Bill C-20 (Historical)

Fair Representation Act

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act

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.
It amends the time periods in several provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and requires that electronic versions of maps be provided to registered parties.
It also amends the Canada Elections Act to permit a returning officer to be appointed for a new term of office in certain circumstances.

Fair Representation Act

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

moved that Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than pleased to speak to Bill C-20; however, I believe there had been an agreement among the parties that the first speaker would be from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Once again, I am more than prepared to give my comments now, but I believe my colleague opposite was rising to her feet to give the initial presentation.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Does the House give its unanimous consent to proceed in this fashion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies to my hon. colleague. I know she was prepared to give comments but I look forward to listening to my hon. colleague in approximately 30 minutes from now. I have much respect for her. I met her for the first time during committee work at the procedure and House affairs committee. She is a new member, and I must say that if all new members conduct themselves in the same way the member opposite does, this Parliament will be very effective in years to come. My congratulations to my colleague opposite.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-20, the fair representation act. One thing I can say most assuredly is that, with the possible exception of the four independent members formerly known as the Bloc, all members of this place would argue that Canada is the greatest country in the world. One of the distinctions that makes Canada such a marvellous country in which to live is the form of government that we currently have. One of the foundational principles of our government that we currently see enacted in Canada is the concept of representation by population.

This government believes, and it is a fundamental principle of our democratic process, that each Canadian's vote should have the same weight. In other words, a vote in one region of the country should have the same weight as a vote in another region of the country. Unfortunately, that is not the case right now. There are regions of this country that are seriously underrepresented. By that I mean there are regions of this country that have a population base far higher than the number of elected representatives that they have. We have recognized this inequity for many months.

In fact, in our last election campaign we made three distinct promises. First, we promised to ensure that the faster growing provinces, specifically British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, would gain more seats in the House of Commons. Second, we promised that the smaller provinces would be protected in their seat count. Third, we promised to ensure there would be fair and proportional representation to the province of Quebec in relation to its population.

We made those commitments. We plan to act on those commitments. Bill C-20 reflects those commitments.

Currently, there is a formula which has been in place since 1985 and basically deals with how many seats there are in this place. I will get into the technical details in a few moments, but I should probably first address a common complaint that I and I am sure many other members have heard about whether we should increase the number of seats in the House of Commons. I have heard from a number of my constituents who have argued very emotionally that we should not increase the number of seats at all, that we have too many seats in the House of Commons right now. Some have suggested that we even reduce the number of members in the House of Commons.

I can understand those arguments, but it is also an argument that is very easy to make without much thought behind it. It is similar to someone saying that a CEO of a particular company makes too much money and that no one should be allowed to make that amount of money. Similarly, people can say there are too many members of Parliament in Canada and that we do not need that many. Whether one tends to argue in favour or against that notion, we have some restrictions constitutionally that would prevent us from reducing the number of seats that we have right now.

Back in 1915 there was a constitutional provision that is known as the Senate floor rule, which says quite clearly that no province should have fewer members in the House of Commons than it has senators.

I put as the case in point the province of Prince Edward Island which has four senators, and conversely, four members of Parliament. Based simply on population, one would think that is some form of inequity because the province of Prince Edward Island only has 140,000 people, yet it has four members of Parliament. In other words, each member of Parliament represents approximately 35,000 to 40,000 constituents. Contrast that to my home province of Saskatchewan, where each member of Parliament represents roughly 80,000 constituents. Contrast that to constituencies and ridings in Ontario where some members represent 170,000 people or more. There is great inequity across Canada.

Since we cannot reduce the number of seats without unanimous consent from the provinces, which I doubt we would get, we believe our only alternative to try to ensure effective representation by population is to increase the number of seats. Since the last census which was taken 10 years ago, we have seen the population increase in Canada, and it has been significant. We have also seen that the population has increased most dramatically in three particular provinces: British Columbia, Alberta, and most noticeably, Ontario.

If we believe in that foundational principle of representation by population, we then must address the situation of inequity. Our solution, although there will never be a perfect solution I would argue, is contained in Bill C-20. I believe it is a fair, a principled and a balanced approach trying to get closer, at least, to representation by population by increasing the number of seats, particularly in those three provinces.

Also contained in Bill C-20 is what we call the representation rule that provides for any province that is now either equally represented by population or overrepresented by population should never become under-represented when we change the seat count in the House of Commons. I say that because that reflects on Quebec.

Right now, Quebec is slightly overrepresented. Why do I say that? Quebec has roughly 23% of the total population of Canada, yet the number of seats it has in the House, 75, represents about 24% of all the seats. Our bill would ensure that British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario gained extra seats because they have rapidly growing populations, but Quebec, if we left the number at 75 seats, would be under-represented. Therefore, we plan to give three additional seats to the province of Quebec to ensure that it would be equally represented. That is what the representation rule in Bill C-20 contemplates. By giving Quebec three extra seats to bring its total to 78 seats, Quebec would then have a percentage of the seats in this House almost identical to the percentage of population that Quebec has in the country. That is what we mean by equal representation and representation by population.

Specifically, the bill contemplates British Columbia receiving 6 extra seats, Alberta receiving 6 extra seats, and Ontario receiving 15 extra seats. Would that make it absolutely equal in terms of representation by population? No, it would not, but it would come much closer than the situation we have right now. Would we ever achieve a perfect harmony of equal representation? I cannot see it, certainly not in my lifetime. Why? Because the population of Canada and the population from province to province is always a bit of a moving target. We would never achieve total equality, but this bill tends to address the current inequity in the House of Commons by giving more seats to those provinces that have a higher population and have been increasing their population in the last 10 years.

I am going to get into some of the technical details of the bill right now. It is a bit dry. If I see members opposite nodding off, it is not that they do not find my presentation compelling; it is merely that it is a bit of a dry and tedious process to go into the technical aspects of the bill, particularly the formulas.

I want to start with the current formula. I should also explain how we have arrived at that formula because it was established back in 1985. I told the House about a provision of the Constitution called the Senate floor rule, which was enacted in 1915. In 1985, there was another constitutional provision that was enacted which is called the grandfather clause. That clause contemplated that no province that was represented in the House of Commons should lose any seats from the 1985 totals.

Consequently, Saskatchewan has 14 seats today in the House of Commons. If we look at the actual representation by population, Saskatchewan should only have 10 seats, but because of the 1985 grandfather clause, no province, whether it be Saskatchewan, Manitoba or some of our Atlantic neighbours, will see a reduction in its seat count in the House of Commons. That is something we have to live with and that is contemplated in Bill C-20.

Parliamentarians of the day felt that the formula enacted in 1985 was proper and would deal with representation by population effectively, but unfortunately it actually served the purpose of restricting the number of seats in the future. Whether or not the population of our country grew or grew rapidly, the number of seats would be restricted because of the1985 formula.

I will explain that formula.

First they took the population of Canada and divided it by the number of seats in the House of Commons, which was 279 at that time. That final total was what they called the “electoral quotient”.

Then, province by province, they divided the provinces' populations by the electoral quotient and came up with the provincial seat count. They then knew roughly how many seats each province should receive. However, they then had to add in the two constitutional provisions: the Senate floor, which ensured that no province has fewer seats than the number of senators, and the grandfather clause, which considered and contemplated that no province should lose seats from the current total in 1985.

The end result was that they had an initial seat count, and then a secondary seat count when they took into consideration the grandfather clause and the Senate floor clause. Then, once they had the provincial seat count, they added one seat per territory; that total ended up being the number of seats in the House of Commons.

I think I went through that without seeing too many nodding heads. A couple of people's eyes glazed over, but we will move on.

While that approach was perhaps appropriate in 1985, if we used the same formula today, we would unfortunately come out with a House that was seriously under-representative, and the three provinces that have had rapidly growing populations would be very much affected.

Consequently, we have proposed a new formula. At a later time I will allow my other colleagues to go into a more detailed discussion of what that formula does and what it means, but I can assure everyone that the formula we are proposing will ensure that we are much closer to representation by population, now and in the future. It does not restrict the number of seats in the House based on the 1985 formula; rather, it is a formula designed to reflect the number of seats that may be needed, both now and in the future, based on population.

The first thing we need to do is recognize that if we want true equity in this place, we need to accept and adopt Bill C-20. Is it perfect? No. Is it the closest thing to equal representation that we have seen in many decades? Yes, I would argue that it is.

Following that, however, and on the assumption that Bill C-20 will pass this place, we also have to deal with the second part of the equation, which is how to redraw the various boundaries. It is one thing to say we will have 30 extra seats in the House of Commons, but it is another thing to say where those seats will be held.

The equal boundary representation act is also included in this bill. It would provide that each province, after we determine the number of seats in each province, would establish a boundaries commission whose job would be to consult with stakeholders, provinces, and other affected people, including members of Parliament who wish to make submissions, and within a set period of time to come up with a new boundary map for each province.

The whole process, from the consultation process to the final product of redrawn boundaries, should be done roughly within the year.

Of course, those boundaries then have to be examined. MPs and others in Parliament, including committees, would have a chance to examine the boundaries presented. In that fashion, we should be able to come to a solution that would allow the four provinces I mentioned, the three fastest-growing provinces plus the province of Quebec, to have not only new seats in place, but new seats with completely new and freshly drawn boundaries.

I should also point out one of the things that would happen during the boundaries commission examination would be an opportunity for new names for these various ridings, because not only would there be completely new ridings, I am sure, presented by the electoral commissions, but there would also be hybrids. By that I mean that certain constituencies we have now would have similar boundaries, but instead of having one member, they might have two members.

In conclusion, I believe that Bill C-20, while not absolutely perfect, is the closest thing to equal representation by population that we have seen in many years. It would construct a plan and a formula to ensure that provinces now and in the future would have the representation they deserve.

I think it is patently unfair that in the current situation there are constituencies across Canada whose members of Parliament are representing over twice as many constituents as other members of Parliament. We have to come to a closer balance of rep by pop. I believe Bill C-20 would do that. It would do that effectively. I would ask all members to give it support. I look forward to the continuing debate.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been a member of this House since 1996, and this is the first time that a minister is not participating in the debate about his or her own bill. It quite ironic that it is a bill on the democratic practices in this House. It is quite sad.

My colleague has been very candid. He said the bill is not perfect. Indeed, it is not.

Since his constituents are rightly telling him that it does not make sense to add seats in this House, I would ask him why we are not trying to achieve the same result--better proportionality in the House for provinces--while keeping 308 seats. It is certainly doable.

We cannot change the Senate clause, but we--this House, the Parliament of Canada--have the power to change the grandfather clause. We do not need it. We could have the same result for the fastest-growing provinces and for the provinces that are growing more slowly. We could have the same result, the same percentage by province, with 308 seats.

Why does my colleague not agree with that? Does he have one person in his constituency who is asking to have more seats in this House?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, as I indicated in my earlier presentation, we are committed to representation by population and nothing more. The formula we have put forward in Bill C-20 would achieve that.

It is incumbent upon this government and, I would suggest, upon Parliament to ensure that we respect the parliamentary and democratic principle of representation by population. The suggestion that the member opposite is making would not address equal representation; he is merely suggesting that we take the current number of members of Parliament and divvy it up somehow across Canada.

However, we have to respect the Senate floor and we have to respect the wishes of the provinces. I can assure members that the provinces are on side with the plan we have put forward. Many provinces have come forward to say they are pleased to see us moving forward with Bill C-20. I would ask my friend opposite to to do the same.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his speech. We believe that this bill poses some problems and that it might pit the provinces against one another. Some provinces have already raised legitimate concerns about this bill. Does the hon. member believe it is quite possible that some provinces will be pointing fingers and clashing over this bill and that this could be problematic for various communities across the country?

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully disagree. I do not think any provinces will be pointing fingers because, as I pointed out, the provinces who have faster-growing populations would receive additional seats, and they have already indicated that they are very happy with that outcome; the provinces with smaller populations would not lose any seats, and they are very happy about that.

I go back to what I said in my earlier presentation. Is it perfect? Of course not. No bill can possibly be perfect, given the fluctuating population base in this country, but is it closer to effective representation by population than anything we have seen before? I would argue that it is. Provinces would be happy, and they have already indicated their satisfaction to us.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons what he thinks about the fact that in 2006, here in this House, he was one of the hon. members who voted in favour of the motion recognizing Quebec as a nation. It was not the first time Quebec was recognized as a nation in this House, but in 2006, the vote was unanimous. That is why the Government of Quebec, and even Quebec's National Assembly, unanimously, have adopted more than one motion to say that Quebec's political weight here, in this House, absolutely must remain the same. With the disinformation the government is promoting about its Bill C-20, they are only talking about demographic weight. I would like the parliamentary secretary to make the distinction between demographic weight and political weight. The nation called Quebec—and there is a Canadian nation as well—is being penalized by this bill because it directly diminishes the nation's political weight.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, again I reject the analysis by my colleague opposite. In fact, just the opposite is true. The representation rule that would be enacted in Bill C-20 would ensure that Quebec, now and in the future, would get equal representation. I mentioned that right now Quebec is slightly over-represented; this bill would ensure that it would have equal representation. It has slightly more than 23% of the population of Canada and it would end up having slightly more than 23% of the seats in the House. It would gain three seats. It would go from 75 to 78 seats. That is fair, equitable, balanced and principled.

We have committed to that principle. We will bring Bill C-20 forward, which would ensure that Quebec, now and in the future, would have fair and proportional representation based on its population. That is a fair approach. I would encourage my friend opposite to support Bill C-20.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Again, Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not want more MPs. They pay for enough. What they want is fair representation. It is what my colleague spoke about. If we are able to achieve fair representation with 338 seats, we are able to do it with 308 seats. We just have to respect the Senate clause; otherwise, some provinces may have fewer seats. What they want, to be sure, is that they will not lose their representation. Sometimes it is better to be 10 out of 50 than 12 out of 100. That is the point Liberals are making.

If the minister were here, I would tell him that. If he wants to avoid making Canadians angry over this bill, he just has to come back with the same percentage by province using 308 seats. That is achievable.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we hear the parliamentary secretary's response, I would remind hon. members that it is not in the rules that we refer to the presence or absence of other hon. members in the chamber.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I am a little confused. The member opposite, for the second time in his intervention, has mentioned avoiding getting provinces angry. There are no provinces that are angry over this bill. No province would see a reduction in the number of representatives it has right now, and smaller provinces are very satisfied with that; the provinces that have seen increased and fast population growth would receive additional seats, and they are very happy about that.

In fact, we will find, as Bill C-20 is implemented in the months and years to come, that Parliament would reflect the population of this country in a far more effective and representative way than it ever has before.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, especially his praise for my colleague, a woman I have known for years. I like to brag about the fact that I managed to convince her to run for the first time in 2008. I get a deep sense of personal satisfaction from that.

I applaud the government for introducing a bill to try to bring fairer representation to this House and to reflect some Canadian realities. However, these same ideas have already been introduced.

Could my colleague tell us whether the government will respect the need for in-depth debates? The committee will have to dig deep to find the best possible option. Our party introduced similar bills a number of times. I think that we can really find something that would satisfy the greatest number of people.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I did not know that my hon. colleague was the one who convinced my other colleague to run, so I congratulate both of them.

With respect to the comments as to committee work, I agree that real work on the bill will be done at committee, such as the examination of the technical aspects of the bill. Quite frankly, I am happy to hear that Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition agrees with us because we want to get this to committee as quickly as possible.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Before we resume date on the current motion, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Cape Breton—Canso, Air Canada; the hon. member for Windsor West, G8 Summit; the hon. member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Committees of the House.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, today we have the opportunity to debate Bill C-20, the Fair Representation Act.

This bill has a history. It dates back to the 39th Parliament and since then it has undergone some revisions and changes. As it currently stands, Bill C-20 illustrates the Conservative government's desire to make some constructive changes to the makeup of this House. The proposals in Bill C-20 also seek to enhance the effectiveness of democracy in Canada and improve representation.

However, what the bill is proposing does not appear to have been well received. It did not take long for reactions from the provincial legislatures to reach Ottawa, and Quebec dismissed the Conservative government's proposals right away. Ontario and British Columbia also raised some legitimate concerns regarding this bill. This response is significant, as it illustrates how poorly balanced the government's approach was regarding the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons.

The provinces reacted as they did because they felt that the initiative was confused and saw that the government was trying to satisfy them with a pittance. It has come up with practically random figures to which the Conservatives are attaching expressions like “fair representation” and “proportional democratic weight”. The very terms for what we are debating are flying around in every direction. The provinces understand very clearly that there is some confusion and that when there is confusion, there is some flexibility and room for negotiation.

This feeling of confusion stems primarily from the successive changes that have been made to the bill over time and that reveal considerable hesitation on the part of the government. After all, at the outset, Quebec was not given any additional seats. The government sensed the danger, however, and had the good sense to change its mind. I am sure my colleagues can imagine how the Quebec National Assembly would have reacted had the government not changed its mind.

The Minister of Industry, the member for Mégantic—L'Érable, said: “This bill will move every Canadian province toward representation by population.” This remark was repeated by the parliamentary secretary who just spoke.

I would like to know if the government plans to use this criterion alone for the new seat allocation. If that is the case, it demonstrates an approach that is narrow in vision and not very serious. In fact, strict representation by population is certainly not the only criterion that should be applied when seats are redistributed. It would be a denial of all the things that make Canada what it is. We need only examine all the clauses used to calculate the number of seats to support that. It seems that the minister is denying what is protecting Prince Edward Island's four seats.

The NDP will stand with the provinces that want us to continue fine-tuning Bill C-20. We acknowledge that the government wants to take action and get it right, but we believe that there is too much hesitation on the government's part and therefore that there is room to negotiate.

I am very pleased to be able to debate this bill. The NDP believes that there is a consensus in the House about the importance of fair and intelligent reform of our democratic institutions. After all, we have everything to gain with a more representative Canada.

I am in federal politics because I am convinced that Canada's strength is rooted in its diversity. The problem of fair representation of the provinces in the House comes up regularly because Canada is changing and its Parliament must reflect these changes. This issue seems simple, but is unexpectedly complex. It also stirs up passions and triggers all sorts of hidden emotions.

Canada is more than just the sum of the 10 provinces and 3 territories. Since confederation, two visions of the country have often clashed. These two visions refer to very different and almost opposite sensibilities that we have tried to reconcile as best we can since the beginning of the federal experience. That is the basis for John Saul's idea of a civilization that compromises. As my Canadian history professor used to say, Canada is a community that is always fraught with bickering. As a Quebecker, I know what I am talking about.

The first of these two visions, considers provincial authority as an end in itself. It focuses on the provincial legislature, local distinctiveness, local cultural heritage and, in the case of Quebec, language. Of course the emotional attachment to Canada remains present and real, but confederation is clearly perceived as a supranational entity.

That is clearly the case in Quebec. While it is well known, it is sometimes misunderstood in other parts of Canada: in Quebec, ties to the state are twofold. That is completely normal. Quebec preciously guards the memory of its past and still feels the presence of the other state it once was: New France. Quebec's specificity is so important that this government even took the initiative to give it the status of a nation within Confederation.

Quebec is not the only province in this situation. Take Newfoundland, for example. It was the last province to join Confederation. It had its own currency, flag and national anthem, and its people are still very conscious of their common origin.

Some might even say that Newfoundland has its own language. It joined Confederation 80 years after the founding provinces, after a long history as an independent British dominion. Consequently, Newfoundland had the time to develop a feeling of national allegiance that Ottawa, as a distant and mainland capital, cannot shake, even after 60 years.

I would also like to mention the more subtle case of the Northwest Territories. Northerners live a common frontier experience in a tough environment that is both beautiful and remote. The ethnic balance between aboriginals and non-aboriginals has created a distinct type of country with its own ethnically diverse culture that is incredibly dynamic.

I could go on and on because this is such a fascinating topic, but what I am trying to express is that this vision requires one essential element: balance. When balance is maintained, this decentralist vision does not call into question the relevance of this federal plan and encourages cultural and creative development across our country. The NDP, which is so committed to diversity, is very sensitive to the differences that exist, to varying degrees, in each province.

There is the opposite, highly centralist vision, which sees the federal government as responsible for building the Canadian nation. This vision is behind the notion of nation building. It is a state of mind that promotes unity within the country by focusing on all that is similar at the expense of all that is different. The Constitution Act, 1867, seemed to favour that vision of Canada, but that vision took a hit during the constitutional debates of the 1980s and 1990s. It was, however, the initial cause of sweeping Canada-wide achievements and it is dear to many of our constituents whose values are reflected in it.

It is simplistic to divide the provinces between these two visions. This vision has its roots in the British imperialism that Canada was part of. The Constitution of 1867 was drafted in that vein and we can say without a doubt that Canada as we know it today is a legacy of that time.

Ontario, the most populous province and the most under-represented in this House, has its cultural and political origins in the British colonial era. It is completely justified. The Prairies also find a common cultural foundation in that history. They were constituted as the logical next step in the federal project and steeped in British patriotism. Canada has its history and we do not seek to diminish it.

The Conservative Party clearly favours a more centralist plan. For this government, the federal government and its institutions have the responsibility to build this country. Canada, as the Conservatives see it, has to be moulded from the same clay. Differences have to give way to common elements. It is the Canada of “The Maple Leaf Forever”. Their interpretation is as old as the country itself and meets come people's expectations. However, those who share the decentralist vision feel there is a lack of finesse in these democratic reform bills that the Conservative government is introducing in this House. They all have one thing in common: they all attempt to make fundamental changes to the parliamentary institutions without ever having to touch the Constitution.

Bill C-20 is nothing but a weak attempt at giving this House the semblance of fair representation of the provinces that make up Canada. Bill C-20 is just another attempt at doing something when it is clear that no one really knows what to do. The NDP has a vision. Our party has a deeper understanding of what constitutes Canada's wealth and we want to move forward in respect and collegiality.

For example, the NDP explicitly recognized Quebec's distinct nature in Bill C-312, introduced by my colleague, the member for Compton—Stanstead. In short, the NDP proposed that we keep the previous formula for calculating how seats are allocated in the House of Commons, while still guaranteeing that Quebec would retain its political weight of 24.35% within the House, the percentage it had when it was recognized as a nation in this House.

As much as we acknowledge that Bill C-20 is a step forward compared to the earlier versions, there is still a lot of work to be done before it will be acceptable. I condemn the fact that the Conservative government does not have enough strength to take action. At first glance, this so-called strong mandate is not translating into a willingness and a vision to truly move Canada forward. It takes guts, initiative and courage to turn words into action.

Yet when it comes to petty politics and pitting the provinces against each other, this government is one of the best. For proof, we need only look at the provinces' reactions to Bill C-20. With this government, it is one step forward, two steps back.

The problem is clear. the provinces want a number of seats that corresponds as closely as possible to their demographic weight. Since Quebec was recognized as a nation within Canada, it is asking to retain its weight at 24.35%.

The NDP is of the opinion that these two requests are fair and must be defended. The NDP believes that, in order for Canada to work better, it is absolutely necessary that the provinces and their unique characters be represented as accurately as possible. Only the NDP can do this because we have a much better understanding of what Canada wants. Our vision is to make Canada a true success, to make it the best country in the world. We want to debate the role of our parliamentary institutions with respect, rigour and, most importantly, a listening ear. This quality is essential.

The basic problems with the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons, namely the chronic under-representation of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia and the concrete recognition through action of the Quebec nation, are far from irreconcilable. However, there are still concerns. The fact that the Ontario premier is not hesitating to speak out shows his concern about this bill, which must be fair to Ontarians. The same goes for the premier of British Columbia, who is asking for no fewer than the seven seats that were provided for in a previous draft of the bill.

The Quebec Minister responsible for the Reform of Democratic Institutions feels the same way. He believes that Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons should not be decreased. In 2006, this House unanimously adopted a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation within Canada. The constitutional consequences of that decision are unclear. The NDP wants to maintain Quebec's weight in the House of Commons.

Given its status as a nation within a united Canada, Quebec has a special place and we must reflect that fact. All these examples clearly bring one undeniable fact into focus: the provinces are asking the government to listen to them. If the Conservative government continues to turn a deaf ear, it will soon be perceived within the federation of Canada as a steamroller that has little regard for the provinces. First, it was the Senate; now, it is the House of Commons. A trend is becoming painfully clear.

Not only do we need to move away from the verbal rhetoric of simply stating that Canada is the best country in the world, we also need to take real action to prove it. We need to do justice to Canada's diverse, complex character. Our parliamentary institutions need to reflect that. Openness to compromise and negotiation is essential.

I would like to know the point of undertaking reform if it is only done in half measures. In the wake of a slew of democratic deficits, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform is suggesting that we merely apply a band-aid solution. Similar to the arbitrary and constitutionally questionable Senate reform this government wants to implement, this addition of seats to the House of Commons only masks the issues. And when it comes right down to it, no one will be happy.

Why does this government seem unable to successfully reform this country's parliamentary institutions? As the NDP has clearly stated, the first logical step is to consult provincial leaders. We are still at the bill stage and sensible improvements can still be made. But there is still one quality that is painfully lacking in this government: the ability to listen, the decency to listen to the provinces and other interest groups. This is not simply a trivial, procedural issue. We need to ensure that each Canadian citizen has the assurance that the House of Commons is a solid representation of the Canadian reality.

It is quite ironic that, because they have their blinders on, the Conservatives are unable to fully grasp Canada's complexity and diversity. This goes far beyond the simple addition of seats to the House of Commons, as the Conservative government is proposing. Creating more cynicism in and contributing to the alienation of the Canadian people with regard to federal politics is the last thing we want to introduce as legislation in Parliament. But it seems that the government's priority is exactly that.

The formula used to calculate how seats in the House of Commons are allocated is a reflection of Canada's diversity and complex nature. The grandfather and Senate floor clauses are proof of that. The idea of democratic representation goes far beyond these mathematical formulas, but we must look even further than that. The solution being proposed by the Conservative government does not address any of these demands. This bill leaves a number of provinces fundamentally under-represented in this House and it decreases the electoral weight of the Quebec nation.

However, all of these changes can be made, but the Conservatives do not seem to know what to do. To start, they offered some crumbs, then a little bit of meat, but at the end of the day, everyone ends up disappointed. That explains the NDP's disappointment with Bill C-20. The formula used to calculate the seats allocated to each province was changed from what the government presented in the last version of this bill, which was introduced in the previous Parliament. That was already different from the formula that is used now, which dates back to 1985.

I would like to focus on this subject for a moment because I have a hard time following this government's parliamentary gymnastics and acrobatics. First of all, Bill C-12, which was introduced in the House during the previous Parliament, changed the redistribution formula by changing the electoral quotient by which a province's population is divided.

The preamble of Bill C-12 states, and I quote, “Whereas the national average population of electoral districts at the 40th general election was approximately 108,000 persons...”. That is how it was determined that the electoral quotient, in order to divide the province's population—before applying special clauses—would be 108,000. They simply speculated at the time, with the help of estimates from Statistics Canada, about what the redistributed seats might look like using that formula. So this created certain expectations among the provinces. It is not surprising that Bill C-12 never passed.

Then comes along the current bill on fair representation. The Conservative camp has simply shuffled the cards to come up with a new formula for allocating seats to the provinces. Here is where the confusion begins. Here is what Bill C-20 says about the new electoral quotient to be used:

Whereas the electoral quotient for the readjustment that follows the completion of the 2011 decennial census should be 111,166, that number being the average population of the electoral districts on July 1, 2001, which was determined by using the estimate of the population of each province as at that date, multiplied by the average of the rates of population growth of the provinces.

If I understand correctly, the new electoral quotient comes from a mathematical formula that comes from an estimate of the current population that dates back to July 1, 2001. Two questions immediately come to mind. First of all, why use population estimates that are over 10 years old? Why the mathematical acrobatics? Is it because the statistics from back then are more reliable than today's? And second, why use the average rate of increase in the population of the provinces? As we have heard repeatedly in this House, the rates of increase in the population of each province are not all the same.

