Debates of May 18th, 2022

Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I spoke about in my speech, effective representation is one factor that needs to be considered when we consider that some urban ridings may take only 15 minutes to cross from one end of the riding to another versus ridings in the country that could take hours and sometimes a full day to cross to get from one destination to another. Those are factors that also need to be considered with the electoral district redistribution plan, so people in every part of this country can feel that they have effective representation in the House.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging, in one sense, that from what I understand, Bloc members are supporting this bill.

The government, the Liberal caucus, in working with opposition parties, has recognized just how important it is that we make this change, and it is not the first time, as we have seen similar changes made in the past for other regions. However, it is important to maintain the 78 seats, and this legislation will hopefully receive unanimous consent once the chamber votes.

Would the member not, at the very least, acknowledge that this legislation shows a strong sense of commitment to the province of Quebec, and other provinces, which could find themselves in a similar situation going forward?

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

Madam Speaker, it is good to have a minimum, as I said. Our gains are preserved and protected. The bill ensures that Quebec has no less than 78 seats in the House of Commons. That is what the government is proposing in Bill C-14. That is fine. What we are saying, however, is that a little something is still missing.

We get to keep our 78 seats, but if the number of seats in the other provinces continues to increase, our political weight will shrink. That is why I am proposing that we make small changes together, that we have discussions to ensure that Quebec's political weight is respected. Merely keeping the 78 seats, as is currently the case, unfortunately does not maintain Quebec's political weight.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I do not really have a question for the member, but I do have a comment.

I listened carefully to her speech. There were some parts that I agreed with, but we disagree when it comes to political weight. I think that the weight of the population is what matters most for the province. I come from Alberta and we still do not have the number of seats we should have in the House of Commons, based on our demographic weight.

I remind the member that, on March 2, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, sought unanimous consent for the following: “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.”

I think that is where the government got this idea. That is the comment I would like to add to the member's speech.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comments. His French is very good, by the way.

That was kind of the point of my speech, that we cannot rely solely on demographic data. I understand what he is saying. My riding, for example, is nearly 15,000 square kilometres. It is an immense territory. Yes, it will have roughly the same number of constituents as a Montreal riding that occupies three or four square blocks. However, there are special characteristics and different qualities that need to be taken into account. We must not rely on a mathematical calculation alone.

[Richard Cannings, NDP, South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC]

Madam Speaker, as the ultimate bastion of the French language in North America, Quebec plays an important role in the structure of our society.

In the member's opinion, how important is Quebec's representation in the House to the survival of French in Quebec and Canada?

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

Madam Speaker, it is nice to hear my colleagues speak French in the House. That is the point I wanted to make. Canada is bilingual, and that is more or less what we hear.

The mere fact that there are a lot of Bloc Québécois members in the House means that a lot more French is spoken. There are a lot more members who are defending the French language and who want to fight for its survival in Quebec and across Canada.

I think that significant representation like this could be very beneficial for the French language.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, after a few days of trying to deliver my speech in the House, I am pleased to finally rise. I am pleased that the hon. member for Winnipeg North gets to hear it. We had a good conversation about it last night.

I am pleased to rise to speak to Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act. It deals with how a democracy balances representative democracy with effective representation, and that is at the core of our parliamentary traditions.

Canada, as we know, was formed by compromise, as is our version of how we elect representatives in Parliament. While striving to make each vote have the same weight in a country as large as ours, with a population as dispersed as we have, we have to add other factors to how we determine an electoral district.

At Confederation, my province of Nova Scotia had 19 of the 181 seats in the House of Commons, or 10% of all seats. As the House grew to 208 seats in the late 1800s, Nova Scotia's count rose to 21 seats in Parliament, which was still about 10% of the seats. As we continued to grow again, Nova Scotia began seeing a decrease in its seats in the late 1800s, dropping to 16 seats by 1914 as we began to see the expansion of our country further west. In 1914, the Constitution, as we know, was amended to state that a province could not have fewer seats in the House than it had in the Senate. Nova Scotia has maintained its current 11 seats since 1966, one more than the 10 Senate seats allocated to our province at Confederation.

