CONTENTS
Thursday, February 9, 1995
Bill C-300. Motions for introduction and first readingdeemed adopted 9377
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 9377
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9377
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9378
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9378
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 9379
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 9379
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yellowhead) 9379
Motion for concurrence in 51st report 9380
Consideration resumed of motion. 9390
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 9396
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 9413
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 9414
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 9415
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9417
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9417
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9417
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9419
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9419
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 9419
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9420
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 9420
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9421
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9421
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9422
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9422
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 9423
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 9423
Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) 9425
Consideration resumed of motion 9427
Division on motion deferred 9435
Bill C-65. Consideration resumed of motion for secondreading 9435
Division on motion deferred 9436
Bill C-67. Motion for second reading 9436
Division on motion deferred 9445
Bill C-273. Motion for second reading. 9446
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 9450
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.12 p.m.) 9451
The House resumed at 6.17 p.m. 9451
9377
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, February 9, 1995
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Hon. Douglas Peters (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Madam Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to table, in both official
languages, a white paper entitled ``Enhancing the Safety and
Soundness of the Canadian Financial System''.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to table in the House today, in both official
languages, a number of order in council appointments made
recently by the government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred
to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is
attached.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): While I am
on my feet I am pleased to table, pursuant to Standing Order
36(8), the government's response to 12 petitions.
* * *
(1005 )
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton, Lib.) moved for
leave to introduce Bill C-300, an act to amend the Broadcasting
Act (broadcasting policy).
He said: Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this
bill to amend the Broadcasting Act.
In recent weeks Canadians have made it clear that they dislike
intensely the policy of the CRTC in allowing cable companies to
demand payment for channels which they have not ordered or
authorized. The CRTC in return has said that this is a necessary
evil of introducing new channels.
The bill that I have introduced today will amend the broadcast
policy section of the Broadcasting Act to ensure that the CRTC
no longer has any discretion in terms of necessary evils such as
negative option billing. This will limit the control of cable
companies over their customers, something about which
Canadians have expressed strong opinions.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I rise before this House on day four to present petition
number four. These petitions are being presented on behalf of
constituents who wish to halt the early release from prison of
Robert Paul Thompson. April 11, 1995 is the date set for the
parole hearing.
The petitioners I represent are concerned about making our
streets safer for our citizens. They are opposed to the current
practice of early release of violent offenders prior to serving the
full extent of their sentences.
The petitioners pray that our streets will be made safer for our
law-abiding citizens and the families of the victims of
convicted murderers.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I have several petitions that I would like to present to
the House.
The first petition asks that Parliament ensure that the present
provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted
suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no
changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or
abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
9378
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the second petition requests that Parliament consider
that a very vocal minority of citizens are requesting Parliament
to institute a dual marketing system for wheat and barley for
export.
Therefore, the petitioners request that Parliament continue to
give the Canadian Wheat Board monopoly power in marketing
wheat and barley for export.
The third petition is from a similarly small but very vocal
group of citizens requesting Parliament to put in place a dual
marketing system for the sale of wheat and barley. They also call
on Parliament to continue to grant monopoly powers to the
Canadian Wheat Board.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, the last petition I have requests that Parliament support
laws which will severely punish all violent criminals who use
weapons in the commission of a crime and support new Criminal
Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect
the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational
firearms, and support legislation which will repeal and modify
existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety
or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be
overly complex so as to be ineffective and/or unenforceable.
The number of names on this one is quite extensive.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I am privileged to table in this House today
four duly certified petitions on behalf of my constituents of
Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.
(1010 )
The first petition is signed by 70 people and asks this
Parliament to enforce the present provisions of the Criminal
Code respecting assisted suicides and that no changes in the law
be contemplated by this Parliament.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I would like table the wishes of 30 people who
humbly pray that this Parliament not amend the human rights
code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the
undefined phrase sexual orientation.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I table the concerns of 30 people who ask that
this Parliament immediately amend the Criminal Code to extend
protection to the unborn child.
Mr. Allan Kerpan (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I would like to table the concerns of 28 people
who support and request that Parliament continue to give the
Canadian Wheat Board monopoly powers in marketing wheat
and barley for export.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have three petitions to present this morning.
The first is signed by over 100 citizens of Brownsburg,
Arundel and Lachute, Quebec. They pray that Parliament not
amend the Human Rights Act or the Charter of Rights and
Freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Human Rights Act to include in the
prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase
sexual orientation.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, from the Etobicoke region of metropolitan Toronto,
110 citizens have asked that I present a petition praying that
Parliament ensure that the present provisions of the Criminal
Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced
vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law
which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide
or active or passive euthanasia.
Mr. Tom Wappel (Scarborough West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, over 200 citizens have asked me to present a petition
with respect to the Young Offenders Act, praying that
Parliament recognize and address the concerns they have, in
particular to amend the Criminal Code of Canada and the Young
Offenders Act to provide for heavier penalties for those
convicted of violent crimes.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Madam Speaker, I have the duty and privilege today of
presenting a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36, sent to me
by Val Lozier of Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan, signed by
residents of Meadow Lake, Green Lake, Loon Lake, Makwa,
Dorintosh and Rapid View, all communities in the
Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency.
The petitioners note that the majority of Canadians believe
that physicians in Canada should be working to save lives, not
end them. Therefore, the petitioners pray that Parliament ensure
that present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada
prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced and that Parliament
make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the
aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
9379
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I have two petitions to present today. The first
has 830 signatures from constituents in my riding of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt.
The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the
House that the rights and authority of parents over their children
have been eroded by legislation and other acts of the
Government of Canada, as well as the interpretation of these
laws by the courts and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to return to
parents, teachers and people in authority the right to exercise
judicious control over the actions of children and protect the
rights of people in authority to use reasonable force to modify
the behaviour of children as currently set out in the Criminal
Code of Canada, section 43.
They are also calling for amendments to the Young Offenders
Act and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and other acts that
may apply to reinstitute the authority of law enforcement
officers in dealing with children or minors.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the second petition adds again to the growing
number of people from Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt who
are opposed to any additional gun legislation. With this petition
there are 1,356 people who now call on Parliament to oppose any
further legislation for firearms acquisition and possession and
to provide strict guidelines and mandatory sentencing for use or
possession of a firearm in the commission of a violent crime.
The people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt feel that we
have a crime problem, not a gun problem. I agree.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I think it is time to
remind members that when they are presenting petitions, adding
to the prayer of the petition is considered debate. I would ask
members to keep their interventions short. Even saying you
agree with your petitioners is participating in debate.
(1015 )
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Madam Speaker, in
accordance with Standing Order 36 I would like to present this
petition from the residents of my constituency of Athabasca.
The petitioners request that Parliament not amend the
Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and
freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal
approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality,
including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include
in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined
phrase ``sexual orientation''.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to present a petition
pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners call upon
Parliament to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act to protect
individuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it is my honour
pursuant to Standing Order 36 to table three duly certified
petitions from constituents of mine.
The first one is signed by 61 residents primarily of the
Assiniboia and Rockglen districts. It calls upon Parliament not
to enact any further firearms control legislation, regulations or
orders in council.
Mr. Lee Morrison (Swift Current-Maple
Creek-Assiniboia, Ref.): Madam Speaker, the second and
third petitions are identical in content. One has 53 signatures
from the Swift Current and Maple Creek districts, calling upon
Parliament to ensure that the provisions of the Criminal Code of
Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and
that Parliament make no changes in the law which would
sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or
passive euthanasia.
The wording of the third petition is identical, also calling
upon Parliament not to sanction assisted suicide. It has 32
signatures from the Coronach area.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
under the provisions of Standing Order 36 I rise to present
several petitions signed by constituents of my riding of
Yellowhead.
The first petition asks that Parliament not amend the human
rights code or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way
which would indicate societal approval of same sex
relationships.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the second petition prays that Parliament extend the same
protection to the unborn child as that enjoyed by born human
beings.
Mr. Cliff Breitkreuz (Yellowhead, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
the third petition asks that Parliament make no changes in the
law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of
suicide or active or passive euthanasia.
9380
I am pleased to present these petitions.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall all questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9380
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
Hon. David Anderson (for the Leader of the Government
in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada,
Lib.) moved:
That, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(a), the 51st report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House on Friday,
November 25, 1994 be concurred in.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to participate in what really
is a historic debate. It is historic not because the idea of
redistribution is something that is new or that there is anything
particularly novel or revolutionary about the bill that is before
the House, or will be before the House as a result of today's
debate, but because this is the first time in the House we have
used a new procedure established about a year ago for dealing
with the business of the House in allowing committees to draft
and bring in bills.
The 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs contains in it a draft bill to amend the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act. In fact it replaces the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act. That bill was drafted by the
members of the committee who have been working on this for
some considerable period of time.
(1020 )
As chairman of the committee I am particularly pleased to be
able to speak on behalf of the government House leader to
propose this motion for concurrence to the House.
Adoption of this motion will constitute an order to the
government to bring in a bill based on the committee's report. I
am optimistic that the House will deal with this motion quickly
today so that concurrence can be had. The government will then
move rapidly to bring in a bill with some minor adjustments
possibly in language which can then be referred to the
committee once again for a detailed study and possible report to
the House and action.
The purpose of this new procedure is to strengthen the role of
members of Parliament in bringing their ideas to bear on policy
decisions affecting legislation. The Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs had ample opportunity to hear
witnesses put forward views on the bill that has been put before
the House as part of the committee's report.
In my view the committee members worked together very
well and in a very non-partisan way to come up with what in
terms of our best judgment would constitute a good new set of
rules governing the redistribution of electoral boundaries in
Canada.
I would like to thank the members of the legislative counsel
branch of the House of Commons, Ms. Diane McMurray and Mr.
Louis-Philippe Côté, for their assistance in the drafting of the
bill.
[Translation]
I would like to thank the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada,
Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and his staff members, Jacques Girard
and Carol Lesage, who assisted the committee in its work.
The committee was also assisted by witnesses from across
Canada, who came to Ottawa in July when we spent three days
discussing ideas and suggestions on redistribution. I would like
to thank them because their help was invaluable.
I would like to thank more particularly the committee
members who worked so hard in July and since then, reading the
drafts of the report and making suggestions for improvements.
My special thanks to the hon. members for Bellechasse, Calgary
West and Kindersley-Lloydminster, who, together with
government members, tried to find the most effective way to
change this legislation.
On this side of the House, the hon. member for Ontario, the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, the
hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the hon.
member for Scarborough-Rouge River also made a major
contribution.
[English]
Our meetings were extremely productive. We worked well
together and I think the report reflects that, notwithstanding the
dissent of the Reform Party on two important points. I hope to
deal with those in my remarks.
9381
How did we get to this point on this issue? People ask why
we embarked on a change in the redistribution act. I suggest
there were several problems with the old law and those are the
problems we have tried to rectify.
First, the proposed maps which came out last year just shortly
after Parliament first met came with no forewarning and no
opportunity provided to members of the House for input into
what those maps might contain. Members of the House and some
members of the public were presented with what appeared to be
a fait accompli. It was done at the very opening of a new
Parliament immediately following an election based on those
maps. The committee has addressed this problem. There will be
consultation before the first map is produced the next time.
Second, the commissions were not required to provide any
justification for their proposals, although some commissions
did so in any case. It was accordingly difficult, if not impossible,
for members of the public and for members of Parliament to
understand the rationale for the changes that were suggested or
for them to make constructive ideas as to how the maps might be
improved. The committee has made it plain in its report that
commissions must explain the rationale behind their decisions.
(1025 )
Third, the criteria for drawing boundaries were very general.
Therefore the commissions could take virtually any approach
they wished and the approach could differ from one province to
another.
We found it difficult as members of Parliament and as
members of the public to criticize the proposals because it was
almost impossible to have any standard by which those
proposals could be measured. The draft bill attempts to clarify
the criteria while maintaining the overall principle of effective
representation.
Fourth, many members complained that the commissions
made completely unnecessary changes to electoral districts just
for the sake of doing a redistribution. The committee has also
dealt with this matter.
Fifth, many members of the House expressed concern about
the size of the House of Commons and its continuing growth.
The committee studied the matter but did not recommend any
particular change from the present law.
Finally, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party
Financing that reported some years ago made a number of
recommendations concerning redistribution which were never
considered in the last Parliament.
In fact, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act really has
not been reviewed thoroughly in 30 years. Therefore the
committee took the opportunity to look through every part of the
act, to look at the recommendations of the Royal Commission on
Electoral Reform and Party Financing and make a series of
recommendations to this House.
The first issue I want to talk about is the cap or reduction in
the number of seats in the House of Commons. Members of all
parties came to this issue hoping either to cap membership or to
reduce the size of the House of Commons. After very careful
consideration of the matter, after hearing witnesses on this point
and after reviewing the report of the commission I referred to,
the majority of the members realized that a cap or reduction was
simply not feasible at this time.
Under the present formula, there will be a modest growth in
the House from 295 members to 301 after the next election. The
difficulty with a cap or a reduction is related to constitutional
problems, particularly the guarantee that no province will have
fewer seats in the House than there are in the other place.
The number of senators is not equal or related to population
size. It is in no way tied in with population as is representation in
the House. The cap in the number of seats here would perpetuate
the current inequities in representation by ensuring that the
provinces which have hit their senate floor cannot go below that
and the provinces that are growing would not be able to get the
additional seats to which they might otherwise be entitled.
I am aware that members of the Reform Party disagree with
the committee's judgment in this matter. They believe that the
House could be reduced to 265 members, a significant cut from
the current membership of 295. In their view that cut would not
significantly jeopardize the equality of votes in this country.
That is not a view that is shared by the majority members of this
committee, nor does the majority believe it is what Canadians
want.
In the province of Ontario most members will represent a
riding of approximately 100,000 people. That is a large number
of people to represent. It entails a significant volume of work
and transactions with the constituents. The Canadian public
would not be well served were we to increase significantly the
size of ridings.
The ridings in some provinces would get much larger than
those in other provinces. Without pointing to any direct
examples there are some ridings in Canada that have fewer than
20,000 people in them. That is a very small riding compared
with one with 100,000 although obviously the geographic
difference in size may be very dramatic and indeed often is.
The difficulties of representation in a country as vast and
diverse as Canada obviously are significant ones. The
committee tried to grapple with that, but given that the increase
was only six members it concluded this was not the time to make
any change or reduction.
9382
Many Canadians say they would like to reduce the size of
the House of Commons. However when it comes to accessing
a member of Parliament and finding the member available to
deal with concerns or to meet with constituents, clearly the
opportunities would decrease were we to increase the size of
constituencies. My own view is that Canadians would find that
they prefer the current set-up or something very similar to it.
In 1986 amendments were made to reduce the growth of the
House of Commons. These changes reflected a balance between
ensuring representation by population and the desire for a
smaller House. Under the pre-1986 formula the House of
Commons would have grown to almost 400 members. In
comparison, the modest growth to 301 is acceptable and
necessary to ensure that the growing places in Canada are well
represented.
(1030)
Given the seriousness of the issue however and the genuine
interest in dealing with it, the committee recommends this
whole matter of the size of the House be revisited with a goal of
overcoming the barriers to a cap before the 2001 census. We will
have had the benefit of the quinquennial census in 1996. We will
be able to see what the growth in the population is and where the
shifts have occurred.
If members in the next Parliament feel they are able to make
changes to cap the House at 301 or reduce the numbers, they
would be free to make that decision based on the further analysis
available to them in the 1996 census.
[Translation]
The second problem is the method by which commission
members are selected. According to the committee, there was a
problem with the selection process. We heard a number of
witnesses on the subject, many of whom indicated that we had a
good system but there were always certain considerations,
political or otherwise, involved in the selection process.
The committee decided that the process could be made far
more open and recommended several changes. First of all,
applications for positions will be invited by public notice. The
Speaker of the House will have to consult several people before
proceeding with an appointment, notice of which is to be tabled
here in the House.
If members of this House do not agree with the Speaker's
decision regarding these appointments and if 20 members have
signed a notice of motion, a member may present a motion
requesting a vote in the House on one of the appointments. The
vote will be crucial, because if the majority considers the
appointment is unacceptable, the Speaker must submit another
name.
[English]
One of the problems with the way redistribution is done is that
after 10 years-redistributions occur after each decennial
census, one occurred in 1991 with another occurring in
2001-population growth and shifts are often very significant,
resulting in large and disruptive changes to electoral districts,
which started out at a reasonable size and have grown into
something either very large or very small.
The committee was of the view that if there were more
frequent redistributions, this problem could be ameliorated
considerably. Accordingly the committee has recommended
that after a quinquennial census, that is the short and more
simple census that occurs every five years in between the
decennial ones, a redistribution would take place within a
province. There would be no reallocation of seats among
provinces as happens after a decennial census, but there would
be within a province a redistribution where figures warrant. We
put a minimum on that.
Constituencies would have to be significantly beyond the
provincial quotient before such a quinquennial redistribution
would take place. By doing this we are optimistic that we will
avoid these massive shifts every 10 years. It would happen in
certain provinces, probably not very many, after five years. Of
course the question of whether or not one occurs depends on the
population shifts within the province.
The committee proposes that redistribution will only take
place in principle where it is necessary to ensure effective and
equal representation.
The second matter is public input and the commissions. One
of the major difficulties with the current act is the process for
public consultation. Our draft bill proposes a number of
improvements that strengthen the role of the public in providing
advice to the boundaries commissions. The first is a requirement
for the publishing of a public notice at the very beginning of the
process. The notice must include the following information:
first, the population figures for each electoral district currently
on the map; second, the percentage of deviation for each riding
from the provincial quotient; and, third, a statement of how the
commission plans to proceed.
(1035)
Each commission, therefore, must issue its own policy
statement announcing the principles on which it intends to act in
performing its redistribution work.
[Translation]
The second change consists in asking the commissions to
produce three maps and include their reasons for selecting these
boundaries. In this way, the public will be informed of the
options available. The public may take part in the commission
hearings and suggest alternatives. It can indicate its preference
9383
for one map or another, without going to the trouble of preparing
its own maps. Currently members and the public have a problem
because they lack the resources to prepare alternative maps for
submission to the commission.
[English]
The third change is with respect to the public hearings. The
committee was of the view that there should be an additional
round of public hearings if the commission makes dramatic
changes to the electoral map after soliciting public input.
The final change relates to the process that currently exists
whereby there is parliamentary review of the drafts of the
commissions.
As members know, following the completion of the
commission's second draft, the matter may be referred to a
parliamentary committee which may then pass along to the
commissions its recommendations. The commissions may
accept or reject the recommendations but the process is
available only to members of Parliament who make their
representations to a parliamentary committee.
This special procedure is being abolished in the new act. All
proceedings before the commissions will be in public and there
will be no particular special parliamentary input opportunity
provided. We think this will make the process more open. We
believe it will allow the public to participate in the process and
see that there are no back door deals being made between
members of the House who may have been considered to be
placed in a privileged position vis-à-vis the commissions.
Clearly members of Parliament have an important say in what
riding boundaries should be. There are few Canadians more
interested in electoral boundaries than the members of the
House. However their opportunities to participate in this
process should be played out in public in front of the members of
the public. We believe that will be the result of this legislation.
The draft bill contains a number of changes to the current
provisions that govern how the commissions decide to draw
boundaries. We have adopted the principle of the least amount of
change. Many members complained that commissions
recommended changes for the sake of change rather than
because change was necessary.
The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception made
a presentation-it was sent to the committee and I thank him for
it-to the commission in Newfoundland where there had been
very minor shifts in population and yet boundaries had been
altered in several of the ridings in that province when there was
really no need to do so on the basis of population change. In his
submission to the commission he suggested that the commission
should have left the boundaries entirely alone.
We have dealt with that. In a province where there has not
been significant change, where there is no increase or decrease
in the number of seats and where there is no particular deviation
from the provincial quotient there will not be a commission
appointed.
Many people expressed concern about the open-ended way
that community of interest is defined in the current act.
Commissions really have a carte blanche to interpret the act the
way they see fit. Therefore, we have changed the definition of
community of interest in an attempt to narrow it and focus it so
that it will be a better standard against which to measure the
work of commissions.
The committee also heard evidence from members in growing
urban areas that commissions did not take into account the fact
that their riding was experiencing or was about to experience
tremendous growth. Often this is measurable. Plans of
subdivisions are registered; the construction is ready to proceed;
and it is obvious in some ridings, particularly in the large urban
centres, that within a year or two there will be another 10,000 or
15,000 people living in a particular riding.
Commissions will now be able to consider evidence about
future growth when they deliberate on the drawing of electoral
boundaries and adjust the boundaries accordingly.
(1040 )
The proposed bill would also remove the ability of
commissions to draw electoral boundaries beyond the 25 per
cent allowed variance from a provincial quotient. The current
law allows a commission to draw boundaries so that a riding
exceeds or is less than the provincial quotient. For example, if
the provincial quotient is 100,000 people per riding, the
boundaries under the current law could allow for a riding to
contain less than 75,000 people or it could allow the
constituency to contain more than 125,000.
This will be eliminated in the bill. We will require that if there
is to be a riding created that is beyond the quotient I mentioned,
the riding must be specified in the schedule to the act. In other
words, the House will fix which ridings will be allowed to
deviate beyond the parameters set out in the legislation. Those
ridings will be named in a schedule and then the boundaries of
that riding will not be touched by the commissions.
The committee was of the view that this was the fair way to
deal with this issue rather than leave an extended discretion in
the commissions.
There was an argument put before the committee and one on
which the parties in the committee disagreed, that the 25 per
cent deviation was too large. The Royal Commission on
Electoral Reform and Party Financing and some of the witnesses
who appeared before the committee favoured reducing the
variance to 15 per cent. The Reform Party has indicated its
desire to limit the variance to 15 per cent.
There is considerable merit in the suggestion from the pointof view of equity and fairness in the electoral system. I will
9384
concede that point, I respect members who have taken the view
that it is the right way to go because they have strong arguments
on their side. Nevertheless for large parts of rural Canada
particularly a change to reduce the degree of variance from 25 to
15 per cent would result in a significant shift of seats from rural
Canada to urban centres.
There is an argument made, and a very forceful argument by
rural members, that the difficulties of representation in a large
geographic riding with many communities that involve
extensive travel between the parts of the community is more
difficult than representation of a few blocks in a city core. Urban
members sometimes dispute that.
I would not want to pass judgment on one side or the other. I
represent a riding which is largely urban but which has a modest
rural component, in the islands in particular.
Mr. Hermanson: Sitting on the fence, no slivers?
Mr. Milliken: No slivers, absolutely no slivers, to satisfy the
hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. I do think that
there are difficulties in rural representation but there are
challenges to urban representation too, of which the hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster is unaware. I think his
riding is far more rural than many, but perhaps not all.
However I know that he will argue the other side. I want to
point out that he is arguing from a position of particular strength
because in the province of Saskatchewan the commissions have
ignored the 25 per cent variance and have gone to a variance of
something like 5 per cent. The 15 per cent would make no
difference whatever in his province.
I commend the commission for Saskatchewan for having
drawn boundaries this way. I remember in the last Parliament
hearing a lot of complaints about the boundaries that were
drawn. Those have dissipated this time because we have a new
bunch of members from Saskatchewan. We got rid of the
complainers and got in a new group that complain about
different things. I recognize that some of them are on this side.
They are not complaining at all. They are simply delighted.
They are pleased with this draft bill and are going to support it. I
hope that the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster will
share his views with them in due course.
We have decided on the 25 per cent. It is what has been in the
law for some time. I submit that it is a reasonable test and
standard by which we could operate. To avoid difficulties,
particularly a difficulty that would be felt very keenly by rural
members and by rural populations in Ontario and Quebec in
particular, there is no reason at this stage to advance a change.
The committee has left this at 25 and recommends it to the
House.
(1045 )
In addition to the substantial changes I have outlined, the
committee made a number of other changes that will make the
system more efficient, including the suspension of the process
should an election be called.
In the dissenting opinion of the Reform Party, members of
that party argued that the changes in the act proposed by the
committee did not justify the suspension of the process. That of
course has already taken place and that will be complete if the
bill is passed. New commissions will be appointed to operate
under the new act. They will be appointed in the manner
proposed in the act. They will make their proposals public in the
manner proposed in the act and they will be present three maps
to the public instead of one.
I do not agree with their position. The changes we have made
here are substantive. They are valuable. They are a dramatic
improvement of the current electoral system for the reasons I
have outlined in my speech. Accordingly I disagree quite
strongly with the rather negative view, in my opinion, expressed
by members of the Reform Party in the dissenting report.
When they read the report in its entirety, as I know they
already have and I am sure they will again, and as they hear the
very reasonable remarks I am making today in encouraging
them to support this matter, I know the member for Calgary West
will recant his heresy and support this excellent proposal from
the committee.
I am optimistic that the bill will be dealt with expeditiously. I
am optimistic that we can have it in place before June 22, which
is the day the old system kicks back in if we do not get a new law
passed. This new law represents a good deal for Canadians. It
represents a significant improvement over the existing
requirements in respect of redistribution. I invite all hon.
members to support it.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): Madam Speaker,
I will not take the same amount of time as the member for
Kingston and the Islands, since, in general, he summarized quite
objectively the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs.
Apart from the final part of his speech, which was more of an
exchange with the Reform Party than a direct statement on the
report tabled, the member for Kingston and the Islands provided
a very accurate description of the situation and the proposed
amendments.
I would point out that the official opposition participated fully
in developing the proposal, which will eventually be submitted
to the House, once the report is adopted, so that we will end up
with the best possible legislation. We have demonstrated the
seriousness of the parliamentary work that all members of this
House are called on to perform, even though the aim of our
9385
political party is to ensure this act does not apply in Quebec and
that we will not be covered by it in the next federal election.
However, we took part in the committee's work and we took our
job seriously.
I will come back in a few minutes, in order to complete the
picture, to one or two items the member for Kingston and the
Islands did not mention in his statement.
I too, of course, would like to thank the member for Kingston
and the Islands, the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and
the member for Calgary West, who contributed in a generally
non-partisan way to the work that, while not without its flaws,
produced excellent results.
I would also like to thank those who helped us, particularly
people from the office of the chief electoral officer, namely
Jean-Pierre Kingsley, himself, as well as Jacques Girard and
Carol Lesage, who provided incredible and ongoing assistance
whenever we sought their help and cooperation. I would also
thank colleagues who came to Ottawa in June and July, in the
height of summer, to make representations before the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Where I have more of a problem with the bill that will
eventually be tabled, the draft prepared by the committee, is that
absolutely no discussion of miminum representation for Quebec
was permitted. We ran headlong into the great wall of China in
trying to discuss the question of a guarantee of 25 per cent of
seats, raised by Senator Rivest when he appeared in June. The
idea was that Quebec could never have fewer than 25 per cent of
the seats in the House of Commons, because it would lose its
power of influence over decisions being made.
(1050)
Needless to say Senator Rivest is not known as a sovereignist,
at least not from the old guard. His point of view was to a large
extent taken up by my colleague, the hon. member for
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, when he appeared before the
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in July, stating that
a constitutional guarantee was required to ensure that Quebec's
current 25 per cent of seats be retained regardless of possible
fluctuations in its population.
We would of course like to resolve the issue of Quebec's
representation in this House in an altogether different manner.
But, should Quebec continue to require representation in this
House, this critical mass must be recognized, and it is in this
sense that all of our colleagues in the House must recognize it, as
must Quebec's population in general. While commissions are
currently examining Quebec's future, we have not been able to
convince our colleagues to subscribe to a proposal guaranteeing
25 per cent of seats to Quebec.
We have a better understanding of the situation in which we
find ourselves, that is to say, we are at a juncture where a
decision must be made in Quebec between attaining
sovereignty, controlling our own laws, creating our own
legislation, collecting taxes and signing our own treaties or, on
the other hand, becoming a member like any other in the
Canadian federation. This will be the true test in the next
referendum in Quebec. And Quebecers must know what system
will govern them if the outcome of the referendum in Quebec is
negative. We can see it already, the slightest request such as this
has been denied. The need to guarantee a minimum level of
representation for Quebec in the House was not acknowledged.
This had to be said at this stage.
Another point made in the report tabled by the member for
Kingston and the Islands pertains to so-called special ridings.
Under present legislation, provincial commissions may
consider special circumstances and allow for greater
fluctuations in a riding's population than provincially allowed.
Thus if we take the classic example of a riding with 100,000
voters, the number of voters could currently vary from 75,000 to
125,000, given the 25 per cent deviation allowed. But, as it
stands, the current legislation grants provincial commissions
the discretion to take special circumstances into consideration,
for example, the riding of Labrador, which does not meet the
electoral quotient, and Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which, as it was
mentioned several times in committee, may not meet it.
This will no longer be possible in the future, since a provision
stipulates that special cases will have to be listed in a schedule to
the bill. For reasons which are debatable, the committee chose to
adopt such a schedule blindly, that is to say ridings to be listed in
the schedule were not debated in committee. This could be a
valid way of doing things; we will see as we go on.
However, what the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs should be doing, in my opinion, is undertaking
far-reaching consultations, not just reserved for
parliamentarians. It is all well and good that the hon. member
for Labrador make representations, for example, that his riding
be included in the schedule or that the hon. member for
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine make representations that
Îles-de-la-Madeleine recover the independent riding status it
enjoyed before 1968.
(1055)
But in my opinion, the committee should open its consultation
process up to the community and allow the local population and
others to state their opinions. It seems obvious that the ridings of
Labrador and Îles-de-la-Madeleine should be allowed to elect a
member although their populations are lower than what the act
stipulates, and it may well be that, for very special reasons,
people elsewhere in Canada may reasonably argue that their
ridings should be listed in the schedule. For the schedule to truly
reflect the wishes of the people and for the members of this
9386
House to truly understand those wishes, the consultation process
must be opened up.
If it turns out that it is impossible to hold open hearings for all
members of the public to air their views-and then we would
have to find some other suitable means-I suggest that we revert
to the current procedure whereby provincial commissions are
granted the discretion to take special circumstances into
consideration. And in cases like Labrador,
Îles-de-la-Madeleine, maybe Manicouagan and the Gaspé
Peninsula, they should be able to allow a deviation of more than
the proposed 25 per cent which has been the generally accepted
criterion since 1964, when the independent commissions were
created and the House stopped drawing up the electoral maps.
At any rate, we will have the opportunity to discuss this issue
again before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs, and to find the best possible solution.
It was mentioned earlier that the population would be
consulted more. Yes, there will be more public consultation, and
that is normal because the electoral map is designed first and
foremost for the people and not for the elected members of
Parliament. Everyone agrees with this principle, including
myself. Just as electoral laws are designed for the voters and not
for the elected parliamentarians. We are the ones who must meet
these criteria.
The process for designating provincial commission members
was greatly improved. The process now taking place behind
closed doors will be replaced with a much more open process in
which the members will be appointed jointly by the Speaker of
the House and the province's chief justice. There may even be a
parliamentary debate if at least 20 members of this House
request it. We think that opening up the process is an excellent
thing.
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
discussed for several months the issue of limiting or reducing
the number of members in this House. This proposal was
particularly favoured by our colleagues from the Reform Party.
Basically, we agree with the proposal to reduce the number of
members in this House. However, we do not look at the issue in
the same way. Of course, we in the Bloc Quebecois want to cut
the number of members in this House from 295 to 220, simply by
removing the 75 members from Quebec who will leave this
House after the referendum.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Langlois: As you can see, this will free a number of seats
amounting to about half of those reserved for the opposition
from all parties.
There is no need to renovate the House, tear down walls or
push back everything to my left or in front of you, Madam
Speaker. The House will see a major change after the Quebec
referendum, since half our side of the House can be used to make
room for bigger desks for the other members, as they see fit. The
right to self-determination also applies to Canada. Our
Canadian friends will be free to refurbish this House as they see
fit.
(1100)
Quinquennial censuses will, of course, produce data allowing
us to make timely changes to the electoral map much more
quickly and avoid the major changes required after decennial
censuses, which confuse the population. This is also a desirable
improvement which was brought by the Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
Someone said earlier that members would no longer have a
say in this. I entirely agree with the fact that members-contrary
to what has been the case for the past 30 years-should no longer
have the last word on electoral boundaries redistribution, but
until now they did have some input-and they still do since the
legislation has not been amended-so that commissions were
able to consider problems that might be raised by members.
I am not sure whether it is such a good idea to eliminate the
right of members to comment, since they may want to make
recommendations, which the commissions may or may not
consider. I agree that members should not have the last say on
electoral boundaries, but I would question the wisdom of not
letting them intervene at all.
Of course, members can go before the provincial
commissions. But would it not be a good idea to let members
intervene specifically as a group, as parliamentarians, either
directly or through a committee like the one on procedure and
House affairs?
That being said, I simply want to remind the House that the
non- partisan approach that was apparent throughout the
proceedings of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
is an indication that working through a committee like the one
that tabled its report this morning can be very effective. As far as
the other committees are concerned, we will have to wait and
see. However, I hope we will soon see other standing
committees take the same non partisan approach we have seen in
the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 20.
On April 19 of last year this House gave a mandate to the
procedure and House affairs committee to investigate the
process of adjusting boundaries of electoral districts and to
bring forward a bill for this House to consider. The committee
was specifically mandated to formulate a cap or to reduce the
number of seats in the House of Commons, to look at the
9387
adequacy of the present method of selecting the members of the
electoral boundaries commissions, to look at the rules and
criteria used by the commissions to alter the boundary lines, and
to review the involvement of the public and the House of
Commons in the work of the boundary commissions.
Bill C-18 which received royal assent on June 15, 1994 was a
serious interruption of the non-partisan electoral process. It
suspended the existing Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
Such a move on the part of the government could only be
justified, and I stress this, if it makes significant improvements
or modifications to the boundary readjustment process.
There are no significant modifications proposed in this bill.
That is not to say there are no improvements being proposed.
Many of the smaller issues were dealt with in a very satisfactory
manner. Where the government proposal falls short is on the
larger issues. There are three: the size of the House, the size of
population variance of the individual ridings, and the rules
governing the adjustment of boundaries.
(1105 )
The positive aspects of the bill are easier to deal with in
smaller numbers so I will mention them first.
First, the process of instructing a standing committee to
prepare the bill has been a positive and productive exercise.