Ontario is growing faster than any other province. So why this levelling out? How can the government justify creating expectations among the provinces with Bill C-12, only to turn around and crush them so deviously and cunningly with Bill C-20? Did the government really expect the provinces to fall for this trick?

The issue of representation in the House of Commons is complex and goes beyond simple representation by population, a factor that is very important nonetheless. The Supreme Court issued an interesting opinion in this regard. On June 6, 1991, it concluded in The Attorney General for Saskatchewan v. Roger Carter that factors like geography, history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of the Canadian social mosaic.

This means that the bill to redistribute seats in the House of Commons must take other factors into account. No matter what this government says, this exercise in effective representation is not irreconcilable with equal representation of the provinces that have had significant population growth. In short, we must continue to work on this bill, listen to the provinces and arrive at a solution that benefits everyone.

I move, seconded by the member for Welland,

That the motion be amended by deleting all of the words after the word “that” and substituting the following:

this House decline to give second reading to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, because it:

(a) adds and allocates new seats in the House of Commons in a way that would increase regional tensions in Canada;

(b) fails to take into account the need for a nation-building approach to changes in Canada's democratic representation; and

(c) ignores the principle unanimously adopted in this place that the Quebecois represent a nation within a united Canada.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among the parties, and I believe you would find consent for the following motion.

I move that it be an instruction to the legislative committee on Bill C-18 that the committee postpone clause-by-clause review of Bill C-18 in order to permit the legislative committee to travel throughout Canadian Wheat Board designated areas in western Canada for the purpose of meeting with experts and farmers who would be affected by Bill C-18; and that in relation to its study of Bill C-18, the chair and 12 members of the legislative committee be authorized to travel in western Canada from November 14, 2011 to November 18, 2011, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The amendment is in order.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification.

Imagine that, one day, in the House, we decided to say that a certain region of our country was unique and special. In such a case, would the NDP change the formula for assigning seats to that region? Is that the NDP's policy?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

Clearly, when we are speaking about the importance of recognizing the weight of the Quebec nation in the House of Commons, we are referring to the House's unanimous decision to recognize Quebec as a nation within Canada. We are therefore not talking about just any consideration or unique aspect. We are talking about something that was recognized and received a unanimous vote. Quebec has been recognized as a nation. Given this recognition, it seems completely legitimate to me, in this specific case, to say that it is important to maintain Quebec's political weight.

I believe that this is the best thing to do in this case.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, coming from the riding that had the largest population in all of Canada in the last census, I would like to ask my friend across the aisle how she could rationalize saying that there should be more representation than what is being given under the Fair Representation act to Quebec when the voters in Brampton West have half a vote compared to voters in her riding. There are twice as many voters in my riding as hers, and she is saying that should continue and in fact get worse.

What does she have to say to the voters of Brampton West? Why does she not think they are entitled to have the same votes as people in her riding?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question.

We are in Canada. We have certain special characteristics, as I explained in my speech. We live in a country where we cannot, all of a sudden, decide to decrease the number of members of Parliament in certain regions on the pretext, for example, that they are far less populated than other regions. We cannot make such decisions. It is normal for there to be some imbalance. Everyone wants to work to ensure that the imbalance is as minimal as possible and that we operate fairly. No one wants to deny that right.

We recognize that Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta are currently under-represented and that this must be remedied; however, it is not by pitting the provinces against each other and by comparing them that we are going to solve Canada's problems. It is important to recognize the variety of identities within Canada and in each region and province. The best way to do so is to support the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead's bill.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was truly excellent. The NDP introduced a bill that would be an alternative to the government's bill. In our bill, we talk about keeping Quebec's percentage at 24.35%, while the government would keep it at 23%. What difference does that make? For the Quebec nation, it is extremely important to keep that 1%. Could my colleague explain how important it is?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my excellent colleague for her comments and her question. In fact, what is important here is acknowledging the fact that, since Quebec was recognized as a nation within Canada by this House, the least we could do is allow Quebec to retain the political weight that it had in the House of Commons at the time. We are not simply talking about a stable demographic weight or anything like that. If the government wants to acknowledge the fact that the nation was recognized, and that that was not just empty rhetoric, it must take concrete action accordingly. In my opinion, maintaining Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons is completely justifiable.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member's speech and I was very impressed. However, I have a very specific question to ask her.

Does her party feel that there are not enough members in the House and that 30 more need to be added? Has she heard her constituents, the people in her riding, say that we need 30 more members, even though the government is slashing the public service? Is that something she would be proud to tell her constituents? Or does she think, as the Liberal Party does, that we can get the same results—in terms of provincial representation in the House—with 308 seats, without adding a single one?

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville for his question, which was, as always, specific and intelligent. In the present situation, this bill is trying to correct the under-representation of three provinces that are dramatically under-represented. A solution has been presented, but that does not mean it is the only one. I am sure that there are others. For now, the proposals have been submitted. We also understand that eliminating some of the current sections regarding the political weight of provinces in the House of Commons could, for example, lead to fewer members from certain provinces. We do not necessarily want that to happen.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the hon. member, who was elected just a few short months ago, who spoke of changes, improvements and negotiations in the entire process, whether she has noticed that with the Conservative government, there is no room for compromise. Four or five times already, bills have been subject to time allocation motions. In committee, they bulldoze their way through everything. The Conservatives select the witnesses; they make sure the debates are as short as possible. I have a hard time believing there is any chance for change or improvement in this bill.

I would like to know whether the hon. member shares my opinion on this. Given the fact that the NDP introduced a bill to preserve Quebec's political weight and given the fact that it has proposed an amendment, does the hon. member and do the NDP members intend to vote in favour of this bill at second reading stage? Yes or no?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

The hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent for a brief response.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to say to the hon. member that, indeed, it can be quite difficult at times to discuss anything with this government. We just had a very concrete example of that when his colleague was unable to address the House to commemorate Remembrance Day. We were very disappointed with that decision.

As far as the negotiations are concerned, we remain open. We want to try to work and move forward. It is our duty as parliamentarians to do as much as we can.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to rise here in the House to state the Liberal Party's position on Bill C-20, whose main goal is to rebalance the allocation of seats in the House of Commons, taking the needs of those provinces that are growing quickly into account.

The principle of provincial representation by population in the House of Commons is enshrined in our Constitution. Paragraph 42(1)a of the Constitution Act, 1982 stipulates that any amendments to this principle must have the consent of Parliament and the legislative assemblies of at least seven provinces representing at least 50% of the Canadian population: we know that as the 7-50 formula.

We should all be proud that our Constitution formally confirms this principle of representation by population. It is a fundamental principle of democracy.

Alas, nothing is ever so simple in our lively federation. In Canada, we tweak representation by population to take another factor into account. We take great care to assure the political representativeness of the provinces that are in absolute demographic decline, they are losing people, or in relative decline, their population is growing at a slower pace than the Canadian average. We are so careful about this that we are one of the federations where the distribution of seats between constitutional entities is the least numerically representative of its population.

We even established a floor below which a province's representation must not fall: no province can ever have fewer members than it does senators.

The Senate floor clause has been in the Constitution since 1915, in section 51A. It can also be found in subsection 41(b) of the Constitution Act, 1982. In order to amend this section of the Constitution Act, 1982, all members of the federation must give unanimous consent.

Hence, Prince Edward Island has four senators according to the Constitution, so it has four members of Parliament, whatever the size of its population.

The four Atlantic provinces cannot have less than 30 seats in the House because that is their number of senators. This legislation would give them eight seats more than what strict proportional representation would give them.

In a 1987 ruling, the B.C. Supreme Court stated that “the principle of representation ‘prescribed’ by the Constitution does not require perfect mathematical representation...”. A year later, the B.C. Court of Appeal said that what must be preserved “is the principle, not a specific formula”.

In other words, Parliament has some leeway in how it applies the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces when dealing with the provinces that are in relative decline. However, that leeway has its limits. Parliament cannot run afoul of this principle. That would be unconstitutional.

Today, we are close to the limit. This is what the most recent Statistics Canada pre-census data shows. In Ontario, there is 1 MP for every 126,000 people; in New Brunswick, 1 for 75,500 people. As we can see, the numbers need to be re-balanced.

This will be the third time the Conservative government tries to perform this rebalancing act. In its first attempt in 2007, the government proposed adding seats for British Columbia and Alberta but left Ontario almost completely out. When Premier McGuinty objected, the federal minister for democratic reform at the time insulted him by calling him the small man of Confederation.

In its second attempt last year, the federal government ignored Quebec, making it the only province with a relative population decline to be under-represented.

This time, the bill introduced by the Minister of State for Democratic Reform on October 27, would give British Columbia and Alberta an additional six seats and Ontario an additional 15. Quebec would receive three seats to better reflect its demographic weight. As for the other six provinces, they would continue to be over-represented

One serious drawback of this plan is that it would increase the number of MPs from 308 to 338. I am sure nobody in the minister's riding is asking for that. A 30 seat hike is not something to be taken lightly. Canadians are concerned about the added cost of such an inflationary measure.

The government wants to slash the civil service and gorge itself with more politicians. That is nonsense. In these days of financial restraint, Parliament must take the lead.

As our Liberal leader recently insisted, the number of MPs cannot keep growing forever. We would quickly reach a much higher MP to population ratio than is the norm in other democracies.

We must not forget that in our decentralized federation there are many pressing issues, such as schools and hospitals, that federal members of Parliament do not have to address.

In the United States, a country almost 10 times as populous as ours, the house of representatives is limited to 435 members. Why not follow its example and limit the number of seats in the House to its present value? Nothing can stop Parliament from doing that.

We do need to rebalance the House's seat allocation in order to address the needs of the provinces with strong population growth, maintain proportionate representation of the other provinces and protect those with smaller populations in keeping with the Senate clause. It is possible to do that without raising the total number of MPs. It is doable. We would have no problem doing that, so why not do it?

Therefore, I look forward to debating this issue in the House.

By introducing this new bill, the government is committed to allowing members and senators, together with the best experts, to thoroughly study the repercussions of the bill.

Democracy itself is at stake and I am firmly convinced that the government and the opposition should definitely be able to vote together on a bill with respect to this issue. Because, despite our political differences, we are all democrats in this House.

It is possible that we will come to an agreement. The government only has to rebalance the numbers, but this time keeping the number of seats to 308.

Having said that, I am not sure that we will be able to obtain the support of the NDP, which believes, because Parliament recognized that Quebec forms a distinct nation within Canada, that Quebec's representation in the House of Commons should be frozen at its current level in perpetuity.

I believe, as do a number of constitutional experts, that Parliament does not have the constitutional authority to infringe to this extent on the principle of proportional representation without the support of at least seven provinces representing at least 50% of Canada's population. It is important to respect the Constitution.

We still have a lot of work to do on this bill.

I would like to take this opportunity to ask the government and the minister, once again, to do the right thing with regard to its ill-conceived Senate reform plan. What good would it be to Canadians if we improve the House of Commons but make the Senate completely dysfunctional? This Senate reform plan is harmful and even dangerous, since it will weaken our entire Parliamentary system, including the House of Commons.

Why is this bill dangerous for our democratic decision-making mechanisms? Because, by pitting two elected houses against each other, without a constitutional mechanism to resolve their differences, it would create a state of institutional paralysis similar to what our American neighbours are experiencing.

What is the government thinking? What do the Prime Minister and the minister have in mind with their ill-conceived Senate reform project? Do they really want to import into Canada the same kind of ritual opposition and institutional paralysis we have seen in the United States and Mexico? Do we not have enough challenges here in Canada that we also need to hinder our decision-making processes in such a senseless counter-productive manner?

Would the government tell British Columbians, Albertans and the rest of the country what logic underlies its decision to shortchange them in the Senate while, at the same time, it is proposing increasing the number of seats in the House for British Columbia and Alberta?

Why do the minister and the Prime Minister, two Albertans, want to hurt their province? Do they not understand how detrimental it would be to B.C. and Alberta to end up with an elected and powerful Senate where these two provinces would be grossly under-represented with only six senators each, while some provinces have 10 with a population four or six times smaller?

The government knows that an elected upper chamber would carry much more weight in its dealings with the House of Commons than it does in its present form. What is the government's interest in creating such a mess for those two provinces?

How is it that, when it comes to adding seats in the House, the government seems to want to respect the spirit and the letter of the Constitution but, when it comes to Senate reform, this same government is ignoring the Constitution?

Why is the government being so inconsistent? Why the double standard?

Where is the logic? Where is the fairness? Changing the character of the Senate must not be done through a process that excludes the provinces.

Why does the government want to impose an unconstitutional Senate reform plan that will create pointless legal disputes between the provinces at a time when, on the contrary, all our governments should be working together to address the many economic and other problems that are upsetting Canadians and causing them concern?

The Liberal opposition intends, as always, to be constructive and thorough. In the past, we asked the government to amend its bills to make changes to the House of Commons since they were ill conceived, and it listened. Perhaps, the government would agree to once again listen to us, to the benefit of all Canadians, by seeking to achieve the same objectives with Bill C-20 without increasing the number of seats in the House.

We are also asking the government to think about our objections to its Senate reform plan, a plan that is irrational, unconstitutional and dangerous.

Clearly, it would make no sense at all for the government to undo with one hand what it wants to do with the other.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague's speech. The problem is that when the Liberals were governing, they were used to having winners and losers in the provinces. They would pick winners and losers. This is a fair formula that we brought forward for all the provinces. It brings every province closer to representation by population.

My question to the member is, which provinces, under his plan, has he picked to win seats and which provinces would he take seats away from? Which provinces, under his plan, would be the winners and which ones would be the losers?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the answer is very simple. Everybody would be the winner because nobody wants more seats in this House. Canadians want fair representation, and we are in agreement with that.

What is important is which provinces would be so under-represented that they would need to be rebalanced. We know which provinces they are: Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario. However, other provinces would still be over-represented even if we stayed at 308 seats. At the end of the day, this is what Canadians want; they do not want to forever increase.

My question to the minister is, when will it end? In what other country, in order to rebalance the seats between its provinces or regions, is it always an issue to add? Is it France, Germany, or the United States? The answer is none of them.

They are all able to rebalance and have proportional representation that is fair for everyone. This is what we need to achieve. We may achieve it by keeping the same number of seats in this House.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, fundamentally, I do not think we can put a price on life or democracy. I am very disappointed to see that my colleague is a fan of doing nothing and that he even wants to make Canadians pay the price.

A few weeks ago, I heard about a debate going on in Calgary, where there are very few city councillors. It is seems to be a problem, because they are not saving money. Calgary city councillors must hire a very large staff to be able to manage their massive electoral districts.

We must reflect a country's dynamic, and I think that more seats in the House would reflect that dynamic. Which province would my colleague like to see pay the price of decreasing its political weight in the House?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this is the only parliament where a member could rationally claim that we are doing nothing when we are trying to avoid increasing the number of politicians at a time when we are asking Canadians to tighten their belts. Almost all of his constituents will tell him that it makes no sense to increase the number of members of Parliament. That is not what they want. They want their province to be represented. Being 10 out of 50 is better than being 12 out of 100. That is the heart of the issue here. It is the percentage that we represent in relation to the total. It is not the number we have. It is a matter of having a fair percentage in proportion to the population. That is what would happen with this bill, which provides for 338 members of Parliament, but we could achieve the same thing with 308 members of Parliament.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear the hon. member who just spoke talk about another issue. We feel that Bill C-20 is an attack on Quebec's political weight.

What does the hon. member think about the bill introduced by the Conservatives, particularly from Quebec's point of view and given that the House has recognized the Quebec nation? I would also like to know how the Liberal Party will be voting at second reading.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the second aspect, that we come to an agreement here on this issue, is very important to the Liberal opposition.

We are not ready to throw in the towel. We agree with the bill's objectives. We have been calling for this for a long time. The government improved its bill in comparison to previous versions. We believe that the same results can be achieved with 308 seats instead of 338. To answer the minister's question, as a Quebecker, I would not care if seats were taken away from Quebec, as long as our proportion remains the same. I say that as a Quebecker. I would rather we had 70 seats out of 100 than 75 seats out of 200, if I can use such a drastic example. I would not care if Quebec lost seats, as long as the proportion of Quebeckers remains equal to its representation within the Canadian population. That is the issue.

If the hon. member wishes to forever freeze a province's representation in the House by, let us say, keeping that province from ever dropping below a certain percentage—as the NDP has proposed as well—I would respond by saying that he wants to give Parliament a power that it does not have. It would flout the power of the provinces. It would be asking the Canadian Parliament to tell the provinces that they will go unheard and that Parliament works alone. I cannot accept that. I want Quebec's National Assembly and other legislative assemblies to have their say if the government proposes to freeze a province's representation forever, which would go completely against the principle of proportional representation of the provinces, as established in the Canadian Constitution.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member's responses to be absolutely unbelievable. Let us take a look at the Canadian reality. In Ontario, there are exactly the same number of seats in the Ontario legislature as there are—

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

That is not true.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

It is not true? I am sorry. I thought it was exactly the same number. It is possible. The fact remains that the National Assembly has more seats than Quebec has members in the House. Is the hon. member suggesting that the National Assembly is going too far in the number of seats it has? That seems totally inconsistent to me.

On the contrary, a legislature has to be able to represent the demographic weight, the cultural weight, the political weight, the regional linguistic realities, and so on. This can result in an unequal configuration. What is more, that is the case when we talk about the different Canadian provinces. There are tremendous inequalities that are perfectly justifiable. How can the hon. member justify the status quo, which I have already condemned?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is the same question, and it calls for the same answer. It is not the status quo. We can do better work if there are fewer of us. When there are too many of us, we do not work as well. That is true in every organization in the world. It becomes a bureaucracy. There comes a time when there are too many MPs.

We are a decentralized federation. We do not have to manage the hospitals and the schools in our ridings. We can focus on our work. We simply need to give MPs more help if they are having a hard time doing their work. We do not need to increase the number of MPs. We do not need any more MPs in the House than we already have. We were doing good work when there were 280 of us ,and now we are 308. I think that is enough. The Americans have 435, but they have 10 times the population. Do we need to get to 435 to realize there are too many of us? At what point will the hon. member say that the number of MPs we have does not make any sense? We can very well stay at 308 and rebalance representation of the provinces in the House.

[Alexandrine Latendresse, NDP, Louis-Saint-Laurent, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in relation to the last comment made by my colleague from Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, I would like to ask him if he thinks we can compare ourselves to the United States in that regard. Does he believe that the 69 members in Iceland who represent the 300,000 inhabitants there should cut their parliament in half? What number should be sought in proportion? I do not understand why there should suddenly be a global standard for the number of parliamentarians in a parliament.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that exists everywhere. People compare the number of parliamentarians to the population in every country. Canada is currently becoming an inflationary country in that regard. Just when the government is slashing the public service, when we do not have enough environmental inspectors, the government wants to increase the number of politicians.

I am certain that if I went into all of my colleagues' ridings and defended my point of view, everyone would applaud me. People would say that they do not want more politicians, that we have enough as it is and they should do their jobs better. We do not need to increase that number by 30 or 40.

Bill C-20—Notice of time allocation motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The fair representation act is important for Canada's democracy. In view of the upcoming census results and redistribution, it is important that the bill is passed in a time fashion. I thought the opposition agreed.

We have heard the member for Hamilton Centre and the NDP critic for democratic reform say that if we did not have these seats available for the next election then, quite frankly, the government will have failed. We agree with him.

However, as is evident from the motion that was moved earlier today by the opposition that this not proceed past second reading, I regret to advise that agreement has not been reached under the provisions of Standing Orders 78(1) or 78(2) with respect to the second reading stage of Bill C-20, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice that a minister of the Crown will propose, at the next sitting, a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at the said stage.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I wonder if it is safe, now, for us to assume, because there are rules that we have in place inside the Chamber that help facilitate debate so that members of Parliament can actually contribute. I know the current Government Leader of the House of Commons is a big fan of the whole time allocation thing. As opposed to negotiating in good faith with opposition House leaders, he prefers to come down with the majority big stick saying, “No more debate. Let's shut it down”.

Is this the kind of majority government we can anticipate--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Order, please. This is not a point of order, so we will continue.

The hon. minister of state.

Second Reading

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to have this opportunity to speak about fairness and representation for all Canadians.

In the last election and in previous elections, our party committed to Canadians that we would address the growing unfairness in representation. During the last election, we made three distinct promises to ensure that any update to the formula allocating House of Commons seats would be fair for all provinces.

First, we would increase the number of seats now and in the future to better reflect population growth in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.

Second, we would protect the number of seats for smaller provinces.

Third, we would protect the proportional representation of Quebec according to its population.

Our government received a strong mandate to move toward fair representation in the House of Commons, and we are delivering on that commitment.

Bill C-20, fair representation act would provide fair representation for Canadians living in the fastest growing provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

First, I would like to outline the problem that we need to fix.

According to our Constitution, every 10 years the number of House of Commons seats allocated to each provinces is revised. The way this is done is through the seat allocation formula explained in section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

The seat allocation formula in place now dates from 1985. Back in 1985, our predecessors in this place faced a decision. They could either allow the size of the House of Commons to grow roughly in line with population growth, or they could attempt to restrain the growth of the House of Commons. They decided on a formula that would restrain the growth in the House of Commons. In doing that, they entrenched a seat allocation formula that would remain anchored in the past and that would not properly account for population growth in the future.

The most obvious and unfortunate result was that the representation of Canadians in our largest and fastest growing provinces was discounted. In fact, population growth was largely ignored by the formula and fairness in representation for Canadians suffered more and more as time went on. To be fair, the problem was not simply with the formula. It was flawed, certainly, but it needed help. Our population growth patterns were that help.

Population growth since the mid-1980s has seen significant higher than national average growth in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Population growth in those provinces has been even higher in large urban and suburban areas. Under the 1985 formula, the population of these three provinces have become significantly and increasingly under-represented due to the population growth.

This has caused a representation gap. This representation gap should, of course, be addressed. To illustrate the need for addressing this representation gap, we look no further than the riding of my colleague from Brampton West. He joined me for the announcement of the bill last week in his riding and his riding is the perfect example of the need for this bill.

Brampton West is home to the largest number of Canadians in any one constituency at over 170,000 people. That population figure was as of the 2006 census, over five years ago. Truly that number is even higher right now. That 170,000 people compares to an average national riding size of just under 113,000 people. In fact, only our four largest provinces have average riding sizes of over 90,000 people.

Brampton West is represented by one member of Parliament, though its population alone could warrant almost two in most other areas of the country. Brampton West is also home to a considerable number of new and visible minority Canadians. Canada's new and visible minority population is increasing, largely through immigration. These immigrants tend to settle in fast growing communities like Brampton and in our fastest growing provinces like Ontario.

These three factors, high immigration to fast growing regions of the fastest growing provinces, combine to magnify the representation gap to these regions. This situation inadvertently causes new Canadians and visible minorities to be even more under-represented than the average.

It is clear for all to see that this situation undermines a principle of representation by population in our country. Brampton West is the most extreme example of the representation gap, but it allows us to put the problem into perspective.

If left with the status quo, the representation gap experienced by Canadians living in fast growing provinces and constituencies will grow even more striking. If left to grow worse, this gap could seriously threaten the legitimacy of our claim to being a representative democracy.

It truly is that important. This is a serious problem that requires an immediate solution. I propose that Bill C-20 would be that solution.

With the fair representation act, our Conservative government would deliver a principled and reasonable update to the formula allocating seats in the House of Commons.

The bill would do a number of things. It would move every single province toward representation by population in the House of Commons. It would address the representation gap by moving Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta significantly closer to representation by population. Using the formula put forward in the bill, Ontario would receive 15 new seats, British Columbia would receive 6 new seats and Alberta would receive 6 new seats. The bill would increase seat counts for these provinces, both now and in the future, by ensuring that population growth would be more accurately factored into the seat allocation formula. In this way, the foundation principle of representation by population would be much better respected and maintained, now and in the future.

At the same time, the bill would ensure that smaller and slower-growing provinces would maintain their number of seats. The legislation would also fulfill our platform commitment to maintain Quebec's representation at a level proportionate to its population. Quebec has just over 23% of the provincial population and it would have just over 23% of the provincial seats in the House of Commons. That is what we have promised and that is what will deliver.

Since the purpose of the bill is be to move every single province toward representation by population in a fair and reasonable way, Quebec will receive three new seats under a new representation rule applicable to all provinces should they need it. This rule will ensure that no province that is over-represented will experience representation less than what is proportionate to the population after any future seat adjustment. The reason for this is simple and fundamental. While the relative weight of provinces may fluctuate, our seat-allocation formula should ensure that efforts to move under-represented provinces closer to representation by population do not also bring over-represented provinces under the level which their populations warrant. This is in support of the principle of proportionate representation and is one of the fundamental principles in our Constitution, right alongside representation by population.

It would not be fair or principled to enact a formula that could punish a smaller or slower-growing province in that way. This rule is be part of the fair balance that we must strike.

We have an obligation to enact a formula that better respects and maintains representation by population. The bill would do this. We have an obligation to enact a formula that ensures the effective and proportionate representation of all provinces, especially for smaller and slower-growing provinces. The bill would do that. We have an obligation to enact a principled formula with national application that is fair for all provinces. The bill would do that. We have an obligation to work together to ensure that the vote of each Canadian, to the greatest extent possible, has equal weight. The bill would do that. Canadians rightfully expect fair and principled representation in their democratic institutions. I think this bill would provide that as well.

I would like to discuss the details.

As I have stated, Bill C-20, fair representation act, would update the constitutional formula for allocating seats in the House of Commons among the provinces. The seat readjustment formula has been updated by Parliament a number of times since Confederation, each time seeking to strike a balance among the principles I just outlined. Parliament acts through its authority to amend the Constitution in relation to the House of Commons under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. This was the same constitutional authority under which the existing formula was passed in 1985. I want to make it clear that we are on firm and well-travelled ground.

The seat allocation formula operates by determining an electoral quotient which, theoretically, represents the average population per seat and then dividing the population of each province to determine the initial number of seats per province. Once initial seat allocations are produced, the formula provides additional seats to certain provinces, according to the two minimum seat guarantees outlined in the Constitution.

Added in 1915, the Senate floor guarantees that no province can have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it has in the Senate.

Added in 1985, the grandfather clause guarantees that no province can be allocated a number of seats that is less than the number of seats it had in 1985.

The final step adds the total provincial seats and one seat for each territory to determine the total number of seats.

The representation gap I spoke of earlier stems from this point. The current 1985 formula sets 279 members as a permanent divisor in determining the electoral quotient, and 279 was the number of provincial seats in the House of Commons at the time that the formula was passed in 1985.

The House then had 282 seats, 279 provincial seats and three territorial seats. This divisor of 279 was not allowed to readjust over time to reflect the actual number of provincial seats in the House of Commons, currently at 305.

The combined effect of fixing the divisor at 279 and the seat guarantee to slower growing provinces is this. It prevents faster growing provinces from receiving a share of seats that is in line with their share of the population. Faster growing provinces have accordingly become significantly and increasingly under-represented in the House of Commons, relative to their population, and are likely to become even more under-represented in future reallocations under this existing formula. This is clearly not fair.

The fair representation act would provide an updated allocation formula that would move every province toward representation by population and significantly reduce the number of increasing under-representation for the faster growing provinces.

The electoral quotient with the 2011 readjustment will be set at 111,166. This number reflects the average riding population prior to the last seat re-adjustment in 2001 and increased by the simple average of provincial population growth rates.

The Senate floor and grandfather clause would continue to apply.

The representation that I spoke of would also apply, such that if a currently overrepresented province becomes under-represented as a result of the application of the updated formula, additional seats would be allocated to that provinces so its proportional representation, according to population, is protected.

