Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 5 - Evidence for February 9, 2005
OTTAWA, Wednesday, February 9, 2005
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs met this day at 4:08 p.m. to study Bill C-36, an Act to change the boundaries of the Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi electoral districts.
Senator Lise Bacon (Chairman) in the Chair.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Honourable senators, seeing that we have a member of the opposition with us, we are going to have to begin immediately because Mr. Bélanger has to leave at 5 p.m. After the usual questions for Mr. Bélanger, I will ask Mr. Godin, Member of Parliament, to say what he has to say about this matter.
Good afternoon, Mr. Bélanger. We are all ears.
Mr. Mauril Bélanger, P.C., M.P., Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister Responsible for Democratic Reform: Thank you, Madam Chair.
Honorable senators, thank you for this opportunity to testify about Bill C-36, an Act to change the boundaries of the Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi electoral ridings in New Brunswick.
This matter was addressed by Senator Losier-Cool during the second reading debate — and quite eloquently, I must say. I will therefore avoid saying what has already been said.
I would like to stress the exceptional nature of this bill, since it would mark the first time that Parliament has changed a riding boundary since the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was passed in 1964.
I am going to briefly discuss the how and why of this bill.
[English]
I know that members of the committee are already familiar with the independent process provided for in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act for the periodic revision of the electoral map. Therefore, I will not go into that in any great detail. The last electoral redistribution produced the current representation order, which was proclaimed on August 25, 2003, and took effect when the last Parliament was dissolved.
Reviewing electoral boundaries is always a difficult task and each redistribution inevitably gives rise to a certain amount of controversy. It was in fact with the goal of minimizing controversies and ensuring the integrity of the process that Parliament, in its wisdom, chose in 1964 to trust independent commissions with this task. Unfortunately, there is no guarantee that there will be no mistakes or disputes.
In the case at hand, the initial proposal of the New Brunswick boundaries commission called for the transfer of certain francophone parishes, or parts of parishes, in the riding of Acadie—Bathurst, which has a majority French- speaking population, to the riding of Miramichi, which has a majority English-speaking population. The reason for the transfer was to minimize population differences between the ridings, since the population of Miramichi was 21 per cent below the provincial average while that of Acadie—Bathurst was 14 per cent above.
During the public hearings and the study of the proposed map by a parliamentary committee, representations were made regarding the need to take better account of the community of interest of this region's francophones. The commission agreed in its final report to return the parish of Saumarez and part of the parish of Allardville to the riding of Acadie—Bathurst. However, it upheld the transfer of the parish of Bathurst and part of Allardville to the Miramichi riding.
In the fall of 2003, after the representation order, organizations and individuals from the Bathurst region filed an application in Federal Court to quash the representation order that had been adopted. Their goal was not to have the entire representation order invalidated, but only the transfer of the two parishes from Acadie—Bathurst to Miramichi.
According to the applicants, the boundaries commission, in deciding to transfer the communities, had given too much importance to numerical equality and had not taken sufficient account of the relevant community of interest, particularly with respect to language.
Justice Shore ruled in favour of the applicants and concluded that while the Charter had not been violated, the commission had failed to comply with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as well as with the Official Languages Act. According to the judge, the commission erred in not having sufficiently considered, as required by the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, whether a greater departure from numerical equality was justified in order to better reflect the community of interest. Justice Shore expressly refrained, however, from actually drawing up a new electoral boundary between the two ridings, as the applicant had requested. Rather, he suspended the effect of his decision for one year, that is, until May 11, 2005, so that an appropriate remedy could be implemented in keeping with the spirit of the act. The government chose not to appeal this ruling.
[Translation]
Despite the one-year suspension period, the question of how to resolve the problem was a difficult one. Indeed, outside the normal decennial readjustment process, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act does not provide any mechanism to create a new commission or to otherwise modify the electoral map.
Some would have wanted the government to table a bill that would directly modify the electoral map by turning the parishes of Bathurst and Allardville to the Acadie—Bathurst riding, thus directly restoring the previous boundary between the Miramichi and Acadie—Bathurst ridings. For my part, and although I was very sensitive to the interests of the affected communities, it seemed clear to me that this was not the right approach to take. I believe that this will also be evident to the members of this committee, since this would not have conformed to the spirit of the act, a key pillar — if not the main raison d'être — of which is recourse to independent commissions to set electoral boundaries.
