CONTENTS
Thursday, March 24, 1994
Bill C-231. Motions for introduction and first reading deemed adopted 2706
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2708
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 140; Nays, 78 2710
Bill C-18. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment 2711
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2711
Mrs. Stewart (Brant) 2732
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2733
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2734
Mr. Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine) 2734
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2735
ORAL QUESTIONS
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2736
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2737
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2737
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2737
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2737
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2738
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2738
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2739
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2739
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard) 2739
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2743
Mrs. Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata) 2743
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2743
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2743
Bill C-18. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment 2745
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre) 2750
Mr. Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury) 2751
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2753
Bill C-18. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and of the amendment
2760
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 27; Nays, 155 2771
Motion agreed to on division: Yeas, 155; Nays, 27 2772
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referredto a committee.) 2773
2705
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Thursday, March 24, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
[
English]
The Speaker: Yesterday the hon. member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville rose in the House to
address the question of personal privilege which he previously
raised on February 15 and subsequently withdrew. The hon.
member claimed, at that time, that his ability to function as a
member of Parliament had been impeded. He shared with the
House a series of events relating to his academic credentials and
qualifications, comments made about him by the media, as well
as a threat by an anonymous telephone caller.
(1005)
Let me begin my ruling by defining for the House just what
constitutes parliamentary privilege. Erskine May in
Parliamentary Practice, 21st Edition, page 69, defines privilege
as:
-The sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively- and
by Members of each House individually, without which they could not
discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or
individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain
extent an exemption from the general law. Certain rights and immunities such as
freedom from arrest or freedom of speech belong primarily to individual
Members of each House and exist because the House cannot perform its
functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members-.
When any of these rights and immunities is disregarded or attacked, the
offence is called a breach of privilege and is punishable under the law of
Parliament.
Pursuant to our practice and convention, when the Speaker
rules on a matter of privilege all that is being decided is whether
the facts and evidence laid before the House are, in a prima facie
case, sufficient to allow the usual motion to be proposed and
debated over all other business leading to a decision of the
House thereon. This is clearly explained in Beauchesne 6th
Edition, citation 26:
(2) A question of privilege- is a question partly of fact and partly of law-the
law of contempt of Parliament-and is a matter for the House to determine. The
decision of the House on a question of privilege, like every other matter which the
House has to decide, can be elicited only by a question put from the Chair by the
Speaker and resolved either in the affirmative or in the negative, and this question
is necessarily founded on a motion made by a Member.
[
Translation]
(3) It follows that though the Speaker can rule on a question of order, the
Speaker cannot rule on a question of privilege. When a question of privilege is
raised the Speaker's function is limited to deciding whether the matter is of such a
character as to entitle the motion, which the Member who has raised the question
desires to move, to priority over the Orders of the Day.
[
English]
In other words my duty as Speaker is to decide whether the
hon. member for Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville has
presented sufficient argument to convince me that debate on his
situation should take precedence over all other House business,
and that the House should therefore consider the matter
immediately.
In coming to my decision on this matter I have reviewed the
decisions of many former Speakers.
Speaker Jerome in dealing with a similar case on June 23,
1977 ruled that:
-the protection of an elected person against unwarranted or intemperate
publicity, even abuses or defamatory publicity, is precisely that which is
enjoyed by every citizen before our courts.
[
Translation]
He went on to add that:
As elected people we can and do expect to be the targets of attack. When those
attacks seem offensive I think it is appropriate the Hon. Member is offered the
courtesy of the House to extend to his hon. colleagues an explanation of the
circumstances.
[
English]
He concluded that:
-when these matters do take place, if they go beyond the point of being
offensive to the point of being defamatory in a legal sense, certainly members
ought to and will I am sure pursue matters through the courts.
Speaker Jerome ruled there was no prima facie privilege in
that instance.
2706
A further case was raised on September 19, 1973. At that time
the member for High Park-Humber Valley stated that he had
received anonymous telephone calls warning him to cease
raising questions on a certain subject. He suggested these calls
amounted to attempts to intimidate him and prevent him from
carrying out his duties as a member.
(1010)
Speaker Lamoureux in ruling on the matter stated the
following:
[Translation]
The House will appreciate there is some difficulty in finding a prima facie case
of privilege in circumstances where no charge has been made and there has been
no suggestion in the House of any irregularity or impropriety. There is really
nothing for the House or one of its committees to consider under the heading of
privilege.
[
English]
He further stated:
I am sure the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley does not suggest
that his conduct should be sent to the committee for consideration or
investigation by it.
-The hon. member has indicated what the facts of the situation are- I
suggest that nothing at all would be gained by having a debate, either in the
House or in a committee, on the matter raised by the hon. member for High
Park-Humber Valley.
[
Translation]
To return to the present case, I have carefully reviewed the
statement made by the hon. member for
Markam-Whitchurch-Stouffville. Threats of blackmail or
intimidation of a member of Parliament should never be taken
lightly. When such occurs, the very essence of free speech is
undermined. Without the guarantee of freedom of speech, no
member of Parliament can do his duty as is expected.
[English]
While the Chair does not in any way make light of the
specifics that have been raised by the hon. member for
Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville, I cannot, however, say
that he has sufficiently demonstrated that a case of intimidation
exists such that his ability to function as a member of Parliament
has been impeded. I cannot therefore find prima facie privilege
at this time.
_____________________________________________
2706
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in
both official languages, the government's response to five
petitions.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Madam
Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages,
the second report of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Legal Affairs.
Pursuant to the order of reference, on Monday, February 14,
1994, your committee has considered Bill C-8, an act to amend
the Criminal Code and the Coastal Fisheries Protection Act
(force), and your committee has agreed to report the bill without
amendment.
* * *
Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean): moved for leave to introduce
Bill C-231, an act to amend the Divorce Act (granting of access
to, or custody of, a child to a grandparent).
She said: Madam Speaker, the motion is very simple. The bill
that I am presenting today would amend the Divorce Act to grant
access to grandchildren for grandparents upon divorce.
Often times in our society when families are torn apart in a
divorce it is the children who are hurt the most and require
someone who can help them put their world back together.
(1015 )
Grandparents are a prime source of the financial and
emotional assistance children need during this time in their
lives. The bill will remove the obstacles which sometimes arise
in a divorce that prevents grandparents from offering these
resources to their grandchildren.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and
printed.)
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Madam
Speaker, I am presenting a petition signed by 100,000
Canadians. It is part of a 200,000 name petition that asks
Parliament to ban the private ownership of handguns.
This petition was launched by Concordia University after four
of its professors were murdered in 1992 with an easily obtained
handgun.
The petition has been endorsed by 200 broadly based
organizations, including the police, which come from all across
Canada.
2707
In the petition they state that the rights of society associated
with the possession of handguns far outweigh any potential
benefits derived from their possession.
This is a petition asking Parliament to ban the possession of
handguns for private purposes.
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Madam Speaker,
pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am presenting a petition from
all parts of Canada dealing with gun control, especially the
banning of handguns for individuals.
This petition is further to the one from the hon. member for
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and is from the same source, namely
Concordia University.
This petition also has 100,000 signatures and is for the same
purpose, namely to ask the government to pass legislation
forbidding anyone in Canadian territory to own a handgun,
except for members of the Canadian Forces and peace officers in
the performance of their duties.
[English]
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Madam
Speaker, on the anniversary of Greek independence, I have the
honour to present a petition signed by 1,200 Canadian citizens
of Greek ancestry from the Vancouver region.
They ask that the government refrain from recognizing the
republic of Skopje within the former communist federal state of
Yugoslavia until such time as it guarantees to respect the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of existing states as
established in the treaty of Bucharest of 1913 and the World War
I and World War II peace treaties.
* * *
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Madam Speaker,
I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
Also, due to a misunderstanding the minister for heritage was
unavoidably detained and arrived late for the tabling of
documents and statements by ministers. I am wondering if the
House would give its consent to revert to tabling of documents
and then to statements by ministers to allow the minister to
make a statement.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Shall all questions
stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are returning to
statements by ministers.
* * *
[
Translation]
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage):
Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2), I have the
honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the
report entitled ``Guiding Principles and Operational Policies for
Parks Canada''.
(1020)
Following the tabling of this document, I will make a
ministerial statement to inform members of this House of the
government's vision regarding the future of national parks and
historic sites, as well as the promotion and development of our
identity and national heritage.
Madam Speaker, this is a special day for all Canadians. With
the tabling of the Parks Canada ``Guiding Principles and
Operating Policies'', yet another step is taken in entrenching
and securing the national heritage of Canada.
It is a rare day in any democracy when a minister can table
principles and policies for a nation in the full knowledge that
two other colleagues now sitting on the side opposite have
participated in their formulation.
I would like to acknowledge the roles played by the Leader of
the Opposition, the hon. member for Lac-Saint-Jean, and the
hon. member for Sherbrooke, now the leader of the Progressive
Conservative Party. To have such a consensus regarding a policy
is a rare occurrence indeed.
[English]
As Canadians, we value our freedom, our clean environment,
the beauty and natural wilderness and the paths of human
endeavour which have brought us to where we are today. The
sense of wonder and reverence we feel as we learn about past
human activities that have laid the foundation of our country
stimulate a profound concern for ensuring the survival of
historic places, artefacts and structures.
Despite pressures on our environment and on our heritage
resources Canadians should be assured that our national parks
and national historic sites will be protected and well managed
for future generations to enjoy. Our national parks and national
historic sites will not be worn down or worn out through overuse
or neglect.
Of course since the last policy statement in 1979 there has
been a greater sense of urgency in the Canadian public on
environmental, ecological and heritage matters. There has been
a swell of public sentiment nationally and internationally creat-
2708
ing an expectation of leadership in the care of the environment
and preservation of natural and cultural heritage.
[Translation]
According to recent surveys, 90 per cent of Canadians want to
have more information about our country's history. The national
historic sites and related heritage programs go a long way
toward filling this knowledge gap.
Each year, one-third of Canadians travel to participate in
heritage activities across the country. Canada's national parks
and national historic sites are cornerstones of our domestic and
international tourism industry. More than 30,000 jobs are
associated with Canada's national parks and historic sites. They
make a contribution to our national economy in excess of one
billion dollars per year.
Parks Canada, through its application of the principles and
policies, will maintain the integrity of natural and cultural
heritage, while ensuring that parks and sites continue to play a
major role in the local, regional and national economy. It will do
this by ensuring that the management decisions affecting these
special places are made on sound and scientifically based
knowledge.
[English]
The programs administered by Parks Canada will continue to
have positive impacts on local communities. They will create
jobs and assist sustainable land use and ecotourism.
(1025 )
Highlights of the new Parks Canada policy include:
First, an update of the Parks Canada mandate to include its
responsibilities for national parks, national historic sites,
historic canals, heritage railway stations, Canada's heritage
rivers, marine conservation areas and federal heritage
buildings;
Second, guiding principles stressing that natural and historic
qualities will be maintained, that Canadians will be involved
and consulted, and that an orderly framework is provided for the
addition of new heritage areas; and
Third, a renewed emphasis placed upon partnership and
co-operation with other levels of government, communities and
the private sector.
[Translation]
This does not mean shifting the responsibility for preserving
and creating Canada's heritage to others. Our history, traditions,
and the environment require partnerships for implementation of
successful heritage programs and, ultimately, a stronger
leadership role for Parks Canada, nationally and internationally,
that will demonstrate and advocate environmental and heritage
ethics and practices.
National parks and national historic sites are symbols of the
Canadian identity and make all Canadians proud. In fact, I am
making this speech in what is designated as one of Canada's
national historic sites. And next to the Parliament buildings is
one of the ends of the Rideau Canal, one of Canada's heritage
waterways, administered by Parks Canada and subject to these
new policies.
[English]
On that positive note I conclude my remarks on the Parks
Canada guiding principles and operating policies.
[Translation]
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata):
Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity, as we
debate Parks Canada ``Guiding Principles and Operating
Policies'' tabled today in this House, to reaffirm that the Bloc
Quebecois will spare no effort to ensure that the beauty of
Quebec's and Canada's wilderness is preserved.
The minister was so kind as to remind the people of Quebec
and Canada what a key, positive role the Leader of the
Opposition has played in protecting our national heritage, and I
thank him for that.
But the minister is no doubt aware that the Bloc Quebecois
does not intend to just stand by if the government is remiss in
preserving the cultural heritage of Quebec and Canada. I am
convinced that, now more than ever, he knows that the Bloc
Quebecois will be every bit as vigilant with respect to natural
heritage.
When the Leader of the Opposition was minister of the
environment, he stated and I quote: ``One of the areas in which
the department is involved that I always find rewarding is the
parks system. Parks Canada represents such beauty and positive
things and is such a success that it is always encourages me to
carry out my duties. It is one of Canada's greatest achievements,
one which is recognized throughout the world. People must
realize that our parks system is not only a beautiful sight for us.
Other countries envy our national parks system''.
In fact, Canada with its parks system is considered as a leader
by conservation agencies world-wide. It is fitting for Parks
Canada to be a source of inspiration for all future Canadian
environmental policies.
The Bloc Quebecois will make sure that the government
fulfils its commitment to implement the concept of sustainable
development, as stated in the final report of the World
Commission on Environment and Development, the Brundtland
Report, entitled ``Our Common Future''.
It should be pointed out that, based on the concept of
sustainable development, economic development must be
compatible with the long-term preservation of unmanaged
ecosystems and survival processes. In Quebec and Canada, we
have known for over a century that this wilderness must be
preserved, not only for its unmistakable aesthetic beauty, but
also because of the causal relationship to be made between what
we do in that area and the benefits to be derived in terms of the
environment.
2709
(1030)
We therefore had to reconcile tourism and economic
development with environmental protection. Parks must be
developed to create jobs in tourism, of course, but never at the
expense of future generations.
As you know, there is still a lot to do. The national park
network must be completed. Canada's 39 ecoregions attest to its
riches and diversity. It would therefore be advisable to establish
a park representing every ecoregion.
We will improve and extend the national park network and
pay particular attention to the protection of the Arctic
environment. As you know, some planned park sites in the
Arctic had to be given up because of mining concessions. We
must take environmental repercussions into account every time
a government project or program is undertaken.
Thousands of jobs are tied to the preservation of this natural
heritage. We must also ensure that these sites are impeccably
managed, that expenditures are justified, and that includes
official residences, of course.
Finally, we emphasize the minister's commitment regarding
partnership and co-operation with other levels of government.
As he probably knows, Quebec did not get its fair share of
national parks. The government must step up its efforts to give
Quebec its fair share while respecting its prerogatives and
priorities.
The government must resolve all jurisdictional conflicts by
co-operating with Quebec, the other provinces and the
territories, particularly by taking into account the concerns of
local communities. It must seek the direct involvement of
Natives when it is needed.
In closing, regarding Parks Canada's updated mandate, may I
remind you that the Bloc Quebecois is happy that the mandate
has been updated and that the ten guidelines on protecting our
historic and natural heritage are being tabled today. We will, of
course, examine this document carefully.
Finally, let us recall that this work was undertaken at the
Department of the Environment under the leadership of the
Opposition Leader when he was minister. He put his stamp of
quality on it. His successor only has to follow in his footsteps.
[English]
Mrs. Sharon Hayes (Port Moody-Coquitlam): Madam
Speaker, I too would like to congratulate the hon. Minister of
Canadian Heritage on his presentation of the Parks Canada
guiding principles and operating policies. It is a result of a much
needed process. We agree that with the stress on the preservation
of the natural and cultural heritage and the care of our
environment, it is now of all times crucial to Canada to have
fresh insight into our identity and our vision as a country. This
indeed will be inspired by a fresh appreciation of our lands and
the recognition of the importance of exploring and developing,
renewing and conserving our natural resources and the physical
environment.
Any discussion of the management and preservation of our
natural heritage though leads us to the complex relationship of
the healthy environment and the human activity that must go
around that relationship. Federal leadership is necessary in the
integration of the economic, the human and the environmental
factors.
I suggest three considerations should be kept in mind: First,
the development of the ideas and the directions of this proposal
must be a balanced approach with equal weight in any decision
given to the economic, the social and the technical
considerations. Second, the operational and management
decisions of any mandate should be based on sound management
philosophies, structures, procedures and planning. Third, the
very great importance of communication and partnership with
any mandate with all provincial governments equally, with
private industry, with educational institutions and the public
itself to maximize the benefits to all of these.
(1035 )
Parks Canada now has a mandate that should be an example of
environmental stewardship and of economic stewardship both
nationally and internationally because as we seek to serve all
Canadian taxpayers, we need wise management. Those
Canadians are wage earners and consumers, therefore we need
consideration for jobs and resource management. Those
Canadians are citizens of a proud country that has been blessed
with a rich heritage and with amazing beauty.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I wish to inform the
House that pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)(b), because of the
ministerial statement Government Orders will be extended by
14 minutes.
_____________________________________________
2709
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)) moved:
That in relation to Bill C-18, an Act to suspend the operation of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be
allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill and, fifteen
minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the
allotted day of the second reading consideration of the said bill, any
proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of
this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the second
reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further
debate or amendment.
2710
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
to make a request of the Chair and to make a comment.
This House has been recognized as being one without
precedent by the fact that there are two new parties and 200 new
members in this House. In light of time allocation being
imposed upon this House, the reputation of all members is at
stake.
The vote on second reading of Bill C-18, an act to suspend the
operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, is
being restricted and, therefore, it will reflect-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am sorry. I do not feel
that is a point of order.
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, I was in the process of
trying to lay some foundation for a request I would like to make
to the Chair. Do I not have-
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I am afraid you were in
the process of debate, sir. Would you please get to your point.
Some hon. members: Put the question.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): A motion has been
moved and I am obliged to put the question to the House. This is
not a debatable motion.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those in favour of
the motion will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): All those opposed will
please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): In my opinion the yeas
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 23)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Caccia
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Duhamel
Dupuy
Easter
Eggleton
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jordan
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Maloney
Marchi
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mifflin
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pillitteri
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Wood
Young
Zed-140
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Blaikie
Brien
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Bélisle
Canuel
Chatters
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Cummins
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
2711
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gilmour
Godin
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Guay
Guimond
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Hoeppner
Jennings
Johnston
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Shefford)
Marchand
Martin (Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca)
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McLaughlin
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Ménard
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Ramsay
Riis
Ringma
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Solberg
Solomon
Speaker
Strahl
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Venne
White (Fraser Valley West)-78
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bouchard
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chan
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Dumas
Fillion
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Mercier
O'Brien
Parrish
St-Laurent
Young
(1115)
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I declare the motion
carried.
* * *
The House resumed from March 21, consideration of the
motion that Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time
and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Madam Speaker, I
finished my speech the other night at 6.42 and I am certainly
open to questions and comments.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Madam Speaker, I
listened with great interest the other night to the speech of the
hon. member for Beaver River who talked extensively about her
riding. We all remember the time she was first elected in the
House to represent the new riding of Beaver River. I had the
honour of being her assistant at that time and of assisting her in
planting the flag of Reform in the House of Commons. That was
a momentous day. Obviously she feels very strongly about some
of the proposed changes under the current scheme for her riding.
I was concerned during her speech on Monday. Some
comments were hurled across the way which maybe do not
appear in the Hansard transcript. They really raised questions
about the partisanship or lack of partisanship and integrity of
Elections Canada and its senior officials. There were a number
of comments hurled across the way to the effect that Elections
Canada was a partisan body. Its members have strong
affiliations to another political party which is no longer
recognized in the House.
The hon. member for Beaver River has been a member since
1989. She has run in two elections and a byelection. Could she
comment at some length on her experiences with Elections
Canada as a candidate and as a lone member of Parliament for a
good deal of time? Did she find that Elections Canada was a
partisan organization, that it had that kind of orientation, or was
she happy with her dealings with that organization as an
independent member and now as a Reform member?
Miss Grey (Beaver River): Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for his remarks. It is nice to have him as a colleague
again in the House of Commons, this time as a fellow member of
Parliament.
He has asked me to address the issue of how I feel about
Elections Canada. Before I answer the question I might just
answer how I felt about some of the remarks that were being
hurled across the House. I suppose I was partly amused but also
partly saddened by the consistent comments of the member for
Vancouver South. He kept saying loudly across the House as I
was speaking the other night: ``I will lose my riding as well. It is
not just Beaver River that is going to be dismantled''. The
member for Vancouver South was saying that his riding would
also be dismantled.
(1120)
That is all well and fine, but we need to draw the distinction in
the House that it could be one reason the government is trying to
ram the bill through so quickly, because he stands to lose his
seat. I am in the position of standing to lose my constituency as
well. In other words I will not have a place to run in the next
election if I choose to run again.
That is why I think it is more important for someone in this
party who stands to lose a constituency not to be so self-serving
as to say: ``Yes, let us put the whole process off''. Then I would
be serving my own interests and saying: ``Whew, I am safe. I can
carry on''. There is a real discrepancy when someone from the
other side was hollering: ``I will lose my seat''. It would be
perfectly natural then for him to support his government on
railroading the bill through Parliament and putting the whole
process on hold. There is a real difference of opinion there. As a
2712
matter of principle I am against it even though I stand to lose as
well through this process.
My dealings with Elections Canada have always been very
good. I have run in two general federal elections as well as one
byelection in the spring of 1989. Even though I was treated as
somebody who was almost literally a kook in western Canada
because I represented a new political party that nobody had ever
heard about and nobody knew anything about it, I must say the
people at Elections Canada were most fair with me in the general
election of 1988 and in the byelection of 1989 when we
surprised Elections Canada and the whole country of Canada
from sea to sea when I took 50 per cent of the vote.
Since then obviously my party has gained a great deal of
strength and steam across the country. When I ran as only one of
200 and some candidates in the general election of 1993 we had
undergone the process which is very general and very basic.
People were appointed as returning officers in their
constituencies. We underwent that in Beaver River because the
previous returning officer had retired. We were subject to a new
returning officer, Mr. Lorne Assheton-Smith from St. Paul.
Those are political appointments, as we all know. I will send this
comment in Hansard to Mr. Lorne Assheton-Smith, the
returning officer from Elections Canada in Beaver River,
indicating that he treated me fairly as a candidate and I have
absolutely no criticism whatsoever of Elections Canada.
The criticism I would have is not of the whole situation.
Maybe it is political to an extent with the Electoral Boundaries
Commission, but the question on everybody's lips is: if they
think they are replacing Tory hacks with something better,
heaven help government members who are ramrodding the
legislation through. They will do so at their own peril if they
replace them with hacks of another political party who they
think might serve their interests better. I think all of us would be
ashamed to see that happen.
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Madam Speaker, I can assure the
hon. member for Beaver River that we certainly will not do what
she assumes we will do when it is time to appoint people to these
commissions, because this is a very independent process, and
we certainly intend to abide by this principle.
However, if I remember correctly what she said in her speech
a few days ago, she did not entirely agree with the current
process. She also said that in her presentation to the
commissions, she would also express her dissatisfaction and
mention certain changes she would like to see.
She invited her constituents to do likewise. The hon. member
must know that the commission appointed to review the
boundaries of her electoral district does exactly that, in other
words, it receives submissions on new or existing boundaries
and is not at all concerned with the current process.
(1125)
My point is that if the hon. member comments on the process,
it will be a waste of time. Giving hon. members an opportunity
to do so, and the public as well, because the committee that
reviews the entire process will certainly ask members of the
public to come and testify, is the whole purpose of this bill.
[English]
Miss Grey: Madam Speaker, we are talking about particulars
the commission has come up with. Yes, I make no bones about it.
I think there are real weaknesses in that and I think Beaver River
deserves a longer life than it has had.
As I mentioned in my remarks the other day, it was a brand
new constituency in 1988. Will it just evaporate into thin air? I
do have problems with that. We have had negotiations with the
government but I have no guarantees. What guarantee do I have
that the system the government is talking about will be better? It
has not given us any options. It has not said that it wants to move
in this direction.
Yes, it makes me nervous. I am not going to sign on to
something with my party and say: ``Sure, let us come up with
something that may be just as politically motivated''. Canadians
would be really frustrated with that. Even though I am frustrated
with the proposals that are in place and I said that I would be
going to the hearings, I suspect now I am not going to have a
chance when I see the government bringing in time allocation. If
it is talking about the process it wants to take part in being so
important, why do we need to have it shot through Parliament
faster than the speed of light?
I sat in the House and my friend from the riding of Kamloops
has sat here too, listening to dozens upon dozens of members
who are on the government side now screaming against the
Tories last time all the dreadful things about time allocation. I
can hardly believe it when I look across the aisle now. Is this the
most important thing in Canada right now? Is this what this
government is going to be proud of down the road? Will it be
saying: ``This is what we forced time allocation on. The biggest
issue of the day was electoral boundaries''? I hardly think so.
I wanted a guarantee that some better process would be in
place. If this is going to take place, as I suspect the government
will be ramming it through, I would like a guarantee as a
Canadian citizen and as a member of Parliament in the House
that whatever changes the government makes it may grandfather
them and put them into the life of the next Parliament after this
2713
one so its fingerprints will not be all over it as the author of
perhaps what might be its own demise.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Waterloo): Madam Speaker, I want to
make sure the preachers on that side of the House have the
benefit of what I have to say. Unlike the last two occasions I
certainly hope they will actually ask me some questions.
Just to touch on the comments of the member for Beaver
River, she said she was amused and saddened. She wants a
guarantee that whatever the government comes up with will be
better. That is what the bill embarks on.
Let me say to the member that the reason we have to deal with
the issue this week given our recess is that if we do not do so we
will put in place a very costly process of having reviews on
boundaries that will not decrease the number of seats in the
House or maintain the number of seats in the House but will
increase the number of seats in the House by a total of six. I say
that because much is being said by the big R Reformers about
this bill being rammed through. What we have is a filibuster.
The local media in my community was very upset by what was to
transpire even though under the present situation Ontario would
gain four more seats. We want to look at the number of seats in
this Chamber. I can tell members that we should have the
opportunity to do that.
(1130)
We do not get the light every day on this side of the House.
Therefore we are unable to take a complex issue such as this and
give the members from the big R Reform Party assurance that we
can do it that speedily. We will send the bill to committee where
the members of the Reform Party can come forward as well as
every other member in every party in the House. They will be
able to bring us the reaction of their constituents. They will be
able to ask some of their constituents to be witnesses and over a
period of time we will come up with something better.
As I was looking at making a presentation today, I took the
opportunity to review what all members who spoke on the issue
had to say this past Monday. I can tell members that I feel
somewhat amused on the one hand and saddened on the other.
It never ceases to amaze me how the members of the big R
Reform Party, the ones that always preach free votes go ahead
and do the opposite and vote as a block. One would think they
were tied together with Krazy glue. Perhaps when they go
through the exercise of coming up with a code of conduct, one of
the things they will definitely do is use Krazy glue.
Watching them in the House, I am very much reminded of
another great neo-Conservative, Margaret Thatcher, who is
passé now. I am reminded of another person. The Reform Party
members very much have a soulmate in the former President of
the United States, Ronald Reagan. He got elected promising to
cut the deficit and the debt. Of course the United States of
America became the biggest lender nation in the world when the
new right took control as the Reform dream about. He took the
country from the biggest lender to the biggest debtor. However
something that Ronald Reagan said is applicable here. It is that
phrase he always used so well, ``there they go again''.
Any time I review debates by the Reform Party that certainly
is the impression I get, there they go again. Let them preach. Let
them be sanctimonious. Do not give credit on any of the
initiatives.
When I reviewed the debates one of the things I found was that
for the most part they admitted they do not want to change the
size of the House of Commons.
Interestingly enough, there was not one person who would
support it because if we stay with the status quo, we will
definitely change the House of Commons by six members which
will cost us a million dollars a member. If one starts multiplying
$6 million by 10 years one has $60 million. Then one continues
on and keeps adding members to the House of Commons.
Certainly that was not what my constituents told me they
wanted to see done. My constituents told me they want us to do
more with less and to make the House operate more effectively.
(1135)
Let us be very clear we are talking about ramrodding a bill,
and we are talking about that. If we did not use time allocation
on the bill, we would not have the opportunity to change those
costly hearings that are going to take so much time and energy
on the part of Canadians. I think that is an important point to
know.
The suggestion has been made that the bill by the government
came through the back rooms of the Liberal caucus, that it did
not see the light of day with constituents, that somehow it was
all politically manipulated.
As soon as the electoral boundaries readjustment proposal for
the province of Ontario was put in place I received numerous
calls from constituents. I have had discussions with people
representing local governments. I was in the process of drafting
a private member's bill on this issue which called for
representations by members of the House of Commons without
increasing the total number of members. I was reflecting what
my constituents were telling me which was restricting the
number to at least the present size.
We also wanted to talk about making sure that the community
of interest represented by ridings was maintained. When I read
through the debates, I noted that the member for Beaver River
said that her riding would disappear and it only had the
opportunity to go through two elections.
2714
I read some other contributions from members of the Reform
Party who said that there is not one Canadian, not one
constituent that is upset with the proposals. I have to tell them
that they are wrong.
Back on December 17 the local paper, the
Kitchener-Waterloo Record stated in a story ``if you live in
Kitchener, Waterloo or Cambridge and think you have trouble
now figuring out who your MP is, just wait until the new election
if proposed riding boundary changes come into effect.
If the changes proposed by the Federal Election Boundaries
Commission for Ontario are accepted parts of Kitchener will be
tacked on to Waterloo riding, parts of Waterloo will be attached
to a largely rural riding, North Dumfries will be cut away from
Cambridge and part of Cambridge riding that used to be part of
the Kitchener riding will go back to Kitchener''. I am going to
spare you by not reading the whole story but it goes on and on.
Let me talk about what some of the civic leaders have to say.
Waterloo Mayor Brian Turnbull said he is really disappointed in
a redistribution that would see a large part of the city included in
largely a rural riding that has no historical ties to this part of the
province.
Woolwich township Mayor Bob Waters said he intends to
fight redistribution. I was talking to Mayor Lynn Myers of
Wilmot township which by the way was taken out from the
Waterloo region in the last redistribution process. I would like to
see a joint submission.
Now what did Mayor Myers say, whose riding was taken out
of the Waterloo region? Lynn Myers bluntly said ``Wilmot is not
happy in the riding of Perth-Wellington-Waterloo''. Now he
is worried about being lumped into a new urban riding that has
no natural ties, has an unholy alliance and it would be an
unhistoric alliance. He said that ever since redistribution he
hated every minute of it. That certainly is reflective of many of
the constituents involved.
(1140)
There was a story in the K-W Record yesterday that headlined
that Reform is filibustering, which is exactly what they are
doing. The editorial reads:
Common sense does take hold in Ottawa from time to time. Thank goodness it
has finally asserted itself over the issue of federal electoral redistribution. The
public is in no mood to pay millions of dollars to implement new boundaries
that, as far as the Waterloo region is concerned, make no sense. Nor are people
eager to shell out more money to expand the number of members of Parliament.