For the purpose of calculating the provincial seat allocation, provincial populations would be based on Statistics Canada's annual population estimates from July 1, 2011. These estimates correct for undercoverage in the census and provide the best data available on provincial populations and therefore the most appropriate data with which to determine provincial seat counts.

For the 2021 readjustment and each subsequent readjustment, the electoral quotient would be increased by the simple average of provincial population growth rate since the preceding readjustment. The result is a larger increase in the number of seats in the House of Commons compared to the current 1985 formula, both in the next readjustment and in the future readjustments.

These increases will more accurately reflect population growth across the country and will provide for far closer representation by population. The increasing representation gap would be closed and Canadians would be represented much more fairly.

Where and how the House of Commons seats are distributed within provinces is a separate and distinct process that will remain largely unchanged. Once the number of seats per province is established, the process set out in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is used to readjust and redistribute electoral boundaries within the provinces.

The readjustment of electoral boundaries is taken in accordance with census data, as it has always been, which provides population counts at the geographic level that is necessary to most accurately revise electoral boundaries.

The independent boundary commissions that determine the electoral boundaries for each province will continue to be constituted in the same way and will continue to operate unchanged. This independent boundary commission process was established in 1964 and was amended slightly in 1979. There is no change to that aspect of the process.

The fair representation act does include amendments that would streamline the timelines governing the boundary readjustment process to ensure that it will be completed and in effect before the end of our government's mandate. The changes proposed to the boundaries readjustment process are aimed simply and solely at streamlining the process.

Moreover, each proposed change to the timelines has been recommended previously in some form by the Chief Electoral Officer, the procedure and House affairs committee, or the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, known as the Lortie commission.

These changes should streamline and modernize the process. They have taken into account recommendations expressed by Elections Canada.

While the timelines are changing somewhat, the process itself remains unchanged and independent.

To conclude, the fair representation bill is a principled nationally applicable update to the formula that allocates seats to the House of Commons. It is fair. It is reasonable. It is principled. It solves a problem that needs to be fixed and that will only grow worse if we fail to act. It will achieve better representation for faster growing provinces while maintaining representation for smaller and slower growing provinces.

I will say it again: Canadians rightfully expect fair and principled representation in their democratic institutions. The fair representation bill delivers on this expectation and delivers on our government's long-standing commitment.

I strongly encourage the opposition to work with us in passing this principled and reasonable legislation as quickly as possible to ensure the vote of every Canadian has equal weight to the greatest extent possible and as soon as possible. I look forward to continuing my work with all my colleagues in the House to ensure that happens.

[Raymond Côté, NDP, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the speech given by the minister for democratic reform.

Clearly, taking a first step towards rebalancing the political weight and representation in the House is a good thing. However, given that there is a risk that the debate will be cut short again, I am very worried because we have some proposals to make. The minister just reached out, asked us for suggestions and proposed working together, but I have to wonder under what conditions we might be working.

Unfortunately, I have a feeling that this offer was merely for show, merely to look good in the eyes of the public. How could we possibly get the government to listen to us and hope to move this bill forward in co-operation with the provinces under the conditions imposed on us?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, this is a formula that is principled and applicable to the entire country. It is fair for the entire country as it brings every province closer to representation by population. There has been debate about this in the House. There will be further debate about this in the House of Commons. Then there will be opportunities to speak about it further in committee.

What Canadians want us to do is to move forward. This government received a strong mandate to bring fairness in representation and to bring every province closer to representation by population. We are moving forward on that. We have made this commitment and we will follow through on that commitment.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with the minister's conclusion that Canadians want to have proportional representation in the House that would be fair for every province.

I will say to the minister that the bill he tabled is much better than the two other attempts by his government. I think we are much closer now. However, I reiterate my point that we may achieve it without adding one seat in the House.

If the minister has heard Canadians say that they want more MPs or more politicians, he should tell me because I have not heard one Canadian say that. Canadians think the system is fair with 308 seats. That is enough. We could achieve the same percentage by province that he has mentioned by staying at 308.

It is true that my province of Quebec would have fewer seats but our representation would be as good as it is in the bill. To have 70 seats in Quebec out of, let us say, 250 would be better than 78 out of 338. I am sure it would be the same for all my colleagues in all provinces. What is important is the representation of a province, not the number of seats.

Could the minister tell us if, after working with experts, he came back with another scenario of 308 seats, what that would mean for fair representation?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, the fact is we live in a very large country with varying populations. Along with that, to complicate the issues, we have constitutional guarantees of seats for certain provinces, for provinces that have slower growing populations and populations that have moved to other parts of the country.

We made a commitment in the campaign that we would protect the seats of those smaller provinces. We made a commitment in the campaign that we would bring the provinces of Alberta, B.C. and Ontario closer to representation by population. It is only fair that the people living in those provinces have their vote counted, to the greatest extent possible, equally, just like the other provinces. We are moving forward on that commitment by bringing every province closer to representation by population.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, following on the question from the Liberals, I have had difficulty with this. We saw two incarnations of this legislation in previous Parliaments, neither of which had an increased number seats for the province of Quebec. As much as the government members may think I do not have much intelligence, I think I have a reasonable knowledge of how this system works, but I have no comprehension whatsoever as to how they came to the number of three additional seats for the province of Quebec.

With regard to that, I want to take some credit for my party for having pressed the government into recognizing all the various considerations that go into increasing the number of seats in this House. The Conservatives' responsibility as government in proposing this type of legislation is to take into account the historical rights that the province of Quebec has in terms of an equilibrium of seats and its right to have fair representation in the House. I congratulate the Conservatives for finally moving on that and I take some credit on behalf of my party for seeing them do that.

I come back to my basic question. How did they come to the three seats? I have no way of understanding that.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to answer the question.

That fact is we committed that Quebec would have representation equal to its population. The numbers work out like this: Quebec has 23% of the population and it will have 23% of the seats in the House of Commons, which would require it to get three additional seats. That is where those three seats come from.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am enjoying this discussion with the minister. I want to tell him how important it is for me that we agree at the end of the day. We are all democrats and it would be good to agree.

I am sure Canadians would prefer 308 seats rather than 338 seats. No one is asking for more MPs. We do not need that many in Canada. The United States has 435 seats for ten times the population that Canada has. We do not need to add any seats. We could achieve the same goals that are in the bill by keeping the same number of seats. I know Quebec would have fewer than 75 seats, but the representation for Quebec would be the same. This is what is key for Quebeckers.

I am telling the minister that we have the constitutional power to do it. We need to keep the Senate floor rule clause, and it is good, but the grandfather clause can be changed by Parliament alone. We do not need to have a long constitutional discussion about that. It would be much better for Canada.

I am asking the minister, when would we stop adding seats? When would we say there are enough seats?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member's proposal would have us change some legislation and not change the Senate floor rule, which would actually leave some provinces overrepresented and other provinces continue to be under-represented.

What we have done is to bring forward a principled formula that brings every province closer to representation by population. At the end of the day, the Liberal proposal would have us open up the Constitution and get into long drawn-out constitutional battles that no Canadian wants. What Canadians want is to be fairly represented in the House of Commons. Further to that, they want this government to continue to work on the economy and work on jobs and not get into the long drawn-out constitutional battles that the Liberals want.

[Charmaine Borg, NDP, Terrebonne—Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, my question has to do with the comments made by the minister just now.

I am a bit concerned that he thinks Canadians do not want a debate on this issue. I do think that Canadians want a debate on this issue because we are talking about a constitutional amendment. That is huge.

I would like the minister to reconsider his comments. I would also like him to talk about the fact that the government decided to limit discussion on this issue.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, the fact is, yes, Canadians want to hear debate. There is debate on this bill and there will be more debate on this bill as there is on every bill. We give more than enough time to debate bills in the House of Commons. What Canadians really want is action. Canadians gave this government a strong mandate to move forward and that is what we are doing.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there have been extensive discussions on this topic and I believe we finally have agreement. If you were to seek it, I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion: That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs that it travel for the purpose of meeting with veterans as part of its hearings into the impact of the recent decision by the Conservative government to cut over $200 million from the Veterans Affairs department, that it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to hold hearings in each province and territory, and that in relation to this study, the 12 members of the Veterans Affairs committee be authorized to travel within Canada no later than December 16, 2011, and that the necessary staff accompany the committee.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Does the House give its consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, there have been no extensive consultations. There have been two of these so far today and the members are misrepresenting what is going on. They should not be saying there have been extensive consultations when they have been consulting themselves.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh has two minutes to begin making his comments.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Madam Speaker, since there is no use going into the topic itself in that short period of time, let me make a few comments about the government moving time allocation.

This will now be the sixth time in about 40 sitting days that the government has moved time allocation. It is fast approaching matching the former Liberal government in its 2000 to 2004 term of office with the number of time allocation motions it moved, although the Conservatives are way ahead of the Liberals in terms of the period of time within which they did it. It took the Liberal government of the day about 130 sitting days to move time allocation on nine different occasions. The Conservatives are up to six time allocation motions already in a little over 30 days.

We have seen incarnations of this bill twice in previous Parliaments and each time there is a difference in the numbers. There appears to be a different rationale each time.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member will have 18 and one-half minutes to make his comments when this bill is next before the House.

It being 5:52 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.

Bill C-20--Time Allocation Motion

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I move:

That, in relation to Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration at second reading stage of the Bill; and

At fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day designated for the consideration of the said stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the said stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Pursuant to Standing Order 67(1) there will now be a 30-minute question period. I would ask hon. members to keep their questions and responses to about a minute so we can accommodate more questions and more members.

As in previous question periods, members of the opposition will be recognized more often than government members to allow questioning from the opposition parties. Some members of the government will no doubt be accommodated as well.

The hon. member for Windsor--Tecumseh.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we are again going down the same road which the government has obviously chosen to go down to thwart debate in the House, and quite frankly to thwart the democracy that the debate supports.

I want to put on the record again in Hansard that the Conservatives have obviously decided that they want to set a record for the number of time allocation motions. We are up to 43 sitting days so far in this session of Parliament. They are trying to catch up with the Liberals and are doing a really good job at it.

The Liberals took 122 sitting days before they set the record with nine time allocation motions. As this is the seventh one by the government in 43 days, I ask the government House leader, how many more are we going to have? On what possible basis can he say that we need time allocation for this bill which has changed quite dramatically from its earlier incarnation? There is a significant shift in the bill that requires significant debate.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question, if there is a record being set, I think it has been set by the opposition. That would be the record for the most number of reasoned amendments ever in such a short period of time. Those are amendments from the opposition that aim to prevent a bill from getting past second reading. The opposition has moved such a reasoned amendment, saying that this bill should not go past second reading. The opposition has made up its mind. It has said that the debate is over. It has said that it is going to vote against the bill. All that is left is to allow this House to decide. That is the purpose of our motion, to allow it to happen.

The reason we think it is important to do so in this case is best captured in the words of the member for Hamilton Centre, the NDP critic for democratic reform, who said, “If we don't have those seats available”--the ones that are being generated by this bill--“for the next election, then the government has failed in terms of the promise they made”.

As we know, the census results will be released in February. The redistribution process will begin at that point. That means this bill has to get through this House at second reading, through a committee, back to this House for report stage and third reading, then over to the Senate for second reading, through committee, and third reading there, and then royal assent by the Governor General, all before the redistribution process in order to fulfill the objectives set out by the NDP critic for democratic reform.

That sets out the imperative of the timeline we are under, the reason we feel the need to move in this fashion to achieve those objectives. That is indeed why we are doing it in this case.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the government House leader, particularly when he was quoting me, which I stand by.

I think it is the purpose for all of us. We go through a lot of different processes in the course of debate. There is a lot of zigging and a lot of zagging, but at the end of the day, I think there is a collective commitment, certainly I know the government has one and we in the official opposition have one, to have the appropriate bill in place that gives our provinces and territories the appropriate number of seats.

We have a challenge in front of us. We have the government bill in front of us, which I believe is the third go-around on this matter. We also have the bill put forward by the official opposition. They are apart, but I want to say that there is a closer resemblance to our bill and where the government is now.

If the government is planning to slice off debate here due to the time limits, will the government House leader assure us that we will have adequate time at committee to do the work that is necessary, or is he going to thoroughly stifle all democratic debate on a democratic bill and deny us the opportunity to do the work we need to do?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Madam Speaker, our government received a strong mandate to move toward fair representation in the House of Commons.

We have presented a principled formula, a formula that is fair for all provinces and moves every single province closer to representation by population. It is based on population figures. It is based on the fact that we have growing provinces. The provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario are significantly under-represented. It is important that we add seats to those provinces to bring them closer to representation by population.

Again, this formula brings every province closer to representation by population. We have made a commitment that we would move forward on this. That is exactly what we are doing.

The NDP members have already staked out their position. They do not even want this bill to get to second reading. They do not even want it to get to committee. They are talking about committee, but they are the ones who do not want this bill to move to committee.

[Massimo Pacetti, Liberal, Saint-Léonard—Saint-Michel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I have a question for the House leader.

This is the umpteenth time we are debating closure instead of using House time to debate bills. I am wondering how his calculation has now come down to one day. Does that mean all future bills will be debated in less than an hour or 10 minutes, or is it going to be brought down to a few seconds? That is my question to the House leader.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is important that we get this bill to committee and passed, so the seats are available to bring Canadians fair representation and every province closer to representation by population as soon as possible. We ask the opposition to support us in passing this bill.

I have a question for the opposition. What does it have against Alberta, B.C. and Ontario getting closer to representation by population? They are significantly under-represented. As members of the House, it is our responsibility to ensure that every province gets closer to representation by population.

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

Madam Speaker, I find the trend of the government to be deeply disturbing. One is an obvious contempt for the traditions of Parliament. We are sent to the House by people from across this country to represent our regions and people, and to ensure that there is balance in legislation. Nothing is more profound than the discussion about new seat distribution.

I see the second element of the Conservative agenda being wedge politics, to accuse opposition members, who want to ensure this is done right, of somehow having something against Alberta or Ontario. I find that an odious inference.

But I find it much more odious that the government will not allow proper debate on a bill which is fundamentally about nation building. Why does it continually show contempt for the House? If it does not want debate in the House, why is this place open at all? Why is not just a Mr. Harper autocracy?

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. I would remind all members to refrain from using the names of sitting members.

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

Madam Speaker, I am very sorry for saying Mr. Harper's name in the House. An autocracy of—

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I would ask the hon. member to come to order.

The hon. Minister of State for Democratic Reform.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, the NDP talks about debate, but the fact is that after having just started debate on fair representation in the House of Commons yesterday, within the first hour it moved an amendment not to allow this bill to pass second reading and get to committee. It talks about working in committee, but it moved an amendment not to allow it to get to committee.

It has made up its mind. It is not going to support this bill. Conservatives believe that members of the House of Commons should decide on that. We should have a vote and let them decide.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Madam Speaker, I strongly support the government moving expeditiously on this bill. This is an incredibly important bill. This bill would ensure fair representation by population in the chamber. This is one of the most important pieces of legislation the government has brought forward. In fact, this is the third iteration of a bill that was introduced in previous parliaments. This is incredibly important.

We have record high levels of immigration to Canada. We admit people from around the world and we cannot have that policy on the one hand and on the other hand deny new Canadians in the emerging new Canada a voice in the House. This bill would give Ontario an additional 15 seats. In regions of Ontario which are most rapidly growing, places like Brampton, Mississauga, the greater Toronto area, this is an incredibly important bill.

This is the base on which Confederation was founded in 1867. It was the leader of the Liberal Party, George Brown, who argued for representation by population. This bill respects that fundamental constitutional principle.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague brings up a very good point. He talked about new Canadians and visible minorities. The fact is that through immigration our population has been growing, and visible minorities and new Canadians tend to live in the fastest growing provinces of Alberta, B.C. and Ontario. They live in communities that are the fastest growing and that has left new Canadians and visible minorities among the most under-represented.

I would ask the opposition to move forward with this bill in order to allow fair representation for new Canadians and visible minorities. It should not delay this bill. It is very important that we get this bill passed and allow fair representation for all Canadians. It would bring every province closer to representation by population.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, all governments believe that their bills are very important and should be passed expeditiously, but the process of our democracy is that we debate bills in the House in order to improve them, so that they can get to the best point to be passed. That is the purpose of first reading, second reading, third reading and committee work.

In the past, time allocation was an unusual procedure in the House. I use, for example, Louis-René Beaudoin who was the member for Vaudreuil--Soulanges in the 1950s. He was also Speaker of the House and during the famous pipeline debate, he moved with the government a time allocation motion. There were weeks of chaos in the House due to the cutting off of debate because it was so unusual.

I find it sincerely disturbing that the government is using this so often. Where is the respect for democracy? Where is the respect for the traditions of the House?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is true that many bills of this government are very important. We made a commitment that we would move forward and get those passed as soon as possible.

Specifically, the bill adds more seats to the under-represented provinces and is based on a timeline. There is no doubt that we have a timeline here. We have made a commitment that we would pass this bill and go through the entire process within our mandate. It is important that we do that. It is important that we do that so the under-represented provinces gain more seats and move closer to representation by population.

The bill actually brings every province closer to representation by population. It fulfills our commitment to move the House closer to fairer representation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we find it truly amazing that the bill came before this chamber just yesterday. Just yesterday the government introduced a bill that is going to substantially increase the number of members of Parliament. The Conservatives then expect within a few hours of debate that we should all be content with that and allow the bill to go to committee.

My question is for the government House leader. How does he, with any credibility whatsoever, go to the public and say that this is a just system, that this system is allowing for open debate, that we are allowing for the public, through their elected members of Parliament, to be able to question the government, to stand and express what they think?

Why, within minutes of having the bill debated, have you taken the heavy hand of a majority government--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would ask all members to direct their questions through the Chair.

The hon. government House leader.

[Peter Van Loan, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, actually before we took the step of moving time allocation in this case, there was already a motion from the opposition that the bill not proceed beyond second reading, that it not go to committee. That was the purpose of the opposition's motion, that it not be allowed to go through the process and that debate actually be cut off. That was not our idea. The idea to cut off debate at the end of second reading was a motion from the opposition.

After that we felt it necessary, since it was clear the issue was decided, as the opposition had indicated it would oppose it and the government was going to support it, that it was time for the House to decide and allow it to go to committee where the work can be done.

Then it would go to report stage where work can be done, to third reading where again there will be votes and work can be done, and then to make it over to the Senate. We do have that priority of ensuring that the bill puts fairness into our democratic system to ensure that we move closer to that fundamental democratic principle of each individual's vote having equal weight in time for the next redistribution when the census results do come out early next year.

[Jean Rousseau, NDP, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Madam Speaker, once again, this is undemocratic, undemocratic, undemocratic.

How can this government stand before Canadians and dare to say that it was elected by a majority of Canadians, when only 39% of Canadians voted for it?

How can it say that this bill is fair, especially to Quebec, which will be under-represented, even though it was recognized as a founding nation of the country in a motion unanimously adopted by the House in 2006?

Quebec will now end up under-represented in this House. How can the government claim that this bill will be fair to everyone?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, we received a strong mandate from Canadians to bring every province closer to representation by population. We made a commitment that Quebec's representation would be equal to its population. Quebec has 23% of the population so after this formula is in place it would have 23% of the seats in this House of Commons. The numbers speak for themselves and we need to move forward on this bill.

[Mauril Bélanger, Liberal, Ottawa—Vanier, ON]

Madam Speaker, there are two fundamental issues in this bill. The first is seat distribution and the fair representation of all Canadians in this House. Another thing that many Canadians are wondering is whether we will continue to increase the number of seats every time we have a census. Is there a limit? Those are the two main issues, which are perhaps a bit contradictory, that should be at the heart of the debates.

When we pass a bill at second reading it means that we pass it in principle. That seriously—and in some cases almost completely—limits the possibility of making amendments in committee. I think that one day of debate is not enough time for members from all the parties to return to their ridings and talk to their constituents. A government member said it himself: this is the third version. Is this formula the right one? Did the government take the right approach? I think we should have had the time to consult our constituents so that we can properly represent them in this rather important debate.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, this formula, which is fair for all provinces, would bring in reasonable growth for the House of Commons now and into the future. When the Liberals were in government, they always picked winners and losers and they put one part of the country against another.

I would ask the hon. member, under the Liberals' plan who are the winners? Which provinces would win and which would lose? Under the Liberals' plan, they would be taking away seats and giving them to others so they would choose winners and losers. Who would be the winners and who would be the losers under their plan?

[Marc-André Morin, NDP, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister if, while weighing this issue, he is keeping in mind the possibility of a constitutional crisis, as we have seen in the past. If he is not considering that, I am wondering if perhaps it is part of the Conservative strategy to create a constitutional crisis.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, the provisions in this bill were actually changed, under section 44 of the Constitution, which is within the authority of Parliament to do. This has been done in the past. In the late 1980s, Parliament changed the number of seats in the House of Commons through section 44. So it is within Parliament's authority to change the Constitution to bring under-represented provinces closer to representation by population.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, in his speech a few minutes ago, the hon. member for Compton—Stanstead mentioned only one concern about the bill the government has introduced. And I heard the word “ridiculous”. When the first concern was raised, members of the government, without hesitation, used the word “ridiculous”, off the record. Are we to understand that the goal is to silence debate on a fundamental issue, thus demonstrating clear contempt for democracy and the opposition's opinions? Are we to understand that there will be no debate on an issue as important as representation in this House?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, I actually did not hear a question. However, I will take the time to outline the commitments of our government on fair representation.

We committed that we would bring more seats to the under-represented provinces of Alberta, B.C. and Ontario because their populations have been growing and they are significantly under-represented. We committed that we would maintain the seats of the smaller provinces and we also committed that the representation of Quebec would equal its population. We made those commitments, we received a strong mandate to move forward on those commitments, and this bill, the fair representation act, does that. It is important that we move forward and I would ask the opposition to support us on that.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise to ask the minister a question on the proposed legislation. I am from the province of Alberta. Alberta has been under-represented for a long time. It is really important that the bill go through so that the officials will have time to make all the adjustments necessary to add riding seats in the various provinces.

My question for the minister is this: how many seats would Alberta get, and what would that do in terms of fixing under-representation in Alberta?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, under this formula Alberta would get six new seats. That would bring Alberta closer to representation by population.

It is only fair that these under-represented provinces of Alberta, B.C. and Ontario be fairly represented. They have had increases in population, either through immigration or through people moving from one part of the country to the other, and Canadians expect fair and equitable representation in their democratic institutions.

To the greatest extent possible, every vote should carry equal weight. This bill would bring every province closer to representation by population.

[Gerry Byrne, Liberal, Humber—St. Barbe—Baie Verte, NL]

Madam Speaker, the government repeatedly alludes to representation by population and fairness as being the key issues here. We do not have much opportunity to investigate what the government perceives to be fair or unfair because of its time allocation.

I will the present the following circumstance. The President of the Queen's Privy Council, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, represents a constituency with 30,000 people, called Labrador.

In applying its principles of fairness and representation by population, is the government announcing to the House that it intends to dramatically expand the boundary of the current electoral district of Labrador to include a much broader constituency with representation by population equal to the rest of the country? I ask because we could only conclude at this point in time, without any proper debate, that it indeed intends to do so, and the people of Labrador should be aware of that intention.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is quite obvious that the hon. member has not read the bill.

We made a commitment that we would protect the seats of the smaller provinces that have not had the growth. Perhaps he should be very careful and listen to what his own party, the Liberal Party, is proposing. It is the Liberal Party that is proposing to move seats around and take seats away from those provinces. I would suggest he talk to members in his own party and his own leader to see what their plan is, because it is a dangerous plan. We, on the other hand, committed to protect the seats of the smaller-growth provinces.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Madam Speaker, I just heard the minister say that he was going to protect the seats of the smaller provinces.

I would like the minister to tell me if he is going to protect the seats in northern Ontario. We have some huge ridings in northern Ontario. To go from one end of my riding to the other end takes me anywhere from six and a half to eight hours.

Is the minister willing to protect those ridings in northern Ontario where the population is spread out over probably three or four times the size of Prince Edward Island?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, yes, we would actually add 15 new seats to the province of Ontario, because it is under-represented. The population has grown, and we would add those seats to bring it closer to representation by population.

The question also gives me the opportunity to explain that the bill would add seats. The redistribution of the ridings themselves would be done by an independent non-partisan commission. It would begin its work sometime next year, if the members support us in moving this bill forward, to look at the redistribution of the ridings themselves.

[Mylène Freeman, NDP, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Madam Speaker, debating is not delaying; it is democracy.

My question is for the Minister of State for Democratic Reform . Does he not find it painfully ironic that he is stifling debate for approximately 45% of the House when we are discussing representation? The government is stifling representatives from talking about representation. Does the minister not find that ironic?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member was probably not here yesterday when her own party--

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order. The hon. member for Vaudreuil-Soulanges on a point of order.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member will know that it is not parliamentary to refer to a member's absence or presence in the House.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I believe the hon. minister is aware of that.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, I understand. I am saying that the hon. member may not have known that it was her own party that, within the first hour of debate on the bill, moved a motion to end debate and not let it move to second reading. Those members do not even want the bill to go to committee stage.

NDP members have already made up their minds that they will not support the bill. They do not want debate. They do not want it to move to committee stage, but the House of Commons should decide on the bill.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, today we have to realize that this bill is important. It changes the political weight of all the provinces, and that of the Quebec nation in particular.

Earlier, I heard the Minister of State for Democratic Reform respond to a question from the opposition. He asked why the opposition was unhappy to see Alberta, Ontario and British Columbia have their political weight increased. He chose not to mention Quebec. You can check the blues, Madam Speaker. The minister really did word it that way.

When a bill is drafted that changes the political weight of representatives from each province, it is important to consider that reality. I would like to hear the minister's thoughts on that.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, I was talking about the under-represented provinces. Alberta, B.C. and Ontario are under-represented; Quebec currently is not under-represented. It is actually fairly represented or overrepresented.

We made a commitment that Quebec would remain proportionally represented according to its population. At the end of the day, when everything is done here and the bill passes, Quebec will have 23% of the population and 23% of the seats of the House of Commons. That is fair. This bill is fair for all provinces.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

The hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord has 30 seconds to ask one last very brief question.

[Jonathan Tremblay, NDP, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, so much remains to be said.

Where is the urgency? We are talking about the future of this country and this House. The next election will be in four years' time. Where is the urgency?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Madam Speaker, absolutely there is urgency. As the government House leader has explained, in February the Statistics Canada census numbers are revealed and a process begins. If we are to move forward on adding seats to the under-represented provinces to move every province closer to representation by population, we need to move the bill forward. We have made the commitment to move this bill forward, to pass the bill and complete the entire process within our mandate.

The formula is a principle-based formula. It is fair for all provinces. It is important that we move forward.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

It is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #52

Fair Representation Act

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried.

[Gordon O'Connor, Conservative, Carleton—Mississippi Mills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, although the Minister of State for Transport was in his chair, he was not in his seat when the call for the vote occurred and, therefore, his vote should be discounted.

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I was going to rise on the same point of order. Although some members of the House may not have noticed, I sneaked in just after you began the vote. I concur that perhaps in this case my vote should be withdrawn.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, before the minister made that comment, I was rising to my feet to say that, given the responsibility that we have to accommodate, his vote should be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The minister of state has indicated that he was not in his place at the correct time, but is it the will of the House to allow his vote to count?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I wish to inform the House that because of the proceedings on the time allocation motion, government orders will be extended by 30 minutes.

The House resumed consideration from November 2 of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Second Reading

[Steven Fletcher, Conservative, Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. For the record, I appreciated that there would have been unanimous consent in the House but I refused that consent to allow my vote. I appreciate the sentiment for accommodation but, a the end of the day, the rules are the rules and they must be followed, regardless of who the individual is or why the individual missed the timing, which is why I refused the unanimous consent.

I do appreciate the sentiment of the House, which was to allow the vote. It makes for an interesting philosophical debate, and I am thankful.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House appreciates both of the sentiments on the particular question.

The hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh on debate.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will not be taking up the rest of my speech because I need to be in committee at this point.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The hon. member had 18 minutes left. However, if his speech is finished, we should have questions and comments.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have one very brief question to the member.

I am curious to know what the NDP position is regarding the Conservative proposal that we increase the overall number of seats inside the House of Commons. Does the NDP have a position as to whether we should be increasing the number of seats?

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is our party position.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to answer a question I asked one of his colleagues yesterday—the member would have to stay here, though—about the NDP amendment. If the amendment is rejected by the House—which is what will most likely happen, considering the Conservatives' attitude on this—what will the NDP's position be regarding the actual vote on the Conservative government's bill? I would remind the member that the bill denies the Quebec nation's rights and goes against the will of Quebec, particularly that of the Quebec National Assembly, which has unanimously adopted motions on several occasions calling on the government to maintain Quebec's political weight here in this House.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as for our position, we in the NDP want the political weight of Quebec to remain unchanged. It absolutely must stay the same, if possible. That is our position and we will continue to fight for that.

[Jean-François Fortin, Bloc, Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the honourable NDP member a question regarding the relatively short speech he just made. I was in the House when the speech was shortened because so little time was allocated. I would like to know what the member really thinks of Quebec's political weight, which will decrease under the bill introduced by the government. We heard the Liberals' position yesterday. I would like him to compare the positions taken by the government, the Liberals and the NDP.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Liberals do not want any changes. They do not wish to add any seats in this chamber. To answer the rest of the question, it is very clear that the position of the Conservative government at this point is that three seats should be added in Quebec. That is all it is willing to do and we do not find this acceptable.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today in support of Bill C-20, the fair representation bill.

Last week, I had the privilege of being in Brampton with the Minister of State for Democratic Reform when we introduced the bill. I was happy to host him in my riding because Brampton West, as members of the House may or may not know, is somewhat of a poster child for the need for additional representation in the House of Commons.

As the minister mentioned yesterday in his remarks, according to the 2006 census, my riding was the largest in Canada. I have to admit that may not necessarily be the case now, as my friend from Oak Ridges—Markham may have overtaken me in the last five years, but I still represent one of the largest ridings in the country.

By the last census, Brampton West was home to the largest number of Canadians in any one constituency, in excess of 170,400 people. The population growth has continued and the number of people in my riding has significantly increased and, by my estimates, now stands at approximately 190,000 people. As the minister remarked yesterday, that 170,000 compares to an average national riding size of just under 113,000. That is quite a gap. Representing that many people is a challenge.

I represent a lot of people in a small geographic area. I also recognize that representing a smaller number of Canadians but over an exponentially larger riding is also a daunting challenge of a different type, which many of my colleagues face.

Which ridings are largest, whether on the basis of population or land, is not as important as the principles of fairness behind the system that apportions our ridings. The current formula that determines the number of seats in each province is unbalanced and needs a fix. In fact, under our current formula, Ontario would only receive three additional seats. This bill is a fair, principled and reasonable fix.

The bill also fulfills our government's commitment to move toward fairer representation in the House of Commons. During the last election, we made three distinct promises to Canadians with respect to fairness in representation.

First, we committed to increasing the number of seats now and in the future to better reflect the population growth in the faster growing provinces of British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta. Second, we committed that we would continue to protect the number of seats for smaller provinces. Finally, we committed to protecting and ensuring the proportional representation of Quebec.

We made those promises during our election campaign and Canadians delivered a strong, stable, national, majority Conservative government. Our strong, stable, national, majority Conservative government will be fulfilling those promises with this bill.

Canadians strongly believe in fairness in representation. Fairness in representation for all Canadians is an important goal. We said this before and we will continue to say it. The vote of every Canadian to the greatest extent possible should have equal weight. Without the passage of the bill, we will continue to move away from fairness.

The faster growing provinces need to be treated much more fairly. Furthermore, failing to provide a fair level of representation to these rapidly growing provinces and regions is to deny new Canadians, and visible minorities in particular, their rightful voice in the chamber.

I have the privilege of representing a riding that has a large number of visible minorities and new Canadians. By recent statistics, Brampton West is home to a 55% visible minority population and their votes right now are not being treated equally with other voters across this country.

The proportion of new Canadians living and arriving in the fast growing areas of the country is much higher than elsewhere. Population projections confirm this. The GTA, the region where I come from, is projected to grow by 50% over the next 20 years. A similar trend is projected for Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton.

The number of visible minorities in our country will continue to grow. In fact, Statistics Canada reports that, by 2031, one in three Canadians will be a visible minority, up to 14.4 million Canadians. The fact is Canadians in the fastest-growing areas of our provinces are being severely shortchanged with their representation. The effects of the representational imbalance are real. They are real for Canadians in fast-growing provinces whose voices are not heard in the chamber, not represented here and not heard as strongly as they should be.

By allowing under-representation to continue, we are sending a signal to those Canadians that their interests are not as important as those from other regions of the country and that they should somehow count for less. That is not fair. This is not what we should be saying to the, but it is the result of the current flawed formula and it will stay that way until we change it.

The bill proposes to change it and change it in a principled, balanced and fair way. That is why I do not understand the reasoning behind the NDP's amendment. It moved an amendment yesterday to refuse to give second reading to the bill, and I am quite surprised. I recall just last week, on the day we introduced the bill, the NDP critic, the member for Hamilton Centre, sat beside his leader and told the assembled media that this was a good bill. He said that the bill was a positive step that moved in the right direction. We are still moving in the same direction and the direction has not changed. We are moving in the direction of fairer representation for Canadians in faster-growing provinces who are increasingly under-represented.

This problem is particularly serious in and around my riding. Within a 15-minute drive of my riding, I can reach seven of the ten largest ridings by population in all of Canada. The member for Hamilton Centre can get to all of those seven ridings in a fairly short trip as well. He is from an urban centre just as I am. He knows we face large representation problems that must be fixed. He has said so in the past. In fact, a large number of his NDP colleagues should well know the under-representation problems we face. After all, many of them were elected in the hearts of urban centres.

There are fundamental and important questions that need answering and fairness that needs achieving. The NDP amendment says no, that there will be no answers. It says that New Democrats do not want balanced, reasonable, nationally-applicable fairness. It says that they want something else. They are wrong. New Democrats do not seem to be on board with ensuring fair representation to the rapidly-growing populations of Canadians in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Instead, they are obstructing this fair and reasonable bill and attempting to offer a flawed alternative in its place. Their alternative has dubious constitutional credentials and I personally do not think it will fly.

As I have said, their bill's viability aside, we are dealing with important issues of fundamental, democratic fairness. These issues get to the heart of our ability to be effective representatives for our constituents. One of the greatest demands of constituents is a sense of equality in their voting power and privilege. Their votes should have roughly equal weight. As we all know, right now that is not the case.

Taking a look at the riding of Brampton West is the perfect example of that. The riding of Brampton West has a larger population than Prince Edward Island, which has four members of Parliament. The voices of voters in Brampton West are not being treated equally.

Yes, change is a very complicated thing, no one is denying that, and I understand the desire to get it right, but we cannot make perfect the enemy of very good. There is no way we will ever have a perfect system of representation by population in Canada. We have other competing but equally-important principles that must also be preserved for the health of our country. We do not propose to move so far toward representation by population to disturb the other constitutionally-enshrined principles.

Bill C-20 would allow smaller and slower-growing provinces to maintain their current number of seats. This is fair. We must maintain their effective representation. The legislation would also fulfill our platform commitment to maintain Quebec's representation in the House of Commons at a level proportionate to its population. That is also fair. We are keeping our promise that we made to Quebeckers.

We will also be fair by ensuring that the seat allocation formula will ensure it does not move overrepresented provinces under the levels which their populations warrant. This is also a very important point, as it will protect and promote the principle of proportionate representation, one of the fundamental principles in our Constitution, right along with representation by population. As we have been emphasizing, the bill would also better respect and maintain representation by population. The bill has national application that is fair for all provinces.

As the minister has said, Canadians from all backgrounds in all parts of the country expect and deserve fair representation. However, we have allowed the House to move too far away from representation by population, that founding constitutional principle. The gap between how many voters an MP represents in a fast-growing province compared to one in a smaller or slower-growing province has never been greater. The gap today is bigger than at any point in our country's history since 1867. I know first-hand about that inequality and it is something we absolutely have to change.

While balancing the need to respect the other foundational principles, we need to move much closer to representation by population. Bill C-20 would do that by increasing the seat counts for the faster-growing provinces, both now and into the future, by ensuring that population growth would be more accurately factored into the seat allocation formula. In this way, the principle of representation by population would be followed to a much larger degree, which would be fairer to all Canadians.

The representation gap that my colleagues have spoken of will become much smaller and the fast-growth problem, under the current formula, will be stopped. This bill would ensure that when we allocated seats to each province, we would use the best data available to us.

This too speaks to fairness. Instead of using the census population numbers, the bill would use Statistics Canada's annual population estimates. These estimates provide the best data we have on the total provincial populations across the country. In this way, we will ensure that Canadians in the fastest-growing provinces get the representation that they so well deserve. This will be especially helpful for people in areas just like mine because their growth will not stop in these fast-growing areas. Day after day, week after week more residents are moving into the fast-growing areas and into Brampton West. I witnessed them replacing the rows of corn that used to grow, with rows of houses. This growth will not stop and we cannot continue under the same formula.

We will also maintain the independent process that draws the riding boundaries in every province, ensuring that process also has the best data available to it. The readjustment of the electoral boundaries will be done using the census data, as it always has been done.

The minister and my colleagues have made this point before me, but it is important to make it again. There will be no change to the independent boundary process. It will remain fair, impartial and independent. As has been pointed out, we will make some changes to streamline the process. We will make some timeline changes, though they will not affect the quality of the process, only the timing.

I have made the point already that if we wait too long, Canadians will have to go on for another decade, with worse and worse representation. That is not acceptable. On this side of the House, we will ensure that this does not happen.

This bill, the fair representation act, is a principled update to the formula allocating House of Commons seats. It is fair, it is reasonable and it is principled. It will achieve better representation for fast growing provinces where better representation is so desperately needed. It delivers on our government's long-standing commitments, and I am proud to stand in the House today and say that I fully support it, along with my colleagues.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, before we resumed this part of the day, I asked the minister if this would affect the ridings of northern Ontario. I told the minister that some of the ridings in northern Ontario were bigger than some provinces. The minister did not answer. He skated around the question.

Therefore, would the member tell me if northern Ontario will lose ridings because of the redistribution?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as my hon. colleague well knows, the decisions on how the ridings will be distributed will be made by an independent, impartial commission. It will do it in the best interests not only of Canadians, but of Canadians and Ontarians who live in the north to ensure the representation is fair going forward.

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague has not been here a long time, but the issue of redistribution of and adding seats has been talked about for very long time.

I also remind my hon. colleague about the massive deficit that our country is facing and the layoffs of public servants that we know is happening. A lot of people throughout Canada are unemployed.

Does he really think Canada needs more MPs at this time? Is it not fact that for those whose ridings are geographically challenged or have a population in excess of a certain number, they could simply add an extra staff member to those ridings and continue to serve their constituents just fine?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to these types of criticisms.

We are moving toward fairer representation. That is the fundamental principle of the bill. The people in Brampton West should have their vote be relatively equal to the people who vote in Prince Edward Island or in my hon. colleague's riding. The bill seeks to address that issue.

We are not going to leave the number of seats in the House of Commons the way it is, like the Liberals are proposing, or pick winners or losers. My question to my friend opposite is this. Who are the winners and losers they are picking under their formula? Which provinces are they taking seats away from? Could the member advise the House of that?

[Chris Alexander, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, as we all know, the principle of proportional representation was established in Canada in the middle of the 19th century at a time when there was no income tax for individuals. We did not have the corporate tax structure we have now.

Would the member not agree with me that today when the role of the House in determining government spending, in ensuring accountability for taxpayers, the principle of proportional representation is more important than ever and that by opposing these measures through a period of minority government over the last seven years and in the current Parliament, the members opposite, in both parties, are in effect opposing equity and accountability for taxpayers for the way that their hard-earned money is spent by the Government of Canada?

Would the member agree with me on that?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, as I have listened to the debate in the House and heard the comments made outside of the House by members of the opposition, I am still unable to understand why they do not want to support the principle of fairness, fairness on all the levels that my friend just mentioned. This is something that is of central importance to Canadians. I know it is of central importance to the voters of my riding of Brampton West. They talk to me about it. They want us to move forward with this and that is exactly what we will do.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this country, and this chamber in particular, has a long history of debates about representation. We know that Quebec had a special place in the House of Commons when our country was established.

I would like to ask my colleague, because another colleague mentioned the 19th century, what the representation of Quebeckers is under the Constitution Act, 1867, in particular section 51. Can the member explain to the House what section 51 means and tell us if the bill is consistent with that section? Can he clarify section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 for the House?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, of course Quebec is special to the Canadian federation. It always has been and it always will be. The proposals that we are making in the bill are constitutionally sound and on a good footing.

My question for the member opposite is, when he says there should be more seats for Quebec than it is being granted, what does he say to the voters in my riding? Will he go up to them and say, “I'm sorry sir, I'm sorry madam, you deserve to be continuously under-represented so we can have more seats for Quebec”. Is he willing to go to my riding and ask voters that question?

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my hon. colleague's speech, in particular to a question to my colleague from York West, because it seems to me he is suggesting that there would be an ongoing process whereby every few years more and more members would be added to the House of Commons in an unlimited manner.

Based on what he is saying, if we are never prepared to take away seats from a province because of the fact that its population has not increased as much as other provinces, then we will always add more and more members. On that basis we would add on an infinite number of members in the House. We could have 1,000, 2,000. It could go on and on. Is that not unreasonable and unrealistic? Is it not possible to find a fairer way to adjust the numbers across the country without continually adding numbers to the House?

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the current formula as proposed in the bill does allow for reductions in seats based on population decline. However, what we are not prepared to do on this side of the House, what we keep hearing from that side of the House, particularly in that corner, is to pit Canadians against each other. They want to pick winners and losers. They want to say this province should have more and therefore we are taking away from that province.

That is not how we are going to approach this issue. We want all Canadians to be together behind the bill so they have fairer representation. We are not going to follow the model proposed by members from that party.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is being disingenuous with its proposal to reapportion seats in this House. In its proposal, according to the analysis that has been completed, the province of Quebec would lose six seats in the House, Manitoba would lose three seats, Saskatchewan would lose five seats, Nova Scotia would lose one seat, and Newfoundland and Labrador would lose one seat.

This is not a proposal that the Liberals would ever have introduced as government and it is indicative of a party that wants to play games on this issue. This is the fairest way for us to ensure that the rapidly growing populations, most of whom are new Canadians and recent immigrants who have come to this country, are in the three provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia. This bill will ensure they have fair representation in the House and ensure that the number of visible minorities in the House increases after the next election.

[Kyle Seeback, Conservative, Brampton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I could not have said it better myself. That is exactly the road that we are not going to go down on this side of the House. We are not going to pick winners and losers. We are not going to pit one region of the country against another for political gain like the members of that party seem to be suggesting. We are not going to be taking away seats from Quebec or other provinces.

That is a flawed formula. We are not following it. We have the right formula and I hope the members on that side of the House will stand with us and vote in favour of it when the time comes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise and speak on behalf of the people of Timmins--James Bay, a region that is larger than Great Britain. It is important to put the size of my riding into context in the debate because we are talking about what is fair.

We heard this morning the fact that the Conservative government once again has tried to shut down fair debate on the bill. There is the sense that there are beleaguered members on the government side who represent communities that are completely unfairly under-represented.

We have heard throughout the morning about the principle of representation by population, yet we know that Canada is not based simply on representation by population. If it were, we would start to erase most of the political map of Canada. Labrador, with 26,000 people in its riding, would cease to exist.

I ask my hon. colleagues from the suburbs, do they believe that those 26,000 people are somehow over-represented or the riding of Western Arctic with 41,000 people? That population would fit three times into a small Toronto riding and yet there is an impossibility of getting access to one's elected representative in a region that is larger than western Europe. That is part of the fundamental principle of participatory democracy.

I have heard the argument that every vote should be weighted the same. My friend from Brampton West said that his vote should weigh exactly the same as Prince Edward Island. Just doing the math quickly, and my dad was great at math but I always got about 52%, that would give Ontario about 600 or 700 seats if we were to have the exact same representation by population as Prince Edward Island. Clearly, that is an absurd position.

In my riding of Timmins--James Bay, for people to come to my constituency office from Attawapiskat would cost $1,000 for the flight. There are no roads. If they want to see me in my office it is a $1,000 flight while people from Brampton West could drive to the Toronto airport and go to Portugal for the weekend and come back for less than $1,000. Are people who are able to drive to an MP's office somehow under-represented when there are members in the House who represent communities they can only get to once or twice a year?

When we talk about seat redistribution, which is a very important discussion to have with all members, we are talking about nation building. It has to be done right.

Unfortunately, I sense this is an attempt to have the idea of nation division here. When questions are raised about how the process is done I hear colleagues asking such things as, “What do you have against the people of Ontario and Alberta”, as if that was the only question before us. That is obviously not the question. It is how we weigh votes and ensure not just representation by population but the ability of citizens in the country to access the participatory democratic system.

If we go with a simple model of representation by population, as I said earlier, we can erase Labrador with its 26,000 people. Manitoba ridings average 78,000 people. We will probably take a couple of ridings out of Manitoba so that it is more fair than the way that Brampton is set up. In Saskatchewan, with an average riding size of about 63,000 or 70,000, we could probably take out three seats. With regard to Yukon, we do not even need to talk about as there are only 30,000 people, so it would disappear. In my good friend's riding of Kenora in Northern Ontario there are 64,000 people. I would challenge anybody on the government side or the opposition side to try and represent those 64,000 people across the grand grass terrain of Kenora.

That is not to say that the addition of seats in urban areas is not an important aspect, but it is not the sole aspect. It is the issue of balance. When we are here as members of Parliament to talk about how we will find that balance, it is very disturbing to see this attempt to pit one region against the other.

I will speak to the issue of Quebec. In Champlain's Dream, the vision Champlain had was for Canada to be a place that would avoid the wars and hatreds that had consumed Europe. His original dream was to build a new society with the first nations. Unfortunately, we kind of blew that one somewhere along the way, but hundreds of years later I think we are starting to reconnect with the original dream of Champlain.

However, the founding of Canada in 1867 was really the coming together at that time of Upper Canada and what was then Lower Canada and the maritime provinces. We were all somewhat equal in that sense because we were a much smaller population. There was a fundamental recognition that even though there were a number of provinces at that time, there were two founding peoples. That was what the Canadian compromise was based on. That is how we build nations: by compromise.

I am concerned when I hear that Quebec's population representation is not going to drop; what the government is not saying is that Quebec's historic place in the House will drop. That is a fundamental difference, because if we are going to continue on this nation building exercise and if we recognize that there is a distinct Quebec nation in this country--and we have agreed to that principle--then we have to agree to the principle of historic weight in the House of Commons. There will be regions in this country that will grow faster, and that is okay, but the historic weight of certain regions cannot be lost.

That brings us back to Prince Edward Island. Poor Prince Edward Island always gets picked on whenever we talk about representation by population, because it now has how many senators and how many ridings? It is four, as I know. There are many people who say, “My God, there are more people living in Sudbury, and Prince Edward Island has four seats and four senators”, but that is the historic compromise we made.

The rest of the country grew at an exponential rate and Prince Edward Island did not; however, there has never been a suggestion that those four seats from Prince Edward Island should be taken away, so Prince Edward Island will always maintain its historic weight, even as other regions have grown exponentially.

We see real growth right now in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, and we recognize, as the New Democratic Party, that there is a need to address some of those growing disparities.

As someone who represents a region that is bigger than Great Britain and represents communities with no roads, I do not believe that my area should be considered more valuable or less valuable than an area represented by someone elected in a large urban region. They represent very different realities.

The idea of nation building is based on compromise and on understanding each other. We have to agree with each other and say, “Yes, your reality and the people you represent in a smaller urban area are in some ways completely different from the reality that I represent, but we have to find the compromises”.

This is why the New Democratic Party came forward with our bill, Bill C-312, that would address this issue of imbalance. I want to assure my colleagues on the government side that we take this matter very seriously. That is why we came forward with our bill.

Through our bill, we wanted to ensure that the new areas of British Columbia, the growing regions of Alberta and the growing urban regions of southern Ontario grew, but we also wanted to maintain the historic representation percentage of Quebec in the House of Commons, because that is part of our founding commitment to one another. It is not enough to say simply that whatever Quebec's population is, it will maintain some percentage in the House. That is not the balance of two founding peoples.

We are interested to see time allocation being used to get this bill moving quickly. We have not even had the census. I would like to see the population trends that the census could show us.

My hon. colleague from Nickel Belt raises the question of northern Ontario. I would argue that one reason we have political alienation in various parts of the country is that people do not feel as though they are represented. In northern Ontario we have very often felt politically alienated from the urban south. We have always considered ourselves, and have been considered to be, a colony of southern Ontario. We have felt that Queen's Park ends at Steeles Avenue. Anybody in northern Ontario will say that.

What added to the political alienation was the Mike Harris gang, and unfortunately many of them are sitting in the front row now. They are the front line of the Conservative Party. Mike Harris decided that the best way to have political representation was to just take a whole whack of seats out of northern Ontario; that would be representation.

Taking those provincial seats out of northern Ontario made it very difficult for people to be served by their elected representatives. We have seen northern Ontario's presence in the Province of Ontario continually diminish, to the point that when the McGuinty government made a plan over the last few years for the development of northern Ontario, its officials did not bother to come up to consult with anybody in any of the first nations. They were too busy.

I remember The Toronto Star asking what the problem was with all these first nations people and whether they did no trust the smartness of the Liberal government.

Those people were making decisions about lands that they did not even want to bother visiting. That is the sense of political alienation we have in northern Ontario. It occurs once we get north of Highway 17. With all due respect to my hon. colleague from Muskoka, although we get money out of the FedNor fund, we have always believed that northern Ontario starts at Highway 17. North of Highway 17 it is a completely different community, a different set of cultures, a different set of economic realities, yet as elected representatives from northern Ontario, we are tied to the population base of Ontario overall.

When we see massive urban growth in regions around the 905 belt every time we redo the census, people begin to say that northern Ontario is somehow over-represented, because it is based on the population of southern Ontario, which is, of course, absurd.

I represent a riding with over 80,000 people. That would make mine a normal Manitoba riding or a big Saskatchewan riding. In New Brunswick or Newfoundland, it would be a very large riding. However, in Ontario it is considered over-represented and is perceived to have an unfair advantage over my colleague from Brampton, or whatever other suburbs are represented here in the House. That is not the reality.

New Democratic Party members want to address the need to deal with the changes in the House. However, we are very concerned with the Conservative government's attitude that it is right, that we should get with the program, and that if we do not like it, then it shows that we are against Alberta or against Ontario. I do not know who it thinks we would be against next. That is not how we build a nation.

This change has been a long time coming. It can take some good debate, but it needs something more than debate; it needs some good will. Unfortunately, I find that is lacking in the Conservatives' approach.

I am more than willing to look at what would happen at committee with the bill, but my spidey sense is tingling. As I said earlier, I see a government that seems to be moving toward some manner of autocracy. It wants to limit debate on all manner of bills. The Conservatives seem to think that being given a majority on May 2 gives them the right to override the interests and concerns of other elected members of Parliament.

We think we need to have an improvement in the seat distribution, unlike the Liberal Party, which wants the status quo. That is their business, and I do not mind that, but I think we need to find a balance. If we are going to find that balance, we have to recognize that the number one principle is representation by population. However, my concern is that if it is solely representation by population, Canada would not work, period. We would have no balance whatsoever. We need to find that balance.

For example, if we added 15 seats to Ontario, all in the 905 region, we would certainly change the political makeup of the country, and this is a discussion that needs to happen. How is that going to play out? Is it fair? Does it unfairly affect the representation of Quebec? Are there enough seats given to ensure Quebec's historic status?

This is not about dividing; it is about asking straightforward questions. I think every member in the House is committed to the idea of fair democratic representation.

I used to live in Toronto--Danforth, the riding of my former leader, Jack Layton. I could walk 20 minutes either way to two MPs' offices. I saw it as normal for living in the city. I could walk up Danforth and see one MP's office and then walk along Queen Street, and there was another. However, as I said, when I hit the break week, I could probably put 3,000 to 5,000 kilometres on my car and still not visit all of my communities. Therefore, I find it a little rich when I hear someone tell me that because they represent a suburban riding, they are unfairly under-represented in the House.

If it is a question of resources, that is certainly a fair question. Is the caseload in an MP's office the issue?

This is another important element about northern Ontario. Most of my region does not have government services, as the government does not bother to come up into the James Bay coastal area. When I go up to Attawapiskat, Kashechewan or Fort Albany, I fill out health card forms because Ontario health services will not go there.

It is funny: because of the risk of health card fraud, in Ontario one cannot have a health card without a photograph, but there is no place to get a photograph on the James Bay coast; as a result, the provincial government does not bother worrying about photos on the James Bay coast, because it does not want to bother servicing those communities. To provide services to them, I go up with my staff and the provincial member goes up with his staff, and we fill out health card forms and birth certificates, because there are no government services.

In rural areas, members of Parliament are not only seen to represent the political interests and the political will of the community, they are often the only front line. With the cuts to Service Canada and Service Ontario, our offices take on more and more caseload all the time. We do not have more resources to do it, which adds another question: what is the role of the member of Parliament?

Ccertainly we have a role to be here as legislators. That is our primary role. That should perhaps be our one role. We were elected to be legislators. However, with the continual shrinking of government services and community people falling further and further through the cracks, it is just assumed that if individuals go to their member of Parliament, he or she will fix it for them.

We spend our time having to do the front-line work of the federal government because the federal government does not bother servicing many of these communities. They are not adequately serviced by Service Canada. People are out of luck with EI claims if they do not come to our offices, and out of luck with immigration and passports. We are a passport service.

As legislators we are doing the work of government, because it does not want to spend the money. Its narrow focus is that we will just add 20, 30, 50, 60 seats to the House of Commons and everything will be magically balanced. That is not a realistic solution to the problem.

Number one, we have to ensure that our front-line services are there, because our citizens are looking to us not simply to come here and vote for them, but to represent them and be their face of government, because the face of government is not there.

It is not about pitting one region against the other, but about working together as parliamentarians. I certainly see the scowl on my colleague's face on the Conservative side. I am not surprised. They do not understand that unless members are in the autocracy of the Prime Minister, they are somehow against everything. They do not know the idea of balance and compromise. That is not how we build nations.

We are here. We have offered our own bill because we believe that the bill's plan can work. We want to make sure that we have maintained a historic balance, but we are very uncomfortable with the simple statement that we have to get to representation by population. If the Conservatives were serious about that, they would rejig the entire borders of Canada, and they are not going to do that.

We need to work together. I am putting out the olive branch to my colleagues, but I will be surprised if they take it. This is not the way that we have done business. If the government worked with people, it would not have to shut down every debate that happens.

I am interested in what might come next, because over the last six years the government has bothered to complete pitifully few bills. Usually it prorogued and started over, and then government members would rant on about crime. Then the Conservatives would prorogue and start over. If they get all their time allocations, I am wondering what they will do. I imagine they would probably shut this place down and prorogue again.

We are interested in this issue, but we are certainly a little concerned about the government's attitude toward questions on the bill.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member's remarks with interest, but I have to disagree with him. The fundamental constitutional principle of the House is representation by population.

