Debates of April 7th, 2022

Constitution Act, 1867

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the member has been very positive in his words with regard to Bill C-14, and we look forward to seeing its passage. I am somewhat curious about recognizing the importance of timing, because there is a timing element to this. As I said, I believe Manitoba and maybe a couple of provinces are already starting to draw their boundaries, with the idea of providing a report and allowing for public consultation all the way up to October.

The quicker the legislation passes, no doubt the easier it will be for Quebec's electoral commission. I wonder if the member could provide his thoughts on when he would ultimately like to see the bill pass.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question, to which I would reply that responsibility for the progress of parliamentary work in the House lies with the government and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

I hope the government will do everything it can to ensure that this bill is passed very quickly, so that we can then work with the Commission de la représentation électorale du Québec.

The parliamentary secretary should put that question to his colleague right in front of him. This would give us an idea of the importance he wants to attach to the passage of Bill C-14.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, last spring, my colleague, who is a member from Quebec, voted in favour of the Bloc motion recognizing Quebec as a nation with French as its only official language.

The Bloc Québécois believes that if Quebec is a nation, it should have special political weight to protect its specificity. Under this bill, Quebec will be allowed to keep 78 seats but, unfortunately, that will be out of a total of 343. Its political weight in this federation will therefore drop from 23.7% to 22.74%.

As a Quebecker, how can my colleague accept this drop in Quebec's political weight?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, my Bloc Québécois colleague's question is very important. I sincerely think that we need to be having these discussions in the House.

I remember that a similar proposal was made in the context of an accord, the Charlottetown accord. A 25% minimum representation was proposed at the time.

I did some research and looked into what the position of the Bloc Québécois and its leaders was at the time with respect to that accord, which sought to maintain a minimum representation of 25%. I discovered that the Bloc's position at the time was to vote against the accord.

Today I am being lectured, but in the past there was an attempt to maintain this 25% representation and the Bloc contributed to the defeat of that accord. I think that some of my colleagues should do their homework and do some research. They should see the citations I have in front of me. I would be happy to share them with everyone, but I will restrain myself because I am very happy that Quebec will be able to keep 78 MPs for now.

If we want to open a new constitutional debate, it is up to the House. I hope that the Bloc Québécois will think about it this time before making decisions based only on preventing the Canadian confederation from working.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's speech was very interesting.

Unfortunately, my French is not up to the question I would like to ask him, so I will switch to English.

He spoke a lot about electoral representation, which is of course why we are here today. I will say that in my province of Alberta, we are expecting to receive three more seats. However, in the last election, in Alberta, 65% of the people voted for the Conservative Party but 97% of the seats are Conservative. In Saskatchewan, only 64% voted for the Conservative Party and it has 100% of the seats. In Canada as a whole, 51% of Canadians did not get a representative they voted for.

I wonder if the member could speak a bit about the value of us looking at proportional representation. The Liberals did promise this in 2015 but did not deliver on it. I wonder if he could speak about how that would help electoral representation.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will start on a positive note and congratulate my colleague on her French. She has spoken in French a few times in the House, and her French is better than she thinks. She should speak French more often.

Now for the negative. If the NDP was truly serious about wanting proportional representation, why did they not include it in their agreement with the Liberal government? That is what I am wondering.

It is now essentially one party. Why do they not sit down right now with the Prime Minister and ask him to start over, to make the same promise, the promise he did not keep when he realized it would probably put him at a disadvantage? That benefited one person.

I think that the NDP forgot this small but very important element in its negotiations with the Liberal Party. This afternoon, at 4 p.m., when the budget is tabled, it will be obvious who bought whom in the secret agreement between the NDP and the Liberals.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I am curious to know where my colleague stands on capping the number of seats in the House. Seats are added every 10 years, but what does he think about adding seats to the House?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague asked an excellent question.

One day, we will have to think about the maximum number of members in the House. Some legislatures have done so, and I think that we will likely have to do that one day. I very much want to participate in that debate, always keeping in mind the best interests of the voters who send us here to Ottawa to represent them and the work we must do to represent them properly. That said, I do not see how we would be able to have 600 members here if Canada's population were to grow that much.

