Senator Simons: Much like Senator Jaffer and Senator Pate, I think there is so much tremendous potential in this bill, and you have made an eloquent case for why this is an important and necessary first step.

However, will there be any kind of commitment from the government to use this as a beta case to see how well these changes work and to build upon that and consider a second tranche of charges? Once we have proof of concept, will there be any kind of expectation that the government will build upon this foundation to offer more judicial discretion for the next range of charges?

Hon. Jane Cordy: Honourable senators, yesterday, on Sunday, June 19, we celebrated World Sickle Cell Day and National Sickle Cell Awareness Day in Canada. The recognition of this day has been extremely important and meaningful to the sickle cell community in Canada. Not only does it bring awareness to the disease, but it allows us to celebrate advancement in sickle cell care and it encourages momentum for the work that is left to do.

Since first becoming involved with the sickle cell community through an advocacy event on Parliament Hill in 2013, I have come to know many sickle cell patients, caregivers, supporters and advocates. They speak passionately about their experiences and best next steps to support Canadians living with this disease. The goal is to develop a national strategy for early sickle cell detection and sickle cell care. Honourable senators, I believe this is an achievable goal.

While sickle cell disease is inherited and can affect anyone who has both parents with a sickle cell trait or sickle cell and another hemoglobin trait, it is primarily found in people who are Black, Southern European, Middle Eastern or of Asian-Indian ancestry. It is therefore important to note that systemic racism in health care is, unfortunately, a reality for sickle cell patients. Individuals who present at Canadian hospitals with pain are sometimes treated as drug seekers when compared to their non‑racialized counterparts. Racial injustice in health care must be stopped. The Sickle Cell Awareness Group of Ontario have committed themselves particularly to equitable access to comprehensive standard care across the province.

To those who work so diligently on behalf of Canadians with sickle cell disease, I want you to know that your work, energy and enthusiasm are valued. I would like to express my deepest thanks to Lanre Tunji-Ajayi, Biba Tinga, and Rugi Jalloh for the work they have done and the work they continue to do. I also extend my thanks to MPs Darren Fisher and Dr. Kirsty Duncan for their advocacy for those with sickle cell disease and their families. They work tirelessly to keep sickle cell disease and the needs of those with sickle cell at the forefront. Honourable senators, it seems like most days out of the year are linked to recognizing some particular event or disease. It would be easy to dismiss such bills as frivolous; I assure you, they are not. They mean something.

When National Sickle Cell Awareness Day was passed in 2017, the community was overjoyed. Each new person who is made aware of this disease, donates blood or advocates for legislation moves the needle slightly and allows us to better care for Canadians struggling with the disease. This is the reason that on June 19, we celebrate. I encourage you to take some time to learn about sickle cell disease and to meet and speak with those affected in your communities. I have no doubt you will be as touched by their passion as I have been. Thank you.

[Translation]

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. Again, these questions are best answered — you can ask them to me; everything is fair game — by the officials who have it.

I used the example to illustrate the point, senator, that in every circumstance, especially dealing with weapons as opposed to prohibited firearms, handguns and the like, there are possibly a range of circumstances.

The point to emphasize is that if circumstances like that arise, then we want judges to have the discretion to do the right thing. It’s true; you quite properly point out that police have discretion; prosecutors have discretion. It’s also true, painfully true, that this discretion is not always exercised in an equitable way in dealing with certain offenders, racialized offenders, Indigenous offenders.

What Bill C-5 does is to give to the judge — who is faced with a decision that has been made by police, by prosecutors, to lay a criminal charge in the case of a prohibited weapon — the discretion to tailor the sentence to the circumstances of the case. That is what judges should do, and I think that’s why Bill C-5 is worthy of our support.

Senator Gold: Thank you for the question. It’s clear that the bill was guided by the need to give judges the ability to appropriately apply the Gladue principles.

The bill is also clearly a response to the real and shameful problem of overrepresentation of Indigenous women and Canadians from marginalized communities in prisons.

At second reading, the objective is to present and debate the principles of the bill, and, if the Senate so desires, to support the bill. The next step would be to refer it to committee, which can then get to work, delve into the details, and call the minister and his officials to testify and answer more specific questions.