Unfortunately there is a majority of Liberal members on the
committee. In the final outcome they have their say. Some very
good proposals were set aside because the majority was not
willing to listen to other members and participants on the
committee.
Particularly I would like to commend the staff of Elections
Canada, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley in particular, whose
assistance in drafting the bill was invaluable. I would encourage
this House to continue using the committee procedure that we
used in the future.
It was also a pleasure to work specifically with the chair of the
committee that was very fair in hearing all sides of the
presentations with regard to this matter. We appreciated the
involvement of the Official Opposition, although it seemed to be
a bit of an academic exercise when, as my colleague for
Bellechasse mentioned, its motive is to extricate itself entirely
from this House. I was rather surprised to see a member of the
government, the Liberal side, applauding it. I think it was the
member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore applauding that. Perhaps
there is a separatist on the Liberal side as well. I am not sure.
There was invaluable input by the member for Calgary West
who is a constitutional expert and is very knowledgeable about
the Elections Act. I appreciated his input on the committee. It
was a pleasure to serve with him.
Another improvement is the redistribution of ridings within
each province to occur following each quinquennial census.
These mini adjustments every five years will lessen the dramatic
and highly disruptive changes that have occurred in the past.
The Canadian population can change drastically over 10 years.
Smaller changes brought about more often are preferable to the
current practice.
The government's refusal to accept the last redistribution is
evidence that smaller changes are easier for people to accept. An
additional bonus of a five-year distribution is a much shorter
time frame for the redistribution process.
The boundary commissions will be encouraged to make the
public better informed of their work and to provide alternatives
to each distribution proposed. While the role and involvement of
the public is increased, the influence of members of Parliament
is reduced. I applaud that. If MPs have an intervention they wish
to make, they are encouraged to take part in the existing public
meetings. I see this change as a positive step in ensuring the
boundary and readjustment process remains as politically
neutral as possible.
I do not believe boundaries should be changed and preserved
solely for the ease of the campaigning of the sitting member.
Granted all members would like to run in an area where they
have already won an election because they have developed many
contacts and made many friendships during the years they
represented that area. However, deliberately altering the
redistribution procedure to give an incumbent MP an advantage
would be a very serious breach of political ethics.
The irony of the suspension of the redistribution process is the
process that was already in existence worked when MPs or
members of the public were dissatisfied with the boundary
commission proposal. There was already a procedure in place to
have changes made to electoral maps. If the members took the
time to make presentations at boundary commission hearings,
they could do so.
The member for Prince George-Peace River and a number of
his constituents made a presentation to the British Columbia
boundaries commission. The commission considered their
proposal and made alterations to the proposed constituency
lines. Some of the Liberals of Ontario have done the same thing.
There may not have been the need for the undemocratic Bill
C-18. The Liberals panicked. That was unfortunate.
As for the process of selecting and reviewing the appointment
of boundary commissioners, minor but sensible changes were
made to the role and authority of the chief electoral officer, and
the manner of redistribution has been clarified.
These aspects of the bill are positive. That being said, all
those improvements and changes could have been made without
interrupting the redistribution process and without throwing out
9388
the $5 million worth of reports produced by the boundary
commissions.
The report of the procedure and House affairs committee fails
on every major issue on which it was mandated to act, namely
the number of seats in the House of Commons, the population
variance of the electoral districts and the priority of criteria used
to determine new boundary lines.
Most Canadians want less government. Most Canadians
believe there are already too many MPs. Even when presented
with a workable solution that reduced the number of seats in the
House, the Liberals refused to take any action as to its size. They
refused to reduce the number of seats, to cap the number of seats
both at the current membership of 295 and 301, as is proposed.
(1110 )
They even refused to reduce the growth of the House in the
future. It seems like the Liberals were willing to put
self-interest ahead of the national interest. That is truly
regrettable. Their reasons for refusing to act are pretty flimsy.
They claim that such a cap or reduction in the size of the House
of Commons is not feasible at this time. They lack the political
courage to act because they say the number of seats that would
be taken away would be insignificant and could be regarded as
highly disruptive.
The Liberals also quote constitutional problems in limiting
the size of the House of Commons. These problems arise
because of the way Senate seats are allocated. Using the House
of Commons to make up for the inadequacies of the other place
is unacceptable.
It is the refusal of this government like the Tories before it to
reform the upper chamber so that it actually represents the
provinces and regions of this country effectively that is creating
the problem of uneven representation in this House. The House
of Commons is supposed to be the chamber where all Canadians
are represented equally.
Representation by population is the principle upon which this
House is built. The upper chamber is completely ineffective in
representing provincial and regional interests as a result of
being unelected and unequal.
Just because the modern Senate is increasingly incompatible
with the confederation of today, that is no reason to prevent this
House from representing Canadians as well is it could. It would
seem that the government's resistance to an improved Senate is
hampering the effectiveness of this House.
It is in the best interests of all Canadians to have the House of
Commons organized as efficiently as possible. If this
arrangement has the additional benefit of creating pressure for a
reformed Senate, that would be a bonus. We should not weaken the
House of Commons by binding it to its present form, nor should we
allow it to grow out of control for the sole purpose of avoiding
making changes to an out of date Senate.
There is no excuse for refusing to establish a smaller House of
Commons. In my own province of Saskatchewan, people would
be willing to accept having fewer MPs as long as the reductions
were equitable with reductions to other provinces as well.
As a matter of fact, in the province of Saskatchewan the
number of provincial seats has been reduced and the public has
accepted it and embraced it. Perhaps it is something that the
federal government should have a look at.
If as a result of the reduction of MPs Canadians got a triple-E
Senate, elected by them, accountable to them and working in
their best interests instead of being partisan rubber stamps, it
would make the opportunity to save taxpayers money by
electing fewer MPs even more attracted to them.
I have heard that many Liberals from rural ridings in Ontario
complain about the problems associated with geographically
large ridings. However, I have a riding that stretches more than a
four and a half hour car ride in some directions. I can say that if
members are resourceful and committed to serving their
constituents it is more than possible to adequately serve the
needs of a large riding.
For instance, I have set up a mobile constituency office that
travels around the riding to get to people who cannot get to me.
We already allow extra travel allowances to members with large
ridings. If as a result of a reduced House some ridings become
bigger, the cost of the extra travel will hardly make a dent in the
savings from having fewer members.
Modern communications technology makes more constituent
contact possible. Increased use of available technology makes
this possible without extended travel. I want to tell members of
the House who represent urban ridings that no matter how
concentrated and compact their riding is, I can fax across mine
faster than they can drive across theirs.
Fewer ridings will mean that each MP will serve more
constituents. Again I would argue that the modest increases in
resources of a member's office either in staff or equipment is a
more cost effective way of dealing with the needs of Canadians
than having more members. Not only do Canadians want fewer
federal politicians,but it makes good fiscal sense as well.
The Liberals are refusing to do anything about the size of the
House. They took the political easy way out. They
recommended that somebody else, possibly a future Parliament,
do something about the growth of the House.
9389
The time to take action is now because the problem is now.
This bill is an excellent opportunity to deal with the issue. No
time in the future will be any better than the opportunity we
have right now. I would imagine that the Liberals in the future,
if there are any, will be no more willing to deal with the problem
than those in this government are now. They are simply
unwilling to entertain any solution which varies from status quo
thinking. Liberals simply never want to take action on anything.
Another major flaw in this legislation is that it does nothing to
solve the problem of some ridings, even the ones in the same
province, with varied levels of population.
(1115)
A plus or minus 25 per cent variance means that even within
the same province one constituency can have a population
approximately twice as large as another. This is an unacceptable
variance in voting power. I urge all members to remember that
this variance is not between ridings which have suffered recent
population changes that are about to be corrected. Rather, this is
a starting point. This is how the commissions are allowed to set
things up in the first place.
Ridings may start off with this large variance and then go
through five years of population change before anything is done
about it. As unequal as that may seem, this large variance will be
exceeded by those ridings that will be placed into a special
schedule.
The schedule ridings are exempt from the allowable quotient.
If there is already a huge allowable variance available to the
commissions, surely there is no need for a special schedule.
Conversely, if a schedule of special cases is to be created, such a
large variance is not required.
One member of Parliament can represent anywhere from
fewer than 20,000 constituents to over 120,000 constituents.
That is incredible and that is the starting point, if we include a
schedule plus a huge variance of 25 per cent.
The reasoning behind including both is beyond the wildest
dreams of the gerrymanders. If the House determines which seat
should go on a schedule, it provides tremendous opportunity for
biases along party lines, for biases among rural versus urban
members, for the opportunity for infighting and horrible
conduct on the part of MPs. The encouragement of horrible
conduct on the part of members and parties is not something that
I would want to see. It did not have to be there. They could have
corrected this problem.
I urge all members of the House to vote against the report until
this gross inequity is resolved. Having these two flaws in the bill
at the same time makes a mockery of the principle of equality of
voting power even within the same province. The situation is
further exacerbated by the constitutional requirement to start
out with unequal provincial representation.
As it is plain to see, the legislation the report recommends
does nothing to guarantee or even encourage the electoral
equality of Canadians. This alone is reason enough to warrant
the defeat of the bill unless corrected by amendment.
The third area of weakness in the bill is the primacy it gives to
community of interest over voter equity. While not stated as
such, boundary commissioners are instructed to consider
sociological considerations ahead of making constituencies
reasonably numerically equal. That is an automatic consequence
of having such a high population variant quotient.
This is a social engineer's dream. These considerations
combined with overly generous variances will result in a system
that represents Canadians by characteristic rather than as
citizens of a specific geographic area. It is this manifestation of
special interest politics that we wish to avoid.
Some of the considerations found within the definition of
community of interest can and should be used to break the tie
between alternative proposals with comparable voter equity.
They should not be used as a primary factor in determining
electoral boundaries.
As I stated in the beginning of my remarks, the minor
improvements made to the redistribution process do not save the
bill from its vast omissions, flaws and missed opportunities. The
legislation proposed by the report in no way justifies the action
taken by the government to interrupt the pre-existing process.
The actions of government members in producing the report
confirm that the original motive behind Bill C-18 was crass
partisan manipulation of the electoral process. Ontario Liberal
backbenchers and a few from Atlantic Canada were not happy
that their ridings were changed. They appeared before
committee and told us that was the problem. When a party wins
almost all the ridings in a province, why would it not try every
trick in the book to play again on the same field?
The government motive here was to redo the last
redistribution simply because the new lines were not put on the
map where it wanted them to be. Some of them went down Sixth
Avenue rather then Tenth Avenue.
Bill C-18 was brought in as an attempt to cover the whole
operation in the guise of opening the process to improve and
modernize it. This report and the lack of meaningful change it
contains prove there never was a sincere intention of significant
improvement or modernization.
(1120 )
Let us talk about the real crux of the matter. The problem is
that the country needs reform in many areas. One of the lesser
priorities is electoral reform. It is an important area, I agree, and
I know my colleagues would accept that. However we need
social program reform. We need reforms to the way we expend
funds from this place. We need reform of our justice system. The
Liberal tradition is to talk about reform but in the end to do
nothing about reform. It is becoming very clear that the only
9390
people who will really reform the country are those who bear the
name Reform in their party title.
Canada has a very proud democratic tradition. Canadians
deserve the best electoral system that can be provided. I assure
the House that I will work for positive and constructive electoral
reform. I will work for reform of the Senate. I will continue to
work for a capping and a reduction of the seats in the House of
Commons, not because it helps me out but because it is what
Canadians want. They want action. They want real reform.
The motion the government has presented to enact the bill, a
new boundary readjustment act, is not real reform. It is a matter
of tinkering around the edges, a bit of cosmetics to try to cover
up the fact that it did not approve of where the boundaries were
drawn in the last readjustment process.
Mr. Milliken: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
regret to interrupt, but I wonder if I could seek unanimous
consent of the House to revert to tabling of documents. A
document that should have been tabled this morning was not and
I am seeking unanimous consent to do so.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Does the hon. member
have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
9390
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table
a special report on suicide among aboriginal people entitled
``Choosing Life'', prepared by the Royal Commission on
Aboriginal Peoples, in both official languages.
_____________________________________________
9390
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question
of the hon. member who just spoke. I begin by saying that one
thing Reformers do not have is a sense of humour. Oftentimes in
discussion we need a sense of humour.
I thought the hon. member across the way was alluding to the
fact that they were making way for 75 Liberals on the other side
of the room. That was really what my applause was: the fact that
we would have 75 Liberals across the room looking directly to
the rest of us on this side of the House. They would be replacing
the ones who are presently there.
Somehow I seem to be confused by the convoluted
discussions around what is, what is not, and what Reformers are
and are not for. What are the positive aspects of the bill that he
supports? They seem to have been lost in the argument.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I assure the hon. member
that the Reform caucus has a wonderful sense of humour. We are
very amused at the Liberal polka represented in this bill and in
many others: one step forward, two steps backward and
side-step the issue.
There are some positives in the bill or the motion that may
become a bill if the government so chooses. One of the more
positive aspects to which I am sure other colleagues will also
refer is the selection of commissioners. There are some minor
improvements in the selection of boundary commissioners.
There is more consultation with members of the House. It could
become less the sole jurisdiction of the Speaker to choose the
two commissioners selected from the federal level. Of course
the provincial selection remains unchanged.
Another positive aspect is the alternatives that will be
presented to constituents. Rather than presenting one map, there
is the potential of three: one preferred and two alternative maps.
These are minor improvements that certainly did not justify a
suspension of the process.
Other than those minor details there are more flaws and
omissions. What really concerns me is the omissions and the
lack of change in the bill. Had we wanted to make these minor
improvements we could have done that in the form of an
amendment to the bill that could have taken place while the
existing process was under way.
(1125 )
What has happened is that the initial adjustment process
started some time ago was interrupted by elections. In fact we
have some terrible discrepancies. We now have members
representing huge populations while others are representing
very few Canadians. The bill does not correct that problem. It
just tinkers around the edges and makes a few cosmetic changes
and few minor improvements.
9391
Mr. Harold Culbert (Carleton-Charlotte, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I have a couple of points to make and perhaps a
question I would like to address to the hon. member across the
way.
I listened very carefully to the comments he made. They were
somewhat in depth. Being from the province of New Brunswick,
one thing we found with the presentation to us shortly after
coming to the House was that there was a unilateral change.
There were no additional seats. There was no need for additional
seats. There would still be 10 seats in the province of New
Brunswick, the same as before. Yet every riding in the province
of New Brunswick, according to the new proposed mapping, was
to be changed.
From my perspective politically the changes in my riding
would have been great. I represent my constituents. The
message they brought forward to me was about why we were
making changes and spending millions of dollars for the sake of
change. I had to admit that in that light it made absolutely no
sense to me.
I particularly wanted constituents with concerns to appear
before the committee to make comments. I intentionally did not
appear at that committee hearing because of the exact reasons
the hon. member suggested. I did not want it to be perceived in
any way that there was a political reason for making those
suggestions.
The comment to me was why change for the sake of change.
Because a couple of urban areas slightly increased in
population, they were going to change 10 ridings in the province
of New Brunswick and spend millions of dollars. This makes
absolutely no sense.
I would like to address this type of issue. It occurred not only
in New Brunswick but in several other provinces as well.
Addressed in the bill is the criterion that we can look at it and
make some sense of it from the perspective of the Canadian
taxpayers who ultimately will be paying for the changes in
redistributions or riding maps.
I would ask the hon. member to comment, relative to the
concerns he had previously made.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, the member for
Carleton-Charlotte makes a very good point. It was raised by
many MPs who appeared before the committee. If any
readjustment is required in a province it creates a domino effect.
Certainly my province of Saskatchewan is very similar to
New Brunswick. Many constituencies have not seen significant
population change. However the fact that one or two areas have
seen population change-and it is usually an urban area that
grows-it means the boundaries somewhere in that province
have to be redrawn. As soon as boundaries are redrawn they
affect neighbouring constituencies that would have less people
as a result of boundaries around the city being tightened. It
affects the next one and the next one.
Once we pass our accepted variance limits and begin to draw
the first boundary, in most instances the boundaries within the
entire province are redrawn. It is an unavoidable problem even
though maybe three-quarters of the land mass is not
significantly affected by the population change. The new
process will not significantly change that.
In response to the member from Etobicoke, another
improvement is that readjustment will take place every five
years, which may mean that changes will be a little smaller; they
will not be as massive as they were in the past.
(1130 )
As soon as we begin to draw a boundary, for example if we
draw a boundary around Carleton-Charlotte, it will affect
neighbouring ridings and there is no avoiding that. No matter if
it is every five years or every ten years we have to redraw all the
boundaries in the entire province. The key then is to make those
boundaries in the best possible places. That is the job of the
commissioners with public input which they had in the previous
legislation and which they will have in this legislation.
Again, there are some minor improvements in this legislation
which allows for a little more public input and some
alternatives.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I cannot resist asking a question of the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster who I thought really scraped the
bottom of the barrel to find complaints about the committee
report.
However, I congratulate him on his speech where at least he
vigorously defended the Reform Party position in respect of the
two principal issues on which we disagree. I think he is picking
up and harping on a subject that I know the hon. member for
Calgary West will harp on when he gets on his feet. That is the
bill to suspend the current redistribution system which in his
heart of hearts he knows is flawed.
He realizes that many of his own members found the
proposals of the commission quite unacceptable when they
came out. It just so happens that he did not in his case. He knows
that some of his colleagues did. I know the hon. member for
Calgary West was not very happy with the proposals when they
first appeared. I know that the members from British Columbia
were quite unhappy with the proposals when they appeared. That
was true across this House in every party where there were
members from British Columbia.
I think the hon. member realizes that while he can denounce to
his heart's content and look for difficulties, really he knows that
the previous process was flawed and needed some repair. He
must acknowledge, and I invite him to do so, that the proposals
put forward in this bill are not tiddly-winks as he suggests. In
fact they are significant improvements on what was there
9392
before, particularly the appointment process for members of the
commissions and particularly the requirement on the part of the
commissions that they publish their proposed way of doing
things in advance before they embark on map drawing. Then
when they have done their map drawing they present three maps
instead of one.
Surely that is a very significant improvement which cannot be
ignored. It is not some minor adjustment as the hon. member is
trying to suggest in his speech which I think unfairly represents
the very diligent work the committee has done.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I suggest to the member
for Kingston and the Islands that the improvement is certainly
valid but certainly is not worth the $5 million of taxpayers
money that was spent to suspend the process and start over
again.
I would indicate to the member that I might be willing to bet
my MPs trading card that his members will probably not be
entirely pleased with the new boundaries as they will be drawn
up next time. We will never please all the members of this House
when we redraw the boundaries. It is absolutely impossible.
In closing, with regard to the other point the hon. member
made, yes, members of our party were unhappy with the way the
boundaries were readjusted. However we respect and are
prepared to play by the rules, including the member for Calgary
West.
The people from the city of Calgary who appeared before the
commission and made their representations in fact saw some
amendments to the electoral map that made some
improvements. They used the system, made it work. It was an
impartial commission that heard it. They corrected the problem.
They played by the rules. The Liberals were not prepared to play
by the rules. They wanted to make their own.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am rising today to speak in favour of the government
motion for concurrence in the 51st report of the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the
electoral boundaries adjustment process.
The issue of governance is one that affects every member. As
the member for Mississauga West with the second largest and
possibly the most diverse riding in the country I have a keen
interest in the bill before the House today which can affect my
riding profoundly. It is definitely not tiddly-winks in this one.
Canada has a long tradition of fairness and compromise in
dealing with the allocation of ridings in our nation. Since
Confederation this House has taken extraordinary steps to
ensure that such diverse areas of Canada as Prince Edward
Island, Quebec and the Northwest Territories each receive
special consideration. While Canada is a federation of many
different cultures, ways of life and ethnic backgrounds, the ties
that bind this country have from time to time been rather
tenuous.
One of the most important ties we do have is a strong federal
government represented by members of Parliament who are
seated in this House. In order to build harmony and foster a
sense of balance and fairness, we must occasionally examine
and adjust the way we are governed and the method by which we
choose those representatives who are seated here today. Our
prime concern should be one of fairness and equity.
(1135)
In 1900 over 80 per cent of Canada was rural and largely
English or French background but we have changed rather
dramatically. In 1995 we are largely urban with a huge influx of
new Canadians, each with different points of view and a strong
desire to participate in the new land they now call home. Yet
representing this diverse population in a fair and equitable way
through the redistribution of ridings remains a highly
controversial issue.
In the riding of Mississauga West over 250,000 residents
struggle each day to pay bills, become familiar with new
customs and pursue their piece of the Canadian dream. This
riding is at least the size of three average Ontario constituencies
and double the entire population of Prince Edward Island, which
by the way sends four excellent members to this House.
Clearly the time has come to address the challenges presented
by a rapidly growing, highly urbanized area such as Mississauga
West. Over 40 per cent of this riding speaks neither official
language. With many of the 131 languages spoken, schools have
fewer than 10 per cent English or French speaking students. This
is an amazing transition in only 10 years.
As background I point to the growth patterns of the city of
Mississauga in the region of Peel. Since its incorporation in
1974 Mississauga has tripled in size. Growth projections
provided by city staff show a steady, planned, accurate and
predictable growth pattern.
In 1974 the population was 165,000. It currently is just over
500,000. Only the recessions of 1982-83 and 1993-94 slowed a
very steady and dramatic pattern of growth. This year
Mississauga is Canada's ninth largest and again fastest growing
city. I represent half of it.
With more than $850 million in new development we have
exceeded the predictions for this year by more than $250
million, a figure which matches the pre-recession levels of
growth for 1988-89. Industrial growth in 1994 was also 30 per
cent ahead of the previous year.
I remind the House that these growth rates are equally
common throughout the entire greater Toronto area. In the areas
like Markham, Brampton and Oakville the story is very similar.
New urban areas attract thousands of people annually along with
new businesses and an appetite for government services, not to
9393
mention a vocal and persistent desire for direct access to their
member of Parliament.
We all know how much work it is to build new cities. Each of
us knows of the struggles to fund schools, roads, parks and other
aspects of infrastructure. These are the urgent and visible needs
of all new communities. What are the less visible needs? Many
new Canadians require a great deal of help from their federal
member and his or her riding office. There is no longer a
tradition of volunteer community help to fall back on, as is more
common in rural areas. Urban areas tend to be more threatening,
less welcoming and frankly, tougher places to fit into.
My own riding office routinely deals with over 100 phone
calls per day. The majority of those involve relatively
complicated questions dealing with immigration and
unemployment, not to mention pertinent advice and instant
solutions to all our budgetary problems.
The cultural and language problems are immense. Imagine
trying to deal with at least 40 different major ethnic groups, each
with special needs and problems. By now members of my staff
have learned bits of language from all around the world as they
try to offer friendly and efficient assistance to the best of their
abilities. I actually have one staff member who is in hospital.
These are just some of the problems with monster ridings like
Mississauga West. I know that as I speak each of us is thinking
about our own home riding, its problems, its challenges and its
special situations. In that respect we are all alike in this House,
men and women trying to do the best we can in the situations we
are faced with each day.
However rapidly growing areas such as York North, Ontario
riding, Scarborough and Mississauga West need special
consideration in dealing with redistribution. This report goes an
immense distance toward meeting the needs of such high growth
communities.
I draw attention to the size variable of plus or minus 25 per
cent which has been discussed in this House. This provision will
allow high growth areas more flexibility in establishing realistic
long term boundaries. Such growth predictions and subsequent
planning efforts are relatively accurate. Growth areas can be
easily identified and subsequent adjustments made. There is
very little risk of error, judging from past predictions and actual
growth patterns.
The new electoral boundaries process will include the
direction that a commission be established following each
five-year mini census if more than 10 per cent of the province's
constituencies vary by more than 25 per cent from the provincial
average.
(1140)
These five-year mini census adjustments further serve as a
method to ensure fairness in riding sizes without changing the
actual number of seats for each province. Thus an area like
Mississauga West or Mississauga generally could be divided
into four or five ridings, each with 25 per cent room for growth.
In effect for the first time ever we would be exhibiting good
planning and a recognition of the special circumstances in which
cities like Mississauga find themselves. After all, politicians
serve people, not geography. Politicians work for people, not
hills, mountains and fields.
In the past, growth has overwhelmed ridings such as
Mississauga West which expanded from 140,000 to 250,000
people in 10 years and from 80,000 to 163,000 eligible
registered voters. Ten-year adjustments are inadequate. We
need to recognize that the urban residents in new communities
create tremendous work while their area is expanding and
establishing its roots.
Federal services do not keep pace, further adding to the
burden on an MP's office. Unemployment insurance offices,
Canada Post, passport centres and district tax offices cannot
keep up. The flight of city dwellers to suburban areas is much
quicker than the corresponding addition of new federal services
to meet their demands. We know that many immigrants who
currently land at Pearson airport will settle in the outskirts of
urban centres where taxes, rents and services are less expensive.
The 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs regarding electoral boundaries also recognizes an
often overlooked aspect to riding boundaries: communities of
interest and existing municipal boundaries. In the past the
gremlins of redistribution often cobbled together some fairly
innovative, if convoluted, riding boundaries. Many were more
representative of a pretzel than a riding. I can only speculate on
the motive behind the more innovative electoral creations.
Suffice it to say the best interest of communities and of people
will only be served if the riding boundaries are sensitive to
communities of interest. They must recognize the cohesiveness
and shared concerns of certain geographic or municipal areas.
Some proposals in the recent past had Brampton and part of
Mississauga in the same riding. This may not be troubling to
some people, since we know Mississauga is the gateway to
Brampton, possibly the centre of the new universe as I know it,
but it does create problems of a practical nature.
Think of the extra unnecessary work created in a riding that is
geographically split or extremely diverse in interests,
economics or lifestyle. It becomes a delicate and largely futile
effort to
9394
keep many very different areas in balance. My colleague for
Bramalea-Gore-Malton knows exactly of what I speak.
The report we are debating today addresses these sensitive
situations. The new guidelines also provide a greater
opportunity to enhance our relationships with area
municipalities, not unlike the very co-operative process under
which the government's infrastructure program was developed
and implemented.
Local planning staff, area residents and municipal leaders
will have a far greater role and responsibility in ensuring the
needs of their communities are taken into consideration long
before final boundaries are decided on. MPs will not be required
to make the decisions of King Solomon, with very diverse
interests forcing a member to choose between one community of
interest and another quite opposite one.
There is another innovation. This report specifies, as has been
mentioned, that three different alternatives for each riding
redistribution be presented by the electoral commission with a
detailed rationale for the one they have chosen. The commission
will collect and justify its preferred option, but the alternatives
will be available to those who wish to raise objections for the
first time ever.
This new procedure alone adds immeasurably to the
empowerment of local citizens and civic officials. The hearings
will then allow citizens to select another option with equal
population distribution based on alternative communities of
interest or geographic characteristics.
Until now the boundary setting process has been at very best
something of a mystical, partisan federal rite occurring once
within each decade. Now the process will be viewed as clear cut,
straightforward and inclusive. The five-year review is a further
refinement, reflecting the belief that expanding areas change
dramatically in a short period of time and therefore need more
than the current ten-year review.
Last, the report attempts to bring fairness and balance into
riding redistribution. We must be fair to Canadians regardless of
where they live. Each Canadian is equal in voting power to the
next. Each vote should, as close as is constitutionally possible,
carry the same weight as the next.
While the urban areas are growing rapidly, it is a matter of
political fairness that new ridings continue to be established
where the people live. This shift seems inevitable and needs to
be recognized. My 250,000 constituents deserve full
representation, full enfranchisement and full democratic
powers.
(1145 )
The population of Mississauga West will soon reach 300,000
people yet we have only one voice in Parliament, as strong as it
is. We need to approach this challenge with an open mind and a
commitment to equity. It is not likely that we will ever please all
Canadians regardless of our best efforts.
Some will always cling to old notions in a process that is long
out of date. I understand how difficult it is to serve areas that are
losing population with vast geographic areas between pockets of
small populations.
The report also addresses the concerns of low population
areas and rural establishments. Some ridings have tremendous
historical roots dating back to Confederation. They find the idea
of redistribution or expansion suspect. I am also keenly aware of
the arguments in favour of certain special status cases such as
Prince Edward Island. My favourite line, to the member who sits
in front of me from P.E.I., is it takes eight of him to make one of
me.
These exceptions to the general rule of representation by
population have long served Canada's best interests. I
understand that certain compromises may be necessary to
ensure harmony and equity.
The time has come for all MPs to recognize that rapid growth
also creates special circumstances of equal importance. The
government motion for the very first time comes to grips with
the growing problems in urban Canada. For the first time, it
introduces five-year census adjustment rather than ten. It allows
rapidly growing ridings to be set at limits 25 per cent below the
provincial average to allow for expansion which will probably
occur within those five years.
It stresses communities of interest as a prime criteria for
drawing riding boundaries. It requires the presentation of three
different options for intelligent community input on riding
redistribution.
I invite all hon. members of the House, regardless of political
persuasion, to consider these proposals carefully and to
wholeheartedly endorse the government motion.
In conclusion, I would like to very humbly thank the
committee for allowing me to join it halfway through its
deliberations. I feel as though I rode in on a white charger just in
time to save the large ridings from once again being subjected to
the very cavalier attitude that has been prominent in the past.
The chairman has been a marvellous chairman and I really
consider it a great privilege to have served on this committee.
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would like to make a comment on this bill on electoral changes.
It centres more around the size of the House of Commons.
I cannot believe that the chairman of the committee in his
speech said that to introduce a cap or to reduce the size of the
House is not feasible because of constitutional problems. The
logic that the member for Kingston and the Islands uses is that
we should not address the size of the House of Commons and its
9395
growth. He is defending the status quo and it is just an excuse for
lack of leadership.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry to interrupt.
Your questions and comments should be directed to the previous
speaker from Mississauga West.
Mr. Silye: Madam Speaker, the member for Mississauga West
also defends this bill. One of the criteria that I cannot understand
as a member of the committee she defends is the size of the
House of Commons growing to 301 members.
The greatest classical liberal of all, Thomas Jefferson, said
that government governs best that governs least. That principle
has been lost.
Let us compare the state of California to Canada. The
population in California is 29 million. It has 52 congressmen
and two senators. It has one president and a governor. Fifty-six
people run 29 million people.
Canada has 27 million people. With the Senate and the House
of Commons, we have 399 people. Perhaps the member could
address this. We are worried here about representing 30,000
people or 85,000 people when in the States, one congressman
represent s 571,000 people. Perhaps a few more staff to help
with the immigration and unemployment problems would be the
solution and not to increase the size of this House.
This House should be reduced to 265 members at a max. The
city of Calgary does not need six or seven MPs in the next
federal election. It needs only four. More members should think
like that in order to represent the city.
(1150)
An hon. member: They might need eight Liberals but only
four Reformers.
Mr. Silye: Yes, four Reformers could do the job of seven
Liberals, that is right.
If we use the same proportion of representation in the United
States of 85,000 to 90,000 on average, it would have 2,900
congressmen. That is how disproportionate we are. We are 10
times worse off than that country because we will not stick to the
principle that a government governs best that governs least.
The Liberal Party pretends to be fiscally conscious but the
very first opportunity it has-the very first bill that came up was
this electoral boundaries item-to show leadership, an
opportunity to lower the overhead and the cost of running
government and running the country, it chooses to increase
government and to cop out on constitutional reform.
I would like to know if the member could address why she
favours increasing the size of the House of Commons when I
know from a personal point of view, working with her on other
committees, that she believes in fiscal restraint?
Mrs. Parrish: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for the
compliment. He noted that I was the only Liberal he ever met
who has tried to save money. Of course that is not true but it
shows he has a certain bias and that is why he likes to get into
exchanges with me on subjects like this one.
In the United States there is quite a difference in
concentration of population. If we look at the numbers in the
United States and the way its population is concentrated, its
congressmen tend to be able to serve people in a more compact
area. Canada, by nature, is very spread out and very diverse
except for areas like Mississauga West. Generally it becomes a
logistical problem.
The other thing, in my opinion, that happens in the United
States is that it requires millions of dollars to get elected so only
the wealthy run. Therefore, I do not know if the member would
be here but I for sure would not. To suggest that many people
require a prolonged campaign and require enormous election
expenses ensures that only the very wealthy become elected to
its representative houses.
Obviously I would like to see a cap at some point on this
House. The member and I have both agree on this. However, in
the democratic process that went on in the committee we talked
about it, looked at it and decided it required much more study
than we were able to give it at this time. I hope I have
sufficiently answered the member's question.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I enjoyed listening to the hon. member's
speech. I know she was fairly instrumental in one clause being
included in the act and that was clause 19(2)(b)(iii). I think the
member knows which one it is. It reads:
-the probability that there will be a substantial increase in the population of
an electoral district in the province in the next five years.
It is the anticipation clause which describes fast growth in a
particular constituency, shrinking the boundaries around that
riding to allow for growth so that we do not get these inequities
in the population between ridings. It is probably a fairly good
principle but it is in conflict with the principle of a number of the
rural MPs who want to see their ridings remain smaller and who
argue against that principle.
I wonder which principle the hon. member thinks should have
precedence. Should it be the principle that we shrink the urban
ridings so that there is room for growth, or should it be the
principle of the urban members who would like to see the
population kept closer to a variant or perhaps even see a smaller
population in a rural riding so that they do not become so large
geographically? These principles are in direct conflict with one
9396
another. One or the other has to have precedence. Which one
does the hon. member think should have precedence?
Mrs. Parrish: Madam Speaker, I must thank the member for
pointing out something I had hoped would sneak by the rural
members. He knows I was hoping it would sneak by.
I have to represent the area I live in. I also believe in
representation by population wherever possible. I would be
absolutely adamant in hoping, as is the Liberal way, we will
come up with some sort of amicable solution wherever those
boundaries touch each other. My first principle has always been
representation by population, wherever it is possible. I will be
defending my little clause in the bill to the death.
(1155)
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West, Ref.): Madam Speaker,
I rise today also to discuss the motion of the government
concerning electoral redistribution and to oppose that motion. In
so doing I would like to make some complimentary comments
with respect to what has transpired.
First of all, as was mentioned earlier, we had excellent
support in committee and out in the field from Elections Canada.
