CONTENTS
Monday, March 21, 1994
(At 11.39 a.m., the sitting of the House was suspended.) 2518
The House resumed at 12 p.m. 2518
Bill C-18. Motion for second reading 2518
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2521
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2528
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2534
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 2534
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 2535
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2537
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2537
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2538
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2538
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2538
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2539
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2539
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2540
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2540
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2540
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2540
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2540
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2540
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2540
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2540
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2541
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2541
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2543
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2543
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2543
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2544
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2544
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2545
Mrs. Gagnon (Québec) 2546
Bill C-227. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 2547
Bill C-228. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 2547
Bill C-18. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment 2548
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2549
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2553
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2554
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2558
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2561
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2562
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2565
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River) 2565
(Motion deemed withdrawn.) 2568
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2568
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2572
Mr. Mills (Broadview-Greenwood) 2577
2513
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, March 21, 1994
The House met at 11 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services) moved
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the
advisability of introducing legislation that would ensure:
(a) that any person who was once entitled to receive a monetary benefit from
the federal government and did not make an application to receive such benefit,
is allowed to file an application to receive the benefit, notwithstanding any
limitation period affecting the application;
(b) that, upon receipt of the application, the federal government shall grant
such benefit to that person where it is satisfied that the person would have
received the benefit had the person applied within the limitation period; and
(c) that the monetary benefit bears interest as determined by regulation of the
Governor in Council.
He said: Mr. Speaker, what we are discussing today is the
possibility of implementing a mechanism to address a
fundamental matter of justice: How to treat Canadians fairly.
[English]
I want to stress that what I am saying here is exploring the
advisability of bringing forward legislation or some other
mechanism to make certain that if Canadians lose a particular
benefit it can be recouped.
For those of us, and generally speaking I think that is
everyone here, who want to be fair to Canadians and make sure
that governments respond to real needs I believe this is a
wonderful opportunity to do so.
Let me be the first to say that no doubt all kinds of reasons
could be brought forward to indicate that we should not be doing
this. Let us look at those. If it is the right thing to do then let us
explore together this notion. I do not want excuses from people
saying that it is complex, potentially very costly or how would
we do it. What I would like to hear is how can we do this if it is
the right thing to do in terms of treating our fellow citizens.
(1105 )
Remember as well that governments have very little
limitation on their power to go back and recoup the money they
feel is theirs. They can go back and get it with very few
limitations. What I really want is to put the shoe on the other
foot. Surely if it is right for governments to go out and get that
which is theirs, and I believe it is, then it is right for citizens to
get that which is theirs.
[Translation]
This fundamental principle is very important to me. Indeed, if
governments, and I believe it is the case, can, in almost any
situation, go back and get what is theirs, why should this not be
possible for Canadians across the country? I know that a number
of reasons will be invoked against doing so. Some will say the
issue is complex. Others will ask what we should do in such and
such a situation? Others still will say that it could be a costly
proposition. I understand all that, but what I would appreciate
today is some help and suggestions as to how we could do it. If
we agree with the basic principle that governments can go out
and get what is theirs, why should ordinary citizens not be able
to do the same?
[English]
I maintain that if governments have an opportunity, and they
do, to go back and recoup, citizens should have more or less the
same kinds of opportunities.
Some may ask why I brought this forward. I brought it
forward because there are a number of cases in which people
have been treated, in my opinion, unfairly, insensitively and
unjustly.
I will share with members three such cases. I met a gentleman
of 81 years of age. The reason I met him was that he was having
some difficulty in making ends meet. When I looked at his
pension I told him that there was a supplement. I asked him
where it was and he told me that he was sorry, he did not know
what I was talking about.
I told him that his income was so low he was entitled to the
supplement. I asked him whether he had ever received it. He told
me no, he did not know it existed. Members will have to
understand that this was not an 81-year old man who was not
with it. He had worked late into his life at his business and it was
only a few years before since he let it go. He was not making a
2514
lot of money at the business, I assure members, but here was a
gentleman who basically had been denied the supplement for a
number of years.
When I brought it to the attention of the government three or
four years ago, it looked at it very responsibly but, lo and
behold, gave him 14 months of retroactivity.
Some people will say that it was too bad, he should have been
with it, he should have applied on time. The truth of the matter is
that he did not know it existed. The truth of the matter is that he
did not have support systems in place that permitted him to
know about it. The truth of the matter is that he got, in good old,
plain Canadian English, shafted. I do not think that is right.
Let me give members another example. A lady came to me
one day and wanted to chat about a special program that existed
whereby her son might profit from training, but she did not have
a great deal of money. It was helicopter training for her son.
She wanted me to make a special plea to the Government of
Canada to find this funding. I asked on what basis she wanted me
to make the special plea. To make a long story short, she had
lived in a common law relationship with a soldier who had
passed away. He had children from a previous marriage and they
had some children from their own union. When he passed away
she did not understand because of her situation that she was
entitled to certain benefits.
Lo and behold, she sold her home and moved far away in order
to start a new life. It was very difficult. She was alone. She had
virtually no funds and she had a family.
Roughly 20 years later I found out that she was entitled to
certain benefits. There were two types of benefits. In one case
the retroactivity was two years and in another case it was three
years. I maintain that is not fair.
Again we could argue that she should have known, she should
have explored it, but she did not know and she did not explore it.
She had lost a loved one. She was probably not in the frame of
mind to go to the government and ask for help and inquire about
special programs. She carried on as best she could and raised her
family in a very meaningful way, and at a significant
disadvantage. That is my second case. Cases like that, situations
like that are unfair.
(1110)
Let me talk about a third case. A single mother came to me
who was near the end of her studies. She had worked for many
years. She had children and it had been extremely difficult. She
had received minimal assistance from government. When I
explored her case I thought at first glance that she should have
qualified for more. I asked someone to follow up and sure
enough she could have qualified for more. There had been an
error made along the way.
This person had to sell certain goods she possessed in order to
make her way. If that error had not been made some time before
she would have had significant additional remuneration in order
to continue and complete those studies. However, the attitude
was: ``You have made it thus far. We will help you to go the rest
of the way. There is no way we are going back''. I think that was
unfair.
Let me assure the House that there are literally hundreds of
cases like that. Some will ask if there are, would it not cost
millions of dollars. I suspect not but I really do not know and I
am not going to pretend I do.
Surely all of us here want to make sure that when an injustice
has occurred, very often not because of anyone's particular
fault, it is up to us to see how we can prevent it in the future. That
is one of the responsibilities we have as a Parliament and as
members of Parliament. If governments can go into a citizen's
pocket several years after when they find out that a citizen owes
them money, a citizen ought to be able to go into the pocket of
government and recoup that for which they would have
qualified.
[Translation]
As I said earlier, I understand that there could be a number of
reasons for hesitating. Of course, there is a whole series of
programs; some are still in effect, while others ceased to exist a
long time ago. There is no doubt that it could cost a fair bit; I
understand that. I also understand that we do not have the means
to make frivolous expenses. But this is not the basic issue, and
we must not fool ourselves into thinking it is. It is not. The
fundamental issue is one of justice.
If it is right, if it is fair for the government to go back and
recoup what was owed to it, should we not allow ordinary
citizens to do the same? I personally think so. And I hope that
today, during this debate, we will explore, as I asked, the
possibility of legislating or doing something else which would
have the same result. I do not consider the process itself to be
nearly as important as the final result, which is to ensure
fundamental justice by enabling people to have what is theirs.
This is all I have to say. I will conclude by simply asking the
hon. members to help me with an open and creative mind, to
recognize that a fundamental injustice exists, and to suggest
ideas as to how we could correct this situation.
[English]
That is all I ask for. I do not ask for a whole bunch of excuses,
and we are really good at those, as to why it cannot be done, the
complexity and the costs or what have you. I ask for members'
creativity applied to this basic problem to make sure that justice
is done.
2515
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue): Mr. Speaker, before I
begin, I would like to extend my congratulations to the hon.
member for Saint-Boniface for the honour bestowed upon him
this past weekend by the International Assembly of
French-speaking Parliamentarians. He was awarded the rank of
knight of the Ordre de la Francophonie, du Dialogue et de la
Culture. Therefore, I want to congratulate him both personally
and on behalf of my colleagues.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear!
(1115)
Mr. Brien: Now to the crux of his speech. After a number of
days of budget debates, I am pleased to see the hon. member for
Saint-Boniface get back to the concept of justice and staunchly
defend the notion. This suits him far better than the role of
ardent defender of the recent budget. Then, the notion of justice
took a back seat to party interests. I much prefer to see him in the
role he has taken on today.
The hon. member has said that we must focus on the
underlying principle here, which is to give back to people what
is rightfully theirs. I think we cannot disagree with this
principle. However, care must be taken to ensure that the
mechanism does not open the door to all sorts of applications
from all kinds of people.
The first thing that needs to be done is to define exactly who
these potential benefit recipients are and what type of benefit is
involved. The hon. member mentioned income supplement
recipients. He could have been talking about persons entitled to
unemployment insurance. And what of all transfers to
individuals?
Is this mechanism going to be limited to transfers to
individuals, whether family allowances or pensions? Or will tax
credits also be included? Would the government go this far, in
keeping with the spirit of the bill the hon. member would like to
bring forward? Would it be possible for individuals to claim
unused tax credits several years after the fact? This process
could end up being quite complex, and rather difficult to
administer. Conversely, however, the Minister of Revenue does
have the authority to make a provision retroactive and as such,
he could in fact allow individuals to claim benefits
retroactively. Of course, this would be to his disadvantage. But
citizens should not be allowed to make it a habit of using tax
credits in the wrong year, as this is relatively complex and would
involve a rather substantial amount of extra work.
The basic question we must ask ourselves is why people do
not understand the credits to which they are entitled? This is a
very serious problem. How is it that individuals do not
understand or that those around them cannot inform them
properly of the benefits to which they are entitled? It took the
intervention of the hon. member to help a senior citizen
understand that she was entitled to receive an income
supplement. That should not be. We must understand that the
system appears so complex to some that they are quite lost.
Perhaps more emphasis should be put on making information
accessible to the people. This may be a simpler way and also a
less expensive one to ensure that individuals can receive the
maximum.
Of course, there will never be a perfect system where all
individuals will be able to claim all that they are entitled to.
Occasionally there is negligence on the part of individuals, not
all but some. It may be unconscious, but it happens that
individuals are negligent and at times heedless. But it is not
always the case.
So, the first major factor is information or the lack of it.
Complexity is also a factor making it difficult for some to find
their way around these matters. At this time of year, the income
tax return is a timely example. In spite of the fact that the
income tax form has been made easier and easier year after year,
people are still finding it harder and harder to fill. More and
more people are asking for outside help to fill in their returns
even though the number of lines on the form and the number of
pages in the Guide have been reduced. The complexity remains.
The problem is not necessarily with the Guide and its
complexity but with the complexity of the system per se. Again,
in the spirit of the hon. member's proposal, I think that we
should focus on making our tax system simpler to make it more
understandable to individuals. I think that the scope of the
motion should be broadened to include not only benefits, but
also tax credits that individuals are entitled to. It could be
interesting to look into that area as well.
Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I have received
very few requests. I have seldom had people come to me with
this kind of problem, but there were a few cases. The fact that it
is not a common occurrence does not mean that we should not
look into it.
Let us examine a few positive aspects and perhaps slightly
more difficult principles related to the application of all this.
First of course, is justice. The principle of getting what we are
entitled to, as we said earlier.
(1120)
At the same time, how far would it go? How many years can
we go back?
We talked about the case where a measure no longer applies.
Let us say, for instance, that in a year or two-which is not
unlikely-the unemployment insurance program is completely
changed. What would happen to people covered by the system in
place five, seven or ten years ago? There will have to be a time
limit so that individuals cannot go too far back in the past.
On the positive side, this bill would be better for the
disadvantaged. Some people are better able to understand the
system or can get professional advice in order to claim what is
due to them.
2516
This principle favours redistribution in a way and that could be
positive.
Of course, we would also restore the opposite right. The
Department of Revenue can go back to your past and make you
pay penalties and interest. So the reverse mechanism could be
interesting.
What is negative is the complexity involved in managing all
this, because it would not be simple. But, of course, we cannot
say that we will not solve a problem because it is complicated.
No problem is easy to solve and that is why we are here, to find
solutions to complex problems. As for the management side, the
hon. member seems to be earnest and it could be interesting to
look more closely at a concrete, administrative solution
allowing individuals to make sense of all this.
This should apply only to individuals, to people in difficulty,
to disadvantaged people like those I talked about earlier. This
principle should not be put in the hands of organizations or
corporations already allowed to spread gains and losses over a
certain number of years. It must not be a mechanism so open that
everyone can use it to postpone or move up payments or to do
what they like with tax rules because that would create great
disorder in our tax system.
Really, there is something good in the fact that the rules
cannot be extended indefinitely; that would be a bad idea. It
could cause a problem, maybe even more so for seniors or the
less educated people in our society.
There again, we need a time limit, even for those people,
because otherwise the Minister of Finance will have great
difficulty in financial planning.
If there were clear guidelines, it would be possible to plan,
just as we plan for contingencies or set aside some financial
reserves. We could do it with some programs, but as far as I am
concerned, it must apply only to transfers to individuals.
Before I conclude, we must not forget one thing: the reason we
are thinking about doing something like this today is that the
system is terribly complex and individuals get lost in it. We
often hear how complex it is.
People feel it is unfair because they think that those who know
the system well take advantage of it and make better use of its
benefits. They feel that because they do not understand it, they
are being had. This feeds a deep sense of injustice and unfairness
and we must all work to restore justice and some fairness,
especially in the area of taxation, which is one of the most
important reasons that people are unhappy with politicians.
In that regard, I think that I share the concerns of the hon.
member for St. Boniface. It would be interesting to work on the
principle of his motion, but we must keep in mind that it would
be complicated to administer, it is not a simple problem and we
must work to restore fairness in our tax system. I congratulate
him. I reach out to him and we will work together.
[English]
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
oppose the motion put forward by the hon. member for St.
Boniface. I know he put it forward with the best of intentions
and he gave us some examples. There are some constituents in
his riding who unfortunately have missed out on some of the
government largesse through either lack of knowledge that
programs were available or for whatever reason they were not
able to claim the benefits available to them had they applied.
(1125)
There are two sides to every coin. If there is a responsibility
on one side for the people to apply for it and there is also the
obligation for the government to pay then it should not be an
open-ended commitment by the government to pay forever
should it be found at some future point that someone did not
apply for a benefit.
We must remember the concept that benefits are to help
people in their daily living. It is not for them to build a nest egg
or a small fortune because they did not apply for it last year, the
year before, five years ago or twenty years ago. The idea of the
programs we have today, be it the guaranteed income
supplement, be it the family allowance program, be it the old age
security program or be it the Canada pension plan, is to help
people in their daily living. It is not a savings program for them
to pass on to their heirs. That is the first philosophical objection
I have to the point raised by the hon. member.
He talked about being able to recoup a lost benefit. Yes, I
know in the interest of fairness it would seem that if I had missed
out on an opportunity to claim a benefit from the government
some considerable number of years ago, it might be nice if I
were able to go back and claim it. However I do not think we can
leave it as an open-ended commitment.
The hon. member talked about responding to real needs. I
mentioned, as I said, we are here to help people in their daily
lives, not to build savings. He said it was the right thing to do.
Yes, perhaps there is some merit in the fact that it is the right
thing to do. However I believe if the person does not take some
onus and some responsibility upon themselves to find out what
they are eligible to apply for, to find out the programs offered
through the government, a certain onus should be applied on
constituents to say: ``I have a need that perhaps the government
will provide. Let me check it out''.
He also mentioned that the government had few limitations on
its side in order to collect the money from our citizens. I beg to
differ on that. There is the statute of limitations. There are many
rules, for example in the Income Tax Act, that put very specific
2517
deadlines on how long the government has before it loses its
ability to go after the taxpayer to collect lost taxes.
I remember a tax case about four or five years ago wherein the
government had for some unknown reason a tax return in its files
that it had failed to process. About six years later the file was
discovered and processed. In the particular case the taxpayer
had actually owed the government $250,000. It went to court.
The government lost because there was an item in the Income
Tax Act that says the government shall process tax returns
within a reasonable period of time. The court decided that six
years to process a tax return and send the person a notice of
assessment showing how much he owed was not a reasonable
period of time. In that particular case the government was out a
quarter of a million dollars, plus whatever interest would have
been applied.
There are rules on both sides. As I said, there are two sides to
the coin. We have specific limitation rules on the government
being able to collect and I think it is only fair that we have them.
The hon. member talked about examples of social programs to
help people. He talked about the need and desire that we be fair. I
think the hon. member is trying to be fair and generous with
taxpayers' dollars. The point we are trying to make as the
Reform Party is that there is a limitation to what the taxpayer is
prepared to pay. Therefore that suggests we should not continue
to have an open-ended situation.
(1130 )
I was thinking in reading the member's motion that 100 years
from now someone on reading their great-grandmother's
correspondence may find that she said: ``I did without my
guaranteed income supplement because back in 1994 I felt the
government deserved a hand. I passed up on my claim''. The
heirs come along and say: ``Wow, here we are. Great-granny is
long since gone but the claim is there''. Let us not forget the
interest. It is now tens and hundreds of thousands of dollars that
the taxpayer would be on the hook for. Therefore, I cannot
support the motion.
The member talked about people getting shafted. I remember
some years ago while driving along I was pulled over by the
RCMP. He advised me that I had entered a lower speed limit and
because I was driving too fast he was going to give me a ticket.
He said to me: ``I've got good news and bad news for you. One,
I'm going to reduce the amount of the ticket, but the bad news is
that I'm going to give you a ticket anyway''. I thought I was
being shafted. I did not see that I was going to get any redress so
I ended up paying the ticket.
I think the hon. member's point really is that we should
simplify government so that we are here to help people in need.
That has been the Reform Party policy. There is a myriad of
programs out there. That is why people today cannot wade their
way through the red tape and government bureaucracy to find
the programs that are there for them.
I suggest the hon. member go back and examine the nature and
philosophy of his motion. We should simplify government and
make it more responsive to the needs of people. In that way
people in need will know that we have a program available for
them. The complexity of government adds to the cost of
government. It removes government from being able to help
genuinely needy people while throwing all kinds of money
through all kinds of programs to many thousands of Canadians
who could get by fine without the money but it just happens to be
a program that is there for them.
I therefore speak against the motion. I feel that the
government does much today and, in many cases, goes
overboard in the way that it spends taxpayers' money. I
recommend that we oppose the motion.
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, I rise to
support this motion very strongly. I speak as a former provincial
member who has had direct experience with some of the very
issues the hon. member has brought forward with this motion.
Fairness in government depends on being able to impart
information to the population in order that what is going on is
understood. Very often the potential recipients of some of these
programs that they do not get are not understood by the people
who deserve them or by the people for whom they were created
in the first place.
I recall one story of a gentleman who was very seriously
impaired through asphyxiation. He was a mechanic in a garage
and inhaled a lot of carbon monoxide. He had to be given
resuscitation to be revived. He did not recover to the fullest
extent so that he could go back and pursue his trade. When I met
him it was during a period when I was not an elected member. I
was in self-imposed retirement. I knew of his financial
circumstances and they were very modest, to put it mildly. I
asked him if he was receiving the supplements to which he was
entitled. He said he had a disability pension. I asked if he got a
guaranteed income supplement that the province of Ontario
provides. He did not know about that.
We were able to start some wheels turning and he got the
supplement. However his entitlement went back to the time of
his accident, the time he was so badly injured. He did not receive
anything for that time period because application had not been
made.
I would say that is the motivation of the hon. member in
putting forward this motion. It is in order to correct what really
is an injustice when the programs of government or what
government does are not fully known by everybody.
I am supposed to be familiar with all of the government
programs. I do not know them all. I can say what it is like for a
2518
private citizen who continues working day to day and really does
not have direct familiarity with what is going on.
To be generous, I find the idea or concept put forward by my
hon. friend in the Reform Party that ``I'm all right, Jack, so
everybody can look after themselves'' unacceptable in this day
and age. I believe we have a responsibility to make sure that
whatever an entitlement is for a citizen that the entitlement gets
to that citizen sooner or later.
I understand details are going to have be worked out and there
will have to be some limitations and so on so as not to create the
extreme kind of circumstances that my friend in the Reform
Party has brought forward.
Certainly the intent of this motion is clear and laudable and I
am delighted to endorse it.
The Deputy Speaker: Colleagues, there being no further
members rising for debate and this not being a votable motion,
the time provided for consideration of private members'
business is deemed to have expired.
[Translation]
Pursuant to Standing Order 96, the order is dropped from
Order Paper.
The Deputy Speaker: The sitting is suspended until noon.
(At 11.39 a.m., the sitting of the House was suspended.)
_______________
The House resumed at 12 p.m.
2518
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada) moved that
Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to move
second reading of Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of
the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
[Translation]
I am pleased to support Bill C-18, An Act to suspend the
operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
[English]
The current process of adjusting constituency boundaries by
independent commissions has been in existence since 1964
when the government of Lester Pearson passed the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act. Before then the House of
Commons itself through a committee would carry out the
adjustment of the boundaries of the ridings.
The current process has been in place since 1964. We believe
that after 30 years the time has come for a full review of all
aspects of this process by the House of Commons which passed
the 1964 law in the first place.
According to the Constitution the readjustment process must
take place after each decennial census. After both the 1971 and
1981 censuses the readjustment process was suspended to
permit amendments to section 51 of the Constitution Act,
setting out the formula for representation of provinces in the
House and to make some changes to the readjustment process
itself. In both cases the process was suspended at a late stage
when the House was considering the commission's reports.
What we are proposing today is not something being done for
the first time; it is not new or novel. There are certainly
precedents for the bill that we are asking the House to adopt.
The government is of the view that the most opportune time to
undertake a comprehensive review of the redistribution process
is now before further effort and resources are expended on the
process currently under way.
We should take a step back and have all aspects of the matter
reviewed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs in a thorough way. As I said, this is an appropriate time
to do so while we are at an early stage in the process and the
existing electoral boundaries commissions have not yet begun to
hold public hearings on their proposals for new riding
boundaries.
While the redistribution or readjustment process is technical,
I believe it is worthwhile to take a few minutes to outline how it
works.
There are two stages in the redistribution of seats in the House
of Commons. The first stage is governed by section 51 of the
Constitution Act. This section specifies the formula for
determining the total number of seats in the House of Commons
and the allocation of those seats among the provinces. The
second stage of the process is provided for in the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act which establishes the process for
the drawing of constituency boundaries for the ridings or
constituencies within the individual provinces.
Section 51 of the Constitution Act requires redistribution
after each decennial census and sets out the formula for
determining the number of seats per province. The Electoral
Bound-
2519
aries Readjustment Act sets out the detailed process for the
readjustment of the boundaries of each riding within a province.
(1205)
As the first step in the process the chief statistician of Canada
sends the results of the decennial census to the minister
responsible for the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and
to the chief electoral officer. The chief electoral officer then
calculates the number of seats allocated to each province by
using the formula set out in the Constitution Act and publishes
the results in the Canada Gazette.
The chief electoral officer, after having received the results of
the 1991 census from the chief statistician, published in the
Canada Gazette the allocation of seats to each province.
According to this seat allocation and if this process is
completed under the current formula the number of seats in this
House would increase from 295 to 301.
Eleven boundaries commissions, one for each province and
one for the Northwest Territories, were created on September 1,
1993 under the terms of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act. The chairs of these commissions were nominated by the
respective chief justices of the provinces and the Northwest
Territories. The two other members of each commission were
nominated by the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Each commission must set the boundaries for each of the
specified number of electoral districts in the province for which
it was established. Community of interests, community of
identity, historical patterns and geography may be taken into
account.
Using population data from the 1991 decennial census, the 11
commissions have published their proposals for new boundaries
for the ridings in each province with a notice of the time and
place of their hearings or sittings to hear representations on the
proposed boundaries. These public hearings are scheduled to
start in early April 1994 and will continue until June of this year.
The commissions must complete their reports on the new
electoral districts no later than one year after receiving the
population data. The commissions' reports are sent to the
Speaker of the House who must then ensure they are tabled and
referred to a parliamentary committee designated to deal with
electoral matters.
Written objections, each signed by at least 10 members of
Parliament, may be filed with the House committee after the
tabling of a report. The committee has 30 days to discuss any
objections to a report. The committee's minutes and
proceedings are sent back to the commissions which decide
whether or not to adjust the reports accordingly.
The chief electoral officer then drafts a representation order
describing and naming each electoral district established by the
commissions and sends it to the minister responsible for the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
The Governor in Council must publicly announce the new
boundaries in a proclamation within five days after the receipt
by the minister of the draft representation order. These new
boundaries for the ridings cannot be used at an election until at
least one year has passed between the date the representation
order was proclaimed and the date that Parliament is dissolved
for a general election.
As members can see, a number of steps remain to be
undertaken in the examination of electoral boundaries for
ridings by the existing commissions.
Some dissatisfaction has been expressed with regard to the
current process and the rules under which it operates. For
example, the commissions publish their initial proposals
without having had a chance to obtain input from interested
parties so that when published these proposals generally come
as a complete surprise.
Although some commissions explain the reasons for their
proposals, they are not required to do so. It is therefore very
difficult for a person who intends to make representations to a
commission to know the reasons behind the proposal and to
make objections or present alternatives in an effective and
informed manner.
The criteria the commissions must use to set the boundaries
may have to be rethought. These criteria are quite general.
Depending on the approach taken by each commission, the
rationale for drawing the boundaries for the ridings can differ
considerably from one province to another.
(1210)
The continual increase in the number of members of the
House of Commons after each census is another issue of concern
to many. For example since Confederation the number of seats
in the House of Commons has increased steadily from 181 seats
in 1867 to the current level of 295. If the redistribution process
had not been suspended and new rules adopted some years ago, I
think back in 1985, the number of members by now would have
shot up already to more than some 340. That is something we
should be considering.
What I have said are only examples of areas we believe should
be thoroughly reviewed by the standing committee. The
government has decided to ask the House of Commons to refer
the electoral boundaries readjustment process to the House of
Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
for review and for developing improvements to the current
procedure.
2520
The government will create this review by proposing a motion
to the House setting out the terms of reference for the
committee. I would like to outline for the House what these
terms of reference will be.
They will provide that the committee bring in a bill respecting
the system of readjusting the boundaries of the electoral
districts, the ridings.
The committee shall consider the general operation over the
past 30 years of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
including: whether there should be a continual increase in the
number of members of the House of Commons after each census
as now provided for in section 51 of the Constitution Act; a
review of the method of selection of members of electoral
boundaries commissions; a review of the proceedings of the
commissions, including whether they ought to make alterations
to the boundaries of existing electoral districts where possible;
and a review of the involvement of the public and of members of
Parliament in the work of the commissions.
The terms of reference would provide that the committee is to
report no later than December 16, 1994.
Using one of the new procedures adopted by the House about
one month ago when it approved the government's
parliamentary reform package, the committee will in effect be
authorized to frame legislation implementing its proposals. This
will be the first opportunity for a parliamentary committee to
initiate legislation in response to a request submitted by the
government under the terms of the new rules which were
adopted unanimously by the House.
Again I want to express my thanks to the opposition parties
and members for their support of this parliamentary reform
package, of which the procedure we are going to follow is one
important element. We are beginning to follow through on our
commitment to strengthen the role of members of Parliament in
developing legislation.
The redistribution of the boundaries of the ridings is an
important matter for the whole country. Therefore we are
requesting the standing committee not only study the issue but
also develop and recommend legislative measures it feels may
be required.
In order to allow for this thorough review of all aspects of the
process, in our view the current process now under way has to be
suspended. Therefore the government has presented Bill C-18
for the consideration of the House. If passed it will suspend the
operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act for a
period of 24 months.
I should stress the bill specifically provides that new
commissions will have to be established within 60 days after the
end of the 24 month period of suspension. They will follow the
existing rules unless in the meantime there is legislation
establishing changes which emerge from the work of the
standing committee.
(1215 )
This is proposed to ensure continuity of the requirement under
the Constitution to readjust the boundaries of the ridings after
every decennial census.
Nothing prevents the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs from making recommendations regarding this 24
month timeframe or the method by which commissions are
established when it undertakes its review of this whole subject
matter and makes recommendations for new legislation.
In conclusion, the adjustment of the boundaries of the ridings,
the adjustment of the electoral boundaries, touches important
questions of democratic representation in the House of
Commons. Now is an ideal time to have a thorough review of the
process undertaken by the House of Commons while we are still
at an early stage and to hear Canadians through the standing
committee.
As I have said, the committee hearings will be public and
obviously it will be possible for witnesses to be heard. After 30
years we believe that this is an appropriate time to review the
process to see if improvements in the results of that process can
be brought about.
I commend this bill to the House. I urge its early adoption so
that finally after 30 years the House, which passed the current
electoral boundaries readjustment law, can review that law and
see how it can be brought up to date in the light of our current
and future requirements, requirements of the democratic
process in this country.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, my
comments on Bill C-18, An Act to suspend the operation of the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, tabled by the
Government House leader, will be brief.
First, I want to say that the Official Opposition agrees with the
principles underlying Bill C-18. We agree with the principles
described by the Government House leader because these are
general, non-partisan principles aimed at improving a system
which has now been in effect for close to 30 years in Canada.
There is no doubt that the criteria set in 1964 must be
reviewed. Our response might have been less spontaneous and
more reserved if this legislation had been tabled just before an
election, but the government deserves to be congratulated for
acting at an early stage, when there is no controversy or dispute.
Indeed, the government cannot be accused of gerrymandering
the electoral map by referring the issue now to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, for a review of the
whole process.
While our objective remains Quebec's sovereignty, it would
be irresponsible on the Official Opposition's part not to get
2521
involved in this exercise, since we must represent the interests
of Canadians from Newfoundland to Vancouver, that is from
coast to coast and up to the Arctic.
Once the bill is referred to the committee, we will look,
without any mental reservations and with a totally open mind, at
the impact of the review and we will participate, in the most
positive manner possible, in the development of new criteria
regarding the philosophy exposed earlier.
The Supreme Court has already indicated some parameters
which we have to follow, but parliamentarians definitely have
some room to manoeuvre. There are aspects which we must
review, including the continuous increase in the number of MPs.
Should that trend be maintained? Should we do something about
the situation? How should we go about this? To correct the
situation we must first look at it, and the best way to do so is
certainly by referring the issue to the Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs.