For now, though, it is important to at least maintain the same number of seats and then eventually settle on a maximum number. We are not there yet, since we have not had the necessary debates. Canadians will have to be involved in the debate. It cannot be held just here in the House.

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always it is great to be able to enter into debate. I appreciate very much how my colleague from Quebec outlined the importance of members of Parliament, and of our offices in particular. I know I can compliment not only my staff, but the staff of every member of Parliament across this country who worked significant hours at a time when many government offices, such as Service Canada and whatnot, were closed down. Speaking from my experience and the experience of my office, my office received thousands of calls from people who were desperate for help.

There is an interesting dynamic that exists between rural Canada and many parts of urban Canada. I know it is about five or six hours from corner to corner of my constituency, and I know my colleague from Quebec represents thousands of square kilometres. I am not sure exactly how many thousands.

Would he be able to expand on that unique dynamic that exists, to ensure that we have fair representation that includes the difference between rural and urban?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, I recognize that there are some ridings that are much bigger than my own. My colleague's riding of Battle River—Crowfoot is a huge one.

I do not want to be misinterpreted. I am not saying that MPs in big cities work any less. All I am saying is that their work is very different. In ridings like ours, a single meeting can take four hours, so we can talk with a single constituent. That representation is very different for someone in a big city where everything is about an hour from the constituency office. That is a big difference.

This is what the provincial commissions will have to consider when they propose new electoral boundaries. We must use this latitude to make it easier for constituents in rural ridings to access their MP, and I think the existing commissions have that flexibility. The act does not need to be changed; we simply need to make use of the freedom and latitude it already offers.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 regarding electoral representation.

As the member for Calgary Shepardmentioned, this is a bit of an “inside baseball” bill, in the sense that the bill itself and its implications are relatively simple, yet important. I am going to use my time today to talk about the bill, the reasons behind it, and other political implications and choices related to representation.

Every 10 years, the Chief Electoral Officer reviews demographic changes and allocates the number of seats for each province. He determines whether electoral boundaries should be readjusted to reflect population shifts within a province. Section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 sets out the formula for the distribution of seats in the House of Commons among the provinces after each decennial census. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act provides for drawing the boundaries of electoral districts in each province.

Electoral boundaries must be readjusted whenever a province's representation changes, or when there have been significant population fluctuations in a province, such as a shift from rural to urban areas. The redistribution of electoral boundaries is a federal matter controlled by Parliament.

In October 2021, the Chief Electoral Officer, based on population trends over the past 10 years, set the distribution of seats. The number of seats in the House of Commons was increased from 338 to 342, with British Columbia and Ontario gaining one seat each, Alberta gaining three and Quebec losing one.

This legislation being introduced today amends that decision, as is the ability of Parliament, by creating a constitutional floor: The number of seats any province or territory had in the 43rd election will be the new constitutional floor. The practice of maintaining a certain number of seats in the House of Commons for provinces whose populations were declining in comparison to the national average has been done before.

First, in 1914, the senatorial clause was introduced to ensure that no province would ever have fewer members of Parliament than its number of senators. The second constitutional protection is what is known as the grandfather clause, which came into effect under the Representation Act of 1985. It amended the formula for determining seats and guaranteed that, regardless of what the population of a province or territory might be in the future, it would be constitutionally protected by having no fewer than the seats it had in the House of Commons in 1986.

I should add that a series of adjustments were made between 1914 and 1986 to protect and attempt to ensure equal treatment of the provinces and territories. Initially, the total number of seats was calculated by dividing the population of each province by a fixed number called the electoral quotient, which was itself calculated by dividing the population of the province of Quebec by 65.

The one exclusion to this was called “the one-twentieth rule”, under which no province could lose seats in electoral redistribution unless its share of the national population had decreased by at least 5%, or one twentieth, between the last two censuses. This was appealed in 1946 on the basis of Quebec's desire for representation by population. I may just add that I find it a bit ironic today that we are here debating and driving legislation that would have been a completely different narrative from what those Quebec MPs would have taken in 1940.

