Proceedings of the Standing Senate Committee on
Legal and Constitutional Affairs
Issue 8 - Evidence for December 15, 2011
OTTAWA, Thursday, December 15, 2011
The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, to which was referred Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act, met this day at 10:39 a.m. to give consideration to the bill.
Senator John D. Wallace (Chair) in the chair.
[Français]
The Chair: Good morning and welcome, Senate colleagues, invited guests, and members of the general public who are viewing today's proceedings on the CPAC television network. I am John Wallace, a senator from New Brunswick, and I am Chair of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs.
Today, we continue this committee's consideration of Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act. The short title of Bill C-20 is the Fair Representation Act. This bill seeks to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, to modify the formula by which the number of members and the representation of the provinces in the House of Commons are adjusted following each decennial census.
In particular, Bill C-20 is designed to address a discrepancy in the manner in which population growth is reflected by growth in the number of elected representatives assigned to each province. As with the current formula to readjust the number of members seated in the house, Bill C-20 prescribes a formula that readjusts seats after each decennial census and apportions any newly created seats to the province or provinces that experienced population growth from one decennial census to the next.
Compared with the formula currently employed for readjusting the number of seats in the House of Commons, a readjustment using the formula prescribed by Bill C-20 draws nearer to the principle of representation by population. By employing this formula and the most recent estimates of the Canadian population, the fastest growing provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario would receive a share of seats in the House of Commons, after the 2011 readjustment, that is closer to their share of the total population of all provinces.
Bill C-20 would also amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act to accelerate the readjustment process, with the stated purpose of ensuring that the next readjustment can be completed prior to the next general election.
This bill also includes transitional provisions specifically applicable to the readjustment following the 2011 census. Bill C-20 also sets out rules to provide additional seats in cases where a province did not experience an increase in its seat allocation, either from the formula set out in the bill or through past constitutional guarantees.
To assist us in our consideration of this bill, I am pleased to introduce to you this morning Louis Massicotte, Professor, Political Science Department, Université Laval. His research is focused on democracy, Constitutions, political institutions, Parliaments and electoral systems. Welcome, Professor Massicotte.
We also have Matthew Mendelsohn, Director, Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation, University of Toronto. Mr. Mendelsohn has combined a distinguished academic career with senior experience in government. He served as deputy minister in the Ontario government, and, prior to joining the Ontario government, he was a member of the Political Studies department at Queen's University for over a decade where he published widely on Canadian politics, Quebec politics, public opinion, federalism and democratic institutions.
Needless to say, we have two highly qualified individuals with us today, and we are pleased they are here. We will begin with opening statements and then, as you know, we will have questions for each of our panelists.
Louis Massicotte, Professor, Political Science Department, Université Laval, as an individual: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Thank you for your invitation to appear before this committee, which, in my case, is the third or fourth experience.
Just to summarize my qualifications for being here, I remember that, as a student in the 1970s, I followed the process that led to the passage of the 1974 Representation Act. As a research officer in the Library of Parliament, I worked for the two committees of both houses of Parliament that dealt with the Representation Act of 1985.
[Traduction]
Recently, I wrote a document about federal electoral redistribution and Quebec for a focus group. I also wrote a short article in the magazine Policy Option about Bill C-12, which is one of this bill's predecessors, and I appeared before your colleagues from the relevant House of Commons committee three weeks ago.
[Français]
I will make my presentation in French because I am quite familiar with the excellence of the interpretation services of this committee, and later I will answer questions in either language.
The Chair: Certainly, we would be most pleased if you do so.
[Traduction]
Mr. Massicotte: Bill C-20, which is before your committee, is totally identical to the one I spoke to three weeks ago before the other house's committee in charge of this matter. Therefore, it is hard for me to add much to my previous comments, but I would nevertheless like to mention a few things.
If I compare the process that was followed in this case with previous experiences, I must say, without being too negative, that I think that the seat distribution process that has been followed for five years could have been more open. In 1974, Mr. MacEachen, who was actually very experienced and wary in terms of politics, presented a green book with five options, and calculations were made for the next three censuses. I also remember that, in 1985, Mr. Hnatyshyn presented a white book and a formula. In addition, I remember that the calculations were made for the next three censuses. The objective was to get some idea of the long-term effects. I would have liked for us to get a better idea of this formula's long-term effects. I want to congratulate the official in charge of this matter. I want to thank him for not overwhelming us with figures. We were not given too many figures.
If this bill is passed, the increase in the total number of members will be the biggest one since Confederation, both in absolute numbers, 30, and in the growth rate, 9.7 per cent. That decision comes from the government's willingness to keep the grandfather clause, introduced in 1974. This is certainly the optimal solution for the members of provinces that would lose seats without the proposed increase. A while ago, I put forward a theory that increasing the number of members could be accompanied by a decrease of resources allocated to the members. If my information is correct, that is exactly what was just decided. Many stakeholders are perhaps not aware of something when it comes to the grandfather clause. Out of some 10 other democratic federations in the world, only one aside from us has a grandfather clause, and that is Argentina. All the other democratic federations think it is normal for a demographic decline to be reflected in the parliamentary seat distribution.
That leads me to believe that Canadians may be more tender-hearted than others, unless some of their members have especially tough backbones. I do not think that we should see a province's loss of members as very tragic. I want to note in passing that, in the context of the 1990s budgetary cuts, no less than five Canadian provinces, including Mr. Chair's province of New Brunswick, had their number of members reduced. Ontario's number of seats was significantly reduced.
I have noted a pattern in my historical review of seat distribution since Confederation. I noticed that, if a province is loud enough in voicing its displeasure with a situation, it has a good chance of obtaining something — not everything it is asking for, but at least something. All I am trying to say is that the process that is nearing its end now is fairly middle of the road. That was confirmed when certain provinces joined Confederation. They asked for a lot more seats than what they had the right to based on their population. Their requests were granted. In 1915, Prince Edward Island obtained the senatorial clause. In 1946, Quebec was given a new formula that reflected its demographic weight more accurately. In 1951, as some of you may recall, Saskatchewan was given the 15 per cent clause that would help it deal with its demographic decline.
The current process confirmed that rule. Ontario and Quebec protested, and some of their requests were granted.
I did not like — by the way, what I am saying is not at all addressed to anyone around this table or in the government — certain media referring to Quebecers as "whiners" for defending their interests. People who use that kind of slander do not realize that, by doing so, they insult many more Canadians than they think. Regardless of where they live or the language they speak, Canadians tend to resist changes that put them at a disadvantage, and that is a fairly normal reaction.
I am from Quebec, so I looked at this from that perspective. However, that was not the only point of view I considered, and my general impression is that Quebec will not fare too badly with the projected reform, or at least it will fare a lot better than we might have thought at one time.
Bill C-20 is supposed to establish a new balance between the fair and equitable representation of the provinces whose population is growing more rapidly, and the effective representation of the smaller provinces and those whose population is growing less quickly. The figures suggest that the final balance is closest to the latter principle, the effective representation of small provinces and those whose population is growing less rapidly.
The three growing provinces account for 63 per cent — I am using whole numbers — of the 2011 population, and the current formula would have granted them 57 per cent of the seats. With the new formula, they will have 59 per cent of the seats. Therefore, we are still far from proportional representation in terms of total and absolute figures. Quebec will be represented in proportion to its population, and I see that as relatively acceptable.
The reform will disappoint those Quebecers who got caught up in the reform game and called for Quebec's representation to be frozen at 25 per cent of the total. That 25 per cent, by the way, is not at all something Quebec has traditionally asked for, as some have been claiming. The freeze was mentioned for the first time during the Charlottetown accord discussions. Two individuals are believed to have been the source of the idea. The first is Mr. Mulroney, who states that the idea was his in his memoirs. The second is Mr. Romanow, from Saskatchewan, who is the author of the formula according to another source. No one in Quebec had asked for that. The reason Quebec obtained the freeze was that it was supposed to lose a hefty 25 per cent of its Senate seats. To make up for that loss, the government guaranteed the province would have 25 per cent of the House of Commons seats. This 25 per cent guarantee is obviously very interesting, but why was it not 30 per cent or 35 per cent? I have compared that proposal with what has taken place in other democratic federations, and I have not found any solid arguments to support this idea. No democratic federations guarantee a large province such a major privilege of having its representation frozen at a percentage that is higher than its population percentage.
