Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 15th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Thanks, Minister.

I don't want it to appear that we're all picking on our Liberal colleague, Mr. Garneau, but I have to make a comment. I also want to address something Mr. Comartin said, but primarily Mr. Garneau's comments.

You're quite right, Minister. I don't care how you slice and dice it: under the Liberal plan, certain provinces, including my home province of Saskatchewan, would lose seats. While he is correct in his statement that the guarantee that was provided in 1985 can be reshaped without having to open up the Constitution, it would cause immense problems constitutionally. Any time we start taking seats away or taking anything away from individual provinces, it is going to cause a constitutional crisis. There will be huge problems and huge costs to pay both interprovincially and between the federal and provincial governments in future negotiations, on any matter. It is simply not on.

This is why our party—I know, because as Conservatives we were all very well briefed going into the last campaign—guaranteed that there would be no change to the 1985 provision; that the seat count at that time would be preserved. To suggest somehow that Canada would be better served by reducing the number of seats in various provinces, including Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Newfoundland, and others, is absolutely sheer folly. It would cause so many problems that I don't think we have enough time in this committee to totally contemplate them.

I congratulate you on sticking to the plan, the commitment that our party made during the last election campaign.

With respect to my friend Joe's comments about looking back on Bill C-12, as compared with Bill C-20, I thought you explained well why Bill C-20 was superior to Bill C-12. It is a better formula—at least, one that I certainly see as being a better formula. I would just suggest to my friend opposite and others that things evolve. We've seen many times in past parliaments cases in which similar bills have been introduced and over time have improved. There have been changes, some subtle, some not so subtle. In this case, taking into account the accurate information that is currently at our disposal, Bill C-20 better reflects the move toward representation by population.

Will it ever be perfect? Of course, it won't be. Population fluctuations are always going to occur; there are only going to be changes made every 10 years. We'll never get to a point where there will be exactly representation by population, but in my view, this bill represents a much better rep by pop from province to province than any bill previously.

Mr. Christopherson mentioned his home province of Ontario. This bill perhaps doesn't give exactly rep by pop for Ontario, but it's a lot closer than Bill C-12 would have been, and a lot closer than any bill prior to that.

I think it is a great attempt, and it better closes the gap between underrepresented provinces and those that were perhaps overrepresented.

Minister, I would only ask you once again to make a comment on why Bill C-20 was introduced and why it was introduced at this point in time to address what I consider to be some rightful grievances from the past.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

And in under five seconds, Minister.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

The NDP is concerned about why this bill is better. It is better, and we should applaud the fact that it's better. It brings every province closer to representation by population using the most up-to-date population figures from Statistics Canada. That's a good thing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Comartin, you'll have four minutes, and then we should be finished.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Let me say that obviously we saw some improvement, because you finally recognized, Mr. Minister, the need to recognize the historical significance of the reality of the role Quebec plays in this country. So on that side of the bill, we're....I don't want to go too far, because you didn't go far enough in that regard, but it was certainly an improvement over what we had before. You just have to go a bit further. In that regard....

I'm sorry, I want to make one more point, maybe more to Mr. Lukiwski than to you. Trying to rely on this formula when you gutted the census, and every objective standard says that your analysis of what has happened to the census material.... I don't know how we're supposed to feel confident in relying on it on an ongoing basis for the future growth in the House. Anyway, that's just a comment.

My questions are more around consultation, not only with Quebec but with the other provinces. For the change whereby you would add seats in the province of Quebec, when did you consult with Quebec about that? Similarly, when did you consult with other provinces, or did you consult with any of the provinces before that change was made?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Our position on representation in the House of Commons is not new. It's a long-standing commitment by this government and this party. As a government we regularly speak to all provinces on a wide range of issues, and we'll obviously look forward to working with the provinces.

At the end of the day this is a principled formula based on the best data available from Statistics Canada on population figures. The provinces received seats out of this formula based on the number of people they have living in the province.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

This isn't question period.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Yes, and I'm telling you--

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

This is committee, and in committee the procedures are, the conventions are, that you answer the question.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

Sure.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

My question is specifically on consultation, not on the formula. When did you consult with the provinces specifically on this change that Quebec was now finally...? That is a major change from your government's standpoint from the two incarnations before Bill C-20. It's a major shift. You were adamant you weren't going to do that, and then sometime after the last election, in this Parliament, you decided you were going to finally agree that some additional seats should go to Quebec.

When did you consult with Quebec and the other provinces on that change?

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

We have been very clear. You mentioned the campaign. It's on page 63 of our platform that Quebec's representation would be equal to its population; it would continue to have fair representation. Those commitments have been very open. We continue to have, and always have had, dialogue with the provinces on a wide range of issues.