The ruling Liberals have wisely asked the Bloc Quebecois and Reform Party
to consider a joint suspension of redistribution until a parliamentary panel can
study the desired size of the House and the number of seats for each province.
It certainly does not sound like a community where nobody is
upset.
I know my friends in the Reform Party like petitions. We have
thousands of signatures on a petition which supports the
proposals in my private member's bill. As this thing goes
through over the course of the next two years there will be, I dare
say, thousands and thousands more. Who knows, maybe the
members of the Reform are just waiting for that one phone call
from a Canadian to be inspired. Maybe one Canadian will phone
and inspire them to start thinking about the issue, start thinking
about the actions we are taking today.
I would like to reiterate this because I think it is important. If
we did not act this week we would have those costly and useless
hearings held, if it were ever suspended, which would
inconvenience civic politicians, citizens and certainly every
member of the Chamber would be spending time at those
hearings.
Therefore, it is not a question of whether we agree with the
electoral commission in the sense that we think it did a good job.
Given its mandate it has no choice in holding the line on the
seats in the House of Commons. That is not an option. That
option belongs to politicians.
I despair to a large extent when I listen to the member for
Beaver River. She talked about the dirty fingerprints of
politicians. Every member of the House is a politician. Some
would like to be preachers and have their Sunday sermons and
others would like to spend their time on codes of conduct, but
Canadians elected them to bring their best judgment here. They
were elected as politicians. I can only say to them that by forever
questioning the ethics of this Chamber they do a great disservice
to this Chamber which is the greatest Chamber of debate in the
country.
I do not know what happens in the strategy room of the
Reform Party but I do know what happens in caucus at the
Liberal Party. First, let me state that in the Liberal Party we do
not spend our time looking at codes of conduct for our members.
There is the assumption that we are equal and that we know how
to run our lives. We do not pretend to be holier than the average
citizen. We are here to try to reflect and represent this country. I
hear my friends say that we should.
(1145)
Let the Reform Party be unanimous in their code of ethics. Let
them have a free and open debate on it. We would be very much
entertained. I am sure it would remind us of the great Jimmy
Swaggart hour on Sunday mornings.
I mentioned before that funny things happen during election
campaigns. In my riding of Waterloo a person who ran for city
council and did not succeed-actually he came after me in the
election-was a Reform candidate. This individual now fills my
seat on Waterloo city council.
2715
I have a great deal of respect for him. I could not quite
understand what happened to him that he was a Reform
candidate. Certainly some of the things he said did not make a
great deal of sense.
However he has supported the infrastructure program for the
city of Waterloo. He found good reasons to support it because he
saw that the work being done was good for the community and
good for the country.
Let me share this with you. It was moved by Councillor
Connolly, seconded by Councillor Hoddle at the February 21
meeting of council in Waterloo, that the present
recommendations of the Federal Elections Boundary
Commission for Ontario, of boundary changes to ridings in the
Waterloo region be redrawn and new boundaries be discussed
with all Waterloo regional municipalities and its members of
Parliament to arrive at a solution that keeps our region in tact. It
was passed unanimously.
Therefore there is a great deal of support for what this
government is doing. If we did not have to forever listen to and
argue with members on the preaching of sanctimony versus
reason we could have a committee composed of members of the
House of Commons. In the period of two years we could
certainly come up with something better. In that way this House
would work much, much better.
I am supporting this bill because not to do so would mean
supporting the status quo. That is why I call them big R
Reformers; they do not act like reformers even though they call
themselves Reformers.
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, I heard the hon.
member casting disparaging remarks about the Reform Party.
He likens us to Ronald Reagan who was elected as President of
the United States on the promise of reducing the deficit and
trying to get the massive debt under control.
There is a different system of government in Canada from
what the Americans have in the United States. In Canada the
executive branch and the legislative branch sit together whereas
Mr. Reagan had to contend with the Democrats who dominated
the Congress. In this government and in this Parliament the
executive and the legislative branches are one and the same.
Therefore they have much more power and ability to deal with
deficits and debt than Mr. Reagan did.
Does the member recognize and acknowledge that fact?
I listened to the hon. member's remarks on fighting
redistribution and heard that there was an uproar in his
constituency over this proposed redistribution. I do not hear that
uproar in my riding nor do I hear it in Canada. I do not see it on
the front pages of the newspapers; I do not hear it being
discussed. I continue to believe mightily it is an issue for
members of Parliament much more so than it is an issue for
Canadians.
(1150 )
I agree that one issue which is important to Canadians is the
expenditure of money. The almost $5 million which has been
spent to date will be lost if this government motion succeeds.
Furthermore, if the government is serious about capping the
number of seats then why is it not clearly stated in the bill that
the number of seats will be capped? If that were stated, the bill
would probably have the support of the Reform Party but it is
not. There is just a vague acknowledgement that the steadily
increasing number of MPs will be looked at, but there is no
commitment to stop it.
I ask the member for his comments on that.
Mr. Telegdi: Madam Speaker, I certainly know of the
separation of powers in the United States of America. I also have
had the good fortune to read the book by the leader of the Reform
Party. I certainly understand there is a close attachment to the
new conservatism that has died out in Great Britain and the
United States. Certainly the president had a great deal of
monetary policies to do with the incredible increase in the debt
of the United States. Let us be very clear on that.
The other point raised suggests that I cast aspersions that were
demeaning to the Reformers. I get Quorum like everybody else
and I see reference to their code of conduct. There is a member
of Parliament who refuses to dine alone with a woman even on a
professional basis. Another columnist talks about the pious
Reform caucus with a score of MPs more righteous and apt at
sermonising than Preston Manning. Another columnist writes
that now some holier than thou Reformers are putting together
their own code of behaviour. Who am I to say? I just read it and
some of it must be correct.
I have nothing against Reformers personally. Mr. Connolly
was a candidate against me in the last election. We got along
great on many issues and personally we get along very well, but
something does happen when they get into that group, close the
doors and decide on debate.
The member also raised the matter of money. He said that $5
million had already been spent. That is correct, but if we
continue with this process we are going to spend $3 million
more. If we put in six new members of Parliament we are going
to spend $6 million more every year.
If we continue with the process in the longer term we are
going to keep adding members to the House of Commons. We
would be knocking out those walls and the Reformers would
need binoculars to see the Speaker. 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.
2716
I mentioned the subject of my private member's bill. I am
willing to have everybody in this House and in committee sit
down to see how we can improve this place to better reflect the
constituents whom we represent. This must be dealt with in a
serious fashion. It must not be used as an opportunity to
filibuster. My wish and my hope is that we will come up with a
bill that is a great improvement over the one we presently have.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot): It always makes me wonder
when a member of the House stands up and criticizes other
parties and other members as to what their motivation is rather
than defending the bill his party has put forward.
(1155 )
It reminds me of question period when the Official Opposition
presses the government too closely on an issue. It continues to
drag up the old story that the Leader of the Official Opposition
was a member of the former government. Whenever that
happens it tells me that they are getting close to something the
government does not want to discuss and the pressure is being
placed on it by the Official Opposition.
When the member stands up and spends at least 50 per cent of
his time criticizing the Reform Party it makes me wonder what
he is afraid of. If the big R Reform movement in his constituency
is not already pressing him a little too closely, four years from
now he really will have something to worry about.
Nevertheless if this bill contained the means by which the
number of members in this House would be capped, then as my
colleague who asked the question before me stated there would
be support for that in the Reform Party caucus. That is what we
stand for. We do not need more representation across this
country; we need better representation, representation that we
have not received from either the Liberal or the Tory
governments.
When we talk about debt it is his government that began that
enormous slide into the debt hole. It left us with over $200
billion and another $300 billion was added by the Tory
government. Now we are at a point where organizations like the
Fraser Institute will not advise us. They say we may have gone
too far and we may face a debt crisis that is beyond our control.
Will the member address the reason the capping of the number
of members in this House is not within the bill itself. To me it is a
farce when he stands up and talks about capping the number of
members in this House because it ought to be in the bill but is
not.
Mr. Telegdi: Madam Speaker, we do not govern by divine
right. We are mortals. We on this side of the House recognize
that anyway.
We understand it takes time to put a bill together that will
stand up to the scrutiny of time. That is what we are doing. We
are starting the process toward it. Many members in my caucus
and I very much wish that is what we are going to be looking to
do.
We can possibly come up with a plan saying that for whatever
constitutional consideration and to recognize some of those
agreements we are going to cap the size of the House of
Commons at, let us say, 300 members. I could live with that as a
final cap on numbers. It is very important to get this bill moving
so we can get to that.
If the big R Reformers want to improve this place, then please
listen to a small r reformer. Let us get moving in that direction.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Madam Speaker, I will
try to keep my contribution to this debate as relevant as possible
to the subject before the House: Bill C-18, am Act to suspend
the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
I had some trouble following the train of thought of the hon.
member for Waterloo, since his speech covered a variety of
topics, including some criticism of the behaviour of Reform
Party members. That is not the intent of my speech today.
First of all, I must say, it is always distressing to see a
government using a motion for time allocation, for closure, to
put an end to debate.
(1200)
It is always, or nearly always, a distressing moment for
parliamentarians to see this desire to gag a democratic debate.
We did not support the motion, because it is the very essence of
our parliamentary system that debate should take place without
undue haste, and with as much for reflection and consideration
as possible.
In the case of Bill C-18 before the House today, the debate
started on Monday this week, after notice given Friday last
week. And after one day of debate, they imposed closure. Why
the hurry, when the government could easily have scheduled the
tabling of this bill a week or two earlier?
I have somewhat mixed feelings when I speak to Bill C-18,
because I strongly object to restricting the debate on a bill in this
House, especially after only one day of debate. It is not a matter
of life and death, and the government could have taken steps to
avoid this.
On the other hand, and this is why I have mixed feelings about
the substance of Bill C-18, I share a number of views held by
members of the government majority. Bill C-18 asks us to
suspend the current process for electoral boundaries review and
would refer the issue of representation in this Parliament,
including section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; but more
about this later.
2717
Madam Speaker, 1867 was a landmark, an historic date, since
on July 1, 1867, the constitutional system in this country
changed and became a so-called Confederation, although it was
actually an extremely centralized federation, witness the
constant debate and struggle, every day and every moment, to
ensure that provincial legislatures are able to operate in their
fields of jurisdiction. Before 1867, Quebec had half the seats in
the Legislature of the Union Parliament; 65 out of 130 for Lower
Canada, and of course the remaining 65 for Upper Canada.
It was a dramatic change, and no wonder the Liberal
government never consulted the population. Why did the
government that was in power just before the Union-and I must
make a correction here, because it was not the Liberal
government, since it was the Liberal Party which requested a
referendum-why did it not conduct a referendum in Quebec, in
Lower Canada, on the institutional changes in 1867? Because,
according to most historians, the referendum would have been a
lost cause.
We started our journey into the institutional desert in 1867,
when we lost the equality between two nations: Quebec and
English Canada, which itself was seeking its own identity. And
as we went on, decade after decade and decennial census after
decennial census-since the present Constitution requires a
census every ten years-we saw Quebec's political power being
eroded.
(1205)
Seventy-five members out of 181, and now, 75 out of 295. If
the proposed redrawing of the map now before the people, as
submitted by the provincial commissions, is approved, we
would hold 75 of the 301 seats. Our representation would
continue to be eroded!
Over the years, there has clearly been a collective loss of
memory in some circles. Yet, we must constantly remind people
that in 1867, Quebec held half of the seats in Canada's
parliament. What could be more legitimate than to seek a status
that would allow us to manage our own affairs, according to the
wishes of the majority of our people. In fact, just prior to
Confederation in 1867, the Parliament of the united Canada of
1840 operated according to the double majority rule, which
meant that decisions made required the backing of a majority of
the members representing Upper Canada and a majority of the
members representing Lower Canada. Quebec enjoyed de facto
a veto over all decisions affecting it. On this score, we have
certainly lost ground.
I can speak openly about Bill C-18 without any ulterior
motives since I campaigned right up until October 25 as a
candidate who was seeking to become the last federal member of
Parliament for Bellechasse. And this has continued to be my
position. Therefore, I can allow myself great latitude when it
comes to this bill to readjust or redraw electoral boundaries.
During my speech the other day, I mentioned that the Bloc
Quebecois, which is dedicated to defending Quebec's interests
and to promoting Quebec sovereignty, will never support the
empty chair policy or the scorched-earth policy, regardless of
what the future holds for Quebec, and that the decision
ultimately rests with Quebecers and with Quebecers alone. In
this regard, we must see to it that our future is protected,
regardless of the decisions that will be made.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker, there does not appear to be
a quorum in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
And the bells having rung:
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The quorum has been
attained.
[Translation]
Mr. Robichaud: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since
there are people watching, when the member of the Reform
Party asked if there was a quorum, there was only one member of
that party in the House.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: Madam Speaker I thought that the House
was suspended and the members were to be called in because
there were only 16 members in the House, which is not a
quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We have now attained a
quorum and I have said so.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): Madam Speaker, I
thought that it was inappropriate, as Beauchesne says several
times in his book on parliamentary procedure, to point out the
absence of members in this House. My hon. colleague from
Beauséjour, no doubt in a fleeting moment of distraction, forgot
this rule of which he himself would have reminded me.
(1210)
When the request for a quorum count was made and you
checked according to the rules, I was talking about the leeway
we might have in the Official Opposition since we do not really
intend to use the new electoral maps. But in any case we have to
defend this legislation. We have to defend it for the voters of all
of Canada, from the Atlantic to the Pacific to the Arctic. It is our
duty as Official Opposition to do so.
The other day, strangely enough, I heard the member for
Kamloops say that the Official Opposition only defended
regional interests. Madam Speaker, you heard us on the link
between Prince Edward Island and the mainland, we supported
the constitutional motion. We spoke up on the lockout in the Port
of Vancouver. Who spoke up on Ginn Publishing? This is not a
strictly local problem concerning the suburb of Ste-Foy or the
riding of La Prairie; control of Canadian culture is a federal
2718
problem. We spoke up, as did our colleagues in the Reform
Party. Strangely enough, our friends in the Liberal caucus,who probably had problems and were all coming back fromMr. Muffler, were completely silent on the subject.
I will now return to the subject being debated, before I am
called to order. Bill C-18 must be passed, because the rules for
setting electoral boundaries were laid down 30 years ago. From
time to time, with specific bills, electoral reforms were stopped,
changed or given a different direction, but the process as a whole
was not thoroughly debated. I see the member for Beauséjour
who seems to share my point of view; I believe that we can come
to fairly unanimous agreement on this point. I would like to
thank the hon. member for the consent he has just given.
So we can review the various provisions in the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in an unbiased way.
Since I myself am on this committee, I think that it would be
inappropriate for me to take a position when we have a motion to
refer it to the committee on which I sit. I will participate without
prejudice as the committee hears witnesses. The motion of
reference presented provides that the committee can hear
witnesses and travel as required across Canada and also hear
witnesses by teleconference.
A very broad procedure has been established. I think that this
might answer the concerns of the hon. member for Calgary West
who felt that Bill C-18 excluded the people from the debate. On
the contrary, it is an inclusive process. In no way do we want to
keep the people out of the debate; we do not want to have
completely pointless hearings by provincial commissions that
would be suspended in a few days because of Bill C-18. The
people will have a chance to be heard by the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I would also like to talk about the position of the hon. member
for Beaver River, which I have trouble understanding.
(1215)
I listened carefully to the hon. member's speech, and since
she started it on Monday, I was able to read it over in Hansard.
My understanding is that the hon. member was not trying to
defend the Beaver River constituency, that her riding had been
created in 1988, and that it would disappear if the proposals
presently before the provincial commissions are passed.
Strangely enough, the hon. member is the same one who
tabled Bill C-210, an Act to provide for the recall of members of
the House of Commons. I think the hon. member for Beaver
River should be pleased that her bill has still not been passed,
because I presume it would not take long for the registers in her
riding of Beaver River to open, asking for the recall of the hon.
member, since she does not want to defend her constituents'
interests. I find her attitude strange, to say the least. I guess the
hon. member must have her own reasons.
In the two minutes left, I want to discuss the last point, which
deals with section 51 of the Constitution Act of 1867. Section 51
states that electoral boundaries readjustments will take place on
completion of each decennial census. However, that same
section also excludes the Northwest Territories and the Yukon
from the process. Consequently, the redistribution takes place
once constituencies are specifically allocated to these very vast
but sparsely populated areas.
I think that, on top of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon,
we should also look at the case of the Magdalen Islands in
Quebec, a distinct community remote from the continent, with
its own specific problems-and I am pleased to see that the hon.
member for Kingston approves-and also Labrador. That region
forms a very large territory which should be represented by
someone. There have to be ridings with a larger population, so as
to enable Labrador to have its own local representative.
At least four exceptions should be made, and that does not
include other representations which could be made. I am
referring of course to the Yukon and the Northwest Territories,
but also to the Magdalen Islands and to Labrador.
It is with a very open mind that I will take part in the work of
the committee, since I only made general comments which will
certainly not keep me from listening with an open mind, free of
any bias or preconceived idea, to the representations which will
be made to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, of
which I am a member.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Madam Speaker, I would also
like to congratulate the hon. member again on his remarks. At
the beginning of his speech, he commented on Quebec's
numerical disadvantage, with regard to representation in
particular.
This kind of argument or historical reasoning is not new.
Besides, over the past 25 years, every government elected to the
House of Commons has been led by a Prime Minister from
Quebec. Does the hon. member not agree with me that Quebec
has historically been well represented in this federation?
(1220)
Mr. Langlois: I will be pleased to respond, through you,
Madam Speaker, to the comment by the hon. member for
Ontario.
Of course we have been represented in this House by members
from all political affiliations since 1867, often distinguished
men and women, with the likes of Sir Wilfrid Laurier and Prime
Minister Louis Saint-Laurent. I will not talk about more modern
times, and events which have not yet found a definitive place in
history, for fear of sounding partisan, but I do believe that
Quebec has had distinguished parliamentarians. That is not the
point.
2719
The point I am making is that, however distinguished our
representatives, we remain a minority in this place. However
great the speeches made in this House by Quebec members from
whatever political party, when a vote is held-and the hon.
member for Ontario has seen it for himself as well as we all
did-the majority rules and the vote from the quietest of
member cancels that of the most talkative and convincing one.
In that context, I can agree with the hon. member only as far as to
say that very distinguished representatives from Quebec have
sat in this House.
[English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster):
Madam Speaker, I have a comment and a question for my hon.
friend.
As we know the current bill suspends the Electoral
Boundaries Redistribution Act simply because government
members are not happy with the outcome of the act. That is very
frightening. Just because they are not happy with the outcome
they take Draconian measures such as introducing time
allocation after only four hours of debate on a bill and pushing
the agenda through the House without giving adequate time for
debate.
I really believe that every member should have an opportunity
to speak freely and reasonably in this House. What if the whole
focus of this bill was different and we were in effect restricting a
party in this House whose views were not agreed with by the
other parties in the House. It could very easily happen because
as a member of Reform I disagree with the separatist views of
the Bloc Quebecois.
Suppose we decided because the rules of the House offer a lot
of privileges to the Official Opposition we wanted to restrict
those and introduced time allocation to do so and rammed it
through the House.
I just wonder how the hon. member would feel about that type
of reaction and program.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question
reminds me of question period in the afternoon or on Friday
morning when a government member plants a question for his
minister. I thank the hon. member.
We voted against the time allocation motion and against
closure because it is unacceptable, particularly in a
parliamentary government. The hon. member for Kingston and
the Islands is right to insist, especially since it would have been
so easy to make plans in the parliamentary agenda to table the
bill ten days or two weeks earlier. I share the hon. member's
concerns on this.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South): Madam Speaker, as I
follow the debate, it would appear that the situation here is not a
vote so much to do something as opposed to maybe stopping
something which may put us into a situation which would be
unacceptable to Canadians.
Members have asked for time to discuss and time allocation
would restrict that. Is it not the intent of the overall motion and
the process to allow more time for members throughout the
entire House to have a fuller discussion about the criteria for
boundary setting and to ensure that Canadians are going to be
well represented in the House through these major changes?
(1225 )
There is time to do this. I wonder if the member would agree
that taking the time to do this job properly is the right course of
action.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I find it quite strange and
somewhat unacceptable as a parliamentarian to see the hon.
member for Waterloo refer to the relevance of the debate in the
question and comment period, when he spent all his time
attacking our colleagues from the Reform Party, not on the
substance of the motion but on their behaviour in the House,
which we refrain from doing. This is my only comment.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Madam Speaker, I would like
to say that this is indeed a dark day for democracy. It is a dark
day for the parliamentary system.
I remember it took the Conservatives at least a few months
before they brought in the heavy hand of closure or time
allocation. I know that the previous Prime Minister, Mr.
Mulroney, held this place in contempt. For him Parliament was a
nuisance, something that he had to put up with as he imposed his
agenda on the people of Canada.
In opposition the Liberal Party would often join with the New
Democrats and criticize the government for using the heavy
hand of closure so flippantly, so easily. I know we do not hear
jackboots in the hallways of Parliament yet and I know we do not
see brown shirts around this place, but I will tell you, Madam
Speaker, the people of Canada should consider this to be an early
warning. Once again we have seen a government that is prepared
to change the standing orders to give almost exclusive powers to
2720
the executive, to make this institution of Parliament almost a
joke.
If the government executive decides that it is time to finish
debate, it is finished. If it decides that it is going to impose some
new initiative on the legislative agenda, it can do that instantly.
This is a good example. Two or three weeks ago did people
hear that a major pressing issue that would require some vote of
closure was required in terms of the boundaries of our federal
constituencies? It was not even discussed. I suspect most people
in Canada are still shaking their heads wondering what this
debate is all about. Here the government says: ``This is so
important and it is so critical that we are going to use closure''.
I can understand the previous government doing something on
the GST or the free trade agreement where there were vicious
and deep divisions. Surely to goodness this is not the kind of
thing that we ought to rush through this House.
I want to ask my friend who just spoke whether or not he saw
the Globe and Mail this morning and noticed that the parts of
Canada that would be most adversely impacted by not
proceeding would be the far western part, Alberta and British
Columbia, where their representation is so skewed because of
population increases? Did he recognize that and does he realize
that this initiative is really going to short change western
Canadians?
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: Madam Speaker, the comments made by the
hon. member for Kamloops are quite relevant and, as I said
earlier, I felt a little uncomfortable taking part in the debate
since I am against the closure motion but for the substance of
Bill C-18. I understood that he was in a rather similar situation
because, in some regions of British Columbia, the people who
drew up the electoral map visualized the Rockies as a vast plain,
according to the speech he made in the House on Monday.
As for what he said about the increase in population,
particularly in Western Canada and his province, British
Columbia, we are, of course, aware of the data and hope to do the
necessary work in time. That is part of the reason why the
referral motion includes a deadline, so that the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs can hold hearings
and table its report as soon as possible.
As you are indicating to me that I have very little time left,
there is one thing I hope for, Madam Speaker: that we will be
able to listen to people before electoral maps are tabled
everywhere and that only minor changes are made.
(1230)
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): We are resuming debate
with 10-minute speeches and no questions or comments.
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Madam
Speaker, I am sorry I will not be able to get into the friendly
banter back and forth. I did not want to speak on the political
diversity of our parties but on the redistribution in Bill C-18 and
how it affects my riding of Victoria-Haliburton, because that is
really what we are here for.
I disagree there is no outcry against redistribution. My riding
is one that is second in geographic size in southern Ontario. It is
being torn apart by redistribution. My riding takes in Victoria
county and Haliburton county. It also takes in the township of
Brock, which is really in the region of Durham. It takes in the
south end of Peterborough county and the north end of
Peterborough county from beautiful Buckhorn all the way to
Bancroft.
Geographically it is the same size as Prince Edward Island. It
is a large area to cover and has a lot of people. My riding will be
reduced in size which I should be applauding, but in the fashion
that I feel is important to the House I went and consulted with
the area that is being taken away and the area that is being added.
Neither one of them wants to move.
Brock township is an area that would be well served by being
added to Victoria-Haliburton. It would be taken and added to
the top end of Newcastle or Clarington which has absolutely no
geographic similarity other than they are both in Ontario. It
would be taken away from the central region of
Victoria-Haliburton, a populous area. Keeping in mind that I
have a population of 101,000 according to the 1991 census, it
would be reduced to somewhere around 94,000.
There are many reasons to support the redistribution or not
support it. My reasons are strictly based on my own riding and
the effect redistribution will have on it. I am heartened when I
hear the member for Beaver River speaking because I also have
a Beaver River in my riding. It runs through Brock township and
Beaverton and into Lake Simcoe. On Monday of this week I
went to Beaverton to meet with the Brock township council. We
discussed among other things the redistribution aspect but also
the rejuvenation of Beaverton harbour. Hopefully that harbour
will be part of the government's beautification program and, in
looking at the economic problems that exist, Brock township
will be enhanced by having a good harbour in Beaverton.
When we talk about the press not coming to the fore on this
matter, as I read the Lindsay Daily Post in my riding it starts out
with an editorial that says: ``John O'Reilly is right''. For the
press to say that in itself is something that strikes right at my
heart, but I am opposed for two reasons: first, my riding is
affected in a way that is not beneficial to it and, second, there is a
great cost involved in redistribution.
The cost of adding six members of Parliament is something I
think the Reform Party, and myself included, should look at very
hard. 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? I can understand
2721
Reformers saying that they would like to know what the rules are
before the game starts.
(1235)
We have to look at the issue and say that we cannot strike a
committee in the government and tell it what its conclusions are
to be. If the committee is to investigate redistribution and the
reasons for redistribution it has to go in with a clear mandate. It
cannot be something that is driven by politics. It has to be
something that is driven by economics and the times we live in.
It is not just the drawing of lines on maps that eliminate Brock
township and add Ennismore. I will speak on Ennismore also.
Ennismore being added to my riding makes less sense than
taking Brock away.
My riding now runs across the eastern end to above the village
of Norwood, which makes absolutely no sense. Once again it is a
large geographic riding and very difficult to cover. Ennismore is
above the city of Peterborough. Redistribution takes the city of
Peterborough, makes a doughnut out of it and gives the rest of
the area around it to the surrounding ridings. Adding Ennismore,
which is steeped in Irish Catholic history, should obviously be
an advantage to me.
I am not speaking strictly on partisan terms. The fact of the
matter is that Ennismore is being added to the centre of
Victoria-Haliburton where my constituency office and the
town of Lindsay are located. Ennismore is above the city of
Peterborough. Most people in Ennismore gravitate to the city of
Peterborough to work. All government services are in the city of
Peterborough. As these areas are added to ridings like
Victoria-Haliburton and as Brock township is taken away and
added to something else, the whole boondoggle, as I call it,
makes absolutely no sense. I oppose it. Also I am not
comfortable with closure. I must say that I do not find closure to
be a comfortable way to do government. I say that quite heartily.
I have looked at the problem. Maybe it is minuscule; maybe it
is not. The commission is out right now. Besides the $5 million
it has already spent or wasted, as I would put it, it is going to
waste more money in booking rooms, hiring staff, holding
meetings, putting me and my constituents into a position where I
am preparing on one side to oppose redistribution of my riding
and on the other side supporting closure so that I do not have to
go to the meetings and waste more taxpayers' money.
I talked to some Reform members and when I was through the
comment one of them made was that I was more Reform than
they were. I must agree with that because money and the
spending of taxpayers' money are close to my heart. I came out
of municipal politics where I instituted a system in my
municipality that stopped debenturing and started reserves.
Now I see that the municipalities in my area that have followed
the procedure are able to take advantage of the infrastructure
program because of planning they started in the past.
We all realize there are no more taxpayers' dollars to try to
get. We have to save at every opportunity. Besides the process
that is ongoing, a way of saving taxpayers' dollars would be by
stopping the process. April 14 will be the first date under the
process we could actually see the bill go through, cut off the
hearings and bring redistribution to a halt. Then it should be
restudied and looked at along the lines of Canada as a whole.
When I talk about my geographic area being the same size as
Prince Edward Island, I do not mean to talk about four members
from Prince Edward Island handling the same area that I handle
as one member. Obviously I am already saving money under the
program. The fact of the matter is that redistribution for my
riding does not make sense. It will not benefit the voters of
Victoria-Haliburton whom I represent. I hope other members
represent their voters in the same way. I worry about that interim
period where a huge amount of voting power is taken away from
one riding and put into another. Does the member then spend
less time there and more in the one that is being added? Those
are questions I have not been able to answer.
(1240)
I know my 10 minutes is coming to an end, but I hope
members realize that stopping the hearings saves money. Five
million dollars has been wasted; let us not waste any more. Let
us look at the ridings that are adversely affected like mine and
the damage it does to the system I have to work in. Let us stop in
any way we can and take a hard look at redistribution and its
effects on my riding and on other ridings in Canada.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I will try to condense a 20-minute speech into 10
minutes to conform with the time allocation motion which
restricts the time I have to address the House.
It is a sad day to be speaking, about two months into a new
Parliament.
Mr. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The
member who has just risen referred to the time allocation motion
limiting his speech to 10 minutes. It has nothing to do with that.
According to the rules, after a certain amount of debate speeches
are reduced to 10 minutes. It has nothing to do with time
allocation.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, I heard debate on Jimmy
Swaggart, codes of conduct and a number of irrelevant issues. I
did not sense that they related at all to the motion today. I would
appreciate if the Chair would be fair in its application of those
sorts of matters.
This act would suspend the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act. Why should we suspend an act that is
currently in place and the process it enables is halfway through
being completed? Certainly there are some things that would
justify suspending the act. If we could find some illegal
activities by Elections Canada or if illegal activities were being
undertaken
2722
by the commissions themselves, certainly that would draw
attention to the House. Perhaps we would have to put forward
legislation to suspend the act so that we could review what had
taken place to find out if there had been any misproprieties
involved in the carrying out of the mandate of the act.
I have heard no such allegations from the government or from
anywhere else, for that matter. I have heard a number of
members of Parliament who are deeply upset with the results of
where the boundaries are drawn. They are not prepared to let the
public have input but want to suspend the process before it
reaches that point.
Another reason we might want to suppress or suspend the
mandate of the act is if it were seeming to violate the
Constitution. Supposing they had drawn boundaries in such a
way that they violated the Constitution or had changed the
numbers of ridings in provinces in such a way that it was against
the enactment of our Constitution. Certainly we would have to
take action. However that has not happened.
If under the act there had been refusal to allow public input
into the process we would have a basis upon which to debate the
bill today, but that has not happened. It will happen if the bill is
enacted and the suspension takes place because we are at the
point where the public hearings are about to take place.
It really concerns me when I hear members of Parliament,
particularly from the other side, talking about their ridings,
being totally upset with where the boundaries are drawn and
saying: ``I have to stop this. My riding is not unfolding the way it
should''. This is before they have had a chance to hear what the
public in their ridings are saying and what is the general
consensus of the process in each province. Certainly that is not a
reasonable approach or reason for suspending the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act.
