Bill C-246

Constitution Act, 2022 (representation of Quebec)

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (representation in the House of Commons)

This enactment amends section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to provide that the total number of members from the province of Quebec cannot be less than 25% of the total number of members in the House of Commons.

Constitution Act, 1867

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

moved that Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, regarding representation in the House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking you for the thoughtful consideration you have given me by allowing the House to dissolve and those members who wish to do so to go about their business, thus enabling me to make a speech in a quieter setting.

I am honoured to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-246, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, regarding representation in the House of Commons, which I am sponsoring.

Despite what many Canadians and perhaps Canada would like, there are fundamental differences and some deep incompatibilities, I would even say, between Quebeckers and Canadians. There are fundamental differences in how Canadians see their future and how Quebeckers see theirs.

I am not saying that is a bad thing. Let me provide some context. I think it is important to put this in context because every time there are discussions around demands with respect to the status of Quebec within the federation, or about its culture, the values that are unique to the Quebec nation or its language—French is the only official and common language of Quebeckers—words always get twisted and the conversation turns into bickering, if I may borrow the word of the day, with claims that this is coming from a tiresome minority of Quebeckers who refuse to kowtow, drop their pants and hide their pride behind a maple leaf.

Those people know that by cleverly spreading misinformation, they are stoking the fire and stirring up hateful comments by certain fanatics who would like to see Quebec get crushed, give up its identity and join the melting pot of Canadian multiculturalism. I am not generalizing, but those people do exist. There is no shortage of them on social media. All one has to do is post a comment about the French language on Twitter to see the flood of hateful comments that follow.

I would like to give some context on the history of the people of Quebec. For decades, in the 19th and 20th centuries, honest French-Canadian workers suffered silently. The Catholic Church required them to populate Quebec by having eight, 12, 15 or 20 children, and to earn their place in heaven by bowing their heads whenever the boss came by. That was Quebec up until the second half of the 20th century.

Slowly, gradually, word got out that Quebeckers were more than just quaint characters, more than just people who got rowdy every night, that there was more to us than arrowhead sashes and fiddle playing, and that Quebec was rich in culture and talent. Little by little, Quebec stepped out of the darkness, not just the shadows, but out of the deep darkness, and Quebeckers started to rediscover who we are.

At that point, voices started to emerge, urging Quebeckers to stand up, respect themselves and demand the respect of others. This was the golden age of great leaders, orators and personalities who inspired past generations and who continue to inspire generation now.

There were great trade unionists, because we needed union leaders at a time when Quebec was a working-class nation, people like Pepin, Marchand, Charbonneau. There were also some great women, like Laure Gaudreault and Madeleine Parent, not to mention one of Quebec's golden couples, Michel Chartrand and Simone Monet-Chartrand, one of the most adored, respected and celebrated couples in Quebec history.

I have an amusing story about this. In Longueuil, on the south shore facing Montreal, there is a park named after Michel Chartrand that is overrun with deer. My young daughter, who will turn 11 next week, was talking about Michel Chartrand park. I told her about the union leader Michel Chartrand, and she thought he was the deer guy. That is why education is important. It is important to talk about Quebec's history so that my daughter's generation will know that Michel Chartrand is not just the deer guy.

All these men and women inspired Quebec's workers back then through passionate speeches. Chartrand was a passionate man, if ever there was one. We could listen to his speeches again and watch the movie where he was portrayed so well by Luc Picard. These people inspired others with their passionate speeches and unifying actions. It should be inspiring for this government, because passionate speeches and words must be followed up with action. Those people took action.

With their actions, they made Quebeckers realize what another great Quebecker would put into words years later: “We are not a little people. We are closer to something like a great people.”

In the meantime, along came the Quiet Revolution, bringing with it new ideas and inspiring new leaders who proposed social reforms that were more in line with our values. As I often say, our values are neither better nor worse than Canada's. They are just different in many ways.

That led to Quebeckers choosing a secular society because, for us, the only way to respect all religions is to ensure the state has no religion. That is an important nuance to grasp. That is what Quebec secularism means. In Quebec, religion is something personal practised privately that should neither interfere in nor influence the decisions made by the state. Contrary to what many Canadians think, including many of my House of Commons colleagues, Quebeckers welcome and respect people of all origins and all faiths. However, we want to integrate our newcomers while respecting their beliefs but without betraying our fundamental values. I admit there is a major conflict between Quebec state secularism and the idea of multiculturalism that is so dear to Liberals and Canadians.

Following our awakening, we witnessed the growth of a new movement in favour of an option that is appealing enough to have lasted to this day: Quebec independence.

As an aside, and this may not be news to anyone, but I will just say that my colleagues and I do not just carry this idea of becoming a country in our daily work; it permeates our lives. It inhabits us, much like oil inhabits our Conservative friends. We all hope that one day our project will become a reality. We try to discuss it at every opportunity, trying each time to break down prejudices, to avoid smear campaigns that get in the way of sound judgment and healthy conversation.

The idea of an independent Quebec has been around for a while now, so much so that in 1976 the Parti Québécois came to power with the great leader I mentioned earlier, René Lévesque. He is probably my number one idol. This too should come as no great surprise.

I think what happened next is fairly well known to most people here. There was the 1980 referendum, the patriation of the Constitution, the “beau risque”, the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord.