Mr. Kingsley, Mr. Girard and Mr. Lesage were very helpful to
the committee. It is also necessary to mention that the electoral
redistribution commissions have transacted their work quite
faithfully under quite difficult circumstances during all of this
and should be complimented.
I would also like to compliment the work of the chairman of
the procedure and House affairs committee. This is the first time
that a committee has successfully drafted a bill that we
anticipate will be tabled. In spite of the fact that there were
significant differences on major issues of principle, we
nevertheless were able to work fairly and efficiently in the
drafting of a bill and in resolution of those issues on which we
were able to reach consensus.
[Translation]
We do not support this motion by the Committee on Procedure
and House Affairs for a new electoral redistribution system, and
I would like to explain why. There are several improvements in
the committee's report, but there are also two major problems.
First of all, the five million dollars it will cost to redo the
electoral redistribution process for this census, the 1991 census,
and second, the fact that the government, supported by the BQ,
failed to reduce the number of members and thus the cost of
maintaining the current number of seats in the House.
[English]
The principal reason for my opposition to this report is its
failure to address correctly the issue of reducing or capping the
number of seats in the House of Commons. All attempts by the
Reform Party to make this an issue and to effect some change
now, rather than some mythical change that supposedly will be
made some time in the next century were turned down by the
committee.
In addressing the question of the capping or reduction of the
seats of the House of Commons, let me spend a bit of time
outlining exactly what the history has been of this issue. We are
all told that the House of Commons has grown from the time of
Confederation. Let me review how that has occurred, the
reasons for it and why it has become somewhat of a critical
issue.
In 1867 there were 181 members of Parliament. Even from the
beginning there were elements which encouraged growth and
protected smaller provinces, either in the number of seats they
had or in cases where they would lose those seats. The original
formula that was in the Constitution for distribution of seats in
the House of Commons was based on Quebec having a number
fixed at 65 and other provinces going up or down, depending on
their relationship to that number.
In addition there were changes made to that formula in 1915
to protect the seats of the very small provinces, which is
senatorial clause 51(a) that we have heard some mention of
earlier today.
(1200 )
Later on the formula was shifted. Quebec no longer was fixed
at 65 and instead there were a fixed number of seats in the
Chamber and the numbers would fluctuate depending on the
relationship to the total number, although once again there were
protections against loss of seats. Those amending formulae were
introduced in 1943 and 1952.
All through that period, from 1867 through the various
changes in 1915, 1943 and 1952 there was really only marginal
growth in the House of Commons. It was a 30 per cent growth in
total over that period. The primary reason for that growth was
the addition of new provinces and the populating of western
Canada.
Beyond that the growth of the House of Commons was
actually quite marginal. Finally in 1949 there was the addition
of Newfoundland.
It was really only with the formulae that came in under the
Trudeau government that we began to have excessive growth in
the number of seats in the House of Commons. In 1974 the
Trudeau government enacted a formula which was
unprecedented and which would have gone back to making
Quebec a base for fixing the number of seats in the House of
Commons. Instead at this time of fixing a number of seats for
Quebec, Quebec was fixed at an ever increasing rate around
which everything else would grow. Quebec is a province that has
tended to have a stable or even a somewhat falling share of the
seats. Thisled very quickly to a situation in which the House of Commons
9397
would have expanded by hundreds of members within a period
of only a few decades.
We grew from 264 seats in 1979 to the 295 we have today.
There were additional amendments brought in, in 1985, to
control this situation. Once again they still contain substantial
growth elements. In particular no province is now allowed to fall
below the number of seats it had in the 1970s. The only way to
preserve the principle of representation by population is for the
representation of large provinces to continually grow.
To review what I have said, if we look at the history we had
both here and in the Senate of the growth of the number of seats
over the first almost 100 years of Confederation, about 30 per
cent were determined almost entirely by the growth of the
country. After that period the Senate has ceased to grow and the
House of Commons has expanded by 30 or 40 seats. It will
expand by six in this redistribution and it will expand at that rate
into the future.
What do we propose to do about this? Obviously we propose
some kind of formula which would cap or reduce the number of
seats in the House of Commons. The particular formula we
introduced or we proposed as the Reform caucus was as follows.
This was a proposal that had originally been made by the
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and was supported by
the member for Calgary Centre and me.
We proposed that we establish a permanent number of seats in
the House at 265. This was the number of seats that had been the
case here for a long period of time, through most of the fifties,
the sixties and the seventies. On top of that we proposed that
there be some provision for small growth in representation.
The reason for that was very simple. The senatorial clause,
section 51(a) of the Constitution, requires that no province can
have fewer seats than its number of senators. That clause is
distortive. It is distortive at any level of representation, whether
small or large. Obviously at the number 265 it is not highly
distortive and allowing for slight growth minimizes that
distortion. I am talking about very slight growth.
We would have had a House under our formula of 273 seats for
the next Parliament, growing at perhaps two or three seats every
10 years. We were talking about a very minimal objective.
This was opposed by the other parties for a number of reasons.
I will quote a couple of them. One mentioned in the report is a
reduction or freeze in the number of seats in the House of
Commons would perpetuate and in some cases exacerbate
inequities in representation between provinces and would
further erode the principle of representation by population.
Then it goes on to talk about the effect it would have on
provinces losing seats.
(1205)
Our formula would have caused virtually every province to
lose seats, which was one of the reasons it was equitable. Also
the statement as contained in the report is factually simply false.
The formula we proposed that would give us 273 seats, a modest
reduction of 10 per cent for the next Parliament, would have
provided an approximation closer to representation by
population than under the current formula. The reason is we
removed the distortion of the grandfather clause which is far
more distortive than the senatorial clause, which this House has
imposed and which this House is in a position to remove.
The position that this would distort representation by
population is not true. Our proposal would have improved the
percentage share of seats that Ontario and British Columbia now
have, the two provinces most unfairly affected by the current
formula.
There were a number of other reasons given by government
and Bloc members for opposing this particular formula but they
were really of an entirely different nature. They were not really
concerned about the mechanics of the formula or the growth of
the House. They were the self-interest issues: ``Canadians will
miss me as their member of Parliament if I lose my seat''; these
kinds of rationales.
Interestingly, very few of these rationales appeared when this
motion was introduced. The principal reason we were told
publicly by the government that we were suspending the
commission and that we were undertaking this committee study
was the concern of members of the House about the size of the
House and the terrible cost that would entail.
I want to refresh the memory of the House. I could spend a
good part of the time I have to refresh the memory of the House
about some of the interventions that were made by various
members in emphasizing that this report should cap or reduce
the size of the House of Commons. I want to remind these
members because we expect that when there is a vote they will
have an opportunity to get up to oppose this particular motion
and to stick to their principles.
The hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka had mentioned
when we had the debate on Bill C-18 that it is not something he
has heard from his constituents, that they want to expand
government and have more government spending. I agree. That
is why we must oppose this motion.
The hon. member for Halton-Peel said if one looks at
Australia there are 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
9398
these walls. I agree. I would be interested to hear from the hon.
member for Halton-Peel.
The hon. member for Nepean said: ``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 with how
they rationalize that''. I agree with that. This is once again why
this report should not go through unless there are changes to cap
or reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons,
precisely so that we can keep those costs down.
All these problems about representation, as the hon. member
for Nepean well understood, can be addressed through use of
modern technology, through more efficient use of staff
resources. It does not require a House of Commons that will
grow to 350 seats over the next 20 or 30 years.
The hon. member for Ontario said: ``Why do we need new
seats? It seems that the addition of new seats flies in the face of
the hard earned tax money that Canadians tell us is so hard to
come by''.
The Liberal member for Victoria-Haliburton proclaimed:
``The cost of adding six members of Parliament is something I
think the Reform Party and myself included should look very
hard at. Why would we want to add that kind of money? Why
would we even think in these tough economic times of adding
millions of dollars to taxpayers' expenses?''
(1210 )
The Reform Party has looked at this issue, has proposed the
alternative. We are looking forward to seeing what the hon.
member for Victoria-Haliburton has done as he studied this
issue.
The hon. member for La Prairie: ``One principle is
particularly important. We should not increase the number of
electoral districts in Canada. Two hundred and ninety-five
electoral districts for 27 million people is already too much''. I
agree.
The hon. member for St. Boniface, the parliamentary
secretary to the minister of public works said: ``Would this not
be a wonderful opportunity to see whether we could do with
one-quarter or perhaps one-third fewer MPs? I think Canadians
would applaud such a move. It would mean significant
savings''. I agree with that also.
Our Reform proposal to reduce the number of seats in the
House of Commons is comparatively modest. We are talking
about a reduction of about 10 per cent. We could go further. If we
go further there are some significant problems with the
senatorial clause. It begins to become fairly distortive. That
does not mean we should not do it. We should be looking at
Senate reform. We should be reforming that institution. That
would allow us to change the senatorial clause.
I understand the government is not prepared to do that and I
understand why. It is very difficult to reduce to the kind of
number the hon. member for St. Boniface proposed, but a
reduction of 10 per cent is certainly achievable.
The Solicitor General said: ``Since Confederation the number
of seats in the House of Commons has increased steadily'' as I
mentioned, the number of members by now would have shot up
already to more than some 340. That is something we should be
considering.
The hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River spoke quite
eloquently in the committee when he said: ``Three hundred and
one members is not what Canadians want. They want a
Parliament that works. They want to see it work with 295
members, not 301 or 310 or 320 as time goes on''.
The hon. member for Waterloo said: ``If we continue with the
process in the longer term we are going to keep adding members
to the House of Commons. Therefore time is of the essence. We
have to deal with this issue very quickly. However, I will be
fighting very strongly to maintain the number of members of
Parliament at 295, not of course the 301 it is scheduled to go up
to''.
The parliamentary secretary to the minister of citizenship, the
hon. Liberal member for Halifax said: ``In these days when
restraint is being urged on us by all fronts, should we really be
considering increasing the number of members of Parliament?''
I think the question indicates its own answer.
The hon. Liberal member for Hillsborough said: ``All kinds of
institutions are looking at holding the line, reducing numbers or
not going ahead with other plans. I notice new electoral reform
has just come forward in my own province. It is not the best time
for us to go forward and increase seats in the House with the
added costs''.
The hon. Liberal member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo
said: ``If we approach the population of our neighbours to the
south, we will need 3,000 seats in the House of Commons''.
This is another reason, as the hon. member for Calgary Centre
mentioned, that we should tackle this capping issue. We do not
need those numbers. We do not need to have a number of
politicians which by an exponential factor exceeds the number
of politicians in a state like California.
The hon. member for Algoma said: ``We cannot cap the
number of seats here forever, but we want to consider how
quickly the number of seats rises''.
Even that suggestion was not solved by the committee. Even
reducing the future growth was not solved by the committee's
report. It said it is an issue that should be addressed and studied,
that Parliament should be seized with the issue. That was the
purpose of the committee and it failed to do that.
9399
The hon. member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton said:
``Perhaps this House would operate more efficiently and
effectively if there were dramatically fewer members of
Parliament than at present and there were a fixed number''.
The hon. Liberal member, the secretary of state for
parliamentary affairs, stated his own view: ``Finally, based on
the existing formula, the number of seats in the House of
Commons will increase from 295 to 301 as a result of the 1991
census, and that concerns me in light of current fiscal
restraints''.
(1215)
I have a couple more I could mention. The hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester, a Liberal member, said:
At this rate there will come a point in 2050 or 2090 where the Chamber will no
longer be large enough to hold all the new members. It will have to be torn down
and rebuilt further to make room for the extra seats that will have to be made. If
you look south, they have only 100 senators for a total population of about 250
million people.
Literally dozens of Liberal members spoke in favour of what
the Reform Party is proposing. We look forward to their support
when the vote on this issue comes about.
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member on his speech. I have
never heard such a good speech from a Reform member in this
Parliament. The principal reason was that he kept quoting
Liberal members. If he keeps doing that, he will soon replace his
leader who does not quote Liberal members often enough. If he
did I am sure he would go up in the polls instead of down.
I want to ask the hon. member a serious question. He went on
at some length in his speech about the benefits of a smaller
House and suggested the figure of 265. He also suggested that
the way we could get away with it was by getting rid of the
grandfather clause that protects certain provinces.
I wonder if he and the hon. member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster, in the course of their considerations
of this matter, consulted with the people of Saskatchewan. I
wonder if they levelled with them and told them that if the
grandfather clause were taken away that province would lose
four seats and in the event of a redistribution based on
population once it was done Saskatchewan would lose five seats.
Did he in his consideration of this matter advise the people of
Saskatchewan through householders, other materials or public
announcements that if the Reform policy were adopted that
province would lose five seats? Did he advise the people of
Manitoba how many seats they would lose? Did he advise the
people of Newfoundland and of Nova Scotia how many seats
they would lose? Did he review with members opposite in the
Bloc and with other members how many seats in Quebec would
be lost?
Those are the issues that have to be faced. If we are to cut the
number of seats to 265, we have to face the fact that over half the
provinces will lose representation in the House. Frankly I do not
think the provinces are prepared to accept that, particularly the
province of Saskatchewan whose numbers would be decimated
in this place.
I know the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster wishes he
could answer, but the hon. member for Calgary West says that
Calgary does not need more MPs. I agree it does not need any
more Reform MPs; it has more than enough. However
Calgarians would be well served if it got some Liberal
representation. Getting extra seats increases the possibility of
that and he knows it.
Alberta is not getting extra seats, but I remember the outcry
from British Columbia when there was talk of delaying the work
of redistribution commissions. The Minister of National
Revenue is from that province. There was a strong outcry
against not getting the two additional seats to which it was
entitled under the current arrangement to go to 301 seats.
There was an outcry from the minister. The hon. member
knows that. There was an outcry from the population. There
were editorials. There were telephone call-ins. There was a
huge hue and cry at the thought of losing two seats.
If that is the case in British Columbia, how is it possible that
the citizens of Saskatchewan would clamour for a reduction in
their representation in the House by five seats? That is what
members of the Reform Party are proposing in the House. If that
happened and there were an election called on the basis of that
kind of redistribution, I submit every Reform member in
Saskatchewan would be out the window, including the very
capable member for Kindersley-Lloydminster.
Can the member comment on that?
Mr. Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, the whole
purpose of my speech was to illustrate what citizens across the
country are saying about representation in Parliament. They do
not need more MPs. They do not need, in particular, as we will
probably see in the bill, more MPs who say one thing when it
does not matter and vote another way when the party tells them
to do so.
Whether there are 14 seats in Saskatchewan or 20 or 28 is not
going to make any difference if they do not represent their
constituents in the House of Commons when it matters at voting
time.
(1220 )
The other point is that they play little word games. People are
not as stupid as some of these comments imply. People
understand that under our Constitution-and some people have
diffi-
9400
culty with this-we have representation by population in the
House of Commons and that the voice of Saskatchewan, whether
it has 14 seats out of 301 or 12 seats out of 280 or 10 seats out of
250, is in fact the same voice. The only issue is whether it is
going to cost more or cost less to have exactly the same voice.
The fact of the matter is that people realize that if no province
can ever lose seats and we have rep by pop, the only way to
sustain rep by pop is with a House of Commons that will expand
forever. The people understand that. I do not think the
histrionics in this debate will change people's understanding of
that. It is unfortunate we have not tackled that issue.
If the Liberal government adopted our suggestion it would get
considerable credit from the electorate in making this kind of
move. We hear that from Saskatchewan, I am assured by the hon.
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, as we hear it in Alberta
and as we read it in the mail we receive from across the country.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka, Lib.):
Madam Speaker, I rise today to talk about the issue of
redistribution and specifically the motion that was tabled today.
I would like to begin by congratulating the procedures and
House affairs committee for the work it has done. It has done an
excellent job. I am also very pleased to see the first use of a new
procedure where the committee is coming forth and
recommending the bill. It is a good system. It worked well in
this particular case. We should see more of it in the future.
I am rising today because the issue of redistribution has a very
important impact on my riding. It has a very important impact
on all of northern Ontario and a very important impact on all of
rural Canada. Rural Canada has challenges in terms of
representation and distribution that are not necessarily faced in
the same way as they are in urban Canada.
We face the issue of declining populations. We have the
difficulty of large geographic areas we have to try to represent.
We have the issue of how we communicate with our
constituents. If we are in very small urban areas it is not
difficult, but if it takes four or five hours to travel from one part
of a riding to another part of a riding the issue of communication
becomes very important.
We have the issue of diversity within our large northern
ridings. We have the diversity of the people who live there, the
diversity of the industries that exist there and the diversity of the
geography, as I have mentioned. These are special challenges
that people in rural Canada, people in northern Ontario, people
in my riding have to face on the issue of redistribution.
There are three specific areas I would like to address. The first
is the issue of capping the number of members in the House of
Commons and the 25 per cent variance rule. The second is the
whole idea of the public consultation process that is being
introduced with this proposal. The final and very important area
is the issue regarding the definition of community of interest.
That is a very important concept about which I would like to talk
very briefly.
On the idea of capping and the variance of 25 per cent, I
believe the committee's report offers a good balance between
what essentially used to exist, which was unrestricted growth of
the number of seats here, and a plan that is going to allow for
moderate growth.
I have been encouraged by the committee report because we
have avoided a whole constitutional wrangle that could occur if
we proceeded with recommendations such as those presented by
the party opposite. It is not a time to be arguing about
constitutional niceties; it is a time to be dealing with our
economic problems. I am glad the committee has seen fit to
ensure we do not have to go down that road.
When we study the ideas in this plan we should remember it is
important for individual MPs to able to provide effective
representation to their constituents. All of us in the House work
very closely with a large number of constituents. In my case we
receive around 900 phone calls a month. We get almost 100
letters a day. We have a large number of town hall meetings and
have to travel over large areas.
(1225)
All members of the House face the challenges of representing
large numbers of people. An important part of what we do is to
listen to our constituents, to hear their points of view and to
bring them forward to the House. If we go down a road where
few of us are representing an ever increasing population the
basis of being able to represent constituents will be placed in
jeopardy.
I am glad the report has found the balance between keeping
the numbers down, which we have to do in terms of economics,
and ensuring there are sufficient members to provide proper
representation to individual constituents. I believe this proposal
will do that.
I was also pleased to see the 25 per cent rule maintained. That
is absolutely necessary for a number of reasons, the first one
being geographic. There must be a geographic limit to how large
a riding can get. If as members we have to travel six, eight or ten
hours to go from one end of our ridings to another-and there are
some ridings like that in the north-it becomes very difficult to
provide proper representation. The maintenance of the 25 per
cent rule will give the flexibility to take that particular issue into
account.
9401
I also believe there is an issue of needing to provide
representation a bit differently in rural Canada than it is
provided in urban Canada. Those challenges I pointed out
previously that exist in rural Canada need to be addressed. I
believe the flexibility the 25 per cent rule provides will allow
that to happen.
Most important, at least as far as I am concerned, is that the 25
per cent rule and the flexibility it will allow will give us the
opportunity to adhere to the community of interest guidelines in
the legislation. I will talk about them in a couple of minutes.
I want to congratulate very heartily the committee on the
public consultation process it has recommended in the proposed
legislation. When it is implemented we will find that we have a
far more effective public consultation process, certainly a far
more transparent process and a more efficient process. I will
touch on those three points just briefly.
First I will deal with the effective aspect. The idea that we are
to have the ability to go into individual ridings or individual
provinces and adjust ridings where they have gone beyond the
25 per cent rule at five-year intervals will mean we can be much
more effective and much more efficient in ensuring that we have
proportional representation.
It is also important the committee suggested that when the
commissions go out to consult with Canadians and come back
with a recommendation they are not just going to come back
with an all or leave it plan. They will come forward with three
specific options. The individuals who are to examine them and
provide input will have a number of options before them and
some basis upon which to provide their input, to have discussion
and to have debate about what would be the best route to go.
They are certainly recommending a transparent process.
Under this plan the positions of the two members of the
commission appointed by the Speaker will have to be
advertised. The Speaker will go about obtaining staff for these
commissions in a very public process. Additionally Parliament
will have the opportunity to examine who is chosen for those
commissions and if seen fit a motion can be brought before the
House to reject those individuals. We see a very transparent
process being put in place.
Also in terms of transparency, under the legislation the
commissions will have to tell Canadians up front the exact
parameters they are to use in examining redistribution. One
difficulty we found with the previous process was that the only
time individual constituents became involved was after the work
had all been done and it was plopped on the table.
The fact that the guidelines will be set out before the
procedure is important. It will allow Canadians to have the
necessary input. It is very important that the process for MPs to
examine the legislation will be the same as that for the general
public.
(1230)
When there are public consultation meetings individual
members of Parliament who feel a need to give representation
will do so as part of the public process, not as some separate
process that takes place only in this House. I am happy to see
that the MPs will be participating in the same way that all other
constituents will be.
I believe we are going to see some efficiencies put in place
with this process. One of the most important is the fact that it
says if the parameters have not been breached, if there has not
been sufficient changes in population, if the variance has not
gone beyond the 25 per cent rule, a commission will not be
struck nor will it have to examine it.
That is a major and significant change from the way it is done
right now where it is necessary to review it even if a change has
not occurred. This is going to save substantial dollars for the
federal government and it is going to save substantial dollars for
the Canadian taxpayer. I very much support that.
I believe as well that Canadians will be very pleased with the
fact that government in this instance is going to stop doing
something it does not need to do. I very much support that.
The third area has to do with the issue of community interest
and the fact that it is being defined very clearly in the
legislation. It is absolutely critical that it be done. In Ontario,
the area I am familiar with and in particular in my riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka, the lack of attention to community interest
concept created a lot of difficulties with the recommendations
that had been brought forward.
I would like to cite a couple of examples of how that has
happened, using my own riding as a basis. One stipulation on
community of interest is the local economy. My particular
riding is made up of the Parry Sound district and the Muskoka
district. They share in common the industry of tourism with a
common market. Under the proposal that was originally tabled
those two areas were going to be completely divided and the fact
that they had a common industry, a common tourism market,
was going to be totally ignored.
Also in terms of tradition, under community of interest it is
defined that we must take into account traditional
representation. In the case of my riding at the time of the next
election it will have existed for half a century. That was totally
disregarded in the process when the maps were struck the first
time and the riding was going to be totally ripped apart and
divided into three different parts. It was not in keeping with the
traditions. This bill states very clearly under the community of
interest clause that tradition is an important ingredient.
It also talks about the need to delineate between rural and
urban Canada. In my riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka they
were going to take an essentially rural area and add into it about
9402
20,000 individuals from a metropolitan centre. We would have
a riding that was no longer uniquely rural and would no longer
be uniquely urban, but would be a mismatch of the two and
would make things very difficult in terms of representation.
As well under community of interest they talk about natural
boundaries. That is important. In northern Ontario we have
many natural boundaries that need to be adhered to when we are
trying to draw up a reasonable constituency, a reasonable riding.
Again in the case of Parry Sound-Muskoka it is bounded by a
river on the south, a river on the north, Georgian Bay on the west
and Algonquin Park on the east. Those were natural boundaries
that established my riding. They did the redistribution and did
not pay attention to the issue of community of interest and it was
all put asunder.
I am very encouraged about the fact that we do have a very
much strengthened community of interest clause in this
legislation and I support that.
In conclusion, I do support this legislation because I think it
finds the correct balance between trying to keep the numbers in
this House down, but ensuring that there are sufficient members
to provide effective representation. I support it because it
provides a better public consultation process that is going to
allow Canadians to have a meaningful input into the process.
Finally, I support this because the community of interest
clause has been strengthened and will lead to the creation of
better ridings.
(1235)
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, in listening to the member from Parry Sound, I
am sure he spoke with great sincerity. He seems to be very
sincere. However, I am concerned about perhaps tossing off
Reform comments as constitutional niceties. He recognizes the
economic need for the changes that are happening.
I am concerned that he does not appear to be recognizing the
financial needs. Our country is in the worst situation it has been
in ever and we have to recognize that this is one way, as Reform
suggests, to reduce the number of members in this House.
We all know it costs approximately $1 million per member. I
have just returned from Washington. I have met with American
parliamentarians in the last week and constituents. We did speak
about this. They feel that they are very adequately represented.
As members know, they have over 400 representatives and 270
million people. We are looking at 10 per cent that we have.
Maybe the hon. member can perhaps explain why we would
not be very concerned about the financial counterpart of this
problem.
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I thank the member for her
comments. The economic concerns that the country faces are
ones that we have to consider when we are taking a look at this
package.
I believe that the package does that for a number of reasons.
First of all, the process that it has developed is going to be a far
more efficient process. It is going to save money. By simply
saying that if a change has not occurred in a province, if the
population has not changed or there are not the variances that are
occurring in individual ridings, we will not go through the
process.
That is going to save substantial dollars. That
recommendation is in this bill and that is one of the reasons I
support it. Second, I support it because I would be very
concerned. One of the suggestions in 265. Why not go to 220?
Why not go to 210? Why not go to 150?
There is an important concept here. As parliamentarians one
of our roles is to represent our constituencies. If we lessen the
number of members in this House to a point at which we are not
able to do that, this government will become captured by the
bureaucracy.
We need government controlled from this House, not from all
the office buildings that surround this city. In order for this
House to control this government, to control the process of
government, we need sufficient members in here to be able to do
that.
That is why the balance struck with this bill between keeping
very minimal growth but ensuring that there are enough
representatives to control government is important and in the
long run will save some dollars.
Finally, if we entertain a proposal that is going to require
constitutional change, that is going to require unanimous
approval from all 10 provinces, that is going to be a cost that we
certainly do not want to have to incur.
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest to my hon. colleague's speech today.
As usual he clearly and succinctly put forth excellent arguments
in support of not only this legislation but of the needs of rural
Canada, particularly rural northern Ontario.
I want to ask him to speak for a moment or two more about the
25 per cent variance rule. I believe he recognizes along with me
that at the best of times it is difficult to balance the needs of rural
and urban Canada. We see that debate raging on the issue of gun
control, the balance between urban and rural Canada.
In a perfect world rural rural residents would not pay more for
gasoline. In a perfect world rural residents would have equal
access to our city neighbours to health care and so on.
To take a strict definition that all Canadians regardless of
where they live have one vote and only one vote in relation to
their member of Parliament does not make sense when one
considers that we need to balance rural and urban Canada. It has
9403
worked very well so far, even though there are some problems. I
would ask my hon. colleague, in his support for northern Ontario
and other parts of rural Canada, to speak a bit more to emphasize
and clarify the importance of that variance rule.
(1240)
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon.
member for Algoma for bringing up those particular points and
to emphasize the 25 per cent rule.
Like I do, the hon. member represents a riding that is in
northern Ontario. We share many of the concerns that come from
representing a rural part of the country and that come from
representing a large geographic area.
He is absolutely right. We need the flexibility of the 25 per
cent rule. It is particularly important in rural Canada. We need
the flexibility that it gives. We need it in terms of geography.
There are suggestions in the proposal that came forward which
would make his riding-and the hon. member can correct me if I
am wrong-stretch from Hudson Bay to Lake Huron with a big
strip right in between. We can all picture a map of Ontario and
picture what that riding would be like.
That kind of thing cannot be allowed to happen. It becomes
impossible to represent a riding that would have that kind of
breadth of geography. If you know the terrain and if you know
how far the communities are dispersed in that area, you can see
the importance of that 25 per cent rule.
One of the things that this report has considered, which the
hon. member alluded to, is the whole issue of balance. We have
to balance the needs of rural and urban Canada. It is not an all or
nothing situation in which we do it strictly by the book and
strictly by numbers and we draw lines on the map. That is not the
way to do it. We have to take into account some of the special
challenges which we have in rural Canada. We have to take into
account some of the special needs of geography, diversity of
industry and many of those things I talked about.
The hon. member is quite right in pointing out the importance
of that 25 per cent variance to those of us who represent northern
Ontario and for those who represent all of rural Canada.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my rural colleague
give his speech. I am also from a rural riding.
The motion that has been drafted by the procedures and House
affairs committee in clause 19(2) says that the criteria for
selecting boundaries should consider a manageable geographic
size. That is what the hon. member has just argued. The very
next clause talks of the probability that there will be substantial
increase in the population of an electoral district in the province
in the next five years. In other words, in the province of Ontario,
I believe the hon. member would argue because of the size of his
riding that his riding should be quite a bit less, maybe close to
25 per cent less. The problem is that his colleague from
Mississauga will also suggest that her riding should be about 25
per cent less in population because she is going to experience
strong growth.
They cannot have it either way. One has to take precedence
over the other. I would like to know whether the hon. member
thinks geographic size is the important criterion and the rural
riding should be kept smaller or whether he should bow to his
urban colleagues who suggest that their ridings should be shrunk
to allow for expanding growth and that they should be on the low
side of the variable quotient.
Mr. Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would simply say that we in
the Liberal Party balance our approach. It is not an either/or
proposition. The urban member has a particular need and that
will be taken into account. The rural member will have a
particular need and that will be taken into account. Between
those two needs we will find a balance. We will come to a
solution that has components which help the one member from
urban Canada and the one member from rural Canada. It is not an
either/or situation.
One of the problems with members of the party opposite, and I
will say this quite clearly, is they never realize that things are
not black and white. There are greys out there. You can
compromise. You can find a balance.
(1245 )
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I hope I will
not be ruled out of order if I begin my speech by discussing
principles. We do not hear much about them in this place.
Sometimes we seem to forget that they are important. They are a
road map for us. As Yogi Berra once said, if you do not know
where you are going, you may end up someplace else.
As the Auditor General recently said somewhat less famously
but no less accurately, if you do not have a clear idea what a
program, law or policy is for and a clear set of criteria for
evaluating it, you will not know if it has worked. Of course the
Auditor General had in mind primarily the bonfire of the
taxpayers, known as the federal budget. I see no less reason to
apply his thoughts to the subject before us, Bill C-18.
Electoral boundaries, boy, there is a riveting topic. Bill C-18,
electoral boundary reform, clause 19(2)(b)(i), there is a topic to
put the manufacturers of sleeping pills into a panic. It may also
seem like a topic that leaves no room for principle. It may seem
like a topic to be settled in a smokefree backroom.
I take Mr. Berra's observations very seriously. I think that
someone who claims not to have a political philosophy to be a
9404
pragmatist is either a socialist trying to cover his tracks or is
simply unaware of the ideas that motivate him or her.
Let us consider if electoral boundaries and in particular the
provision of this act which says that in drawing those boundaries
the various electoral boundary commissions shall consider ``a
community of interest''. That is clause 19(2)(b)(i) as noted
above.
Why is it in here? It is in here because of the implicit or
explicit assumptions of my colleagues on the opposite bench
about government. It is in here because of their assumptions
about democracy. It is in here because of their assumptions
about politics. It all comes down to the idea that the purpose of
electoral politics is precisely to hold H.L. Mencken's famous
advance auction on stolen property.
The purpose of creating ridings with a community of interest
is to put people together who would have a natural tendency to
combine together, to take from their fellow citizens through the
political process. It is to create so to speak a level playing field
for political plunder.
While this bill was being prepared I know that the members on
this side of the House fought hard to get the government to
change its formal definition of a community of interest. If we
look at clause 19(4), we will find that the enumerated list of the
elements of a community of interest is reasonably harmless by
contemporary standards. Gone are the references to race and
ethnicity.
By the way I certainly hope that the idea of gender segregated
Senate elections is dead and buried for all time. I am not as sure
as I would like to be that these ideas are gone. They may have
taken out the words about ethnically or racially segregated
ridings without abandoning the idea. It certainly concerns me
that what we find in clause 19(4) is not exhaustive list. The
commissions will consider these but they may also consider
others.
There is a real danger that commissions will in practice try to
create districts that are for instance overwhelmingly
Indo-Canadian or overwhelmingly Chinese Canadian or
whatever. I really hope they will not. I am really horrified by the
idea that people can only be represented by people who look like
them. I hope that no one believes that any of my colleagues are
either more or less suited to represent their constituents because
of the ancestry either of the members or of the constituents.
The idea that Sikhs, Indians, Chinese or Anglo-Saxons should
all be segregated into one riding so as better to seize property for
Sikhs, Indians, Chinese or Anglo-Saxons perhaps by electing a
Sikh, Indian, Chinese or Anglo-Saxon as a member of
Parliament is the most offensive particular manifestation of the
notion that parliamentary ridings in principle ought to be united
by people with a common interest so that they can elect someone
like themselves. This suggests that people should be united in
groups with people like themselves so that they can act to elect
someone like themselves and really dive into the pork barrel.
That is not what I think democracy is all about. That is not what
I think politics is all about. And it is not how I think electoral
boundaries should be drawn.
(1250)
In my view the purpose of government is to protect the lives,
liberties and property of its citizens. If we do not have a
government that can fend off Atilla, we have nothing. The
problem is, any government strong enough to protect our life,
liberty and property from others is also strong enough to
threaten them itself. This is the paradox of government and it is
the solution of that paradox that has preoccupied serious
political philosophers throughout time.
One of the devices that has evolved in British practice and in
the Anglo-American political philosophy is voting for public
officers. This is the vital point. Voting is a device for preventing
government from getting too big, not a way of legitimizing what
it does. The reason this is its purpose is that all citizens have the
same fundamental interest: a government that respects their
rights.
Canadians do not, or at least they should not step into the
ballot box to commit an act of larceny against their fellow
citizens. They step into the ballot box to render judgment on
how well the government has protected their rights.
Back in 1964 in an apparently quixotic campaign for the U.S.
presidency, Senator Barry Goldwater spoke to this issue. He
would not, he said, engage in the politics of plunder. ``If I am
attacked for neglecting the interests of my constituents'' he said,
``I will reply that I understood their interests to be liberty, and in
that cause I am doing all that I can''.
I regard the interest of my constituents, whoever they are, as
being fundamentally the same as the interests of all Canadians: a
government that protects them from force and fraud and
otherwise leaves them free to conduct their business as they see
fit. For that, we need not communities of interest but ridings that
treat all citizens as equals. That is why on behalf of my
constituents and liberty I will be voting against this bill.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, in opening my own intervention I would like to record
my own appreciation and those of my colleagues of the
collegiality in the committee whose report is being studied here
today. I value the exchange of views with the Bloc members and
the Reform Party members in the committee. It was a good
dialectical process and an excellent interchange of ideas. It is in
that spirit that I now speak in the debate.