(1220)
One aspect I find particularly interesting in connection with
the readjustment process would be, of course, to review the
well-known senate clause which allows Prince Edward Island
its four seats, not that I am challenging that-that is not the
point-and in any case, we have all lived with this provision.
Everyone agrees it would be bizarre, to say the least, for a
province to be represented by fewer members than the number
of senators it may have, although that does happen in the United
States.
Perhaps section 51, if it still applies to Quebec in the next
election, could be used to cover cases like the Magdalen Islands.
This is an entirely separate community which no longer has its
own member of Parliament, because since the 1968 reform, it
has been part of the riding of
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. This is not a political
issue. In fact, we find the same situation in the province of
Newfoundland, where Labrador exists as a distinct entity only
because Newfoundlanders are willing to have their electoral
districts contain more voters than would normally be the case,
so that residents of Labrador, on the mainland, can have their
own representative. These are only two examples.
Perhaps more examples of truly distinct communities within
this country will be submitted to the Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs-I am not sure-but it would certainly be the
proper place to make these submissions, as well as adjust other
criteria.
I think the government made a wise decision to stop the train
at the first opportunity, in other words, before it would be to
expensive to do so. The Official Opposition is not in the habit of
making frivolous compliments. However, I think the
government acted sensibly by intervening in the readjustment
process at the earliest opportunity, instead of waiting, as the
previous government so often did on other occasions, until all
public money was spent before stopping the train. It waited until
we had paid our fare and the train had reached the station.
If the train must be stopped, and we on this side of the House
believe that it should be stopped, we can at least save on the fuel
and the staff we need on board that train. In any case, I do not
support the argument that since a certain amount of money was
authorized during the 34th Parliament, we should go ahead.
I believe that on October 25 of last year, we made a dramatic
turn, at least in Quebec. We will see in the months to come
whether or not this also applies to the other side. We should not
feel overly bound by the decisions of the 34th Parliament, and in
particular by the Lortie report already mentioned by the hon.
leader of the government in this House. The Royal Commission
on Electoral Reform is only a small part of what we will have to
study before we come to some conclusion.
The report of the Lortie Commission should not be the
exclusive background or even the only basis on which to build.
In fact, the mandate does not set any limits nor give strict
criteria to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs. Therefore, the Committee will be free to act as it sees
fit.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, the Official Opposition will use all
its capabilities-God and you know we have a lot-to influence
the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs.
[English]
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I am
rising today on Bill C-18, an act to suspend operation of the
electoral boundaries readjustment process.
(1225 )
Mr. Speaker, you will know, having studied these questions, it
is never a good time to adjust boundaries of sitting politicians. It
is never a good time to do districting. It always causes problems
and controversy. In the past these things were resolved in the
House through political processes in which the powerful
members of parties imposed solutions on the Chamber as they
occasionally do in other aspects of debate.
Since 1964, as the government House leader has indicated, we
have attempted to move toward an independent process for that.
We have had an independent process. The process has actually,
in my view, worked reasonably well. The problem has been the
periodic interference of politicians with the operation of the
process.
This motion asks the House to give its consent in principle to
Bill C-18. That would be a contradiction. It is not possible to
agree in principle with something entirely lacking in principles.
2522
This bill is an indication of what is wrong with Parliament
today and what is wrong with the operations of this place and
explains why many citizens have such a jaded and cynical view
of what transpires here.
We have a wide range of euphemisms in describing what we
are about to embark on by adopting Bill C-18. The basic pitch
for Bill C-18 is that we are prepared to bring the public into a
consultation in order that we can have a better process for
defining electoral boundaries.
What we have is an attempt to railroad for a long time the
process for redistribution that is mandated by the Constitution
and specifically by this bill, which serves only to suspend the
existing process which is about to enter the public hearing
phase. We are asked in effect to suspend the public's right to
debate the boundaries for which we have already as a Parliament
and as a government authorized the expenditure of millions of
dollars so that we can turn that study over to the operations of a
parliamentary commission dominated by politicians.
Doug Fisher, the former member of Parliament and widely
respected columnist, noted in the Ottawa Sun on March 18:
It's ridiculous, even beyond irony, how quickly the newly-elected become
owners of their ridings.
Just as an aside, I am as guilty of that as anyone, referring to
my riding. Calgary West is not my riding. It is the riding I
represent in the Parliament of Canada. There is a big difference
between that and my riding. However, that is the talk and is the
attitude most of us have here only a few months after being
elected.
Mr. Fisher goes on:
In large part our costly decennial census is to establish where the people are
so electoral constituencies can be adjusted to reflect: (1) the equality of each
citizen's vote; (2) the total number of MPs in the next Parliament; and (3) the
number of constituencies for most provinces (not all-some have ``floors''
against losses).
Some weeks ago the official redistribution process produced the new riding
maps required by shifts revealed in the 1991 census. At once many MPs, most of
them new, particularly Ontario Liberals, began to protest the riding changes. Of
course, this means an attack on the enacted formula for increasing the number of
MPs.
The chief justification for sticking with what we have is the presently popular
one of saving money.
Yes, stalling redistribution would probably save $25 or $30 million in the
short run-
That is an exaggeration. It is about one-tenth of that.
-but it offends the ``rep by pop'' principle and stacks up some already
inordinately populous ridings and leaves others small and decreasing in
numbers. The electors who must be done first, of course, are those in large cities
and their suburbs.
(1230 )
That is Mr. Fisher's commentary. I am going to elaborate on
it. It is reflective of what is wrong with Parliament today. It is
very interesting how in question period and in debate, day after
day a government member or government minister defending a
particular position or a particular bill, no matter how ludicrous
the argument, can receive not only an ovation from the side
opposite but usually a standing ovation for the silliest of
comments. Yet when something is brought in that affects the
personal self-interest of members of Parliament, it is amazing
how quickly and independently they can mobilize to get action. I
am always amazed that whenever we raise questions here about
issues like pay, the pension scam or the ridiculous tax-free
unaccountable expense allowance, we get hoots and hollers
from the other side and the independent voice rises up with all
this concern.
The same is true with electoral boundaries. As soon as our
own electoral fortunes are put in some jeopardy or our political
plans for the future are threatened, government backbenchers
can bring great pressure to bear on government members, but the
rest of the time we run from committee to committee busy
working, approving things, having the satisfaction of merely
being present among the great men and women who form the
cabinet, maybe even getting some photographs of ourselves for
our householders where we can be seen with the leaders. As I
say, when it concerns self-interest like electoral boundaries or
pensions or some issue like this, boy does the voice of the
independent member ever rise to the fore in a hurry.
This is why this is such an important issue for me and many
members of my party. This is really the first time in this
Parliament where members of our party are being asked to make
a difficult decision between what is the right thing to do based
on the principles that govern this country versus protecting our
own narrow self-interest through getting together and having all
party agreement on something.
Many of us in this party, and this will come out in debate and it
is no different for me, are dramatically affected by the proposed
changes. Many of us are unfavourably affected by the proposed
changes. I am sure there are some who will even support
stopping this process, and I respect that. But for the majority of
us that is not a basis to interfere with a process that is
independent and should be independent, is consultative and
should be consultative, and by and large has been working and is
necessary and mandated legally and constitutionally.
I say that is a very important issue for us. That is the reason we
are going to oppose this bill. That is not to say that the process
cannot be improved, not to say that there are not legitimate
issues that the public wants addressed. What this party is
looking for is some real commitment on the part of the other
2523
members of the House, particularly the government, to show
that it has some real plans to address the problems that it claims
are behind its decision to suddenly try and suspend this process.
Let me spend a few minutes talking about some of those
things. The government House leader has today provided a
number of arguments for this particular bill and this particular
course of action, as did my friend from the Bloc Quebecois. I
want to comment on some of those things because I think it is
important to say what could be improved and also to say where
in very many of these instances the rationale for proceeding is
simply not consistent with the actions that are being requested
here.
First, there is the issue of public consultation. We, as
members of Parliament, will be prepared to consult the public on
a new process leading to new boundaries. As I already said, this
bill blocks a public hearing process which is about to get under
way and which is mandated by the bill. Some, not just myself as
a member and other members, but private citizens have already
contacted these commissions with the intention of making
submissions. In the past it has been claimed that these
boundaries are presented as a fait accompli. That is simply not
true. It is true that the parameters of the act which are mandated
under the Constitution are a fait accompli but the boundaries
themselves are not a fait accompli.
(1235)
If I have time I will discuss what kind of changes
commissions are generally interested in looking at. In the last
process I am told by officials of Elections Canada that 20 per
cent of the proposed ridings were altered in that particular
public hearing process.
The second point is that we are prepared to proceed on a
non-partisan basis. I take the government at its word that there
is certainly no question of the committee or politicians drawing
the boundaries. Yes, they want to block the independent
commission and set up their own study of the process but there is
no thought that politicians themselves would redraw the
boundaries. I accept that. I would be shocked to believe that any
party in this House would propose such a thing.
It is interesting when we are supposed to be proceeding on this
question, which is one of the questions of the fundamental rules
of the game and of how electoral law operates, that the
government is prepared to proceed with this bill and presumably
with its entire agenda on this without the consent of one of the
three recognized parties of the House. From that fact alone we
have every reason, and I suggest the Bloc Quebecois also should
have every reason, to be suspicious that this is in fact a
non-partisan venture.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that one of the acts of the
previous government that I supported was it changed a part of
the formula in the Constitution for redistribution that had been
put into the act in the 1970s which had special discriminatory
measures against Alberta and to a lesser degree British
Columbia. There was a formula that talked about different kinds
of provinces and treated them differently. When the
Conservative Party revisited the formula and revised it and did it
in a way that limited the growth of the Commons, it did away
with those discriminatory provisions. That was a formula
instituted by a previous Liberal government.
The government says: ``It has been 30 years and we have a
long time desire to study the electoral process. Furthermore, this
process has not been revised in some time''. I cannot say that I
am an expert on everything that has transpired with the bill since
it was tabled in 1964 but just looking at a copy of it I can say that
it is not the case that the bill has not been amended since 1964.
There is a list in the back of the present publication of the bill by
Elections Canada that describes or gives a list of amendments
from 1964 to 1992.
Just glancing at this I see a list of about 25 or so amendments
that have occurred over that period. I suspect some of them are
very small, but by and large this is a process that has been
functional except for the periodic interference of politicians.
If there was this desire to study this process, if this had been a
pressing matter, why did this not come to the fore before the
tabling of boundary proposals that were not particularly looked
upon favourably by members of this House? Why did we not
undertake that process before?
In 1985 we had debate over the formula. We changed the
formula in the Constitution which mandates this process. At that
time we did not do a comprehensive revision of the process.
There was no debate on this issue. While we set these new
boundaries in place in 1987 and elected MPs in them in 1988,
there was never any study throughout that time.
I was here for a large part of that time. I do not remember any
call on behalf of any number of members to have a
parliamentary study into this before getting into the next
process. I did a quick glance of my red book. I did not find any
particular mention in the government's election plan of a desire
to alter the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Last year
we had the Lortie commission. We spent millions of dollars on
that commission to look into all aspects of electoral law. It and
the committee that studied that report deferred discussion on
this set of issues.
(1240)
As my friend from the Bloc mentioned, there is no agreement
on those things in the Lortie report. The government has
expressed some interest but it is not bound by the Lortie report.
The Bloc is not bound by the Lortie report. We have strong
objections to the Lortie report. We have spent millions of dollars
having a royal commission study some of these questions and
none of us are prepared to move on them. Why are we now
2524
talking about instituting yet another study, this time by members
of the House of Commons?
It is important to mention one fact here. We had a briefing by
officials from Elections Canada on Friday. I would bring to the
attention of the House that senior officials of Elections Canada
said that far from this being an issue of discussion there had
been no consultations with Elections Canada on this bill and that
senior officials were not provided with a copy, a draft or
otherwise until it was tabled in the House of Commons. That was
only last Friday.
This is in sharp contrast with the repeated consultation
detailed in the Chief Electoral Officer's report, the most recent
report ``Toward the 35th General Election'', during previous
electoral reform efforts, including for example Bill C-213 in
1991, Bill C-78 the Referendum Act and most recently Bill
C-114. Members can see the details and the consultations that
occurred with Elections Canada in adopting those courses of
action.
Let us look at the issue of cost. This is the most interesting for
me. The government with its $40 billion deficit is now
concerned with the great costs that may be incurred in
proceeding with a $2 million to $3 million completion of work
already in progress.
The claim is we are going to save money by doing this. We
have budgeted $7.8 million for this process of which more than
half is already spent.
It is important to note that there is absolutely nothing in the
course of action we are asked to take that could possibly save
money. Even if we establish a parliamentary committee it will
be travelling around the country studying these questions and
racking up costs. Meanwhile people at Elections Canada will
still be paid to prepare a revision to the process when it kicks in a
second time. We are simply wiping out the $5 million that has
been spent. We are incurring additional costs and time here in
the House and we are ultimately going back to square one on
some kind of electoral boundaries readjustment process.
There is a very outside chance, if we can ever get a sense of
what precisely it is any party is actually proposing we change
about this process, that we may get a better act or better
boundaries. What is absolutely clear is that it will cost a lot more
to proceed with this course of action.
When this bill was placed on the Order Paper on March 17, it
contained the standard recommendation: ``His Excellency the
Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the
appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances and in
the manner and for the purposes set out in the measure entitled
Bill C-18''. In other words, we already recognized in tabling
this bill that it will cost more money than we have budgeted, not
less. It will cost more whether we come out at the other end with
absolutely nothing or whether we approve the process or change
it or anything. It will cost more money. The least costly action
without doubt is to proceed in the manner we are already
proceeding.
If we can get some commitment to improvements before we
decide to flush $5 million down the toilet, I guess we would be
prepared to look at that. In the absence of that, we see no reason
in proceeding in this manner.
(1245)
The government has talked about precedents, about previous
suspensions of the process. I was here when that occurred in the
1985-87 period when we suspended the process. Ultimately the
reason we suspended the process was the same and only reason
we have today to suspend the process, because the public does
not like the growth in the number of seats in the House of
Commons.
In 1985 the government suspended the process for that reason
and brought in a new amending formula under the Constitution
to limit the growth of seats in the House of Commons. In the
previous redistribution the seats were supposed to grow from
282 to 312. Under the act brought in by the former Conservative
government we were limited to 295 and to much smaller growth
in the future.
That may still be too much growth. Our party has offered the
suggestion to the government that all parties get together to
make a commitment to an amending formula that would
permanently cap the growth of seats in the House of Commons.
That could be done if we respect certain elements of the
Constitution that require interprovincial agreement.
There are other requirements that would allow us to cap the
growth of seats in the House of Commons and still respect the
general principle of rep by pop, provided we could get
agreement of the House and agreement of the Senate. If that
were to be done to answer the one legitimate public demand out
there at the moment, which is that we limit the growth of seats in
the Commons, in all honesty it would be perfectly legitimate.
The electoral boundaries adjustment commissions have no
mandate to examine that question. They are simply to draw
boundaries under the current formula and under the current
calculations.
We can have these public hearings and it is going to surprise
many people that what they think they are to talk about is not the
purpose of the commission. The purpose of the commission is to
change boundaries. It is a catch 22. Either we give a legitimate
reason for doing it and react to public demand, or we admit that
all we are concerned about is the boundaries. In fact we are
concerned about them before the public has actually had any
chance to speak its own mind on the issue.
I would point out that the government has an ancillary motion
to the bill that looks to reviewing the issue. We will review the
issue of number of seats. We will review the issue of operations.
We will review the parameters of discussion and of commission
deliberation on boundaries. We will review, review, review. All
2525
the bill really does is suspend the process and suspend public
input in the interim.
That would be very interesting since the government is a
master of studies and reviews. We have 15 or 18 studies or
reviews of government legislation. We are reviewing foreign
policy. We are reviewing defence policy. We are reviewing
social policy, unemployment insurance and welfare. We are
reviewing tax policy. We are to review family trust. We are
reviewing the GST. We are reviewing just about everything.
Would it not be interesting if we were to take the attitude that
until we finish the review of unemployment insurance we will
stop paying it; or, until we finish our review of foreign policy we
will shut down our embassies and suspend their operations; or,
until we review our defence policy we will tell our guys in
Bosnia to take a holiday and enjoy the sights?
It is a very different aspect when it comes to being not just a
review. We are very anxious to review these matters. I am sure
members of the House affairs and procedures committee from
this party would be all the more willing to review an important
question like that one. Members who are concerned with
parliamentary reform and electoral reform would be happy to
study some of these questions. In the absence of any sense that
this is going anywhere other than suspending the process, I do
not think we will take a look at that.
I would also note that there has been some hint at it. We know
the real reason is that there has been political outcry from
certain members about the proposed boundaries. I would call on
members of Parliament, particularly Liberal members of
Parliament, to play a different role on this question. I appreciate
there are severe pressures.
(1250)
There are many members on the Liberal backbenches. Most of
us in opposition are inexperienced members and are not aware of
the process involved in these kinds of issues. Having been
surprised, having tried to figure out how we were going to have
some influence and suddenly having discovered that Parliament
cannot vote down these proposals because the commission is
independent, we demand that Parliament can the process.
I call on members of the Liberal frontbenches to educate their
backbenchers or their MPs on exactly what the issues are. I
noticed the government House leader did some of that today. He
informed them-and it is very important to inform members,
particularly some members who have spoken in the
House-about the fact that this was not an option. We do not
have the option of saying that we are not going to redistribute
seats in the House of Commons. This is required by the
Constitution and we have had a readjustment every census since
Confederation. That is an important democratic protection.
It has its origins in the reform bill in Britain of 1832. For
centuries we had virtually no redistribution in the House of
Commons. We had ridings in Great Britain wherein there were
two or three eligible voters. They were called rotten boroughs.
Some members of the government are fond of quoting Edmund
Burke who is sometimes called a conservative and proclaimed to
be the father of modern conservatism. One speech Liberal
members like to quote is the one in which he said he did not feel
he had to represent his constituents; he was protecting
something called the national interest. Of course he made most
of these statements from the safety of a rotten borough because
he could not get elected making statements like those.
I hope that is drawn to the attention of the frontbench so that it
can provide some leadership on it that says we have a legitimate
process in place, that we have already delayed it and that we
should now get down to business. Our friends in the Bloc
mentioned many objections today as did our friends in the
government and others in the past. Many of the objections to the
particular boundaries have nothing in common. What is good for
myself and my riding may be bad for the person in the next
riding. I said there is never going to be a good time to redraw
boundaries. Other than keeping the seats pretty much as they
are, there would never be any particular alignment of boundaries
that would be satisfactory to the vast majority of members of
Parliament. That is the one option, for reasons of protection of
the public and the voter, the Constitution rules out.
I want to mention a serious concern about the intent of the act.
It suspends the process for a period of 24 months, which would
effectively mean it would be virtually impossible to foresee a
situation where we had a redistribution prior to the next
election. If there is not a redistribution prior to the next election
which we expect in 1997-98, the first redistribution from the
1991 census would probably not occur until early in the next
century, at which time we would likely already have the results
of another census requiring redistribution.
If the bill for that reason is not in violation of the Constitution
I suspect it is certainly in violation of the spirit of the
Constitution and might be a very interesting reference to the
Supreme Court. This has always been a question. I am not a
constitutional lawyer. I would be more than happy to hear the
interpretation and advice on this question from hon. members
such as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. The
Constitution requires Parliament to redistribute seats in the
House of Commons and has always done so. What if it simply
refused or undertook actions which amount to a refusal? What
then would be the recourse of the population? Would it then be
incumbent upon the Supreme
2526
Court to redraw the boundaries for us? In that context I think the
bill raises some very substantial difficulties.
(1255)
[Translation]
I would also like to comment on the position taken by the Bloc
Quebecois on this bill. It is most interesting, but I hope the Bloc
will carefully reconsider its position and its support for this
measure.
It is interesting to see how a party that claims to be a party of
principle, that exists for the sake of Quebec's independence, for
the sake of its own ridings and the ridings of Quebec in this
Parliament, it is very interesting to see how that party could be
concerned about the redistribution process and the possibility
that existing ridings might change in the next election.
I think the Canadian public, especially in Quebec, will take a
good look at the reasons for all this. The Bloc Quebecois claims
to be concerned about the cost of government and the federal
system, but they are prepared to support a plan that will most
certainly increase those costs. The advantage of this plan is that
ridings will not change in time for the next federal election.
I think this demonstrates a lack of confidence on the part of
the Bloc Quebecois in its ability to achieve its goal, the
independence of Quebec, before the next election.
Of course I realize that in the Bloc Quebecois, as in the
Reform Party and the Liberal Party, there are members who for
obvious reasons object to the proposals for electoral reform
made by the present commissions.
We realize that. But I would ask the Bloc Quebecois to think
twice about giving the power to change this process to
commissions appointed by the government and to committees of
this House where government members have a majority. Quite
frankly, I think the Bloc should take a long, hard look at this
plan.
I would also like to comment on what was said about electoral
redistribution and representation by the Bloc Quebecois
member who just spoke. For instance, in referring to the
Magdalen Islands, he mentioned regional representation.
Mr. Speaker, you and I are very concerned about regional
representation in this country. That is why we support a
thorough and complete reform of the Canadian Senate. The real
representation for Canada's less populated areas should be in
that house. The Bloc Quebecois has consistently opposed such
reform, and now it mentions the possibility of regional
representation here in the House of Commons, which works on
the principle of ``rep by pop''. I see a contradiction here as well,
a policy for parliamentary reform which needs work, and I say
this with respect, not only for the sake of the Parliament of
Canada but perhaps also for the sake of the Parliament of an
independent Quebec, if the Bloc is able to achieve its goals.
From the Bloc's comments it is clear there are a lot of problems
with their current position.
(1300 )
[English]
I see I only have a short amount of time left. I know my party
has a number of people who have asked to speak to Bill C-18.
We are aware from Elections Canada that the process of looking
at these boundaries is going to continue until it clears both
Houses of Parliament. In the meantime we would like to use our
speeches to educate the public as to the opportunities that exist
here and what exactly is the state of this law and this process.
Many members will be explaining how the changes that the
commission has proposed affect them. We will be explaining it
in open forum here to the public. Members of the Reform Party
will certainly be free to say whether they like or do not like those
changes and any proposals which they would take to the
independent commissions and which they would urge the
independent commissions and other citizens to look at. I think
we will see very quickly the number of difficulties with
politicians trying to direct such a process. I believe most of our
members will be indicating that getting ourselves involved in
this process without a clear plan is not the method to use.
I have asked a number of members of my party to indicate to
the public how both politicians and constituents can contact
Elections Canada and participate in the public hearings in their
ridings. There is a process being set up now. Elections Canada is
already incurring the costs of setting it up and we might as well
make sure the public is aware of the opportunities. We can use
this particular debate to do that.
This will indicate the kinds of things that the public really
would want to see before we begin to intervene and change this
process or incur further costs or further delays.
The main reason is to mention that the only reason most
people would really want to see this process stopped is to agree
that we limit the number of seats in the House of Commons.
Canadians are dramatically overgoverned. I call on the
government and the Bloc Quebecois to sit down with us and
reach a formula very quickly that could lead to a permanent
capping of the number of seats in the House of Commons.
We could introduce that through both Houses and that would
suspend the process for reasons the public would support and
then would allow us to get on with business in a way that would
not only serve the public interest and would not have the
extreme delays planned in this bill but would fulfil a legitimate
public reason for doing so.
2527
Let me finish by moving:
That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word ``That''
and substituting the following therefor:
Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time
this day six months hence.
(1305 )
The Deputy Speaker: On a point of order, the hon. member
for Kamloops.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I have no point of order. I am standing
to speak to the debate. I do not see anybody else standing. My
friend in the Reform Party is standing.
The Deputy Speaker: If the member for Kamloops is asking
to speak on behalf of his party, I think he realizes he has to have
the unanimous consent of all the members in the House. Is the
hon. member asking for that?
Mr. Riis: No, Mr. Speaker. I was watching the government
benches and I saw no one stand and I watched the Bloc benches
and no one stood but I overlooked my friend in the Reform Party.
I will simply wait for my appropriate moment.
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today to speak to
and to oppose the provisions of the legislation before us in Bill
C-18.
One has to ask what precipitated the government's decision to
attempt to suspend the legitimate work of the federal electoral
boundaries commission. Was the government responding to
public concern and opinion or merely trying to circumvent for
whatever reason the prescribed process? Or, heaven forbid, is
the government responding to disgruntled politicians?
To British Columbians, we once again have the example of
central Canada controlling the outcome before the polls have
even closed on the west coast. On election night the Leader of
the Official Opposition made his acceptance speech at seven
o'clock Alberta time, six o'clock B.C. time, before the polls had
even closed. In the case of this electoral boundary review we in
B.C. had not even received our report when Ontario MPs were
crying foul and wanting to throw out the process.
This process has been in effect in Canada, every decade since
1867, tied to the census. In this case the redistribution is tied to
the 1991 census. One can legitimately ask how the House of
Commons can cancel this mandate. I am very disappointed that
apparently the government can do exactly that.
There is no precedent for this attempted action. It was not an
issue in the campaign. It was not an issue after the campaign. It
certainly was not in the Liberal red book.
I am led to the inescapable conclusion that some government
MPs are not pleased with lines on a map as a part of the
redistribution process and therefore want to throw out the whole
process.
I am not 100 per cent satisfied with lines on a map either, but a
part of the process is public hearings. I am already scheduled for
May 26 in Nanaimo, B.C. and I am actively seeking support for
my proposals. This is all part of the process. Where is the public
outcry? I suggest it does not exist and that self-interest is the
issue here. This is an attempt to politicize a process which
should be depoliticized and tied to the census as much as
possible.
We have received no commitment from the government that
three party agreement will be necessary to approve a new
boundaries review process. As well, there is no contingency
plan to save the work done by the current commission if the
procedures and House affairs committee should fail to put
forward a new proposal for consideration by the House.
(1310 )
Ultimately this could mean $5 million worth of wasted work,
the start of another commission and the appointment of new
members. This could even kill any chance of redistribution
before the next federal election-so much for redistribution
every 10 years based on population shifts in the census.
The government would have us believe that it wants the
procedures committee to examine the growth in the number of
seats from the current 295 to the proposed 301, capping the total
number as a reason to suspend the committee's work.
The government has failed to convince me that its intentions
are credible. The government wants the committee to examine
the merits of adding 10 new seats in Ontario, which means
Toronto, three new seats for B.C. and two for Alberta. The way it
is right now is for Toronto to get four new seats and B.C. two
new seats.
During the negotiations for the Charlottetown accord the
three old parties brought the Premier of British Columbia into
the fold by assuring British Columbians that we would obtain
two additional seats in the next redistribution, contrary to early
negotiations. British Columbians remember this commitment.
As a matter of fact, British Columbians cannot believe that
Parliament is even entertaining throwing out the process this
week.
Just who is upset here? I am unaware, as is the office of the
Chief Electoral Officer, of any hue and cry from the public. It is
another example of politically motivated interference. In this
instance we have not even allowed public hearings to unfold and
determine the degree of reception or opposition to the proposals.
Instead, we have the government jumping to thwart the process.
2528
I represent a riding that includes half the coastline of
Vancouver Island and half the coastline of mainland B.C. As is
the case in Toronto, my riding is a fast growing region and
consequently would be affected in a major way by
redistribution.
Currently my riding includes the northern half of Vancouver
Island, the Powell River district on the mainland of the
province, territories south to the sunshine coast and the Gibsons
area and north to Bella Coola and Ocean Falls. It is a vast area of
territory with no logical connection at times between different
parts of the riding.
With redistribution I would lose all mainland portions of the
riding on the one hand and make it a pure island riding to include
the top half of Vancouver Island and some islands in the northern
part of Johnstone Strait.
On the other hand, it would be the coastal mainland from
north of Powell River to Cape Caution, which is a land of
mountains, glaciers, fiords, logging and fishing camps and
Indian reserves. Their natural lines of communication are to
points on Vancouver Island. Not many people are involved but
this mainland coastal area should remain a part of this newly
designated Vancouver Island North riding.
That is what people think and that is the subject of my
presentation to the electoral boundaries commission.
(1315 )
Adding this area to a redistribution population of 96,302
would mean a population of about 98,000 for Vancouver Island
north. Half the population of the current North Island-Powell
River riding on the mainland would predominantly amalgamate
with west Vancouver to form the west Vancouver sunshine coast
riding with a redistribution population of 100,265.
The north mainland coast area around Bella Coola would join
the Cariboo-Chilcotin riding with a population of over 85,000.
Bella Coola on the coast has a road link to the Chilcotin. It is the
only road link from the mainland to the central B.C. area and the
only road link between Gibsons and Kitimat.
I can assure members that my constituents have little
opposition to the changes. As I said earlier the riding is a little
bit of everything right now. The proposed changes represent
some form of continuity. Most of all the process allows for
public input at hearings to be conducted upon the receipt of
representation by interested parties in this process. What could
be more democratic than that?
The only time we as politicians should get involved in this
process would be to ensure that seats do not increase
capriciously at the whim of government and cost to the taxpayer.
The government's attempt to circumvent the legitimate
redistribution process is transparent and unacceptable. What is
needed is a long term look at the parliamentary requirements for
sitting members. Everyone knows Canada has too many
politicians. Let us put this expensive and time consuming
redistribution to bed first. Then we can deal with Canada's long
term parliamentary needs without the red herring of someone's
ox being gored in the current process and therefore attempting to
subvert the process.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair assumes the Reform Party is
dividing its time and that we are now on a five minute question
and comment period.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I listened
with interest to the member's speech. I wonder if he could
elaborate on one point.
He raised the issue of opposition to the Charlottetown accord
that had occurred in most parts of Canada, but particularly in his
riding. He referred to the provision in that accord which would
have guaranteed the province of Quebec a minimum of 25 per
cent of the seats in the House of Commons in perpetuity and also
that the accord would have resulted in a growth of seats in the
House of Commons.
He mentioned there is growth and that B.C. is getting two
more seats. He also thinks most people in his riding could live
with the boundaries. Therefore would he and members of his
riding be concerned that the parliamentary committee composed
and dominated by politicians who supported the Charlottetown
accord might use the process of electoral review and reform to
propose amendments to the formula and the act that would
implement aspects of the Charlottetown accord through the back
door? We have seen that on other issues.
The Deputy Speaker: To the hon. member before he replies,
the Chair, as members know, recognizes a member from another
party. There was none until the member for Calgary West got up
and that is the only reason he was recognized.
