were in power. Based on the current objectives, the annual number of immigrants will increase to 430,000, so there's a complete deadlock. Indeed, from Quebec's standpoint, the current policy comes down to the choice of maintaining its political weight by following Canada's pace for immigration, or adopting lower immigration thresholds and thus increasing its ability to integrate immigrants, to be a melting pot for them, an adopted home, and to help them learn French.

There is suddenly the need to consider the issue of reforming the electoral map and Quebec's political weight in the broader context. This is a sensitive issue, one that affects the very nature of the agreement between Quebec and this federation since 1867. The question is what is Ottawa prepared to do to maintain Quebec's political weight. Quebec's representation within federal institutions is not solely a matter for the House of Commons. The House can take action, but action can also be taken elsewhere. I think that, on several fronts, more could be done and done better.

There's another question: what can Ottawa do to improve Quebec's ability to follow a demographic policy similar to that of the rest of Canada? Here again, recent events give us several ideas and reveal several steps that could be taken. Of course, it goes beyond the specific issue addressed in Bill C‑14, but even in the specific and technical context of the electoral map, Parliament could do more than simply freeze the number of seats per province.

After all, Quebec is a nation, as was made clear by a resolution adopted by the House in the 2000s.

Jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada, including its 2014 reference regarding the Supreme Court Act, sanctioned and recognized that national characteristic of Quebec, and did so in a case that affected Quebec's political weight and its representation within a federal institution, the Supreme Court of Canada.

As well, under Bill 96, which has just been passed in Quebec, it will now be stated in black and white in the Constitution Act, 1867, in new section 90Q.1, that “Quebecers form a nation”. That bill, like Bill C‑14, directly and explicitly amends the text of the Constitution.

There are aspects of the makeup of the House of Commons, however, that cannot be amended by Bill C‑14. The principle of proportional representation can only be amended with the support of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. However, the principle of proportional representation is a rule, a principle, a constitutional objective, and, like all other rules, principles and constitutional objectives, it's not absolute. It can be subject to reasonable limits of accommodation. Jurisprudence from the Supreme Court of Canada has repeatedly established that the court's interpretation of proportional representation is not a purely mathematical concept. It has recognized considerable flexibility within each province to tolerate certain discrepancies between certain types of jurisdictions. That type—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to the 23rd meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is meeting today to consider Bill C-14 for the first half of the meeting.

Today, we welcome Professor Patrick Taillon from the faculty of law at Université Laval.

Welcome Professor Taillon. You have the floor for five minutes to give your presentation.

Constitution Act, 2022 (representation of Quebec)

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot for his eloquence and his knowledge, which he always very generously shares with us. I would have liked to listen to him for a few more minutes, but the time has come to close the debate on this bill, which I had the honour of introducing on behalf of the Bloc Québécois.

Throughout the debates, we saw that there were two different understandings of Bill C-246. In good or bad faith, and I would tend to say more often in bad faith, people have pretended they do not understand what is at stake. They ignore or dismiss the fact that what Quebec is asking for is not a whim or anything outlandish; it is also not intended to pick a fight, but rather to ensure appropriate representation in the House of Commons based on recognition of the Quebec nation. I would remind you that this recognition comes with obligations on both sides. It comes with obligations for Quebec, and it comes with obligations for the federal government.

I heard many of my colleagues cite the maritime provinces or Saskatchewan in the discussion on fair representation in the House of Commons. It is true, appropriate and correct. There are mechanisms in place to maintain a minimum number of MPs in parts of Canada that would otherwise be inadequately represented. I am thinking for example of Prince Edward Island and the territories.

What differs from the measures in place for some Canadian provinces and territories is that Quebec is a nation. I am not making this up: It was unanimously recognized by the House of Commons more than once and in more than one way. The federal government recognized the Quebec nation in 2006. It was a motion introduced by Stephen Harper, not the Bloc Québécois. In 1995, Jean Chrétien, the most Liberal of prime ministers, recognized the concept of distinct society. In particular, and this is a very important difference, he said that the House of Commons must take this fact into account in all of its decisions. That is important.