All members of Parliament go and research before we come before the House to talk about the principles of the legislation before us. I want to give a tip of the cap to the folks in the House of Commons who have a very detailed history of electoral redistribution and the dynamic of how the number of seats in the House of Commons has changed over time. I give a tip of the cap to the researchers and the folks involved with the House of Commons.

This bill simply does what has already been done many times, which is amend the formula in the Constitution to grandfather the number of seats that existed during the 2021 election. We have already had debates during this session about the possibility of Quebec losing a seat. There seemed to be a consensus about the importance of Quebec's representation and the preservation of its language, culture and identity within Canada.

I am not opposed to the legislation before us, but I want to take this opportunity to put it on the record that I have concerns about the number of MPs that will be added to the House of Commons and to speak to Bill C‑246.

I asked this of the last Conservative member when I stood to ask a question on his remarks. At what point do we consider limiting the number of seats in the House of Commons? I did some research coming into this and found that, historically over time, there was contemplation that by 2001 we would have 400 members of Parliament. Today, we have 338. It is an open question that will inevitably have to be explored beyond the physical dynamics of the House of Commons and how many members of Parliament we can have in this space. It will also be about parliamentary privilege, and allowing individuals to have the space to bring forward issues to debate. Sometimes it is crowded to get on the agenda and to bring remarks forward in this place, because members of Parliament are doing that job.

It is interesting. Right now, in the House of Commons in the U.K., there are 650 members of Parliament. Is that something we want to see in Canada? Is that something that Canadians expect? I do not have the answer, but I pose it as a question here today. It also has a dynamic for how Parliament works. Relatively, when a government forms, whether it be a minority or a majority situation, there might be 150-odd members of Parliament in the government caucus or maybe just over 170, in today's dynamic. If there all of a sudden were 300 government caucus MPs, what would that mean for the dynamic in terms of independence for members of Parliament, their ability to speak and their ability to support the government, but also their ability to bring forward important issues? When we look at how the House of Commons operates in London, there are similarities to here but there are also differences. I raise that for consideration.

I also want to talk about rural members of Parliament. I have a riding that I am very proud to represent. It is 5,000 square kilometres. It is by no means small, but I consider myself lucky compared with other members of Parliament. My good friend in Central Nova has about 10,000 square kilometres to cover. My hon. colleague for Bonavista—Burin—Trinity has a 16,000-square-kilometre riding. That is a lot of territory to cover. We have to be mindful, with respect to all of the electoral redistribution, of the point at which a member of Parliament just becomes too far stretched to adequately represent the communities they are expected to represent in this place, in terms of their presence in the riding, their ability to connect and their ability to physically drive or travel.

Indeed, I have given a couple of examples. I know there are even more challenging circumstances for other members of Parliament, particularly in northern Canada as well.

I want to talk about Nova Scotia's proportionate share. Indeed, I have a colleague beside me from Newfoundland and Labrador. I have the member for Malpeque, Prince Edward Island, as well. As we continue to add seats in this place, yes, some provinces are protected constitutionally in the number of members of Parliament that they will have in the House. In Nova Scotia's example, we will never have any less than 11 members of Parliament, but 11 members of Parliament out of 338 is a certain dynamic and 11 members among 500 members of Parliament is a much smaller proportionate share of the voice that we can bring forward as a province in this dynamic.

We had an opposition day motion from the Bloc Québécois, and I will take the opportunity to speak to Bill C-246 in a moment. The Bloc and the House were strong on maintaining the seats, but they want to make sure that 25% of the House of Commons seats would always be preserved for Quebec. My question is, and I have said it to the Bloc, why do we not look at capping eventually, maybe to 360, 380, or 400? Let us actually look at eventually capping the number of members of Parliament in the House of Commons. Every province and territory in this country has their constitutional protections in force. This would allow there to be a stable footing for some of the things we have talked about.