Prior to Confederation, it was not. In fact, between 1840 and 1867, under the Act of Union that created the Province of Canada, the principle was not representation by population. The legislature of that day was divided into two equal halves, administratively, between Canada East and Canada West. Each of those regions had 50% of the seats in the House, and as Ontario, or Canada West at the time, moved from being a very sparsely populated area to being a much more heavily populated area, the representation for Canada West went from being over-represented to underrepresented. That was perfectly acceptable in the context of the Province of Canada, for which this building and the original Library of Parliament was built.

In 1867, because the leader of the Liberal Party, George Brown, had argued for decades for representation by population, we went to a federal system of government with two sovereign orders of government. In the upper order of government, in the chamber that we sit in, it would be representation by population as a fundamental constitutional principle, and that has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court of Canada in numerous rulings.

I encourage the members opposite to reconsider their position on giving any one provincial division a specific percentage of the seats in this House, because that violates this very important constitutional and democratic provision in the Constitution of Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, that was very well argued. Maybe the member lives in a different Canada than I do, but Saskatchewan's seats are counted at some 60,000 people. If he wants to take three or four seats out of Saskatchewan so we can meet the demands of the Constitution, I say, good luck. If he wants to erase New Brunswick with 50,000 people per riding, he can go ahead and will see what happens. He may want to get rid of Labrador at 21,000 people or Yukon at 30,000 people per riding.

This idea that representation by population is the fundamental principle is absurd. This is a House that represents people based on various geographic and historic reasons. In terms of the English and Quebec identities, those have had weighted balances, which is why I go back to Prince Edward Island.

The member can talk about this grand myth of George Brown in 1867, but it has never been a practised reality in the House. If he wants to change it, he will see a pretty bizarre shift in terms of the seats we have.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I was interested when my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay was talking about reaching out with an olive branch to other parties, and yet, at the same time, talked about our party's position as if it were the status quo. In fact, he used the words “status quo”, saying that was our position. Those two notions conflict: that he is handing out an olive branch and yet totally misstating our position. In fact, we have not suggested the status quo at all. Perhaps he has not been able to hear all the debate or he has not been listening, but he ought not portray it differently than it is.

My colleague used the phrase “historic weight”. I am from the province of Nova Scotia, which has 11 seats. It seems to me that having 11 seats out of 250 is not the same weight as having 11 out of 330 seats, as the government would propose. Does he think that is the same weight? Is that the same historic weight as my province had at Confederation, for example, or as it does now? That makes no sense to me at all.

When he talks about the alienation of people across the country, does he hear from people that the reason they feel alienated is because of an insufficient number of members of Parliament?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am y sorry if my hon. colleague felt that I did not represent his position very clearly. I have heard so many different positions from the Liberals that I am trying to extend the olive branch by saying that it seems somewhere in the status quo, but I cannot go any further than that.

Do I hear about under-representation? Yes, I do. In northern Ontario, I hear about it all the time. I would invite the member to come to northern Ontario where people feel that they were written off the political map of Canada and that the Mike Harris Conservatives wrote them off the map of Ontario. That plan has been continued by Dalton McGuinty. I am aware of the issues of political alienation. It is the heart and soul of what has happened in northern Ontario because of the sense that we have not had proper representation.

I represent first nation communities and my constituents say, “You're our elected guy, the white guy from Timmins. You're 500 kilometres from our communities. Why is there no first nation representation?” It is because of the way we divide up our seats. There is no reason we cannot have a northern Ontario seat representing first nations. They are the only people who live north of 50 but they are not on the map. So, yes, I hear about political alienation. I hear about it all the time in my riding.

[Claude Gravelle, NDP, Nickel Belt, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Timmins—James Bay for so eloquently bringing to this House the problems we face in northern Ontario.

The last time there was a redistribution of ridings by population, northern Ontario lost one seat. For example, in order for my colleague from Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing to go from Algoma—Manitoulin to Kapuskasing, she must cross Nickel Belt, and now we are talking about making it bigger.

Earlier today, I asked the Minister of State for Democratic Reform if this would affect northern Ontario and he would not answer. I asked another Conservative MP the same question and I did not get an answer. Does my hon. colleague from Timmins—James Bay think this would affect northern Ontario and that our ridings would get even bigger?

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to receive that question as I lived through the last seat redistribution in 2004.

My hon. Liberal colleague talked about people being angry about what happened to their seats. He should come up to northern Ontario. The riding of Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing was written by people who, obviously, had never been to northern Ontario. They did not understand the region. That riding is simply impossible to service.

I challenge any suburban member to go to the riding of Algoma--Manitoulin--Kapuskasing and try to cover it off. It is immense and spread out with no commonalities. The top part of her riding is 90% francophone and yet it is not connected in any way to the southern part of her riding, which is almost entirely anglophone. She must travel through two or three different ridings to get to the other part of her riding.

In my riding of Timmins--James Bay, Timiskaming was cut in half. Timiskaming was one region for over 100 years but someone decided that part of Timiskaming would go to North Bay and another part would go to Timmins. That line divided our francophone community and our agricultural community. It was done in a ham-fisted way. I heard this had to do with representation by population because some people down in Vaughan perhaps felt that they did not have enough seats.

What we are saying about balance is that we need to recognize the continuity of cultural and rural realities if seats are going to be redistributed so it is fair and so people have adequate representation. That did not happen in the last round and I would be surprised, given the government's attitude, that it would happen in this round.

[Jamie Nicholls, NDP, Vaudreuil—Soulanges, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Timmins—James Bay talked a lot about nation-building and now we are facing nation division.

He also mentioned two founding nations. As he well knows, the first nations were also involved with those two founding nations.

Unlike the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, who cited George Brown, I would like to mention George-Étienne Cartier, who was the hon. minister of defence in Macdonald's government. Cartier's position is debatable among historians but, according to historian, Claude Bélanger, in accepting the compromise of 1867, several guarantees were sought and obtained by the provinces that feared they would be overpowered by other provinces. Quebec received a fixed number of seats and would serve as the basis of calculations for seats in other provinces so that as the country grew the historical weight would be maintained.

Could my hon. colleague speak to that again for the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, we need to recognize that our country's success has been built on the compromise that existed between Quebec and the rest of Canada, not between a whole bunch of provinces. If there were a whole bunch of provinces, we would not have our own distinct court system in Quebec. We recognize the French tradition in court. We recognize it in language. We recognize that right.

Ontario recognizes the right of francophones to have their own schools. That was a hell of a fight but it was based on the principle that we must maintain these historical balances, even as the other populations changed and as new Canadians came in. It is great. We love multiculturalism but, in Ontario, people have the right to get a francophone education in any community because these are the original compromises we made, and we are proud of them. That is why Canada is successful.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on behalf of my constituents of Brampton—Springdale in support of Bill C-20, the fair representation bill. The bill fulfills our government's commitment to move toward fair representation in the House of Commons.

During the last election, we made three distinct promises to ensure that any update to the formula allocating House of Commons seats would be fair for all provinces.

First, we would increase the number of seats now and in the future to better reflect population growth in British Columbia, Ontario and Alberta.

Second, we would protect the number of seats for smaller provinces.

Third, we would protect the proportional representation of Quebec according to its population.

Our government will fulfill each of those promises with this bill, and I am very pleased about it.

Fairness in representation for all Canadians is an important goal. The vote of every Canadian, to the greatest extent possible, should have equal weight. This is a fundamental democratic concept and a key Canadian value. All citizens should have an equal say in who is elected to represent them in Parliament and in this House. It is important that we act to ensure we are moving toward that goal and not away from it.

The current formula for allocating seats in the House of Commons is outdated and does not meet the current needs of constituents in my riding of Brampton—Springdale and across Canada. The current formula moves us away from fair representation a little bit each and every day. This problem is particularly serious in and around my riding of Brampton—Springdale. Directly to the west of my riding is the riding with the largest population in Canada, Brampton West. Directly east is the fourth largest riding, Bramalea—Gore—Malton. Within a 15 minute drive of my riding, I can reach seven of the ten largest ridings by population in Canada.

My riding of Brampton—Springdale was created in 2004. The census data from 2006 showed that Brampton—Springdale was the 13th most populous riding in the country.

All of those ridings, including my own, suffer from what the minister described as a representation gap and this representation gap must be fixed. The seat allocation formula that provides for new seats in the House of Commons every 10 years now dates from 1985.

Back in 1985, the members of the House decided on a formula that did not put a priority on fair representation. The formula we have now does not properly account for population growth. In fact, it is especially bad at dealing with large population growth in large cities in our largest provinces. My riding of Brampton—Springdale fits that description exactly. It has large population growth, is a large city and is in one of Canada's largest provinces, the province of Ontario.

Many of the ridings surrounding it also fit that description. Most areas surrounding the GTA suffer from the inability of the 1985 formula to properly account for population growth. The problem is not limited to the GTA only. The problem is seen across the country, especially in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. Because the existing formula does not compensate very well for large population growth, Canadians in our largest and fastest growing provinces are moving further away from fair representation.

I have said that this representation problem is especially serious in my riding and the area surrounding it. The minister agrees, as do many of my hon. colleagues in this House. However, what are the implications of the representation problem?

In March of last year, and last month, we were provided with evidence that describes the problem. In the report , “Voter Equality and Other Canadian Values: Finding a Balance”, Matthew Mendelsohn and Sujit Choudhry wrote the following:

This problem is getting worse and, unless there is fundamental reform, will continue to do so in the future. Moreover, the character of voter inequality is changing.

They wrote that the combination of problems with the current formula and the high level of immigration increasingly disadvantages new Canadians and visible minorities. This is because many new Canadians choose to live in densely populated suburban areas, like my riding of Brampton--Springdale and the ones next to it. These are exactly the types of ridings which the 1985 allocation formula leaves under-represented.

Mendelsohn and Choudhry wrote:

[I]t recognizes the new reality of Canada: that it is Canadians of multi-ethnic backgrounds living around our largest cities, particularly the GTA [greater Toronto area], who are under-represented, injecting a new dimension of inequality into our federal electoral arrangements.

More than 56.2% of my constituents are part of a visible minority group and of multi-ethnic backgrounds. Members can understand why the fair representation act would be greatly welcomed by my constituents. This representation gap needs to be fixed as soon as possible. Not only are my constituents becoming more under-represented, but they are becoming more under-represented much faster than Canadians in other parts of the country.

We need to follow the principle of representation by population as closely as we can, but the current formula does not do that. This is a serious problem that requires immediate solution. I think that Bill C-20, a bill that is applauded by my constituents, is that solution.

With the fair representation act, our Conservative government is delivering a principled and reasonable update to the formula to allocate seats in the House of Commons.

The bill would do a number of things. It would move every province toward representation by population in the House of Commons. As I have said, this is an important democratic principle that we need to be moving toward, not away from. It would address the representation gap by moving Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta significantly closer to representation by population. This is important because this is where the most under-represented people are living.

Using the formula put forward in the bill, Ontario would receive 15 new seats, British Columbia would receive 6 new seats, Alberta would receive 6 new seats, and Quebec would receive 3 additional seats. The bill would increase seat counts for these provinces, both now and in the future, by ensuring that population growth would be more accurately factored into the seat allocation formula. In this way, the principle of representation by population would be followed to a much larger degree, which would be much fairer for all Canadians.

Not only would representation be better now, but it would also be better in the future. The representation gap would become much, much smaller and the fast growth of the problem under the current formula would be stopped. At the same time, Bill C-20 would ensure that smaller and slower growing provinces would maintain their current number of seats. This is only what is fair to those parts of the country, and it is reasonable and principled to maintain their effective representation in the House.

The legislation would also fulfill our platform commitment to maintain Quebec's representation at a level proportionate to its population.

It is important to highlight that this is exactly what we promised in the last election and this is exactly what we are delivering. We are keeping the promises we made to Canadians during the election campaign.

Quebec would receive three new seats, since the purpose of the bill is to move every single province toward representation by population in a fair and reasonable way. We are also being fair by making sure that the seat allocation formula would not move overrepresented provinces under the level which their population warrants. That would not be fair to those provinces and it would not be right for us to do that. This is in support of the principle of proportionate representation. It is another one of the fundamental principles in our democracy right alongside representation by population.

As I said, we are keeping our promises and we are keeping them in a fair and very reasonable way.

This bill would better respect and maintain representation by population. This bill would directly help under-represented Canadians, like the constituents in my riding of Brampton—Springdale, and in many other ridings in the GTA and elsewhere in this country.

This bill would ensure the effective and proportionate representation of all provinces, especially for smaller and slower growing ones. This bill would have national application that would be fair for all provinces. As the minister said, all Canadians from all backgrounds in all parts of the country expect and deserve fair representation. This bill would provide that in a very principled way.

Since we are talking about fairness, I would also like to talk about accuracy. After all, using the best data available to us is fair. This bill would ensure that when allocating seats to each province, the best data available would be used. This would ensure that Canadians are fairly represented. Instead of using the census population numbers, Statistics Canada's annual population estimates would be used. These estimates work to correct for some of the under-coverage in the census, and they provide the best data for the total provincial population. In that way we would make sure that Canadians in the faster growing provinces would be getting the representation they deserve.

This change would assist in making sure the growing representation gap was closed sooner rather than later. This would be especially helpful for people in ridings like mine and the many other faster growing ridings across Canada.

In Bill C-20, we are also maintaining the independent process that draws the riding boundaries in every province, and making sure that process also has the best data available for its purpose, too.

The readjustment of the electoral boundaries would be done using the census data, as it always has been done. Why is the census data best for this job? The census provides a population count street by street and house by house. This accuracy is necessary to most properly draw the new electoral boundaries and is the best data available for the job.

There would be no change to that aspect of the process, which has been the process since 1964. It will remain fair, impartial and independent. There would be some changes to streamline the process, however.

We want to make sure that the new seats and boundaries are ready for the next election so that Canadians get the fair representation they deserve as soon as possible. If we wait too long, Canadians will have to go for another decade or longer with worse and worse representation. That is not acceptable, so we will not allow that to happen.

In conclusion, this bill, the fair representation act, is a principled update to the formula allocating House of Commons seats. It is fair. It is reasonable. It is principled. It would solve an important problem that needs to be fixed and which will only grow worse if we fail to act for all Canadians. It would achieve better representation for faster growing provinces where better representation is strongly needed. It would address and correct the under-representation of many new Canadians in large suburban ridings like my own. It would also maintain effective representation for smaller and slower growing provinces. The fair representation act would deliver these things and would deliver on our government's long-standing commitments.

I hope that we can pass this sensible and good piece of legislation as soon as possible. The vote of every Canadian should have equal weight to the greatest extent possible, and we cannot delay that. The constituents in my riding of Brampton—Springdale expect that from us and we need to deliver.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the member's speech. As he knows, there has been some concern about the different formulas the government has introduced through the various manifestations of the bill which we have seen in the last couple of Parliaments. Different formulas have been brought forward each time. That is something we have raised concerns about. Our critic for democratic reform, the member for Hamilton Centre, has raised the issue of the government's use of differing formulas each time it introduces legislation.

The member spoke very eloquently, but obviously we have some concerns. I am from British Columbia and as the formulas have come forward, B.C.'s representation has actually gone down. As the member is aware, British Columbia is one of the least well represented of provinces. We have a handful of seats in the Senate and that is why the NDP has been strong in calling for the abolition of the Senate. We are just not represented there.

I am wondering if the member could address the issue of the differing formulas and the fact that B.C.'s representation has gone down as each of the different formulas has come forward.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that during the past couple of Parliaments under minority governments, we not only had challenges with this piece of legislation, but we also had challenges with a number of other pieces of legislation.

However, in the last election, Canadians clearly gave us a very strong mandate to represent them here in the House and as the population changes and the numbers in the provinces change, we have to update the formula. The formula in the bill is the best one under the current circumstances. It is the best representation we could have in the House based on population and considering all the different dynamics of the provinces and their makeup.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I like about the bill is that there are three truly unique positions being taken inside the House. The Conservatives are saying they want to increase the number of seats quite dramatically, by 30. The New Democrats are agreeing that the number of seats should be increased, but they believe that rural representation and the votes of people in those areas are of greater value than those in urban areas. I believe that a vast majority of Canadians would suggest that the biggest thing lacking in the bill is whether there is a need to increase the number of MPs in the House of Commons.

Why not redistribute based on the same number seats that are here? Why not look at the possibility of sticking with 308 seats? Why do we have to increase the numbers? The vast majority of Canadians would not necessarily support the increase nor is it necessarily warranted. It is one of the reasons that we should be having this debate, but unfortunately, as the member knows, the government is only allowing a couple of hours of debate in total on the bill.

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, after the next election in 2015, assuming the bill passes through the House and Senate, there will be an additional 30 members

I encourage the member to go into some of these suburban ridings, such as my riding of Brampton—Springdale, or other ridings in other parts of the country and speak with Canadians who are affected by this, who have raised their voices and have asked why they should be under-represented, especially the visible minorities and new Canadians who choose the suburbs to call home when they immigrate to Canada and bring their families with them. They are unfairly under-represented. They feel neglected. They do not deserve that.

That is one of the things we are looking to fix with the bill. It is those visible minorities, new Canadians and Canadians of all walks of life right across the country who have raised their voices. When I attend events, I constantly hear about this in my ridings and in the surrounding ridings.

[Costas Menegakis, Conservative, Richmond Hill, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member represents one of the largest ridings in country. In fact, that region in the GTA, the Brampton and Bramalea ridings, consist of some 500,000 people. Not only is it a large riding, but it is a very fast-growing riding and is one of the most diverse ridings in the country.

Could the hon. member elaborate on the importance of this legislation, specifically in his community, as it relates to new immigrants, new people who move into the riding?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his hard work in the House on behalf of his constituents. He is from Richmond Hill and understands the problem we have in the GTA. This problem is huge. I hope my colleagues, hon. members in the House, would realize the extent of this problem.

The riding directly west of my riding of Brampton—Springdale has a population of over 150,000 people. The riding east of mine has over 130,000 people. Within a 15-minute drive from my riding, I can probably reach about eight to ten of the ridings with the largest populations in the country. Especially new immigrants, visible minorities who live in the suburbs in the GTA area are affected by this and have made their voices heard. I and other members of the House of Commons are here to represent them.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is telling us just how important the changes proposed in Bill C-20 are for his riding. That is indeed the change that will be made to his riding, but what about my riding and the other 74 ridings in Quebec? There are two sovereignist parties and two federalist parties in the Quebec National Assembly and they are all clearly saying that the political weight of Quebec must not be reduced. We are not talking about demographic weight, but about political weight.

My question for the hon. member is very simple. What does he think of the motion adopted here in 2006 that recognizes Quebec as a nation? What does the Quebec nation mean to him?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I point out that the Conservative government is very responsible and is concerned about all Canadians, regardless in which part of the country they may live.

I talked about Brampton—Springdale because I am responsible for representing it. However, I used that as an example. There are examples such as Brampton—Springdale all over Canada. That is the reason we are adding 15 new seats in Ontario, 6 new seats in British Columbia, 6 new seats in Alberta and 3 new seats in Quebec. Under the bill, I feel this is the best formula we could have.

I am very thankful and I appreciate the hard work the hon. minister, the Minister of State for Democratic Reform, has put into the legislation. I would encourage all opposition members to support the bill and its speedy passage as soon as possible.

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the very talented, eloquent and hard-working member of Parliament for Edmonton—Strathcona and I look forward to hearing her speech on the bill.

This is a technical bill that has ramifications for the whole country and I am pleased to rise to speak to it. It is something we have expressed concern about before. In the time I have, I will give a bit a background to the bill itself and the issue of seat redistribution in the House of Commons.

As members are well aware, this has been part of the growth and development of Confederation and Canada. Over time, we have tried to maintain a couple of principles in the House of Commons. One is to ensure that provinces with fast-growing populations get more representation. At the same time, we have also had a tradition in the House of Commons of providing support and a floor level representation from regions across the country. That floor has been the story historically for Atlantic Canada, and I will come back to that in a moment. It creates some differences, but it is something that Canadian accept as part of the nation-building exercise. That type of floor has also been in place for the territories.

Members who have had the opportunity, as I have, to travel to the northern territories know they are vast areas of Canada. Unbelievably large portions of our three northern territories do not meet the population criteria of the House of Commons, but clearly Canadians believe those areas of the country should be adequately represented. Therefore, we have put floors in place for them as well.

This has been the development over time. The nation-building exercise has always been to look at those two components and ensure that both the historical representation and the floors for ensuring clear representation and adding additional seats come into play. What has developed over time is that system of great Canadian compromise and nation-building of working on both aspects to ensure Parliament's representation is clearly representative.

I come from British Columbia and it has historically grown faster than its representation in Parliament. When we look at the figures, clearly there is a need for increased representation in British Columbia.

Coming back to what I mentioned earlier about Atlantic Canada. My riding of Burnaby—New Westminster, because there are many new Canadians who are not yet Canadian citizens and are who not on the voters list, has a population of about 120,000 or 130,000. That is slightly under the population of Prince Edward Island. Historically, P.E.I. has strong representation with four seats in the House of Commons. The system of ensuring historical representation for areas that are faster growing has always been part of the dynamic in play. There is no doubt that British Columbia needs additional seats.

In my riding of Burnaby—New Westminster and the riding of Newton—North Delta, the number of constituents is very great and there needs to be more seats in British Columbia to ensure that B.C. is adequately represented and members of Parliament can properly represent their constituents.

As we know, the job of being a member of Parliament is far beyond speaking in the House of Commons and having other members listen attentively. The job of being a member of Parliament for the most part is in the riding. As members of Parliament are intervening on behalf of their constituents with federal agencies and federal ministries, the machinery of government sometimes does not work effectively. Members of Parliament are there to ensure that our constituents are fully and adequately represented and we go to bat on their behalf.

If we have more members of Parliament in British Columbia, that means we can focus on slightly fewer constituents and ensure that we do that strong, necessary advocacy work on their behalf with the federal ministries, federal agencies and on federal programs where constituents may have applied, or intervened or made application and were not treated in the fair and just way that they should have been. We are advocates first and foremost. Therefore, having those additional seats plays an important and key role.

That is where we get into some difficulty and have some concerns with Bill C-20. In looking at how the various iterations of the bill have played out and the various formulas that have been applied, we have gone through three different formulas to calculate representation in British Columbia. What we have seen in B.C.'s case is a smaller number of seats through this process. That is of some concern, not so much the fact of having a seat in the House, because even that is an important aspect of our work, but having that representation out in the community and being able to effectively represent and advocate on behalf of the 120,000 or 130,000 constituents, which is a different order than advocating effectively on behalf of 110,000 or 115,000 constituents.

That is very clearly where seat distribution and MP distribution in the House of Commons comes to play. It makes a fundamental difference when we have that balance and we have those additional seats. Because we have seen the various iterations and the number of additional B.C. MPs brought down, this is where I see some real concerns about the latest formula that has been brought forward at this time.

Members may say that the bill will go to committee. Certainly, we on this side of the House have always been ready to work with the Conservative government in a way that we expect it to work with us. One day the NDP will be in government and the opposition parties will get the opportunity to see not only lively debate but what healthy, transparent, effective representation and working with opposition parties will bring. There is no doubt that many Canadians look forward to that date in 2015 when the NDP steps forward.

Our concern is the practice of the government in committee has not been good to date. It has often bulldozed and steamrolled opposition parties rather than listen to the healthy points of view that we bring forward, particularly on this bill.

This is a nation-building exercise. This is a point which shows how the government and we as Parliament respect all regions of the country. It talks to the historic representation of Atlantic Canada and the northern territories. It talks to the historic and important representation of Quebec that we have brought forward in our bill. It points to the representation of Saskatchewan and Manitoba despite population changes there. As well, it points to additional seats in places such as Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

We have brought forward and supported legislation for the healthy, nation-building establishment of a consensus. We certainly hope the government will start listening, consulting and really working with the Canadian public and with opposition parties so a bill such as Bill C-20 can appropriately be part of a nation-building exercise. To date, that has not been the case, but I hope the government will change in this regard.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is nation building legislation. It is legislation I would like to support. I regret very much the limitation on debate, which has made it difficult for smaller parties to be part of the debate and discussion.

I would like his thoughts, though, on whether we can continually, in the future, beyond the bill, add new members to the House of Commons every time we see Canada's population grow. At some point do we not have to bite the bullet and go back and revisit those areas with sparser populations?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are two parts to what the hon. member is asking.

First is the issue of seats in the House. Can we keep adding members to the House of Commons? I would like to say that in other parliaments on this globe there are no seats, there are benches.

As I have mentioned earlier, the important work that members of Parliament do is not so much the speaking. I certainly do not need to have this desk. I can sit on a bench, and stand and speak. It is what we do in our ridings across the country, serving our constituents that is absolutely vital.

The important aspect of additional representation means that there are more members of Parliament to advocate strongly on behalf of their constituents. If they are not advocating on behalf of their constituents, they do not deserve to be in the House.

The second component she raises quite rightly is the issue around rural-urban representation, and certainly on this side of the House, the NDP has always seen this as a very important, careful, national building exercise.

That is why we have talked about seats for Quebec. We have talked about seats for areas like my province of British Columbia along with Alberta and Ontario. We have talked about ensuring a floor for Atlantic Canada and the territories. This is a nation building exercise and that means rural representation being adequate and effective in the House of Commons as well as urban representation in the House.

[Lynne Yelich, Conservative, Minister of State (Western Economic Diversification)]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked about representing constituents and that it was the most important part of his job. If he believes that, then last night when two members voted for the wishes of their constituents on the long gun registry, why would his party punish them if coming here and representing their constituents is first and foremost after being in the House, as he suggested?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this party takes no lessons from Conservative members who have not, since they were elected, stood up on behalf of their constituents a single time.

We have seen with the Canadian Wheat Board that a promise was made to consult with farmers across western Canada and the Conservatives broke that promise cruelly after their election. They promised farmers a consultation on the Canadian Wheat Board and on May 2 they said, “To heck with western farmers. We will not consult them. It does not matter if 60% of western farmers want to keep the Wheat Board, we will do away with it”.

I respect the member, but there is not a single member in this House from the Conservative Party who has done anything on behalf of their constituents on issues like the Wheat Board and the gun registry. Time and time again, the Conservatives betray their constituents. That is unfortunate and it is wrong.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the member in terms of the Canadian Wheat Board. The government has not been listening to what our prairie farmers have been saying.

Having said that, with regard to Bill C-20, does the NDP have any limit as to what it believes the size of the House of Commons should be?

Today, it does not have a problem with 338 which is being proposed by the government. Do the NDP members have an optimum number, or do they see this as a thing in progress, that as the years go by, the House will just continue to grow and grow?

[Peter Julian, NDP, Burnaby—New Westminster, BC]

Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had been to Britain, he would see that its House of Commons is a smaller House with twice the number of members. The House of Commons in Britain has simply done away with desks. We can sit on benches. We can vote from benches. We can speak adequately on behalf of our constituents, but the most important issue is representing an advocacy on behalf of our constituents.

If there are more members of Parliament doing that work on behalf of their constituents, and certainly that is the case on this side of the House. That is one thing that NDP MPs do very well, which is why we have grown from 19 to 29 to 36 to 103. We did that because we have been very strong and effective in advocating for our constituents.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for graciously sharing his time with me. It is regrettable that we could not have heard more of his eloquence.

It is my pleasure to rise to speak to this bill. Nobody believes more in representation of constituents than I do. As well, nobody believes more strongly than I do that we have a responsibility in this House to ensure that we are actually representing the interests of all Canadians no matter what corner of the country they come from, no matter their diversity of background, and no matter their interests.

I just want to be clear, on the record, that there have been falsehoods reported by some of the members on the other side, to the public and the media in the past, that I would oppose additional seats for Alberta if there was going to be a seat distribution based on population. I have never said such a thing and let us just make it clear in the House today that if the only decision is based on representation by population and if we do that in the true way we should, based on a census, clearly my province of Alberta, and I am very proud to be a third generation Albertan, would have fair representation, and then there would be duly more seats for Alberta.