In June 2021, in response to a Bloc Québécois motion, the House of Commons recognized French as the only official language and the common language of the Quebec nation. My point is that recognizing Quebec's status as a nation comes with political obligations, and others as well. For example, Quebec's autonomy must be respected when it comes to development-related decisions. The government must also respect the fact that, on occasion, asymmetrical agreements must be signed based on Quebec's specificity. Quebec's distinctiveness and Quebec society's interests must also be taken into account by the federal government when developing legislation. This is somewhat related to what I was saying earlier with regard to the idea put forward by the Liberal Prime Minister at the time, Jean Chrétien.

It is quite understandable that, this year, the Bloc Québécois is determined to defend Quebec's interests. I repeat, Quebec must have appropriate representation, in keeping with its status as a nation.

Last fall, when the Chief Electoral Officer announced that the new distribution of seats for the House of Commons would result in Quebec losing a seat and falling to 77 seats instead of 78, the Bloc Québécois swiftly opposed that outcome. I will acknowledge that the other parties also recognized that it did not make sense. On March 2, on our opposition day, we moved a motion calling not only for the number of seats not to be reduced, but also for the protection of Quebec's political weight with a 25% threshold. With 266 members of the House voting in favour, the motion was adopted with a very strong majority. Then the Liberals show up with Bill C‑14, which is a half measure that only protects the number of seats.

That is not enough. To protect the Quebec nation, its uniqueness, its identity and francophone culture, which is in decline in North America, not just in Canada and not just in Quebec, we need something stronger, and we need to protect Quebec's political weight. That is why I invite all of my colleagues to vote in favour of Bill C‑246.

[Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased and somewhat excited to rise on this beautiful Monday morning in June to speak to Bill C‑246, which was introduced by my valiant colleague from Drummond. This bill would provide that the total number of members from Quebec could not be less than 25% of the total number of members in the House of Commons.

I first want to clarify one thing, since we have heard quite a lot about the idea of representation by population. As a history buff, I have read a lot about these issues. In my humble opinion, it was quite deceitful, back when it all started in 1867, to shift from equal representation between the two so-called founding peoples to proportional representation just as French-Canadians were being outnumbered. I should mention that the notion of founding peoples is, in itself, highly controversial, given that this country and this regime were founded on subjugation. Proportional representation was certainly never considered when the proportion of French-Canadians was higher. I would call this a historical scam.

I have no problem saying that this so-called Confederation, with its two so-called founding peoples, is a historical scam. Canadian Confederation was brought in through the back door. After that, the only natural path to take was to slowly but steadily reduce the Quebec nation to a minority. That minority is now getting smaller and smaller, which will give us an increasingly smaller voice in decision making in the House of Commons. Unfortunately, we are on our way to becoming a minority that will no longer command respect or consideration.

As everyone knows, the Bloc Québécois wants to see Quebec become an independent country. However, we are also here to stop our decline. We are here to fight, to make gains, but also to stop our decline, and this bill does that. As long as we are in this system, we have to find ways to stop this decline. We have to cope with our losses, unfortunately.

I want to remind members of one very important detail. Last March, the House adopted a Bloc motion with an overwhelming majority of 261 to 66. The motion stated that “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”. The part about not reducing our political weight in the House is the important part, but it is also the part that seems to be forgotten. That is what our motion said. It is not only about the number of seats, but also about the political weight.

Bill C-14, which is also under debate, is being presented to us as a win, a success. We have heard in the House that the bill in question would not reduce the number of members. However, the number of members means absolutely nothing if the relative weight drops. If Quebec keeps the same number of seats but more seats are added in the House, that means that Quebec's weight is being reduced. That is not hard to figure out. In the end, the exact number of seats is far less important than the relative weight.

We are asking for 25% because, as a so-called founding people and nation recognized as distinct, it does not seem unreasonable to ask for a quarter of the seats. Given Quebec's needs and its distinct interests and values, this does not seem unreasonable. Twenty-five per cent is also what was negotiated as part of the Charlottetown accord in 1992, based on the fact that Quebec is a distinct society. Although the accord never came into force, the text itself was approved by the House of Commons. That agreement was not without problems, however. The Bloc, which was newly created at the time, was against it. The sovereignist movement was against it.