Justice Shore himself declined to withdraw the boundary between the two ridings, on the grounds that this was outside his purview as a judge. It would have been just as inappropriate, if not more, for Parliament to assume this task itself, and would set an unfortunate precedent. That is what led the government to consider and ultimately adopt the idea of using the Inquiries Act to set up an independent commission, whose recommendations would serve as a basis for a bill to amend the representation order. With the support of all parties represented in the House of Commons and the Parliament of Canada, and after discussing it with the Chief Electoral Officer, the government set up a commission whose composition and mandate were designed to reflect, as much as possible, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
The commission was chaired by the Honourable Justice Daigle, who was chosen by New Brunswick Chief Justice Drapeau. The other two commissioners were Mr. Pierre Foucher, Law Professor at the Université de Moncton, and Mr. Lorio Roy, Editor in Chief and Publisher of l'Acadie Nouvelle, both chosen after consulting the two interested members of Parliament, the members for both ridings.
The commission had the responsibility of reviewing the contested portion of the boundary between the ridings of Miramichi and Acadie—Bathurst. It was open to it to return, in whole or in part, one or both of the parishes transferred in 2003. However, the commission had to consider the question in light of the same criteria as set out in the act, giving due weight to the community of interest criterion. In short, the new commission was mandated to perform the exercise that, according to Justice Shore, the first commission had failed to do. In its final report dated December 8, 2004, the commission recommended that the parishes of Allardville and Bathurst both be returned to the riding of Acadie—Bathurst.
These final recommendations were in keeping with the commission's initial proposal, dated November 6, 2004, which had received unanimous support during the public hearings held on November 17 and 18 in Miramichi and Bathurst respectively. The initial proposal had also been reviewed by the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, where it met with no objections.
[English]
Bill C-36 amends the 2003 representation order to give effect to the commission's recommendations. It was introduced in the other chamber on December 10 and was passed the same day without debate, by unanimous consent of all the parties.
The bill also contains a consequential provision allowing registered riding associations of the political parties in both ridings to continue to exist under the new boundaries simply by filing a notice with the Chief Electoral Officer. Without such a notice, the associations would be automatically deregistered.
The same mechanism exists under the Canada Elections Act for changes to electoral boundaries stemming from the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It has been adapted to reflect the fact that changes in this case would flow instead from Bill C-36.
I would like to point out that the electoral boundary changes would take effect upon the next dissolution of Parliament to avoid the need for by-elections in the two affected ridings.
By enacting this bill, Parliament would be complying with the Federal Court's order and responding to the legitimate concerns of the affected communities, while at the same time respecting the spirit of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
In the circumstances — and these are extraordinary circumstances we find ourselves in — and given the options available to us, I sincerely believe that this is the best course of action. In the future, however, we should avoid a similar situation of Parliament being forced to intervene to fix the electoral map.
Last fall, the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled its seventh report recommending a number of changes to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
[Translation]
Further, Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer, has indicated that he will be making some recommendations concerning the act. One of the things we certainly need to consider is the possibility of eventually amending the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act so that in similar circumstances, a commission could be created outside the usual process to correct a problem. But that is for another day. For now, what matters is to resolve the situation in New Brunswick. And that is what this bill does.
On that note, Honourable Senators, I would like to thank you for your time and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have on this.
The Chairman: Thank you for your presentation. You have with you Mr. Stephen Zaluski, Head, Democratic Reform Secretariat, and Mr. Stéphane Perrault, Senior Counsel, Democratic Reform Secretariat.
In the preliminary report, which I read, of the Miramichi and Acadie—Bathurst electoral boundaries commission, on page 8, it said that during the public hearings, there was no public input in Miramichi and none at the hearing held in Bathurst. The participants unanimously supported the proposal.
The level of approval appears to me to be very close to unanimity. I would like to know whether you detected, at any point in the process, any signs of disapproval or perhaps irritation among any group of citizens affected by the proposed changes?
Mr. Bélanger: Not to my knowledge.
[English]
Senator Mercer: I am concerned that this is now the third bill we have before us, two on name changes, and this one on actual boundary changes, following redistribution. The two name changes were errors. I am sponsoring the Kitchener— Conestoga bill, which I am happy to do. However, I see a trend here that I do not know that any of us like. I would like to have an assurance that we will put in place a system whereby not just the incumbent MPs, but the parties who normally would challenge in an electoral district — when I say ``normally,'' we would not consult the Bloc Québécois, for example, in a New Brunswick riding — would be properly consulted on names and boundaries.
When the redistribution process in New Brunswick occurred, I was in another position that was intimately interested and involved in boundary changes on a national basis. It was interesting to me at that time that the only place where we had significant problems was in New Brunswick. As we started the process, there was a crazy idea that we would put most of the Aboriginal voters in one riding, in Miramichi, if I recall, and create a strange riding that was not physically joined. My comment to the incumbent MP at the time was, ``That is really good, Charlie. Does that mean you will have enough money to allow you to have staff in each of those reserves outside of the geographic boundaries? Will you have a budget larger than any cabinet minister to serve one constituency?''