(1245 )
If this process had gone way over budget perhaps we should
review it, but as I understand there was about $8 million
allocated in this budget to the commissions to do their job. I
understand that they are reasonably on track. They have spent
about $5 million to this point and will spend the remaining $3
million through the public hearing process, a very important
process that would be eliminated by the approval of Bill C-18.
What a shame to have wasted $5 million.
I just heard the hon. member on the other side suggest that we
needed to pass this act to save money. I cannot understand how
investing $5 million and seeing that all go for nought because
the work of the commission ceased to exist and is thrown out
into the garbage heap is in fact good stewardship of taxpayers'
dollars. It sounds to me like it would be just the opposite.
As nearly as we can determine, at least there has been no
evidence brought forward by the government that there has been
a misappropriation of funds or that the commissions have gone
severely over their budget. This certainly does not seem to be a
reason why we should suspend the act that we are suspending
today.
Maybe if they had refused to hold the public hearings we
should be introducing the bill that we are introducing today but
these public hearings are already scheduled. In the province of
Saskatchewan the first one is slated for May 2. Certainly as a
member of Parliament I was prepared like any other Canadian
citizen to go to that hearing and present my case for changes that
I think should be made in my riding of
Kindersley-Lloydminster. Like my hon. colleague for Beaver
River we are seeing our ridings disappear.
Mine gets divided into three ways. Certainly I would like to
make some comments about that but I would respect the wisdom
of the public to also have input into what they think the redrawn
map of Saskatchewan should look like, especially as it affects
my riding of Kindersley-Lloydminster.
Second, perhaps we could look at suspending this act if we
had a plan in place to cap seats, a plan to deal with some of the
constitutional implications that would take place if we did cap
seats. If we had a plan to undertake to provide the provinces with
the proper representation in the Parliament of Canada, should in
fact capping of the seats mean a reduction of seats for certain
provinces?
This plan is not in place. There is nothing in the Liberal red
book. There has been no discussion in this session of the House
as to what that plan might be. All I have seen is a very broadly
based motion that talks about reviewing a number of issues with
no definite plan in place.
I would say without this plan the number of seats in this House
could be expanded beyond the six that we would see if the
current process were allowed to continue. It has happened in the
past. This is not a wild accusation by any stretch of the
imagination.
The problem is without redistribution the growing provinces
are penalized. We cannot continue to expand seats in the House
of Commons and so the smaller provinces will be penalized if
we do not look at a new process and new way of bringing
representation to the Parliament of Canada.
Of course the obvious way to remedy this situation is to
reform the Senate. I have not heard one word of Senate reform
from members opposite that would give the provinces the
2723
regional representation they would need if they were to lose
seats in the House if we did cap the seats and keep this House
from being expanded. The government has absolutely no plan.
If we cannot justify this bill what would we do? Why are we
debating this bill? The reasons are few but they are not very
good. MPs are not happy with the boundaries. To me that is not a
good enough reason to suspend an act. MPs are not happy with
the personalities. I have heard reference to some of the
commissions and the commissioners saying that one
commissioner in New Brunswick had complained about the
process and the people he was involved with and working with.
That is not a good enough reason to suspend the whole process.
I have heard some complaints even about Elections Canada
which have acted properly within the mandate provided it.
Again this justification for suspending the act is not a reasonable
one at all.
I have heard of MPs saying they do not want to permit the
public hearings. They think that is a waste of money. I would
think it reflects very badly upon a government if it is not
prepared to allow the public to have input into this process
before it decides to change the whole process. This has already
been delayed once and now we are talking about a second delay.
The current boundaries are based on the 1981 census. We may be
into the next century, in fact the next millennium before we
redraw the boundaries.
(1250)
There is also a danger that if we suspend this act it may give
the opportunity for MPs to be involved or to try to influence the
formation of the new commissions with patronage like the old
days, patronage in the commissions, perhaps even patronage
appointments at Elections Canada.
I would like to read a letter that was addressed to the Prime
Minister regarding Bill C-18 from the Brampton Board of
Trade. It says:
Dear Mr. Prime Minister:
The Brampton Board of Trade felt that your government had turned the pages
on the old style of governing and opened the process to inclusive government by
asking for input from the Canadian people.
Therefore, we are quite concerned that the Hon. Herb Gray would introduce a
bill in the House to suspend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment process for
24 months. At this point in time the commission struck last September is now at
the stage of public hearings. Further, the commission has already spent $5
million of the budgeted $8 million for this study and continues to prepare for the
public hearings in April and May.
The board feels it is not appropriate nor necessary for a review committee to
step in at this time and shut down the public process.
If Bill C-18 is passed we ask what are the additional costs to the taxpayers?
We already know what the current commission has cost.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Szabo) I regret that the member's
time has expired.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, on a point of order. It
appears by my count that we do not have a quorum present.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): Call in the members.
And the count having been taken:
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): I now see a quorum.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): Madam
Speaker, this debate has been prefaced by individual hon.
members referring to their own situations. I should perhaps
indicate that I won my own riding with what was the largest
majority for a Liberal candidate in British Columbia and,
second, we have examined the basis of the proposed electoral
changes and our inquiries confirm that while my constituency
seat is divided in two I would have a comfortable majority in one
part and a very large majority in the other.
This having been said, I would say that having knocked on
10,000 doors in the process of seeking a nomination and then
winning an election, I have formed a tie of intimacy with my
fellow Canadians in the riding and I would be very sorry to lose
it.
However, let me get on to the substance of this debate. I speak
with experience as a former electoral commissioner for British
Columbia. The then Speaker of the House, Madam Sauvé,
telephoned me and said that Parliament was very anxious to put
the commissions on a non-partisan basis and would I serve for
what was by the way a very nominal remuneration and I served.
I do have some comments from my experience there. The first
very obvious thing for these electoral commissions is an
absence of continuity and therefore of shared experience which
is the basis of any law-making in the commissions. It is the habit
to replace each commission with a change of government. I
would say that when there was a change of government my own
commission was summarily replaced and the successor
commission made no attempt to contact us or to find out if we
had any shared experience we would want to pass on.
The second thing that struck me was an absence of
co-ordination between one commission and another. That is to
say, in British Columbia we were unaware of what the
commission in Alberta was doing or what its philosophy was if it
had a philosophy. I think this goes back to one of the interesting
aspects of the present system.
(1255)
Everybody fulfils their mandate honestly and with all due
skills that they bring to the task, but there is an absence of
overall direction partly because the federal electoral
commissioner, as a civil servant, under the act in which he is
established construes his role narrowly so as not to get into
policy issues
2724
and I think he is correct in that, but partly also, in comparison
with other countries because our Constitution supplies almost
nothing in the way of motor principles to guide the electoral
commission.
If we look at the United States constitution there are detailed
and specific provisions as to elections, as to the electoral
processes, supplemented by those great amendments 13, 14 and
15, the post-civil war ones which give very clear directives that
were not in the first years fully observed and a succession of
amendments right up to the present day.
The third factor of course is that the United States supreme
court in relationship to congress, to the legislature, and to the
state legislatures which under the American constitution
actually make the allocations, has developed some 100 or so
cases establishing the limiting parameters of electoral
distribution.
We have virtually no jurisprudence at all from our Supreme
Court for two reasons. The court has viewed these as political
questions beyond its technical competence and, second, we have
not had that litigation orientation that is present in the United
States and which explains the fact that the Americans much
more than Canada have taken note of changes in electoral
sociology.
Electoral laws no more than other laws are not graven on stone
tablets fixed once and for all for all time. They have to change as
a society evolves. If we look at the Canada of 1964, not simply in
its population distribution but in terms of effective participation
in the political processes by interest groups, ethnic groups and
other communities it is a quite different Canada. Yet the
electoral law unlike the law of the United States does not reflect
this. I think this is a pity. There has been a certain vacuum or
lagging in our development not merely in comparison to the
United States but in relation to countries like Germany, Japan
and India which to a considerable extent have tried to follow
American jurisprudence.
I made a study for the Canadian Institute for the
Administration of Justice which as members know is a
professional group bringing together the chief justices and
judges of Canada. I made an address in 1989 which is available
in which I compared American, German, Japanese, Indian and
other modern democratic countries and Canada. The conclusion
was we badly needed updating constitutional electoral
principles. We needed to restructure. I think it should have come
10 years ago. In a sense we are approaching it today.
My own feeling as an electoral commissioner was that we
were guided by the past. I think one very obvious principle is
that a commissioner is not a philosopher king. He or she is not
God. One has to respect the expectations of the people to whom
the member is addressing his report.
We have 205 new members in this House. I would have
thought that it goes beyond the prudent bounds of an electoral
commission as it is presently constituted under the present law
to change the ridings in a dramatic revolutionary fashion.
We assumed in 1980 to 1984 when I served that change should
be incremental land and that revolutionary changes should be
suggested for the future for an incremental process. I worry
when my Newfoundland colleagues tell me that although
Newfoundland has hardly changed demographically since the
last election all the seats have been redistributed. Why? What is
the rationale for it?
If we look across the electoral commissions we will find that
some of them have a clear philosophy.
(1300 )
It is very evident in the way the distributions occurred. Some
are moved by concepts of affirmative action that one finds in
United States Supreme Court jurisprudence. Others are more
traditional. These are both legitimate considerations but it is a
matter on which civil servants, as such, and casually appointed
commissioners with the best of intentions and the best of
qualifications, should not be making decisions. These are issues
of constituent power that is superior even to the Constitution
itself. It is time that Parliament expressed itself and established
the principles.
In my seat of Vancouver Quadra, by accident or by deliberate
design over 30 years we have a constituency that represents 22
different ethnic communities. It is one of the rich experiences of
my life to make the acquaintance of all such groups and to build
an electoral consensus, which means building an intellectual
and philosophical consensus among the groups.
Under the proposed redistribution, that multiplicity of
representation of communities disappears. The philosophy
seems to be to produce integral constituencies. That again is an
approach that can be justified philosophically, but I do not think
it should be made by commissioners in the interstices of what
purports to be a simple administrative inquiry and distribution
according to statistics.
It needs debate in Parliament. I would like to see the
structured system that I have spoken of in terms of the United
States where constitutional law is not made by any one actor
alone, but as Jeremy Bentham said, it is made by the
constitutional company.
The greatness of the American system is that Congress, the
legislature, the administrators and the courts work together and
that is the objective we should be aiming at.
2725
[Translation]
Mr. Richard Bélisle (La Prairie): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill C-18.
As several members have mentioned, this bill is an act to
suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act in Canada.
The Act, which will cease to be in effect if Bill C-18 is passed,
provides for the creation of 75 new constituencies in Quebec.
This act also provides for the setting up of a federal electoral
boundaries commission in each of the ten provinces, as well as
in the Northwest Territories.
The proposal resulting from this legislation was to have been
the object of public consultations in the weeks to come. This
proposal, which seemed to me to be serious and well articulated,
was based on the following principles, as is normally the case
with this type of exercise or review: The geographical size, the
density of population, the size of urban and rural centres, as well
as other factors such as the common interest, the cultural
identity and the historic evolution of the various regions and
communities involved.
Except for unusual circumstances, the population of a
constituency should more or less represent 25 per cent of the
province's electoral quota. As you all know, this quota is
calculated by dividing the province's population by the number
of ridings allocated to that same province.
This whole review was based on data compiled in 1991,
during the last federal decennial census-an exercise which
takes place every ten years-conducted by Statistics Canada, a
highly professional organization.
What is the impact of this review under the current
legislation? Four ridings would be added in Ontario and two in
British Columbia, while the number of Mps representing the
other provinces would remain the same.
Quebec would still have 75 ridings, but most of these would
undergo significant changes. The Montérégie, which is the
region on the South Shore of Montreal, would gain one riding.
Indeed, electoral boundaries are based on population changes,
and Montreal's South Shore is currently experiencing the
highest population growth in Quebec, particularly in its central
and midwest sectors.
The riding most affected by this review in the Montérégie is
Laprairie, which I have the honour of representing here in this
House.
(1305)
A new riding, called Saint-Lambert, is created around the
town of Saint-Lambert, where I live. To Saint-Lambert are
added Greenfield Park, LeMoyne and the western part of
Longueuil, which together form the new riding of
Saint-Lambert. The western part of the existing riding becomes
the new riding of Brossard-La Prairie. The result is that the
riding I now represent will be divided into two entirely new
ridings.
The riding of Brossard-La Prairie will consist of the towns
of the same name, plus Candiac and that part of the regional
county municipality of Roussillon which is included in the
parish of Saint-Philippe.
As I said earlier, the Montérégie will now have eleven instead
of ten ridings. This seems sensible and consistent with the
guidelines I described earlier.
The Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Quebec
has, in my opinion, done a good job, and is to submit the results
for public hearings very shortly. This proposal is well founded
in terms of geography, population density, the size of outlying
areas and other factors I mentioned earlier.
Why, after two years of work and spending $5 million, does
the Liberal government want to stop the work being done by this
commission? Is it because of lobbying by a number of
backbenchers whose ridings will otherwise be drastically
changed or will disappear altogether? Is it because it wants to
postpone all this work for two years, which means that,
considering the need for new public hearings and a repeat of the
legislative process, the next election in Canada would, as far as
electoral boundaries are concerned, follow the status quo?
The best way to avoid upsetting a large caucus is to change
nothing, and the government is a past master at this sort of thing.
I think 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, compared with what we see in the United
States and many other western countries. Each new member of
Parliament costs more than $1 million per session. Reducing the
deficit also extends to considerations of this nature.
Bill C-18 would suspend for 24 months the operation of the
present Act. The eleven electoral boundaries commissions
would be dissolved and new commissions would be created
within 60 days after the Act ceases to be suspended.
In our opinion, the 11 commissions have done a consistent and
creditable job, but the electoral quota, in Quebec as well as
elsewhere in Canada, will have to be increased in order to reduce
the number of members of the House.
We are told that the process has not been studied in depth for
30 years, but should we redo everything, abolish the present
commissions, name new ones and start all over again?
Why freeze the process for two more years? Is it to fight the
next election with the present boundaries?
2726
By passing Bill C-18 we would condone the waste of five
million dollars, the shelving of another government study and
the sweeping under the carpet of conclusions that do not seem to
please the government.
Why should we start from scratch all the time? Even if we
proceed with new studies, I can assure the House that the future
ridings will be very similar to the ones proposed under the
present Act. Why? Because the base will be the same, it will be
the census of 1991. Regions and cities will be the same. The
framework for analysis and apportionment will remain the
population of each county, and the number of voters per riding in
each province will not change. Geographical areas, population
densities, community of interest and cultural identity do not
change overnight, and this means, according to me, that the
conclusions will be similar.
Being based on the same given quantities and qualities, the
conclusions of the second exercise cannot differ markedly from
those arrived at under the present Act. One thing only would
produce noticeably different results, that is if the density of
population in one specific riding could diverge by more than 25
per cent from the provincial ratio; that could be advantageous
for rural communities. If that percentage were closer to 10 or 15
per cent, it would benefit urban areas and would increase
considerably the surface of rural areas.
(1310)
However, identical premises will only give us more or less
identical results. Is it worth it to start this exercise all over again
if we are to get similar results in the end? What is the
government's intention? Do they want to save time or please the
caucus members who want to be reelected whatever the cost to
taxpayers?
In conclusion, what is important for Bloc Quebecois members
is that all Quebec constituents are well represented in this
House, whatever the distribution of the federal electoral
boundaries for the province. As for the next federal election, the
Bloc now hopes above all that the Parti Quebecois will be
elected in Quebec in 1994 and that the referendum which will
follow in 1995 will lead to sovereignty. Since the redistribution
of the federal electoral map will be implemented only at a later
date in canadian provinces, it could very well never apply in
Quebec.
Finally, I would like to add that I also agree with my
colleague, the member for Bellechasse who said in this House
earlier this morning that Quebec lost its sovereignty in 1867. In
fact, the link that existed between Upper Canada and Lower
Canada before 1867 was really a sovereignty-association type
of relationship very similar to the one the Bloc Quebecois is
advocating today.
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Madam Speaker, once again,
I welcome this opportunity to say a few more words regarding
the redistribution of seats in Canada.
[English]
I need no lesson in what redistribution will mean for this
member of Parliament. The Ontario riding is one of the largest,
most populace ridings in the country. It has approximately
205,000 people. If projected census information is correct, by
the turn of this century, the time at which I will reach the ripe age
of 37 years, my riding will be in excess of 300,000 people.
However, I want to point out that my reasons for supporting
the government in this initiative are many. Why do we need new
seats? It seems to me that we have just gone through a long
election process in which we described to people unequivocally
the need to look after our financial House. We took the message
from Canadians that we must work with that which they have
provided us.
The cost associated with adding new seats to the House of
Commons is estimated to be in excess of one million dollars per
year. At a time when all of us are looking for opportunities to
make sure that we keep our fiscal house in order, it seems to me
that proceeding with the addition of new seats without regard to
better distribution of the resources that we already have flies in
the face of the hard earned tax money that Canadians tell us is so
hard to come by.
I want to point out that in my riding of Ontario, and I do not
want to speak from a parochial point of view of what it does to
me, but given the significance and the load which I take in my
riding of some 205,000 constituents it seems to me that is a
threshold that I think is manageable. We should be looking at a
process here-and this is certainly something that the
committee can assign to itself-to look at a better distribution of
the seats that we already have. I note some of my colleagues here
from the other parties from around Ontario. We have a
tremendous opportunity at this point to perhaps look at where
ridings are relative to mine.
In the riding of Oshawa next door there are 95,000
constituents. In the riding to the north of me there are 130,000
constituents. In my riding there are 205,000 constituents. Rather
than adding a new seat why do we not simply redistribute some
of the regions within those three ridings so that we have a
platform of some 120,000 or 130,000 on average? We can do the
job. We have the resources to do the job. We really do not need
any new seats.
I want to point out some of the flaws I saw in the electoral
districts supplement to the Canada Gazette proposals for the
province of Ontario.
(1315 )
On reading the section dealing with Durham region it seems
patently unclear for a committee that has spent a lot of time on
this what they really mean in terms of distribution. It indicates
that for the regional municipality of Durham the population is
expected to be some 401,000. They are proposing that the
district of Durham remains the same except for the inclusion of
2727
the township of Brock and the removal of parts formerly within
the enlarged Oshawa district and the entire town of Whitby. The
new riding of Ontario would include the town of Whitby.
There is a contradiction. It seems to me rather than go through
the exercise of pointing out all the flaws that are evident when
not enough time is put into such a proposition, maybe we should
rethink how we want to assign the distribution of seats in the
House of Commons in years to come.
We want to talk about the need for flexibility, not rigidity.
This process of automatically increasing seats over the next few
years seems unreasonable. We are not taking into account
current realities, the fiscal realities, as I indicated earlier. We
are not even looking at the need for balance in terms of the
federation which is represented in this House.
I heard some hon. colleagues discuss the importance of
having their regions better represented. My colleague for
Bellechasse made comments to the effect that Quebec as a
region in Canada has a numerical inferiority problem with the
distribution of seats. Guess what? So does Ontario with virtually
10 million people represented by 99 seats. If any region has been
left out in terms of the distribution of seats perhaps we should be
looking at Ontario's case.
There are 205,000 residents in my riding. Prince Edward
Island for example may only have as many as 30,000 yet we are
given exactly the same amount of resources to do the job for the
people.
I am not complaining about that but I am making the point that
if we want to talk about fairness we truly should talk about
fairness in terms of numbers. I do not think the current
redistribution act really takes that into account.
I want to talk specifically about the physical nature in which
my riding would be divided into two regions. As I indicated the
three principal cities of Ajax, Pickering and Whitby in my riding
are a whole community.
Under this proposition Ajax, a town of some 65,000 people,
would be cut in half. In fact the boundaries go up a secondary
street. There is no rhyme nor reason other than the fact they have
looked to satisfy a numerical average that simply puts into
disregard the needs and long term historic interests of the
community. The community of Ajax grew out of the second
world war. Over the years it has produced a number of members
of Parliament. It would be a real tragedy if under this proposal
by the electoral commission the town of Ajax was cut in half.
This is one of the major reasons I commend the government
for its position in moving ahead with the suspension of the
redistribution as set out in this guideline.
Although there may be some controversy over the question of
how quickly we move to a vote on this issue, we really do not
have a lot of time to deal with it. If we were not to correct this
today, we might find ourselves in the situation on April 10 where
we are raising problems with this document which for all intents
and purposes will be redundant anyway. Proceeding in this
manner makes a heck of a lot more sense than proceeding full
steam ahead with something that is very uncertain.
There was a comment a little earlier about replacing hacks
with hacks. I believe it was from the member for Beaver River
and I understand her frustration. I find it actually very curious
there would be a defence for the proposal as it is since her riding
would suddenly disappear.
I do not think that is the intent of this government. In fact, if
that were the intent of this government I would be one of those
who would be most severely affected. It is my belief the
government is going to proceed in a judicious way taking into
account common sense principles, taking into account the
community and taking into account the compassionate nature
under which we have representation in this House of Commons.
(1320 )
My riding is one of the weightiest in this country. If I can
sacrifice a few good years to make sure we have an electoral
boundaries readjustment system that make sense, then I think all
members of this House can do the same. Therefore I am placing
myself as an example not to the country but to the taxpayer who
has been hard hit. We do not need more seats; we need a better
distribution of the seats and the infrastructure and the resources
that go along with that.
I look forward to participating on the committee with
members from the other side of the House in making good
policy.
[Translation]
Madam Speaker, thank you very much. I am in favour of the
passage of this bill.
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Madam Speaker, I have been
listening with interest to the comments and arguments raised by
members opposite.
Today I rise to speak against Bill C-18. As has been pointed
out by my colleagues on this side for the last two days of debate
on this, the passage of this bill will terminate the work of the
electoral commissions. It will effectively prevent redistribution
from occurring in time for the next election. Also a budget of
2728
$7.8 million was allocated to the commission. Approximately
$5 million of that has already been spent, the benefit of which
will be lost if this process is terminated at this time.
Members talk about the effects on their ridings. I must agree
with my colleague from Calgary West that these are not our
ridings. We tend to take ownership of these ridings as
politicians. If anything the ridings own us, we do not own them.
In that sense we have a duty to represent the interests and the
wishes of those people in the riding we represent.
A number of questions arise for me on that note. Many of my
constituents would wonder why we are effectively throwing $5
million of taxpayers' hard earned money down the drain to
suspend this process. There should be some good reasons for
doing so.
I hear arguments about trying to cap the number of MPs in the
House of Commons. That is a valid point and I agree with it.
However there is nothing in this proposed legislation that would
cap the number of seats. Getting away from some vague wording
about reviewing the increasing number of seats, let us talk about
capping the number of seats. If members opposite had included
that in the proposed bill then I think they would have found
support from the Reform Party, but they have not. They have
only proposed to talk about it. I have a great deal of difficulty
with that.
My background is in small business. When we say we are
going to do something, we do it. We do not talk about doing it.
We do not say we are going to review and study it. We say we are
going to do it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the
government could not have included that in the bill.
The boundaries of my riding-I am talking as if I owned it but
I do not-the boundaries of the riding I represent, Skeena, will
be affected greatly if this current proposal by the electoral
commission goes through. Right now my riding is probably one
of the largest geographically in Canada and my boundaries are
going to increase 20 per cent by my calculations.
It is very difficult for members of Parliament to effectively
represent geographically large ridings. A lot of travel is
involved. Many small communities are far apart. Many
communities in my riding are only accessible by air or water,
some of them only by air. I know full well the kinds of problems
members have to face in dealing with these ridings. Therefore
when the boundaries of my riding expand it sends a lot of
warning signals to me and I have some difficulties with it.
I remind members that there is a process. My constituents and
I can make representations to the commission when it holds
public meetings in Prince Rupert. We can submit our objections
or suggestions for changes to the proposals the commission has
made. This is a matter of process and something I fully
subscribe to.
(1325)
I understand why many members may not like the proposals in
front of them. I do not like the proposals that are in front of me.
The ridings of several of my colleagues in the Reform Party will
disappear altogether. Members in other parties are facing the
same problem.
However there is a process and I have not heard anyone
question the process in these debates. I have not heard anyone
say that what we have here is the work of a partisan commission
which is out to do political damage to one party or another. That
is not the case.
What these commissions are doing by all accounts is
non-partisan and unbiased. They are attempting to achieve the
objectives they have been given under section 51 of the
Constitution Act and the Boundaries Readjustment Act. If in
fact that is what the commissions have been working toward,
then I question why we want to suspend or get involved in the
process. Why would we want to have political interference?
We are talking about political interference. A process has
been established and it is functioning. Members of Parliament
do not like it. Members of Parliament are going to suspend the
process so they can change it to something they like. That is
political interference. There is no other description for it. What
matters in this debate as far as I am concerned is what Canadians
want, not what politicians want.
As I said earlier, any of my constituents who do not like the
proposals can make representations before the commission on
May 31, 1994 in Prince Rupert. The real evidence of voter
concern in my riding will become evident through this public
forum.
The bill before us if adopted is political interference at best. It
opens the door for partisan manoeuvring. Indeed one would
have to ask if this is not the real intent of the bill. Why would the
government introduce it if it did not intend to gerrymander or
play with the boundaries to the way it wants them rather than the
way the commissions have proposed them.
Every citizen of this country no matter what their occupation
must play by the rules. That is the law of Canada. If you break
the rules, you forfeit either your freedom or some of your hard
earned money, or both. If you disagree with the validity of the
rules or the laws of the land, if you do not like the processes that
are in place, you are at liberty to work through lawful means to
try to change them. That is a fundamental principle of
democracy.
We as members of Parliament are legislators. We make laws,
we change laws, we amend laws. Sometimes we even strike laws
from the books when we think they no longer represent what
Canadians want. However we are not above the law.
2729
In our positions as members of this great House, the very
cradle of our democracy, we are in positions of great power. We
are the legislators. We have the ability to change laws. Nothing
makes Canadians more cynical than to see people being put in
these positions of power and then abusing that power when
ordinary Canadians do not have the opportunity of using that
power to their own ends. That is precisely what is happening
with this bill.
In recent years Canadians have become increasingly
displeased with Parliament. They have expectations as to how
public servants should conduct themselves. They become very
cynical when they see politicians attempting to manipulate the
system for their own personal gain.
(1330 )
There is only one way for Canadians to interpret the passage
of this bill. They must conclude that once again the politicians in
Ottawa are circumventing due process, a process that most agree
is fair and unbiased, for their own gain.
When we all came to this House in January we were talking
about conducting ourselves differently in the 35th Parliament.
We talked about moving away from the practices previous
governments and members engaged in.
Canadians want to believe this. It is therefore vitally
important that we back up what we are talking about now
through our deeds rather than through our words. Many
members are unhappy with the changes that the commission has
proposed. Some fear these will impact on their future electoral
prospects. Looking at it objectively, the displacement is felt by
all parties and virtually all members. No one party or individual
was singled out.
As I said earlier, many members on this side of the House will
be severely impacted if the current boundary proposals are
adopted. Yet we maintain that the process must be allowed to
continue and that those who are unhappy with the commission's
proposals can make representations within the parameters that
the process establishes, rather than voting in favour of this
motion out of concern for their own personal political
considerations.
The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu): The member has
exceeded his time.
Ms. Mary Clancy (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Citizenship and Immigration): Madam Speaker, may I say that
I am really very pleased to take part in this debate. I am
particularly pleased to take part following my friend from the
Reform Party-I am sorry but I do not know his riding-because
there are a few home truths that need to be brought up here.
Let us talk about some of the things that our constituents want
us to do. First of all it is true that there are in some places, in
some ridings in the country, people who are greatly dissatisfied
with their representation. It is also true that there are some
70-plus of us in this House-this is not to denigrate in any way
any of the new members from any party-who did get
re-elected and got elected quite handily with quite large
majorities.
In my riding, so that members will know where I am coming
from on this, I won every poll but one. Some polls had not been
won by a Liberal since Confederation.
In the riding next to me, and these are the two ridings that
would be affected should redistribution take place, the same
thing happened. The hon. member for Halifax West and I were
both very gratified that we won by very large majorities at every
poll. I believe the hon. member for Halifax West took every
single poll in his riding and, as I said, I lost one. It was certainly
remiss of me and I will try not to do it again.
The point I am making is that the reason for this bill, it must
be stated here and now, has nothing to do with the worry about
boundaries changing and causing problems in the traditional
gerrymander, if you will, that ridings are being changed and we
might lose them.
With the greatest of respect, I know the member of the Reform
Party who is the sole member of his party from Ontario could
say that Liberals in the province of Ontario are not particularly
worried about the electoral losses of moving boundaries. What
we are worried about-I am astounded that we do not have the
support of the Reform Party on this-is the cost of increasing
the number of members of Parliament to the public purse.
There are 295 of us in a country of 27 or 28 million people.
Look at the representation in the House of Representatives in the
United States yet they appear to manage their representation
very well. In these days when restraint is being urged on us by all
fronts, not the least of these urgings coming from the Reform
Party members across the way, should we really be considering
increasing the number of members of Parliament? I am almost at
a loss for words, which I can assure my hon. friend in the Reform
Party is not something that happens very often.
(1335)
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West): We noticed that.
Ms. Clancy: I am sure you did. You may learn from it too.
Consider the fact that members of the Reform Party think we
need more members of Parliament. It is unquestionably true that
there are certain members for whom a lack of redistribution is
creating a difficulty. I refer to my very good friend, the
parliamentary secretary to the minister of human resources who
has, as I understand it, the largest and most populous riding in
the country. I believe that the parliamentary secretary's riding
will soon hit a population somewhere in the vicinity of 300,000.
My own riding has a population of somewhere in excess of
100,000 which is larger than it should be. There are many
ridings, particularly urban ridings, where this happens and it
will be difficult for urban members. It may well be that we are
2730
going to have to look at some other way to ensure that people are
getting the proper representation.
I do not think the hard-pressed Canadian taxpayer wants to
hear from us that we are going to increase the number of
members of Parliament. Again, my shock really knows few
bounds that the hon. members from the Reform Party could
possibly be advocating this. They talk about the fact that there is
a process in place. Yes, there is. But as the hon. member who
spoke previous to me said, we are here to legislate. We are here
to legislate when things are not working in their most optimum
way to ensure that they do.
This bill is part of our responsibility that we are exercising to
ensure that the House does for the people of Canada what the
people of Canada deserve and need, not follow a format that has
probably outlived its usefulness.
If the members of the Reform Party are worried about the
money spent in getting to this point-as apparently they are, I
believe I heard the hon. member for Beaver River talk about this
yesterday-I can only say that perhaps the time should have
come some years ago to put an end to this. Unfortunately we
have not been in power for nine years. Now we are and now we
say that this must stop. This is not the way to go. This is not the
time to increase the number of members of Parliament and that
spending the unconscionable amounts of money, a lot more than
was spent already, I might add-perhaps it is the arithmetic that
is the problem here-is putting good money after bad.