I encourage you to participate in the process. All senators have the right to attend and participate, even if they are not members of the committee. This is how we can adequately respond to your valid and legitimate questions.

[English]

Hon. Michèle Audette: Kwei, honourable senators.

I rise today to recognize and honour a First Nations man who has become the highest-ranking member of the Canadian military. Lieutenant-General Jocelyn Paul is now commander of the Canadian Army.

On June 16, I attended the change of command ceremony where Lieutenant-General Paul assumed command of the Canadian Army. I have said this before, but it bears repeating: I am fiercely proud that a Wendat is now the highest-ranking member of the Canadian Army.

Again, this is a historic moment. I was deeply moved by the fact that an institution was promoting Indigenous spiritual and cultural practices. It was eye-opening and inspiring. Don’t worry, colleagues, I will tell you all about it soon.

This historic moment is due to an ordinary man from Wendake, a Wendat who has distinguished himself through a brilliant and notable career in the Canadian Armed Forces, Lieutenant-General Jocelyn Paul. Those close to him simply call him “Joe.”

Jocelyn Paul has an extensive university education, having earned a master’s degree in anthropology in Montreal. Now that education will enable him to counter the misinformation he faces, when he is accused of working for the enemy.

In an interview with Radio-Canada upon accepting the position of commander, he said, and I quote:

 . . . the alliances that Indigenous communities forged with Europeans when they came to this land . . . were both commercial and military. Our ancestors have always defended the boundaries of the colony.

It was a historic moment, and it is important for people to hear about gentle warriors like Lieutenant-General Paul.

Tshinashkumitin. Thank you. Tiawenhk.

[English]

Hon. Mary Jane McCallum: Honourable senators, I would like to thank the Conservatives for allowing me this spot.

As tomorrow is National Indigenous Peoples Day, I would like to pay special tribute to First Nations across the country. I have long enjoyed the privilege of having a close link to community and grassroots people, specifically with the First Nations that reside in Manitoba. It is these very people whom I reference when I speak of the “collective Mary Jane” that I bring with me into my Senate work. It is also they who direct and guide me in the many initiatives I bring forward in both the chamber as well as committee.

As such, this National Indigenous Peoples Day I wish to acknowledge and praise the resiliency and ingenuity of these people, those who are far too often overlooked and underestimated. Colleagues, I often speak of the interjurisdictional gaps that First Nations face, gaps which oftentimes exacerbate the many issues they combat in their daily lives.

Living under the Indian Act and on federal land under federal jurisdiction while simultaneously being subjected to provincial jurisdiction and authority, First Nations face a unique and complex bind that often impedes their progress. However, make no mistake, First Nations are willing and able to rise up, address and overcome the many issues that plague them. I know this to be true because I see their capabilities every day.

First Nations are strong, wise, intelligent, responsible and resourceful. They are lawyers, scholars and doctors. They are the women who are respected knowledge keepers. They are bright-eyed youth who are motivated to become agents of change and create a better future for not only themselves but also the seven generations that will follow.

Yes, jurisdictional gaps and legislative constraints have come together to limit First Nations’ progress in many areas. This is a reality we, as senators, should all continue to be aware of and work towards unbraiding as we debate and vote on future legislation.

Let me tell you, honourable senators, First Nations people are unlike any other on this planet. When met with unimaginable hardships, they have shown they are capable of doing much more than survive. When given the chance to, they have shown that they will prosper and thrive.

Kinanâskomitin. Thank you.

Hon. Ratna Omidvar, Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology, presented the following report:

Monday, June 20, 2022

The Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology has the honour to present its

NINTH REPORT

Your committee, to which was referred Bill S-208, An Act respecting the Declaration on the Essential Role of Artists and Creative Expression in Canada, has, in obedience to the order of reference of April 7, 2022, examined the said bill and now reports the same with the following amendments:

1.Preamble, page 1: Add the following after line 12:

“Whereas English-speaking artists and French-speaking artists, as integral parts of the two official language communities of Canada, should have equal opportunities to pursue their artistic endeavours in order to enhance the vitality and development of English and French linguistic minority communities;”.