There is a member from the Liberal Party who wishes to ask a
question or make a comment. I would ask the member to be as
brief as possible, please.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, the collective memory on the
Charlottetown accord in British Columbia is still very much
there. The province voted two-thirds against the provisions of
the Charlottetown accord. The collective memory on the
promise and guarantees concerning redistribution is very much
in the forefront.
(1320)
If in the long term the process could be brought around where
this distribution is put to bed-the promises were made, let us
fulfil those promises-if we could then go to a circumstance
where for the greater good we either cap or even reduce the
number of sitting members of Parliament for the next
redistribution, then most Canadians would accept that with glee,
particularly those in British Columbia.
2529
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, this is just for
the hon. member's edification. He said he did not hear of any
objection among voters to proposed redistribution. I would
inform him that the riding of Halton-Peel has received
objection loud and clear to the way the proposed lines are drawn.
The chamber of commerce of one of the major municipalities
in the riding has expressed objection. Even a returning officer
has expressed an objection to the way these lines are presently
proposed. I want the member to know it is not some concocted
situation; my own constituents are telling me this.
There are some other things to consider. The region of
Durham is not in the riding I serve but it has now moved to
reduce the number of school trustees. Here we are with a
proposed redistribution that would add members to the House
probably with a carrying charge of-what do we cost, a half a
million dollars each per year. If we add six new members we are
adding another $3 million.
The hon. member may not consider that to be important in the
scheme of things. However some of us do consider it important
especially when our school boards are taking the initiative and
making serious changes in the density of representation in their
districts. It is something the House may well consider in the
years to come.
If one looks at Australia for example there are about twice as
many voters per member in that country. We are at the point
where we have to make some changes. Either that or we are
going to have to knock out one of these walls.
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. member for North
Island-Powell River briefly, please. I believe the Reform Party
is dividing its time and there will be another speaker getting up
in about a minute.
Mr. Duncan: Mr. Speaker, there will be objections whenever
boundaries are redrawn. I appreciate that.
British Columbians have had knowledge of these changes for
nine days. Discussions were going on in this parliamentary
atmosphere on the Hill wanting to kill this process before
British Columbians were even made aware of what the
provincial boundary redistribution was.
What we are saying is that once again Ontario is controlling
the agenda. In order to represent properly the area of the country
where I come from and my views on the long term of what is
good for the country, I am suggesting that we must continue with
this process as has been done every decade since Confederation.
(1325 )
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
record my opposition to Bill C-18 which suspends the operation
of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
There are major issues which should be examined here. Some
fundamental Canadian human rights are being trampled. Let us
look at some of the issues that should be considered before
passing Bill C-18.
The first one is that political interference is being proposed.
The principle of political interference in electoral boundaries
was debated long ago. The decision was it should not be allowed
and the concept of an independent drafting of the electoral
boundaries was the way it should be done.
Politicians should be removed entirely from the process.
Looking back to the 1960s and prior there was a great deal of
political interference in the drawing of electoral boundaries.
Unfortunately that led to blatant political manipulation of the
whole situation.
In his book The Election Process in Canada Professor Terence
Qualter identified four roles parliamentarians used when they
were allowed to manipulate the system and redefine the
boundaries of the electoral districts. Let us look at what he
identified.
They were most concerned about maintaining the boundaries
for the MPs sitting in the House. They wanted to protect the
incumbents' districts so that another election could be fought
based on the same old boundaries; if they won last time, perhaps
they could win again. It was self-serving from that point of
view.
And what about retiring members? They would dispense with
those ridings. They would not have to protect those ridings and
could use them to their advantage.
What about members of parties in the minority, the smaller
parties and the independents? Some are sitting here today. Those
were determined to be dispensable. They would draw the
boundary to eliminate them rather than ensure fair and
reasonable representation for the people across this land and
rather than ensure that people who had a different point of view
could be elected and their position heard in the House. When the
job is left to the politicians, the minorities are left on the outside
rather than just being given a seat on the backbench, which of
course is the case today.
Of course given the opportunity, MPs would again respond to
political pressure to create more seats in the urban ridings rather
than do a realignment to ensure real representation for all
Canadians.
In the 1960s the need for reform was recognized. They wanted
to throw out political involvement. They wanted to get rid of it
and bring in a non-partisan commission that would do the job
for them.
The act established a commission in every province. The chief
justice of every province was to appoint a judge to be the
chairman of the commission. That seems to be a great
non-partisan way to start.
2530
The proposal at that time was the government would put
forward a member and the opposition side would put forward a
member on the commission. They said no, that allowed for
political involvement and therefore the power would be given to
the Speaker to appoint additional members to the commission.
We want impartial non-partisanship to ensure that democracy
works in this country. We are the servants of the people; we are
not their masters. We are here because the people want
representation. They want democracy in the House. It is not for
us to take it upon ourselves to manipulate the public to ensure
we protect our jobs at the expense of free debate, other positions
and real representation of the people.
(1330 )
The commissions were established and today we have Bill
C-18 that wants to take that non-partisan, impartial situation
and throw it out the window because we do not like what has
been done. We established the commissions last fall with the
intention that they would come forward, as they have done
before, with proposals based on reasoned, rational opinions as to
why boundaries should be the way they are proposing.
Once they make their decisions or proposals the whole matter
is opened up to input and debate by the people who can then be
heard. We could ask them what they think. Is this reasonable?
Have we followed the trading boundaries of a constituency?
Have we kept the historical names? Have we followed the
democratic movement of people across the country? Have we
made a reasonable decision? Let us hear from the people, not
from the politicians. Let us hear what the people have to say.
That is what the government does not want to hear. It wants to
cut the democratic process off at the pass because the proposals
being made by the non-partisan, impartial commissions will
now affect its ridings. Government members do not like it and
hence we are back to political interference through Bill C-18.
Why does the government now wish to scrap their work? The
commissions based their work on the census performed in 1991.
Have the numbers changed? I do not think so. The government
now wants to take these same numbers, massage them and
manipulate them for its own benefit.
Have the people on the commissions been incompetent? I do
not think so. These are educated, learned people on these
commissions who have the country's best interest at heart.
Would self-serving politicians do a better job with the same
numbers? I do not think so. Do we believe that politicians are
better suited than judges and ordinary Canadians to decide how
they should be represented? I do no think so either.
That is what Bill C-18 proposes to do. It proposes to take the
same numbers or the same figures and rework them or massage
them, all for the benefit of themselves. The public would end up
with the short end of the stick where the hearing process is
short-circuited and the people who are independent and
impartial have been told that their work is no good.
Here we are today bringing the process under the scrutiny of
the politicians. We wonder why politicians have a poor
reputation in the country. I would suggest one of the real reasons
our reputation is tarnished and people have no faith in us is that
when we appoint an impartial inquiry to do the job and we do not
like what it says, we throw it out the window and start again by
doing our own.
That brings me to the second issue, the public participation
issue. It was stated in 1964 as being one of the main reasons for
the act that was introduced at that point in time. We wanted to
hear that. We are the servants of the people of the country; we
are not the masters. They should dictate to us how they ought to
be represented in the House. It is their House; it is not our our
House. They are the ones who should decide how it should be
done.
That is why we have mass distribution of material by the
commission to every household in the land. Let Canadians see
what is being proposed. Let them have their input. Let the
impartial commission hear what they have to say and decide on
the merits of the input whether there should be any real
adjustments.
The government seems to have the idea that this input can be
dispensed with, that it can be reviewed, and that the time and
nature of public involvement should be scrutinized and set
aside. That would be a bad day for democracy, a bad day for our
reputations. That is why my colleagues in the Reform Party on
this side of the House are vehemently opposed to the particular
bill.
(1335)
We have some members on this side of the House who are
supporting the bill. Of course I am talking about the Bloc. I
wonder where they are coming from on this particular issue. We
know what their agenda is: it is to break up the country. Nothing
would give them greater satisfaction than to have a referendum
tomorrow to say that Quebec wants to go its own way.
I wonder if they are supporting the bill to give them the
opportunity to work up or stir up the emotions in the country
about real representation by members from Quebec and about
their opportunity to sit in the House and have their voices heard.
There are only 75 MPs from Quebec out of a total of 295. They
can argue about having a minority status, as does every other
province including Ontario. Therefore I wonder what is their
particular involvement in the bill.
If there is a point to be made, it should be that we capped the
number of MPs in the House. We have enough MPs. To create an
opportunity to continue raising that number at great expense to
the taxpayer who thinks we will add to the number just to help
2531
ourselves to more taxpayers' dollars also tarnishes our
reputation.
In conclusion, the Reform Party and I are opposed. The
taxpayer is opposed. Every constituent in the country is
opposed. I say let the hearings proceed and let us hear what the
people have to say.
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): Mr. Speaker, I listened very
carefully to the three speakers from the Reform Party and their
rationale for wanting to abort the process we are proposing in
the House of Commons. I am somewhat shocked at some of the
things I heard. Here is a party that purports to want to save
taxpayers' money. They are talking about increasing by six the
numbers of representation in the House of Commons. We know
it costs at least a million dollars a year for every member of the
House. I have great difficulty in how they rationalize that.
I would like to get back to the previous speaker concerning the
fact that there has not been any public input into this matter. I
wonder how much public input there was into the electoral
commission. If I could use the example of the province of
Newfoundland, it has had a population increase in the last 10
years of something like 600 people. Yet the boundaries of every
riding in the province of Newfoundland have been redistributed
at great cost to the Canadian taxpayer. I wonder how much
consultation there was with the people of Newfoundland.
There is no doubt in my mind that British Columbia needs a
redistribution of its boundaries so that the ones with the heavily
populated areas are shifting some over to the less populated
areas. My colleagues in the city of Toronto will probably have
by the next election 300,000 electors in their ridings. That is an
incredible burden for those members of Parliament.
If we look at the ridings in the national capital region how can
we justify this shifting? They are not increasing anything. They
are not doing anything. They are just shifting and creating
additional costs.
How can the previous speaker, as a member of the Reform
Party who is constantly and consistently preaching restraint to
this side of the House, talk about expending millions and
millions and millions of taxpayers' dollars because of
recommendations by a commission that never consulted in the
first place?
(1340 )
Mr. Williams: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's
question, she is accusing us of aborting the process. Bill C-18 is
designed to abort the process that has been in place and has
worked for the last 30 years. I find it quite incredible that the
hon. member would accuse us of trying to abort the process
when the bill is designed to do exactly that.
Then the member made the point about the extra costs of more
MPs. We are saying let us cap it. We have more than enough
today. Let us put in motion a serious commitment from the
House saying that 300 members are surely enough to get an
informed debate in the House. That would be quite sufficient.
I address her last point about how the commissions are
redrawing the boundaries even though there has been no
increase in population. These people had the 1991 census
figures to work from. Those are exactly the same figures the
government would work from if it proposed to go ahead with
Bill C-18. There may have been a population shift from one end
of a city to another. I do not know, but that is what we paid these
people to determine.
In her final point she mentioned the public hearing process.
The public hearing process was about to start. They cut it right
off before the public had an opportunity to say that it seemed a
bit strange to redefine boundaries strictly for the sake of
redefining them. Let us give the public the opportunity to say
that. Maybe it will say that the recommendation by the
commission is wonderful. If that is the case then let the public
say it. Let us hear what the public has to say. That is the whole
purpose of public hearings.
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I am happy to
have an opportunity to say a few words regarding Bill C-18. I
want to acknowledge the co-operation of our friends in the
Reform Party for providing this opportunity.
I must say I come at this matter with some mixed feelings. On
the one hand I have to ask what motivated this particular Bill
C-18. I remember an effort a few days ago when I suspect all of
us were trying to get some understanding of what the
parliamentary agenda would be for the next number of days. We
asked what the legislative program was and Bill C-18 was not
mentioned. Then some time last week the formal indication
from the government was that Bill C-18 was considered to be a
priority and ideally would have to be dealt with expeditiously
and with all-party agreement to move it through all stages in one
day.
Perhaps two weeks ago, before the electoral boundary maps
for British Columbia were made public, rumours about
Parliament Hill had it that the government was contemplating
this initiative. At that time I was curious about what motivated
it, where it came from, what was behind the suggestion. It was
new to me. I have been here for many years and I had not heard
there was a serious concern regarding the legislation as it was
presented.
Like everyone else in my constituency I received the maps of
changes to the electoral boundaries in British Columbia. I must
say that on looking at the maps of the new boundaries I was
totally mystified. As a professional geographer who has some
background in cartography, map making, map reading and
constructing maps, I was told that the mapped boundaries
2532
regarding new constituencies were to recognize geography,
were to recognize history, were to acknowledge the flows of
commerce, and were to represent social realities that existed on
the landscape of Canada.
I studied all of them and I could find no correlation between
an interest in geography and the boundaries on the maps.
Historically the boundaries made no sense. As a matter of fact I
can only assume it was some sort of creative artistry on behalf of
the commissioners who decided on the boundaries in the central
interior of British Columbia. I can only assume that whoever
they were, and I say this with all due respect, they must have
visualised the interior mountains of British Columbia as a flat
plain with no topographical variation at all because the reaction
was immediate.
(1345)
The next morning, after Canada Post had delivered all of these
proposals, there was a hue and cry that went up in the
communities around Kamloops. People who normally would
never say anything positive about their member of Parliament
because of their political affiliation rose up and said that they
must rally around their member of Parliament and stop this
process before this lunacy continues any further.
It was interesting. The talk shows and the editorials were not
only negative, but viciously negative about who would be
perpetuating these changes on behalf of the constituents of
central British Columbia, suggesting that the whole process was
extremely undemocratic, that it had no relationship with the real
world in which people lived.
That was the first clue that something was up. Very quickly I
understood why these changes were being contemplated. It was
because members of Parliament were obviously going to be
quite upset. As my friend in the Reform Party indicated earlier,
we perhaps do take some ownership of these constituencies. We
find that this particular change of boundaries would certainly
not represent in any way, shape or form the democratic future of
the electors of the Kamloops constituency, to say nothing about
all of the surrounding constituencies as well. I am sure that my
colleagues who represent those constituencies will be
participating in this debate later.
Therein lies a dilemma. On the one hand to proceed with these
changes would be folly. I know there are changes made from
time to time by the electoral commission. In my experience I
have never seen any. I have been involved in this process over
the years and have argued in favour of changes and there has
been virtual unanimity by all of the interveners that a particular
part of the boundary should change or shift and so on to
represent the reality of that area, but I have yet to see any
changes ever made. However, I will assume that some are.
Again, I think there almost is this impression that these borders
are written in stone. By the time the public process begins it is
perhaps at best a time for some tinkering or some minor
alternations. Essentially the parameters of the boundaries
remain.
When looking at the process today, I think to most Canadians
this comes as a shock. They receive the map, which is probably
the first they have ever heard of this process, and they are
surprised. They have had absolutely no input. Members of
Parliament and others who are interested in electoral boundaries
also have had absolutely no input up to that point. The rationale
itself in terms of creating the boundaries can differ from one
area of the country to another. While cultural relations, social
patterns or commercial flows might influence the boundaries in
one part of Canada, perhaps only geography would influence
them in another part.
The whole process seems a little odd. If we are serious about
changing the boundaries of federal constituencies to reflect the
electoral and demographic realities of the country, this seems to
be a rather outmoded process to do it in a positive way.
Therefore, I suggest that there is some need for change.
On the other hand I question the motive at this point. What is
behind this? I listened with interest to the government House
leader who indicated that the government would study the
operations in terms of how the act is utilized. The government
will examine whether it will increase the members as we
automatically do now after each census. It will examine how the
members of the commission are selected and review how the
public and perhaps members of Parliament and others ought to
be involved in the process.
This sounds laudable, but surely the most fundamental
question that has been side-stepped or perhaps almost ignored is
the number of members of Parliament. There is probably a fairly
clear indication that the people of Canada do not want these
Chambers just to continue to mushroom census after census
until we get-I do not know what the limit would be-hundreds
and hundreds of members of Parliament.
The question would be what size of a constituency can a single
member of Parliament serve well. Of course that would largely
be determined on the resources made available to that
individual.
(1350 )
I recall a few years ago discussing with a member of
Parliament from India at the Lok Sabha the size of constituency
they had. She replied that she was not really certain but it was
something in the neighbourhood of four million to five million
in the constituency.
I thought that if we have problems, they certainly have theirs
as well in terms of communicating with their constituents. We
do not have two million or three million but again, the numbers
of 85,000 or 95,000 are not necessarily written in stone. I
suspect that if one looks at other jurisdictions one would find
2533
areas with smaller constituencies in terms of numbers and others
with larger.
Perhaps we ought to consider seriously whether there should
be any increases in the number of members of Parliament at this
point. We have all heard from our constituents that this at best
would be something that we would move on very cautiously and
perhaps we ought not to move on it at all other than simply cap it
with the present levels for now.
We have to look carefully at why we are doing this. One of the
ways that we have protected ourselves in the past is to have a
process as a result of section 51 of the Constitution and
associated with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act first
introduced in 1964.
It is very appropriate for us to remember that this process was
set up as an arm's length process away from members of
Parliament. The assumption presumably was that MPs might
have a vested interest in how the boundaries might be
reallocated in their area of the country.
Therefore an independent process, a commission, was set up
that would proceed and make these recommendations quite
apart from the House of Commons or from the Parliament of
Canada but at least providing input at the last stage of the
process, which we have just been notified of recently.
We ought to move very cautiously now. The government has
indicated that it has concerns about these maps as do I. Because
it has concerns about these maps and because it has concerns
about the boundaries, we should now curtail this arm's length
process, this independent process, stop it in its tracks and send
the whole matter to the appropriate parliamentary committee for
discussion.
We have to be very cautious of this. I have been here through a
number of governments. I know that because the government
has the large majority in the House that it is going to do what it
decides to do anyway. Our purpose as members of the opposition
is to point out some of the concerns that exist if the government
is to proceed this way.
The government is saying that it does not like the way this
independent commission is working. Therefore it is going to
change the rules. If necessary, it will even change the
Constitution of Canada to get its way.
We must be careful. When we start indicating a possible
change to the Constitution, when we start involving ourselves in
what is a very independent process from Parliament because the
government in this case does not like the process, what problems
does this open up? What problems could this present?
I have very mixed feelings about this initiative. I question the
motive behind this initiative. I certainly say that the present
process could use some improving. As someone from a province
like British Columbia I also have concerns about representation.
I recognize that the proposal would indicate that British
Columbia would be allocated two additional seats in the House
of Commons. This is under the old formula and would recognize
the tremendous population growth that is occurring throughout
the province and particularly in some of the urban areas.
Obviously there is a need for changes in order to have a better
reflection of representation by population.
I cannot go without making two observations. If we are going
to be discussing these kinds of changes, is there not some way
that we can do this and also examine senatorial reform? There is
a need, I think we would all agree, to reform the upper House.
Some would suggest that we eliminate the upper House and
others would say we should reform it in a variety of ways. There
is general agreement that the Senate ought to be reformed and
become much more of a democratic institution.
(1355 )
I also have to draw attention to my friend in the Bloc who
represented the Bloc Quebecois in its review of this legislation
and to indicate as others have that I find it somewhat curious that
the Bloc is facilitating or is prepared to facilitate this legislation
to redraft and redraw the federal boundaries in the province of
Quebec.
I have listened carefully to almost all the speeches the
members have made. There is a theme throughout these
speeches that within two or three years there will be no need for
the Bloc, that the process of change in Canada will occur as per
their plan and therefore there is little need to concern
themselves as members of the Bloc Quebecois as to how this
place will operate two or three years from now.
There is some inconsistency I might say by the suggestion that
we need now to examine the new electoral boundaries in the
province of Quebec to see if they make sense in time for the next
general election, particularly in terms of some of the comments
made in the House over the last few weeks.
I want to say with regard to the process proposed by the
government, recognizing the need for change and ensuring a
more democratic process in the next general election, certainly I
have some concerns about the way the boundaries have been
drafted particularly in central British Columbia.
I think we have to discuss this very thoroughly and not rush
the legislation to ensure that the process being proposed by the
government is not by itself undemocratic, that the process being
proposed by the government is not behaviour that we saw too
often in the past nine years where the government, if it did not
2534
like a particular regulation or law, as important as it was, simply
used its overwhelming number in the House of Commons, its
muscle in Parliament, to push legislation through.
We can take some comfort that this matter would go before the
Senate before changes would be made and again, with the
different political relationships in the Senate compared to the
House of Commons, there might be some safeguard there.
In closing I want to say that the process is of deep concern.
The need for reform is certainly there. Whether this is the most
appropriate way however is still a requirement of the debate.
The Speaker: It being two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing
Order 30(5) the House will now proceed to statements by
members, pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
2534
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, today,
March 21, the United Nations Convention on Climate Change
comes into effect.
This agreement among nations represents the first
international step in support of the reduction of greenhouse
gases such as carbon dioxide. Carbon dioxide as we all know is
produced when we burn natural gas, oil and coal.
Today we must remind the government and the Minister of
Energy to act on the promise to reduce emissions of greenhouse
gases by 20 per cent by the year 2005. Federal, provincial and
municipal governments all have a role to play but the
Government of Canada has to lead at the national and
international levels.
The problem of climate change can only be resolved if every
nation pulls its weight.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, this week is
the Semaine nationale de la Francophonie, which provides
francophones all over the world an opportunity to stop and think
of the role played by the French language in the development of
our communities. This week-long event aimed at making this
international forum know will allow us this year to emphasize
the key role of Quebec within la Francophonie in North
America.
I wish this week will also be a time to develop a certain level
of open-mindedness with regard to Quebec's linguistic
specificity, reinforce ties between francophones in America and
elsewhere, and bridge gaps between linguistic communities in
Canada.
I certainly hope that la Francophonie will be celebrated in the
workplace, schools and businesses, and by all Quebeckers.
I call upon my colleagues from across Canada to practice this
year's theme, which is: ``En français, bien sûr'', or ``In French,
of course''.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, a couple
living in my riding of Calgary Southeast were victims of a
senseless crime. They had their car stolen, taken for a joy ride
and then vandalized. These citizens had done their part to
protect themselves from crime. They had locked their car. They
parked in a lot under a street light.
The police believe that young offenders were responsible for
this crime. This is a growing problem not only in Calgary but
everywhere. Stealing cars is becoming fun for young offenders.
They know they can get away with it. If they are caught they
know that the Young Offenders Act will protect them. Young
vandals in one instance even spray painted a car with the words:
``Thanks, Young Offenders Act''.
We have to make young people more accountable for their
crimes and protect the rights of victims. Restitution can be a
pretty major deterrent if given due consideration.
We need to change the Young Offenders Act to make Canada a
safer place; safer for you, Mr. Speaker, safer for people in my
riding of Calgary Southeast and safer for all of us who care.
* * *
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, today, March 21, is New Brunswick Youth Day.
I would like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to New
Brunswick youth as valuable members of our present
communities and an important consideration in all that we
decide and do.
Young New Brunswickers and our young people across
Canada are faced with peculiar challenges and need our support.
Government services targeted for youth are improving. We need
only look to the national youth services corps as an example of
the kind of creative, youth specific programming necessary to
assist young New Brunswickers and Canadians through tough
and changing times. As we attempt to make change we must all
realize that young people need to be involved in designing the
programs and policies that affect them.
2535
In honour of this special day I salute New Brunswick's youth
and remind us all of the valuable contributions made by young
people across Canada each and every day.
* * *
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North): Mr. Speaker,
today is the United Nations International Day for Elimination of
Racial Discrimination, which persists whenever the principle of
merit is undermined by prejudice.
We must safeguard against reverse discrimination, the
antithesis of the principle being defended, as we work to meet
our hiring targets for qualified minorities and tearing down the
barriers to their full participation.
Tolerance and respect are put to a greater test during harsh
economic times. Witness the views of those who see immigrants
as stealing jobs from other Canadians, who see only their
difficulties, forgetting that there are others who are worse off.
Today we are challenged to work together to foster economic
growth and rededicate ourselves to our nation's reality.
Canadians are a people of many colours and races, all of
whom heighten the intellectual, social, cultural and economic
standing of Canada in the eyes of the world.
* * *
Mr. Wayne Easter (Malpeque): Mr. Speaker, I and many
other MPs had the opportunity to have a dinner with a group of
youths visiting Parliament last week. The group was here under
the Forum for Young Canadians program.
In my opinion the Forum for Young Canadians is a valuable
educational program that brings young people from all parts of
this great nation together to learn about our political process.
The forum allows young people to learn about our political
system through participation and workshops, presentations and
a mock Parliament. It gives students real, hands-on experience.
It is also valuable because it allows friendships to form between
the participants from all provinces of Canada, friendships that
last a lifetime.
It is programs like the Forum for Young Canadians that we as
members of Parliament must continue to support and expand
because their benefits are enormous. These youths are the
leaders of tomorrow and their individual and collective
experience will lead to the development of a greater nation.
[Translation]
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we learned
this morning that fewer racial discrimination complaints were
received by the Quebec human rights commission last year. We
all know that racist behaviour has not been eliminated and that
making other cultures known is one of the best ways to stop this
behaviour.
On this International Day for the Elimination of Racial
Discrimination, the members of the Official Opposition
associate themselves with the thousands of Quebeckers and
Canadians for whom racial discrimination is a social evil which
must be fought at all cost.
We must strive daily to eliminate any form of intolerance
toward people with a difference. We must promote a society
where nobody feels out of place because of the colour of their
skin, their religion or their country of birth. That is the challenge
facing us all at the turn of this century.
* * *
(1405)
[English]
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, several
of my Calgary North constituents have raised concerns about a
member of the other place and his work on behalf of a developer
in Calgary.
Since his appointment this individual has acted for the
developer in public hearings and has also very actively lobbied
city officials to advance the developer's interests.
Calgary North constituents are particularly outraged that
someone they are paying to represent Albertans should use his
influence in this manner and by the fact that he is doing so at the
expense of his attendance in the other place which is now sitting.
I call on the Prime Minister to ask the government leader in
the other place to investigate the ethics involved when a member
of that place lobbies-
The Speaker: Order. The Chair is having a little bit of
difficulty about one member attacking another member in the
House. I believe that the tradition has been in the House to
extend this to the other House.
Although the hon. member has not mentioned a specific
person or a specific riding, I think the hon. member is probably
leaving very little leeway for misinterpretation.
I would encourage the hon. member to reconsider and perhaps
tomorrow we could have another try at it if it is not quite that
specific, if the hon. member would not mind.
2536
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan): Mr.
Speaker, many of our colleagues in the House are wearing the
multicoloured bow which was conceived and created in Thunder
Bay.
The bow is a symbol for March 21, the International Day for
the Elimination of Racial Discrimination.
This day was declared by the General Assembly of the United
Nations in 1966 and in 1988 federal and provincial ministers
agreed to commemorate March 21 in Canada.
The multicoloured bow is a visible symbol of our
commitment to the elimination of racial discrimination as the
poppy is to Remembrance Day.
The red, yellow, black and white ribbons represent the colours
of the human race. They also signify the beauty and harmony
created when the diverse people of the world unite.
We wear the bow today to show support for the elimination of
racism in Canada.
* * *
Mrs. Marlene Cowling (Dauphin-Swan River): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to speak to the House briefly about the
Canadian Wheat Board.
As some members of the House will know, the Canadian
Wheat Board is western Canada's single desk selling agency for
the export sale of wheat and barley.
There are some presently advocating that the powers of the
Canadian Wheat Board should be fragmented and weakened.
This is not the time to weaken the Canadian Wheat Board, our
single desk selling agency. Rather it is exactly the right time to
strengthen it and expand its role in the international grain
market.
The Canadian Wheat Board has served the interests of western
Canadian farmers superbly over the years and continues to do
so.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): The President of the
Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française, Mr.
Normand Boisvert from my constituency, recently announced
the second Semaine nationale de la Francophonie, from March
20 to 26, 1994, under the theme ``En français, bien sûr''.
The primary objective of the Semaine nationale de la
Francophonie is to heighten Canadians' awareness from every
region in the country. The Association emphasizes the
following: On top of the benefits flowing from an increased use
of French in all lines of activity, it also wants to generate
initiatives promoting an interest in reading and writing, improve
the quality of the spoken and written language, and also create
and maintain opportunities for positive dialogue between
francophones, francophiles and other Canadians of good will.
I invite everyone to fully benefit from this second Semaine
nationale de la Francophonie.
* * *
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, the
Canada Expo 1994 trade fair opens tomorrow in Mexico City.
Over 400 companies and 1,000 business people will participate
in this event.
(1410)
Today, we want to make up for an oversight by the Prime
Minister's Office. Indeed, it is unfortunate to see that, in its
documentation prepared for the media, the Prime Minister's
Office did not mention one single example of successful Quebec
company in Mexico, while it does name several companies from
elsewhere in Canada.
Consequently, we want to mention the success, in Mexico, of
Quebec companies such as Bombardier, Canam-Manac, SNC,
Roche and several dozen others.
We also take this opportunity to wish the best of luck to all
Quebec companies participating in this important trade fair.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I noticed in
La
Presse that the Minister of Health has indicated the federal
government will soon decriminalize the growing of cannabis or
hemp for commercial purposes. She has indicated that
Parliament will be asked to pass a law to enable her department
to issue licences to grow marijuana depending on the level of
THC, the hallucinogenic agent in cannabis.
Perhaps the minister sees us as a country in which people will
live in houses made of hemp particle board, read hemp
newspapers, wear hemp clothing, drive cars powered by hemp
based methanol, dine on hemp seed tofu or enjoy THC free
marijuana candy bars.
While many Canadians support this initiative, I wonder if the
whole issue of hemp cultivation and decriminalization ought not
to be referred to the appropriate committee of the House to
prepare legislative recommendations for Parliament rather than
dealing with this critical issue in such an ad hoc fashion.
2537
Mrs. Sue Barnes (London West): In 1966 the United Nations
declared March 21 the International Day for the Elimination of
Racial Discrimination in commemoration of the 1960
Sharpeville massacre in South Africa.
Since 1989 the Government of Canada has sponsored a
national anti-racism public education program. This campaign
works with key institutions and organizations to raise awareness
of the existence of racial discrimination and to promote
effective means to combat racism.
There is no justification for racial discrimination. Any
doctrine of racial differentiation is scientifically false, morally
reprehensible and socially unjust. We should recognize that
prejudice and discrimination are problems that must be
acknowledged and addressed.