9405
I was impressed by the comments by the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster and the member for Calgary West
and their suggestions that the bill had failed to address what
they considered the key problem, the size of the House. You
will find many on this side of the House in agreement that this
whole principle needs radical re-examination and change.
However we must consider the amount of constitutional
amendment that may be necessary to restructure the size of the
House to correspond to present sociological realities in Canada.
When you consider the amount of effort involved in that and the
fact that some years would be exhausted in the process, I would
question whether it is right to consider this as an omnibus bill
that must solve every problem of the contemporary legislature
in one fell swoop. I view it rather as a single problem oriented
bill addressed with a very specific purpose. In the light of
present realities it has to go to another House for approval
before it can be adopted.
I think it is in this sense correct to say that the matter of the
size of the House is better left for another day and perhaps
another committee. I see no reason why this could not be
addressed within the lifetime of the present Parliament. But on
this particular issue, it seems to me we have a full house of
problems in terms of electoral representation.
(1255)
I noticed in particular in the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster's address not merely reference to
the size of the House but also to other principles, the issue of
population variance between ridings and also what he referred to
as the necessity for establishing priority of criteria in riding
boundaries.
He used a term that I will return to a little later. He spoke of
social engineering and this is an interesting concept. It is a
Pandora's box of problems but I will return to it in a moment
because it is the key of the present problem that many of us have
had with the existing reports of the electoral boundaries
commissions.
What troubled me when I read this latest series of 11 reports
was a certain element of intellectual anarchy in those reports.
There were in essence 11 different reports but there were no
common criteria available.
In fact we discussed this matter with the chief electoral
commissioner, an extraordinarily capable man who paid us the
tribute of being very direct and forthright in his response to our
questions. It was established that the commissions had not
consulted with the chief electoral commissioner in terms of
guidance as to past practice or as to criteria that should govern
the exercise of the discretionary role conferred upon them by the
existing law.
This is, in a certain sense, rather strange. It illustrates the wide
variance, if not dissidence, in what we might call the operational
philosophy governing the members of these individual
commissions. When I look at the commissions I see a certain
limited functional efficacy in the members of the commissions in
terms of their training.
I would hate to say this in terms of a profession that I have
also shared in, but there are too many people from one
profession. There are far too many professors. It may be argued
that the professors already have an honourable role in our
society. They are the source of the ideas, but should they be
making the choices? Would it not have been better to have had
the professors retained as advisors on technical points but the
actual decision making role conferred on commissions
representing a broader spectrum of society?
This is one of the issues discussed in the present bill reported
by the committee. The present bill attempts to address this
problem by establishing a new process of appointment that
should ensure wider representation of the larger community, a
wider spread if you wish of experience among them.
The second thing that troubled me when I looked at these 11
reports was the lack of reasons. Here we have officials not
elected in any way, non-elected officials appointed by
prerogative power but exercising enormous discretionary
powers.
That, as very well known to students of administrative law, is
the real problem in modern government. It is the use or abuse of
discretionary power by non-elected officials. There are ways of
tethering discretion and making it operationally useful.
One of these is to require bodies when they exercise a power
to spell out the reasons for doing it. When I look at these reports
I find absence of reasons. Why did they do this? Why did they do
that? One has to guess and that is where one comes back to the
point that the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster made,
social engineering.
It is very easy to go on an ego trip of one's own in exercising
discretionary power of this sort. It is also very easy for the
wrong reasons to attribute illicit motives and to say that is a
politically colourable choice that has been made.
The correction of this is to state the reasons. The extra
advantage in that is where the criteria are spelled out in the
individual reports. They are then subject very easily to judicial
review and judicial correction.
(1300 )
One of the problems in Canada is that we do not entrust to our
Constitution the spelling out of the basic principles of what is
constituent power. Constituent power is prior to constitutional
power. It is the fundamental starting point of a democratic
society; constituent power, how the government is created, how
its members are elected.
9406
Modern constitutions, ours is a 19th century constitution,
write these elements directly into the constitutional charter.
More than that, they spell out the principles and more than that
they have actively functioning courts, constitutional courts of
a specialized nature or general supreme courts with a massive
jurisprudence in which these principles are ensured not only in
their respect in the letter but also in their creative adaptation
to problems of modern society.
The transformation of the United States from a privileged
society in which the franchise was severely restricted, not
simply on racial grounds but on social grounds, has been
massively assisted by the role of the United States Supreme
Court and judicial interpretation. This is something basically
absent in Canadian society. It is something that we must have
established in the future.
Therefore, I think it is a legitimate objection. One of the
things that concerned me most in reading these reports was that
there were discretionary powers but no clear criteria spelled out
as to how the discretion was exercised. There was obviously an
enormous variation when one studied the empirical material
from one provincial commission to another. It recalls what was
said of Lord Chancellor Eldon in another context, that equity,
which he was charged with administering, was as long as the
chancellor's foot. It is this element that the present bill, as
reported by the committee to the House, aims to correct.
I could be more specific in terms of referring particularly to
the report of the commission as it affects my home province of
British Columbia. It troubles me, with the obvious population
increases in the Fraser River Valley, that there is no extra seat
there. It is obtained by rearranging crowded inner city
boundaries where there is very little population change. They
are simply accumulating them and producing an extra seat.
What is the reason for this?
This is what leads to interesting speculation. I think the
answer is that it is probably somebody's particular concept of
social engineering which they have not spelled out, which I
could guess at, but which I think properly in the constitutional
processes courts should be able to examine and to correct.
I come back to some of these issues because the hon. member
for Kindersley-Lloydminster very correctly in his address to
the House this morning spoke of the need to establish priority of
criteria. We would have to say that the criteria themselves have
to be spelled out. It is difficult to establish them in any
hierarchical order. Most countries with statutes or constitutional
principles touching this area recognize that there is a certain
element of antinomy or contradiction between some of the
principles. There is a creative choice that commissioners or a
judge exercising judicial review must make. The key element
we demand of the person exercising the discretion is to say
which criteria they prefer to others and why that criteria. Is it a
rational choice or is it something, as I have said, as long as the
chancellor's foot?
We have not gone as far as the United States Supreme Court.
One would wonder if we have reached the stage where Mr.
Justice Brennan referred with approval to a concept of benign
discrimination when asked if the notion of benign
discrimination permissible because it is cast in a remedial
context with respect to a disadvantaged class rather than in a
setting that aims to demean or insult any racial group.
(1305 )
It is an interesting concept. It is certainly part of American
social history and in the context of the United States Supreme
Court no doubt a justifiable decision.
In terms of what we are doing one of the things we would have
to stress in a country that stresses the parliamentary system as
distinct from the American congressional system and the
division of powers is the special relationship of a member of
Parliament to his or her constituents.
There is a relationship of confidence that is built up in going
door to door in an election campaign, a very moving experience,
but a relationship of continuing trust in handling the problems of
constituents as they arise over a period of time. What struck me
again in the reports of these commissions was a certain cavalier
disregard for the principle of continuity of representation. It is a
constitutional value. It is closest of all to that philosopher whom
the opposition parties are fond of quoting, Edmund Burke. I do
not want to go into Edmund Burke's special features but at least
the notion of the closeness, the responsibility of a member to the
electorate.
The starting point of any electoral commission in Canada
under the parliamentary system must be respect for the principle
of continuity. Where we displace that it must be for reasons that
we are prepared to spell out, population shifts to be sure. The
criteria that the committee has offered in its report give us
guidelines that were not there before in any adequate measure. I
would have wished them to go further and I will note simply that
I have made suggestions in the committee for further tightening
up this area, rendering the criteria more precise.
I was supported I believe by the Reform Party and the Bloc but
I was not able to persuade a majority. I go along happily with a
majority decision. In this area the criteria must be spelled out.
One of the things we have tried to do is recognize this concept
of community of interest. Canada is the society of the 21st
century, as somebody said quite recently. I think it is true. We
have established a special notion of Canadian culture, a
community of communities in a phrase which a former Prime
Minister of another political party used without citing its
original source. This happens quite a good deal. The phrase was
used by Martin Buber, an Austro-Hungarian by birth but who
became a philosopher in the new state of Israel and developed
the theory to explain and put forward a special relationship
between the
9407
Jewish majority and Arab citizens, the concept of the
community of communities.
What strikes me in the urban seats in this country when I look
at them across the electoral map is that we have historically
come to it perhaps by accident in many cases, but the history is
there. We have recognized this notion of community of
communities. I embrace with pleasure the fact that my own
constituency has 22 different communities within it and that to
win a nomination and to win a majority in an election one must
put together a platform, an approach consistent with one's party
position that can build a consensus that extends to all groups or a
sufficiency of groups.
One of the things that troubles me in the reports of the 11
boundary commissions I am referring to is that they again in a
somewhat cavalier position have tended to put this aside. They
seem to be looking back more to a 19th century concept of
constituencies based on single communities.
I think this is interesting but it is back to the future and not a
good way. I cite this simply to say that we were dealing with as a
committee highly contentious and arguable reports made by
boundary commissions. To give the ladies and gentlemen on
these commissions full credit and honour they were the victims
of the laws that did not adequately spell out what they should do.
(1310 )
The chief electoral commissioner correctly, because he is a
man of high intelligence and high integrity and respect for the
constitutional proprieties, concluded that it was not his function
to spell out criteria that Parliament had not spelled out.
This is the reason we have attempted in a comprehensive law
limited to this one problem getting the electoral boundaries
issue dealt with adequately and to concentrate on that problem.
I would have liked to address also the issue of capping the size
of the House. It seems to me that is for another statute. I would
simply add as a member from British Columbia that the bill
guarantees a point very dear to my province, our constitutional
right to two extra seats in the House of Commons with the next
federal election. There is an iron clad guarantee there.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon.
member for Vancouver-Quadra who not only served on the
committee of procedure and House affairs but was very active in
the discussion relating to the whole process we are currently
discussing and have spent some time on.
Being an academic who has been involved in looking at this
process historically and currently he speaks with some authority
I am going to ask him to take off his academic hat because I also
know he has practical experience, having served on a
commission. He also knows very well the contents of the motion
that has been presented by the procedure and House affairs
committee for the consideration of the House.
He served on a commission in British Columbia in the past
and who knows, he may in the future if he continues to follow
various careers. There was a strong feeling in the interior and
northern part of British Columbia that the ridings should be at
the low end of the variable quotient, say minus 20 rather than
zero. That was a strong representation both from members and
from the population. In the lower mainland he heard the
opposite hue and cry. The population is growing very quickly, as
the member would agree. They asked to have their growth taken
into consideration and put them down around 20 per cent on the
negative side of the variable quotient.
I know the hon. member is not biased; he is a very fair minded
man. However, if he and his fellow commissioners were biased
and perhaps all lived in the lower mainland and wanted to
represent the concerns of the lower mainland ahead of the
concerns of the interior and northern British Columbia, would
this legislation prevent him from carrying out that bias?
Mr. McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for a
very thoughtful question. I have never accepted the concept that
equality requires an absolute equality of rule application under
all circumstances. As the United Supreme Court and Justice
Douglas have said, you treat equal things equally but there is an
element of discretion.
I recognize as part of the principle of equality of
representation that we are entitled to and in all decency must
make variations that take into account extreme geographic
conditions such as we find in the north and the interior of British
Columbia.
In exercising discretion as an electoral boundary
commissioner in the past in British Columbia we did take that
into account and gave it weight against the clamant demands in
the city for mathematical equality of representation of all
constituencies. I would think a commissioner, within the
parameters established by the act, would properly exercise
similar discretion.
I wonder, and I believe this is the private view of the hon.
member opposite, whether the 25 per cent offset is not too high
and whether 15 per cent might not be more realistic under
present conditions.
(1315 )
Mr. John Duncan (North Island-Powell River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on Bill C-18. Eleven months ago
I rose to participate in the debate on this bill suspending the
9408
operations of the Electoral Boundaries Commission. At that
time I questioned the political interference, the waste of
millions of dollars and the fact that as politicians we were
involved in that messy process at all.
I consider this whole thing to be unfair to the public. We are
wasting taxpayers' dollars again, in the order of $5 million, and
once again we will be soliciting their input. I have had
discussions with many members of the public and they have lost
the thread on this whole redistribution exercise, as have I from
time to time. It is beginning to read like a bad novel.
Some of the debate that has gone on today reminds me very
strongly of why politicians should not be involved in drawing
lines on a map. Some of the objections are tantamount to that.
Eleven months ago I also expressed regret and concern for
overturning a process which had been in effect every decade
since 1867. I could not determine precedent for this action and
nothing has changed my mind in the intervening time.
It remains a shame why we have gone through this process at
all, and having gone through it, we have achieved so little. What
we have before us today, in my view, confirms that fact. This is
an exercise which retroactively thwarts a longstanding,
non-partisan method of redistribution.
The Constitution sets out the formula for representative
government based on the concept of equality of voting power,
that all Canadians should have an equal voice in governing
themselves. This concept has been modified over time to ensure
equality and continuity. Today's report does very little, in my
view, to solidify this notion. We had hopes for a workable report.
This attempt does not meet our standards and that is why we
submitted a minority report.
First, the total number of seats in the House is not reduced.
They have increased from 295 to 301, which was the original
situation with the Electoral Boundaries Commission reports that
were previously made. We have gone through this whole
exercise and we are right back at the same place we started.
We argue that it is time to reduce the cost of the precincts and
reducing the number of seats is an important first step. There
seems to be a notion that the more members of Parliament we
have the more will be accomplished. We should not confuse
more and motion with real progress.
The hon. member for Calgary West described the capping of
the number of seats very well so I will not pursue that in my
speech today. However, we have had a consistent message
throughout this piece. I am a member of Parliament from British
Columbia where we have the somewhat unique situation of
getting additional seats. We receive two of the six additional
seats in this proposal. Our message has been consistent. It is
consistent whether we reduce the number of seats to 265 or
whether the number goes to 301. The message is that B.C.
should get its fair share, as should the other provinces and
territories. We started this exercise on the basis that the Liberal
government wanted to freeze the number of seats at the 1993
levels. That is not where we are now.
(1320)
The recommendations on the quotient factor contained in the
report do not deal effectively with the 25 per cent quotient factor
or the what is called the population variance factor by some.
The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act specifies that a
commission is to draw constituency boundaries in such a way
that the population of each constituency is as close as possible to
the quotient obtained by dividing the provincial population of
eligible voters by the number of seats in each province. No
constituency is permitted to have a population smaller than 75
per cent of this figure or greater than 125 per cent under this
proposal.
Elections Canada reports that 51 of the 295 existing ridings
exceed the current permissible population variances. By
suspending the operation of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act we have perpetuated present inequities. What
we are being offered today as a consequence of Bill C-18 and
suspending the work of the commission, is 25 per cent. Surely
we should expect an improved situation as a consequence of this
delay and study. That is not the case. In fact, the
recommendation is worse and ultimately the situation will be
too.
We are very concerned that the commission will continue to
be allowed to draw maps that from the very outset vary up to 25
per cent from the electoral quotient. This will compound the
quotient factor in light of population shifts between
redistributions.
The Reform minority report advocates an allowable
maximum variance of 15 per cent to ensure the primacy of
equality of voting power over sociological considerations.
The report states that there may be some ridings that should be
more or less than 25 per cent of the provincial quotient and that
these ridings should be set out in a schedule to the act. What a
contradiction. We are allowing a plus or minus variance from
the 25 per cent. With a variance of 25 per cent there should be no
exceptions, no need for a schedule, I might add a schedule
without guidelines.
Can we really say there has been any substantive changes to
the bill? When one considers the lack of reduction in the size of
the House of Commons, one has to consider the conviction and
the motives of the legislation. It is very difficult to justify
discarding the work at great public expense of the existing
Electoral Boundaries Commissions for these so-called changes.
9409
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, from my point of view today is a very important day
for Parliament. We are here to recognize for the first time a new
way of doing business in Parliament. We are today debating-I
hope the House will adopt it-the motion whereby the
government will introduce into the House legislation that was
drafted, not by the Department of Justice, not by some unknown
bureaucrat for whom I have the greatest of respect most of the
time, but by parliamentarians at committee.
(1325 )
This has occurred using the new rules of procedure that were
introduced into Parliament by the government very early in its
mandate. It is a very refreshing step to take. For the first time
Canadians will have before them legislation that their MPs
drafted.
I am not saying that this is how all the laws should be drafted
all the time. This time we are showing Canadians that the system
will work, that their Parliament will work and that we can do a
job that is terribly fundamental in the way we are perceived by
the rest of Canadians.
We are debating a motion for concurrence in the work that a
number of MPs in all parties participated in and worked on quite
hard at committee. I was there. I was one of the many. We look
forward to it being adopted at concurrence and then becoming a
bill.
I hope we will have a chance to do this in Parliament many
more times. I hope that the bureaucracy, the public service, the
executive branch of government, all the lawyers whose job it is
to draft legislation, will begin to understand and support the
growing role of parliamentarians in actually putting the words
and concepts to paper.
Aside from the importance of the steps we have taken and the
way we produced this legislation, the legislation itself is
actually kind of good. We have done the best we can within the
political context that exists at this time to reform and draft a bill
that provides a better electoral boundary redistribution process.
We are just dealing with the process. No one should think that
the legislation we are working on now actually permits MPs to
redraw the riding boundaries. That is not what it is.
We have reformed the process whereby electoral boundary
commissions redraw those boundaries. We have done a number
of things that have reformed and improved the process.
One of the issues that was submitted to the committee for
consideration and which really does not end up being reflected
in the draft legislation is the issue of capping the size of the
House of Commons. The committee was asked to consider that
issue in dealing with this statute although the statute itself does
not designate the number of MPs in the House. The
redistribution of boundaries legislation does not itself set out a
formula as to how many MPs should sit in the House of
Commons.
Those formulae are actually contained in the Constitution.
What the committee was asked to do was to reflect on the
constitutional provisions that dictated how many MPs should sit
in the House of Commons. More than one section deals with
those formulae. They prescribe that based on the current
population of Canada the House of Commons for the next
general election some time in 1997 or 1998 would have 301
ridings. At the current time there are 295. That would mean a
growth of six.
It is not a big number but for many of us on the committee
there was a principle. I was one of those who felt that there was a
principle that maybe the House of Commons did not have to
grow forever and ever into the future, that maybe it could be
capped. Maybe we could say 295 was really enough to represent
all the various parts of the country. We did not need 350, 400 or
500 as time went on.
(1330)
That is how I felt. I still feel that way, that we have an
open-ended formula. As the population of the country grows the
number of MPs will grow. That is going to be slow and marginal
over time. It is not something I have to lie awake at night to
worry about now. The number is going to go up by six. The
House can physically accommodate six more bodies but it is
getting a little tight in here.
The real issue is whether we want to end the continuing
growth. I am one of those who would like to do it in some way
that would, as my hon. friend from North Island-Powell River
stated, be fair to all provinces. Therein is the problem. How do
we be fair to all provinces?
We have two constitutional provisions now that define the
growth. One of them is called the senatorial floor, which means
that no province will have a number of MPs less than the number
of senators which it currently has in the Senate. The other
formula is in section 51 of the Constitution Act. It says that
provinces with declining populations will not be prejudiced by
the decline in their population. In other words, the province will
not lose MPs as its population declines, even relative to the
population of the rest of the country.
Those are constitutional provisions and I think everyone
knows in this Parliament that this is not the time to be tinkering
with the Constitution. While I want Parliament to deal with the
issue of how much it will grow in the future, this is not the time
to start dealing with any particular provision in our
Constitution. Canadians are suffering from overload in dealing
with constitutional reform.
It simply was not going to be within our ability as a committee
to deal with this particular issue effectively. I have accepted that
a future committee, maybe even the same committee, or maybe
9410
another committee in the same or the next Parliament should be
dealing with this issue of capping.
What have we done in the current bill to remodel the way we
set the electoral boundaries? This is aside from the number of
MPs and the number of ridings. We have accepted that there can
be a population deviation in any one riding above or below the
average population in a riding, plus or minus 25 per cent. This is
the one that has been used for a while.
There are some deviations out there. The last hon. member
who spoke indicated that there are 50 out of the 295. They are
there for a reason. The electoral boundaries commissions
accepted that there were reasons for the deviations. I accept that
there simply are reasons for which deviations should or could
continue to exist over time.
I think of the example in my province of Ontario where there
is a stable or decreasing population in the north with a quickly
growing population in the south. If we did not allow some
deviation, we would end up redrawing boundaries in northern
Ontario which would radically diminish the current
representation of those people in northern Ontario in this House
of Commons.
I was not prepared to say to all of those people: ``We are going
to pull one or two MPs. I am sorry, but the mathematics say you
have to go with fewer MPs''. Those ridings are huge and the
federal issues that those MPs deal with are no less important
than the issues urban MPs deal with. I did not want to be the one
to say that they had to give up their representation in this House.
Relatively speaking we have the status quo in terms of the
deviation.
(1335 )
One thing we did recommend which is included in this bill is
we took away the ability of the electoral boundary commissions
to go beyond the 25 per cent deviation. That is no longer there.
At the present time I think there are only one, two or maybe three
ridings that go beyond the 25 per cent deviation. That should be
seen as being distinct from the current circumstance because
certainly there are ridings now that go beyond the 25 per cent
simply because since the last redistribution populations have
grown.
Going back to the last time a decision was made about
boundary sizes, there are only one or two ridings that went
beyond the 25 per cent. We are of the view, and I hope the House
agrees, that the boundary commissions themselves should no
longer have the discretion to permit a deviation beyond the 25
per cent.
We have made other changes which we believe are helpful,
cost effective and useful in the current process of redesigning
riding boundaries. We adopted the mechanism of a five-year
redistribution, a quinquennial redistribution. Rather than going
into the mathematics of it, it simply means that where there is a
rapidly growing riding in terms of population we get a chance to
adjust it in relation to other surrounding ridings at a five-year
period rather than at a ten year period. Therefore we will not
have people underrepresented or overrepresented and we will
not have these huge populace ridings as have developed in this
Parliament.
It is somewhat unfair to the population of those huge ridings
with a quarter of a million people. There are one or two out
there. My riding has 150,000 people. The average in Ontario is
about 100,000. It means that servicing these ridings is a bit more
difficult. Therefore, if we have a five-year redistribution for
some targeted ridings that have grown quickly we put the
problem to bed earlier and we do not have these huge, huge
ridings developing over a ten year period.
We have put in place a more transparent method of appointing
the commissioners of the electoral boundaries commissions. We
think the process is better. We think we are more in control. The
quality of those appointments will be improved. We have
involved the Speaker of the House of Commons more directly.
We have linked that to the floor of the House of Commons at the
very beginning so that we will be more certain-one cannot ever
be 100 per cent certain-that we will have quality and
non-partisan representation on the boundary commissions.
I would point out that the chief of each of the commissions has
been and will continue to be a judge of the Supreme Court of
each of the provinces, or a judge designated by the chief justice
there. That has always been helpful in providing
non-partisanship in the drawing of the boundaries.
The new process will provide an initial notice that has more
detail in it. It is not just going to read: Be aware that we are going
to redistribute ridings and we are going to redraw the
boundaries, so get ready. It is going to have more information.
In addition, the boundary commissions are going to have to
publish more than just their map of proposals. They are going to
have to provide two alternatives so that average Canadians who
want to be involved in the process are going to see some of the
trade-offs, some of the different ways of looking at boundary
redistribution.
Canadians will come to the realization early that when we
change the boundary of riding a we are also therefore by
definition changing the boundary of riding b next door and
riding c and on down the road in a domino effect which occurs in
many cases. The additional maps will be very helpful not to the
members of Parliament but to the average Canadians who want
to be involved and understand the process.
We are also, as I have said, changing the way the
appointments to commissions occur. We have reduced the time
that will elapse between the triggering of it and the presentation
of the final decision. Time saved is money saved in my view. I
am sure Canadians want to save some money. We have found
some ways
9411
to save money in the process in the way the maps are printed and
distributed.
(1340 )
Last but not least, under the current legislation there is a way
that MPs at the end of the day could deal with the redistribution
on the floor of the House of Commons after the boundary
commissions had reported. That sometimes happened as I
understand it. Keep in mind this only happened once very 10, 11
or 12 years. However, there was a potential for what some
people would call gerrymandering. At the end of the process in
the old days after the boundary commissions had done their
work, the matter could come to the floor of the House of
Commons.
That is not going to happen any more. Parliament will simply
accept that the commissions will make their decisions and they
will be accepted by the House as being the best decisions.
I would like to close by commending members from all sides
of the House who have participated in the process of redesigning
the bill. The new bill was not accepted 100 per cent by every
member. There certainly were some trade-offs and compromise.
There may still be bells and whistles some members would like
to see in the draft bill which are not there now. However I think
we have designed and produced a bill that meets the needs of the
1990s and will serve members and their constituents well for
many years to come.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's
praise of this proposed legislation.
As my colleague the member for Calgary West mentioned in
his speech earlier when he quoted the hon. member, he very
clearly indicated he was opposed to an increase in the number of
members in this House. When serving with him on the procedure
and House affairs committee I distinctly remember him saying
that even an increase to the number of 301 was totally
unacceptable. I think he used such illustrative language as we
may have to knock out walls and destroy the beauty of this
House of Commons if we do not come to grips with the rapidly
expanding House of Commons.
We have a growth of population coming both from outside our
borders and from within our borders. This legislation is set up in
a way that the number of seats are determined by population.
People are coming into Canada, about 200,000 or more a year, so
that represents two seats per year. Then there is the growth
within the country. I am not sure of the latest figures but it may
be a similar amount. Even if it were half that much that would be
three seats per year. Therefore by the year 2001 the increase of
six seats from 295 to 301 may seem small by comparison.
This legislation does absolutely nothing to counteract that
problem. In fact it just says that we cannot do anything about the
problem. We will leave that for some future body, some future
commission, some future committee of members to deal with.
How could the member change his position on this matter?
Mr. Lee: Madam Speaker, I do not think the hon. member is
correct in saying that I have changed my position. I have already
articulated my position that I would not want to see an increase
in the number of members of the House of Commons. That was
in my remarks when I began.
The hon. member obviously has never had the responsibility
of piloting a constitutional amendment through this House.
Neither have I. He probably never will have. If the member
thinks that we can simply pass a statute in this House that says
that the House of Commons is capped at 295 seats, he is
mistaken. It is much more than that.
First, even if we were to say that we want it to be 295, we have
to find a new formula to address the needs of all provinces, just
as this member prefaced his remarks by saying that we have to
be fair to his province of B.C. We have to be fair to all the
provinces including those with declining populations that are
going to say: ``We want a floor; you can add more seats
somewhere else but you are not going to take any more away
from us''.
(1345)
The government has to find a new formula. It has to pass a
constitutional amendment and get it approved by all provinces
or by two-thirds in a process that will take a number of years.
While I am willing to embark on the process, it certainly is not
going to happen this month, this year, in this Parliament.
I support the principle and the objective.
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton-Lawrence, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I compliment my colleague from Scarborough-Rouge
River who gave us an opportunity to witness a very complex and
complicated issue in three very simple and very easy to
understand formulae.
First he addressed the process that involves the House of
Commons and something to which every member of the
Chamber ought to adhere and applaud. The committee has given
Parliament, the House, an opportunity to appreciate what
members can do and ought to do.
On the basis of process, not only the way the committee works
but the way it arrived at a decision, I compliment him and the
other committee members who put the proposal forward. I urge
all members to support it. I also compliment him on the way he
outlined the basics of the content.
9412
The content addresses a very important principle in the
House, that is how we work for our constituents and how
Canada will be reflected in the Chamber. We cannot do that
simply by cutting the number of seats or by increasing the
number of seats willy-nilly, in a very whimsical fashion.
By pointing out the process for establishing the kinds of
representations we would like to see evolve for the House he has
done us a great credit. Most important, the member has done
something that all other speakers and interveners have
unfortunately neglected, that is he gave an indication of the
reasons or the philosophy behind this proposal.
That basic philosophy recognizes that the House always has a
very difficult time getting a singular view. There is a very
important reason for this, that the country as diverse and as large
as it is cannot possibly have a single homogeneous view on the
basis of a partisan perspective.
I compliment the committee for recognizing that very integral
difficulty in governing a country like ours and in making
provision in the rationale and the motivations for redistribution
so that members can bring forth many important views that
differ not only in content but in motivation.
I compliment the member for Scarborough-Rouge River. He
has given members of the House an opportunity to take a look at
the issue in a very dispassionate, non-partisan and yet forward
looking fashion.
I encourage all members on both sides of the House not only
to agree with his position but to applaud the efforts of the
committee and vote in unison on the issue.
Mr. Lee: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
remarks.
On the suggestion of the member opposite that we really
should have tried to do something to cap the number of MPs, or
even reduce the number of MPs in the House, I would say that if
there were a motion on the floor of the House of Commons to
cap, reduce or deal with unending growth of the House of
Commons I would vote for it. He should get a motion introduced
and I will vote for it.
However the member must be aware that after the motion
passes, after he articulates his good wishes, he still has to go
through all the constitutional reform procedures and deliver a
formula that will be accepted from coast to coast to coast. That
is the challenge.
(1350 )
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks but I
would point out to him that my colleague from Calgary West
suggested constitutional changes that can be determined within
this body and without agreement of the provinces because it did
not affect the senatorial floors and so on.
He did not appear to support these moves, even though he had
the opportunity. In fact he changed his mind.
Mr. Lee: Madam Speaker, I would ask the hon. member
whether his home province of Saskatchewan would be willing to
give up seats to accommodate the proposed cap that his
colleague put forward.
I hear otherwise. It might be worth a look and when it comes
up I will be on side and in favour of ending the unending growth
of the House of Commons.
[Translation]
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
of Public Works and Government Services, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, of course I have considerable interest in speaking
today, because my riding of Cochrane-Superior is in northern
Ontario, and its survival is at stake.
I would first like to pay tribute to the committee chairman and
to all of my colleagues who helped draft this report, which I
would call apolitical. I attended a few meetings, and I must say
in all sincerity that they have done a tremendous job. It was,
however, a job that had to be done; it was inevitable, given the
situation. First, the act dates from 1964; it bears no resemblance
to the way Canada's current electoral map looks today.
On issues of representation, the report focuses significantly
on the quotient, the variance of 25 per cent. This remains
something that is very important for me, for the simple reason
that, because of this quotient, large rural ridings in Canada will
never be safe and will never have equal representation here in
the House. I need only point out how far we have to travel to
serve our constituents. This is our prime function, to serve
people.
For example, if a riding like mine were abolished, according
to the recommendation of the September report, the four
surrounding ridings would simply become bigger. It would
therefore simply increase the already excessive demands on
each of these members, or rather on their resources, energy and
ability to reach remote communities.
If I may be permitted to speak specifically about remote
communities, my riding of Cochrane-Superior includes 21
Indian communities, 16 of which are north of the 49th parallel.
For the most part, there are no roads leading to these
communities, which means that when I want to go there, make
myself available to them, I must charter a flight, which is
extremely expensive but must be done. This then contradicts the
Reform Party's argument that it is too expensive to have a great
number of members in the House. This argument verges on
being absurd.
9413
What good will it do to increase, to double the population of
such a riding while retaining the same member without giving
him the resources, both human and financial, to carry out his
work?
(1355)
And what purpose will it serve to do away with many rural
ridings only to increase the size of so-called urban ridings and
thereby, as stated, make demands exceeding the members'
resources and energy. More importantly, should this come
about, it would be a direct attack on democracy, here in Canada,
because all Canadians, wherever they live, have the right to be
equally represented in the House of Commons.
I would of course like to reserve my main comments for the
third reading of the bill once it is tabled.
These are the points I wanted to make at this time. I have not
addressed the true substance of the report. I will wait for the bill
to be tabled. At that time, I will be able to provide the statistics
to back up what I have just said.
This report is not acceptable for northern Ontario, not at all. It
is not acceptable at this time. I will therefore certainly table an
amendment in the House, first and foremost to restore the
schedule of ridings called ``special'' because of their geography.
That has been removed from the report. I definitely intend to
attempt to have it included again. I hope my colleagues will
appreciate my purpose and will support me in this matter.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
commend the member for identifying a very real problem in our
Constitution. We have a real anomaly. If we were to be honest
we would have to say a constitutional change is in order.
If Canada's population remains constant but Quebec's
population goes down, we need more members in the House of
Commons for that reason, by our present rules. That does not
make sense in anybody's thinking. Therefore we do need to have
a change in this regard. There ought to be a formula that
recognizes geography, the area of a constituency, because it is a
very real factor in any area away from the more densely
populated areas.
The member who just spoke was right on the button when he
said that we need to change the rules so it is possible for an MP
to do his work. As far as the numbers are concerned, I think
Canadians would have no trouble at all with supporting their
members of Parliament.
The Speaker: It being 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
30(5) the House will now proceed to Statements by Members,
pursuant to Standing Order 31.
9413
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
constituents of my riding have given me a clear message to pass
on to the Minister of Finance for the budget.
Eliminate waste in government. In particular, stop the rip-off
of taxpayers' dollars by the military, by their inefficient
management of government moves, and implement the
government's own reports and contract out move management.
Stop double dipping by MPs and civil servants. Reform MPs'
pensions. Deal effectively with the deficit to get Canada's fiscal
house in order.
We must also reaffirm our commitment to our internationally
renowned system of higher education, maintaining accessibility
through an income contingent loan repayment scheme and
support for our federal granting councils to sustain university
research efforts in Canada. We need strategic long run
investment in wealth creation through university research
funding.
The University of Waterloo, Wilfrid Laurier University and
Conestoga College in my riding are existing testimonials of
wealth creation for all Canadians through support for research
and higher education.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ):
Mr. Speaker, in several cities in Quebec, the province's student
associations have indignantly protested social program reform,
especially changes to the funding of post-secondary education.
They have all said that the proposals are unacceptable and that
they will have the negative effect of causing an unprecedented
increase in tuition fees, which in turn will bring student debt to
dizzying heights.
Lucienne Robillard, the Liberal Party's candidate in the
riding of Saint-Henri-Westmount, surely agrees with the
students' criticisms. In fact, on May 29, 1991, she said in the
Quebec National Assembly that she had to insist that the federal
government was completely out of touch with today's world of
education.
Need I say more?