2.Clause 4, page 2:

(a) Add the following after line 18:

(b) add the following after line 24:

Your committee has also made certain observations, which are appended to this report.

Respectfully submitted,

RATNA OMIDVAR

Chair

Hon. Raymonde Gagné (Legislative Deputy to the Government Representative in the Senate): Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(j), I move:

That, notwithstanding any provisions of the Rules, previous or usual practice:

1.the Senate resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole at 5 p.m. on Tuesday, June 21, 2022, to consider the subject matter of Bill C-28, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (self-induced extreme intoxication), with any proceedings then before the Senate being interrupted until the end of Committee of the Whole;

2.if the bells are ringing for a vote at the time the committee is to meet, they be interrupted for the Committee of the Whole at that time, and resume once the committee has completed its work for the balance of any time remaining;

3.the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-28 receive the Honourable David Lametti, P.C., M.P., Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, accompanied by no more than two officials;

4.the Committee of the Whole on the subject matter of Bill C-28 rise no later than 65 minutes after it begins;

5.the minister’s introductory remarks last a maximum total of five minutes;

6.if a senator does not use the entire period of 10 minutes for debate provided under rule 12-32(3)(d), including the responses of the witnesses, that senator may yield the balance of time to another senator; and

7.the start time of the evening suspension pursuant to rule 3-3(1) be postponed until after the conclusion of the Committee of the Whole and, if the bells had been ringing at the time the committee began, the completion of those proceedings.

Senator Plett: I’m a bit disturbed by the fact that you would say you aren’t sure whether the facts are correct. These facts are very correct, and it’s on the record that 75,000 applications are being processed a week now versus 90,000 to 98,000 per week before. Those are statistics that are not disputed by anyone, including your government.

Last week, Blacklocks reported that of the 26,000 Service Canada employees who handled passport applications, over 18,000 are still working from home, or about 70%. Maybe it’s time they stopped playing the groundhog game.

Why is it that your government is overwhelmed and can’t provide Canadians with this basic government service? Is it because the staff processing passports are still mainly working from home, leader?

Hon. Dennis Dawson moved second reading of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation).

He said: Honourable senators, I am pleased to rise in the chamber to speak in support of this government bill, Bill C-14, the Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act. This bill will ensure that no province has fewer seats in the House of Commons than it did in 2021.

As we all know, our Constitution requires that representation in the House of Commons be readjusted every 10 years. This includes reviewing the number of seats allocated to each province and the electoral boundaries to reflect the changing demographics of our country.

Over the past 10 years, Canada’s population has grown by more than 3.5 million, from just over 33 million in 2011 to nearly 37 million today.

[English]

This growth in population has not been equally distributed across provinces, and it is essential that all citizens be factored into Canada’s federal electoral districts. I would like to take this opportunity to first talk to you about how provincial seats are allocated.

To begin, this process requires the Chief Electoral Officer to calculate the number of seats allocated to each province, using the population estimates provided by Statistics Canada. The calculation itself is a mathematical formula, prescribed in the Constitution Act of 1867, that follows a simple, four-step process and does not allow discretion on the part of the Chief Electoral Officer.

[Translation]

The first step in the formula is the initial allocation of seats to the provinces, which is obtained by dividing the population of each province by the electoral quotient.

The electoral quotient is obtained by multiplying the quotient of the last decennial redistribution, which was 111,166 electors per riding, by the average of the population growth rates of the 10 provinces over the last 10 years, or 9.65%.

The 2021 electoral quotient is 121,891. This number roughly corresponds to the average riding size across the provinces.

[English]

Second, there is the application of the Senate clause and the grandfather clause, which set floors and ensure that each province has no fewer seats than it does in the Senate and no fewer seats than it had in 1985, respectively. These clauses continue to ensure that smaller provinces and those with declining populations continue to be well represented in the House of Commons.

[Translation]

The third step in the formula is the application of the representation rule, which ensures that a province whose population was overrepresented in the House of Commons relative to its share of the national population at the completion of the previous redistribution process remains overrepresented at the next redistribution process.

Once the special clauses and the representation rule are applied, the number of seats in each province is then determined.

