CONTENTS
Tuesday, April 12, 1994
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2893
Mr. Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing) 2894
Bill C-18. Report stage 2894
Motion Nos. 1, 2 and 3 2894
Mr. Harper (Calgary West) 2901
Mr. White (North Vancouver) 2903
Mr. Leroux (Shefford) 2904
Mr. Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead) 2917
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 2922
Mr. Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe) 2927
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2929
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2930
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2930
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2930
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2930
Mr. Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville) 2931
Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) 2931
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2932
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2932
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2932
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2932
Mr. White (Fraser Valley West) 2933
Mr. Chrétien (Saint-Maurice) 2936
Bill C-18. Consideration resumed of report stage 2936
Mr. Leblanc (Longueuil) 2942
Mrs. Dalphond-Guiral 2947
Division on motion No. 1 deferred 2949
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 46; Nays, 190 2949
Division on motion No. 2 deferred 2949
Motion No. 1 negatived on division: Yeas, 46; Nays, 191 2950
Motion for concurrence 2951
Bill C-17. Consideration resumed of motion for second reading and amendment 2952
Amendment negatived on division: Yeas, 55; Nays, 182 2952
Mrs. Brown (Calgary Southeast) 2958
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
2893
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Tuesday, April 12, 1994
The House met at 10 a.m.
_______________
Prayers
_______________
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
[
English]
The Speaker: I have the honour to lay upon the table the
annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages
covering the calendar year 1993 pursuant to section 35(1) of the
Official Languages Act.
[Translation]
Consequently, pursuant to Standing Order 108(4)(a), this
document is deemed permanently referred to the Standing Joint
Committee on Official Languages.
* * *
[
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 eight
petitions.
* * *
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby-Kingsway): Mr.
Speaker, I think you would find unanimous consent of the House
at this time for the motion which I would like to propose.
The motion has been drafted following consultations with
members from all parties in the House, a motion that is seconded
by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the hon.
member for Longueuil and the member for
Kindersley-Lloydminster. I would seek the unanimous consent
of the House to propose the following motion:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should urge the
Secretary-General of the United Nations to do everything in his power to press
the State Law and Order Restoration Council of Burma to take the following
measures:
1. The immediate and unconditional release of Aung San Suu Kyi and all
political prisoners, with guarantees for their complete freedom.
[
Translation]
2. The swift and complete implementation of a transition to civilian rule, as
mandated by the May 1990 general election, as per resolution 47/144, entitled
``Situation of human rights in Myanmar'', which was adopted by the United
Nations General Assembly on December 18, 1992.
[
English]
I would like to thank all members of the House of Commons
from all parties who have supported the initiative of the Global
Parliamentary Appeal for Democracy in Burma which has been
initiated by the International Centre for Human Rights and
Democratic Development.
Members have signed petitions and I thank them for their
support on this fundamental issue. I thank them for their support
of the motion this morning.
(Motion agreed to.)
* * *
(1010 )
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege to rise under Standing Order 36 to
present two petitions today, one decrying the decision of the
Minister of Canadian Heritage to close the National Film Board
office in Saskatoon. This leaves Saskatchewan and
Newfoundland the only two provinces without any National
Film Board presence. It will cut down on the availability of
access to the National Film Board publications.
We have been told that people in Saskatchewan are tired of
demonstrating support to maintain the presence of a national
institution while national institutions continue to be cut from
across Canada and particularly across Saskatchewan.
2894
Mr. Chris Axworthy (Saskatoon-Clark's Crossing): Mr.
Speaker, second I have a petition signed by over 500 people,
mostly from Saskatoon, calling on the government to take
measures to abolish the Senate, bearing in mind that it is the
home of Tory and Liberal patronage without any basic interest to
the Canadian taxpayer.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Milliken (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of
the Government in the House of Commons): Mr. Speaker, I
would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.
The Speaker: Shall the questions be allowed to stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
_____________________________________________
2894
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[
English]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-18, an act
to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act, as reported (without amendment) from the
committee.
The Speaker: This is my ruling on Bill C-18, an act to
suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Act.
[Translation]
There are three motions in amendment on the Notice Paper for
the report stage of Bill C-18, An Act to suspend the operation of
the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
[English]
Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 will be grouped for debate but voted
on as follows:
(a) Motion No. 1 will be voted on separately.
(b) The vote on motion No. 2 will apply to motion No. 3
Mr. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley-Lloydminster)
moved:
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-18 be amended in Clause 2 by replacing line 9, on page 1, with
the following:
``until twelve months after the day on''.
Motion No. 2
That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 3.
Motion No. 3
That Bill C-18 be amended by deleting Clause 4.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as we continue down the trail of haste
dealing with Bill C-18, the bill to suspend the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act, we suddenly find ourselves at
report stage, having gone through a rather hurried committee
stage just before the Easter break.
We had gone through a rather hurried committee stage process
in dealing with what actually amounts to a very simple bill that
tampers with the existing act by suspending it until some
unknown and undrafted act is put in its place, or 24 months
expire and we do not come up with a solution or a better process
for dealing with boundary readjustment. The boundary
readjustment process is designed to be a non-partisan
politically neutral exercise. By introducing Bill C-18 the
government is compromising that neutrality.
(1015)
Elections Canada goes to great lengths to ensure that we have
a fair, democratic and unbiased electoral system. We as
parliamentarians should respect that principle no matter how
these proposed changes may affect us personally.
The process has a built-in appeal structure through which
interested groups and individuals, including members of
Parliament, can express their concerns about the changes. There
has been no great outcry from Canadians to justify Parliament
prematurely interfering with these readjustments that are under
way.
Those members who are unhappy with the proposed changes
can make representation at the appeal hearings. I might add that
I have asked to be heard at the appeal hearing in Saskatchewan.
Hopefully the process will not be suspended before I have that
opportunity.
This is supposed to be a non-political process. An MP should
have no more right to effect changes to the electoral boundaries
than any other Canadian citizen.
The redistribution that occurred in the past resulted in similar
grumblings from MPs but barely a whisper from the electorate.
The redistribution of 1974 following the 1971 census was
similarly challenged by MPs. It would seem that the Liberal
government of the time did not like those proposed changes
either and after much debate decided to create 18 new
constituencies and send a new commission out to do the work all
over again. It sounds familiar, does it not?
Taxpayers will not accept the cost of redoing the
commission's work or the cost of additional MPs. This in itself
is justification for not supporting the government's proposal for
interfering with the electoral process.
2895
There is one aspect of electoral boundary changes that is a
political matter and that is the total number of seats. Canadians
have made it abundantly clear that they do not see the need for
more members of Parliament. The country's finances are not in a
condition to warrant adding the expense of more MPs. Even the
physical limitations of this Chamber suggest that it is time to
consider placing an upper limit on the number of members in
this House. This cap on the House of Commons is the only issue
where the Parliament has a legitimate place in considering the
issue.
Consideration of the cap on the House is conspicuously absent
from any government intentions other than that it has talked
about reviewing the numbers of seats with no proposal as to how
we can achieve the ends we desire.
We are rather resigned to the fact that we will be blocked by
the weight of a heavy-handed Liberal government intent on
imposing its will on Parliament without occasion for
meaningful debate and honest consideration of amendments.
I believe it is abusing a pillar of democracy, namely the
certainty that Canadians will enjoy a fair electoral process free
of political gerrymandering and manipulation or even the
perception of such and that is no small matter.
Suspending the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
before placing an alternative before Canadians to scrutinize and
be endorsed by this House is of great concern to me and to many
other Canadians. This is especially so in light of the fact that
Elections Canada informed the procedure and House affairs
committee that the current act is being administered properly
and with no problems.
We have just returned from two weeks in our ridings. I want to
state that I heard no public outcry over the proposed electoral
boundaries from residents of Saskatchewan, both in my riding
and in neighbouring ridings.
Rather, Canadians are worried about the deficit and
government waste. They are worried about the dollar and
interest rates and an agricultural trade war with the United
States. They are worried about failing social safety nets and the
hurt being afflicted on them by a government that cannot
manage its wallet.
They are worried about the Bloc Quebecois, a party
committed to breaking up the country at any and great cost and
they are also worried that the government is committed to
thwarting Quebec separation without regard to fairness and
without regard to principle.
The Liberal government may be looking for a red herring to
divert as much attention as possible from the economic and
national unity issues, the lack of equal treatment under the law
for all Canadians and its pillow-soft approach to criminal
justice reform.
Perhaps the electoral boundary debates are convenient red
herrings as well as an inconvenience for Liberal MPs who could
care less about the economy but want to make darn sure the
boundary of their riding is at Fourth Street rather than Tenth
Street.
The suspension of the act can serve the Liberal government in
three ways. First, it could allow Liberals to tamper with the
electoral system for partisan advantages. They have majority
control in both the House of Commons and the procedure and
House affairs committee to which they wish to give the
responsibility of drafting new legislation.
(1020 )
Second, as a diversionary tactic to keep attention from its
shortfalls it does not want opposition parties, its own
backbenchers and the media focusing on the economy and the
issues that are important to Canadians.
Third, it attempts to deny the public input and judgment of the
public in the current process.
There are flaws in Bill C-18 such as the suspension time. One
amendment that we have put forward is that the time of
suspension be reduced from 24 months to 12 months.
The current boundaries are based on the 1981 census. We may
end up delaying boundary readjustment until after the next
election which will happen in 1997 or 1998 if all goes as we
expect. That means it is possible that not one election may be
based on the 1991 population statistics if the following election
were to occur say in the year 2003. It could be based then on the
2001 decennial census. This in fact may be unconstitutional. In
any case it certainly breaks the spirit of the law.
A second flaw in Bill C-18 is that it will waste $5 million
because most of the work of the commissioners that is already in
place will become unsalvageable.
Could the Reform Party have supported Bill C-18? Possibly.
If the Liberal government had categorically stated that it would
cap the seats in the House of Commons at a number not greater
than the current 295 seats, perhaps that would have been
justification for suspending the current process.
Does the government really have a plan to reform the
parliamentary system so sparsely populated regions of Canada
will receive a fair shake in the electoral process and in decision
making? We have a blueprint for that plan and we would be
happy to discuss it at any time in this House.
Third, the government has not reassured us that there will be
no allowances for patronage and gerrymandering in a new
process to replace the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act
by agreeing to substantive support from all three recognized
parties in the House before enacting a replacement act. We
discussed such issues in good faith but the results were not
forthcoming.
2896
There has been no public consultation about the proposed
boundary changes. Politicians should not arbitrarily decide to
quash the changes before the public is consulted. Since there has
been no public concern about the work of the commission, the
only reason for dismissing the boundary changes at this point
are very partisan and very political.
It is the role of Parliament to ensure that this process is
conducted as fairly as possible. It is not our role to choose where
or where not the lines are to be drawn. Therefore I support our
amendments, first to shorten the suspension period of the
current readjustment act from 24 months to 12 months; second,
not to cease the work of the current commissioners but to leave
them in place so that $5 million worth of taxpayers' money will
not be wasted should the procedure and House affairs committee
not come up with a responsible act to replace the current act.
[Translation]
Hon. Fernand Robichaud (Secretary of State
(Parliamentary Affairs)): Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you as
well as all hon. members in this House that, as we are debating
this bill, the government wants to respect the non-partisan
nature of the electoral boundaries readjustment process. We
want it to remain that way and at no time have we made any
proposal with a view to changing the non-partisan nature of this
process.
I listened carefully to the member from the Reform Party who
just spoke. He said that we were right to review the readjustment
process, mentioning the fact that, at the present time, with each
readjustment, the number of seats automatically increases
according to a predetermined formula. He said that, under the
present circumstances, it would desirable for us to consider
whether or not this number should keep on increasing, which of
course leads to further government expenditures.
