Evidence of meeting #9 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was formula.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
I just don't see this to be a technical question you're asking. That was the old formula under an old bill and this is a new formula--
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
But we were using that formula for the transfer payments certainly in April of 2010, weren't we?
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Well, Bill C-12 did not have the same figures you're talking about for the transfer payments. It's absolutely different.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
Exactly. That's the point.
So the formula, that formula, was available when Bill C-12 was introduced.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Sure. Yes, it was. It has been available for years--
NDP
Conservative
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
--to use the population estimates? That's your question.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
The difference is using the best data available from Statistics Canada, which uses this population estimate, and that is in the new formula. It was not in the old formula. Correct.
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
You're absolutely certain of that.
I'm sorry, Mr. Minister, I know I'm--
Conservative
NDP
Joe Comartin NDP Windsor—Tecumseh, ON
I know Bill C-12 didn't, but the formula at that time, as it existed at that time, certainly had forecasts for what the population growth was going to be.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
Bill C-12, the old formula, or the old bill, had population figures based on only the census data. It was only based on the census data.
This bill is based on the best population figures available and uses both the population estimates from Statistics Canada and the census data. It uses the best population figures available at each stage.
Conservative
Conservative
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Thank you.
I want to address some of the questions that were raised by Mr. Garneau. At first blush what he is suggesting actually sounds quite attractive, the idea that we can hold the line at 308 seats and come out to the same approximate number we're at now. That's effectively what I believe the member is saying.
But if you dig beneath the surface, I believe he is suggesting that Nova Scotia might lose a seat. All right, that's fair enough, going from 11 to 10 seats on a population of 900,000 is not bad. New Brunswick, by contrast, would maintain its 10 seats because it has 10 Senators, on a population of 750,000.
But the real hit would come to Manitoba and Saskatchewan, each with 14 seats. In order for this formula to work, they would effectively have to be cut to 6 seats each. So they would go from 14 to 6 seats, with populations of 1.2 million and 1.1 million.
I'd like to see these numbers you're throwing out there. I think it's incumbent on members, if they're going to put numbers out there, to back them up. This is key. If suddenly we have two provinces with 6 seats in the House and 6 seats in the Senate, versus eastern provinces with 10 in the House and 10 in the Senate, that would strike me as not at all equitable, let alone fair.
I'd like to have your comments on that. It seems that would be problematic for the 1.1 million people and the 1.2 million people in each of those two prairie provinces.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
You're absolutely right. The Liberals are not being up front with Canadians on what their actual proposal is. Their proposal is to take seats away from the smaller provinces. It is unfair to do that. It's also unfair that they're not being up front about which provinces would lose the seats and by how many.
We maintain that they would keep those seats. This formula needs to be based on population figures. It is the most reasonable way to get every province closer to representation by population, without picking winners and losers and without taking seats away from the smaller provinces. That is why, based on population figures, the provinces of Alberta, B.C., and Ontario are getting seats, and also Quebec is getting seats, equal to their population.
Conservative
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
As far as you know, have these numbers suggested by Mr. Garneau today come forward? Has there been a bill, or has his caucus forwarded any numbers that would allow us to view them? He's disputing what seems to be simple math. Again, it makes for a good headline: “We Can Hold the Line and Save Money”. But at the end of the day, if it's a huge disequilibrium between the provinces, I'm not sure it's much of a solution.
I am curious to know whether those numbers have ever come forward to you.
Conservative
Tim Uppal Conservative Edmonton—Sherwood Park, AB
No. They have come forward with kind of an idea, but they haven't done the work. They haven't done the numbers behind it. I haven't seen it. They haven't distributed any numbers to anyone that I know of. They really haven't been up front with Canadians, as I said. They haven't said, here are the population figures; here are the ones who would lose seats and who would gain seats.
They have not done that. But looking at the existing seats, it is not too difficult to determine who would lose seats. I mean, you've done the math right there on who would actually lose seats under the Liberal plan.
Conservative