Again I can only reiterate that it is utterly unbelievable, given
what we have heard day in and day out since January 17. I know
that my friends here are absolutely astounded as am I. I can see
that the member for Scarborough-Rouge River just does not
know where to turn at this stage of the game.
That members of Parliament from the Reform Party in all
seriousness are advocating that we continue this and increase
these numbers is really beyond my comprehension. The time to
undertake a comprehensive review of the process is now. I take a
leaf from the book of my friend who spoke previously and say:
This is what we are about. We are all legislators. It is our
responsibility to ensure that the legislation that comes from this
House is in the best interests of Canadians. It is time to review a
great number of things but it is certainly time to review the
electoral process and the way we decide representation and how
representation shall be meted out. It is time to tackle this issue
because we are still at an early stage in the process. It is time
because the existing electoral boundaries commissions have not
yet invested the time, energy and funds into holding public
hearings.
I wonder if my learned friends on the other side of the floor
have any idea just how much that process will cost Canadians
along with the addition of all those new members of Parliament.
I am quite taken aback by the stand taken by the Reform Party of
Canada. It amazes me, as I know it would certainly amaze my
constituents. There are individual reasons why we do not want
this redistribution, aside from the question of saving money,
aside from the reason that Canadians do not think we need more
MPs.
(1340)
I will close, Madam Speaker, by saying that in my riding of
Halifax I would lose the section known as Halifax Atlantic. It is
a wonderful section, the only part of my riding that has a rural
element. It has five fishing villages. It has been in my riding
since the redistribution that took place just before the 1988
election. I did not win it in 1988, I lost it. In 1993 I won it and I
won it in a big way.
I am sure that those members on the other side of the House
who are worried about this kind of thing. As a member who has
been here for five years I can tell them that kind of change rarely
makes a difference in the long run to your electoral majorities if
you are a constituency person who works his or her riding. The
people you represent are the people you represent, and the
geographical ideas that some people put forward as being a
problem do not really exist.
The main issue here is saving the money of the Canadian
taxpayers. I am appalled that the Reform Party does not want to
do this.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to rise today in this House to speak to Bill C-18, an Act
to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act.
As you know, Madam Speaker, my party does not wish to run
in the next elections. We hope that, by then, Quebec will be
independent. Nonetheless, the proposals made by the Electoral
District Boundaries Commission upset several of my colleagues
across Canada.
I am not the kind to shirk my responsibilities. When I saw that
the commission had carved up my riding of Lotbinière, I did not
have any other choice but to react strongly.
In no time, it created an uproar in my constituency. Following
the announcement of the proposed reform, around 20 articles,
editorials and letters to the editor appeared in local newspapers.
It is hardly surprising since the Bois-Francs area was split into
three different ridings. The commission wanted to combine
regional county municipalities into federal ridings, ignoring
certain historical, economical, social and cultural factors.
2731
To combine RCMs into ridings is reasonable to a point but not
if the cities themselves see no benefit in it. For instance, by
being shifted from Richelieu to Lotbinière, Bécancour was
being moved into the same riding as the other municipality in
the Bécancour RCM but was being separated from Nicolet.
In an article published on Thursday, February 24, 1994, in Le
Nouvelliste, Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois, Mayor of Bécancour, said,
and I quote: ``It is quite obvious that this exercise by the
commission members was essentially a demographic one, and
that they did not take into account the sense of belonging in
these communities''.
And Mayor Dubois added that the Bécancour-Nicolet area
cannot be divided. And what about the city of
Victoriaville-Arthabaska, the heart of the Bois-Francs area,
which was being separated from several area municipalities
such as Princeville with which it had real and tangible links.
I can only congratulate the government on its decision to
impose a two-year moratorium on this electoral boundaries
readjustment process. We are talking about an $8 million
exercise. Eight million dollars to move little lines around on the
electoral map, displeasing the majority of national, provincial
and municipal authorities in the process, all the while trying to
preserve electoral quotas and in fact spending public funds
needlessly.
Of course a revision of the electoral boundaries is necessary
when certain elements of the Elections Act are not adhered to.
Factors to be taken into account, besides electoral quota, are
described clearly in section 15 of the Act: community of
interests of the inhabitants of a given electoral district in the
province or its historical development. Also, care must be taken
to ensure districts are not too large in sparsely populated, rural
or northern regions of the province.
(1345)
Recent revisions have shown that more often than not,
commissions had used purely mathematical rules to readjust
electoral boundaries.
The intent, in this bill, to preserve the integrity of RCMs
within districts is commendable but hardly immutable. As we
have seen, in certain cases, others factors must be taken into
account.
In a commentary published on Tuesday February 22, 1994, in
L'Union, the chairman of the CNTU Bois-Francs, Mr. Denis
Champagne, gave a general idea of what people think: ``For an
electoral map to be good, it must reflect the various
communities and identify the connections between these well
enough. Finally, the administrative structure has to adhere to it.
Right now, we are in an undescribable administrative muddle''.
And he adds: ``Boundaries now divide RCMs; they overlap
different administrative areas. . . In a word, I cannot see the
current revision meeting our needs in that respect''.
That is what commissions must look at. It stands to reason
that we should review the legislation governing this process. A
parliamentary committee should oversee the review of the Act
and electoral boundaries should be readjusted. It really needs to
be done. It has not been done in 30 years.
Sir John A. Macdonald himself recognized that electoral
power parity was essential, while not being the only factor to be
taken into account to ensure effective representation. He
introduced the Representation Act, 1872, in recognition of this
basic truth: ``Although the rule concerning the population of
each district has been widely obeyed, other factors have been
considered relevant to ensure a variety of interests, classes and
communities can be represented and the rule of numbers is not
the only one used''.
This quote was used as part of a ruling made by the Supreme
Court of Canada on June 6, 1991, in the case of the Attorney
General of Saskatchewan against Roger Carter et al.
It would therefore be worthwhile to review the Act to make
sure that electoral boundaries commissions take all these factors
into consideration rather than set arbitrary boundaries.
[English]
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to participate in a debate that has gone on for some time
now about the right or wrong of suspending the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act. As one who comes from the
smallest province in Canada whose seats have been enshrined in
the Constitution and where the numbers can neither go up nor
down, people might ask me: ``Why would you want to
participate in this debate?''
I believe what we are proposing to do here is very worthwhile
at this time. We have decided to suspend the act and have the
committee look at what way we can change the distribution
system to make it better. As my colleague from Vancouver
Quadra alluded, I believe personally the change should be in line
with the way it is done in the United States.
At this time we are all talking about slowing down the
spending of money and other things. The talk going around
indicates that we have already spent $5 million but it is going to
cost a lot more money if we look at the outcome of the
redistribution.
(1350 )
I am not necessarily saying that we should not redistribute the
numbers or redistribute the seats, but I do not believe at this time
in our history there is any justifiable need to add more seats any
place in Canada.
2732
All kinds of institutions are looking at holding the line,
reducing numbers or not going ahead with other plans. I notice
new provincial electoral reform has just come forward in my
own province. I have not spoken on what I think of it. They are
reducing seats. The ridings in Prince Edward Island are held by
two members. There are 16 ridings and two members for each.
This is a throwback to the days when there were two houses. It
was 100 years ago that one of the houses was eliminated but two
members per riding were retained. They are now talking about
changing to one member per riding. I do not know what the end
result will be in the number of seats.
It is not the best time for us to go forward and increase seats in
the House with the added costs. The provinces that would gain
are well represented in the House right now. This can continue.
After the committee makes its recommendations we can look at
the readjustments.
At this time the whole process needs to be re-examined. It has
been many years since it has been looked at. We have been using
the same formula for approximately 30 years. Everything is up
for review in Parliament, everything in our country. It is not
such a terrible thing to do so.
Many people have said that we should expand the number of
seats or that we should go forward with redistribution. Again I
agree with my colleague from Vancouver Quadra. Maybe the
way in which the electoral system has operated for the last
number of years has not been the best.
For instance, we should have an automatic formula that kicks
in after a census is taken and ridings need to be readjusted. Many
times over the years ridings have been readjusted to make it
better for some members and make it worse for others. This has
always been a trend in our electoral system. As a member for
some years now in this House and in the provincial legislature I
have indicated that it should be done fairly for every person and
for every riding. The people who should be getting the best
arrangement are the voters. I do not think that has always been
the case.
When we conclude debate, vote on the bill and it goes to
committee I trust it will be studied seriously. I am sure the
committee will do so, with members from all parties in the
House. Then the committee will report back to us and
recommend that some changes need to be made.
I am sure, as we go along in the governance of the country,
there will be many more important issues that need to be tackled
than whether we should change the boundaries and add more
seats to this institution. There are now 295 seats. As I said a few
minutes ago, the men and women who represent the provinces
across the country and the two territories give good
representation. Of course one would always like to see more
members on his or her side of the House depending on what is at
issue. I do not think that is what is intended by the motion
although we all know that has happened in many cases in the
past.
This is a good time to tackle the issue of setting it aside,
reviewing it and at the end of the day coming forward with a
mechanism that will make it a better way of deciding on how we
raise or lower the number of seats in given areas.
(1355)
As I said, in my own special case perhaps I should not be the
one speaking on it, but I come from the smallest province in
Canada. We have four members of Parliament and those seats
were enshrined in the Constitution. That was one of the
arrangements made in 1873 when the province of Prince Edward
Island came into Canada. It was enshrined again in 1982 when
the Constitution was amended and brought home to Canada.
This is given to the smaller provinces so that they will not go
below a certain level. It is the same in the United States. Every
state is guaranteed that it will have representation in Congress.
As we head to question period, I say that I had great concern
about the way we were rushing into this matter. There were
certainly representations made by many members across the
country to put a hold on the process for the present time, let the
committee have a serious look at it and let us see what needs to
be done. I am sure all constituents in the country who are
represented here will decide at the end of the day whether or not
we do the right thing.
As we look at what is to take place in the country over this
period of time I am sure there are issues that can well be
addressed just as easy as electoral reform. I am sure all members
of the House will join with us when we vote on laying the matter
aside and letting what is to happen in the future be determined. I
know that Canada will be well represented by this action.
The Speaker: Order. It being two o'clock, pursuant to
Standing Order 30(5), the House will now proceed to Statements
by Members pursuant to Standing Order 31.
_____________________________________________
2732
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Jane Stewart (Brant): Mr. Speaker, last night Wayne
Gretzky scored his 802nd NHL goal to surpass Gordie Howe's
all-time NHL scoring record.
Wayne Gretzky was raised and educated in Brantford and his
family continues to reside in my riding. Many of us have
followed his career with a great deal of interest and enjoyment.
Number 99 has won nine scoring titles, the Hart trophy nine
times, the Lady Byng trophy three times and the Conn Smythe
on two occasions. He has his name on the Stanley Cup four
2733
times, has been a part of three Canada Cup championship teams
and holds no less than 61 NHL records.
Off the ice Wayne Gretzky has made a tremendous
contribution to many charities and organizations, committing
endless hours to help less fortunate groups and individuals.
Wayne Gretzky's on and off ice dedication and contributions
truly make him the great one.
I invite all members to join me in congratulating Wayne
Gretzky on his career accomplishments.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Philippe Paré (Louis-Hébert): Mr. Speaker, today I
would like to point out that the 25th Forestry Week, organized
by forestry and geomatics students at Laval University, is being
celebrated. I want to extend hearty congratulations to these
young people who are concerned about making the public aware
of the importance of preserving our forests.
Let us not forget that trees are among our most important
natural resources. From an economic standpoint, in Quebec,
forestry accounts for over 4 per cent of GDP, 15 per cent of
export revenues, and over 10 per cent of direct employment. The
environmental importance of the forest is beyond question: just
think of its role as a CO2 trap.
Again, I congratulate the forestry students at Laval University
on their initiative.
* * *
[
English]
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker,
everyone knows that the sale of Ginn Publishing Inc. was a
bungled deal. The issue will not go away. The sale has become
the litmus test of the government's commitment to
parliamentary reform and to an open parliamentary process.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage stated yesterday that he
had no objection to an investigation by a parliamentary standing
committee.
The Liberals speak of an honest and open government but the
matter has been discussed in committee and government
members have thwarted any opposition attempts for such an
investigation. It is easy for the minister to call for an
investigation at committee when there is no follow-through for
such an investigation.
(1400)
This government has broken its commitment to an honest and
open government over and over. It will not allow this
investigation. We saw today it even invoked closure. What kind
of open government is this?
* * *
Mr. Jack Iyerak Anawak (Nunatsiaq):
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut]
[English]
Mr. Speaker, March is National Aboriginal Languages Month.
Today I want to honour these languages, the first languages in
this country.
I encourage the members of this House and all Canadians to
support aboriginal peoples in their struggle to preserve and
promote their languages. Of the 53 aboriginal languages in
Canada, only three have a good chance of surviving, one of
which is Inuktitut which I just spoke.
The NWT is the only jurisdiction in Canada which recognizes
aboriginal languages as official languages. Through the federal
NWT Language Co-operation Agreement, aboriginal languages
in the Northwest Territories receive protection and assistance.
This agreement is significant and I commend its objectives to
all Canadians.
* * *
Mrs. Karen Kraft Sloan (York-Simcoe): Mr. Speaker, this
week Vancouver is hosting one of the world's biggest trade fairs
and conferences on environmental industries. Approximately 40
countries are represented at the Globe International Trade Fair
and Conference. Along with the thousands of visitors, their
participation demonstrates that the business of the environment
is enjoying an unprecedented boom.
By the year 2000 world markets for environmental industry
products will be in the order of $600 billion annually. In Canada
alone the industry includes some 4,500 firms employing about
150,000 people. Its annual sales are now approximately $11
billion and are expected to double by the year 2000.
Globe 94 provides an important venue toward doing business
and bettering the environment. It provides a tremendous
opportunity for Canadian companies to demonstrate their
innovations and find new suppliers, new buyers and new sources
of financing.
Globe 94 highlights how sustainable development fosters the
development of environmental industries-
2734
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East): Mr. Speaker, the
hon. Minister of Canadian Heritage is to be commended for
tabling the new Parks Canada ``Guiding Principles and
Operational Policies''.
Today is an occasion for pride in our rich heritage. This policy
document is the foundation for our national and international
commitments to protecting and showcasing our heritage.
[Translation]
This initiative results from the efforts made in the last two and
a half years by the many Canadians who took part in the
consultation exercise needed to develop and refine the policies.
[English]
The exercise demonstrated how deeply Canadians care about
their natural and cultural heritage preserved by our national
historic sites, national parks, marine conservation areas,
historic canals, heritage rivers, heritage railway stations and
other program elements of Parks Canada.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, on March
20, 1992, the then Deputy Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources, Bruce Howe, made a formal commitment on behalf
of the federal government to contribute $7.2 million a year for
five years to the Canadian Centre for Magnetic Fusion. This
centre conducts research on nuclear fusion in Varennes, using a
test reactor called Tokamak.
This program funded equally by the federal government and
Hydro-Québec is part of concerted international action on
nuclear fusion, a process quite unlike conventional nuclear
fission that looks like a clean, safe and promising alternative
source of energy for the future.
Despite the representations made to the Minister of Natural
Resources by the President of Hydro-Québec, the government
decided to reduce its contribution by over $2 million.
I strongly deplore the government's decision to save a little
money at the expense of a major research project in Quebec, a
province already shortchanged in federal research and
development funding.
(1405 )
[English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, let us
get the facts straight about the government's compensation
report recently tabled in this House. It is business as usual.
Although the Conservatives started it, the Liberals could have
stopped it but did not. The initial cost of the report was $150,000
and has escalated to $200,000.
It recommended severance pay for all MPs even though many
have jobs to go to after their mandate. It recommended more
money for senators and it recommended a 37 per cent pay
increase for MPs. The Liberal Party suggests that MPs deserve a
raise because they work so hard.
Let us consider ourselves Corporation Canada and we are its
295 directors. Corporation Canada spends $160 billion a year
and loses $40 billion. Do MPs deserve this self-indulgence? No.
Balance the budget and we will talk about it.
* * *
Mr. Rex Crawford (Kent): Mr. Speaker, ethanol is the fuel of
the future available today. It is sustainable development, a boon
to agriculture, a 30 per cent reduction in harmful greenhouse
gases, a plus for the economy.
A $170 million ethanol plant was announced last week for my
riding. It will be world scale, 20 times larger than anything now
in Canada, competing head on with the U.S. and using half a
million tonnes of Canadian corn with an annual economic
impact in southern Ontario of over $125 million.
It is a win-win situation giving an economic boost to
Canadian agriculture while prolonging the life of oil reserves.
The monumental and historic ethanol plant in Chatham hinges
on one thing. I strongly urge the government to extend the
current excise tax exemption on ethanol fuels for over 10 years.
American states, Alberta-
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Patrick Gagnon
(Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine): Mr. Speaker, I want
to mention the excellent work done by the government, and in
particular the Minister of Transport, the hon. Douglas Young,
regarding the case of the
Irving Whale. This ship, which has
been called a time bomb for the environ-
2735
ment, will finally be refloated. This is good news for the
residents of the Magdalen Islands and P.E.I.
The witnesses heard by the Gagnon-Easter committee were
able, for the first time, to express their fear to me and to Wayne
Easter, the hon. member for Malpeque. They were unanimous in
saying that it was time to act, and our government listened to
them.
In conclusion, I want to congratulate all those who worked
relentlessly for that happy ending in the case of the Irving
Whale. All of Eastern Canada is very grateful for that outcome.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. John O'Reilly (Victoria-Haliburton): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today to congratulate Mr. Chris Hodson, the newest member
of the Ontario legislature who won a provincial byelection in
Victoria-Haliburton on St. Patrick's Day.
He has been described as a political newcomer, however after
closer examination his family name has a long history, including
this very chamber. His grandfather, Clayton Wesley Hodson,
was the member of Parliament for Victoria from 1945 to 1963.
His uncle, Glen Hodson, was the member of the provincial
parliament for Victoria-Haliburton from 1963 to 1975.
Once again I want to congratulate Chris on his victory. I look
forward to working with him to provide excellent representation
for the constituents of Victoria-Haliburton.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all
Bloc Quebecois members, I want to condemn the assassination
of Mr. Colosio, the institutional revolutionary party candidate
for the Mexican presidential election.
Mr. Colosio was primarily known here as a key player in
reform and modernization of the institutional revolutionary
party and, since the beginning of the crisis in the state of
Chiapas, in January of this year, an advocate of the Mexican
election process reform.
Without in any way interfering in Mexican domestic politics,
I want to express the general feeling of reprobation among
Quebecers in light of this violation of the democratic process of
a friendly nation.
[English]
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
people often remark about grain farm subsidies, usually not in a
very positive manner. What most people are not aware of is the
problems faced by grain farmers which are beyond their control.
Since the 1970s provincial and federal governments and the
Wheat Board of Canada have supplied 18,000 hopper cars to
railways.
(1410 )
In spite of this, some Manitoba elevators have not seen a rail
car in over two months. Most elevators are full to capacity and
April 1 road restrictions in Manitoba will restrict the movement
of grain by farmers.
There are currently 30 ships in Vancouver harbour awaiting
grain. These ships get up to $20,000 a day in demurrage charges
and this comes out of the farmers' pockets. Some ships have left
empty after collecting as much as $350,000 in demurrage
charges.
Since the Vancouver port shutdown, western grain farmers
have lost approximately $200 million in grain sales and
demurrage charges. Canadian farmers cannot afford this and
neither can the Canadian economy.
* * *
Mr. Derek Wells (South Shore): Mr. Speaker, the
commentary surrounding the recent cuts to the defence budget
centres around the closure of four Canadian bases across
Canada.
As a member whose riding is losing its two Canadian forces
stations, I have to say that the South Shore's loss is just as
devastating if not more so when the economic state of the area is
taken into consideration.
However, the communities of Mill Cove and Shelburne have
begun the process of adjusting to their losses. Steering
committees have been formed in both areas to encourage and
co-ordinate redevelopment plans.
Right now these communities are concerned that assets from
the stations will be transferred elsewhere. This must not be
allowed to happen. It is impossible to make plans if the
resources available are constantly changing. These committees
have taken on a very difficult task. They should not be forced to
operate in an atmosphere of further uncertainty.
I therefore urge the Minister of National Defence to freeze all
assets at CFS Mill Cove and CFS Shelburne until such time as
proposals can be formalized.
2736
Mrs. Eleni Bakopanos (Saint-Denis): Mr. Speaker, this
weekend more than 40,000 Canadians of Hellenic origin from
all parts of Montreal will be in my riding of Saint-Denis
celebrating the anniversary of Greece's independence day on
March 25, 1821 and the establishment of the modern Greek
state.
[Translation]
But this year, Mr. Speaker, Canadians of Hellenic origin have
something more to celebrate.
[English]
On behalf of my constituents of Hellenic origin I wish to
thank our government for playing an important role in the
Balkan crisis not only in providing peacekeeping forces in the
region but for encouraging all neighbouring states to seek
peaceful resolution to their conflicts.
We are proud that Canada is supportive in helping to resolve
the differences between Greece and its neighbours.
[Translation]
I would like to conclude by offering my most sincere
congratulations to the members of the Hellenic community in
my riding, as well as to all Canadians of Greek origin, on this
important day.
Zito o Kanadas!
[English]
Long live Canada.
* * *
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham): Mr. Speaker, the township of
Uxbridge is a largely rural municipality in my riding. The
municipality is currently being asked to rezone land to allow for
an influx of migrant workers in order to harvest 1994 crops.
These migrant workers are brought to our country under a
program administered by the Canada Employment Commission.
In the case of Ontario for the 1993 season this program was
responsible for the importation of over 9,000 workers.
Many farm organizations claim that they need this workforce
to address the seasonality of their industry. I note that many of
our industries have seasonal fluctuations such as construction
and tourism and that these industries do not require the
importation of labour. Others question the reluctance of
Canadians to perform this type of work.
I wonder with our current high levels of unemployment and
social assistance whether farm organizations and the Canada
Employment Commission could review this process with a view
to hiring Canadians.
* * *
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, we have
been in this House since January 17 and Canadians have been
watching this government to see what, if anything, would be
done differently.
What an incredible disappointment it must be for Canadians
to realize that the promises of a new way of governing would
guide and shape the activities of this government were not to be
kept.
Members opposite are a mirror image of their predecessors. It
is simply business as usual. The pork barrel is full. The trough
has been topped up. Budget forecasting is still less effective and
reliable than weather forecasting.
Junkets are still a pleasant reward and used to keep the
backbenchers in line. Questionable handouts to business,
business as usual. Laughable handouts to special interest groups
and pressure groups continue.
How Canadians must lament when they watch this
government day to day and see the evidence mounting that it is
simply business as usual.
_____________________________________________
ORAL QUESTIONS
(1415)
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, not only has
the business community reacted negatively to the budget
brought down by the Minister of Finance, but we also learned
this morning that three out of four Quebecers are disappointed
with the budget because it will not make the economy stronger.
The three major unions in Quebec have asked the government
to delay implementing the measures restricting unemployment
insurance until a genuine comprehensive debate is held on social
program reform.
Does the Minister of Finance intend to postpone, as requested
by the three major Quebec unions, the UI measures announced
in his budget until such time as genuine consultation on the
reform process has taken place?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional Develop-
2737
ment-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, there is no question, and the
Minister of Human Resources Development has repeatedly said
so, that we intend to begin a process of fundamentally reforming
unemployment insurance in order to better prepare workers for
training and to create jobs. We have embarked on a course that
will enable us to achieve this goal and we will stay this course.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, will the
Minister of Finance recognize that he should reconsider his
approach which has been to attack the unemployed rather than
unemployment itself? And could he tell us if he intends to put
genuine job creation measures on the table in order to help
people get off unemployment by working, instead of forcing
them off UI by cutting their benefits?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, not only have we rolled
back the UI premium rate in our budget in order to create jobs,
not only have we talked about funding a new training plan to
provide more training to our workers, but yesterday-and it
surprises me that the hon. member is not asking me a question
about this-the Minister of Human Resources Development and
New Brunswick Premier Frank McKenna announced a program
specifically designed to help Canadian workers.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, the main
weakness in the Finance minister's budget is that is does not
contain a single project of major significance that would help
spur the economy. That is what is wrong with his budget. Does
the Minister of Finance not recognize that he must introduce
bold measures and join with the private sector in investing in
forward-looking projects such as the high-speed train, projects
which would give some hope and some dignity back to the
unemployed?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of his
question, the hon. member quoted from a survey which was
reported in this morning's edition of La Presse. I would like to
quote the article in question: ``After leading the way in the
House of Commons on the issue of the military college in
Saint-Jean, the Bloc has chosen not to mention this matter at all
in its review of the Martin budget. Instead, on the subject of
defence, it criticizes the minister for not making deeper cuts''.
How inconsistent, Mr. Speaker. How hypocritical!
Some hon. members: Oh, Oh!
Some hon. members: Withdraw what you said!
Mr. Martin (Lasalle-Émard): You are right, I withdraw the
reference to hypocritical.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Mr. Speaker,
when the Liberals were in opposition, they strongly denounced
the policy of high interest rates pursued by the former Governor
of the Bank of Canada, John Crow. Now the excessive increase
of the Bank of Canada rate that we saw yesterday is another sign
which shows that nothing has changed.
(1420)
My question for the Minister of Finance is this: Why did the
Liberal Party of Canada promise in the election campaign to
redefine the monetary policy, when it is acting exactly like the
previous government by obsessively fighting inflation, which
has been eliminated, instead of fighting unemployment?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, we will maintain the
strategy of pursuing an inflation target of 1 to 3 per cent, with a
goal of 2 per cent. We will do so because we want to create jobs
and we want the economy to grow. The hon. member, as a
reputable economist, knows very well why and I wonder why he
asks such silly questions.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
The Speaker: Order! The language is getting a little rough
today. Perhaps more moderate words could be used. I would
hope that we could speak to each other in a civil manner.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot): Thank you,
Mr. Speaker. Given what he just said, I ask the Minister of
Finance if he could explain to us how his position is different
from that of the Conservatives?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, our objection when the
Conservative government was in power was the really savage
way they wrestled with inflation to bring it down. But we paid
the price and we are there now! After making such hard-won
gains, now is not the time to give them up.
* * *
[
English]
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, for four
and a half years I sat in the House and watched the Conservative
government lose the respect of the Canadian people.
During those years the Liberals promised that when they were
in government things would be different.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Miss Grey: Mr. Speaker, it has become apparent that the
government is practising business as usual. The red book
2738
promised: ``A Liberal government will reduce grants to
business''. Once elected that very same Liberal government
begins shovelling money over to its friends in business.
My question is for the Minister of Finance. How does he
justify the full blast operation of what Terence Corcoran calls
the Ottawa grant machine in defiance of the government's own
red book?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, perhaps the member
ought to be a bit more specific in terms of what grants she is
opposing. I read Mr. Corcoran's column.
Is she opposing the infrastructure program? Is she opposing
the program that every single province in the country has
endorsed? Is she opposing the infrastructure program that every
major municipality has requested?
An hon. member: Perhaps we should have recall.
Mr. Martin (LaSalle-Émard): That is right, perhaps we
should have recall, considering that every province and every
municipality wants to have the infrastructure program. If she
does not like it, maybe we should have recall.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, we would
love a definition of what infrastructure is and if it includes
Saddledomes and hockey stadiums, then we do have to ask
questions.
I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance
also on the topic of business as usual.
Two separate squadrons of members of Parliament and
senators are lifting off for Paris in the springtime. One of those
groups will be accompanied by spouses at taxpayers' expense.
Will the minister explain to his colleagues that compounding
the wastefulness of an already useless junket makes his efforts
to cut the deficit that much harder?
Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Léonard): Mr. Speaker, first
of all I would like to say that the trip does not involve the
authority of the government. It is the executive of the
parliamentary association that is elected by the members of this
House.
(1425 )
It is important for us who believe that parliamentary exchange
with the rest of the world is important. This is a national
Parliament and such exchanges should continue.
Concerning the way delegations are formed and the expenses
of such delegations, I would like to remind members that on
January 17 this year we announced a plan to reduce costs to the
House of Commons budget. In that plan was the way we should
restructure our parliamentary association.
I am sure that if the member has enough patience in the few
months to come before this session adjourns we will have a new
system of parliamentary delegation. I am sure that the
representative of the Reform Party on the board will contribute
to that new approach.
The Speaker: I would point out to the hon. member that
parliamentary trips or voyages, if I might call them that, come
under the purview not of the government per se but from a
committee of Parliament. With that I will go to the third
question.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, those who
travel with the parliamentary associations are not paying their
own way. The taxpayers are paying their way.
One final supplementary question for the Minister of Finance,
still on the theme of business as usual.
It is reported that a poll commissioned by the human
resources department cost $250,000. Would the Minister of
Finance in his efforts to trim the deficit, as I know he is
concerned, investigate whether this was the lowest bid the
department of human resources received or whether the most
competitive bid which was recommended by the department was
passed over by the minister in favour of his hometown pollster?
The Speaker: We are bordering here on impugning motives. I
am sure we would be able to lower the decibel level just a bit.
I would hope that in both the questions and the answers we
would not impugn motives to hon. members of Parliament.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
An Info Update sent to Regional Directors of Canada
Employment Centres shows disturbing figures. Out of $2,355
million worth of cuts, in 1994-95 and 1995-96, $630 million
will come from the Maritimes and $735 million, each year, from
Quebec. That is 60 per cent of unemployment insurance cuts for
one third of the population.
How can the Minister argue that his government's priority is
job creation, when its only strategy is an attack on 85 per cent of
the unemployed, and moreover in the poorest provinces?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, these figures are not correct. In
fact, the changes to the unemployment insurance program will
affect only 2 or 3 per cent of the beneficiaries. I would
appreciate it if the hon. member would report true facts, not
fiction.
2739
Mrs. Francine Lalonde (Mercier): Mr. Speaker, the figures
have been verified with Strategic Policy and, if you wish, I can
give the name of the civil servant we contacted who, of course,
was none too happy that we had these figures. For 1994-95 and
1995-96, they are correct.
(1430)
How could we take seriously the job creation initiatives of the
government when the only thing it does is wage war on the
unemployed, while hiding reality behind programs like the one
the Minister unveiled yesterday in New Brunswick, which will
affect 1,000 persons and cost the federal government $40
million over 5 years, when more than a billion is being syphoned
out of the Maritimes in just two years?
[English]
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, unfortunately the hon. member
of the opposition is beginning to suffer from an acute case of
selective memory.
The fact of the matter is we did not just announce one program
for New Brunswick. We have also announced a major program
that will affect young people. We announced an additional $20
million for young people, 10,000 more spots for summer
employment. Our red book put forward these initiatives. We will
be making an announcement very shortly. Places will be
provided for tens of thousands of young people in internship
programs. We have announced programs whereby we would put
people into a youth service corps by the tens of thousands.