Our party in this House has said time after time, on the basis of what we have heard from our constituents and what we have heard from Canadians across this country, that Canadians want a more democratic system of federal governance. What we see from the government is little pieces here and there, an elected Senate that frankly is not representative. Now it wants a changed seat distribution based on what? It has three formulas and we are not sure what on earth the government is basing that on.

It is an important decision for our future. It is an important decision if we are going to incur further costs. Having heard from my constituents, I have to say very honestly that this has not been a priority issue in my riding. I do not think I have ever heard from a constituent demanding that we make the House of Commons larger. What they demand is that we better represent their interests in Ottawa and that we bring the federal government back to Alberta more often so we can actually hear from it directly.

Yes, we need to ensure we have fair representation in this House of Commons, but what does that mean? We have heard from some of my colleagues and they have said that we need to balance off the representation by population with the representation by region, and the representation by other undertakings and agreements that we have made in this House, including to Quebec, to our territories and to the maritime provinces.

I want to point out that if the Conservative side of the House truly believes that we need to make this move to provide fair representation to everybody in Canada, we need to recognize that 23 of 28 ridings in Alberta voted, as their second choice, New Democrat. My riding voted for me as their choice and so it is also important to keep in mind that even in our first past the post system, there are many interests that are not represented unless all of us in the House bend over backwards to ensure that all those perspectives, all of those voters, are being heard in committee and in this House, and that we reach out to them and ensure we hear from everyone, not just the ones who happen to step up to the plate and vote for us.

Should the decision for adding seats in this House simply be based on representation by population? We have heard many arguments stating that possibly that is not enough. If we look at the historical formula, it is not simply based on representation by population, it is also based on a certain percentage to Quebec, and to recognize, as the Prime Minister previously said, “Quebec as a nation within a unified Canada”. That was the decision made in consultation between the Prime Minister of the day and the leaders of all the provinces and territories.

I agree with my colleagues who have spoken on this and asked, where is the consultation with the premiers? Where is the consultation with the leaders of first nation governments? The government always likes to stand up and say it is representing the best interests of first nations people. Should they not be heard directly through their leaders as well?

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona will have five minutes remaining when the House returns to this matter.

Statements by members, the hon. member for Richmond—Arthabaska.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, Fair Representation Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

Fair Representation Act

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, where was the consultation with Canadians on fair representation measures before we ever had a bill tabled in the House? Our side of the House has been calling for years for dialogue across Canada. My constituents have been calling for decades for the government to sponsor a dialogue across Canada on ways that we can provide more democracy at the federal level.

Instead, we get these very narrow bills being tabled on electing a Senate, which, by the way, does not provide equal representation, and now seat distribution simply on population when, in fact, an agreement between a former prime minister and the leaders of the provinces and territories had agreed on a different formula, which included representation by population and recognition of Quebec's contribution to Canada.

If the model in this narrow bill, which the government brought forward, is truly to be representation by population, what is the rush? Surely, if we are to fairly represent provinces such as mine where we have a booming economy, why do we not wait for the 2011 census this coming February? That would give us the accurate information.

My province and my constituency continue to have more Canadians and immigrants move in daily. I sign off certificates monthly congratulating new Canadians. What is the rush? Surely we can wait a few more months. If the government is so convinced that the way to have fair representation is based on population, then let us genuinely base it on population not on projections.

The historic compromise, which was mentioned by a number of members in the House, was that we should have representation by population but that we should also have representation by region. If we look at the bill brought forward by the government, it is not a true representation by population bill. As other members of the House have mentioned, we would be taking members out of the House from some of the very regions whose contributions to the House we honour. They provide a rich contribution to the dialogue in the House and the making of federal legislation and policy.

It is time to step back and actually have a dialogue with Canadians. Many of my constituents have been calling for proportional representation. Why is that? It is because every vote, every interest, every priority and every perspective should count.

I feel strongly that I represent every constituent in my riding whether they voted for me or not. I think it is incumbent that we have a system that represents that. If people have other perspectives in my riding, they have a right to be heard directly as well. Therefore, it is time to stand back from these narrow kinds of bills, which, frankly, the government is not even delivering on, which is representation by population.

The Prime Minister of Canada has said that we need to be respecting Quebec as a nation within a unified Canada. Why does the new formula not respect that?

As my hon. colleagues have previously stated, this merits thorough debate and goodwill and yet the government shuts down debate after less than a day.

I, myself, in representing my constituents, only have 10 minutes because there is not time for many of us in the House to have the full allocation of time. Many of my colleagues, who want to speak for their constituents to ensure their interests are represented, will not be allowed the opportunity to debate the bill. It is absolutely reprehensible.

We will fast-track the bill through the House and it will go to committee. What will happen at committee? I think the committee should go across Canada and visit every corner of the country to hear what Canadians think is the best way to have fair representation of all perspectives in the country.

I stood for that when I ran for office. I said that I would not just be another MP from Alberta who my constituents send to Ottawa. I said that I would work hard to bring the federal government back to the people. That is exactly the kind of process we should have in this area.

Frankly, I have not heard from any of my constituents that this is their number one priority, that there should be more seats either in our city or in our province. If it does happen, we should have our fair proportion of those new seats. My constituents are more concerned about extended care, positive education for their children and aboriginal children who do not have equal access to education or access to safe drinking water. Therefore, I would like us to take that dialogue out to Canadians.

We also need to take measures to ensure that every vote counts. In the last election, during the advance vote there was no poll on campus. I have three universities in my riding and they were all disenfranchised.

I work hard to represent temporary foreign workers. Who will speak for them?

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the NDP has a position on this subject that is completely contrary to the principles of Confederation. I respect the member opposite and I know she is a hard-working MP, but this idea that a provincial division in the House should guarantee a certain number of seats, as proposed in the NDP's private member's bill, which, I think, is 24.3%, is not in accordance with the founding principles of Confederation.

In fact, during the time of the United Province of Canada, there actually was a guarantee for Canada East and Canada West. The legislature was divided into two. There were 42 seats for Canada East, Quebec, and 42 seats for Canada West, Ontario. That was in a unitary state and that was the deal,. However, it was changed in Confederation to go to a federal system of government, with two orders of government, wherein the federal order of government, the lower chamber, the House of Commons, would be representative of the population.

That was the foundation on which Confederation was based. It was the argument put forward by the Liberal leader of the day, George Brown, many clear Grits in Canada West and many other people throughout the United Province of Canada. It was the reason for which these buildings were built. It is a fundamental principle of Confederation. We need to respect that principle. The House is representative of its population. It has been reaffirmed by the Supreme Court.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find that very amusing. Perhaps the member does not agree with the Prime Minister who believes that Quebec should be respected as a nation within a unified Canada. Surely, when we come forward with specific bills and policies, we should actually be putting substance before those fancy words.

I am proud to say that one of my ancestors was a Father of Confederation. The reason he decided to join forces is that he wanted responsible government. He did not want external people dictating how we should run our country, which is the same reason I ran. We need to respect that.

If we are simply going to go by representation by population, then why are we not including the representatives for the Northwest Territories, Nunavut, Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland and Labrador? Why? It, hopefully, is because we all believe in representation by the different perspectives and regions in this country and we will also honour our commitment to Quebec.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member might recall that I asked a question of one of her colleagues with regard to the optimum number of members of Parliament that the NDP believes is necessary to have a fully functional House of Commons. The member made reference to Britain and said that we could have a lot more members of Parliament, implying that maybe an additional 30 is not enough.

I am wondering if she can enlighten the House as to how many members of Parliament the NDP truly believes is necessary in order to have a fair democratic foundation within the House of Commons.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will respond to the question from the same standpoint that I am responding to this very narrow bill presented by the government.

That is an issue that my party is trying to address in an open dialogue with Canadians. That is why New Democrats proposed replacing the Senate with proportional representation. We should not be making these decisions as one-offs. We could be better representing Canadians and providing fair representation from all perspectives, views and interests of people across this great country if, in fact, we had a broader dialogue about how better to do that. Do we still want to do it through an appointed body or do we want to do it through a House that generally represents the interests and perspectives of all Canadians?

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as a fellow Albertan, it is important that I put on the record that Albertans are concerned about this issue. I represent the highest populated riding in the province of Alberta. I am sure the numbers in the census will indicate that the population of my constituency is in excess of 155,000. The hon. member, with all due respect, has the lowest population of any riding in the province of Alberta. That is maybe why she is not dialed in to the concerns that Albertans have with regard to this issue of being under-represented in the House.

Albertans are passionate about equality and representation. They want to see—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. I will have to stop the member there.

The hon. member for Edmonton—Strathcona.

[Linda Duncan, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I am not dialed in because perhaps my constituents have confidence that I am available to them.

I am not opposed to this. As I have said, if there are to be increased seats based on population, of course Alberta should have additional seats. We have not had the dialogue yet on where those seats would be distributed, unless the hon. member knows something I do not know. I would like that representation as—

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order, please. The hon. member is out of time.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to pick up where one of my colleagues left off when he said that representation by population was a foundational principle of our Confederation deal. It is, indeed, a foundational principle. The issue of representation was, in many respects, the most divisive issue before the Fathers of Confederation. One of the Fathers of Confederation, George Brown, whose statute stands not 50 yards from where I stand today, insisted upon representation by population, equality of votes, equal weighting for all votes, one vote one value, as a fundamental foundational principle for this House.

The other House was set up to have equality regardless of the population changes between the regions. We have honoured that principle to the letter. I think we ought to honour, as best as we can, the other principle that was made by our ancestors 140 or 150 years ago to respect and ensure that each of us has equal weight as a participant in Canada's democratic process. To do anything else is to betray the foundational arrangements and values of this country. It is un-Canadian.

This is not unique to Canada. Every federation has, as part of its founding and constitutional arrangements, adopted a similar process. When we look at the Americans and the Australians, we see that exactly the same process was gone through. However, those countries have honoured their arrangements that every citizen has an equal vote in a way that Canada has not. We have repeatedly moved away from that principle.

The NDP purports in its motion, and this is absolutely astonishing, that it is divisive to try to move back to representation by population. Lest anyone believe that is actually true or historically founded, I will read what Charles Tupper had to say in 1865 in the debates in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly on the subject of representation by population as opposed to the other formulae that were being tossed out at the time, which would have people in some provinces getting votes worth more than people in other provinces. He said the principle of representation by population:

...was the only true and safe principle on which the legislatures and the governments could be constructed in British America. That [an] eminent statesman predicted, twenty-five years ago--

That was in 1840.

--in reference to Canada--

That is to say, the province of Canada, Ontario and Quebec.

--that, if they undertook to ignore the principle of representation by population, the day would come when the country would be rent in twain.

Who does not know the difficulties that arose from the false principle that was applied at the time of the union of the Canadas, in order to give the ascendancy to Upper Canada—

Upper Canada, Ontario, was going to get more members than it deserved by its weight.

—whose population at the time was lower than that of Lower Canada? Who does not know that the prediction of Earl Durham has been verified? And the time has come when that country [Canada] has been convulsed, in order to rid themselves of a principle so unsound as that a certain number of people in a certain locality shall have an amount representation arranged not according to their numbers, but exhibiting a disparity with some other section?

That principle, which, unfortunately, we have allowed to creep into our Constitution, of abandoning representation by population, is what is truly divisive. We have gone through a long history in this regard. We have moved from the formula that was adopted, thanks to the sage advice of George Brown, Charles Tupper and others. We have moved away from that principle by a series of steps, further away from representation by population and more toward a system of increasing an institutionalized inequality. That is undemocratic, unfair, unreasonable and un-Canadian.

In 1915, we adopted one amendment to change our Constitution to allow for this principle to be deviated from. It seemed innocent enough at the time. No province could have fewer MPs than it had senators. In 1947, we moved to a system based upon a different formula that was designed to ensure that Ontario, my province, would not see its total number of members drop. In 1951, we adopted an amendment to that, and in 1976, a further amendment known as the “amalgam” formula was adopted.

Finally, in 1985, when we realized that the 1975 formula would result in the number of members in the House of Commons growing to an amount that was seen as too large, we moved, very unwisely, to a system that ensured an increasing level of under-representation for people in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta into the future and exacerbated with every census.

That was a mistake. We are trying to correct that mistake. We are doing so by means of adding some members to the House of Commons. How many? Fifteen for Ontario, six each for Alberta and British Columbia, and in order to ensure that Quebec does not suffer from under-representation, three for Quebec.

Members should understand that Quebec would get the percentage of seats in the House of Commons that its population warrants. If there is one thing and only one thing left that is good about our representation system today after the mess we have made of it for so many years, it is that at least Quebec is neither overrepresented nor under-represented. The formula proposed by the government would ensure that Quebec stays neither overrepresented nor under-represented and that it has the percentage of seats in the House that its population deserves.

We are not fully correcting the problem of Ontario, B.C. and Alberta being under-represented, but we are going a considerable distance toward it. It does not go as far as the amalgam formula proposed by Pierre Trudeau in the 1970s would have gone, but it is a great improvement over the status quo. I want the NDP members who have proposed and advocated their motion to reject what we are doing today to stop and think about this.

The people I represent in the riding of Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington are not especially rich or well connected and have no special advantages. I think it is the 74th or 75th wealthiest riding, which is to say it is the 25th or 26th poorest riding in Ontario. There is nothing to cause these people to be in a position where we can say that they deserve to be less represented, that they are already being taken care of. None of that is true. If that is true in my riding, then it is true in every other riding in Ontario, B.C. and Alberta that has no special advantages.

Why are we saying to them that their vote should be a fraction of the vote of another province? Why are we saying to them that their constitutionally guaranteed citizenship right to be able to participate in this system should have a lesser weight? Are they going to get a deduction on how much tax they pay? Would they be less of a participant when the government came along and told them what they must do? Absolutely not. To say that they are worth less, that they are a fraction of a voter, that they are a fraction of a citizen, that they are a fraction of a human being is undemocratic, illegitimate and an injustice that very much needs to be corrected.

This law would go partway toward correcting that. It is a very moderate, reasonable proposal. It is one which ensures that the smaller provinces, which are somewhat overrepresented, do no lose any seats. It is one which ensures that Quebec continues to get representation by population. It is one which ensures that the people whom I represent, and my colleagues from Alberta, B.C. and Ontario represent, get back some of their lost citizenship rights.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I know he really believes in democratic reform and representation by population.

A few options have been put forward by other parties in the House. I was wondering if he would take this opportunity to contrast the fair and democratic proposition we are putting forward with some of the propositions that are being brought forward by other parties that may have to worry about special interest groups and special favouritism for different parts of the country.

Could the member take this opportunity to explain to Canadians why it is important that we adopt this now so that we can move ahead promptly to get this in place?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there were two questions.

The first was about the other proposal that is out there, the proposal suggested by the New Democrats. I forget the bill number, but it is a private member's bill. It calls for some extra seats to be given to Alberta, B.C., Ontario and Quebec. However, the percentage for Quebec would be frozen at, I think it is 24.5% or something like that, which is the percentage of the population that Quebec had in 2006, and it would stay that way permanently. This is a version of another proposal made in 1992 and rejected by voters across the country as part of the Charlottetown accord package, where Quebec would have been frozen at 25% in perpetuity. At the time, that proposal was undemocratic, but it was being done, from a constitutional point of view, in the proper way.

If we want to move away from the principle of representation by population or proportionality, if we want to be less proportionate, we need to have an amendment that is approved by seven provinces and half the population. That is what the Constitution says. To do so by means of a section 44 amendment, unilaterally through the House of Commons, simply is unconstitutional.

By the way, I made that point in the committee that approves private members' bills. I pointed out that the bill is unconstitutional and should not go forward. I was voted down and it will go forward, but that does not change my view that it would be unconstitutional and would be rejected.

The second question relates to why we should move forward now. The answer is simply that it takes time to introduce a redistribution proposal. If we do not act promptly, we will be forced to use the old formula because the Chief Electoral Officer will be unable to follow through with the very slow and detailed process of redistribution which involves electoral commissions in each province, and so on.

[François Lapointe, NDP, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in between the time of the Charlottetown accord and the current situation, a key event took place in the House: the recognition of Quebeckers as a nation within Canada. It is clear that, for the hon. member, this recognition does not mean that the nation should maintain its political weight in the House.

Is there anything concrete in this recognition, which was supported by his party, with respect to linguistic duality and Quebec's political weight?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the question refers to the motion passed by the House in 2006. That motion was not an amendment to our Constitution. To abandon the principle of proportionality, the Constitution must be amended, and that must be supported by the legislatures of seven provinces, as well as by 50% of the population. There is no motion that is more binding than our Constitutional legislation and no motion can unilaterally amend the Constitution. So, the Constitution stays the same and the principle of proportionality must be respected.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member talked from a principled position in terms of why the government had to bring forward this bill. I respect what it is he said, but that does not necessarily mean that I agree with a lot of his thoughts.

I welcome the member's involvement in this debate. I would suggest that he should be just as welcoming of other members of this chamber getting involved and participating in the debate.

Could the member explain to the House why the government has seen fit to allow just three or four hours of debate when there are 308 members of Parliament? We can see how restrictive that is going to be on 308 members, so imagine if this bill passed and there were 338 members.

Why would the government move a time allocation motion allowing for just two or three hours of debate? Does the member see the ramifications of preventing members from being able to voice their concerns?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I do not have much time to answer this question because we are almost through my five minutes.

Very briefly, the answer is that we do face a deadline in terms of moving this bill forward so that the Chief Electoral Officer can summon the electoral boundaries commissions that cause a redistribution to occur.

If this bill were to go forward after the beginning of 2012, I think it would be very difficult as a practical matter to have any form of redistribution other than the one that is contemplated under the current law. There is really no time to switch horses in midstream after the end of 2011. That is the reason haste is required.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Just to clarify, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington had a 20-minute time slot. Did the member mean to split that or not? There was a 20-minute slot and he spoke for about 11 minutes. Subsequently, there is a 10-minute question and answer period. I just wanted to make sure we did not miss the member splitting his time. Is that correct?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, had I been aware, I could have gone on for another 10 minutes. However, I am happy to keep answering questions for the remainder of the 10 minutes. I will enjoy it even more.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech, in which he made several historical references. My father is a retired history teacher, so I really appreciate people talking about the past, especially since the member appeared rather nostalgic. He talked about Lord Durham and the Act of Union, when Lower Canada and Upper Canada were joined, which reduced Quebec's political weight considerably within the united government. I will not remind the members of all of Lord Durham's great ideas to ensure that Quebec would lose its raison d'être and that the French language would be extinguished. I do not know if the member was feeling nostalgic when he referred to that.

What struck me most were the member's comments near the end of his speech when he answered a question from an NDP member about the motion recognizing the Quebec nation in the House of Commons. If I understand correctly—and if so, the cat will be out of the bag—he said that, in any case, it was not an amendment to our Constitution. What he was really saying is that recognizing the Quebec nation means nothing to him. I wonder if he could explain that.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by referring to Lord Durham's report. The member heard me quote Charles Tupper from the Confederation debates in the Nova Scotia House of Assembly. He did mention Lord Durham; Earl Durham he said.

I am not attempting to defend Lord Durham's position on anything. There are many things that are highly objectionable from a modern point of view in what he proposed. One thing that cannot be blamed on him, one additional wrinkle that was imposed by the British Parliament at the time, was the notion, designed by the way to oppress Quebec, of saying that Upper Canada, Ontario, which had fewer people would get equal representation. That was very unfair, very undemocratic. It also promptly backfired because the population of Upper Canada grew faster than that of Lower Canada, and by 1865, people like George Brown were complaining about the fact that his province was now underrepresented in proportion to Quebec. There is a certain delicious irony in that, I guess.

In the end, the very sensible result was that we decided to give representation by population to the lower house, to get rid of that injustice which had been intended to be an injustice against Quebec but wound up being an injustice against Ontario, to give equal representation in the upper house, and moreover to protect the rights of linguistic minorities by creating a federal system which is what we have done. That is the best explanation I can give as to what happened.

With regard to the motion in 2006, I will make the same point in English that I made in French earlier. We cannot amend the Constitution by passing a simple motion in the House of Commons. That is what the NDP effectively is suggesting has happened or could happen, but that is not the case.

In order to deviate from the principle of proportionality, in order to deviate from the idea that every redistribution must be at least as proportional, at least as close to representation by population as the previous one, if we want to deviate from that, we have to amend the Constitution by getting the support first of Parliament and then of seven provinces with more than half the population. The NDP's bill does not purport to do that, which makes it unconstitutional. It makes the 2006 resolution in the House of Commons about Quebec being a nation, une nation au sein du Canada, constitutionally irrelevant in a discussion about this piece of legislation.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that I have been afforded the opportunity, because of the generosity of my caucus colleagues, to make representation on this very important bill.

Last weekend, I had the opportunity of exchanging thoughts and ideas with constituents. On at least two or three occasions, I had constituents question why we were increasing the number of members of Parliament. The minister responsible made some announcements last week and a great deal of media attention was given to it. Canadians on the whole have a different feeling than what the government has proposed.

However, prior to getting into the debate, I want to highlight something that is really important, something on which we need to focus a bit of attention.

Yesterday, we had some wonderful people in the Speaker's gallery, such as world war vets, individuals who had participated in some of our modern day activities in Afghanistan and individuals who had been involved in our forces. At the same time, we recognized the importance of Remembrance Day and the efforts and sacrifices that men and women today and yesterday had made, allowing us to even be inside this chamber and appreciate just how important our democracy is.

The very same day in which we were recognizing the important efforts of our men and women in the forces, today and in the past, the government chose to bring in time allocation as more of a normal type of procedure. It is almost as if it feels it is no longer an issue, that all it has to do is bring in a bill and within minutes or maybe an hour, bring in a motion to put time limits on debate. That causes a great deal of concern for many people, me included. I see the value of debate, of allowing members of the House to engage in discussions.

Some bills, more than others, warrant debate. With some bills there are differing opinions from all three political parties. I believe that quite often when we are listening to members debate a bill, it might actually influence someone who is listening. I believe individuals who watch the televised debates will enjoy much of the content that is expressed during the debate, as Canadians try to get a better understanding of the legislation before us.

The government will say that a bill is a priority. If it is a priority, there are other ways in which the government, in good faith, can work with the official opposition House leader and the Liberal Party House leader to try to accommodate the passage of a bill. There are other things we could do prior to implementing time allocation that would allow for additional debate.

When government members stand, and they have had a few speakers on the bill already, and talk about how important it is that we have fair representation, it is one of those principled stands with which I agree. I agree with fair representation. It is one of the cornerstones, one of the pillars of our democratic foundation. However, equally important is what takes place inside this chamber, how the government of the day manages the House affairs and how it proceeds.

I and the Liberal Party are very disappointed in the way in which the government has seen fit to bring in this legislation. I hope the government will reconsider other pieces of legislation as it introduces them.

It is bad policy to introduce a bill and then only moments later bring in time allocation, which, in essence, prevents healthy debate. It is unfortunate and I only hope the government will reflect on that.

It has had a majority, which is somewhat scary, for a few months and we have seen what it has done in the chamber in terms of rushing things through and what it has done in committees, always wanting to go in camera. There is a lot of concern and we are watching. We do not like what we are seeing. We hope it is not something that will continue in the future. Most Canadians will catch on and become very disenchanted with the lack of respect the majority government has demonstrated.

There are some pieces of legislation on which the three parties in the chamber disagree. I suggest this is one of them. The Prime Minister has been quoted as saying, and I will paraphrase, that this bill would increase the number of seats now and in the future. In essence, what the Prime Minister and the minister responsible for this bill are saying is that the answer to the problem of fair representation is to increase the number of members of Parliament today and in the future. This is something with which we disagree.

I suspect the minister will be afforded the opportunity to ask me a question. Before doing so, he might want to reflect on what he believes the optimum number of seats should be for the House of Commons. If we listen to what the Prime Minister and the minister are saying, today we have 308 members, four years from now we will have 338 and I assume we could have close to 400 or something in excess of 400 some time in the next decade if we follow the recommendations of the government. It is fair to ask where that will stop.

In modern democracies there are fixed numbers. If we look, for example, at the United States, I believe there are 435 seats. The size of the population base does not matter. It has 435 representatives. We all know the population of the U.S. is 10 times the size of Canada. Why does the government not recognize, as other modern democracies have, that it does not have to constantly increase the number of members of Parliament and that there are other ways to readjust it.

I have heard a number of members say that Alberta, B.C. and Ontario need more seats. That is what they argue for fair representation. We can still achieve that balance if we operate within the 308 members. We can give Alberta, B.C. and Ontario fair representation, but the government has chosen to take a different route. As opposed to trying to limit the number of members of Parliament, it is going to support an indefinite amount of growth. We really do not know how much, but maybe the minister will enlighten us after I have had the chance to speak. This is a concern that not only I and members of the Liberal Party have, but it is a concern that Canadians have.

If we asked average Canadians if they wanted the number of politicians in the House of Commons increased and we thought they would say absolutely, we would be absolutely wrong.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

We want our fair share.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Fair share, yes; increasing the actual numbers, no. Therein lies a substantial difference between the Conservatives and the Liberals. As I pointed out, there is a difference in all three political parties.

I have been listening to the speeches given by New Democrats, trying to make an assessment. It reminds me a bit of the debates we had in Manitoba about remote issues versus urban issues. In Manitoba we tried to address that by having percentage variances on fairness in representation. I could be wrong, but I believe it is 5% in the south and then a voter variation in northern Manitoba. Some people want to see the variations increased to a certain degree, but they have been generally well-received.

I have had the opportunity to ask questions in regard to the NDP position on it. The response I have received are have indicated more concern with the numbering issue. For example, one NDP member said that we should look at England where members sit on benches. I have to wonder if the NDP is trying to give the impression that we should be getting rid of the desks and chairs and bringing in benches. Is that what we need in the House of Commons? That NDP member suggested that we just need to look at the other side of the ocean. I thought that was somewhat interesting.

I would like to continue to flush that debate out and the way to flush it out is to allow the debate to occur, but the Conservatives have limited that. I am interested in hearing more opinions from New Democrats.

As a member of Parliament, I love to share with my constituents not only what Conservatives are saying, but also what New Democrats are saying. I am interested in what they have to say. All I know for sure is that they do not have a problem with increasing the number of MPs by 30. They seem to be of the opinion that the percentage in rural ridings has to be increased so the ridings are not as big. They also seem to be of the opinion that it should be at least 25%. I might be corrected on that in terms of the province of Quebec. We will see how this whole discussion evolves.

I want to focus attention on the size factor. How many constituents is the optimum number of constituents that a member of Parliament can actually represent? I suggest a lot of that depends on resources. If members of Parliament are not given any resources, then they will not have the ability to hire people and service constituents, so they will want relatively small constituencies. If members of Parliament are provided with the opportunity to employ people, then they will be able to service a larger number of constituents.

In terms of the size of a constituency, we need to factor in the types of resources provided to members of Parliament to serve their constituents. I would be most interested in hearing about that.

I am quite satisfied, I must say, with the resources that I personally have been entrusted with and I do not take them for granted. However, as compared with being an MLA in the Manitoba Legislature, a member of Parliament gets considerably more resources, but the constituency is considerably larger. I think that somewhat proves the point.

In Manitoba, for example, there are 57 MLAs. An MLA has resources somewhere in the neighbourhood of about $60,000, which allows him or her to have a constituency office and a staff person. Compare that to a federal constituency and we would see is that in Manitoba roughly four and a half provincial constituencies make up one federal constituency. If we do the math, it is not that far off, in terms of resources that are provided to a member of Parliament versus an MLA.

I believe, given the resources that a member of Parliament is given here in Ottawa, that I am quite able to provide the same sorts of services that I would have been able to provide as an MLA, even though it is a much larger population base. That is why when I bring forward the argument asking whether we have to increase the numbers of members of Parliament, I challenge the government to provide a rationale as to why we need more members of Parliament.