The Charlottetown accord contained a proposal that was written in black and white. Resolution 21, on the composition of the House of Commons, stated: “The composition of the House of Commons should be adjusted to better reflect the principle of representation by population.” Further on, it mentions a redistribution following the 1996 census aimed at ensuring that, in the next election, “no province will have fewer than 95% of the House of Commons seats it would receive under strict representation-by-population”. It goes on to state that “Quebec would be assigned no fewer then 25 percent of the seats in the House of Commons”.

I think it is very important to say so, because it is fundamental in Bill C‑246, which I am introducing today. It is fundamental because what we are proposing is to include a nation clause in the Constitution Act, 1982, so that Quebec does not have to keep standing up for its representation in the House of Commons, whether today, in 10 years, after the next census, or in 20 years, and so forth.

As I alluded to earlier, ideally, we would be having these discussions because Quebec would have made the choice, in the meantime, to fully take matters into its own hands and patriate to Quebec City, in our only national legislature, 100% of the seats we have here.

This morning, by extraordinary coincidence, the government introduced Bill C‑14, probably in response to the Bloc Québécois motion unanimously adopted on March 2, worded as follows:

That, in the opinion of the House:

(a) 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; and

(b) the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended and the House call on the government to act accordingly.

This motion was put to a vote and passed unanimously. Now, three weeks later, we have a bill whose only goal is to maintain Quebec's number of seats at 78. That is not bad, but it is a bit like agreeing to give a friend a ride from Montreal to Quebec City but then making, him get out in Saint‑Hyacinthe, not even in Drummondville.

I want to draw members' attention to the fact that Bill C‑14, which the Liberals introduced this morning, is nothing but a watered-down version of what Quebec, Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois are calling for. Bill C‑246, however, addresses the urgent need to protect Quebec's political weight. Since Quebec is a nation, it should have the resources it needs to be represented so long as it decides to remain here in the House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is the second opportunity for the Bloc party to raise this particular issue, albeit through an individual member this time. The first time was with an opposition day motion. I hope to be able to speak a bit more on this. I wonder if the member could explain why he feels so passionately about having an opposition day motion, knowing that we were having this particular debate today and that the government was bringing forward legislation.

He made reference to the Constitution. It seems to me he wants to talk about the Constitution. Why is the Constitution so important, from his perspective?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of my colleague's question, I will say that yes, we did move a motion on our opposition day. It was debated and then adopted on March 2. That was our way of testing the waters. I also knew that we would have the opportunity to debate this bill in more depth and then send it to be properly studied in committee.

We have no intention of talking about the Constitution itself. In fact, if it were up to us, we would amend the Constitution to permanently guarantee that Quebec would always have 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. That is no secret.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here for this debate.

Our country was founded in 1867 on the principle of the linguistic duality of two groups: anglophones and francophones. Of course, francophones do not exist only in the province of Quebec. We exist across Canada, and I am one of them.

I would like to know what my Bloc colleague thinks of our country's linguistic duality. Does he think his bill preserves the principle and the idea of our country's francophile reality outside Quebec?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard.

I wish he had asked me that question before I started my speech, because I could have spent 15 minutes answering it and I would have done so with passion.

Quebec itself has a duty to protect the French fact in North America. Quebec is a francophone island in an anglophone sea. There are francophones in the United States too. I think Quebec has a responsibility to stay strong in order to protect such francophone communities outside Quebec.

I would suggest that a quick look at the work we are doing in committee, specifically on the broadcasting bill, will make it clear that the Bloc Québécois does take the reality of francophone communities outside Quebec to heart.

This is a subject I find extremely interesting. I could go on talking about it for some time, as I said, but I will give other people a chance.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his speech and for introducing this bill.

I really enjoyed his historical references and the fact that he talked about people from Quebec's history who are close to my heart, particularly Simonne Monet-Chartrand and the film he talked about.

I also liked his rather appealing notion of adding a “nation clause” to recognize the fact that Quebec becoming a nation has consequences.

However, in wanting to reopen the Constitution, why does my colleague from Drummond not also see the possibility of recognizing and making room for other nations, specifically first nations, who were here before the arrival of the French and the English? Why did he not include this in his bill?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his question.

The bill we have introduced is about Quebec's representation in the House of Commons. It is about the fact that Quebec is at risk of losing seats or weight in the House of Commons as the Canadian population increases. We know that demographic growth in Quebec does not necessarily follow the curve, so this bill is in that spirit.

Would we be open to adding clauses dealing with first nations? I am always open to discussing things nation to nation with first nations. If there were any submissions in that regard, I would be delighted to hear them.

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

Mr. Speaker, in looking at this particular piece of legislation, one can only ask why the Bloc has chosen to bring it forward knowing full well the government had intentions of bringing in legislation. I would attempt to answer that question by indicating that, from what I have witnessed over the years of the participation of Bloc members, their interest primarily seems to be that of playing a destructive force for Canada as a nation. I can already see some hints of that in some of the comments being made.

I say, “a destructive force,” because I am a very proud Canadian. I recognize the wonders that Canada has to offer in all of its regions, and I am very proud of that. I have made reference in the past to my own ancestral heritage in the province of Quebec, to the number of generations that lived in the province of Quebec and to the expansion into the prairie provinces and so forth, as well as to how Canada as a nation is bilingual and to how important it is to recognize the province of Quebec, its uniqueness and the role it plays in society.