We have announced programs where we will provide the very
major stimulus of $800 million right across the country for a
wide range of new approaches to get people back to work.
We said in the red book that the old programs were not
working. The old ways were not getting people back to work. We
are dedicated as a government to getting people back to work. In
order to do that we have to make changes. I wish the hon.
member would realize that change in this world is necessary and
not just defend the status quo.
* * *
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the
minister acknowledged that Tuesday's rise in the Bank of
Canada lending rate is likely to result in higher than budgeted
costs for servicing the government debt. He insisted the estimate
for other budget items were conservative and that the overall
deficit estimate would be achieved.
It looks like business as usual. Does the minister admit that
the high interest rates also will have a negative impact on
economic growth and tax revenues and that therefore the overall
deficit forecast is also too low?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows
the current level of interest rates is substantially lower than the
level we had six months or a year ago. Yesterday and today the
vast majority of economists have said the current level will not
in fact impede the economic growth we are now embarking on.
Mr. Herb Grubel (Capilano-Howe Sound): Mr. Speaker,
why was the Canadian dollar under such heavy pressure that the
Bank of Canada on Tuesday had to increase its lending rate 18
per cent, or 78 basis points, to a level of 5 per cent and the
exchange rate today has dropped another four-tenths of 1 per
cent?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance and Minister
responsible for the Federal Office of Regional
Development-Quebec): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member knows
the Minister of Finance cannot engage in speculating on the
reasons for interest rate increases or decreases. I know he also
realizes that if the Minister of Finance were to do so, he would
get himself into a lot of trouble. I am sure the member would not
want to get the Minister of Finance into a lot of trouble.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. According
to a Statistics Canada study, the income gap between
francophones and anglophones is widening steadily at the
expense of francophones. In 1977, this gap in favour of
anglophones was 4.4 per cent. In 1992, it had increased to 10.3
per cent. This study also shows that only in Quebec has this
historical income gap between anglophones and francophones
narrowed.
(1435)
Will the minister recognize that the socioeconomic status of
francophones outside Quebec has deteriorated drastically,
which goes to show that the Canadian federal system is a total
failure?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, we are of course looking at these figures with great
interest. As a francophone myself, I care a great deal about my
economic future.
I think we should not jump to conclusions too quickly.
Language is one thing, and the economic status of individuals is
another, although the two can sometimes be linked. Many
factors come into play in determining our economic conditions.
2740
The main thing we can do, in my opinion, is to continue to
monitor the situation, gather data and eventually draw
conclusions which will be well-informed.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie): Mr.
Speaker, it goes without saying that I am not worried about the
minister's economic situation. While he is at it, the minister
might as well examine other areas, as we have requested.
Would the Minister of Finance agree with me that, if the
income gap narrowed in Quebec, it was thanks to Bill 101 which
opened senior management positions up to francophones in
Quebec?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): It is
quite interesting, Mr. Speaker, to see also what is happening in
New Brunswick, where the gap between anglophones and
francophones is rather small.
An hon. member: How small?
Mr. Dupuy: One percentage point. I think that we should also
bear in mind that the statistics published were for five
provinces. As I said earlier, let us wait and see what the studies
will reveal when they are further along before answering.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the government House leader.
There is further evidence that business as usual in Ottawa is
continuing. Only a few months ago the Liberal Party when in
opposition complained that the dictatorial Tory regime used its
majority to ram controversial legislation through Parliament.
How the Liberals did abhor the actions they now casually
justify.
Will the government House leader stand and tell this House
that the government will never again for the life of this
Parliament resort to such undemocratic tactics as closure
through time allocation to stifle debate?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I
said on behalf of the government it will be found over the life of
this Parliament that this government will be using time
allocation and closure far less frequently than its predecessor. I
challenge the opposition House leader to raise this again after a
few years and see if I am right.
Speaking of democracy, I do not know why the hon. member
is complaining when the majority of members want to have a
decision taken. I thought that was democracy rather than having
this place run by the minority in the Reform Party.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, it was my impression that this House was a forum
whereby members could have the opportunity of making a case
to convince the other side and that is the purpose of this.
In the Liberal red book the government says it will take a
series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of
government; open government will be the watch word of the
Liberal program.
Is the use of closure through time allocation one of the
initiatives that will be used to restore confidence? Is this what
the House leader calls open government?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member forgets that with his support and the support of
the Official Opposition this House passed a major package of
parliamentary reform measures. Is he reflecting on his own
decision? I doubt he wants to do that.
Furthermore if the member wants to worry about shutting off
debate, why is he wasting the time of this House today with
repeated quorum calls blanking out the chances of members
even of his own party to debate? That is not parliamentary
democracy.
* * *
(1440)
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
According to many experts, the income gap between
anglophones and francophones in every province except Quebec
is due in large part to the educational difficulties encountered by
francophones. This opinion is shared by the Liberal member for
Ottawa-Vanier who told the TVA television network
yesterday: ``We asked for the management of our own schools
because it goes hand in hand with regular management. We still
do not have it in Ontario after asking for it continuously for 30
years''.
Does the minister share the opinion of his Liberal colleague
from Ottawa-Vanier and does he recognize that francophones
outside Quebec do not enjoy the same rights and privileges as
anglophones in Canada and Quebec?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, what I recognize above all is the Canadian Charter of
Rights and Freedoms. I recognize the Supreme Court decisions
defining these rights. I believe these rights should be enforced
and respected. That is precisely why this government recently
introduced a Court Challenges Program to help right the wrongs
done to those who feel their rights have been violated.
2741
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I hope that
if the minister believes in rights and freedoms, he also believes
that Supreme Court decisions should be implemented, but
unfortunately they are not.
Does the minister admit that the federal government
miserably failed to ensure that francophone and Acadian
communities in Canada manage their own schools, and to give
them enough money to have proper schools, not like those in
Kingston?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I would like all these schools to be magnificent, but I
can assure you that we do not forget those lacking these
facilities. That is why a program costing in excess of $100
million is under way to build and expand schools. This is a big
country and we cannot do everything at once.
But I hasten to add that education is an area of provincial
jurisdiction and what we can do is negotiate with the provinces
to improve the situation. Negotiations are under way where the
needs are greater and I hope they will succeed in improving the
situation.
* * *
Mr. Dan McTeague (Ontario): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
[English]
The Canadian publishing industry represents a $2.2 billion
industry which directly employs over 12,000 Canadians. Many
of these individuals are in my riding. However this is one
industry that has been battered by recession, by globalization
and by foreign competition.
Will the minister tell this House what his department and this
government are doing to support the Canadian publishing
industry which is so vital to Canada and all our ridings?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): I
share the concern of my colleague. It is indeed a vital industry. It
is one we should support and we are doing so.
I can indicate the amounts we are putting behind that industry.
We are providing over $20 million in support to the Canadian
book publishing industry under publication and distribution
assistance for the coming fiscal year. We are also providing $24
million in the coming fiscal year. The postal subsidy for the next
two years will be over $77 million. That is a total of over $120
million. That is the support we are giving to that industry.
* * *
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Public Works and Government
Services.
On November 4 last year the Prime Minister promised to
examine the process of awarding advertising contracts. As yet
no guidelines have been produced.
On February 1 a well known Liberal campaign manager who
is also a close friend and former employee of the Minister of
Human Resources Development became a director and owner of
McKim Communications. Just three days later a federal contract
worth $5.5 million was extended to him. On the surface this
appears to be another example of business as usual. I assume the
minister must approve all these contracts.
(1445 )
Besides the ownership of this company is the minister aware
of an employee or an officer of McKim Communications who is
closely related to a member of his own cabinet, and could he
identify that person?
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member
for his question because it gives us an opportunity to set the
record straight.
Not all that long ago the hon. member stood in the House and
indicated to members of Parliament that it was a $184 million
contract. Today it is a $5 million contract. The hon. member
should know that the Minister of Health has responded to the
specifics of a question that was raised by a colleague, perhaps in
the hon. member's absence.
However on the broader issue with regard to advertising,
polling and communications, the hon. member is correct. The
Prime Minister issued a directive. We are presently reviewing
the policy and looking at the monetary sum allocated for the
purposes of the particular program.
I am sure the House leader of the Reform Party would concur
because in the substance of the question he did not in any way
disagree with the government using polling or consulting or
advertising for those purposes. I want to assure the hon. member
that the matter is under active review.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I am
glad to hear that the matter is under active review, but I believe
there are enough questions of integrity on the particular issue
that I would ask the minister, in order to clear this rather
confusing and muddling answer, if he would initiate a public
inquiry into this advertising contract to see if there has been any
improper or political interference in the wording of the
particular contract.
Hon. David Dingwall (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services and Minister for the Atlantic Canada
Opportunities Agency): Mr. Speaker, I am tempted to
refer-however I do not think it would be politically correct in
terms of the language of the House-to the question as silly.
2742
However the hon. member must realize that an answer was
provided by the Minister of Health. The specifics were provided
to the House. I am sorry the hon. member does not like the
information he is getting. I guess the hon. member would want
me to say that it was $184 million and not something
substantially less than $5 million.
The facts have been provided by the Minister of Health. All
the information is readily available. I indicated on a previous
occasion that if the hon. member wants the details all he has had
to do is ask, slip us a note.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance in
his capacity as Minister responsible for regional development in
Quebec.
This morning, we learned that as part of its rationalization
plan, VIA Rail is planning to cancel service on the
Montreal-Gaspé and Montreal-Chicoutimi runs and to severely
curtail service between Montreal and Abitibi. In other words,
after denouncing the cuts to VIA Rail when they were in
opposition, the Liberals are maintaining the policy of the
Conservatives and abandoning rail passenger service.
Does this mean that once again, VIA Rail will be streamlining
its operations at the expense of Eastern Canada, and in
particular, of Quebec which will experience far more drastic rail
service cuts than Western Canada?
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the document to which my hon. colleague is referring is an
internal VIA Rail document. There is no question that the
negotiations currently under way will determine to a large
degree where service cuts will be made.
If there is no dramatic improvement in VIA Rail's ability to
provide service within the budgets allocated by the federal
government, then some major changes will certainly be made.
However, no final decision has been made at this time because
the negotiations are still ongoing.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, how will the minister responsible for regional
development in Quebec be able to sanction cuts of this
magnitude which will hinder regional economic development in
Quebec by severing an essential link between the regions and
Montreal?
[English]
Hon. Douglas Young (Minister of Transport): Mr. Speaker,
the decisions that are going to be taken with respect to the
rationalization of services provided by VIA Rail are going to be
taken from coast to coast, not just in the province of Quebec.
(1450 )
The negotiations that are being conducted right now with
employees and with the management of VIA Rail are going to
have a significant impact on what we can provide in terms of rail
passenger services for Canadians within the restrictions that
were announced a year ago in a previous budget and confirmed
in the budget brought down in the House in February.
How well we do in these negotiations will have a direct impact
on how much rail passenger service we can protect in the
country, in Quebec and elsewhere.
* * *
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of National Revenue.
Over the past number of months Greenpeace has been
carrying out a misinformation campaign in Europe regarding
forest practices in British Columbia.
Canadians are sick and tired of their tax dollars being used to
support special interest lobby groups. If groups such as
Greenpeace wish to engage in political activities, they should
rely solely on the contributions of their supporters and not on
backing from Canadian taxpayers.
Will the minister undertake a full scale review of the criteria
used to determine tax exemption status for Greenpeace and
other non-profit organizations?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, the tax exempt status of many organizations is under
close review by the department. There is a series of cases where
we have withdrawn that privilege from an organization for
misuse of funds or not abiding by the required rules.
With respect to the particular issue of Greenpeace I will take
the member's representation, but I know of no examination
taking place at the present moment.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, my
supplementary question is for the Minister of Natural
Resources.
Given that this misinformation campaign is costing the
Canadian economy both in terms of lost revenue and lost jobs,
what is the government doing to counter this misinformation
campaign in Europe?
Hon. David Anderson (Minister of National Revenue): Mr.
Speaker, once more the member should recognize that we live in
a democracy where people are expected to have differing
opinions on many important issues. We have no intention of
attempting to restrict free debate, provided of course that it does
not violate the normal rules respecting liable or slander.
2743
It is certainly true that the trade offices in Europe are
attempting to put forth the correct picture of forest practices in
British Columbia and elsewhere in Canada, to follow the same
types of processes as they have done in the past with respect to
other Canadian products under attack in Europe, and at least to
set the record straight.
Once again, we do not expect German or any European
authorities to adopt Draconian restrictions on freedom of speech
simply to prevent the debate that may be taking place at the
present time between some group and some industry. That is not
our intention and we will make no representations to that effect.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Mark Assad (Gatineau-La Lièvre): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Following the assassination of presidential candidate Luis
Colosio, does the Canadian government still have confidence in
Mexico's stability?
Hon. André Ouellet (Minister of Foreign Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, I would like to express the condolences of the Canadian
people, as the Prime Minister did yesterday, to the Mexican
people for this senseless act. I am sure that I speak on behalf of
all parliamentarians as well as Canadians when I offer our most
heartfelt condolences to Mr. Colosio's family, to his colleagues
in the Mexican government and to the Mexican people following
this really unacceptable act.
I think that the President of Mexico and his government are
dealing with this terrible situation calmly and courageously. To
answer the hon. member's question, the Canadian government is
still confident in Mexico's stability and in the desire of the
Mexican government to pursue a more democratic political
system.
* * *
(1455)
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Thank
you, Mr. Speaker. On top of contradicting himself daily
regarding the Ginn Publishing transaction, the Minister of
Canadian Heritage still refuses to make public all the documents
related to this transaction, including the legal opinion on which
he relied to approve the transaction.
My question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage. How
can the minister seriously claim that a legal opinion from the
Department of Justice can include some confidential Cabinet
discussions? How can he seriously make such a claim?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage):
Because it is a fact, Mr. Speaker.
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata): Mr.
Speaker, does the minister agree that the only way to preserve
what credibility he may still have regarding this issue is to order
a public inquiry, so that we can find out exactly what happened?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I have already expressed my opinion several times on
this, and that opinion has not changed.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I want
to make it absolutely clear that I am not questioning the value of
bilingualism but the practice and the cost of official
bilingualism as mandated by the Official Languages Act.
Government officials have told me that they are not allowed
to report the true costs of conforming to the rules of official
bilingualism.
I would like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister.
Will the government commit to an open debate in the House on
the true cost of official bilingualism with full disclosure by all
government departments so that we can settle the question of
cost of bilingualism once and for all?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
these matters come before the relevant parliamentary
committees during the studies of the estimates that relate to the
official languages policy. In particular, the programs for which
the President of the Treasury Board is responsible are studied by
the relevant committees.
Finally, these matters are before the public accounts
committee. I invite the hon. member to come there to get the
facts and find that what he has been told by unknown sources is
not correct.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I
happen to be on the public accounts committee and what the
public accounts committee deals with are the direct costs. I am
referring to the indirect costs as well.
Since it is business as usual across the way, I wonder if the
government intends to continue with the $5,000 grant to the
Canadian Kennel Club to promote bilingualism. Is it a part of the
government's bilingualism policy to train English sheep dogs
and French poodles to communicate with each other?
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
2744
after listening to the hon. member's question, it is very clear that
it continues to be business as usual for the Reform Party.
* * *
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina-Qu'Appelle): Mr. Speaker,
my question is directed to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Earlier today the task force on the Canadian magazine
industry released its report and recommended that those foreign
magazines already operating split runs should be exempted from
the proposed excise tax.
This would mean that Sports Illustrated which knowingly
broke Canadian regulations last year would be rewarded with a
permanent exemption from the law.
Will the minister rise in his place today and announce that his
government will totally reject this recommendation of the task
force?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I have indeed received the report and I have read it
carefully. It is not my habit to declare policy without consulting
the people concerned, the interests of Canadians concerned and
my colleagues. As early as possible I will come forward with a
policy before cabinet and before this House.
* * *
(1500)
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.
Earlier today I presented a petition to Parliament with
200,000 signatures asking that handguns be banned for private
use. This petition was initiated by Concordia University where
in 1992 four professors were murdered by an individual who
easily acquired three handguns.
Since handguns are not used for hunting and have no other
legitimate use for ordinary citizens, would the minister give
serious consideration to the demands made in these petitions:
``Where guns are less available there is less crime with guns''?
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, I know that all members of the House were, as I was,
saddened by this senseless tragedy at Concordia University. I
know all members of the House would want to join with the
Minister of Justice and myself in offering our deepest sympathy
to the families of the victims.
I would like to say that petitions are the voices of Canadians
and, as such, should all be given attention and consideration. I
want to assure the hon. member that this petition will be getting
full attention and consideration from the Minister of Justice.
The Speaker: Well, this has been a lively day.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval): Mr. Speaker, I would like
to ask the Leader of the Government the usual question about the
business of the House.
[English]
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada): Mr. Speaker,
today the House will conclude the second reading stage of Bill
C-18. Tomorrow we will commence debate on Bill C-17, the
budget implementation bill. If this is not concluded tomorrow
we will resume debate on this bill after the Easter adjournment
on April 11.
After Bill C-17 is given second reading, we will call
legislation as follows: report stage and third reading of Bill C-9
regarding economic affairs, Bill C-4 respecting the NAFTA side
deals, and Bill C-2 regarding Revenue Canada.
We would then turn to the second reading debates on Bill C-7
regarding the control of certain substances and C-11 respecting
tobacco.
If Bill C-18 were to be reported from the standing committee
before we have completed this list, we would of course return to
its consideration at the report stage and third reading. This
would then put us in a position to proceed with the government's
motion to ask the procedure committee to prepare a bill
addressing issues connected with the redistribution process.
Finally, it is our intention to devote a day soon after our return
to a general debate on agriculture. Depending on the progress of
legislation, that debate could be held late in the first week we are
back or, failing that, during the first week of May.
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster): Mr.
Speaker, I would just like to clarify if the government House
leader could indicate when the report stage for Bill C-18 might
be expected since he mentioned it in his report.
Mr. Gray: Mr. Speaker, this would depend on the pace of
work of the Standing Committee on Procedure which will
receive Bill C-18 after this House votes second reading later
today. Under the rules, I do not think that report stage could
begin until after we return from the Easter break. Certainly we
would want to call report stage and then third reading of C-18 as
soon as possible after the bill is reported back to the House from
the standing committee.
2745
2745
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today as many of my colleagues have to raise some concerns
about the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act
that we are debating in Parliament.
My own riding like everyone else's has come up for boundary
readjustment under the current proposals. I saw a couple of
weekends ago in the newspaper the boundary proposals. The
changes to my boundaries are not putting a big smile on my face.
I have an extension of the boundaries, way up into the
Merritt-Princeton area. I now have a riding that encompasses
everything from urban commuters to Vancouver, loggers and
farmers in the middle of my riding, right up into
Merritt-Princeton which is into ranching and mining and
interior towns that have very little to do with the current
constituency of Fraser Valley East.
I have some problems. I have made presentations in writing to
the electoral boundaries people to tell them that I will be making
presentations to them when the opportunity arises to try and
persuade them that perhaps those cities are better served in the
Kamloops riding.
I am not willing to suspend the boundaries readjustment just
because my own personal boundary is not to my liking. There
are several important principles involved here that need to be
addressed and that have been neglected by the government.
The first reason I object to the suspension act is that it thwarts
the purpose of Parliament in the electoral process. The Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act requires the readjustment of
federal electoral boundaries every 10 years. There is a
commission made up of three people. Three people form this
commission. The chief justice of each province appoints a
chairperson and the Speaker of the House of Commons,
someone who sits in your chair, appoints the other two.
Both authorities who make up these commissions, the chief
justice and the Speaker, share the characteristic of total
impartiality. The commission that we are considering
suspending is a completely impartial commission. We have to be
careful in whatever deliberations we make in this House that we
do not take away from impartiality where impartiality is
necessary. We must make sure that any commission is not
politically motivated in any way.
My first concern is about this purpose of Parliament. What is
the purpose of Parliament?
I would put to you, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of
Parliament is not to interfere in independent judicial type bodies
just because we do not happen to agree with the outcome. There
is ample opportunity to make presentation to these boundaries
commissions and I plan to do that, as I encourage every member
to do. However, to step in at this stage and say that because some
of the members of the government do not like the boundaries
they are willing to thwart the entire purpose of the act is
unconscionable.
Nowhere in the red book is there any mention that this act
needed to be amended. Nowhere in the speech from the throne is
there any idea or thought that this needed to be adjusted. The
first whisper of this that came out was when the boundary
readjustments came to the members opposite. Suddenly a crisis
of monumental importance hit this House. It must be changed, it
must be suspended, the judicial process must be set aside.
Members opposite for some reason feel that they have to step in
and somehow make it right.
I believe the public is going to see this very cynically. Why
was this not an issue before? The reason, of course, is obvious.
There is going to be political meddling in a judicial process and
this political meddling is unconscionable.
Second, this matter has already been thwarted once before.
Already we have had suspensions on this. Every 10 years we are
supposed to have new boundary proposals. It has already been
suspended once before. Now again we are going to set aside a $5
million commission, having already spent $5 million, when
section 14 of the act says that each commission shall prepare
with all reasonable dispatch a report setting out its
recommendations.
(1510)
The last instance was in 1991. Here we are in 1994 and we are
again not going to have a readjustment. The proposal seems to
be to put it off for a couple of more years. We will likely go into
the turn of the century running on a 1981 census. That is totally
unacceptable, which brings me to my third point, the province of
British Columbia.
B.C. is the fastest growing province. Some 40,000 people
from within Canada have moved to B.C., mostly from Ontario.
The shift in the population is going westward. Thirty-five
thousand additional people came from all other countries of the
world. We received 20 per cent of Canada's immigration
population. B.C. is a thriving region of the country.
2746
By the looks of it we are going to go into the next election,
whenever that may be, with the same seat distribution as we had
in 1981. That is totally unacceptable. I do not understand, even
if they were the best of intentions, which I question, why we
would be saddled with inadequate representation going right
through to the turn of the century.
There are other problems with this proposal. The proposal
will increase the cost. Nowhere in the proposal by the
government is there anything that suggests that this new review,
another review, will save us money. It is just another review.
Every time politicians get involved in reviews and making
proposals and considerations, the costs continue to rise. What
will be the possible advantages? There may or may not be.
History tells us, precedent has been set, that this is likely to cost
us more money. It is a tremendous waste of the commissioners'
time and our money.
Another point is the principle of openness. This needs to be
dealt with openly. It needs to be seen to be open. It needs to be
seen to be fair. It needs to be seen to be impartial. All of those
things have been thwarted by this bill. This bill is a behind the
scenes, I know better than you do attitude that we have seen, as
we talked earlier in question period about business as usual.
Instead of bringing this out for open discussion, instead of give
and take on the floor of the House of Commons, instead of even
bringing forward specific proposals, what we find here instead
is a process that says: ``We know best. Not only do we know
best, we are not willing to allow opposition members to raise
their concerns to their own liking. We are going to invoke
closure''.
I wonder when this government handed the new shoes to Mr.
Martin if the new shoes were to step on this, to squelch any ideas
of democracy-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. I would just like to
remind members to refer to one another according to the
positions being held by the respective members and not their
names.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected and I will make no
further reference to the boots.
However it does appear that taking the boots to some of these
representations appears to be the purpose of this bill. While I
originally prepared a 20 minute presentation detailing the entire
pros and cons of a review process, I find now that it has
unfortunately been reduced to 10 minutes because of this idea
that closure somehow is in the best interest of democracy.
I think I need to summarize it in this way, since I have been
restricted in my time. First, this thwarts the purpose of
Parliament. Parliament is not to set boundaries to just jump in
when members do not like what they see. Parliament is to set up
a process. The process is in place. When it continually gets put
off year after year it does nothing to enhance people's
impression that this is truly a democratic and hands off process.
That is the first principle, the principle that alarms me the most.
Second, as I mentioned, is this lack of proportional
representation. I know the government says it is going to review
it. It may have more, it may have less. Who knows what the
review will come up with when the Liberals come up with these
proposals? The fact is that we will go into the next election in
British Columbia with fewer representatives than we deserve.
That has been going on since 1981. It appears it will go on
through to the turn of the century with the same disproportionate
representation that we had to go with this last time.
(1515 )
That is the second principle that is undesirable, the increased
costs, the $5 million down the drain and the fact that we will not
be able to use the extensive advertising. I have with me the sheet
that describes the new boundaries which was delivered through
the paper system to every household in Canada. Those costs are
all for naught. Many of us prepared briefs and speeches for these
advertised meetings. Our work is all for naught.
The fact is it is no longer an open process but instead, when
things are not going their way, the process has been cut off.
Another nail in the coffin of openness. In conclusion, I have a
couple of proposals that I would like to make to the government.
First of all I would ask them to reconsider this whole idea of
closure. I have sheets of Hansard that I dug up that I do not have
time to read out today. I have almost three pages in the indexes
from the last Parliament. It took three pages just to list the
names of the speakers on the other side of the House that rose to
speak against closure and time limitation.
It is a shame that when something that should be impartial and
above reproach that government members, many of whom are
listed in the three index pages, have chosen instead to clamp
down on democratic discussion on this judicial process. It is a
shame.
I cannot believe the government would use this bill to invoke
closure to stifle free speech in the House. If it were not for the
time constraints of Easter coming up the government would
probably go on. It is a shame that to get a holiday they are going
to invoke closure and clamp down on democratic free speech.
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate.
We have heard many strong negatives both from the government
side and the opposition side about the way the revision of the
federal electoral boundaries took place.
The province of Ontario is about to gain four seats. I would
like to talk a bit about why I am against it. It is not to stifle free
speech. The body politic of Canada should have some input into
saying where the boundary changes should be made. As a
consequence everyone is looking at the House as the sole
2747
ownership of this. Let us give the public some say in its
operation.
Most Canadians and particularly residents of Ontario did not
hear about the revision. It came as a shock to them and they had
to respond in some cases as early as the next two weeks. So to
mobilize, to liaise one with another, to communicate with those
groups who have been disturbed, to question why such changes
have taken place, the time was not there. We are talking a lot of
people and we are talking the affect. I am talking of mobilizing
and reacting to the changes in my own province of Ontario.
Ontario presently has 99 seats. One of the rules under which
this commission was to undertake change was that there would
be a minimum of disturbance of existing boundaries.
They talk about the ripple effect. I want to tell you that if there
was ever a ripple it was a big ripple in Ontario to get four seats.
Ninety-three of the ridings were changed rather significantly.
The principle was that there be some approximation in size in
the constituencies in Ontario. The commission's mandate gave a
rather generous leeway. Twenty-five per cent is a rather large
deviation from the norm.
As a consequence, in Ontario the demographic computer
crunched them out closely with its cookie cruncher to the 97,000
to 100,000 range. Many ridings that were sitting well within that
range and smack on 100,000 had radical change and it has upset
the communities in which that change took place.
In my riding the county council will be taking a bus to the
hearing. The city councils and the township councils will be
taking a bus to the hearing because traditionally a constituency
has a community of interest. That community of interest is
focused on its local governments whether they be township,
town, city or county.
(1520)
Many of these fundamental community of interests were
hacked in half and for no reason attached to another half of
another county that was hacked in half. The rationale of
community of interest seemed to go by the board. That is why we
are upset. I can tell members that my constituents are upset. This
is the second major change in southwestern Ontario and only
one riding escaped without any change whatsoever.
As a consequence, I would like to make a point that the ripple
effect in 93 of the 99 ridings was not acceptable to the residents
of Ontario. These residents are not all Liberals although I would
like to think they would be.
I have received protests from people from all walks of life and
it does not have anything to do with my being a Liberal member.
They do not want to be associated with someone who has been
connected with another township. There is a narrow gap and we
go back into another base.
It does not even have any sort of congruency or shape. It is
stretched out to almost Lake Huron and on the other side,
Waterloo county. It was a compact riding of 101,000 people
meeting specific criteria where community of interest and size
were dead on. The people in my riding want to know what the
rationale was for the major surgery in the riding of
Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.
I would like to read from the direction and general notes given
to the commissioners on their mandate. The act directs the
commission to divide Ontario into 103 districts. On the basis of
the population of each electoral district in the province, it shall
be as close as reasonably possible to correspond to the electoral
quota of that province.
We all know that some of the ridings in northern Ontario, by
their nature, by the ability to service the constituency, must
necessarily be smaller than some of the ridings in the urban
areas where one can contact and relate to their constituents in a
speedier manner.
For those of us who were in urban-rural ridings, the norm
would be about 100,000. The commission may depart from this
quota where necessary or desirable. The commission's
judgment lay in directives and it has given the two
commissioners for Ontario tremendous scope.
First, the commission is to respect the community of interest
or community of identity in the historical pattern of an electoral
district in the province. That one has been shot out of the water
in a big way.
Second, it is to maintain a manageable geographic size for
districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the
province. I concur with that.
In considering these factors, the commission must make
every effort to ensure that except in extraordinary circumstances
the population of each electoral district remains within 25 per
cent, a reasonably grand margin of error I would say by any
statement. The upper limit of the quota plus 25 per cent from the
norm which is 122,000 to the lower limit of 25 per cent which is
73,000 is very rarely reached. The first principle was totally
compromised so that the second principle could crunch out
ridings with populations of 97,000 to 103,000. The community
of interest and the community of economic interest, which is
just as important in most of those ridings, was shot out of the
water, to use a colloquial term.
2748
(1525)
I dare say that with Ontario gaining four seats, I am not
prepared to compromise that nor would I like to see my friends
from British Columbia suffer any loss of seats. I would like to
add a little comparison. Take a look at the House today. These
seats have been moved so close together that if even I put on a
little weight, which has not happened for a long time, it would be
difficult to get between the seats.
An hon. member: I am not a health nut.
Mr. Richardson I am sorry. I did not mean to reflect on any
other member in the House.
However, if some day in the future we approach the
population of our neighbours to the south, we will need 3,000
seats in the House of Commons. We are going to have to look at
the size of ridings in the country so we can keep a reasonable
number in Parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic): Mr. Speaker, I have been in
politics for about 20 years, and I have never seen such a mess. I
must admit this is the first time I been particularly aware of the
social and economic impact of adjusting the federal electoral
map.
When I was quite young, my mother used to get bored while
my father, who was a travelling salesman, was away, and she
would do jigsaw puzzles. After looking at the proposed electoral
map, my impression was that the people who drew this map must
have been very bored indeed to perpetrate this proposal, pardon
the expression.
I found it hard to understand the logic involved in this
electoral boundaries readjustment proposal, and I did some
quick research on ridings in East Montreal that were affected by
this proposal. One conclusion is be that the proposal ignores
socio-demographic and socio-economic factors to all intents
and purposes. The proposal shows a complete disregard for any
concept of community. In other words, it was botched.
A riding should first and foremost represent a community. We
cannot get around this social fact. It is foolish to alter the
boundaries of a riding and blindly carve up natural communities
to satisfy the demands of fuzzy mathematical logic and
administrative efficiency.
