Debates of Nov. 3rd, 2011

Fair Representation Act

[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.