Far from being perfect and satisfactory, the 25% was actually not so bad given the context. We were not upset about the objective. This agreement was proposed by Mulroney's Progressive Conservative Party, even though the Reform Party of the time was opposed. It was also supported by John Turner's Liberal Party, although rejected by the centralist wing of the Liberal Party of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. The NDP also supported this protection for Quebec's political weight. As the previous speaker reminded us, the NDP member for Compton—Stanstead proposed a rather similar bill in 2011. However, the bar was set a little lower, at 23.9%, representing Quebec's weight at the time.

In 2006, Stephen Harper's government passed a motion making Quebec a nation within a united Canada. This motion was somewhat questionable, as it was assumed that Quebec was not a nation outside of Quebec. Furthermore, the English wording differed from the French wording. However, the motion was a form of recognition of the existence of a Quebec nation.

In June 2021, the House of Commons overwhelmingly recognized Quebec as a French nation. Our national status must have concrete political implications, not just symbolic ones. In particular, there must be consideration for Quebec's difference, its interests and its values in Ottawa's approach, legislation and policies.

We need assurance that Quebec will have the representation it needs to ensure that its interests and values are heard. However, Quebec's weight has been in steady decline, with its demographic share falling from 36% in 1867 to 28.6% in 1947, 26.6% in 1976, 24.9% in 1999 and 23.1% in 2015. The most recent proposal of the Chief Electoral Officer amounts to 22.5%, which makes no sense. We responded with our motion a few months ago. As our demographic weight decreases, it is obvious that our weight in the House will decrease as a result of the legacy of this destructive system known as the 1867 Confederation.

We also know that the government has announced plans to dramatically increase the total number of immigrants. Quebec cannot bring in twice as many immigrants. It is already doing its part, and francization is, for the most part, not up to par as it is, so it is not like we can magically increase Quebec's demographic weight from one day to the next.

Let us remember that Quebec's culture is unique. Ours is the only jurisdiction in North America whose official common language is French. Our origins as a nation go back to the days of New France, to the coureurs des bois. We are a self-made people with a unique social model that reflects our own values. We must have the opportunity to exist as a political entity, not just an insignificant symbolic entity. If Quebec declines, both the French language and our unique culture will decline as well.

Recognizing our distinct character means protecting the Quebec nation's weight, not just by ensuring Quebec does not lose any seats, but also by making sure that, whenever seats are added, Quebec gets some too. I am well aware that some people think this is unfair. That is what they said when we were debating our motion a few months ago. People said those whiny Quebeckers were demanding special treatment yet again.

I want to take a moment here to point out that there are specific provisions in the Constitution Act that protect the provinces without anyone taking exception. The senatorial clause, for example, ensures that no province has fewer members of Parliament than senators. This guarantees four seats for Prince Edward Island, even though, by population, it should have just one. The grandfather clause ensures that no province will have fewer members of Parliament after an electoral redistribution than it had in 1985. This protects the number of seats of the maritime provinces and Saskatchewan. There is also a provision that guarantees one member of Parliament for each of the territories, even though the population would warrant just one member for all the territories.

Some observers have said that the addition of a clause to protect Quebec's weight would require constitutional talks and would have to be passed by seven provinces representing 50% of the population. That is incorrect. In 1987, the Campbell decision recognized that there were some legitimate exceptions to ensure effective representation and that Parliament had the power to adopt such exceptions. That is why I believe this bill is both necessary and urgent.

There are real consequences to the loss of political power, in particular the list of competing interests or, at the very least, priority interests for Quebec. Quebec has its National Assembly, which is the only parliament where Quebec has 100% of the seats. There have been innumerable unanimous motions, which I will not go into here.

The nation that had—

[Mike Kelloway, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Fisheries]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-246.

I would like to draw attention to the introduction of Bill C-14 and note my support of the government's proposal to update the grandfather clause in the seat allocation formula. This will ensure that no province will ever have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it did in 2021.

