Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 17th, 2011

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I'd like to make sure I heard this correctly. I think it's important to note, because I know the opposition is a little confused about this fact, as they've indicated on many occasions before when we were debating the changes our government made.

The census is mandatory, so that doesn't affect the numbers whatsoever. Whether it's a mandatory short form or voluntary long form, the information you need based on population is still as accurate today as it has always been regardless of the changes, correct?

[Wayne Smith]

The 2011 census of population comprised 10 questions that formed the basis of the numbers that will be released on February 8. It was mandatory, and as far as we know today it was very successful and had a higher response rate than the previous census.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

That's what I wanted to find out. What was the response rate, and how much higher was it compared to previous censuses?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I gave David two questions, so I have to watch it.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I'm sure one of my colleagues will take that one up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Is there one from anyone else?

We'll just say, “Way to go, Canadians”. They've done a good job of responding to you.

Mr. Smith, thank you and your colleagues for coming today. You've done a great job of responding to us.

We'll suspend for a couple of minutes while we change our witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I call this meeting back to order.

Mr. Kingsley, it feels like the old days having you back. You can almost say “past days”. We've certainly had Mr. Kingsley here before as the Chief Electoral Officer. Now he's the former Chief Electoral Officer. He's currently a senior fellow of the graduate school of public and international affairs at the University of Ottawa.

So you're sharing your knowledge with others now. Great. Are you as busy now as you were as the Chief Electoral Officer?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Former Chief Electoral Officer, As an Individual]

No way. I miss it tremendously.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I take it you have a bit of an opening statement. Then we'll get to ask you questions.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

It's no more than five minutes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Fantastic. Let's hear from you, and then we'll go ahead and ask you a bunch of hard questions.

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Mr. Chairman, committee members, I'm very pleased to be appearing once again before you. This is the second time that I have made an appearance since leaving my position. I can recall some very interesting exchanges during my previous appearance. As always, I feel that it is a privilege to be able to appear before the people who represent Canadians after an election. This is, in my opinion, a very great honour.

I was eager to accept the invitation that was extended to me on Tuesday at noon. I would like to point out that I may not be able to answer all the questions that you may have. If that is the case, I would like the clerk to note them and I will provide you with a response in writing, if you wish, or in person if that is of greater interest to you.

The documents that I have had the opportunity to read, without doing so on an in-depth basis, obviously include Bill C-20, with its many scenarios, depending on the date of adoption, as well as the testimonies provided last Tuesday when Minister Uppal and Mr. Marc Mayrand, my successor, appeared before you. I also had an opportunity to read my 2005 report and I looked at seat distribution for 2001 and 1991.

I would also like to remind you that when I worked at the office during the 1990s—I do not recall the exact date—the chief electoral officer had suggested that the number of seats be limited to about 300. At that time there were 301 ridings and people were worried about this number rising. Moreover, yesterday, someone quoted Mr. Harper at the time.

In addition, the redistribution exercise was put on hold at one point, effectively disrupting all of the work. This is something to be avoided if at all possible. Once a committee has begun its work, it should continue without interruption, without new data, without any change in data, until everything has been completed.

In my view, with respect to the bill that is before you, with respect to three matters, with respect to the shorter timeframes, the seven months instead of the year to get ready, we did it. I remember well Mr. Martin, the Prime Minister at the time, wanted to do an election within six months. I had to tell him I couldn't do it before seven, even though the law allowed me 12. Seven was the shortest, and we were able to achieve it.

The 30 days instead of 60 and the 10 months instead of 12 came out of presentations, representations made by the commissions themselves, because we had post-mortems and we had questions. The 30-day minimum is a minimum. It does not mean that you've cut everybody else off.

These were ideas emanating from the commissions themselves that we wanted to act on.

I will just mention that one of the reasons why all of this becomes very possible is the very high-performing computers that now exist for cartography, for example, for utilizing StatsCan data, skimming off what you need in order to help the commissions. Whereas it used to take two months to prepare a series of maps, it can now take half a day. With respect to the formula itself, we've heard what the chief statistician said. It's obvious to me that a new number has been designed in order to do the in-between provinces. The way the indexing formula for future redistribution exercises works is that it will be the average of provincial population growth.

That will have the impact of slightly lowering the quotient, compared to if you used the total population, the average Canadian population overall, which means then that the seats will remain slightly higher, which is what is sought by this exercise.

The resulting allocation from Bill C-20, in my view, with Ontario getting 15 seats, Alberta 6, B.C. 6, and Quebec 3, is exceedingly good.