[English]

Finally, three seats are allocated to the territories: one each for the Yukon, the Northwest Territories and Nunavut. This final step provides the total number of seats in the House.

On October 15, 2021, the Chief Electoral Officer published the results of this calculation and announced that the new House of Commons seat allocation by province for the 2022 to 2032 decennial would increase the size of the House from 338 to 342 seats. While the new allocation provides the addition of one seat for British Columbia, three seats for Alberta and one seat for Ontario to reflect their faster growing population, it would also see a reduction of one seat for the province of Quebec. This loss of one seat for Quebec is concerning, which is why the government introduced Bill C-14, the “Preserving Provincial Representation in the House of Commons Act.”

[Translation]

Bill C-14 would amend section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which is about the readjustment of representation in the House of Commons. More specifically, it would ensure that Quebec keeps the seat it would have lost.

However, and this is very important, we must also keep all existing protections and allow for incremental seat increases in provinces with growing populations.

[English]

This means that the gains previously mentioned for British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario will obviously be kept under Bill C-14. Thus, the proposed approach strikes, in my view, an appropriate balance between ensuring effective regional representation and providing for representation by population as it has evolved in Canada. For better clarity on how to achieve this, Bill C-14 is proposing to update the existing grandfather clause found in Rule 2 of the Constitution Act, 1867 to ensure that no provinces are allocated fewer seats than what they had in 2021 during the Forty-third Parliament.

[Translation]

It would establish a new floor of seats in the House of Commons for all provinces and ensure that Quebec would continue to have at least 78 seats in the next electoral redistribution.

Given that no change is being made to the other steps in the seat distribution formula, its calculation and objectives remain the same: Provinces with a small or slow-growing population are protected, and Bill C-14 allows for incremental seat increases among provinces with growing populations.

If this bill is passed, the number of seats for the 2022 to 2032 decennial will be 343 rather than 342, and Quebec will keep 78 seats instead of losing one.

However, as many of you know, the redistribution of federal electoral districts is already under way, since the Chief Electoral Officer announced the new distribution of seats in October 2021. Therefore, I would like to take this opportunity to also speak about the readjustment of electoral boundaries that is currently under way and how it relates to Bill C-14.

[English]

As is required by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 10 independent, non-partisan electoral boundary commissions — 1 for each province — were established on November 1, 2021. It is important to mention that the independence and non-partisan nature of these commissions are by design. This independence serves to limit political interference in the process and maintain integrity and transparency in our democratic system and institutions.

With the release of the final 2021 census data on February 9, 2022, the commission began their review of the boundaries. This review is given a period of 10 months, wherein the commissions will hold public hearings open to the Canadian public, including members of Parliament, and will culminate in one report from each commission. Once the commissions have completed their reports on the new electoral districts, they will be sent to the Speaker of the House through the Chief Electoral Officer.

These reports will be tabled and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for study, and members of the House will have the opportunity to file written objections.

[Translation]

Once the study is complete, the reports will be returned to the commissions. Within 30 days of receiving the reports, which can contain objections and recommendations, each commission must decide whether to modify the boundaries or district names before submitting its final report. At that point, the Chief Electoral Officer will draft a representation order that describes the electoral districts established by the commissions and submit it to the relevant minister. Finally, the representation order will be proclaimed by the Governor in Council and published in the Canada Gazette.

Bill C-14 contains essential transitional measures so that this critical work can be done without interruption or political interference, while ensuring that the new distribution enables Quebec to keep its 78 seats.

[English]

First, once Bill C-14 comes into force, it will require the Chief Electoral Officer to recalculate the number of seats allocated to each province. As we have previously established, this would not change the number of seats of any other province but Quebec, and will allow the work done by those provincial commissions to go uninterrupted. However, for the Quebec commission, Bill C-14 will require that the process for the review of electoral boundaries restart under the new calculations provided by the Chief Electoral Officer.

[Translation]

That way, the Quebec commission will have time to do its work and will have a new time frame of 10 months to reconsider its boundary proposal based on the grandfather clause, as updated in 2021.

Since Quebec would be the only province affected by the passage of Bill C-14, that means that a new boundary proposal and separate representation order will be prepared, as required, for Quebec only.