Yes, the Bloc members want 25%, but as I pointed out to them, if they would have pushed to say let us cap it at 350 members of Parliament, they would have their constitutional floor from today's legislation, assuming it passes, which I am confident it will. They would have been protected at 22%, and that could have been a way to ensure that we do preserve Quebec language, culture and the unique identity within Canada.

I want to speak to Bill C-246. The member of Parliament for Drummond has brought this forward. In essence it not only protects Quebec's 78 seats, but also mandates a requirement that Quebec never have any less than 25% of a proportion of the seats in the House of Commons, regardless of what happens and regardless of the population of the province.

To my sovereignist colleagues across the way, their job is not to protect the identity of Canada. Indeed, they want to separate from Canada, so I would never expect them to do something that is actually beneficial for bringing Canadians together. In fact, sometimes I would argue they would like to wedge and drive divisions in Canada, but we have to understand what this actually represents.

This would not just be a change that could be done within Parliament. This would require a constitutional amendment that would mean a 7/50 formula. For those Canadians who are at home and wondering what the heck the 7/50 is, it essentially means that on constitutional changes such as this, we would have to get the approval of seven of 10 provinces that represent at least 50% of the Canadian population. That is a very high threshold to be able to achieve. That is what we expect to be the legal standard on Bill C-246 if it were to move forward. It is an open question about whether it will, but again in principle, this is problematic.

That type of bill would open up a lot of division in this country, and I think we are all standing here today recognizing Quebec's unique identity within Canada. I do not want to say we are all committed, but I know on this side of the House we are committed to keeping 78 seats in Quebec. In fact, we are protecting everyone right now with a new constitutional floor on the basis of population in 2021, including in Nova Scotia.

Again, this is a continuation of where we already were, but the idea of saying absolutely, regardless of population, despite population decline, they will get 25%, is not ever going to work in this country. It will never pass. It is being introduced in a way to create divide and to try to, I would argue, re-establish the argument about separation in Quebec, which frankly, the Bloc Québécois will know right now is not really high on the agenda, but they are trying to drive that type of narrative.

I think this Parliament understands the importance of Quebec and its political representation in this place. As I have said before, looking at the number of cabinet ministers and their influence, whether they be the Prime Minister or key ministers in the government, Quebec plays an important role in the government of Canada, in this place and, indeed, within the country.

I want to make sure that all members of Parliament get the opportunity to speak on this. It was an absolute privilege to be able to do some of the research and look into the legislation.

I will just take an opportunity to thank the minister of intergovernmental affairs for bringing this forward. He, of course, also holds the portfolio of the minister for communities and infrastructure. What a tremendous job to balance two very difficult portfolios, so I thank him on the record for his leadership within the government and for his continued advocacy for the people of Beauséjour. I do believe that he is going on 20-plus years in Parliament, which is, I think, a tremendous commitment to public service.

Of course, my predecessor Scott Brison also served for 21 years in this place. It shows that these individuals are committed to making a difference for their constituents, Canada and the world.

I look forward to taking questions from my colleagues, who I watched today as they listened with utmost curiosity, having detailed questions for me to answer in just a moment.

[Todd Doherty, Conservative, Cariboo—Prince George, BC]

Madam Speaker, there are a few points on which I actually completely agree with my colleague from across the way, one being that we very often wonder what the motivation is for our sovereignist colleagues in the House, although we know what their motivation is. However, I also want to mention that the House of Commons truly is the people's chamber, and it should be representative of the population across the country. I have said that in a number of my interventions in debates, that this is the House. It is the people's House and the 338 members of Parliament who have been elected to represent those electors carry the voice of those electors to this House. This House should represent the population of our country.

I want to ask my hon. colleague if he is aware of whether the provinces with the fastest growing populations, such as my province of British Columbia, and Alberta and Ontario, were consulted. Far too often we hear, when we are on the doorsteps during elections, that the election is over by the time it gets to the western provinces. Were those provinces consulted?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I would not pretend to speak for the minister of intergovernmental affairs in terms of the work that was undertaken. We had the opportunity in this House to debate an opposition day motion, and I know a number of Conservative colleagues and, indeed, everyone has had the chance to speak to it.

