Bill C-22 (Historical)

Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic representation)

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation)

This enactment amends the rules in the Constitution Act, 1867 for readjusting the number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces in that House.

Constitution Act, 2007 (Democratic representation)

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my hon. Liberal colleague.

Yesterday, the Liberals said they would be more than willing to look at the Senate, but it is not the time. Why should we be looking at the Senate? We have other things to worry about. Today, they are saying, why have we not looked at the Senate.

The hon. member is perpetuating the myth again that the Senate actually has a function. The function he claims looks after regional interests. He does not address the fact that the Senate is there for party loyalty.

Senators have written themselves a code of ethics where they are allowed to sit on the board of directors of major corporations, including oil and gas, income trusts, telecommunications, all areas of private health concerns that are regulated by the federal government, and under their code of ethics, they can participate and influence debate where they or their families have financial interests.

The Liberal Party would hardly disapprove of that. They have allowed the system to go on for years. Why does the member not at least have the political courage to say yes, we have friends in the upper House. We had to give them those positions as payback for the years we have allowed them to run amok doing interference and influence peddling for their own private interests, but they are not there representing the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I have a copy of the bill in my hand. There is nothing in the bill that has to do with Senate representation. According to the rules, we are supposed to stick to the substance of the bill. There is enough time for a brief question and comment. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has put forward that somehow Ontario is being hurt by the legislation. He should do the math. He may have heard the parliamentary secretary say the average MP afterwards would have 115,000 constituents compared to 121,000 today. They currently have 106 out of 308 seats. That is roughly 34.4%. Under the new formula, they would have 35.1%. What part of that hurts the most?

[Brian Murphy, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Mr. Speaker, what hurts, and as I say, it is not about Ontario. It happens to be about Ontario because it is targeted by the government this time, but it could be New Brunswick next time. It could be some other province.

The point is, what is fair is fair. If we have growth in three provinces in Canada, the number of seats put in the package that those provinces should have should be fair. For these ministers, who are supposedly so powerful, to hide behind the skirt of Alberta leaders in the front row must be very embarrassing. I cannot wait to explain that during a campaign to the people in their ridings--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member has run out of time for his questions and comments. There is quite a lot of noise and it is becoming increasingly difficult to hear hon. members.

I see the hon. government House leader is rising on a point of order.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[James Lunney, Conservative, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to my friend from the NDP, the member for Timmins—James Bay. He added some very interesting points to the discussion, although he was all over the map on a range of other issues, which were interesting but maybe not relevant to the debate.

Since we are debating a bill to amend the Constitution Act that goes back to 1867, he quite correctly pointed out that many small ridings with a small number of people are being represented by one member, perhaps in Yukon or in Northwest Territories, 30,000. Maybe there are 30,000 in Prince Edward Island. It is very different.

We have had to juggle between areas that are vastly distributed with small populations, in an attempt to bring balance over the years. For some of the members who have entered the debate tonight and who have ignored what has happened historically, it has never been exclusively representation by population. We have always had to balance the disparities and regions by population.

There have been three guiding principles: first, no province would have less MPs than senators, and our friends from Prince Edward Island like to remind us they were good negotiators; second, no area would lose seats; and third, representation by population should be attempted.

The bill attempts to do exactly that. No region would lose seats. It is consistent with the history of conciliation, recognizing other areas that have needs. It will provide a representation for those provinces that have vastly outgrown other areas because of the tremendous growth in recent history.

Provinces like Ontario, which would receive more MPs, have a better ratio of representation by population and it will have a higher representation in the House than it has now.

Would the member not recognize that the bill, as put forward, is very consistent with the way members throughout history have tried to balance and juggle these things and therefore change his position and support the bill?

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we have always supported the need for a balancing act. We are concerned that this is not the way to go about it. We need to have at least a public committee. We need to deal with the provinces. We need to ensure actual fairness. What we have been given are three arbitrary numbers put together by the government.

It does not address concerns that have been raised in Ontario, and those are legitimate. Going around and attacking the Premier of Ontario, which the government has done, is not a respectful way to engage in consultation.

Mr. McGuinty has put forth the position that he is very concerned about how this will impact Ontario. We know Premier Jean Charest in Quebec has raised concerns about how this will be addressed. The government has not looked at the fundamental issue of the seats in Quebec either. However, Premier Gary Doer of Manitoba, Premier McGuinty and Premier Charest have all spoken about the fact that even though they have various views and issues in how they want to have representation, they are of the mind of working together on this.

We need to go forward with that spirit. Unfortunately, and I do not fault the government for trying, at the end of the day the bill is a half measure. It has not dealt with the need for consultation. Since we are going to be dealing with many contentious issues, let us start addressing the need for real democratic reform in the House.