(1025)
On the other hand, he also said that we want to limit the debate
and that we want to proceed with great haste. Of course, we want
to proceed with haste to stop the ongoing process for the simple
reason that it costs a lot of money. It is true that a certain amount
of work has already been done, but should the process be
allowed to go on, even more money will be spent. This is why we
tried to come to an agreement with the opposition parties to
carry on the review of the process as quickly as possible. I was
also surprised to hear the member mention that the government
wanted to take advantage of its majority,
[English]
the heavy-handed way of the government to try to push this
legislation through.
However, there is a contradiction here in that the member says
that we want to push this through in a heavy-handed fashion.
The member then turns around and argues that if the government
were to be heavy-handed in saying that we would limit the
number of members in this House at the present level, he would
agree with that. I see a contradiction there. It is definitely not the
intention of the government to be heavy-handed in that fashion.
We do not want to limit the debate. We want to make sure that
every group, every organization and every person who has
something to say on the revision of the process has the
opportunity to make his presentation.
[Translation]
We have problems with the proposed amendments. There
again I am surprised. When we drafted this bill and consulted the
opposition parties, we proposed an 18 month period but the
Reform Party, the very sponsor of the amendments we are
debating today, wanted to make sure that the process would be
longer; they said that 18 months was not long enough and all of a
sudden they propose to reduce this period to 12 months.
We believe that 12 months is too short. We do not believe that
this timeframe will cause problems for the committee in charge
of reviewing the process, but rather that problems will arise
once the committee's review is over. We will have problems in
terms of the process which will have to be put in place to
implement a new legislative framework based on the
committee's recommendations.
We are convinced that the committee of the House in charge of
studying this process will propose a solution which will meet
and respect the desires of the people and the members who make
presentations to the committee; such recommendations will
imply changes which will have to be legislated. Therefore, we
believe that a 12 month period will not allow the committee or
the House to make an in-depth review of the recommendations
which will be proposed.
(1030)
That is it for the first amendment. Motions No. 2 and No. 3 are
amendments that would maintain the existing commissions. We
would have, on the one hand, a House committee which would
study the process and propose changes if needed, and on the
other hand, the commissions which would continue their studies
and consultations, not in relation to the process, but in relation
to the readjustment of electoral boundaries.
We believe that this would be a waste of money, and I am
surprised that the hon. member who proposed these amendments
would want to waste several million dollars. He said that the
commissions are already in place, that they have done some
2897
work, and that their abolition would mean the loss of $3.5 to$4 million worth of work.
His amendment would mean an even greater loss, and if we
decided at some point to abandon what has been done, we would
have wasted $3 to $4 million.
That is why we cannot support the amendments proposed this
morning.
Motion No. 3 is the logical continuation of Motion No. 2
which would maintain the existing commissions.
For these reasons, we cannot support the amendments
proposed this morning.
[English]
Mr. Hermanson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
Statements were attributed to me that are not correct. Prior to the
introduction of the bill there was a discussion on whether an 18
month period was the proper time for suspension of the bill. In
fact my party and I recommended that it be either 12 months or
24 months.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): With all due respect to the
hon. member, I believe that is a point of debate rather than a
point of order.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse): I would like to
comment on the three motions before us which were grouped by
the Chair.
First of all, I was a bit surprised by the remarks of my
colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster about the Official
Opposition's attitude. Once again, we have heard expressions
that will be used more and more in the House, as the elections
and referendum grow nearer in Quebec. We have heard terms
like the breakup of Canada, separatism, that kind of language. I
do not see what that has to do with Bill C-18 and I do not know
what the member from Kindersley-Lloydminster is getting at.
He probably does not know himself.
As for Bill C-18 and the amendments proposed today, the
authors of the three motions did raise some good points. In fact,
we could speak of two motions, since the third one is just a
consequence of the second one.
The main thing that comes out of these motions and the whole
debate and what prompts my first comment is that we are
considering limiting the number of members in the House. It
may be a worthwhile, even noble objective. As you know, Mr.
Speaker, Quebec governments, even the least nationalistic ones,
have always insisted on a clause guaranteeing 25 per cent of the
seats in the House of Commons to Quebec.
(1035)
Under the present federal system, Quebec is guaranteed this
representation. Assuming it remains in the federation,
something which is also hypothetical, then Quebec should retain
one quarter of the seats in Parliament. Limit the number of seats,
by all means, but only after giving Quebec assurances that it will
retain its current level of 25 per cent representation in the House
of Commons.
Mention was also made in earlier debates of the need for a
thorough review of a number of provisions, notably section 51
of the Constitution Act, 1867, and of the possibility that some
areas or regions of the countries, in particular the Magdalen
Islands and the riding of Labrador, could be considered
separately. These ridings could be exempted from the process of
determining electoral boundaries on the basis of the number of
voters in a province. Thus, other ridings either in the province of
Newfoundland or in Labrador, as far as the riding of Labrador
and the population of the Quebec mainland is concerned, would
not have to make up for the fact that Labrador or the Magdalen
Islands would be designated as separate ridings. As you know,
until 1968, the Magdalen Islands constituted a separate riding.
With respect to the suspension period which the first motion
presented by my hon. colleague for Kindersley-Lloydminster
seeks to shorten to 12 months, without of course abolishing the
commissions, I fail to see the logic of this motion. If we truly
want to do a thorough job and review the entire process which
has resulted in periodic readjustments to the electoral map, a
process which has not been thoroughly reviewed and closely
scrutinized since 1964, then a twelve-month suspension of
operations seems clearly inadequate. We would be hamstrung by
this provision. To all intents and purposes, we would be better
off not passing Bill C-18 instead of limiting ourselves to a
twelve-month suspension.
In order to undertake a thorough review, we need the 24 month
suspension provided for in the bill. Therefore, I cannot support
the proposed amendment, any more than I can support
maintaining the current commissions in operation. What work
would there be for them to do? Again, we would have a case
where commissions would be paid to do nothing. We do not need
this. Enough money is being wasted already.
All the same, it is somewhat astonishing to hear a Reform
Party member say that he wants to continue wasting public
funds. We do not need this. If we have to suspend the process,
then let us do it. In two years' time, when the review process is
undertaken again, other persons can be appointed. We could
reappoint the same persons. Some may have changed careers or
even passed away. We will have to adjust accordingly.
Why should we artificially maintain the commissions?
Rather, we should establish new ones at the appropriate time,
that is, within the 60 day period set out in clause 4 of Bill C-18.
There is no reason for us to keep the commissions going, unless
the hon. members of the Reform Party have friends on the
commissions whom they want to protect. Well if this is the case,
then they should say so clearly. But if it is not the case, we have
no need of commissions that do not work.
2898
It is quite enough that we have another House that does not
work, Mr. Speaker, without having commissions that sit idle. We
should minimize the damage. Maybe we could obtain
unanimous consent right now to bring in a constitutional
resolution to suspend the current operations and duties of the
other House until such time as a new House is reconstituted, one
which better reflects the aspirations of Canadians. As for
Quebeckers, we will deal in our own way with the problem of the
second House.
(1040)
At any rate, Bill C-18 has been tabled, although somewhat
late. That is unfortunate, I must say, and the hon. Secretary of
State for Parliamentary Affairs probably regrets it too, as it
means that we now have to speed up our discussions a little and
that a motion for time allocation had to be put forward. Why did
the government not act with more diligence? Why was the bill
not tabled two weeks earlier, so this situation could have been
averted? I do not know why and I will not speculate on this
because I would not want to ascribe malicious intent to anyone.
We find ourselves in the somewhat uncomfortable situation
where provincial commissions have decided on their own
authority to sit since, as the Chief Electoral Officer, Mr.
Jean-Pierre Kingsley, explained in his testimony before the
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs-please refer to
page 13 of the Evidence of the March 24, 1994 sitting of the said
committee and tabled in this House by its chair, the hon. member
for Kingston and the Islands-the provincial commissions have
every right to suspend the hearing process, as long as the
September 16 deadline is met. So, the commissions have
decided to start sitting.
I respect their decision, while I do not agree with it. Clear
indication had been given by this House through a vote in second
reading on the principle of Bill C-18 that a brake was being put
on the process and that it should be brought to a stop.
Some people are scheduled to appear in a matter of days
before provincial commissions, in Quebec in particular, to make
representations. Unfortunately, that will all be in vain. I think
that it might have been wise to suspend the process for a few
days to see what Parliament's decision on Bill C-18 would be,
especially in light of clear indications that we were going to stop
the process.
That is all I had to say on Bill C-18 for the time being. As I
said earlier, as a member of the Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, I have no intention of taking a firm stand on what
I plan to defend in that venue. I have always maintained that I
would listen to the testimony with a free hand and no blinkers
on, and hear the representations all the interested parties may
want to make, by teleconference or in public hearings across the
country, seeing that the Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs is in control of its own proceedings and, based on the
notice of motion put on the Notice Paper of this House, the
committee will have plenty of leeway to carry out this review.
For all these reasons, I cannot support any of the motions put
forward by my colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops): Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to
have a chance to participate once again in this important debate.
Unfortunately we are being asked to debate legislation in what I
think is a highly inappropriate fashion. The government has
used time allocation before and has suggested that we needed to
rush this matter through Parliament.
I have just spent two weeks in my constituency and I must
admit that while people are upset about the proposals in our
particular part of British Columbia, they did not feel the matter
ought to be a priority of the nation. There was certainly no
obvious call to rush legislation that would in a sense sabotage
the process.
I speak particularly as a member of Parliament from British
Columbia. Once again the people of British Columbia will be
shortchanged. Once again we will be skewered. Because Liberal
members did not presumably like the boundaries in their areas,
British Columbia will be underrepresented in Parliament next
time. It is a dynamic part of Canada. Its population is expanding
daily as people come from other provinces seeking job
opportunities.
(1045)
Basically the government has decided B.C. will be
underrepresented in the next Parliament of Canada by deep
sixing this updating of the boundaries based on the 1991 census.
This is highly undemocratic.
To take up on a point my hon. friend from the Bloc raised,
these commissions are now going ahead. A number of people in
Kamloops are asking whether they should make presentations to
the commission. I respond by saying there is no point. The
boundaries presumably will be changed again. The process has
been set on the back burner for now. Who knows what the future
will bring.
We have spent $4 million or $5 million so far on this process.
Now we will be spending additional money holding hearings
that are nonsensical, meaningless and illogical. There is no
point. We are saying there is a public meeting being called on
these boundaries where the public's input has no value.
2899
I know periodically we do silly things, or at least things
people perceive to be silly. However with something which is so
obviously ridiculous I cannot imagine why these commissioners
are soldiering on on a mission impossible but I suppose that is a
decision they can make. I call upon them to acknowledge that
regardless of where and how these public hearings will be
conducted it will cost the taxpayers of Canada money.
Whether or not one agrees with what the Liberal government
is doing, it is a reality. As my friend from the Reform Party
indicated earlier the Liberals have the muscle in Parliament to
do whatever they want anyway.
The Liberal government for whatever reason decided to
shortchange British Columbia in the next election. It decided to
intercept this arm's length and what should be a non-political,
fair process by saying it is going to stop this dead in its tracks. If
it has to upset the flow of Parliament it will do that. If it has to
use time allocation or a form of closure to muzzle MPs from
speaking on this, it will do that too. Unfortunately that is the
reality. I hang my head in regret when I see my hon. friends
opposite participating in such a way.
In terms of the amendment, the suggestion my hon. friend
from the Reform Party has put forward that we reduce the time
of waiting to one year makes some sense. It at least gives some
hope that this process could be rescued in time for the next
general election. I do not think it will. From what my hon. friend
opposite has indicated I do not think it is going to get the support
of the government, but it is a laudable amendment. It is one we
should enthusiastically support.