A member of Parliament is elected to serve the interests of his
constituents, not those technocrats who very often have no
concept of the practical needs of community groups. A member
of Parliament must defend the interests of individuals,
community groups and businesses and promote the development
of economic activity in his riding.
The proposed administrative boundaries transform a number
of communities into a meaningless expanse of statistical data
and arbitrary geographic divisions. Let me explain. All this has
no connection with the activities of these communities. I am
talking about neighbourhoods, urban districts, people living in a
naturally homogeneous environment, which may be cultural,
ethnic, religious or economic, a living community, organized in
human terms and not for administrative purposes alone.
As I said before, I made some enquiries among my colleagues
in East Montreal to assess the impact of the proposed
readjustment. Here are a few examples. I may recall that
Montreal is divided into administrative units referred to as
arrondissements or districts.
In the riding of Mercier, the urban district of Mercier-Ouest is
cut in two. This means breaking up a natural demographic unit
for the sake of mathematical considerations. From now on, three
federal members will be working to promote the interests of the
same social groups and the same economic organizations, while
at the provincial level, a single member is able to take care of the
same needs in the provincial riding of Bourget.
In the federal riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve we see the
same lack of logic. Why cut the provincial riding of Bourget in
two? This arbitrary division is as distasteful to the people of
Mercier as it is to the people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Once
again, this means fracturing a natural urban district.
(1530)
Furthermore, the proposal adds onto the northern part of the
riding a population which has no natural affinity, other than
geographical, to the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. It
would be more appropriately added to the riding of
Saint-Léonard, in terms of socio-demographic affinity.
In Rosemont, the riding will get part of the riding of
Saint-Michel which, again, has no social affinity to the
population in Rosemont, while, the riding would welcome the
annexation of part of Outremont, so that its boundaries would
coincide with those of the LCSCs-local community service
centres-and urban districts.
The case of Papineau-Saint-Michel is rather peculiar. The
riding of the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been struck off the
map. What is the reasoning behind this decision? Part of the
population of this homogeneous riding, which includes the
former town of Saint-Michel, its parishes, recreation services,
health care institutions and community groups, has been moved
to the riding of Saint-Léonard, a riding which practically
coincides with the town of Saint-Léonard. We now have a
situation where the population of the former town of
Saint-Michel will be a minority, in the new riding.
The other half of Papineau-Saint-Michel has been moved to
the riding of Saint-Denis, which will extend to Acadie
Boulevard. People in Montreal realize how ridiculous this is.
The community resources of two districts in Montreal's centre
north will be disorganized as a result.
2749
In my riding of Ahuntsic, the results are positively outlandish.
Parishes are being cut in two and communities divided, just to
align the riding on the Laurentian Autoroute. For the sake of
geographic convenience, part of the northeast corner of
Ahuntsic is transferred to another riding. This area, which is
isolated from all other areas with the exception of Ahuntsic, has
a large Italian community, which in the process would also be
isolated from its natural centre, the Italian parish of
Notre-Dame-de-Pompéi. This community would no longer
enjoy integrated federal representation. Between this area and
its new riding lies the vast Miron quarry dump.
Saint-Sulpice, where I live, is faced with a similar situation.
The parish is separated from its community organizations, and
so forth. Yet, this neighourhood portion is isolated from its new
riding by the Metropolitan Boulevard, a high-technology
centre, schools and recreational centres. The government is
destroying an integration process that has been patiently
developed for the last ten years.
In the proposed project, we find the same lack of logic that
appeared in the case of the riding of Laval-des-Rapides,
between 1976 and 1989, when it overlapped Laval and Montreal.
It had to be seen to be believed!
May I also point out that the numerous divisions of
employment centres do not fit electoral boundaries, which
undoubtedly contributes to maintaining the confusion among
people towards services provided by these centres and by the
federal government.
I would also wish to remind you that the very concept of a
one-stop window implies harmonization, at all levels of
government, of administrative divisions, so that we can provide
services and grants from the same social, demographical and
economic territories. That is a major demand by the economic
and community development co-operatives, the CDEC of
Montreal.
We cannot ignore the map of disadvantaged areas that was
drawn by the Island of Montreal School Board, major social and
economic data. It is more than desirable that Montreal be given,
at the federal level, effective electoral representation which
takes into account the indicators of disadvantaged areas.
In concluding, I would point out that the criteria for the
division of these federal electoral maps have not been reviewed
in almost 30 years. These criteria should be developed on the
basis of social demographical and social economical data, rather
than on the simplistic basis, should I say, of raw and blind
mathematical data! On the basis of administrative and/or
geographical convenience that has nothing to do with the real
areas where people live.
(1535)
Participating in public hearings on the basis of this
redistribution would amount to saying that we view it as an
acceptable basis for negociation while it is not.
Negociating on an individual basis, county by county, would
cause other Montreal ridings to lose their homogeneity.
The overall proposal made by the commission is
unacceptable. The parliamentary committee has to start from
scratch again. Dealing with the same commission and doing all
over again what has already been badly done would only lead to
the same results.
The system has to be changed and this is why I will vote for
the bill.
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Halton-Peel): Mr. Speaker, the riding of
Halton-Peel was originally created by a gentleman many of us
know: Gerrymander.
One would think with the proposed boundary changes the
member would be quite thrilled that a new riding would be
created. I believe the new dividing line was created by his
brother for it splits a community right in two in a line that is
anything but straight. Some of it does not even follow road
allowances but travels through the middle of farmers' fields.
It is so ridiculous. Part of the farm on which I live is in the new
proposed riding and the other part is in the other. There was
immediate response from a returning officer, from a Chamber of
Commerce and from a municipality exhorting an appeal of that
line.
As a bit of an aside, it is also interesting to note the borders
printed on the map in the book the commission released. You
will see that the new boundaries are printed upside down on the
map. It puts part of the land mass in the southern part of the
proposed riding in Lake Ontario. It was cause for some concern.
We will have to enroll fish I suppose.
Having said that I was prepared to launch an appeal trying to
point out to the commission where changes could be made that
might at least improve the situation.
I was very disturbed with the proposal to create new ridings at
a time when we consider ourselves to be in a period of extreme
restraint. When we want less and less government spending it
seems this process is creating more and more.
In my region and others nearby school boards are considering
reducing the number of trustees in an effort to save money. The
last report I saw was that the region of Durham is proposing to
cut five trustees saving $200,000 through that process. It does
not really show a great deal of leadership to advance the cause of
increasing the numbers in this House.
2750
Other countries operate reasonably successfully with much
higher populations per member than Canada. Australia is one of
them with actually double the population per member in its
House.
(1540 )
We have a lot of things to consider. If we are going to review
legislation which is 30 years old, at least it is appropriate that we
do it now if it has not been done in the past. As has been
mentioned, it may be that it has outlived its usefulness and we
have to reconsider what will be done in the future.
In terms of the argument my friends in the Reform Party put
forward about time allocation, I would like to point out the
reality to them. I do not think it is the intention of any
government to impose time allocation for frivolous reasons.
Hearings were scheduled to begin in April on this proposal by
the commission. We are now going into a recess for two weeks. I
am not sure what the Reform Party would have preferred to do,
whether it would have preferred to stay and debate this for
another couple of weeks. We could have filibustered. However
there is plenty of time in the time allocated to put the points of
view across and make sure all of the arguments are on the table.
I am sure the Reform Party is as interested in the reform of
this process as the rest of us. I do not think any hon. members
would disagree with the fact that it is time for a change. We
cannot go on filling up the House especially if we have a few
guys my size. If we went on without any changes we would be
forced to knock out the back walls, or put another row in the
front, or only elect lean people.
I enthusiastically support this thrust. The time has come for
change. The time has come to reconsider how the people of
Canada are represented. The time has come to listen to those
people and give them time to bring their views forward so we
can truly represent the people of this country.
Mr. Ed Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, I rise today to
speak against Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I do that with some
mixed feelings.
My own riding is disappearing in this change which is going
to take place across Canada and very significantly in the
province of Ontario. There has been only one call into my office
regarding this change and perhaps that is because they were
anticipating going to the hearings, as I was. However I
anticipate receiving many calls when the people in my riding
discover what is taking place in this House.
In no way was this a burning issue with the people in this
country. There are far more important issues we should be
dealing with. While I say I had mixed feelings about what was
happening in the riding I represent, I was looking forward to
making a representation at the hearings. We would have an
opportunity to make representations again when the reports
came back into this House.
In looking at the changes I realized there were some winners
and some losers. There are going to be winners and losers no
matter where this comes out. We will not come up with a plan
that will please everyone. That just is not possible. There is no
evidence in this bill that will approach anything near that.
There is the suggestion that politicians will be able to do a
better job than Elections Canada. That is a leap of faith most
Canadians would have a difficult time making. Our track record
in the past has not been one of doing a better job.
(1545 )
The decision was made 30 years ago to take this process out of
the political arena. That was a good decision that was made back
then. I think it is even more appropriate today, given the mood of
the Canadian voter.
We just have to reflect back to October 1992 at which time
politics in the country took a dramatic turn for the better. The
Canadian people said back then that they were no longer going
to be led by the political parties. They were going to have a say
in what was going on in the country. They sent out that very clear
message.
That message can be ignored in the House at our peril. The
former government ignored the message that was given to it by
Meech Lake. The former government ignored the message that
was relayed to it through the Spicer commission at a cost of
some $27 million in taxpayers' dollars. The government was
told what the priorities of the Canadian people were and that the
Constitution was not number one. In spite of that the
government ignored it, went on with its own agenda and suffered
its fate in the last election.
The mood of the Canadian people that was evident in 1992 and
1993 is still there. They want to be heard. They want to have
their say. The process we are about to embark on will be a denial
of that.
We are not talking about process today. We are talking about
product. We knew this was coming down the pike some time
ago, but nothing happened until the proposed boundary changes
hit our desks and hit the public. All of a sudden it became an
issue. There was no secret about what was happening. It is not
about the process. It is about the product and it is about
self-interest: my fiefdom and what is going to happen to me. I
think that is wrong.
The issue is not new. It has been there but it is in the forefront
now because some people's ridings will be affected by it. The
government is going to circumvent the public hearings that were
to take place so that the public could have input into the process.
2751
How do we justify wasting the $5 million in taxpayers' dollars
that have been spent to this point? The suggestion has been made
that the $3 million we might spend in hearing from the public
would be a further waste of taxpayers' dollars. I do not find
spending $3 million to hear from the taxpayers a waste of
money. Again I go back to the mood of the voters. They want to
be heard and $3 million to allow them to have input will be
money well spent.
Time and time again I have heard from members on the other
side about the number of seats. They are shocked that Reform
would support anything that would increase the number of seats
in the House. There is nothing in the bill that restricts the
number of seats. Had that been in there, the Reform Party would
have supported the bill. It is not there. I would ask members on
the other side: Why is it not there? There is no intent. It is left
out purposely so that avenue would still be there.
Hearings were due to start in days and the process is being cut
off. People were preparing to come to these hearings to state
their case. Again it is an example of government knows best:
``We will decide what should happen here and we will let you
know''. That is not going to fly with the Canadian people.
I was shocked at what was taking place. Really I should not
have been because the government has a track record of no faith
in the Canadian people. When we think back, this is the
government that did not have faith in some Canadian people to
select its candidates. The government had to go in because it did
not trust Canadian people to pick the right candidates. This is the
government that does not believe in recall. It does not trust
Canadian people to have recall at their disposal.
This party is led by a leader who finds referendum revolting.
The thought of listening to the Canadian people on major issues
is revolting. Those words will come back to haunt the
government in years to come. The government can act when it
wants to. When it has a self-interest it can get moving. There
was something the Canadian people wanted it to get moving on.
We wanted it to get moving on it and we were prepared to
support it. I am referring to the gold-plated pension plans. This
is something that we could have taken action on and should have
taken action on, but nothing is happening. The words we hear
are: ``What is the hurry? We are here for four years''. The
government may not be in a hurry about that but the Canadian
people are. The Canadian people want action. The government
brought us action on this but not on the pension plan.
(1550)
The question of the legality of the process was raised in the
House yesterday. The answer given to that question bore no
relationship to the question. I suspect because a legal opinion
has not been sought the government does not have an answer as
to whether the whole process is legal.
I see some similarities here between the cancelled Pearson
airport deal and what we are about to do today. The Pearson
airport deal was cancelled, not because the project was not a
good project but because of the process.
Mr. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your
Honour is well known for leniency on relevancy, but what do the
points the hon. member is raising-he is covering the
waterfront-have to do with the item being discussed?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not believe the
member has a point of order, so I will resume debate with the
hon. member for Simcoe Centre.
Mr. Harper (Simcoe Centre): Mr. Speaker, the point I was
just about to make was on the similarity between the
cancellation of the Pearson airport deal and what we are about to
embark on here. The point I am making is that the deal was
cancelled on the airport four months ago and nothing has
happened. We are about to change this deal and I would suggest
that nothing is going to happen. We will go into the next election
with nothing having been resolved. That is one of the real
dangers in this.
Just let me summarize with a few comments. The government
needs to have more faith in the Canadian people to look at this
matter and do what is right. There will be some very interesting
comments coming out of the hearings that were scheduled. The
government should not throw away the millions of taxpayers'
dollars already spent up to this point. That is what will be done.
It is going to throw away $5 million of our taxpayers' dollars.
This process does not belong in the political arena. With the
vested interest that politicians have, how can they address the
issue objectively and do what is best for the Canadian people? If
we support the bill we will kill any chance for change before the
next election.
With those remarks I will conclude. I thank the House for
allowing me to make this presentation. I certainly will not be
supporting Bill C-18.
Mr. Andy Scott (Fredericton-York-Sunbury): Mr.
Speaker, I also rise to speak on the matter now before the House
concerning the redistribution of the federal electoral
boundaries.
It is clear from all indications that Canadians are not happy
with how the review and the proposals for change have been
handled. Further, Canadians are reasonably consistent in their
message as to why. They will not take judgments from on high
without more consultation.
The preliminary steps leading to the proposed boundary
changes fail to include local level consultation. It is not enough
to hold out the promise of public input later on, because people
know how difficult it is to amend such proposals after they have
been designed in the way they have. People have once again sent
2752
out a clear signal that they will not accept another top down,
arbitrary decision by government.
Within my own constituency when a map appeared in a
special insert in the local paper I heard a number of consistent
messages from constituents. First, they were shocked to learn
that the boundary changes were even being discussed. For most
of them seeing the map in the paper was the first time they had
ever heard of the exercise. Another common expression was one
of disbelief. After we had all campaigned so vocally about the
need to be more inclusive and since the government has
practised this agenda so consistently since the election, people
find it hard to believe that we would revert to the old style of top
down governing.
As members we have all worked hard to gain the trust of our
electorate. I know many of us do not wish to see that trust
jeopardized when the potential not to do so is so easily avoided.
Another sentiment I have heard from my constituents is one of
anger. People are angry, not only because the government had
not bothered to consult with them but also because of the
incredible amount of dollars invested in the exercise. People
were shocked, wondering where was the need for this use of
their hard earned tax dollars. Where did it come from? People
were wondering why nobody had bothered to mention it to them
earlier and why nobody had asked for their opinion.
(1555)
As the member for the riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury
I can assure the House that I felt the sting of this action when
people questioned my involvement in and my responsibility for
the proposed changes. People were not happy, and that is
essentially why I feel compelled to rise today and encourage the
government to have this process stopped.
I want to acknowledge that riding boundary redistribution is
in many respects necessary, but I take issue with the way the
process for determining changes has occurred. I further question
some of the present assumptions about how boundaries should
be redefined. I addressed my concerns about the process earlier.
I continue to believe that decisions should have been made
based on consultation with the many people affected. I question
how many Canadians know the criteria upon which decisions for
change were even made.
We must realize that decisions of this nature have an
enormous impact upon the political culture of our country.
People tend to feel connected to the regions and communities of
which they are a part. We all belong to many types of
communities, each of which has boundaries in its own way. In
many respects we are defined by our professional communities,
our religious and social communities, and for many we find
comfort in defining ourselves by our political communities.
My most recent witness of this assertion was during the last
election. I watched and worked with people from all parties who
travelled considerable distances many times over and who put
parts of their own lives on hold because of their commitment to
the electoral process. Last October became their focus.
We do people an injustice when we suddenly tell them that
they no longer need to feel committed to the region they have
always known and that now they must suddenly align
themselves elsewhere. Making such a transition is not difficult.
In fact it is embraced when those who must make the change
participate in the decision making that moves them from one
location to another.
If anything, commitment and investment are firmly
entrenched from the start. It is this kind of stake in the social and
political consciousness of our citizenry that we want to promote
among Canadians. Imposing arbitrary political boundary
changes upon people works counter to the fundamentals of
inclusion and affiliation.
I accept that redistribution becomes necessary when there are
major demographic shifts. Sometimes this may mean that the
entire country must face reoganization, or it may simply mean
that certain regions must change.
The changes proposed for New Brunswick in many respects
fail to make any sense at all. With my own riding, for instance,
all the rural areas have been disconnected from the constituency
and given over to my colleagues' ridings. Were I selfishly
motivated I would support the changes proposed since it would
make my job much easier. I would not have to travel the
considerable distances to reach the borders of my riding. I would
only have to deal with concerns pertinent to an urban setting
rather than worry about both rural and urban problems as the
distribution now requires.
That is not what being an MP is about. I do not want to lose the
rich blend of rural and urban that makes our riding a most unique
and inviting place to live. It is obvious that my reasons for
supporting the motion to suspend the operation of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act are not personally or politically
motivated. I know this to be true of my colleagues with a view
similar to my own.
I know the people of my riding just as other members are
familiar with the citizens in their ridings. We work hard to build
communities with our constituents. The people of their
respective ridings know the intricacies and peculiarities of their
places as well. These are the people who should be deciding
where boundaries should be drawn and on what basis changes
should be determined.
I do not question the competence or intentions of the
commissioners but outside experts do not know our political
regions or the people who live there. They cannot make
informed decisions
2753
about changing the lives of so many citizens without starting
with the involved people first.
I worry as well that by following through with electoral
boundary reform the government will not be seen as acting on its
primary agenda of job creation and economic development. I
also think the government will find it difficult to convince
Canadians that it is acting prudently in its acknowledged need to
practise sound financial management.
I fear spending millions of dollars to redefine electoral
boundaries is indefensible in the light of the economic trials
faced by so many Canadians. The government is recognized as
honest, hard working, concerned about citizens and known for
practising sound fiscal management. We are not known for
excessiveness. We are the ones with the plan to help Canadians
through the difficult period in order to make this a strong, united
and able country prepared to meet the 21st century.
(1600)
We need to remind ourselves of our own priorities and in
keeping with that, we should recognize our error without
singling out anyone or pointing fingers in any direction. Simply
put, we should cut our losses and move on from here. Canadians
are tired of governments trying to justify their errors or failing
to admit that a mistake has been made. We are bigger than that.
We must move on.
I join others in this House who have spoken against boundary
redistribution at this time and I support the call to suspend the
act until such time as Canadians have a greater opportunity to be
a part of the process from the front end.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, it seemed important to participate in this debate on
a legislation which would postpone for 24 months the process
initiated by the federal electoral boundaries commission. It
seemed important to do so since the redistribution of electoral
boundaries is not an operation one does for statistical purposes;
it is not an exercise for an apprentice geographer who would like
to practice his trade and increase his skill and knowledge.
Redistributing could change the habits of the citizens and of the
decision-makers in a given living environment.
In my riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, if the
proposed reform were to be implemented, it would have
disastrous effects. That is why, before we proceed with such a
redistribution of boundaries, we must determine the basic
criteria for changes which might be necessary under certain
circumstances.
In the present legislation, one of the main criteria is equal
representation for each and every constituent. This is basically
commendable since in a democracy, we must ensure that no
group of individuals has more power or better representation
than others. But we must also consider other principles; I am
thinking here more specifically of respect for the living
environment, in other words communities of interests, as
mentioned in the documents presented to us.
When one undertakes such an exercise, one has to take into
account the sense of belonging of the people, instead of
separating them and creating a situation where it will be many
years before this feeling emerges again. That is why I would like
to take the next few minutes to explain in graphic details the
impact the proposed changes would have in my riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.
I will first remind the members that, for the time being, as we
speak, the Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead riding has a
population of 75 000. It is nearly entirely located in
administrative district No. 5, that is to say in the Eastern
Townships, in Quebec. In this riding, there are two regional
county municipalities, structures that were created about 20
years ago now with a view to planning the social and economic
development of some communities. Presently, the riding is
made up of two whole RCMs and part of four others. I am talking
about the RCM of Granit, which includes the Lac-Mégantic
area, of which nearly all of the municipalities are in the
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead riding.
(1605)
There is also the RCM of Sherbrooke, two out of eight
municipalities of which are in my riding, as well as the RCM of
Memphrémagog, of which more than half the municipalities are
now part of my riding, and some municipalities of which are part
of the provincial riding of Beauce, next to Lac-Mégantic.
According to the proposed reform, the
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead riding would be split into two
new ridings, one called Mégantic-Frontenac and the other one,
Compton-Stanstead. As for the district of
Mégantic-Frontenac, this new district would be primarily
comprised of the municipalities of Lac-Mégantic and the
vicinity as well as municipalities around Thetford Mines.
This would effectively jeopardize what I mentioned a minute
ago, that is to say this sense of belonging developed over the
years within the Lac-Mégantic area and the Eastern Townships
as a whole.
Let me give you a very concrete example. Recently, two
RCMs from my district, namely the RCM of
Haut-Saint-François, which encompasses East Angus,
Cookshire and La Patrie, and the RCM of Granit which, as I said
earlier, includes the Lac-Mégantic area, have agreed on a major
economic development plan based on tourist activites around
Mount Mégantic which straddles the two regional
municipalities.
2754
It took years of discussions to get these people to see their
economic development as a common venture and come up with a
joint action plan to develop this fabulous tourist site, thus
contributing to economic growth in that area. If boundaries were
to be readjusted as planned, Lac-Mégantic would end up in the
same district as Thetford Mines and would be split between two
administrative regions: on the one hand, the Quebec
administrative region and, on the other hand, the Eastern
Township administrative region, which includes Sherbrooke
and Lac-Mégantic.
This would make the political channels that much more
complicated, with more members having to meet to promote
issues and more officials having to learn to work together, and
that, as I said earlier, is very important and takes years.
This concrete example illustrates the effects a decision to
make two new districts out of this one could have. Decisions
made by electoral boundaries commissions do affect people in
their everyday life.
This kind of decision should never be made without proper
consideration and not by officials alone. Time should be allowed
to consult the people involved, the general public, to ensure that
the result of the readjustment will truly be in the interests of
these people.
I spoke more specifically about the riding of
Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, but as chairman of the Bloc's
Eastern Townships regional caucus, I must mention that the
same exercise would considerably modify the ridings of
Brome-Missisquoi, Richmond-Wolfe and Frontenac.
I come back to what I said at the beginning: what is the main
reason for making this change? It is to ensure that the number of
people represented in each riding is more nearly the same.
(1610)
I would like to give you some eloquent figures in this regard.
If you compare the present situation to the one proposed in the
reform, the riding of Frontenac now has 61,000 people; the new
riding of Mégantic-Frontenac would have a population of
about 72,000, so a balance is being restored here.
In the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, the difference is barely
8,000 and in Richmond-Wolfe, it is 10,000 at most. In the
riding I represent, the change would be scarcely 2,000, so this
argument does not hold for ridings in the Eastern Townships.
That is why I will support Bill C-18, which would delay this
process and provide for time to consult the people and involve
the representatives and elected members of each of the ridings
so that the change we finally come up with will benefit all the
people we represent.
[English]
Mrs. Daphne Jennings (Mission-Coquitlam): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the closure or time
allocation motion introduced today by the government.
This motion refers to Bill C-18, an act to suspend the
operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It is
not good to have the government move to cut off debate so that
this bill can receive approval quickly.
I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg, the arrogance and lack
of respect for debate in Parliament. If it is this will be an all time
record because even the previous Conservative government took
longer than five months to reach these heights of disrespect for
this institution.
I am speaking in opposition to Bill C-18, an act to suspend the
operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I
believe we should allow the process which began some time ago
under the old legislation to continue until it is completed. I
submit that there has been sufficient time, energy and money
invested in the process to date to make it irresponsible on the
part of the government to suggest that the process be halted.
I am aware of the criticisms of the present process which are
contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral
Reform and Party Financing in relation to the boundary
readjustment legislation. I am also aware that the present
boundary readjustment process was delayed in the last
Parliament with the idea that a new process could be put in place
prior to the call of the general election in 1993.
What happened was that the special committee of the House
of Commons on electoral reform ran out of time and was unable
to deal with this subject. Therefore, the process which we are
now involved in began and has run until we now have boundary
proposals from the provincial commissions before us and public
hearings are set to being shortly.
What will happen if Bill C-18 is passed? We know that the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be
charged with reviewing the whole process and making
recommendations for change. However, can we be assured that
the process which will result from this study will be put in place
prior to the next general election? I do not think so.
We have a process in place now which if allowed to go to
completion will bring into effect new boundaries before the next
election. We are assured of that fact. Therefore, the next election
will be fought under boundaries which are representative of the
population distribution as presented in the last census. Doing
anything to jeopardize this process does not make sense to me.
At this time I want to endorse the position taken by the
Brampton Board of Trade in a letter dated March 22, 1994 to the
Prime Minister where it states: ``It is not appropriate nor
2755
necessary for a review committee to step in at this time and shut
down the public process''.
(1615)
We as members of this House do not have ownership of our
ridings. We should not feel threatened by changes proposed if
these changes recognize representation by population. This is
one of the main reasons for having our 10 year census so that
boundaries can be drawn which accurately reflect population
distribution.
If Bill C-18 is approved we may be fighting the next general
election on the boundaries which reflect population as it was
distributed in 1980. If the government is so vitally concerned
about the process of redistribution and whether it creates ridings
which accurately represent rep by pop then there is nothing to
prevent the procedure and House affairs committee under its
mandate and under the new rules to study the matter at length
and bring in a bill in due course which would replace the existing
boundaries readjustment act.
Why suspend the process of redistribution under the present
act while this is being done? Surely the government is not
thinking that it won a majority under the existing boundaries, so
let us make sure there are no changes prior to the next election.
Surely this is not the new politics described in the red book.
If Bill C-18 passes and the process of redistribution is held up
once again due to political manoeuvring and if as I suggest there
is not enough time after the procedure and House affairs
committee reports to put new boundaries into place, then we will
be party to the kind of politics which the Canadian people
rejected at the last election.
Surely this is not the wish of the government. It is not the wish
of the Reform Party of Canada. Therefore let us go forward now
with the system we have presently in place. Let the public
hearing process begin. If we do this we are assured that new
boundaries will be in place prior to the next election. Money
already spent will have been spent for results.
However if the government is adamant that the boundaries
readjustment process is flawed, and it may very well be, then the
government members know what they can do. They can utilize
the new rules, have the procedure and House affairs committee
study the issue, report back and bring in a bill which we would
consider. If it is reasonable, we could look at agreeing to it so
that a new procedure will be in effect to accommodate the results
of the next census.
In closing, I again want to reiterate my opposition to the
closure motion. We have not had a full debate on this motion.
This is vitally important. It is a matter of principle for this
House and for Canadians. Do we allow the government to limit
debate so that Liberals have a chance to fight the next election
with the boundaries unchanged since 1980 or do we take costs
and work done into account and public pressure on politicians to
clean up their act?
Obviously the government is willing to ignore the wishes of
the people. Well, we are not. That is why we oppose this motion
and why we oppose the bill.
This morning a government member found it
incomprehensible that Reform would support a process that
would see the House continue to grow in numbers. I find it
incomprehensible that the member was not aware that this was
one of the very reasons Reform could not support Bill C-18.
There is not, I repeat, there is nothing in this bill that puts a cap
on or limits the number of seats. Had it done that, the
government might very well have had the support of Reform on
this.
I am concerned about one other thing. The member I believe
from Waterloo mentioned that he and his constituents were very
comfortable with their riding as it is and I can understand that,
but I wonder, has his riding not grown in numbers. My riding of
Mission-Coquitlam was 116,000 in 1991, having grown 26 per
cent from the previous census and is now approximately
125,000. Do I just forget that because I am comfortable with the
way things are? What about representation by population?
It is far past time that we started to be accountable as
politicians.
(1620)
Mr. Brent St. Denis (Algoma): Mr. Speaker, I am quite
amazed at some of the things I have been hearing today. It is
quite incredible that we see the opposition to this legislation that
we are seeing from the Reform Party.
Significantly, one of the first phone calls I got on this matter
some weeks ago was from the Reform Party Association in my
riding which was quite concerned that the changes that were
proposed would so change the riding of Algoma that neither the
present member nor any future member could adequately serve
the constituents in a way that they have become accustomed to.
It also was amazing to hear the Reform Party argue for
continuing the process as it has been put in place. There is an
expression in business and more than most, business influences
Reform like no other group.
There is an expression that says ``cut your losses''. Yes,
several millions of dollars have unfortunately been utilized to
start this process but what about the untold millions of dollars of
mistakes that might occur should we allow this process to
proceed? I say that we should cut our losses.
We could ill afford to allow this process to proceed given a set
of rules that do not adequately serve Canadians nor adequately
serve Parliament. I do not mean that we should have rules that
serve individual members of Parliament. I would be pleased in
the new riding of Algoma-James Bay to serve communities in
2756
the far north like Hearst and Kapuskasing, Dubreuiville,
Chapleau and so on.
I would be pleased but I am not sure they would be best served
by a member of Parliament who in a new proposed riding has to
serve an area that stretches from Lake Huron all the way through
to James Bay.
The changes proposed just for my riding alone are reason
enough to quash the whole process. I am aware of many
problems across this country. One only has to look at Algoma
riding to see what, with all due respect to the commission-it
did the best it could given the resources available to it-changes
have been proposed and to see how frankly unrealistic and
ridiculous they are.
It would not serve the people of my part of northern Ontario to
continue this nor would it serve Canadians at large. I respect that
there are urban centres that have seen their ridings bloom to
great numbers. We have to do something about that.
It is just as difficult to serve a large geographic area as it is to
serve a large population. I have in the neighbourhood of 40
communities right now in my riding with 40 reeves, mayors or
Indian chiefs. They need as much my personal attention in terms
of my being available to visit with them and talk to them as the
constituents in a large urban centre.
I argue that notwithstanding the importance of representation
by population, representation by geographic area is equally
important. If one has 100,000 or 200,000 citizens in a confined
geographic area one needs a lot of staff, I argue, to support the
needs of those people. The member of Parliament can travel
within that confined area relatively easily.
If one has a riding such as in the case of the current Algoma
riding, it is seven and a half hours drive from one end to the
other. No amount of staff can take the place of the member of
Parliament visiting the communities in that riding.
If one would increase rural ridings because one is devoted
mindlessly to population only representation, one forgets that
individual communities spread out by great distances will lose
access to their member of Parliament. In a way that does not
happen in urban centres. It is a different kind of representation.