This updated clause speaks to the heart of the concerns in Bill C-246, as it would ensure that all provinces continue to have a strong voice in the House of Commons. Specifically, it would ensure that Quebec does not lose a seat, keeps all existing protections in place and continues to allow for incremental seat increases among provinces with growing populations, and all this without disruption to the redistribution of the federal electoral districts in Canada.

As many of us know, the formal process of redrawing the electoral boundaries, a process required under law to take place every 10 years, has begun. I would like to take this opportunity to speak to members about one important aspect of this very detailed and considered process, that is, the independent and non-partisan commissions that are responsible for undertaking this very important work.

For nearly 60 years, independent non-partisan electoral boundary commissions have been responsible for redrawing our electoral maps. These commissions were established in 1964, when Parliament passed the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The act sets out the roles, responsibilities, process and criteria that these commissions must follow when redrawing our federal electoral boundaries. This independent approach was introduced by design to eliminate the risk of political interference in the process and maintain integrity and transparency in our democratic systems and institutions.

Prior to 1964, the House of Commons itself was responsible for fixing the boundaries of electoral districts through a committee appointed especially for that purpose. However, Parliament realized that gerrymandering, a term used to described the manipulation of riding boundaries to benefit members of the governing party, was a significant risk to the integrity of our system. That was and remains unacceptable. The introduction of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was a critical measure put in place to solve that problem.

As outlined in the act, a three-member commission must be established for each province. These commissions are composed of one chairperson and two commissioners. Because this process occurs every 10 years, I would like to remind the hon. members that the government does not recommend or appoint members to these provincial commissions. To be clear, they are independently appointed. In fact, the government's role in the entire process is extremely limited.

For example, the minister is responsible for receiving census data from the chief statistician, for being notified of the appointment of new commissioners and for receiving the final reports from the commission. The minister is also responsible for facilitating the orders in council that are required to proclaim the establishment of the commissions and, similarly, to proclaim the new electoral boundaries as set out by the commission at the conclusion of the process.

It is important to note that, once again, the government does not have any decision-making role or influence when it comes to how electoral boundaries are drawn. This is entirely at the discretion of the independent provincial commissions. The chief justices in each province are responsible for appointing a chairperson for each commission. In addition, the Speaker is responsible for appointing the two other members of the commissions. The chairperson of each commission is a sitting judge or, on a rare occasion, a retired judge. All members set aside their normal work and business to dedicate themselves to this democratic endeavour, and I would like to thank them for their service.

For the commissioners, the act stipulates that they must reside in the province for which they are appointed. The act is also very clear when specifying eligibility:

No person is eligible to be a member of a commission while that person is a member of the Senate or House of Commons or is a member of a legislative assembly or legislative council of a province.

The independence of these commissions is further reinforced through this provision. In practice, the commissioners typically have a background in academia, law or non-elected public service. This knowledge and expertise allow these individuals to undertake this complicated but very important work.

On this 2021 decennial, as required under the act, 10 independent, non-partisan electoral boundary commissions, one for each province, were established on November 1, 2021. With the release of the final census 2021 data on February 9, 2022, the commissions began their review of the boundaries. As necessary, based on population changes and movements within each province, they will develop proposals to redraw electoral districts within each province.

Under the government's proposal, this work will continue uninterrupted. For the Quebec commission, the legislation would ensure that it has the time it needs, as prescribed under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, to reconsider its boundaries proposal in progress based on the updated grandfather amendment.

Over the last 10 years, Canada's population has grown by 3.5 million people, from just over 33 million in 2011 to almost 37 million people today. It is essential that these citizens be factored into Canada's federal electoral districts. However, while they will endeavour to reflect changes in population against a province's seat count, the commissions must take into consideration other factors, such as respecting communities of interest and historical patterns. They must also ensure electoral districts maintain a manageable geographic size, including for those ridings that are in rural or northern regions of any province.

Considering these factors is no small feat. Our country is vast. Our communities are diverse and are rich in culture and history. From coast to coast to coast, they form the basis of our identities and our connections.

That is why the act contains provisions to ensure these communities of interest are considered when it comes to determining reasonable electoral boundaries. Respecting communities of interest is not just about preserving the differences between provinces or regions, or between rural and urban settings. It can mean recognizing the difference from one side of a small town to the other.

