That's all right. It's my turn. It's better than the other time, when you only gave me 30 seconds. I'll try to take advantage of this.
We're dealing with the Carter judgment from 1991. It is true that that decision concerned a province, but it mainly concerned the issue of representation. There is nothing more important in Canada than to be well represented in Parliament. In fact, section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, clearly provides that proportionality is the first principle. However, in our minds, Carter added some subtle distinctions to that section. It asserts the fact that our charter, which is part of the Constitution Act, 1982, requires us to ensure that representation in Canada is effective and fair.
We have seen that it is not just the number of voters that counts in Canada. We cannot rely merely on that principle in Canada. We are not like the United States. This is not like in other countries. There are interests across Canada that must be represented in Parliament. The idea is not to determine whether there will be 100,000 voters or 150,000 voters, but rather what we want to put in Parliament, what will be represented. We are really guided by the Constitution Act, 1867, and that of 1982. There are things that are clearly stated in those enactments. There is the Senate floor. There is the principle of representation, which is clearly established in section 42. Carter also tells us that there are geographic conditions and communities of interest. There are also other interests that we must acknowledge. We have to go much further.
I appreciate what Ms. Barbot has proposed. It is true that the Quebec nation must be represented in a particular way in the Parliament of Canada. We cannot overlook that fact. Why would we have adopted the motion in 2006 stating that Quebec is a nation if that is to be merely an abstraction? There must be effective representation. I find it hard to see how a proposal that has the effect of weakening Quebec's representation can be credible enough and respect what Parliament itself declared barely five years ago.
I think it's important that the seats be distributed in a carefully thought out manner. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly requires that we follow the process in full, which Carter also asserted. Is there a need to maintain the distribution as it has been in Canada for decades? Must we represent our cultural communities and the nations that are present in Canada? We must do that.
It has been said that the proposals presented to us are potentially unconstitutional. Note that section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states that we must do what is necessary in a free and democratic society such as ours. After seeing the proposals of certain other parties, I honestly think we are utterly disregarding our constitutional obligation. I do not at all agree with my Liberal Party colleague, who says we are moving ahead with a proposal that could be unconstitutional. In fact, what is important is to think carefully. We are not in a hurry; the next election will be held in 2015.
Our Green Party witness clearly told us that we had enough time. When we had a number of successive elections, we were in a hurry because there was always a possibility that an election would be triggered in the next few months. However, there will now be no elections for four years. If we follow what the Conservatives say, or at least what Parliament has recently adopted, the dates are fixed. We therefore have the luxury of being able to reflect carefully on what we are doing, and we are not in a hurry. We must go through the entire process calmly and think carefully. That is what Carter has suggested to us. It was the Supreme Court that ruled in that matter. That is no minor authority.
Now I would like to change topics. My next question is for Ms. Barbot.
Let's go back to your comment on the representation of the Quebec nation, which very much moved me. I would like to know what you think about the representation of the other communities of interest across Canada. I'm thinking, among others, of the Franco-Ontarians, of which I am one. I'm a native of Ontario, and I sincerely believe that the Franco-Ontarians have been mistreated in the history of the Canadian federation. Their rights must be asserted. They have to be well represented in Parliament. There are also the Acadians. As I am now from Gaspé, it seems clear to me that the Acadians—
How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?