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.

Opposition Motion—Immigration Levels

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague. I will never be able to congratulate him enough on the fact that his French is improving every day. It is a praiseworthy achievement. I think that it is the first time my colleague has spoken in French for 20 minutes, and I congratulate him.

My leader took the floor earlier and explained that there were three options before us. One of them is that they have their thresholds in Canada, we have ours in Quebec, and they are different. Looking at the thresholds as they are now, there is a difference between the demographics of Quebec and the demographics of the rest of Canada.

On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, the hon. member for Drummond tabled Bill C‑246, in which we asked the government to guarantee that Quebec's number of seats in the House never drop below 25%. The bill was rejected, however.

Prince Edward Island, for example, has four members, and apparently the rest of Canada is fine with that. When Quebec asks for 25% of the seats in the House because it believes it deserves them, the government says no.

Would that not have been a solution? We might not be having the same debate today.

Motions in Amendment

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

I would like her to explain something. On March 2, the Bloc Québécois moved a motion that my colleague supported. The motion sought to maintain Quebec's political weight and not have it lose a seat. The Bloc Québécois then presented Bill C‑246, which was along the same lines as the motion that my colleague supported, but she voted against it.

Today, the government is trying to salvage the situation with Bill C‑14. This bill seeks to preserve the number of seats, but not the political weight, because other seats could be added for other provinces outside Quebec.

I would like my colleague to explain why she voted for the Bloc Québécois motion and then voted against the Bloc Québécois bill.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

You are not taking my power of persuasion into account, Madam Chair, and you may change your mind.

This will come as no surprise to anyone. I would like to propose an amendment to Bill C-14. You should all have received the text of the amendment in both languages.

I propose that clause 2 of Bill C‑14 be amended by adding the following after line 14, page 1:

(2) Subsection 51(1) of the Act is amended by adding the following after rule 4: 4.1 After the application of rules 1 and 2 and section 51A, there shall in respect of Quebec be added any additional members needed so that, after the completion of the readjustment, the total number of members for that province is not less than 25% of the total number of members in the House of Commons.

You have already heard my speech about this. I am just going to summarize my comments, which pretty much cover the subject.

First, this amendment is fundamental and necessary to protect Quebec's political weight. Quebec is a nation. Some will say it is a distinct society, but everyone agrees that there is a specificity that must be protected both for Quebec and for Quebeckers: the fact that we are under constant threat because of factors associated with Quebec's unique geographic features. I'm not talking about a threat in the sense of aggression, meaning that we are mistreated. What I mean is that we are in a situation that makes the continued existence of our nation problematic. For that reason, among others, we are asking for a guarantee that 25% will be a minimum to be retained until Quebec is independent, probably.

It's necessary to guarantee that minimum because Quebec must be properly represented in Ottawa. Some people have argued that this could apply equally to Alberta or British Columbia, for example. The House of Commons has assigned the “nation” label to Quebec. We asked it, by way of a motion, to recognize not only the existence of a Quebec nation, but also the fact that French is the common language. A very large majority of members—I don't have the figures at hand—voted in favour of that motion.

Words have to have meaning. That is parliamentarianism. We don't stop talking, but we also act. We develop bills that come out of our discussions and the considerations we bring before the House. It has to be visible. We have to put our money where our mouths are.

As well, we proposed a motion in the House of Commons in March 2022, which I will summarize very simply. The aim of the motion was to amend two items relating to electoral maps. First, it sought to reject any scenario that would result in Quebec losing members. You are familiar with the history: since 1966, no province has lost members. But after the calculations done by Elections Canada concerning the assignment of seats, we saw that the number of members had dropped from 78 to 77. That was unacceptable, and we said so. Second, the motion went further and stated that the political weight of Quebec in the House of Commons must not be allowed to be reduced.

I could have cited figures for you, because they are available. I will simply say that over the years, the number of seats in the House of Commons assigned to Quebec has gone from 33% of the total number of seats to about 23%, and that percentage is continuing to decline. Even if we take what Bill C-14 is proposing into account, Quebec's political weight will decline, despite the fact that the number of members will be kept at 78.

