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

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll call the meeting to order. We're here today, televised, in public, pursuant to the order of reference of Thursday, November 3, 2011, Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act. We're fortunate to have the minister here today.

Minister, it's great to have you. I understand you have an opening statement. We'll start with that. If you'd like to introduce the people who are with you, and start with your opening statement, then we'll go to rounds of questioning.

Minister, I leave it to you.

[Tim Uppal, Conservative, Minister of State (Democratic Reform)]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

With me are members from the PCO, Matthew Lynch and Jean-François Morin. I do have opening comments, if I may begin.

Mr. Chair, I am pleased to be before this committee this morning to discuss Bill C-20, the Fair Representation Act. Bill C-20 delivers on our government's long-standing commitment to move the House of Commons towards fair representation. In particular, it reflects our government's three distinct promises to provide fair representation by allocating an increased number of seats now and in the future to better reflect population growth in Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta, maintaining the number of seats for smaller provinces, and maintaining the proportional representation of Quebec according to its population.

In my opening remarks today, I would like to provide an overview of the bill's key elements. I will then be pleased to take any questions you may have.

The representation of the provinces in the House of Commons is readjusted every 10 years using a formula established in section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867. The current formula dates to 1985 and was designed to provide modest increases to the House of Commons. While the 1985 formula has been successful in limiting the size of the House of Commons, it has created a representation gap for the faster-growing provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, and Alberta. The combined effect of fixing the divisor at 279 in combination with the existence of the seat guarantees has prevented these provinces from receiving a share of the seats that is more in line with the relative share of the population.

The formula in Bill C-20 is principled and is a reasonable update designed to bring those provinces closer to representation by population while at the same time maintaining the seat counts of the slower-growing provinces and ensuring that Quebec maintains a level of seats that is proportionate to its population. In fact, the Fair Representation Act brings every single province closer to representation by population. The bill would set the electoral quotient for the 2011 readjustment at 111,166, which reflects the average riding population prior to the last seat readjustment in 2001, increased by the simple average of provincial population growth rates. Once the initial allocation of seats have been determined on the basis of that quotient, the Senate floor and the grandfather clause would be applied. The Fair Representation Act then provides the formula to apply a new representation rule.

If a province becomes underrepresented as a result of the application of the updated formula, additional seats will be allocated to that province so that its representation will equal its share of the population. Based on population estimates, Quebec will be the first province to receive new seats in order not to become underrepresented by the operation of the updated formula. That said, the representation rule applies to all provinces that may find themselves in this scenario.

A further update to the formula is to base the allocation of seats among the provinces on Statistics Canada's population estimates. There is a reason for that. The population estimates provide a more accurate picture of Canada's total population. The population estimates adjust to account for the census net under-coverage—that is, the number of people who were not enumerated during the census--as well as the over-coverage, coming from those who were enumerated twice.

The practical result of applying the new formula will be to add an additional 30 seats to the House of Commons, for a total of 338. In terms of the provincial breakdown, Ontario will receive 15 new seats, Alberta will receive six new seats, and British Columbia will receive six new seats. Quebec will receive three new seats as a result of the new representation rule, which will ensure that its seat total does not come under the number of seats proportionate to its population. Finally, the bill provides an adjustment to the formula in order to account for future increases in population counts following future censuses. For the 2021 and each subsequent readjustment, the bill provides that the electoral quotient will be increased by the simple average of provincial population growth rates since the preceding readjustment.

In addition to the updated formula for allocating seats, Bill C-20 also proposes amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The changes proposed in the bill aim to streamline the timelines and the current boundary readjustment process. For example, the independent boundary commissions would be established no later than six months following the census.

The timeline for the commissions to produce their reports would be streamlined from 12 to 10 months, with a possible two-month extension. The time period for the implementation of the representation order would be reduced from 12 months to seven months, and the notice period for public hearings by commissions would be reduced from a minimum 60-day period to a minimum 30-day period. There will be no change to the timelines relating to the parliamentary phase of the electoral boundary process, during which time parliamentarians and Canadians are able to provide their comments on the initial reports of the boundary commissions. Most importantly, Canadians will continue to have the same opportunity to voice their opinions on boundary changes during public hearings held by the commissions.

The updates to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act follow recommendations made in the past by this committee, the chief electoral officer, and the Lortie commission.

To conclude, the Fair Representation Act addresses the unacceptable underrepresentation of some provinces and fulfills our government's longstanding commitment to move towards fair representation. The updated seat allocation formula contained in the Fair Representation Act moves every single province towards representation by population.

Thank you, and I look forward to responding to any questions you may have.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll start our seven-minute round.

Mr. Lukiwski, you're first.

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

Thanks very much, Mr. Chair.

And thank you, Minister, for appearing here.

I have a few questions, but I guess, primarily, I want to go back to something you said in your opening statement. You said that the population estimates provide a more accurate picture of population than the census does.

Now if the intent of the bill is to try to get to a representation by population formula that is more reflective of the population—that's the key right there: what is our population?—can you give assurances to the committee or explain why you're suggesting the population estimates would be more accurate than the census data we would be receiving?

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

Thank you. That is very important. Our commitment is to come forward with a formula that is fair for all provinces and is principled and is based on actual populations. The numbers we're using are the best data available for representation updates, and that includes using the census data for boundary readjustment. So we're using the best numbers available at each stage in this process.

In determining the actual populations of the provinces, we're using the population estimates. These are the same numbers, the same population estimates, that are used for the federal-provincial equalization program, the same numbers that are used for the Canada health transfer, the same numbers used for the Canada social transfer. So this is the best data available for the population figures of the provinces themselves.

Now when we get down to the riding-by-riding, street-by-street level detail, the census will be used for that. The census is good for that detail. We're using the best data available at each stage.

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

Thank you, Minister.

Just so I'm clear, you say that the population estimates are more accurate, but I still haven't heard where they come from. Are those numbers compiled by Statistics Canada or some other independent group?

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

Actually, they are from Statistics Canada.

Maybe someone from PCO can elaborate.

[Matthew Lynch, Director, Democratic Reform, Privy Council Office]

Certainly. Statistics Canada produces quarterly population estimates. It has been doing that since 1971, and there's a statutory requirement under the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act for Statistics Canada to produce an annual population estimate to allocate funding for the programs the minister referred to.

Basically, it attempts to correct for the census net under-coverage, which the minister referred to, through a series of statistical methods, and then it updates the estimates based on population trends and information from provincial vital statistics and from Citizenship and Immigration.

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

Thank you.

Minister, this Bill C-20, as we know it, is actually the latest iteration in a line of rep-by-pop bills that this committee has seen in years past.

Could you give an update to the committee on why the formula used in this bill is superior, in your opinion, at least, to some of the others we have seen at this committee, in terms of rep by pop?

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

Sure. Our commitment was to bring forward changes to the formula that would address the fact that Alberta, B.C., and Ontario were underrepresented in the House of Commons because their populations have grown. We also made a commitment that we would maintain the number of seats for the smaller provinces and make sure that Quebec's representation stayed equal to its population.

Bill C-12, the previous bill, used out-of-date population figures, because a number of years have passed, so Bill C-20 has new numbers, new population figures, that are up to date.

There's also a representation rule that's an addition to this bill, that if any province went from fair representation or overrepresentation and became underrepresented because of the redistribution process, we would add seats to that province to bring it back up to fair representation, equal to its population. It would not be fair for a province to be fairly represented today and then become underrepresented because we've fixed a wrong somewhere else and then hurt that province. That would apply to all provinces. The first province to benefit from that is going to be Quebec.

This bill also responds to population growth. The divisor changes to respond to population growth now and in the future as well. We've also streamlined the process for electoral redistribution, so these are the changes that have evolved after the last bill was presented. At the end of the day, this bill fulfills the commitment we made, and it brings every province closer to representation by population.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have a minute and a half.

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

When you say that the formula proposed in Bill C-20 would ensure that if various provinces see their populations increase in the future, the formula would deal with that in an effective manner, when does that occur? How often would we be looking at population changes? Would it be based on a 10-year period like the census, or would it happen more frequently than that?

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

That doesn't change. Currently, every 10 years when the census comes out the boundaries are looked at. That process is the same. There will be an update every 10 years, and this formula will be applied every 10 years, based on the population numbers from Statistics Canada.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Time for a little one, if you've got it.

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

Just a quick one that I hear from my constituents all the time. We're talking about adding 30 more seats in the House of Commons. What can the House of Commons accommodate, physically, in terms of getting more MPs into the chamber?

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

A study was done in 1996. The current House of Commons can accommodate 374 members of Parliament; with reasonable growth we won't see that for decades.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great.

Thank you, Minister. It's nice to know I'll still fit.

Mr. Christopherson, you're next for seven minutes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you, Minister, for appearing today.

As I've said before, we see this as an improvement. Previous bills had no seats for Quebec, and now at least we've broken that barrier. I'm interested in your comment on the difference between the previous bill and this bill, but I'll come back to that in just one moment.

Mr. Lukiwski was good enough to open up the discussion around that formula change, and I want to focus and be very clear about the change in the formula. I've heard everything you said, so I won't repeat the questions and have you repeat the answers, but my one question would be, if this is an improvement and more accurate, then why wasn't it used before? Why all of a sudden are we seeing a modification to the formula and components of the formula have changed? I hear you saying it's better, but my comment would be, if it's so obviously better on something this important, with the number of intelligent people over the years who have been looking at these files, why do you now believe this is an improvement, as opposed to the idea that it's in there for convenience for the government because the math works better? You see my question. I'm trying to be up front about it.

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

Frankly, this isn't new. As I said, these are the same numbers, the population estimates, that are used, and have been used, for the federal-provincial equalization program. Those are the numbers used. They are the same numbers used for the Canada health transfer and the same numbers used for the Canada social transfer. So these numbers are being used now, and they are the best numbers, the best data, to use to determine the population of the provinces. It's been used before.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I hear that, Minister, and I realize they've been applied in other areas, but they haven't been applied in this formula. We have dealt with these kinds of formulas before, and now all of a sudden the government of the day is saying it has found a magic number that makes the formula work even better; its more accurate. I'm just asking, if that's the case, why hasn't someone thought of this before now?

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

It's not about a magic number; it's about a good practice being used on this formula. It's about an existing, established good practice that is now being used on this formula, and we're still using the census data itself for the actual details of the boundary redistribution, so it's just moving forward with good practices that have been used by the government.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have one more question on this, Minister, and I don't want to belabour it. These formulas existed before; this is not something new. This calculation was used, as you say, in transfer payments, other very important matters to Canadians, particularly the provincial and federal governments. I'm just curious as to why all of a sudden—I realize you didn't make up the number from thin air, but you did pull it from somewhere and included it in the formula in a way that wasn't done before. I'm hoping we'll get a chance to bring in experts—you know, bureaucrats, academics, and others who will answer too—but I am seeking your thoughts on why all of a sudden, Minister, this government thinks it likes this number over here. It used it elsewhere; it'll plug it in here because...why? That's my question: why. I hear you say it's....

Well, go ahead, please.

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

I can't account for somebody looking at this 10 years ago in a previous government. I can tell you that for us it was a matter of looking at what are the best numbers and what would be the most accurate. When we looked at what numbers are used for the equalization program and what's being used for the Canada health transfer programs, the same population figures...and the provinces are saying, yes, that's the right way to go, that's accurate. That's when we determined that that's the most accurate and those are the numbers we should be using.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm going to move on, but I could respond to you that you could do it the other way around and say that you are going to change the other formulas using the one we used for seat calculations; it's so important, so we'll start using that for transfer payments, rather than the other way around. What I'm looking for is a definitive answer that says this is more accurate, it makes for a better formula, and it would be backed up by academics and others who have no political agenda.