I know we currently have 35 incredible members of Parliament who advocate for the province of Quebec, along with other national interests, on a daily basis. In fact, earlier today we got a sense of that in the passionate delivery of the Minister of Canadian Heritage. My former boss, when he was the government House leader, would often talk with a great deal of passion about the people of Quebec and how important the French dynamic was to our country. I also go to my colleague for Mount Royal and other colleagues I have had who have spoken so eloquently about the important role Quebec plays not only here in Canada, but internationally.

I like to think that the legislation we brought in today, Bill C-14, deals with the concerns my colleagues have been raising within the government. It would ensure that the province of Quebec would never lose a seat in the future. I see that as a very strong positive, as we have made changes to the Constitution in the past and we have seen guarantees in the past.

Once again, through advocacy, we now see a very strong commitment to the number of 78 seats well into the future, and that would not limit it to 78. That would establish a floor. There are many in this chamber, including me, who believe that the province of Quebec will continue to grow. Ultimately, its population could even dictate a larger number than 78, so we are not saying it has to be 78 into the future. It would have the potential to go beyond that.

Why not recognize the value of Bill C-14? What is the need for Bill C-246, which is being proposed? The member already knows that members on the government side are committed to it, because we had the debate earlier this month, which the member even made reference to, where Liberal members from all regions of our country came forward saying that we need to ensure Quebec has that minimum number of seats going forward.

If somehow the Bloc was able to convince a majority of the people in this chamber to do what they are asking for, it would entail a constitutional change that would require the support of 50% of the population and seven of the 10 provinces in order to be approved.

I have been around for constitutional debates. I was a member of the Manitoba legislature for votes related to the Meech Lake accord and for the Charlottetown accord. I do not believe for a moment that the people of Canada, whether they are citizens of Quebec or citizens of my home province of Manitoba, want the House of Commons to be dealing with constitutional matters of this nature, which is what this bill is actually proposing. It would require approval under the 7/50 formula.

There are so many other issues that are out there today, yet the Bloc want to insist on having a constitutional change that would invoke the 7/50 formula. I would hazard a guess that, even if just the constituents of the members that are proposing this were canvassed, they might find that their constituents would not necessarily support a constitutional debate on this issue alone.

I do not say that lightly. That is what I truly believe. When I have canvassed constituents in the past, a number of years ago, on the issue of electoral reform, and the whole issue of numbers, I was very clearly told that this was not something that they want.

As a parliamentarian, we often have a sense of what the pulse of our community is like. I would challenge any member to clearly demonstrate where the political will is matched by the enthusiasm of their constituents for constitutional debates at this point in time, as that is what would be required under the legislation that is being proposed.

We could talk about issues. My friends in the Bloc often talk, for example, about health care and how important it is that the federal government be at the table when it comes to a wide variety of issues in regard to health care. The federal government is at the table. We have the Canada Health Act, which ensures that no matter where Canadians live or in whatever region, they will have a certain quality of health care delivered, based on the five fundamental principles of our Canada Health Act.

Given the pandemic, and the response we received from Canadians in regard to issues such as long-term care, the costs of medication and the issue of mental health, I believe that no matter where one lives in Canada, the debates and concerns of those issues alone would supersede and exceed the need for what is being suggested by members of the Bloc party today.

It is not to be insensitive, in recognizing the importance of the 78 seats. As I said, I personally voted in favour of that earlier this month. I know, as I said earlier, that not only the 35 members of the Liberal caucus who represent Quebec ridings, but also the entire Liberal caucus recognizes the importance of Quebec having those 78 seats, with the potential, as I explained earlier, for growth.

I really believe, and I would encourage other members of other political parties to believe, that there really is no need to even see this bill go to committee because, quite frankly, we would hope that the government's bill, Bill C-14, will make it to committee, at which point in time there will be even more opportunities for the public and stakeholders to provide direct input.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to join this debate as a francophone from western Canada to speak to Bill C‑246, which the Bloc Québécois member has introduced. He certainly has the right to have a debate.

During his speech I heard him say that a nation clause would be added to our Constitution. It is always interesting to see a Bloc Québécois member make an amendment to the Canadian Constitution. I know that for several decades now it has been difficult for members of that party to be convinced that Quebec, as a province, is part of a united Canada. We are certainly united.

I would like to be perfectly clear that this country was founded on two cultures and two languages: French and English. That was the topic of great debate in colonial Parliament for 20 to 30 years before our country was founded. It is that linguistic and cultural duality that our country has been trying, for more than 150 years, to put into practice in the everyday lives of our constituents.

Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. A motion to that effect was adopted in a previous Parliament. I completely agree with that. I support that idea. I have said it many times in the House. I know that my Bloc colleagues have heard me say it. I know that they have also heard me say that Albertans form a distinct society within a united Canada.

There have been many debates with my Quebec colleagues in the House, in my party and in our caucus. When the British North America Act, which gave us our Constitution, was passed by the Parliament of the United Kingdom in 1867, section 40 stated that the Province of Quebec would have 65 seats upon the founding of our nation. Since then, and on the basis of demographics, we have slowly increased the number of seats in our Parliament to ensure that representation by population would be the guiding principle for the number of seats in our Parliament.