A constitutional expert, in fact the only one, testified before the committee and told us that we didn't need the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population to make this change.

The minister defended himself at length on this subject. I can't quote his words exactly, and I don't want to misrepresent them. In any event, I have too much respect for the intelligence of committee members to start saying just anything. However, it seems to me that I heard him say that since this issue applied to only one province, Parliament could not make the change without the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. He added that Parliament did not have the power to act in this situation, and that he had therefore ruled this out from the start. I think I have summarized his comments properly.

Patrick Taillon, the constitutionalist, told us at the same meeting that we could make this change without amending the Constitution, since any amendment to the Constitution had to be with the agreement of seven provinces representing 50% of the population. He is the only expert who appeared here to offer an explanation on this subject and answer our questions.

Right off, I will tell you that this carries considerable weight. The minister mentioned two other people. I would have liked to meet them, those people, and talk with them.

There's a difference between writing an opinion and defending the opinion before the committee, whether virtually or in person.

I'm not saying there was a lack of organization; I'm stating the facts. He is the only constitutional expert who came here.

As well, that constitutional expert went further and stated that Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons had atrophied. That is very disturbing going forward. It is another fact that we must not ignore.

I am finishing, Madam Chair, but I really want to do things properly, because this is an extremely important issue for Quebeckers.

At the last meeting, I talked about what had opened the door to adding clauses to a constitutional text, and I will repeat that. Since 1987, the courts have recognized that exceptions exist to ensure effective representation and that Parliament has the power to adopt measures for that purpose.

I'm going to mention a few facts. In 1987, this issue was taken before the British Columbia courts. The Supreme Court recognized the fundamental principle of effective representation as a right guaranteed to electors by the charter. Effective representation includes two conditions. First, there must be relative equality, so that the weight of an elector's vote is not disproportionate in relation to another elector's.

Mr. Vis mentioned that at the last meeting, correctly, and wondered why his vote would count for less than another elector's elsewhere. As a general rule, that principle is accepted, but there are times when an individual's political weight changes somewhat, although not astronomically. This isn't about doubling or tripling the number of members for a province. In a case like that, what Mr. Vis said would have been really very important.

In the case before us, we don't want Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons to go from 23% to 30% or 35% or 40%. As Mr. Taillon said, it's possible to make minor changes. I would point out that there are precedents. The senatorial clause, the grandfather clause and the territory clause have been inserted. Changes have been made in the past.

The second condition I referred to deals with respect for natural communities. In other words, factors like geographic characteristics, history and the interests of communities must be taken into consideration.

Based on all of this, I submit that what is proposed in the amendment is in the realm of the possible. In fact, it is in our interest to do this in Bill C-14, because the objective is to reflect Quebec's political weight. Why take baby steps when we can do the work rigorously and ensure that the bill recognizes the need to protect Quebec's political weight, given its exceptional nature? I don't mean that Quebec is better than the other provinces. It's not about Quebec nationalism. Nor am I saying that Quebeckers are better than the other citizens of Canada. You will never hear me say such a thing. We are neither better nor worse than them. It's not that I don't like the citizens in the rest of Canada, but Quebec is different from the other provinces. Our language and our culture, to name just those two characteristics, make up part of our difference, and I want to be sure that this difference is respected.

I will conclude by saying, as the minister also stated, that the opinions of constitutional experts diverge regarding the possibility of making these changes. I would note that our colleague Martin Champoux, the member for Drummond, tabled Bill C‑246, on which we voted yesterday. It is precisely the job of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to determine whether the bill complies with the guidelines adopted by the House of Commons for making the changes proposed by the House of Commons bill. Bizarrely, the subcommittee approved the idea that Bill C‑246, which has exactly the same objective as the objective of my amendment, was a possible mechanism for the Parliament of Canada and the House of Commons without the need to resort to all sorts of other procedures.