Hopefully as the debate progresses today other members will
see the value of trying to streamline this process so there will be
at least some possibility of a more representative and
democratic electoral system being in place prior to the next
general election.
Knowing the government was bringing in time allocation and
had rushed this bill through the committee process prior to the
Easter recess, the premier of British Columbia asked me to
represent British Columbians' point of view, if I had a chance to
speak to this piece of legislation.
For years and years they have felt shortchanged with lack of
representation, lack of clout at the cabinet table and wherever.
Once again very clearly one of the fastest growing parts of
Canada will be let down in terms of democratic and
representative representation in the House of Commons after the
next general election. Particularly, it will have an impact on the
lower mainland of British Columbia and on some of the rapidly
growing parts of central British Columbia where there has been
tremendous population growth in the last decade and likely will
continue in the next few years by all projections.
We support the amendments put forward by our friends in the
Reform Party at this report stage process, particularly the one
giving us some hope to streamline the operation.
(1050 )
It is sad to say with respect but with regret to my friends, to
take a particular action which will adversely affect British
Columbia and clearly result in one of the most dynamic and
fastest growing parts of Canada being improperly represented in
the House of Commons is something this party cannot support.
Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River): Mr. Speaker, I would
like to thank the hon. member for Kamloops. He and I flew west
on the same plane and the same seat when we were going home
before the Easter break.
Mr. Riis: Different seats.
Mr. Grey: Yes, different seats. The same pair of seats then,
forgive me. Maybe we are saving a lot of money then. I had
better get on with Bill C-18 as soon as possible.
We had an interesting talk on the plane about this whole idea
and what it is that is happening here. All of us on both sides of
the House need to look at it. Why is something being rammed
through as quickly as possible? My antennae go up as soon as I
see something like that. I suspect the Canadian public feels very
much the same way. As soon as it sees something going into a
crisis mode it wants to stop, wait, look and ask why we are being
thrown into a crisis mode all of a sudden.
The issue here is the fact this is being rammed through
Parliament so quickly. It was most unfortunate for people on the
government side that we had to take Easter recess. This was
something we know they wanted to ram through on the eve of
Easter recess. It was a pity for the government. It was in a flap
because it could not get this thing pushed through.
Antennae should go up right across the country when we see
something like that happening. We should be asking questions.
Why the rush? I do not see the need for the rush, quite frankly,
except of course we know the timetable is in place for the
current process to have the public hearings start very soon. That
then demands there be a crisis for the government because it
wants to cut that debate. It wants to shut down and put a lid on
the public having any process or any input into these hearings.
When people on the government benches go into the crisis mode
saying to stop this thing cold and shut it down, then one wonders
why this public process is being thwarted.
No, the process was not perfect before. However as soon as we
see whatever process is in place, warts, flaws and all of the
problems with it, it is a process that has been put into place and
the public has not given a great outcry. There has not been a
crisis from time to time except in Parliament because people are
2900
self-serving and they see that maybe they stand to lose their
ridings.
I have mentioned I am one of those people. Beaver River as
we know it now and as we love it stands to be eliminated under
the current process. If we are typical politicians therefore, of all
people I should probably be self-serving and say that I am going
to lose my riding and I am going to hang on to it just as hard as I
can. No.
The public is saying: ``Let us go to those public hearings. Let
us make representation. Let us voice some of our concerns with
this current process. Let us not just slam the thing shut''. If we
are looking at how democratic that really is surely to goodness
that is the farthest thing from true democracy.
Before I get into some of the things I heard during my spring
tour when I was home, some of the concerns that people have
about this process, let me just say it is so frustrating to watch
this matter unfold from the inside out. We are looking at
something which is going to go to the other place and get
thumped through there as quickly as possible. It does make one
nervous.
I know it makes many government members nervous as well.
It is sad to say the lid has been put on them too in saying: ``Oh
no, just let those members talk about it''. Talk about it we will
because it is something that needs to be talked about. We say if
there are going to be public hearings let them go ahead. Let the
public be heard on this.
In my constituency over the last couple of weeks I conducted
my full spring tour of town hall meetings and many other
meetings. Following are some of the things I heard.
(1055 )
They are concerned about the process as it is in place now. Let
us call it the old process. There are frustrations with it. It is not
perfect. However, they are willing to take their lumps and go
through the procedures that are set up and put in place. If it is
public hearings they must go to, then it is public hearings they
will go to. If that is their chance on providing input according to
the Constitution and the way this has been carried out for years
and years regarding redistribution and limits, then they will do it
because that is the process set in place. They are willing to abide
by those rules and regulations.
Any number of people asked me again and again: ``When are
the hearings scheduled for this area, Deborah?'' There is
concern that they will be at one o'clock in the afternoon when
most good people are busy about their day's work. They do have
frustrations about that.
Let me assure you they have far more reservations and
frustrations about something which is going to be thrown in
place. Over and above that, to put the kibosh on this particular
process and waste the $5 million that has already been spent to
have politicians come up with something better?
I mentioned this in second reading. If you think there are
fingerprints on the present process let me assure you there are
bigger and blacker fingerprints on any process that will come up
as a result of Bill C-18. I can guarantee that because I know
exactly what it is that people are feeling. Government members
know this and feel it as well.
Many people were pleased that the whole matter will be put on
ice. I must say the people in the constituency of Beaver River
appreciate it. They like the name. It is a generic name for an area
that has any amount of history. I know there is a Beaver River in
Ontario as well. My friend and I have talked about that.
Beaver River is a significant area in northeastern Alberta. The
voyageurs and the water runners went up the Beaver River and
portaged a few miles across to the Athabasca River and then
went up north. Historically it is an incredibly exciting area of
northeastern Alberta. The best part of its being called Beaver
River is that it is an area and not a particular place. There is a
store and a little community of Beaver River, but it is a
waterway we are looking at and an area with history attached to
it.
The new name of this constituency will be Vegreville-St.
Paul, if and when the old goes through, if the government for
some fluke does not manage to push C-18 through. Who knows
what will happen in the other place and whether Bill C-18 will
really go through or not.
Looking at the old process, the way it is going right now, if
Beaver River is eliminated the new constituency will be called
Vegreville-St. Paul. Let me reiterate what I heard from people
on my spring tour, for example the mayor of Bonnyville which is
north and east of St. Paul, far north and east of Vegreville, and
people in the community of Grand Centre-Cold Lake which is
far north and east again of Bonnyville. As soon as you pick a
place, i.e., Vegreville-St. Paul, people in those communities
say: ``Let us assure you, there is life beyond St. Paul''.
People have real concerns about the name. They want to know
why it is that a particular town or a couple of towns are named. I
see their point. They make that point well. Let us look at an area
rather than singling out one or two towns. I appreciate their
viewpoints. I am committed to doing everything I can, whether
it is under the old process or the new, to say this is a region, an
area. We have gifts. We have abilities in this particular area.
Maybe it is wiser yet to celebrate the fact of an area or a group
rather than zeroing in on one or two towns. As soon as one town
is named then somewhere else is omitted. They are worried
about that.
People question why these particular boundaries. Of course
the government benches would say it was a Tory mapmaker.
Maybe it was but I have no knowledge of that. I do know they
were appointments to the commission from the Speaker of the
House. However what about Liberal mapmakers? Could there be
such a thing as a Liberal cartographer in this country, heaven
2901
forbid? If this were going to happen it might amaze us all to
discover that in fact there are Liberal mapmakers in Canada.
What process is there in Bill C-18 that would exempt us from
naming, heaven forbid, a Liberal mapmaker?
(1100)
We can see how flawed the process is when somebody goes
into crisis mode or when somebody decides we have to do it
now. It makes me think of a homebuilding ad: why wait for
spring; do it now.
An hon. member: Do it now.
Miss Grey: An hon. member says: ``Do it now''. He is
concerned about doing it now. I would like to ask why now is so
important if we have spent $5 million on it. The reason now is so
important is that the hearings have started. People are getting to
view and voice their concerns publicly. I suspect it would seem
very obvious across the country that the public is asking why the
hurry. There have been the Charlottetown and Meech Lake
accords. I could go on and on. Why the hurry? Why the rush?
Something is underground that needs to surface, that needs to
be discussed in the public hearings. Let us not do it now. Let the
public hearings go on. Let people talk about it and make
representations to the commissioners.
They laugh on the other side of the House. It is most
unfortunate. There is no need to proceed with this in crisis mode,
as crisis intervention. This is the process put in place. Let us
follow that process. Let us see what comes of these public
hearings. Then let us have the government make some wise and
reasoned recommendations after the public hearings, certainly
not before.
Mr. Stephen Harper (Calgary West): Mr. Speaker, I rise
today to speak to report stage of Bill C-18, an act to suspend the
electoral boundaries readjustment process. Specifically I will
take a few minutes to speak on the amendments presented by my
colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster.
Those amendments fit into two categories. The first
amendment would limit the suspension for 12 months. The
second one would formally keep the commissions that are
established and in existence pending the suspension so that they
could restart their work in the event it was required.
Both these amendments are not really our preference. Our
preference is that the bill not proceed. Let me make that
absolutely clear. We have suggested these particular
amendments to put the government to the test on a couple of its
stated reasons for proceeding and some of its concerns.
The 12 month period is very clear. We have examined the bill
and the issue. It seems that if we look at a 24 month suspension
as proposed in the bill we are looking at a possible constitutional
problem.
Obviously there are different legal opinions on that. The
government's own lawyers do not see it that way, but the
argument is really quite straightforward. We would suspend the
process for 24 months. The process that would then have to go
into effect under the law would be the existing process which
would restart from scratch. All the previous money spent would
have been wasted.
Then we would have a process that would clearly not be
completed until after the next election which means the results
could not be implemented until the subsequent election. That
subsequent election would be after the next decennial census.
Our Constitution requires that we redistribute seats in the
Chamber once every 10 years. In effect the purpose of the bill is
to violate the Constitution. It clearly violates the demand that
the seats be readjusted every 10 years. If the bill were to go
through in its current state that would be the legal state. The
Constitution would not be obeyed as a consequence of the
particular piece of legislation.
The government may argue that in the meantime it will have
another process, that it will actually start sooner and all the other
considerations, but that is not the legal state created by this
piece of legislation.
It is a fairly innocuous amendment. Those who really want to
pass the bill could accept this amendment. It would make no
difference to their overall agenda here. It is very clear what that
is, but they could pass this one in good faith.
(1105)
Also in good faith they could pass the amendment to allow the
existing commissions and commissioners to remain in place.
The opposition to this particular amendment is even more
bizarre. Some of the arguments we have heard privately and
publicly are that we might have to pay these people, as if we
could not suspend their pay during the period in question. One
member told me they might die in the next 12 months. They
might die even if the process continues. I am not sure what
particular difficulty that would cause.
Of course we get into the whole argument that all this would
save money. With this particular debate we are suspending the
process, getting rid of the first $5 million we spent so that we
can save money. In the end we restart the process from scratch.
We spend all the money we spent before; we spend it over again
and then we spend some more.
This is an interesting way to save money, even if there were
money to be saved. We could propose on the floor of the House
that we suspend the next election altogether. After all elections
cost money. Why do we not just sit here forever? I am a young
2902
guy. I could use the job. Maybe I do not want the job that long,
but I could use it for a few more years. Why do we not just forget
about having elections, save money and suspend the electoral
process? These are very peculiar reasons.
Let us look at the history of this matter. The intent is very
clear in the way the debate has proceeded. The bill was
introduced at first reading and had only been on the Order Paper
for a couple of days when we proceeded to second reading. At
second reading the government was not prepared to put up many
speakers. The benches over there emptied. The wind whistled
through and the tumbleweeds blew through. There was really
nothing to say on this legislation. We put up some speakers to
provide debate on the issue, as did the New Democratic Party.