Representation by population was the subject of great debate by the country's responsible government. It was the great debate in the colonial Parliament before our country was founded. Representation by population in every region of our country had to be ensured. The reality of our country is that there are francophones outside Quebec. There is a linguistic duality. Acadians in Nova Scotia are part of our country. Their identity is different from that of Quebeckers, the Métis, Franco-Manitobans and Franco-Albertans. In my caucus, I have colleagues from out west, such as the member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake and the member for Calgary Midnapore, who speak French. They can hold a conversation in our country's other language, and they often use it.

There are three major issues with this private member's bill, three ideas that this chamber needs to seriously consider.

First of all, this matter has been debated before in a previous Parliament. Jean Rousseau, who was an NDP member of Parliament for Compton—Stanstead in 2012, moved a similar private member's bill, but it came to the same goal in a different manner. It added a different redistribution rule at the end. In that Parliament, members chose to vote against it, and it did not make it into law, obviously.

The Charlottetown accord in 1992 was rejected by Canadians. In the Charlottetown accord, one of the proposals citizens were asked to weigh in on, after politicians had debated it, was whether Quebec as a province should receive 25% of all House of Commons seats. That was rejected by the Canadian population. In fact, 58% of Quebec voters rejected that in the Charlottetown accord.

I was too young to vote, and members might be surprised by that. I was too young to vote in the Quebec referendum as well, but my parents were not, and as I remember, they did vote no in that referendum in 1995.

Another thing to consider is the Fair Representation Act of 2011 that was passed by a previous Parliament and ensured redistribution. It is part of Stephen Harper's legacy to this Parliament. He brought us back, as close as reasonably possible, to ensuring that we have representation by population.

It is part of the legacy that he tried to restore some greater representation to western Canadians, who have very large ridings. Most of us do. I represent the second-largest riding in Canada by population size. My colleague from Edmonton—Wetaskiwin has over 200,000 citizens residing in his riding, which is a huge number of people to represent. It is basically double what the average, the quotient, calls for.

The Fair Representation Act also created a rule, the representation rule, that ensured that any province that would lose a seat in a redistribution would then be made whole by having its number of seats made proportional to its demographic weight within Canada. That rule, at the time, applied to the Province of Quebec and ensured that Quebec was represented in proportion to its demographic weight within Canada. That was a new rule that was created. At the time, it added three seats, resulting in the 78 seats that the Province of Quebec enjoys today.

Lastly, I want to bring up this fact, because we Conservatives and our deputy leader, the member of Parliament for Mégantic—L'Érable, moved in this House a unanimous consent motion that was rejected. I want to read it back into the record, because it forms the position of the Conservatives.

The motion was “That the House oppose any federal electoral redistribution scenario that would cause Quebec or any other province or territory to lose one or more electoral districts in the future, and that the House call on the government to act accordingly.”

That is the foundation of the Conservative position. We believe, and I think it is a perfectly reasonable position to take, that no province should lose a seat in redistribution. It should not go backward when we are looking at this issue. There are smaller provinces that might face this situation if that was ever changed in the future.

I also recognize, as the parliamentary secretary on the Liberal benches mentioned, that the government has tabled Bill C-14 today as well, which I was combing through as we were voting to try to better understand the contents of that bill. If we look at it, we see that a majority of the content is our unanimous consent motion that was rejected by the House. That is our position: that no province in this country should lose seats in a redistribution.

We have a chamber of 338 members. This chamber used to house 308 members in our old building. I still see a lot of space where we could put more members if it was absolutely needed. I see the Speaker is looking at both sides of the House. There is, indeed, space in this House. Maybe we have to be a bit closer. We cannot do the social distancing rule. The pandemic will eventually be over, and we can do these things in a redistribution bill, so I will be looking forward to receiving a briefing and more information on exactly how Bill C-14 would work.

To return to the private member's bill, I think the mechanics of it are quite important in terms of how such a bill would function and how such a bill would work. Amending the Constitution through a private member's bill is unique, but this House has amended the Constitution. In this Parliament, we amended the Saskatchewan Act to make sure that one of the railway companies would pay its share of taxation in that particular province, so it is not unusual to be doing it in this manner. I know that other members in this House have amended the Constitution in the past, such as to make sure the Speaker's election would be done by preferential secret ballot. That was not the case over 25 years ago. This can be done in this particular situation.

Those are the three concerns I mentioned: the Charlottetown accord vote back in 1992; the history of the Fair Representation Act of 2011, which was part of Stephen Harper's legacy as our prime minister; and the unanimous consent motion that Conservatives pushed that was rejected. That forms the foundation of our position, and I hope to return to the House at some late point and have other members of our caucus join in this debate on this private member's bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to participate in this discussion, this debate, this conversation, on an important bill, Bill C‑246, which has to do with Quebec's place, democracy, history and the recognition of the Quebec nation.

I do need to point out that the agreement that the NDP negotiated with the Liberal government includes the condition that Quebec's 78 seats be protected. That was one of our demands and one of the conditions we managed to secure, and I think that is a real victory.