9414
[English]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I would like to
congratulate a Liberal MP backbencher today. I was at a meeting
in a constituency not so long ago. With the press in attendance
this powerful MP made an amazing promise. He promised that
he would not vote with the government on the budget if the
budget raised more taxes than a gasoline tax and a lottery tax.
Reformers say that no taxes should be raised, but this
powerful MP made that promise. Everyone was there to hear
him. Think of it. No more cattle herding by cabinet solidarity;
free MPs to vote their constituents' wishes.
I would like to congratulate the member for Cambridge. His
constituents will remember the promise and we will watch
carefully whether or not that support is forthcoming.
Congratulations.
* * *
Ms. Hedy Fry (Vancouver Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
want to remind members of the House and Canadians that
February 6 to 12 is Eating Disorder Awareness Week.
The theme is: ``Breaking free: Celebrating our natural sizes''.
The goal is to increase awareness of the social factors which
contribute to the development of anorexia, bulimia and weight
preoccupation, and to prevent them.
Anorexia and bulimia are more common among women
between the ages of 13 and 25 and is increasing rapidly in a
society that glorifies thinness.
During this week, the National Eating Disorder Information
Centre will provide messages consistent with Health Canada's
vitality program, promoting healthy weights. The vitality
program pinpoints our society's preoccupation with weight and
unrealistic body size and responds by building self-esteem and a
positive body image.
Healthy bodies come in a variety of shapes and sizes. A good
weight is a healthy weight, not just a low weight. Dispelling the
myth about weight and directing Canadians to appropriate
resources is only the start in correcting this insidious disease
that devastates our young women.
* * *
Mr. Pat O'Brien (London-Middlesex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this week, International Development Week, is a time for
Canadians to become more aware of the challenges facing
people of developing countries in Africa, Asia, Latin America
and the Caribbean. It is also time to recognize the effectiveness
of the Canadian international development programs that
support sustainable development and alleviate poverty in
developing countries.
With assistance programs, more than 80 per cent of the
world's children have been immunized, sanitation and water
quality have improved, more people are living longer and
healthier lives, food production has tripled, and there is greater
literacy in the world.
Co-operation between governments, the private sector, the
United Nations, international banks and other organizations has
and will continue to bring immeasurable benefits to the global
community. During International Development Week we should
keep in mind that we do after all share one world and a common
future.
* * *
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Simcoe North, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
lately there has been much speculation about the imminent
federal budget. The previous government raised taxes 39 times
under the guise of deficit reduction, but the deficit continued to
swell uncontrollably.
I frequently said during the election campaign and again in
the House that we need more people paying taxes, not people
paying more taxes. I believe Canadians are generally
fair-minded about taxes, but I am certain they will accept only
changes that make the system more equitable.
(1405 )
During recent weeks the leader of the Reform Party and others
in his party have been talking a lot about a taxpayers' revolt.
This negative rhetoric is not constructive and does not reflect
the new way of doing politics which the Reform Party so
frequently espoused before coming to Ottawa.
It is also unnecessary. The government and indeed very
member of Parliament knows that middle class Canadians
cannot bear a greater tax burden. In fact, the Liberal members
addressed this problem head on during the last election
campaign.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford, BQ): Mr. Speaker, during the
consultations on social program reform, the following message
came across loud and clear: the main problem is lack of jobs, and
students and the jobless should not have to shoulder all of the
deficit reduction measures, because social program budgets
have already been squeezed enough over the past 10 years.
9415
However, despite the opinion of the majority of witnesses
who spoke before the committee on the proposed reforms, the
ministers of finance and human resources development appear
poised to revisit last year's budget this winter, by heaping most
of the budget cuts on the most needy and the middle class.
What is the Prime Minister waiting for to make the two
ministers see reason? Any effort to get our financial house in
order should target those who are best off, the rich who are still
able to avoid paying taxes.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
governments around the world are introducing new direct
democracy initiatives while our Liberal government refuses to
even consider modifying our outdated parliamentary system.
New Zealand, the first country to have universal suffrage,
passed the Citizens' Initiative and Referendum Act in 1993. The
state of Montana recently authorized the use of electronic voting
in school board elections.
Elections Canada has been closely observing the use of touch
tone telephone voting in our country and I am confident that it
will use an electronic voting system in a byelection before the
turn of the century.
Of course it is the Reform Party which is the leader in this
field. We are involved in two more electronic town halls on
February 12 and February 19 at 8 p.m. eastern time as part of our
commitment to enhance and develop the use of this technology.
I urge all members to tune into their local cable television
stations on Sunday to witness the making of the new democracy
right before their eyes.
* * *
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
last November it was announced in the House that the Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister of the Environment will chair an
international meeting of environment ministers from the group
of seven industrialized nations.
I am pleased to inform the House that this important meeting
will take place in Hamilton at McMaster University from April
29 to May 1. We will demonstrate Canada's leadership in
working on solutions to difficult global challenges such as
climate change, biological diversity, the management of toxic
substances and the international mechanisms that we use to
tackle these issues.
The government's recent actions to get our own house in
order, greening our operations and policies, will also be shared
with G-7 colleagues. Invitations have been sent to environment
ministers from France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United
Kingdom, the United States as well as the European Union and
the executive director of the United Nations environment
program.
All Canadians will welcome these efforts to address global
environmental problems.
* * *
Mr. John Maloney (Erie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the CBC has
made an application to televise the proceedings of the Paul
Bernardo trial, a motion that is strongly opposed by the families
of the innocent victims, Kristen French and Leslie Mahaffy.
One must question the motives. Ratings, sensationalism and
profit quickly come to mind. We have open court rooms. We
have a jury of our peers to represent society. Surely this is
enough.
The people of Niagara knew these victims and we know their
families. These two unfortunate teenagers have become children
of our nation. Let us protect their dignity in death.
It is time to deal with this situation in a judicial and
responsible manner and to respect the rights of the victims not to
be exploited further. There is no need to glorify these tragic
events. There is no need to satisfy the perversion of tabloid
journalism. There is no need to bring the O. J. Simpson circus to
Canada.
I implore the CBC to withdraw its application. It is simply not
the Canadian way.
* * *
Hon. Charles Caccia (Davenport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Human Resources Development is to be applauded
for considering a ban on replacement workers in the event of a
strike. Such measure would mirror legislation already existing
in Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia.
(1410)
The banning of replacement workers has not harmed the
economies of these provinces. On the contrary, such legislation
would help to motivate labour and management to begin early
the collective bargaining process, thus averting costly work
stoppages.
As emotion often runs high during a strike, this measure
would help prevent tragic events such as those recently
witnessed at Yellowknife's Giant gold mine.
Liberals look forward to passing such legislation.
9416
[Translation]
Mr. Bernard Deshaies (Abitibi, BQ): Mr. Speaker, while the
Minister of Finance is preparing his budget, I hope that the
federal government gave due consideration to the
recommendations contained in the fifth report of the Standing
Committee on Natural Resources. As you may recall, these
recommendations were made in light of the evidence given by
all those who took the trouble of appearing before our
committee to describe the situation in the mining sector.
I especially want to remind you of the second
recommendation in the report, namely that the federal
government should include in its February 1995 budget tax
measures to stimulate mining exploration in Canada. It has been
demonstrated that mining exploration is an investment rather
than an expenditure.
Implementing this tax recommendation will have a direct
beneficial impact on job creation that will be more than
welcome in my region of Abitibi, in Northern Quebec and in all
mining regions of Canada.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Statistics Canada's annual report on family income
verifies what many Canadians have known for years: family
budgets do not balance. Why? StatsCan reports that family
income has actually declined by 6.7 per cent since its peak in
1989. The report calls it the longest and steepest decline in the
last four decades. In fact, the average family income in 1993 was
slightly lower than the level recorded in 1980.
As if that is not enough, personal per capita income and take
home pay has also declined. The culprits? The PST, GST and UI
premiums. We are income taxed to death.
It seems easy for the government to dismiss the grassroots tax
rallies springing up across Canada. In doing so it blithely
dismisses the growing economic nightmare of those individuals
and families that hold our future as a nation.
The finance minister must recognize that Canadian families
will not sit back and watch this trend continue with the
imposition of further tax increases in its forthcoming budget.
* * *
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay-Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is with pleasure that I note the recent announcement
that the Avenor newsprint mill in Thunder Bay is planning to
install a treatment system which will allow the mill to become
completely effluent free.
This project represents the first mill scale development under
a memorandum of understanding signed in March 1994 by the
federal government and the Pulp and Paper Research Institute of
Canada.
Two successful pilot tests of the process to be used have been
completed and a secondary treatment system for the mill will be
installed in 1995. The complete, totally effluent free process
should be in place by late 1996.
The initiative shown by the pulp and paper industry and
companies like Avenor is clear confirmation of the industry's
commitment to the principles of environmental responsibility
and sustainable development.
* * *
Mr. Morris Bodnar (Saskatoon-Dundurn, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues on this side of the House I
would like to acknowledge the observers from the Reform Party
who graced us with their presence at the installation of the
Governor General yesterday.
For the next such ceremony that members of the Reform Party
attend, my colleagues in the Liberal Party would ask that they
please show some signs of life, as yesterday we were quite
concerned that they had all passed away in their seats. It must
have been extremely difficult for many of them to sit so quietly
for so long.
After the ceremony I learned that certain members of the
Reform Party had not been present. Perhaps these members
could not find cabs, which of course they could have billed to
their tax free allowances. Or perhaps they all got lost somewhere
in Ottawa-Vanier. After all, it is difficult to read French street
signs.
* * *
(1415 )
Mr. Jim Silye (Calgary Centre, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I am
submitting a refresher course on the translation of Liberal
rhetoric.
When the Liberals say that they hate the GST and will try to
kill it, what they really mean is they will try selling it under a
different name at 8 per cent.
When they say that their interest rate projections are bang on,
what they really mean is give or take 4 per cent.
When the Prime Minister says that everybody wants to go to
heaven but nobody wants to die, what he really means is that
they are going to raise taxes.
9417
When the Liberals say that they are going to get tough on
young offenders, what they really mean is: ``We will slap you on
both wrists''.
When they say that western economic diversification helps
thousands of western companies secure new markets, what they
really mean is that re-election in Winnipeg is in the bag.
When Liberals say that they will reform our social programs
at any cost, we now know they mean it, at any cost.
Finally, when the finance minister uses cliches like keeping
our feet to the fire and squaring the circle, beware, Mr. Speaker.
What he really means is that like the Prime Minister and because
of his cabinet he just does not know. He does not know.
_____________________________________________
9417
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday when the Minister of National Defence answered one
of our questions in the House, he said he had absolutely no
knowledge of the existence of a third videotape concerning the
Airborne Regiment in Petawawa.
How could the Minister of National Defence say he had no
knowledge of the existence of a third videotape, when General
de Chastelain specifically informed him of the existence of this
third tape in a memo he sent to him personally on January 23?
Hon. David Michael Collenette (Minister of National
Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the hon. member for Charlesbourg asked me the
following question:
Can the minister promise that this new tape will not be destroyed like some of
the evidence-
[
English]
Also he went on to talk about the tape as being of ``similar
quality and horrendous nature as the one to which was referred
earlier about the hazing incident''. I replied that I had no such
evidence of the existence of that particular tape. However I went
back to the report and we sent out a clarifying release last night
so that there is no misunderstanding.
In the report that came to me there was an acknowledgement
of a videotape of something that was described as welcoming
party, the activities at which were mostly beer drinking and
other things that people do from time to time in a social context,
but one where there was masticating of bread which of course we
find totally abhorrent. It was described in the report to me as
something that was not of a serious nature, that it was something
that was not in comparison with the earlier tapes.
The interesting thing is that I have just been informed-and I
want to get to the bottom of it after question period; I am sorry
that question period will not wait for me-that the description of
the events in the report that was given to me by the chief of
defence staff two weeks ago does not corroborate with what I
was given five minutes before two o'clock today.
Because I would like to get to the bottom of this I want to ask
for the indulgence of hon. members so that I can come back
certainly tomorrow and give some clarification of the matter.
(1420)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by all
means, by all means. Considering the controversy around the
regiment in Petawawa and the fact that this controversy has even
led to the immediate disbanding of the regiment, how can the
minister seriously say, two weeks after reading the report from
the chief of defence staff, no less, how can he seriously say that
yesterday he had no knowledge of the existence of a videotape
and today, that he is not sure that the report from his chief of
defence staff gives an accurate description of the content of the
tape?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have to
understand the context of the question of the hon. member for
Charlevoix yesterday.
He referred to the existence of a tape that was worse than the
ones that were made public and which led to the dismantling of
the regiment. I said yesterday and I say today that I have no
evidence of that kind of tape being in existence.
However what I am saying is that in the report I got two weeks
ago there was no reference to an initiation ceremony, nothing of
that nature. There was reference to a welcoming party where the
description I gave was applied.
What I am saying is that the description that I got two weeks
ago did not add up to what I have just been told was actually in
that video. It still does not go any way along the lines of the
earlier video in terms of the abhorrent nature of the contents of
that video to Canadians.
What I am saying is that since I have just been informed of
this I would like to get to the bottom of it to clarify it.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
minister says he has no proof of the existence of this tape. It
9418
seems to me that if the chief of defence staff mentions it in his
report, that should be sufficient proof for the minister.
Are we to conclude that the minister was so prompt to disband
the Airborne Regiment in Petawawa without, as he himself
admitted, being aware of all the facts and all the available
evidence, because he was probably trying to put a lid on it? Was
he trying to cover up reprehensible acts engaged in by senior
officers of the Canadian Forces, acts that would tarnish the
army's reputation?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the decision
to disband the regiment was made on good grounds. We made
that public two weeks ago and it was made notwithstanding the
recommendations of senior officials in the armed forces.
One of the reasons that I believe disbanding the regiment was
right at that time is that I did not know as minister what else may
be out there.
When the hon. member spoke to me yesterday it seemed to me
he was referring-I have heard lots of rumours about other video
tapes-to the existence of other evidence that may come to light.
What we did two weeks ago is that we took the sequence of
events, the deployment last year to Rwanda where some of the
airborne got in trouble, the two video tapes, and we said that
there was something radically wrong with this regiment, that
there was a systemic problem, and on those grounds we ordered
the disbanding of the regiment.
The Speaker: I know the seriousness of this issue. I would
ask that the questions and the answers be to the point.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
before I begin, I would like to say to the minister that if this tape
does not contain anything of serious concern, it should be made
public and we will see for ourselves. It is being held by military
police and no one can deny that.
Last December, the minister of defence announced that a
commission of inquiry was being established to investigate the
events in Somalia involving soldiers of the Airborne Regiment
of Petawawa. In spite of additional events which further
exacerbate the situation, the minister did not deem it necessary
to take immediate measures.
How can the minister of defence justify not yet having
established a commission of inquiry into the actions of the
Airborne Regiment although section 45 of the National Defence
Act gives him full authority to do so?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we are going
over some ground that was covered a couple of weeks ago.
After the juxtaposition of events of the report based on
infractions in Rwanda, the second video tape with racist
behaviour involving some people now before courts martial, and
the third involving the hazing, we felt that was enough. Enough
was enough. We believe the problem was of such systemic
origins that it had to be dealt with by disbanding the regiment,
and I think there has been widespread public support for this.
(1425)
In a perfect world I would have waited to take any action with
respect to this regiment until after an inquiry had reported. I
have to underscore the fact that the government inherited this
particular dossier and what we will be judged on is how we
handle the matter now, not how it got to one place right at the
beginning months ago.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Marc Jacob (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
may I remind the minister that we must distinguish between the
events in Somalia and the events in Petawawa. Section 45 of the
National Defence Act authorizes him to establish a commission
of inquiry immediately, rather than disband the regiment and
wash his hands of the affair and punish no one except enlisted
men.
How can the minister claim to deserve the confidence of this
House and of the public when, on the very day he set about
disbanding the Airborne Regiment, he concealed from the
public the existence of a third tape?
[English]
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not want
to make light of the hon. member's intention, but the fact is that
when we are talking about the existence of other tapes I do not
know how many tapes are out there. I do not know how many
copies there are. I do not know how many camera people there
are. What is obviously happening is that as modern technology
is catching up with everyone, including the armed forces, people
are taking tapes of certain activities and I do not know exactly
what is out there.
With respect to the question of why, sure we have the
authority to set up an inquiry right now. There is a court decision
now before the Supreme Court, the Westray Mine decision, that
calls into question the fact that we could have an inquiry, a
coroner's inquest or judicial proceedings all at the same time.
Once judicial proceedings were initiated, and they were
initiated before we were elected, there was no choice but to
adjourn the original inquiry. What we are saying is once due
9419
process is followed with the existing courts martial, and that
would be the middle of March, there will be an inquiry. It will be
public. It will be headed by a civilian. All these questions on
how the regiment was fit for deployment to Somalia will be
answered.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Canadians across the country are angry and we witnessed this
last night at the huge anti-tax rally in Toronto. They cannot
believe the government is considering tax increases.
An hon. member: They were all Reformers.
Miss Grey: I do not think it was just Reformers at the tax
rally.
In the 1993 election we heard the present Prime Minister
challenge then Prime Minister Kim Campbell to recall the
House of Commons in the middle of August so that pension
reform could be dealt with. He promised and told the press that
the Liberals would change that plan in a day. Over 600 days have
passed since then and Canadians are still waiting.
My question is for the Prime Minister. What changed since
the 1993 election campaign? Why is the minister backtracking
right now on his election promise? Will he introduce legislation
now to reform MPs' pensions?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, first I thank the hon. member for Beaver River and
other members of the Reform Party who attended the
installation ceremony of the Governor General yesterday.
[Translation]
I would also like to thank the member for
Laurier-Sainte-Marie and the other members of the Bloc
Quebecois who attended this ceremony.
[English]
It was a sign of respect for the institution. They did what is
expected of all members of Parliament; they displayed good
manners.
As far as the bill is concerned, there will be legislation very
soon in the House of Commons. It will be announced either
before or at the same time as the budget.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
heard something to that effect this morning on ``Canada AM''.
What surprises me is that we have heard cabinet ministers,
especially the Prime Minister, say that they cannot reveal
anything that is going to be in the budget. How things change.
He has just revealed, quite likely, that it would be revealed in the
budget.
(1430 )
The Prime Minister said: ``MP pension reform is in the red
book and I am committed to everything that is in the red book''.
This vacuous document unfortunately has become the Liberal's
book of excuses. It is like the fine print on a legal contract, just
like the Deputy Prime Minister's promise to resign if the GST
were not scrapped in a year. We are waiting for that to come true.
Will the Prime Minister go beyond the bare minimum
outlined in the red book which does not address the problem of
only six years for people qualifying for pension and paying in,
and a contribution ratio of employer to employee of eight to
one?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in order to be courteous to the hon. member, I would
would not like to see the bill passed before March 13. That will
be the day she will qualify for the pension.
The bill will be dealt with. We made promises in the red book
which will be kept. There are some people who want us to move
further. We are discussing that at this time.
However, there is one thing I would like to say to all members
of Parliament and to the public. The salaries of members have
been frozen for years. Members of Parliament work very hard
and are not very well paid. Many school directors and chiefs of
police and so on are making much more money than members of
Parliament.
I am not one to try and score political points at the expense of
people who try to serve their citizens well as members of
Parliament.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
would agree that Canadians are not unreasonable. Nobody is
suggesting that MPs do not work hard or that they do not deserve
fair compensation for their years of public service. They simply
want the MP pension plan brought into line with the realities
faced by the private sector and do not violate the Income Tax
Act.
If the Liberals are not willing to reform their gold pension
plan, then start with mine which does kick in on March 13.
How can he justify a pension plan that is eight times as rich as
the people who are paying for it, the taxpayers of Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there was a commission that looked into this problem
not long ago and reported. It said members are really underpaid
for the work they have to do. I agree with the commission.
This pension plan was established a long time ago. I have been
a member of Parliament for 32 years this April and I have seen
members of Parliament who had a very difficult time adjusting
9420
to life afterward. I am informed that there are a lot of former
members of Parliament who were in this House two years ago
who are having a difficult time, some of them 58, 59 or 60 years
of age, finding another job because they were in Parliament 15
years and cannot make the transition to private life very easily.
I am not about to play politics with it. We will be fair to
members of Parliament. I ran on a program and it was written
there that it will be at least the minimum we will announce
before the end of this month.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
According to the Liberal member for Gander-Grand Falls,
senior finance officials have already presented the measures that
the Minister of Finance plans to take in the next budget to
influential business people and bankers.
Will the Minister of Finance confirm that he is considering
the following measures, among others: a $4 billion reduction in
transfer payments, a one per cent increase in the GST rate and a
one per cent tax on the capital held in pension funds and RRSPs?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member
knows very well that I have no intention of making any comment
on specifics concerning the budget. Having said this, I can
confirm that no meeting such as the one described in the hon.
member's letter ever took place.
(1435)
Mr. René Laurin (Joliette, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister
of Finance could perhaps explain to us in what context the
meeting occurred, if it did not occur in the way I described.
Also, given the disastrous impact that a one per cent tax on
capital accrued in RRSPs and pension funds would have, will the
Minister of Finance commit to immediately and unequivocally
ruling out this tax which would cost taxpayers, mostly from the
middle class, some $5 billion?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have obviously
just seen the drawback of writing the supplementary question
before getting the reply to the first.
It is impossible to describe a meeting that never took place.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the minister of Indian affairs.
According to a story in today's Winnipeg Free Press, an
aboriginal band in northern Manitoba is sending 53 band
members to a conference in the Dominican Republic at
taxpayers' expense.
Does the minister approve of this waste of taxpayers' money?
Does he simply not know what is going on in his own
department?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is a story that came
today. This is not my department. This is an aboriginal decision.
This is something I will look into and I will get back to the
hon. member with the information. Unlike members of the
Reform Party, I want to hear both sides of the issue before I
respond.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the Prime
Minister said a few minutes ago that people find it difficult to
find jobs when they leave this place and it is because they have
made such a mess of the economy.
I can understand the minister having a difficult time
understanding why things like this offend the taxpayers because
members of his own caucus like to go on these kinds of junkets.
Can the minister tell this House what the goal of this trip is,
how he justifies it? Is it just the case of the government looking
for expensive new ways of appearing ridiculous, in which case it
has succeeded admirably?
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have indicated to the
hon. member, I will discuss it with the First Nations of
Manitoba.
If it is inappropriate in my opinion I will so state. I will at least
talk to them unlike the hon. member who, when he talks about
fairness and has a meeting in his own riding, sends out notices at
our expense and advises everybody except the aboriginal people
in his own riding.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development.
At the start of the week, the Minister of Human Resources
Development stated that the government would proceed with its
reform of social programs and that it would be consulting the
9421
provinces. The last federal-provincial ministers conference on
income security was cancelled on April 18 due to the strong
opposition of a number of provinces to its reform.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development plan to
call a federal-provincial conference on social program reform
before the upcoming federal budget?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for her question. I can answer very briefly that just before the
Christmas break my deputy met with his counterparts in the
provincial governments to talk about the process they would like
to initiate. A meeting was also held in the third week of January
with the social service deputies to raise that question.
The response we received back from the provinces is that they
would like to wait before they start a formal process until after
the budget to be sure on the fiscal parameters.
I would like to indicate to the hon. member that I had a
meeting last week with all the social service labour market
ministers from the Atlantic provinces.
(1440 )
We had a very good discussion about how we can approach
ongoing consultations with the provinces. I will be meeting with
other provincial ministers individually over the next couple of
weeks. I can confirm for the member that several provinces are
quite ready to look seriously at how we can work together for the
development of a new social reform package.
[Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier, BQ): Mr. Speaker, are we
to understand that the government intends to present the
provinces with a fait accompli by failing to call a
federal-provincial conference on the proposed reform prior to
the budget? Is it the government's intention, despite the
discussions that have taken place and despite the additional cuts
planned in the budget, which the number of rumours about
would appear to confirm, to simply announce to the provinces,
without prior consultation, what the cuts will mean for them?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I explained to the hon.
member that in the meetings we held in both December and
January at the senior official level in which we raised the issue
of how we should proceed with a useful process of discussion, it
was the wishes of the provincial representatives that any further
meetings of ministers await the tabling of the federal budget.
In all things we are most sensitive and interested in the points
of view of the provinces and therefore abide by their wishes.
* * *
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, in
the interest of saving hundreds of millions of taxpayers' dollars
I ask the minister of immigration if he would consider the
following Reform proposals: eliminating the Immigration and
Refugee Board; selecting more refugees from abroad and
reforming visas to end abuse; creating a safe third country list;
negotiating a cut to legal aid for court appeals for illegal
residents; not issuing any more amnesties for failed claimants.
The Speaker: Colleagues, usually in Question Period we
might get a question and maybe tack a little one on behind.
When we get up to five that is a little much. Perhaps the hon.
minister could answer the first two.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I could not agree with you
more.
This government has already taken measures to improve not
only the immigration but also the refugee determination system.
We passed the other night Bill C-44, intended to improve the
system and cut down on the very abuses that are part of that. We
said at the end of last year as part of the program and agency
review that additional reforms will be brought before the House
of Commons in the very near future.
I ask the member to also judge us on that record.
Mr. Art Hanger (Calgary Northeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, if
the minister will not agree to those proposals, how about a
pledge not to repeat expenditures like these next year: furniture
for his friend Michael Schelew, $100,000; a $100,000
handshake when Schelew had to leave; $25,000 for a trip for
senior bureaucrats to Vancouver Island; $2,000 for bookmarks
with the-
The Speaker: These multiple questions are difficult for the
Chair to control in question period. As long as the questions deal
with the administration of a minister's department, of course I
will consider them. When questions are so specific that perhaps
they should be best put on the Order Paper, hon. members should
consider that.
I will permit the hon. minister of immigration to address
himself to the first two questions.
Hon. Sergio Marchi (Minister of Citizenship and
Immigration, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of
grandstanding that you cannot help but contrast the kind of spirit
of these types of questions when we are looking at an important
dossier like immigration. Contrast that with the speeches of the
Prime Minister and the Governor General yesterday with the
generos-
9422
ity of spirit, the kind of vision that it takes to build a country like
Canada which has been built by both newcomers and those who
have been here for a long time.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Health.
(1445)
The Minister of Health has obviously been overtaken by the
events and stubbornly refuses to assume her responsibilities
with respect to AIDS. This minister shows her staggering
incompetence by displaying her inability to understand what
those afflicted with this terrible disease must go through.
How does the Minister of Health explain that, two weeks
before the federal budget is tabled, an amount of $1.1 million
earmarked for the fight against AIDS is still unused and that,
after waiting for 10 months, the minister still refuses to allocate
this amount so that people with AIDS and community field
workers can get help?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am sorry but if someone has been overtaken, it is the
hon. member, because I have explained several times how we
handle the money set aside to fight AIDS. We have, in phase II,
$40.7 million a year, which is spent directly on assistance and
research programs to prevent AIDS.
In addition, the Medical Research Council spends $2 million
each year on research programs. At the international level,
CIDA also spends money.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, how can the minister rise in this House and justify the
fact that seven community projects are waiting on her desk,
when they have been approved by her officials? Can the minister
tell us whether or not she will help community groups and
authorize these projects, which have been waiting for her
signature since October?
[English]
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, there are many projects under review within my
department, far more than the seven that have been indicated
here today.
The challenge is to ensure that every dollar we spend is spent
effectively. That is what we are doing and that is what we will
continue to do. Good projects will receive funding.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of National
Defence.
On several occasions the minister has assured this House of
his strong concern for the health and welfare of the Canadian
troops. Is the minister aware that Canadian forces personnel are
complaining that they are experiencing effects which are
sometimes called the gulf war syndrome?
Can the minister tell this House what is being done to address
these complaints for the future well-being of the Canadian
forces members?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, we have been
concerned about this problem for some time.
No definitive link has been made with respect to some of the
symptoms people are experiencing and the participation in the
Gulf war. A registry has been established at veterans affairs. A
special clinic here in Ottawa at the National Defence Medical
Centre has been established to deal with it. A protocol has been
put forward for all medical personnel in the armed forces to deal
with these complaints as they come forward. The Surgeon
General of the armed forces has written to every member
serving in the Gulf to ascertain whether or not the kind of
complaints which have surfaced in some cases are prevalent.
We have no definitive link yet. Neither do similar authorities
in the U.S. and Great Britain which also served in the gulf. It is
something we want to get to the bottom of and we are at least
putting these steps in place to address this very serious problem.
* * *
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have in my hand a report that was produced over a
year ago by the department that answers to the Minister of
Human Resources Development. This report shows that the
unemployment insurance program is so poorly designed that the
unemployment rate could be .5 to 1.5 per cent lower than it
currently is.
The minister's own department admits that unemployment
insurance needs reform. He has had over a year to do something
and has done nothing. When will we get some real action?
(1450 )
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member would
be
9423
courteous enough to tell us exactly what this report is, I would
be glad to take a look at it.
As the hon. member knows, but I hope this does not come as a
great surprise to him, we have just spent four months on a major
public consultation by a committee looking at the
unemployment insurance program. Members of Parliament,
including his colleagues, have made a number of
recommendations. In fact, I think he was on the committee. It
strikes me that if he had all of this information, why did he not
use it then?
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, what is happening here is that we have a government
that uses consultation as an excuse for inaction. That is what is
happening. This report is available.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member not to use any
props. If that is indeed the report, I would just ask him to put it
down so he can put his question. No props.
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
Canadian taxpayers are sick of people who abuse our social
programs, but they are even more sick of politicians who do not
do anything. The minister is bent on making his programs
bigger; he seems incapable of making them better.
Will the minister finally admit that big government programs
are actually the root of the problem?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, to go back to the hon.
member's somewhat fiery declamations, after yesterday's
question period I made a special point of going back and looking
very carefully at the recommendations tabled by the Reform
Party as part of its committee report.
After carefully reading them, I came to the conclusion that I
agree fully with the comments made by the hon. member's
colleague, the member for Calgary North. She said: ``They were
not thought through very well; they were rushed into print'' and
no one should take them too seriously. That certainly speaks to
the whole position of the Reform Party on social reform.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Transport.
The Minister of Transport recently announced his policy on
assigning new international routes to air carriers. This policy
will give Canadian International an advantage by granting it a
quasi-monopoly on Pacific routes and excluding Air Canada
from this lucrative market.
Would the Minister of Transport agree that by denying Air
Canada access to the Hong Kong and Chinese market, he is also
depriving Canadians of the substantial benefit they would enjoy
as a result of competition between the two carriers?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, Air Canada is of course interested in the Hong Kong
route. However, as you very well know, in 1994 we gave Air
Canada access to Japan with a route to Osaka via the new Kansai
airport. I can assure the hon. member that the outlook is pretty
good. Air Canada will hire more than 350 flight attendants and
recall about 100 pilots. That is not bad.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
could the Minister of Transport explain why, after the Gemini
affair and the guaranteed loan of $50 million to Canadian
International, the federal government has once again decided to
give Canadian International an edge over Air Canada? Does he
have an explanation?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I know the hon. member is trying, but I want to point
out that with respect to international routes we need to be very
careful on exactly what was done and when. This government
certainly did not contribute any $50 million guarantee to
Canadian Airlines International.
(1455)
In spite of what the hon. member is trying to produce in front
of the House today, again I want to quote: ``Under the existing
international air route policy, Air Canada has just announced
that it is increasing its international capacity by 18 per cent''.
If the hon. member would look back to where we were this
time last year with Air Canada and Canadian Airlines
International, he would understand how far we have come.
* * *
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National
Defence.
The minister has promised to begin an inquiry into the
incident surrounding the airborne regiment in Somalia after the
appeals are completed. It seems as though much of the airborne
regiment's trouble has to do with the breakdown of the
command structure.
Would the minister at least commence the inquiry procedure
by naming the members of the inquiry so that there will be no
delays after the appeals?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the hon.
member has obviously not been following what I announced
9424
before in this House. The inquiry will begin not after the appeals
but after the initial proceedings, the courts martial. That will be
sometime in mid-March.
Once the judicial proceedings are finished, the hon. member
will know the people involved in the inquiry and the terms of
reference. I am sure that once he sees them, which will be soon
after the judicial proceedings are completed, he will be quite
satisfied.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I was merely suggesting in order to make sure there
were no further delays after the inquiries take place that we
move quickly to at least name the people on the inquiry board.
The morale of the Canadian Armed Forces is in serious
jeopardy and I am sure the minister realizes that. There are such
events as those of the airborne regiment, sailors on welfare,
subsidized housing, golf trips for generals, and now cuts to the
medical support for Canadian peacekeepers in Croatia which
was reported today.
How can the troops be expected to have confidence in their
commanders while these devastating morale problems remain
unresolved?
Hon. David Collenette (Minister of National Defence and
Minister of Veterans Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if I ever saw
a loaded question that was one. Everything the hon. member has
ever learned about the armed forces, anything negative in the
last little while has been rolled up into one question. I really
cannot give a detailed answer to everything because I would be
here until 3.30.
With respect to the inquiry, it will begin once the courts
martial are over. With respect to the other questions he raised, I
have responded to those questions in public and I can give
detailed answers to the hon. member.
I will say one thing. We all have a responsibility as politicians
to ensure that there is adequate, informed and reasoned debate
about any institution so that we do not undermine the morale of
institutions like the armed forces.
* * *
Mr. Gary Pillitteri (Niagara Falls, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, for
years Canadian growers have been wanting a level playing field
with American growers.
The red book promised to improve the pesticide regulatory
system. What is the government plan on regulating pesticides to
mean to Canadian farmers especially to horticultural growers?
Mr. Lyle Vanclief (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Agriculture and Agri-food, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the
member for Niagara Falls for his continued interest.
We are certainly pleased that later today the government will
be announcing a new and revised pesticide regulatory system in
Canada which will be under the direction of the Minister of
Health.
The system we already have is one of the most rigorous in the
world today. However we are going to improve that even further
so that the availability of products to our horticultural
producers, our foresters and all Canadians will be provided in a
more efficient, more cost effective, environmentally safe and
competitive manner so that we will all be better off.
* * *
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Transport.
I have been informed that the new plan for the Trans-Canada
Highway through New Brunswick is on the desk of the premier
of the province of New Brunswick and he is negotiating with the
federal government for funding for same.
(1500)
The proposal cuts off the largest industrial base in the
province of New Brunswick, the city of Saint John. I am
informed that it costs over $1 billion to go through the base.