The rationale that the Conservatives are using now is just strictly that they want to give more MPs to Ontario, Quebec, well, Quebec is more of an afterthought for the Conservative Party, Alberta and British Columbia. In essence that has been their rationale. They just want to give them more MPs and that by giving them more MPs, they would have more clout and there would be fairer representation, in terms of the equality of one vote.

Let us look at the numbers. We have 308 seats now. That is an actual increase of 30 seats. Ontario would get 15 seats, Alberta would get six seats, B.C. would get six seats, and the province of Quebec would be given three seats.

We have to put that into the perspective of the economy. Here we have a government, in its most recent budget, that is talking about the economy and how it is going to address, in part, the economy by making significant cutbacks every day that we are in session. I participate in many discussions among my colleagues. I hear about cutbacks in Atlantic Canada. Those cutbacks are serious. They would change lives in Atlantic Canada.

I suspect whether it is the Atlantic or the Pacific, from coast to coast, we are going to find that there are significant cutbacks taking place, that the government is wanting to downsize bureaucracy and our civil service, thereby reducing services. At the same time, with this bill, the government would increase the number of politicians. It just does not make sense.

My best guess is that if the Conservatives were to really caucus this and have a free vote, there would likely be more support to readjusting within the 308 seats, so that at least they could be consistent with their budget debates. That is just my best guess. However, the chances of that happening, I suspect, are not great.

I encourage the government to really reflect on what it is that it is doing on two fronts: the time allocation is wrong, the Conservatives are stifling debate; and increasing the number of seats indefinitely is the wrong thing to do. This is not what Canadians want.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the hon. member came here to make his speech, and I listened very carefully, but did not do his homework. He talked about growth in the future.

In 2021, under our fair plan, only 11 new seats would be added if the current predictions hold. In 2031, only five new seats would be added. We are being very open and honest about the numbers. The numbers are upfront.

The Liberals, under their own plan, are not being honest with Canadians about the numbers. Under the Liberal plan, Manitoba would lose three seats. Saskatchewan would lose five seats. Quebec would lose six seats. Newfoundland and Nova Scotia would lose a seat.

I ask the hon. member, why is he not being honest about the numbers in his plan?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have no idea where the minister pulls those numbers from, saying, “under the Liberal plan”. Maybe he could share that Liberal plan with the Liberal MPs. I have not seen the plan he is referring to and I am the one who is speaking on it. We are talking about the 308 seats. There is no need for us to increase it, but to the best of my knowledge, I have no idea what Liberal plan he is referring to.

Maybe it is backbench Conservative MPs who got together and said, “Pass this one over to the Liberals, and you are the messenger”. I do not mean to shoot the messenger. I will be more than happy to receive it from the minister.

He admits that this time it is a big one, it is a 30. Next time it will be 11 and then it will be five. That is conservative. Well, an increase is an increase is an increase. We are saying there is no need for an increase.

[Bruce Hyer, NDP, Thunder Bay—Superior North, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am not necessarily opposed to fixing proportionality by population or geography. That is all right, but what I am really interested in, and we should all be really interested in, is proportional representation by party, whereas if the purple party gets 20% of the vote across Canada, the purple party should get 20% of the seats.

Is the real issue a need to add more politicians to the House of Commons? That is a lot like adding deck chairs to the Titanic.

My question to the hon. member is, I know the Liberals did not want it for a lot of years, but are they finally interested in getting some real good system of proportional representation for Canada, and will they get serious about it?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Liberal Party of Canada is very keen on ideas and engaging Canadians on ways in which we can make a difference.

On a personal note, I am very sensitive to that issue. There are many examples that could be cited from all provinces where we have actually had majority governments elected in some provinces and they did not get most of the votes. That occurs a lot, whether it is here in Ottawa or the provinces. All political parties have been at different ends of it. The issue is which political party is prepared to be consistent, through good times and bad times.

I am not sure if the NDP is. We will find out in terms of how it continues to advocate that position here in Ottawa. In the province of Manitoba it did not advocate for it, but it depends.

[James Bezan, Conservative, Selkirk—Interlake, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to comment on the comments made by my friend from Winnipeg North. What he is propagating is that, based upon a 308 seat House and having representation across this country, we have to have an average riding of 106,000 people.

Manitoba, with an average of just over 76,000 per riding, would have to lose two or three seats. This is what he is proposing.

I have the largest riding population-wise and the second largest geographically in Manitoba at 91,000. I am still 14,000 less than the numbers we are seeing in other areas of Canada. However, we would definitely have to reduce seats in Winnipeg.

The hon. member's riding has a population of only 79,000. I would suggest that if he were serious about reducing the number of seats in Manitoba, and he wants to go home and sell it, I would suggest that probably we could get rid of Winnipeg North.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not one to back down from a good healthy debate. I would suggest to the member that we contact Richard Cloutier of CJOB and debate it on his radio program. I will make myself available and hopefully, the member will make himself available. We will advance this script of Hansard over to Mr. Cloutier and perhaps he might give us an invite.

I know that a vast majority of Manitobans, members' constituents and my constituents, do not want 30 more members of Parliament. That much I know.

I am prepared to debate that. If at the end of the day that means that Manitoba has to lose a seat, the member and I can go to CJOB to see if it will allow us to have that debate publicly, if in fact he will accompany me. As I say, I will be sure to pass the--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order. Questions and comments, the hon. member for Châteauguay—Saint-Constant.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my Liberal colleague if his party would maintain Quebec's representation at 75 seats with his plan to keep the total number of seats at 308?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, my concern in terms of dealing with 308 seats is that we need to focus our attention on the ability of the province of Quebec to have the clout that it currently has. The percentage of clout that it has today under the bill is actually going down. I would not necessarily make the assumption that if we go to 308 seats that would be the case in that situation.

Quite frankly, the difference between the Liberals and the New Democrats is that members of the NDP are not sure exactly what they want and what they are prepared to say out west. In Quebec they will say that they want 25%, but we will not hear them say out west that Quebec has to have 25% of the representation inside the House of Commons. There needs to be more clarity on that point, but that is the essence of it.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why the bill is so important is that we are currently denying new Canadians and visible minorities a voice in the House.

Only 10% of the House is reflective of the new Canada. Only 10% of the House is made up of visible minorities when their population numbers are double and within the next 20 years their numbers will move to one-third of the population. This bill would allow the most rapidly growing regions of the country a greater number of seats, so we can elect more Canadians who are reflective of the makeup of this country.

The change is coming. There is a galloping heterogeneity that is taking place in the country. This place is not reflected. The bill would go a long way to ensure that this place reflects the new face of Canada.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in reality, the leaders and the riding associations, and the cliques that are out there throughout our many different communities have a lot more to do with that than the actual number of seats.

If we want to get new Canadians or people who are immigrating to our country involved, we must speed up the immigration and citizenship processes as opposed to the two year backlog we now have for them to get their citizenship. If we want them to be excited about participating, we must speed up the citizenship process to reduce the backlog.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Etobicoke North, The Environment; the hon. member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, The Environment.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on the fair representation bill. As my colleagues have noted, this is a fair, reasonable and principled bill, and I could not agree more.

During the election we committed to our constituents and to all Canadians that we would come back to the House and pass a formula that would restore fair representation to this House. The election was a time when we got to debate this with the people with whom we should really debate it. As we knocked on doors someone could bring up the representation in the House. In coffee shops we could talk about what the House should look like, and what was possible and what was not.

At the all candidates meetings we certainly had the opportunity to challenge each other, as my colleague from Manitoba just did with another colleague from Manitoba to talk about the issues of the day in the provinces they come from. I come from Ontario and in that province we surely did talk about the need for there to be more seats and a better representation for the province of Ontario. That debate has taken place outside the House, and today it is taking place here.

As the Prime Minister and the Minister of State for Democratic Reform have stated, we made three specific commitments to provide fair representation. We would provide a formula that would allocate an increased number of seats now and in the future to better reflect population growth in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. That sounds like a pretty good plan. We would protect the number of seats for smaller provinces to provide for their effective representation. That sounds like another good plan. We would ensure the proportional representation of Quebec according to its population. We are keeping these commitments with this bill.

My colleagues have spoken passionately about these promises. Some members have explained the details of how the proposed formula would work. I am not going to repeat much of what my colleagues have already said. They have done an excellent job in talking about how it would affect the representation in very large ridings and the representation in the provinces that currently are under-represented. I thank them for doing that.

I would like to discuss some of the details and background of the changes to the readjustment process and the timelines that the bill proposes. I am the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. That committee will oversee the examination of this bill during the committee stage. I would like to bring some of the experience and ideas of that committee to bear here in the House.

First of all, I would like to thank all of the members of that committee for their great work. We tend to work more as a consensus than we do anything else. It will be quite a load for us to take this on in the short period of time we will have to consider the bill. I ask ahead of time, and I know I will get it, for the co-operation of members of that committee to work together as we always do. The timelines will be tight. We will be able to do it if we work together.

Regarding the boundary redistribution process, our Constitution requires that we readjust riding boundaries every 10 years. Our rules for carrying out this task are set out in a piece of legislation called the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. This law was put in place in 1964. Up to and including the boundary adjustments following the 1951 census, the House of Commons itself was responsible for fixing the boundaries of electoral districts.

A predecessor committee to the one which I chair was responsible for drawing the boundaries themselves. There was a considerable amount of political influence on the readjustment process prior to the 1960s. This was often referred to as gerrymandering, a term we use to describe the manipulation of riding boundaries along partisan lines, usually to the advantage of the incumbent or the dominant party.

[An hon. member]

Promise that won't happen again.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I hear someone who probably did that yelling from the other side.

Happily, we no longer have the problem of gerrymandering. It simply does not happen in our country any longer, largely because of the impartial, independent process set out in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

In November 1964, the legislation was passed to assign the responsibility for readjusting the electoral district boundaries to commissions independent of Parliament and parliamentarians.

For political neutrality, each commission was, and still is today, chaired by a judge designated by the chief justice of the province. When passed, there were to be three members for each of the commissions. One of these was a person called the representation commissioner, a public servant who was to sit on every commission. The post of representation commissioner was abolished in 1979 and most of the duties were transferred to the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada. That is where we stand today, a three member commission for each province.

Initially, the two other members were to be political appointees, one each from the governing party and the official opposition party. The Speaker of the House of Commons now makes those two appointments in the interest of greater impartiality and independence.

Now each province has a three member boundaries commission chaired by a judge and comprising two other members appointed by the Speaker. As each of the three northern territories constitutes an electoral district, they do not require an electoral boundaries commission.

The goal is a readjustment process that is generally free of partisan considerations. We have largely succeeded in accomplishing that goal.

That said, parliamentarians still do have input. They can make representations to the commissions during the public consultation period for those commissions. They can lodge objections during the parliamentary review process which is run through the procedure and House affairs committee, of which I am the chair. I look forward to the contributions and many visits by members to do just that during the process.

In all cases, the final decisions on the boundaries are made by the commissions. This is the guarantee of independence and impartiality. Partisan members can make presentations and lodge objections which the commissions will consider, but the commissions' decisions will be final. During the course of their work, the commissions receive professional, financial, technical and administrative assistance from the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff at Elections Canada.

Our procedure and House affairs committee visited the Chief Electoral Officer; all parties were in attendance. The committee tends to meet about once a session with the Chief Electoral Officer to talk about his goals and what is coming up. During the past three or four minority Parliaments, it was always about election readiness, but the Chief Electoral Officer, during this majority House, is quite happy to talk to us about being faced with the redistribution of seats and the redrawing of some electoral boundaries. He was quite forward with us as to how quickly this process has to start, that it cannot be delayed and that he has a great amount of work to do based on this project. He shared with members of the committee that he was looking forward to getting at it, as he put it.

As I mentioned, Bill C-20 makes some changes to the timelines of the commission process. The readjustment process would continue to be based on the census results which provide population counts at the geographic level that are necessary to accurately revise the electoral boundaries. The member who spoke before me talked about the size of ridings. His colleague mentioned how even within the province from which they both come, there is a difference in population of 20,000 between some of the ridings. It is imperative that we use the census to set the pace.

The existing provisions in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act call for the independent boundary commissions to be established in each province within 60 days of the receipt of the census return. The 2011 census is scheduled to be received on February 8, 2012, so it would be within 60 days of that date. The commissions then have one year to produce an initial report setting out the proposed boundaries and the names for the ridings, during which time they are required to hold at least one set of public consultations. Once the reports are finalized, the Chief Electoral Officer prepares a draft representation order which is forwarded to the responsible minister and proclaimed by the Governor in Council. The order becomes effective on the first dissolution of Parliament that occurs at least one year after the proclamation is issued.

Under the current timelines, it may take anywhere from 30 to 38 months to complete the readjustment process following the release of the census results.

There is some flexibility in the timelines as each commission works at a slightly different pace. There are some timeline extensions available if the commissions find them to be necessary. It would mean that the process would not be completed until about November 2014. The changes proposed in the bill aim to shorten these timelines in the current boundary readjustment process with a view to streamlining the process.

In particular, the bill proposes the following amendments: The independent boundary commissions would be established no later than six months following the census, or within 60 days of the census results being released, whichever comes first. The notice period for public hearings would be set at 30 days, down from the current 60 days. All persons interested in making submissions at public hearings would still need to provide the commissions with notice. The commissions would have the option of waiving this requirement if it was considered in the public interest. The timeline for the commissions to produce the reports would be shortened to 10 months, with a possible two-month extension, which is down from 12 months, with a possible six-month extension. The time period for the implementation of the representation order would be reduced to 7 months, which is down from 12.

With these changes, it would be possible to bring forward the completion of the boundary readjustment process to early 2014. That would give everyone, including the very busy and organized folks over at Elections Canada, the House and all registered parties more time to prepare knowing the new boundaries early in 2014. These changes and the other minor changes in the bill are to streamline and modernize the process to allow Elections Canada the flexibility and time it needs to do the work for the next election.

We politicians recognize that certain boundary changes will make work for us. We will have to look at how we are going to act within those new boundaries and whether we are picking up a new piece of a riding, losing a piece of an old riding, or whether there are no changes at all. Elections Canada has to then establish Elections Canada entities within each of the new ridings and under the new riding names too. It has work to do following the completion of the report. I do not think it can be done within moments of the next election. Elections Canada needs some time to do it; that is what it has shared with us.

The changes we have suggested in shortening some of the timelines are reasonable. We have not compressed the timelines too much. We have left time for the commissions to do their work, to hold their public meetings, for people to make presentations. Oftentimes there is one commission per province. People sometimes suggest changes to a certain boundary because it splits a neighbourhood and that type of things, so there is time for the commission to do it.

All the changes are sourced in either the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer's reports, past reports from the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, or the report from the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, known as the Lortie commission. The changes we are looking to make in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and in Bill C-20 have all been suggested by one of those sources.

There is ample public evidence and justification for the reasons and value of implementing these changes. We can be assured that Elections Canada will be fully prepared to implement and facilitate these changes in time for the next election.

As I have said, the Chief Electoral Officer has recommended many of these changes before. In the committee's visit to Elections Canada, he was very adamant that we meet the timeline so that he can meet his and is able to complete the process. For some of us, the spring of 2014 sounds far away, but as this process unfolds, it is a long time between each step and each step takes some period of time.

In order to make it work, it is important that we give Elections Canada enough time to set up the commissions, allow the commissions to do their job, have the report come back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, at which point members of the House would also have an opportunity to discuss their own ridings. Then it would go back to the commissions for final approval and in time for people to prepare for the next general election.

The fair representation bill fulfills our government's long-standing commitment to move to fair representation. It would bring faster growing provinces, like Alberta, B.C. and the one in which I live, Ontario, closer to representation by population.

As we have heard discussed here today by many members of Parliament, one of the founding principles of our founding fathers was to get as close as we could. We have drifted a bit away and this would help bring us back to that proportional representation, while still protecting the seats of slower growing provinces and providing seats to Quebec in proportion to its population. The new formula corrects a long-standing imbalance in democratic representation between different provinces across the country.

Last night, I had the opportunity to meet with a group of teachers from all the provinces and territories who were in town and, for the most part, they had a great interest. The ones who came to Ottawa obviously had some great interest in politics, or civics or history in the sense of our Parliament. As this was being debated yesterday, and some were here to hear some of this, it was a topic of conversation at dinner last night among many of those teachers. When we were talking about civics and history, the Ontario teachers were saying how they could relate it back and make some excitement for their students about the history around the founding of our country, the founding fathers of our country and the principles they tried to design Canada around. Now, here it is, some 140 some years later, and we are still talking about achieving representation by population.

If I remember back to my grade 6 history. I was kind of nodding off on representation by population. It has taken a great interest in history through my life to try to get back to it. Our founding fathers did something really great when they created this place. It is really good to hear teachers whose passion it is to try to share that and actually get through to guys like Joe when he was there before. I was really pleased to have that conversation last night. It was so timely with the debate that we are having here today.

In short, this is the best formula to move toward fair representation in a principled manner. It includes reasonable and long-standing updates to the timelines of the boundary readjustment process, which I spent a great deal of time talking about here, about how it happens after we pass the bill and how we really get to those new boundaries.

The bill is both good and very long overdue. I hope all the hon. members in the House also agree and will support the bill to try to bring us a little closer to where our founding fathers started us out.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand the member's position of supporting the government bill. It makes all the sense in the world: government member, government bill.

The member is also an Ontarian, like myself. In the government's previous bill, there were three more seats for our province than there are in this bill. I would like to know if he would like to join with us other Ontarians in fighting, during committee review, to get Ontario the seats that would bring it even closer to rep by pop under the old bill than this one, because there were three more seats for Ontario? Ontario lost three seats in the move from the government's last bill to this one.

Will the member join with us other Ontarians in fighting to get us those other three seats back?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Hamilton Centre is a great addition to our committee whenever he is on there, and, of course, as we have heard, we need no microphone system when the member is there. He is really good at getting his point across in any way.

I see a lot of Ontario members of Parliament sitting on this side and they do a fantastic job of representing their people. Perhaps, as he states, they are representing even more people than they should but they do such a great job. Ontario is a far better province under this bill with 15 new seats.

[Scott Andrews, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest when my colleague talked about gerrymandering and the influence that past practices have had on it. He introduced a new method of gerrymandering when he said that we were generally free of political interference. I would like my colleague to define what he means by generally free.

He mentioned that the Speaker would have to play a role in appointing people to a commission. The last time I checked, the Speaker is a member of the Conservative Party and the Conservative caucus. Is this the type of generally free that the member is talking about when they go to the boundaries commission?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I must point out the disrespect the member has just shown for the objectivity of the Speaker of the House of Commons. We just do not do that here. Our Speaker is elected by all members in the House, including that member, to act objectively. To impugn the motives of the Speaker is wrong. I expect you, Mr. Speaker, will somehow rule on a public flogging for that member because of that.

As I mentioned in my speech, the Electoral Boundaries Commission is set up in an absolutely non-partisan way to ensure this is at arm's-length from this place.

Even that member, with his disrespect for the Speaker, will get an opportunity to go before committee and talk about how his own riding's boundaries will look after it is done.

We did not pull out the old Liberal book of gerrymandering and look up how to do it. We fixed it.

[Colin Carrie, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate back and forth and I want to comment on the hypocrisy of the opposition here this afternoon. I know I cannot say whether a member is in the House or not, but if a count were taken, we would find less than a dozen here and even fewer are participating in this hugely important debate on one of the fundamental principles that our country was based on, representation by population.

I come from Ontario and for years we have been under-represented. The truth of the hypocrisy here is that the opposition parties want to stall this legislation because they know that if they stall it right now there will be no change in the next election and we would have eight more years of under-representation. That is what those parties want for Ontario and the rest of this country.

I want to ask my colleague, who believes in the fundamental principles of Canada, what could be the motivation of the opposition parties to stall representation by population, particularly for my province of Ontario.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would hate to put motive on hon. members of the House as to why they would do that. I will talk on the positive side.

This legislation that has been brought forward by the minister and will be voted on in the House would not only positively help my province and that member's province of Ontario, but it would also help Alberta, B.C. and all of Canada to get back to the reputation that our founding fathers brought forward, which is representation by population. We are going to get it.

[Sylvain Chicoine, NDP, Châteauguay—Saint-Constant, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening to my hon. colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London, who spoke about the need for proportional representation. We know that the four ridings in Prince Edward Island are protected by the Constitution because a province cannot have fewer members than senators.

We also know that Quebec still has not signed the Constitution. The previous Conservative government attempted to remedy this situation by offering Quebec 25% of the seats in this chamber.

Does the member opposite realize that by continually lowering Quebec's representation in the House, he is providing Quebec secessionists with ammunition? Does he realize that?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I resemble that remark to when we talk about political weight in the House.

As the member can speak for his province, I can speak for mine. In the election leading up to what brought us here as a majority government, I spent much time in coffee shops, on the doorsteps and at all-candidates meetings and when we talked about the representation of members of Parliament in Ontario, I was commended and certainly sent back here. I was commended on the job we were able to do, even with the large size of some of our constituencies. Many people in Ontario said that we should be fair with all of Canada and give Ontario what it needs, too.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Elgin—Middlesex—London.

First, just for historical fun, it turns out that the term “gerrymandering” is as old as the War of 1812. It occurred in the state of Massachusetts when Governor Elbridge Gerry managed to redistribute a riding so it resembled nothing so much as a salamander.

As we add MPs, we are adding costs. I think the Canadian people are more concerned with the costs of this place than whether we have our own desks.

Would it be possible to have a formula by which current members of Parliament accepted reductions to their own salaries as we added new members to this place?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I will pass on the message that the member requires no salary to the Board of Internal Economy.

The rest of us came here to do a job and we were sent here as equals, as equal members of Parliament, all 308 of us. Some of the members from Ontario represent 170,000 and some of the members in the House represent less than that. If there is an inequality, we need to fix that part first.

[Pierre Poilievre, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. NDP member for Hamilton Centre suggested that the present bill before the House of Commons is three seats short for Ontario, as compared to the previous fair representation bill that the government introduced in the last Parliament.

In fact, that is the result of census data that has now come in and been applied in the same fair fashion as we had foreseen all along.

The member across the way says that he will be fighting in the committee for three additional seats. Would the member explain how the NDP will amend census data in the committee on the fair representation bill?

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I can only suggest that the member for Hamilton Centre will do it loudly.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee, and of the amendment.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to join in the debate.

First, we will not be supporting the bill at second reading, primarily, for the very simple reason we believe the government bill is not as good as our bill. We like our bill. We think it would be better for Canada and that is the message we carry into committee. If we support our own bill, why would we vote for the government bill at this stage?

Comments were made along the way by myself and our leader that we were very much looking forward to what happened at committee. I want to underscore that point and that intent on our part. I heard the member earlier commenting about whether the member for Hamilton Centre was going to change the census and some other smart-alecky type of remarks. Perhaps that is the answer. It is as simple as there are new numbers.

However, I know we have at least three different calculations going on at the same time and we are going to need some clarity around it. That is fine for the government. It has all the resources of government. All we really have as members on this side is committee. That is the closest we can get to match the horsepower of the government in terms of the lawyers, analysts and everything else that is available to whomever is in government at any time.

One of the most important messages that I will carry on behalf of our caucus is the importance of committee studying this bill. It is important on any bill, but on this one, given that this is the file marked “Canada”, that we take the time to get it right. We do not want to take time such that we do not have things in place for the next election. We agree with the goal. I have told that personally to the minister. I have said that publicly. I reiterate it again. Regardless of whatever machinations we go through in this place on second reading and in the House and on voting, we have all kinds of games that go on all the time, often for reasons that are not even readily obvious.

However, the fact remains that we want to get to committee. We want to do the work. Ideally, in the best world outcome, would it not be great if all the parties, or at least a majority of the parties, could agree rather than a situation where, like we saw with the Auditor General hiring, only the government carries the day and uses the weight of its might. Let us remember that might still comes from a very undemocratic place, perfectly legitimate and democratic to the extent it follows our rules, but there is no sense of natural justice or democracy when 39% of the vote gets 100% of the power.

I take at face value the comments of my colleague from Elgin—Middlesex—London. He is a fantastic chair. He commented on the work we do, and I have been spending a fair bit of time on that committee, dealing with the Chief Electoral Officer's report, with all the changes to the laws. We hope the minister in some way, by standing in his place and commenting, or by sending a message, or talking to me or talking to our House leader, could indicate that we really will go into committee with the same type of attitude that currently prevails when deal with the electoral commissioner's report. At that committee, we really have give and take. When we cannot agree on something, we put it later on in the agenda. We all do a little homework and we actively try to find how we can all put a little wine in our water to reach a point where we can agree on fair rules for elections.

If we can do it for that, then I would go so far as to implore the government to be serious in that same way, as opposed to what happens at some committees where the 100% might of the 39% vote walks into committees, says this is the way it will be and, no matter what anyone says, rams it through with their majority. If that is what the Conservatives do with this bill, then I would be disappointed and they would do a great disservice to the file marked “Canada”. We could all do better than that in continuing to build and strength Canada.

I assume the vote is still on track to happen this evening and we will be voting against the bill for the simple reason that we like our bill better. Why would we vote for the government bill?

However, once we get into committee, as far as we are concerned, we are ready to hit a reset button. We would then have two pieces of legislation and a committee of people with goodwill. Maybe we could then begin to see if there were some way to close the gap between the differences.

For instance, members will remember that when the government brought in its first two bills, it did not have any seats for Quebec. However, we now see in this bill less seats for Ontario and B.C. If that is because of a calculation, fine, we will listen.

Again, there are at least three different calculations going on. There is one calculation based on using the 2006 census numbers, which the government had been using previously. There is the 2011 census that will be received in February 2012. However, in Bill C-20, the government does not use census numbers in the equation. I am not saying that it is a bad thing or a good thing, I am just saying that it is a new thing that we need to have some explanation and discussion on in committee.

Instead of using a census number, the government is now using the estimated provincial population estimates. However, I am no lawyer and I do not necessarily know what that means. Maybe it is a good improvement and the government may be applauded for bringing in a better formula, but maybe not. I do not know.

I just know that when the Conservatives finally came up with the notion that they had to be more respectful to Quebec then they had been, suddenly they changed the formula. Does that mean they changed the formula to meet the mathematical outcome they wanted? I do not know, but we need answers to that.

If the government is just going to come in to committee and ram things through, then the opposition is going to be given no opportunity to not only understand it, but maybe respond with a counter proposal as well. Again, these are things that would allow us to find a way to work together to get as close as we can to a single bill that we all might be able to support. Would that not be a win for everyone, especially for Canada?

I will not dwell on this, but I want to take a second to talk about the Liberal position. I know questions are going to come during the questions and answers, and they are going to do what they do. They seem to have one note to play on this and they play it over and over. That is their right. I am not suggesting that they cannot do this, but I am suggesting that it is disappointing.

The Liberal Party can really take an awful lot of credit for much of what we have to be proud of because the Liberals were the government in many of those years. It is a historical fact that a lot of the things we are now building on were put in place by a Liberal government, not all of them, but a good bit of it.

Certainly the current leader of the third party is a respected individual who has history on the national file, not only as a national leader but as a provincial leader. The member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville is a well-regarded academic expert on matters of constitution, regardless of how one feels about the Clarity Act. I know it is not loved unanimously, nonetheless it was an important piece of our Canadian history in building and strengthening our great country.

I use those two members as an example because I am saying positive things about the Liberals. They are important contributors to a national debate, whether one agrees with them or not. However, I am disappointed because all I have heard so far is the cost. However, that is real, especially at a time such as this economic era.

I think back to the Liberal governments of the past. Would they have led with that issue and said that the most important thing in terms of building Canada was to keep the costs down, like that was the priority? It is always important, but is it really the priority this time?

The Liberals suggest that we cap and then look at proportional representation. I am just happy when Liberals say the words “proportional representation”. It is a good start. It is an intriguing idea, but it feels more like an escape hatch than a new idea because it allows the Liberals to stand on one piece of ground, and that is the cost and how big this place will be. Again, it is an issue but that is it.

