Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 24th, 2011

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

No, go ahead.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Comartin, go ahead, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. Barbot, based on your presentation today, you aren't prepared to propose a way of revising the number of seats. Do you want it to remain exactly as it is?

[Vivian Barbot]

The Bloc Québécois has said since this bill was introduced that, in our current economic situation, we see no need to change the current rules. It seems clear to us that the public does not need any more governors. We currently have all we need. We feel this change is utterly inappropriate.

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

What do you say to the provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia, which have had very pronounced population increases relative to the other provinces? What do you say to them about political fairness?

[Vivian Barbot]

We have nothing to say to the other provinces. We have things to say about Quebec. We have constitutional guarantees. We also have the principle of the two founding peoples. We see that, with what is being presented, Quebec's political weight is being reduced, something we will never accept.

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

Thank you.

Ms. Vallerand, has the NDP taken a position on the addition of three seats in Quebec?

[Chantal Vallerand]

The question is not necessarily the number of seats, but rather respect for Quebec's representation in the House. We are in favour of respecting the 24.35% figure that was established when the resolution was adopted in the House in 2006 recognizing Quebec as a distinct nation. We believe that recognition entails respect for the 24.35% figure.

Do those three seats represent that? You'd have to take a look at the census data or wait for the new motion that will be adopted after this committee meeting to see what is put on the table. In short, we are really in favour of respecting the 24.35% figure.

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

Mr. Streicker, I'll take Saskatchewan as an example, which would lose three seats as a result of your proposal. Saskatchewan is currently doing fairly well economically. The chances of its population going up over the next decade or so are reasonably high. But your party is prepared to take three seats away from it.

What do you say to the people of Saskatchewan when they come back to you and say, “Wait a minute, that may make some sense on a straight proportional basis today, but in the next few years or next decade we're probably going to grow in size”?

[John Streicker]

If what we choose is to use some projection of population, even over the short-term because long-term projections wouldn't make sense, that's would be no problem.

The party hasn't discussed that in particular, but I'd be happy to take that back to our party to discuss it. As long as that formula is applied fairly, there will be no problem. In other words, if we can look at the most recent statistical data, fine. If we can anticipate where things are heading within the next several years, that will be fine. But in the formula you're using right now, we're not getting to a balanced distribution as yet, and the way in which it's applied doesn't seem consistent across the board.

There may be historical reasons. I can understand the constitutional reasons and I obviously understand the demographic reasons with the smallest of ridings or the most remote of ridings. With Saskatchewan, however, right now the average population is 70,000 or 69,000 people per riding, so even with quite a bit of growth in Saskatchewan—and I happen to be a prairie boy—you've still got a long way to go before you get up to Alberta, which is currently at 117,000 per riding. That's a big difference.

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

I just want to be clear then, both in terms of your answer and your position in your written brief. As an absolute minimum, you would be opposed to simply freezing all provinces at the level of the seats they now have?

[John Streicker]

The word “opposed” is difficult for me. I appreciate that you're asking this to try to get clarity from me. What I'm suggesting to you is that the things we need to hold to are our constitution, some realities around the differences that we need to accommodate; and after that we should be fair and also should be considering the size of the House. The principle that we are trying to hold to is that the representation should closer to the population, and that's the fairness that we're looking for.

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

Mr. Streicker, I just want to be clear here. I understood you were testifying before us as the representative of your party. Am I correct in that? If so, have they taken a formal position in support of the proposition that you've put forward to add some seats here and take away some seats there? Is that the formal democratically chosen position of the Green party?

[John Streicker]

No. Let me be clear: the proposition that we have put forward was solicited from us several days ago. In our process we require that we go to a broader solicitation of our party before we get full endorsement, so what you see in front of you is the work of several people within the party from our cabinet level. We haven't yet had an opportunity to take this back to membership to get its endorsement, but that's what we will be doing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Dion, you have seven minutes.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My first questions are for Ms. Vallerand.

Ms. Barbot is consistent: she doesn't care about the rest of Canada; she wants to leave it. However, as a national party, you have a responsibility to be fair with all the provinces. You say your motion is constitutional. However, I believe I am able to show you it is not. The court allows us some leeway in implementing the principle of proportional representation of the provinces so that we can take other factors into account. It does not allow us to contradict the principle of proportional representation. It does not enable us to make it impossible to implement that principle.

First, how many seats will the NDP have in the House of Commons, based on its proposal?

[Chantal Vallerand]

I don't have the figures to give you right now.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

The Green Party has submitted figures. The government has submitted figures. The Liberal Party has submitted figures. However the NDP doesn't have any figures. That's what we have to acknowledge.

[Chantal Vallerand]

Yes.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

All right.

However, you say the province of Quebec must retain representation of 24.35%, and you say that's constitutional. Have you calculated what that means for the three provinces that are experiencing strong growth, if we follow the premises of Bill C-20 for which we are meeting here today? Have you done that calculation?

[Chantal Vallerand]

We have proposed that the number of seats be increased in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario, while respecting Quebec's representation of 24.35%.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

All right. However, are you also taking into account the vested interests of the other provinces? For example, do you want us to take away seats from Saskatchewan or Manitoba?

[Chantal Vallerand]

No, we want to take away no seats.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

You maintain the grandfather clause. You maintain the senatorial clause, which is constitutional.

[Chantal Vallerand]

Yes.