I am concerned about the systematic problems that are coming out of New Brunswick. Two major problems have come out of the last redistribution process. One problem dealt with the Aboriginal aspect, which was fixed, but the fact that it even surfaced puzzled me. This one seems, on the surface, to be something of a no-brainer in a province that prides itself on being bilingual. We must ensure that the linguistic minority has some protection and that the areas of interest are protected within the boundaries.
Mr. Bélanger: If I may very briefly confirm that in this case, the Bloc Québécois was also consulted. I did the consultations myself and I consulted every party.
There are indeed three bills in front of the Senate, but I would offer a caution in the sense that only one emanates from the government, this one. I cannot speak about private members' bills, and I know there will be more members of Parliament seeking names changes for the ridings they represent, but that is a different matter entirely.
On the matter of the difficulties that seem to be emanating from a particular electoral boundaries redistribution commission, I did mention that, once we have received suggestions from the Chief Electoral Officer, we will look at the act itself. Certainly there may be a benefit to attempting to better define ``communities of interest'' and so forth. That is something that the government is indeed looking forward to embarking on, once we have received the recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer and, of course, in conjunction with the response to the seventh report of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee.
The difference between this one and others, I suspect, is that the community decided to pursue the matter in the courts on the basis of the Official Languages Act and the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act itself. They got a judgment which the government chose not to appeal. This is purely speculative. I hesitate to go beyond that, but what is needed beyond Bill C-36 is a mechanism to address and correct a situation that may be found wanting by tribunals in the future, which is where we came up short.
We had three options as a government. One option was to draw the boundaries ourselves, which was soundly and reasonably rejected. The second option was to re-create the entire New Brunswick commission, which no one wanted. The third option was the one we chose, to use the Inquiries Act and proceed along a similar path as we had with the boundaries act, which is what we have in front of us. We might have created the commission that is the shortest lived and possibly the least expensive as well.
Senator Mercer: I do not want to leave the impression that New Brunswick is somehow a backwater.
Mr. Bélanger: I would not want to do that either.
Senator Mercer: I am very protective of my sister province because we had before us last week the member from the riding that used to be called Vancouver—Sunshine Coast. I am not sure what it is called now. In proposing a change to a riding name, he talked about the commission ignoring areas of interest in his riding and lopping off a piece north of Whistler and putting it in with that of another member from the Fraser Valley. That made no sense to those of us who know something about British Columbia geography.
We need to be clear and give proper direction when the next census comes along and we go through this process. Maybe we need to fix the rules. I am not sure. I will leave that to you and your advisers. The areas of interest need to be taken seriously into account. There are ridings where members have to travel 15 hours to go from one end to another. That may be common for isolated ridings such as those in the North, but there are ridings that have urban centres and members have to travel 15 hours or across a river because of the way it has been drawn.
We need to be more specific about the need for the areas of interest to be taken into account. There is a need to talk to people and reach out to people in communities, not wait for people in the communities to appear. There is a need, perhaps, to talk to municipal leaders, church leaders or whatever the leadership might be in that community to get a feel for it. I sympathize with the commissioners. They cannot be from everywhere. What looks logical on the map is not necessarily logical on the ground.
Mr. Bélanger: I take careful note of that. As I said, there is an intention to review this legislation based on three things: this experience we are having; secondly, the report of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee itself; and finally, the recommendations yet to be received from the Chief Electoral Officer.
I would venture to say there is another lesson to be learned and something that can be improved upon after the next census and another series of commissions are created, and that is, in preparing the commissions, once they are appointed, to make sure there is consistency in the interpretation and application of the various criteria that are found within the Electoral Boundaries Redistribution Act and other acts such as the Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Senator Nolin: Welcome, Minister. You have given us a good explanation of what is purely a corrective measure. Through legislation, you have straightened out a huge mess that needed a proper straightening out.
I do not intend to get into the details of who did what and who messed up. I assume that as a representative of the government, you have duly noted the mistakes made and are going to put forward legislation to ensure it never happens again.
You repeatedly referred to an independent process, and a number of committee members were happy to hear you say that. Not a year goes by without our receiving a bunch of bills to amend the spelling or names of ridings, and the biggest problem is that the process lacks independence.
I hope — and this is my question — that by the census mid-point, there will be a review. So in 2006, we should have revised figures. At any rate, there is already a process for amending the boundaries along the way.
Do you intend to table in Parliament amendments to the process to deal with the issue of fixing the problem corrected by Bill C-36, so that it does not happen again?
Second, the process has to be truly and completely independent. I understand members of Parliament coming to us with bills. I remember we once had almost 50 of them. There was clearly a bit of you-pat-my-back-I'll-pat-yours going on; they all submitted their requests and it all went through the House of Commons easily.
When it came to the Senate, we decided to study the principles behind the amendments and found that if it were not for the 50-character limit imposed by the technology and that the chief electoral officer mentioned, we could maybe have 200-character names.
