Debates of Nov. 7th, 2023

Opposition Motion—Reducing Home Heating Costs

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. If hon. members want to have conversations, they should take them outside this chamber.

The hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to rise again in the House.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Milton.

It is a little frustrating that again we have a motion where we are debating the carbon tax in this place. As I suggested in a speech last Thursday, when we keep talking about the carbon price in this way, it gives the false impression that it is the price on pollution that is actually leading to the large increases we are seeing on home heating fuels across the country.

Today, we are debating an opposition day motion that has been put forward by the NDP. What I do appreciate about the motion is that it actually does identify what is causing the record increases in fuels that we are seeing within Canada. By way of example, since 2020, we know that with the increase in the price of home heating oil in Atlantic Canada, only 12¢ of that is from the price on pollution and actually 63¢ is because of the massive excess profits that are being made by the fossil fuel sector.

However, it is important that we recognize why that is happening. Of course, with natural gas and oil, these are global markets, and what we are seeing right now is instability throughout the world, particularly with the illegal and unjustified Russian invasion of Ukraine, which has caused significant disruption to the global energy market. We are also seeing the actions of OPEC, which is constricting the supply of energy across the world. We are seeing massive increases in the cost of energy in Canada as a result.

Just since 2022, the oil and gas sector in Canada has made a $30-billion increase in profits, which is a 1,000% increase since 2019. At the same time we are seeing these record profits take place, we are seeing thousands of jobs being cut right across the country. I do appreciate that the motion that the NDP put forward looks at this as the problem. Unfortunately, it goes beyond this.

While I think there is a very good discussion to be had about putting in an excess profits tax on oil and gas companies and being able to use the profits from that to invest in the transition that is taking place, it is very important that as part of the motion there is discussion on ensuring that this financing goes to support things like heat pumps and other ways of reducing home heating bills for Canadians. As the parliamentary secretary said earlier, there are issues with how the motion has articulated scrapping the GST on home heating fuels, given that actually might not assist the most vulnerable in Canadian society right now.

However, what I really find frustrating is that, just yesterday, the mover of the motion, the NDP, in fact voted for scrapping the price on pollution for all home heating fuels right now. Again, I think this sends the wrong message right now. It focuses on the price on pollution as a problem when really it is such a small portion of that.

We know that having a price on pollution is the most efficient way of reducing emissions and the most cost-effective way. The province I come from, British Columbia, has had one for over 15 years. Of course, this was a price on pollution that was brought in by the right-of-centre government at the time. While the federal system does not apply in British Columbia, the federal system that we have put forward actually provides rebates that are sent out quarterly to Canadians so that eight out of 10 Canadians get more back than they pay into it. Importantly, when we are talking about cutting the price on pollution for these fuels, it is actually going to reduce the rebates that people are getting and so in many ways it actually undermines the affordability measure that is there.

It is through measures like this that Canada has been able to make significant progress in recent years on reducing emissions. In fact, from 2019 to 2021, emissions in Canada have gone down more than in any other G7 country. Obviously, we have a lot more to do, but our price on pollution is a very important part of Canada's emissions reduction plan to make sure that we get there.

It is fundamental that we do not do things that undermine the price on pollution. For this mechanism to be effective, Canadians need to know that it is going to be in place for the long term and that it will be increasing over time as well. Without it, individuals will not make the investments in measures to reduce emissions and, at the same time, save on their pocketbooks.

Similarly, it is incredibly important that we not only have certainty with the price on pollution for individual consumers, but also at the industrial level. In that regard, we are moving forward with the Canada growth fund, which among other things will be able to bring in carbon contracts for differences that will provide the certainty for industry so even if there is a change in the carbon price over time they will have that security in making those investments. It is incredibly important that we have this because we are not seeing the type of investment at the business level in abatement of emissions. Last month, at the finance committee, we heard from witnesses that over the last two years, while the oil sands have been making record profits, there has been zero new investment in mitigation of emissions. Therefore, it is critically important that the private sector and industry play their part, so we need to make sure we have the system in place to ensure they are able to do that and are pushed to do that.

