I really do appreciate the opportunity to speak to you remotely. The Yukon is the most distant riding from Ottawa and so it is with some appreciation that we're able to speak to you without travelling to Ottawa.
The Green Party does believe there is an imbalance in the seats of the House of Commons and would like to see this addressed. We are hopeful the process will provide a formula that is as fair as possible for all Canadians.
I acknowledge, first of all, that I come from a riding that is very well represented in Ottawa. And there are certain ridings, due to geographic and cultural reasons, where it would be difficult to have any fewer members of Parliament. So the first thing I would like to do is to acknowledge and appreciate that we accommodate that, whether for constitutional or geographic reasons.
Beyond that, it is important that the way in which we redistribute seats in the House comes from a method that is not only fair but that also acknowledges that the size of the House is being addressed in this process. For example, if we consider the size of the House right now, and if we asked every MP to stand up and speak for just one minute, that would be five hours of time. If we increased the size of the House, we won't necessarily get better representation for constituents, for Canadians broadly. It is the balance of the House, the distribution, that is important.
To us, any suggested a formula to come up with the distribution of seats has to look at fairness. We appreciate the two proposals that have been put forward by the government and the Liberal Party of Canada. We think there are aspects of each that are constructive. However, there are a couple of problems and we have an alternative proposal for consideration, which we think is a compromise that might accommodate some of those differences.
First of all, we look at the size of the House. We recognize that if we are just to add seats, we have to look at the balance to understand where the distribution is. Another thing we have to look at is that these seats should be for those provinces that are the least represented by population. And if we're going to take away seats, it should be from those provinces that have the most representation by population.
Our concern, for example, with the government's proposal is that for Quebec, even though we will have added three seats, its proportion of representation in the House will go from 24% to 23%. And even under the Liberal proposal, which would also look to redistribute seats, the representation of Quebec will go from 24% to 23.5%. So that distribution is important.
If, for example, we look at the distribution with regard to the province with the least representation by population, currently Alberta, and its neighbouring province, Saskatchewan, which has the most, before we get down into constitutional issues, the gap between those two neighbouring provinces is 31,000 for the average riding size in the Conservative proposal, and 30,000 in the Liberal proposal. In a compromise proposal that we put forward, we've reduced that gap to 22,500 persons in terms of average riding size.
We think it is important to consider that distribution. It will shape the direction of Canada and whether or not we're able to come up with a fair and balanced look at the distribution of seats.
Finally, regardless of which solution we come up with, the Green Party believes that as we're in a period of time when Canadians are tightening their belts, it's important that Parliament itself show some fiscal restraint and act responsibly. So our proposal suggests that whatever the size of Parliament, we would like to see a cap on the overall salaries in Parliament, so that the gross amount of the salaries would be distributed according to whatever number of seats there are.
Again, thank you very much for taking the time to listen to me remotely. I very much appreciate it.
:
Good morning. I appreciate this opportunity today to outline the Bloc Québécois' position on Bill , which proposes a fundamental change to Quebec's representation in the House of Commons.
The Bloc Québécois, like Quebec's National Assembly, vigorously opposes Bill because what it proposes is the marginalization of the Quebec nation. The federal government has unilaterally advanced a new formula to amend, but especially to reduce, Quebec's political power in the House of Commons. It is proposing increasing limits on the Quebec nation's influence and ability to defend its values and interests in the Parliament of Canada. It is also another tool to form a majority government without any need for members of Parliament from Quebec.
In fact, with Bill , which essentially constitutes an attack on the Quebec nation, the masks are off. The pseudo-federalism of openness, in which the Conservatives wrap themselves in an attempt to charm Quebec voters, is over. With Bill C-20, that has become a closed federalism, a federalism of break-up and abandonment of Quebec. We see that the principles that led to the creation of Canada, particularly the union of two founding peoples, no longer mean anything for the current government. We also see that the recognition of the Quebec nation by the House of Commons in November 2006 is an empty shell. Nearly five years to day after that acknowledgement, we are now compelled to note that it will never result in real action, as though mere recognition had closed the debate for good.
Bill dispels the last illusions. The only place that Quebec could occupy in Canada is a place of promises among others in a country that is not like it and does not take that fact into account, in a country that seeks to limit its distinct voice, that wants and is trying to build itself without it. The Bloc Québécois is not the only group that has denounced the bill. On three occasions, Quebec's National Assembly has unanimously spoken out against the federal government's wish to marginalize the Quebec nation in the House of Commons. That was a denunciation by all the elected members of the National Assembly, federalist and sovereigntist, on the left and on the right. The most recent unanimous motion dates back to April 12, 2010. It reaffirms that Quebec, as a nation, must be able to enjoy special protection of its relative representation in the House of Commons and asks the elected members of all political parties sitting in Ottawa to refuse to pass any bill that would reduce Quebec's relative representation in the House.
It is clear that this call has been deliberately ignored by the majority of members in the House of Commons. The Conservatives justify their bill by hiding behind the screen of fair democratic representation. They argue that it is normal for Quebec to lose its influence as its relative population has declined within Canada. They are now pretending to do Quebec a favour by granting it three more seats. That favour obviously conceals the real issue because, even with three more seats, Quebec's influence will be reduced within the House of Commons. Even worse, Quebec will not even retain a percentage representation equal to its demographic weight.
In fact, the Conservative members have conveniently forgotten that the principle of fair representation allows for exceptions to promote real representation. They have also conveniently forgotten that the Constitution of Canada provides mechanisms that enable minorities to have more representatives than their mere demographic weight would permit. We need only consider Prince Edward Island, which has four seats in the House of Commons. If subject to a rule based solely on population, it would likely have three less. Should we therefore reduce the political weight of Prince Edward Island? I don't believe so. The Bloc Québécois believes instead that this situation clearly shows that a democratic institution such as the House of Commons must not be a mere mechanical and arithmetical reflection of relative population size. Other fundamental factors must be taken into account, and recognition of the Quebec nation is one of them.
The Quebec nation has its own language, culture, values and interests, and therefore has distinctive interests that it must assert and specific characteristics that the federal government must take into account. For those reasons, the Quebec nation must have adequate political weight in Canada's Parliament. Reducing Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons violates that fundamental principle; it proves that the Quebec nation can expect nothing further from Canada.
Thank you.
:
Thank you for inviting me to address this committee.
My name is Chantal Vallerand and I am acting national director of the New Democratic Party of Canada.
[English]
When it comes to representation in the House of Commons, the New Democratic Party of Canada believes in the principle of representation by population in a way that respects our country's diversity and founding principles.
Furthermore, we believe that the debate on Bill offers all Canadians an opportunity to have nation-building discussions based on fairness and respect for communities of interest. We believe that our electoral boundary laws should be fair and accessible, and should respect our country's history, culture, and geography.
In a majority ruling regarding provincial electoral boundaries in Saskatchewan, the Supreme Court of Canada found that the right to vote, guaranteed in section 3 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, is not equality of voting power per se, but the right to effective representation. It said: “Factors like geography, community history, community interests and minority representation may need to be taken into account to ensure that our legislative assemblies effectively represent the diversity of our social mosaic.” The court added that this was not an exhaustive list of factors, and that this should be kept in mind when defining what equality means in the context of adhering to the principle of representation by population.
[Translation]
Whether communities are linked by language, culture or geographic situation, ensuring that those communities of interest are united after the proposed changes are implemented should be a central aspect of this bill. Today I want to focus on two aspects of the bill that have raised questions.
The first aspect concerns the use of Statistics Canada's demographic projections rather than the use of census data. Is this an accurate or not so accurate measurement? Is this an attempt to make the census itself less necessary? Why distance the act from the figures duly recorded by Statistics Canada and instead use estimates calculated through various formulas?
Another issue concerns the consultations. It appears that this bill shortens all the timelines and timeframes contained in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Whether it be the time allowed to establish a commission or the necessary lead time for the notice to organize consultations, this bill shortens the timeframes allotted to conduct these important stages.
Some of the planned changes are substantial. The necessary notice period for holding a consultation with interested parties and persons is reduced by 30 days. It is being lowered from 60 to 30 days. Any person wishing to attend consultations must submit a written request to the secretary of the commission within 23 days of the final notice, instead of 53 days. Every provincial commission has only 10 months to prepare its report to the chief electoral officer, instead of 12 months.
If this government seriously wishes to implement an open, transparent and engaged process, it must know that these new directives do nothing but limit public participation in that process. This is not desirable for our democracy, particularly at a time when voter turnout and engagement are declining. We should find new ways of encouraging citizens to get involved, not ways to reduce them to silence.
Lastly, the members of the NDP team are concerned by the fact that this government has not conducted consultations with the provincial governments. We believe the government must consult the provinces, as well as Canadians, and ask them to determine which bill, ours or the Conservatives', can better achieve the principle of effective representation while building a stronger and more united Canada.
Thank you.
:
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for participating, particularly those of you who are participating via teleconference.
We've heard from a number of different witnesses over the last couple of meetings a number of different suggestions as to how effective representation by population should be enacted. We have certainly not found unanimity in the proposals we've heard. I would doubt that we're even close to getting a consensus. I'm not going to stray into that territory right now, but I want to ask all of you to comment on timelines.
What I mean by that is that regardless of what the final composition of Bill is, there will be boundary changes forthcoming. That in itself of course causes a lot of challenges to parties, because if seats are added, additional riding boundaries will have to be made. That poses problems such that the money that was held in one riding by an EDA will now have to be shared with another riding, because a portion of the one riding is now split. New EDAs will have to be formed; new boards of directors will have to be formed; candidate searches will have to be performed. I would suggest that once or twice we may even run into a situation in which an incumbent MP is actually going to be residing in a new riding. What happens then? Will the incumbent be considered to be grandfathered into the old riding in which he now no longer resides, or would he have to run in the new riding?
All of these are questions that individual parties will have to determine. It is they, of course, who will make the final recommendations to work out the logistics of boundary redistribution.
With all of that work in front of the parties, my question to all of the party representatives here today is, do you feel that if Bill C-20 is passed with the timeline recommended by both the Chief Electoral Officer and the former electoral officer, that is, to have legislation passed prior to February of next year, your parties will have adequate time to do the type of organizational work required?
Perhaps we will start with Madame Vallerand, and then we'll go to our guests via teleconference.
:
If what we choose is to use some projection of population, even over the short-term because long-term projections wouldn't make sense, that's would be no problem.
The party hasn't discussed that in particular, but I'd be happy to take that back to our party to discuss it. As long as that formula is applied fairly, there will be no problem. In other words, if we can look at the most recent statistical data, fine. If we can anticipate where things are heading within the next several years, that will be fine. But in the formula you're using right now, we're not getting to a balanced distribution as yet, and the way in which it's applied doesn't seem consistent across the board.
There may be historical reasons. I can understand the constitutional reasons and I obviously understand the demographic reasons with the smallest of ridings or the most remote of ridings. With Saskatchewan, however, right now the average population is 70,000 or 69,000 people per riding, so even with quite a bit of growth in Saskatchewan—and I happen to be a prairie boy—you've still got a long way to go before you get up to Alberta, which is currently at 117,000 per riding. That's a big difference.
I've had a bit less coffee this morning than Monsieur Dion has. Nevertheless, I'm going to pursue the same line or argument because I think on the facts he is right.
Let me start with the question of jurisprudence. And here I'm taking issue, Madame Vallerand, with your suggestion.
Section 3 of the Charter of Rights, which was at issue in the Carter decision, states:
Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.
The court was seized with the question of whether and to what degree.... In fact, I'll quote from their decision:
The question for resolution on this appeal can be summed up in one sentence: to what extent, if at all, does the right to vote enshrined in the Charter permit deviation from the "one person - one vote" rule?
They then went on and talk about that at some length. In the end, they decided that it allowed a significant amount of deviation—more than I would think is reasonable, to be honest. But they were talking about the size of provincial electoral districts within Saskatchewan.
If this were a discussion today about the constitutional legitimacy of the part of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act dealing with how much variation is allowed within the Province of Ontario or Quebec, as opposed to between Ontario and Quebec, that would have some validity, but we're not looking at that question. What we're looking at is the question that is dealt with in section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which states:
An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1)....
And subsection 38(1) requires the use of the approval of seven legislatures representing one-half of Canada's population. Among those powers is:
the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada.
That has not been subject to the same level of court scrutiny. The question is whether it is permissible constitutionally and permanently, via a unilateral amendment to the Constitution, to lock in a disproportioned...and a veering away from a proportionate representation, which will grow over time. That is effectively what would be done if the NDP's proposal were adopted: Quebec would become overrepresented vis-à-vis Ontario, B.C., and Alberta. The people in the riding that I represent, for example, would have a vote that is worth less than the vote of a person in Quebec, and that would increase with every redistribution.
Now, I would contend that this is actually unconstitutional, failing the kind of amending formula that was going to be used for the Charlottetown Accord, where you would have at least seven provinces adopting it.
I'm just wondering how you would respond to that.
:
That's all right. It's my turn. It's better than the other time, when you only gave me 30 seconds. I'll try to take advantage of this.
We're dealing with the Carter judgment from 1991. It is true that that decision concerned a province, but it mainly concerned the issue of representation. There is nothing more important in Canada than to be well represented in Parliament. In fact, section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, clearly provides that proportionality is the first principle. However, in our minds, Carter added some subtle distinctions to that section. It asserts the fact that our charter, which is part of the Constitution Act, 1982, requires us to ensure that representation in Canada is effective and fair.
We have seen that it is not just the number of voters that counts in Canada. We cannot rely merely on that principle in Canada. We are not like the United States. This is not like in other countries. There are interests across Canada that must be represented in Parliament. The idea is not to determine whether there will be 100,000 voters or 150,000 voters, but rather what we want to put in Parliament, what will be represented. We are really guided by the Constitution Act, 1867, and that of 1982. There are things that are clearly stated in those enactments. There is the Senate floor. There is the principle of representation, which is clearly established in section 42. Carter also tells us that there are geographic conditions and communities of interest. There are also other interests that we must acknowledge. We have to go much further.
I appreciate what Ms. Barbot has proposed. It is true that the Quebec nation must be represented in a particular way in the Parliament of Canada. We cannot overlook that fact. Why would we have adopted the motion in 2006 stating that Quebec is a nation if that is to be merely an abstraction? There must be effective representation. I find it hard to see how a proposal that has the effect of weakening Quebec's representation can be credible enough and respect what Parliament itself declared barely five years ago.
I think it's important that the seats be distributed in a carefully thought out manner. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly requires that we follow the process in full, which Carter also asserted. Is there a need to maintain the distribution as it has been in Canada for decades? Must we represent our cultural communities and the nations that are present in Canada? We must do that.
It has been said that the proposals presented to us are potentially unconstitutional. Note that section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms clearly states that we must do what is necessary in a free and democratic society such as ours. After seeing the proposals of certain other parties, I honestly think we are utterly disregarding our constitutional obligation. I do not at all agree with my Liberal Party colleague, who says we are moving ahead with a proposal that could be unconstitutional. In fact, what is important is to think carefully. We are not in a hurry; the next election will be held in 2015.
Our Green Party witness clearly told us that we had enough time. When we had a number of successive elections, we were in a hurry because there was always a possibility that an election would be triggered in the next few months. However, there will now be no elections for four years. If we follow what the Conservatives say, or at least what Parliament has recently adopted, the dates are fixed. We therefore have the luxury of being able to reflect carefully on what we are doing, and we are not in a hurry. We must go through the entire process calmly and think carefully. That is what Carter has suggested to us. It was the Supreme Court that ruled in that matter. That is no minor authority.
Now I would like to change topics. My next question is for Ms. Barbot.
Let's go back to your comment on the representation of the Quebec nation, which very much moved me. I would like to know what you think about the representation of the other communities of interest across Canada. I'm thinking, among others, of the Franco-Ontarians, of which I am one. I'm a native of Ontario, and I sincerely believe that the Franco-Ontarians have been mistreated in the history of the Canadian federation. Their rights must be asserted. They have to be well represented in Parliament. There are also the Acadians. As I am now from Gaspé, it seems clear to me that the Acadians—
How much time do I have left, Mr. Chairman?
:
I will tell you at the beginning
[Translation]
that I haven't engaged in politics since I was approached about joining the electoral boundaries commission. Since then, I've tried to read about what is going on outside Canada. I saw what happened in Australia because our system is initially based on what happened there. I have no choice but to follow current events in the newspapers. As my legal profession gives me access to certain documents, I take a look at what is going on.
I definitely won't be talking about the number of seats or about technique because the commissions never have to rule on those matters. That is a strictly political issue, and I don't want to get involved. However, I would like to speak very properly about how the commissions operate.
Certain amendments proposed in the bill have annoyed me. In view of the problems we experienced at the time of the last commission and that caused such a stir, I must tell you that, if the number of seats in a province such as Quebec is increased, we must take into account the existing limits on the number of persons and ridings. There are certain exceptions, but that puts us in a particular situation.
In Quebec, the community of interest was our battle horse. To counter virtually all opposition, especially outside Montreal, we had to rely on the regional county municipalities in order to find those communities of interest more easily. I remember that we even formed one particular riding, combining three RCMs from three different administrative regions. To our great surprise, the three presidents of the RCMs sent us letters saying that finally we had understood. I don't know why, but we had determined that, since the road ran through the three RCMs, there was a certain community. Everyone was in favour of that.
You have to go by the rules. The bill cites timelines that startled me a bit. First, I'd like to note one thing: when reference is made to the chairman appointed by the chief judge of the province of Quebec, does that mean the chief judge of the Superior Court or the chief judge of the Court of Appeal? The chief judge of the province of Quebec is the chief judge of the Court of Appeal. That is not stated in the bill and that's important. Three judges succeeded one another during the last commission. I played my role as acting chairman until they found a retired judge to chair the commission.
The bill also states that a period of 60 days is granted to present a proposal to people. It was initially determined that a somewhat extravagant proposal would be submitted because the people on the boundaries commissions are given only two days of training. Since we didn't have access to the services of experts, we were forced to become experts, something that enabled me to read and learn a lot of very interesting things.
We are asked to prepare an electoral boundaries proposal in 60 days and to add ridings. How are you going to do that? You absolutely have to be able to go and gather ideas and reach communities.
I feel the 60-day period is a bit short because it has to be published in the Gazette officielle du Québec and so on. People have 60 days to appear before the commission. In fact, there was talk of a period of 53 days to appear before the commission after publication of a notice in the Gazette officielle du Québec and in the newspapers. We wrote to all the mayors of the municipalities and to the RCM officials to invite people to come and meet with us.
The commission received 212 briefs, which is a good number. I don't know how many people subsequently came. We held public hearings that sometimes lasted a day, sometimes half a day, sometimes two days. We held a public meeting in Montreal, and people from the high north attended. That shocked me a little because the five of us could have travelled to the high north to hear them. Twenty-two of them came down to Montreal.
We weren't proportionally represented because we didn't have the necessary experience. I knew that two commission members had to be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons, but I didn't know whether that was done by means of a competition or calls for representation. I didn't know how the system worked at all. At the time, I had been approached and had sent off a letter with my curriculum vitae.
Subsection 19(5) of the act as modified would grant people 23 days to send their response; notice would have to be sent within the following 23 days. That's a bit short. Periods of 60 days, even 30 days, seem fairer to me. Weekends should not be considered, and so on.
I of course like the fact that you let our commission waive the notice requirement. I can tell you that we heard from two individuals who appeared in Montreal and who had contacted us 15 days or 3 weeks earlier. We had the necessary space to do that. That didn't prevent us from doing our job. As we had been allowed to do so, we had the right to do it, and we did it.
The bill states that the chief electoral officer could extend the period by six months. Why not set it at 10 months? Why not set it at a year? You can do it within a one-year period. In my humble opinion, a year to draft a final report is enough.
The other periods that you have provided for to respond to the House of Commons are the same as they were. Members propose and sign their amendments. That's work, but everything depends on the number of amendments. In Quebec, we had 17 or 18; I don't remember the exact number. We had to take the time to study each of them, to render a decision and issue a final report on each of them. A 30-day period is nevertheless enough. All the amendments we received came from members in any case. A number concerned names that had not been accepted. Then something a little unpleasant happened when we did a research job with the government. We had requested some research on names and so on, and they came back with three or four names that represented the various RCMs, which we considered utterly illogical. It was as though they were citing the complete Coca-Cola ad instead of simply saying "Coca-Cola". The bill should favour names that aren't too long but that are representative of the past.
We did things differently in Quebec. We gave two constituencies names of painters, Marc-Aurèle Fortin and Alfred Pellan. In Laval, where I live, we had Laval-East, Laval-West, Laval-North; it was Laval-Laval. Now there's a riding called Laval, and the others each have their own name, which is much more logical from a representation standpoint. The situation was somewhat the same in Quebec City.
However, I can tell you about the political aspect and the number of members and so on. The commission is required to comply with the standards and rules set out in the act constituting the electoral boundaries commissions. There are very specific rules that do not allow us much leeway. Those rules must be changed so that there can be larger ridings. Most of the members who appeared before the commission were members from cities. I remember Mr. Dion, among others. We had made a mess in his riding by removing its airport, if I remember correctly. That was corrected, obviously, because people spoke out.
When people come and express their views about the size of their ridings, we cannot respond to their requests. Electoral representation is established based on the number of voters, the size of the population in a given region. It is not the commission's responsibility to make comments on the budgets of MPs of large ridings.
We nevertheless tried to rectify the situation in a somewhat more practical manner, but that wasn't easy. I can tell you that adding or removing ridings will not be easy. I don't know the exact proposals regarding the number of ridings, but I can see that some suggest eliminating ridings and others adding them. Where are you going to put them? In addition, the population will be larger. The basic figure, which was 91,000 voters for our commission, if I remember correctly, will increase. As the population has increased, that number will automatically rise. Consequently, the proportions that must be accepted and implemented will be different.
It addition, competitions should absolutely be held in order to evaluate qualifications. I bent over backwards to become qualified. That took time. I didn't have a choice: I didn't have a chairman. So I did all the work. You can't establish that commission without taking at least a month to understand everything it involves, but, first and foremost, to determine the history of the constituencies. In the case of our commission, we determined the history of each of the Quebec ridings from Confederation to the present. We could see whether there had been a division at such and such a place and why it had been made. We verified all the changes that had been made. Once you have done that, you are able to respond to people.
:
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Cayer. First I would like to congratulate you. You raised an idea that I have always been in favour of, that physically large constituencies, such as in Quebec's high north, for example, we should spend more money on riding management problems. So I support your suggestion.
As you say, it is unreasonable to reduce the weight of the votes of residents in more urban and more densely populated constituencies. That's not fair. I believe you complied with the principle that created constituencies should have roughly the same population across the province. I see from the list that the difference between the largest population and the smallest is well within the limits permitted by the act. Only the riding of Haute-Gaspésie—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia is 20% below the provincial average. In any case, the quotient is only a total of 5, which is 10% below the average quotient. On the other hand, there is only one case where the population percentage exceeds 10% of the average.
This isn't exactly a question, but I wanted to tell you that I appreciated what you did. In my own province of Ontario, we have a much greater variance. I believe your model is the one we should follow.
Are there any particular problems? Quebec's high north is uniquely immense, but Saskatchewan, Manitoba and Ontario in a way have the same problem. Are there any practices that the other commission members should adopt?
:
There are two enormous ridings in Quebec. The whole area from Sept-Îles to Newfoundland is one immense riding. I'm from Charlevoix and I've known that area for a very long time. So I can say that, at the time, the members travelled there once a year, whereas today, with modern communications, there are resource people everywhere.
However, Quebec's high north poses a lot of problems. People intervened a lot. Aboriginal people live all over this part attached to the base. It wasn't easy, but I believe that, by complying with the rules of the act, we succeeded in ensuring that people felt represented, rather than excluded. They made good presentations and we worked on that.
With regard to your remark about the number of voters per riding, Mr. Massicotte, a political scientist from Montreal like Mr. Dion, for example, wrote an article in the newspaper stating that that was the first time the ridings had been represented in such an egalitarian manner. That's what we tried to do and that's what the commissions should do because that's the very basis of the Constitution. We tried to do the same thing. I think we managed to do it, even with the constraints.
People from the Magdalen Islands came to ask us for a riding. If we gave one to the Magdalen Islands, should we also give one to Île-d'Orléans? Some things are possible, others not. We had to stick to the standards and we took the time to see what had happened in the past. We got into the habit of joining certain places together, but that wasn't done because we couldn't do it.
You're surprised when a Bloc Québécois member who was more or less opposed to everything, congratulates you because you combined such and such a riding with another one. I simply told people who wanted to engage in politics that we weren't doing that and that we were merely implementing the act. We're required to apply it; we don't have a choice. A judge chairs the commission so there will be a certain amount of independence. I must tell you that, during the whole time I was there, no one tried to ask me anything out of line. In any case, I would have refused, efficiently and with great pleasure as well. We received briefs, and we read them all. Everything was done and everything was noted.
I must add that the chief electoral officer provides a geographer to every commission. That was the first time that we could see what we were doing, thanks to a special piece of software. That will be available for the next commission, and it was an enormous asset. With the trends, with the census, we had everything in hand. As soon as we needed a piece of information, we requested it. We asked the people who deal with names in Canada for their authorization because we didn't want to come up with incongruous things. I believe that's the job. It is indeed an independent commission but one that makes use of the services that are offered.
I want to ask about a bunch of different areas, so let me just begin with the first one.
Thank you very much for your presentation. I appreciate that you said that you didn't want to wade into the political questions with respect to the number of seats. I fully appreciate and respect that. But you know there are other parts of the bill that deal, for example, with things like timelines. I want to explore those a little further, because you addressed them in your presentation.
A number of times you made the point that more time would be helpful and, in fact, necessary for doing the work appropriately as we're going through our deliberations. Yet the bill before us condenses the timelines in a number of important ways. The notice period for meetings has been reduced. If one wants make a request to appear before the commission, that timeline has been reduced—and, of course, the commission's time limit for reporting has also been reduced in this legislation.
Would you prefer to see amendments keeping these at least where they were before, or to make them longer? Would that be helpful? Where is it right saw-off with respect to all three of those timelines?
:
So let's make sure that we're all onside with that.
I think that's a big change from what the impression was around this table. Based on what I've just said, which you've agreed is the case, I believe there is adequate time.
Secondly, in response to a question by Monsieur Dion, I would point out that even though you may not have been consulted personally, the former Chief Electoral Officer, Mr. Kingsley, who wrote a report after extensive consultation, said these timelines were the ones that were recommended after consultation. It's unfortunate, perhaps, that you weren't personally consulted, but Mr. Kingsley did indicate to this committee that there was extensive consultation with the people involved in the process. From that I can only take it that he consulted some of the commissioners other than you. And the recommendations put forward in that report were also supported by the current Chief Electoral Officer, who said that he would be able to achieve all that was necessary with respect to Elections Canada's work within the timelines proposed in Bill .
I'd like to get your comment on that, please.
:
Yes. Once the commissions are formed, the time period will still be the same. You nevertheless have to plan for all the time necessary to hear people, even though, as in many other situations, you never know how much time it will take. You prepare for that.
We didn't hear people without preparing first. Every time a hearing was held, if there were briefs, they had already been read. We were ready. We even met with people individually after the hearings because, in some cases, people are too uncomfortable to say certain things in public. It's very amusing to meet with people and to let them speak. That helps us make decisions. It isn't an easy decision. When you take something away from a person, that's a shock to that person. When you give that person something else, it turns out that it's also a shock. Sensitivities are involved.
Members especially sometimes tend to think of their interests and their voters because they are used to the current situation in a given region. However, depending on population changes, a member could wind up with a population of 118,000 and the one next door with a population of 84,000. The two ridings were side by side, but they wanted to change nothing. It isn't easy. You have to decide at some point, but you don't do it on a political basis.
I never took electoral results into account. We don't see them because they're published, but we can't verify the voting results of every polling station. We rely on previous boundaries in order to establish a comparison with the movements that have taken place in the past. Considering the definition of the community of interest, we felt that, if those people had been together for that long, they weren't necessarily going to feel uncomfortable about being grouped together again. We didn't have too many problems, although I was snubbed by a member for removing part of her riding. She told me I had made her lose the election. I answered that it wasn't me and that the figures proved it. That was in Ahuntsic, if I remember correctly.
In the riding next door—and I believe it was that of Mr. Dion—we went too far in the other direction. We tried to do something in Montreal, but it wasn't very sensible. We stole part of his regional park or I don't know what. Whatever the case may be, that wasn't the issue. The issue was the people who were living there. We did our best to be egalitarian. That's what the act asks us to do. You have to stick to the principle of "one person, one vote" as much as you can. I believe that a gentleman told us that earlier.
It's painstaking work, but it's interesting. Watch out, however: it's based on the number of people, not the number of voters. If a population includes 25,000 people who are under 18 years of age and therefore don't vote, those people are nevertheless included in your calculation.