So I would like to know whether you intend to do anything about that.
Mr. Bélanger: With respect to straightening out the situation at hand, which is the result of a Federal Court decision that the government did not appeal, that is what you have before you. We chose the most independent and autonomous process possible. In order to do so, we copied the provisions of the readjustment act, in consultation with all parties without exception and with their approval.
Senator Nolin: Everyone agreed that the problem needed fixing.
Mr. Bélanger: The judgment required us to fix it, and preferably, it had to be done before May 11, 2005, in order to meet the deadlines set by the courts.
As for future exercises, the next readjustment exercise will take place after the 2011 census. There is a census every 5 years, but the electoral boundaries are redrawn based on the census that is taken every 10 years.
Senator Nolin: I thought the legislation made provision for corrections, if there was a discrepancy that was too great.
Mr. Bélanger: Those provisions were not accepted. However, I did mention that the government does intend, after the second tabling of a report of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee on this matter, and after receiving the recommendations of the chief electoral officer, to contemplate amendments to the electoral boundaries readjustment act a bit later, certainly before the next readjustment.
Senator Nolin: I would encourage you to take a very close look at the issue of names. I think that has gone on long enough. We are not targeting anyone in particular. We want it to be an independent process, not the result of horse trading. It is certainly done with a lot of good faith and good intentions, but it is obviously not independent.
Mr. Bélanger: I take note of it, but I would point out that in this case, neither name was changed.
Senator Nolin: That would have taken the biscuit!
Senator Joyal: Minister, I am going to pick up where the senator left off. For five years now, this committee has been making recommendations to the government. I have them here in front of me. It made some recommendations first in June 2000, and again on May 6, 2004. Each time the Senate deals with a bill to change the name of a riding, systematically, we make the same recommendations. I am going to read them to you in the other official language.
[English]
I quote:
Your Committee also believed that the process in such cases must be much clearer and more transparent. Your Committee received submission that reinforced the need for public consultation and input to respect the fact that residents of the constituency strongly identify with its name. There should be a requirement for some form of public notice in the constituency and provision for public comments. Guidelines to this effect could be adapted from the procedures set out under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
[Translation]
Two of these bills are currently before us — C-304 and C-302, which are corrections — and now you are telling us that others will follow.
Mr. Bélanger: Things are brewing.
Senator Joyal: I have participated every time on this committee with my colleague, Senator Nolin — with our chair, Senator Milne, Senator Pearson, Senator Kinsella also participated in a few of the meetings — every time, we have made the same recommendations. The bills come to us at second reading. One of us stands up and says: We have no objections, change whatever names you want, but the process is not totally democratic.
Mr. Saada, your predecessor, was here a few months ago. He made a commitment — you can read his statement — to come back before us with amendments to the Elections Act so that we would have a system. There is nothing complicated about a system, it contains objectives and principles. That is what we would like to see applied. I am making the same plea to you. I hope I will not have to say this all over again in six months or a year. In practice, that is the situation.
Mr. Bélanger: I am prepared to stand by my predecessor's commitment. In the bill here today, that is not the case. As for my predecessor's commitment to take note of your recommendations and come back to discuss them, I would be happy to do that in the context of a review of the act.
Senator Joyal: The minister came to see us. Before it was the minister responsible for democratic reform, the President of the Privy Council or the Government House Leader who came to see us. A few times, we had Mr. Boudria. I can assure you that the senators around the table on this committee — there is some stability around the table and we still have some memory — will ask you exactly the same question again.
But I have to tell you — and I am speaking for myself — that we will eventually vote against.
Mr. Bélanger: All I hope is that there is the same stability in terms of ministerial representation.
Senator Joyal: My second question has to do with the more specific bill we have before us here today, Bill C-36. When you say that the independent commission consulted the parties, do you mean the political parties in the House or those appearing on the ballots in the last election?
Mr. Bélanger: I consulted the political parties in the establishment of the selection process for the two or three members of the commission. I do not know which parties the commission consulted, there are lists, but if I understood correctly, they consulted those parties that had previously given input to the prior commission.
Senator Joyal: My problem with the question I asked is the following: since the Figueroa decision, the Elections Act has to be interpreted with the objective of protecting the rights of minority parties — and when I say ``minority,'' I could use the term ``marginal.''
Senator Joyal: In the last election, which parties were on the ballot in those two ridings, Miramichi and Acadie—Bathurst?
Mr. Bélanger: I do not have that information with me. I do not know. However, I do not think it matters, because the consultation process of the commission we created was a carbon copy of the process under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, which requires a consultation process that is open to all. Notice was given in the New Brunswick dailies and in the two weeklies in Bathurst and Miramichi. Everyone had the opportunity to comment on the commission's recommendations. Nothing was done without full transparency.
