Rodger Cuzner

[Government Response to Petitions, September 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 10 petitions.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, September 19th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to participate in debate prior to second reading on Bill C-49, an act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003.

The representation order referred to in the title of the act is the end product of a process for adjusting our electoral boundaries which takes place after every decennial census.

While this process is probably little known to most Canadians, it is fundamental to ensuring effective representation in the House of Commons for all regions, all provinces, all communities and all citizens. Given the importance of this process, I would like to spend a little bit of time today reviewing its key elements.

We should go back in this case to 1867 to find the origins of the electoral boundaries readjustment process, or the EBRA process, as it has become commonly known.

In addition to establishing a system that is based on representation by population, our Fathers of Confederation recognized the geographical, cultural, political and demographic diversity of our provinces and the importance of integrating these factors into any formula for distribution of seats in the House of Commons.

In addition to establishing a Parliament composed of two houses, the British North America Act of 1867 included section 51, which stated that the number of seats allocated to each province must be recalculated after each 10 year census, starting in 1871.

The act included a simple formula whereby the total number of seats was to be calculated by dividing the population of each province by a fixed number, referred to as the electoral quota or quotient. The quotient was derived by dividing the population of the province of Quebec by 65, the number of seats then held in Quebec under the Constitution. This formula provided the basis for the process we have today although there have been a number of important changes over the years.

For example, the famous Senate floor rule was added in 1915. It states that a province cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it does in the Senate. This clause had the immediate effect of guaranteeing four seats to the province of Prince Edward Island and continues to provide a floor for a number of provinces today.

In 1946, the formula was changed so that 255 seats were allocated based on provinces' share of Canada's total population rather than the average population per electoral district in Quebec.

In 1951, the 15% clause was adopted to prevent too rapid a loss of seats in some provinces. Under the new rules, no province could lose more than 15% of the number of Commons seats to which it had been entitled in the last readjustment.

In the following decade, we entered what may be referred to as the modern era of electoral boundaries readjustment. Up to and including the boundary readjustment of 1951, the House of Commons itself was responsible for fixing the electoral boundaries of the electoral districts through a committee established for that purpose.

Concern about the level of influence exercised by the House led to the passing of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act in 1964. The new act was also brought in against the backdrop of the experience of our neighbours to the south, who were beset by the problem of gerrymandering. The act, which provides the statutory mechanism with which to carry out the constitutional requirements in section 51, is strongly based on the idea of maintaining the independence of the electoral redistribution process.

In the interests of political neutrality, the act establishes independent commissions in each province. As originally passed, each commission was to be chaired by a judge designated by the chief justice of the province, and there were to be three other members, including a representation commissioner and a public servant who would sit on the commission. The post of representation commissioner was later abolished and those duties were transferred to the Chief Electoral Officer.

In addition to being independent, it was recognized at the time that the process should provide opportunities for everyone to express their views, including the public and members of Parliament. To this end, each provincial commission publishes proposed electoral maps in the newspapers and the public is invited to public hearings held in various locations.

Members of Parliament, who invariably have strong views on both the names and boundaries of electoral districts, can appear before the commissions during the public hearings and there is also provision for them to make objections to proposed changes through a committee of the House of Commons. The final decision, however, rests within the commissions.

The current guidelines for determining boundary adjustments are found in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as amended in 1984. As set out in the act, the division of the province into electoral districts must proceed on the basis that the population of each electoral district in the province shall, as close as reasonably possible, correspond to the electoral quotient for that province.

However, making changes to electoral boundaries is not just a mathematical exercise. Rather, it is a delicate balancing act that must consider a number of factors, including the community of interest or the community of identity, or the historic pattern of an electoral district in that province, and a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated rural and northern regions. In other words, the commissions must consider social, cultural, linguistic, geographic and other factors.

The commissions may depart from strict voter parity in order to take these factors into consideration so long as the population of each district remains within 25% more or 25% less of the electoral quota for that province. Exceptions to this range are possible, but only for remote and sparsely populated ridings. This 25% leeway reflects the Supreme Court's 1991 decision on Saskatchewan's provincial electoral boundaries, which concluded that the objective of the right to vote in the charter was to attain effective representation rather than strict voter parity.

This brings us to our present task. As all members will be aware, we have just completed the redistribution process and have new, up to date electoral maps. The only question is whether or not to accelerate its effective date. If operational concerns are satisfied, there is no reason not to do so, since this process is complete.

I have spoken today about the need for an independent electoral process. This will in no way change the EBRA process. It remains as independent as it always has been. The views of the public and members of Parliament have been heard. What has changed is that in this present case, the Chief Electoral Officer has told us that he does not need the full one year grace period that is prescribed in the act. In that case, I think we can all agree that it only makes sense to implement the new boundaries as soon as possible.

The sooner we act, the sooner the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta will get the seats they deserve and the sooner our electoral map will reflect all the other important changes in the demographic characteristics of Canada's electoral districts. If we delay implementation of the new ridings longer than is operationally necessary, it would be unfair not only to these particular regions but to all Canadians.

For these reasons I support this important legislation and I call upon all members to do so.

[Question No. 217, June 11th, 2003]

Because of the complex nature of federal-provincial relationships and the importance of these relationships to the management of the federation, discussions between premiers and the Prime Minister are confidential. Therefore, specific details of telephone conversations cannot be released.

[Question No. 218, June 4th, 2003]

Between March 17 and April 24, 2003, the Prime Minister made 13 telephone calls to foreign leaders. All of them included at least some reference to Iraq, but few were limited exclusively to that subject, since personal contact between leaders is an essential component of both bilateral relationships and multilateral cooperation.

Disclosure of information about these calls, their content and length, and which in fact constitute diplomatic exchanges with foreign states, would be injurious to the conduct of Canada’s international affairs.

[Speed Skating, May 27th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House today to pay tribute to one of Canada's all time greatest athletes on her retirement from active competition.

Saskatoon's Catriona LeMay Doan has dominated the world of 500-metre races and long-track speed skating, winning thirty-four world cup races and two world sprint championship titles.

In 1998 at the Olympic games in Nagano, she won Olympic gold in the 500 metres. Four years later in Salt Lake City, she became the first Canadian Olympic champion to successfully defend her Olympic title by winning gold again in the 500 metres. During her impressive career, she set eight world records and she is the current Olympic record holder.

A three-time winner of the Female Athlete of the Year at the Canadian sports awards, twice named Canadian Press Athlete of the Year and winner of the Lou Marsh trophy, Catriona LeMay Doan has been an inspiration to Canadians both on and off the ice. To quote Speed Skating Canada, Catriona “has inspired many young people in Canada by her athletic and personal achievements as well as her sportsmanship”.

I am sure all members will join me in congratulating Catriona and wishing her continued success in all her endeavours.

[Question No. 209, May 26th, 2003]

The Privy Council Office submits the following chart with the information required to respond to the question.

Men/Women Distribution: Appointments and Re-appointments within a specific timeframe

NOTE: 262 (218 men and 44 women) of these appointments are not technically new appointments. They were for existing incumbents of the Ontario Court of Justice who had to be appointed anew when this court’s name changed to the Superior Court of Justice following amendments Ontario Courts of Justice Act and the Judges Act.

[Ethics Counsellor, May 16th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I thank the House for the chance to speak to this motion, which calls for the government to release any reports by the ethics counsellor concerning the former solicitor general. It is particularly gratifying since it allows me to speak in support of two important principles which are important to all Canadians: first, the need for transparency and openness in government, and second, the need to protect the confidentiality rights of all citizens.

As all members are aware, these two principles can seem contradictory at times. I want to emphasize my own personal commitment to making sure Canadians have access to as much information on the workings of government as possible, for transparency and openness are vital to involving citizens in the important issues of the day and enhancing confidence in the institution of Parliament.