What is more troubling and significant is that multilingual or multinational federations — which are perhaps the most relevant in terms of comparison — do not favour a province based only on the language spoken there. As far as lower house representation goes, the Scottish and Catalan nations, which are often mentioned in Quebec, do not have any privileges stemming from the lone fact that they are nations. On the contrary, the Catalan nationality is actually underrepresented in the Spanish Congress of Deputies. Scotland, which is now recognized as a nation within the United Kingdom, had its representation reduced in the British House of Commons once it became a nation within the United Kingdom.
Therefore, there are not really any examples to support the reasoning whereby Quebecers must absolutely be granted such a major privilege only because they speak a different language. However, that does not mean that Canada should not be careful when dealing with Quebec.
In closing, I would have honestly preferred the status quo, as it favoured my province by treating it like other provinces with a declining population instead of by singling out its cultural uniqueness. However, the final compromise is better in terms of that than the previous two proposals put forward in the last five years. I would not have been against the 308 formula, put out a few weeks ago, being examined more in depth. I thought it contained some worthwhile elements, but I realize that the process is very close to being completed.
Thank you. I am now ready to answer your questions.
[Français]
The Chair: Thank you very much, professor. Mr. Mendelsohn.
Matthew Mendelsohn, Director, Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation, University of Toronto, as an individual: Thank you for having me, and thank you to the clerk for facilitating my participation here. I, too, have been involved with this issue for a number of years. As deputy minister for intergovernmental affairs in Ontario, we dealt with Bill C-56 and Bill C-22, earlier iterations of this version, which were discriminatory against people in Ontario. We also dealt with the earlier iteration of this Bill C-20, which inadvertently had some problems for the people of Quebec.
I personally find that the current legislation is a very good balance and compromise among a number of important Canadian principles. I find the legislation moderate and balanced, and it tries to balance three competing principles: First, the principle of voter equality, representation by population, and adding seats to quickly growing provinces; second, the assurance for people who live in Quebec that their representation in the House of Commons will not fall below their proportion of the Canadian population; and, third, the protection of seats in smaller, more slowly growing provinces. Those three principles all come together in this piece of legislation. I think it is moderate and balanced. Speaking as an Ontarian, it would be better if we moved more aggressively towards the principle of rep by pop, but in this federation I think this piece of legislation represents a good balance between these various principles.
There are two issues, however, that people in this body and in the house will face moving forward, namely, what happens next time, in 10 years. The reality is that if current population growth continues to be concentrated in B.C., Alberta and Ontario, we will be dealing with the same issues again. We will continue to have to add more and more seats and at some point people will conclude the house is simply getting too large. However, we will have some flexibility. We may need to deal with the grandfather clause at some point and, as my colleague said, start to take seats away from provinces whose relative share of the population is in decline. Inherently, there is nothing wrong with that, but we may reach the limits of that pretty soon because, other than dealing with the grandfather clause, it is highly unlikely that we will deal with the Senate clause, which would require full-scale opening of the Constitution and the consent by smaller provinces to see their share of the House of Commons decline even further. I do not think that is a realistic option.
We will face, whether in 10 years or in 20 years, a situation where we will need to deal with the grandfather clause but, more substantially as these issues arise again, we will have to deal with limits in the Constitution and limits in the size of the house.
The second issue that I would like to highlight, which I think is very important, is that in all of the commentary around this bill — and here I will quote the minister who introduced it — "the principle of voter equality in representation by population is an important one. That is why we need to ensure we have a seat allocation formula that, to the greatest extent possible, provides equal weight to every Canadian's vote."
In the debates in the House of Commons, we could pull out similar quotes from a variety of different members from different parties who have made similar comments that the principle of voter equality that every Canadian's vote should have equal weight is a foundational principle of Canadian democracy. This came up time and time again in the discussions. Yet, this piece of legislation — while it deals with the distribution of seats between provinces in a reasonable way — does not move us much closer to the principle of voter equality and representation by population within provinces and between different ridings.
This bill continues to allow for deviations of plus or minus 25 per cent within provinces between ridings. Quite frankly, using the principles and the statements from the proponents of this legislation across the board who speak about voter equality, it is not voter equality just between provinces. It is voter equality between individual Canadians. This piece of legislation does not deal with the huge deviations between the sizes of ridings within provinces. That is increasingly a significant problem. To the extent that we have chosen to over-represent certain Canadians it is becoming very apparent that the Canadians who are under-represented are increasingly concentrated in suburban Canada, the GTA, visible minorities, Canadians who are not born here, and Canadians whose first language is neither English nor French. If we truly believe in the principles we have articulated around this piece of legislation around voter equality, in the future we need to move toward the emerging consensus in provinces — Manitoba, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Newfoundland — but also internationally in the United Kingdom. Increasingly in legislation, they are saying that riding sizes cannot deviate by more than 5 per cent or 10 per cent from the average with some quite specific and legislatively defined exceptions for vast northern ridings.
Moving forward it is an issue that we have to deal with. Increasingly we recognize who is overrepresented and who is under-represented. This will become a larger problem moving forward.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Mr. Mendelsohn.
[Traduction]
Senator Fraser: Mr. Massicotte, if I have understood correctly, you would have preferred to keep 308 members, but you think that the train has already left the station?
Mr. Massicotte: Frankly, I personally would have preferred to have 315 members and keep the formula that is currently still in the constitutional legislation. I say that as a Quebecer, since that is a formula whereby all the provinces in demographic decline — including Quebec — are over-represented.
But I realize that this was not done. By the way, when the legislation passed, I was close enough to confirm that no one said that Quebec must absolutely be favoured in that operation.
This formula has now been applied to three redistributions. The discrepancies that were originally not very significant have become more extensive and are bound to get worse, to the point where the very principle of representation based on population could be compromised. I think that the formula has become vulnerable to legal recourse.
Option 308 set out an interprovincial imbalance that was almost equal to the one proposed in Bill C-20, but with 308 members instead of 338. If we could reach the same objective with 30 fewer deputes, that option may be preferable.
Senator Fraser: We have been provided with the figures. Annually, 30 members will cost taxpayers $19.3 million. For a rich, growing country, those are just crumbs, but during times of economic restraint, we are not talking about crumbs but rather a whole slice of the pie.
Mr. Massicotte: I did not read a small paragraph of my opening remarks. I was thinking that, if by chance — and let us hope that this will not happen — a global economic crisis were to take place and lead to a period of financial hardship, things would get tricky. I read in the New York Times an article written by an economist whose reputation is worthy of the Nobel Prize. The article said that, to put it bluntly, we were no longer in a recession but rather a depression. I hope that he was wrong.
However, if such a situation does materialize in a few months, we may wonder whether increasing the number of members was the right decision.
I want to point out that, during the 1990s, five Canadian provinces decided to reduce their number of members. In addition, in Germany — another country I am very familiar with because I studied its electoral system — the number of members in the Bundestag went from 323 to 299, and almost all the provincial assemblies had their size similarly reduced.
There is a trend there. When people are faced with budget cuts, it is not so hard, from a public relations perspective, to get people to accept certain restrictions. It may not be a bad idea to at least stabilize the number of members and perhaps reduce it.
Having said that, I am honestly not going to threaten to set myself on fire if the number of MPs goes up. I am not that much against Parliament.
[Français]
Senator Fraser: Mr. Mendelsohn, you demonstrate a fine understanding of the difficulty of balancing the many competing forces and strains in this country. However, you end up saying that we have to move much closer to one vote is the equivalent of one vote no matter where you live. That will so dramatically shift the whole centre of political gravity of the Commons west. Sure, the centre of political gravity has to reflect where the people are, but what is that going to do if we move to one vote is the equivalent of one vote? What will that do to the vast reach of the country that lies east of the Ottawa River? What will be the political impact of that?
Mr. Mendelsohn: I do not think that the comment about reducing the deviations within provinces will have any impact on the distribution of power between East and West.
Senator Fraser: I am sorry I misunderstood you. I thought I heard you say that it had to be not only within provinces but across the board.