Today, we saw a concrete result from that, in the form of a government bill introduced in response to the threat that Quebec could lose a riding and a seat. This gives substance to our efforts. We managed to secure this win for Quebec, and we are confident that it will be implemented.

That was not the only gain we secured for Quebec. We will hear a lot about Quebec this evening, but I want to talk about Quebeckers and about our work to improve their lives. We are using politics to improve people's lives and to create a fairer and more just society in which promises are kept and real action is taken.

I really must say that, for Quebeckers, dental insurance, the notion of being able to pay for dental care when one is poor and struggling—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I must interrupt the hon. member, because the hon. member for Manicouagan is rising on a point of order.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully question whether the speech by the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie is relevant, given the topic currently before the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the hon. member for her intervention, but the member only began his speech about two minutes ago.

I invite the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie to continue his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I think I am totally on the topic of Quebec and what this might mean for Quebeckers. I will speak quickly. I would like to point out that, earlier, the hon. member for Drummond spoke for about eight minutes before he mentioned his bill, Bill C-246. He first outlined the entire history and digressed quite a bit. I think I am entitled to a little leeway, too.

The fact that the NDP has negotiated pharmacare, that there will be legislation in 2023 and this will help people in a concrete way, all this responds to a demand that comes largely from Quebec civil society. I am talking about the Union des consommateurs, the Confédération des syndicats nationaux, the Centrale des syndicats du Québec and the Fédération des travailleurs et travailleuses du Québec, which all want a universal public pharmacare plan.

When we talk about Quebec, we have to talk about its place. I think it is important to talk about Quebeckers, workers and tenants who are facing challenges, which we are trying to address as parliamentarians, with the tools we have to help them—

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the member once again, but the hon. member for Louis‑Saint‑Laurent is rising on a point of order.

[Gérard Deltell, Conservative, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate both the form and content of the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie's remarks. However, he has now been talking for five minutes. I know prescription drugs are important, but I do not think they vote. The subject we are talking about right now is the number of members in the House of Commons.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

I thank the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for his comment. The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has been speaking for three minutes and has five minutes left. I hope he will talk about the bill we are debating and I invite him to continue his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill being studied this evening. However, I get the impression that it makes my colleagues from the Bloc Québécois and the Conservative Party a little nervous when we talk about the victories secured by the NDP.

That being said, the NDP has long recognized that Quebec is a nation. The NDP already recognized that by adopting the Sherbrooke declaration, thanks to the work of people like Jack Layton and Thomas Mulcair. It truly marked a major turning point in the history of our leftist, progressive movement.

The Parliament of Canada also adopted a motion recognizing that Quebec is a nation. Symbolic acknowledgements are good, but I think tangible action is better. That brings me back to the beginning of my speech, when I was talking about the concrete effects of parliamentarians' work, including the NDP's recent efforts.

What makes Quebec a nation?

It is not because that province is better or worse than the others, but because it is different from the others. We have to recognize that, and that recognition needs to come with consequences.

As my colleagues mentioned in previous speeches, I think we must always bear in mind the idea of the two founding peoples, the linguistic and cultural duality that has long kept us talking and that has fuelled debate throughout Quebec and Canadian history.

However, I must point out that this notion of two founding peoples makes me and my political party very uncomfortable, because it implies that the French, who came first, and the English, who came later, arrived on virgin land that was uninhabited.

This excludes first nations, indigenous peoples and the Inuit from the discussion. I think we must take this into consideration. This notion of two founding peoples is true but seriously incomplete, and we must consider this when discussing democracy, representation and nation-to-nation dialogue.

The basic democratic rule is simple: All citizens are equal. Everyone is equal before the law, and everyone has a vote. Through natural sovereignty, it is the people who decide who will be their leaders and whether they will oust them when they are no longer satisfied with them. This notion of the equality of citizens is the basis for the distribution of seats and representation in the House.

As the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent knows, I would love to discuss respect for every person's right to vote. If we had a proportional voting system, the government could not be elected with a minority of the votes, meaning a minority of popular and national support. This is a discussion I have had on several occasions, and I believe that proportional voting would greatly improve the quality of our democratic life.

Elections Canada decides on the riding boundaries and distribution of seats, but there are many exceptions. In fact, we have a system that functions by exception. We could almost say that the exception is the norm.

Three major clauses govern how seats are distributed in the federation. First is the senatorial clause, which states that no province can have fewer MPs than it has senators, regardless of its demographic weight and the number of voters in the ridings.

Next is the territorial clause. Obviously the large expanses of Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut do not necessarily have the critical mass to justify a riding and an MP. However, we all recognize that Nunavut absolutely has to be represented and that it makes sense to have these territorial clauses, resulting in these three ridings.

Last is the grandfather clause, which states that a province cannot have fewer MPs than it had before. The provinces of Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland all negotiated a certain number of seats upon entering Confederation. That has real-life consequences.

If we look at the three territories and 10 provinces, that means seven provinces are overrepresented thanks to different standards or special clauses, in addition to the three territories.

I think it is worth considering whether the Quebec nation could also benefit from a special clause of its own, given that we have all recognized Quebec as a nation. We can therefore say that what is good for others can also be applied to Quebec the exact same way and that this would be a way to recognize the Quebec nation. It may not be the best or only way, but it already came up in past talks, so we are not reinventing the wheel.