Immediately, after one day of debate, it was labelled as a
filibuster. As a consequence closure was brought in for the first
time in this Parliament.
What is happening now is that the government decries-and
the Bloc Quebecois speaker this morning decried it-that in the
meantime they are having public hearings, that the commission
has not listened, that Elections Canada has not listened, that they
are proceeding with public hearings and that they have to be
stopped.
This illustrates precisely why we have this kind of process.
Politicians are not supposed to be in charge of it. Elections
Canada is an independent agency. The law is on the books. All of
that is fairly transparent.
Let me quote no other expert than the hon. member for York
South-Weston. In the Globe and Mail of March 25 the
following statement on which I will elaborate at third reading
appeared: ``It is hard to see what was done here as anything other
than self-interested politics, said renegade Liberal MP John
Nunziata of Toronto. It makes no sense other than for
self-preservations and MPs' convenience''.
That is a frank statement. We all know there is no public
outcry over this matter. There is a public hearing process for
people who want to discuss it, but there is no demand out there
that we stifle the process of redistribution and start it all over
again.
The government is bringing in a related motion saying that we
should study the process. That is perfectly valid. I said before
that we were studying just about everything Parliament is
supposed to be doing; we are studying rather than acting. We
could study the process of electoral boundary readjustment.
That would be valid. If we are to do that I would suggest we
really should be doing it for the next time. Now that this process
is under way and has already been suspended once before I do
not think there is any way we could get ourselves involved in it
without the fairly obvious charges of gerrymandering and the
other things we are beginning to read about in the newspapers.
That is how we should be handling the particular issue.
(1110)
On the number of seats we repeat once again our offer to the
government. When processes have been suspended or changed
in the past it has been because there has been an alteration to the
amending formula. If there really is concern about costs and the
number of MPs we would be prepared to support an amendment
to that effect. It would provide a reason to suspend the process
the public would support. In the absence of that there is no
reason given.
Let me just conclude by making one last statement. I noted
very carefully the remarks of my friend from the Bloc
Quebecois who talked about Quebec's need for one quarter of
the seats in the House of Commons. I have wondered what was
behind the Official Opposition being involved in a government
desire to change the rules of the electoral game. I hope it is not
another back door Meech Lake or Charlottetown. That particular
provision is not helpful.
As the hon. member for Kamloops indicated the real loser is
British Columbia. The real opposition to the particular direction
of setting up a quarter of the seats was by British Columbia. It
would require a constitutional amendment. I hope there is no
way we will come up with a back door formula through this
process that will produce that kind of effect. I look forward to
saying more at third reading.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, when I spoke in the first debate on this bill, we
accepted the two-year delay. The Reform Party's arguments
against this delay were not considered valid, but we understood
that they were fundamentally opposed to it.
However, today we are faced with an in-between position
which I think is the worst of the worst. This amendment would
have the consultation go on so long that I think it is totally
inefficient. I think that over the Easter break, when we were in
our ridings more, the people clearly told us that they had other
concerns besides redrawing the electoral map. People in Quebec
and Canada now want someone to really fight unemployment;
they do not want to be satisfied with crumbs like the
infrastructure program.
As for the deficit, people were so amazed by the decisions of
this government which, after crying wolf for months, brought
forth a mouse. When we tell them that we will debate whether
the reform of the electoral map should proceed right away, in
two years or be amended after twelve months, they think that we
are not doing the work we are paid to do. I think that the Reform
Party is contradicting itself on some other essential aspects of
its program.
2903
However, some Reform members took the floor to say that the
Bloc Quebecois was a party that wanted to break up Canada, that
wanted to use the back door, as with Meech Lake or
Charlottetown, to arrive at another kind of reform. I would like
to tell them that the Charlottetown Accord was rejected not only
by Quebec but by all of Canada. I think that Canadians were
right to do so. They thought that they should oppose all the
elected governments in Canada which were offering them
something cooked up in secret that did not at all meet their
needs.
As for Meech Lake, Quebec did not prevent it from being
passed. Its provisions were certainly a bare minimum for
Quebec, but it was not necessarily us who had it set it aside. But
it made Quebeckers aware that, in the end, our problem is not a
matter of plumbing but of architecture.
(1115)
In this respect, for Canada to take the time to think about the
electoral map is not a bad thing because we have basic decisions
to make on the future structure of Canada as a whole, whether
there will be two countries. It is a decision Quebeckers will be
called upon to make in the near future. I think it is much more
important to start off by settling the basic question of the most
appropriate structure for the future we want to have.
As far as ``breaking up Canada'' is concerned, I would like to
say that no country in the world lasts forever. Structures change
and, just as the caterpillar develops into a butterfly, there is a
way to change and adjust to new realities. Today's economic
markets are very big; it is no longer necessary to be as big as the
economic markets we are dealing with. That being the case, I
think it is important to give ourselves appropriate structures. We
can give ourselves enough time to think about what form the
Canadian electoral map we lived with last year should take in the
future, so that we can make wise decisions and take into account
other factors besides population distribution.
In a region such as eastern Quebec, the proposed reform of the
electoral map eliminates one riding and creates another where
there is a distance of 300 kilometres between two cities. I
reiterate what I said earlier: 300 kilometres in summer and 1,000
kilometres in winter. Such decisions or recommendations by a
commission fulfilling its mandate under the current legislation
were totally inapplicable and unacceptable, and we prepared to
intervene before the electoral commission to argue for
maintaining the ridings in eastern Quebec. We were ready to do
so.
This bill was undoubtedly tabled late because it puts us in a
funny situation where we must prepare in case passage of the bill
is delayed while fulfilling our mandate as members of
Parliament because, as members of the Bloc, we made a
commitment to look after Quebec's interests. We are doing so
now in the current context, under this government, to ensure
that, if Quebeckers decide to stay within Canada, they have the
best tools available. But we think they will make a different
choice, especially when we see the federal Parliament spend so
much time on such issues that we are entitled to question
effectiveness and dual representation in Canada. I think there
are more fundamental issues to put forward before spending a
whole day debating whether the suspension period should be 12
or 24 months.
We could ask ourselves whether it is worthwhile to spend so
much time debating this. I think the Reform Party should
examine its amendments to this bill when it argues, strangely
enough, that the Bloc Quebecois wants to break up Canada,
since the Bloc will vote with the Government of Canada on this
bill. It is not a matter of basic principles but of effectiveness,
political realism and respect for the people who should have
enough time to influence the political system and the electoral
commissions so that future decisions take into account other
factors besides the purely demographic aspects provided for in
the act, as I was saying earlier.
In conclusion, I think it is important to take into account, for
example, the number of municipalities or the area to be covered
so that when the map is redrawn in 24 months, it will be what
Quebeckers and Canadians want, unless Quebeckers decide
before then to give themselves a political structure that is much
more appropriate for their development.
(1120)
I am confident that is what will happen in the coming year. I
think we should put all our energy into making our political
structures more adequate and not only into fixing the plumbing.
[English]
Mr. Ted White (North Vancouver): Mr. Speaker, at a time
when our dollar is plunging and our interest rates are on the rise,
the Liberal government should be ashamed of what it is trying to
do with Bill C-18. It is imposing the will of unhappy Liberal
MPs on the voters of Canada, members who perhaps are worried
that they will not be re-elected to collect their gold plated
pension plans.
I do not think they will be re-elected anyway. Therefore, they
should support the amendments that we have proposed or
preferably should defeat this Bill C-18 altogether.
Without regard to the huge investment of time by the
Electoral Boundaries Commissions and without regard to the
millions of dollars which have already been spent on a
non-partisan process, the government is going to ram through
an ill-conceived and selfish piece of legislation.
Politicians have no business setting their own electoral
boundaries. Human nature dictates that members could act in
their own interests to trim areas of opposition from their ridings
or to add little pieces of support to their ridings. Even if that did
not happen there could be the suspicion that it was happening.
The important thing is that the whole process should be seen
to be non-partisan. Politicians should have absolutely nothing
to do with the process.
2904
To illustrate this point I would like to mention something that
was said by a government member earlier in this debate. That
member claimed that Reformers were being inconsistent in
wanting to amend Bill C-18 to alter the period of suspension to
12 months. Reform originally argued against the proposed 18
month suspension because it would have given the Liberal
government an advantage in deciding when the election would
be and in deciding whether the old boundaries or some new
boundaries would apply during the next election.
In negotiations Reform took the position that either 24
months or 12 months was better than 18 because at least then it
would be clear what was going to happen. Of course we prefer
the 12 month suspension because at least the process could get
restarted again and we have a chance that the non-partisan
process would be completed before the next election.
All hon. members who value democracy should work to
defeat Bill C-18 and at the very least should agree to the
suspension by 12 months rather than the 24.
I join many other members who have spoken against Bill
C-18 in expressing my concern that B.C. is the province that
will be most hurt by the bill. The increase in population of B.C.
entitles us to two more seats in the House. Even if we were to
hold the number of seats constant, at the very least they should
be redistributed to give a more fair representation for the
province of B.C.
In my riding of North Vancouver the proposed changes would
take a small section at the eastern end of my riding, isolated
between the harbour to the east, the harbour to the south, the
mountains to the north and sort of append it to another riding on
the other side of the harbour, the riding of Port
Moody-Coquitlam.
The people in that part of my riding can see that is an
impractical way to re-arrange the riding. It is very clear that the
member in the Port Moody-Coquitlam area would have to
move through two other ridings in order to get to this little
appendage that would suddenly be attached to her riding.
However, even though it is clear that isolating this small
portion of North Vancouver is not in the public interest, the
voters in my area have confidence in the process. They have
confidence that by appeal to the commission that this decision
would be reversed and a much more sensible decision would be
made.
Everyone can see from looking at the map that this particular
adjustment was not sensible. Even I, living in that portion and
will have my home transferred to another riding, agree with the
process and I am prepared to take my chances with the
commission and the hearings.
(1125)
I vigorously oppose Bill C-18. I am proud that the Reform
Party members can stand and say that they were against this
government attempt to ram the bill through in a clandestine
fashion on a Friday afternoon when nobody is watching style of
thing.
In time Canadians will recognize that Reformers once again
stood up for democracy while the government stood up for the
old line Victorian style of politics. Shame on them, Mr. Speaker.
Miss Grey: S.O.S. Save our seats.
Mr. White (North Vancouver): As the hon. member says,
S.O.S. Save our seats. That is the whole attitude of the Liberal
government. I urge them to take the moral high road and to vote
against this bill.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean H. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, as you rightly
stated, last October 25, I was elected to represent the riding of
Shefford. Let me first describe my wonderful riding. As you
know, the region was settled by a group of Americans who came
to Canada when the United States seceded from England. Thus,
it is part of Quebec's Eastern Townships.
Over time, the boundaries of the riding changed and now
include part of Montérégie, and, as I mentioned, part of the
riding is in the Eastern Townships.
Shefford is partly an urban riding. The main city is Granby, a
well-organized industrial city. The people of Granby are
hard-working and they are proud of their roots.
I have lived virtually all my life in Shefford. At times, I
moved from one area to another, but I never left the riding.
A proposal has been made to change my riding, to reduce its
size. Other ridings would be extended while mine would be
reduced to the size of the provincial riding of Shefford,
including the town of Bromont. As you know, there is much
discussion these days about Bromont, because of the Hyundai
plant. Bromont is currently my neighbour. I would like members
in the House to know that Bromont was previously known as
West Shefford. This city was then part of the former riding of
Shefford. Of course, we would welcome its constituents in the
proposed new riding of Shefford, but, to do so, we would have to
lose an entire section of the riding. So, the sector which includes
Saint-Paul-d'Abbotsford, Saint-Césaire and Marieville is to be
removed.