If we do not stop this process and revisit seriously the subject we
will never have a recognition that there is a shift that is going on
from rural areas to our urban centres and an inexorable shift
because of the current rules.
(1625)
In northern Ontario we currently have 12 ridings if we include
the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. The proposal would
reduce that to 10. We have lost seats in the past and if the trend
continues next time it could be nine or eight. Where do the
people who live in cities come from? Unless they are born there
they come from the country. Why are they coming from the
country, in rural areas? It is because of the economy of this
country. When there is no work in the rural areas people go to the
city even if there is no work in the city.
We have seen a shift in the population from our rural areas to
our urban centres partly because of the economy. Should we
allow shifts in the economy to so gravely affect shifts in the way
our ridings are distributed.
We could have good times again and we will under a Liberal
government. In fact I think the red book should be called the
well read book because clearly the opposition parties have read
it. I am sure we have done more for literacy in this country with
the red book than any other document published in recent
history. I encourage everyone to read it again because our
commitment is to rural Canada. If we allow this bill to go
through then we are recognizing that rural Canada is important.
We are allowing Canadians the opportunity to have a serious say
on how our boundaries are drawn and to get away from this
notion that we can only have representation by population.
Again with all due respect to the commission, I think it makes
a lot more sense-and I will make this argument to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs-that not only do
we have to revisit the subject of representation, but it makes
more sense that the first draft of new maps be generated with
some public consultation. At the very least, the representatives
of the public at the federal level, the members of Parliament,
should have some say. I have no problem with input not only
coming from sitting members of Parliament but from candidates
who fought the last campaign. It is not a partisan issue.
Boundaries for ridings is not a partisan issue and should not be.
All of the parties that fought the campaign in Algoma
understand the need to have fair representation for the rural
areas of this country. There is no argument that the urban areas
need full representation too. If we have a riding that all of a
sudden because of economic reasons and so on has grown to
200,000 would it not make more sense simply just to carve a new
boundary down the middle of that riding and make two ridings
of 100,000? Rather than have a domino effect throughout an
entire province why not simply look at the problems.
We may want to add seats to Parliament but that is something
we can debate later on. We cannot cap the number of seats here
forever, but we want to consider how quickly the number of
seats rises. However, if we are going to make corrections it is
much better to look at the problem areas and do some fine-tuned
adjustments.
If we look at northern Ontario, the changes that have been
proposed are so strange and so massive that it does not seem
logical. I use the riding of Algoma and the proposed riding of
Algoma-James Bay as classic examples of why this system
does not work. I say to my Reform friends, and I have a lot of
respect for my Reform friends, to consider what they are doing
2757
here in arguing against rural Canada. We need a system that
works.
On that note, I would just say that this is not an issue of
limiting debate. We want to give Canadians adequate time to
consider new rules. The less time we take here the more time
Canadians will have.
(1630)
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this bill to
suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act and to voice my support for the proposed legislation
because, in my view, we are not prepared to make the changes
that have been recommended by the electoral boundaries
commissions.
Several years ago, following a recommendation from a
provincial electoral boundaries commission to eliminate a
riding in the eastern part of the province of Quebec, we launched
a study to determine the criteria by which a riding is defined.
Our study took into account not only the population of the
riding, but a number of other factors such as the overall size of
the riding, the number of municipalities and regional
municipalities and so forth.
It is important that we endorse this bill today and that we
reject the amendment moved by the Reform Party so that we can
come to a clearer understanding of what the electoral map of the
future should look like.
Let me describe to you, for example, the situation in eastern
Quebec. At present there are five ridings in eastern Quebec: the
riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine which is
represented by a Liberal MP, Mr. Patrick Gagnon; the riding of
Gaspé which is represented by Bloc MP Mr. Yvan Bernier; the
riding of Matapédia-Matane held by Mr. René Canuel, the
riding of Rimouski-Témiscouata held by Mrs. Suzanne
Tremblay and lastly, my riding of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. Under the proposed electoral
boundaries reform, one of these ridings is slated to disappear.
Some notable differences can be found as far as the four
proposed ridings are concerned. For example, according to the
new electoral map, in the riding of Gaspé, more than 330
kilometres would separate the towns of Amqui and Gaspé. Or
should I say a distance of 330 kilometres in the summer, and
1,000 kilometres in the winter?
Moreover, each of the existing five ridings has developed its
own unique culture. These cultures have been in place for many
years. They did not emerge suddenly when the ridings were
created. They existed long before then. There is a certain
homogenous quality to the social fabric of each riding, based on
its socioeconomic calling, its distinctive geographical features
and its history. The proposed redrawing of the electoral map, a
process based solely on making a demographic calculation and
on dividing the number of people by the number of ridings, in no
way satisfies the development requirements of a region like
ours.
In my opinion, other factors must be taken into consideration
or else we will remain locked in a vicious circle where each time
a region's population declines, the number of elected
representatives will be reduced. A region represented by fewer
MPs has less influence in government. Therefore, our regions
will continue their downward spiral. An electoral map drawn
solely on the basis of population would be a virtual insult to
rural areas.
Therefore, it is important that we take the time to review the
situation and find other criteria for determining electoral
boundaries. All I can say is that we would prefer the status quo to
a new electoral map which would wipe out a riding in eastern
Quebec. If a riding was eliminated, future elected
representatives would find themselves with ridings that are far
too large. They would have to deal with new municipalities.
For example, in my riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup
which would take in the regional municipality of Témiscouata,
there would be over 60 municipalities grouped together in four
different regional municipalities: Basques, 11 municipalities;
Rivière-du-Loup, 16 municipalities; Kamouraska, 18
municipalities; Témiscouata, 20 municipalities. Elected
representatives might need longer parliamentary breaks just to
travel to the various parts of their ridings.
(1635)
For instance, the population of the riding would increase from
73,747 to more than 88,000 over a really vast area. But the
disappearance of a riding like that one also has a negative
economic impact because it would require additional financial
resources. With the economic difficulties we are now facing,
there is no guarantee that the four new ridings replacing the five
old ones would get more money to pursue their economic
development, which would in the end compromise
representation for each municipality.
If more money were made available, we would have to
determine if the increase is significant and adequately meets the
demands of the municipalities. This reform of the electoral map
would have all kinds of administrative repercussions. For
example, in the areas covered by Canada Employment Centres,
various such elements do not seem relevant to us at a time when
the population is feeling insecure regarding the effects of
reforms, as it does in Eastern Quebec with respect to
unemployment insurance. The increase in the number of weeks
of work required to qualify for benefits is already something the
region
2758
must respond to quickly and come to grips with, without us
adding other contradictions like reducing the number of ridings.
The commission's proposals to readjust the current
boundaries of Eastern Quebec ridings raise many questions. I
speak as the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup but
also as chairman of the Bloc Quebecois caucus from Eastern
Quebec. I also think all members from the East are surely aware
of the impact such a decision would have. We would much prefer
to maintain the status quo and, in that sense, the bill would allow
the elections commission to gain time, maybe to think of other
criteria to be considered in future, and to come up with much
more reasonable solutions.
In conclusion, I would say that figures sometimes speak
louder than words. Let us look at the geographical size of the
existing constituencies: Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine
would go from 8,155 to 11,375 square kilometres; Gaspé would
go from 12,268 to 17,783 square kilometres and would become
part of the new Gaspé-Matane constituency;
Matapédia-Matane would disappear; Rimouski-Témiscouata
would go from 6,367 to 8,564 square kilometres. In the case of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, or Témiscouata, it would go
from 6,367 to 8,564 square kilometres. Those are truly huge
areas, which it would be almost impossible to represent
adequately.
The Bloc Quebecois is pledged to protecting Quebec's
interests. For us, that means promoting sovereignty, but we are
also representing a population which will have to make a
decision regarding its constitutional future. We certainly do not
want to abdicate our responsibilities by saying that, according to
our scenario, there will not be another federal election. We want
to be totally honest and ensure that, regardless of their decision,
those whom we represent will enjoy the best possible
conditions, whether it is within the Canadian federation if they
so choose, or in a different structure.
In conclusion, it is important to support this bill, especially
considering the savings involved, since the amendment
proposed by the Reform Party would result in hearings being
held and in a postponement of the debate. We would end up
wasting money on a commission with no specific criteria, and
we would still have to look at the whole issue later on. Let us be
clear with the public. They just voted in an election, they can
wait a little for electoral reform to be completed. It may be that
the definitions of RCMs were taken into account in establishing
the criteria and that is interesting. However, as regards the rest
of this process, let us give ourselves some more time. That way,
if we have to use that electoral map again, Canadians will be
ensured of the best possible representation.
(1640)
[English]
Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough-Rouge River): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to rise in support of the bill and the motion
currently before the House.
I am not surprised to see a number of the opposition rising and
joining what has been called around here from time to time the
ranks of the perpetually indignant. I know of what they speak
because it was not but a few months ago I sat in opposition
myself.
They are upset or feign being upset because of the use of time
allocation. I understand that too because I sat over there. There
is a reason the government believes that the time should be
allocated. I ask the members opposite, as we have debated this
throughout today would the result be any different in the
ultimate vote if we had extended the time for debate? Under all
the circumstances I think not.
I want to explain why I support the bill. Notwithstanding that I
have a riding with over 150,000 people, I could sure use a
smaller riding, as could my staff. So could many other members
whose ridings exceed the norm of 90,000 or 100,000 people.
That is one reason I might want to see this redistribution process
go ahead immediately.
I come from the province of Ontario which would get another
four seats in the process. Therefore my Ontario colleagues and I
would probably want to see the bill go ahead and we would have
another four seats. Why do I not want that to happen?
The reason is that the process as currently constructed will
increase the membership in the House of Commons to 301. That
is a very significant item because a close look at the statutes
indicates that growth continues. It goes on and on over the years.
MPs have realized it is time to put a stop to that.
I want to correct one item. One of the members who spoke
within the last half hour said the last time there had been a
change in the electoral boundaries was in 1980. That is not
accurate. The last electoral boundary change took place for the
1988 election. I know because I was elected in 1988 on the new
boundaries. The process took place in 1986-87. It is not long
ago that redistribution took place. I have nothing against
redistribution, in fact I am in favour of it.
Getting back to what I was speaking on a few moments ago, I
sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
About a month ago the Chief Electoral Officer was before us
describing the process.
At that time I and other members spoke on the issue of the
increase in the number of members. For every new member we
add to this House, it costs the taxpayer roughly half a million
2759
dollars. Add six members and that is $3 million per year. That is
an annual cost of $3 million forever. That is the financial issue.
I have not even mentioned the cost of renovating the House of
Commons. Every time a piece of carpet, a wire or a pipe is
installed it seems to cost us $10,000. There just is not any more
room in this House. There would have to be a significant
renovation.
In any event, 301 members is not what Canadians want. They
want a Parliament that works. They want to see it work with 295
members and not 301 or 310 or 320 as time goes on. In my view
the position the opposition parties are taking seems to be a
desire to show blind submission to a process that was put in
place about 30 years ago and keeps on growing, keeps on
causing the numbers of members of Parliament to grow and the
costs to grow.
(1645)
A number of the interventions today were from members of
the Reform Party. I would have thought there would be some
element of reform in the way they are addressing this.
I accept that the redistribution process is calculated to be fair
and that it is there for a reason. But lying behind that is the
growth in the numbers of MPs and I want to put a stop to that.
Yes, $5 million has been spent on the current process. But how
much more money would continue to be spend on the existing
process if we did not stop it right now? If we do not stop it this
month or next month we will continue to spend the rest of the $8
million and I suspect, as per usual, it would not be a surprise to
see them go away beyond budget. The process simply has to be
completed.
I will tell the House why I support this bill. It is because I want
to cap the growth in the number of MPs in the House. The only
way to do it is to grab hold of this process and stop it dead right
now. Put it on ice because the changes to cap the growth in the
number of members in the House involves a change in the
Constitution. We do not make those overnight in this place. I do
not think any country makes constitutional changes overnight.
This is the way to do it. The matter is to be referred to the
procedure and House affairs committee, an all-party committee,
not a Liberal mechanism as was alluded to earlier by one of the
Reform Party members. It is an all-party committee and it will
study the issue and report back to the House where the issue will
be debated. I cannot imagine that the government would want to
put closure on that debate when it comes back. However, at the
moment we have to do this piece of business to stop the growth
and the procedure. If we do not do this, within a year or two it is
going to give us 301 MPs running in the next federal election.
I will end there. I hope the message is clear. I hope some of my
colleagues opposite will understand it. We will redistribute the
boundaries at some point. We have to. We certainly have to in
my riding. However, let us get a handle on the number of MPs
that are needed to serve the country as a whole, refashion that
process, refashion that mechanism first.
* * *
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that a
message has been received from the Senate informing this
House that the Senate has passed certain bills.
_____________________________________________
2759
ROYAL ASSENT
[
English]
The Speaker: Order. I have the honour to inform the House
that a communication has been received as follows:
March 24, 1994
Mr. Speaker:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Beverley McLachlin,
Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy
Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 24th day of
March, 1994 at 4.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.
Yours sincerely,
Anthony Smyth
Deputy Secretary Policy,
Programming and Protocol
(1650 )
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the
Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the
immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the
honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
(1700)
And being returned:
The Speaker: I have the honour to inform the House that
when the House did attend Her Honour the Deputy to His
Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, Her
Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name, the royal
assent to the following bills:
Bill C-3, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and
Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act-Chapter No.
2.
Bill C-5, an act to amend the Customs Tariff-Chapter No. 3.
Bill C-14, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning
on April 1, 1994-Chapter No. 4.
2760
Bill C-19, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public
service of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1994-Chapter No. 5.
Bill C-20, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the
public service of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March,
1995-Chapter No. 6.
_____________________________________________
2760
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod): Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise in
the House today and do something unusual. I wanted to
compliment the Liberals across the way. I wanted to compliment
them on the red book.
In my view the red book is an unusual process in Canadian
electoral politics. The red book is a departure from the standard
fare of Canada's process. The red book actually lays out in front
of all Canadians some promises which the party said was its
platform and upon which its members would present their
issues.
I wanted to compliment them as well on their motives. I
believe theirs are pure motives. They do have the best interests
of Canada at heart.
(1705)
While we may have philosophical differences, the fact is we
basically want the same things for our children. We want a good
education and good jobs for our children. We would like safe
streets for our kids and we would like safety nets if our children
have serious problems in their lives.
The government has a role to play in those goals. Our
government probably has lost some popularity in Canada. I
reflect upon some poll results I read the other day. In terms of
occupations, politicians were on the bottom rung just being
beaten by lawyers. I wondered how we could improve the image
of politicians.
I actually explored the red book wondering what my
colleagues were attempting to do in terms of improving the
image of politicians. I found that a Liberal government would
take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the
institutions of government. That is on page 92 of the red book. I
went a little farther and found that MPs would be more able to
draft legislation. There would be a parliamentary review of
some senior Order in Council appointments. I thought that was
good stuff. My compliments for those things in the red book.
I did find some inconsistencies. I am sure members did not
think the compliments would last forever. There is a
disadvantage to first being in opposition and subsequently
occupying the government benches. The disadvantage is there is
a visible and vocal record. That record is on the use of closure by
time allocation.
I refer to some documentation that expresses what the
members opposite said not so very long ago: ``This government
is trampling on the rights of Parliament. A Liberal government
would never do such a thing. This is a complete breach of
parliamentary practice. It is a shocking display of the inability
of the government to come to grips with the fact that it was
elected to be responsible to this House of Commons. It was
elected to do so and it is not being responsible. It is trampling all
over this House''.
It goes on: ``One thing we are labouring under tonight is a
closure motion. I could not go along with that bill without
expressing my distaste at the activities of the government. It is a
disgraceful performance. The government is obviously fearful
of bringing its legislation before Parliament and having it
exposed to the light of public scrutiny. If I had introduced
legislation of the kind the government has, I would be
embarrassed as well. I want to again say in the strongest terms
that by using closure in this debate the government has shown
complete contempt for democracy''.
This is quite a fat document. I could go on but maybe I should
stop.
An hon. member: More.
Mr. Hill (Macleod): I hear a cry for more. That is the way the
hon. member was talking about closure then, referring to
another comment. He sits here deadly silent now. He does not
dare discuss this issue now because he knows what he said then
was right. This is talking about someone else from the other side
who had crossed and had the same problem with closure.
I want to make it very plain, the use of time allocation and
closure is wrong. It is draconian. They both limit the debate on
issues to a time period convenient to the government. They are
like a calm and beautiful sea: very appealing to the senses, but a
rocky reef lies just beneath the surface. I wonder what it is about
crossing from this side to that side of the House. Suddenly the
issue seems to be very different.
(1710)
I also have a great deal of difficulty listening to some of the
arguments from members opposite saying that we should
swallow the soup of this bill because in it the bill allows us to
limit the number of parliamentarians. That one part of the
proposal I wholeheartedly endorse. I do not think Canada needs
more than 295 parliamentarians. I promise if my colleagues
brought a bill to us which said that one thing, they would have
wholehearted concurrence from this group of Reformers.
2761
However when it is brought with a soup full of other things,
one does not get concurrence. Referring to that one issue in this
bill does not make the soup palatable because the soup contains
the strychnine of closure. That is not correct. I repeat: Bring to
us a bill that says Parliament will not need to grow. Bring to us a
bill that says Parliament can shrink and support will be
immediate and forthcoming.
This brand new Parliament gives us the opportunity to change
the way Parliament functions. We have the opportunity in this
Parliament to say no to things like time allocation. We have an
opportunity in this Parliament to say no to party meddling in
boundary changes. We have an opportunity in this Parliament to
say no to wasting $5 million of taxpayers' money on an exercise
that need not be stopped completely. It could be modified. We
have an opportunity with new parliamentarians to say no to this
type of politics.
In my riding there are problems with the boundary
adjustments which are fairly major. However I would rather lose
the next election because of boundary changes that were not
proper. I would rather lose that election than be saddled with a
parliamentary process like this one.
I take this opportunity to express these things in the strongest
way I can. If the issue of closure and time allocation was right
when they were on this side of the House then it is right when
they are on that side. You cannot change the colour of your
underwear when you cross the floor. You have to have some
basic principles. You cannot change the colour of your hat
because you have gone from this side to that side. You have to
have basic principles. It is not good enough to just espouse
vocally from this side of the House to that side of the House.
There must be some principle. We cannot have it both ways.
I speak against this bill, this closure and this process and I do
it as strongly as I can.
Mr. Gurbax Singh Malhi (Bramalea-Gore-Malton): Mr.
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in
this important debate on the motion for second reading and
reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs of Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It is for several reasons
that I have a special interest in the process of redistribution of
electoral districts in our country which is now under way.
First, the electoral district of Bramalea-Gore-Malton
which I have the honour to represent in this House lies within the
cities of Mississauga and Brampton in the regional municipality
of Peel, one of the fastest growing areas in Ontario between the
1981 and 1991 census.
(1715 )
Second, on the basis of the 1991 census, the combined cities
of Mississauga and Brampton are entitled to two of the four
electoral districts which are to be added to the total for Ontario,
raising that number from 99 to 103.
Third, Bramalea-Gore-Malton would, in my view, be
changed without good reason by the current proposals of the
Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario.
As all hon. members are aware, the Constitution Act of 1867
requires that there be a readjustment in the number of members
of the House of Commons after every 10 year census. The
procedure for calculating the number of members of the House
of Commons to which each province or territory is entitled is set
out in sections 51, 51(a) and 52 of the Constitution Act of 1867.
The procedure for establishing the boundaries of the electoral
districts which will be represented in the House of Commons is
set out in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
I will not go into details of the procedures to be followed but
would refer hon. members to the clear summary of those
procedures provided by the hon. government House leader in his
speech on Monday, March 21, 1994 which opened the debate on
second reading and reference stage of Bill C-18. I would also
refer hon. members to the excellent booklet entitled
Representation in the Federal Parliament which has been
prepared by and is available from Elections Canada.
For the purpose of clarity of debate, it should be emphasized
that the calculation of the number of members of the House of
Commons and the establishment of the boundaries of electoral
districts are based on the number of people in a given area, never
on the basis of the number of voters.
I would now like to turn from the general to the particular and
describe how the electoral district of Bramalea-Gore-Malton
would be affected by the current proposals of the Federal
Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario.
Let us start with the facts that as a consequence of the 1991 10
year census it has been determined that the province of Ontario
is entitled to 103 members of the House of Commons and that
the electoral quota for Ontario is 97,912, the ideal population for
each of the 103 electoral districts assigned to the province.
The population of the cities of Mississauga and of Brampton
have increased dramatically in the 10 year period between the
1981 and the 1991 census. In 1981, the population of
Mississauga was 315,056 and that of Brampton was 149,030 for
a total population of 464,086 for the two cities. That population
entitled the two cities to the five electoral districts established
under the 1987 representation order, namely Mississauga East,
Mississauga West, Mississauga South, Brampton and
Brampton-Malton. The name Brampton-Malton was changed
to Bramalea-Gore-Malton in 1990. The 1987 representation
2762
order provided for the first division of the city of Brampton
between two electoral districts. Brampton had previously
always been entirely within one electoral district, either Peel or
Brampton-Halton Hills or Brampton-Georgetown.
The 1991 census disclosed that the population of Mississauga
had grown to 463,388, and that of Brampton to 234,445, for a
total combined population of 697,833. That population now
entitles the two cities to two additional electoral districts, for a
total of seven.
As I stated earlier, the electoral quota for Ontario is 97,912. If
one calculates an electoral quota for the combined two cities by
dividing their total population of 697,833 by the number of
electoral districts to which they are entitled, namely seven, the
resulting quota for the two cities is 99,690.
(1720 )
At page 13 of its proposals, the Federal Electoral Boundaries
Commission for Ontario in the course of its comments with
regard to Metropolitan Toronto, Etobicoke states that three
districts within the city of Etobicoke would average about
103,000 which is close to what the commission believes
appropriate for urban districts. The city of Etobicoke lies
immediately to the east of the cities of Mississauga and
Brampton.
The population of Bramalea-Gore-Malton according to the
1991 census was 103,589 which is 5,677 above the electoral
quota for Ontario and 3,899 above the electoral quota for the
combined cities of Mississauga and Brampton. However the
population of Bramalea-Gore-Malton is only 589 above
103,000 which is close to what the commission believes
appropriate for urban districts.
It would therefore appear that there is no urgent and pressing
necessity to alter the existing boundaries of
Bramalea-Gore-Malton.
However the commission was not satisfied with the situation.
After deciding that the electoral district of Mississauga South
should remain unchanged with a population of 96,208 and that
Mississauga East should be altered in area to reduce its
population to 101,300, the commission decided to perform
major surgery on Bramalea-Gore-Malton to cut its
population back to 96,360 from 103,589.
The commission accomplished this feat by removing an area
of Brampton lying east of Dixie Road and having a population of
36,593 from the northern part of the electoral district and adding
a piece of the northwestern corner of Mississauga with a
population of 29,364, most of whom live south of Highway 401
to the southwestern edge of the electoral district, for a net
population reduction of 7,229.
This exercise seems to me to resemble cutting one end off a
blanket and then sewing most of it back on to the other end in an
effort to make a small reduction in the size of the blanket.
In addition the commission appears to have clearly violated
one of its own operating principles. Highway 401 forms the
entire southern boundary of Bramalea-Gore-Malton. In the
course of its comments with regard to metropolitan Toronto, the
area north of Highway 401, the commission states at page 15 of
its proposals that ``the commission believes that Highway 401
forms a physical barrier and should be used as a boundary
wherever possible''.
The proposed addition of the populated area south of Highway
401 to the rump of Bramalea-Gore-Malton runs directly
contrary to the commission's view on the role of Highway 401.
The commission's proposal would create a distorted electoral
district resembling a reversed letter L of which both extremities
would have less in common and be further apart than is now the
case within Bramalea-Gore-Malton, thus diluting the
community of interest or community identity in the electoral
district. Hon. members will thus understand why I have serious
concerns as to how the Federal Electoral Boundaries
Commission for Ontario is carrying out its mandate.
Inequality of representation in this House has also been
encouraged by the provisions of section 15(2) of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act which provides for a maximum
deviation of 25 per cent above or below the electoral quota for an
electoral district in a province. In other words, if the electoral
quota for Ontario is 100,000, meaning that each resident of the
province would have equal representation in this House if the
population of each electoral district was 100,000, it would still
be perfectly possible and legal to have some electoral districts
with populations as low as 75,000 and others with populations as
high as 125,000.
(1725 )
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order. It is with
reluctance that I rise but the member has used up his full 10
minutes. If the member is going to be just a little longer we
might ask the House if there is unanimous consent that he might
conclude his remarks.
Would there be unanimous consent to allow the member for
Bramalea-Gore-Malton to conclude his remarks?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Malhi: Mr. Speaker, the subject of what shall be an
appropriate number of members of Parliament has been referred
to frequently in this debate.
At this point I would simply raise for consideration the
possibility that perhaps this House would operate more
efficiently and effectively if there were dramatically fewer
members of Parliament than at present and that there be a fixed
number. Those fewer members would have more extensive
2763
staffs and research facilities but I believe the long term savings
could be significant. Such a proposal would certainly merit
consideration by the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I thank the member for his
co-operation.
[Translation]
Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis): Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure
that I rise to take part, as member for Lévis, in this debate on Bill
C-18 to suspend for 24 months the operation of electoral
boundaries readjustments across Canada.
You know it is not always easy to speak in a debate so late in
the day without repeating what our hon. colleagues from both
sides of the House have already said. I will speak anyway,
because I think it is important to talk about democracy and its
operation. We can never talk too much about democracy and
truly democratic rules in this House. So, this bill gives me an
opportunity to raise this extremely important issue.
Like my fellow members of the Official Opposition, I support
this bill. I will not go over all their arguments, although I agree
with the points like the savings to be made by deferring this
readjustment for one thing. Members opposite also mentioned it
would give more time to do a more thorough job and to better
target readjustments to the democratic reality. I will simply
insist on one point.
As you know, provincial elections are to be held this year and,
normally, within 12 or 14 months of the elections, we should
have a referendum in Quebec. So, if all goes well-and I
honestly think, along with my colleagues, that it will-we are
going to find ourselves in a totally new political context. Under
the circumstances, what is the use of redesigning the electoral
map when it may not be used by Quebec in future elections? It is
therefore wise and perfectly advisable to wait and to defer the
readjustment-
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mr. Dubé: Perhaps the hon. member would like a drink of
water? He would then be less disruptive.
An hon. member: Give him something to drink!
Mr. Dubé: As I was saying, it would be appropriate to await
the outcome of this referendum before making changes.
Personally, as member for Lévis, I would like to point out
another reason why I think it should be deferred. Basically, to
keep changing the electoral map all the time is
counterproductive in terms of fostering a sense of belonging
within a region or a community.
(1730)
Some countries tend to keep the same electoral boundaries,
despite shifts in population. This is done in France and other
countries as well. There is evidence that it provides a certain
stability and allows local communities to strengthen their
feelings of solidarity and work more effectively to promote their
economies.
We should not make changes as a matter of course, every other
election. We live under a federal system, which means federal
elections, usually every four years, and provincial elections as
well. Generally speaking the provinces adjust their electoral
boundaries as well, before every other election, as in Quebec.
Unfortunately, there may be a lag, so that some voters,
especially in the urban ridings I am familiar with, do not know to
which riding they belong. In some cases, they do not even know
their members. That may be because the members are not always
very efficient-I am referring to the past because there are more
and more Bloc members in Quebec, and people know us and will
get to know us even better, because we are going to be very
active. Why do people have problems? Because things change so
often.
In terms of electoral boundaries, we have the territory
covered by federal ridings and the territory covered by
provincial ridings. Administratively speaking, voters want to
identify with a territory. And what happens? Administratively
speaking, although this may not be directly relevant to today's
subject, the individual needs to identify with a given area. That
is very important. It is very important for the individual to know
to which area he belongs.
In the riding of Lévis, we have the Lévis Regional County
Municipality, the territory covered by the provincial riding,
school boards and LCSC areas. Provincial departments usually
provide maps indicating which areas are covered by various
services. If we add to all that the areas covered by federal
services, by all the departments, the local employment centre
and the rest, we could look at all the departments, and we would
find as many ways to divide the area as there are departments.
Furthermore, there are a substantial number of federal
government agencies and Crown corporations which also have
their own areas. Imagine an individual trying to cope with these
constant changes! People can get very confused-
[English]
An hon. member:There is a problem with the hon. member's
microphone.
[Translation]
Mr. Dubé: I will not start all over, Mr. Speaker.
Briefly, this is a very important issue. We have a federal
electoral map, a provincial electoral map, and there are various
what I would call administrative maps provided by provincial
and federal departments.
2764
Mr. Bellemare: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Since the
microphone used by the hon. member for Lévis was turned off,
we missed part of his speech. I wonder whether he could repeat
the missing part.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): This is not a point of order
as such. The hon. member has no text, so I think we will have to
rely on Hansard.
Mr. Dubé: Mr. Speaker, at least the hon. member for
Carleton-Gloucester will be able to read my speech tomorrow
in Hansard, and I appreciate his interest. Speaking in the House
is interesting when there are members who are interested in what
one says, so I commend them for that.
(1735)
Nevertheless, in the two minutes I have left, I do not want to
appear to be opposed to change. On the contrary, those who
know me in my community find that I am usually someone who
identifies with change and who agrees with change. But I think
that the commissions should consider two changes. The first
change, which seeks a certain fairness in the number of electors
represented per riding, is laudable. It is right in a democracy, but
I was just talking about the disadvantages it causes when there
are too many changes.
Some countries have a system of proportional representation.
I think this is something to consider. I looked at what the latest
commission dealing with it had to say and it did not look into it
much. Major reports have been written and we could review
them.
There is another change, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is the most
important one we should make here in Canada or in any
democracy, namely financing of political parties. It would be a
better way to strengthen and improve democracy than to change
electoral maps left and right, I think.
In 1977, Quebec passed Bill 2, as a result of which political
parties are financed by individuals and not by corporations,
unions, companies and businesses. What has this achieved? It
has eliminated a lot of-in politics, often perception is what
counts. Since then, people feel that their government is less
subject to undue pressure from business. I think that this is an
improvement that the people in the Reform Party would also
want to support. It would improve election practices, improve
government management and finally free the members elected
from the various ridings from the pressures to which they may
be subject on the basis of party financing.
I think that it would be tremendous progress and I still do not
understand why, although people dealt with it as part of that
royal commission on electoral reform and party financing.
Although the general public was heard on this subject and
agreed with this reform, it got nowhere.
If I have one suggestion to make, and I conclude with that, we
really should look into the financing of political parties by the
people.
[English]
Mr. Fred Mifflin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr.
Speaker, it is my honour to rise to speak on second reading of
Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act and refer it to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I do not want to engage myself in a certain tone of debate
which talks about issues that are not really pertinent to the act or
to the substance of the issue because of the limited time and
because it is not my style to engage in that kind of debate.