The member raised an important point about how we balance representation. I would submit to this House that there has never been a true representation by population, and that has always been because Canada was a compromise from day one in 1867. Even as we added provinces during Confederation, and as the member opposite's province joined, which I believe was in 1870, there was a negotiation about what was fair and equitable at the time.

I do not think there has ever been pure representation by population. Certainly, sitting as a member of Parliament with 11 seats in Nova Scotia, I think we would be closer to 8 or 9 without it. I really want to make sure that all regions of the country have a voice with representation. I think today's legislation and where we are is fair and equitable at this time.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

Madam Speaker, we often hear the argument that Quebec is well represented because we have the Prime Minister and ministers.

I would simply like to point out to my colleague that the Island of Montreal is experiencing a serious housing crisis, with 25,000 people waiting for low-income housing. However, the Island of Montreal is represented by the Prime Minister and six senior ministers, including the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Canadian Heritage. This is significant, but despite this, the crisis has continued for seven years, so having ministers is not the answer to everything.

I want to talk about the French language. My colleague must be sensitive to this in Nova Scotia. According to the numbers, the status of French in Quebec is so precarious that the percentage of people whose mother tongue is French may drop to just 69% by 2036, which might as well be tomorrow. If we do not use this bill as an opportunity to protect our political weight, if we do not stand up for ourselves, we will never be able to protect the French language. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I agree that policies must be adopted to preserve the French language. That is why I try very hard to speak French here and to learn the language. Policies favouring francophone immigration are also very important, not only in Quebec, but also outside Quebec, elsewhere in Canada, to preserve the French language.

With regard to what my colleague said about ministers and the problems in Montreal, my answer is simple. The Legault government and many of the MNAs have a hand in this, but I think some other social problems are at play, and opportunities do exist. I find that part of the question a little odd.

[Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Madam Speaker, this bill protects the number of seats not only in Quebec, but also in all the other provinces. How important does the member think this is for his own province?

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and for using French in the House.

Of course the legislation is neutral in the sense that all of the provinces and territories are reflected in the Constitution. To me the question that remains is this. How many members will be added to the House?

For Nova Scotia, 11 members are protected by the Constitution, but having just 11 members out of 500 in the House would reduce the proportion of representation we have in the House.

I think that in future we will have to determine the number of MPs in the House of Commons both from a parliamentary privilege perspective and a logistics perspective.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know my hon. colleague has been an advocate here in this House. I want to mention that I come from a riding that represents over 100,000 square kilometres. Could the member consider that and think about what it is like to overlap with over 500 other elected representatives, whether they are MLAs, town councillors, county councillors or band councils? It is something.

There is representation by responsibility. Trying to simultaneously get funding for five pools and recreation centres is a major challenge. It is an interesting discussion.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, a tip of the cap to the member, as I have 5,000 square kilometres and that makes me look like small peanuts compared to the member opposite is dealing with. I salute him and can appreciate how difficult those challenges are.

As I mentioned in my speech, I believe this is a very important point about the rurality of our country and ensuring that members of Parliament who are expected to represent these areas can do so adequately. I think it is an open question, notwithstanding calling this member's advocacy into question, on the actual size. As he mentioned, working with 500 elected officials is extremely challenging.

I want to separate the conversation around the amount of seats within a province or territory versus how we actually distribute within those provinces. As we see migration of larger numbers in urban areas, perhaps urban MPs will have to take on a larger proportion of constituents so we can make some of these rural ridings smaller geographically to make sure there is that equity.

Right now, I know, for example, in Nova Scotia, and I do not pretend to know the federal aspect, there is a proportion of variance that is allowed when we look at these different elements. Perhaps that has to be extended even further to allow urban areas to have more constituents in a smaller place, and then also allow people, like this member, to have a more reasonable size and scope of geography to cover.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for working with us to ensure Quebec's seat count in the House of Commons remains constant. Clearly there is a lot of work to do, especially around representation. We can look at gender balance and the important work that needs to be done to address that, as well as participation in our electoral system. We know the Liberal government ran on a platform in 2015 to make it the last unfair election. It still has not implemented a proportional system, and as a result, we still have lower turnout.