2905
In fact, my riding is being downsized tremendously, while the
neighbouring one, Chambly, will become extremely large with a
population of over 100,000. While my constituency would have
some 72,000 or 75,000 people, the one next to it would become
exceedingly large.
I believe that the role of a member of Parliament is to
represent his or her constituents. I think one of the objectives of
this bill is to make ridings more or less equal in terms of
population. If this is the case, we are missing the boat because,
as I was saying, my constituency is going to become much less
populated, while neighbouring ridings will be much larger.
In view of this situation, I decided to consult the
municipalities. I asked members of my staff to consult
municipalities and also contact other political parties in the
riding. Because as you know, Mr. Speaker, we Bloc Quebecois
members do not aspire to remain part of Canada, part of the
Government of Canada any longer than necessary. However, one
thing is certain: we have to think about the interests of those
whom we represent.
(1130)
As my colleague was saying earlier, we do not know what the
future holds, but if what we want to do here cannot be fully
achieved, Quebeckers will continue to be represented here in
Ottawa, which is something we do not wish, as I mentioned
earlier. It is in the interests of our constituents that we consulted
a large number of our municipalities, if not all of them, since one
of them told us that it did not really care. As you know, there are
municipalities close to the boundaries which change ridings
every time a readjustment is made. The municipality of
Saint-Valérien, in Shefford, told us that it would like to become
part of the beautiful riding of Saint-Hyacinthe.
We can certainly understand that, since the residents of
Saint-Valérien have constantly been moved from one riding to
the other following these readjustments, but this is somewhat
unfortunate. These people do not feel as close to the heart of the
riding which is the city of Granby.
On the other hand, the municipalities of Saint-Césaire,
Saint-Paul-d'Abbotsford and L'Ange-Gardien, all beautiful
villages which I hope you will come to visit when you have a
chance, Mr. Speaker, have sent us council resolutions asking
that they remain in the riding of Shefford because they feel part
of it. These people have always gone shopping in Granby on
Thursday or Friday evening. They do their business in that city. I
believe that it would be somewhat unfortunate for them to
become part of another riding.
The small municipality of Béthanie sent me a fax of its
council resolution which I want to read because I find it
interesting:
Whereas if the electoral boundaries readjustment is approved, the electoral
quota of Shefford would only be 73,351, which is less than the majority of other
constituencies; Whereas Béthanie is located very close to Granby and several
services are provided to us by Granby, including ambulances, provincial police,
hospital and other services, the municipality of Béthanie wishes to remain part
of the constituency of Shefford, since it participated in the election of its
member of Parliament, Jean Leroux, and it wishes to keep being represented by
him. It is also easier to communicate with him, since there is no long distance
charge and since his office is closer to our area.
This resolution was carried unanimously, Mr. Speaker.
An hon. member: Nice going.
Mr. Leroux (Shefford): Mr. Speaker, Béthanie is a small
municipality. On election day, there is only one polling station,
and the majority of people there voted for the Bloc Quebecois.
Since they live on the periphery of the riding, they have asked to
remain part of Shefford, and that to me is what is important. The
people who make up the constituency are the ones who should
have the last word.
And we are going to stand up for these people and defend the
interests of these small municipalities. I think they have their
say in this matter.
A member is elected to represent all the residents of his or her
riding. What this bill does is divide my riding in two and make
the constituents who will have to leave the riding feel like
temporary residents. To me, that is unacceptable. I think we
should not let these citizens down, and I certainly have no
intention of doing so. All of my constituents are entitled to
equitable services.
Members are elected to represent their ridings and that is what
we are doing here, in this House. Each and every one of us,
whatever our political affiliation is, has a role to play, which is
to represent our constituents. We also have the privilege to sit in
this House and speak when we want to. This is a privilege which
is not extended to all citizens. The people put their trust in us and
we are here to represent their views. When we rise to speak in
this House, we talk on behalf of our constituents. On the matter
of electoral boundaries readjustment, our task is made very
easy. We intend to make our position known to the Commission,
because we think it is fair and equitable. If there are some
municipalities which have not expressed the desire to stay in
Shefford, we respect their decision. However, the vast majority
of municipalities which are affected want to remain part of
Shefford. As a member of Parliament, I intend to protect the
interests of these people.
(1135)
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Before resuming debate, I
want to thank the hon. member for Shefford for his invitation. I
must say that I have travelled to Granby several times, with my
wife, my children and other members of my family, to
participate in hockey tournaments in winter and to visit Granby
Zoo in
2906
summer. I wish to thank the hon. member again for his
invitation. We always got a warm welcome.
Resuming debate. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, on that
invitation you would be a busy person because I am sure you will
be invited to all our ridings.
I am always impressed-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would accept all
invitations. If I accept them all I might have to speak to what
other members referred to earlier, a new mode of travel possibly.
I do not know if it was a seat sale that was alluded to or
otherwise, but I will accept all invitations.
Mr. Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I always take heart, and it happens
so frequently in the House as the previous hon. member
mentioned, in talking about privileges of the House. The other
thing that always impresses me is how passionately every
member speaks about his or her own riding as they introduce the
subject of what it is that makes their riding. Often it is called a
microcosm of the Canadian identity. Often each member in their
own way does represent that here in the House and it is always
encouraging to me when I hear members talking with pride
about their constituencies. Of course I do extend an invitation to
you, especially since last week it was 24 degrees in Fraser Valley
East. But I do not want to rub that in.
I do want to address the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment
Suspension Act and also our proposed Reform Party
amendments to it which I think would make it more palatable to
Canadians and to those of us who are concerned with certain
parts of this suspension procedure.
There is of course a huge boundary readjustment of my own
that I am faced with in Fraser Valley East. The boundaries have
now been extended to include the Merritt-Princeton area of the
interior of B.C. It would make a logistical nightmare in some
senses for me to try to service a riding that has three separate
highways, each with one small town at the end of it. It would be
very difficult.
I think it is important that we deal with the principle involved,
not my own personal feelings about whether I agree with the
adjustments in my own riding, in boundary alignments and
readjustments. That is what I would like to address here this
morning.
There are five particular reasons why I think this bill should
never become law. First, I believe it thwarts the purpose of
Parliament in the electoral process. The Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act requires the readjustment of the federal
electoral boundaries every 10 years. That is a requirement of an
act of Parliament that has already been passed.
The first eight sections of the act deal with the appointment of
the commissions that will decide these issues for the provinces
and how those commissions are made up, how they are
appointed and so on.
The important thing is that these commissions have almost a
judicial impartiality. It is important that they have the freedom
to make choices based on the impartiality that they supposedly
have based on the requirements of the act.
When the Speaker or the chief justice of each province
appoints someone to the commission, those are almost judicial
positions. We have to accept that they are without prejudice. I
believe we have to go along with their ideas at least as it fits into
the process or else we thwart the purpose of Parliament.
Parliament specifically and importantly prohibits anyone in
the Senate or anyone who is a member of Parliament from being
part of that commission. The reason of course is because they do
not want political interference. They do not want the
partisanship that could enter into electoral boundary
redistribution to be a part of it. It has to be impartial and it has to
be seen to be impartial.
The timeliness of these changes is also important to me.
(1140 )
It states in section 13 of the act that as soon as possible after
the completion of any decennial census, which is every 10 years,
the chief statistician gives a report to the chief electoral officer
and they calculate the seats and so on. The important thing here
is the timeliness. As soon as possible after a census we need to
make our redistribution so that we can more accurately reflect
the needs of the shifting populations and so on in each of the
provinces. ``Then each commission shall prepare'', it says under
section 14, ``with all reasonable dispatch a report.''
The last census was in 1991, which is already going back three
years, and so timeliness has already been thwarted once, I
believe, by the last Parliament because it suspended the act for
two years. That is not a big thing in some people's minds, but
again it thwarts an impartial boundary readjustment. I am very
nervous when parliamentarians interfere with what I believe
should be an independent body and an independent report.
All boundaries were supposed to be redrawn as soon as
possible after 1991. The last bill, C-67, halted the whole
process. All 11 government commissions were eliminated. It
was a total waste of their time and effort and the money
involved.
I wonder why at this time we have to again dive into this
process and shut the whole thing down again, with another $5
million being spent. I can only speculate. I know the new
boundaries may be inconvenient but they are inconvenient for us
all. Politics never was totally convenient. It could be that MPs
2907
have to make new political contacts as their boundaries are
shifted. Be that as it may, that is also part of this impartiality. It
could even include boundaries in some areas that traditionally
vote against the member. Some areas vote stronger for certain
parties than others. Possibly that has caused some concern on
the government side.
I am not sure what it is but regardless of how you slice it we
are three years late already in what was supposed to be a very
timely thing and now we are going to put it off for another two
years, which means there will be another election and so on.
I think it is a mistake to keep putting off what should be an
independent-I repeat independent-review. Our first
amendment to this bill is that we should bring in a report. If we
are going to have this interference, we should at least have it in
place for the next federal election.
I am concerned about B.C. which is the fastest growing
province and which already should have an extra two or three
seats. We are going to go into the next century with the same
number of seats and the same distribution that we had in 1981.
Since 1981 we have had from within Canada alone over 40,000
people move to B.C., mainly from Ontario. There is a shift in
population westward. There are 35,000 additional people who
came from overseas. We get 20 per cent of all Canada's
immigrants. B.C.'s population continues to grow at a faster rate
than the rest of Canada and yet we are going to be stuck with a
proportional representation that is mired in the 1980s.
People in B.C. have mentioned that this is unfair, it is not
proportional representation, and it is going to skew the power
base away from the growing population centres and leave it in
the eastern areas, some of which have been nice enough to send
us their people to populate B.C.
I am not sure if that is the intention of the government in
bringing this in. I am not sure if it is concerned about
maintaining a power base where it happens to have most of its
seats. I am not sure exactly why it has been done.
I come back to the idea of impartiality, that Canadians have to
accept and have to know with regard to boundary readjustments
and the way this is put together that the people who sit on the
commission are not political hacks. They are not doing things
for the favour or the benefit of any one party. They are doing it
truly for the benefit of the democratic process. I think that is
thwarted, especially by delaying it for two years, which means
another election that we would have to go through.
I support our first amendment which would bring it forward in
a more timely fashion and would allow us to get on with
whatever changes the government deems necessary in time for
the next election. That could take some of the sting out of this.
Some of the waste and so on would be easier to accept if we
knew that a timely settlement of some sort was in the
government's mind. I wish it would consider that first
amendment thoughtfully.
(1145)
I mentioned earlier the whole idea of cost. All the
commission's work and the money spent in 1991 and 1992 were
wasted. On the current process all of us received in the mail or
saw in the newspapers a proposal for boundary readjustments. I
have already asked to make a submission to the commission
about boundary readjustments. I have some ideas, and all of us
are free to make presentations to them.
Those meetings have been set up. They have been advertised.
The entire newspaper propaganda idea through which all these
ideas were sent to every Canadian household has taken place at
huge expense. That expense is all for nought. It is a waste of the
commissioners' time and it is a waste of our money.
I realize that $5 million is not the end of the world in some
people's minds, but as a couple of people coming out of
Parliament once said, a billion here and a billion there soon adds
up to real money. Possibly government should consider that
every $5 million is a significant amount of money, not just a
chunk of change.
For all of the reasons that I mentioned earlier and especially
because this has been done behind closed doors and brought in
by closure and so on, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I
hope the government will accept an amendment that will bring it
in before the next election and restore faith in the impartiality of
our Electoral Boundaries Commission.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier-Montcalm): I am
pleased to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, all the more so
since I did not have a chance to speak at the time of the first
debate because the guillotine went down before I could take the
floor.
I want to take advantage of the motion moved by the Reform
Party to tell you a little about my constituency and explain to
you why this amendment by the Reform Party is unenforceable
or illogical.