There is another route and that is the existing route-
The Speaker: The hon. member's question, please.
Mrs. Wayne: Will the Minister of Transport confirm to this
House that his government will not be part of a cost sharing
agreement for the TCH in New Brunswick that will cost the
taxpayers $1 billion when the present route can be built for $200
million which ensures that all the three major cities, Saint John,
Fredericton and Moncton, are treated equally and are connected
to the U.S. border with a four-lane highway from St. Stephen?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her question
because I know it may be one of the last questions she raises in
the House. I understand she is looking forward to replacing
Dennis Cochrane in New Brunswick as leader of the
Conservative Party and thereby reducing the Conservative
caucus in this House by 50 per cent in one crack.
With respect to highway construction in New Brunswick, as is
the case everywhere else in the country, the hon. member would
be aware that it is a provincial jurisdiction. If the Government of
Canada is able to participate, we certainly will try.
As far as the routing of the highway is concerned, because of
the nature of the provincial jurisdiction she would have to
negotiate that in her new incarnation in the legislature of New
Brunswick with Premier McKenna.
9425
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, during question
period the minister of aboriginal affairs made some statements
about my conduct as a member of Parliament in that he
suggested I was carrying on with public consultations without
consulting with aboriginal or native people in my riding.
This is patently false and I would ask that you ask the minister
to withdraw these remarks.
Hon. Ron Irwin (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, mine was the same point of
order.
I would like to correct the geographic error I made. I have
three, sometimes two, critics in the Reform Party sitting in the
same area, the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley
and the hon. member for Skeena. Both ridings abut. The member
for Prince George-Bulkley has 11 First Nations and the hon.
member for Skeena has 23, 30 per cent of his population.
There was a meeting called `let the people speak'. There was a
panel set up and notices were sent out. The notices did not go to
any aboriginal people in the riding and no aboriginal people
were asked to sit on the panel.
It was the riding of Prince George-Bulkley Valley and not
the riding of Skeena. I apologize on a geographic error but
certainly not for the sentiment expressed.
The Speaker: I hope the matter has been cleared up. There
was an error in geography. This is what the hon. member was
referring to.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, the minister talks about my
having a meeting in my riding. If he examined the facts I had
several meetings in my riding and I personally invite-
The Speaker: We will have the usual question for Thursday.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask my hon. colleague, the Leader of the Government in
the House of Commons, to announce the business of the House
for the coming week.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is our intention this afternoon to continue with the
motion regarding the 51st report of the procedure committee on
redistribution legislation.
We will then resume consideration of second reading of Bill
C-65, the government organization bill with respect to
organization and reduction of certain government agencies,
followed by second reading of Bill C-67 to reform the veterans
appeal board process, and second reading of Bill C-61, the
agriculture bill.
(1505 )
On Friday we will commence the report stage of Bill C-37,
the young offenders legislation. On Monday we will deal with
the report stage and, if possible, third reading of Bill C-59, the
income tax bill. If this is completed we would revert, if
necessary, to Bill C-37 or, as the case may be, to the list given
for today at whatever point we leave off at the time of
adjournment this evening.
Tuesday and Wednesday of next week shall be allotted days.
Finally, I shall consult with my colleagues opposite early next
week with regard to the business for next Thursday and Friday.
* * *
The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the matter raised
by the hon. member for Delta, on December 13 and December
15, 1994 regarding the response and supplementary response of
the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to Order Paper Question
No. 82. I would also like to thank the hon. member for his very
detailed written submission dated February 1, 1995 which
served to clarify his remarks in the House.
I wish to state at the outset that having reviewed all that was
said in the House as well as the answers to the question printed
in the debate, I remain of the view and must reiterate that this is
not a prima facie case of privilege.
[Translation]
Before explaining my decision, I would like to draw
members' attention to citations 31(1) and 31(2) in Beauchesne's
Sixth Edition, which state:
(1) A dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does
not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege; and
(2) The failure of a minister to answer a question may not be raised as a
question of privilege.
[
English]
Although I have not found a prima facie case of privilege, I
want to comment on this matter for the benefit of the hon.
member and of the House. Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation
403 states in part:
9426
The House recognizes two broad categories of questions-the oral question, which
the Standing Orders recognize as dealing with matters of urgency, and the written
question, which is designed to seek detailed information from the Ministry.
I emphasize the last phrase because the purpose of the written
question should be to seek and receive precise, detailed answers
to carefully worded questions.
In his representation the hon. member for Delta stated that
members expect the responses to Order Paper questions to be
accurate and well reasoned. He noted that the question he
submitted was one requiring detailed study by the government
and was one for which he wanted a detailed answer. He also
argued that it is incumbent upon the government to provide not
only the questioner but the House with accurate information. In
this the hon. member is absolutely correct.
[Translation]
The wording of Standing Order 39 itself gives us further
information about the nature of this type of question. It reads, in
part, that members may put questions to the ministry ``-but in
putting any such question or in replying to the same no argument
or opinion is to be offered, nor any facts stated, except so far as
may be necessary to explain the same; and in answering any
such question the matter to which the same refers shall not be
debated.'' Because questions on the Order Paper are not meant
as a vehicle for debate, the rule expressly prohibits the inclusion
of opinion or argument, the very things which lead to debate.
[English]
The Clerk of the House, acting on behalf of the Speaker, has
the full authority to ensure that questions placed on the Notice
Paper are coherent and concise, in accordance with practices of
the House.
(1510 )
As Speaker Fraser noted in a ruling on October 2, 1991 at page
3147 of the Debates, questions are scrutinized as to the
correctness of their form and content before they are placed on
the Notice Paper. To aid members as well as the Clerk and his
staff in ensuring that questions for the Order Paper are properly
formulated, citation 428 of Beauchesne's sixth edition lays
down an extensive list of restrictions applicable to written
questions. It is, however, incumbent upon the members
submitting a question for the Notice Paper to ensure that it is
formulated carefully enough to elicit the precise information
sought. There are, however, no similar provisions in the
Standing Orders for the Speaker to review government
responses to questions posed.
In the present case we are dealing with a matter of the
interpretation of the wording of a question placed on the Order
Paper. The hon. member for Delta anticipated a particular reply
which was not the reply tabled in the name of the hon. minister.
The member contends that the written response provides
erroneous information. He argues that he has found
discrepancies between the minister's response and information
contained in documents he has obtained through the Access to
Information Act. For his part the hon. minister maintains that
every effort has been made to answer the question posed by the
hon. member for Delta.
I remind all hon. members that we have a tradition that what is
said in the House or placed on record in the House is accepted as
true. My predecessor, Speaker Jeanne Sauvé, phrased it aptly
when on February 28, 1983 at page 23278 of the Debates she
stated that it is not the role of the Chair ``to determine whether or
not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate''.
[Translation]
Joseph Maingot in his book Parliamentary Privilege in
Canada, at page 199, summarizes well the situation faced by the
Speaker in such circumstances. He writes that before the
Speaker can find a prima facie case of privilege in a situation
where there is a dispute about facts, there must be ``-an
admission by someone in authority, such as a minister of the
crown or an officer of a department, an instrument of
government policy, or a government agency, either that a
member of the House of Commons was intentionally misled or
an admission of facts that lead naturally to the conclusion that a
member was intentionally misled, and a direct relationship
between the misleading information and a proceeding in
Parliament.''
[English]
This is not the first time there have been disputes over replies
to Order Paper questions or over the content of documents
tabled by the ministry. For example, I refer hon. members to
three rulings, the first on February 28, 1983 at pages 23278-9 of
the Debates; the second on February 21, 1990 at page 8618; the
third on May 15, 1991 at page 100. I must point out, however,
that in none of these cases was the matter found to be prima
facie. As Speaker Fraser noted in the May 15, 1991 ruling:
The hon. member has raised an issue which is not an unusual kind of issue to
raise. The hon. member is not satisfied with the response given. The difficulty
that is always with the Chair in these cases is that there are often very great
differences of interpretation on answers given. It is not a question of privilege, it
is a question of disagreement over certain facts and answers that were given.
This precedent holds true in the case now before us.
Questions on the Order Paper are a very important tool in the
hands of members. As I stated earlier, their purpose should be to
seek through a precise, detailed formulation precise, detailed
information that will enable members to carry on their work. It
is incumbent upon all those involved on both sides of the
process-the members formulating the questions, House
officials reviewing those formulations, the individuals drafting
the replies and the ministers of the crown tabling those replies in
the
9427
House-to ensure that every care is taken so that these
exchanges remain as fruitful and as useful as possible.
I want to thank the hon. members who intervened in this
matter.
_____________________________________________
9427
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1515)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it gives
me great pleasure to rise in my place today to discuss the report
of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
regarding redistribution.
I would like to congratulate the committee for its very
thoughtful report. The conclusion of this report as far as I
understand it is basically the result that we are going to create
six new electoral ridings in Canada.
I had the honour to appear before this committee on June 24,
1994. The substance of my submission to the committee at that
time was very similar to my thought process today. The bottom
line is that the people of my riding and indeed the people of
Canada do not want to see any further increase in representatives
in Canada's federal House.
As we look out at industry today the buzzword is downsizing.
Everyone is becoming more efficient, more effective. We are
analysing the civil service, finding ways it could be more
effective with the labour force it has. We have a freeze going on
in the civil service to make it smaller and more effective. Today
bigger is not necessarily better.
I refer to an old bad joke that Canadians often quip on the
hustings: It is fortunate that Canadians do not get all the
government they pay for. It is a bad joke, but it is a bad joke on
the people of Canada, the taxpayers of Canada.
Today we have telecommunications and all kinds of
communication media to access our ridings and the people of
Canada. I have become a great user of the information highway,
the Internet. I can go to my office this afternoon and broadcast a
message across Canada. These are the kinds of efficiencies we
have to bring to government and to the House of Commons.
I spend roughly 80 per cent of my staff's time in the riding
dealing with roughly 10 per cent of the population base.
Obviously members can increase their constituency size, the
number of members and constituents they deal with, without an
effective increase in the cost of operations.
I look at my own particular riding of Durham which takes in a
number of other political jurisdictions. Along with myself, there
is one senator. We have five MPPs in Queen's Park. We have a
regional government of 32 members. We have 66 mayors and
councillors. The question of course is: Is this type of governance
giving us better representative democracy in Canada? What do
other jurisdictions do?
As I mentioned in my submissions to the committee in June, a
fair comparison would be that of our southern neighbour, the
United States. In 1911, 84 years ago, almost 100 years ago, the
United States capped its system of representative democracy
with 435 representatives in Congress and 100 senators.
In Canada, we have one federal representative for every
75,000 people. In the United States, it is one for every 465,000
people. The U.S. manages its system much the way we manage
ours. Every 10 years it has a census and it redistributes within
the existing system. Some states get more representatives and
some less, depending on their population growth.
(1520)
If we continue our current arithmetical formula, obviously
this House is going to extend out on to the Ottawa River. We
have over half as many representatives as the United States, yet
it has 10 times our population.
I read in the report on page four comments regarding a cap or
reduction as not feasible at this time. On page five I read that to
change the electoral process significantly would be highly
disruptive at this time.
I thought that as members of Parliament we came here to
make decisions and that was what we were being paid for.
Maybe we are saying we cannot make decisions and we need
more members to make them for us. I do not know if that is what
we are trying to put across here. I do not believe the people of
Canada want any further increase in representatives.
There are basically two issues of concern here. One has been
represented by some of my Reform colleagues which is to
reduce the actual numbers of federal members of Parliament.
The second one is a proposal by the committee that is basically
to increase the representation by six members.
I have a better solution that is somewhere in between. This is
Canada's constant striving for compromise. I also recognize
there is a problem as was mentioned in the committee report
itself. A grandfather clause signed back in 1986 with a number
of the provinces stated that reductions in the seats by provinces
would not change beyond the 1986 level. It is clear that
agreement has to be revisited and renegotiated. I am suggesting
9428
that has to be renegotiated and revisited now, not some time in the
future.
Six more members of Parliament, people have suggested to
me, might cost as much as $6 million. That does not mean that
members of Parliament get $1 million a piece, but when we start
adding up the duplication in services, duplication in staff, et
cetera, we find there is a tremendous increase in cost. My
constituents and I are very supportive of reducing the cost of
governance.
The problem basically has to do with mathematics.
Unfortunately in this House we seem to have a lot of problems
dealing with mathematics. In my office this morning I took the
existing level of seats and the popular vote and reduced both the
seats and the population base taking into account the senatorial
floors of the existing provinces that are already at their
senatorial floors. From that figure I also subtracted the 75 seats
that are now represented by the province of Quebec. After this
mathematical formula takes place, the 75 seats roughly equal
the 25 per cent of the population base of Quebec as related to the
total population of Canada.
The bottom line is a result like this: It would add one seat to
the province of Alberta, two to the province of British
Columbia, but would reduce by three for the province of
Manitoba, increase by six to Ontario, and reduce by four to
Saskatchewan. New Brunswick would have no change.
Newfoundland would lose one seat. The Northwest Territories
would remain unchanged, as it is already at its senatorial floor.
Nova Scotia would lose one seat. Prince Edward Island would be
unchanged. Quebec would be unchanged. Yukon would be
unchanged. The sum total is 295 seats, what we have here today.
Looking at population statistics there is no deviation.
Looking at the 1991 census there is no deviation in those
provinces greater than 1 per cent of the total population of our
country. In other words, it is representation by population which
is basically what we are trying to achieve.
(1525)
I have not dealt with the aspect of distribution within
provincial boundaries, the differences between rural and urban
areas. Presumably we can follow the guidelines of the report,
using an electoral boundaries commission in concert with the
provinces.
In conclusion, it is clear to me that the people of Canada do
not want an increase in the number of members of Parliament at
this time. It seems to me that we should possibly rethink this and
go back to see whether we cannot renegotiate that grandfather
clause.
I have found there are too many decision makers and not
enough decisions being made. Let us refocus our attention to
making this a reality today and not pass the decisions off on
some future Parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to ask the hon. member to clarify what he just said about
renegotiating grandfather clauses in the Constitution of 1867.
Perhaps he could explain what he had in mind.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his
question.
I was not actually referring to the Constitution Act. I was
referring to a separate agreement which I believe dates to 1987.
It is a fairly recent agreement with some of the provinces and
basically said that from 1987 onward there would be no
reduction in their seats. It is not actually in the Constitution Act;
it seems to be a separate agreement with some provinces that
they simply would not be reduced from what they were in 1987.
It is not a constitutional amendment.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member perhaps
explain what he was referring to, if it was not the British North
America Act of 1867? I would like to know under what
legislation these provisions were made. I ask this with all due
respect for the hon. member from the Liberal Party. I was
unaware until now that such legislation existed.
[English]
Mr. Shepherd: Mr. Speaker, I am simply reading the
committee report. On page 7 it reads: ``Issues such as senatorial
floor and the grandfather clause whereby no province can lose
seats from the number it had in 1986''. The report is available
from the committee. That is basically what it says. Obviously it
is referring to a specific grandfather clause which existed and
dated from 1986 onward.
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the
government's motion for concurrence in the 51st report of the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
It should be noted that the bill included in the report before us
is the result of the first use of the new procedure under the
Standing Orders of the House of Commons whereby a
committee can be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill.
Standing Order 68(4) to (8) which was approved by the House on
February 7, 1994 sets out a process for committees to draft
legislation.
On April 19, 1994 the House of Commons adopted the
following motion:
That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed
to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(5),
respecting the system of readjusting the boundaries of electoral districts for the
House of Commons by electoral boundaries commissions, and, in preparing the
said bill, the committee be instructed to consider, among other related matters,
the general operation over the past 30 years of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment act, including:
9429
(a) a formula to cap or reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons;
(b) a review of the adequacy of the present method of selection of members of
electoral boundary commissions;
(c) a review of the rules governing and the powers and methods of proceeding
of electoral boundary commissions, including whether those commissions
ought to commence their work from the basis of making necessary alterations
to the boundaries of existing electoral districts wherever possible;
(d) a review of the time and nature of the involvement of the public and the
House of Commons in the work of electoral boundary commissions;
That the committee have the power to travel within Canada and to hear
witnesses by teleconference; and
That the committee report no later than December 16, 1994.
(1530)
The committee reported to the House earlier than that, on
November 25, 1994 when the chair presented the 51st report of
that committee to the House. As a new member of the House I
am delighted that committees now have this power to develop
and bring forward legislation of this and other types.
I would also like to thank the Chief Electoral Officer of
Canada, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, his staff and the staff of the
committee and all the witnesses who appeared before the
committee, including fellow members of this House, for their
expertise and advice which were invaluable in assisting the
committee in its consideration of the various complex and
sensitive issues with which that committee had to deal.
Turning to some of those issues, the report says: ``Many
members of the committee reluctantly came to the conclusion
that a cap or reduction in the size of the House of Commons is
not feasible at this time''. Significant among the reasons given
for that conclusion which appear to be counter to the
instructions that the committee was given by the House-
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am
sorry to interrupt, but I believe the hon. member who is speaking
is wearing a campaign pin for the Liberal candidate in
Ottawa-Vanier. I know that maybe the Reform Party candidate
is giving him a hard time but I would prefer he follow the
instructions in the orders of the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Forgive my questionable
eyesight if in fact the hon. member for Peterborough is wearing
such a label or tag. I see he has removed whatever that pin was.
We thank him for his co-operation and we return the floor to the
hon. member for Peterborough.
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member and the
members opposite. I was canvassing this morning and I forgot to
change before I came in. I apologize.
It is not possible at this time to cap or reduce. Hon. members
concluded that the establishment of such a cap or reduction
would require all provinces to agree to the amendment of section
51 of the Constitution Act of 1867, in order to eliminate the
requirement of proportional representation among the
provinces, and the amendment of section 51A of that same act to
eliminate the so-called Senate floor provision which ensures
that no province shall have fewer members of Parliament than it
has senators.
Any cap or reduction would unfairly penalize provinces with
growing populations unless constitutional guarantees of
disproportionate over-representation for provinces with smaller
or declining populations were abolished. The abolishing of such
guarantees could result in a sudden and drastic loss of
representation by provinces with smaller or declining
populations and by large, sparsely populated rural areas
anywhere in Canada, including in the north.
The committee's decision means that the current compromise
system of calculating the number of seats in the House of
Commons will apply to the redistribution of seats based on the
results of the 1991 census. The small increase in the number of
seats from the current 295 to 301 would appear to be reasonable,
given the overall increase in the population of Canada. Two of
the six new seats will go to the fast growing province of British
Columbia and four more to populous Ontario.
(1535 )
The committee does not recommend any changes in the
structure of the federal boundary commissions. The chair of
each commission would be appointed by the chief justice of the
province and the other two members would be appointed by the
Speaker of the House of Commons as has been the case in the
past.
However, the bill which has been prepared by the committee
provides for the Speaker to publicize the upcoming
appointments and solicit applications. The Speaker would be
expected to hold a wide range of consultations before making
any appointments. The Speaker would then table his or her
appointments in the House of Commons where a procedure
would exist for 20 or more members to request a vote on any
individual appointment. In the absence of a negative resolution,
the appointments would be final after 10 sitting days. I am in full
agreement with this opening up of the appointments process
which has been recommended by the committee.
9430
With respect to the powers, processes and proceedings of the
federal electoral boundaries commission, it should be
emphasized that a major reason for the suspension of the
redistribution process last year and the approval of the order
of reference of the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs was the perception by many Canadians, and I
include many of my constituents among them, that they had
been excluded from the process.
Many people felt they were suddenly surprised by extensive
proposals for major changes in electoral boundaries without
having had any opportunity to influence the content of those
proposals. That was certainly the case in the riding of
Peterborough.
The recommendations contained in the report now being
debated are designed to ensure that Canadians have a better
opportunity for fuller participation in an improved
redistribution process based on the 1991 census. Among those
recommendations are the following.
In order to ensure that the public is better informed about the
redistribution process from the outset, electoral boundary
commissions ``should provide general information about the
redistribution process and statistical information on the
province and census results as well as a general statement
describing the manner in which it intends to proceed with the
readjustment of electoral boundaries. Interested parties would
then have 30 days in which to submit comments on the general
parameters of the process''.
Electoral boundaries commissions would be required to
prepare three plans and maps showing alternate ways in which
boundaries could be drawn rather than a single map that was
proposed in the past.
There is also a provision for a second round of public hearings
on the proposed boundaries recommended by a commission if
the changes which result from the first round of public hearings
are significant. The second set of hearings could be held if the
commission or the Chief Electoral Officer so decided.
Members here will be interested to know that they will in
future be on equal footing with other residents of Canada with
respect to the proposals of commissions when the requirement
that the commissions' proposals be tabled in the House of
Commons for debate and study by a committee is eliminated.
The time period between the proclamation of a representation
order based on the final report of the commissions and its
coming into force will be reduced from 12 months to 7 months.
This delay is provided in order to give Elections Canada,
returning officers and political organizations time to reorganize
their operations on the basis of the new electoral boundaries.
On the subject of the actual drawing of electoral district
boundaries during the course of redistribution, I am especially
interested in and support the committee's recommendation with
respect to the factors which must be considered by electoral
boundary commissions. I refer here to community of interest,
manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated
rural and northern regions of the province, and the probability
that there will be a substantial increase of population within
those areas over the next five years.
They would also be directed to recommend changes to
existing boundaries only where these factors are sufficiently
significant to warrant them.
Community of interest is more clearly spelled out in the bill
prepared by this committee.
(1540 )
Clause 19(4) provides that ``community of interest includes
such factors as the economy, existing or traditional boundaries
of electoral districts, the rural or urban characteristics of the
territory, the boundaries of municipalities or Indian reserves,
natural boundaries and access to means of communication and
transport''.
In my riding, the township of Ennismore and the First Nation
of Curve Lake were specifically put at a disadvantage because
community of interest was not defined in this way in the
previous attempt to reallocate those boundaries.
These provisions should ensure that future electoral
boundaries commissions will be obligated to consider the
factors specified which should result in the drafting of more
reasonable and acceptable boundaries.
In an effort to minimize the possible effects on electoral
boundaries of changes in population recorded as a result of the
major 10-year census which is conducted in the years ending
with a one, 1991, 2001 and so on, the committee recommends
that there should be redistribution of electoral districts within
provinces on the basis of the five-year census. Those are the
census which take place in the years ending in six, 1996 and
2006. In those years, although there might redistribution within
a province there would be no change in the number of electoral
districts in that province.
In a further effort to minimize the possible effect of
population changes recorded as a result of the major 10-year
census, the committee also recommends that no electoral
boundary commissions should be established where no
significant changes in population have occurred. If the number
of electoral districts to which a province is entitled remains
unchanged as a result of the 10-year census and none of the
existing districts is above or below the 25 per cent provincial
quotient, no commission would be established.
In the case of the five-year census a commission would only
be established if more than 10 per cent of a provinces electoral
districts vary by more than 25 per cent from the provincial
quotient.
9431
I know this is very clear to you, Mr. Speaker, but I would
like to explain a little bit further. While the committee has not
recommended any change to the maximum possible population
deviation at 25 per cent above or below the provincial quotient
established as the ideal average population for electoral district
as a result of the 10-year census, the committee does
recommend the elimination of the provision which permits an
even greater deviation in exceptional circumstances.
However, the committee does recognize that there may be
exceptional circumstances by recommending that electoral
districts whose population deviation is greater than the
permissible 25 per cent should be specifically set out in a
schedule to the legislation which can only be amended by an act
of Parliament. The exceptional ridings will be listed separately
and can only be changed by an act of Parliament.
It is essential that the process of readjustment of electoral
boundaries be completed so that the next federal general
election, which is expected to take place in 1997 or 1998, be
contested on the basis of electoral districts whose boundaries
fairly reflect their populations as established by the 10-year
census that was conducted in 1991.
It would be grossly unfair to residents in areas where they
have been major changes in population if that election was
contested on the basis of the present electoral district
boundaries which were established on the basis of the census of
1981.
I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate
and I would be glad to attempt to answer questions or engage in
discussion with members.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's presentation
which of course was excellent.
As the member knows, the population of Canada in our
centennial year of 1967 was approximately 20 million people.
We were quite proud of the 20 million that we accomplished at
our centennial. Approximately 30 years later our population is
about 30 million.
(1545)
We have increased by 10 million people in 30 years. Looking
forward from the 1991 dicennial census to the 2001 dicennial
census our population could very well increase by 3 million
people. We are in the guessing game but it is a fair guess.
At the current time we have about one member of Parliament
for every 100,000 residents of the country. That means by the
year 2001 perhaps we will need one dozen, two dozen or as many
as 30 more members of Parliament if we do not restrain the
growth of the House of Commons.
Can the member condone this piece of legislation which does
not deal with that pressing problem?
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment. I think
the member knows that one of the reasons this matter of
electoral boundaries is so debated in this country compared with
some others is the one that he has put his finger on, the fact that
this is a growing country, that it is going to continue to grow.
There will always be debate on the appropriate size of ridings
in a country like this. We have the additional problem that we
have huge areas as the member knows from his own province
that many people in the cities think are empty but which are fully
occupied by aboriginal people and other Canadians, yet in very
small numbers.
We constantly have to ask how those people should be
represented in comparison with people in the very large cities
like Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and so on. It will always be a
matter of debate.
The suggestion here is a reasonable compromise. It is going to
involve an adjustment for the next 10 or 15 years of a few seats
in the House of Commons to recognize the enormous growth in
British Columbia and the continued growth in the province of
Ontario.
There is one more thing I would like to say. He mentioned 18
to 67. Another variable in this has to do with communications
and the way in which we, the member included, represent our
ridings.
There was a time as the member knows when the people in the
west all came here and spent their winter in Ottawa. They did the
best they could even without telephones to represent the people
of the west.
The hon. member flies. I drive three and a half hours to my
riding once or twice every week. I am on the phone every day. I
have a fax machine. I am on the E-mail. The member is
speculating but in 20 years it may well be that members of this
House can represent more people even more effectively than we
can because of the change in communications.
I am sure members of the House then will deal with that
matter and like us will change the legislation to adapt to those
new modern times.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the comments that the
member for Peterborough made. I would welcome him out west
to the province of Saskatchewan to see how well we are able to
serve our constituents considering the technology we have.
We have this immediate problem of an expanding House of
Commons. I want to ask the member where we are going to put
the extra seats. Are we going to put them in the middle here? Are
we going to put them in the gallery, behind the curtains? We
have some constitutional issues to deal with.
9432
Some of these we can deal with as the House of Commons.
Some do not need provincial ratification. This is an immediate
problem.
If we wait 10 years we exacerbate the problem and suddenly
we are trying to find place for 30 or 40 more seats in this House.
Are we going to renovate? What is his solution?
Mr. Adams: Mr. Speaker, I do not see this matter of
representation in terms of seats and in terms of furniture. If I felt
that it was necessary to take over the Senate, for example, which
might not be a bad idea, I would take it over and there are plenty
of seats there.
The suggestion here is for six more seats. I am absolutely sure
that we can find space for six more seats in this Chamber. I
would think we could find more. The problem is not seats. It is
whether, for modern times, an adjustment of six is worthwhile
so that we can better serve the people of Canada.
(1550 )
The member is right. I expect this to be a phenomenally
growing country in the next several decades and I expect
Parliament of that day to deal with the conditions of that day. At
the moment we are trying to deal with growth over a 10, 15 or 20
year period. I think six more seats in the two provinces I
mentioned is a reasonable compromise to that.
The proposals come from a standing committee of this House.
It is not something that has been brought forward to the
government as has been the case in the past. We should respect
our colleagues on the standing committees who struggled with
this matter for a number of weeks and months.
Mr. Len Taylor (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake, NDP):
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to be able to say a few
words today on procedure and House affairs committee report
and the government's request for concurrence in that report
dealing with a study of the electoral boundaries readjustment
system.
I have a number of things that I want to say about the report
and about the process. I also want to say in advance of those
comments that I find it interesting that the government members
in particular are so anxious to debate this issue at a time when
unemployment is running rampant in our country, when
globalization is threatening to take away the economic
sovereignty of governments and when poverty is creating illness
and lack of education in our country.
There are many issues, including those of international
governance, that this House should be applying the majority of
its time to, to ensure that the people of this country are able to
secure employment, to build a quality of life, to educate
themselves and their children, to relieve the nation of poverty
and the stress of poverty and unemployment which creates, to a
certain extent, crime in our streets and insecurity among many
in our society.
The issue before us has some importance in and of itself, but if
I were sitting on the other side of the House today I would be
ensuring that the priority for debate was on those issues that
directly affected the quality of life of the people of our country.
However, the bill is before us and as a result of that we
certainly cannot ignore the opportunity to address the issues in
front of us. In response to that I want to say that I sense a bit of a
dilemma facing me as a member of this House because on the
one hand I agree with those in this Chamber who today have
argued in opposition to concurrence on this motion because I
believe that the process that the government has undertaken here
significantly disturbs a process that was working in this country
and a process that could have been changed not by disrupting it
but in addition to that existing process.
I also find myself in agreement with a number of the
provisions of the committee's report; a number of provisions
which I think will improve the adjustment process in the future.
Let me take that in a bit of order and indicate that my preference
today as I rise to speak and as I realize I will be called upon to
vote shortly is to withhold concurrence on the committee report
simply on the basis that the government's interruption of the
process was uncalled for and seems to be, in the words of a
member who spoke previously, the result of a panic that
occurred as a result of Liberal members seeing the results of a
boundary redistribution that they were unhappy with.
(1555 )
Granted I have a number of reasons to be concerned about the
new boundaries that were created in my own province. Perhaps I
will address that briefly before I sit down today.
However, I do not believe that arguments made in reaction to a
map that was drawn or arbitrary lines that were drawn on a map
is any reason to shut down the process and ignore the work and
the regulations that had been established previously.
A number of things have been said today as well. I have
listened to the debate reasonably carefully. I recognize a number
of things have been said about the numbers of seats in the House
of Commons. While that is not a part of this report, I do believe
it is worth commenting on.
The mandate of the committee did include a responsibility to
have a look at the possibility of restricting the numbers of seats
and perhaps even reducing the number of seats in this place. I
understand from the comments of the committee chairperson
and from reading the report that the committee, not in its
entirety but the majority, believes it was not feasible to discuss
the cap at this time.
9433
I come from the province of Saskatchewan and so I believe
it is sometimes necessary to reduce the numbers of people who
represent the population. However, since we are sitting in the
federal House and there are more practical matters at work than
simply the capping of the number of seats, we owe it to
ourselves to look even beyond that particular issue.
When I mentioned coming from Saskatchewan I said that
because I am very proud of the Saskatchewan government, the
New Democratic Party government, which after it became
elected set in motion a process which did reduce the number of
seats in the Saskatchewan legislature. A colleague of mine from
Saskatchewan earlier today alluded to the fact that
Saskatchewan had done this.
The people of Saskatchewan have reacted positively to the
move to reduce the number of seats in the provincial legislature.
I have found in my own travel through my own constituency and
elsewhere throughout Saskatchewan that it is not the numbers
the people are concerned about, it is the representation.
Listening and responding to the needs of the people are major
concerns.
Certainly some have raised the issue of cost. In my own
estimation the cost of running government is actually small
compared with the cost of providing services and delivering on
decisions that governments make. As a result, if we are able to
listen and respond well the people of our province and of Canada
will respond positively to a government or a political party that
is prepared to do that.
In Saskatchewan the people and the government felt that a
reduction in the number of seats was possible. They have
embraced that concept. I believe, contrary to arguments made by
the government side today, the people of Saskatchewan would
also understand that if the number of seats in this Chamber were
restricted in the future, our province would have a smaller
number of members of Parliament and fewer individuals to
represent their views in Ottawa.
I said earlier this has to be taken into a broader context.
Representation by population in this country does mean that
some regions, some provinces, some territories will receive less
attention as a result of the number of people who can vote on
issues. Therefore it is necessary for the whole concept of reform
or the rebuilding of Parliament, not just the House of Commons,
to be done as a unit at the same time.
(1600)
If the House of Commons is to be reformed, if it is to be
rebuilt under representation by population, I say without
condition that I want to see that done in conjunction with and
parallel to the reform or the rebuilding of the second chamber of
Parliament. An elected and accountable Senate that would
represent the regional or territorial interests of the country must
occur at exactly the same as a redistribution of seats in
Parliament.
While I believe the Chamber can debate and should be looking
at the possibility of reducing its number of seats, in the future
the committee must also take into account that it cannot be done
in isolation. It cannot be done on its own, or the people of
Saskatchewan and other provinces that may lose seats as a result
of redistribution would have a grievance against a government
which is not listening to the long term grievances of western
Canadians about the lack of concern of the House of Commons
wherein the majority of members voting on bills come from the
more populated parts of the country.
A number of things I want to discuss in relation to the report
have some positive aspects to them and are in direct relation to
my feelings about how the redistribution process should occur.
When speaking to the bill earlier today in his opening remarks
the chairperson of the committee, the member for Kingston and
the Islands, said that there were a number of problems with the
system the committee was trying to correct.
He spoke about the proposed maps that come with no
forewarning or opportunity for input from the public. He talked
about commissions currently not being required to justify the
rationale for their decisions. He talked about the lack of
standard application of rationale across the country, that we had
different decisions made by different commissions in different
provinces across the country and therefore a patchwork of
reasons for commission maps being produced in different parts
of the country.
He talked about commissions making seemingly unnecessary
changes to boundary maps when there were very few reasons for
change. He talked about the size of the House and the growth of
the numbers of seats. These were problems the committee
wanted to address.
In this regard I want to talk about the beginning of the process.
The chairperson of the committee was absolutely correct when
he said that the public first comes upon the report of the
commission when most of its work has been done. The public
sees a single map, a redistribution based upon the
commissioner's feelings about how that map should be drawn.
The proposed map is put before the electorate as a fait
accomplis. It takes a considerable amount of work on behalf of
the public, often in conjunction with members of Parliament, to
come up with a good rationale for changing the maps presented
by the commissions.
(1605 )
The committee has done a fine job of responding by calling
for an initial public notice of the beginning of the process and a
twofold requirement that the commissions produce three maps
with justifications for their decisions in each case. This will go a
9434
long way to correcting one of the serious problems that affects
the process as it exists today.