Mr. Mendelsohn: No. Maybe I misspoke, senator. This piece of legislation clearly deals with the delicate balance of representation by population and voter equality between provinces. It does not deal with deviations in constituent size within provinces. It is not a question of East, West or Centre. It is a question of which voters within provinces that have greater voice, less voice, more power on who forms government, or less power. Within provinces like New Brunswick, Manitoba and Saskatchewan they are moving with some balance toward a principle of greater voter equality. Yes, there are differences between people in Winnipeg and smaller communities in Manitoba, but they are finding a way to balance that. They are not finding that voters in Winnipeg need to live in ridings that are much more populous than ridings outside of Winnipeg for example.
They define specific exemptions for remote or Northern communities. We recognize they have exceptional needs.
Senator Fraser: I apologize. I have used up my second question, so you will have to put me down for a second round.
The Chair: Continue with your original question.
Senator Fraser: It is sort of the same and it is a question that just perturbs me. At what point, if we go on increasing the number of seats in the House of Commons, do we have to say, wait a minute, stop, this is too many?
Mr. Mendelsohn: I do not have an answer to that. I think the proposal from your party deals with that in a different way; it starts to take seats away from provinces that are in relative decline more quickly.
However, I would say that the nature of the country and the nature of population growth right now mean that whether it is this time or next time, in 10 years or maybe in 20 years, we will have to deal head on with the question you ask. One can take seats away that have been guaranteed through the grandfather clause, but at some point, you cannot take any more seats away. Then we are in a situation where we probably would have significantly larger ridings in Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario than we have elsewhere. We may be back to where we are today.
I do not have a problem adding more seats intellectually, conceptually or theoretically, but you are right that at some point, we may hit that issue.
Mr. Massicotte: I think there is absolutely no scientific rule that decides how large or small a legislature should be. It is a trade-off between competing principles.
My favourite example is the state houses in the United States. There are 50 of them. At one extreme, you have California, the largest state, with a population larger than Canada's, which has 80 seats in their lower house.
If you move closer to us, to New Hampshire, that lovely state of 1 million or 1.5 million has a lower house of 400 members. It looks very impressive, but when you scratch the surface and you look at all the advantages that members of both legislative bodies have, you realize that the lawmakers of New Hampshire are paid the whopping sum of $200 a year for their duty. They are part-time legislators, they are almost volunteers and as you can expect in such a large body, they have minimal services.
If you go back on the shores of the Pacific, in Sacramento the members of the House of Representatives are paid a whopping salary and they also have a great many facilities at their disposal. I think increasing the number of people was one the concerns of the members in 1985 when they passed the law that limited increases in the size of the house. They realized that if their numbers increased, we would have 360 of them if the law had not been changed — or maybe beyond that. Probably the individual member would end up with less advantages than they have at present.
The Chair: I have a supplementary to that, Professor Massicotte. Senator Fraser's comment highlights some of what we heard yesterday on the state of federalism we have in Canada, as it represents itself with our House of Commons and the number of members we have. We are dealing with an arithmetic calculation today, but that is not the basis of how we got to where we are.
When I listen to what you are saying, it reminds me that in comparing one jurisdiction to that — which is what we always do and should always do — it seems there are differences from one country to another and the basis upon which those countries have created what they have.
When I think of Canada in particular, being from the province of New Brunswick, we of course benefit from the Senate floor clause and the grandfather clause. I guess I would give credit to the Fathers of Confederation and to Tilley, at the time, who negotiated it; that was part of the understanding to bring New Brunswick into the Confederation. I simply say it is not just looking at numbers when we are assessing and analyzing where our country is at today; there is a deep history that makes up this federalism that we have.
To me, it would seem that must be taken into account. We cannot ignore the history or the fabric that has created the strength and the diversity this country has. Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. Massicotte: I fully agree with this; the weight of history is very important in the case of Canadian Senate, in particular.
I used to tell my students that the two main engines of constitutional change are wars that were lost and revolutions that were successful. For better or worse, we had neither. In many countries, there is some major cataclysm at some moment, some stage, and the outcome is that the whole political order is realigned. Many historical peculiarities are eliminated at that time.
We have to live with a different environment. On the whole, I think we have been luckier than many others.
The Chair: I would agree with that.
Senator Runciman: I will start off with Mr. Mendelsohn. With respect to Ontario, you are supportive of the way Ontario is being treated in this. I think we had a witness yesterday who felt that under this legislation, Ontario was still perhaps not getting the representation that it merits. Do you have any comment with respect to that?
Mr. Mendelsohn: First, thank you for your engagement in this issue in a previous professional existence.
I think there is no doubt that Canadians in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia will continue to carry the burden of overrepresentation so that Quebecers do not have to carry it for smaller provinces and Canadians in more slowly growing provinces. Canadians in Ontario will clearly not have rep by pop. There is no doubt about it; this represents a balance.
Earlier commentary over the last year, often in the public domain, talked about how this legislation was flawed because we were putting too much focus on rep by pop and voter equality and ignoring other Canadian values. This legislation does not ignore other Canadian values; it does not deliver rep by pop or voter equality for Canadians in Ontario, Alberta and B.C. They will continue to, in general, have ridings that are larger than ridings elsewhere. That is not just urban areas; that means ridings in small town Ontario will be larger than ridings in small town Manitoba.
Based purely on principles of voter equality, that is probably not right. However, this legislation represents a balance, a variety of historical issues; and in this legislation, people in Ontario are being treated the same as people in B.C. and Alberta.
When I was in the Ontario government, that was a particularly important principle — that the under-representation of people in Ontario is dealt with the same as the under-representation of people in B.C. and Alberta. This legislation is formula driven and treats those Canadians the same way.
Senator Runciman: Given your past life and your support of the formula, there is an option in Ontario, as you know, with respect to the boundaries and the impact this will have on Ontario in terms of the legislature. I am not sure if you can comment on this now that the changes are before us in the legislation, but do you have any suspicion as to how the Ontario government may respond?
Mr. Mendelsohn: I think you know if I did have any suspicion or insider knowledge, I would not be sharing it at this point. The Mowat Centre does particularly well when we focus on federal issues and how they affect Ontario. Our long-term longevity as an institution does poorly when we comment on provincial issues.
I would say, as you and others here know, Ontario is the only province that does not do a provincial boundary commission. Ontario simply mirrors federal electoral boundaries, so the process of drawing boundaries federally that will ensue from this legislation is obviously important here in this city and to all Canadians, but takes on more significance in Ontario because it does not just affect the working life and boundaries of federally elected officials, but also provincially elected officials.
There have been, since the time when you were in government, regular discussions about whether Ontario should reintroduce a provincial electoral boundary commission. I have no idea what they will do, but there is a cost associated with that. It is very easy and inexpensive for Ontario simply to mirror the federal boundaries, once those are defined. Given the situation in Ontario right now, I am not sure there will be a huge push to create new cost pressures, but I do not know.
Senator Runciman: Senator Frum was emphasizing the fragility of the federation. Yesterday one of our witnesses from Saskatchewan was making the case with respect to any reduction in the number of seats in the House of Commons and he was tying it into bigger change, if you will, with respect to the under-representation in the upper chamber. He suggested that there would be more openness to that kind of change in terms of the representation in the house if there was recognition or a commitment to adequate representation in the upper chamber and tying those two together. Have you any comments on that?
Mr. Mendelsohn: I would just say quickly that part of the reason that the relative overrepresentation, particularly of Manitoba, Saskatchewan and Atlantic Canada, is more acceptable in Canada than it may be in some other federations, is the challenge of the upper house in acting as a democratic voice for the regions. I definitely think there is a balance there that is struck.
If one were to ever move forward with robust Senate reform that imbued the Senate with more democratic legitimacy, and hence more power and provided more regional representation, I think the trade-off would have to be even more aggressive rep by pop in the House of Commons.
Partially our acceptance of overrepresentation of Atlantic Canada and the Prairies is I think, in part, due to a recognition that the Senate, given its nature, does not really fulfil the role of strong representation of the regions as upper houses do in other federations.
Mr. Massicotte: I similarly believe that the supporters of absolute rep by pop are doomed to fail, to some extent, because they do not understand that in a federation the issue of representation cannot be envisaged in simple terms as in a unitary state.
A federation, as I see it, is an association of individuals of course, but it is also an association of collectivity. To go back to Philadelphia when the framers of the U.S. Constitution had to devise the federal legislature, some people said it is rep by pop. It is one person, we are in the spirit of equality and we are a republic. Every individual should be worth another individual.