Senator Joyal: There are many marginal parties, and I will not name any of them because I do not want to single any one out, on the Canadian political scene. Others are emerging parties, and I will not name them either. These parties have every right to be heard, and the system has to make it easier for them to participate in the electoral process, which, to quote the Supreme Court, is dominated by the traditional parties.
I could quote the paragraph from the Figueroa decision, where these words are clearly the words the court used. In other words, it is up to us, when we initiate a consultation process, to make sure, proactively, that these small parties — I will use that expression — are informed and invited to make presentations because they are registered with the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. Bélanger: No political party in particular was invited to participate. The Commission went much further than that. All constituents in both ridings had the opportunity to express themselves.
Senator Joyal: That is not exactly what I am trying to confirm. It is easy to publish an article in a newspaper and say that everyone is invited. We have been involved in political activities and we have had invitations printed in the press, but when a decision affecting the electoral process is at stake, we have an obligation, as Senator Nolin will understand, to bring the information to those concerned or to those whose rights are concerned.
Mr. Bélanger: I have no problem with what you are saying. The government, with Parliament, amended the act following the Figueroa decision. Furthermore, there is a mandatory review that will begin this fall, but we were not changing the electoral process here, we were changing the boundaries between two ridings.
Senator Joyal: Still, there are electoral interests at stake in redrawing the map as there are in the choice of a name et as is the case with the distribution of polling stations. We are well aware of this. This is why the Chief Electoral Officer appeared before a committee of the House of Commons some time ago, on the issue of appointments of returning officers, among others. I will not go into the details. Everything that affects the electoral process, which comes under the Election Act, is subject to the same principle of openness that the Supreme Court found in its conclusions in Figueroa. If we are to have an exception procedure. We are talking about an exception procedure; we are no longer discussing the general process of redistribution of the electoral map every ten years. We are talking about an exception procedure.
With an exception procedure, we must ensure that the political parties that appear on the ballot, whatever the number of votes obtained, are informed and express their opinion regarding the proposed objective. That fundamentally is the process that I am trying to ensure is followed up, and above all that the parties are registered with the Chief Electoral Officer and that they do not find themselves lost in the Canadian landscape.
Mr. Bélanger: The commission is independent. It was given a mandate, modeled on the existing legislation. As regards the act as it exists and its future amendments, I agree completely that the decisions of the Supreme Court should have an influence when it is reviewed. There is no doubt about that. The process before us is unique and we hope that will remain to be true, that it will not be repeated because, there should be a way to correct the flaws and the legislation that we discover or that are identified by the courts. This is coming. For the moment, the legislation such as it exists, was the inspiration for the commission of inquiry's mandate with the complete approval with Elections Canada and with all of the technical resources that all redistribution commissions would have had in the past.
This commission of inquiry had the same mandate and resources of another commission of inquiry. I cannot go further than that. I do not know whom they would have decided to invite after having invited everyone through the notice. You are asking me a question that I cannot answer.
[English]
Senator Mercer: Minister, to follow up on my colleague's discussion about who was consulting which parties, et cetera, I would suggest that there may be a system in place now, although not a formal one, in that there is a group known as the advisory committee of registered political parties to the Chief Electoral Officer, which has representatives of all the registered political parties. There is a balanced representation, and the Chief Electoral Officer, in the case of smaller ``fringe parties,'' pays for individuals to travel to the meetings on a quarterly basis, I think it is. I would suggest that that may be a good forum in which to vet some of the changes, but also to vet some of the problems in the future, because there are representatives from all the political parties there. It would allow them to have a go at it so that we do not have it back here. I would rather have it solved it before that.
Mr. Bélanger: Fair enough.
Senator Milne: I have to tell you, Senator Mercer, these boundary problems do not only occur in New Brunswick. They also occur in Ontario. I have been before the boundary commissioners several times, trying to persuade them to keep a community of interest together in different areas, and they never do. Particularly in rural areas in Ontario, they take all the leftover chunks and put them together, so you get people who may live 60 miles away from a particular community and never go there, but they are all tied together in one riding.
I notice you talked about the seventh report of the House of Commons Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I notice it was also in the sixteenth report of the third session from the same committee.
Mr. Bélanger: Which is the same.
Senator Milne: That is the same report, so it is exactly the same thing. You said that this may come down as legislation sometime. Well, I hope it is not, ``sometime, never.'' I hope it does come down, because I think it is important to best preserve the historical continuity of representation in a province.
What steps will the people who train the boundary commissioners take to actually instil this knowledge in them? This is something that just simply does not happen, and I am very concerned about it. I want to see this in legislation, and I want to see it incorporated into the training of the boundary commissioners. Senator Nolin talked about 50 letters in a riding's name. In the almost 10 years I have been on this committee, this is the first time there has ever been a boundary change come before us. It has always been name changes. We hear from Mr. Kingsley every time about yet a further name change and how long they are getting. Where is Mr. Kingsley on this one?