One thing I think about is young people. We are talking about really important issues critical to them such as climate justice, reconciliation, overdoses and the toxic drug supply crisis that is claiming lives in our country. We know that the younger people participate in elections and are involved in civic participation, they have a lifelong commitment to it. We have seen Austria, Germany and the U.K. lower the voting age to 16.

Does my colleague agree that if someone can drive, work and pay taxes, all of which can be done in this country at age 16, they should be able to vote? My colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley has put forward a bill to the House, Bill C-210. Will he be supporting that bill, which is a very important bill, to lower the voting age to 16? We know people who are 16 in this country, who are contributing to this country and whose futures are at stake, need a seat at the table.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, there were a lot of different elements in the commentary.

First of all, around first past the post, the election commitment in 2015 was about its being the last election by first past the past. My understanding, although I was not here in the 42nd Parliament, is that there was the idea of doing a ranked ballot. The NDP rejected that offer, so it is a bit rich for that member to step up and suggest the government did not put something on the table to be able to make a change.

I want to address the question that is fundamental, which is the voting age at 16. I am one of the youngest members of Parliament in the House. I try every day, as part of engaging individuals in my riding, to engage with youth. It is important to make sure they have an understanding of the democratic process. Indeed, some of the issues we are talking about today will have profound impacts on them as they become adults and move forward. In principle, I support moving it toward the age of 16. I look forward to reviewing Bill C-210 and speaking to that later in this session.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon.

I rise to speak on Bill C-14, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867. More specifically, what this bill would do is amend what is known as the grandfather clause. By way of background, the grandfather clause has been part of our Constitution since 1986, with the passage of the Representation Act, 1985. Very simply, what the grandfather clause does is establish a floor in terms of the allocation of seats by province in terms of the redistribution process that takes place every 10 years. The floor that the grandfather clause sets is that no province shall be allocated fewer seats in future redistributions than that province had in 1985.

Bill C-14 is a fairly straightforward piece of legislation in that it amends the grandfather clause by establishing an updated floor, a floor of 2015 as opposed to 1985. More specifically, it would ensure that no province will receive an allocation of fewer seats than that province had in 2015, in the 43rd Parliament, in any future redistribution. What that means for my province of Alberta is that it increases the floor in terms of the minimal number of seats that Alberta will be allocated in any redistribution by 13, the 13 seats that Alberta gained between 1985 and 2015.

When we look at the issue of allocating seats across Canada, a foundational principle of our democratic process is representation by population. Representation by population is based upon the notion that the weight attached to the vote of each Canadian should be equal, regardless of what region of Canada they live in. It is a principle that was adopted by the fathers of Confederation in 1867, and it is a principle that is enshrined in our Constitution.

While it is a principle that is foundational, achieving pure representation by population is not practical. Indeed, it is not entirely desirable in regard to a number of factors, including the vastness of Canada. With respect to the impracticability of achieving pure representation by population, one need look no further than our Constitution. For example, the senatorial clause of 1915 guarantees that every province shall have at least the same number of seats in the House of Commons as it has senators. That is why, for example, the province of Prince Edward Island is guaranteed four seats in the House of Commons because it has four senators, notwithstanding the fact that the province of Prince Edward Island has fewer than 160,000 people.

Indeed, my riding of St. Albert—Edmonton is almost as large as Prince Edward Island. My friend and colleague down the road in Edmonton—Wetaskiwin represents a riding of more than 200,000 people, 40,000 or 50,000 more people than Prince Edward Island. One might say to simply rescind or repeal the senatorial clause, but of course that requires the unanimous consent of the provinces. Prince Edward Island, I am sure, will be in no hurry to offer its consent.