I have a lot of respect for the work done by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. If I am told that it isn't possible to make these changes, that means that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is not doing its work properly. I have deep respect for the chair and the members of the committee. I know them well, because I have sat on this committee since 2019. I then gave my seat to my brave colleague, Ms. Gaudreau, who represents the riding of Laurentides—Labelle.

For these reasons, I invite you to take into consideration the fact that the Quebec nation is precious and fragile.

The song Le plus beau voyage by Claude Gauthier is a tribute to Quebec's difference. I invite the committee members to listen to it. In the song, Mr. Gauthier talks about a “race in peril”, but that means “people in peril”. That is what we are experiencing in Quebec.

Honestly, I am not wishing for you to experience what Quebeckers are experiencing. Every day, we get up and go into combat to protect our language and our culture, and to ensure that the only francophone state in North America is able to live and survive. We want to make sure that our children and our grandchildren and great-grandchildren never say

“Do you remember when we were French?”

I'm finished, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

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.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

Madam Chair, through you, I now want to refer to the private member's bill, Bill C-246, and quote Emmett Macfarlane again. He said, “Once you start violating representation by population and you are actually enacting policy or constitutional change to protect one province over the interests of the others”—these are Mr. Macfarlane's words—“I think that's when constitutional amendment becomes required and it would be more than just Parliament unilaterally doing it”.

I think what we've heard here is that, going by the census, Quebec currently represents just under 23% of Canada's population, yet, what's being proposed in Bill C-246 would guarantee Quebec no less than 25%, regardless of the population decline.

Would that require and trigger the amending formula? I guess what I really want to ask is, what challenges do you foresee holding up this process, if that were the case? It seems that doing this through a private member's bill could create quite a few challenges. Could you speak to that, Minister, through the chair?

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—

[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.

[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.

[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.

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.

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to speak to this very important issue, which, in a way, was brought forward by the Bloc Québécois. People can say what they will, but the fact is that we devoted an opposition day to this very subject on March 2.

It was the Bloc Québécois that got a motion adopted, with an overwhelming majority, calling on the House to reject any federal electoral map redistribution scenario that would result in the loss of one or more electoral districts in Quebec or a reduction in Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons. The motion called on the government to take action to change the seat distribution formula for the House of Commons.

At the time, some people were surprised that the Bloc Québécois was using its opposition day to discuss the issue. We were told that we were wasting our time, that we could not change anything because it was up to the Chief Electoral Officer to make such decisions and that it was a mathematical formula, so why bother.

I rose to revisit the redistribution planned a decade ago that eliminated the riding that I represent today. Some may say that it is superficial, but that is one of the speeches that has garnered the most attention on my Facebook page. I think that shows that people in Quebec really care about this subject, especially people back home in the Gaspé and the Lower St. Lawrence.

When the Chief Electoral Officer made the announcement, I did not hear a lot of parties in the House of Commons cry foul or say that that they wanted to protect Quebec's political weight at all costs. I only heard members from the Bloc Québécois. In Quebec, we heard the Government of Quebec, who agreed with us.

Finally, I think that the Bloc MPs, with their speeches, ended up raising awareness because, a few weeks later, the government showed up with Bill C‑14. It seems like good news that the government is finally interested in this and is offering a solution. However, when we take another look, we see that something is missing.

The government wants to protect what we have gained and Quebec's 78 seats in the House. That is very good. That is good news. The kicker is that the math is off yet again. The focus is on the number of seats instead of on the political weight, and there is a fundamental difference between the two.

What we understand from this bill is that Quebec will never have fewer than 78 seats. That becomes a minimum of sorts. However, we also understand that the legislation will do nothing to prevent seats from being added in other provinces based on the results of demographic calculations. It is great that we are not losing any seats, but one seat could be added in Ontario, one in British Columbia and three in Alberta, which would mean that Quebec's political weight would drop anyway.

The House has already recognized that Quebec is a nation unto itself. In order for Quebec to take its rightful place and in order for its voice to be heard and taken into account, it needs to maintain its political weight. That is essential, particularly at a time when we have to once again fight to defend and protect our French language. In Quebec, we are accustomed to fighting for our values. Unfortunately, it has practically become a way of life for us.