Another measure that we are in the process of developing right now is a regulation that will cap emissions from the oil and gas sector. Again, this is critically important so that those companies that are making record profits right now while cutting jobs invest in measures to reduce emissions.

I am having a bit of déjà vu here with the provincial NDP. I remember back in 2009, when the provincial NDP ran its entire campaign on axing the carbon tax. Therefore, I think it is critically important that we focus at this point on reducing emissions while we are there to support affordability for Canadians.

I am heartened that we are having the type of conversation we are having about heat pumps. We know they are an incredibly good way of reducing our emissions at the household level. That is why we have announced a new program that is going to provide free heat pumps for people in the three provinces that have already signed up for it so they can move from the highest-emitting fuels, which are also up to four times more expensive than natural gas, to heat pumps. I have seen in an analysis that a family in Halifax can save over $1,400 a year by doing this. We are putting the call out to all provinces for this program so they can work with us on being able to provide heat pumps for people to transition from home heating oil.

Just yesterday, I was very proud to see my premier, David Eby, wearing an “I love heat pumps” shirt, so I know there is buy-in at the provincial level in British Columbia. We need to work together so we can save Canadians money, as well as reduce emissions at the same time.

It is not just about reducing our emissions at the household level and saving Canadians money that way; we also need to assist Canadians with solutions in decarbonizing across the board. A key measure we have been working on for several years now is ensuring that we are decarbonizing transportation in Canada. As part of this, we are now providing a $5,000 incentive for people to switch to electric vehicles. Just last week, I was very pleased to be able to take advantage of that program as well. I am part of the 18% of new vehicle purchasers in British Columbia who have moved forward with an electric vehicle.

Whether it is with respect to decarbonizing transportation or home heating, we need to do all we can to support Canadians to make greener choices while having an effective price signal in place. I think it is critically important that we do both those things at the same time. What is imperative in that is ensuring that we have a robust carbon price so Canadians know that it is going to be there in the future.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would just like to make one quick comment to my colleague on his speech. It was very interesting. When he talks about the wrong messages being sent, I have to say that, as an Albertan, hearing a minister from the Maritimes, the Atlantic provinces, say that if they would elect more Liberals they would get more support was very painful for my constituents. It was very difficult for Albertans to hear.

I wanted to ask him about this. We are looking for ways to deal with the climate crisis. We know that people across the country want to deal with the climate crisis, aside from the Conservative Party, of course. However, we are also seeing this across the country, and in my province of Alberta, for example, the premier has chased away $33 billion of investment in renewable energy that could be used. Alberta should be a leader in the world in renewable energy, yet we have a Conservative government that has chased away $33 billion worth of investment that will not come back.

Therefore, I am curious as to what the member has to say about that, and perhaps what we could do to help places like Alberta when we have such backward Conservative governments.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, frankly, moves like that give new meaning to the term “cancel culture”. It is just incredible to see a government that prides itself on being pro-business introduce that type of uncertainty to a sector that has so much promise in Alberta. Alberta has the greatest potential for solar energy and for wind energy of any province in the country. To see those types of measures literally put a moratorium on bringing in that type of electricity while at the same time saying that Alberta cannot meet the clean electricity standard is just incredible. Frankly, it really undermines any credibility in that statement that Premier Smith made.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, the carbon tax, we know, disproportionately affects rural Canadians. I think we can all agree with that. I think even the member for Milton would agree with that. The government has come up with a meagre top-up. My riding of York—Simcoe includes all the farms and small communities like Pefferlaw, which is very north of Toronto, and we are not included now in that rural top-up.

We have no choice but to drive to hospitals. We do not have a subway. We have very limited public transit. We do not have any streetcars, so we do not have those choices. I have a first nation in my riding where people have to get back and forth from home, and the choices are limited. How does my colleague think that it is fair for us to be excluded?