The object of the main motion is to reduce the suspension
period of the law from 24 to 12 months and to delete sections 3
and 4 of the said bill. Since it will take more than 24 months to
redress the illogical readjustments made to several
constituencies, I am against shortening the suspension period of
this act.
And I will tell you why. My native constituency was in turn
called Berthier-Maskinongé,
Berthier-Maskinongé-Lanaudière and, finally,
Berthier-Montcalm. It was moved geographically from left to
right without ever finding its true niche and it seems to me that
following each and every adjustment, the
2908
people most concerned were still making the same complaints
and the same comments.
That is why, even though I sincerely hope that the people of
Quebec will know where their interests and the best interests of
Quebec lie in a possible referendum, I decided to hold a major
consultation with my constituents.
Promoting Quebec's sovereignty should not prevent me from
doing that since the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is
still in force. I think it is my duty as a member of Parliament to
follow the work of a commission which will ultimately cost
Canadian taxpayers more that $4 million, of which $1 million
will be paid by Quebec taxpayers whom I represent here.
One should also remember that, following a referendum win
in Quebec, a referendum or even an election could be called at
the national level. Somebody had to keep an eye on things, and
to follow the situation closely.
(1150)
I came to Ottawa to defend Quebec's interests and I think that
changes to electoral boundaries are in Quebec's interest. That is
why I asked some volunteers in my riding to consult the people.
I think that if a member of Parliament wants to make
representations to the commission, he should not base them only
on his personal assessment of the situation, but on what his
constituents told him. I based my position on those
consultations and I will make a few comments in this regard
later.
In addition to those consultations, I have known my riding for
30 years. As a lawyer, I was called to the court houses of
Terrebonne, Joliette, Trois-Rivières and Shawinigan. The
jurisdiction of each one of those courts encompasses a small part
of my riding, which is very large.
Since 1986, I have had the chance to study the communities of
my riding and get to know them a little. In 1988, my political
activities gave me the opportunity to learn more about all those
communities. I think that I know the geography, needs, history
and characteristics of my riding and its social, economic and
political organizations very well. But still, I believe that was not
enough to make a fair presentation to the commission.
Despite a member's attachment to the riding that he
represents, he cannot decide alone on the representations that he
will make to the electoral boundaries commission for Quebec to
maintain or to modify the area that he represents.
That is why, as I was saying earlier, I undertook a consultation
process with the help of volunteers, and I should take this
opportunity to thank people like Ghislaine Guilbault, Raymonde
Gaudreault, Jean-Marc Ferland and my staff for their good and
loyal services. They all had to work very hard to contact 83
municipalities, RCMs and organizations affected by the new
boundaries proposed by the commission for the riding of
Berthier-Montcalm.
Of all the parties that were contacted, 25 took the time to write
to me and 12 got in touch with me directly to make comments. I
think it is important because many of them told me: ``Michel, we
are taking the time to talk to you because we know, having done
so in the past, that it is useless to submit a brief or make
proposals to the commission. We think that if a member makes
representations on our behalf, he is more likely to be listened
to.''
I have to say that several municipal politicians have also
complained about the commission's reasoning, which they find
inconsistent. In trying to solve one problem, the commission is
creating another. People say among other things that, in Quebec,
boundaries of the RCMs were generally taken into account in the
proposed electoral map, but not in the riding of
Berthier-Montcalm. In this case, they are being split up to
satisfy some mathematical criterion.
It also became evident, through these consultations, that
many people are frustrated because they were not able to take
part in the process until the new boundaries were almost
imposed on Canadians. You will understand that the amendment
proposed by the Reform Party does not satisfy them, and I am
certainly in a position to tell you so.
Representatives of one municipality even told me that they
disagreed completely with the proposals that they saw in the
newspapers, but did not intend to submit a brief or make other
representations to the commission. The mayor of this
municipality told me, and I quote: ``The commission must take
into account various considerations that cannot be reflected in a
single brief. So preparing a brief becomes too arduous a task.
My position is based on experience, having submitted briefs to
two commissions in the past''.
Another mayor pointed out to me on April 8 that the new
boundaries were detrimental to his municipality. He wrote: ``I
want to draw your attention to the drawbacks resulting from
such a drastic change for us and our neighbours from
Sainte-Lucie and Val-des-Lacs, a population already penalized
by the economic situation and absolutely dependent on a social
centre with its activities, its schools, its shopping facilities, its
social services, the LCSC and the Laurentides General
Hospital.'' He concluded: ``It is obvious that the commission is
ill-informed about our priorities and our needs''.
I contacted this mayor and he told me: ``Mr. Bellehumeur, I
will not submit a brief because I am sure that I will not be heard,
that nobody will listen to me''.
2909
(1155)
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but conclude that reviewing the
electoral boundaries is not just a matter of mathematics. There
might not be general agreement about this, but I think it is wrong
to say that since there are six million people in Quebec, you just
have to divide this number by 75 to get the average number of
people to be included in each riding. I think there are much more
appropriate, fair and accurate criteria that seem not to have been
applied.
One of them that comes up often is services provided to the
public. Another is administrative regions. It is illogical to split
an RCM that has been part of the riding of Berthier-Montcalm,
or of Berthier-Maskinongé -Lanaudière since Confederation
and to transfer it to the neighbouring riding of Joliette. As I was
saying a moment ago, there are many such cases. The criteria the
commission seems to have applied in drawing the new
boundaries have not been respected in my county. Maybe I am
unlucky, but that is a fact!
Then, as for accessibility, is it right that the boundary of a
riding run through a neighbouring riding? Is it right to create
some kind of doughnut hole in the middle of a federal riding? I
do not think so. Has anyone stopped for five minutes to consider
whether in terms of geography and accessibility this was viable
for taxpayers? I think no one considered that kind of concern for
very long.
There are also other criteria that could be examined, but this is
not the place to do it. In my capacity as member for
Berthier-Montcalm, I intend to submit a brief if the issue is not
settled in the House by April 20. Mr. Speaker, any member who
wants to represent his riding, as is his duty, should listen to his
constituents. But when you want to get things done, it is much
better to deal with one member instead of two as the reeve of the
D'Autray RCM said. That makes perfect sense and everybody in
this House would agree that this should be a consideration.
It is not just a matter of drawing boundaries on a map. The
whole context should be examined and consultation should take
place before any proposal is made. People should be involved
instead of being presented with a fait accompli. We should be
listening to the wishes of the people and try to reconcile
contradictory views and ideas that do not quite fit. Most of all,
we should avoid the traditional practice of forcing new ridings
on people.
During the last election campaign, I realized much to my
surprise that constituents in the Montcalm area of my riding did
not know they were part of the riding of Berthier-Montcalm.
They all thought they were part of the Joliette riding and were
wondering what I was doing there. Most likely, they did not see
much of their former member. True, he needed two terms to get
to know the extent of his own riding, so it is easy to understand
the confusion the constituents were in.
Mr. Speaker, you will have concluded by now that I oppose the
amendment since much more than 24 months would be
necessary to correct all those deficiencies. And two years is not
that long, after all. Canada may then have only 220 ridings to
readjust so that there will be savings there for everybody.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly): Mr. Speaker, my friend and
colleague, the member for Shefford, talked about my riding,
Chambly, a little while ago. Two weeks ago, before the Easter
recess, I said in this House that I did not understand why a
number of voters of my colleague's riding were transferred to
mine, and why the population of my riding increased from
75,000 to 110,000 while the population of his riding decreased
from 110,000 to 75,000. I still do not understand.
As my friend from the Reform Party said, are we proceeding
with this readjustment simply because the act says that we have
to do it every ten years? Are we doing this for the fun of it,
because the act says we have to do it once every ten years,
without asking ourselves if it is appropriate, if it is good or not?
That is not important, just do it.
(1200)
The member for Maskinongé-Montcalm just said that his
new riding will be full of holes. On the South Shore of Montreal,
and I assume no one did it on purpose, this electoral
redistribution, by a curious coincidence, will result in the
Liberal party standing to gain another riding in the next election
because on the South Shore or in the Eastern Townships the
riding of Saint-Lambert will have a strong contingent of new
Canadians. But I assume that is only a coincidence and not a
calculated Machiavellian act.
All of us in this House, like the member for Beauséjour, who
is always flashing that smile that we all like, or like the members
of the Reform Party, did not suddenly become members of
Parliament. Before being elected to this House, you must work a
long time, get involved in your riding, and meet your
constituents. You know, it could be that our door-to-door
campaign for the last election was only the end of a cycle. But I
am sure that the member for Beauséjour and all the other
members of this House have spent many years-10 or 15 years
or more-criss-crossing their ridings and meeting
disadvantaged groups, social groups, unions, employers in some
cases, fishermen for people in the maritimes.
We did not become members of Parliament by chance. We
were chosen, elected and sent here by the people. And by
constantly rubbing shoulders with these people, which
frequently happens almost instinctively, the members here
present have embraced or somewhat adopted their constituents'
philosophy, so they generally come here with a precise idea of
the philosophy or opinion or direction that they convey in their
respective
2910
riding. Making an electoral division just because the Elections
Act says it has to be done every ten years seems to ignore that
aspect of the job of a member of Parliament.
In my case, for example, I will be called to represent between
30,000 and 35,000 new constituents, whom I do not know, in
municipalities-I heard earlier my colleague in front of me
mention municipalities like Béthanie and so on-where I never
set foot in my life. And overnight, I will have to represent these
people. There are group dynamics emerging in our society.
People get used to living together, they arrive at a consensus and
convey it to their member of Parliament if he or she has not
already perceived it naturally.
In my case, I am afraid that I do not know what people whom I
do not know might want. And if we are to simply change
numbers, I am sure that my colleague from Shefford would be a
much better representative of these people than I, because I
simply do not know these municipalities, these RCMs, these
potential constituents.
Of course, the Bloc Quebecois will make it its duty to
represent everybody in Quebec. But the fact remains that for
specific or particular aspects, the member for Shefford, who is
already there, would certainly do a better job than I, because of
the group dynamics and the thinking of people in these regions.
He would be able to pinpoint what should be done in that riding,
whereas for me, as a new member to these people, by the time I
go around and get acquainted with everybody's problems, by the
time I get to know their municipalities and the problems of these
municipalities and these RCMs, I am afraid these people will
suffer the consequences. Therefore, I do not agree with the
argument that democracy requires that the electoral boundaries
be readjusted every ten years, no matter what comes out of the
process.
(1205)
The county of Chambly which I represent and which has about
75,000 constituents is relatively dense. Mr. Speaker, you said
earlier that you travel a lot, especially in the county of Shefford.
Unfortunately, I never had the pleasure to see you in the county
of Chambly, but I hope that you went through it. If not, I invite
you to visit it.
The Richelieu River runs right through my county from one
end to the other. My county is the heartland of the Patriots.
Therefore, I am not the first independentist mentioned in the
House of Commons. Incidentally, I was informed recently that
five independentists from Beloeil had lost their lives during the
battle of the Patriots, in 1837. These people, some Préfontaines
and some Lafrances from Beloeil, are from my county. The
reason I mention the period of 1837 is because these people live
together and know each other. They were builders. They built
bridges on the famous Richelieu river. They built churches, they
built their parish. These people are used to living together. There
is a spirit of community among the residents of a same region. It
is an unwritten tradition, but it exists all the same.
When you add 35,000 new electors whom he does not know to
an MP, you distort the group dynamics, to the detriment not of
the MP or the federal government, but of the constituents
concerned. Now if you want to talk about more practical things,
take telephone communications.
In my riding, things are not as bad. From one end of my riding
to the other, people cannot call one another direct and have to
make a long-distance call. As far as I am concerned, as a
member of Parliament, if I want to be able to serve my
constituents and be available, I have my office in the middle of
the riding where I can call everywhere without high charges to
my government, meaning the taxpayers. Also, my constituents
can call me from anywhere in the riding without having to pay
long-distance bills. For some people, specifically older people,
long-distance charges are significant and unforseen expenses,
particularly when they have to speak to their elected
representative, which can penalize them.