Then you had the other people from the smaller states saying, wait a minute, we are also an association of 13 states. They came up with a compromise, and if they had copyrights on the issue they would have made a fortune because it was widely copied in the world. The principle of rep by pop prevailed in one house, but the principle of equality of collectivity prevailed in the other. It was a fine balance. When you look at it, because both houses were equal in legislative powers, the small states had negotiated very well and had been very effective.
As a committed democrat, one of the lessons I derived from my comparative study of foreign federations is that Canada looks quite unequal and unfair. I can understand the reaction of some friends from other provinces who were mistreated by the existing formula.
Another thing that struck me is that in most of those other federations where rep by pop is very strictly followed, far stricter than ours, you always have a second house where seats are apportioned on a different basis and which is in a position, for better or for worse, to exercise a very effective check on the lower house.
This has to be taken into account. Senate reform may be the key to rep by pop eventually being fully applied in the House of Commons.
The Chair: That may be a topic for another day.
Senator Dawson: When you come back on the issue of the Senate the same members will probably be here, unless they actually resign after eight years, but I do not want to get into that debate. We are not supposed to bring up subjects that are not on the agenda.
[Traduction]
Professor Massicotte, like any good student, I did my research because I did not want a professor to criticize me for not doing it. I must tell you that Mr. Massicotte was teaching at Laval University when I was a student in political science. I am older than him but he was my professor back then.
This time, I did my homework and I checked what you said in the other chamber, as you call it. There are some topics that you have not brought up today, including comparing the estimates used to determine the seat distribution. That is a topic I would like you to expand on.
I also went over the document where you compare Bill C-12 and Bill C-20. What is the difference you see between the negative effects of Bill C-12 and the more positive effects of Bill C-20?
As you must know, we are in favour of what you call the "308 formula," so as to keep some distance. But that is Mr. Dion's position, of course. We are definitely going to discuss the issue when we proceed to the clause-by-clause consideration.
You are saying that it has been 100 years since the Americans decided to stop at 435 representatives in the House. Could you tell us about this? I will then have other questions for Mr. Mendelsohn.
Mr. Massicotte: That is quite the list. I actually recall vividly when Senator Dawson was a student and I had the feeling, so to speak, that he would become a senator. I see that he has done his homework and he is asking all the right questions.
I did raise questions about using the estimates, and this is what a member of the official opposition told me: "You did not have a chance to study them." Let me remind you that the idea was for us to become the only federation to do those types of calculations based on population estimates rather than on raw numbers from the census.
I admit that I was a bit intrigued since I have not heard of any other country doing that. And I looked at the two previous iterations of the government legislation, Bill C-56 and Bill C-12, and they did not provide for it either. I thought about it and I realized that yes, using population estimates slightly played against Quebec, among others, but it was a question of a few decimal places.
Apparently, the people responsible for the file at Statistics Canada made a presentation that managed to convince and reassure the MPs, including a member of the official opposition who mentioned it to me. That is why I did not edit the comments I had made without studying the estimates.
The statements made by the Statistics Canada officials were not available when I spoke. That is the answer to the question on using the estimates. Yes, I think the current bill is better than Bill C-12. The difference in the total number of MPs is not that big. It is more or less the same. The real difference is in the way Quebec is treated. As a result of Bill C-12, Quebec was under-represented by a whole percentage point. Given that the drop was from a higher place than others, I did not think it was desirable. In the current bill, there are three classes of members: members from the three fast-growing provinces, members from the six provinces experiencing a decline — those two categories are over- or under-represented — and then we have Quebec right in the middle, being treated more or less fairly. So Bill C-12 was clearly not treating Quebec as well as the current bill. What was your last point? I am sorry, I did not jot it down.
Senator Dawson: You are going to get a bad mark. Public debate. But I have another one, if you wish.
You talked about public debate, consultation and the white papers that introduced the previous legislation in 1974, 1985. Unfortunately, I was not there in 1985; I had returned to the private sector. It is the nice way of saying that I lost.
When you were working on the bill, you relied on a white paper like the one from 1974. Mr. Andrew Sancton, one of the professors who appeared before us yesterday, told us that 308 seats was a good concept, but it cannot be done just with a few amendments. Is it not our duty as a parliamentary committee to ask what the public thinks about setting a limit? You said that it has been 100 years since a limit was set. That is my third point. Could you talk about the two points, the consultation and the 100 years?
Mr. Massicotte: The American experience does in fact indicate that there has been a limit since 1911. We are in 2011 now. We can see the effect over 100 years. I am speaking from memory, but the changes in the U.S. have been quite significant. Going by the numbers in my head, Texas went from 18 to 36 in the span of a century. The state of New York plummeted from 43 to 29. Florida obviously went up; I think it more than doubled. The U.S. does not have a problem with that. That is what strikes me. There is no major drama about it. I suspect that the reason why they accept it so easily is because they readily accept the principle of equality among individuals as being the main factor. The Senate applies the principle of equality of communities. So smaller states are told they cannot complain because they are the equals of California. The people of Wyoming are told that, with one million inhabitants, they are equals with California in the Senate. But please, let them not complain if they only have one representative for that whole big state.
If we were to consult Canadians on the issue, I think it would be the same as when we consult Canadians on the salaries of parliamentarians. Parliamentarians are always overpaid and there are always too many of them. That is why we always say that, if you want to talk about the salaries of parliamentarians, you have to keep two things in mind. One is to address it right after an election rather than right before it, and the second thing is to do so when the economy is thriving, not when the government is in a tight spot. I recall, and you must too, a provincial government in the 1980s that slashed the salaries of public servants by 20 per cent. But, at the same time, it had to increase the salaries of parliamentarians, which had actually been maintained at a very low level for a very long time. I can assure you that people in Quebec City, where I live now, still remember that.
I heard about a poll — I was not able to take a look, it was published in The Hill Times — that said that Canadians were not keen on the idea of increasing the number of seats. I have seen other polls before to the same effect. I think the public reaction is predictable. Having said that, will that really rub many people the wrong way? As I watch the debate that has been unfolding over the past few weeks, I highly doubt it. The bill that was referred to you could have become the Many More Politicians Act, as I heard people call it. But I do not get the feeling that this is what is being discussed around the dinner table right now.
[Français]
Senator Dawson: I have a supplementary for Mr. Mendelsohn. It is really short. The pragmatic reality of having to deal, in a minority government, with the fact that we will be tinkering with the electoral map federally, would be to raise the number of members of the Ontario legislature. The decision was taken years ago, when you were there, to lower the number. What do you think is a pragmatic way that Ontario can deal with the fact that, in a minority situation, they could have an election before we are finished playing with our map? How do you handle, from a pragmatic and conceptual point of view, that conflict between both electoral maps?
[Traduction]
Mr. Mendelsohn: It is quite possible that the legislation in Ontario will be in existence at the time of the next provincial election. The current legislation governing electoral borders is in effect and it will continue to exist until a new act establishes new borders. Practically, it seems a little complex when the situation is in flux. But I have spoken to a number of Ontario parliamentarians and everyone tells me that I should be very confident that the election will be held with the current borders.
[Français]
Senator Meredith: Thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn and Mr. Massicotte, for your presentations today. I found them very enlightening. You have a grasp of this information that we are going over today. I think it is important that we are — given the eleventh hour here — still prepared as we move forward into further deliberation on this bill.
Mr. Massicotte, you indicated that you were kind of supportive of the status quo. We had Mr. Pal before us yesterday. He indicated that Bill C-20 appears to be a fair balance. Quebec moves from 75 to 78 seats. Can you elaborate for me on how we may have looked at the 308 formula more closely?
Mr. Massicotte: There was no public discussion, as far as I understand, nothing in-depth. The documents were not examined. I would have preferred, for example, that the full figures be made available, not only for this census but also for the next two censuses, to see how it would evolve in the longer term.
My understanding is that it had been so difficult for the government to figure out a formula that would be acceptable to as many people as possible that they decided to settle on this one, which had been painfully arrived at. It is their choice.
As I said, I am not dead-on against politicians or for increasing their numbers; I know how important they are. However, I would have indeed liked this option to be explored to know, for example, if the government itself had explored that possibility. We know very little about various scenarios that were considered by the government to do with that idea.