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, certainly folks who live in rural areas have challenges that people who live in urban areas do not when it comes to decarbonizing their lifestyles. I represent a semi-rural riding as well, and people do not have access to the same types of public transit opportunities. That is why we increased the rural top-up. I cannot speak to the specifics of the member's riding, but it is something that we need to look at on the supply side to make sure those options are there. It could be through transit, particularly regional transit where there are large gaps in the country. We need to make sure that we work with provinces, municipalities and other organizations as well to deploy things like electric vehicle charging stations, and others, so that people have the opportunity to make those changes.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I was a little reluctant to participate in this debate because, as we find ourselves saying over and over to make sure our Conservative colleagues from Quebec remember and understand, the carbon tax does not apply in Quebec. Quebec has its own carbon exchange.

That option is available to all the provinces. Any of them can set up a carbon pricing system like Quebec and British Columbia have done in partnership with California and other U.S. states that are in the process of joining.

Earlier, my colleague from York—Simcoe talked about his region's unique circumstances. That is the case everywhere in Canada. I wonder if my Liberal colleague thinks things would be a lot simpler and we could avoid a lot of dissent in the House if every province adopted a carbon pricing system that suits its own circumstances rather than having to accept the federal government's carbon tax.

I would like to hear my colleague's comments on that.

[Patrick Weiler, Liberal, West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast—Sea to Sky Country, BC]

Madam Speaker, I agree with my colleague.

Every province and territory can come up with a system that suits its circumstances. They can develop a system that defines rural regions differently. I think that, if this is a problem, we should talk to the provinces about it. Every part of the country is different, and it is hard to come up with a system that works for everyone. That is why we set it up this way.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise to speak to this opposition day motion today.

As the opposition notes, Canadians across the country are facing more and more dramatic impacts from climate change. They are also struggling with the sharp increases in the cost of living.

That is why we have put in place a comprehensive emissions reduction plan, which is the most comprehensive national climate plan ever implemented not just here in Canada but anywhere. It is very ambitious, and its aim is threefold: to reduce carbon pollution, to stop climate change, and to grow our economy and to position Canada to be a leader on the clean technology front as well as keeping life affordable for all Canadians.

My riding, as one of the previous speakers noted, is a semi-rural riding. I have hundreds of neighbours who use home heating oil. These recent measures take that into consideration, recognizing that home heating oil is by far the most expensive way to heat one's home, and it is also the most emissions-intensive way to heat one's home.

We are going to get people off home heating oil. We are going to get them the heat pumps that their systems need. We have highly polluting oil heat that we want to phase out, just like our efforts to phase out coal-fired energy, and we are going to do that in favour of clean and efficient cold-climate-adapted heat pumps.

I am a big proponent of heat pumps because I have one myself. That means that I am currently heating my house with electricity and not with natural gas.

If it gets very cold, I can turn on my natural gas system. It is important that this is about lowering emissions at this stage and not about completely eliminating our reliance on fossil fuels.

I would like to talk a little about carbon pollution pricing because it seems like, in the House, we spend a lot of time debating whether we fight climate change not how we fight climate change, and that is truly unfortunate.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

It being 5:51 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

Shall I dispense?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

[Chair read text of motion to House]

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair

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

Madam Speaker, on this important NDP action plan, we would like a recorded vote.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, November 8, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

Business of the House

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

There have been discussions amongst the parties, and if you seek it, I think you will find unanimous consent to adopt the following motion.

I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House:

(a) when the House adjourns on Thursday, November 9, 2023, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, November 20, 2023, provided that, for the purposes of Standing Order 28, it shall be deemed to have sat on Friday, November 10, 2023;

(b) any standing, standing joint, special, and special joint committees, as well as their subcommittees, shall not be empowered to sit on Friday, November 10, 2023; and

(c) on Friday, November 10, 2023, a minister of the Crown may transmit to the Speaker a message from Her Excellency the Governor General recommending Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2024, provided that

(i) the Speaker shall inform the House of the receipt of such message and the tabling of the estimates thereon by causing them to be published in the Journals, and the said estimates shall be for all purposes deemed tabled before the House,

(ii) the votes therein shall be referred to a relevant standing committee or committees.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

All those opposed to the hon. parliamentary secretary's moving the motion will please say nay.

It is agreed.

The House has heard the terms of the motion. All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.