Mr. Bélanger: Before we embarked on this, I consulted with Mr. Kingsley and he concurred wholeheartedly in the process. He volunteered the technical help of Elections Canada for this inquiry commission that was set up, which they received. I have not heard any criticism on his part of the process.
In terms of legislation, I am hoping, certainly within a year, to come forward with that.
Senator Milne: Therefore, it will be long before the next 10-year census.
Mr. Bélanger: Yes, it would have to be. I am pushing harder than that, but I do not want to cause either of my colleagues here to have palpitations.
Senator Milne: They are young; they can have palpitations.
Mr. Bélanger: Included in that would be certainly a close look at the community of interest and how to better address that; and in the training components how to make sure that there is a fairly even approach to the interpretation of these criteria, definitions of ``community of interest'' and so forth — plus the nuts and bolts that may be recommended by the committee and by the Chief Electoral Officer. All of that will be considered together, and hopefully within the year we will come forward with some legislation.
Senator Milne: Good.
Mr. Bélanger: In anticipation of the 2011 census.
Senator Nolin: May I suggest that you start to study the bill here? Maybe we can give you an inside view.
Mr. Bélanger: You may suggest that, senator.
Senator Milne: You consulted with the people in the riding. You consulted through the newspapers, giving them the chance to speak. You consulted with the different political parties. It was a unanimous vote in the House of Commons. Did you actually consult with the two particular members of Parliament involved?
Mr. Bélanger: Yes.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: I applaud the two francophone communities of New Brunswick who became involved in the process, which resulted in the bill before us today. There is history here that goes a long way back, to the upheaval of francophone communities in New Brunswick by various electoral map review commissions. The commission set up after the 1991 census reported in 1993 in New Brunswick in particular, and only in New Brunswick. We had a minority report because the new boundaries for electoral districts proposed by two of the three commissioners went specifically against the communities of interest in the regions of Northern New Brunswick, francophone regions. At that time, I was the member for Madawaska-Victoria, a social, economic and cultural community that was 80 per cent francophone and well organized. This commission completely separated — and regardless of the implication for the political parties, whether they be liberal or conservative — this riding where the communities were working extremely well together and had common areas of interest to create a riding called Madawaska—Restigouche. A person living in New Brunswick and looking at this riding would find that it makes no sense. All of this because — perhaps involuntarily — changes were made for the sake of making changes. Whether this bothers the francophones or not in the end is unimportant. Ultimately, you know, in New Brunswick, there is not a great deal of moving around of the population. We have ten seats guaranteed under the Constitution. Therefore, it is not necessary to make all these changes. The situation is probably the same in other Atlantic provinces where there is not a great deal of upheaval. We dwell on this every decade, and above all, and I repeat again primarily with the francophones of New Brunswick, when they begin to organize themselves, they have to be disturbed in any way possible.
The whole situation that brought about this bill created a precedent. I can guarantee you that any other change will once again create a big disturbance within the francophone communities of New Brunswick, the process will be repeated.
Mr. Bélanger: If you are right, that reflects the importance of ensuring that the act is amended.
[English]
Just to add, Senator Milne, this is indeed the first time since 1964 that we have had such a situation. That is why we had to invent a process, essentially, which we did, to maintain the arm's-length relationship in setting boundaries, to maintain the arm's-length relationship with those setting them and to make sure it got done within the timeline that was given to us by the tribunals.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: What are you doing to ensure that in the instructions given to the electoral boundaries commissioner, he understands that they are the two official language minority communities outside of Quebec and Toronto.
Mr. Bélanger: The Commissioner of Official Languages met with the commissions and commissioners on this point, during the last redistribution.
Senator Joyal: How is it that we are facing this situation today?
Mr. Bélanger: Senator, I cannot presume to speak for the commissioners of the first redistribution commission. They made a decision in the full knowledge of the existing opposition. It was no secret, I was chair of the House of Commons Committee on Official Languages at that time, the issue was brought before the committee and the committee voted in favour of the communities on the issue. I believe that the House Committee on Procedure did the same thing. The commission chose to maintain its position and as a result, the committee decided to appeal through the courts. The trial courts in the federal court agreed with them and the government — and I was part of that decision because I was there at that time — decided not to appeal the decision and that is the reason for my appearance here today. I am hoping for a happy ending to this situation with the declaration of royal assent for this bill. That is my wish.
[English]
Senator Kinsella: I certainly support this bill and I know that the senators will conclude their work on it expeditiously, but obviously, something went wrong. First, I want to say that I share your view that the system is not that bad. This is the big problem that we have had in many years. However, in this particular case, something very wrong did occur and costs were incurred by the people who played the key role in righting this wrong.