So imagine the surprise when I was told that people in my
riding would have to constantly use Bell Canada long-distance
service in order to communicate with their elected
representative. That could be very expensive for them. You
could argue that it is only a small technical problem. But when
we are talking about the representation of members of
Parliament, there is a risk in doing that, because we could
become less and less representative through such occurrences.
This redistribution of the electoral map could prevent members
of Parliament from doing their job. This is my first concern.
[English]
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt): Mr.
Speaker, I rise today in this House to speak in favour of the
motions that the Reform Party has placed before all members of
this House today. I do this because I feel so strongly that we need
changes in government. We need changes in the way we have
been operating.
These amendments to this motion would limit the delay to 12
months on this process and would formally keep the
commissioners who are already in place. I am very strongly in
favour of those motions. Of course my preference and the
preference of all members of the Reform Party would be that
Bill C-18 not proceed at all.
I am an ordinary Canadian, an ordinary person. I have serious
concerns about the things that have been happening in this
country such as the way our country has been run, the enormous
deficit and debt that all Canadians face, and unemployment. One
of the biggest items that every member in this House heard
people speak about during the election campaign was that
Canadians wanted more accountability. That is worth repeating.
The Canadian people demanded more accountability from their
2911
elected representatives during this last election. They demand it
now and they want to see it.
(1210)
This is a sad, sad day for ordinary Canadians, for ordinary
people. What has happened here is that the government
members opposite are trying to ram through something that
takes away a process that the ordinary people in this country can
get involved in. They can make their presentations and
recommendations to a body that has been set up for
redistribution of electoral boundaries. It is a sad day and I urge
everyone in this House to think about that. People want more
involvement in government and the government is taking that
away from them.
This bill sends a message loud and clear that the government
and members opposite and some members on this side do not
believe that people should be more involved in what happens in
the process. They do not believe that what happens in this House
should be a part of what the people of Canada are thinking.
I spent some time in the last two weeks in my riding. I heard of
major concerns throughout the riding about the way the
redistribution was laid out. We would be losing two
communities in my riding which have a strong economic tie to
the rest of the region of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt
which I represent. Merritt and Princeton would become
separated from that riding and would join Coquihalla riding, a
new riding that would be established in B.C.
I had a meeting with the mayor and council of Merritt while I
was there last week. They want to make their presentation. They
want to go to the commission. They want to submit a
presentation on behalf of the people of Merritt. That sounds like
a good idea. It sounds like a way for all people to get involved if
they have concerns. It is not up to us in this House to draw the
boundaries, to draw the lines.
The reason this whole process was established was so that
politicians would not be able to tamper or tinker with the
drawings of electoral boundaries.
I have had the opportunity to speak to many of my friends
across the way in conversations over coffee and sometimes just
in the hallways or on the bus from the Confederation Building to
here. I have heard from them the underlying reason for trying to
stop the redistribution process. They know it is taking way some
Liberal stronghold areas. There is no other reason. They are
tampering in a process that was set up so that the government
and members of Parliament could not tamper with it.
It is unacceptable that this is going on. Possibly, as one other
member of the Reform Party has already indicated, this is even
unconstitutional. It is a sad day for Canadians. It is a sad day for
all of us.
There has been a lot of talk about the cost of this process. Let
us take a look at the costs. It budgeted $8 million for this
process. So far there has been $4 million to $5 million spent. I
thought it was $5 million but this morning I heard that maybe it
was only $4 million. It seems that the government is not quite
sure how much it actually spent to date on this process. Anyway
it is in the area of $4 million to $5 million.
It wants to scrap the whole process. It wants to put everything
on hold so that in 24 months it can spend another $8 million to
$10 million and restart the whole thing. Is that in the interests of
the Canadian people?
(1215)
Do members opposite believe that Canadians will stand by
when the country is facing a massive deficit and debt and place
before them another $8 million to $10 million bill when it is not
necessary? We could simply put the process on hold for a12 month period, have a committee study it if they wish, as our
amendments suggest, and then Canadians can get value for their
dollar, something that they are not doing by eliminating this
redistribution process.
Would it not be worth mentioning that we are kind of crowded
in this House? We are at the maximum probably in seating
without major adjustments to this place. I received a letter
yesterday from a constituent who said we should look at capping
the number of members in the House of Commons. That is a
good idea and I think we should look at it.
People are tired. We have too much government. It is a good
idea. Absolutely we should do that. He also suggested we should
reduce the number of seats. I think we should reduce the
numbers on that side of the House, but maybe strengthen them
over here.
What we should be looking at is Senate reform. The west, the
northern regions, the Atlantic provinces want accountability
too. If we limit the number of seats in the House, then we have to
look at strengthening the other place, the Senate chamber. It is
something that requires serious consideration.
This whole process, as I said earlier, should have Canadians
wondering what the government is all about. Does it really mean
that it wants the people involved in government, because it is
stifling that by stopping this right now? It is stifling the process
for the people of Canada so they cannot make their
representations, their concerns and their presentations to these
commissions. The commissions were set up independently so
government could not be involved and would be at arm's length
from the whole process. That is the way it should be.
2912
I have serious concerns about my riding but I am willing to
make presentations on behalf of the people of
Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt regarding those concerns. I
will not have that opportunity now and the people of Canada do
not have the opportunity to do it either.
In closing, I would like to urge all members in every corner of
the House to please consider once again what Canadians have
asked us to do, to bring accountability back to the House of
Commons and to let them be more involved in the democracy
process. I want every member of the House consider that. I ask
hon. members to support the amendments that are before us
today.
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, to my hon. colleague across the way, first he mentioned
the fact that it is more costly. There is no issue here. The reality
is if we proceed-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I wonder if I might seek
clarification from the member? Is she on debate? There is no
questions or comments period in the standing orders we are
presently under. Is the member on debate?
Mrs. Chamberlain: Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the
Chair a question? When you say am I on debate, what exactly is
it that you would like for me to do?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I do not want to put any
restrictions on any member, but according to the standing orders
of this debate at this time, each member who seeks the floor is
recognized by the Chair and has 10 minutes to make his or her
intervention.
I wondered if perhaps the member was seeking to ask a
question of the member who last spoke. There is no questions or
comments period following the interventions at this particular
stage of debate. The hon. member for Guelph-Wellington.
Mrs. Chamberlain: Mr. Speaker, the member across the way
said that this is a costly process, and this side of the House quite
agrees with that. People in general and certainly in my riding of
Guelph-Wellington have expressed deep concern at the cost of
the process and how much will be gained.
(1220)
The other issue that the member across the floor has talked
about is the fact that this would create more government. For us
to create more government at a time that people feel we should
not be moving in that direction is not responsible.
I do not believe we are taking the position-I certainly am
not-that we do not think people should be involved. People
should be involved. People have been involved at the local level
from riding to riding. Many people have talked to me on this
issue and expressed concern. They wished that the government
would take a leadership role in deciding what should happen
with this issue. We have attempted to do that.
I believe my role when I was elected was to be a leader, to
show leadership and to make decisions supported by concrete
facts, information building, public information being included
in that communication process. I am comfortable with the
direction the government is moving in.
The charge by my hon. colleague about Liberal stronghold
areas being protected is not so. I cannot agree with that. That
would not be the reason I would look at not supporting this
amendment. The reality is that many members-I would put
myself in this category-find themselves living outside the
actual area that they represent. It seems odd to me that there
would be decisions and directions moved in this manner.
Another colleague of ours finds part of his farm in one riding
and his house in another. This does not seem reasonable. I hope
the member across the way knows that some of the boundaries
that were proposed are not credible. They do not make sense.
To have a situation in which we would have public input on
every single area, 295 ridings or perhaps more-my colleague
talks about maybe 300 or 304 ridings, I do not know where this
process would end-is not a good thing at this time. The points
of view are varied but in general there is wide support for the
government.
I will speak on behalf of Guelph-Wellington and the
information that I have received from my constituents. It is that
this process, the way it was first initiated, was quite a
hodge-podge. They are comfortable with us as a government
saying no to this process in the manner that it has been proposed.
They are concerned about cost and they are concerned about
more government.
My colleague has indicated that is the question. That would be
the result of the process we are embarked upon at this time. I
would say this to members. From my point of view and from
what I have been able to gather from public input, from talking
to people, they are comfortable with this decision.
This is exactly what the Reform Party wants us to do, listen to
our constituents and find out what they truly want us to do. In
acting on that I am comfortable on this topic at this time.
(1225)
[Translation]
Mrs. Monique Guay (Laurentides): Mr. Speaker, I am
convinced I will not have to invite you to come and visit my
riding since you must have been there already on skiing
vacations. The riding of Laurentides has 43 municipalities and
110,000 voters. It is a huge riding but the new electoral map
brings appalling cuts to this area. Without any reason, several
municipalities will be taken from my riding and will become
part of a neighbouring one.
2913
You must understand that the riding of Laurentides is located
along a highway, highway 15 or 117. It is a network, a tourist
region and it is therefore very important that the area be
maintained as a whole and remain united. If you take
municipalities out of a tourist network, it becomes very difficult
for those municipalities to make a name for themselves in
another riding which may be, for instance, agricultural or
something else.
I would like to tell you about municipalities that are very
disturbed by the new electoral map and which approached me
and explained their problem. You have Mont-Tremblant which
is booming and must count on the touristic network of my riding
to be able to advertise and attract tourists. If Mont-Tremblant
became part of Berthier-Montcalm, which is a totally different
kind of riding, the people of Berthier-Montcalm would be hard
pressed when it comes to the economic development of
Mont-Tremblant. Furthermore, they object to Mont-Tremblant
being taken out of my riding.
The town of Saint-Jovite along highway 117 and all those
towns to the north, including Labelle, which are part of the
tourism network, are being removed and added to
Argenteuil-Papineau, which has an entirely different focus.
So, of course, the mayors, the councillors and my constituents
called and said: What can we do? We do not want to leave the
riding of Laurentides. We feel at home here. We do not want to
be part of another riding where they may be too busy to look
after us, because it takes a long time to cover the whole riding. I
have a very big riding with a lot of constituents, and it takes a lot
of travelling, but we have a network where everything connects.
In fact, we used to have the ``petit train du Nord'', a train that
went through all the municipalities now in my riding. Where the
train used to run has now been turned into parkland.
If part of this tourism network is removed and added to
another riding which is different again, it will make the park far
less attractive because the park needs the Laurentides Tourism
Association and the services in my riding to develop as it
should.
I am against the amendment, and I think the readjustment
process was a hasty affair. They took a map and looked at the
number of constituents in a given riding. They decided there
should be 75,000 inhabitants per riding, so they take this
particular part out and add it on somewhere else. Some ridings
have a lot of small municipalities with very few people, but the
member may end up with 70 municipalities in the same riding.
This does not make sense. A member can never do a good job
under those circumstances. To do a good job, the redistribution
process must be reasonable. There should also be a good
infrastructure.
I know some people in my riding who told me during the
election campaign: So I am in Laurentides? I said yes, you
belong to the riding of Laurentides. They were not aware of this.
(1230)
It takes a few years for people to get used to belonging to a
riding or to identify with the riding. Shifting people from one
riding to the next every eight years does not create a sense of
community.
I am also against reducing the number of members, because
we already have 110,000 constituents and if we get more, I am
going to have trouble looking after everyone. It already takes
two and a half hours to drive across the riding. It takes me longer
to drive from one end of the riding to the other than it takes to
drive to Ottawa. These are huge distances.