(Motion agreed to)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to see the clock at 6:06 p.m. so we could begin private members' hour.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

moved:

That:

(a) the House recognize that,

(i) representative democracy is a fundamental part of Canadian society,

(ii) in Canada’s current electoral system, the majority of voters cast ballots for a candidate who does not get elected, and many voters feel that election results do not accurately reflect their views,

(iii) a Leger poll conducted in September 2020 showed that 80% of Canadians support the idea of striking a non-partisan, independent citizens’ assembly on electoral reform,

(iv) many Canadians are concerned with the health of Canada’s democracy, including voter distrust and disengagement, low voter turnout, and the polarization of politics,

(v) all politicians, and all parties, are widely perceived by the public to have a vested interest in the design of the electoral system,

(vi) citizens' assemblies have considerable legitimacy and public trust because they are independent, non-partisan, representative bodies of citizens,

(vii) citizens’ assemblies have been used successfully in Canada, Australia, Belgium, France, Ireland, Scotland, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom to tackle difficult issues through nuanced public deliberation,

(viii) a citizens' assembly on electoral reform would give citizens a leadership role in building consensus on a specific model for electoral reform for Canada; and

(b) in the opinion of the House, the government should create a Canadian citizens’ assembly on electoral reform, which would,

(i) consist of citizens selected by sortition, an impartial selection process to ensure the assembly’s independence and non-partisanship,

(ii) reflect the diversity of the Canadian population, including a representation and meaningful participation of age groups, genders, ethnicities, languages, socioeconomic backgrounds, and geographic regions including from First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples,

(iii) determine if electoral reform is recommended for Canada, and, if so, recommend specific measures that would foster a healthier democracy.

Madam Speaker, I am honoured today to rise for the first hour of debate on a motion on a vitally important issue: Motion No. 86 calls on the government to implement a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform.

First, I want to thank all those who were tirelessly pushing to have electoral reform and to increase representation in the House of Commons far before I had the honour to serve as the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith. There are so many community advocates and organizations, but I will name just a few: Fair Vote Canada, Apathy is Boring, The Council of Canadians, Equal Voice and Citizens for Public Justice.

We know that the way in which Canadians elect their representatives matters, and the impacts are felt by all Canadians. We are living with the impacts of a climate crisis. More and more people are struggling to get by to have good, healthy food on the table, a place to call home and an income that pays the bills. Canadians no longer have time to wait for those who represent them to take real action. This is why I have brought forward Motion No. 86.

Canada has been using the same electoral system since Confederation in 1867. I am sure everyone in the House will agree that much has changed since Canada was first formed. The first-past-the-post electoral system implemented by those often referred to as “Canada's founding fathers” was put into place many generations before women even had the right to vote or were even considered persons, which happened in 1929. This was before indigenous people were able to vote without losing status, which happened in 1960. Canada was a much different place, and the rights and voices of so many were not included. We have come very far, but also, not far enough.

The first-past-the-post electoral system we are all familiar with is one where the winner takes all, meaning that the candidate who gets the most votes wins all the power. This was very evident in the last two elections, where our outdated voting system allowed one party to win 100% of the power with just 39% of the vote. We see the impacts first-hand of what happens when the majority of Canadians do not see their votes represented. Canadians are sharing with me that they are feeling increasingly disengaged, and this is seen in the consistently decreasing voter turnout.

Another result of the first-past-the-post system can be seen when we look around us in this exact chamber. It is evident that those elected across Canada do not match our communities. As one example, currently, elected members in the House of Commons are 30% women, despite women accounting for just over 50% of the Canadian population. This is the highest representation of women elected to represent federally that we have ever seen in Canada, yet it is clearly nowhere near where it should be. It is important to note that, despite the steady and small increases in women's representation in the House of Commons, Canada ranks at an embarrassing 58th place on the world stage, and this number seems to just keep getting worse. The pace of the work happening to address this gap is not keeping up with the need.

A 2018 report of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, titled “Elect Her: A Roadmap for Improving the Representation of Women in Canadian Politics”, includes sound recommendations for the government regarding concerns that remain today. The report discusses the ways in which increased political representation results in improvements in economic, political and social outcomes for everyone.