It is also important to remember that we live in a bicameral system of Parliament at the federal level where we have a legislative chamber tasked with reflecting the regional interests of the country. This is why Ontario and Quebec each have 24 senators, while the Maritimes have 24 and the west has 24. Later on in our history a number of others were added for Newfoundland and the territories.

In my home province of Nova Scotia, changes have been proposed to our boundaries, but the total number of seats will not be changing in this round of redistribution. The province has seen rapid growth, especially in the Halifax area, while experiencing an ongoing depopulation in some of the rural areas, which is not unique to our province, of course.

From end to end, my riding takes about four hours to drive, and people may be surprised by that, along the South Shore and through St. Margaret's Bay. That is only if people drive through the Trans-Canada Highway on the 103. If they take the much more scenic lighthouse route, it will take them a lot longer, but I would encourage people to try to do that.

While my riding may not be the largest in geographic size in Canada, it does highlight the tension inherent in larger ridings when it comes to effective representation. Balancing the need of a member of Parliament's ability to represent communities of interest is an extremely important part of drawing electoral boundaries.

That was reinforced by the Supreme Court of Canada in its ruling of the attorney general for Saskatchewan v. Roger Carter in 1991. In that ruling, the Supreme Court stated, “The purpose of the right to vote enshrined in s. 3 of the Charter is not equality of voting power per se but the right to 'effective representation.'” It goes on to say, “Effective representation and good government in this country compel that factors other than voter parity, such as geography and community interests, be taken into account in setting electoral boundaries.”

What this means is that for elected officials to provide effective representation, we take a different approach than the one we see in the United States, with its emphasis on representation by population. Ours is on community interest and geography. Large geography, like the north or even like my mostly rural riding, requires a different time and focus than it does for a suburban or urban member of Parliament.

As an example, I have 11 municipalities; that is 11 mayors and all of the councillors. I have more than 11 legions, and almost 12,000 square kilometres to cover. It is not as large as the riding of the previous speaker from Quebec, but it is still a large area to cover.

Indeed, in the run-up to the last election, as I was campaigning, I drove 42,000 kilometres in that campaign and walked 800 kilometres. If we compare that with a GTA riding, and I have lived part of my life in the GTA, that can be as small as five to 10 minutes to drive across or maybe even just two exits on the Gardiner Expressway. My point is that effective representation must be top of mind when it comes to this type of tweak in our electoral system and our representation. In my mind, this bill does that. I know the member for Winnipeg North will be happy to hear me say that.

The grandfathering clause of 1985 basically ensured that provinces would never have fewer seats than they had in 1985, which was 282 nationally, 11 of which were in Nova Scotia. This was to ensure that in the future no provinces would lose any seats despite the change in growth patterns. This bill essentially amends that provision of 1985 by the Mulroney government by bringing it up to the number in 2021 as the minimum number of seats.

It is great to see that in this bill the Liberals are actually protecting the essence of the Fair Representation Act, passed in 2011 under Prime Minister Stephen Harper. Despite their criticism of these changes at the time, I think it is wonderful to see the government acknowledge that what Stephen Harper brought in still works and is indeed fair.

It is also wonderful to see that this bill reflects the unanimous consent motion that was moved by the Conservative deputy leader, which states, “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.” I am glad the government has acted accordingly. It is clear that the unanimous consent motions that are moved after question period, which we have seen a lot of lately, sometimes are not simply words but do indeed impact the tone of this place and can result in change.

The Conservatives will always push the needle in this place when it comes to advocating for the legislation Canadians want. At the end of the day, Canadians want their fair share. They want to have effective representation so they feel they are not separated from the people they sent to Ottawa to represent them. They do not want to drive for hours to the constituency office. My main constituency office is an hour and a half from one end and two hours from the other, so I had to open up a few other constituency offices in the riding for the first time, as previous members had not done that, to make it more convenient. Constituents do not want to be forgotten by the political establishment of this place in the riding just because they have a long way to go, which is why we need the tweaking under this bill.