In Saskatchewan, The Battlefords-Meadow Lake
constituency that I currently represent virtually disappears
under the new map drawn by the commissioners in our province.
If I agreed with the initial premise or the rationale of the
commissioners, I would have no difficulty with the
disappearance of my constituency. There would be an obvious
determination on my part as to whether or not I would seek
renomination and re-election in another constituency.
However, it is impossible to disagree under the current set of
circumstances with the commissioners' original rationale for
starting where they started to draw their maps. In
Saskatchewan's case the commissioners decided, given that
there were no new seats to be allocated, they would redraw the
Saskatchewan map by giving the two urban centres, Saskatoon
and Regina, an extra seat. Each of them currently have three
seats. That meant that each of those major centres in
Saskatchewan would be given, the commissioners argued, a
fourth seat. Saskatoon and Regina would each have an urban and
a rural part. All rural seats surrounding Regina and Saskatoon
had to be pushed out a bit, pushed north and south a bit, and two
of them squeezed out entirely. As a result The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake and the constituency of Mackenzie
virtually disappeared.
In order to argue the boundaries we have to argue the entire
map of the province of Saskatchewan and the original rationale
of the commissioners. If we have the opportunity to discuss that
in advance we may feel that we have a lot more opportunity in
the process. In fact we might indeed have a lot more input into
the process.
While the current map exists and people in Saskatchewan are
generally expecting the constituency boundaries to change, I
want to stress the recommendations contained in the report in
front of us. Perhaps someone can correct me if I am wrong, but if
by June a new bill has not been passed the boundaries
established by the current commission would stand. However, if
the new bill were to pass by June, new commissions would
perhaps be established based on the new rules set out in front of
us. Therefore I believe the people of Saskatchewan will have to
wait until the end of June to know whether there will be new
boundaries for federal ridings within our province.
I do not believe the changes in the bill justify the suspension
of the current process. I am quite prepared to work with the new
boundaries that exist in our province.
(1610)
I want to make a further comment before sitting down. I
commend the Saskatchewan Boundaries Commission that
currently sits on one count. It has created a northern seat that is
separate and apart from an urban centre. I have criticized the
commission and will criticize it in concluding my remarks today
by indicating that it created that northern seat by pushing the
boundaries surrounding the city of Prince Albert farther south. It
had to do that using the available quotient to remove the urban
centre of Prince Albert from that seat.
That created a northern seat with a fairly large agricultural
and rural municipality component to it that has absolutely
nothing in common with northern villages, the Metis and
aboriginal communities in the north.
I applaud some of the changes made by the committee. I
deplore the process the government has used here. I certainly
look forward to what will occur over the next few months as the
process continues.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my fellow member
from Saskatchewan, the hon. member for The
Battlefords-Meadow Lake. I agreed with the majority of the
hon. member's comments.
He began by saying that he felt in Canadians' eyes that this
was perhaps a low priority issue given the state of our economy
and concerns over employment. I would add to that concerns
over high deficits and high taxes. However, because of the
self-interests of politicians, he and I both recognize the issue
has come to the floor of the House of Commons.
I also heard him say he would oppose the proposal based on
the principle that it was a matter of interference where
interference was not required. I concur with his observation in
that regard.
The hon. member talked about the fact that if we capped or
reduced the number of seats in the House of Commons,
Saskatchewan would have fewer seats than its current 14. I think
the hon. member and I are approximately the same age; I am not
sure who is older. However, when I was young the province had
about 21 seats if I remember accurately. Now we are down to 14
seats and I expect, unless there are some constitutional changes,
that floor will remain.
I am not sure what the number of seats in Ontario was at the
time when we had 21 seats, but I know it was less than the 99 it
now enjoys and we know it is now going up to 103 under the new
proposal.
If we do nothing Saskatchewan will remain at 14. Ontario may
increase its seats to 115 or 120 if we look far enough down the
road. Saskatchewan is losing clout no matter which way we look
at it as far as the number of seats in the House of Commons is
concerned.
The member correctly reflected on the solution, which was
Senate reform. I was pleased to hear the hon. member say that,
because I thought members of the federal New Democratic Party
were supportive of abolition of the Senate. I know that provin-
9435
cial members, particularly western spokespersons for his party,
have supported the triple E concept.
I wonder if the hon. member is supporting the triple E concept
of Senate reform, one that is not abolished but rather is reformed
so that it is elected, has equal representation from every
province, and maintains the effective powers that would give
clout to provinces such as Saskatchewan which, no matter what
way we look at it, is going to lose clout in the House under the
current scenario or under the past scenario whether we are
looking at new legislation or the status quo.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity the
member for Kindersley-Lloydminster has given me to explain
the position of New Democrats with regard to the Senate.
Certainly we are asked about this frequently because there
appears to be a contradiction when no contradiction exists.
New Democrats, myself included, have always called for and
continue to call for the abolition of the unelected, unaccountable
Senate. The fact that the Senate has failed to live up to all its
obligations over its entire history with one or two exceptions
gives us many reasons to believe that the Senate as it exists
today must be abolished.
(1615 )
However, abolition of the existing Senate does not preclude
the establishment of a new second chamber, a second chamber
that has a new mandate, that is elected by the people of Canada,
that provides representation to provinces, territories or regions,
however it gets defined across the country, one that does have
effective powers.
The key to all of this is the ability of the Senate to respond to
these issues. The effectiveness of the Senate is a very important
part of this whole package.
In response to the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and
to all others who have questions about this position, we believe
very strongly in the rebuilding of the Senate to be elected and
accountable to the people of Canada.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to monopolize
the time. I do have a following brief question. I would encourage
the hon. member to make sure his colleagues, particularly those
in Ontario at the federal level, make it very clear to Canadians
that they are not ambiguous in suggesting that in certain parts of
the country they would abolish the existing Senate and replace it
with a reformed Senate, and in other parts of the country
indicating they would abolish it and not replace it. I would like
to hear those kinds of responses from the premier of Ontario and
federal representatives of the party in Ontario.
Mr. Taylor: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to encourage my
colleagues in the party across the country. I cannot help but
think I would be very grateful if the premier of Ontario were to
listen to all of the things I might have to say to him.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the division on the question now before the House
stands deferred until Monday at the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment, at which time the bells to call in the members will
be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to further defer that vote from Monday at the time of
adjournment until Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
The House resumed from February 8 consideration of the
motion that Bill C-65, an act to reorganize and dissolve certain
federal agencies, be read the second time and referred to a
committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
(1620 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
9436
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45(5)(a), the recorded division on the question now
before the House stands deferred until the usual time of
adjournment on Monday, at which time the bells to call in the
members will be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
[English]
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I think you would find unanimous
consent to further defer that vote until Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): The House has heard the
suggestion. Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
Hon. Lawrence MacAulay (for the Minister of National
Defence, Lib.) moved that Bill C-67, an act to establish the
Veterans Review and Appeal Board, to amend the Pension Act,
to make consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal
the Veterans Appeal Board Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to begin
second reading on Bill C-67, an act to establish the Veterans
Review and Appeal Board, to amend the Pension Act, to make
consequential amendments to other acts and to repeal the
Veterans Appeal Board Act.
The legislation is straightforward and its objectives are
simple. We want to streamline the veterans pension application
and make the decision making process an improved service to
Canadian veterans.
The bill before us does not change benefits that veterans now
enjoy, nor does it reduce the right Canadian veterans have to a
complete and thorough appeal process with free legal
assistance.
Veterans have been faced with long delays when they apply
for pensions, sometimes very long delays. We know that those
delays are usually caused by the elaborate process we have put
in place. We want to simplify that process to provide veterans
with their benefit as quickly as possible.
As most hon. members will be aware, veterans pensions
provide compensation for service related injuries, wounds and
disabilities. Civilians who served in close support of the armed
forces during wartime may also be entitled to pension benefits.
Additional pension benefits can be paid to a pensioner's
spouse or dependent children. Survivor pensions are payable to
the spouse of a deceased pensioner.
This legislation will affect a wide range of people, veterans,
their spouses, their dependents and others. More than half a
million Canadian veterans are alive today and at this moment
there are about 150,000 veterans or their survivors who are
getting disability pension benefits. We get about 13,000 claims a
year. That is a lot of applications. Canadian veterans are still
applying for benefits in large numbers.
(1625 )
Some members of this House may be asking why we are
getting so many applications almost 50 years after the end of the
second world war. It is simply because many of the wounds and
injuries received in the line of duty half a century ago are
beginning to have a real effect on the lives of our veterans. The
effects of those old wartime injuries have become more obvious,
more painful and more difficult to live with, and now many
finally have decided that maybe it is time to get some help.
These veterans have reached a time in their lives when the
benefits available for the disabilities they received serving
Canada so many years ago can make a real difference in their
lives. They really need the benefits now. That is why we are
processing so many applications.
We have also found that many of the applications are taking
longer to process. Many are going through the appeal process
because in the years immediately following their service in the
armed forces it was easier in the average case to make the
connection between the veteran's service and the resulting
disability. As the years have passed it has become more and
more difficult to find the link between service and disability.
I want to emphasize that the first benefit to which our veterans
are entitled is the benefit of doubt. If there is a real doubt about
whether a claim is justified, that doubt goes to our veteran. Our
system is designed to help veterans by providing assistance in
preparation of first applications, and that will continue to be the
case.
The disability pension process was designed to be fair but the
process was not designed to be fast. Now with the average age of
our veterans at 73, these Canadians can no longer afford lengthy
delays.
Under our current system successful disability pension
applicants will wait on average 18 months for their first pension
cheque, a year and a half. Clearly that is not good enough. If the
9437
application is turned down and its appeal is successful it can
now take up to three years. Clearly that is not good enough.
These delays are not the fault of the people who work with the
current process. It is the fault of the process itself. We know that
the only way we are going to catch up is to make the overall
system more efficient.
There have been a number of attempts over the years by
governments to make changes in the pension process. There has
been some tinkering, or some small process has been changed.
In some cases this has assisted the veteran but in some cases it
has only added to the bureaucracy. Add to those problems the
number of first applications we have and we have a situation
which is simply no longer acceptable and must be changed.
Most veterans have reached the time in their lives when they
want to enjoy their pension benefits. Surely they deserve that.
Some will use the disability pension cheque as an added source
of income in their retired years. Surely they deserve that. Others
need the veterans benefits to obtain the medical services they
need. Surely our veterans deserve that.
Over the past year we have commemorated many important
events leading to the end of the second world war. I am very
pleased and proud to be part of the `Canada Remembers'
program. This program makes Canadians and people around the
world aware of the dedication and sacrifice our veterans made
for us and for democracy around the world.
Canadians want our veterans to be treated fairly. They want us
to do the right thing and they want us to do the thing right. Our
veterans deserve that. Therefore, we will improve the process
with the bill before us today.
(1630)
At present a veteran applies directly to the Canadian Pension
Commission or contacts the department or one of several
organizations which will act on his or her behalf. Some veterans
go to such organizations as the Royal Canadian Legion or the
War Amps of Canada. Others go to the Bureau of Pension
Advocates which is now involved in most of the applications for
pensions. However immediate involvement of legal assistance
at the point of first application almost assumes legal dispute.
It was certainly never the intention, however, just by
providing legal advice at that point, to make it look as though we
were going to contest the application. That is not what we want,
that is not what Canadians want, and that is certainly not what
our veterans want.
Canadian veterans should not need legal help to apply for
pensions. With the passage of this bill they will not need such
help. The need for legal advice and assistance will come in the
appeal process.
Our lawyers in the Bureau of Pension Advocates are highly
trained people. They will continue to work hard for Canada's
veterans where their expertise is needed. Why have legal experts
using their time in the detailed preparation of a case that is not
going to be contested anyhow?
At present, the department receives the application on behalf
of the Canadian Pension Commission and prepares a medical
summary and opinion. It examines the degree of the disability
and recommends the amount of assessment. In many cases it is
obvious the applicant will be approved but the department
cannot approve it. It sends the application to the Canadian
Pension Commission. The CPC has to decide on two things, the
first one being entitlement. Does the applicant have the
qualifying service? Is the injury or condition likely to be a result
of that service? Then, assessment. That is based on the degree of
disability and it is a decision on how much pension to pay.
The Canadian Pension Commission makes its decision on
those two issues: entitlement and assessment. It then passes the
decision on to the department which informs the veteran and
delivers any cheque or payment.
If the Canadian Pension Commission decides that the
applicant is not entitled, the applicant can go before something
called the Entitlement Board. If the commission had agreed that
the applicant is entitled but the applicant does not agree with the
assessment, there can be what is called an assessment hearing.
Both the board and the hearing are made up of members of the
Canadian Pension Commission. If the applicant does not like
either decision at this level he or she can appeal again. At this
time it goes before the Veterans Appeal Board.
After all of that, we arrive at a final decision on whether a
disability pension will be awarded and, if so, how much. The
information goes to the department and then begins the process
of having the first cheque delivered to our veteran.
In a nutshell, that is the system as it currently exists. It relies
on the work of four different government bodies: the Bureau of
Pension Advocates which provides free legal assistance when
veterans apply; Veterans Affairs Canada which completes
medical examinations, summaries and opinions, and does the
administrative work, including preparing and researching files,
communicating with clients and calculating and making
payments; the Canadian Pension Commission which decides on
first applications and then hears initial appeals; and finally, the
Veterans Appeal Board which hears final appeals.
(1635 )
The system is thorough. The system is fair but the system is
not fast. It can take up to three years from the time the veteran
first applies until the first cheque is delivered. Our Canadian
9438
veterans deserve better than that. We have been looking for
ways of speeding up the process for a period of time.
In 1992 Veterans Affairs Canada completed an evaluation of
the process. The following spring it consulted with major
veterans' organizations, employee unions, staff and other
stakeholders. The evaluation made 55 recommendations on
ways to improve the pension process and we have implemented
those that we could.
Now has come the time to act on those recommendations that
need legislation, the long term recommendations that streamline
the process.
The legislation before us acts in three broad ways. First of all,
Veterans Affairs Canada, the department, makes the first
decision. In many cases veterans affairs employees will be able
to counsel and assist veterans with pension applications in their
own homes and communities.
Second, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates becomes part of
the Department of Veterans Affairs. The bureau will no longer
be involved in first applications, therefore the bureau's lawyers
would concentrate on helping veterans in the appeal process.
The third broad area concerns the appeal bodies. As I have
said, the Canadian Pension Commission hears first applications.
If first applications are now to be heard by the department, then
the Canadian Pension Commission in handling only appeals
would have the same mandate as the Veterans Appeal Board.
This legislation merges the two agencies into one body. The
Canadian Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board
will be combined into the Veterans Review and Appeal Board to
hear appeals at the first and if necessary the second level.
I want to emphasize that we maintain two levels of appeal.
However, we do it with much more flexibility built into the
system. We will have board members who are not locked into
just one level of appeal, meaning that we can utilize the board
members' time with maximum efficiency.
Some members of the new board will be deployed across the
country to hear initial appeals. If the applicant wants to continue
the appeal process, final appeals will be heard by different
members of the same board. We will again speed up the appeals
process by combining the expertise of both former agencies and
having them concentrate only on appeals, not on first
applications.
One overall theme is important to all these measures. We will
maintain all veterans' benefits and appeal rights. Decisions will
still be based on the principle that veterans receive the benefit of
the doubt. Two appeal levels will continue to be available.
The Government of Canada spends about $1.1 billion on
disability pensions. Nothing in these proposed changes will
affect the amount of money veterans receive through the
process.
Our only objective is to make sure that the veterans get their
applications dealt with faster. I am sure the House will agree that
our veterans deserve this. I know we all recognize the debt that
Canadians owe to our veterans. Veterans deserve their disability
pensions and this is the time when many veterans need them the
most.
I hope all members of this House will join me in supporting
this bill because this is an occasion where we, together, can
further help those who have served our country so well. Surely
our veterans deserve that.
(1640)
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased and honoured to speak today on behalf of the Bloc
Quebecois during the debate on second reading of Bill C-67.
This bill is of paramount interest to veterans. I have just listened
to the secretary of state and I share his desire for continued
recognition of all those who kept war away, maintained peace
and continue to enrich our society through their community
involvement.
We owe a lot to the veterans and that is why all of us,
regardless of party, want to improve their living conditions.
Canada has not failed in its duty. From the very start, it
established and maintained resources for veterans.
These resources became more structured after the first world
war. A system of pensions was born. Pensions were awarded
according to disability criteria established by an independent
body. It was not long, however, before criticisms were raised.
The main criticism, still heard today, concerns the delays in
the pension process. This issue was given a hard look in the
1980s. In chapter 13 of his 1986 annual report, the Auditor
General of Canada established that the disability pension
process took an average of 13.2 months. The delay was
criticized at the time. The Auditor General proposed
improvements in efficiency, including automating the process
and computerizing files. It was felt these measures could
increase productivity by 25 per cent.
In 1987, legislative reform to do with the Veterans Appeal
Board brought a flood of optimism. The Minister of Veterans
Affairs at the time took the opportunity to affirm his confidence
in the processing of pension applications. He said, on June 26,
1987, in the House, and I quote: ``Hon. members will be aware
of the substantial progress that has been made in reducing delays
in the disability pension process. In the last two and one-half
9439
years the time required to process pension applications has been
cut by well over half. At the same time, a far greater percentage
of decisions are going in favour of the veteran today than was
the case previously''.
The Conservative minister, the Hon. George Hees, went
further, and I quote: ``These very satisfactory results have been
achieved in the face of an almost 100 per cent increase in case
load. It is quite a remarkable feat for any operation to double its
work-load while slashing its turnaround time by over half''.
After an exclamation like that, all opposition members
applauded. Even the Auditor General of Canada in his 1988
report estimated that the follow-up to his 1986 audit
examination was adequate. He indicated, and I quote, ``The
department took positive action after making a decision on the
best way to handle each case''.
Yet we are sceptical now of this great optimism. Consider for
instance that, according to the most recent studies, in 1992 the
process took on average 18 months from the time of the initial
application until the first decision. We believed things were
better but that was not the case. To an ageing veteran, such a
delay is incredible and unacceptable.
The longer waiting periods can be attributed to several
factors. Numerous studies cited the department's move to
Charlottetown in 1984 as a major one. The most recent of these
studies, conducted at the department's request in 1993, also
indicates very clearly the context of such delays and the
accumulated backlog.
(1645)
At this point, I would like to quote an excerpt from volume 4
of that study. ``The move to Charlottetown gave rise to a
significant loss in the organization's memory and technical
skill. Partially in response to this loss, additional quality control
procedures and steps were added to prevent serious errors on the
part of employees not sufficiently familiar with the process or
lacking full training. In time, some of these additional control
measures and procedures took root, with the result that
applications are now to a great extent processed sequentially
and manually, which takes an unnecessarily long time''.
Another important factor merits consideration. From 1982 to
1990, that is for nine consecutive years, the number of first
applications increased continuously and regularly. For each of
those eight years, the number of first applications increased on
the average by close to one thousand. The number of first
applications has gradually increased from 5,300 in 1982 to
14,100 in 1990.
Everyone will agree that a pension allocation system,
regardless of how efficient it is, cannot do any better than its
original capacity permits when it has to process 14,100 first
applications in 1990, as opposed to 5,300 in 1982. Because of
these factors, processing takes longer, and veterans, who do not
have the time to wait, have to wait longer.
Therefore, we are in favour of the government's fundamental
objective of reducing processing times and accelerating the
process. This objective must take precedence over all other
concerns.
However the official opposition wonders about the way with
which the government proposes to attain this necessary
objective. The bill proposes to merge the Canadian Pension
Commission by transferring to the minister all jurisdiction over
first applications on the one hand, and on the other, by
transferring to the appeal board all staff and jurisdiction over the
review process.
In the same breath, the government is bringing the Bureau of
Pension Advocates back under the department's jurisdiction and
has taken away from first-time applicants for veteran's benefits
the right to approach the bureau for recourse.
Allow me to review the basic elements of the bill, starting
with how it deals with the Canadian Pension Commission. The
department proposes to eliminate, so to speak, the Canadian
Pension Commission. The department justifies this measure by
saying that the Canadian Pension Commission's favourable trial
decisions were found to be consistent with favourable
recommendations by the medical advisory services.
The department then questioned the existence of an
independent commission which merely rubber-stamps the
departmental services' recommendations. It then thought of
replacing this commission with an initial decision at the
departmental level and allocating commission resources to the
review and appeal board in order to speed up the process.
We are concerned about this. For the first time since the
pension allocation system is in place, initial decisions are
subject to departmental authority. We understand that this
measure is aimed at bringing the decision-making process
closer to those directly affected. However, this measure to be
implemented under departmental authority must respect the
principle of impartiality at this stage. To process initial
applications faster, we need to open up the decision-making
process to those who do the work.
Another important element of this bill is the conversion of the
Bureau of Pensions Advocates from an independent agency to
just another organization within the Department of Veterans
Affairs. This proposed conversion challenges government
policy since 1971, when the bureau was set up outside the
department in the name of openness.
We hope that this openness will be maintained for seniors
applying for the first time who served many years ago. Of
course, many things have happened and many laws have
changed since then. We sincerely hope that removing this step
will help veterans cut through departmental red tape. The report
of the Senate sub-committee chaired by the hon. Jack Marshall,
9440
which was released last autumn, reflects the scepticism this
measure elicits.
(1650)
The department intends to refer only cases heard after initial
decisions to the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. In a way, this is
like saying a veteran only needs legal assistance when he has to
apply for review or appeal and when a decision, although
favourable, is not satisfactory. This is an interesting
assumption.
One wonders why it is necessary to merge the Bureau of
Pensions Advocates with the department. Of course, if this
speeds up the processing of veterans' claims, we are all for it.
However, we must make sure that the integrity of the process is
maintained.
The Bloc Quebecois earnestly hopes that veterans will see
their claims processed more expeditiously, within structures
that are fair, transparent and just. For years, many suggestions
have been made at various levels for improving the pension
allocation system. I would like to recall some of these
suggestions which were included, for instance, in the
assessment study of disability pensions conducted at the request
of the department and released in 1993.
This study involved the organizational services branch and
two consulting firms: Coopers & Lybrand and Deloitte &
Touche. The latter firm dealt with issues relating to the pensions
process.
Upon examining the firm's report in volume 4 of the study,
one is struck first of all by the extent of control measures and
additional procedures that cause undue delay. In 1992, these
measures and procedures were applied within the department at
the Veterans Services Branch, the Benefits Division, the
Medical Advisory Branch, the district offices, decision-making
support and non-medical benefits, the program planning and
pension services, the pensions distribution service, the Medical
Claims Research Section, standards and operations,
supplementary benefits section and administration section.
This is just to illustrate how complex the system is. Imagine:
every pension claim with its own specific file has to go through
all these levels, each of which has several file check points. That
is a major cause of undue delay, and that is why the study's
recommendations included a substantial reduction in the
number of check points within the department.
The department's study gives the distinct impression that the
proliferation of these check points may be exacerbated by a
climate of suspicion that prevails within each section and in
relations between the sections. One feeds upon the other. I do
not know whether this view of the pensions allocation system is
held by the parties concerned, but this climate of suspicion may
have helped to compartmentalize the various sectors and their
activities. The answer would be to break down the walls and
make the process more flexible. The bill seems to reflect the
study's recommendations.
It is unfortunate to note, as the study does, that many
suggestions for improving the system had fallen on infertile
ground. The firm of Deloitte and Touche noted that, during its
stay in Charlottetown, it was literally flooded with useful
suggestions for improvement, which had been made internally,
with no response. Here were first line employees making all
sorts of suggestions, employees really hoping to improve the
quality and the performance of the service. For people living in
an atmosphere of mistrust, this is a rather odd sort of behaviour.
(1655)
These suggestions, many of which were similar to other
approaches contemplated over the years in various reports,
proposed amalgamation of pension entitlement and evaluation
processes; a single document on service for all needs; more
involvement of regional advisors in the application review
process; requirement that applications be accompanied by a
diagnostic report and physician's medical report. These
suggestions would certainly help cut delays.
Finally, seven main recommendations emerged from the
study evaluating veterans' disability pensions. The only one that
seems relevant to the bill is the third one, which provides that
the department and the Canadian Pension Commission should
streamline the decision-making process by combining pension
entitlement and evaluation, by cutting the number of quality and
process controls and by transferring responsibility for primary
decisions to the group of pension medical advisors.
Do all these measures aimed at improving the process of
pension allocation jeopardize the principle of arm's length
relationship with the department? The study on pensions carried
out for the department in 1992 would seem to have not gone
unnoticed. During fiscal years 1992-1993 and 1993-1994, a
number of changes were made to the pension process. The
Estimates suggest that these changes would streamline
operations and improve processing times.
A good number of the proposed improvements have already
been implemented. To quote the Estimates for 1994-1995, ``One
of the most significant implementations resulted in a change in
internal procedures which enabled the CPC to adjudicate on
entitlement and assessment simultaneously. It is expected that
this new procedure, implemented in May 1993, will reduce
turnaround times in the first application process by four
months''.
So the minister has done his homework. It is 1995 now and we
can no longer say that the average turnaround time for first
applications is 18 months. Substantial improvements are
presumably being implemented at this time. The system for
recording medical benefits claims was apparently reorganized
in 1993.
9441
A new computerized system for pensions and the status of
pensions was to have been implemented in March 1994, thus
finally allowing computers to meet veterans' needs. If I may
quote once again from the 1994-1995 Estimates: ``Changes in
procedures that have improved client service include sending
favourable special awards and assessment hearing decisions
directly for simultaneous pay and promulgation. Approximate
turnaround time savings for favourable assessment hearings and
special awards average 40 days and 45 days respectively''.
Work on reducing turnaround times and the backlog is
therefore underway at this time. This all augurs well, although
there is always room for improvement. Let us hope that the bill
proves to be helpful in this sense in bringing about further
improvements in the system. Any delay for veterans is
unwarranted. It is with this outlook in mind that the former Hon.
Senator Marshall carried out his work in early fall of last year.
In the report of the Senate sub-committee he chaired, there is
a very interesting section, called: ``What is ``the'' system and
how can it be improved now?'' This section contains 10 very
practical recommendations, numbered 32 to 41. They are very
down-to-earth recommendations on how the system could be
improved, by reducing delays and the backlog. The committee
recommends the following: ``That requests for service
documents be forwarded electronically to Outside
Documentation Section and that the documents be provided at
no cost for veterans' organizations which operate a service
bureau''.
(1700)
If we can believe how hard the department has been trying
over the past two years to reduce delays, this recommendation
should be implemented without a problem. And, furthermore,
we are in the era of the information highway.
I continue to quote recommendations 32 to 41. ``That the
pages of the copy of the service documents be numbered to
facilitate the work of the Précis Writers who will add their own
extracts of the service documents, without typing, to the
submission of the application for pension, and forward the
package to the Medical Advisory for comment. That this
documentation to which a copy of the Commission's decision
would be attached serve as the ``statement of case'' in the next
stage of the process, the hearing''.
Can you imagine doing it any differently? Such sample
solutions show that the kind of structure in place contributes
little to the causes behind the delays and backlog. It seems that,
to a much greater extent, the delays and backlog are due to
entrenched ways of doing things that have resisted change.
The Canadian Pension Commission's persistent reluctance to
give veterans the benefit of the doubt led to the following
recommendation in the Marshall report: ``That serious efforts be
made by the Canadian Pension Commission to apply the
provision of the `benefit of the doubt' at the first decisions level,
in accordance with the Pension Act''.
We feel like giving the benefit of the doubt to new services,
new organizations better able to give veterans the benefit of the
doubt.
The Senate subcommittee's report also contained the
following recommendation aimed at speeding up assessments:
``That the senior district medical officers rule upon assessments
at the district level; that assessments for claimed conditions be
determined by senior district medical officers in the early stages
of the preparation of pension claims; that senior district medical
officers rely on reports prepared by medical specialists qualified
in the field relevant to the veteran's pensionable condition in
order to raise the assessment of their patients who are veterans''.
These recommendations are consistent with the desirable,
contemporary objectives of process devolution and
decentralization and with the department's intentions.
To conclude with my examples of concrete measures, the
Senate sub-committee ruled on the decision-making process for
awarding disability pensions by making this recommendation:
``That all fully favourable decisions rendered by the Canadian
Pension Commission and the Veterans Appeal Board -be
ideally less than a page in length, and that unfavourable or partly
favourable decisions strictly deal with the reasons why the
application or appeal is being turned down''.
These measures are likely to speed up the process and reduce
the backlog of cases. We must check how such measures will be
implemented, if we have not done so already. The Bloc
Quebecois is committed to pursuing the changes designed to
make the system even more effective.
Speeding up the process and reducing the backlog is mostly an
administrative matter involving program structure, the
department, the organizations, regulations, procedures and
control measures. All these elements are involved in the exact
way a public service is provided.
Administrative order must be based on principles. In the case
of the veterans pension awarding process, some principles were
established and applied. These principles are: equity,
impartiality, uniformity and vested rights.
The government's bill can be neatly summed up by listing three
recommendations contained in the briefing paper on pension
reform, namely delegating the first-level decision-making process
to the department; concentrating the appeal preparation work done
9442
by the Bureau of Pensions Advocates; and merging the Canadian
Pension Commission with the Veterans Appeal Board.
(1705)
Does this bill challenge the basic principles behind the
pension system? That is what we are concerned about and what
we want to look into.
We agree with the worthwhile goal of speeding up the process
and reducing the backlog in the veterans disability pension
awarding process.
However, before making a final decision on this bill, we will
pay attention to what veterans, veterans' organizations and
public entities affected by the proposed reform have to say about
Bill C-67. Our first priority will be to listen to their positions
with attention and respect and, to the extent possible, support
their wishes for the future.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the question to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon.
member for Louis-Hébert-U.S. president's visit.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt, Ref.):
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on Bill C-67 on behalf of the
Reform Party. After initially reading Bill C-67, reviewing it,
reading it one more time and reviewing it again, I thought it was
necessary to put a face to the word veterans. I did not have to go
very far to put a face to that particular group of people.
As a matter of fact, even in the Chamber we see constables
walking around doing their duties. Often we see medals on their
chests from campaigns of yesteryear. It is good to know that
these people have served our country in that way.
In my community of Summerland in the Okanagan I looked
around to see if I could find some examples of veterans. Again I
did not have to go very far. Steve Dudson comes to mind, the
gentleman who served as dominion president of the Royal
Canadian Legion in Ottawa. He is still very active in the local
legion in Summerland.
Other names also came to mind such as Mr. Ed Lanfdale who
served in World War II. He is very active with the Kiwanis Club
in Summerland and is involved in all kinds of fund raising
activities for worthwhile groups and organizations in the
Okanagan. Also there is Don Bowen. I cannot forget about him
because he served under me at the cadet squadron in
Summerland. He was a Korean war veteran. He is still wearing a
uniform today and serving his community by helping out the
cadet program in Summerland.
Then I looked to my own family and I did not have to look
very far to find veterans. I go back to my grandfathers who both
served in World War II, my uncle who served in Korea, and
several other family members. Some were distant but had names
like Donnan, Killipf and McFadzen. All these are names of
people in my family who served for their country and are
veterans.
It made me very proud that one thing these people seemed to
have in common even today, although we are far away from war
in this country, is that they are still serving their country. This
made me very proud as a Canadian to know that our veterans
who once served for their country still continue to serve our
great nation in one form or another today.
The current situation with respect to veterans and their
families is nothing short of appalling. Tens of thousands of men
and women have risked their lives for this nation. Yet, in their
later years when they turned to the Department of Veterans
Affairs for disability pensions, they ran up against a
bureaucratic nightmare. Before many make it through this
quagmire they have passed on without being fairly
compensated. Veterans must wonder why the country they
served so valiantly now serves them with such contempt.
I want all my colleagues in the House to consider the
following figures. The average turnaround time for veterans
who apply for benefits is 18 to 20 months. That is at the first
level. Due to the fact that the benefit of the doubt clause has not
been appropriately applied only 30 per cent of cases are
accepted. That is almost two years for veterans who are
currently at the average age of 73 years old.
(1710)
On the advice of their independent advocates many appeal
their cases, and this can take up to three years. Of those who
appeal, 70 per cent end up receiving benefits and many may only
receive a portion of the expected entitlements. This situation is
unacceptable.
We are making thousands of veterans in their advanced years
wait almost five years to receive benefits. Currently there is a
backlog of 12,500 cases and 10,000 more veterans are expected
to apply for benefits this year.
After being chastised by the subcommittee on veterans affairs
the government promised to act on behalf of veterans to correct
this shameful situation. Bill C-67 is the government's answer.
I have been told the main intent of this piece of legislation is
to cut the existing turnaround time for veterans' disability
pensions by up to half without affecting veterans' benefits or
their appeal rights. I have been assured by the minister and the
deputy minister that the department will achieve their stated
goal within two years.
9443
My main concern, however, has been to determine whether
such an objective is feasible without adversely affecting the
rights and benefits of veterans.
For well over one month now I have been deliberating over
this piece of legislation. During this time I have consulted with a
number of veterans and veterans' organizations. After careful
consideration and in the best interests of all Canadian veterans I
must come out in opposition to Bill C-67. The bill adversely
affects the rights and the benefits of veterans.
Even though the Liberal government claims to have the best
interest of veterans in mind, this piece of legislation was drafted
and approved by cabinet without consulting veterans' groups.
This lack of consultation with the grassroots was particularly
ominous given the fact that after cabinet approval the
government informed groups that were more favourable to the
proposals first.
The National Council of Veterans was informed of the
department's proposals in March 1994, while the Royal
Canadian Legion, the army, navy and air force veterans were not
consulted until the summer of 1994. Why this unacceptable
disparity?
It is also disturbing to note that Bill C-67 was not based on the
advice of veterans but on the advice of two management
consulting firms. This lack of consultation with grassroots
veterans is evident throughout this piece of legislation.
One of my prime concerns is that Bill C-67 removes the right
of the veterans to have their first level application prepared by
the Bureau of Pensions Advocates. Under the current system
each veteran has the application prepared by a trained,
independent lawyer. In addition each veteran enjoys
solicitor-client privilege. There will be reference to
solicitor-client privilege throughout this speech because I find
it very important.
