Thank you.
First, you are quite right in stressing the Senate's important role regarding the use of the French language in the Canadian Parliament.
Of course, the Senate has a historical role regarding the presentation of Canada's linguistic duality, with the presence of two official languages, French and English, as both languages are used in many federal institutions, especially in the Senate. This is something very important for us, especially as francophones and Acadians all over Canada are afraid that if the Senate were to be reformed in the sense set forth by Bill C-20, it would eventually reduce the number of representatives of these francophones in the Canadian Parliament. This would necessarily be a setback for the use of the French language at the federal level of governance.
Moreover, we must emphasize the importance of the Senate for Quebec and for Quebec's representation within the Canadian Parliament. We all know that the Quebec population is not growing rapidly or vigorously enough, which means that Quebec will see its political weight reduced little by little in the Canadian House of Commons, where proportional representation is applied. This is one more reason to ensure that Quebec be well represented in the Senate, that its interests be well served and that we are dealing with a reliable institution that plays an effective role in the Canadian political system. In fact, the Senate can, to a certain extent, mitigate this decrease of Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons, because of Quebec's large share of the Canadian population as a whole.
For us, these are not trifling matters. We are discussing extremely important subjects. Far be it from us to neglect the Senate as an institution fundamental to the Canadian federal system, and especially, I repeat, the role of French on the one hand, and on the other hand, Quebec's specific role in the Canadian Parliament.
That being said, our most fervent wish is that the Canadian government decide on its own to abandon this project, which has taken shape as Bill C-20. If, for some reason or another, it does not intend to abandon it, we hope that it will call upon Canada's Supreme Court to deal with the entire set of issues regarding the constitutional or unconstitutional nature of this bill. Because we are raising issues with the constitutionality of this bill, because certain experts are raising issues about the constitutionality of this bill, it would be wise, I repeat, for the Canadian government to abandon this project. This would be our preferred option, whereby it would address Canada's Supreme Court to get an opinion on the constitutional or unconstitutional nature of this bill.
In my opinion, it is not sufficient to believe that it is constitutional or to believe that it is unconstitutional. In a reform as far-reaching as this one, it would have to be approved by the courts.
Up to now, Quebec reacted strongly to these federal initiatives by tabling two briefs, and I am appearing for the second time on behalf of the Quebec government. I can tell you that if the Canadian government decided to go ahead, the Quebec government would examine all possible scenarios. However, we have not made any firm decisions at this time.
Simply put, we do not see how the Canadian government could do without putting the constitutionality issue before Canada's Supreme Court, given the major impact of any attempt to launch a reform that would ultimately be declared unconstitutional.