Coming out of this pandemic, we are seeing more shifts in population from urban to rural areas. More people are moving out of downtown cores and spreading out into the suburbs and rural parts of this country. Future parliamentarians must remain nimble and always mindful, hopefully, of how these changes will impact their job of effectively representing all Canadians as reflected in our electoral legislation. These shifts are why it is so important that independent commissions are set up every 10 years and that we review and are constantly tinkering with this legislation in order to ensure that we have that balance between proportional representation, community interest and geography.

Canadians should be reminded how important their voices are when it comes to the proposals by their respective boundary commissions. In Nova Scotia, it is a panel of three people who decide the initial proposal, and it is their job to account for the views and feelings of those in our community. We look forward to those public hearings.

This legislation protects the legacy of the Fair Representation Act, ensures that no province will ever decrease in the number of seats it has, and does as little tweaking as possible while upholding, as well as it can, the balance of the principle of effective representation. These are standards that we should and must set for how the electoral map shapes up in the future.

I will be supporting this bill.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)]

Madam Speaker, one of the things I heard the member talk about, which I honestly was not familiar with, was the Supreme Court ruling with respect to communities of interest in the makeup of the ridings. I wonder if he could tell the House a bit more about that ruling, how it came to be and what the issue was leading up to it.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, it was a ruling with regard to redistribution that was done in the province of Saskatchewan. It was challenging the way the makeup of that redistribution was done, and whether or not it was truly reflecting representation through population or a demographic approach. It went all the way to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court looked back at the history of what we had done since Confederation, and the variations of the constitutional amendments that we made. It then said that, because of the geography in our original intent, in a country as large as Canada at that time and certainly today with a sparse population, we had to bring other issues into play, such as communities that had similar perspectives.

For example, in my riding, Shelburne County, Queens County and Lunenburg County are all known as the South Shore, and have been for about 270 years. There is a history behind the British settlement that is reflected in the values and makes it easier for whoever represents my riding, or the member's riding, for example. Having a community interest allows the member of Parliament to reflect those views a little more easily than if we had diametrically opposed views. The Supreme Court said we have to take—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

We have to give other opportunities for questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Courtenay—Alberni.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I really love my colleague's riding and enjoy talking to him about protecting wild salmon and of course the lobster stocks in his riding. However, today we are talking about a very important issue. We know the bill is not perfect. I am glad to hear that my Conservative colleague is going to be supporting the bill, because we certainly wanted to see the bill come forward as part of the supply agreement with the Liberals.

There is still more work that needs to be done. The bill is not perfect. Does my colleague agree that we need to work harder together not only to safeguard the number of seats in Quebec, but also the proportion of seats in Quebec, as well?

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague and note that his parliamentary assistant is from my riding, so I know he has a great attachment to it, even with family.

With regard to protecting proportions, as I went through in my speech, we see that Nova Scotia has dropped from 21 to 11 seats over the course of Confederation. If we had frozen in time Nova Scotia's proportion of seats at that, I think there would be a lot of members here today who would think that was unfair relative to the way the population has grown.

I do not think it is fair to set a percentage for any particular province on the number of seats it should have that would bind us totally in the future, because we see, over 100 years, the way the population shifts. We try to reflect that as best we can. We have as close as possible the quality of vote while still reflecting the fact that we see now, and will see in the next 100 years, more demographic shifts that will change the weight or influence. It would overweight Nova Scotia's seats if we were still at 21 and Quebec, for example, was at 78.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. I think we can all agree with some of the things he said, including, of course, maintaining the number of seats in Quebec.

However, I would like to draw his attention to the concept of political weight, that is, the percentage of seats among all other seats in Canada. This was ably explained by my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia.

Several members in the House have obviously recognized the Quebec nation. I know that there have already been similar challenges for Nova Scotia's Acadian community and that new proposals have been made to create new ridings for the Acadian community. Certain groups in the community have obtained recognition of their specific characteristics.

That is what we are asking for in the House today and with the Bloc Québécois proposals. We are asking for recognition and respect for the Quebec nation, as well as assurances that we—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but I have to give the other member an opportunity to respond.