However, the government claims that the use of the bureau by
the veterans at the first level is too time consuming and is
largely responsible for the 18 to 20 month turnaround. Yet if we
turn to page 50 of the report ``Keeping the Faith into the Future''
we find the breakdown of the time. The report from the Senate
committee states that the time required to process a claim at the
first level in the department, the Department of Veterans
Affairs, was 11 to 13 months and only 5 months with the bureau.
In my own investigations I found that most of the time it was
two months with the bureau. One must also ask: if the bureau
overprepares its cases, why are 70 per cent of them turned down
at the first level?
(1715 )
The removal of the Bureau of Pensions Advocates from the
first level process is ominous for a number of reasons. First, the
veteran is now reliant upon the department to prepare and
adjudicate his or her first level decision. This is not only a
conflict of interest but it removes the veteran's right of that
solicitor-client privilege. The importance of the solicitor-client
privilege cannot be understated.
In the subcommittee report on veterans affairs, ``Keeping the
Faith", Mrs. F. L. Crummer, a witness who has been battling for
six years with the department, most eloquently states the need
for solicitor-client privilege. She states:
An important consideration which must not be forgotten is the average age and
education level of the clients serviced by the bureau and the fact that most of them
know little or nothing about how the system operates. Their link with the system
is their advocate, the person in whom they place their trust.
The solicitor-client privilege enshrined in the statute is one of the inherent
strengths of the bureau and of the pension act. It forms the basis for the trust
clients place in their advocate.
She goes on to say:
Changes could place clients in jeopardy and destroy their trust not only in their
advocate but ultimately in the system itself-. No changes should even be
contemplated to section 19 of the act which establishes the independence of the
Bureau of Pensions Advocates. I feel it must remain independent of the
department in order to properly service veterans and dependants.
I would like to remind this House that my primary concern is
to speed up the process without taking anything away from our
veterans.
Another concern I have with respect to removing the bureau
from the first level decision making process is that veterans will
be dealing directly with the department whose employees have
been known to not have the best attitude. Mr. Cliff Chadderton,
chairman of the National Council of Veterans Associations,
recently stated:
The problems which occurred in regard to the old legislation were, in our
view, largely ones which might be attributed to either attitude, lack of
knowledge or possibly incompetence. In other words, regardless of the
framework of the new legislation the results will depend upon the manner in
which the administration thereof is carried out-. The ability to reduce delays in
adjudication will depend upon the will of the administrators to make the system
work.
Knowing that an attitude problem exists within the
department, I find it incomprehensible that the department
believes it can offer veterans a better service than the Bureau of
Pensions Advocates. What veterans face at the first level could
be an indifferent or incompetent pension officer who lacked the
will or the knowledge to inform veterans to pursue benefits to
which they are entitled.
I am also concerned that veterans may not be informed they
are able to apply for an appeal of the department's decision.
Even if the pension officer has the best intentions, I am not
confident that applications they fill out will be as good as that of
the Bureau of Pensions Advocates.
9444
Let us examine once again the people we are dealing with
here. A 73-year old man or woman entering the Department
of Veterans Affairs used to go to the bureau and now they will
approach a counter-I am told that one of the biggest disability
claims is for hearing loss-and be instructed that they must fill
out the draft of the application form, a 10-page complicated
application form for their disability pension. Most elderly
veterans who find dealing with bureaucracy extremely stressful
would also find it too complicated to fill out.
Considering the fact that the veteran will be assisted by a
departmental pension officer without the solicitor-client
privilege, I am concerned that the application may also form an
entrapment whereby the veteran may mistakenly commit
incorrect information that is official on his record. The end
result would be a fast rate of first level rejections.
(1720 )
I foresee another difficulty with the bureau being removed
from the first level. Under Bill C-67 the size of the bureaucracy
will increase and the minister will get more power to influence
the department's internal affairs. Under these proposals the
minister may have undue influence over the whole decision
making process and the quality of service or the rate of
acceptance.
Departmental employees will be vulnerable to receiving
direction which could deter them from encouraging veterans to
pursue benefits and services to which they are entitled. They
will also be under pressure to take part in fiscal restraint. Even
an offhanded remark by the minister could affect the way his
staff deals with veterans.
I would like to remind this House that my primary concern is
to ensure that the process is speeded up without taking anything
away from veterans. With the current rejection rate of 70 per
cent and an 18 to 20 month waiting period, I have no confidence
that the removal of the bureau from the first level will speed up
the process and improve the acceptance ratio. In fact advocacy
will suffer from the lack of continuity.
Currently an advocate from the bureau will deal with a
veteran from the first level to the review, to the appeal stages,
ensuring that the advocate is familiar with the merits of the
client's case. Under the proposed system the pension officer,
after the first level, will have no mandate to be involved in the
case whatsoever.
The case will be turned over to the bureau lawyer, who will be
unfamiliar with the case at that point in time. It will be passed on
to him and in my opinion that will cause further delay. He will be
unable to properly advise the veteran on the merits of his appeal
until after some time considering his application. At this point I
must ask a number of important questions.
First, how can veterans believe that the counsellor is acting on
their behalf and that the information they give, which is in
confidence, will not be used against them when the department
is also adjudicating the decision?
Second, who exactly will adjudicate decisions at the first
level and how will they be trained?
Third, how will the removal of the Bureau of Pensions
Advocates from the first level decision speed up the decision
making process when currently the initial application at the
bureau level is such a small part of the delay? The delay is in the
department, not with the bureau.
Fourth, will a fast rejection rate at the first level lead to even
more congestion at the appeal level?
Fifth, given the fact that the government promises to halve the
backlog within two years, where exactly will the promised
savings in time be made?
A second aspect of this piece of legislation that concerns me is
the proposal to join the BPA, the Bureau of Pensions Advocates,
to the department. Again, I am concerned about the chances of
conflict of interest arising and the lack of solicitor-client
privilege.
With the bureau restricted to hearing appeals and as a part of
the department, I feel that the bureau may no longer provide the
objective, expert, independent advice which it currently offers.
As departmental employees they may become party to any cost
cutting or ratios alluded to by the minister because they will now
be answerable to superiors within the department. I fail to see
how this will serve the best interests of the veterans.
A third aspect of this legislation which concerns me is the
merging of the Canadian Pension Commission with the Veterans
Appeal Board. From my research I have determined that
currently the pension commission has a much more restrictive
view of what constitutes a disability than does the Veterans
Appeal Board. However, when working independently they
provide a system of checks and balances.
The proposed amalgamation of the boards could see the more
liberal policy of the Veterans Appeal Board watered down,
which would adversely affect veterans rights and benefits. This
would not be acceptable to me or to the Reform Party.
In addition, I am concerned that the proposed veterans review
and appeal board will not examine base their examination of
each review and appeal on the merits of each case. Rather it
would decide whether the department followed its own stated
policy and procedure. This would be a further erosion of
veterans rights and benefits.
(1725)
A fourth aspect of concern is the proposal that the review
panel in clause 23, the appeal panel in clause 32, the minister in
clause 82, be given the right on their own motion to reconsider a
9445
decision they have made and amend or rescind that decision if it
determines that an error was made with respect to any finding or
fact or interpretation of any law.
This power is unprecedented. In court one cannot be tried for
the same crime twice after sentencing. This is not due process.
In fact I wonder if this is even constitutional.
When I met with the deputy minister to discuss this bill, he
assured me there was no need to worry about apparent conflict of
interest, lack of client-solicitor privilege or attitude among the
department employees. He argued that veterans will be given the
benefit of the doubt at all levels of decision making.
How can I possibly be confident that the department will
apply the benefit of the doubt when it has not been used liberally
in the past? The benefit of the doubt was given to adjudicators
under the Pension Act and the Veterans Appeal Board Act to
improve the odds of veterans receiving early acceptance.
The commissioners and members of the Veterans Appeal
Board were, as stated in the act, to bend in favour of the
applicant. Yet in practice this does not happen. As pointed out in
the subcommittee on veterans affairs report, the commission did
not apply the benefit of the doubt but rather rubber stamped the
advice of the pensions medical advisory.
Why now should the department be trusted to apply the
benefit of the doubt? No wonder the Bureau of Pensions
Advocates over prepares cases.
I would like to sum up my remarks by stating that Canada and
Canadians have a legal obligation under the Pension Act to pay
compensation for death and disability relating to military
service. In addition to the legal obligation I feel that we also
have a moral obligation to support veterans in a reliable and
timely manner.
I understand the government is trying to rush this bill through
the House. I have numerous reservations about the effect of this
bill.
The Royal Canadian Legion which represents 240,000
veterans also has numerous concerns. I just received a letter
from the dominion president the other day in which he lays out
many of the concerns. He states: ``In light of these concerns, the
Royal Canadian Legion considers it to be most important for the
parliamentary committee to deal with and resolve the concerns
before endorsing the legislation. At the same time, it is
recognized that there is a need to move quickly. The Royal
Canadian Legion stands ready to contribute to the process''.
In conclusion, I would like to read once again from ``Keeping
the Faith: Into the Future''. I would like to commend the people
who sat on that committee, particularly the Hon. Jack Marshall
who has recently retired. It is a superb piece of work.
On page 85, Prime Minister Sir Robert Borden articulated
Canada's obligation to veterans when he addressed the soldiers
about to depart for the Battle of Vimy Ridge in 1917.
He said: ``You can go into action assured of this and as the
head of government I give you this assurance, that you need to
have no fear that the government and the country will fail to
show you just appreciation for your service to the country in
what you are about to do and what you have already done. The
government and the country will consider it their duty to provide
to the returned men its just and due appreciation of the
inestimable value of the services rendered to the country and
empire and that no man, whether he goes back or whether he
remains in Flanders, will have just cause to reproach the
government for having broken faith with the men who won and
the men who died''.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
And the division bells having rung:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 45, the division on the question now before the House
stands deferred until Monday at the ordinary hour of daily
adjournment, at which time the bells to call in the members will
be sounded for not more than 15 minutes.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think
you would find unanimous consent to further defer the vote from
Monday at the time of adjournment until Tuesday at 5.30 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
9446
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 5.30 p.m., the
House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
9446
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ) moved that Bill C-273,
an act to amend the Interest Act, be read the second time and
referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am both disappointed and appalled as I
rise in the House to speak to Bill C-273, an act to amend the
Interest Act. You will understand my frustration when I explain
how I became aware of the fact that the Interest Act is totally
ineffective.
I am a notary by profession. Over the years, I have finalized at
least 5,000 real estate transactions involving either sales or
financing. In 1981 and 1982, a steep rise in interest rates forced
mortgage holders to renew their mortgages at 18, 19 or 20 per
cent, and I even saw a second mortgage renegotiated at 24.41 per
cent.
When rates settled to more civilized levels, the same
taxpayers-of every political stripe, by the way-tried to
renegotiate their mortgages to take advantage of the sudden drop
in interest rates. Mortgage lenders argued, not unreasonably,
that they themselves had borrowed on term deposits at very high
rates.
They found a sympathetic ear in the Minister of Finance at the
time, a Liberal, and I am referring to Marc Lalonde who was
Minister of Finance in 1983 and who told us at the time that the
banks had initially borrowed the money at high rates and that
changing the rules of the game at this point might put them in a
rather difficult situation. I could see that, and I think the
members of the House of Commons at the time understood the
situation.
Could I perhaps ask the Speaker to urge our Reform Party
friends to be silent?
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I wonder if we
could ask for the co-operation of the House while the member
has the floor. If there are discussions that have to take place,
they might be held outside the Chamber behind the curtains or in
our respective lobbies.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Soaring interest rates in 1981 and 1982 were very
damaging for small owners of rental buildings and owners of
apartment buildings.
(1735)
Some had to borrow, also at high rates, against other assets
they had, the money they needed to fill the gap imposed by this
sudden hike in the interest rates. I remember a real estate
transaction involving two rental properties with 12 apartments
in which the vendor, already choked by his mortgage lender, a
bank, one of the big six, had to pay out $56,000 in dollars of the
time in interest penalty for breaking his mortgage. In the United
States, the federal law on housing provides that no penalty may
be charged for breaking a mortgage, and yet the American
economy seems to be in good shape.
In the face of the outcry against such abuses, the Minister of
Finance had asked bankers to take themselves in hand and show
a human face to their mortgage borrowers. How pure of the
minister. Taxpayers were nevertheless understanding and, as
always, reacted calmly to the problem. Because of a lack of
political will on the part of the Liberals of the time, they as usual
bore the entire cost of the mess.
Since then, interest rates have been civilized, although
recently, because of the collapse of the Mexican currency, we
are told, they have tended to rise. When interest rates dropped
recently to 5.25 and 5.5 per cent per annum, this was the time for
the party in power to act. The situation that existed in 1982-83
had evaporated. There was therefore no way the banks could be
taken by surprise now. Last summer, the banks paid 2, 2.5 and 3
per cent on term deposits and charged 5, 5.25 5.5 per cent on
loans.
You know, Mr. Speaker, 2,500,000 people are having to deal
with a mortgage in Canada at the moment. They are held hostage
by financial institutions and the market, not just by the financial
institutions, but by fluctuations in the market. This is becoming
distressing, and it affects our economy, not always predictably,
but certainly noticeably.
Outraged, Mr. Speaker? Yes indeed, and here is why. Private
members' bills are first drawn at random. The bill before us, Bill
C-273, has passed that stage. A private member's bill is next
referred to a sub-committee on private members' business,
comprising a majority of Liberals and Reform Party members
and a single member from my party.
This committee decides whether the bill will receive a simple
one hour debate, as in the present case, or whether it is to be
voted on. If it is decided that it will only get an hour's debate, the
whole matter is dropped at the end of that hour, it is is history,
over and done with. If, however, this committee decides that it
will be put to a vote, then the parties can express their opinions,
debate it and, after three hours of discussion, the member's bill
is put to the vote.
There is no doubt that if a majority of members in the
committee is afraid that a member's bill may be passed into law,
they assess the impact on their constituents, their supporters
and, indeed, on their financial backers. In that case, it is either
9447
debated for three hours or referred for an hour's debate like this
one.
There is no need to spell it out. If it were passed, the bill
before us would cause the banks to lose huge sums which they
now collect in penalties.
(1740)
Last November, these poor banks declared overall profits of
$4.3 billion at the end of their fiscal period, no doubt after
having made provisions for bad debts and withheld taxes owing;
$4.3 billion, imagine that.
Why did the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business,
in which our friends opposite and beside us call the shots,
oppose putting the bill before us to a vote? Could it possibly be
because the six big chartered banks each contributed an average
of $250,000 to the Liberal Party of Canada during the last
election campaign? One might think so.
This obscure committee did not include the interests of the
Canadian taxpayer in its decision, but only those of its financial
backers. There you have the results of politicking, an art the
Liberals have mastered.
Reform Party members are learning quickly too now that they
are aiming to form the next government. God forbid! For
Canadian taxpayers, the lesson to be learned in all of this is that,
if a vote is sure to be won, you are the last ones to be considered.
I would like to warn the members who are in the majority in
this committee about their attitude in this case. I plan to send to
all regional and national newspapers in their ridings a copy of
Hansard including this debate, so each and every one of them
will have to explain why they refused to put the bill before us to
a vote.
Coming back to the bill, I can see right away from the reaction
of my colleagues opposite that they will claim such a measure
might harm certain investments. I rather doubt that and I shall
tell you why.
At present, a loan granted for more than five years can be
repaid in advance provided that a sum equal to three months'
interest is added to the capital and interest due. For a few years
now, however, the Bank of Montreal has given out loans for
seven years or even more.
Nor is there any validity to the argument that such a procedure
would mean that individuals who invest their savings for the
long term in banks would lose money. If people want to get a
relatively high return for their investment dollar, a return that is
competitive with bank rates, they can always buy Canada,
Quebec, Ontario or other savings bonds, or municipal bonds.
Municipalities are not known for the bad habit of reimbursing
their debts before the end of the term. Therefore, these people
will nevertheless be paid the interest that they are entitled to
receive.
Section 93 of the consumer protection act that took effect in
Quebec in 1976-77, I believe, prohibits any creditor from
demanding from a consumer any payment in addition to that
which is due on the day of payment-the act makes no mention
of mortgages, because the Interest Act falls under the
jurisdiction of the federal government.
Therefore, as long as you are not a business person, because
the Consumer Protection Act only applies to individuals, no
penalty will apply if you pay off your television or car early.
This did not prevent finance companies, business people in
Quebec from doing business. What may have slowed them down
more was the negative impact that a provision of the Interest Act
had on Canada's economy in general.
When people who could get other financing elsewhere are
compelled to go to the end of their mortgage terms or pay
astronomical amounts, that could hurt the province's and the
country's economy, in my opinion.
(1745)
In 1976, the Hon. Anthony Abbott of the Liberal Party, the
predecessors of the people on the other side of the House,
introduced Bill C-16. This bill was a ``providing for'' bill. It
provided for the protection of borrowers and depositors, for the
regulation of interest rates on judgment debts and was to repeal
the Interest Act. Since 1867, the Interest Act had not been
substantially amended and had only been changed to include the
Northwest Territories and the Yukon. The bill, which probably
was killed through pressure from lobbyists, big banks or some
other source, proposed to cancel or repeal the Interest Act.
Clause 15 of that bill provided that any borrower who pays off
early all or part of the principal of a mortgage under the
preceding subclause is not obliged to pay, on the early payment,
the greater of the penalties stipulated in the loan
agreement-i.e. in the contract-the penalty payable being the
lesser of the interest payable for a period of three months or the
interest which would have been payable if the loan had run to its
term.
In other words, the lesser amount of the two; a maximum of
three months' interest or less than that amount, if in fact a
shorter period was left on the term. And that penalty was to be
calculated on the amount of the early payment at the interest
rates applicable to the loan.
When I introduced my bill, I was not aware that this bill had
been introduced in 1976. I discovered it when I was doing my
research. This bill does not come from the Social Credit Party of
Canada, the party of infinite love or the transcendental
meditation party; it comes from the Liberal Party, from the
people sitting opposite us. Why did they renounce their
principles?
9448
What has happened to that party since then? Did they get
contaminated by the Reform Party? I know that they are against.
If a group in Canada has been penalized by the measures in the
Interest Act, it is the western farmers. As we know, western
farmers are expecting large payments. Do they get paid when
they sell their crops or do they rely on their various insurance
policies or on income stabilization plans? I do not know. But the
fact is that they sometimes have to wait a while before they
receive their money. In the meantime, they have to secure their
loans by taking out a mortgage. Since they need money to tide
them over for a certain time, they borrow from the banks.
They are perhaps among those hardest-hit in Canada because
of the large amounts they borrow on a regular basis, almost
annually, while waiting to receive the amounts owed them.
I am disappointed because I sincerely believed that, political
games aside, this bill was aimed at protecting for once-it is not
much, just once-ordinary people who have trouble paying their
mortgage. I thought that all members of this House, whatever
their party, would automatically look after the interests of
ordinary people, of those who allowed them to sit opposite us.
But they were fooled once again by powerful lobbies and
monopolies putting pressure on them and saying, ``Listen, I do
not want to lose my $4.3 billion''.
According to press reports, it will probably be worse next year
because of the economic recovery. Their net profits may exceed
$4.3 billion. Of course, together they can give $1 million, $1.5
million or $2 million to the party that can promise them not to
touch the Interest Act, so they do not lose astronomical amounts
in penalties like those they lost, I gather, unfairly.
I also wanted to table this bill for my constituents in the riding
of Chambly for whom I worked for 15 years as a notary,
handling transactions and mortgages. I saw some of them leave
my office with tears in their eyes. I saw people who could no
longer make their payments put the key on my desk and tell me,
``Please give it to the bank manager; I am going to rent an
apartment in Montreal because I can no longer make my
payments''. I saw that in 1982 and 1983. It was heartrending.
(1750)
When I decided to go into politics, one of the promises I made
to the people of Chambly was to try to persuade the government
to amend this act, which struck me as inhuman, as Mr. Lalonde,
the finance minister at the time said, but then he asked the banks
to implement their own controls. It is a bit like asking a fox, who
has already made it into the henhouse, to eat only a few. It is like
turning the blood bank over to Dracula. It amounts to almost the
same thing.
I say to the people of Chambly, at least I have tried. Those of
you who are watching can see that I have tried to change things. I
am disappointed that it did not pass. And it was because of
ignorance, the wish to do nothing of certain of my colleagues,
most of them, unfortunately, from the party in power. I say to
them that we will not give up, and that we will try again, perhaps
at a time when they are less worried about their corporate
constituents, the banks, and come back to the charge with a
similar bill.
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Hamilton West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
regrettably the hon. member for Chambly significantly weakens
his debate for his private member's bill when he makes the far
reaching and one might say ridiculous argument that his bill did
not win three hours of a debate in this place because Liberals
would be embarrassed by his act to amend the Interest Act.
I remind the hon. member opposite that there have been a
number of private member's bills introduced by thinking,
backbench government Liberal members which run counter to
the suggestions of a minister; but still received three hours of
debate and a vote. The most recent that I can recall was the
private member's Bill C-226, an act to rescind section 745 of
the Criminal Code which received three hours of full debate in
this place and carried on a vote by the members of this place.
On the matter at hand, I consider it a privilege to speak to Bill
C-273, an act to amend the Interest Act. Let me begin by
commending the hon. member for Chambly for his well
intentioned effort on behalf of Canadian mortgage borrowers.
The bill before us calls for changes to section 10 of the
Interest Act. It only calls for the words ``12 months'' to be
substituted for the words ``five years'' in two places in that
section.
At first sight this appears to be a small change but I am
concerned that what may seem like a small change could have
far reaching consequences. I am worried that what on the surface
appears like a consumer friendly improvement may in practice
be quite the reverse. If this legislation were to pass mortgage
financing for Canadians could become less available and
mortgages could be higher and the range of financial
instruments available to Canadian borrowers and savers could
be reduced.
I want to demonstrate to my parliamentary colleague opposite
why such a simple change would have negative consequences.
The difficulty is that this bill could inadvertently hamper the
flow of funds into the mortgage market by increasing the risks
associated with mortgage lending. Hon. members may recall
that section 10 of the Interest Act provides for a penalty
equivalent to three months interest in the prepayment of the
outstanding principal after five years on conventional
mortgages with terms greater than five years.
The bill under consideration, this bill, would extend these
same provisions; that is, a penalty of three months interest for
9449
prepayment of outstanding principal after only one year on
mortgages with terms greater than one year.
As hon. members and many Canadians are aware, long term
mortgages are uncommon in Canada. The vast majority of
mortgages in this country are issued with terms of five years or
less.
(1755 )
One might ask why this lack of long term financing?
Unfortunately the prepayment penalty provision in section 10 of
the Interest Act is a real factor. This has been recognized by
consumer associations, financial institutions, as well as the
construction and real estate industries.
Now we have today's proposed legislation which could
compound, not improve problems with timely mortgage
financing because by adopting Bill C-273 we would risk similar
results in the medium term mortgage market. Prepayment
penalties for short and medium term mortgages are usually
based on the present value formula which compensates the
lender for differences in rates which would apply. This amount
may be more or less than the three-month penalty proposed by
the bill.
We have to recognize the cascading effects such a problem
would create. Nervousness about such losses would effect the
availability of not only mortgages but also medium term GICs.
In turn, the resulting less efficient, smaller mortgage market
would have negative implications for the construction and real
estate industries.
Let me reiterate. I understand this bill has been put forward
with good intentions, that it was tabled with the welfare of
consumers in mind. However, in deciding whether Bill C-273
should go forward to committee, hon. members must bear in
mind the unintended but adverse consequences which could
flow from this bill.
In summary, these consequences include reductions in the
choices that will be available to Canadian consumers in their
capacities as mortgage borrowers and as savers, increases in the
cost of mortgage financing, reductions in the availability of
medium term mortgage funds, and adverse spill over effects on
the construction and real estate industries.
The hon. member for Chambly does, however, by introducing
this bill, underline the need for further consideration of how best
to provide Canadian consumers with the opportunity to prepay
mortgages in a fair and equitable way.
I understand that officials are reviewing this issue so that we
may very well come back to it in a very short period of time.
[Translation]
Mr. Lebel: Mr. Speaker, may I reply to his question?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): During the hour reserved
for private members' business, there is no provision for
questions and comments. The member presenting the bill in the
House has 20 minutes, and those who follow have 10 minutes,
with no questions or comments.
[English]
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I too wish to compliment the member for Chambly on
the intent of the bill. There is no question that his heart is in the
right place.
Many people in this House and most Canadians felt the shock
of the greatly increasing interest rates about 10 years ago. I
certainly did. Unfortunately while the intent of this bill is noble,
when we get the past the intent to look at the effects of this bill
and what would happen in the marketplace, the results may not
be quite as noble.
Before I get into my short comments about this I would like to
respond to a couple of comments that the mover of the bill from
Chambly brought into the debate. First was the notion of there
being some sort of ne'er do well doing in that this bill is not
votable.
I think there are 30 bills brought forward. Of that I believe
about six or eight are votable. The decision on whether a bill is
made votable is based on the content of this private member's
bill as tested against all other private members' bills.
Sometimes they are found lacking and sometimes they are
not. My private member's bill was not votable. I felt badly about
it but that is the way the cookie crumbles. We have to deal with
it. Another item was brought into this debate. The banks are
hugely profitable and therefore we should change this. The
banks make all kinds of money and therefore nobody likes
banks. I do not like banks any more than anybody else but banks
are a part of our life. They are a necessary evil.
(1800)
Banks have had an increase in taxes over the last few years of
something in the region of 40 per cent. In fact they pay a fairly
hefty bite of their profits as taxes.
As we all know banks have been increasing their service fees
for everything because they are trying to get out of the cyclical
nature of recovering all of their cost by interest as well.
The whole notion of the profitability of banks in this debate is
a moot point. It does not have anything to do with what we are
talking about. Banks make a contract to lend money to a client,
the client makes a contract with the bank to repay the money.
If people wish and are in a position to prepay a loan for
whatever reason, then it would be nice if the lender would be in a
position to make it easy for them to do so. However for the
number of people who would like to renegotiate loans when
interest rates go down probably does not match the number of
9450
people who would like to renegotiate a loan when interest rates
go up. I do not think I have heard of anyone going into a bank
and saying: ``I understand that interests rates have gone up.
Therefore I want to renegotiate my loan so I can pay more
money''.
A contract is a contract. When depositors put money on
deposit and buy interest bearing certificates at a bank, the bank
generally matches those deposits with lending.
Perhaps we should consider letting the marketplace decide. If
it is in the best interest of the bank, and some do, to ensure that
their customers are able to have more flexibility in their
mortgage loans, then they could advertise that they will be
prepared after one year to allow the customer to collapse the
loan, prepay three months interest and be out of the contract.
Most banks have open mortgages, one-year mortgages,
six-month mortgages, five-year mortgages and ten-year
mortgages. The Home Builders' Association would like to see
much longer term mortgages so that people would be able to
lock into a mortgage, perhaps even over its life, until it is totally
amortized. This is done in the United States. Then when
someone buys a home they know what their payments are going
to be from the time they make their first payment until the time
they make their last and the vagaries of interest rates will not
drive people out of their homes. That again is another debate and
another story.
Some lending institutions will lend money for mortgages in
this country this very day that consider their mortgages fully
open and will allow people to prepay without penalty at any
time.
We should allow the natural competitive forces in a healthy
marketplace make these decisions. We have many fish to fry in
this Parliament. We should let the private sector do what the
private sector should do and not further involve the government
in more details that should be handled by the private sector. We
should be getting out of business, not getting into business.
While the member for Chambly brings to the House a
well-intentioned motion perhaps it also contains a bit of
quicksand. I would suggest that if people are looking at this and
we absolutely must do something about it as a Parliament, we
might consider this. When a mortgage institution or a bank lends
money on a mortgage expecting to get a spread of 3 per cent
between the people who are lending money to the bank and the
people who are borrowing money from the bank, their profit is
included in that.
(1805 )
Perhaps the banks might consider giving up their portion of
profit. Certainly their expenses should be covered.
We are getting very complicated in this debate; at least I am
getting very complicated. It is not really our decision and our
job to decide what banks should do and how they should do it.
That is a job for a free, competitive and open marketplace.
[Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased
to support my colleague in this respect, and I think the hon.
member of the Reform Party should realize this is a bill to
protect the individual consumer who borrows money, not
companies. If I understood correctly, the bill is not concerned
with companies but individuals.
We all know that financial institutions, with their expertise,
can easily predict the vagaries of interest rates and are in a better
position to take advantage of that expertise than the average
citizen who has to make a living and does not have the resources
to be able to judge when he should pay up his mortgage or take
out a mortgage and for what period of time, and so forth.
That is why I think the flexibility the hon. member for
Chambly is seeking, to allow people to pay back their mortgages
and renegotiate them at a lower rate, would give the average
citizen, for whom a mortgage on his home is the only equity he
has, a chance to borrow a certain amount using the mortgage as
collateral, in order to save some money for later on when he
retires.
As the hon. member for Chambly explained, in the past we
have often seen people lose huge sums of money, mainly
because here in Canada we have a major problem. If we look at
the mid-seventies we had interest rates at fairly reasonable
levels of 7, 8 or 9 per cent. In 1981, 1982, 1983, interest rates
rose to 20 per cent and then went down to 7, 8 and 9 per cent, and
then down to 6 per cent in 1994. Last year, you could get a
mortgage at 6 per cent, and now we are up to 11 and 12 per cent.
Imagine what we have to cope with. I did not do a serious
analysis of the situation in other countries, but I know that in the
United States, you can still get a 30-year mortgage at a much
lower rate than we pay here. This kind of stability means that
wage earners with fairly stable incomes can budget their money
better. In this country, however, with these tremendous
variations in interest rates, people never know where they stand.
So if we gave individuals, since we are talking about private
mortgages, if we gave individuals a chance to at least budget for
their interest payments, it would help them balance their
budgets generally, give them greater confidence, and make them
more inclined to engage in real estate transactions, and in the
process, this would help the economy. I think that this is what
the hon. member for Chambly had in mind when he introduced
this bill, and I think this is important, but unfortunately, it would
seem this bill is being snubbed.
9451
I think we should have had more time to discuss the bill and
a chance to improve certain guarantees available to individuals.
Once again, financial institutions are very well organized.
They have their own experts who are able to evaluate the trends
and the way interest rates are going, but the average Joe who has
to learn a living does not have the resources to do this. That is
why I support the bill standing in the name of the hon. member
for Chambly.
[English]
Ms. Catterall: Mr. Speaker, you might find unanimous
consent to suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair and the
Adjournment Proceedings could commence at the normal time
of 6.30 p.m.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Since there are no more
members who wish to speak and the motion was not designated
as a votable motion, the hour provided for the consideration of
Private Members' Business has now expired and pursuant to
Standing Order 96, this item is dropped from the Order Paper.
[English]
I see the member for Louis-Hébert is present and as soon as
we have the person who will respond for the government the
Chair could reconvene prior to the normal hour, 6.30 p.m.
Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting to the call of
the Chair?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The sitting of the House was suspended at 6.12 p.m.)
_______________
The House resumed at 6.17 p.m.
9451
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I feel
compelled to rise in the House to ask the parliamentary secretary
to clarify an answer to a question I asked the Prime Minister
Monday.
I had asked the Prime Minister which customary or
parliamentary rule or law dictated that the Right Hon. Leader of
the Official Opposition could not meet the American President
during the latter's upcoming visit to Ottawa, at the end of
February. I also asked whether he considered it normal for a
Prime Minister to tell the President of the United States what he
can or cannot do.
Instead of answering my question, and being unable to find an
excuse for his emotional, partisan and inappropriate reaction
outside the House, the Prime Minister got tangled up in strange
and confused explanations and talked about the letter the Leader
of the Opposition had sent to Mr. Clinton requesting a meeting
with him.
Finally, he said that, since the letter was addressed to Mr.
Clinton, only he could respond to it. What we must understand
from this part of his answer, Mr. Speaker, is that he could not tell
the difference between a letter addressed to him and a copy of a
letter sent to him as a courtesy.
The Prime Minister also lapsed into vaudeville and the absurd
by pointing out to me that a meeting with the Leader of the
Opposition was not a universal practice and that he, as Leader of
the Opposition, had not always exercised this prerogative.
In fact he reminded me that the President of the United States,
Mr. Zedillo, had not met with the Leader of the Opposition
during his visit of last December. The Prime Minister must be
reminded that Mr. Zedillo is the President of Mexico.
Except for his pitiful medical diagnosis of the Leader of the
Opposition's state of health, which would make Hippocrates
blush, the Prime Minister in no way answered my question. On
what grounds did he decide that the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean could not meet with the American President?
After having so clumsily avoided answering my first
question, the Prime Minister gave no more of an answer to the
second one I put to him. Let me repeat this question: Now that he
admits that the leader of the Bloc Quebecois has the right to
meet with the U.S. president ``will the Prime Minister promise
he will not use pressure tactics or indulge in any
behind-the-scenes manoeuvring to try to discourage the U.S.
president from meeting the Leader of the Official Opposition?''
The Prime Minister's answer was short and sweet:
-in the normal course of events, President Clinton's letter should come from
Washington, not from Ottawa.
As you can see, this is not a promise not to use pressure
tactics. On the contrary. What is the meaning of the expression
``in the normal course of events'' in his answer? Does it not
clearly indicate that, in fact, the Prime Minister is not ruling out
a possible attempt to dictate the answer that will come from
Washington? The Prime Minister has mastered the art of
dodging questions, as he showed us again in this case.
9452
[English]
Ms. Jean Augustine (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be clear and succinct in my
answer which will also provide some information.
The question posed was answered by the Prime Minister in the
House on Monday afternoon. The visit of President Clinton to
Ottawa is an important event in the relationship between Canada
and the United States. The government is very much looking
forward to this, the first official visit of President Clinton to
Canada.
He will arrive during the morning of Thursday, February 23.
He will depart on the afternoon of Friday, February 24. The
program will involve the participation of our new Governor
General, a visit to Parliament, meetings with the Prime Minister
and members of the cabinet.
The leader of the Bloc Quebecois has sought an appointment
directly with the President of the United States for his time in
Ottawa. As the Prime Minister indicated on Monday in response
to the question, it is up to the United States to authorize such a
meeting.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Pursuant to Standing
Order 38(5), a motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to
have been adopted.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10
a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 6.22 p.m.)