I noticed that at the end of the judgment in the court case, the judge did not award costs to those who carried the burden of having this wrong righted. Therefore, I am wondering whether or not the government would be open to some kind of support for the costs that the community incurred.
It seems to me that we have the principle of the Court Challenges Program, whereby the state does make monies available to Canadians and participating groups who correct situations that are wrong vis-à-vis the test of the Charter.
In this instance, I could not see anything in the act, but I would encourage the government to take a good look at finding a way, because these people have done us a service. It is not only the people in the community affected, it has been a service to all of Canada. I want to underscore that the system has not worked that badly. We have had this inequity, it was corrected. I do not want to get into the details of how the initial commission was proposed, whether they were totally objective, and we will deal with the reality in front of us, which is this bill.
Mr. Bélanger: You are right, in that what you bring up is not in the act, nor should it be. However, when any such request is received, it is dealt with by the Attorney General of Canada, and I would suspect that the Attorney General would look at it. I cannot surmise what his decision would be.
[Translation]
The Chair: We thank you very much for your time, Mr. Bélanger, and we will be following the normal process. We have to hear from Mr. Kingsley before passing this bill. I asked the member of Parliament, Mr. Yvon Godin, who is concerned by this subject, if he would like to say a few words.
Mr. Yvon Godin, M.P., Acadie—Bathurst: Honorable senators, I am very pleased to appear before your committee. This is the second time that I have appeared before a Senate committee; once when I was a union representative and today as a member of Parliament.
Our community cares about Bill C-36. Senator Ringuette spoke of this. I can guarantee you that the two communities of Acadie—Bathurst and Miramichi are happy with the final product, and I am not just talking about members of Parliament, but about the community itself.
This began in 2002 when the Electoral Boundaries Commissions were set up. They were invited to Ottawa and the Commissioner of Official Languages was also invited to set the record straight. She advised them to pay a particular attention to the communities of interest, as well as to the two official languages of Canada. They were warned.
In the fall of 2002, briefs were presented. In Acadie—Bathurst, 14 briefs were presented to the commission and they all stated that they did not agree with the commission.
I had personally presented a brief and one of my arguments was to ask why the region of Kent was to be annexed to Beauséjour and Allardville annexed to Miramichi. I was born in Allardville. We went shopping in Bathurst, we went to school in Bathurst, we went to the cinema in Bathurst and we went dancing in Bathurst! But we never went to Miramichi. From a cultural perspective, there was no affinity between Allardville and Miramichi.
We filed a complaint with the Commissioner of Official Languages. She tabled a report stating that the Redistribution Commission had aired. In response to the commissioner's report, the commission told her that she should mind her own business and that was not in her purview. The commissioner replied that this did concern her and she tabled a report.
At the Official Languages Committee, the political parties unanimously stated that the Commission was wrong. Recommendation was made for the Electoral Boundaries Commission to reconsider its decision. The Official Languages Committee's report was rejected.
At the House of Commons Procedure and House Affairs Committee, all parties agreed that the Commission had made a mistake and that the Commission be asked to reverse its decision. The Electoral Boundaries Commission refused once again.
On top of that, in the Acadie—Bathurst community, a petition with 2,600 names was tabled with the Commission telling it that it had made a mistake. This petition was rejected. Also, 7,000 postcards were presented to the Speaker of House of Commons asking him to intervene and tell the Commission it was wrong. The Electoral Boundaries Commission completely ignored this request as well. At that point, the Association des municipalités francophones du Nouveau-Brunswick brought the Electoral Boundaries Commission before the courts.
Even the anglophone minority of the Acadie—Bathurst riding in New Brunswick disagreed with the Commission because they were sending part of the Anglophone population to Miramichi and this would further reduce their numbers. The anglophones and francophones were of the same opinion.
Furthermore, in Miramichi, the only brief that was tabled stated that the people of Miramichi did not want the people of Acadie—Bathurst to be part of Miramichi. Once again, the Commission ignored them.
I am therefore very satisfied with the court's decision. As the senator was saying earlier, they wanted to take all the Natives and send them to Miramichi. I remember having said that it made me think of them all being herded into a barn, to bring them to Miramichi.
They even annexed Belledune to Miramichi. This was done because the town of Belledune did not complain. My colleague is obliged to cross Acadie—Bathurst in order to represent the citizens of Belledune. I can tell you that it was the members of Parliament who were waging the war, but it was the community itself. There were even people who refused to vote during the last election. They said that they did not want to go and vote for Miramichi.
At this point in time, even if the changes have not been made, it is my office that serves the towns of Allardville and the region of Bathurst. This has never changed. The calls to my office suggest that people do not want to go there because they feel it is an injustice.