Canada's history has shown us that redistribution is not just about balancing changes in population. It is also about balancing community history and community geography. It is a delicate balance. It is a balance of multiple and sometimes competing priorities.

Nevertheless, these complex considerations are precisely why these commissions are independent and non-partisan. It is essential that these decisions are made outside of party lines. That way, boundary lines and ridings are established to best serve Canadians, not political parties.

Over the coming months, the commissions will hold public hearings open to the Canadian public, including members of Parliament. We are fortunate, along with all other Canadians, to have the opportunity to engage in a non-partisan, arm's-length process. While the commissions will consider the input they receive, they retain the responsibility to make all final decisions about where the new boundaries will be.

The decisions they will come to over the next several months will be carefully considered. Ultimately, some electoral districts in some provinces may look a little different than they do today. We can rest assured that the decisions will be informed decisions, ones taken by qualified experts and made independently of government.

I would reiterate that this independence is the foundation of our redistribution process. It has served us well for the past 60 years, and no doubt it will continue to do so moving forward. The importance of redistribution is well known to all members of Parliament. The results of these efforts will form the basis of representation in the House of Commons for the next 10 years.

Every Canadian deserves effective representation. Canadians also deserve public institutions that serve their interests, first and foremost. Under the government's proposal and based on the process in place, I am confident that these independent, non-partisan commissions will do just that in the coming months.

In closing, I hope my hon. colleagues will join me in thanking these commissions for undertaking this very important work.

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

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

Madam Speaker, if this motion from the Bloc Québécois passes, I am wondering if my hon. colleague from Halifax would also support some of the provinces, such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, that are structurally under-represented in Canada's Parliament. Would he be open to supporting changes to Bill C-14 that would give us representation by population?

I ask the member to imagine a scenario where Quebec had 1% below the average and lost three seats. That is what we live with every day, and I would love to hear the member's comments on that reality.

[Darren Fisher, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Seniors]

Madam Speaker, I am thankful for the opportunity to speak again today on Bill C-14, a bill that we have already spoken on and have already sent away to committee. We find ourselves, or at least some of us in the House, speaking to Bill C-14.

In this bill, the government proposed to update the grandfather clause in the seat allocation formula. That was to ensure that no province would ever have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it did in 2021. That seemed to reflect what the House was asking for at the time, and it was something that Liberal colleagues were asking for in our caucus, and we know that this is also what the Bloc was asking for.

This updated clause speaks to the heart of the concerns that we have heard from Canadians and would ensure that all provinces would continue to have a strong voice in our House of Commons. Specifically, it would ensure that Quebec would not lose a seat. Again, this is what was being asked for. It would keep all existing protections in place and it would continue—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Excellent.

On behalf of the PROC committee members, I would like to thank both of our guests for joining us today. If anything comes to mind, please do not hesitate to provide it in writing to the clerk so that all committee members can consider it.

With that, I want to give the PROC committee members a heads-up with regard to next week. We discussed the agenda in camera, so it's not really out there. June 6, next Monday, will be the deadline for Bill C-14 amendments, as we will be considering that legislation. For June 7, we have sent out invitations to Professor Carty, Professor Taillon and PCO officials. In the second hour of the June 7 meeting, we will have Minister LeBlanc, accompanied by PCO officials again.

At the June 9 meeting, we will continue the operational security of the parliamentary precinct study—the last meeting for that—followed by clause-by-clause for Bill C-14 in the second hour. I would ask that, for June 9, any edits to version three of the code draft report be shared with all members, so that we can pencil it in the following week, following clause-by-clause. We'll have version three of the code following clause-by-clause for Bill C-14. That's the space we will enter into.

You have also received the draft of the indigenous languages report. I'll start some conversations as to when we can have some feedback on that, so that we can put it into the queue following the version three of the code report. That should, hopefully, bring us into the summer season.

With that, everyone, please keep well and safe.

Thank you. The meeting is adjourned.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague, but I would very much like him to bring the discussion back to Bill C-14 and Quebec representation.

Where exactly does my colleague stand when it comes to the Charlottetown accord, which guaranteed Quebec 25% of the seats in the House of Commons?