Members should understand that the representation of a nation and a people goes beyond a simple demographic calculation. Its plans, desires and unique characteristics must be taken into account, as must its language, environmental concerns and intrinsic values. Of course, we would prefer it if Quebec were free to make its own choices, but in the meantime, we cannot allow it to gradually lose its say in the decisions that affect it.

I believe that meaningful political representation is a key part of a healthy democracy. However, in this bill to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, there are some oversights and vagaries that a calculator just cannot take into account.

Earlier I mentioned that Quebec is starting to get accustomed to always having to fight to defend our language and our political weight. During the last electoral redistribution in 2012, my riding of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapedia was directly targeted. At the time, the Chief Electoral Officer determined that this nearly 15,000-square-kilometre riding should be eliminated because of declining populations in the region. He proposed splitting the riding in two and merging part of the riding with Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques and the other part with Gaspésie—Les Îles‑de‑la‑Madeleine. That move would have created two of the largest ridings by area in all of Quebec.

The proposal was to eliminate my riding without regard for its particularities, for the people who live there, for its uniqueness or for the hours that the member of Parliament would have to travel to meet with their constituents.

As I have said before in the House, my four riding offices are hours of driving away from each other. For example, last Saturday I had to drive four hours to see my constituents and participate in two different activities. This huge riding was supposed to be divided and two even larger ridings created. I think that is the sort of thing that should be taken into consideration. This should be about more than a simple accounting exercise.

Finally, 10 years ago, reason prevailed. A way was found to keep this riding intact. However, 10 years later, even with Bill C-14, we are still at the same point, because I do not think we are approaching the issue from the right angle.

Every region has its own identity that makes it unique; it is not something that can simply be tallied up. It can be seen in special regional traits, in local expressions, in one-of-a-kind communities. I would venture to say that Quebec's representation and political weight is not just something the Bloc cares about. In 2012, when Quebec was about to lose a seat, those who ardently defended it were regionalists. It did not matter what party they belonged to. In fact, one Bloc member and three New Democrats from eastern Quebec fought to defend the weight of their region, and therefore of my region. This March, 262 members of the House supported the Bloc Québécois motion. Unlike Bill C‑14, this motion called for Quebec's political weight to be protected, not just its number of seats. I hope that my colleagues will be consistent when it comes time to vote, and I hope that those who voted against it will change their minds. If Nova Scotia's political weight were under threat, I am sure that Nova Scotian MPs here would stand up for their region. That is exactly what we are doing for Quebec.

Call me an idealist, but I believe that the people of Quebec, especially those of Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, deserve better than to be considered a mere ballot-box accounting exercise.

I said that we are not approaching the issue from the right angle and that there are other solutions to consider. The Bloc Québécois offered one up. My very good friend, the member for Drummond, introduced Bill C‑246 to add a new criterion to the seat distribution formula. Basically, it suggests going by a percentage rather than a number of seats. That may seem complicated, but it is easy as pie and, more importantly, realistic. It is called the nation clause. It is similar to the existing Senate clauses and grandfather clauses. Given that Quebec is a nation, this bill would guarantee Quebec 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. In other words, one-quarter of the seats in Parliament would go to one-quarter of the Canadian population, the population of Quebec. This is a simple, sound and clear proposal that establishes a solid base for Quebec's representation in the House.

What I am trying to say is that Quebec's nationhood cannot be quantified. Nationhood can be described, discovered, experienced. Nationhood is language, it is culture, it is the people who live there. It is our desires, our goals, our aspirations.

For Quebeckers, there are some values that are non-negotiable. We believe that gender equality is essential in a society that considers itself to be egalitarian, and that climate change must be tackled now for the generations that will follow us, so all can live in a healthy environment.

We believe that everyone has the right to receive dignified and proper health care; that seniors have the right to the respect they deserve; that first nations must be treated with dignity and respect, be considered as equals and be dealt with on a nation-to-nation basis. We believe that our vibrant and sustainable businesses are the driving force in an economy that addresses our environmental concerns; that all individuals, no matter their sexual orientation or gender identity, have the right to love and live as they choose; that women have the right to choice, to any choice.