As individuals in one of the great democracies of the world we
must all bear a personal responsibility in the elimination of
racism and racial discrimination. Only then will Canadians be
able to participate fully and equally in our society.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker,
Hyundai Auto Canada has recently made a corporate decision to
close its aluminum wheel plant in Newmarket, Ontario. Seventy
people in my riding of York-Simcoe will lose their jobs.
I stand here to pressure Hyundai Auto Canada to ensure that
these 70 individuals receive all of the benefits and entitlements
they are owed.
_____________________________________________
2537
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Last week,
the Minister of Finance took part in the G-7 jobs summit, where
he proposed a tax credit for companies that create jobs or that
maintain jobs in spite of technological change. Furthermore, the
G-7 countries agreed to make employment their priority in
1994.
Now that he is back from the summit, does the minister intend
to implement a real job recovery strategy based on concrete
measures in order to give back some hope to the million and a
half people who are now unemployed in Canada?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, yes, when we were in
Detroit, the issue of a tax credit for hiring workers was raised. A
suggestion was made by Mr. Reich, the U.S. Secretary of
Labour. It was also a suggestion made in Canada at hearings held
by the human resources minister. We are prepared to consider
this suggestion along with many others.
But one thing is very clear, and I was delighted to see that the
measures we took in our budget-that is, our approach to job
creation, lower payroll taxes, unemployment insurance
reform-are exactly the same as those recommended by the
OECD. That is also the conclusion that was reached at the
meeting. We must say that even the G-7 supported us.
(1415)
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, if these words are not followed by concrete action, we
can only conclude that it was hot air. When the minister boasts
that his own proposals were supported, if no action follows, I do
not see how he can talk about support.
Mr. Speaker, I think that we must ask him today to tell us
clearly if he intends to establish this kind of tax credit for
companies that create or maintain jobs. Can we expect a
ministerial statement on this and not just hot air?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, in the budget, we took
what is perhaps the most important step, namely the lowering of
payroll taxes. Not only was the unemployment insurance
premium rate reduced to $3 but we also showed that we intend to
continue in the same direction when the minister's reform is
completed.
At the same time, we said that we will really look at our whole
taxation system to see if there are obstacles to job creation or,
better yet, to see what could be done to encourage employment.
We clearly intend to do that. It is not hot air but very specific
action.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he
admits that his budget is going the wrong way on employment by
attacking the unemployed rather than unemployment and its
structural causes. I would ask him to admit that he will not
stimulate employment by reducing 85 per cent of the benefits
for unemployed people.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
we clearly stated that this government's priority was job
creation. We adapted our budget policies accordingly. In the
past few months, we have already seen the situation improve. It
will take some time, but I am convinced that the finance
minister's budget has put the country on the right track for job
creation.
2538
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. In the Ginn Publishing
affair, today's
Toronto Star, quoting sources in the Prime
Minister's Office, made surprising revelations on the heritage
minister's behaviour.
In particular, we learned that the minister did not see fit,
before authorizing the deal, to read the legal advice on which he
bases his own authorization.
How does the minister explain the thoughtless and
irresponsible way he acted in authorizing this bad deal without
first reading the legal advice in question?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I see that the favourite soap opera of the hon. member
for Rimouski-Témiscouata is also watched by her colleagues.
But soap operas are works of fiction and not fact.
I gave the facts to this House. I said that I had read and studied
the recommendations made by the Department of Justice and I
think that the decision that was made was explained and
understood; the hon. member only has to read Hansard to know
where we stand.
I hasten to say that the alternative would have been to use
taxpayers' money to finance questionable legal proceedings. I
prefer to see this money support the publishing industry I deeply
care about.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister also admit that, after reading the legal advice prepared
for the previous Conservative government in 1990, he realized
this advice was far from definite regarding the government's
obligation to honour the so-called verbal promise it is now
invoking? And would he agree to table the legal advice on which
he is now trying to base his position?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I am very happy to see that the hon. member has started
to read English-language newspapers. They do not necessarily
cover all that goes on in the minister's office. After reading and
studying the advice, I came to the conclusions I stated on several
occasions in this House. I think I cannot tell him much more than
the truth.
* * *
(1420)
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who again today
reiterated his government's first priority is job creation. It is
becoming increasingly clear to Canadians that the government
does not have any coherent strategy for the creation of
sustainable jobs.
Past experience proves that government financed projects
usually fail on two accounts. First, they do not create sustainable
jobs and, second, they rob millions of tax dollars that could be
used to prepare workers wishing to enter the new economy or
could be used to assist the most vulnerable members of our
society.
When will the Prime Minister abandon his contradictory
approach to job creation to increase spending on one hand and
decrease spending on the other? When will he commit his
government to reduce overall public spending so that taxes can
be cut and the private sector can create real jobs for 1.6 million
Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, as was indicated in the
earlier question, I have just returned from a meeting of the G-7
on jobs in Detroit and over the weekend a meeting of APEC, the
fastest growing segment of the world's economy at the present
time, dealing with many of the same issues.
It was fascinating. The measures those fast growing countries
are taking are exactly the ones that we outlined in our budget.
What are they? They are a reduction of the cancer killing taxes
on jobs such as unemployment insurance premiums. They are an
encouragement to small and medium sized business, the major
creator of jobs not only in this country but in all other countries.
They are an encouragement of the newer technologies, networks
for small businesses, access to new technologies, matching
grants between universities and the private sector.
We have set out a very clear jobs plan and that jobs plan is
going to make this a much stronger country for Canadians.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad that the minister recognizes some of these
cancers but one cancer he did not mention was funding for
regional development.
Last week Hyundai announced that its assembly plant in
Bromont, Quebec, would remain closed indefinitely. This is a
perfect example of a regional development project gone bad.
Does the minister agree that the most effective and efficient
way his government can create jobs is to stop influencing
business decisions with short term public subsidies and instead
encourage the private sector to get Canada back to work by
getting public sector spending under control?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that
getting public sector spending under control is a very important
objec-
2539
tive of any government. It certainly is of this government and
our budget demonstrates that.
In terms of subsidies to business, we undertook in the budget a
very large reduction in subsidies to business that we deem to be
counter-productive. It is in the budget. We have also said that
we are continuing to look at the wide range of other ways in
which government and business interact to make sure that there
are no obstacles placed in the way of business.
On the one issue that the member raised, all members in the
House and certainly the members opposite feel very badly and
are very disappointed by the decision of Hyundai to delay the
reopening of its plant.
The minister of human resources has already begun
discussions with the laid-off workers at that plant to see what
can be done. We as a government have begun discussions with
Hyundai to see if there are other alternatives for the plant.
When I was in a meeting with the APEC members, I had the
opportunity to discuss that subject with the Minister of Finance
of Korea. We are going to continue to watch it very closely.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, the point we are trying to get across is that a little
cutting of regional development grants is not the answer. We
need to scrap the whole concept because it is not working.
Let me illustrate with another example. This is out west and
not in Quebec. A perfect example is the almost $4 million
loaned to Myrias Research Corporation by Western
Diversification to an Edmonton group in 1990. The final loan of
more than $500,000 was made just two weeks before the
company went into receivership, creating no jobs. Has the
minister learned from the past administration that regional
development is a huge waste of tax dollars and will he take steps
to eliminate all federal regional development spending from our
unbalanced budget?
(1425)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, members of the Reform
Party cannot have it both ways. They cannot stand up at one time
and talk to the Minister of National Defence when certain base
closures are occurring and then ask what is going to be done for
that particular area, whether there is going to be regional
development. Then they turn around and say we cannot do it
generally.
The fact is that this political party in opposition and now in
government has said that we think a lot of regional development
in this country has been applied to pork barrel grants to industry,
grants to companies that do not need it, which simply makes no
sense.
That is why, and any one of the ministers can tell you that, the
minister responsible for ACOA, the minister responsible for the
western diversification fund, and the minister responsible for
FORD-Q have completed a thorough re-evaluation of the way
regional development was taking place, and we are not going to
repeat the mistakes of the past.
* * *
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, my question
is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In this same article on Ginn Publishing in the Toronto Star we
read: ``This was a deal cooked behind the scenes by lobbyists
and officials''. We are told that it was lobbyists who threw the
deal together on behalf of Paramount at a meeting with
government representatives.
Can the minister confirm that this infamous deal, partly
written, partly verbal, which the government refuses to make
public was made by a lobbyist acting on behalf of Paramount?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, on this account I have to go by hearsay.
This government was not in office and therefore we cannot
give information which we ourselves do not have. I have of
course retraced the statements which are to me, as I said,
hearsay.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker I thank the
minister for his answer. My additional question is directed to the
Prime Minister.
Since the Toronto Star is quoting sources from the Prime
Minister's office to the effect that the Ginn Publishing mess is
the result of secret dealings of lobbyists acting on behalf of
private interests, does the Prime Minister recognize the urgent
need to ensure through legislative action full openness with
regard to the activities of such lobbyists?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker I
do not know if there is a source like that. Senior staff in my
office talk to me but nobody has talked to me about this problem.
If that so-called very close source is one of mine, I would like
to know the name. If the member has the name I ask him to give
it to me. What is a source? I need a name.
I would be surprised if somebody is afraid to talk to me but
will talk to the press. If there is such a person I would like to
have the name. He will have a lot of occasions to talk to the press
for the rest of his life.
2540
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, the
Liberal campaign promises and the recent budget indicated that
the government will increase the number of child care spaces
once the real economic growth exceeds 3 per cent. The
estimated cost to the Canadian taxpayer that I have seen for this
is about $1.5 billion. I might add that expenditure amounts do
not even reflect an increase in the estimates for 1995-1996.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. Since the budget
projects a 3 per cent growth rate, will the minister confirm the
government's commitment to this $1.5 billion program?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the budget contains a
projection for the expenditure on the day care spaces on the
basis that we do expect growth will be 3 per cent or in excess
thereof.
(1430 )
Although we have provided for it, the spending on day care
spaces is of course dependent upon agreement with the
provinces. The spending on day care fulfils a multitude of
purposes. Not only is it in itself an important creator of jobs, but
it also permits a substantial segment of our society desirous of
working the opportunity to do so.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, just
about anything can be spent in the name of jobs, jobs, jobs.
The investors, small businessmen and Canadian taxpayers
would be more interested in understanding if our economy
should grow at 3 per cent why the government would not prefer
to pay down the deficit and pay some of the bills rather than
create more child care spaces and spending $1.5 billion of
taxpayers' money.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there are substantial
expenditure cuts within our budget.
It does not take a close observation of the numbers to
understand that we are not going to eliminate the deficit unless
at the same time that we are cutting we are getting the economy
going, creating jobs and getting some growth.
Let me say one thing. We as a government have said that the
major element of job creation is the private sector. The element
of the private sector which is going to do that is small and
medium sized business. The member opposite ought to realize
that women entrepreneurs do the majority of successful
start-ups in small and medium sized businesses. They are the
ones who want the child care.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister. Over the weekend, we learned that the
Hyundai plant in Bromont would be suspending its operations
indefinitely in the Eastern Townships. Hyundai will be laying
off more than 800 highly skilled workers whose average age is
between 25 and 30.
Given the scope of the federal grants awarded to the Hyundai
automobile plant, what conditions did the government impose
on the company to guarantee that it would reopen the Bromont
facilities, thus preserving jobs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, this is a very valid
question. As I stated in an earlier answer, we are extremely
disappointed that Hyundai has delayed the reopening of its
plant. The federal office has already begun discussions with
Hyundai and the Minister of Industry also plans to take up this
matter with the company. With respect to grants-and the
question is perfectly relevant-we are now in the process of
determining, along with the Government of Quebec, what our
exact position on this matter will be.
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, the minister
says he is disappointed. Well, the people in my region are
disappointed as well. Should Hyundai refuse to reopen its plant
in Bromont, has the government considered another alternative
which would at least preserve the 825 high-tech jobs now in
Bromont?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, this would certainly be
the objective of our government and of the Government of
Quebec. This is why we have begun discussions with the
provincial government and with the company, to see whether we
can come up with an alternative proposal should the plant
remain closed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of the Environment.
In 1974 the Ministry of the Environment leased a parcel of
land in my riding for the construction of the Pacific environment
2541
centre. The centre was never built, but the lease payment on the
empty land is now $3.1 million annually and is likely to rise
during the remaining 51 years of the lease.
(1435 )
Would the minister please tell the House what steps have been
taken to end this wasteful spending?
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Mr.
Speaker, I take the question under advisement and will give a
full report to the hon. member as soon as possible.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker, it
is well known by the media that this contract is up for renewal as
of April 1. It is very disappointing that the government is not
informed about this important matter.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Health indicated clearly to the Canadian Hospital
Association that the federal government intended to play a
greater role in the health field, although health care comes under
exclusive provincial jurisdiction. In so doing, the minister was
warning the provinces against ending insurance coverage for
health care services.
Does the Minister of Health not recognize that it is totally
illogical to warn the provinces against ending insurance
coverage for health care services when at the same time her
government is forcing the provinces to review insured services
in view of the shortfall resulting from the freeze on transfer
payments in respect of health care?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, it is
high time to reassure Canadians, including those living in
Quebec, that this government is deeply committed to health care
and will continue to maintain the system which Canadians have
long enjoyed. It is high time for the government and for me to
give them this assurance.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond): Mr. Speaker, does the
minister not recognize that the best way for the federal
government to maintain health care in Canada is first and
foremost by maintaining the growth of transfer payments and
respecting provincial areas of jurisdiction?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker,
while I do believe there is a role for the federal government in
health care, I still believe we must work in co-operation with
provincial governments and this I intend to do.
I have met with provincial ministers of health. We are very
much in agreement it is not additional money that is needed in
health care but how to do things better. It is a question of
creating value while maintaining values.
* * *
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
The people in my riding of Brant are very concerned about the
future of VIA Rail particularly the service as it passes through
London to Brantford and then on to Toronto.
Can the parliamentary secretary please assure the House and
my constituents that despite the $50 million in planned cuts to
VIA Rail in 1994-95, the service through my riding will not be
curtailed?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, first let me thank the member for
Brant for her question and her great interest in this matter.
As the Minister of Transport stated in the House, VIA Rail is
another entity for which our department is responsible and
which faces a very troubled future.
Members of the House know that VIA has known of its
budgetary parameters and responsibilities for quite some time.
VIA has made some efficiency gains but is a long way from
achieving what it must.
VIA Corporation, its 3.7 million passengers and especially its
workers all must be part of the solution if we are to achieve a
national, sustainable, efficient and affordable passenger rail
system. Taxpayers not only expect this but demand it of
government.
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
The sale of Ginn Publishing continues to bring with it
contradictions and denials.
(1440 )
Both the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Minister of
Industry have stated repeatedly that there were no potential
buyers for Ginn. I have documentary proof there were Canadian
companies interested in purchasing Ginn and I would like to
table these documents.
I have only one question. Will the Minister of Canadian
Heritage stand in the House today and admit to a bungled
process and commit to a thorough investigation of this
scandalous sale of Ginn Publishing?
2542
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I find it interesting that this subject is generating so
much interest. There is always the possibility of putting
questions before the standing parliamentary committees. We see
no good reason for putting a lot of effort and work into an
investigation, the effect of which would be to honour previous
government ministers who are politically dead, thank God.
The Speaker: I understood the hon. member to say she only
had one question.
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): I also have documents
that I wish to table in the House today.
The Speaker: We will leave that until three o'clock and see if
there is unanimous consent to do so.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, when he went to the
UN, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans strongly condemned
foreign companies from NAFO countries that use flags of
convenience to get around the moratorium on cod fishing.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans: What
concrete measures does the minister intend to take to make
NAFO countries prevent their shipowners from using flags of
convenience?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, the Government of Canada asked NAFO members back
in November to convene a joint meeting or démarche with
Canada and some of the countries that provide flags of
convenience.
In fact Japan, the European union, Russia and Canada made a
joint démarche to Honduras and to Panama within the last few
weeks. These nations have been asked to quit providing flags of
convenience to vessels that intend to ignore international
conservation rules.
I am pleased to report not only have we made such a request,
but we have also had a meeting with two of the four countries
that are providing flags of convenience. They have committed to
action in legislation by May.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a
supplementary question. In order to act with more credibility on
this issue, did the minister check if Canadian shipowners use
flags of convenience and, if such is the case, what measures does
the government intend to take to convince them not to do so?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I assure the hon. member once the issue of flags of
convenience has been fully considered and authorization has
been given both by cabinet and Parliament, because ultimately
Parliament will be consulted on this matter, Canada will make
no distinction on the origin of the flag of convenience no matter
what country it comes from.
Those vessels and ship owners ignoring Canadian
conservation rules and multilateral arranged conservation rules
merely to exploit the stocks down to the last fish, thus
destroying a good part of the economy of Quebec and the four
Atlantic provinces, will be treated in identical fashion. The
fishing activity will be stopped and the vessels will be taken off
the nose or tail.
(1445)
I have one final comment. I personally have no knowledge, as
I stand here and speak, of any Canadian involvement in this kind
of measure. However I want to assure the member that were a
Canadian company involved it would be my instinct to name
such a company and to bring the entire shame and anger of the
nation down on that kind of activity.
* * *
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, my question is for
the Minister of Health.
Thousands of Canadians worry about their chances of
contracting AIDS from transfusions received prior to 1985.
What progress can the minister report in identifying those at
risk?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, we
are all very concerned with the threat people have of living with
HIV-AIDS, especially those who contracted it through blood
transfusions in the early eighties.
One of the things that is happening right now is an inquiry
under the auspices of Judge Krever. We are co-operating and
collaborating very closely at making sure that all information is
brought forward so that this kind of tragedy never happens
again.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): I have a supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker.
Blood samples kept by the Red Cross are identifiable as to
donors and recipients. Why else would they be kept? This may
be a difficult problem but lives are at stake. Will the minister
commit today to seek out the recipients of this tainted blood?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member is referring to a number of samples which we have
just found out exist in Toronto.
Today Dr. Doug Kennedy from the Department of Health is in
Toronto looking at these samples to see exactly what can be done
with them. We will take action as soon as we have had a report
from Dr. Kennedy.
2543
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
Canada's farmers and others appreciate the minister's
decision to leave the excise tax off ethanol. This method of
encouraging the use of ethanol blended fuel is good for the
environment, for agriculture and for the ethanol industry.
I noted in the budget documents that the minister did not put
any time limit on this tax break. Could the minister speculate a
bit on the permanence of this waiver of the excise tax on
ethanol?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, every time this
particular Minister of Finance has speculated he has got himself
into a lot of trouble. Let me say to the member for
Leeds-Grenville and indeed to all members of the House-I
see the member for Kent, as an example-who have spoken to
me about this very important issue that we recognize, both in
terms of its contribution to the environment and its contribution
to agriculture, the tremendous potential that exists in ethanol as
a fuel.
Given that and because of the representations made we
certainly have no intention of reinstituting any kind of an excise
tax on ethanol. That was said in the budget. I can tell the member
unequivocally that is our current intention and will be so
certainly for the duration of this particular government, at least
as long as I am the Minister of Finance, but I do not know how
long that is going to be.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance and Minister responsible
for Regional Development in Quebec.
About two months ago, I asked the Minister of Transport what
the government intended to do about the plan to have MIL Davie
shipyards, in Lauzon, build the Magdalen Islands ferryboat.
Will the minister press his colleague the Minister of Transport
to award MIL Davie the contract for the construction of the
ferry, thus allowing the largest private employer in the Greater
Quebec City region to survive?
(1450)
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): As you know, Mr. Speaker, the
Federal Office of Regional Development-Quebec has decided,
not only because resources were scarce but also to focus more on
those areas which create the most jobs, to concentrate its efforts
on small business and new technologies.
Therefore, as the Minister responsible for the Federal Office,
I will concentrate on small business and new technologies, and
let other ministers deal with shipyards and transportation issues.
Let the hon. member have no fear. There are 19 of us from
Quebec in our caucus, including the acting Minister of Regional
Development, Mr. Massé, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Prime Minister. All of us
are here to take care of Quebec's interests.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, I will
direct my question to the Prime Minister as the Minister of
Finance is clearly unable or unwilling to discuss transportation
issues.
Can the Prime Minister tell us who, in Cabinet, is defending
the interests of the MIL Davie workers if his Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Development
does not want to discuss transportation issues and his Minister
of Transport, who is from New Brunswick, is bound to favour
the St. John Shipbuilding shipyards?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
everyone knows full well that these problems are discussed in
Cabinet and that we are committed to the workers in Quebec as
we are to those in the rest of the country. Now, in this particular
case, we must determine first whether or not we really need a
new ferry and second, if the price is right. That is precisely what
the Minister of Transport is doing now. Once his decision is
known, the House will be informed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
The U.S. government is threatening to impose high tariffs on
Canadian grain and is saying that it might compensate Canada
for this action by making concessions on the protection of
Canadian poultry, eggs and dairy products.
This kind of bargaining, pitting Canadian farmers against
Canadian farmers, is unacceptable.
Will the Prime Minister assure the House that the government
will not accept a deal that sacrifices the interest of one
agricultural sector for the interest of another?
2544
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
have already discussed the problem with the American
authorities. I have mentioned it to the President of the United
States.
In the case of the products covered by article XI of the GATT,
we know the proposed tariffication levels are protected by the
GATT rules. There is no concession to be received from the
Americans. We are just playing by the rules of the GATT.
On the question of the level of imports in the United States of
Canadian wheat, this is something that is being discussed. There
will be no tradeoff between one part of the farming community
against the other.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the Prime Minister for his assurances and I ask for a further
clarification.
If American negotiators attempt in these negotiations, in this
bargaining, to pit Canadian grain farmers against Canadian
producers of poultry, eggs and dairy products, will the
government tell the Americans to take a flying leap?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said that the two cannot be bargained one against the other.
Egg, milk and butter producers in Canada are protected by the
GATT rules. We have changed the rules and the proposed
tariffication that exists today has been established under the
rules of the GATT. We insist that we are following the
international rules.
The question of the Americans importing more wheat for their
market is another question. There was an increase in the export
of wheat to the United States over the last few years. One part
was caused by the flood there and the second was because we
produce better wheat than it does when we talk about durum
wheat. There is a conflict within American society: those who
want good pasta want Canadian wheat and we are on their side.
(1455)
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Speaker: The Chair is ever so thankful that you did not
address yourself to the flying leap.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Health. Public hearings on
the marketing of somatotropin have recommended that the
introduction of this controversial hormone be delayed.
In view of this recommendation, does the Minister of Health
intend to allow this hormone to be marketed in Canada?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. member should know that my department has not yet
completed its studies of this hormone. Once these studies are
completed, if the health of Canadians is not at risk, I will have no
choice but to allow this hormone to be marketed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development and was inspired by businessman Brian Burge of
Ottawa.
Recently Mr. Burge spent more than $1,000 advertising
commission sales jobs in Ottawa and Toronto. From this effort
Mr. Burge discovered that many respondents were unwilling to
give up guaranteed unemployment insurance benefits and risk
the uncertainty of a commission sales job. Many jobs in the new
economy will be commission or performance based.
In view of what the government said at the G-7 meeting, will
the minister respond to the evidence that the UI system
discourages recipients from taking commission jobs? Could he
tell the House what he intends to do to fix UI in this regard?
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, I
thank the hon. member for his question.
As the hon. member would recall, last January we initiated a
process of social security review to better, improve and
modernize the present system. Among the areas we are presently
reviewing is the Unemployment Insurance Act. Toward this end
the representation made by the hon. member will be taken under
consideration.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Sherbrooke): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister and it pertains to the Collège
militaire royal de Saint-Jean.
It is now obvious that the decision to close this college was
misguided. However, we recognize that the closure is part of a
budget decision and that the government finds itself in an
extremely difficult financial situation. That is why many of us,
including the Government of Quebec, have called for a
moratorium.
Under the circumstances, we think it would be reasonable for
the government to take the time to examine this question
thoroughly before making an irrevocable decision. This is not,
in our view, an unreasonable request.
2545
Therefore, my question for the Prime Minister is as follows:
Under the circumstances, would he not be willing to take the
time to review this matter thoroughly before making such a final
decision?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
the military college in Saint-Jean will not be closed until the end
of the next school year. Therefore, we have over one year to find
a use for these facilities which are extremely valuable.
We are currently discussing with Quebec government
officials to find a way to put this facility to good use and we are
prepared to provide assistance. The Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs is currently conducting the
discussions in this regard.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the minister of fisheries.
Pending conclusion of his proposed new high seas fisheries
convention prohibiting overfishing by foreign vessels operating
just outside Canada's 200-mile fishing zone, will the minister of
fisheries remind states that Canada has the legal right under
already existing international law to apply stringent fisheries
conservation measures and penal sanctions where necessary
against delinquent foreign vessels and their crews?
(1500)
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question, acknowledge
his great expertise in the area of international law and take this
opportunity to say yes, indeed we are taking every opportunity
through every forum available to us, most recently at the UN
conference on high seas fishing and at the FAO in Rome.
We are taking every measure to try to ensure that international
law is binding, that we can develop binding dispute settlement
mechanisms, and that Canada can through agreement put an end
to the problem of foreign overfishing.
Let no one believe otherwise. If we cannot resolve this
problem by agreement we will resolve it by unilateral action by
Canada.
* * *
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Fritz Verzetnitsch and Mr. Rudolf
Nurnberger, members of the Austrian Parliament.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
2545
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
The Speaker: With regard to the hon. member's request to
table a document, Beauchesne's sixth edition in citation 495(6)
precludes the private member from tabling documents.
Therefore it would require the unanimous consent of the House.
The hon. member has made the request. Is it the pleasure of
the House to give unanimous consent for the tabling of this
document?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to correct the
Hansard record.
Last Thursday, March 17, I made a statement on the Somalian
incident and I would like the record to reflect that several
military police investigations were ordered into the significant
incidents experienced by the Canadian Airborne Regiment
battle group in Somalia and that the first one commenced on
March 19, 1993, not on April 15, 1993 as stated in the House.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to three
petitions.
* * *
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, yesterday, on the initiative of the Association of
French-speaking Parliamentarians, a reception was held here on
Parliament Hill to mark the beginning of the Semaine de la
Francophonie. Representatives of various Canadian
organizations dealing with the Francophonie came from across
Canada.
A number of Canadian personalities who have distinguished
themselves in this country by working in different ways and in
different communities to promote the French fact were
honoured. We were especially happy to have among us at this
2546
ceremony the Prime Minister of Canada, who received the
honourary award of the Francophonie and who is a proud
representative of Canada's French-speaking community.
Allow me today in this House, at the first opportunity I have
had since the beginning of this Semaine de la Francophonie, to
remind members of some interesting historic facts.
(1505)
As hon. members know, the heads of state and government
summit held at Chaillot Palace in Paris in 1991 ratified the
proposal for an international Francophonie day and expressed
the wish that each of the 47 states and governments forming the
so-called Francophone community celebrate this day
individually and at their convenience. It was officially set for
March 20, the date on which was founded the Cultural and
Technical Co-operation Agency, the first francophone
intergovernmental organization, whose secretary general in the
last few years has been a distinguished Canadian, Jean-Louis
Roy.
We are very proud to take part in this day and thus show that
we belong to the Francophonie. As active members of this
multilateral group, we will continue to promote the basic values
dear to all Canadians such as democracy, human rights,
women's equality, child welfare, education and training. The
francophone community includes over 400 million men and
women scattered all over the globe.
The Francophonie is an integral part of Canada's foreign
policy. We intend to continue playing an active role and
contributing in various ways, so that all francophone and
francophile Canadians continue to benefit from this window on
the world and the fruitful contacts we maintain in many
French-speaking countries throughout the world.
By being a member of the Francophonie, Canada also shows
the rest of the world the unique features of Canadian reality. The
Canadian Francophonie speaks with many accents. It starts out
in the sandy dunes of New Brunswick, goes up the St. Lawrence
River, and ends up in the western plains. During their travels,
our francophones took on the accents of Antonine Maillet, Anne
Hébert, and Gabrielle Roy. Far from resting on their laurels, our
francophones now speak with new accents such as the Creole
intonations of those who found refuge on these North American
shores.
Canadians show solidarity with all the people of the world
who use French to communicate, exchange ideas and better
understand one another.
It is in this spirit that I invite all Canadians and their elected
representatives in this House and in legislatures with a large
number of francophones, be it in Quebec, New Brunswick,
Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, or even British Columbia,
for there are many francophones on Canada's West Coast.
So, on this day and week celebrating the Francophonie, I
would urge all my colleagues in the House of Commons,
particularly the members of the Bloc Quebecois, to realize that
the French language is alive and well in Canada. It is not
endangered as some members opposite would like us to believe.
On the contrary! The French fact is strongly and brilliantly
defended throughout Canada and reaches out around the world.
(1510)
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Quebec): Mr. Speaker, today it is
a great honour and a great source of pride for the Bloc Quebecois
to draw the attention of the House to la Journée mondiale de la
Francophonie.
For Quebec and for all francophones in the rest of Canada,
whose common destiny is necessarily linked to that of the
Francophonie, this is a particularly memorable day.
Incidentally, this anniversary coincides with that of the
founding of the Agence de coopération culturelle et technique,
the first francophone intergovernmental organization.
Quebec's participation in this international body illustrates
that in matters concerning the Francophonie, as in all other
matters, especially when they concern our identity and cultural
ambience, as the Leader of the Official Opposition mentioned
earlier, it is important to run our own affairs.
Promoting the French fact also means promoting our viability
as a community, and in this respect, we have no outside allies
other than the solidarity of francophone countries.
We must remember that the destiny of francophones outside
Quebec should not be dissociated from the affirmation of
Quebec's identity, because our community owes its survival to
its will to endure as a people. This solidarity among
francophones in Canada must be strengthened.
Canada's francophone communities must not only survive,
they must also be able to develop their cultural, economic and
social potential in their own language.
The situation is not reassuring. Everywhere in Canada and
even in Quebec, the position of French is precarious.
Twenty-five years of official and individual bilingualism have
not been able to stop the assimilation of francophones.
Bilingualism is still too often a Francophone that speaks
English.
It is also a fact that Canada's provinces have ignored the
rights of their francophone minorities. Even worse, in a number
of provinces, francophone communities are considered just
2547
another ethnic community, a situation that was aggravated by
the federal government's support for multiculturalism.
The closing of Collège militaire in Saint-Jean also brought to
the fore the case of the French high school in Kingston, which is
located in a building without washrooms or running water.