In closing, Bill C-14 makes a minor change to the Constitution that would increase the seat floor and guarantee that no province is allocated fewer seats than in 2021. By so doing, the bill strikes the right balance for ensuring both strong regional representation and representation by population. The bill also sets out essential transitional measures to allow the commissions to work uninterrupted while also ensuring that Quebec keeps the same number of seats during the next electoral redistribution.

Thank you, honourable senators.

Senator Dasko: Thank you. Senator Dawson, listening to your presentation, I think I heard one mention of the principle of representation by population. I wonder whether that principle is becoming eroded more and more. My province of Ontario is under-represented in terms of seats. If I do the math on the total number of seats that you have, 343, the province of Ontario should be getting 137 seats out of this, given that we have 40% of the population.

But how many seats are we actually getting under this? Is it 122? We currently have 121. If you do the math and add 1, it’s 122. To me, that shows clearly that there is not representation by population. Perhaps we’re moving even further away from this principle, and I worry about that.

We in the Senate know that we are unequally — or some might say unfairly — represented. Ontario only has 24 seats; it should have something like 42, proportionally speaking, but it doesn’t. But that’s the Senate; the House of Commons is supposed to employ representation by population.

Are you worried that we are moving further away from the principle as we go forward in time? Thank you.

Senator Dawson: As I mentioned to your colleague, I totally agree. I think this issue should be looked into. One of the reasons there is a commission is so that we don’t get into political constraints of having parliamentarians from each province fundamentally wanting to defend their rights. But when we talk about grandfathering the Maritimes and Quebec, it means there is an inherent imbalance in the system.

That being said, there is certainly a lot of room to have a debate on the issue. Unfortunately, this is not the issue that is being debated here today. We do not interfere in the process of determination. What we are doing is determining that there is minimum representation, as we did many times in the past when we grandfathered Prince Edward Island with the four senators and when we grandfathered the Maritimes in 2010 or 2011.

This is a subject that deserves to be debated, but I think that is not the objective of the bill. One of the reasons they drafted it as simply as they could is that if we want to get into that debate, we all know that reform of Parliament will take a bit longer than reform of one more seat for Quebec.

Senator Dasko: Thank you, senator. I understand the grandfathering. As you articulated, there are principles of grandfathering in the bill and in the way we distribute seats. However, the solution to grandfathering would be to increase the size of the House of Commons such that we could accommodate fairly the provinces that are larger and that are not fairly represented. Those provinces would be Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. That would be the solution if we’re truly moving toward — or if we had — a representation-by-population system. That is what we would be doing. I wonder if you could comment on that.

Senator Dawson: I think the Speaker pro tempore could tell you, having served in the other place, that this debate occurs every time we talk about the electoral map and its challenges.

Sometimes I repeat myself. When I arrived here 45 years ago this month, there were 285 seats. If we had grown Parliament at the same rate that Canada grew, we would probably have 375 seats. However, one of the decisions that was taken was that if you try to moderate, the distinction between the bigger provinces and the smaller provinces would only grow. Again, it is not the objective of the bill, but I would certainly support any motion in that respect. However, we don’t play that game. They’re playing it over there.

If the elected parliamentarians wanted to change the electoral system for their chamber, I would let them do it, and I would hope they will let us do the same when we want to reform things here.

Hon. Paula Simons: Would the senator accept another question?

Senator Dawson: Yes.

Hon. Michèle Audette: My questions for the Government Representative in the Senate are the following. Did the process of drafting and preparing this bill take into account the Gladue decision, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, and all of the recommendations of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls regarding the changes needed to reduce the very high percentage of Indigenous women and men in our federal institutions and prisons?

Also, can you confirm that there will be a mechanism to follow up on what the government is proposing, which will ensure that all this will be encouraging to the nations, to Indigenous women and men?

Senator Simons: Inspired by Senator Dasko’s question, I wanted to ask you this: Albertans have a bad habit of nurturing a sense of grievance, growing it like a hothouse flower. However, in this instance, our concerns are legitimate. British Columbia and Alberta are two of the fastest-growing provinces in Confederation; British Columbia has a little more than 5 million people, Alberta a little less than 5 million people. Each of these provinces gets only six Senate seats, which is interesting when you consider the smaller provinces in Atlantic Canada, which have so many more seats than Alberta and British Columbia.