The hon. member for South Shore—St. Margarets for about 15 seconds.

[Rick Perkins, Conservative, South Shore—St. Margarets, NS]

Madam Speaker, I know that Quebec and the Bloc Québécois had an opportunity, with the Charlottetown Accord, to enshrine a set percentage of 25% of the seats to Quebec in the Constitution. That was an option for the country. Quebec voted 58% against the Charlottetown Accord in the referendum, and I believe the Bloc Québécois at the time campaigned against the Charlottetown Accord, which enshrined 25%. I find it a little confusing that the Bloc now is asking for something in this legislation that the members actually opposed in terms of how they voted and what they campaigned on in 1992.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House to debate Bill C‑14, which seeks to amend the Constitution Act of 1867 for a very simple purpose: to ensure that no province will have fewer seats than it had in 2021. As a member from Quebec, I want to be sure Quebec will not lose a single seat, which is what Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, the CEO, proposed initially.

As my colleagues are well aware, on October 15, the CEO released a proposal for a new House of Commons seat allocation. The process involved no decisions or discretionary power on the part of the CEO. The seat allocation formula is found in the Constitution Act of 1867. The CEO simply followed the four-step procedure.

I would like to take this opportunity to explain the procedure in detail and talk about the proposed change in our bill.

Step one is to determine the initial provincial seat allocation. To do so, the CEO looks at population estimates provided by Canada's chief statistician. The numbers that apply in this case are from the July 1, 2021, population estimates. The CEO compares these estimates to the previous estimates from 2011. This comparison tells us the average demographic growth across the country.

Then, the population of each province is divided by the new electoral quotient, which provides the initial provincial seat allocation. Calculations at this stage are based solely on total population and demographic change in the provinces to determine proportional seat allocation. This step results in variations in the number of seats. These entirely mathematical variations have caused a number of problems, which is why the second step protects the provinces' minimum number of seats.

First of all, the senatorial clause, which has been in place since 1915, ensures that provinces do not have fewer seats in the House of Commons than they have in the Senate. Accordingly, provinces that received fewer seats in the initial allocation, such as New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, were given additional seats. Over time, it was considered necessary to further strengthen these protections.

That is why Parliament introduced the grandfather clause in 1985, which today prevents provinces from having fewer seats than they had in 1985. Much like the senatorial clause, provinces that receive fewer seats than they had in 1985 are given additional seats. Under this grandfather clause from 1985, Quebec is guaranteed 75 seats. While at the first stage Quebec received 71 seats, the grandfather clause gives it four additional seats, for a total of 75.

This is what brings me to rise and address the House today. Our government is proposing a small but very important update to the grandfather clause. Bill C-14 seeks to amend this part of the Constitution Act of 1867 so that the threshold in the grandfather clause is changed to be based on the 2021 distribution instead of the 1985 one. It is a thoughtful and targeted proposal that will guarantee that no province will have fewer seats than it had in 2021. This means that Quebec will not lose a single seat in this or any future redistribution.

The third step in the formula is the representation rule, which applies to a province whose population was overrepresented in the House of Commons at the completion of the previous redistribution process, but which becomes under-represented following the above calculations. This clause ensures that the share of seats allocated to a province in this situation remains equal to or greater than its share of the Canadian population.

It is absolutely vital that the debates in the House reflect the cultural and linguistic diversity of our country in both content and language. I am proud to repeat, whenever I have the opportunity, that Quebec is a nation within a united Canada. We must ensure that this nation that co-founded our federation continues to have a strong voice in the House, here in Ottawa. Whether through the 35 Liberal MPs from Quebec, the 32 Bloc Québécois members, the 10 Quebec Conservatives or our one Quebec NDP colleague, both Quebec and Canada as a whole will benefit from the contributions of our Quebec delegation in the House.

I say to my esteemed colleagues that our government is committed to recognizing and protecting Quebec as a nation. It is vital that our country preserve our Quebec culture and our French language, and that involves protecting Quebec's representation in all our institutions, including, of course, the House of Commons. Our Bill C-14 does exactly that.