Reality can be pretty grim!
When the Minister of Foreign Affairs says that to Canada,
belonging to the Francophonie also means revealing to the rest
of the world what is unique about Canada's situation, one
wonders what situation he is talking about!
The Forum international de la Francophonie, which includes
47 countries from all continents, must continue to develop and
make itself heard. This applies to all areas, including education,
for instance, where the association of partially or fully French
language universities, whose headquarters is in Montreal, does
remarkable work, and also to the information technology sector
and all other economic and cultural sectors.
I think that although it is appropriate to celebrate this
international day of the Francophonie, we must not forget that
we still have a long way to go, especially here in Canada.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, the
Reform Party of Canada recognizes the Journée internationale
de la Francophonie, that was officially celebrated yesterday,
March 20.
Our party, being a party of the people, recognizes on this day
that 23 per cent of Canadians are francophones.
At the same time, we realize that Canadians are part of la
Francophonie, a worldwide group of 400 million people.
(1515)
Canada is a fortunate country. Despite our financial problems,
we continue to provide assistance to other countries, but our
help does not necessarily involve money.
We agree with the Minister of Foreign Affairs, who just said
that Canada will continue to promote the fundamental values
dear to all Canadians such as democracy, human rights,
women's equality, child welfare, education and training. By
supporting these values in other countries, we hope to reinforce
them at home.
We congratulate francophones from Canada and other
countries around the world on this international day of la
Francophonie.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-227, an Act to amend the Interest Act
(calculation of credit card interest).
He said: Mr. Speaker, as you know, our contemporary society
makes heavy use of credit cards and I am the first to admit that
these financial instruments are very useful.
Nevertheless, I believe that consumers are poorly informed
about the cost of the services provided by the issuing companies.
I would even add that many consumers are charged what I would
call an excessive rate of interest.
This bill proposes an amendment to the Interest Act, so that
the consumer can better judge the costs of various credit cards
by standardizing the calculation of interest.
I am tabling today not one but two bills concerning this
matter. You no doubt have both of them before you.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf) moved for leave to
introduce Bill C-228, an Act to provide for the limitation of
interest rates and fees in relation to credit card accounts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the second bill seeks to provide for the
limitation of interest rates and fees in relation to credit card
accounts, by means of a floating ceiling that would follow
fluctuations in the bank rate.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
(1520)
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, I have three
petitions from citizens of the riding of Peterborough. All of
them deal with the lowering of taxes on tobacco. Each makes a
different point.
The first petition from 47 people of Peterborough stresses that
the government should deal with smuggling in some other way.
The second petition which has 25 signatures says that the tax
will cause between 175,000 and 350,000 more teenagers to
smoke in Canada.
2548
The third petition which also has 25 signatures stresses that
the tobacco industry knows that lower taxes simply mean higher
profits for it.
I present these petitions under Standing Order 36.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Shall all questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wish to inform the
House that, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the
ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by
12 minutes.
_____________________________________________
2548
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I believe the hon. member
for Kamloops had the floor prior to question period. We will go
directly to questions and comments.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Public Works and Government Services): Mr.
Speaker, I have two questions for my hon. colleague.
I was disappointed, assuming that I heard or interpreted the
comments attributed to the Bloc Quebecois correctly, that it sort
of washed its hands of this. It really did not matter because the
Bloc did not expect to around the next time.
I have told the Bloc on several occasions that it has a
responsibility to represent all Canadians. This bill is coming
forward now and I would argue, and I would like my colleague's
comments on this, that it has a responsibility to treat this
seriously and not take its own myopic view and simply say it
may not be around. It could go poof by the next election. That is
my first comment.
My second is a question which is very simple and precise. In
the 34th Parliament I had suggested that perhaps this
Parliament, that is, l'ensemble des députés, should look at the
possibility of significantly reducing the number of MPs. Would
this not be a wonderful opportunity to see whether we could do
with one-quarter or perhaps one-third fewer MPs?
I would like to get my colleague's reaction. I think that
Canadians would applaud such a move. It would mean a
significant saving. For the record, I did make that request in the
34th Parliament. Perhaps it will be more easily supported in this,
the 35th Parliament.
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I will answer my colleague's second
question first.
I believe there is some merit in the proposal he raised in the
last Parliament. It brings to mind a private member's bill that
was put forward by my colleague then, the member for
Yorkton-Melville. My colleague for Regina-Lumsden spoke
to me about that earlier. It would have reduced the number of
seats by about 60, I believe, about 20 per cent.
Again, this idea of a political party open to at least the
suggestion of not only capping the seats in the House of
Commons but actually reducing the number is something that
we pursued in the past. It is the kind of thing that we would
certainly be open to now in the discussions, assuming that this
bill goes on to committee.
(1525)
In terms of the hon. member's comment regarding my friends
in the Bloc, it was a good point. Over the past few weeks as this
Parliament has unfolded one of the points I have noticed is there
seemed to be a rather restricted geographic base of interest from
my friends in the Bloc, tending to focus on issues that were more
related to Quebec than perhaps to other parts of Canada. That
seems to be a theme that has developed over a period of time.
The speaker from the Bloc made his points earlier and there
seems to be almost a preoccupation with Quebec issues. It is not
surprising for me, recognizing the mandate that the members
have interpreted for themselves. I assumed that there was some
inconsistency.
I take the suggestion by my hon. friend from St. Boniface
seriously. Perhaps it is a reflection that the Bloc is widening its
terms of reference as it interprets being the Official Opposition
to represent issues far beyond the borders of Quebec.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker,
following the comments made by the hon. member for
Kamloops, I want to say that we made no secret of our
sovereignist option and of the fact that we constantly promote
that option for Quebec. Also, we will never resort to the
scorched-earth policy. The seats we occupy do not belong to us:
we are trustees. I fully agree with that observation made by the
hon. member for Calgary West. Until last October 25, we had a
government which thought that the whole country belonged to
it. Look at what is left of that government now.
2549
It is in this responsible fashion that the Official Opposition
intends to continue to work on Bill C-18, which deals with
electoral boundaries readjustment. This legislation might be in
effect for the next general election, whether Quebec is still
present or not.
I think it is a matter of responsibility for parliamentarians,
regardless of their political affiliation, to participate in the
business of the House. In my opinion, given this notion of
responsibility, a party which would sit back and refuse to take
part in the work of the House because of a political option or
some bias, would certainly deserve to be blamed.
As I said earlier, as long as we are here, we intend to defend
the interests of Canadians from coast to coast, all the way up to
the Arctic. This must be very clear, and if we have to repeat it,
we will constantly repeat it, being understood of course that our
primary objective is Quebec's sovereignty.
However, we are not the ones who will decide; the decision
rests with Quebeckers. It is Quebec voters who, on referendum
day, will decide their future, in the polling booth.
Whatever their decision, we must respect it. We believe and
we hope that they will say yes, and in fact we will work for a yes
vote for sovereignty, for empowerment, for the opening of
Quebec to the world, to the francophonie and to the
English-speaking world and all other cultures of course. If,
unfortunately, we cannot reach our goal from the seat we occupy
here and if others take over, we will have to work to ensure that it
happens later, in the best possible manner.
We are here to promote Quebec's evolution in the context of a
mature political context, and it makes me very sad every time I
hear expressions such as ``break up'' or ``collapse'' in reference
to Canada. We do not want to break anything other than political
structures. Does the redefinition of Canada's political structures
mean the breaking up of anything? Was there any mention of a
``collapse'' when the Canadian Constitution was rewritten in
1840, then in 1867, in 1931, and finally in 1982? No, rather we
talked about affirmation. When Canada became sovereign, we
celebrated. When Quebec becomes sovereign, we should also
celebrate.
(1530 )
[English]
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, I listened to my friend with some
interest. First of all he says he is a separatist and that he is
promoting separatism or sovereignty association or whatever.
That is fine. I think it is a moot point.
He says that he wants his party to act as the Official
Opposition. I do not think there is any question that if we did a
content analysis of the questions asked by my friends in the Bloc
we would find overwhelmingly that those questions are focused
geographically.
I do not recall many questions being raised about the west
coast fishery, about the problems in the Arctic region, about
agriculture on the prairies, about the Atlantic fishery, the fixed
link with P.E.I, energy and mines. I hope this is a new trend that
we will see. I would encourage my colleagues to take up the role
of Official Opposition in a more appropriate way than they have
in the past.
However, to listen to my friend talk about dismembering
Canada as we know it and to say that this is not breaking up the
country is mixing up our words somewhat. In a family when a
piece of the family leaves, we talk about breaking up the family.
When one loses a limb, one is obviously breaking up one's body
somewhat.
To take a major part of Canada and separate it into a sovereign
nation and say that is not breaking up Canada is a misuse of the
term.
We should recognize that the fundamental purpose, as my
colleague has indicated, of the Bloc in the House is to separate
the province of Quebec from Canada, which in my terminology
would be breaking up the country that we have known for the
past 126 years in a formal sense.
It is a mixture of terminology. Perhaps some of it gets mixed
up in the translation, but in my mind it is very clear what is going
on. I do not support the Bloc in its fundamental mandate, but I do
find encouragement in the fact that it says it is going to take on
the role of Official Opposition in a more generous way in the
future.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the thoughtful remarks of the hon. member for
Kamloops on this subject.
I want to raise a couple of points with him. I appreciate the
dissatisfaction that exists in interior British Columbia. I have
had the opportunity, not in a great deal of detail, to review some
of the proposed maps from the commission and certainly
interior British Columbia has some of the stranger proposals.
Some of them are unusual. Most are fairly standard types of
proposals.
I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops would agree it would
be appropriate in the interim to point his constituents toward the
fact that the commission will be holding hearings in Kamloops
on May 24. I am sure he will do that.
One thing he raised in his speech that I want to bring forward
concerns the legislative program of the government. Does he
find it unusual that we are discussing electoral boundaries when
the budget is yet to be discussed, the omnibus budget bill,
unemployment insurance concerns? Does he find that this is a
strange example of parliamentary priorities in his long
experience here?
2550
Mr. Riis: Mr. Speaker, to my colleague from Calgary West I
want to say that one of the very first things I did when I saw the
map was call a press conference and urge my constituents to
write, serve notice that they would want to be interveners during
the hearings on the new boundaries because they were so odd
and so peculiar.
In terms of priority, my hon. colleague from Calgary West
pointed out that part of the theme of this new government is to
consult, to discuss, to study, to examine and to review. As a
matter of fact, all we have really done so far is initiate reviews,
studies and examinations of just about every conceivable area of
responsibility for the federal government.
I suspect this is part of that thesis, although when we consider
the priorities of the country we would have to look long and hard
to find Canadians that would say the process we use for
determining the boundaries of federal electoral districts is
something that ought to be reviewed and given some priority.
I find myself in agreement with my friend that this is an odd
priority. What is perhaps more odd is that it has come so quickly
and out of nowhere.
(1535)
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to add some fresh thoughts on our debate about the
proposed suspension of the operation of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act.
I wonder if we should consider starting from the premise that
this Parliament ought to interfere in due process set up by
Parliament only for some clearly stated public policy purpose.
What concerns some of us in the House very much is that the
purpose of this interference has not at all been stated. There is
absolutely nothing in the bill that says what we are hoping to
achieve by suspension of the process that has been in effect now
for many months.
The proposed bill is entirely silent on important elements that
would provide some direction and also that would allow the
citizens we serve to evaluate the merits of the process. Other
speakers have stated clearly, and I would agree, that the effects
of the present process are somewhat undesirable.
I represent the riding of Calgary North. It is the largest riding
in terms of voter population in the province of Alberta, with
over 94,000 electors. It is growing very quickly. New
communities are being built up rapidly and the boundaries of the
riding are expanding.
This commission in its initial proposal which was mailed to
the electors in my riding did not just take away a portion of the
riding, which is the largest riding in Alberta and growing.
Obviously part of it will have to go somewhere else. The
commission ripped the thing in half and gave me a chunk of
someone else's riding. Not only did this disrupt the sense of
community that the riding has enjoyed for a while but it also
took away a part of another sense of community that has been
built up in another riding.
There would not be any problem with taking away from the
largest riding in Alberta, but to do that on one hand and then give
me part of another one does not make a whole lot of sense in my
view and in the view of many of my constituents. The concern
that has been stated on all sides of the House is the tendency of
the commission to violate the sense of community that has been
built up. I would suggest that this is a valid concern.
If we are going to have our citizens participating in the
political process in a meaningful way then the provisions of the
act that instruct the commission to respect the community of
interest, to look at geographic criteria should have been more
closely followed by the commission. I think that is a valid
criticism.
The problem is that we have identified the problem but not the
solution. What we are doing in this case is taking away an
important element that would help us to identify solutions. That
would be to proceed with the public hearings which have been
scheduled to begin in a couple of weeks across the country for
which many of our citizens are preparing.
The hon. member for Kamloops has just stated that in his
riding citizens have already been preparing for those hearings.
Here we are at the very last second pulling the rug out from
under this process and not allowing the citizens of the country to
help us move in better directions if we are agreed that we do
need different directions.
I believe there is some real virtue in moving on to permit these
public views to be heard, to assist parliamentarians who
represent the citizens of the country, to look at the process, to
adjust it so that the results are more desirable for all of us and to
open the process up to that kind of input.
(1540 )
It could be very beneficial for us as parliamentarians to have
the views of other citizens in the country who are directly
affected by the work of the commission. It would also ensure
that any future rules that were proposed were not open to the
charge that has been made by other speakers in today's debate
that the process has been interfered with in a partisan, unfair or
inappropriate manner.
I believe that if we let the public speak on this situation the
public would bring up the very same concerns that we in
Parliament have, perhaps with an added perspective, definitely
with a different credibility. I would urge the government to
consider seriously whether this process should go ahead. I
recommend that it does.
2551
The process that is set up under the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act is represented as being independent of
political influence, and so it should be. Some speakers today
have registered a concern that in stopping this present process
and not putting in a clear process today that could be evaluated,
political influence is a definite possibility in the future.
I would suggest that the House, if it wishes to maintain the
confidence of the Canadian public, should protect that principle
of independence by commissions that are engaged in these types
of exercises and that we ought to affirm that principle of
independence. Whatever we do in the House or whatever the
government does to affect the process must clearly protect the
integrity of the process rather than leave it open to even a
suspicion that there can be partisan tinkering with it.
Unfortunately no safeguards are proposed in the legislation to
address this very legitimate concern. That is one of the reasons,
in spite of the disagreement that members of the House have
with the commission's initial proposals, we feel that the present
action of the government in simply putting a stop to the whole
process without safeguards, without any clear direction, is
inappropriate and why we do not support the bill that is before us
today.
In Calgary hearings by the commission have been scheduled
for April 20. We have urged citizens there to make their
proposals known. We hope that this kind of participation can
still take place. If the government, after today's debate, after
hearing some of the concerns and suggestions from other
members of the House, will allow those hearings to proceed it
will encourage participation of the public in what is happening
with redistribution.
There have been many suggestions made today that the people
of Canada do not want to pay more members of Parliament.
Some people have been so unkind as to suggest that some
members of the public feel that the 295 we have today are not
entirely worth their pay. I am sure that is not true but it has been
suggested by some.
If it is true that the people of Canada do not want to see an
increase in the number of members of the House, the number of
members representing and governing them, we ought to give
them an opportunity to air this concern. That would be another
purpose of the public hearings that we feel should not be stopped
but should go ahead.
The suggestion has been made in the House but there really
has been no opportunity for the members of the public to make
this suggestion. Perhaps if they were allowed to speak they
would be happy to have more of us doing the fine job that we are
doing. However, if they do not feel that way they should be
allowed to say so clearly and to the proper body.
I want to emphasize that this exercise of electoral
redistribution and the public hearings that accompany it really
go to the root of the democratic principle of representation. In a
democracy we abide by the principle of one person, one vote.
That is a very important principle of democracy. That means that
our proportional representation has to be unified across the
country.
(1545)
The redistribution that is necessary because of fluctuations in
population is important and the exercise that surrounds this
redistribution is important because it touches this very
fundamental proposition of one person, one vote, a proportional
representation.
I would emphasize that we ought not to interfere with this
exercise lightly because of the very fundamental principles that
it speaks to. I think the people of Canada would have a right to be
concerned if a government used its majority against the wishes
of all members of the House, of all representatives of the people,
to interfere in a very fundamental democratic exercise without
having the opportunity for people to speak themselves.
I would suggest that rather than exercising our power as
legislators to pass judgment on the proposals of the commission,
although we are certainly entitled to state our concerns and
opinions and would be free to do so in the commission hearings,
that instead we use our responsibilities as leaders to ensure full
and fair public debate and review of the commission's
proposals.
I think that would be the service that we should render to the
public rather than simply using our own unilateral judgment to
put a stop to the exercise of the commission's jurisdiction.
I think that we as legislators also have a responsibility to
ensure that the commission respects the provisions of section 15
of the present Electoral Boundaries Redistribution Act which
mandates that they look at community and geographic
considerations and some of the things that we could argue have
been violated in the initial proposals of the commission.
However, I would emphasize that these are initial proposals
only, that they are not written in stone. They are, presumably
and certainly ostensibly, open to public input and public
influence. I would suggest that we allow that process to go
ahead.
In summary I believe there are public policy reasons to
re-examine the present process. It is clear that there is a lot of
unhappiness both in terms of the growing numbers of MPs that
have been suggested and in terms of the violation of community
and the sense of cohesion that has been built up in many areas
through political involvement.
However, I believe that this process should be carefully and
thoughtfully considered and rather than just throwing out $5
million worth of work today that we give some clear direction
when we do change the process and that the changes be proposed
only when they have been properly framed and not just on ``we
don't like this, we don't know what we like, but we are not going
2552
to go ahead with this'', especially without the public being able
to speak on this.
With that recommendation I urge members of the House to
support our proposed amendment to this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Carleton-Gloucester): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Calgary North has made an
interesting speech based on the principle of public
representation, arguing that the people should be able to make
representations on how the new federal ridings would be
redistributed.
I think this is an excellent point and it would be great if all the
various communities within a riding were homogenous instead
of having totally divergent interests as is often the case at
present.
(1550)
I would like to ask the hon. member for Calgary North the
following question. You can see the size of this chamber. A few
years ago, ten, fifty, a hundred years ago, there certainly were
not 295 members sitting here. Not so long ago, there were about
250. There used to be 200 and, before that, perhaps 150. Today,
we are 295 and we are about to add another six, at a cost of
approximately $9 million, $10 million or $12 million.
So, I can see two problems. One is that, at this rate, there will
come a point, in 2050 or 2090, where this chamber will no longer
be large enough to hold all the new members. Walls will have to
be moved back to make room for the extra seats that will have to
be made. If you look to the south, in the United States, they have
only 100 senators for a total population of about 250 million.
My riding is huge. It is currently the fourth largest of all urban
and rural ridings in Canada, and I am not complaining. I am
rather proud of it. I think that there is a way, when you how, to
represent your riding well and not lose touch with the
community.
I am sure that the hon. member has noticed that in Prince
Edward Island, they have ridings-and I do not mean any
disrespect; I am merely stating a fact-which are no larger than
certain neighbourhoods in cities like Calgary or here, in the
Ottawa area. They have four members of Parliament
representing 135,000 people, and I do mean people as opposed
to voters. There are probably no more than 20,000 to 25,000
voters in some of these ridings, and even that is generous. Now,
there is a problem there, but the province and its right to be
represented have to be respected. This is a case where we would
have to refer to the Constitution.
For those of us from other parts of the country where there are
no such guarantees, is this room not getting a little crowded?
And have our national debt and public debt not grown so much
that we should act to curb the growth of the number of elected
members?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before I give the floor to
the hon. member for Calgary North, I know it is the beginning of
the week and possibly I have been a little more generous with the
time than I should be, but I do want to give the opportunity to
each and every member who wishes to speak to this issue that
opportunity in the next few hours or however long the debate
might go on. I understood that members are sharing time in tens
and fives and I think if we were to check the times we would find
that we have rather extended those quite generously.
In all fairness to the very good question following an
interesting intervention by the member for Calgary North, I
would ask the member for Calgary North if she would not mind
just giving the House at this moment the short version and
possibly she may want to discuss the matter more fully with her
colleague at a later time so that we can get the debate back on
track within the confines of the time limitations we put on one
another.
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): On a point of order, Mr.
Speaker. I should have indicated to you a few minutes ago that
Reform members are not presently sharing their time. I had
indicated that in a discussion with your predecessor and I guess
that information was not passed on. There was some lack of
clarity on that.
I do not know how you want to proceed with this particular
speaker, but after this speaker I do not think for the time being
we will be sharing our time. We will not be sharing our time.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I apologize to all
members in the House, and particularly to the member for
Calgary North and the member for Carleton-Gloucester.
I understand now very clearly from the member for Calgary
West that Reform members participating in the debate will not
be sharing their time but in fact will take the full 20 minute
complement followed by 10 minutes of questions and
comments. Is that correct?
The member for Calgary North has more time than I had first
indicated.
(1555 )
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, we probably owe you an
apology for not communicating directly to you on that point. I
am sure that members of the House will be absolutely delighted
to know that I can now give them the long answer to the hon.
member's question rather than the short answer.
2553
I believe his points were well taken. With respect to Prince
Edward Island, now that the causeway is going ahead perhaps
the population of that area of the country will increase to justify
more representation.
I believe his comment with respect to other countries,
particularly our neighbour to the south, is very interesting and
very appropriate where a much larger population appears to be
well served. In fact, some people think it is still over-served by
a much lesser number of representatives than we have here in
Canada. I believe that their Congress is not a whole lot bigger
than our House of Commons even though they have 10 times the
population. That is one argument I have certainly heard
advanced by many Canadians against expanding the
membership of this Chamber.
I would like to touch on another aspect of this in response to
the hon. member's question as to whether we really need more
representatives. I think this goes to the root and scope of our
representation here in the Canadian Parliament. On this side of
the House we have argued rather strenuously and will continue
to argue that the scope of our representation in this Chamber is
very circumscribed. In other words, we really do not have the
freedom we think is necessary to represent the wishes and
directives of our constituents as should be available in a
representative democracy through things like free votes. Quite
often we find in the House members are voting and acting in
accordance with strict directives from their party.
If that is going to continue to be the case, I would suggest that
indeed there could be fewer of us simply responding to
directives from the executive portion of our party. If we are
going to truly solicit and actively represent the concerns and
wishes and directives of our constituents then we would have
much more legitimacy, especially with respect to numbers than
we do today.
Last, I would like to point out to the hon. member that
although I agree with his contention that we ought not to
increase the numbers in this Chamber, and as he rightly points
out there are even physical limitations on that today, this bill
makes absolutely no commitment to do that. There is nothing in
this bill that says we are going to turn this back to committee
with a view to ensuring that the number of members in this
Chamber does not increase.
That is a real concern. I would say to the hon. member that for
that reason I would urge him to support the amendment we have
made to give a period of time so that those very specific
directions can be built into the bill and then the bill can be
brought back. We know where we are going and we know what
we want to achieve. It is clearly stated and we can go forward on
a much more solid basis that is open to evaluation and debate
rather than just throwing the thing wide open again.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I thank
the hon. member for Calgary North for her comments. The hon.
member for Calgary North and I and other members of the
Reform caucus from Calgary have been co-operating on a
submission to be made to the public hearings in Calgary on April
20. We certainly appreciate her efforts in that regard and also the
fact that she has really been in the forefront of making sure that
her constituents are aware of this and are able to participate in
the process.
The question I would like to ask the hon. member for Calgary
North flows from the previous comment from the hon. member
for Carleton-Gloucester. So far today every speaker has
indicated a desire to see the number of MPs capped or even
reduced. Certainly nobody seems to be saying they want the
number of MPs increased.
Blocking the public hearing process will not accomplish that.
In fact, having the public hearing process will not accomplish it
either because it is not a matter of the boundaries commission. It
is a matter of the formula to which the House in conjunction with
the Senate could make some alterations.
(1600 )
This whole process could be facilitated if we could agree on
the issue of capping the number of MPs. I am curious as to
whether the hon. member has observed the same thing in debate.
Why does she believe the government is so reluctant to make
this commitment if there seems to be support for this kind of
measure from all sides of the House. I am sure she is hearing the
same thing from some of her constituents.
Mrs. Ablonczy: Mr. Speaker, one of the points we have been
making is that we want a commitment in this bill to cap the
number of members of Parliament.
As the hon. member for Calgary West rightly points out this
would be within the purview of the House of Commons through
an amendment to section 51 of the Constitution. This House has
the jurisdiction to make that amendment because it pertains to a
federal matter.
In speaking with other members and particularly government
members, we have urged a commitment like that to be built into
this process or a review of the process. I want to emphasize that
this has not been done. This is very disturbing to me as a
representative of electors. I have no idea why this could not have
been done and was not done.
It does raise the question as to how serious the government is
about capping or committing not to increase the number of
members. Rather than just taking a chance on a proper proposal
or a commitment coming out of a new process, it would be far
better to make that commitment right up front as a condition of
going in a different direction with the process rather than hoping
that somehow it comes out of talks within the House or in
committees in the next few months.
2554
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, in the
1993 election Canadians from small rural towns to large urban
centres told whoever would listen they wanted a reduction in the
size and cost of government. They continue to expect their
elected representatives to provide leadership on this issue. By
not listening the government is failing yet again to provide that
leadership Canadians are seeking.
The government as a minimum must review the process by
which representation takes place if it is to demonstrate it takes
the wishes of the electorate seriously. Most certainly the number
of seats in this House must be capped.
I recognize that electoral riding boundaries are not frozen for
all time, nor should they be. Changes in population distribution
often render electoral boundaries obsolete requiring them to be
changed. However, changes should be made with one important
element in mind: This country cannot afford any more members
of Parliament. What it needs are parliamentary reforms that will
make the system and the MPs we do have more effective in
carrying out their roles in the House.
One of the most important of those reforms is Senate reform.
An elected Senate would ensure that regional interests are
effectively balanced against the electoral distribution we now
have, one that is heavily weighted in favour of central Canada.
An equal, elected and effective Senate is what Canada needs, not
more MPs. The long range interest of Canadian federalism, a
reformed Senate, must be put ahead of short term expediency,
more MPs. Reforming the Senate is the kind of long range
planning Canadians expect from government.
The 35th Parliament must take a leadership role in
demonstrating we are seriously heeding the wishes of Canadians
and that we are acting on their advice. The bill before us today
should therefore be rejected by all members who respond
directly to the wishes of their electorate.
(1605)
Like a number of other government programs the exact cost of
yet another proposal to possibly add more members of
Parliament cannot be calculated.
For example the government has yet to deal with the cost of
MPs pensions. While we support the government's intention to
review MPs pensions, we cannot endorse the mixed message
this bill sends to Canadians. Where is the government's
commitment to control and limit spending? Let us be clear and
provide consistent messages to Canadians because they are not
only listening but they are also watching.
We support a federal democratically elected government that
provides equity to all regions through a reasonable alignment of
boundaries. Equity is better served through downsizing than
through upsizing.
Given that the government cannot fund all of our current
expenditures out of revenues, it falls to our lenders to fund with
interest these additional costs. It is becoming a very scary part
of Canadian government that our lenders are funding with
interest those activities and actions we wish to pursue in this
House.
In recent years the trend in corporate communities has been to
become more efficient. Companies in the nineties have become
slim and trim to give better services with decreased overhead.
When will the government learn to look to the private sector to
see where it is going and what it is doing? There are many
lessons to be learned there.
I do not understand how the government is going to create
jobs for Canadians when it has no concept of what is going on in
the private sector. I certainly met no one during the 1993
election campaign who felt that job creation meant more jobs for
MPs.
We are clearly over governed. We have three levels of
government. Among the three levels of government there are
thousands of elected representatives. The House of Commons
has 295 MPs representing some 28 million people. This works
out to approximately 94,915 Canadians for every member of
Parliament.
The Prime Minister likes to make comparisons between
Canada and the United States. I agree with the Prime Minister
that we look outside of Canada for comparisons to measure our
own performance.
In the United States there are 435 congressmen in the House
of Representatives and 100 senators. This totals only 535
representatives for some 250 million Americans. This works out
to one elected representative for every 467,300 Americans. I
have not heard of any support from Americans to increase their
levels of representation by 497 per cent to bring them in line
with the level of representation provided for in Canada. This per
capita comparison clearly shows that we do not need more MPs;
we probably could do with less.
Until there is a comprehensive review of Canada's electoral
needs as we approach the 21st century and an accompanying
strategic plan, there should be a moratorium on changes to
electoral boundaries. The government should guarantee there
will not be an increase in the number of seats in Parliament. The
notion of simply adding MPs as the population grows lacks any
vision regarding representation.
A move toward a downsized and elected Senate will stabilize
representation at a lower cost. Making senators accountable to
their constituents will allow a further reduction in the number of
MPs required to provide greater voter representation than that
found in most other democracies.
2555
(1610 )
The government has suggested that a parliamentary panel
should study the redistribution and size of Parliament. This
suggestion causes the people of Canada, and I am one of them,
great concern. They have been left out of the decision making
process long enough.
It is time government recognized that Canadians are not
satisfied to sit idly by and let politicians make decisions without
consulting them. The government says it is committed to an
open and honest style of governance. Yet at every turn it is
calling for councils, panels and committees that do not include
nor are open to the public.
It is not up to current members of Parliament to put forward
proposals to alter constituency boundaries for future elections.
When a redistribution takes place on a large scale the House of
Commons frequently rings out with what one MP, Mr. C. G.
Power, frankly described as an unseemly, undignified and
utterly confusing scramble for personal or political advantage.
Since 1892 Tory governments have proposed committees to
redistribute electoral ridings and the Liberals have opposed
them. Conversely, Liberal governments have proposed
committees to redistribute electoral ridings and the Tories have
opposed them. The opposition premise was that the committees
were only serving the interests of the government.
Remember the 34th Parliament and how the Liberals objected
to an expanded Senate. The Senate has not brought any
improvement to Canadian representation. The Liberal
opposition of the day argued that electoral boundary changes
would only benefit those on the committee deciding the
changes. Why have the Liberals now so dramatically changed
their position? They are now proposing yet another committee
with a mandate to study electoral boundary changes which
would likely recommend increases, not decreases, to the number
of MPs.
I am not opposing out of my own self-interest. I oppose
electoral boundary redistribution because I want to ensure there
will be no new seats and preferably fewer than we have today.
