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

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

I'm sure you will get those witnesses, but if the department....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Okay, be brief, please.

[Matthew Lynch]

There is further detailed information about this on StatsCan's website. The concept of census net under-coverage is fairly well understood amongst statisticians, and the population estimates are primarily more accurate because they do account for that census net under-coverage.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Well, I'm sure we'll get a chance to go into it. I just wanted to get your comments on the record, Minister, and we now have that. I thank you.

I want to revisit this. You mentioned earlier that the difference between your previous bill and this bill is that there are newer numbers. Again, I'm hoping we'll get a chance to get this verified through witnesses, but I've made the argument that our bill is better because it has more seats, using your old bill.

On the record, can I have your comment on why there are fewer seats for my province of Ontario and fewer seats for B.C. in this formula than there were in the previous one?

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

The previous bill, which you have said you based your bill on, as I said, actually had numbers that were outdated. One example is that it used an average riding size of 108,000. Those numbers were based back in 2006 and don't account for any increases in population since then. That would make those numbers outdated. The bill currently actually adjusts for population growths, so if your divisor is larger because your population is different, you will have different numbers in the seats. Those seat projections that were in the last bill were not guaranteed seats. They were just projections based on population figures available at the time, and also, it would have been based on the next census numbers coming out. Any of those numbers that were in that bill were just projections. The numbers is this bill are certain. They are certain because they are based on existing best population figures.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

With thirty seconds left, I'll wait for the second round.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great.

Monsieur Garneau.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you, minister.

I fully understand the principles that guided you in this undertaking. I share your view that we need fair representation for every province to reflect the changes in their population.

However, I see a big problem with Bill C-20. You went from 308 to 338 seats. In other words, you added 30 new members to the House of Commons.

Canadians are concerned about the added cost of such an inflationary measure. In my opinion, the government's new proposal sends the wrong message to Canadians that it wants to increase the number of politicians while it slashes the public service and the services that are provided by them. It doesn't make any sense. In these days of financial restraint, Parliament must show the lead. Now, we all know that the number of MPs cannot keep growing forever. That's a discussion that comes back all the time. We already have a higher MP-to-population ratio than the norm in many democracies.

In the United States, as we all know, there are 435 representatives for a population that is about nine times bigger than Canada's. To my knowledge, Canada is the only federation that deems it necessary to go through this exercise of increasing the number of federal MPs every time there's a need to rebalance regional representation in Parliament, roughly every 10 years. This doesn't make sense, and it's an unsustainable practice. We must put a stop to it and this is a good time to do it. We can rebalance the House's seat allocation in order to address the needs of the provinces. Parliament has the power to do that. It is something that I think is particularly important to do at this time.

I'd like to, if I may, draw your attention to a document from this committee from 1994, when they were looking at the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, a similar exercise to what we're going through now. It was a dissenting opinion offered by three Reform MPs at the time, one of whom is very well known. He was arguing for the fact that we didn't need to increase the number of MPs, that this was not a good practice.

Perhaps I can quote a little bit:

A smaller House offers considerable cost savings, less government and fewer politicians, and clearly this is what Canadians want.

Another quote:

Advancements in communication technology have allowed downsizing and increased efficiencies in the private sector but also must be realized by government.

A final quote: “Canadians are already amongst the most over-represented people in the world.”

Of course, that MP is now the Prime Minister of this country.

I'd like to know why you did not take this opportunity, because it can be done, to keep the level at 308 and yet at the same time achieve fair representation, which we all support.

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

You said that you support fairer representation. It's important that the provinces that are underrepresented, and significantly underrepresented and will continue to be underrepresented...we need to close that gap. Every Canadian expects that their vote, to the greatest extent possible, should have equal weight across the country. The fact is that we have seat guarantees. There's the Senate clause, the grandfather clause.

The Liberal plan, of changing that and just moving seats around the existing seats we have, would actually have to pick winners and losers. Essentially, the Liberal plan would have Quebec lose seats. Newfoundland and Labrador would lose seats, Nova Scotia would lose seats, Saskatchewan would lose seats, and Manitoba would lose seats, to compensate for Alberta, B.C., and Ontario. We don't think that's fair. We don't think it's fair to move those seats around. We don't think it's fair to do what the Liberals would do, to pick winners and losers.

So what we have proposed is a principled formula that's fair for all provinces, that brings every province closer to representation by population. It's a formula that's actually applicable to all provinces.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Thank you.

But if I told you that you could do it--308--and still have the same percentages that you've ended up with, would you take my word for it?

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

What you're saying is that you would pick winners and losers. You would take seats away from Quebec. You would take them away from Newfoundland and Labrador, from Nova Scotia, from Saskatchewan, and from Manitoba. That is what you are saying. That's also the Liberal plan. What you're not being clear about is who you would take the seats away from.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

What I'm saying, Minister, is we would end up with the same percentages that you end up with, with the 338, for each of the provinces--very close to each other--and yet keep the House size at 308. This would require us to remove the grandfather clause, which preserved the number of seats each province had. This is an exercise that I believe we need to get to. We still end up with the same percentages that you have achieved with 338, and yet we save the Canadian taxpayer.... And we get rid of a problem that's going to come back every 10 years.

I'm wondering why you didn't look at it. That's something Parliament can do. It doesn't require us to reopen the Constitution.

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

It is because we committed our formula to update the seats in order to address the underrepresentation gap in a way that is fair for all provinces, unlike the Liberal plan, which would take seats away from the smaller provinces, which we find to be unfair.

The other thing I will address is your concern about seat growth in the future. Yes, 30 seats are being added now to address the underrepresentation gap. That's a big jump, but it addresses it quickly. In the future, based on current population projections, 11 seats will be added in 2021, and in 2031 only 5 seats will be added. Your concern about this huge House of Commons growth is unfounded. There's reasonable growth with this formula. This formula gives a balance between adding seats for the underrepresented provinces, but also having reasonable growth in the House of Commons.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Do you not think that sends the wrong message to Canadians?

The government is going to make cuts to the public service and service delivery to save money, and yet here Parliament is, beefing itself up with 30 new members. Is that the right example to set for Canadians at a time when we should all be tightening our belts?

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

The wrong message would be saying to certain provinces that you will continue to be underrepresented even though your population has grown. The wrong message would also be telling the smaller provinces—as the Liberals will be doing—that seats will be taken away from them to give to the other provinces. Those would be the wrong messages.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Just let me say one last time that we achieve the same percentages as you achieve with 308.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Garneau, your time is complete.

Mr. Albrecht.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you, Minister, for being here.

I want to thank you for a really good summary of what this bill actually does. I think your opening comments clarified for a lot of Canadians some of the confusion that may be out there. Especially, you highlighted the ongoing long-standing commitment of our government in terms of allocating increased seats now and into the future to better reflect the population growth in Ontario, B.C., and Alberta. Then this second one, which is so important--in spite of Mr. Garneau's protest--that we maintain the number of seats for smaller provinces.... There's no way that we can get anywhere close to proportional representation by the formula that he's suggesting. Finally, to maintain the proportion of representation of Quebec according to its population....

In your opening comments, Minister, you indicated that the bill would set the electoral quotient for the 2011 readjustment at 111,166. I have some numbers in front of me from some of the ridings not too far from me that are significantly higher than that. Brampton West has 170,000 constituents. Oakridges-Markham has 169,000. I could go on. There are ten different ridings here, all of them with over 133,000 in population.

At the same time that we have those ridings that have such high populations, we have other ridings in the country that are around 40,000 or less. My question basically is this. Is it possible to ever get to a total representation by population under the current system? This proposal that you have here seems to me to address it as best we can, recognizing the previous guarantees to get closer to representation by population for these ridings. Currently the constituents in these ridings...their vote is worth one-quarter or less of the constituents in a riding of 40,000. Could you address that for me?

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

You're right when you mentioned Brampton West had over 170,000 people. That was in 2006. We're probably closer to 180,000 or 190,000 now. True representation by population with the system that we have, with the very large country and the varying populations that we have, and some of the seat guarantees that we have in the Constitution, would actually require over 900 members of Parliament in the House of Commons. The House of Commons could not accommodate those. Also Canadians don't want that. That's not acceptable.

What we have put forward is a formula that moves all provinces towards representation by population in a principled manner. Every province is brought closer to representation by population. It's a formula that's fair for all provinces, and it maintains the seats for those smaller provinces so their representation is protected.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have one minute left.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I don't have another question. I simply want to make the observation that as members of Parliament we are called upon by our constituents to offer a lot of services to them: immigration, employment insurance, intervention, CPP, and all of that. I can't imagine an MP who has 40,000 constituents comparing his or her workload to a member of Parliament who has 170,000 and still feeling they're actually meeting the needs of their constituents.

I think we're moving in the right direction, and I just simply want to applaud you and your ministry for coming up with a very principled approach that will address this now and into the future.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

First, I would hope you'd acknowledge that it is a complex matter to deal with these formulas, particularly when we're dealing with the 2006 census. Some of the formulas in your original bill were looking at the 2011 census, which won't show until February 2012. And then we have this new item that you've brought in from the transfer payment. So it's very complex, and I'm hoping the government is going to be agreeable to giving us enough time to bring in the experts to get to the bottom of it, so that we can satisfy ourselves that this is indeed an improvement.

Second, I hear where the Liberals are coming from. But unless we're going to change to an American system where you accept from the get-go that some are going to go up and some are going to go down.... As a former Ontario cabinet minister, I want my province to get as many seats as they're entitled to, and this only gets us closer. Ontario still doesn't have all the seats it should have, and we feel the same way about all the other provinces. So I hear what the Liberals are saying, but it sounds more like a nice, safe pre-parking spot as opposed to getting into the cut and thrust of some of this. It's complicated and it's difficult. But I'll leave that for the cut and thrust.

Third, I want to get down to the issue of Quebec. In respect of the motion of November 27, 2006, wherein the House, close to unanimously, recognized that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada, we've taken a position meant to give assurances that Canada is not interested in assimilating the culture of the Québécois and seeing it disappear. On the contrary, we want it to be strong within Canada, recognizing that the Québécois know that being strong in Canada means they're strong in North America.

So why didn't you take that extra step--it was your government that brought in that motion--and confirm for the Québécois that their place in Canada is assured? Why would your government not take that stand and show that respect and build in that protection?

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

Our commitment for representation in the House of Commons is clear. It's a long-standing commitment from this government that the formula we bring forward, a principled formula, will be fair for all provinces. Quebec, after this formula is applied, will have 23% of the population, and Quebec, after this formula is applied, will have 23% of the seats in the House of Commons. That is fair. Their representation will equal their portion of the population, and that's fair.

At the same time, every province is brought closer to representation by population. It's important as a government that we govern for all Canadians. We're doing that and being fair to Quebec.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I hear that, Minister, but what you're suggesting is that the application of equality to Quebec, given everything else, is an okay standard for you, that there is nothing unique, and that the motion meant nothing. Is that what the government is saying? Was it to pacify Quebec? Did it not really mean anything?

When we looked at that motion, we thought it meant something. To give effective protection to that is why we think we ought to be moving to the 24.35%. With great respect, all I'm hearing you say, Minister, is that everybody is equal. Well, the Yukon is not equal; and P.E.I. is not equal in terms of their Senate seats and their House seats. We have an asymmetrical country anyway.

So why would the government that brought in that important motion, that historic motion, not take the next step and give some meaning to it so that there is real protection behind it?