We know that having more women in politics means increased collaborations. I cannot even begin to count how many times I have heard from constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith as they express frustrations with the endless delay tactics and partisan games happening in this chamber. My constituents and Canadians across the country are asking for necessary solutions to be implemented, which means working together. Encouraging an environment of respect with diverse opinions on important topics is considered an essential component of an effective democracy. This means putting aside political games, working across party lines and doing what is right not for the benefit of the next election but for those we serve.

To make matters worse, only 2.4% of members of Parliament identify as Black, while 3.3% identify as indigenous. It is clear that Parliament also lacks in representation of 2SLGBTQIA+ people, people living with disabilities, people living with low incomes, and I could go on. Those elected to the House of Commons do not match our communities, which means that important voices are being left out of decisions that more often than not have the biggest impact on those who were not part of the decision-making process in the first place.

Finally, as a result of the first-past-the-post system, we all too often see Canadians being left with no choice but to rely on what is called strategic voting. I hear from Canadians that they are strategically voting for a candidate to ensure another does not get elected, not because they believe that candidate would be the best person to represent their values, but because they do not want to see another candidate getting in.

People want to be inspired to vote for the candidate who best aligns with the vision they see for the future. They want to see their vote count. Implementing a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform offers Canadians the opportunity to ensure Canada's democracy is strong, not only by looking at how votes are counted but also by reviewing all factors that may impact our democracy, including the voting age, access to online voting and roadblocks to the full participation of Canadians.

Today is the time to see all members of this House come together and move forward with a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform. Canadians no longer trust that politicians will do what is necessary, and rightly so. Canadians watched as the Liberals campaigned in 2015 on electoral reform, promising it would be the last election using the first-past-the-post system, but this promise was clearly broken.

Since then, my colleague, the NDP MP for Elmwood—Transcona, was able to get support from members of all official parties in the last Parliament to agree to a study on electoral reform at the procedure and House affairs committee. Unfortunately, when the 2021 election was called by the Liberals, this much-needed study was not conducted. My colleague from the Green Party, the MP for Kitchener Centre, then carried the baton by bringing forward Motion No. 76, calling for a citizens' assembly on electoral reform.

When I found out I would have the opportunity to bring forward private member's business for debate, I knew carrying on this important work was the right path to take. I have had other bills and motions tabled in this House, all of which are very important, but at such a troubling time for so many, much work needs to be done. As I touched on before, we are in a housing crisis. We are losing loved ones at a tragic rate from toxic substances. Forest fires, droughts and floods are impacting us all across the country and around the world as a result of the climate crisis. Innocent civilians, including over 4,000 children, have been killed by bombs, as we speak, in Gaza. All require our immediate attention.

These are problems that require strong, honest, effective and representative leadership. In order to have that leadership, we need to strengthen our democracy.

I feel the frustrations being shared by so many Canadians. We cannot keep doing what we have always done. We cannot keep cycling through the same political parties so they have all the power, attracting the same types of candidates, making it easy for this cycle to continue with a first-past-the-post system and expecting a different result.

The decisions made today will decide all our futures and, based on what I am seeing today, whether we will have a future at all. I bring forward Motion No. 86 for debate because we need to see a Parliament that encourages collaborations, real solutions and honest debate. We need the electoral systems to work for all Canadians, not just the few elite.

Although many in this House would like to deny it, we know that lining the pockets of rich CEOs is not helping everyday people across Canada. It is time that the decisions made are reflective of the views and experiences of Canadians, not of lobbyists, who only have profits in the front of their minds. It is for all these reasons and more that I without hesitation decided to bring forward a tangible solution that can move us forward in a positive direction to begin addressing the existential threats we are faced with.

There is reason for Canadians to be optimistic. Through strengthening our democracy, Canadians can see their voices heard and can see solutions that put the planet and the people who rely on it at the forefront. With all members coming together and doing what is right for Canadians, we can see a happier, healthier and more sustainable future.

I would like to share the words of Shoni Field, a member of the former British Columbia Citizens' Assembly on Electoral Reform. Ms. Field said to me, “A citizens' assembly is a critical health check for our democracy that can re-engage a distrustful electorate, renew confidence that our democracy can be both stable and responsive to a changing world and give voters hope that there can be a way for them to meaningfully engage in the political process to make our communities and country a better place.” Those are strong words.

