Mr. Speaker, I very much appreciate the member's interest and the question.
I want to ensure I understand. When he was talking about “local”, was he talking about municipal politics? Am I correct? Is that what the hon. member means?
No. Then I am sorry. I did not quite understand the point he was making with regard to the example because if we talk about municipal politics, there are many problems there too in terms of the wide open nature of money and the influence that it has.
I admit I would have made a better case if I had more time. I do get a little long-winded. I accept that. Not to worry though, I will have many more opportunities to be on my feet talking about this, so that the member will know 100% what the case is that I am making.
I am basically saying that the public subsidy was a reflection of the will of the Canadian people when they voted. The $2 only went to the party that got the vote. Therefore, that member's vote actually meant something because if one was a New Democrat or a Liberal or a Green member running in Alberta, the fact of the matter is that most of that member's votes did not matter because the first past the post meant that he or she could win with 40%.
Do not forget that we have a government in this place right now that has 40% of the support of the Canadian people, but because we have first past the post it got 100% of the power.
There are all kinds of problems. I say to the hon. member that this just exacerbates it.