When I see something like this, I certainly don’t begrudge my fellow Canadians in Quebec their concerns about representation, but I am concerned that the continual grandfathering of the smaller provinces will perpetuate not only the inequalities that Senator Dasko mentioned but the even more acute inequalities, one might argue, of British Columbia and Alberta — which are continuing to grow, and will never reasonably expect proper representation in the Senate and need the House as their only opportunity to have their voices heard equally.

Senator Dawson: That is a good comment and quite justified, but this is not the forum for me to debate it in relation to Bill C-14. To be frank, I do believe, having served in the other place, that it is the right forum to debate the issue. They should debate it; I agree with you. I tried to go back and I wasn’t welcome, so I came here instead.

Hon. Senators: Oh, oh!

[Translation]

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?

The Hon. the Speaker pro tempore: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the third time?

(On motion of Senator Dawson, bill placed on the Orders of the Day for third reading at the next sitting of the Senate.)

[English]

Hon. Éric Forest: I’m pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-14, which would protect Quebec’s 78th seat in the House of Commons.

As you know, the electoral boundaries are redistributed every 10 years to ensure that all ridings have approximately the same weight. The idea is to ensure political equality among citizens, which is a fundamental democratic principle. Although the Constitution affirms the principle of representation proportional to the population, it’s important to note that it does allow for exceptions to this principle to ensure effective representation that reflects our country’s regional and geographic diversity.

For example, it states that a province shall always be entitled to a number of members in the House of Commons not less than the number of senators representing such province. Each of the three territories has its own member of Parliament, regardless of any fluctuations in population. There is also a grandfather clause that guarantees that no province can have fewer seats than it had in 1985. Note that the grandfather clause allows for a minimum of 75 seats for Quebec, which is not enough to guarantee it the 78 seats it currently has.

I should also point out that these exceptions to representation by population have been challenged in court and have been recognized as legitimate.

Under the current readjustment formula, Quebec would lose one seat. According to the Chief Electoral Officer’s proposal, Quebec’s weight in the House of Commons would be further reduced to 22.5%. In 1867, Quebec representatives accounted for 36% of the House of Commons and fell below 25% in the 1999 redistribution.

Bill C-14 ensures that Quebec will not lose a seat in the redistribution process. This bill is the result of a political compromise: Bill C-14 was passed in the House of Commons on division. That said, I would be remiss if I did not mention that even though Bill C-14 allows Quebec to keep its 78th seat, it does not allow Quebec to keep its relative weight in the House of Commons because seats are being added for the rest of Canada. In fact, Quebec’s representation in the House of Commons will drop from 23.1% to 22.7%, even if it retains the 78th seat as provided for in Bill C-14.

According to the office of Quebec’s minister responsible for Canadian relations, Sonia LeBel, Bill C-14 is a very good first step, but the minister points out that Quebec must still maintain its relative weight and says she will continue to work toward achieving that goal. The Legault government is sticking to Quebec’s traditional constitutional stance and demanding protection from the erosion of its relative weight in the House of Commons.

It is worth noting that the 1992 Charlottetown Accord guaranteed Quebec 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. It is also worth noting that, in 2010, when the Harper government introduced a bill that would have reduced Quebec’s weight in the House of Commons, the National Assembly unanimously reiterated that:

 . . . Québec, as a nation, must be able to enjoy special protection for the weight of its representation in the House of Commons. . . .

The National Assembly also called on members of all political parties in Ottawa to reject any bill that would reduce the weight of Quebec’s representation in the House of Commons.

I understand that the section of the Constitution that pertains to the number of seats for each province can be unilaterally amended by Parliament, but the same is not true of the principle of proportional representation, which requires the approval of seven provinces representing 50% of the population.

In conclusion, I would argue that while Bill C-14 prevents Quebec from being the first province to lose a seat in the House of Commons since 1966, the fact remains that without this constitutional change, Quebec is doomed to see its political weight erode, as it has since 1867, because of its demographic weight.