In the experience of the 1970s, when Mr. MacEachen went with his five scenarios, you had an idea of what the options were and you had a wider range to select from. I suppose those were other days, other ways.
Senator Meredith: You alluded to the fact that the squeaky wheel gets more grease.
Mr. Mendelsohn, you also talked about this in terms of the increase in the seats going forward 10 years, that the smaller provinces could sort of scream, "We do not want you to remove any seats," if we come to that, or say, "We need additional seats." Can you elaborate for us a little more on that? How do you see that playing out?
Mr. Massicotte: It is absolutely impossible to predict elections now, in the present context, especially six months in advance. That is literally the situation. Envisaging what it would be 10 years from now is a tall order indeed.
I will simply say that the reasonable assumption seems to be that the trends we have been witnessing over the past 40 years will probably continue to exist. There have been a lot of censuses where the pattern is exactly the same. You have the well-to-do provinces of Canada, or the provinces that are doing well economically and that are increasing their population, not only in absolute numbers but in relation to the whole, and you have a more stagnant Canada. This is the pattern, and the gap continues to increase. I expect that a few years from now, the faster-growing provinces will come forward and ask for the formula to be changed.
Senator Meredith: I have two short questions. Mr. Mendelsohn, you contributed to the Mowat Centre and you looked at the under-representation of Canadians. Can you elaborate for us as to what those findings were with the Mowat Centre?
Mr. Mendelsohn: Sure. We have done three pieces of work on this issue. The first was by Andrew Sancton, who presented yesterday. He concluded that the deviations from the principle of rep by pop in Canada today are larger than they have ever been in our history. That was a historical piece.
I had done a piece that compared Canada to other federations. I accept most of what my colleague Mr. Massicotte has said about the fact that part of the reason Canada moves further away from rep by pop than others is because of a more democratically legitimate upper house in other federations, but nonetheless we are quite an outlier in terms of our deviation from rep by pop comparatively.
The most recent piece, which we did this summer, tried to find a balance among a variety of different considerations. One of the things that was important from that piece was to again remind Canadians that when we overrepresent some Canadians, we are under-representing others.
Senator Meredith: Could you talk to us a little about that? In your paper, some are more equal than others.
Mr. Mendelsohn: At the end of the day, in Canada right now, we often have this idea that urban ridings are big and rural ridings are small, in terms of population. Obviously, geographically they are. In terms of population, urban ridings are more populous and rural ridings are less populous. That is clearly true.
However, what is going in places like southwestern Ontario — but also, to a lesser extent, the Lower Mainland and the Calgary-Edmonton corridor — is that you are increasingly having population growth that is suburban, neither urban or rural. I get the idea that Kapuskasing or Moosonee need to have a smaller population than a Toronto riding, but I do not see why a Toronto riding downtown should have a smaller riding than Markham or Bramalea or Brampton, which is what is going on right now.
That is why we have argued that boundary commissions, when they are given a large leeway in terms of deviations, which are permissible, of plus or minus 25 per cent, they are taking advantage of that. We should give stricter marching orders to the boundary commissions so that the Brampton, Bramalea or Markham ridings — you can go down the list — are not significantly larger than the downtown ridings or the Kingston, Windsor or North Bay ridings.
Senator Frum: I would like to continue with the idea about Markham and Bramalea, because I am also from Ontario, so I care about this very much. I appreciate the idea that we will now get greater voter equality, because of Bill C-20, in the area where I am from. This is potentially a bit of a tangent, but I am curious whether you have any sense about the connection. We obviously have a problem in this country with voter participation. What feeling do you have, if any, about what happens when you increase voter equality? Does that help with voter participation? Perhaps Professor Massicotte might also comment. Do we have any data in those ridings where there is over-representation? Do we seek greater voter participation?
Mr. Mendelsohn: I do not think there is any connection. To follow up on Senator Meredith's question, those ridings that are particularly populous are not just populous in terms of the number of citizens who actually have the right to vote, but the ridings we are talking about are heavily populated by new Canadians of non-Northern European heritage. Many of them are also quite populous with residents who are not voters, who are not Canadian citizens, but who still have a variety of different issues that representatives often have to deal with, whether that is the casework of representation or simply articulating the issues around immigration, refugees, et cetera. However, I do not think there is a connection with turnout, not that I have seen.
Mr. Massicotte: A lot of good arguments may be made in favour of voter equality, but projected increases in voter turnout are certainly not one of them. I have reviewed all the literature on this, and there is not an iota of evidence that suggests there is a rational connection between both.
Senator Jaffer: Thank you. I found your presentations very interesting. Listening yesterday to our last panel, and also listening to you this morning, the idea that comes to my mind is about voices of representation.
Mr. Mendelsohn, you spoke about the numbers from a Toronto riding. Yesterday, the minister said to us that West Brampton had 211,000, and I do not know what the Toronto numbers are. Even within the provinces, the voices are not equally represented.
What goes through my head is that obviously the smaller provinces must have the members of Parliament because they need the numbers here to represent them. However, there will come a time when the big ridings with the visible minorities, as they get more integrated, will say, "What about us? How long will we be under-represented?"
Looking ahead 10 years from now, how long will we be able to get away with visible minorities being under- represented?
Mr. Mendelsohn: I hope not very long, and we do not have to accept that. The fact is, as I mentioned, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland and Labrador have all defined in legislation that you cannot have deviations of more than 5 per cent, or 10 per cent in some cases. That creates ridings that are much closer in population. Therefore, you do not have the Bramaleas or the Bramptons with 170,000 or 180,000 people, when the average riding population in the province is 100,000 or 110,000 people.
This is something that can be easily fixed through legislation. Clearly, I understand the nature of this legislative process, and there will not be an amendment, I would imagine, this go-round. However, it is something that one can fix.
The fact that it is permissible does not mean it has to be accepted. The fact that boundary commissions are allowed to deviate plus or minus 25 per cent does not mean they have to deviate by plus or minus 25 per cent. Now this moves into a much more public or political discussion as boundary commissions get formed through this legislation.
You mentioned visible minorities. I think it is an issue for new Canadians and visible minorities in communities like the GTA and in the Lower Mainland to be just as vigilant when the boundary commissions come around in terms of making presentations, saying that they do not want under-representation any longer. Many Canadians are quite vigilant, and they make presentations to boundary commissions, and boundary commissions listen to those views. I think it is a question for Canadians who are under-represented in these very large populous ridings to engage on the issue and, through engagement, not only is their voice heard during that process, but I do think boundary commissions will have to listen. It will mean that, moving forward, the difference between a riding in Kingston and a riding in Trinity-Spadina, which right now are both much less populous than Brampton, will no longer be much less populous than a riding in Brampton.
Senator Jaffer: If I understand you correctly, are you saying that if we stuck to the 5 per cent deviation, that would help?
Mr. Mendelsohn: Definitely. Then the average riding size may be 108,000 or 111,000. There would be an electoral quotient set, and the boundaries for the ridings could not deviate by more than 5 or 10 per cent from that. They could be a bit higher or lower, but they could not get up to these huge populous ridings.
However, I point out that in cases like Brampton and Bramalea, part of the reason they are that large is that they have experienced very high population growth since the last distribution. What also goes on is that there are places, for example, in the GTA, in suburban Ontario but also the Lower Mainland, where you draw the boundaries and wait 10 years before the next one. There are some areas that are experiencing high population growth. When Brampton and Bramalea were drawn a decade ago, they were not at 170,000.
Mr. Massicotte: I would point out that until the mid 1970s, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act included a provision that instructed boundary commissioners to take into account the projected rate of increase of the population. That was eliminated at the initiative of Mr. John Reid at that time. He was a private member. You know this kind of provision allowed boundary commissioners to avoid precisely the kind of situation you find offensive, namely that it would be possible to create, in suburban areas, ridings with smaller populations lower than the average, if we have conclusive evidence that they are likely to increase quickly over the ensuing time period.
Senator Jaffer: That is very useful. We are talking about Toronto a lot, which is probably because we have had a lot of witnesses from Toronto and none from my province. Does Montreal face the same issue? We have not talked much about that.
Mr. Massicotte: Canadians have a lot more in common than people believe. The situation in Montreal is much like the situation in Toronto, and there are Montrealers with experience to confirm this. The Island of Montreal is relatively stable, and the core of the island is declining, which is exactly the same as in Toronto, but you should see on the north shore or the south shore of Montreal — it is exploding because people are apparently willing to drive for over an hour if they can pay a smaller amount for their house. It is basically essentially the same situation.