This is what the constituents I represent are telling me. Further,
this exercise by parliamentarians does not include the public
beyond broader based review nor does it have the popular
support of the public.
We are calling for the government to adopt a procedure that
cannot be accused of being partisan. Electoral boundary changes
must only be implemented if they will benefit Canadians.
There were calls for non-partisan redistribution prior to the
BNA Act, 1867. Those wishes still have not been satisfied. We
in the Reform Party are bringing to the House those popular
wishes, wishes that government in this country have failed to
listen to for 127 years.
I ask the House to support our amendment.
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to address the part of the hon. member's speech
where she was comparing our system with the American system.
I have spoken to a lot of American congressmen and women in
the last five years. I have often talked to them about the size of
their constituencies.
The hon. member mentioned the American constituencies
were about five times larger than ours. They are about 500,000
on average compared to our 100,000. What the hon. member
failed to mention is that the size of their staff ranges from 18 to
25 workers. One will find that is an increase of 5 per cent.
In making a comparison therefore we should be comparing the
whole picture. Sure their constituencies are larger in that they
have 500,000 to our 100,000, but the size of their staff is five
times larger as well. It is fair to mention that also. Maybe we
could add that to the bill when we are considering it a bit later.
Perhaps the member has something to say on that.
(1615)
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
hon. member for her comments and her observations.
For me and as I represent my constituents, those individuals
who elected me to the 35th Parliament, I have to say that they are
the ones who are giving me my direction. I would like to read
from one of those constituents who sent me a letter with regard
to the whole matter of electoral redistribution. She wrote:
Dear Jan:
Do we really need more government? At this time we are so far in debt, we
should be looking at all ways to reduce costs and restricting the increase in the
size of all our governing bodies, not increasing our debts.
Therefore, I would like to see all boundaries remain the same or better still
reduce the size of the House of Commons and get our huge debt under control.
The issue at stake is not only representation. It is also keeping
our expenditures under control, managing our money more
effectively, and keeping our debt under control. Quite frankly it
is scary to me to consider that staffing issues will be increasing
and burgeoning in light of the enormous debt costs we carry and
that the request of my constituents would be ignored in that
instance.
Once again I thank the hon. member for her observations. I
trust she will understand why I stand here and speak on behalf
of, for and with the constituents of Calgary Southeast.
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to ask the hon. member for Calgary Southeast a
question. I found her address extremely interesting and very
2556
refreshing, particularly her reference that Parliament ought to
become more effective and more efficient and her reference to
how the other place might be changed.
Would it be possible for her to outline for us, in perhaps
greater detail, how one could actually bring about a change of
that sort and how it could relate to the House of Commons and
make Parliament a more effective place?
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate
the question from the hon. member. I would like to reference my
answer with a little story.
At the last meeting in Calgary Southeast that I attended with
some of my constituents a motion was put forward that will
come forward at our assembly in October. I got a very clear
message about how effective and efficient they would like us to
become here. In this policy they are requesting that we reduce
the number of MPs in the House from 295 to 140.
That gave an idea about trimming down, paring down and
increasing efficiency here. That gave me a very clear and
powerful message from them.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Lisgar-Marquette): Mr. Speaker,
it has been an interesting half hour sitting here, listening to and
seeing how hon. members who sit with me referred to half the
thoughts I was to mention on this afternoon. I will try to enlarge
a few of them and address a few comments to hon. members
across the House.
We are addressing Bill C-18. I have not been in politics very
long but I have seen some of the bills presented to the House. I
have noticed how additions have been made to bills to get them
through, to make them a little sweeter, to sweeten the bait so that
people can support them.
If hon. members on the other side of the House had really
wanted to pass the bill, they would have probably included such
things as suspending strikes in the western grain handling
system. That has just cost my constituents about $200 million in
sales. That would have helped me to support the bill instead of
being against it.
(1620)
Why did they not also include in the bill to sweeten it up a bit a
suspension of the gold-plated pension plans for MPs? Then I
could have supported the bill. My constituents would have sent
me congratulatory messages as soon as I left the floor of the
House.
Why did they not include the suspension of phrases that we
cannot use in the House when we want to give our appreciation
to or criticize the other place or whatever they call it? I could
have supported that. I could have gone home and said: ``I am for
Bill C-18'', and people would have loved me for it.
Many members have raised concerns about the redrafting of
constituencies, especially our hon. friends on the other side. I
see a few little problems with it. I do not think they are that
severe. I think we can overcome those little problems. One
problem I have with my constituency is that it is gone. I do not
object too much to that, but the name Lisgar, a very prominent
name in Canadian history, will be gone. I will dwell on that point
a little later. I do not I find it so objectionable that I do not have
that riding to run in next time because the piece of property
where I live is still there. It is going to be included in the
boundaries of Portage. It is a real incentive for me to run in the
constituency of Portage; it means that I have to defeat another
federal minister. I did that in the last election. It really gives me
incentive to be a politician.
The bill suspends the operation of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act. What does that really mean? It means we are
suspending a regulation or a rule entrenched in the Constitution.
Why is it such a serious issue? I would like to dwell on it for a
few minutes.
In 1992 when we were discussing the referendum to change
the Constitution I will never forget Mr. Peter Warren, a very
well-known investigative reporter for CJOB in Manitoba, said:
``I am going to read to you the best constitution that has ever
been written and then just show and point out to you how
valuable a constitution is''.
I wondered what he would read the following day because I
was not that informed about constitutions. He read the manifesto
of 1917 written for the Communist Party. If that constitution
were taken to legal authorities or political analysts, it would be
found to be the best constitution that has ever been written,
guaranteeing all freedoms, all rights, everything needed in a
perfect constitution.
However the reason it did not work in the Soviet Union was
that politicians did not honour it. All of a sudden they felt they
could suspend the right to have property. All of a sudden they
thought they had the right to suspend freedom of religion. All of
a sudden in 1937, when things got really hostile in the world,
they thought they had the right to suspend the judicial system.
When my uncle was accused of being a traitor to the Soviet
government he did not have the right to appeal to the
government. A military tribunal accused him of being a traitor
and he was shot the following day without having any
representation.
That is what happens when we as politicians change the
guidelines and the rules of a constitution. If after the hearings of
April 29 Canadians say that the boundaries commission is no
good, that they do not want it, I will very gladly support them in
having the boundaries commission stopped. We as politicians do
not have the right, according to our Constitution, to do that
before we have had the hearings. That is why this worries me a
bit.
(1625)
If the procedures and House affairs committee fails to put
forward a new proposal for consideration by the House, there is
no contingency plan offered to save the work done by the current
commission. If no new process is introduced the original
2557
process that was started is finished, which means that we will
have wasted $5 million worth of work.
Is this the way to run government? That is why I said
previously that if the right to strike had been suspended we
could have saved $200 million, which would have made a lot
more sense to me.
I am aware of no proof that Canadians are dissatisfied with
current distribution. Politicians are another story. I have heard
that the problem with redistribution comes from politicians.
This would be the second political interference in the process
since the 1991 census. Politicians should remove themselves
from the process, except for the purpose of ensuring that the
number of MPs does not increase.
As one of my colleagues mentioned earlier in the House, it is
amazing how quickly politicians can get action in the House
when their own interests are threatened. When they hear about
criminals being let loose and about children who are starving
they are very slow to react, but here is a situation which does not
suit us and we react.
Once it was determined that the commission's proposals
could change the chances of re-election, the government was
very easily prodded to take action. It put its feet against the wall
and said: ``This is no good. This process does not work. Let us
change it''.
Very often constituents can pester their MPs and the
government for action on an issue that is important to them and
their community and they get very little response. But once the
politicians' interests are threatened we see immediate action
like we see here today.
This problem clearly highlights the need for more regional
representation. This is the whole issue. Hon. members object to
this process. They are not so much worried about the process as
they are about losing political clout in some areas where they
have had it and want to keep it. This is why I think it is very
important, as my hon. colleague said, that we go to a more
regional and equal redistribution of the Senate. I would fully
support her comments about that.
It worries me when I see that in Manitoba we would lose more
rural MPs. That is the one thing I do not like, and we would get
more urban MPs. The people who have little power already
would get less power down the road. By increasing the members
of Parliament from huge urban areas we would be getting less
regional representation than more.
That is why I think we should go to an elected, equal Senate
like the United States has. That is why I can support my hon.
colleague. The problem with the current system is not only that
it adds more MPs but it increases costs. It is useful to compare
the Canadian system with the American system as my hon.
colleague did. Her figures are much like mine. Each
representative in their house represents about half a million
people. Each state has two senators, no matter what the size of
the population, and each senator represents about 2.5 million
people. When I look at the issue today in the United States and
the clout that those farmers have because of these two Senate
representatives in the farm states, it amazes me why we have not
done this a lot sooner so that we could have equal representation
from regions and have equal distribution of wealth or a chance to
improve our economics in those areas.
(1630)
Perhaps I should not raise it here. The Prime Minister was a
little upset about not getting the wages that hockey players
receive. I remind the House that hockey players' salaries are
based on United States guidelines of what they think they are
worth. If our Prime Minister served 10 times the population and
increased his wages by 10 times, he would probably get more
money than a hockey player. That is my answer to the value as
far as our work is concerned. As an MP, if I did 10 times as much
as I am doing today maybe my wages would be a little higher
too. We have to put those things in perspective.
I said I was opposed to this redistribution because of one or
two concerns. One is about the name change. Adding six letters
to the name of Portage could be very easily remedied for me. It
would either read Lisgar-Portage or Portage-Lisgar. That
would satisfy my complaints about the redistribution problem.
Hon. members may wonder why I am so set on having the
name Lisgar in that constituency. This is what I found out
looking into the records of the House. The name Lisgar is of
significant importance because Sir John Lisgar is a great figure
in Canadian history. He was born in Bombay, India, and
educated at Oxford University. He was the member of
Parliament for County Cavan and served as a Lord of the
Treasury from 1844 to 1846 and the chief secretary for Ireland
from 1852 to 1855.
During his term in Canada Lisgar took an active role in
diffusing Canadian-American tensions created by the Red River
rebellion and the Fenian raids. We know how important the
rebellion was in Manitoba, the Louis Riel rebellion as they
called it. We lose a tremendous part of history if we lose the
name Lisgar.
He was a strong supporter of Confederation. He helped
negotiate the transfer of Rupertsland and the entry of Manitoba
into Confederation. He also encouraged British Columbia to
join. He was designated by John A. Macdonald, Prime Minister
at that time, as the best Governor General that Canada ever had.
This is what we lose if we take the name Lisgar out of
Canadian history. I would encourage the commission and I am
2558
going to write a letter to it asking it to change the name Portage
to Portage-Lisgar or Lisgar-Portage, whichever way.
We can see that this name is of great importance to all
Canadians and in particular Manitobans. I am at a loss therefore
as to why it was dropped. I hope that when the commission
finishes its work, completed its hearings, it will come to the
conclusion that is beneficial to Canadians as a whole, not as
Canadian politicians but Canadian citizens.
The reason we are here as members of Parliament is to follow
the wishes, suggestions and guidance of our constituents. We are
desperately failing to do that with Bill C-18. There has been no
discussion of this bill in any constituencies. It has been done
very expediently and quickly for some members of the House.
I hope that we honestly start recognizing that we represent our
constituents, that we are here for one purpose, to serve them, not
just to tell them how to be served.
(1635 )
Mr. Jim Jordan (Leeds-Grenville): Mr. Speaker, the
member made some reference to what the Prime Minister said in
the context of the poorest NHL hockey players in reference to
what MPs should be making. I am not talking about the pension.
That is something that most MPs here think should be addressed,
particularly when there is no age factor to qualify. I leave that
out of it.
Would the member just throw out a figure? What would he
think? He has been here now for four or five months. He knows
some of the costs associated with the job. I do not think he would
want it to be said that in order to be a member of Parliament one
had to have an outside source of money. That would put it on a
totally different plane. It would eliminate a lot of people from
ever aspiring to become a member of Parliament if they had to
be wealthy to start with. I do not think that is what the member
was suggesting.
What would be a fair reimbursement for the kind of demand
that is put on a member of Parliament, on his time and his
resources and energy and the costs that he has? Perhaps some
Canadians are not fully aware that there are costs associated
with being a member of Parliament, particularly like the
member who has just spoken whose riding is a considerable
distance from here. Would he give me a figure? What would be
an appropriate salary?
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that question. I
would like to answer it in this fashion.
I ran as a member of Parliament and said that I did not care if I
did not get a dollar out of this job. I have come here to make sure
that in the future there is a country left for my children and
grandchildren.
If one wants to know how serious I am about that, I was called
into a meeting in my constituency not too long ago about some
of the infrastructure programs that hon. members have provided
for us. One of my town councils was very interested in it.
I said to the mayor that I had read about two months ago that
they had increased their salaries by 2 per cent. I asked him
whether that was a fact. He said that yes, it was a fact. I asked
him how he could justify that. They wanted a handout from the
federal government. They could not run their town council
efficiently enough to do without these subsidies and he was
asking me to represent him. I said that he was not dedicated
enough to freeze his own wages. I knew he was a professional,
that he was drawing a fairly good wage to date, that he did not
need the bucks.
I would say to the hon. member that I do not think there is a
member of Parliament here today who really is going to starve if
his wages are frozen until this debt or deficit mess is cleaned up.
That is why I am here. I am here to try to make level headed,
honest decisions that will benefit future generations and not for
my wage cheque today or my pension plan. I am dead serious
about that.
When I found that this council had given itself a 2 per cent
wage increase, I said that if it wanted any support from me it
should kill that wage increase. Whether it will listen to me or
not, I do not know, but that is how I would like to respond to the
hon. member. I am prepared to sit here without a wage increase
until we have a balanced budget and then I will tell the member
what I think his work is worth.
Right now we have bigger things to do than worry about salary
increases.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, as
always I enjoyed the speeches from the hon. member for
Lisgar-Marquette. He raised a number of issues which I would
like to comment on and which maybe he would like to respond
to. First, I would note his concern about regional representation
and rural representation and the fact that both he and the
previous speaker from Calgary Southeast have indicated the
importance of Senate reform. I think that is very important to
recognize.
(1640)
I have heard a lot of complaints in the last few weeks from
members who are being affected negatively by redistribution in
various parts of the country. They wish there were some
protections for large rural and remote ridings and that they did
not simply just grow and grow in order to represent a certain
level of population. I understand that concern. This is why our
party has been so outspoken and persistent in pursuing the issue
of Senate reform. That is of course what the Senate was designed
to do. I find it strange that some members who are now in the
context of their own riding, not the hon. member for
Lisgar-Marquette but others, complaining about lack of
regional representation
2559
and are opposed to the kind of meaningful Senate reform that
our party supports.
I point out to the member, and I am sure the hon. member for
Lisgar-Marquette is aware of this or he would not have made
reference to these matters, that section 42(1)(a) of the
Constitution Act of 1982 states:
An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following
matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1):
That of course is the two-thirds amending formula. That:
(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House
of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;
In other words, some members not of this party but of other
parties who are indicating that they are willing to look at the
issue of regional representation in the context of reform of the
House of Commons are really inadvertently misleading the
public. There is no such opportunity to do so unless we enter into
constitutional negotiations and get approval by two-thirds of
the provinces. That is definitely off the table. I am glad the hon.
member brought those matters to our attention.
The hon. member also discussed his concerns about boundary
and name changes in Manitoba. My understanding of past
practices has been that it is very common for commissions to
accept recommendations, particularly on name changes. I am
sure he will want to approach the commission on that basis. I am
just wondering if that is simply his own viewpoint or whether he
has heard this complaint from other constituents, whether there
have been other kinds of complaints and what mechanisms are
available.
I understand there will be hearings at some point in Portage la
Prairie. Perhaps he could tell us a little bit more about what he
has heard from his constituents and what they intend to do.
Finally, his comment about the constitution of the Soviet
Union I thought was very interesting and something I would like
to hear more about. Of course it is true that some of these
autocratic or totalitarian states have had highly democratic
constitutions but there are no structures of government behind
them to protect people's actual rights. They are just pieces of
paper. Maybe he could tell us whether he and his constituents
feel that their rights in terms of representation would be better
protected by the independent commissions that exist today and
are operating as we speak that this bill would close or whether
they would be better protected by a committee of this House
controlled by partisan politicians.
Mr. Hoeppner: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate those questions
from my colleague from Calgary. I think I will address the last
question first. The last question was about the commissions.
This name change has stirred up quite a bit of comment in my
constituency. As the member knows from recent history, Lisgar
had the multiculturalism minister for the Canadian government
at one time. It also had the minister of oilseeds and the minister
of the wheat board. It later became the agriculture minister. If
one goes back in history there was a time when the constituency
of Lisgar was represented by the Liberals, a very honourable and
very effective member known as Howard Winkler. If we look
back in the history books we will see his name. He was very well
respected in the Lisgar constituency. The majority of people in
my riding of Lisgar-Marquette are former Lisgar people and
they are very interested in keeping that name and there will be a
number of recommendations to this commission on that basis,
the preservation of the name Lisgar.
(1645)
They are not that upset over the boundary change because
Lisgar-Portage will actually be a smaller riding than
Lisgar-Marquette. It will be better represented whether it is a
federal minister or not.
The other one that I want to address, and I see the motion
going, is about the United States, farming close to the border.
Having had that experience the last couple of weeks on
agriculture problems, they do not go to their congressmen, they
go to their senator.
Two weeks ago we were hooked up with Senator Dorgan and
myself among a number of American and Canadian farmers
discussing the durum wheat issue and the tombstone issue and
other diseases affecting wheat.
It is amazing how these farmers depend on their senators
because of the regional area they represent. Look at Senator
Dole representing Kansas, look at all the agriculture states
having senators to represent them. They do most of the
trouble-shooting for the American farmer. That is why it is so
important that they have regional representation.
When it comes to the Soviet constitution, get a copy of it and
read it. It is very direct in protecting human rights which were so
badly abused later. I would never want to see that happen in this
country.
That is why I would rather give up redistribution than go
against the Constitution and force on people what they do not
want.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Davenport-the Environment; the hon. member for
Regina-Qu'Appelle-Information Highway; the hon. member
for Capilano-Howe Sound-Immigration.
2560
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today to oppose Bill C-18.
I can understand the first blush reaction of my colleagues. The
results of $5 million of work do not appear to be very satisfying.
In many instances the suggested changes of the commission
just do not make common sense. However, Bill C-18 seems to
be a step backward in time and could represent the slippery slope
of partisan interference in riding boundary making.
The commission has been doing its work in good faith.
However, the boundaries in the lower mainland of British
Columbia do not seem to follow natural geographic divisions or
reflect the psychological sense of community or sense of place
that needs to be imparted to a political representative.
I am often asked what riding I represent. My riding of New
Westminster-Burnaby and the riding of Burnaby-Kingsway
are sometimes confused. Fortunately there is never any
confusion between me and the member for
Burnaby-Kingsway.
New Westminster has a distinctiveness, a history of the riding
name that goes back to the byelection of 1871, the year British
Columbia joined Confederation. In those days I suspect one had
to be a British subject, a male, and probably a land owner to be
eligible to vote.
At that first election the riding was very large and included all
the hinterland of the Fraser Valley, past Abbotsford and
Chilliwack, up the Fraser canyon to Yale.
Successively the riding boundary has been cut back as the
population grew. Six of my colleagues now represent former
parts of my riding.
The riding of New Westminster-Burnaby was most recently
rationalized for the 1988 election and like all others was the
same for the October 1993 election.
There is some improvement in the proposed distinctions in the
name change as Burnaby-Kingsway riding will now become
Burnaby North.
The city of Burnaby is currently split between the riding
known as Burnaby-Kingsway taking its name from the city and
from the main historical street that was the horse trail between
New Westminster and access from Fraser Rivers to the
Vancouver ice free port.
(1650 )
The proposed boundary shift moves the split of the city of
Burnaby somewhat eastward. Although the current division is
clear yet artificial in a cohesive community settlement sense the
proposed boundary shift looks minor on a map but is very
significant.
The new proposal cuts down streets that did not represent
main thoroughfares or easily identifiable divisions. It cuts
through the middle of a park, across the middle of Deer Lake
instead of taking the preferred street around the edge, then
proceeds up a hill through residential properties and through
bushlands where no streets exist at all. Therefore, examination
of street map can be deceiving. I doubt any commissioner ever
actually physically examined on site the strange anomaly that
the proposal makes.
It leaves small enclaves of residential areas stranded in the
new riding of Burnaby North without access, except by
travelling a considerable distance through my riding of New
Westminister-Burnaby. Clearly the purpose among others is to
rationalize but this proposal has left these orphaned areas.
I know my riding reasonably well since as a lad I have
travelled the streets on bicycle and have walked untold miles
campaigning door to door. There is always a different
perspective for a pedestrian compared with a car slipping
through the neighbourhood, sliding by.
I have an alternative proposal that represents a minor change
keeping in mind the principles I have mentioned and makes
geographical and social sense to the feeling of place in reference
to the voter. The boundary between Burnaby-Kingsway which
is to become known as Burnaby North and my riding of New
Westminster-Burnaby is problematic in one significant area
only. The other boundaries are most sensible, easily understood
by residents and fit postal code walks as they take into account
the municipal political boundaries and the physical barriers. The
number one freeway, the Fraser River and Boundary Road
between Burnaby and Vancouver are clear on every map and are
historically known and accepted by every resident.
These are natural boundaries that thankfully remain in the
new proposal. Nevertheless, I am suggesting that the boundary
dividing Burnaby be moved just a few blocks to represent a more
identifiable division. The population difference is minor but the
rational sense is rather significant.
The commission is permitting only one hearing in the lower
mainland for the boundary changes and that may seem rather
limited. At least the community can participate. I do not
particularly approve of the results of the commission either, but
I would rather give evidence at the hearings of an independent
tribunal and work to convince arbitrators of the merits of my
case with geographical and social evidence than let the riding
realignments fall into the hands of the Liberals.
Bill C-18 of the government flies in the face of everything we
have come to trust about our electoral boundaries for
non-partisanship and independence. Up until now we as
Canadians could be quite smug as compared with the Americans
for what we have achieved beyond gerrymandering, the
American derogatory term.
2561
This government does not like the results of the commission's
proposals and has introduced a bill to cancel everything. Let us
not at the stroke of quick vote undo history that makes us
distinctly proud to be Canadian. If we are not happy with the
proposed results of the commission we should work to change it
within the system before wiping out what we have on the books.
Millions have already been spent and therefore the bill that we
see before the House implicitly says that the money has been
wasted. If the government is so aghast at the results, I say get in
the game and make the process work. Give it a chance. If after
all is said and done, and usually from this government more is
said than done, the boundaries are still troublesome send the
commission back to do its homework, refine the evidence and
get it to justify its recommendations.
What we have here in this bill is the old adage that if we do not
like the message on the front line of the battle, shoot the
messenger instead of the enemy.
In my case in New Westminster-Burnaby I believe that I can
change the situation by getting folk to walk the ground. I
certainly do not trust electoral boundary reform to be put into
the hands of the government. It is the cat among the pigeons, the
fox in charge of the hen house. How long did it take us to learn in
Canada and achieve the statute of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act?
British Columbia is already short about six seats that should
come from other provinces and this bill certainly perpetuates
that inequity.
(1655)
This bill is audacious and the government is not even
embarrassed. We need regular, independent non-partisan
redistribution in a manner that inspires confidence. The analogy
is like a court. When the judgment is a little out of character we
outlaw and remove the judges instead of dealing with the case.
We need redistribution. Even more we need a cap on the
number of members of Parliament. That is what new Canada
thinking says. Modesty and common sense must begin in
Parliament.
We have become a country of city dwellers with vast
hinterlands. There needs to be equity with an upper limit within
which redistribution can take place. That is the vision of new
Canada thinking of equality and reason.
Such measures as I am suggesting are tied to the regional
representation that a true triple-E upper House can bring. The
Prime Minister could just announce what he will honour in
appointment, the elected nominee, which follows the precedent
of the late Stan Waters. This is a most important subject as
representation by population and regional representation of our
vast land require a balance that will not be ameliorated by
disbanding the commission.
Let not the excuse of dissatisfaction with the commission be
the opening door to a hidden agenda. Let the standing committee
do its work, but also engage the existing commission and let it
do its work.
In summary, let the system do its work, as the alternative
proposed by this government is the least desirable of all the
options.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): I listened with some
interest to the speech by the hon. member for New
Westminster-Burnaby, although I did miss a small portion of
it.
I wanted to draw the attention of the House to how this kind of
redistribution would affect a riding like this in a population
sense. New Westminster-Burnaby is an urban British
Columbia riding. Under the current boundaries this riding has a
population of 112,510; 16.5 per cent above the electoral quotient
established for British Columbia. Under the new boundaries,
which I appreciate are not entirely satisfactory to the hon.
member, there is a population of 101,881, or only 5 per cent
above the electoral quotient. There is a considerable
improvement in representation there.
It is interesting because that is allowed for under the current
sets of acts that are leading us to this process in giving British
Columbia two more seats. Maybe we do not want an increase in
seats overall but we certainly recognize that British Columbia is
entitled to more seats by virtue of the representation by
population provisions of our Constitution.
We will all remember that the previous formulas were not so
generous to British Columbia. We will also remember that, as I
indicated earlier today, in the Charlottetown accord of only a
year and a half ago the party opposite and what remains of the
other two parties in the former House got together to limit on a
permanent basis the number of seats and the representation in
the House of the province of British Columbia.
I am sure that is colouring the reaction of members from that
province when they see a committee being given an open ended
mandate, a committee of this House, to re-examine the formula
and to re-examine all kinds of other aspects of electoral reform.
I am wondering whether the member for New
Westminster-Burnaby had any comment on that, whether he
shared those concerns, whether his constituents shared those
concerns. Since the boundary decisions or proposals have been
published by the commission, has he had a widespread reaction
from ordinary constituents or is this a reaction he is getting
primarily from members of Parliament or politically active
individuals?
I would appreciate his assessment of that situation.
2562
(1700 )
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief.
At first blush, looking at the riding boundary map for the
lower mainland, one questions the rational sense of how the
reconfiguration of some of the boundaries will cross waterways
and there is no natural geographical sense. There is an effort to
bring better representation on line based on population. There is
a creation of two new seats. There is a process there.
I guess my reactions are somewhat the same as we get from
constituents, do not throw the baby out with the bath water. We
have a process in place and just because we do not like the first
blush of the response we do not abandon the whole process and
disband the commission.
We certainly are looking for increased representation in
British Columbia. I am afraid that Bill C-18 in the long run is
not going to bring us that. One of our major fears is that British
Columbia will be in the catch up position of trying to get
representation that it should have had a long time ago.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, since this
morning I have been listening to speeches made by members of
the Reform Party, and I wonder why these people want a process
that differs from the existing one, while the government is
simply asking for a legislative review. The legislation goes back
to 1964, which means it is 30 years old. This legislation should
be revised, and we already seem to have some idea of what the
new legislation will be like. I am sure that the committee formed
to review this legislation will make recommendations to the
House, which will examine these proposals before it decides to
accept them.
Recently, I went around my riding to get the opinion of my
constituents on this subject. I must admit that as far as the
boundaries of the riding of Chicoutimi are concerned, some
municipalities were to be removed from the riding and most
came out against the process. Today, residents realize that
money has already been committed-as much as $5 million was
mentioned-but they are still telling us to ``Stop the process.
Look at what is wrong with the legislation, because every time
they want to make readjustments, they have no regard for
boundaries or for the people''.
The following is a case in point. The municipalities that were
to be removed from my riding are all connected with Saguenay
Park and would be added to the riding of Jonquière, although
there is no link between the two. I think that after 30 years, it is
time to pause and consider what we can do with this legislation
and amend it to bring it in line with the twenty-first century.
[English]
Mr. Forseth: Mr. Speaker, what I was addressing is the
principle of arm's length independent process. Members in this
corner of the House are very concerned about suspending that
and putting redistribution into the hands of politicians.
The parallel is the tradition of this House essentially writing
its own pay cheque. There is a cry in the land that we change
that.
We must have redistribution but my opening comment was
that we could by this bill represent the slippery slope of partisan
interference in riding boundary making. We are warning the
House about that and we hope that it will not go that way.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, we are
here once again debating the merits of political interference in
the rights and privileges of the Canadian citizen.
(1705 )
It has always been that bad politicians make the assumption
that the electorate cannot make decisions for itself and so they
get involved in its everyday life and in its rights and privileges
and make changes on its behalf. I thought that we were through
with this and that this new Liberal government would make
some changes in that regard.
There is a saying that if we forget the past we are condemned
to repeat it. That saying goes particularly well in this House of
Commons. If this government forgets what happened with the
last government it is condemned to go the same road in the next
election. Let us look at how we got to this point in the history of
electoral reform.
In 1964 the present system came into effect so that the
Canadian citizen would always have the right of representation
based on a specific formula. Is that logical?-yes. In 1974 the
federal government amended that formula and with it the rules
for the Canada Elections Act.
Unfortunately that formula would have resulted in an increase
in the number of MPs to about 369 by the year 2001. We all know
that more MPs are less desired than fewer MPs. Then we move
on to 1986 when politicians of the day decided to simplify the
formula. So important was this concept that the government of
the time enshrined this right in our Constitution.
Let us briefly cover the basics of that right. The first basic
right is the Representation Act in 1986 which retained the idea
that certain provinces would be guaranteed certain levels of
representation. This affects provinces with slow or declining
population growth, like P.E.I. and Quebec, more than others.
The second basic right is after every election, to preserve one
of the founding principles of our nation, representation by
population, the system is re-examined and constituencies are
readjusted according to the rules set out in the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act.
2563
Like all rules, they must be interpreted before they can be
applied and this is where the government comes in. As we have
seen in the past, when the government gets involved things tend
to get a little muddied. It is amazing to me the similarities
between this Liberal government and the Conservative
government in this regard. Actually, it is becoming quite clear.
There are many similarities in many regards. For instance,
their spending habits thus far indicate that both governments are
more intent on leading us into bankruptcy than out of
bankruptcy. However, let us look at a similarity between the
dying Conservative Party and the Liberal Party.
Mr. Fontana: We are not dying.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): The hon. member says the
Liberal party is not dying. I would go back to the original
comment I made that if it forgets the past, it is condemned to
repeat it. We will see how well the Liberal Party does.
What is striking about this new government is its willingness
to allow the direct interference of politicians in a long standing
practice. In 1990 the majority Conservative government
interfered in a long standing practice and wanted to legislate the
GST despite the opposition of the majority of Canadians in this
country and opposition parties, including the majority of Liberal
senators.
