Debates of Dec. 7th, 2011

Tim Uppal Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is important to have debate in this place. We have actually had very good debate on this bill.

The fact of the matter is we have been talking about representation in the House of Commons for four years. On this bill itself, we have had debate. It has been to committee. We have had good work in committee from members on all sides and we have had good debate. We have had proposals from the other parties, the Liberal proposal and the NDP proposal. We have discussed those proposals. It is now time that we voted on the bill.

Charmaine Borg Terrebonne—Blainville, QC

Mr. Speaker, I represent a riding that has a higher than average number of constituents. In response to the comments made by the Minister of Public Safety, I would be happy to stay here to share my opinion and take part in a debate on this issue, because the Conservatives are in the process of reducing Quebec's political weight. Although I represent a larger number of constituents than average, I would be pleased to continue the debate for my riding. I was not here during the past four years when this issue was being debated. I would appreciate the opportunity to discuss the matter further.

Tim Uppal Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about the fact that she would be happy to stay in this place and debate this issue and maybe talk about this for a long time. The fact of the matter is this is not about her, nor is it about me. It is not about us. It is about Canadians who are under-represented because of the strong growth in population in certain provinces, those being Alberta, B.C. and Ontario. Those Canadians are under-represented because of population growth. New Canadians and visible minorities are under-represented because of where they are and the population growth in that area.

It is fair to bring more seats into the House of Commons to address this under-representation. It is a principled formula. It is fair for all provinces. Every Canadian will be brought closer to representation by population.

Pierre-Luc Dusseault Sherbrooke, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a chance to ask the Minister of State for Democratic Reform a question.

I find it ironic to see him rise here in the House so many times to justify a time allocation motion to limit debate in this House, which I consider to be undemocratic. It is surprising, coming from him.

My question is more general and not just about the urgency of this particular bill. Generally speaking, does he think using this time allocation motion is a democratic tool that should be used more often in this House? Do the government and the Minister of State for Democratic Reform plan to make more use of this type of motion, which I consider to be undemocratic?

Tim Uppal Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, debating an issue is important to democracy; there is no doubt about it. We have done that on this bill. What else is important is voting on the issue. That is a very important part of democracy. It is time to vote on this bill. We have debated this issue. We have debated it for a long time and it is now time to vote on it.

Tim Uppal Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member from my home province of Alberta has asked a very important question.

He is quite right. People in Alberta, B.C. and Ontario deserve to the greatest extent possible to have their vote be equal to that of anyone else in Canada. To delay this bill would result in duplication of work by the independent non-partisan commissions. They are going to begin their work in February, regardless of this bill. Even the Chief Electoral Officer has said that it would duplicate their work if we stalled this bill. It is very important that we move forward so that they do not duplicate their work.

Charlie Angus Timmins—James Bay, ON

Mr. Speaker, I do not know why the government is in such a rush to have more members come into Parliament when members of Parliament come in here to do their job and they are told to sit down and shut up. There have been nine time allocation motions and we are told that we are interfering. The Conservatives' idea of parliamentary democracy is they have a majority and why are we standing in their way.

I represent a region in northern Ontario and northern Ontario would most likely lose a seat. Yet Saskatchewan, with 68,000 per riding, would keep seats and the Maritimes, with its proportionality, would not lose. The Conservatives are targeting so that my region would lose a seat.

Why is it that we cannot stand in this House and represent our constituents and do our rightful job which is to bring forward their concerns about the proportionality of this House and about fair representation in this House? That is my job. That is what we were sent here to do. That is what we are here to do, but when we do it, the government gets its back up and tries to shut down debate. It does it time and again. Why even have this place open if the Conservatives are not listening to debate?

Tim Uppal Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Again, Mr. Speaker, I agree that it is very important to have debate on this bill. We have debated this bill. We have discussed this bill, or some version of this bill or the general idea of representation in Canada for four years. This bill has been debated. It has been to committee. Witnesses have appeared before committee. I have been very pleased to go in front of the committee and answer questions. The bill has come back to this House. We have debated this bill again. At some point we need to make a decision and move forward. That point is now.

Kevin Lamoureux Winnipeg North, MB

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minister when he said that this bill is about Canadians, but if he actually consulted with Canadians, I believe that he would find that a vast majority, not a slight majority, but a vast majority of Canadians do not want more members of Parliament.

The Liberal Party has put forward a proposal that would retain the House at 308 seats. The Conservatives want to increase the number by 30. We can still accomplish everything the government wants to accomplish by having 308 seats.

I would ultimately argue that the debate needs to continue, because at one time the Prime Minister of Canada advocated for a reduction in the number of members of Parliament. He believed that Canada only needed 265 members.

When there are so many ideas out there, and we are still waiting for the NDP to table what its idea is, why limit the debate and prevent that dialogue from occurring? That dialogue would be in the best interests of Canadians, something which he said he would like to see happen.

Tim Uppal Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, what is in the best interests of Canadians is not to follow through on the Liberal plan.

The member talked about the Liberal plan. That plan basically picks winners and losers, and pits one part of the country against the other. The losers under the Liberal plan would be Quebec, which would lose three seats, Manitoba and Saskatchewan, which would lose seats, and Newfoundland and Labrador, which would lose seats. That is not a plan that we support.

We committed in the campaign that we would maintain the seats of the smaller and slower growing provinces. We committed that our formula would be fair for all provinces. That is what we are moving forward on.

Jonathan Tremblay Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the minster on one point, and the hon. member for Timmins—James Bay expressed it quite well. Yes, we are here to represent our constituents; however, right now, the government is preventing us from representing them and speaking on their behalf.

This bill ignores certain realities and is really out of touch with the realities in our regions. I have the impression that the Conservative government does not realize just how toxic this attitude is for the future of our country. And here, we are indeed talking about the future.

Why does the government not recognize the role of parliamentarians? Why does it not recognize the role of the media who study what is happening in the House and explain it to Canadians. Bill after bill, members are not being given the opportunity to study legislation in sufficient depth. On our side, we are not able to examine bills as much as we would like.

How does the government expect us to be able to do our work? How does it expect the media to be able to do its work? Do the Conservatives believe in our democracy? Do they believe in the work of the media and parliamentarians? Do they believe in the judgment of our fellow Canadians? The next election will be held in four years. These boundaries will apply only four years from now. Why the rush? We have four years to debate this issue.

Tim Uppal Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB

Mr. Speaker, the member asked about why there is urgency now.

The fact is that the independent non-partisan commissions will begin their work in February regardless of what we do. If this bill is not passed, they will have to redo all of their work when it does pass. That is why it is important that we pass this bill, so that we do not have duplication of process. It is a waste of time. It is a waste of money.

We have debated this bill. We have studied this bill. Now it is time to vote on this bill.

Jinny Sims Newton—North Delta, BC

Mr. Speaker, I want to add my voice to the ironic debate we are having.

At the very time the government is moving to add more parliamentarians, the current parliamentarians are being stopped from having fair and open debate.

Let us talk about democracy. Democracy is not about moving time allocation to ram an agenda through within a very short timeframe. Democracy is not about inviting more MPs into this House so they can sit here at great expense only to be muzzled and not given the opportunity to speak.

I ask the minister, on this legislation which is all about the democratic process, why is the government denigrating the parliamentarian democracy that we have? Why is the government using a time allocation motion to stop debate on such a fundamental issue that will change the nature of this Parliament?