As my colleague from Drummond pointed out, this was included in the Charlottetown accord. It was already part of the negotiations to convince Quebec to ratify the Constitution after the lamentable and unpleasant events of 1982. The Charlottetown accord proposed setting the minimum at 25% for Quebec. This was agreed to by the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party of Quebec and, at the time, by the federal NDP, which also supported the Charlottetown accord.

I think this is a principle that is worth discussing and studying in committee so that we can debate Quebec's place in the Canadian federation and in our democratic process.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my father always told me that history is extremely important. My colleague talked about history when he talked about the current situation, because history helps us understand where we are and where we are going. I too will share a bit of historical background, with all due respect to the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

In his 1840 report, Lord Durham said that the francophone people had no future, no culture and no history. That was not a very good start. In 1840, after the Patriotes rebellion, this person was telling us that the salvation of francophones lay in assimilation. By reading what happened next, we see this was the moment that the tragic destiny of Quebec and francophones in Canada was decided.

From 1840 to 1867, there was a Parliament representing eastern Canada, in other words Quebec, and western Canada, meaning Ontario. The catch was that even though Quebec had a larger population, eastern Canada and western Canada got the same number of members. Even though there were more Quebeckers, they did not get more members, but no one took offence to that.

After a while, it became clear that the status of francophones in North America was diminishing because of the influx of immigrants. They became a minority. In 1867, it was announced that representation would henceforth be proportional. That year, the first Parliament opened, but instead of Quebec having 50% of the seats, it dropped to 36%, even though it had had a much larger population for quite some time.

That was the beginning, or rather the continuation, of the decline. To get us to lower our guard, they told us that it was an agreement between two founding peoples, an agreement that would later be broken. They gave us 50% of the seats at first to lull us into a false sense of security.

Yes, there are francophones in the rest of Canada, but they are merely surviving, not thriving. Despite their resilience and their daily struggle to ensure their language reaches their schools, they will never be able to ensure their continued survival. They will decline across Canada.

Just look at the situation today in Manitoba, which is supposed to be a bilingual province. In New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, the rest of Canada, in Ontario, francophones will literally disappear. The only thing stopping francophones outside Quebec from losing the ability to utter the words of Félix Leclerc, to keep speaking the language we hold dear, is their extraordinary courage. It will take a lot of courage.

You are one of the courageous ones, Mr. Speaker. You know what I am talking about.

Quebec was saddled with minority status with respect to economic decisions and everything else until the end of the 1950s. Two things saved Quebec.

The first was the cradle. Quebeckers made babies. They set a world record for baby-making, one for every fence post. We survived because of sheer numbers.

The second came in 1960 with the creation of a Quebec state that finally protected us. It was the Quebec state that allowed us to strengthen the position of the French language in Quebec, which had an impact on the rest of Canada and even Louisiana. Zachary Richard would agree, it is a fact. Quebec, with the Quebec state, protects us. That is a fact.

After being one of the founding peoples, we were confined to the rank of a province, a province like any other. In federal-provincial conferences, we became one of ten in 1949, going from one for one to one for ten. Then multiculturalism was introduced in 1982, which put us on a par with all other cultures. I like other cultures, but the Quebec nation is here, it is present, and it must maintain its place because it deserves to survive.

I will not go into the details of all the numbers, but we are at 23% representation in Parliament. Do people see what the problem is with the Parliament of Canada?

We keep repeating that this Parliament is eroding the power of our legislature. This is a fundamental problem. When we say that Ottawa must not interfere in Quebec's jurisdictions, it is because the Government of Quebec protects us best and knows us best. It was not the Quebec government that said the London attack was caused by Bill 21, but the Prime Minister of Canada. It was not the Premier of Quebec who said that.

The Prime Minister of Canada is not the one protecting us. It is the federal government that has now decided to apply for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. British Columbia's francophones, who demanded that education be of the same quality as that of anglophones, won their case before the Federal Court of Appeal, but this Liberal government wants to reverse the court's decisions.

People in the House are saying that Quebec is a nation. This Parliament even agreed with us and adopted a motion saying that Quebec is a nation with French as the common language. However, those words need to be backed up by action.

We put to the vote a two-part motion seeking to ensure that Quebec does not lose a seat in the House of Commons, and that motion was adopted by the majority. The government understood and acknowledged this with its Bill C‑14. However, what about the second part of the motion?

When we vote on a motion, we vote on the entire motion. The second part of the motion said that Quebec's political weight must not be diminished. It does not take a Ph.D. in math to understand that if we have 78 seats out of a total of 338, when that total eventually goes up to 343, 350, 400 or 500 members, our political power will be diminished. I explained this to my golden retriever and he understood. The government does not seem to understand. Seriously?

What we are asking for is that we use a ratio expressed as a percentage. It is obvious if we want to avoid this decline. It is just that simple. Why are we asking for 25%? It is because that is what was negotiated in the Charlottetown accord. That is where we got it from.

Can this be done without reopening Canada's Constitution? I know that reopening the Constitution is about as easy as eating an apple through a tennis racket. I know that, but we do not need to do it. We can do it in the House with legislative tools. That is where we stand today: We have to use percentages to avoid this slow but steady decline that is undermining our people.