A national citizens' assembly would give Canadians the tools, through an independent, non-partisan assembly, that would provide its findings and solutions to government as the best path forward. Citizens' assemblies have been used successfully in countries around the world.

There are various forms of proportional representation, but one thing they all have in common is that voter support aligns with those who are elected. Proportional representation is used effectively in countries such as Norway, New Zealand, Switzerland, Scotland and Germany to name just a few. What we do know is that when we compare countries that use a first-past-the-post system, like Canada and the United States, to those using a system of proportional representation, in those countries that use proportional representation, we see, on average, lower income inequality, more success moving forward with necessary and real climate action and higher scores on the UN's Human Development Index that measures health, knowledge and standard of living.

I am pleased to share that Canadian citizens from all political parties are expressing support for a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform. As a matter of fact, according to a poll taken in 2022 by EKOS Research Associates and Fair Vote Canada, 76% of Canadians from all political backgrounds support this move forward. When the poll was conducted, the majority of respondents from all political parties, including Liberal, Conservative, NDP, Bloc Québécois and Green, were in favour of a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform.

We are here today because, unfortunately, we saw the Liberals run on a promise of electoral reform and then never follow through with that promise. This is an opportunity for all members of Parliament to come together to listen to Canadians across the country who are saying that now is the time for change. It is the time for us to be uniting to implement real solutions for people, because we are in very troubling times. The motion before us is more applicable now than it has ever been, because it is clear that continuing to cycle through the exact same processes that we have used in the past is not working. Therefore, it is essential that we all take the time to listen to our constituents, implement a national citizens' assembly and look at having representation that matches our communities.

With that, I hope that members of Parliament in all parties will come together to vote in favour of this motion. I look forward to answering any questions that members have.

[Chandra Arya, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, with respect to certain remarks that the member made, both in her motion text and in her speech, she said that the low voter turnout is due to the current first-past-the-post system. In my riding of Nepean and in many other ridings in Ottawa, the turnout has been consistently about 70% in the last three elections.

The member also said that this is not a proper system for our country, but our country has been one of the best countries in the world in every single measurable index. A citizens' assembly would be an attempt at an entry through the back door into a proportional system. We have seen many countries with proportional systems, like Israel. Because of the proportional system, Israel cannot come to an agreement with Palestine. The biggest and oldest democracies in the world, like Canada, are doing well.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I did not quite hear the question there, but I would be more than happy to comment on what I just heard.

First and foremost, something that I did not mention in my speech is that there was a Liberal convention recently. As members know, political parties have conventions. The Liberal members at the Liberal convention actually voted in favour of a national citizens' assembly on electoral reform. Therefore, I would ask the member to lean on his membership and perhaps move forward with what it is that his members are asking him to do.

The other thing is that, absolutely, we have a strong democracy here in Canada, but there is so much room for improvement. If we look around Parliament in the chamber today, we will see just that. We know also that out of the world's 35 most robust democracies, 25 use a proportional representation, and another six have adopted an intermediate solution. There are proportional representation systems used throughout—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I have to go to other questions.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, paragraph (b) of the motion's text states that “a Canadian citizens' assembly on electoral reform” would inter alia:

...reflect the diversity of the Canadian population, including a representation and meaningful participation of age groups, genders, ethnicities, languages, socioeconomic backgrounds, and geographic regions including from First Nations, Inuit and Metis peoples....

The question I have relates to how we achieve this in the context of the fact that some of these groups are demographically rather small. There are, for example, only 70,000 Inuit people in Canada. To have one Inuit person on there, it would have to have 500 members, unless it overrepresents them. This would be true for other groups as well.

How does the hon. member suggest dealing with this?

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, what comes to mind is, if we look around the chamber, it does not match what we see in our communities. We know that we have over 50% women, for example, in our communities, but only 30% women in the House of Commons, which is the highest it has ever been. However, when we look on the world stage, the increase in gender parity in our House of Commons does not match the pace it is increasing across the world. We are in 58th place currently, which is very low. My hope is that we will see House of Commons representatives match our communities, which is currently what we do not have in place.