Practically as many as at the present time. There would be very little difference in that respect. In fact there is not a great deal of difference, but the advantage is slightly in favour of proportional representation with respect to the number of the electors that have to be reached. I might state also that the labour of canvassing and of sending out circulars and so forth can be distributed amongst a number, can be undertaken by the party. I understand that in Ottawa, where two members were elected by the block vote, not by the single transferable vote, the literature in the last election was got out jointly and the expense shared in that way. The expense attaching to attending meetings and things like that could also be shared by a number of people interested in a particular party.
The point I was making was that we had to start somewhere some time, if we were going to make any progress, and I submit that the method which the resolution proposes is about as fair, reasonable and sensible as anything that could be suggested to get a start. Just in that connection, I should like
to point out that the recommendation of the Speaker's Conference in Great Britain was very similar to the recommendation which I have made in this resolution. It went, however, considerably further, and when the final arrangements were made, there were, I think, one hundred different constituencies in which it was proposed that this system should be carried out. But unfortunately, through some difficulty to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Fielding) has referred, in the delimitation of the constituencies, this method did not operate in the last election in Great Britain.