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

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's call the meeting to order.

We are here today looking at Bill C-20. We are public and have some witnesses testifying today via telecommunications from Whitehorse and Montreal. We have some technical difficulties, but we're going to try to work through them.

We have from Whitehorse, John Streicker, from the federal council of the Green Party. Mr. Streicker, we will go with you first and see how it works.

Do you have a bit of an opening statement for us? Let's try to keep that to five minutes or less. Let's go ahead and see how it works and then we'll know from that how the rest are going to go.

Please go ahead.

[John Streicker, President, Federal Council, Green Party of Canada]

Thank you very much.

I really do appreciate the opportunity to speak to you remotely. The Yukon is the most distant riding from Ottawa and so it is with some appreciation that we're able to speak to you without travelling to Ottawa.

The Green Party does believe there is an imbalance in the seats of the House of Commons and would like to see this addressed. We are hopeful the process will provide a formula that is as fair as possible for all Canadians.

I acknowledge, first of all, that I come from a riding that is very well represented in Ottawa. And there are certain ridings, due to geographic and cultural reasons, where it would be difficult to have any fewer members of Parliament. So the first thing I would like to do is to acknowledge and appreciate that we accommodate that, whether for constitutional or geographic reasons.

Beyond that, it is important that the way in which we redistribute seats in the House comes from a method that is not only fair but that also acknowledges that the size of the House is being addressed in this process. For example, if we consider the size of the House right now, and if we asked every MP to stand up and speak for just one minute, that would be five hours of time. If we increased the size of the House, we won't necessarily get better representation for constituents, for Canadians broadly. It is the balance of the House, the distribution, that is important.

To us, any suggested a formula to come up with the distribution of seats has to look at fairness. We appreciate the two proposals that have been put forward by the government and the Liberal Party of Canada. We think there are aspects of each that are constructive. However, there are a couple of problems and we have an alternative proposal for consideration, which we think is a compromise that might accommodate some of those differences.

First of all, we look at the size of the House. We recognize that if we are just to add seats, we have to look at the balance to understand where the distribution is. Another thing we have to look at is that these seats should be for those provinces that are the least represented by population. And if we're going to take away seats, it should be from those provinces that have the most representation by population.

Our concern, for example, with the government's proposal is that for Quebec, even though we will have added three seats, its proportion of representation in the House will go from 24% to 23%. And even under the Liberal proposal, which would also look to redistribute seats, the representation of Quebec will go from 24% to 23.5%. So that distribution is important.

If, for example, we look at the distribution with regard to the province with the least representation by population, currently Alberta, and its neighbouring province, Saskatchewan, which has the most, before we get down into constitutional issues, the gap between those two neighbouring provinces is 31,000 for the average riding size in the Conservative proposal, and 30,000 in the Liberal proposal. In a compromise proposal that we put forward, we've reduced that gap to 22,500 persons in terms of average riding size.

We think it is important to consider that distribution. It will shape the direction of Canada and whether or not we're able to come up with a fair and balanced look at the distribution of seats.

Finally, regardless of which solution we come up with, the Green Party believes that as we're in a period of time when Canadians are tightening their belts, it's important that Parliament itself show some fiscal restraint and act responsibly. So our proposal suggests that whatever the size of Parliament, we would like to see a cap on the overall salaries in Parliament, so that the gross amount of the salaries would be distributed according to whatever number of seats there are.

Again, thank you very much for taking the time to listen to me remotely. I very much appreciate it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Streicker, and thank you for keeping close to your time.

Madame Barbot, we'd like to go to you next if we could, if you have an opening statement. You have five minutes, if you do.

[Vivian Barbot, Interim President, Bloc Québécois]

Good morning. I appreciate this opportunity today to outline the Bloc Québécois' position on Bill C-20, which proposes a fundamental change to Quebec's representation in the House of Commons.

The Bloc Québécois, like Quebec's National Assembly, vigorously opposes Bill C-20 because what it proposes is the marginalization of the Quebec nation. The federal government has unilaterally advanced a new formula to amend, but especially to reduce, Quebec's political power in the House of Commons. It is proposing increasing limits on the Quebec nation's influence and ability to defend its values and interests in the Parliament of Canada. It is also another tool to form a majority government without any need for members of Parliament from Quebec.

In fact, with Bill C-20, which essentially constitutes an attack on the Quebec nation, the masks are off. The pseudo-federalism of openness, in which the Conservatives wrap themselves in an attempt to charm Quebec voters, is over. With Bill C-20, that has become a closed federalism, a federalism of break-up and abandonment of Quebec. We see that the principles that led to the creation of Canada, particularly the union of two founding peoples, no longer mean anything for the current government. We also see that the recognition of the Quebec nation by the House of Commons in November 2006 is an empty shell. Nearly five years to day after that acknowledgement, we are now compelled to note that it will never result in real action, as though mere recognition had closed the debate for good.

Bill C-20 dispels the last illusions. The only place that Quebec could occupy in Canada is a place of promises among others in a country that is not like it and does not take that fact into account, in a country that seeks to limit its distinct voice, that wants and is trying to build itself without it. The Bloc Québécois is not the only group that has denounced the bill. On three occasions, Quebec's National Assembly has unanimously spoken out against the federal government's wish to marginalize the Quebec nation in the House of Commons. That was a denunciation by all the elected members of the National Assembly, federalist and sovereigntist, on the left and on the right. The most recent unanimous motion dates back to April 12, 2010. It reaffirms that Quebec, as a nation, must be able to enjoy special protection of its relative representation in the House of Commons and asks the elected members of all political parties sitting in Ottawa to refuse to pass any bill that would reduce Quebec's relative representation in the House.

It is clear that this call has been deliberately ignored by the majority of members in the House of Commons. The Conservatives justify their bill by hiding behind the screen of fair democratic representation. They argue that it is normal for Quebec to lose its influence as its relative population has declined within Canada. They are now pretending to do Quebec a favour by granting it three more seats. That favour obviously conceals the real issue because, even with three more seats, Quebec's influence will be reduced within the House of Commons. Even worse, Quebec will not even retain a percentage representation equal to its demographic weight.

In fact, the Conservative members have conveniently forgotten that the principle of fair representation allows for exceptions to promote real representation. They have also conveniently forgotten that the Constitution of Canada provides mechanisms that enable minorities to have more representatives than their mere demographic weight would permit. We need only consider Prince Edward Island, which has four seats in the House of Commons. If subject to a rule based solely on population, it would likely have three less. Should we therefore reduce the political weight of Prince Edward Island? I don't believe so. The Bloc Québécois believes instead that this situation clearly shows that a democratic institution such as the House of Commons must not be a mere mechanical and arithmetical reflection of relative population size. Other fundamental factors must be taken into account, and recognition of the Quebec nation is one of them.

The Quebec nation has its own language, culture, values and interests, and therefore has distinctive interests that it must assert and specific characteristics that the federal government must take into account. For those reasons, the Quebec nation must have adequate political weight in Canada's Parliament. Reducing Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons violates that fundamental principle; it proves that the Quebec nation can expect nothing further from Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Ms. Barbot.

To our live witness today, you will get to go last. We're trying to get the technical difficulties out of the way.

Madame Vallerand, please make your opening statement.

[Chantal Vallerand, National Director , Federal Council, New Democratic Party]

Thank you for inviting me to address this committee.

My name is Chantal Vallerand and I am acting national director of the New Democratic Party of Canada.

When it comes to representation in the House of Commons, the New Democratic Party of Canada believes in the principle of representation by population in a way that respects our country's diversity and founding principles.

Furthermore, we believe that the debate on Bill offers all Canadians an opportunity to have nation-building discussions based on fairness and respect for communities of interest. We believe that our electoral boundary laws should be fair and accessible, and should respect our country's history, culture, and geography.

In a majority ruling regarding provincial electoral boundaries in Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the right to vote, guaranteed in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is not equality of voting power per se, but the right to effective representation. It said: “Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic.” The court added that this was not an exhaustive list of factors, and that this should be kept in mind when defining what equality means in the context of adhering to the principle of representation by population.

Whether communities are linked by language, culture or geographic situation, ensuring that those communities of interest are united after the proposed changes are implemented should be a central aspect of this bill. Today I want to focus on two aspects of the bill that have raised questions.

The first aspect concerns the use of Statistics Canada's demographic projections rather than the use of census data. Is this an accurate or not so accurate measurement? Is this an attempt to make the census itself less necessary? Why distance the act from the figures duly recorded by Statistics Canada and instead use estimates calculated through various formulas?

Another issue concerns the consultations. It appears that this bill shortens all the timelines and timeframes contained in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Whether it be the time allowed to establish a commission or the necessary lead time for the notice to organize consultations, this bill shortens the timeframes allotted to conduct these important stages.

Some of the planned changes are substantial. The necessary notice period for holding a consultation with interested parties and persons is reduced by 30 days. It is being lowered from 60 to 30 days. Any person wishing to attend consultations must submit a written request to the secretary of the commission within 23 days of the final notice, instead of 53 days. Every provincial commission has only 10 months to prepare its report to the chief electoral officer, instead of 12 months.

If this government seriously wishes to implement an open, transparent and engaged process, it must know that these new directives do nothing but limit public participation in that process. This is not desirable for our democracy, particularly at a time when voter turnout and engagement are declining. We should find new ways of encouraging citizens to get involved, not ways to reduce them to silence.

Lastly, the members of the NDP team are concerned by the fact that this government has not conducted consultations with the provincial governments. We believe the government must consult the provinces, as well as Canadians, and ask them to determine which bill, ours or the Conservatives', can better achieve the principle of effective representation while building a stronger and more united Canada.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you very much.

Let's see if we can ask some questions and find out how our technology is going to work.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you all for participating, particularly those of you who are participating via teleconference.

We've heard from a number of different witnesses over the last couple of meetings a number of different suggestions as to how effective representation by population should be enacted. We have certainly not found unanimity in the proposals we've heard. I would doubt that we're even close to getting a consensus. I'm not going to stray into that territory right now, but I want to ask all of you to comment on timelines.

What I mean by that is that regardless of what the final composition of Bill C-20 is, there will be boundary changes forthcoming. That in itself of course causes a lot of challenges to parties, because if seats are added, additional riding boundaries will have to be made. That poses problems such that the money that was held in one riding by an EDA will now have to be shared with another riding, because a portion of the one riding is now split. New EDAs will have to be formed; new boards of directors will have to be formed; candidate searches will have to be performed. I would suggest that once or twice we may even run into a situation in which an incumbent MP is actually going to be residing in a new riding. What happens then? Will the incumbent be considered to be grandfathered into the old riding in which he now no longer resides, or would he have to run in the new riding?

All of these are questions that individual parties will have to determine. It is they, of course, who will make the final recommendations to work out the logistics of boundary redistribution.

With all of that work in front of the parties, my question to all of the party representatives here today is, do you feel that if Bill C-20 is passed with the timeline recommended by both the Chief Electoral Officer and the former electoral officer, that is, to have legislation passed prior to February of next year, your parties will have adequate time to do the type of organizational work required?

Perhaps we will start with Madame Vallerand, and then we'll go to our guests via teleconference.

[Chantal Vallerand]

Thank you.

There is a sense that there isn't enough time. As I said in my opening remarks, approval is being done in timelines that have already been shortened. We think we have to analyze what is being proposed to us in greater detail in order to determine whether it is the right way to operate. The timelines currently proposed are inadequate, in our opinion.

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

Before we go to the teleconference, Mr. Chair, I would just like to ask one question of Madame Vallerand.

We, of course, are working towards an objective of having the new boundaries in place prior to the 2015 election. Are you saying that you believe the bill could extend the consultation timelines and still leave enough time to do all of the work required and have candidates and functioning EDAs in place prior to 2015?

[Chantal Vallerand]

Yes.

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

Okay. Thank you.

Now, Mr. Chair, would you direct which of the two guests should speak first.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's go to Whitehorse, first, if you got the question.

Mr. Streicker.

[John Streicker]

Pardon me, but I don't understand the question.

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

I'll rephrase, if you wish.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The problem is that he has a French-language feed only.

[John Streicker]

Could you cut the translation while the question is being asked?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're going to try to switch translation here. Give us half a second.

[John Streicker]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead, Mr. Lukiwski. Make it a short.

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

Mr. Streicker, I was just asking whether the Green Party of Canada felt that if this legislation were passed, with whatever iteration it will have respecting boundaries, prior to February of next year, per the recommendation of the Chief Electoral Officer, it would have sufficient time to do all of the organizational or administrative work that would be required to do the allocation of funding between ridings, to form new EDAs, to do candidate searches, and to do all of the other work that required by the new boundaries.

If the bill were passed by February, would that give your party enough time to be organized prior to the 2015 election?

[John Streicker]

My simple answer is yes. Over the past several years we've been in election mode, and so this is actually providing us a lot of time. It's not a major concern for us. Our major concern is that if these changes become law, they should represent Canadians as well as possible—not the Green Party.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Streicker.

Madame Barbot, can you answer that question?

[Vivian Barbot]

The question for us is not whether there is enough time. Rather it's that we are seriously opposed to these new rules that the government wants to put in place for the next election.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have a little bit of time left, Mr. Lukiwski—30 seconds.