In order to get its way, however, the government at the time
with the help of the Queen appointed eight political hacks as
senators just to get its legislation passed. If the public does not
like it, ram it down its throat is what the government said, which
is kind of indicative of things here today. It is the cod liver oil
approach, I say, as someone from the maritimes originally.
Canadians are not going to swallow cod liver oil politics any
longer. Not only will the Canadian taxpayer have to pay the bill
for supporting these political hacks until the age of 75, but the
government established a terrible political precedent. If we do
not get our way in the House of Commons or we disagree with
the accepted rules of our country then we change them to make
them fit our political agenda. It is quite similar to Bill C-18.
(1710)
The fact is that very few people in Canada today really get
excited about the political boundaries because they have always
changed as the population changes. The only people who have
concerns at the moment appear to be the Liberal Party members.
Like the Conservatives and the GST, they will interfere in an
issue, that of redistribution.
This is neither their right nor any of their business. If this
government were really in touch with the people of Canada
today it would be attempting to reduce the number of ridings to
200 or 250 and save some much needed money as well as making
the job of members of Parliament a little easier.
Having 295 members of Parliament in the past has not really
served us that well, has it? For instance, MPs would be able to
handle the workload much better if we did not waste so much
time passing unnecessary laws like this one.
How could we be spending this time? Look at the state of our
economy. Look at the state of our criminal justice system. Look
at the number of unemployed people in Canada and look at the
stagnating parliamentary system we have today, one which
refuses to recall MPs, one which refuses to give Canadians the
right to referendums, and one that will not even elect senators.
All these things merit our attention much more than deciding
if we are going to postpone a decision we have no business
interfering with in the first place.
Is the government that desperate for new legislation? As in
the case of the GST, let us look at what a desperate government
might do after it sets the precedent of monkeying around with
the electoral boundary process.
I am not saying that this is a desperate government, yet. I
predict that this Liberal government will be fighting for its very
existence in 1997, and then who knows?
If this government interferes with the realignment of electoral
seats what is to stop it from realigning seats by interfering with
the process in 1997? Perhaps the government may wish to add
seats in a particular part of a province that is typically held by a
majority of that party's voters. That is why the process has been
set apart from politics in the first place.
The action put before this House may mean instead of
freezing the number of MPs to be added the public will see more
seats eventually. At an average cost of $1 million per MP, do we
really need more MPs?
We have already spent $5 million on the process. Now,
because politicians do not like the realignment, there is another
$5 million out the window-what is $5 million today, they ask.
This government seems willing to throw away tax dollars like
this with no regard for common sense. This government wishes
to pass the bill before the Easter break, suspending the current
process for 24 months. If a new bill is not passed by Parliament
within 24 months the process will be restarted under the existing
legislation.
The member across in the Liberal Party says he is saving
money. Talk about a waste of money, how does one save money
by spending it that way?
It is absolutely amazing to me that this government again
wants to change the constitutional item relating to electoral
boundary redistribution. The government is already embarking
on complicated changes to the Constitution related to aboriginal
2564
self-government. The government has recently elected to
change the constitutional item relative to Prince Edward Island
ferry service.
When it comes to the Reform Party's constitutional issue of
insisting on a Senate that is elected, what do we get? The
government says the issue was defeated in 1992 in the
referendum so Canadians do not want it. Liberal Party members
across the way say that they defeated the referendum in 1992.
That is the narrow focus we get today.
(1715)
This government wishes to pass a bill before the Easter break.
Why? What is the benefit? Is it to save money? No, I believe it is
to fulfil a political ambition.
Why is it when there are majority governments in this country
they do what they want and not what the people want? There is
nobody crying and screeching about this today other than a
party.
It makes one wonder about the Reform Party's platform on
referendums, citizens' initiatives and free votes, does it not?
Those are things where the people finally get to say what is right
or wrong rather than the politicians assuming they know best
what is in it for the people.
There is a process in place on redistribution, one that allows
all Canadians, including MPs, to state their case at public
hearings. They have been established. The new proposal would
see Ontario getting four new seats and British Columbia the
other two.
I can speak against this issue even though my riding is one of
the ridings that will be drastically changed and not for the better.
Unlike some members opposite they would prefer to get
involved in a political process to change the process rather than
address the issue through the appeal process.
The government should do a number of things. It should come
clean with the Canadian people and admit it is letting a political
concern override a process that has been set up to ensure
politicians will not be involved. It should introduce legislation
that freezes the number of MPs at current levels. It should get on
with the business of really running the country instead of
tampering with an already overly complicated system.
Mr. Harbance Singh Dhaliwal (Parliamentary Secretary
to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr. Speaker, I listened
intently to my hon. colleague.
I am glad to see that members of the Reform Party who
campaigned for change are now defending the status quo. They
are now saying they are happy with an act that was put in place
30 years ago and they want to continue with it. Things change
and sometimes we have re-evaluate things.
I am very surprised that members of the Reform Party who
campaigned on the basis they were going to reform things are
now in favour of the status quo. They want to support and
maintain an act that was put in place in 1964.
The hon. member states that the Liberal senators voted in
favour of the GST. He should look at history and see how hard
the Liberal senators fought against GST. The hon. member
should get his facts straight on that issue instead of making
erroneous statements. Everyone knows that simply was not the
case and is not true.
My riding of Vancouver South has a tremendous history. John
Fraser, the first elected Speaker, was from that riding. Under
redistribution it is basically wiped off the map. There is no
riding of Vancouver South.
We need to review the act which was brought in in 1964.
Should it continue? Can we improve it? Are there better ways of
doing it? Canadians also want us to look at things that were done
30, 40 or 50 years ago, acts that have not been reviewed. That is
what we are doing.
(1720)
Reform members say they do not want to change anything but
they would like to make some changes themselves. They are
saying they do not want to change anything but they would
support freezing the number of seats. When it is something the
Reform Party wants it is quite acceptable to make the change.
Those members only want to review it if it supports their party's
view and political ideology.
Is the Reform Party against reviewing, updating and seeing
whether other acts that have been in existence for a long time
make sense in today's age? Times change and the way we do
things change. For a party which is committed to reform and
wants to make changes we are going to work with its members
and co-operate with them.
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has made some interesting comments. I should clarify
one thing. He talked about a listening technique. I will read part
of my speech again.
In 1990 the majority Conservative government wanted to
legislate the GST against the opposition of the majority of
Canadians and opposition parties, including the majority of
Liberal senators. I think that is what I said. The member can read
it in the record. Listening skills are important in the House of
Commons.
It is important to understand that in a democracy the people
are never wrong. Given that, one has to give some credibility to
the electorate that if they are concerned about issues they will let
us know. Right now we do not hear very much, if anything about
this. In fact beyond these walls it is not a big problem.
I want to talk about defending the status quo. It is ironic that
when an issue comes up they expect us as Reformers to take an
opposite position on it, but we do not.
2565
We are for change. We are for changes in referendums. We are
for changes in free votes. We are for changes in elected senators.
We are for changes in recall. We are for balanced budgets and for
changes to the criminal justice system. Those are the kinds of
changes we are for. We are not for changes in a process for
political gain rather than other gains.
When it comes to the status quo the member is talking to
people who are against the status quo on many issues. It does not
mean that on every issue it must be changed. A government
member who suggests that just because it is there it should be
changed is probably looking at the wrong methodology for
undertaking that change.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I also
would like to comment on the hon. member's speech and the
whole issue of change.
Members on this side who have been speaking against this
particular bill are not opposed to reviewing or changing the
process. What is interesting about this bill is it makes no such
proposal. There is no proposal to review or to change the process
in any meaningful way. It is simply to kill it and substitute
nothing other than parliamentary committee hearings controlled
by politicians on a matter which is supposed to be the purview of
an independent commission.
Let us look at the recommendations of the Lortie commission
on redistribution. The previous Parliament set up a commission
to look at all aspects of electoral reform and election law. I am
not saying that we necessarily approve of those things, but they
were studied at considerable expense to the taxpayer of Canada.
Now they are just off the table, we are talking about another
study.
(1725)
The Lortie commission recommended to amend the
representation formula found in section 51 of the Constitution
Act, 1867 so that Quebec would be assigned 75 seats and other
provinces would be assigned seats on the basis of the ratio of
their population to Quebec. The senatorial clause would be kept.
No province would lose more than one seat from a previous
distribution. No province would have fewer seats than a
province with a smaller population.
Of course, that formula would lead to a more rapid growth in
the number of seats in the House of Commons than the formula
we are dealing with today. That was the last time we spent
money to discover what was wrong with the process and how we
could improve it.
Actually, the Lortie commission said: ``Maintain the current
composition and manner of appointment of the electoral
boundaries commission''. The last study was not proposing that
we change the method or that we kill this particular process.
One other recommendation from that commission was that
electoral boundaries commissions would justify their proposals
with reference to communities of interest, et cetera and
discontinuance of the procedure of parliamentary committee
hearings on electoral boundaries. Instead, the commissions
would hold a second set of public hearings if their second
proposals departed significantly from their first proposals. In
other words far from suggesting that Parliament should get itself
involved again in the process or in examining the process, it
suggested quite the opposite.
We spent millions of dollars to find out from that particular
commission that the opposite should be done. Parliament has no
power to change but it does in fact review the recommendations
of the boundary commission. We would actually cancel that to
go to a second set of public hearings instead of one set of public
hearings.
With those observations I would appreciate the comments of
the hon. member for Fraser Valley West on whether those
recommendations are consistent with what he is hearing from
people. Do they at all affect his view of whether we need to
amend this act and whether we should be doing it in this way?
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague's observations are thought provoking. It is important
to note that the government has introduced a bill on a process
which is already taking place. Our constituents by and large
really do not know this is happening.
Far be it for us as politicians to get involved and take it upon
ourselves to change it on their behalf when already there is a
process in place. As much as I may dislike the change in the
electoral boundary of Fraser Valley West, the fact is that I and
everyone else in that constituency has a process and an avenue to
address it through the hearings that are going on.
My hon. friend is absolutely correct. Why do we want to get
into another process? We have already spent $5 million, which is
too much in my opinion. Why are we not just taking it upon
ourselves to let the process run its course? That is what it should
do.
We do not know everything that is better for everybody. This
process has been operating for a long time. Let it run its course.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, I
rise in the House today to voice my strong opposition to Bill
C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act. I feel quite strongly that this
government's taking it upon itself to halt these proceedings,
resulting in the disbanding of the existing electoral boundary
commissions is not only unethical but also is highly irregular.
2566
(1730)
Of the approximate $8 million allocated for the readjustment
process an estimated $5 million has already been spent. If the
bill is passed into law, how much additional funding will be
required to revisit the ground already covered? In other words,
how much of the $5 million will have been wasted?
Although I am completely opposed to the bill, my opposition
should not be misconstrued to mean that I am happy with the
proposals the commissions have drafted for redefining existing
electoral boundaries. Certainly there seems to be widespread
concern among my colleagues in this place. However I have yet
to see evidence that their concern is echoed by the Canadian
electorate.
My constituency of Prince George-Peace River is huge. It
encompasses 212,000 square kilometres in the northeast corner
of British Columbia, stretching from the city of Prince George in
central B.C. all the way to the Yukon border. No other federal
riding straddles the Rocky Mountains, and this poses a serious
barrier for winter travel in the constituency. The Pine Pass
connecting the Peace River area with the rest of the province has
one of the highest annual snowfalls found anywhere in Canada.
Having lived all my life in the north, I can personally vouch for
the difficulty it presents for east-west travel within the riding.
To travel by road from the Lower Post community on the Yukon
border to Prince George in the south requires driving some 1,300
kilometres. This does not take into account any side trips to
communities lying off the main arterial routes of the Alaska or
Hart highways.
In addition to the three main centres of population of Prince
George, Fort St. John and Dawson Creek, the riding
encompasses some seven additional smaller municipalities
beginning in the north with Fort Nelson. These include Taylor,
Hudson Hope, Pouce Coupe, Chetwynd, Tumbler Ridge and
Mackenzie. There are also 15 native communities located in the
constituency. Some are inaccessible by road during summer
months; others can only be reached by air, river boat or
snowmobile.
Not only is the riding a blend of urban and rural; it is also a
home to a mixture of diverse industries. With over 80 per cent of
the arable land of British Columbia located in the Peace River
district, the riding has a strong agricultural base. The economic
viability of the area is further assured by the existence of many
other industries such as oil and gas, lumber, pulp and paper,
mining, hydroelectric, trapping, guiding, tourism and
manufacturing. Representing such a multitude of interests and
concerns is already an incredible challenge to the member of
Parliament.
Under the proposed electoral boundary changes the physical
size of the riding will be lengthened by adding roughly 300
kilometres of the Yellowhead highway and a further 70 or so of
the Cariboo highway south of Prince George. This increase in
geographical size will be offset by losing the one-third of
Prince George currently contained within the riding. The
elimination of confusion that currently results from having
Prince George split into two ridings must be weighed against the
fact that the MP will have to travel through Prince George to
service the 10 or so smaller communities in the extreme
southern end of the new riding.
The only other noteworthy change is the loss of the native
community of Lower Post near the Yukon border. Under the
proposed changes this community would find itself in the riding
of Skeena, even though the MP would have to travel through part
of Yukon to get to it.
Although the suggested boundaries would ensure that the new
riding of Peace-Yellowhead has a more consistent rural
flavour, I am not in favour of the proposal because of the
substantial increase in the physical size. It is proving more than
difficult enough now to get around the riding on anything
resembling a regular basis, without the addition of hundreds
more kilometres. Even allowing for the increasing use of
toll-free phone lines and faxes, constituents in far-flung small
communities continue to expect a periodic personal visit from
their MP.
It is my intention, therefore, to take advantage of the same
option open to any other Canadian living in northern British
Columbia. I will make my concerns known to the commission
when it holds its public hearing in Prince George on June 2.
(1735)
My concern about the impending passage of the bill is not that
the changes are the best ones possible or even that they are really
necessary. My concern is that the bill will be viewed by the
public as just the latest example of politicians thinking they are
free to alter any process they believe is not in their personal best
interest.
These commissions have been set up to be free of political
interference. I can readily imagine the never ending arguments
and endless disputes which will arise if the issue of electoral
boundaries were left in the hands of politicians.
If I may be so bold I would issue on behalf of all Canadians a
word of caution to the government. If members opposite
proceed with this plan it will be viewed as extremely
self-serving by the general public. Just as in the case of
gold-plated MP pension plans, expense allowances or other
benefits of our elected offices, Canadians want to see decision
making powers regarding these types of things removed from
the politicians and placed under the jurisdiction of totally
independent bodies.
Canadians are sick and tired of this double standard. There
appears to be one set of rules for politicians and another quite
different set for the rest of Canadians. If members have
legitimate concerns about the changes as proposed by the
commissions as I do, they should make representations at the
2567
appropriate hearing, not attempt an end run by circumventing
the process.
I do not believe that Liberals have a problem with the process.
The real reason is that they do not like the results. Even a quick
comparison between the old electoral boundaries and the
proposed new ones indicates substantive alterations. Nowhere is
this more evident than in the present Liberal power base of
southern Ontario.
It is common knowledge that an incumbent enjoys a
considerable advantage at election time. Over the life of a
Parliament an MP establishes many contacts within the confines
of his or her constituency. However when those boundaries are
subjected to major changes or as in some cases an entire existing
riding is completely eliminated, the incumbent suffers the loss
of this comparative advantage. In effect this means he or she is
virtually starting over. It places challengers on a much more
even footing during the following election. It is this loss of
advantage that is behind the government's sudden need for
further reviews.
What will be accomplished by a 24-month delay? I believe it
is simply the intention of the government to ensure the changes
do not come into force in time to alter the boundaries prior to the
next general election. The bill would immediately disband the
existing commissions and enable the government to form new
ones with new people two years from now. There is only one
legitimate reason for delaying the process.
There are currently 295 MPs in this place. Surely that is more
than enough to govern our country. Rather than a further
increase of six seats as is required under the Constitution
following the last census, we need fewer MPs, not more. At the
very least the government should fully and completely commit
itself to establishing a cap on the total number of members. To
say it would review the present system of continual increases I
would contend is simply not good enough. If Canadians are to
believe the government really intends to limit the number they
must be able to see that commitment.
In summary, the present system allows for input from all
interested parties. I am prepared to take my turn along with all
other northern B.C. stakeholders at the hearing in Prince George
on June 2. I urge members opposite to consider carefully how
the public will view their intended meddling in this process.
Ms. Roseanne Skoke (Central Nova): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has stated clearly that his riding would be adversely
affected by an electoral boundary distribution. He is not happy
with the proposed redistribution.
If this is so, why is there opposition today to the bill? If it will
adversely affect the member's riding, it is respectfully
submitted that the member has a duty and a responsibility to
represent the best interests of his constituents. To oppose the bill
today is in direct conflict with the best interest of the member's
constituents and his riding.
(1740)
It is unfortunate that the Reform Party insists on
concentrating its focus on process. It is also unfortunate that the
member has placed more confidence in the process than
confidence in his own judgment to make a decision today that
will protect and safeguard the best interest of his constituents.
Mr. Hill (Prince George-Peace River): Mr. Speaker, we
are talking about process here. Other than the suspension for 24
months there is nothing in Bill C-18 that would indicate the
government intends to follow through with an in-depth review.
The government has stated that it is not in the bill.
We are saying that this is simply a way for the government to
circumvent the system. Rather than having an open, consultative
process wherein members of the public, including MPs, are
quite free to make submissions both written and oral in front of
the commissions when they are in their areas or our ridings, we
will refer it to a committee of politicians. It is my contention
that the public has had enough of that type of attitude.
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I would just like to
make a few remarks about the bill before us today. Of course,
this bill raises fundamental issues that go to the heart of our
democratic system and, as members of Parliament, we must
admit the importance of these issues.
It must also be said that the process for redrawing the
boundaries of electoral districts has been in place since 1964.
On examining how the present system operates, we clearly see
that it has several shortcomings. First, the commissions are not
required to hold consultations before publishing their proposals.
Second, the commissions are not required to give reasons for
their proposals. Third, the criteria that the commissions must
follow in setting the boundaries of electoral districts are very
general.
Depending on the approach taken by the commissions, the
results can vary considerably from one province to another. If
we look at the proposals put forward by the commission for the
province of New Brunswick, we see that the commissions can
make recommendations which certainly do not represent the
interests of the people of New Brunswick in this case. We
received a map making really major changes, where we lose a
riding in the north of the province and other ridings bring
together communities that do not have affinities or common
interests.
2568
The criteria are so broad that one of the commissioners from
New Brunswick told me what he thought of the proposed map
for New Brunswick. He did not agree with the commission's
proposal even though he was one of the commissioners, but the
commission could only put forward a single proposal. He told us
that he had been unable to influence the people on the
commission to be a little more reasonable.
(1745)
What we would like to do in readjusting electoral boundaries
is just that, propose reasonable changes instead of turning the
whole system upside down.
Finally, based on the existing formula, described in section 51
of the Constitution Act, 1867, the number of seats in the House
of Commons will increase from 295 to 301 as result of the 1991
census, and that concerns me in light of current fiscal restraints.
I have heard several members today express concern about the
extra expenses the government and the people of Canada will
incur if the number of seats does increase. Members from the
Reform Party have indicated that this issue should be examined.
I will point out to the Reform Party members that the only
thing to do about this steady increase in the number of seats is to
suspend the procedure and review it, as we are suggesting.
I also heard members say that we are trying to prevent public
participation in the process. On the contrary! We want to open it
up, so that the people from all over Canada can speak on this 30
year-old procedure. I think it is justified.
In short, there is certainly no general agreement about the
current procedure for readjusting the number of seats and
electoral boundaries. The time has come to subject all elements
of the present system to a thorough review, which has not been
done, as I said earlier, since 1964. That is why the government
has introduced the Act to suspend the operation of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act. As mentioned earlier, this bill
would suspend the procedure for twenty-four months.
Mr. Speaker, to give all members the opportunity to speak on
this bill and go ahead and suspend the current procedure-
[English]
I therefore move:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 26, the House continue to sit beyond the
ordinary time of adjournment for the purpose of considering the second reading
stage of Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operations of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Will those members who
object to the motion please rise in their place.
And more than 15 members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.
(Motion deemed withdrawn.)
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I took
great interest in the comments of the secretary of state.
I would like to make a couple of comments. I was interested in
the fact that there was the motion to extend the sitting, once
again another attempt to rush this bill through.
This bill was tabled in the House on Friday and is being
debated for the first time today. There has been virtually no
public discussion. The public discussions the process allows for
are the independent commission hearings that the bill seeks to
terminate.
(1750)
I find this all very interesting in that we have had a number of
speakers today and this is really the first debater from another
political party other than the hon. member for Kamloops who
gave a very reasoned and considered intervention. We had the
first two speakers from the government and from the Official
Opposition. It is not questions and comments, not true debate.
They just state their position. Since then we have been talking
here to ourselves.
I find it peculiar this great effort we are going through to make
sure that the public does not have a right to go to the hearing
process.
Perhaps the hon. member could explain to us precisely why
that is such an important public policy objective, why it is so
important that we not get some reaction from the public before
we continue to debate this particular issue?
The member raised some of problems, some of which I am
more sympathetic to than others. He raised two complaints,
particularly in relation to the province of New Brunswick. This
bears some examination. On the one hand he noted the radical
changes that the commission has proposed in some parts of New
Brunswick because of population shifts. On the other hand he
raised concerns about increasing the number of seats in the
House of Commons.
I suppose if we were ultimately to revise the formula, which
would require a revision to the senatorial clause, so that we were
able to resist the increase in seats then we would have fewer
seats in provinces like New Brunswick and we would have even
more radical changes to the boundaries. This is what I find
particularly disconcerting. The various reasons that are being
used, not in this House but sort of in the hallways, for stopping
this process are a complete contradiction to each other in terms
of the results that they would bring about.
2569
Besides his commenting on the necessity of killing this, as a
government minister would the hon. member favour having a
public policy objective to this whole thing that the public would
support limiting the number of seats so that we can proceed to at
least give the public some reason why we would be interested in
killing Bill C-18 after we have spent $5 million on the process?
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not our intention
to rush the bill, in the words of the hon. member who just spoke.
We simply want to avoid a process like the one now under way,
that is holding hearings where members or representatives of
organizations, associations and municipalities wishing to make
submissions to commissions must give notice, prepare their
submissions and then appear before the commissions, the
operations of which we are proposing to abolish. If we suspend
the entire process, all of this work will have been for nothing.
We simply want to save money by putting a stop to the process as
soon as possible.
As for the public's participation, we want their input. We want
the public to have an opportunity to express their views because
when the matter comes before the House committee, the public
will certainly be asked to propose ways of changing the process.
The committee will also likely consider the possibility of
capping the number of seats in the House at the current level of
295. Clearly, this is what the Reform Party members want, but
the government is not prepared at this time to say that it will cap
the number of seats at 295.
(1755)
First, we want to get the public's opinion on this process, if it
comes to that. I assure you that we want to encourage public
input in the readjustment of electoral boundaries any way we
can.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I have a comment and question for the minister. This is
a bit of déjà vu. When looking at the history books a very similar
incident happened in 1974, 20 years back in Canadian history.
At that time a number of MPs, the majority being Liberal MPs
on the government side, were not happy with redistribution.
I have not had time to read all the Hansards from back then to
find out what all the reasons were, but the bottom line was that
members were not happy with redistribution and so they
interfered with the process. As a result 18 new seats were
created in Canada.
We have no indication from this government that by
suspending the current process and the commissions in place
there is goodwill from that side. The purpose of the suspension
is to cap the number of seats in the House of Commons.
I do not think the government has even considered all the
ramifications of capping seats in the House of Commons.
Perhaps that is a subject that really needs to be debated at greater
length in the House.
Bill C-18 calls for the commissions currently in place to
cease to exist upon the passing of Bill C-18. Once the
suspension is completed, some 24 months later, 60 days later
new commissions are to be appointed. Certainly the government
is opening itself up to allegations of patronage. We hope that
would not be its purpose in suspending this and causing these
commissions to cease to exist. However, the allegations could
come.
Therefore, if the government wanted to suspend the work of
these commissions would it reinstate those commissions and
have them resume their work at the point they were at when the
suspension took place, thus saving the $5 million?
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, if we want to suspend the
current process, it is because we intend to make a number of
changes. It would be hard to say: ``We are going to suspend the
process for 24 months, but after 24 months, we are going to start
right back at the beginning, without taking into account the
committee's findings or recommendations''. I do not see how
we can predict the outcome of the committee's study. It would
be like saying to people: ``We do not need your input. You have
nothing to say, everything has already been decided''.
As for the hon. member's concern that we could be tempted to
resort to patronage, I can assure him that this is not what we have
in mind. The process for selecting commissions is not open to
this type of action and we have no intention of making changes
in that regard. However, the committee, which is made up of
representatives of all parties in this House, could make all kinds
of recommendations and observations.
[English]
Mr. Hugh Hanrahan (Edmonton-Strathcona): Mr.
Speaker, I will begin by expressing my opposition to Bill C-18. I
also acknowledge the fact that the Liberal government must
truly be committed to deficit reduction. I can make this
statement because any government willing to scrap an electoral
boundary commission report that has cost Canadians nearly $5
million must be committed to fiscal responsibility.
(1800 )
To make matters even more convincing, the government will
be asking Canadian taxpayers to go through this process all over
again even though the present commissions' report has not been
tainted by any political influence. Nor is there any outcry from
Canadians regarding the current redistribution process other
than the fact that they do not want the number of seats in
Parliament to increase.
2570
Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the government's plan is
that there is no strong defence for interfering with the present
process before determining if the public hearings are not
successful. We can also see that throughout Canada's history the
issue of electoral boundary redistribution has been a contentious
issue. This hostility is derived from the very premise that those
who have power are never willing to relinquish their hold on it.
I think the idea of politicians redrawing their own boundaries
lies at the very core of a serious problem in Canada. That
problem is a lack of trust by the public regarding politicians. It is
evident therefore that this government does not see that
Canadians are unhappy with the entire process in which
politicians have been doing their business. Canadians want
change. They want a new style of openness. They want a new
style of fairness. This type of legislation can only be viewed as
regressive.
This House was given the absolute right to redraw the
electoral boundaries at Confederation. However because of the
contentious nature of electoral redistribution which I have
already mentioned Parliament has agreed to share this
responsibility of redistribution with the electoral boundaries
commissions created in 1964.
Since the creation of these electoral boundaries commissions
public perception that there are not considerable amounts of
political interference to the readjustment process has
diminished. This political interference which took place before
the creation of the electoral boundaries commissions was an
attempt to assure as far as possible the re-election of the
members of the governing party.
This is absolutely wrong. I hope that this government is not
travelling down the same path of early governments.
It is important to note that since 1964 while many politicians
have been unhappy with the outcome of redistributions, there
has rarely been the concern of political interference. This is for
the simple fact that these commissions are non-partisan.
There are 11 electoral boundaries commissions in Canada,
one in each of the provinces and one in the Northwest
Territories. These commissions consist of three members: a
chairman who is appointed by the chief justice of the province
from among judges in that province and the other two members
of the commission are appointed by the Speaker of the House.
These two individuals are usually university professors or
non-elected officials of the legislative assemblies.
The commission looks primarily at the number of people in
the province, not political partisanship. They do not consider
how the changes will affect one party over another. In fact the
largest criticism of the commissions is they do not consider
enough non-political information. Many times they overlook
the common community interests or community identities.
It is important to ensure that redistributed boundaries
correspond as closely as possible to the national quotient while
also taking into account community interests and the historical
pattern of an electoral district.
These factors then will enable the commissions to properly
manage the geographic size of districts with sparsely populated
areas. The commissions are allowed to deviate from the
provincial average by plus or minus 25 per cent. This allowance
then allows them to accommodate the human and geographic
factors.
(1805 )
Another issue that is troublesome for me is that in 1985
Parliament passed the Representation Act which set out a
formula for redistribution. It was a constitutional amendment
which ensured that no province could have fewer seats than the
1985 level of representation regardless of the population of that
province.
The exception is P.E.I. which can have no fewer MPs than
senators. We therefore have done away with the premise of
absolute representation by population. The government would
like to suspend the Representation Act and attempt to develop a
new proposal for the consideration of the House.
Let us start with the basic premise of rep by pop. Within the
concept of representation by population emerges the concept of
equality of vote. Any notion of equality of rep by pop may
permit if countered by the fact that the current and historical
development of representation in Canada has only partially been
based on the notion of representation by population.
Since Confederation, Canada has developed a system with
respect to electoral representation whereby the heavily
populated provinces retain a majority of the seats within the
House of Commons while the less populated provinces receive
an adequate number of seats to ensure representation.
By no means does the federal government reflect the notion of
representation by population in its purest form. Rep by pop has
been altered in order to guarantee a minimum number of seats
within the House to less populated provinces so that they do not
become under represented if their population base decreases.
Thus while the principle of representation by population may
be said to lie at the heart of the electoral apportionment in
Canada, it has from the beginning been altered by other factors.
Due to Canada's vast geographic size and regional
differences, a modified version of representation by population
has emerged. It is therefore determined that the equality of votes
guaranteed to Canadians is one of relative equality and not
2571
absolute equality. Therefore we do not have equality of voting
power but rather relative equality of voting power.
This relative equality is not just within the provinces but
between the provinces as well. For example, Nova Scotia and
New Brunswick constituting 6.1 per cent of the population are
guaranteed 7 per cent of the seats. Alberta and British Columbia
comprise just under 22 per cent of the population while we are
entitled to only 20 per cent of the seats.
The west is not only under represented in Parliament, we are
also under represented in the Senate. How can a region of
Canada that has less than 11 per cent of the population have over
28 per cent of the Senate seats while western Canada has over 29
per cent of the Canadian population with only 23 per cent of
senate seats. These injustices must be rectified. The west wants
in.
Canada is a country of many regions and there are probably as
many definitions of regionalism as there are people defining it.
Regionalism is not some sort of disease to be stamped out.
Rather it is a healthy manifestation but lacking a healthy
institutional outlet.
The only true significant political failure of the Canadian
experience is its chronic inability to solve those regional
tensions. The Senate was established to protect the interests of
the provinces. Yet, for too long western Canada has felt that its
interests have not been adequately represented in the federal
Parliament. The National Energy Program is just one example
and the possibility of a carbon tax implemented at source is
another.