The court came down with a decision and Mr. Daigle, the commissioner and two other members of the Commission took note of it and recognized that the community was right. This creates an important precedent.
During our discussions with Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, he said that under the law, every commission is independent and can do as it pleases. This does not make any sense. There was no leadership for the standardization of ridings in Canada.
The House of Commons Committee on Procedure and House Affairs made the recommendation to establish a standard system for all of Canada. Now, because of this recent decision, the commissions will have to take into account the communities of interest, whether it is the people in Northern Ontario, in Alberta or minorities elsewhere.
In the future, when decisions are taken, there will have to think twice because now we have case law. Before, they said that they were not obliged to answer us.
In the political system, we do not vote for a number, we vote for the people. We represent people, not numbers. Under the legislation, we can deviate from the provincial quotient by 25 per cent. I believe that commissioner Richard was mistaken because he said that if we added 14 for Acadie—Bathurst and subtracted 21 for Miramichi, the result was 35. That was rather the provincial quotient, and not the quotient of two communities or two ridings added together. We did not want to see that, and he discusses it in his first report.
I would like to thank you for having listened to me in order to hear both sides of the story. I can assure you that it is not only the members of Parliament but all of the political parties that agree with these changes.
When you were referring earlier to the publication of changes in the newspapers, as to whether or not the other political parties had the opportunity to learn about the changes, I can assure you that it was front page news for about two years. This was the burning issue in the region. And up until this point, I have not received a single call from anyone telling me that they disagree with the court decision.
Senator Kinsella: Mr. Godin, did you perhaps hear the issue I raised with the minister concerning the costs to the community?
Mr. Godin: I can tell you that has not fallen on deaf ears.
Senator Kinsella: It is a matter of justice.
[English]
Mr. Godin: It is too bad that the minority association had to pay a cost to be heard. That cost takes something away from being able to represent their people. This is an injustice that was done to those communities, and I ran through everything that was done to try to stop it. That is what is important. We are proposing to our Procedure and House Affairs Committee that we should have a mechanism. We believe in independence, but it is not independence if you appeal to the same people. That is what happens. In our proposal, we will set it up so that you see another group, and you can say that this is what this group has said, and you are appealing it to change the decision. You would not have someone say, ``If I change it, it looks like I did not do a good job at the beginning,'' and wanting to uphold the decision because it was the one he made. It will help the process of independence, instead of having to bring it here.
Senator Joyal: In all fairness, senator, the costs should be assumed by the Chief Electoral Officer, because that is to whom the process normally falls. I was listening to your first question and watching the civil servant consulting. Are we creating a precedent that will open the floodgates in Canada so that everyone who is not happy with the electoral boundaries will just go to court? I know the answer we will usually receive from public administration. In this case, however, it is quite particular.
[Translation]
There is always something obnoxious about leaving minorities to fend for themselves and pay out of their own pockets.
Senator Nolin: As is the case with the Aboriginals.
Senator Joyal: Precisely. At some point, Canada has to live up to its principles. If we say the country was founded on two legal systems under one law, with equal rights and privileges, the system has to be able to serve these two principles. In this case, it is the chief electoral officer who should pay. He is responsible for the map and not the Department of Justice. It is the chief electoral officer who is responsible for ensuring that the map reflects the diversity of Canada, with its regional interests and geographical characteristics — we are aware of the various criteria used — and in my opinion, it is he who should compensate the two local communities concerned for the costs incurred.
Mr. Godin: When Senator Ringuette spoke of the problem that came up in 1993-1994, it was exactly the same thing. The community did not have the funds to pursue it in court. We went to court but we had to stop the proceedings. There were decisions to be made as to whether we would continue or not. We were in the midst of an election and we had to stop the proceedings. The community was unable to make itself heard at that time. We were lucky this time that people went ahead and the community worked together. The Chamber of Commerce of Bathurst and even the town of Bathurst, francophones and anglophones, everyone contributed. What was happening was unfair and no one could accept it. We will send a certified copy to the two groups.
The Chair: There are comments we can make and several questions we can ask of Mr. Kingsley when he appears on February 16, 2005.
[English]
Tomorrow, senators, we will deal with Bill S-5 with Senator Banks and the officials from the Department of Justice.
[Translation]
Senator Ringuette: I do not know if the problem is within my office, but I am having trouble getting the agenda for our meetings.
The Chair: The problem is in your office because we send the agendas out very early.
Senator Ringuette: I receive all the other information, the bills, et cetera, but when the time comes to get the agenda, I have problems. I consulted my colleague Senator Mercer.
The Chair: Where is your office located?
Senator Ringuette: In the Victoria Building.
The Chair: We will check on that.
The committee adjourned.