We have made these commitments. They're long-standing commitments. You yourself have been saying that this bill goes back to three different versions, or something like that, for a number of years. We've followed through on our commitment.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Those versions didn't have any seats for Quebec.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

In the last campaign we committed that Quebec would keep its representation according to its population, so we followed through on our commitment to do that.

This rule in the bill says that if any province becomes underrepresented because of redistribution, it will come back up to representation equal to its population. That applies to every province, because we wanted to be fair to all provinces in our approach.

[Joe Comartin, NDP, Windsor—Tecumseh, ON]

Did you tell any of the provinces before the bill was introduced in the House and then made public that you were going to make this change, that you were going to give the Province of Quebec three additional seats?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Comartin, your time is up. I'll give the minister a quick answer before we finish up.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB]

This bill is based on population figures, and provinces receive the number of seats according to their population. It's not a negotiation with provinces. You're somehow suggesting there should be negotiations with provinces on who should get how many seats.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much, Minister, for coming today.

Thank you all for coming today. It was a great round.

I'm going to suspend for a couple of minutes while we change our witnesses. The Chief Electoral Officer is coming next.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I call the meeting back to order.

We're here today with the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections Canada. Monsieur Mayrand, please introduce your guests, and I know you have an opening statement. Then we'll try to get in a round or two of questions. We will have to break a little early because we have some committee business we have to do before the top of the hour. We'll give you as much time as we can today.

[Marc Mayrand, Chief Electoral Officer, Elections Canada]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good afternoon.

Allow me to introduce my team.

On my left,

is Stéphane Perrault, Deputy Chief Electoral Officer, in charge of legal affairs and investigations. On my right is Rennie Molnar,

Deputy Chief Electoral Officer in charge of electoral affairs; and second on my right

is François Faucher, Senior Director, responsible for the redistribution of electoral boundaries.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to appear before the committee today to discuss Bill C-20, known by its short title as the Fair Representation Act. First, I will describe the role of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada and other participants in the redistribution process. Second, I will address key changes under the proposed bill as they pertain to my office.

My office plays an important but limited role in the redistribution process. The drawing of the new boundaries is solely the responsibility of the 10 independent electoral boundaries commissions created under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. My office is not involved in any of the decisions made by the commissions regarding the choice of electoral district boundaries or names.

The Chief Electoral Officer does, however, perform certain functions that facilitate the redistribution process. Under the act, the Chief Electoral Officer provides geographic information to the commissions, acts as a liaison between the commissions and the House of Commons, prepares the draft representation order, and prepares maps following the proclamation of the representation order. Furthermore, to help make the process more efficient and effective, Elections Canada has, in the past, provided administrative support to the independent commissions. This allows the commissions to focus on the substantive tasks they have been assigned by law. I intend to continue providing such support.

While redistribution will officially start upon receipt of the census return from the Chief Statistician, currently expected on February 8, 2012, Elections Canada has already begun its work. For instance, we have contacted the chief justice of each province, reminding them that they must appoint the chair of the commission for their province. As of now, the chairs of 9 out of 10 commissions have been designated by the chief justices.

I have started to inform members of Parliament about the redistribution process, notably this committee, and I reiterate my offer to provide caucus briefings upon request. In addition, I have contacted the Speaker of the House of Commons to inform him of his responsibilities under the act, including the appointment of the two other members of each province's commission. I plan to meet with him in the coming weeks.

This committee will also have an important role to play in the redistribution process. Once each commission completes its proposal and responds to feedback received during public hearings, it will submit a report describing the proposed boundaries to the Speaker, through my office. The Speaker will then table and refer the reports to the committee. If, however, Parliament is not in session, the Speaker will publish the reports in the Canada Gazette and send a copy to each member of the House of Commons for that province.

MPs may file written objections with this committee for its consideration, in the form of a motion signed by no fewer than 10 MPs. The committee then returns its own reports to the Speaker, who will forward them to the commissions through my office. Once the independent commissions have considered the objections raised before the committee, they then decide whether to modify the boundaries or not before submitting their final report to the Speaker through my office.

After having received the final reports, I am required to prepare a draft representation order setting out the new boundaries as established by the 10 commissions. I transmit that draft representation order to the minister responsible under the act, and the governor in council is required to issue a proclamation of the order within five days. Neither I nor the governor in council may make any alterations to the electoral district boundaries or names presented in the final reports. The representation order is to be published in the Canada Gazette no more than five days after the proclamation is made.

Since the redistribution process will be launched in February, I would expect the initial reports from the smaller provinces to be submitted as early as September 2012, while the reports of the larger provinces should follow through the fall and winter.