Quebec is all that and more. These are values that are not exclusive to the nation that we are, and I realize that. However, they are the values that we stand up for in the House. They are the values that make us who we are. In order for us to represent them, to defend them well, and to ensure that they are heard in this place, Quebec's political weight deserves to be maintained.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Battle River—Crowfoot on his speech. I am not disappointed at having voted in favour of the motion so that he could be heard.

Let me draw a parallel between Bill C‑14, which we are debating this evening, and Bill C‑246, which I recently introduced in the House of Commons. There is a link, a parallel between the two bills. Bill C‑14 obviously stems from the Bloc Québécois bill that I introduced regarding Quebec's political weight within Canada.

My colleague voted against the March 2 motion moved by the Bloc, which said more or less the same thing as our bill. The goal is to recognize that Quebec is a nation and that, as a nation, it must be given the tools to be able to properly represent itself for as long as it chooses to be part of this Parliament.

Does my colleague agree that Quebec is a nation and that, notwithstanding the inequities, injustices or inequalities there may be between the provinces, Quebec should have the tools to protect its unique identity?

Constitution Act, 1867

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding electoral representation.

As the member for Calgary Shepardmentioned, this is a bit of an “inside baseball” bill, in the sense that the bill itself and its implications are relatively simple, yet important. I am going to use my time today to talk about the bill, the reasons behind it, and other political implications and choices related to representation.

Every 10 years, the Chief Electoral Officer reviews demographic changes and allocates the number of seats for each province. He determines whether electoral boundaries should be readjusted to reflect population shifts within a province. Section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 sets out the formula for the distribution of seats in the House of Commons among the provinces after each decennial census. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides for drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in each province.

Electoral boundaries must be readjusted whenever a province's representation changes, or when there have been significant population fluctuations in a province, such as a shift from rural to urban areas. The redistribution of electoral boundaries is a federal matter controlled by Parliament.

In October 2021, the Chief Electoral Officer, based on population trends over the past 10 years, set the distribution of seats. The number of seats in the House of Commons was increased from 338 to 342, with British Columbia and Ontario gaining one seat each, Alberta gaining three and Quebec losing one.

This legislation being introduced today amends that decision, as is the ability of Parliament, by creating a constitutional floor: The number of seats any province or territory had in the 43rd election will be the new constitutional floor. The practice of maintaining a certain number of seats in the House of Commons for provinces whose populations were declining in comparison to the national average has been done before.

First, in 1914, the senatorial clause was introduced to ensure that no province would ever have fewer members of Parliament than its number of senators. The second constitutional protection is what is known as the grandfather clause, which came into effect under the Representation Act of 1985. It amended the formula for determining seats and guaranteed that, regardless of what the population of a province or territory might be in the future, it would be constitutionally protected by having no fewer than the seats it had in the House of Commons in 1986.

I should add that a series of adjustments were made between 1914 and 1986 to protect and attempt to ensure equal treatment of the provinces and territories. Initially, the total number of seats was calculated by dividing the population of each province by a fixed number called the electoral quotient, which was itself calculated by dividing the population of the province of Quebec by 65.

The one exclusion to this was called “the one-twentieth rule”, under which no province could lose seats in electoral redistribution unless its share of the national population had decreased by at least 5%, or one twentieth, between the last two censuses. This was appealed in 1946 on the basis of Quebec's desire for representation by population. I may just add that I find it a bit ironic today that we are here debating and driving legislation that would have been a completely different narrative from what those Quebec MPs would have taken in 1940.

All members of Parliament go and research before we come before the House to talk about the principles of the legislation before us. I want to give a tip of the cap to the folks in the House of Commons who have a very detailed history of electoral redistribution and the dynamic of how the number of seats in the House of Commons has changed over time. I give a tip of the cap to the researchers and the folks involved with the House of Commons.