I will quote Claude Péloquin, who said, “Aren't you tired of dying, you idiots?” Sometimes, I think we are dying. Unfortunately, we do not even know it. We are here because half of our taxes are administered by this Parliament, and as long as we are in Canada, we must defend Quebec.

Our dream is not to account for 25% of this Parliament, but 100% of the parliament of our future country.

[The Deputy Speaker, Chris d'Entremont]

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from March 24 consideration of the motion that Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (representation in the House of Commons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Constitution Act, 2022 (representation of Quebec)

[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.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, we are talking today about Bill C-246, which provides that the total number of members from the province of Quebec can never be less than 25% of the total number of members in the House of Commons, regardless of whether Quebec's population decreases.

However, if Quebec's population increases and its percentage of representation exceeds 25% of the total number of members in the House, no limits will be imposed on Quebec under this bill.

If Quebec continues to be part of the Canadian federation, which I hope it will, it will have to adhere to the principles under which the federation was created in 1867. These principles were the subject of a month-long debate in the Parliament of the Province of Canada in 1866, when the broad strokes of what would become the Constitution Act, 1867, were debated and approved.

The biggest compromise that was made at that time was an agreement under which the three parts of the country that existed at the time, namely, Quebec, Ontario and the maritime provinces, would have equal representation in the upper chamber or Senate and would be represented by population in the lower chamber or House of Commons.

It is hard to overstate the importance of what the founders considered to be inseparable twin principles. The expression “representation by population” was used 186 times in the debates on Confederation in the legislative council and assembly of the Province of Canada. If this agreement had not been reached, then Confederation never would have happened.

To make this point, I am now going to turn to a few quotes from the time. This is in a volume of The Confederation Debates, which I played a role in editing, the first edition published since the 1860s. It is an English-language edition.

I am quoting first from George Brown, who stated:

Our Lower Canadian friends have agreed to give us representation by population in the Lower House on the express condition that they could have equality in the Upper House. On no other condition could we have advanced a step; and, for my part, I am quite willing they should have it.

This goes back and forth in French and English. I am not sure if it was originally in French, but I am going to quote it in English because that is what I have in front of me.

George-Étienne Cartier stated:

In 1858 I first saw that representation by population, though unsuited for application as a governing principle as between the two provinces, [Upper and Lower Canada], would not involve the same objection if other partners were drawn in by a federation. In a struggle between two—one a weak, and the other a strong party—the weaker could not but be overcome; but if three parties were concerned, the stronger would not have the same advantage; as when it was seen by the third that there was too much strength on one side, the third would club with the weaker combatant to resist the big fighter.

This was greeted with cheers, apparently. I note that he was prescient. Alberta and Quebec have worked closely together throughout the history of the 20th and 21st centuries of this country.

He goes on to say, “I did not entertain the slightest apprehension that Lower Canada’s rights were in the least jeopardized by the provision that in the General Legislature”, by which he means the House of Commons, “the French Canadians of Lower Canada would have a smaller number of representatives than all the other origins combined.”

Finally, I turn to John A. Macdonald. In the same speech in which he refers to the Senate as the chamber of sober second thought, he said, “To the Upper House is to be confided the protection of sectional interests; therefore is it that the three great divisions are there equally represented, for the purpose of defending such interests against the combinations of majorities in the Assembly.”

He goes on to say:

In the formation of the House of Commons, the principle of representation by population has been provided for in a manner equally ingenious and simple. The introduction of this principle presented at first the apparent difficulty of a constantly increasing body until, with the increasing population, it would become inconveniently and expensively large. But by adopting the representation of Lower Canada as a fixed standard—

That is, 65 seats for lower Canada or Quebec, and then the rest based on equally sized ridings.

—as the pivot on which the whole would turn—that province being the best suited for the purpose, on account of the comparatively permanent character of its population, and from its having neither the largest nor least number of inhabitants—we have been enabled to overcome the difficulty I have mentioned.

All of them were in favour of representation by population in the lower House.

The proposal at the time was that Quebec would hold 65 of the 181 seats in the House of Commons, or 36% of the total. This accurately reflected its share of the population. Quebec held 24 of the 72 seats in the Senate, only 33%. This means that Quebec was slightly under-represented in the upper house.

However, the relative population of the provinces has, over time, changed in ways that Sir John A. Macdonald and the other authors of the Constitution did not anticipate. Quebec's population grew considerably, but not as fast as some of the other provinces, including the six that had not yet joined Confederation at that time.

As a result, various amendments were made to section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, where our electoral formula is set out. The formula was adjusted in 1915; otherwise, Prince Edward Island's number of seats would have dropped below four in 1946, then again in 1952, 1975, 1985 and 2012. This year, it is being adjusted again so that Quebec will not lose a seat.

The end result is that Quebec is now represented in the Senate by the exact number of senators that its population would warrant, which is 24 senators out of 105, or 22.9% of the senators for a province with 22.9% of the Canadian population. That seems entirely appropriate to me.

Quebec will never have fewer seats than the number to which its population is entitled. In fact, in the event that Quebec's population dips below 22% of the Canadian total, it would become overrepresented in the Senate, where the numbers would never change regardless of any change to the populations in the provinces. Here, in the House of Commons, we have exactly the same situation, thanks to the anticipated changes to the Constitution, which I hope will be adopted.