The government's handling of this issue to date underlines its commitment to this principle as well, for a number of documents relating to this motion already have been released. These include letters exchanged by the ethics counsellor and the former solicitor general in 1999 as well as those exchanged by the former solicitor general and the Prime Minister in October 2002. This second set of letters has since been published on the Prime Minister's website, which is about as public as one can get.

Then too, information collected during the ethics counsellor's investigation of the conduct of the former solicitor general has also been released under the Access to Information Act, which means this material is not a secret either.

Also, the ethics counsellor has posted on his website a number of reports concerning other members of the government, material prepared in response to requests by parliamentarians and other interested parties.

But while transparency and openness are important principles, they do not trump all other rights, such as the right to privacy, such as the right to cabinet confidentiality and the discretion required by the Prime Minister to fulfill his responsibility for the conduct of government.

And so over the years, successive generations of parliamentarians have decided, quite rightly, that some documents should not be released, such as confidential advice to a member of Parliament from a parliamentary ethics adviser on a conflict of interest matter, or confidential advice to the Prime Minister on the conduct of ministers, secretaries of state and parliamentary secretaries who serve in his government.

Of course this makes eminent good sense. Parliamentarians should be able to request confidential advice on conflict of interest issues so they can properly arrange their affairs.

And the Prime Minister should be able to request confidential advice on ministerial ethics since the Prime Minister bears ultimate responsibility to Parliament and to Canadians for the conduct of ministers.

It is the Prime Minister who establishes the standards of conduct they must follow and acts to remove them if they are in serious breach of these principles. It is the Prime Minister who is accountable to the House, and indeed to all Canadians, for their conduct. This means that the Prime Minister must be certain that the advice he receives in confidence today does not become tomorrow's front page news. Because of this, reports concerning the conduct of senior members of government prepared as advice to the Prime Minister are released only at his discretion. This is also the practice in other mature democracies like the United Kingdom and Australia.

Of course, such documents may be released occasionally with the Prime Minister's approval, as in the case of the report on the former minister of finance in relation to the Canadian Development Corporation and the tainted blood scandal after a commitment by the Prime Minister to make this information public. But in general, this is not a common practice. As the sponsor of this motion, a former prime minister must surely know this.

So it is not surprising that the government should oppose this motion which seeks release of the ethics counsellor's confidential advice to the Prime Minister, particularly since the code of conduct for MPs developed by the Milliken-Oliver committee, currently under study by the procedure and House affairs committee, also proposes to keep some information confidential when it involves MPs' enquires to the proposed ethics commissioner.

This being said, the government nevertheless is committed to greater transparency and higher ethical standards in the conduct of public affairs, as shown by the Prime Minister's eight point plan on ethics in government announced last June, and by the introduction of Bill C-34, which seeks to strengthen ethical conduct in government and enhance public confidence in our system of government through the appointment of an ethics commissioner reporting to the House of Commons, and a Senate ethics officer reporting to Senate.

The ethics commissioner and the Senate ethics officer would administer conflict of interest provisions for members and senators and would assist in the administration of the Prime Minister's code of ethics for ministers and other senior public officials. Even here there would be respect for the right of the Prime Minister to receive confidential information, for while the ethics commissioner would table an annual report on his administration of the Prime Minister's code in both the House and the Senate, it would not include confidential information.

In conclusion, the information requested in the motion clearly falls into the category of confidential advice provided to the Prime Minister which can only be made public at his discretion. Releasing such information would fly in the face of established parliamentary traditions not only in Canada but also in many other mature parliamentary democracies. It would also set a very bad precedent and would undermine the ability of this and subsequent prime ministers to successfully perform their duties, all of which would cause long term damage to our system of parliamentary democracy.

For this reason, I will be voting against this motion. I would urge all other members to do likewise.

[Question No. 194, May 16th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Questions passed as Orders for Return, May 16th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, if Question No. 194 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.

[Questions on the Order Paper, May 16th, 2003]

Madam Speaker, Question No. 180 will be answered today.