[Traduction]
Senator Boisvenu: Thank you, Mr. Mendelsohn. Mr. Massicotte, it is a pleasure to listen to you. You really are a good teacher.
It is true that we could give some thought to over-government in Canada, with the federal government, the provincial governments, the municipalities and often the school boards. In Quebec, there are regional councils, called MRCs. We really could consider that question and it will be a critical exercise in the medium term. The bill before us more or less comes to a consensus on "fairness".
Could you educate me a little about Germany? You stated earlier that the Bundestag had reduced its representation.
Mr. Massicotte: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: Did Germany also reduce the number of states represented in the federal parliament? Were the size of the federal government and the sizes of the state governments reduced at the same time in Germany?
Mr. Massicotte:Not in a coordinated way. For the Bundestag, the lower house of parliament, the decision was made in 1998. The government of the time was social democrat, though sometimes people think that reducing the size of a legislative assembly is a conservative measure. This time, it was a centre-left coalition that decided to reduce the size of the assembly. It went from about 660 seats to about 598, with still the possibility of more. As for the states, to my knowledge, they decided individually whether and when to reduce their numbers.
One of the differences in Germany is the fact that party apparatus is very strong as it affects backbench members of the parliament. People familiar with the situation there have told me that the parties organize real schools for their members. As a result, the members are literally in the palm of the leader's hand. If the party leaders happened to say in their wisdom that the size of parliament had to be reduced by 20 per cent because it would be popular with voters, the backbenchers would tend to fall in line and accept the decision, despite the possible negative consequences for their own future careers.
In our case, I suspect that members of Parliament have a stronger local base. When I mentioned that members of Parliament are made of stronger stuff, that is what I was referring to. Their situation is more difficult.
I have watched a number of debates on electoral reform; I have noticed that, when these kinds of matters are under discussion, it is the members of Parliament who really have to be convinced, however often we unfairly describe them as slaves to the party line.
Senator Boisvenu: Has there been any kind of resistance in Germany? Was representation reduced in Germany at the same time as a proportional redistribution or rebalancing?
Mr. Massicotte: The second question you asked, about redistributing seats among the states, the länder, does not arise because proportional representation in its strictest form is paramount there. The small states have no minimum number. And if you lose population, you lose seats. If the voters in one state take part in an election in smaller numbers than the national average, it means that you lose seats too. Proportional representation in Germany is an absolutely core value that they deviate from very rarely.
Senator Boisvenu: Mr. Mendelsohn, I am not sure whether the question has already been put to you. Ontario uses the federal districts as the basis for its electoral districts, if I am not mistaken?
Mr. Mendelsohn: Yes.
Senator Boisvenu: So the option that has been put forward will cost you money.
Mr. Mendelsohn: Indeed, you could put the question in those terms. Obviously, as my colleague mentioned, you can cut the size of each member's staff, for instance. However, if Ontario does not change its Election Act, this bill will increase the number of MLAs in the province.
Senator Boisvenu: And you are not opposed to that?
Mr. Mendelsohn: No, I am not.
[Français]
The Chair: Senator Fraser, did you have a supplementary?
Senator Fraser: It could be disguised as a supplementary, but it is a real question. However, I would like to a chance to put it, so if you could add me.
The Chair: We are now on the second round, and we have you and Senator Dawson. As deputy chair, please lead off.
Senator Dawson: I will give her my space.
Senator Fraser: You are so sweet.
[Traduction]
Professor Massicotte, I was struck by your comment that if we increase the number of lawmakers, we can reduce the amount of resources allocated per person or per capita.
One resource, however, is not flexible, and that is time. I am not sure if you have studied the relationship between the number of lawmakers and the allocation of time. A few months ago, for example, I had the opportunity to attend a session of the European Parliament. I do not know how many hundreds of members there were in that room, but it was the biggest chamber of parliament I had ever had the privilege of seeing. It was massive, almost as big as a stadium.
There are often limits on how long members can speak — actually, that is more the rule. Members can have as little as 30 seconds to speak. And that is not to ask a question, but to have their say on the budget, for instance. It is common practice for them to have 30 seconds or a minute. That, too, affects a lawmaker's ability to represent their constituents, does it not? Have you ever looked into that aspect?
Mr. Massicotte: I must admit that I have never conducted an official scientific study on that. I would say it only makes sense that as you increase the number of members, you decrease each member's opportunity to be heard in proportion. Being part of a smaller legislature is often an advantage.
What intrigues me is one of the comments I often hear about the American states. People say that there are only 25 senators and yet the House of Representatives has 150 members. But that is a huge advantage for them. Right off the bat, they are elected by a constituency that is much larger, so more financial resources are necessary. They have a higher status because they represent a very large constituency. Because there are so few of them but their legislative powers are equal to those of other chambers, it works to their advantage. The same explanation applies to the status of American senators versus that of members of the House of Representatives; there are just 100 of them and they are often the social and economic elite. Obviously, they wield a lot more influence individually than they would as members of the House of Representatives.
[Français]
The Chair: Colleagues, that concludes this portion of our consideration of Bill C-20. On your behalf I want to thank Professor Massicotte and Mr. Mendelsohn for the input you have given us. The background and experience you have on this topic was obvious and what you have had to say today has been very useful to us.
Honourable senators, we will continue with our review and consideration of Bill C-20. As you know, we have heard from all of the witnesses that we have scheduled to present to us on this bill.
Is it agreed that the committee proceed to clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and the Canada Elections Act?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, stand postponed?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 2 carry?
Senator Fraser: I would like to propose an amendment to clause 2 and there are copies available.
I move that Bill C-20 be amended in clause 2, on page 3, by replacing lines 4 and 5 with the following:
...population of Canada by three hundred and eight, by dividing the population of each province by the quotient so obtained and rounding up any".
[Traduction]
And in French, the motion reads, Que le projet de loi C-20 soit modifié à l'article 2, à la page 3, par substitution, à la ligne 4, de ce qui suit:
"Le quotient du chiffre obtenu par la division de la population du Canada par trois cents huit, le résultat final."
[Français]
I would like to speak to that when you consider it appropriate, chair.
The Chair: Yes. If we can perhaps just give everyone a chance to compare that to the bill so they understand the substance of your proposed amendment.
Colleagues, have you each had an opportunity to review Senator Fraser's proposed amendment?
Hon. Senators: Yes.
Senator Fraser: This amendment essentially reinstates a cap of 308 seats in the House of Commons. The subsequent series of amendments that I would propose would take care of the necessary reapportionment of seats, but what this would do would say that the reapportionment of seats in the House of Commons, while respecting the senatorial floor and the grandfather clause, basically, should also respect a maximum number of 308 seats.
We have heard from, I guess, six expert witnesses, not counting the official ones but the academics and whatnot, all of whom agree that sooner or later we have to face this issue and that we cannot go on forever bumping up the numbers of members of the House of Commons.
I would argue that if we have to do it sometime we might as well start now. I see three reasons, really, for starting now. One is that increasing the number of MPs will cost money, and arguably you might say that $19.3 million a year, which is nearly $80 million over the four-year cycle of a Parliament, is not a large amount of money, but it is a very large amount of money when everything else is being slashed. I think the people of Canada, on such evidence as we have, do not necessarily believe that politicians should be going on awarding more and more cash to themselves, call it collectively, while demanding that everybody else tighten their belts.
Second, doing it now would give us time to do what Professor Sancton suggested yesterday, which is have a debate on what would be the appropriate size of the House of Commons. I thought he made a good point, as was echoed by Professor Massicotte today, that there should be a public debate about this.
I do not see why we should first increase the size of the House of Commons and then have the debate. It seems perfectly logical to me to freeze the size of the House of Commons and have the debate, and then after that proceed to an increase if that seems to be, after considered public debate, the way to go.
My final reason for suggesting it is a good idea to put on a cap has to do with what I raised in my last question to Professor Massicotte. Already in the House of Commons you can see the time constraints that exist with only 308 MPs. They are sharply limited in the amount of time available to them to do anything, in committee and in the chamber. They just cannot fit everybody in during the 24 hours in a day. I believe that parliamentarians actually deserve more than two-minute slices of time in order to make their arguments and their points. The more people you add in, the worse it gets.