Achieving pure representation by population is not practicable, but it is also important to take into account what the Supreme Court of Canada provided for in the Saskatchewan boundaries reference case of 1991. That case dealt with the boundary redistribution in the province of Saskatchewan that tended to disproportionately favour rural areas at the expense of more populous urban areas. The court looked at section 3 of the charter, which guarantees the right of every Canadian to vote, and in the context of the redistribution of boundaries in the province of Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court determined that the overriding principle is one of effective representation.

In terms of effective representation, the court recognized such factors as geography, communities of interest and so on. However, that being said, the court did stress the importance of representation by population. To that end, I would cite Madam Justice McLachlin, who said:

What are the conditions of effective representation? The first is relative parity of voting power. A system which dilutes one citizen's vote unduly as compared with another citizen's vote runs the risk of providing inadequate representation to the citizen whose vote is diluted.

In order to have effective representation, what we must have, to the greatest degree possible, is representation by population. That is where we have moved significantly towards, thanks to the leadership of Prime Minister Harper and the previous Conservative government with the passage of the Fair Representation Act.

The Fair Representation Act replaced the 1985 formula that established an electoral quotient, which is the first step in terms of determining the allocation of seats, with a new formula that sets a new electoral quotient. The problem, very simply, with the 1985 formula is that, although it was thought to be fair in 1985, it did not allow for the allocation of seats by province to keep up with population growth among the fastest-growing provinces. As a result, the fastest-growing provinces were denied their right to fair, proportionate representation in the House of Commons. It created, over time, a representation gap.

Take, for example, my province of Alberta. Alberta gained nearly one million people between 1988 and 2004, yet in the span of nearly 20 years with one million new Albertans, Alberta only gained two seats in the House of Commons. So significant was the representation gap at the time that the Fair Representation Act was introduced, some analysis established that the three fastest-growing provinces in Canada, namely Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta, were among the most under-represented provinces or states in the industrialized world, according to analysis at the time from the Mowat Centre.

The Fair Representation Act addressed the representation gap significantly by establishing a new formula that better takes into account population growth, all the while respecting the overriding principle of effective representation. What that has meant in the last two redistributions is an increase in representation for the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta.

My province of Alberta has gained nine seats in the span of 10 years. Ontario gained 18 seats in the first redistribution. The province of British Columbia gained eight seats. That gap is being closed thanks to the legacy of Prime Minister Harper and the formula provided in the Fair Representation Act.

In closing, I will say that this legislation, I am pleased to see, would not in any major way impact the Harper formula. It would maintain the Harper formula, and in that regard it maintains a significant step forward in achieving something much closer to representation by population, which the Supreme Court has said is essential for having effective representation.

[Kody Blois, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague and I may not always agree on discussion points and politics, but I do respect his ability to stand before the House without notes to recite his speeches and bring forward his points.

I just had a Q and A with the member of Parliament for Peace River—Westlock, my hon. colleague's colleague, about the rurality of the country and the fact that his riding is 100,000 square kilometres. He talked about effective representation, and we talked about the challenges, of course, notwithstanding the fact that there has been a rural-urban shift. It is important to take into consideration those elements so that rural MPs can still represent their constituents in a reasonable fashion.

Would the member agree that with the current structure, when we look at the dynamic within the provinces and territories, we have to make sure that rural representation remains an important piece, particularly with the size and geography of federal ridings at this point?

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Madam Speaker, in short, I absolutely concur with my colleague from Kings—Hants that we need to take into allowance issues of population and geography, as my friend, the member for Peace River—Westlock, outlined. He represents 100,000 square kilometres, an area that comprises 500 municipal, provincial and band officials, and that is taken into account in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It takes into account the factors the Supreme Court specifically cited in the Saskatchewan reference case in terms of establishing and maintaining effective representation.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague's intervention today was very detailed and fact-based, and I appreciate his attention to detail.

He talked about the member for Edmonton—Wetaskiwin having 200,000 constituents in his riding, and something I have been thinking a lot about is the nature of representation when we look at the difference between rural and urban. I wonder if the member would be able to speak to that. Considering the difference in priorities and the different challenges that rural and urban ridings face, would he be interested in making sure, as we determine the three new seats in Alberta, that we have urban and rural priorities in line?