I want to have a look at why I am supporting the bill. I am
going to restrict it to my riding of
Bonavista-Trinity-Conception to try to give all sides of the
House an indication of how it is viewed by my constituents. I
have received many phone calls, and quite frankly the
constituents who have called me are dumbfounded. That is the
best word to describe them. They are dumbfounded by what is
going on.
Let us look at the chronology from their viewpoint. There was
a comment made in the House that I will correct. The last change
did not take place in 1980. It took place in 1988. As I was
entering politics the change was made, and let me say what it did
to my riding. The name of the riding of
Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has been around for a long
time. It describes and rightly so the three bays on the east coast
of Newfoundland: Bonavista Bay, Trinity Bay and Conception
Bay. Before the present boundaries were set the southern part of
my riding took in the northern half of Conception Bay, almost a
straight line down through the bay. The previous boundary took
in the northern part of Conception Bay and all of Trinity Bay but
only the southern part of Bonavista Bay, not including the
well-known Terra Nova Park.
(1740)
After the last census and the study of the commission that we
are now trying to put on hold it was argued, and rightly so, that
the riding of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception should include
all of Bonavista Bay because there was a similarity with
communities with respect to issuing fishing licences and the
consideration of the community of interest, geographical
reasons and similarly aligned issues.
It was argued that all of Bonavista Bay should be included. It
was also argued that for the southern part of the previous
boundary certain communities-I think there were seven of
them including Brigus, Collier's, Whitbourne, Georgetown and
Markland-should not be included because they were closely
related to St. John's and had more of an urban interest. Their
community of alignment was with the riding of St. John's East.
2765
The third major reason was that
Bonavista-Trinity-Conception as it was then comprised
pre-1988 only had a population of around 75,000 or 76,000
whereas Gander-Grand Falls or Gander-Twillingate as it was
then called had more than Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. It
was felt that including the upper half of the northern half of
Bonavista Bay would balance it more reasonably with other
ridings in Newfoundland.
Considerable debate took place and the changes were
eventually made. My constituents understood all the rationale
that was used. After only one election the same rationale that
was used to result in the present boundaries is being applied to
revert to the old boundaries, except the rationale is used in
reverse. It is said that the alignment of the northern part of
Bonavista Bay is not in with the southern part of Bonavista Bay
and the five or six communities that had an alignment more with
the urban thinking of St. John's East really should belong to the
district of Port de Grave because that really should belong to
Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.
This is very difficult to understand for constituents who are
only now getting used to a change that was made six years ago.
Now they are being told that within two months they have to
appear in four different locations in the riding either to agree or
disagree, and the ones who disagree have to give some rationale
why they disagree. That is very hard to understand.
What is also very hard to understand is that the population of
Newfoundland from 1981 to 1991 had an increase of 793 people
in 10 years. For this we are to realign what was realigned before,
just take the rationale and use it in reverse. We will have 36
hearings in Atlantic Canada for 32 seats. That is about one per
seat, except in Newfoundland where we have seven seats and
there we will be 15 hearings. I am not sure what rationale was
used there. I would not want to speculate for the members of the
House.
The point I am making is that the changes that were made in
1987-88 were quite acceptable. The total population of the
riding has not changed. The population of centres in the riding
has not changed. People have not realigned themselves to my
knowledge, so that has not changed. Why all of a sudden do
three commissioners draw lines and find some rationale for
those lines? I do not understand it.
(1745 )
What is more important is my constituents. Not only do they
not understand it and have difficulties with it, but they are
saying to me: ``You are going up to preach restraint, you are
going up to lower the deficit, you are going up to balance the
budget. How can you possibly, apart from the ridiculousness and
the timing of this measure, support it from the viewpoint of
expenditure?''
I come up failing, Mr. Speaker. I cannot answer their
questions.
Not an old but a wise mentor of mine once told me: ``You
know, Fred, being in politics is very simple; if you can't explain
it, you really should not be doing it.''
Well, I cannot explain this, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I am
not so sure we should be doing it. Because of that, I am a very
strong supporter of this bill to delay this ludicrous action that is
taking place, so we can refer it to a committee, study it and come
up with some reasonable recommendations.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate I
will take a moment to make a comment to an earlier intervention
by the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception on a point
of order concerning relevance.
Some of his colleagues who shall remain unnamed from his
great province would be the masters I might say of making a
discourse on how it might be relevant. But it always amazes me
in the short five years that I have been here that members always
are able to make a relevant point to the motion or the bill being
debated, and certainly I appreciate the member's participation
in today's debate and his relevance to the subject matter.
Mr. Ian McClelland (Edmonton Southwest): Mr. Speaker, I
will try to find a germ of relevance in my representation as well.
I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate
today. We are talking about closure, redistribution and political
interference or non-political interference in the political
process in Canada. That is one of the things that we can treasure.
When we look at other countries in the world and reflect on
the tragedy that happened in Mexico yesterday, we think of the
very real and very great political discourse that goes on in the
country. We see our colleagues from the Bloc who are here and
while we are at completely different poles we are able to discuss
these things rationally and without fear of personal harm. That is
something we really need to treasure in our country and to hold
very dear. I guess that is one of the reasons that I wanted to speak
to this motion.
When this bill was first introduced I really did not feel all that
strongly about it. My riding of Edmonton Southwest is affected
very little. We lose a little bit to the northwest but as members
would know, Edmonton Northwest is represented by my
colleague who shares the same last name. So we do not win or
lose on that one. In the south we lose a little bit and we gain a
little bit so that the effect on our constituency is not all that
much.
What we do have is a sense of fairness that when we get into a
political debate or into an election here in Canada most of us do
not have to go to bed at night thinking that there has been any
gerrymandering going on with our electoral boundaries. This is
something that I think is particularly important.
2766
In the last election I was running as a rookie. The people from
Elections Canada who were looking after things were all
appointed by the Conservative government that preceded this
government. I must compliment all of the people that I was
associated with at Elections Canada. They were impartial and
fair to everyone. In particular, I would use this occasion to
compliment our returning officer, Patricia Collins, who went out
of her way to be fair to me.
When we as a political institution start to change the rules that
are established, whether we like them or not, we are treading on
fairly thin ice. That is the reason that I am standing to speak
against this motion today. If we do not like the rules then we
have the privilege of changing them any time we want. However,
there is no reason to suggest that the electoral boundary change
cannot go forward as it would normally have done.
(1750)
I am not in favour of changing the number of seats in the
House. It could have been frozen at substantially less years ago.
However the very people who are now making the case for
freezing the number of seats, during the Charlottetown accord
when the number of seats in this House were going to grow
amazingly, not one word was raised against it. Different times
make different priorities.
When I thought I wanted to speak to this and the new wrinkle
of closure was added to the soup that an earlier colleague
described, I thought why not phone the Library of Parliament
and ask them to send over a few topic headings under the term
``closure'' and then I would glean from that a few examples of
members' opposite when they were in opposition railing against
the government of the day on the issue of closure.
There are three pages. So we just grabbed one to use as an
example. Then I thought I had better be a little careful because I
am sure that when members opposite were railing against
closure when they were in opposition they had no idea that these
words would be coming back at them in such a short time.
However, I must use one example and this is from Hansard,
May 29, 1991, the hon. member representing Ottawa-Vanier:
Since I began my remarks on the government's heavy-handed motion to
reinstate certain bills, for which it could not receive unanimous consent because
they are indeed not very good bills, a new element has been introduced into the
debate-closure. It is now using its majority, the tyranny of the majority, to
impose upon the rest of us its will.
That is far from being democratic.
Therefore, I am a little nervous about introducing this because
I know that if we are as successful as we hope to be, we will be
sitting on the other side of the House.
An hon. member: Not to worry about it.
Mr. McClelland: Not to worry about it? Fine, not to worry
about it.
An hon. member: Do not worry about it.
Mr. McClelland: No, you worry about it. That is right.
Lo and behold I am having my corn flakes this morning
knowing that I am going to speak to this today and from today's
Globe and Mail I would recommend to hon. members and to
those of you watching these proceedings on television a very
worthwhile article called ``Debasing the Franchise''. This is
part one of three articles. I recommend it to everyone so they can
catch a bit of the flavour and a bit of the history of just what we
are talking about here. It is in today's Globe and Mail and there
will be another article tomorrow and then the next day. If I may I
will read just a small bit from today's Globe and Mail. It has to
do with representation by population and distribution.
In any event in 1947 they had a pretty good idea that what they
were going to do was base the number of seats by the
representative population that Canada had and then divide that
by the number of provinces and presto, you have the number of
seats. As one province increases they get more seats and as
another province decreases it gets less seats, except in the case
of Prince Edward Island which was guaranteed four seats. That
seemed like a pretty good idea at the time but it did not last.
I would like to suggest a way out of this muddle. I would
suggest that we have a limit on the number of seats. There
certainly will not be any problem from this side of the House in
saying that we should not be increasing the number of seats in
the House of Commons. Let us freeze it at 295. Let us have a
strict representation by population in the House. Every province
will be represented strictly in its proportionate number of seats
by its population with no floors; no floors for Quebec and no
floors for Prince Edward Island. Then how do we go about
representing the regions or the provinces in Canada?
(1755)
Let us have a Senate that represents the provinces. Let us have
a triple-E Senate. That will get us out of this mess. We can have
a House of Commons that will be strictly representation by
population. That is magic, is it not? Then we have a Senate that
represents the provinces.
A member opposite said they had not heard of this before.
There may even be a few people out there in television land who
2767
have not heard of this before. It is called a triple-E Senate.
Through representation by population in the House and a
triple-E Senate in the other House, we achieve what we want to
achieve.
We achieve representation of all provinces equally in Canada
and we achieve representation by population in this House
without it growing forever. There, I submit most humbly, is my
answer to the dilemma that our honourable House faces. How do
we go about achieving it? It is simple.
Let us get on with it now. We know how to achieve it. We need
to do something about the Senate. We are all in basic agreement
with that. We will get representation by population in this House
and we can get a triple-E Senate in the other House and we can
all go home happy.
Mr. Andy Mitchell (Parry Sound-Muskoka): Mr. Speaker,
I rise today in support of Bill C-18 because I believe the present
system is detrimental both in general terms to Canadians as a
whole and certainly detrimental in specific terms for northern
Ontario and for the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka which I
represent.
I do not believe that the present system fulfils the mandate
that it was given. I would like to read from the terms of
reference. It says that ``in fixing the electoral district
boundaries, they must take into consideration the community of
interest or community of identity in or refer to historical
patterns of an electoral district and a manageable geographic
size for districts in sparsely populated rural or northern
regions''.
The present system does none of these things. It was simply a
mathematical exercise and then a drawing of lines on a map.
This does not serve the interests of Canadian people and it
certainly does not serve the interests of people in northern
Ontario.
I cannot believe that the Reform Party is not supporting this
bill. By not supporting this bill and by encouraging the present
system, it is encouraging that we will have more members in this
House. That is something that it has railed against time and time
again.
It is certainly not something that I have heard from my
constituents, that they want to expand government and have
more government spending. The opportunity to take a second
look at this is probably pretty good idea.
I certainly do not think it makes any sense to change
approximately 80 per cent of the electoral boundaries that we
have in this redistribution process. It seems like we are throwing
the baby out with the bathwater. It is far too extensive. It is
costing far too much money and causing far too much
disruption.
We need to develop a new system that has public input at a far
earlier point. The present system, having redrawn all the
boundaries and coming out with a fait accompli and then asking
the public to comment on it, is not the appropriate way of doing
it. We need to study it. We need a system that is going to allow
the public to have input at a much earlier stage.
(1800)
I certainly think that history speaks to the problem. The hon.
member who spoke before seemed to think that we had been
doing okay with the present system and asked why we were
trying to change it. I would like to read from John Courtney's
book Parliamentary Representation wherein he talked about the
electoral system in the most recent history:
Since 1964 Parliament has amended the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act seven times; suspended one redistribution in mid-stream; ignored, then
replaced, another at the completion of its work; and accepted three different
formulae (a different one for each redistribution) for determining the number of
seats to be awarded the provinces and the territories. Five starts at electoral
redistribution in little more than 20 years suggests that the process has yet to win
the measure of support and confidence of parliamentarians needed to ensure its
long-term institutional independence.
With all those changes and with all the difficulties that we
have had with electoral redistribution in the last 30 years, I do
not think support of the present system is appropriate. Indeed we
need to go back to the drawing board and look at a better way of
doing things.
In addition to the national concerns that I have addressed, I
have some very specific concerns as redistribution relates to my
area of the country, northern Ontario. It will result in the
elimination of two seats in northern Ontario. We have little
enough representation as it is now with only 12 seats, but this
plan would reduce us to 10 seats. I believe this is unfair. We are a
rural area in northern Ontario. We need strong representation. I
cannot support a particular system that will see our
representation reduced by two.
As the hon. member from the riding of Algoma spoke earlier
he described an electoral system that would result in his riding
going from Manitoulin Island all the way north to James Bay. It
is totally impractical that a member of Parliament could be
expected to cover such a large geographic area. The present
system that simply divides population on a map and draws lines
is totally inappropriate. The plan to reduce northern Ontario
down to 10 ridings takes away the collective voice we have in
northern Ontario. The system is definitely flawed and needs to
be changed.
Then we get to my own particular riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka. It is an area that under this redistribution
would be split absolutely in two, with the northern half of my
riding going in one direction and the southern half of my riding
going in a different direction.
This certainly does not fulfil the mandate of the electoral
commission which was to take into account historical, social
and economic realities of the situation. The riding of Parry
Sound-Muskoka has existed for 60 years, and in one fell swoop
of a pen on a map there is a proposal to destroy it and to split it in
two. I cannot accept that.
2768
There are the social concerns. We in Parry Sound-Muskoka
have developed into a unique community of communities, one
that has a cohesiveness of interests, and again a stroke of a pen
on a map is going to take that away.
The third area they were supposed to take into account was
economics. We have a shared economy in Parry
Sound-Muskoka. We have the major industry of tourism which
we share. We share the same major transportation links of
Highway 11 and Highway 69. We share the same character of
rural Ontario. Again these social considerations under the
current system will simply be thrown out the window as a result
of the stroke of a pen on a map.
I do not believe the system serves the interest of Canadians. I
know it does not serve the interest of northern Ontarians. I
certainly know it does not serve the interest of my constituents
from Parry Sound-Muskoka. I support the bill so that we can
go back to take a look at the system and redesign it.
(1805)
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, the riding of
Chambly I represent has an area of 384 square kilometres. In the
last election, it had 76,204 voters; today, that number is down to
76,203, since I spend most of my time here. It was and still is a
mostly urban riding that straddles the Richelieu River from
Beloeil-Saint-Hilaire to Chambly, including Saint-Bruno, a
beautiful city we are proud of.
In my riding, the proposed electoral boundaries readjustment
would add 14 small, rather rural municipalities and remove a
large one, Saint-Bruno, that would be integrated into the riding
of Saint-Hubert. The riding would gain 14 municipalities, and
would extend almost as far as Granby in the Eastern Townships.
The problem is, first of all, there is no rush. We can take the
time to debate these issues and to understand what is behind the
changes proposed by the elections commission.
In my case, I go from 76,200 voters to a new riding with
110,000 voters. But my neighbour from whom I took 14
municipalities goes from a riding of 110,000 voters to one with
about 76,000 voters. We merely exchange voters without
gaining anything at the administrative level. On the contrary, I
think we stand to lose.
What will it be like for the member representing that riding
the day after the new electoral map comes into effect? In my
riding, which has an area of only 384 square kilometres, all my
predecessors had their offices in the middle of the riding to
avoid long-distance charges. But after readjustment, the
member for the new riding will need at least two offices and will
be practically unable to make calls without incurring high
long-distance charges.
Some would reply, ``The government pays for that''. Yes,
when the member initiates the call, but when it is the voters who
call, they complain that they cannot reach their member. They
can reach him but only if they pay charges that can be quite high
depending on their complaints. If only for that reason, I think it
is a bad idea.
Furthermore, what is proposed does not take into account, I
think, the communities' desire to live together because they are
used to living together. Over the years, places like Saint-Bruno,
Saint-Hilaire, Beloeil, Chambly-the smallest communities
have a population of 15,000 or 16,000, while the largest have
between 30,000 and 35,000 residents-have developed trade
links as well as cultural and other exchanges involving
volunteers, regional county municipalities, etc. These
municipalities have learned to live together and have become
very good at it. And just for the sake of it, we are now going to
change riding boundaries to no one's benefit.
As I said earlier, my constituency will increase to 110,000
voters but that of my neighbour will go down to 76,000. What
did we gain from all this? I would have understood how, if my
neighbour had encroached on someone else and so on, we would
have fiddled with the ridings to distribute the population more
or less equally among the ridings, but that is not the case.
(1810)
So I have some trouble understanding why the electoral
commission is so eager to impose on us new boundaries that do
not reflect local realities and the desire of people to live
together, as in the riding I represent; that said, of course, with
respect for the people who will join our riding. Shifting riding
boundaries around just for the fun of it was not the main purpose
of the electoral commission.
As for Quebec, we cannot talk about redistribution without
talking about Quebec and its future. This morning, a poll
published in the Eastern Townships, on which the riding of
Chambly abuts, reports that the idea of sovereignty is supported
by a strong majority in the Eastern Townships; the survey says
53 per cent.
At the beginning of my speech, I told you that the house was
not on fire and I think that the Liberal Party of Canada has
understood that and said to itself: ``Better not go ahead too
quickly with those changes. Quebec will probably separate in a
year or a year and a half, so we would have done all this
boundary adjustment for nothing. Better soft-pedal it, if not
stop it, and we will see later''. I think that is wise on the part of
the government. I commend it for that and I thank it for saving
the taxpayers in my riding and all Canadians a fairly
considerable amount of money.
2769
This morning, we voted against a motion. I hope that you will
understand what we on this side of the House were against was
the rather high-handed way in which they decided to end this
debate. Certain parliamentary principles are dear to us, whether
we are independentists or angry federalists, and wanting to cut
off discussion and debate on a subject like redistribution which
is important for many people is something that my party and I
could not support, you understand, and that is why we voted
against it. But tonight, for the reasons I explained to you, of
course we will support the motion of the party in power, which is
a motion from a party that understands things, which sees the
obvious and knows that the Canadian federation as it now exists
probably does not have much longer to live.
Based on the poll I have here, which is encouraging for my
political option, we realize that the strongest bastions of
federalism in the Eastern Townships have been shattered like
toothpicks, so that is encouraging for my party and me.
With that, I tell you that I will vote on second reading of this
Bill C-18 for extending the mandate, that is for postponement,
like my colleagues who spoke before me.
[English]
Mr. John Bryden (Hamilton-Wentworth): Mr. Speaker, it
is a great pleasure to take part in this debate. I found it very
interesting. All the various parties contributed to it. I would like
to take it though in a slightly different direction, in a media
direction that reflects my background somewhat.
Let me first describe my riding very briefly. My riding is
Hamilton-Wentworth. It is a large, rural, suburban and urban
riding that surrounds Hamilton. It follows the old historic lines
of Wentworth county. It has a basic shape, a community centre
and a community of interest going back well over 100 years.
(1815 )
There is one corner of my riding, the far southeast corner,
Binbrook. It is a village with some farms immediately around it.
After the writ was dropped I did a door to door campaign in
Binbrook, about five days into the election. I was surprised to
discover as I went from door to door that many people did not
know who the candidates were. They did not know my name.
They did not know the name of the Reform Party candidate.
They did not know the name of the Conservative candidate.
I was quite surprised by this. I reflected upon it and asked
questions. I discovered that the problem in this one small corner
of my riding was that they were not served by a weekly
newspaper. They are on the far edge of the circulation of the
major daily newspaper which is the Hamilton Spectator which is
in the centre of downtown Hamilton.
Again they are on the fringe of radio coverage. Finally, their
basic interest was directed not toward Hamilton but directed
toward another community outside of my riding, Stoney Creek
and down toward the peninsula.
I realized then how absolutely essential it is for a politician to
have a media which serves him because no matter what we do in
this House or what we do in our lives for that matter, we have to
reach the public. The public has to know what we do, whether it
is good or bad, and I certainly hope that if it is good it does know.
So the media is very important.
The rest of my riding is very well served. There are three
weekly newspapers in various blocks of the suburban and urban
portion. Of course the majority of the riding receives the
Hamilton Spectator and there are two AM radio stations and
some FM stations as well. I am very well covered as far as the
ability of the media to follow my actions.
This redistribution however changes this picture entirely and
it is a great problem. What has happened to my riding under the
new redistribution proposal has taken out the urban component.
As my riding is presently constituted I have about 30,000 people
in Hamilton Mountain. They are completely eliminated. Instead
what I have are two new blocks added, one a rural block next to
Cambridge and another block between Cambridge and
Brantford. To be more precise the one block is near Guelph.
Let me just visualize it for you, Mr. Speaker. You have
Hamilton, Guelph, Cambridge and Brantford and the new rural
blocks are in between those two areas.
These new blocks would be a great problem for me if this
redistribution were to go ahead because they do not receive the
Hamilton Spectator, they do not have weekly newspapers that
serve them in the same way as my immediate community
newspapers and they are out of range of the television and radio
stations that are based in Hamilton.
Instead they turn to other communities. Naturally being rural
communities they look to their nearest urban centre. So the
block called Puslinch looks to Guelph. The block called north
Dumfries looks to Cambridge and the block I would call south
Dumfries looks to Brantford.
I am sure that you can see, Mr. Speaker, the problem that is
presented here. If I say something in this House that is of some
importance my chances of getting reported not only in the
community and daily newspapers centred on Hamilton, but also
in the Cambridge Reporter, the Guelph Mercury and the
Brantford Expositor are very difficult.
In fact, those three newspapers that serve the rural areas that
we are talking about only form a very small portion of the
circulation of those newspapers. There is a great difficulty for
me to get any kind of message out into these rural areas by the
news media.
2770
It is the same with the radio stations. These three rural areas
that I would get in redistribution do not pick up the radio stations
centred on Hamilton which would have the greatest interest in
what I do. They instead are served by radio stations in Brantford,
Cambridge and in these other areas.
Again the difficulty and the reality of the media is if they are
going to do a news story on someone and that someone is of
importance to perhaps only 5 per cent of their listeners the
chances of them actually doing a news story is very limited.
(1820 )
That is the dilemma. The chances of people hearing what I do
in these two rural blocks is very, very limited.
There is another side to the coin which is equally difficult. I
have a responsibility as an MP to serve the people in my riding,
and I have to serve those people community by community. At
present I can follow what happens in my community by again
turning to the local media. I have three community newspapers,
I have the major daily paper and I also have the television station
and radio.
The difficulty is that I have to now follow three more
communities through the media. That means I would have to pay
attention to these three other newspapers, I would have to pay
attention to the radio stations and I would have to follow the
local governments in three additional cities and municipalities.
I just do not think it is possible for one MP to cover that large a
territory successfully, to be up on the news and be up on what
concerns people over that vast area. Consequently I find that the
kind of redistribution I am looking at is very flawed.
It is a question in my mind of philosophy. The reason we have
to bring in a bill like Bill C-18 is not to interfere with a body
outside of government that has been appointed to do a particular
task. Our job as legislators is to give them the philosophy to
operate. We have to define for them when they make this
redistribution what they are doing and why they are doing it. It
would appear from what I see now that in the past they have
looked at the numbers purely and they have not given due
attention to the question of community of interest, how our
information comes from the politician to the people and how the
politician gets the information from the people.
I would strongly support the intent of this bill because I think
we are in the business here in this 35th Parliament of looking at
reform of institutions in the sense of how better we can serve the
people of Canada and our constituents. I think if we re-examine
the philosophy of redistribution we may indeed find that
numbers are not the last word of this issue, that it is how best the
MP can represent perhaps a geographic entity.
Some of my colleagues have mentioned that in northern
Ontario, for example, the numbers are sparse but the community
of interest is based on history and geography. If you do it
straight by numbers of course you are going to skew our historic
responsibility to the people of Canada whom we serve
regionally.
In concluding, I think this is a very fine move by this
government. I really do wish that the members of both parties,
particularly the Reform Party, would reconsider because I think
this is the kind of reform that all of us in this House wish to see.
Mr. Jim Gouk (Kootenay West-Revelstoke): Mr. Speaker,
I rise in opposition to Bill C-18. My riding of Kootenay
West-Revelstoke is very adversely affected by the proposed
boundaries adjustment act. The riding is currently made up of
two specific geographic areas which have much in common.
Virtually all of my riding is located in a valley setting on or near
one of three waterways.
There are some notable exceptions in this for mountainous
communities such as Rossland and Warfield. The entire riding is
involved in forestry, hydroelectric power generation and
tourism. The Columbia River treaty affects all communities on
or near the river from Trail in the south of the riding to
Revelstoke in the north.
Many people travel between towns for work and recreational
purposes. In the interests of economy we have learned how to
share. For example, in 1996 Trail and Castlegar are jointly
hosting the British Columbia Summer Games. Either
community is too small to host this by itself, but by working
together the 1996 games should be a spectacular success.
In short, we are a riding consisting of commonality of both
geography and concerns. The proposal under the current
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act effectively dismantles
this riding that has so much in common.
The West Kootenay portion of the riding is split down the
middle with Trail and surrounding communities being placed in
a riding that would find its centre in the Okanagan, 200 miles to
the west, an area that has nothing in common with its new
addition. The rest of the West Kootenays would find itself in a
riding with its centre 200 miles to the east, again with little in
common with its new addition.
(1825)
Revelstoke would find itself in a new riding made up of parts
of the north Okanagan where it would likely centre. This riding
would then proceed east past Revelstoke and the Rogers Pass, all
the way to the Alberta border and include the northern portion of
the former Kootenay East. Kootenay East would have to give up
this portion of its old riding to make up for receiving the chunk
that came from Kootenay West which no one asked for. Revels-
2771
toke has little in common with any of these geographic areas
and would be poorly served by the change.
With these changes Kootenay West-Revelstoke would cease
to exist and, yes, I would be an MP without a riding. Given all
these problems for the riding and faced with the loss of my own
seat, one might ask why I am not supporting the motion by the
government. Indeed many have asked that very question.
The reason is as follows. In the early stages of the drafting of
the bill the government was looking for consent from all parties.
Aside from the problems created for individual ridings like
Kootenay West-Revelstoke, there were two main areas of
concern regarding the current boundary readjustment. One of
these is the fact that it creates six new ridings in Canada, two of
which are in B.C. The B.C. ridings would most likely end up
Reform ridings, but we still oppose this because we feel the last
thing Canadians want or need is more MPs in Ottawa.
Each MP adds about half a million dollars in direct costs plus
untold costs for offices, printing services and supplies, not to
mention the cost of refurbishing the House which has no
additional capacity at this time. A condition that would have
been necessary for us to support the bill would have been an
assurance that no new seats would have been added to any future
boundary adjustments. We did not get this assurance.
Another condition we would have required is more public
input and control. One of the problems with the current system is
that it does not consult the public until the plan is complete, the
maps are drawn and it is almost a done deal. The government
was not prepared to offer any assurances on this concern either.
Given that we believed these requests were reasonable and in
the public's best interest, we had to consider that the
government had a hidden agenda. The hidden agenda we
suspected was a great increase in the number of seats and the
removal of public input into the process.
Following the passage of the bill to suspend redistribution and
disband existing provincial boundary commissions, it is
expected the government will make a motion to assess continual
increase in the number of members of Parliament and to review
the selection methods of the commission members, public
involvement and the commission's powers.
This assessment will be carried out by a committee of MPs on
which the Liberal government would have an absolute majority.
In actual fact the government by virtue of its majority can
operate in a manner of dictatorship for the next five years. The
invoking of closure which the Liberals have strongly opposed in
the past is the most recent example of business in the usual style
of the former government.
While we have heard of one famous name from the past
receiving a dollar a year to advise the Liberals, we cannot help
but wonder if Brian Mulroney was also in need of a dollar.
The current process has now reached a point at which public
input is heard. As devastating as the current proposed changes
are for my riding, I would prefer to deal with it through the
public hearing process than take a chance on the government
accepting or even increasing the number of seats in Parliament
or removing the public from the process.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It being 6.29 p.m.,
pursuant to order made Wednesday, March 23, 1994 in
accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 78(3) it is my
duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every
question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the
bill now before the House.
(1830)
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): All those in favour of the
amendment 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 nays
have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Call in the members.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:)
(Division No. 24)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Johnston
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Taylor-27
2772
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Daviault
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Easter
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paré
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed-155
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Anderson
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Beauce)
Bouchard
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chan
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Debien
Deshaies
Discepola
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Flis
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Graham
Guimond
Hopkins
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mercier
Minna
Ménard
O'Brien
Parrish
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
St-Laurent
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Venne
Wells
Young
de Savoye
(1855 )
The Speaker: I declare the the amendment lost.
[Translation]
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will obtain
unanimous consent to have the result of the vote just taken
applied in reverse to the main motion.
The Speaker: Does the House agree?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:
(Division No. 25)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anawak
Arseneault
Assadourian
Augustine
Baker
Bakopanos
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Brien
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélisle
Calder
Campbell
Cannis
Catterall
Chamberlain
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Clancy
Cohen
Collins
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Daviault
Dhaliwal
Dingwall
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Easter
2773
English
Fewchuk
Finestone
Finlay
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Goodale
Gray (Windsor West)
Guarnieri
Guay
Harb
Harper (Churchill)
Harvard
Hickey
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Keyes
Kirkby
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lalonde
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Loubier
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Marleau
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Massé
McCormick
McKinnon
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Mifflin
Milliken
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Nault
Nunez
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Paré
Payne
Peters
Peterson
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Pillitteri
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Scott (Fredericton-York Sunbury)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St. Denis
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Stewart (Northumberland)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Ur
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Whelan
Wood
Zed-155
NAYS
Members
Althouse
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Chatters
Cummins
Duncan
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Hayes
Hermanson
Hill (Macleod)
Johnston
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Ramsay
Ringma
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Silye
Speaker
Taylor-27
PAIRED MEMBERS
Members
Anderson
Asselin
Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing)
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bernier (Beauce)
Bouchard
Canuel
Caron
Cauchon
Chan
Collenette
Comuzzi
Copps
Dalphond-Guiral
DeVillers
Debien
Deshaies
Discepola
Dumas
Dupuy
Eggleton
Fillion
Flis
Gagnon (Québec)
Godin
Graham
Guimond
Hopkins
Lastewka
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lefebvre
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Lincoln
Loney
MacLaren (Etobicoke North)
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
McGuire
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
Mercier
Minna
Ménard
O'Brien
Parrish
Patry
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
St-Laurent
Torsney
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Valeri
Venne
Wells
Young
de Savoye
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a
committee.)
[English]
The Speaker: It being seven o'clock p.m., this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at ten o'clock a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)