Therefore, I would propose that we put on a cap now and then have a proper public debate.
The Chair: Senator Fraser, a number of senators have comments or questions to make, but one that I would ask you is for the purposes of clarification. If this change were made, as you propose it, to cap the numbers at 308, there still would be, though, a readjustment in the seats but within the context of a 308 Parliament.
Senator Fraser: Yes, 308 rather than 338.
The Chair: Could you summarize for us and refresh our memories of what the consequence of that would be to the provinces as compared to the readjustment under Bill C-20?
Senator Fraser: It would mean the faster growing provinces would get more and the slower growing provinces might lose some. If you will give me time, I will search for them.
The Chair: It is important, if you have numbers and what the consequence would be to each province with a cap.
Senator Fraser: I have here my Bible, but I will ask my assistant to find the proper page in my Bible, if you do not mind, chair.
The Chair: Take your time.
Senator Fraser: My own province of Quebec would, as has been suggested, be one of the provinces that actually lost seats. However, the key point is that each province would continue to have and, in the case of faster growing provinces, would be in a better position to have proportional weight in the House of Commons. That province's proportion of the population of Canada would be more faithfully reflected in the House of Commons than it is now, in most cases. It is surely that which matters in the end.
If you have a 10-seat house and you have 1 seat in that house, you have 10 per cent of the seats. You have 10 per cent of the weight and the power. If you have a 50-seat house, and you have 2 seats in that house, you have twice as many seats as you would have had in a 10-seat house but, in fact, you only have 4 per cent of the power, the weight and the authority, if you will.
The key element is surely the proportion of seats rather than the absolute number of seats.
The Chair: I am not to debate that issue now, I understand that, but we have a lot of statistics and different proposals before us. I want to make certain that all the committee members understand the consequence for each of the provinces under your proposal versus Bill C-20.
Senator Fraser: Maybe you can let the debate continue and I will come back to that. No, here we are. With current seat distribution Ontario has 106 seats, and under this plan it would have 110. It now has 34.4 per cent of seats in the house, and this would take it to 35.71 per cent. Its population is 38.78 per cent.
The Chair: Ontario would gain four seats over its current situation.
Senator Fraser: Yes.
The Chair: Ontario would gain four seats under your proposal.
Senator Angus: It would gain in absolute seat numbers but also in percentage.
The Chair: My question deals only with the number of seats. Others may have other interests.
Senator Fraser: In Quebec, the status quo is 75 seats; under Bill C-20, 78; and under our plan 72.
The Chair: Quebec would lose three seats.
Senator Fraser: Yes. In British Columbia, the status quo is 36 seats; under Bill C-20, 42; and under my proposal, 38.
The Chair: B.C. would gain two seats.
Senator Fraser: Yes. In Alberta, the status quo is 28 seats; under Bill C-20, 34; and under my proposal, 31.
The Chair: Under your proposal, Alberta would gain three seats from 28 to 31.
Senator Fraser: Yes.
Senator Runciman: You are comparing with the current seats.
Senator Fraser: Yes: current number of seats versus number of seats under Bill C-20 versus number of seats under my proposal. I am giving you three sets of numbers.
Senator Runciman: I would like to know the difference between the numbers under Bill C-20 and what you propose, which is relevant here. The chair was emphasizing the former.
Senator Fraser: It is important to provide the three sets of numbers; and you can do with them as you will. I would like to deal with the percentages, but the chair has asked me to confine myself to the number of seats.
The Chair: I am easily confused so I like to deal with absolute numbers.
Senator Fraser: In Saskatchewan, the current number of seats is 14; under Bill C-20, 14; under my plan, 12. In Nova Scotia, the current number of seats is 11; under Bill C-20, 11; under my plan, 10. In New Brunswick, the current number of seats is 10; under Bill C-20 10; under my plan, 10.
In Newfoundland and Labrador, the current number of seats is 7; under Bill C-20, 7; under our plan, 6. In Prince Edward Island, the current number of seats is 4; under Bill C-20, 4; and under my plan, 4.
All the territories would remain unchanged at one seat each. I have to stress, chair, that provinces losing seats would not lose weight. For example, Nova Scotia, as compared to Bill C-20, under our plan would continue to have exactly the same percentage of seats in the House. Under Bill C-20, Nova Scotia would have 3.25 per cent of the seats in the House and under our plan it would still have 3.25 per cent of the seats in the House.
Senator Angus: Did you do Manitoba?
Senator Fraser: Did I skip Manitoba? I apologize. In Manitoba, the current number of seats is 14; under Bill C-20, 14; under our plan, 12.
The Chair: In comparing the number of seats the provinces currently have, your proposal would result in Manitoba and Saskatchewan each losing two seats; Nova Scotia and Newfoundland and Labrador losing one seat; and Quebec losing three. That is compared to what exists today. Senator Runciman raises another issue to compare your plan with Bill C-20. I turn to committee members for comment.
Senator Angus: I think it is all well and good that Senator Fraser's amendment grasps the nettle of what came out of last night's discussion that needs to be done some time. However, it totally ignores all the evidence we had that it is important that this bill be passed and that we get on with the process by February 8 or there will be a big schmozzle. There are a lot of what I would call "democratic reform issues" around this place that need to be addressed, and this is one of them. Last night it became quite clear that although Professor Sancton put it out there to make the point, when all the witnesses were examined and their views heard, it was found that they felt it was not timely to do it yet. I am not against a full review but I think right now it is very important that we pass this bill. I am speaking as clearly as I can against the amendment.
The Chair: Thank you, senator.
Senator Mercer: Chair, I think the amendment proposed by Senator Fraser is timely in the sense that people all over the world are trying to bring things into perspective. Indeed, Senator Runciman was a member of the Government of Ontario where they reduced the number of representatives. British Columbia held a major consultation with the public. We have not had that kind of consultation on a national scale. This is an appropriate time to put a halt to this because of the automatic process that the census triggers. This is a good time to stop and then take the next step and decide what we want to do and what resources are needed behind it. Quite frankly the world we live in today is much different from the world we lived in when we did the previous major redistribution and increased the number of seats significantly. Of course, that particularly applies to communication. It seems that it would be much better to go with Senator Fraser's plan and give those 308 MPs better resources to do their job and to be able to communicate with and serve their constituents rather than put more people in the House and limit their effectiveness. The more there are, the less influence they will have on the outcome and for the people that they represent.
Senator Runciman: It is refreshing to know that the members opposite on this committee are concerned in terms of restraint and expenditure control. It is quite different from my experience on the National Finance Committee. Hopefully, it will carry over to next year's budget.
I have to agree with Senator Angus that based on the testimony we have heard over the past day or so, with the one exception, they were clearly supportive of the proposed legislation. They felt it was a step in the right direction in addressing many of the existing inequities.
I indicated last night as well that at some time, the government of the day will have to come to grips with this whole issue of the appropriate or desired number of members of Parliament. I do not think that is an issue we have to confront at this stage.
As I understand, what has been outlined and supported here today is the second position of the Liberal Party. They were initially supportive, according to the press reports, of the government's initiatives on this and, for whatever reason, have come up with this proposed amendment. In terms of numbers, it is a stand-pat on the status quo proposal, although it negatively affects a number of provinces. We have not heard any criticism or shouts from the balcony from provinces with respect to Bill C-20. They are generally supportive across the country with respect to this initiative. Ontario, which I represent, was certainly concerned about the previous bill, but expressions since this bill was introduced have been generally positive around the province. I am not aware of any other concerns expressed in other jurisdictions across this country.
I think, with your suggested amendment here, Senator Fraser, there would be more than a few feathers ruffled. I am just wondering if your party has consulted with the provinces that would be negatively impacted by what you and your party are suggesting. If not, I think it would certainly not be appropriate to take a firm stand with respect to moving forward with what you are talking about. I have a strong suspicion that there would be a number of provinces, let alone the one you represent, that would be very upset with this initiative.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Runciman.
Senator Fraser: At some point, I will try to respond, at your convenience, chair.
The Chair: Perhaps we will hear all of the comments, and then you can deal with them together.