For Quebec, this means that it would retain 78 seats instead of 77. For the other provinces, this gives them a new reference point limiting future decreases based on upcoming demographic changes. It results in the following allocation of seats: four seats for Prince Edward Island instead of two; seven seats for Newfoundland and Labrador instead of five; 10 seats for New Brunswick instead of seven; 11 seats for Nova Scotia instead of nine; 14 seats for Saskatchewan instead of 10; 14 seats for Manitoba instead of 12; 37 seats for Alberta; 43 seats for British Columbia; 78 seats for Quebec instead of 71; 122 seats for Ontario; and, finally, one seat each for Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut, for a total of 343 seats.

This means just one seat would be added to the House of Commons, for a total of 343 seats instead of 342. This proposal reflects the provinces' demographic growth, and it also recognizes the importance of Quebec within our federation. I remind members that this federation was founded on the partnership between two peoples, between what were then known as Upper Canada and Lower Canada, between English-speaking Canada and French-speaking Canada. Because of our history, we have a duty to safeguard and protect this fragile balance. This proposal does not change the way seats are allocated, and it is consistent with other protections that have been established in the past. We are proposing a solution to protect the seats now, before the next election, without amending the Constitution. This would avoid endless constitutional debates that would result in Quebec losing a seat in the interim.

We are proposing a well-thought-out measure, and I encourage my colleagues to support it.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on the member's speech.

This bill is about amending the Constitution. I think what she meant to say was that this is not an amendment that would require the agreement of seven of the 10 provinces, or 50% plus one of the Canadian population.

Speaking of population, Alberta is under-represented in the House based on its democratic weight and the weight of its seats. The member said that there should be 37 members from Alberta. It is true that based on the redistribution carried out under former prime minister Stephen Harper, we have nine new seats in the House that have been added since 2012. In reality, based on Alberta's demographic weight, it should have 40 seats.

I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. What does she see happening in the future? Would she agree with me that we need to ensure the western provinces are well represented in the House?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I greatly appreciate that question. I think that it is absolutely true that we need to continue to protect western representation in the House.

I am also prepared to listen to any proposal my colleague may want to make. I do not know if he proposed an amendment to our Bill C‑14 to that effect, but I would be pleased to discuss that with him.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Outremont for her speech. As people know, I think debate in the House is very important. We have different arguments, but at least we are able to debate them.

That reminds me that, when my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was delivering her speech, my colleague from Winnipeg North did not listen for one second. To add insult to injury, he then asked a question on a speech that he did not listen to.

The question I want to ask my colleague is quite simple. Does this not prove that Quebec's political weight is not important to the Liberals?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I do not agree at all with my colleague on that point. During my 10-minute speech, I talked about how important it is.

Every member of our caucus agrees. Our government introduced this bill because we believe that the political weight is important. As I have said many times, Quebec's representation in the House is paramount. I hope that the Bloc will support our proposal because our bill seeks to ensure that Quebec does not lose any seats in the House. It is important.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know my colleague, the member for Outremont, to be a very strong member of the foreign affairs committee, and I have enjoyed working with her on that committee.

My question is in regard to what she would recommend or what steps we could take to deal with the fact that in Canada we are increasingly seeing urbanization, yet we still have a strong need for rural representation. How do we balance the needs of our rural communities to be well represented with the increasing urbanization of our country?

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for the incredible work she has done on the foreign affairs committee. I would have to agree it is an issue we need to turn our minds to. I can cross my riding, which is in the heart of Montreal, in about an hour. I understand for many of my rural colleague MPs it could take between seven and eight hours to cross their ridings.

Making sure rural Canada is well represented is absolutely a priority. What we are seeing is a demographic shift. I have seen in Quebec, over the course of the pandemic, that many people living in urban centres have moved to more rural areas. We need to continue to follow the data and see that every Canadian is well represented in the House of Commons.

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

Madam Speaker, why does the parliamentary secretary believe it is so important we pass this legislation, given that we have these active commissions going on across the country?