As was done in the previous redistribution, my office will hold a conference with the 10 electoral boundaries commissions in February 2012, and will extend invitations to members of this committee. This conference will be an opportunity to familiarize the three-member commissions with the nature of their tasks.

Now let me address four key elements or changes provided by Bill C-20.

First, the bill amends the representation formula found in the Constitution Act, 1867. The new formula proposes to use the population estimates published by Statistics Canada on July 1 of the year of the decennial census, which means that the calculation of seats could be accomplished sooner. This change has no effect on my office. My role as Chief Electoral Officer is to use the formula as determined by Parliament to calculate the number of House of Commons seats allocated to each province.

Second, the bill shortens the timeframe within which the redistribution process takes place. Some of the changes are as follows. One is the possibility of establishing the electoral boundaries commissions sooner--either within 60 days of the census return, as is the case now, or six months after the first day of the month in which the census is taken, whichever is earlier.

Another change is the earlier commencement of public hearings, at least 30 days after proposals are made, instead of the 60 days in the current act.

In addition, reports from each commission would be due in 10 months rather than the current 12 months, with the possible extension of two months rather than the current six months.

Finally, Elections Canada would have seven months rather than one year, as is currently the case, to implement the new representation order before it comes into force for the next general election.

The net effect of these changes includes the earlier establishment of commissions, a two-month reduction in the redistribution process, and a five-month reduction in the implementation of the new boundaries.

The impact of the reduced timelines on the implementation of the new representation order will be mitigated by a third key amendment regarding the reappointment of returning officers. Following the last redistribution, the boundaries of 90% of electoral districts changed in some form. If we assume a similar proportion resulting from this exercise, Elections Canada would have to launch almost 300 competitive processes to appoint returning officers in the affected districts.

Bill C-20 will allow the Chief Electoral Officer to reappoint returning officers based on merit, after consultation with the leaders of the political parties recognized in the House of Commons. This is consistent with the process that my office successfully used when the Chief Electoral Officer was first assigned the responsibility of appointing returning officers in December 2006.

The fourth key change I would like to bring to your attention is the requirement in the bill for Elections Canada to prepare and print a full set of paper maps on completion of the commissions' initial reports. Currently, about 55 maps are included in the commissions' report stage to portray the proposed new boundaries. This bill would require Elections Canada to prepare and print some 400 individual maps at that stage. This would include one for each district; one for each province; and one for each city and metropolitan municipality, portions of which are in more than one proposed electoral district. Currently, the full set of maps is only printed following the issue of the proclamation declaring the representation order to be in force.

The bill also requires Elections Canada to provide electronic versions of each of these maps to each registered political party. We are currently examining how this provision could be implemented with limited impact on the redistribution timeline and its cost.

My office has begun to assess the impact of this bill on the resource requirements of the agency, particularly related to support for the redistribution process itself; Elections Canada's return to readiness; the delivery of a general election using the new boundaries; and ongoing programs and activities in areas such as political financing and support for field personnel. Following the assessment, we may conclude that additional resources are required.

In closing, I wish to indicate that the work of the commissions is set to begin under the current legislation as soon as February 2012. The early adoption of any legislative changes before that date would greatly facilitate the work of the commissions.

Mr. Chair, my colleagues and I will be pleased to answer any questions.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much for your opening statement.

We'll start with a five-minute round.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you very much, Chair.

Thank you, Monsieur Mayrand, for appearing here today.

I want to make sure we're perfectly clear here. You said that you and your officials would be prepared to begin implementation in early February 2012. Clearly there is a lot of work. The objective of our government is to try to have these changes in force prior to the 2015 election. While some may suggest that three and a half years away is plenty of time, I think you've laid out fairly effectively the amount of work your office will have.

If I'm hearing you correctly, you're saying you can get this done but you need the bill to be in your hands to begin work no later than early February. Is that a correct assessment?

[Marc Mayrand]

I think that would be the best scenario as far as we're concerned. Otherwise, if there's any further delay, we risk having the commissions restart their work. By statute, the commissions need to start their work in February.

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

I'm glad we've got that clarified, because if you work backwards, since the scheduled date for rising for the end of the session is December 16 and today is November 15, we only have a limited number of committee dates to be able to examine witnesses and get the bill through all three stages: get it out of committee, back to the House, and from the House to the Senate. Royal assent has to be granted, and then, and only then, would we be in a position to give you the completed bill so that your office can begin its work. I mention that for the benefit of the committee here, to try to get a sense of the amount of work we have to do in a very limited amount of time.

Have you confidence then, Monsieur Mayrand, given the amount of work you've detailed here and some of the compressed timelines for some of the elements that your office will be required to do in terms of the administration of this, that this gives you sufficient time so that new boundaries could be in place prior to the 2015 election?