The west, in essence, and Ontario, while not getting exactly what they should, will certainly be much better represented, in terms of what democracy is about. Insofar as Quebec is concerned, Quebec will remain right on, not overrepresented, not underrepresented, based on the total number of seats. This has been one of the objectives for a very long time. I think Mr. Reid was alluding to this in his testimony yesterday. It has been around for a long time that Quebec was a pivotal province. There are those that are underrepresented. There are those that are overrepresented. Quebec is right there. This approach is one, certainly, that I am in agreement with.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Kingsley.

We'll go to Mr. Reid first.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, how much time do I have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have seven minutes to start.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

All right, thank you very much.

First of all, I was here when the last redistribution took place, and I sat on the subcommittee of this committee, which dealt with the whole appeal from parliamentarians and so on. I remember it was a process that certainly was within a tight timeframe, probably tighter than you would have liked, but ultimately, success was achieved.

In looking at it, one thing that struck me was that the problems that arose in the process seemed primarily to come out of—as I recall, there was a widespread dissatisfaction in one of the smaller provinces, Saskatchewan, where the seats weren't changing. Other than that, the problems seemed primarily to arise in Ontario and Quebec, maybe because they're larger areas.

What struck me is that any problems that would have arisen in terms of the 30-day timeline would be coming out of those larger provinces. So looking back at the post-mortems you have, do you recall any particular problems, in relation to the problems you get when you have so many seats to work with, that were mentioned by the folks from the Ontario and Quebec commissions?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

I don't remember the Ontario and Quebec commissions complaining about the tightness of the timeframes. I do remember some of the other provinces saying they could start earlier than 60 days, if people were ready to be heard within 30 days.

The idea of the recommendation that we made when I was at Elections Canada was that it should be 30 days when you can start doing them. You put out a public notice and people notify you if they're interested, and that process can start within 30 days. It can also start 50 days later. It is just that within 30 days the notice has to be made. You know, the Italian Canadian community of, wherever, wishes to be present and to make a presentation.

That notification can go and then it is scheduled in accordance with when they're ready, and when the commission is ready to listen to them. It is a minimum time. It's like the election itself, it is a minimum of 37 days, but in 2005-06 we had a 53-day general election.

[An hon. member]

Ah, the good old days.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Yes, I remember that too. I remember canvassing during that election.

Okay, that gives me a bit of an idea.

I realize you didn't sit on the commission, but you have the perspective of having listened to all the different commissions. That's why I'm pursuing this with you.

It seems to me that there is a practical difference that exists between trying to deal with a very large province—I guess I am thinking primarily of Ontario—and dealing with a much smaller province where not that much is changing; the seat count is different.

I guess in the case of Ontario, and it's probably true in British Columbia as well, you get growth that is occurring in one centre and then everything kind of radiates out from that and you get your domino effect from that. You've got an area where you have a combination of some areas that are remote—in the same sense that Nunavut is remote, or the Northwest Territories are remote—combined with areas that are extremely compact.

Was there anything mentioned with regard to the problems of trying to deal, in a practical way, with such a large and varied task, where there are really no common factors that would be involved in dealing with some of these different kinds of areas and trying to be fair to all of the geographically differentiated areas of the province?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

To come back and answer your initial question more fully, the challenges that large, populous provinces face with their commissions—Ontario and Quebec being prime examples, and B.C. somewhat—is the number of hearings they must hold across the province, which means you can't hold them all within 30 days, which is why they need to spread them out.

To answer your second question, I want to explain the process. For the 2001 redistribution exercise, software was developed whereby you tell your computer to give so many ridings here, while respecting the present configurations of ridings to the fullest extent possible. What will happen at this exercise, in Ontario, for example, is that computer will spew out ridings that are going to be geographically smaller in size, but they will try to stay within what exists now.

I remember one member of Parliament writing to me and saying, “Mr. Kingsley, my riding is okay. Please don't touch it.” Well, they will all be touched; there's no doubt about that.

That's the type of thing that that computer can do. Then, the commissions start to look at that and say, “Well, that doesn't make sense.”

I should also explain that the other reason why this tool was developed was that while the commission is sitting, the commission can say, “Well, move that line a little bit over here.” As it's moving, the numbers will change, and that line will tell you that you've just moved 3,500 Italian Canadians, or you've just moved so many people of Catholic ancestry, or whatever. It will tell you all these demographics so they are able to take that community of interest, initially, into account. This greatly facilitates the initial swath—the initial task of creating the initial boundaries—so they can be reviewed by the commission, analysed by the commission, and then put out as their first draft, which is public, on which they will get public comments.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have 15 seconds, but I will move on to Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'll try to hold it back. If you think of something you need, throw it in there, just to be helpful.

I only have one question, and then I will defer to my colleague. Overall, you seem to be very pleased with the approach in terms of the change to the formula. Do you agree that it is an improved result?

[Jean-Pierre Kingsley]

Yes, I do. It is a significantly improved result.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay. It's significantly improved?