There are many other aspects to Canada's seat distribution formula that I find problematic, but in at least one province, Quebec, the initial agreement still works as it should.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to speak to Bill C‑246.

Since the NDP has already introduced a similar bill in the House of Commons, it will be supporting Bill C‑246.

I will talk about what Bill C‑246 does and does not do. For my 10 minutes of speaking time, I hope to cover the entire file.

As we know, for a long time now, since adopting the Sherbrooke declaration under our former leader, Jack Layton, the NDP has always taken steps to ensure that Quebeckers are represented in the House of Commons and that Quebec's weight is not reduced. In fact, that is part of the traditions of our Confederation. There has long been a floor on the provinces' representation. For instance, each of the territories is allocated one member, even if its population does not necessarily justify this level of representation. In the Canadian Confederation, we have always been able to balance size and representation in the House of Commons. We have to ensure that the territories are represented. It is an important principle that has existed since the founding of our country.

There is also a floor for each of the Atlantic provinces. As everyone knows, Prince Edward Island has four seats in the House of Commons even though the province's population justifies maybe half that many.

The idea is to ensure a minimum level of representation in the House of Commons. Nobody is saying that is bad. Prince Edward Island's population is slightly higher than my riding's, but we are operating on the principle that representation cannot be lower than in the Senate. Some people might think that Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick and Newfoundland and Labrador are overrepresented, but if we look at the number of constituents per MP, that representation principle, the existing floor, is maintained. The same goes for Manitoba and Saskatchewan.

Obviously, if we compare representation in British Columbia, in a riding like mine with 130,000 residents, to representation in other provinces, such as Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the number of voters per MP is much lower than in mine.

If we look at Quebec, representation for the Quebec nation is about 108,000 people per MP. By comparison, in Manitoba and Saskatchewan, it is between 76,000 and 80,000 people.

This has been a long-standing principle of our Confederation, and so has the flexibility it allows in terms of representation, which is why the NDP supports Bill C‑246. It is precisely so that Quebec and the Quebec nation can be assured of a minimum of representation in the House of Commons. It just makes sense. There is nothing unusual about this, and the NDP has been advocating for it since we adopted the Sherbrooke declaration. We have even introduced bills to that effect and have always supported similar bills, even when they come from another party. We support this principle. That covers what is in Bill C‑246.

Now I want to talk about what is not in the bill, specifically the whole question of proportional representation. As everyone knows, the NDP has been fighting for proportional representation for quite some time. Yes, we can talk about a certain number of seats for the Quebec nation, the provinces and the territories, but we also really need to look at how these members will be elected.

As we all know, the House of Commons is not elected by proportional representation, and it is unfortunate that Bill C-246 does not include this crucial element. Consequently, not every vote counts.

Because there is no proportional representation, the NDP has been under-represented in Quebec since the last federal election. We should have seven additional members. In other words, based on how Quebeckers voted, they should be represented in the House by eight NDP members. With proportional representation, we would have had eight members from Quebec elected to the House. Other parties would have had fewer. For example, the Bloc Québécois would have had seven fewer members. Without proportional representation in the House, the Bloc is overrepresented, but the NDP is under-represented.

The NDP will of course continue to advocate for this important model. We know that the Liberals, the Conservatives and the Bloc Québécois will not support proportional representation because each of those parties benefits from the current electoral system and from the fact that every vote does not necessarily count. For a long time, these parties have always pushed for maintaining the current electoral system even though it is detrimental to voters. I would say that it is particularly detrimental to Quebeckers, as they see that certain parties are overrepresented and the NDP is under-represented.

We went through this in 2015. The Prime Minister rose to say that it was the last time we would have an election with the existing electoral system and that it would be replaced with a proportional voting system. We know very well that it was one of the many Liberal Party promises that he soon forgot about.

Proportional representation is a key element that is not in Bill C‑246, but it is something we must consider if we want to make our institutions more democratic and more effective. The principle that each vote should count is important, no matter whether it is the vote of someone in Shawinigan or in Sherbrooke. I certainly hope that one day, we will have a House of Commons where the number of votes the NDP wins in Quebec is reflected in the number of NDP MPs here in the House.

If we were to implement proportional representation, there were certainly be fewer representatives from the other parties in the House, either from Quebec or from elsewhere in Canada. Furthermore, this voting system would promote co-operation among the parties. We need a system in which all parties can collaborate and work together. Other countries that use a proportional representation system often find that this kind of collaboration creates an environment that fosters innovation, leading to more social services and the adoption of more innovative policies and bills.

[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—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Order. I must inform the hon. member that his time has expired. He was given a little more time, and I know that everyone was very interested in his speech.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Drummond.

[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.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to order made Thursday, November 25, 2021, the recorded division on the motion stands deferred until Wednesday, June 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Sitting Suspended

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, Carol Hughes]

The House will now be suspended to the call of the Chair.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:49 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12:03 p.m.)

The House resumed from June 6 consideration of the motion that Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (representation in the House of Commons), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Constitution Act, 2022 (representation of Quebec)

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

Pursuant to order made on Thursday, November 25, 2021, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at second reading stage of Bill C-246 under Private Members' Business.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #140

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

I declare the motion lost.

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, International Development; the hon. member for Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, Health; the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship.