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

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.

I'll let the minister answer.

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

The fact is, this is a seat redistribution formula and a process. It needs to be based on population. We made a commitment that Quebec's representation will be equal to its population and we've followed through on that commitment. Quebec will have 23% of the population and 23% of the seats in the House of Commons. That's equal and that's fair.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The motion we are adopting--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Christopherson, your time is up. You may get another chance.

Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Minister, for being here.

I just have to respond to Mr. Christopherson's comments. I haven't gone back and reviewed the records of the debate in 2006. I do not recall anybody saying at that time, whether from the New Democrats or any other party, that the purpose of this motion, or one of the outcomes of this motion, ought to be that in the future, people in my province, in the riding that I represent, should always be proportionately underrepresented vis-à-vis people in Quebec.

On the contrary, the foundational constitutional arrangement of Canada states that we will have representation by population in the House of Commons. And specifically it's stated that it would be based upon a fixed number for Quebec, and every other province being calculated from Quebec. We've violated that arrangement many times. Many provinces are now overrepresented; others are underrepresented. Quebec alone is fairly close to what the original promise was.

I think the idea, Minister, that we ought to fix and establish that Quebec will always be neither over- nor underrepresented is to be commended. It's in some sense the only defensible remaining part of the process that we have achieved now, and I applaud you for entrenching it. My congratulations to you.

What I want to ask, though, is related to Mr. Garneau's proposal. I simply do not accept his math. He says we can set aside the arrangement in the current formula that says provinces are guaranteed no fewer seats than they currently have, and in so doing, we can achieve, with 308 members of Parliament, a formula or a representation level that is effectively representation by population.

I dispute that, because while it is true that you could lower Nova Scotia from 11 seats to 10 seats before you hit it to the Senate floor, which is not amendable by us.... You could lower Saskatchewan and Manitoba to 6 seats each, if you wanted to do this. You could lower Quebec to 24 seats, take away two-thirds of its seats. You could do all these things. You could take away one seat from Newfoundland. You cannot take away any seats from Prince Edward Island--and the four seats it currently has--which means that under his formula, the gap in representation between the people I represent, who, I might add, live in an area larger than P.E.I.... There are 117,000 of them currently. There would be more than 117,000 of them under his formula, and ridings in P.E.I. would still have 34,000 or 35,000 members.

I submit that what the Liberals are suggesting is simply not supported by the facts, and I'm inviting your comment on that, Minister.

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

Absolutely, it isn't.

They're essentially playing with the numbers and really not being up front with Canadians on what their real plan is. All they're saying is, let's keep the 308. The fact is that the Liberal plan would have to pick winners and losers. The losers in their plan would be Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba. The Liberal plan would take seats away from those provinces and give them to, I suppose, Alberta, B.C., and Ontario. We don't think that's fair. We made a commitment that we would maintain the seats for those provinces.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have one minute, Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you very much.

I assume what you were struggling with, Minister, was trying to achieve as much representation by population as you could, while at the same time trying to reflect the practicalities that there are some limits as to how many members you can put in the House. I'm guessing here, because I just did the math based on P.E.I. and came up with the 900 members you did. Does that essentially reflect the spirit of what you were trying to achieve?

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

Yes. The idea is to follow through on our commitment. We would bring in more members of Parliament to address the underrepresentation gap for Alberta, B.C., and Ontario. At the same time, we wanted to maintain the seats for the smaller provinces. Some of those provinces are already guaranteed under the Constitution or with the Senate floor legislation. That's already set in stone, and you can't change those.

We also made a commitment that Quebec would continue to be represented proportionally to their population. Within that framework is this formula. It's a principle. It is applied to the entire country, and it brings every province closer to representation by population.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you Mr. Reid.

Mr. Kerr.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Mister Minister, I do want to commend the work that you and your staff have done. I think we all watched, kind of nervously, depending on what part of the country we were from. I'm going to say that I sense unbounding enthusiasm around the committee for this direction, and I think it will go well.

I do want to take exception, and I'm surprised at Mr. Garneau's presentation...the counting was done with magic beans or something. I come from one of those small provinces that would be affected. We have to remember that this country is spread out over a huge domain. Geography and distance are incredibly important considerations, and membership, therefore, is particularly important to a lot of us. I would have expected Mr. Garneau would have shared that, regarding Quebec--to watch it be devastated under the formula.

What I would like you to specifically answer, as best you can, which he would not answer, is how you keep 308 seats and redistribute seats from others--without doing it from others, because that's how I interpreted what he said.

If you can get right at the number thing, I think I'd like to have it on record and share it with our residents back home, to make sure we understand where the Liberal Party is coming from in this important endeavour.

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

There is no way to redistribute 308 seats without taking some away from some province: somebody has to lose seats. You can't just.... If you're moving the puzzle around, they have to be moved from one province to the other, and that's one thing the Liberals aren't being up front about. Who would they take the seats away from?

If you're going to move it according to population, and you're looking at the grandfathering clause of 1985--it's what they're saying--Quebec, Newfoundland and Labrador, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba would lose seats. They're essentially being picked on by the Liberals to have seats taken away from them and given to the other provinces.

We don't think that's fair. We made a commitment that we would maintain the seats for those provinces and at the same time address the underrepresentation for the faster-growing provinces. Canadians expect that their votes should have equal value to the greatest extent possible. That's what we've done. We have brought forward this formula that is fair for all provinces. That is a commitment that we made, and we have followed through with this formula.

[Greg Kerr, Conservative, West Nova, NS]

Thank you very much.

That's all I have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Comartin.

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

Mr. Minister, I want to pursue some of the questions Mr. Christopherson asked in his opening round.

This is the third incarnation of an attempt to arrange for redistribution of seats. Is that correct--under your government?

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

I believe so.

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

Then can you tell me exactly when this new formula was determined to be the one that you were going to use?

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

Essentially it comes back to a commitment, right? In the campaign, it was very clear in our platform and in what we ran on, what all Conservatives ran on. There were our three things. We would address the underrepresentation for the faster-growing provinces: Alberta, B.C., and Ontario. At the same time, we said we would maintain the seats for the smaller provinces. Also, we said that for Quebec, their representation would be equal to their population. That's where the commitment comes from. At the same time, if you have those parameters, your formula...the formula will just come there from that commitment.

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

But it wasn't there--

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

When I was made a minister--

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

A month before the last election you introduced Bill C-12. You weren't using the formula there. You certainly weren't recognizing the right of Quebec to have additional seats.

So when you say it was in your platform, your platform was, I'm sure, prepared somewhere in that period of time. When you introduced Bill C-12, just before the last election--I think it was on April 1, 2010, that you introduced it--did you not know you were going to go to this new formula at that point?

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

That formula was the formula at the time. That was the formula in Bill C-12 that was introduced at the time.

This is an updated new formula with new population figures. It has the representation rule in it and it has the commitment to the smaller provinces. This is a new formula, essentially. It's updated.

[An hon. member]

Is it new or is it updated?

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

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

Maybe you're not the right person to be answering these questions. Maybe we need somebody with more technical knowledge.

I'm sorry. That's not meant as a slight, Mr. Minister. I'm having real trouble with this and I'm sure you're--