[Traduction]
Senator Boisvenu: I would say that I agree with the principle that, at some point, we will need to examine governance in Canada and in the provinces. I do not believe that the size of Parliament determines a member's influence or status. I would say that a member's influence is much more directly tied to their ability to represent their constituents, to represent a government, to take on a leadership role within a team. I believe that is what makes a member influential, not necessarily how many members there are.
From everything I have heard during the hearings, this proposal is good for Quebec; it protects a benefit, and that is very important for Quebec. To delay that and to restart the whole process on the basis of some other idea would, in my view, lead to a more negative outcome. So, for that reason, I will not support the proposed amendment.
[Français]
Senator Frum: I am very mindful of being here as a senator representing the province of Ontario. What we heard in our testimony is that, even with Bill C-20 as a good compromise, Ontario will still, as our last witness said, disproportionately share the burden of over-representation. I understand you respected the senatorial floor in your calculations here, but the fact remains that once you are committed to doing that — and I understand why — you are obliged to disadvantage Ontario in the greatest way. It is impossible for me to be here representing Ontario and to find that agreeable, even knowing that Bill C-20 does not go far enough. As we said, there are some citizens in Ontario who will have half the vote of citizens in other parts of the country. It is an unacceptable situation. That is why I cannot support your amendment.
Senator Lang: I want to make a couple of comments, if I could. The bill does not affect, in one way or the other, our representation in the North and, specifically, the Yukon. I should hasten to add that, in 10 year's time, there could be a significant change in our population with the development taking place and the job opportunities being presented to Canadians, seeing the movement of Canadians to the North to join us who live there. That could well be an issue 10 years from now.
I raise that because this particular piece of legislation is always something that will have to be dealt with, every 10 or 15 years, in any Parliament, just because of the changes in the country, the demographics and the economy. I appreciate the fact that my colleague, Senator Fraser, talks about the question of the economics of the increase here. We have to recognize that that cost will not be brought into effect for some time, and it is something that will obviously have to be voted on four years hence.
I want to raise one point that I think is important and that I think we have lost touch with because many members around the table represent areas with large populations and maybe spend most of their time in the larger centres. When I look at your proposal, you will eliminate two seats from the province of Manitoba, for example. What does that do to a member who represents a rural area? At present, members in rural areas are representing vast areas, which they try to cover in a very short period of time, when they do get time away from Parliament to do their duties as a member of Parliament.
I want to take the Yukon as an example. Our new member of Parliament toured all the communities in the Yukon this summer. He put in 41,000 kilometres, just to give you the time that must be put in and the kilometres that must be travelled in order to do the job he has been elected to do. Manitoba is not unlike that. In Newfoundland, you would go from 7 to 6 seats, according to what we have here. Does that mean that Labrador and another portion of Newfoundland will be added into that rural riding?
What you have to look at, from the perspective of the legislation before us, is that any electoral reform will be a compromise, as was indicated this morning by the witnesses, between the population, the country and the provinces as to how it is all laid out across our land
Therefore, I cannot support an initiative that, perhaps unintentionally, puts the rural parts of Canada in a situation where you might say that they are over-represented, but where they actually are, I would submit, under-represented in some cases, just because of the issues and kilometres they face, the size of the areas and the demographics. I just want to put that on the table.
Senator Meredith: Senator Fraser, I respect you highly at this juncture.
Senator Angus: You heard her withdraw the amendment?
Senator Meredith: She will after I am finished. I think Bill C-20 moves us closer to fair representation. The government indicated this in the election. It takes into consideration Ontario, which is a province I also represent, and British Columbia and Alberta, the faster growing provinces. Then Quebec comes into play, which we have always treated distinctly and uniquely. Under your proposal, you are looking at removing seats from them, which would become a major outcry. I believe, and Senator Boisvenu could back me up on this, Quebec is always looking to ascertain their rightful place in Canada. We heard from the witnesses yesterday that this bill strikes a fair balance. Possibly I will be around here; I do not know about the rest of my colleagues, but we will have to deal with this. It is something that will come back again. Unfortunately, I cannot support your amendment at this time, given the eleventh hour and the fact that this is what the government ran on in terms of moving us closer to fair representation.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Meredith. That concludes the questions and comments from committee members. Senator Fraser, I believe you have a response.
Senator Fraser: Just a couple of points. Senator Runciman asked if my party had consulted the provinces. I personally have not. Obviously, there have been, to the best of my knowledge, some informal contacts. However, this is a federal bill. This is not a bill about the provinces.
As we were reminded again this morning by Mr. Mendelsohn, Ontario has a more direct interest in this bill than any other province does because, under the present system, Ontario uses the same riding boundaries that the federal elections system does. In terms of the nine other provinces and the three territories, this is not a bill about them. They do not consult us about their riding boundaries, do they?
I might have the odd word to say about the distribution of seats in the western half of the Island of Montreal, but I have not been asked for my views on that matter.
I think it was Senator Frum who said that Ontario would still be under-represented.
Senator Frum: A portion.
Senator Fraser: Ontario as the most populous province in any system, as long as we have the senatorial floor — even if we get rid of the grandfather clause — which guarantees seats to New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, and soon maybe even Newfoundland. By definition if some provinces will be overrepresented, some provinces will be under-represented. Ontario, as the most populous province, is likely to be the one that suffers that fate. However, Ontario has always earned my abiding respect for its good faith and willingness to live with the implications of being the largest, richest, most populous province in a federation. I cannot imagine that would not be the case now.
Senator Lang makes interesting points about the Yukon population. One of the elements of Bill C-20 that puzzles me is that all of its calculations are for provinces, and its calculations on populations are related to the population of the provinces. Territories are just off there, somewhere up in the North. While it will probably be true that we should have a new bill in 10 years, this bill as written is designed to last a whole lot longer than that. From the nature of the discussions here and in the other place we can see that it is not something parliamentarians like to tackle. If they have before them a bill that they think they can coast on for another decade — not a bill at that point, a law — they may choose to do that and not address the shift in population you think might occur in the Yukon Territory.
The last point I would like to address is related to Quebec. I am a Quebecer. I sit here as a representative of Quebec and I am very proud of my province. I have spent my career defending the right of my province to hold what was appropriately called its rightful place in Canada and in all the institutions of Canada. I would note that under the proposal that I have put before you, my province would have a slightly larger proportion of the seats in the House of Commons than it will have under Bill C-20. Under Bill C-20, Quebec will get 23.08 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Under this proposal, Quebec would have 23.38 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, as compared to 23.14 per cent of the population. In other words, under Bill C-20, my province would be slightly under-represented in the House of Commons and under the proposal I have laid before you, my province would be slightly overrepresented in the House of Commons. I think that would be a highly desirable outcome.
Senator Lang: We will get on with our business here, but I want to make a point with respect to the North and the Yukon. I understand the population requirements with respect to the present bill before us. Obviously, we are not in the equation at this stage. The point I made was we could be in 10 or 15 years from now.
The only other point is that the present legislation in place was to be there for a long time and here we are today coming in with amendments. As I said earlier, this is an issue one deals with every 10 or 15 years in any Parliament. I think I can forecast that in 10 or 15 years from now this issue will probably be around this table.
Senator Fraser: I think it is more like 25.
The Chair: That concludes the debate.
Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion in amendment?
Rather than hear from voices, perhaps a show of hands. Those in favour of adopting the motion in amendment please raise their hands. Thank you. Those not in support — contrary — raise their hands.
Shaila Anwar, Clerk of the Committee: Yeas 5; nays 7.
The Chair: The amendment is defeated.
Senator Fraser: Since the other amendments I was proposing to offer are logically dependent on the amendment that has just been defeated, I shall not propose them. It is with great regret that I tell you that.
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Fraser.
Shall clause 2 carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division. Shall clause 3 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 4 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 5 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 6 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 7 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 8 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 9 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 10 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 11 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 12 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 13 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 14 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause are 15 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 16 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 17 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 18 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 19 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 20 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 21 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 22 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 23 carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall clause 1, which contains the short title, carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the preamble carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the title carry?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Shall the bill carry?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Some Hon. Senators: On division.
The Chair: Agreed, on division. Shall the committee discuss appending observations to the report?
Hon. Senators: No.
The Chair: Is it agreed that this bill be reported to the Senate?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: Thank you. That concludes our consideration of Bill C-20. Thank you for all of your efforts. The committee is adjourned.
(The committee adjourned.)