This bill simply does what has already been done many times, which is amend the formula in the Constitution to grandfather the number of seats that existed during the 2021 election. We have already had debates during this session about the possibility of Quebec losing a seat. There seemed to be a consensus about the importance of Quebec's representation and the preservation of its language, culture and identity within Canada.

I am not opposed to the legislation before us, but I want to take this opportunity to put it on the record that I have concerns about the number of MPs that will be added to the House of Commons and to speak to Bill C‑246.

I asked this of the last Conservative member when I stood to ask a question on his remarks. At what point do we consider limiting the number of seats in the House of Commons? I did some research coming into this and found that, historically over time, there was contemplation that by 2001 we would have 400 members of Parliament. Today, we have 338. It is an open question that will inevitably have to be explored beyond the physical dynamics of the House of Commons and how many members of Parliament we can have in this space. It will also be about parliamentary privilege, and allowing individuals to have the space to bring forward issues to debate. Sometimes it is crowded to get on the agenda and to bring remarks forward in this place, because members of Parliament are doing that job.

It is interesting. Right now, in the House of Commons in the U.K., there are 650 members of Parliament. Is that something we want to see in Canada? Is that something that Canadians expect? I do not have the answer, but I pose it as a question here today. It also has a dynamic for how Parliament works. Relatively, when a government forms, whether it be a minority or a majority situation, there might be 150-odd members of Parliament in the government caucus or maybe just over 170, in today's dynamic. If there all of a sudden were 300 government caucus MPs, what would that mean for the dynamic in terms of independence for members of Parliament, their ability to speak and their ability to support the government, but also their ability to bring forward important issues? When we look at how the House of Commons operates in London, there are similarities to here but there are also differences. I raise that for consideration.

I also want to talk about rural members of Parliament. I have a riding that I am very proud to represent. It is 5,000 square kilometres. It is by no means small, but I consider myself lucky compared with other members of Parliament. My good friend in Central Nova has about 10,000 square kilometres to cover. My hon. colleague for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity has a 16,000-square-kilometre riding. That is a lot of territory to cover. We have to be mindful, with respect to all of the electoral redistribution, of the point at which a member of Parliament just becomes too far stretched to adequately represent the communities they are expected to represent in this place, in terms of their presence in the riding, their ability to connect and their ability to physically drive or travel.

Indeed, I have given a couple of examples. I know there are even more challenging circumstances for other members of Parliament, particularly in northern Canada as well.

I want to talk about Nova Scotia's proportionate share. Indeed, I have a colleague beside me from Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the member for Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, as well. As we continue to add seats in this place, yes, some provinces are protected constitutionally in the number of members of Parliament that they will have in the House. In Nova Scotia's example, we will never have any less than 11 members of Parliament, but 11 members of Parliament out of 338 is a certain dynamic and 11 members among 500 members of Parliament is a much smaller proportionate share of the voice that we can bring forward as a province in this dynamic.

We had an opposition day motion from the Bloc Québécois, and I will take the opportunity to speak to Bill C-246 in a moment. The Bloc and the House were strong on maintaining the seats, but they want to make sure that 25% of the House of Commons seats would always be preserved for Quebec. My question is, and I have said it to the Bloc, why do we not look at capping eventually, maybe to 360, 380, or 400? Let us actually look at eventually capping the number of members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Every province and territory in this country has their constitutional protections in force. This would allow there to be a stable footing for some of the things we have talked about.

Yes, the Bloc members want 25%, but as I pointed out to them, if they would have pushed to say let us cap it at 350 members of Parliament, they would have their constitutional floor from today's legislation, assuming it passes, which I am confident it will. They would have been protected at 22%, and that could have been a way to ensure that we do preserve Quebec language, culture and the unique identity within Canada.

I want to speak to Bill C-246. The member of Parliament for Drummond has brought this forward. In essence it not only protects Quebec's 78 seats, but also mandates a requirement that Quebec never have any less than 25% of a proportion of the seats in the House of Commons, regardless of what happens and regardless of the population of the province.