When the leader of the third party was the premier of Ontario, he played a significant historical role in the Charlottetown accord, notwithstanding the outcome was not as good as I am sure he and others hoped. It was in the Charlottetown accord where the first notion of a percentage floor of Quebec's seats, in terms of its political weight, would be maintained going forward, no matter what. That number was 25%. Now it is interesting that not only was the leader of the third party a signatory to that agreement, but the prime minister of the day was a Conservative.

If this notion of providing that kind of a guarantee is so un-Canadian, is just pandering to the province of Quebec and is loosening the ties that create our country, if that is what is wrong with our coming out with 24.35% and tying it to the day that we all stood unanimously in this place and proudly recognized the Québécois as a recognized nation within a united Canada, we believe it is building and strengthening Canada. It is certainly showing Quebec the same respect that the prime minister of the day and those premiers unanimously agreed would be a component of the Charlottetown Accord.

I raise that because I would like to hear what the leader of the third party thinks about the notion of 24.35%. Given that he was a signatory to 25%, I would like him to do exactly the same thing. I would very much like to hear more from the third party on what it thinks about the bill, the seats and the formula. Maybe we will hear from it and I will stand corrected, which would be great. However, we have not heard a lot. All I have really heard is the Liberals found this ground of the cost because people were concerned about it. It is part of being a parliamentarian. We defend what we believe in. We know that democracy can be slow, tedious, messy and expensive, but it is still better than any other system around. Therefore, we are wedded to it and we want to make it work. We see the expense as an investment in Canada, an investment in strengthening Canada. I ask my colleagues to remember that if Canada were easy to build, everyone would have one. It is not. It is a difficult country to build.

Let me underscore the importance of the committee, and I will end on that. It is close to where I began. So much work needs to be done there. The member for Elgin—Middlesex—London cannot do much more than what he did, which is to say he is looking forward to chairing that kind of a meeting. However, the member does not have the power to say that is the way it will be. That will have to come from on high. I know it is a shock to my colleague's ego but I am sure he will survive it.

Truly, honestly and sincerely we need some indication from the government that it will approach it the same we are looking at reviewing the election laws. I applaud the government, the chair and everyone on that committee because it is good work and I enjoy it. It is challenging but in a positive way, where we are all trying to find how we can work together rather than how we can be the strongest, apart, fighting one another. After 26 years in politics, I find that a lot more fulfilling than going into our respective corners and starting to politically shoot.

Regardless of the machinations of today--the speeches, the give and take and the cut and thrust of what happens in this place--given the importance, we are hopeful that when we get to committee, it will be meaningful, real give-and-take discussions and work.

If it is the other approach, in which the Conservatives just say, “This is our bill. We are not changing anything. We do not care if you do not like it. Take the time that you get to speak, and when you are done bothering us with your words, then we are going to utilize the 100% of power that we got with 39% of the vote. We are going to shut you down and we are going to dictate what is going to happen”, that attitude has nothing to do with building Canada. What is needed is co-operation and respect for each other, for all our provinces and for everyone's rightful place in our country.

Let us get to work. When we are finished the politics of the voting and debating today, I urge the Conservatives to signal that they want to entertain meaningful discussions to get as close as possible to, ideally, one bill that we could all support, so that even if we are in disagreement at some point, the overall exercise would leave Canada stronger than when we started on the bill.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I will end my remarks. Thank you again for the opportunity.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talked about getting the bill to committee and working in committee. We agree that is a good idea, but I would like to remind the hon. member that after just one hour of debate, it was the NDP that proposed a motion for the bill not to pass second reading and not to go to committee. It was actually the NDP that tried to stall the bill.

The hon. member mentioned the bill from the NDP. He did not talk about the numbers. The NDP's proposal would bring about 10 more seats to Quebec. Why is he opposed to the proposal we brought forward? It is a fair proposal, fair for all provinces, that would bring every province closer to representation by population and would have Quebec at equal representation to the population: with 23% of the population, Quebec would have 23% of the seats in the House of Commons.

Why is the hon. member opposed to fairness for all provinces?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, first I want to thank the minister for staying for my remarks and for rising and responding. I appreciate his respect and his courtesy.

My answer would be very directly to him and the government: why are they not prepared to give effect to the unanimous motion that we passed and show the kind of respect that gives meaning to that by recognizing, first of all, it is not just about Quebec? It is also about other provinces; they are not up to their full representation by population either, so there is work undone whether the bill passes or not. There is still some work to be done.

Why are the member and his government not prepared to show Quebec the respect that it deserves, recognizing that all it is trying to do is survive assimilation in Canada? They want to be strong within Canada, because if they are strong within Canada, they are strong within North America.

We have already recognized that we do not want that culture to be lost, so why are the Conservatives not prepared to step up to the plate and show leadership on nation building and the kind of respect that we showed when we voted unanimously for that motion?

[Parm Gill, Conservative, Brampton—Springdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for Hamilton Centre for his very passionate speech, but I also must say that he hurt my feelings during his speech when he said that he would not be supporting the government bill.

Earlier in the day I spent half an hour here making my speech and answering questions. I thought I had all the opposition members convinced, but obviously that was not the case. We still have some time. I am hoping that the opposition members see the light at the end of the tunnel.

In my riding of Brampton—Springdale and other ridings in the GTA, there is a huge representation gap. I heard that during the campaign. I still hear that today, and I think the bill the government is proposing does everything that it needs to do. It obviously moves provinces a lot closer to representation by population.

I would like to plead once again to the opposition members to please reconsider and to support the government in the bill. Let us move forward with it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for its tone. It is very much appreciated.

Let us recognize that if this legislation were perfect, we would not need this debate, but huge problems remain. We have problems related to our Constitution. We cannot disassociate them, especially when the government is about to pass a bill requiring that senators be elected. B.C. is woefully unrepresented in the Senate. Where is the remedy?

To suggest that the bill is the be-all and end-all is just not the case. It is a good start and it moves closer to where our bill was, so obviously we feel better about it than previous government bills, but it does not do enough. It could do more, and that is why the emphasis is on committee.

I accept the member's conundrum over why I am saying that about the committee and saying that the second reading vote is going to happen the way it is. I do not mean to be condescending, but after being around here for a while, we realize that some things that happen here matter, while some things that happen here really matter; what really matters in this case is what happens when we get to committee, not the politics in this place today.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to point out to the member opposite that the recognition of Quebec's nationhood was not unanimous in the House.

There is no constitutional principle that guarantees any provincial division in the House a certain number of seats. That was never the basis on which our Constitution of 1867 was struck. In fact, the very basis of Confederation was to solve that very problem in the old united Province of Canada, in which Canada West and Canada East administratively were each guaranteed 42 seats. Because that arrangement led to under-representation of Canada West in the House, George Brown, the leader of the Liberal Party at the time, demanded representation by population.

The solution was found. It was a federal system of government with two sovereign orders of government, one federal and one provincial. At the federal level, the House of Commons would be representative of its population. No particular provincial division would be guaranteed any particular percentage of seats in the House, as it was in the old case of the united Province of Canada for which this legislature was built.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I grant that the hon. member is very knowledgeable in this area, but let us remember that the founding fathers did not talk about an elected Senate, which the Conservative government seems quite comfortable in doing now.

Let us remember that this whole notion of a permanent base of weighted seats in the House was contained in the Charlottetown Accord. I remind that member that it was his party's prime minister who led that document. There was unanimous agreement.

I stand corrected on the other one, and I will not use that term again. I will use the correct term.

The fact remains that there was unanimity by the Progressive Conservative prime minister of the day and every premier of the provinces and territories. True, it did not hold, but I am pointing out that there was a moment in time when that idea was accepted as an important part of continuing the job of building Canada and strengthening Canada.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciated the beginning of the hon. member's speech, when he talked about a bill that seems to be a good start but also about the suggestions made by the other parties.

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Order, please. If I am not mistaken, there is a problem with the interpretation. It is working now? Okay.

The hon. member for Pierrefonds—Dollard.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, let me start again. I greatly appreciated the beginning of the hon. member's speech, when he talked about a bill that seems to be a good start but also about the suggestions made by the other parties—all the alternatives and all the improvements that could be made to this bill—that deserve to be examined in a non-partisan way by a committee.

Unfortunately, the questions that the hon. member has been asked to this point have not necessarily demonstrated an interest in debate but, rather, have served to criticize the position of the opposition.

Could the hon. member repeat the importance of holding real, non-partisan debates in committee and share with us some of the suggestions made by the other parties that could inform the debate?

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it says a lot that it is one of the newest, youngest members from Quebec who is underscoring my message as a former Ontario cabinet minister that we want to work on this together. We have a policy of 24.35%; we believe in that and we are going to fight for it and defend it, but the fact remains that we go in willing to talk and willing to put all matters on the table.

I am so glad the member underscored the point that it is not just me and it is not just a political message: it really is what this entire caucus wants to do. No one in the House, and certainly no one in my caucus in the official opposition, believes that anything less than the file marked “Canada” is the top priority for all of us.

I do not have time to get into the kinds of details we might propose, but we would be quite willing to entertain ideas from all members from all parties. In this discussion the key word, as my colleague said, is “non-partisan”. Let us do the job for Canadians, not for our parties, when we--

[The Acting Speaker, Conservative, Barry Devolin]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Kitchener—Conestoga.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is good to work with my hon. colleague on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. We do have great discussions there on the Chief Electoral Officer's report. All of us want to work in a collaborative way in the House, and our committee has certainly demonstrated that under the great leadership of our chair.

I think my colleague would agree that we have been working on this election report for probably a year and a half. It has been a long time. We have had good discussions, but unless there is something done about representation, we will go back to the status quo. We are under a tight timeline. Our Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that quite clearly, in writing and in person.

I am wondering if the member is actually prepared to let discussions, as he calls them, bog down and end up with the status quo, as opposed to moving ahead with what is a very fair bill. Canadians can support this bill.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, sometimes we develop friendships in this place. Clearly this is one of them, and I thank my hon. colleague for his remarks.

I would point out a couple of things. One is that although it has been a year or so, let us remember that we adjourned that study many times and moved on to other things because other priorities came to the committee, so it was not a full year.

I think the member is hoping to get from me a clear indication that we are not looking to be obstructionist about the bill. He wants to hear from me that if we end up with the status quo, the government would have failed; however, collectively, we all would have. I would still blame the government, because it has all the power, but collectively we all would have failed.

On behalf of our caucus and our leader, I reiterate that our goal is to go in and do that kind of work. Yes, we are prepared to put in whatever hours it takes. If we want to travel and talk to Canadians in every corner, we are prepared to do that, but we very directly recognize that there is a limit to how long we can go. We are open-minded as to what that is, but we want to maximize the time necessary to do the work to ultimately arrive at the best bill possible with the broadest support in the House.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for having given us great encouraging words today. Working together, he understands that we are moving toward fair representation. It sounds very hopeful that members opposite will support this bill.

I am very pleased to speak to Bill C-20, fair representation act. I am honoured to be the member of Parliament for Vancouver South, one of the most diverse ridings in all of Canada. Approximately 75% of those whom I have the privilege of representing in this place are of Chinese, South Asian, Filipino and Vietnamese descent. Not only are we diverse, we are large with a population of 125,000 in Vancouver South, many of whom are new Canadians and have been under-represented, as all British Columbians have been for some time.

Our government received a strong mandate from Canadians to move toward fair representation in the House of Commons. The people of Vancouver South and British Columbia, in fact Canadians from across this country, are excited because we are acting.

Bill C-20, fair representation act is extremely important, completely necessary and very timely. This is because the people of Vancouver South, their families, friends and neighbours across British Columbia want fairer representation in this place.

We, therefore, welcome this important bill which delivers on our government's long-standing commitment to move the House of Commons toward fair representation. In particular, the bill reflects the government's three distinct promises to provide fair representation by: allocating an increased number of seats now and in the future to better reflect population growth in Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta; protecting the number of seats for smaller provinces,; and protecting the proportional representation of Quebec according to population.

This bill provides the changes necessary to move British Columbians toward fair representation in this House. This bill is necessary because the representation of the provinces in this House is readjusted every 10 years. The formula has evolved considerably since Confederation, in which representation by population was the sole basis upon which seats were distributed.

It has been adjusted on six occasions since Confederation to respond to demographic changes as our vast and diverse country grew and evolved. The changes to the formula have attempted to balance three competing objectives.

First, to enable provinces with growing populations to have additional seats in accordance with the principle of representation by population. Second, to ensure the effective representation of smaller and slower growing provinces. Finally, to limit increases in the membership of the House of Commons to practical levels.

It was the latter objective which provided the impetus for the last change to the formula in 1985. In response to the realization that the formula, which existed at the time, would result in very large increases to the size of the House of Commons, a decision was made to design a formula that would provide more modest increases to the size of the House.

The 1985 formula allocates provincial seats by first determining what is called the electoral quotient, which is the population of the provinces divided by 279, which was the number of provincial seats allocated in the House of Commons in 1985. Each province's population is then divided by the electoral quotient to determine provincial seat allocation.

The second step in the formula is to apply two minimum seat guarantees, the Senate floor, which was added in 1915, guarantees that no province can have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it has senators, and the grandfather clause, added in 1985, which guarantees that no province can be allocated a number of seats that is less than the number of seats it had in 1985.

By fixing the divisor at 279, the 1985 formula did have the desired effect of limiting the growth of provincial seats in the House of Commons. However, it also had a negative impact that worsened over time and that has led us to where we are now, where the faster growing provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia are significantly under-represented.

Taken together, the effects of the 1985 formula and the two seat floors are significant. First, it means that all provinces, except Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, rely on seat floors rather than population to maintain their seat count in the House.

Second, the formula allows the three faster growing provinces to get a proportional share of only 279 seats even though the House has expanded to 305 provincial seats since the 1980s with three additional seats for the territories, totalling 308, our current number.

Third, the four seats for slower growing provinces, which are not based on population, further erode the relative representation of the faster growing provinces. As a result, the three faster growing provinces have become significantly under-represented in the House.

For example, British Columbia has only 11.8% of the provincial seats while its share of the provincial population is over 13%. The situation in Ontario is even worse. Ontario has only 34.8% of the provincial seats while its share of the provincial population is over 38%.

The combined effect of fixing the divisor at 279 in combination with the existence of the seat guarantees has prevented the faster growing provinces from receiving a share of seats that is in line with their relative share of the population. The result has been to significantly increase the disparity between the provinces protected by seat guarantees and the faster growing provinces that do not benefit from the guarantees.

Bill C-20 has been designed to bring those provinces closer to representation by population while at the same time protecting the seat counts of the slower growing provinces and ensuring that Quebec maintains a level of seats that is proportionate to its population. This bill was designed to deliver a fair and reasonable balance between the principles, while lessening or eliminating, to the greatest extent possible, the negative effects of the current formula.

The bill's key elements include many things, but before getting into a detailed explanation of the elements of the bill I would point out an important change related to the population figures that will be used to determine the allocation of seats by province.

Whereas the decennial census figures were previously used to determine the allocation of provincial seats, the bill proposes to require the use of population estimates as of July 1 of the year of the decennial census to determine the allocation of seats. The population estimates are considered the best data available because they are adjusted to account for the census net undercoverage, which is the extent to which persons who should have been enumerated but were not included in the census data.

The net undercoverage for the 2006 census was 2.8% and varied from province to province. The lowest net undercoverage was in Quebec and in Newfoundland and Labrador at 1% each, while the highest provincial rates were 3.8% in Ontario, 3.5% in Alberta and 2.9% in British Columbia.

We can see from these higher undercoverage rates that even the census had a hand in furthering the under-representation of these three faster growing provinces. The population estimates are already used to determine the allocation of funding for the federal-provincial equalization program, the Canada health transfer, the Canada social transfer and the territorial formula financing.

Using the population estimates also provides certainty on the provincial seat numbers whereas census figures will not be available until February of 2012.

The updated seat allocation formula contained in the fair representation act will move Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta toward fair representation while protecting the number of seats for slower growing provinces and ensuring that Quebec receives a number of seats proportionate to its population.

The formula introduces a new concept that did not apply in the 1985 formula, which we can call the representation rule. If a currently over-represented province becomes under-represented as a result of the application of the updated formula, additional seats will be allocated to that province so that its proportional representation according to its population is protected. This is a wordy concept, but it is fair and respects the principle of proportionate representation.

Based on population projections, Quebec would be the first province to receive new seats in accordance with this provision, but it applies to all provinces who may find themselves in this situation.

For the 2021 year and each subsequent readjustment, the bill provides that the electoral quotient will be increased by the simple average of provincial population growth rates from the preceding adjustment.

The practical result of applying the new formula will be to add an additional 30 seats to the House of Commons, for a total of 338. This is 23 more seats than would have been added pursuant to the 1985 formula. By introducing a readjustment formula that is more responsive to population size and trends, the fair representation act would move the House closer to fairer representation and maintain its growth over time in a more principled and accurate way.

This is especially important for fast growing areas of the faster growing provinces. We have heard how this would affect the Toronto area, but this is also important for the Vancouver area. My riding and the surrounding area is a large, dense and fast growing area. It is a magnet area for new Canadians and, as such, is especially affected by the shortcomings of the current formula. British Columbia, my home, would rightfully be a beneficiary of the principled changes to representation in the House that would take better account of our high rates of population growth now and into the future.

In addition to the updated formula for allocating seats, Bill C-20 also proposes amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which sets out the process for readjusting electoral boundaries within provinces once the allocation of the seats by province is known. The readjustment process would continue to be based on census results, which provide population counts at the geographic level that are necessary to accurately revise electoral boundaries. The existing provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, that call for independent boundary commissions, decide on riding boundaries and names would remain unchanged.

This process was established in 1964, changed slightly in 1979, and remains independent and impartial. I know the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands raised a question about this process recently. I can assure her that an impartial independent process would continue unchanged.

We are amending the timelines involved to streamline the process and ensure that Canadians would be more fairly represented as soon as possible. The bill does not propose any changes to the parliamentary review process, where members have the opportunity to bring forward their concerns about the boundary readjustments proposed in the initial reports from the commissions.

The fair representation act would fulfill our government's long-standing commitment to move toward fair representation. It would bring the faster growing provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia closer to representation by population while protecting the seats of slower growing provinces and providing seats to Quebec in proportion to its population.

The new formula corrects a long-standing imbalance in democratic representation among the different provinces of our federation. In short, it is the best formula to move toward fair representation in a principled manner. I hope all hon. members of the House will also agree and support this bill in order to restore fair representation in the House.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very impressed and wish to thank the hon. the member for addressing so directly a concern that I raised in question period. I very much hope that the commission would function in a non-partisan manner and only wish to confirm that I would never have raised a concern at all had the idea of redistribution for electoral advantage not emerged in the Conservative Party's Saanich—Gulf Islands newsletter. I am very relieved and I thank the member for her assurances.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to acknowledge the comments of the member opposite and assure her, as I said in my speech, that, indeed, the commission would be independent and impartial.

[Michael Chong, Conservative, Wellington—Halton Hills, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the reality today is that this House of Commons does not reflect the makeup of Canada. The reality is that only 10% of this House of 308 members come from visible minority communities, when in fact today one in five Canadians is a visible minority. The fact is that if we look at the 30 most densely populated ridings in this country, 15 of them have visible minority populations greater than 25%, and most of those ridings are in the regions of Toronto, Vancouver, Calgary and Edmonton. That is why we must pass this bill. Otherwise, the problem will only get worse.

Statistics Canada is reporting on the galloping heterogeneity of Canada. By 2031, in a short 20 years, one in three Canadians will be a visible minority and almost half the population will be either foreign born or born to a foreign parent. That is why this bill is so important. We need to ensure that we add seats to regions like Toronto and Vancouver, in ridings in areas like that of the member for Vancouver South, to ensure that this democratic House which should be representative of the population reflects the makeup of Canada today and the makeup of Canada tomorrow.

I am wondering if the member for Vancouver South could tell us how this bill will ensure that new Canadians and Canadians across the country would be better reflected in the makeup of this chamber.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed it is true that across Canada our diversity is growing. We are becoming more and more diverse, but that diversity is being represented less and less. With the addition of 30 seats to this House, we would have better and fairer representation. That would add 15 seats in Ontario, 6 seats in Alberta and 6 seats in British Columbia. Certainly my constituents in Vancouver South look forward to fairer representation.

[Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe, NDP, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I heard my colleague conclude her speech by saying that she hopes all hon. members will support the bill.

I am wondering if she hopes that all members, from all parties, will always be 100% supportive of whatever the Conservative Party proposes, without asking any questions, or if she would like all the parties to be able to work together to propose bills that really represent all regions of Canada.

If the second hypothesis is true, I wonder if the member also hopes that the committee will be open to examining proposals from all parties in order to improve the bill.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to reiterate a comment that was made earlier, in that we did receive some fairly stringent timelines from Elections Canada to move forward on this bill. Therefore, given that situation and given we have already heard where our population across Canada is, I strongly encourage members of this House to support this bill. If we do not, that would mean for another decade the constituents of Vancouver South and of other ridings across Canada would be under-represented. I certainly know my constituents do not want that. They want to move toward fair representation. They support this bill and I ask all members to support it as well.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon, BC]

Mr. Speaker, Chilliwack—Fraser Canyon is a beautiful riding of 30,000 square kilometres. About 120,000 people live there.

I want to thank the member from British Columbia for her excellent speech where she laid out the formula we have undertaken in this bill, with six new seats for British Columbia. We are delivering on the promises we ran on in the election campaign. I would like her to expand on the necessity for us as British Columbians to support the six additional seats, what it would mean to B.C., and why we need to pass this bill quickly so we can ensure that when we next go to the polls, British Columbia voters will be represented in numbers closer to representation by population.

[Wai Young, Conservative, Vancouver South, BC]

Mr. Speaker, as we have already heard, British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario are drastically under-represented and have been for some time, decades I think I could say. Given that our population projections anticipate that the numbers will increase, under-representation will only get worse.

I am looking forward to six new seats being added for British Columbia. That would mean that instead of having, as we heard from the member for Brampton West, a constituency of 170,000 people, it would become far more manageable with a constituency of approximately 111,000 people. This is a great thing for Canada. It is a huge step forward in terms of fairer representation. We will get there in the next decennial. I would urge all members to support this bill.

[Megan Leslie, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to the debate in the House. It has been interesting. There have been pros and cons presented and I have been listening to these arguments. This is a really important issue. It is something that needs debate and discussion in the House. It is something that also needs to go to committee so we can bring in some experts to talk to us about their thoughts on the bill.

There is one particular issue that struck me, and it has been raised in the House. That is that there has not been much consultation with the provinces on this issue. In fact, I do not think there was any consultation with the provinces. There has been discussion in the media about the bill and about this issue, yet I have seen very little from any of the premiers or representatives from the provinces. That is a big problem, one which maybe we could address at committee. Maybe we could invite those elected officials from the provinces and provincial governments to committee.

It is a big problem because we need input from the provinces on this, because we come from our home communities, our ridings, nos circonscriptions. These are located in provinces. They are located in regions and our ability or inability to properly represent our constituents, nos concitoyens, is linked very much to our provincial identities as well.

I am not trying to make an argument for regional representation in the House. That is what the other house is for. That is why we have the Senate. That is not my argument at all, but I do think that strong consultation needs to be had with the provinces, provincial governments, premiers and elected officials. We need to remember the original founding principles that even created this House, created our ridings and seat distribution in the House.

If we think about it, the House in its makeup is a direct rejection of representation by population. It is, quite frankly. When it was first conceived of for example, P.E. I. knew how to do it. P.E.I. wrote it right in that it would get four seats. Right from day one when the House sat for the first time, it was an explicit rejection of direct representation by population. We need to remember that. We need to consider the impact on the provinces and on regions, even if it is not regional representation we are actually overtly considering here in the House.

Another thing I would like to raise is that this bill is called an act for fair representation. There was some very interesting comment from my colleague across the aisle, the member for Wellington—Halton Hills, about the realities of the House, the realities that Canadians are not being fairly represented in a lot of ways, especially when we look around. The composition of the House has changed dramatically since the last election. We see many more faces from different backgrounds. We see more women. We see visible minorities, ethnic minorities, people from different types of communities that historically have not been represented in the House.

My colleague brought up the point that with the addition of more seats, especially in some of the cities where we do see more diverse populations, maybe it will flow naturally that the House will be more diverse. I disagree with that sentiment.

If we are talking about an act for fair representation, it is time for us to raise the issue in the House of a different kind of representation altogether. Maybe we need to look at systems of proportional representation. Maybe we need to look at systems where we could have different communities, overtly, consciously or specifically represented in the House, because really, there is much more to having a healthy democracy than the number of seats in the House.

We have to look at the health of our democracy on any number of fronts. What are the barriers to getting here? What are the social or structural barriers to getting to this place?

These barriers affect the ability of women, visible or ethnic minorities, Canadian expatriates, persons with disabilities, persons in the LGBTQ community, and aboriginal Canadians from fully participating in government and this form of democratic decision making. If we have a bill called the fair representation act, should we not consider these kinds of ideas and look at these barriers? What steps can we take to improve our democracy? What other areas do we have to look at for improvement?

Last March it was thrilling to see Canada ratify the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. That was a proud day. There is one section of the convention, article 29, that says that persons with disabilities are guaranteed political rights and an ability to participate on an equal basis with all others. This is something that came up in my riding, first in theory but then in practice in the last election.

That section talks about the ability of people with disabilities to participate fully in the democratic process, yet there are still huge challenges for people with visual and physical impairments at the ballot box because we do not have national standards for accessibility when it comes to the ballot box.

I was alerted to this issue by a constituent of mine, Helen McFadyen, who said that she did not have the right to a secret ballot. Helen has a visual impairment. She always tells me that she is blind. When she goes into the ballot box, someone reads her the names and helps her out. This is nice in theory, but as she says, she does not have the right to a secret ballot. She is not afforded the dignity of being able to go in and make that decision on her own.

Even with something as simple as casting a ballot, marking that X, we are not respecting the dignity of some people. We are not allowing those people to engage with the democratic process in a way that respects their dignity. I believe that people who are visually impaired need to be able to vote independently. They need to be able to vote secretly, if that is what they want to do.

Canadians also need to be able to ratify their own vote no matter what country they may be living in, and I raise that for a reason. In talking about fairer representation, another very interesting issue has come out of my community work. It concerns expatriates, Canadian citizens who are not living in Canada.

Members may be surprised to know, and I did not realize this until I received a call from someone, that if a Canadian has been living outside Canada for more than five years, that person cannot vote in a federal election. It is hard to believe.

A friend of mine, someone I went to school with at York University, called me about this. I thought he was wrong, but when I checked, I found that he was right. This call took place during the election. I told him there was nothing I could do about it at that time and I did not think I would be able to help him get his right to vote for that election. I said we should look at this issue of democratic reform in a more robust way, when the election was over, and try to figure out a solution for the future.

When we talk about fair representation, how can we limit it to the issue of seats in the House? How can we just say that if we have three more seats for one province or six more seats for another province that we end up with fair representation? It is not as simple as that.

I would love to see us take this opportunity to think about truly fair representation. There are Canadian citizens living abroad who cannot vote in our elections, but our laws have an impact on them nonetheless even though they are not living in Canada. Some of our House procedures have an impact on them. A number of expatriates signed a petition to say that this is not something they agree with and that the Elections Act should be changed. Believe it or not, I cannot submit the petition because they are not residents of Canada.

I see my time for debate is coming to an end. I hope to continue this debate on another occasion.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

It being 5:45, pursuant to an order made earlier today, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill now before the House.

The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the nays have it.

[Some hon. members]

On division.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the amendment negatived.

(Amendment negatived)

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And five or more members having risen:

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Vote #53

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I declare the motion carried. Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[The Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

The House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper.