Senator Miville-Dechêne: First of all, Senator Yussuff, thank you for agreeing to sponsor this bill.

My question relates to the part about housing. In his review of Bill C-31, the Parliamentary Budget Officer noted that 86,700 tenants in Quebec will not be eligible for the $500 allowance because they spend less than 30% of their income on rent. Yet these are Quebecers who are generally disadvantaged, because they live in subsidized low-rent housing known as HLMs, which stands for “habitations à loyer modique.” Quebec is the most affected province, because there are more low-income housing units there than elsewhere in the country.

Across Canada, 118,000 people will be excluded from the program for the same reason.

Senator Yussuff, should the 30% income criterion be removed or modified to include more tenants in need?

[English]

Senator Yussuff: Thank you for the question. My understanding is that amendments were made to the bill at the final moment in the other place. But, to be certain, with regard to the specific nature of your question, three ministers will be before the committee tomorrow. I will raise this question on your behalf in order to receive the proper answer to ensure I do not mislead you in my response. Thank you kindly.

Senator Miville-Dechêne: Senator Dawson, I want to thank you for sponsoring both this bill and Bill C-11. It must be a lot of work for you.

My question may be a thorny one. As a Quebecer, I will vote in favour of this bill. Everyone in Quebec agrees that it must not lose any seats. However, as someone who studied political science, I am particularly interested in the issue of representation and the somewhat equal number of constituents represented by one member of Parliament. Obviously, I know that Canada’s system isn’t perfect and that MPs from remote areas already represent fewer constituents than MPs from big cities.

Nevertheless, this bill would set a seat floor for provinces with the slowest-growing populations. Are you uncomfortable with this compromise — since this is essentially a compromise on the principles of representation — or, rather, would you say that a number of compromises have already been made in the past? I’m thinking of other provinces that have fewer constituents per MP.

I’d like to hear your thoughts on this, since I’ve been pondering these matters of principle myself.

Senator Dawson: Thank you for your question, senator.

I myself studied political science at Laval University and the University of Ottawa, and I agree with you about the inherent problems with representation. However, the bill has nothing to do with that kind of representation at all. That is not what this bill is about. It is about representation among the provinces and a grandfather clause to preserve 78 seats, similar to the one we created to protect the Maritime provinces a few years ago.

We could certainly debate this and even get deeper into issues of future electoral reform, but unfortunately this bill does not give me the latitude to address that.

[English]