To my sovereignist colleagues across the way, their job is not to protect the identity of Canada. Indeed, they want to separate from Canada, so I would never expect them to do something that is actually beneficial for bringing Canadians together. In fact, sometimes I would argue they would like to wedge and drive divisions in Canada, but we have to understand what this actually represents.

This would not just be a change that could be done within Parliament. This would require a constitutional amendment that would mean a 7/50 formula. For those Canadians who are at home and wondering what the heck the 7/50 is, it essentially means that on constitutional changes such as this, we would have to get the approval of seven of 10 provinces that represent at least 50% of the Canadian population. That is a very high threshold to be able to achieve. That is what we expect to be the legal standard on Bill C-246 if it were to move forward. It is an open question about whether it will, but again in principle, this is problematic.

That type of bill would open up a lot of division in this country, and I think we are all standing here today recognizing Quebec's unique identity within Canada. I do not want to say we are all committed, but I know on this side of the House we are committed to keeping 78 seats in Quebec. In fact, we are protecting everyone right now with a new constitutional floor on the basis of population in 2021, including in Nova Scotia.

Again, this is a continuation of where we already were, but the idea of saying absolutely, regardless of population, despite population decline, they will get 25%, is not ever going to work in this country. It will never pass. It is being introduced in a way to create divide and to try to, I would argue, re-establish the argument about separation in Quebec, which frankly, the Bloc Québécois will know right now is not really high on the agenda, but they are trying to drive that type of narrative.

I think this Parliament understands the importance of Quebec and its political representation in this place. As I have said before, looking at the number of cabinet ministers and their influence, whether they be the Prime Minister or key ministers in the government, Quebec plays an important role in the government of Canada, in this place and, indeed, within the country.

I want to make sure that all members of Parliament get the opportunity to speak on this. It was an absolute privilege to be able to do some of the research and look into the legislation.

I will just take an opportunity to thank the minister of intergovernmental affairs for bringing this forward. He, of course, also holds the portfolio of the minister for communities and infrastructure. What a tremendous job to balance two very difficult portfolios, so I thank him on the record for his leadership within the government and for his continued advocacy for the people of Beauséjour. I do believe that he is going on 20-plus years in Parliament, which is, I think, a tremendous commitment to public service.

Of course, my predecessor Scott Brison also served for 21 years in this place. It shows that these individuals are committed to making a difference for their constituents, Canada and the world.

I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues, who I watched today as they listened with utmost curiosity, having detailed questions for me to answer in just a moment.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Liberal member who just laughed thinks it is funny to hear me say that we are a unique nation. Each nation is unique. What has he just figured out? I would like to know.

We tabled Bill C-246, which would finally solve this aspect of the problem. Quebec would be guaranteed 25% of the political weight. That would halt the decline of Quebec's political weight in the House.

Trying to prevent a decrease in the number of members while allowing for an increase in the total number of members is like drowning someone in a bath. We can take the person's head and shove it under water, or we can turn on the tap and get the same result slowly. That is what we are proposing.

What people need to understand is that Quebec and Quebeckers want to be better represented here. I will give an example. In 2011, Mr. Harper was elected by a majority, without Quebec's support. That is how bizarre things have gotten. It is possible to form a majority government in Canada with only five members from Quebec. That is crazy. Say that our political weight decreases. A member from any given party could stand up and say that he or she does not need what Quebeckers are asking for. Things are different where this member lives because Quebec is a nation, but he or she does not care because it is possible to form a majority government without Quebec's support. That is a serious problem.

People need to understand that Quebec is a nation, and that it is only by guaranteeing its political weight that our needs will be listened to, our desires will be heard, and the decisions made by the government will always take Quebec's desires, wants and needs into account. That is what is important.

I will say this in conclusion. We tabled a motion, and the Bloc Québécois's position is very clearly illustrated in the motion. We are not hiding anything. We are saying that we cannot have fewer members, and we do not want less political power.

That is why we are saying that we should be discussing the bill we worked on, Bill C-246, rather than Bill C-14. Our bill is in keeping with the motion adopted by a large majority in the House.

I hope that the members will understand that we need to go further and we need to work better.