The Canadian Senate lacks legitimacy in the eyes of many
Canadians because it is an appointed body that runs counter to
the fundamental Canadian belief that democratic governments
should be conducted by an elected rather than an appointed
body. What Canadians need is a triple-E Senate, an effective,
elected and equal Senate. A reformed Senate will not just benefit
one province or one region. It will help build a better and
stronger Canada.
(1810)
We should have an elected Parliament based solely on
representation by population with a constant number of
members of Parliament. This concept will only work if we have
an elected Senate to which all regions of Canada have an equal
number of senators.
This would ensure that Parliament reflects the notion of one
man, one vote, and allows the Senate to reflect the regional
interests of our nation.
Moving on to specific recommendations of the recent
electoral boundaries commission which has recommended that
Calgary be given one additional seat for a total of seven, while
Edmonton in Alberta would remain at six and 26 respectively, it
was encouraging that the commission did recognize that Calgary
and Edmonton have traditionally the same number of
representatives in Ottawa.
Because the number of electoral districts for Edmonton
remains at six the proposed changes to the boundaries are
relatively minor. The changes that will be made to my riding are
not extensive and I feel that they have been done in a just
manner.
Edmonton-Strathcona's population will be almost 16 per
cent above the provincial average yet it is well within the
established plus or minus 25 per cent deviation.
Although I do not wholeheartedly agree with this plus or
minus 25 per cent as an absolute figure, I do agree that there
needs to be some allowance in riding size because of urban and
rural differences. However I am not convinced that the deviation
presently allowed has not been picked arbitrarily.
Why should it not be plus or minus 20 per cent, 15 per cent, 10
per cent? However, this is an issue that I will leave to debate
another day and I will continue with the specific changes to
Edmonton-Strathcona recommended by the commission.
The southern tip of Edmonton-Strathcona will be lost to
Edmonton Southwest while we gain the northeastern part of
Edmonton Southeast riding. Although I realize the need for
redistribution, I do have some trouble with the map that has been
made for Edmonton. However, with a few minor changes in the
electoral boundaries which would ensure that the riding
populations of the rest of Edmonton are closer than they are
presently, I can see nothing else that is substantially wrong with
the commission's report. These small changes could be made
through the public consultation process.
In fact these consultations or hearings are to begin in Quebec
on April 12. They will move across Canada over the next three
months and are due to hold hearings in Edmonton on April 28 at
two o'clock and at 7.30 p.m. at the Macdonald Hotel.
The present process of designing constituencies by
independent boundaries commissions for each province has
worked well. We do not need a change for the sake of change. If
the electoral boundaries commissions were inherently flawed
then changes would be made. However, this has not been shown
to be the case.
The use of such non-partisan commissions has made it
possible to give consideration to community interest criteria
without including a partisan tone to the nature of the equation
and/or the process.
These independent commissions have allowed us to redraw
constituencies based primarily on equality of the vote which
includes specific criteria based on a national quotient and have
also included a need for justification of variations that deviate
dramatically from the quotient.
2572
In conclusion, this process has worked and it has been fair.
Any alteration to the process will raise suspicions and a sense of
unfairness among the Canadian public. Bill C-18 does not give
the appearance of fairness to the Canadian public.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate my hon. colleague's concerns about Bill
C-18 that is being introduced. Every elector in my riding of
Kindersley-Lloydminster received a map of the new
boundaries two or three weeks ago. I have not heard a public
outcry even though my riding boundaries have been quite
drastically changed.
(1815)
The current riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster will not
exist after the readjustment takes place as proposed in the
current report by the boundaries commission. In spite of that I
have not had a hue and outcry from the public. I know as an MP I
have some concerns. I know my constituency association has
some concerns. However the general public seems more
concerned about other decisions made in the House such as
dollars spent.
Has the hon. member had an outcry of concern from his riding
regarding the new boundary proposals, or would he sense it
being more a concern of politicians and political organizations?
Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Speaker, I have had concerns expressed
to me with regard to the boundary changes. I have also had
constituents recognize that the process by which they can
express their concerns to the commission is a valid one. They are
much more confident with that process than with a committee of
politicians deciding on where boundaries should or should not
be.
They are concerned but they see the opportunity they have to
express those concerns in a traditional and fair manner.
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, I
acknowledge my hon. colleague's comments and his
presentation in the House tonight. There are several points I
would make. I ask my colleague if he would care to respond to
the points I am going to bring forward, one of which is clarity of
purpose.
It seems to me that anything we would do in the House of
Commons would always have a clarity of purpose and that we
would always know, by having defined that clarity of purpose,
where we were going.
We heard earlier from the side of the House from which I am
speaking that perhaps it was personal self-interest that
motivated some of the comments in today's discussions by the
government side. Indeed those members mobilized themselves
extremely well in terms of putting the bill forward, hastily I
might add.
When we have a clarity of purpose it is only the beginning of a
process. I would like my hon. colleague to comment. Having
extended the clarity of purpose perhaps we then have the review.
However the review is only one small part of what comes next, a
broad analysis of what the review has told us, followed at that
point by drawing conclusions and then making
recommendations.
All this would be in very open debate; all this would be very
much in the public view. If the bill had died tonight constituents
across the country who watched the debate would have seen only
a few of us make presentations in the House today. We have an
obligation to our constituents to ensure that in the fullness of
debate the richness of our ideas is shared with them.
Does my hon. colleague wish to make some comments on
that?
Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague in
terms of quality of purpose. I suggest to her that the vast
majority of Canadians would also agree with her.
I would agree with her and Canadians would agree with her on
the very point that the process as it now exists is separate from
politicians rather than involving politicians. They have seen it
work over a period of time. What it seems to be in this instance is
change for the sake of change. I do not believe that change is for
the benefit of the Canadian people. I doubt very much if my
constituents or anyone else in the country would see it in that
manner.
(1820)
Mr. Werner Schmidt (Okanagan Centre): Mr. Speaker, are
the same kinds of things that happened in the boundary changes
of the member for Edmonton-Strathcona happening in
Okanagan Centre? If I heard correctly the southwest portion of
the constituency will be lost or will be added. There may be
some confusion as to the economic and social benefits if this
were to happen.
The southern part of Okanagan Centre is being taken out of
the constituency and put into the Penticton riding or the
Similkameen riding. That will not benefit that particular
community because people naturally go to Cologne to do their
shopping and so on.
Could the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona detail
exactly what is happening in his constituency with regard to the
new boundaries?
Mr. Hanrahan: Mr. Speaker, in terms of
Edmonton-Strathcona it is geographically located in south
central Edmonton. We are losing part of the southern tip and
gaining part of the eastern section of it. In terms of
socioeconomic changes, they are minimal. I do not see that it is
going to be of major significance to my riding. We are studying
that now.
As I suggested there is a process in place at Hotel Macdonald
on April 28. If we have problems with it we will submit them to
the commission.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the applause from both sides of the House. I think it is
someone dying to speak over there who has been thwarted
2573
perhaps in the debate today. They want to say something more.
Who knows?
Let us look for a few moments at how the bill came to be and
what some of the reasons are for the incredible crisis that is
under way and why it has to be dealt with so quickly.
Mr. Milliken: Because they are getting rid of Beaver River.
Miss Grey: My friend says: ``Because they are getting rid of
Beaver River''. Let us cut to the basics here. That is very true. It
would be easy for me to stand today in the House of Commons
and say I think that shelving the whole thing is a marvellous
idea. We would then see a cocooning of Beaver River and, if it
were politically motivated, I would say: ``Whew, that makes me
safe''.
There is something far deeper, far more democratically
essential in terms of this debate. Whether I would lose my
constituency or whether my neighbour from
Kindersley-Lloydminister would, as is the case as well, that is
not the issue. People watching the debate need to be aware of
exactly what is going here and the things they have heard from
just one party in the House. Granted, the government House
leader spoke and someone from the Bloc spoke, but basically
they have heard from the Reform Party.
Why has the Reform Party been talking about this bill all day
long? Why are we concerned about the whole idea? If it were
just political we would say: ``Let us put the thing off, shelve it
for two years, and get back to looking at the details later''. That
is not the case here.
Mr. Robichaud: Yes, it is.
Miss Grey: Certain people have talked about it on the
government side but basically only in questions and comments.
I think that would be the general consensus in the House. They
have probably been asked not to speak because they wanted the
debate to die out, as we saw when they requested extra time. Let
us not be foolish. There are people who have all kinds of
concerns. We will continue to talk about this matter until
something is done about democracy in the country. We would
not see politicians getting in the way of electoral boundaries
commissions that have been set up. We can talk about reasons:
why they are set up and whether they are politically motivated. I
will talk about that for a couple of minutes also.
(1825)
As soon as politicians get their hands into the tub we know
there is something going wrong in the Chamber that is filtering
out across the country. We are saying it must stop. We are not
trying to be sanctimonious. I am not standing here trying to be
self-righteous because I stand to lose. My constituency of
Beaver River was brand new in 1988. It lived through the 1988
election and the 1993 election, and under this proposal it stands
to die.
It is easy for someone to sit on the other side, chuckle about it
and say: ``Look at her''. However, I have no seat in which to run
in the next election. I want that very clear and I want that on the
record. I stand here and that Beaver River lives, but let us make
sure Beaver River has a chance to live in terms of the process of
going to the hearings and making representations on April 27
and April 28. That is what we are talking about here.
It is easy to ask whether this was politically motivated. That is
not for me to say. This is supposed to be a commission that has
worked at arm's length from the government. I cannot quarrel or
quibble with that.
Recently I was at a hockey game in Elk Point and player came
off the benches to me and asked: ``Deborah, could they not have
made it any more subtle that they were trying to get rid of you''?
Of course the circumstances were such that in the last
Parliament I sat here as the only Reform member in all of
Canada. My friend from Edmonton-Strathcona just mentioned
that the head justice of each province was set up by the chief
justice of the province. We have that situation in Alberta and the
two members of the commission, one from Calgary and one
from Edmonton, were appointed by the Speaker of the House of
Commons.
If in Elk Point, Alberta, somebody comes off a hockey bench
and says ``boy, it sure looks political to me'', we need to pay
attention. It is not self-righteous to stand here and say that is all
they are trying to do. That is not the point.
We are trying to say that something has been set up here
whether or not we like it. Whether my friend's riding in
Vancouver has been blitzed is not the issue. My friend from
Vancouver should be there, absolutely firmly at those public
hearings. That is his chance to talk about it. He should not hurl
insults and comments across the House of Commons because it
gains nothing. It is his party that has brought it in.
It is sad to me that the public is feeling skeptical about the
matter. Members of my party from various ridings have said
today that they did not think there was much a hue and cry.
Maybe in their ridings there has not been, but certainly in
Beaver River there has been.
The constituency of Beaver River, although it was a brand
new riding in name in 1988, has a marvellous history in north
eastern Alberta. The Beaver River itself is an amazing waterway
which was a trading route for the fur traders or the voyageurs
into the Athabasca region. They came to Lac-la-Biche, up the
Beaver River, portaged very few miles across to the Athabasca
and were gone all the way north.
2574
It was a really exciting moment in our history when people on
the previous commission decided that Beaver River riding
would be named. As I have said, why would the constituency
have such a short history?
In terms of setting records, if this bill goes through as
proposed, yes, they will shelve it for 24 months. That is fine but
what will happen after? If it goes through I will have sat as the
only member of Parliament for the entire life of the constituency
of Beaver River. We feel old and start looking old quickly in this
place, but it seems to me that is a pretty short shelf life for a
constituency.
I am not arguing all in favour of the proposal because I have
some serious reservations about it. I have been in touch with the
person with whom we are to get in touch to say that I will be
appearing in Lac-la-Biche, Alberta, at McArthur Place on
Wednesday, April 17, 1994, at 7.30 p.m. That is where I am to go
as a citizen and as a member of Parliament. That is what was set
up in terms of stages that we are to go through.
I sent in my notice saying that I would be appearing before
this public hearing commission. Why should that be kiboshed?
If I have any reservations about it, it would be just to ask one
question: why did the commissioners draw up their lines first
and consult second?
(1830 )
I have problems with the process. I have problems with the
map that has been redrawn because I have serious reservations
about totally eliminating a particular constituency that is brand
new. I have a method in place to go and voice my concerns and
my complaints about that. That is to go and talk to the people at
the public hearings.
Five million dollars has been spent on this already and are we
going to throw it off on the shelf?
An hon. member: That was the Tories, not by us.
Miss Grey: Nonetheless, how much will it cost to redo this
completely? How much does it cost for lost time when the
government is trying so desperately to get some other bills
through vis-à-vis money and the borrowing authority?
We look at things that it wants to put through Parliament and
then all of a sudden now we have a crisis that we need royal
assent just as quickly as possible.
Why is it that people are so frustrated with this? There are
problems but could it be that they would be losing out
politically? That is the one thing that this commission was set up
originally to do, to try to keep politicians' hands out of the
works of this. If ever we have seen politicians' hands and dirty
finger marks all over everything we see it today in this Chamber
on March 21, 1994. That is a sad day in Canada as far as I am
concerned.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I know that the
member for Beaver River has seized her colleagues' attention
opposite but I certainly do not want to miss anything either.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, we are talking about details in the
way that this is set up versus process. That is what I am trying to
draw to the attention of members opposite. I do not particularly
like the way this is drawn up. I made that very clear. I have
obviously riled some people on the other side of the House.
I disagree with the way it is. I have constituents who are very
upset about it. Nonetheless, when we look at a process that is
flawed and only becomes more seriously flawed when we all get
into it, that is what I am expressing concern about. I think that is
probably what we have heard more and more.
Let me address a couple of other issues before I close. Does
this further divide rural and urban Canada? I spent my first 25
years living in Vancouver which is about to lose a riding, as I
understand from the other side. I grew up practically in
downtown Vancouver. I know what it is like to be a city person. I
know the concerns of urban Canada.
I live in northeastern rural Alberta by choice. Many people are
born in areas and there they are, citizens of that area just
because. I chose to leave Vancouver and teach school in
northeastern Alberta and so I am a rural Albertan by choice.
To me that says a lot. I realize both sides of the coin. I know
what it is like to live in the city and to be able to go to the
symphony which is about six or eight minutes from home. I also
know what it is like to watch the Edmonton Oilers play hockey
or watch the Edmonton Eskimos play football when it is a three
hour, one way drive for me. I know what it is like to be a rural
Canadian.
I would like to invite the commissioners who sit as the Alberta
commissioners, two from Calgary, one from Edmonton, to come
and spend a week with me in Beaver River, in my four by four.
They would understand what rural Canada is all about. They
would understand what it is like to travel 28,000 square
kilometres regularly from end to end of our constituency. In
terms of square kilometres mine is far smaller than many others.
If we look at the map, if we look at the riding which is north of
mine, Peace River, Athabasca, those take up physically literally
half of Alberta's square kilometres.
Beaver River is small in comparison to that but I would love
the commissioners to come with me in my four by four. I
appreciate my friend from Broadview-Greenwood. We have
known each other well over the years. I always remember his
saying he could ride around Broadview-Greenwood on his
2575
bicycle in about an hour and a half. I have given him a standing
invitation to come on out to the ``Beav'' and we would see how
far he would get on his bicycle-not very.
(1835 )
I looked up the mileage of the three vehicles that I have gone
through since my election in March 1989. There is my basic four
by four that I spend most of my time in the riding with. I have
also put lots of miles on my truck and camper, a small car and
another truck when I have needed to.
On my four by four that I do most of my business travelling
with I have put 324,000 kilometres. I am no mathematician but I
divided that out. It is basically 8,000 kilometres across Canada.
That is 40.5 trips from sea to sea across and around Beaver
River. That is an incredible number of miles.
Rural Canada is an exciting place to live but let me tell
members that in terms of hours and time and driving and getting
around, driving two hours or three hours one way to a one and a
half hour meeting and then turning around driving three hours
home again is an incredible amount of time chewed up.
However, it is peaceful time.
Telephone time, if I need that, is marvellous. Why would we
take that away from people? What is wrong with urban Canada's
getting to know its country cousins better? Why could we not
redraw these boundaries by taking a corner of the population out
of a city and moving it into the rural areas? Why do we need to
be so firm and obsessed with city boundaries all the time?
Why not take a corner out of some of the population of four or
five thousand people in Edmonton and tell them they have
something in common with these people? The guidelines that
the commissioners were given say that boundary readjustment
must take into account human interests and geographic
characteristics.
Every one of those people who lives in Edmonton, Toronto or
whatever is eating the bread that was grown for them on these
farms. They do have something in common with urban and rural
Canada. Why do we not celebrate that instead of always moving
it off against each other? There are such divisions between the
country and the city. We need to celebrate what we share in
common rather than saying that person is from the country, that
one is from the city and we have nothing more to gain from each
other, we have precious little in common.
That is wrong. That is incorrect. We need to look at these
things and say that there are problems in the way this
commission has gone about doing it. However, that is not the
end of the world. One does not make a matter worse by having
the government and the Official Opposition jump up and say that
we should shelve it, that we should try to come up with
something better.
I would be in favour of that if I had a list of possibilities of
what might be better. I really would. Let us make sure that we
have some options on the table rather than saying that we will
put a committee together. I get nervous when I see things like
that and when I hear things like that.
As rural Canada and rural MPs are called upon to represent
larger and larger areas, we need to be very careful that we do not
get into the situation in which MPs feel absolutely worthless
because they simply cannot cover the physical distance.
I think of my friend to the north of me from Athabasca, an
incredibly large area. There is my friend from the western Arctic
and my friend from Churchill. How do they get around? Why
would we in Beaver River say that we are totally happy with
being able to say take the north end of the riding and move it up
to Athabasca, it can use a few thousand square kilometres extra,
what the world? When one has 200,000 what is another 10,000
or 15,000?
Those are people who live there. Those are real people who
live in Lac-la-Biche and they want to see their MP. They want to
talk to their MP and know what their MP looks like and thinks.
What about the people who live in St. Paul and Bonnyville and
Cold Lake? They are going to become part of the
Vegreville-St. Paul riding then, no problem. We will just throw
a few thousand square kilometres on to that riding.
There have been rapports built up with members of
Parliament. I suspect that is why there is nervousness built up on
the government benches to a great extent. They have built up
rapports with their constituents, absolutely. I have built up a
rapport with mine. I have a fine group of people I represent and I
am proud to say that I am the representative of Beaver River.
What about the people in bedroom communities of Edmonton,
Namao, Gibbons, Bon Accord, Redwater? Those people are
going to become part of Elk Island. Sorry, folks, we will just add
a few thousand square kilometres on to Elk Island. My friend
from Elk Island will represent any number of other towns. As I
have heard so often today, the split or the general movement or
flow of those people probably would not be to that area but to the
west of them, over to St. Albert.
(1840)
This is flawed. I have serious problems with it but the reason
we are so concerned about this, let me reiterate very firmly, is
that the process for this is dreadfully flawed. The process in my
neighbour's province of Saskatchewan is the same thing.
Under this particular format it may lose a seat. We look at
constitutional limitations on it. That is one thing. Do we toss it
aside and say we are going to try and come up with something
better? I hardly think so.
What about my neighbours in my home province of British
Columbia where the population is growing at an incredibly rapid
rate? They have some serious considerations about the flaws in
this as well, where things were drawn up, where there are so
many people.
2576
Look at discrepancies in constituency numbers. These people
need a chance to be able to say they will go to those hearings and
we as Canadians or as members of Parliament will go to those
public hearings because that is the system, that is the way it was
set up and that is exactly what we need to do, not sit here in
Parliament and cook up some deal in which we will shelve the
thing for 24 months.
In closing, I hope that the Canadian public has learned
something here today in terms of process about this whole
review. Let us make sure that Parliament does not have its
fingerprints all over this process. Let us open it up. Let us
consult the people first and then make decisions.
_____________________________________________
2576
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wish to
pose some questions to the previous speaker.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I regret the time has
lapsed. I am sure the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon
will seek the next opportunity to ask questions of his colleague
opposite, the member for Beaver River.
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport): Mr. Speaker, back in
February the Minister of the Environment stated in the House
her intention to review the present situation and to propose
within four to six months timetables and schedules for the
phasing out of toxic chemicals in the Great Lakes, particularly
of organochlorines.
Chlorine is at the centre of a controversy because of its
impacts on the environment and on human health. On one hand
chlorine has been very useful but it is also has negative effects.
Today there are about 15,000 chlorinated compounds in use
by industry. In addition, many byproducts are produced when
chlorine is used in processes such as pulp and paper and vinyl
manufacturing. These byproducts include such toxic persistent
substances as dioxins, furans and PCBs.
Organochlorines are known to be persistent in the
environment and to build up in the food chain.
A number of health problems are associated with
organochlorines and mounting evidence indicates that some
organochlorines can cause not only cancer, but also reproductive
dysfunctions, endochrine disruptions, developmental
impairments, and immunological effects.
The International Joint Commission on the Great Lakes has
recently recommended first, the virtual elimination of persistent
toxic substances from the Great Lakes, including the use of
chlorine and chlorine-containing compounds as chemical
feedstocks in industry. Second, the elimination of other chlorine
uses or at least their reduction and, third, a shift from
government or the public having to prove the danger of a product
to the chemical industry so that it would be the chemical
industry that would have to prove the product or a substance is
not harmful.
(1845)
In addition, the International Joint Commission is urging
industry to rethink its practices in order to eliminate the
production of persistent toxic substances, a much better
preventive approach than the reacting and curing approach we
have at the present time.
Many scientists are saying that organo-chlorines are a
problem from a public health point of view. While some
organo-chlorines might be generally safe, they should earn their
designation as safe through good, solid science and through a
shift in the onus of proof.
For all these reasons, I urge the Minister of the Environment
to announce a plan for the gradual elimination of industrial
chlorine use as recommended by the International Joint
Commission. Also, I urge the minister to set up a strategy and a
timetable for examining the possibility of reducing or
eliminating other uses of chlorine and other persistent toxic
substances.
In conclusion, it seems to me that in 1994 the Minister of the
Environment has the opportunity to act and to plan a transition
as called for by the International Joint Commission which
recommends the adoption of a virtual elimination strategy
within two years. This action requires political will and
commitment, of course. The Minister of the Environment and
Deputy Prime Minister has the power to prove that this Liberal
government is committed to the Great Lakes Water Quality
Agreement which as we all know commits the Government of
Canada and that of the United States of America to a toxic free
water body for the benefit of Canadians and Americans.
Mr. Clifford Lincoln (Parliamentary Secretary to Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment): Mr.
Speaker, the government has been following the chlorine issue
extremely closely. So far the government's policy has focused
its regulations and control efforts on chlorinated compounds
demonstrated to be toxic and on the processes that generate
them.
Environment Canada and Health Canada have undertaken a
science-based examination of 22 chlorine compounds and have
shown 14 of them to be toxic either to the environment or human
health.
We are determined to address this issue through the CEPA, the
Canadian Environmental Protection Act, a review that will start
very shortly through the Standing Committee on Environment
2577
and Sustainable Development of which my hon. colleague is the
chairman.
Through the Great Lakes action plans and programs in place
already and through close interaction with other countries,
especially the United States, we need to establish strategies
along with our neighbours to the south to reduce, prohibit and
substitute for the use of chlorine and chlorinated compounds.
The U.S. is now proposing a task force with timetables to
establish a definite action plan that will define the ways to
reduce, prohibit and substitute the use of chlorine.
Currently the Minister of the Environment is convening a
consultation process of multi-stakeholders to do exactly this, to
try and define an action plan to reduce, prohibit and substitute
the use of chlorine. This action plan should be ready by the late
spring of this year.
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Thank you, Mr.
Speaker and members of the House, for the opportunity of being
able to speak in this House. It is a rare opportunity for some of
us.
(1850 )
The question I am raising tonight is a question that I raised in
the House on March 15. It concerns Rogers' takeover of
Maclean Hunter and the virtual monopoly that Rogers
Communication will have on the information highway.
Rogers Communication with this takeover will have some 43
per cent control over Canadians who are hooked into the cable
system. In Ontario it is over 70 per cent.
My question to the government was to request it to either set
up a special committee of Parliament or to ask the standing
committee for the Department of Heritage to have special
hearings, not just on Rogers' takeover but on the whole question
of what is the public interest in the information highway.
I acknowledged in my question that both the CRTC and the
Competition Tribunal will have to hold hearings and approve
this takeover. My position is we must first define what is in the
public interest in terms of the evolution of the information
highway.
Mr. Rogers might be quite correct in claiming that we need
large monopoly type organizations or companies in order to
compete with the Americans and to take full advantage of the
technologies available. If he is right then basically what he is
saying is that he is a natural monopoly like telephone, like
power and other utilities. If that is the case then we must look to
make certain that the proper regulations are in place. This type
of work, I suggest, should be done by a parliamentary
committee.
I noticed later last week that the government had set up a
commission under the chairmanship of Mr. David Johnston from
McGill University. The discouraging part, when I read about
this in the Thursday, March 17 edition of the Citizen, is that most
of these hearings will be held in private and not open to the
public.
I wish to underline the importance of an open public process
in which all the players, including the public, can participate. I
would also suggest that this is a creative way of using members
of Parliament and the existing committee system. I could
envisage working very closely with the departments involved,
including the Department of Canadian Heritage, the bureaucrats
in that department working with the committee, to work
together on a co-operative basis to develop a position of what is
in the public interest.
I was also somewhat encouraged by the response of the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry. I believe
that the parliamentary secretary left open the possibility of
using members of Parliament either in a specially struck
committee or in the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage
to deal with this issue. I believe this is an issue that should be
dealt with by committee and utilizing the work of the House.
Let me again underline the importance of what is happening
here. Never before has a development of this magnitude, that is
Rogers' takeover of MacLean Hunter, been seen in the Canadian
history of cultural industries. It creates a virtual monopoly. It is
a turning point in Canada's technological and cultural future.
Therefore, it is essential that the public interest be defined and
that this be done through a committee of the House of Commons.
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I begin by thanking the member for
his concern on both of these issues.
First, the information highway will be a cornerstone for future
industrial development and economic growth. The development
of innovative products and technology will provide Canada and
Canadian businesses with the infrastructure and technology
necessary to compete successfully in international markets.
On Wednesday, March 16, the Minister of Industry announced
that Mr. David Johnston, the vice-chancellor of McGill
University, will be the the chairperson for the advisory council
for the information highway. The advisory council will assist
the Minister of Industry to develop a Canadian strategy for the
information highway.
The council will analyse and provide advice on general
matters of policy and strategy to ensure that Canada has access
to the benefit of advanced communications information
services. The council will also be accepting submissions from
Canadians in any area of interest to them.
2578
(1855)
I want to say to the member that in my own community with
the assistance of constituents and Mark Cameron and Roman
Kowalczuk, members of my support staff, we are beginning to
set up a community centre for information access on this very
important subject.
I welcome members of the House and all Canadians to write
for information on how to set up one of these systems in their
community. We will supply them with the information. We are
very much concerned that we bring this issue into the public
forum. It is moving fast. It is complex and we want to make sure
that public participation is involved all the way along.
Getting back to the advisory council, it is not being
established to review the proposed merger of Rogers
Communications and Maclean Hunter. Issues concerning the
merger will be addressed by regulatory bodies under existing
legislation.
Pursuant to the Broadcasting Act which Parliament passed in
1991 a change in ownership of cable companies greater than 30
per cent requires the approval of the Canadian Radio-television
and Telecommunications Commission. The CRTC has broad
powers and a fact finding mandate that will explore and examine
the issues in this takeover to ensure it is in the public interest.
Once the CRTC has received the application from Rogers
Communications, it will make plans to schedule public hearings
for the takeover of Maclean Hunter. Any group or organization
that has an interest can request to be heard by the CRTC at those
hearings.
Furthermore the takeover will also be reviewed by the
director of investigation and research pursuant to the powers
vested in him by the Competition Act. It is also important to
allow these officials to proceed as currently planned.
Though the hon. member suggests that the Commons
committee on heritage-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, the hon. member
for Capilano-Howe Sound.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
this is a question for the Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration.
Since the minister announced that next year's level of
immigration will be 250,000 I have received only critical
comments from my constituents concerning this decision. Other
Reform members of Parliament have had the same experience.
We are getting clear signals from the people of Canada that they
want less immigration.
Last week I asked the minister about the contacts his office
has had concerning the same matter. I received no answer and
instead received a lecture about the merit of the government's
determination to stick to policies regardless of public opinion
polls and comments received from the general public.
I find this attitude of the government policymakers arrogant,
elitist and undemocratic. When this government was in
opposition its MPs were constantly arguing against government
policies on the grounds that the people did not want such things
as free trade and the GST. Power corrupts. Now the people's
wishes no longer matter.
I ask the minister again a simple and straightforward question
which should be answerable in simple terms. How many
contacts from the public has he received critical and supportive
of the immigration levels since he has announced them?
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for Capilano-Howe Sound for his intervention.
I must say that counting the number of representations on any
issue is really no way to determine the wishes of the majority of
Canadians. It is also no way to determine whether public policy
reflects the opinion of the people of Canada.
Write in campaigns initiated by certain groups distort reality.
All of us who have sat in this House for any length of time are
aware of that. They only reflect the opinion of the particular
group. With the greatest of respect, I might remind the hon.
member that we on this side of the House who did win the
majority of seats campaigned on exactly the immigration level
the hon. minister brought forward this year.
The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is aware that
many Canadians are concerned however about the future
directions of the immigration program. That is why on February
2 of this year he launched a major public consultation process
that will help shape this country's immigration policy for the
next decade.
His intentions are clear. He wants to hear from Canadians
through an open and informed discussion. The process will set
the stage for establishing a new 10-year framework for
immigration and a new immigration plan.
The minister has stated on numerous occasions he has no
intention of formulating immigration policy on public opinion
polls, but by an open and frank discussion of the facts, not the
myths.
In the red book this party described our policies. Canadians
accepted them through the national and democratic election.
The 1994 levels fulfil the red book commitments, including a
total immigration of approximately 1 per cent of the Canadian
population and a priority to family and independent immigrants.
The Reform Party is calling for cuts to levels which would
reduce immigration levels by 100,000 people. The only way to
2579
do that is to modify the eligibility criteria which means
changing the rules of who gets in and who does not.
This is a very important issue which deserves input and
discussion by as many Canadians as possible, not just a few
letter writers in a few constituencies.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 7.03 p.m., this
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.03 p.m.)