The tourism network is in good shape, and people want to stay
in that network. I will keep doing my job in my riding. I think it
is very important for people to identify with a region. I think it is
very important for a region's development. I intend to go on
working with my constituents, and if these electoral boundaries
have to be changed, the municipalities concerned and I-in fact,
I would lose a large number of municipalities which have
already been identified-will take steps to prepare a brief and
protest against changes that make no sense at all in a region
where municipalities need each other to survive.
You know that when people go to Saint-Sauveur, they will
also visit another municipality next door. They will see a show
in Val-David and have dinner in Sainte-Agathe or go boating
there. In this region, we all have to help each other. Otherwise, if
you take a few small municipalities and destroy their tourism
network or move it somewhere else, you lose the dynamics that
tourism needs, because this is not an easy sector.
I will go on doing my job in my beautiful riding of
Laurentides, and as far as breaking up the riding is concerned, I
will do my utmost to keep that from happening.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I would not want the
member for Shefford to be jealous, but I have to say I spent even
more time in the Laurentians.
The member for Richelieu.
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I almost
feel I have to begin my speech by inviting you to come and visit
my riding. Even though it has already been said, it is one of the
most beautiful in Canada. I think that it comes second after
yours, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I will be allowed one more minute
for having said that.
The debate on this bill brings me to make some comments that
might differ a little bit from the other comments that were made.
First, in terms of the relevance of the legislation, it is surprising
2914
to see a government reject a change based on the principle of a
better redistribution of ridings on the basis of population.
The proposed reform, after several years of extensive debate
and reflection, to allow the representation in the House of
Commons to be directly related to the population of a riding,
while also taking into account the sense of belonging to a region,
while taking into account, for instance, the principle of the
regional county municipalities in Quebec, the principle also of
the economic relations that can be established in various
regions-of course that will and desire of the House and all
Quebeckers and Canadians was extremely valid. However,
basically, if we really wanted a reform, would we start with that
kind of redistribution? We would probably start by asking
ourselves what our institutions represent and how useful they
are.
(1235)
Based on that, the first reform would be to ask if we have one
House too many. Do we Quebeckers and Canadians still need
two Houses? One is commonly called the Senate but in the
parliamentary language of the House of Commons we call it
``the other House''. Do we still need that other House? That
would be the first point to consider.
Then we will talk about the distribution and number of
ridings, how many people should be represented by a member of
Parliament and so on. Ultimately, many Quebeckers and, I am
sure, many Canadians want the other House to be abolished.
By attacking the other House, I do not want to attack the
venerable people who sit there; we know that there are some
very competent individuals. Of course, there are also some
bagmen for the big parties such as Mr. Rizzuto for the Liberals
and Mr. Nolin for the Conservative Party. They were appointed
to their position and they are well-paid party workers who raise
funds for the old parties.
But except for these few cases, let us admit that there are some
really capable people who should run for election to this House
to make their contribution instead of going to that big dormitory,
which sometimes becomes a nursery school, as we saw in some
debates. But of what use is that big dormitory to which those
hon. sleepyheads go? That is the real question.
If we talked about reform by first dealing with the usefulness
of the other House, we would realize that the members of that
body have knowledge and skills which would be much more
useful to the community in this House here. In fact, that other
House is a sort of relic of colonialism, meant to protect the
interests of the wealthy and to cool the ardour of the people's
representatives. That is why one of the requirements to sit in the
other House was to have property worth at least $15,000. That
requirement still exists, although it is meaningless today, but
back then it was a lot. Therefore it was a House to protect the
wealthy from some legislation that could have threatened their
wealth or economic power.
Over time, the situation evolved. That other House became
the defender of the regions. That is why we often heard about the
importance of the second Chamber in western Canada, for
example, because that House in a sense embodied the regions.
Historically, that House had a certain role to play as a defender
of the regions; that was acceptable too.
But now, people band together in associations, unions,
environmental groups and all kinds of organizations. They have
means to make their demands heard and associations to
represent them directly to elected officials and they no longer
feel a need to have that House to defend them. That House has
become so useless that the time has come for us to think about
whether it should even exist. Those associations no longer go
through the other place. In fact, I wonder how many could
answer if I were to ask all the hon. members here the name of the
senator representing them in their regions. In my region of Sorel
for example, what is the name of our senator? I am involved in
politics myself, yet I do not know. If I, as a politician, do not
know who my senator is, you can imagine that he must not be
getting much mail or too many calls. There are even senators
who refuse to give out their fax numbers. I found that out when
some of my constituents said: ``Maybe we could stop that
unemployment insurance bill from going through in the Senate;
give us the fax number.'' So, I phoned around and, as it turned
out, almost half of the senators I phoned refused to give out their
fax numbers; they did not want to be disturbed. It is incredible,
but true.
(1240)
My point is that the upper house has lost its raison d'être, and
that may be where reform should start. Let us start by reviewing
the need for our institutions. Based on that review, we will be
able to say: ``The other place no longer meets our needs; it must
be abolished.'' That would mean $40 million, $60 million or $70
million less to collect from the taxpayers. Furthermore, the
senators' expertise could be put to good use elsewhere. They are
obviously committed to politics if they agreed to sit in the other
place. So, we are telling them: ``Get elected democratically and
come and sit with us in the House of Commons. Find a seat. Get
the people's seal of approval.''
This leads to the next question. Are there enough members in
this House or too many? As far as I am concerned, the answer
rests in the comparison between Canada and other democratic
nations, preferably North American democratic nations.
Let us take the United States as an example. They have a
legislative body, the members of which are not called members
of Parliament, but congressmen. If I recall correctly, there are
some 450 of them representing 250 million people, while we are
295 for a population of 25 million. If the United States were to
have as many congressmen as we have members of Parliament
in Canada, they would need 2,950 seats in the Congress. Their
2915
population being 10 times ours, they would have ten times more
members of Parliament than we do, relatively speaking.
Obviously, something is wrong.
Do you think it is right for a small province like Prince
Edward Island, a province no bigger than my riding, to have 32
MLAs, four federal MPs, one representative of the Queen, one
lieutenant governor and even, at times, one Supreme Court
judge? Obviously, something is wrong. And that is the true
reform which should take place.
Abolish the other place and reduce the number of MPs. Do not
increase their number, reduce it. If there were 150 of us here, it
would be more than enough, because what is the role of MPs
once they have been elected, especially government members?
They do nothing but vote according to the whip's instructions.
They are like sheep. The best example is the one provided by the
member opposite who is looking at me with a smile. These
people roared like big cats when they formed the opposition, but
have now become sheep or paper tigers with no role to play.
They simply sit and when the bells ring they come and vote like
sheep. They do not even ask themselves whether they should
have been consulted. They are not consulted at all.
If there were 150 MPs, or half the current number, perhaps the
debates would be more democratic, with a greater participation.
This is what reform should be all about. A reform should first
look at the institutions and their relevancy. Then, there should
be a second debate on the number of MPs, followed by a third
one on the role of the member of Parliament. It goes without
saying that the MP's role is to represent his or her riding, to act
as ombudsman and protector of the individual who has a
problem with UI, the company which did not get a subsidy, or
the person or organization who made representations and did not
get an answer from a minister or the government. The MP is also
a legislator, but that is unfortunately the role which is most
neglected. In my next speech, I would like to elaborate on this
extremely important role of legislator which MPs should have
but do not have right now in our institutions as they currently
exist.
(1245)
[English]
Mr. Mike Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, first I would like to
respond to some of the remarks-
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I do not think that we have a quorum.
Some hon. members: Quorum.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I will ask the clerk to
count the members present.
And the count having been taken:
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): We have a quorum.
Resuming debate.
Mr. Scott (Skeena): Mr. Speaker, before I talk on Bill C-18, I
would like to respond to some of the remarks made by my friend
from the Bloc who spoke before me. He mentioned the other
place and suggested that we should do away with it. He said
there was a growing mood in Canada for abolishing the Senate.
I would like to address that and say that the reason the other
place has no credibility right now is that it is not elected and it is
not accountable.
I suggest it is essential for the future of Canada and for
regional fairness that we have a strong and vibrant Senate. Our
vision is that senators should be elected and be accountable and
there should be regional fairness in their distribution.
Going to Bill C-18, I have spoken on this issue before. I have
to say we are very much opposed to this bill because it smacks of
political interference.
It is very clear from the news reports I read in British
Columbia while I was there for the recent hiatus that people in
that province are deeply concerned that what we have here is
business as usual. We have politicians who when they do not like
something, instead of going through due process and allowing a
fair and unbiased process to proceed, want to get involved by
commandeering that process and steering it in a direction that is
favourable to them.
Furthermore there is a good deal of concern among taxpayers
that we have $5 million invested in this process right now and
we are in danger of losing that. As a matter of fact we will lose
the value of that money if this process is indeed suspended for
24 months and the commissions are abolished.
At the same time the government talks about a commitment to
capping the number of MPs it attacks us on these benches for not
wanting to see this happen. We have asked time and again and
have moved an amendment to say if you want our support on a
motion then instead of saying you are going to review the
number of MPs, cap the number of MPs, make a firm
commitment to it. There is no commitment in Bill C-18 to do
this.
I find it very difficult to support a motion which we only look
at reviewing the number of MPs, only look at studying
something. If we do not think it is right then we should make a
commitment up front that we are going to come up with a
formula for capping the number of MPs.
2916
I think the government would find a good deal of support from
this side of the House, possibly unanimous support, if it moved
in that direction but we have not seen that. I was in my riding
recently, as were most members. I received very little
expression of concern from my constituents on the matter of
electoral boundary changes. Believe me, my riding changes
dramatically, maybe not as dramatically as some of the other
people in this House but it does change dramatically. It increases
by about 25 per cent. I already have one of the largest geographic
ridings in Canada. It is very difficult for a member to service
now and it is going to become even more difficult under the
proposed changes to the electoral boundaries commission.
(1250)
However, there is a process in place and the people in my
constituency are prepared to live with that process. They are
prepared to work within it. I believe that should be the position
that all of us take as members in this House, that rather than
trying to hijack the process we work within it.
Because the process will be suspended for 24 months if this
bill passes, British Columbia and Ontario will go into the next
century, indeed the next millennium, with the same electoral
boundaries and the same distribution they had based on the 1980
census. If there is one thing that generates a good deal of
concern and anger in British Columbia, and I am sure that
Ontario feels the same way, it is the fact that we are being
short-changed. We are not receiving a proper representation
based on our population, which is something our democracy
ascribes to. I have been hearing a lot from my constituents on
that.
Let me suggest that the government proceeds with this bill at
its political peril in British Columbia and in other parts of
Canada as well. If the country goes into another election without
redistribution having taken place, there will be a price to pay and
the government should be aware of that. There is a strong feeling
and strong sentiment in British Columbia that that is the case.
People are not happy with that.
If the government wants to introduce Bill C-18 and wants to
have an opportunity to examine the process, why not do it in 12
months? Certainly anything that can be done in 24 months can
be done in 12 months. We do not see a reason for holding up the
process any longer than is necessary. Furthermore we do not see
a requirement to suspend or to abolish the present commissions
and come up with new commissions 24 months from now and
start all over at square one. Why not at least retain some of the
value of the dollars that have been spent?
I support the Reform amendments for those reasons.
I feel very strongly that the government should make a
statement that it is going to cap the number of seats rather than
just talk about reviewing the number of seats. We have to put a
firm cap on the number of seats. We have to show Canadians that
we are indeed concerned about the expenditure of taxpayers'
dollars. We certainly do not need more representatives in this
House than we have now to oversee the affairs of the country.
We want to retain the current commissions and preserve the
value of the work that has been done. This can be done and still
allow the government the opportunity to review the work of the
electoral boundaries commissions and to review the process that
is in place. I support very strongly that if we suspend the process
we only suspend it for 12 months and not 24 months.
We must keep the process scrupulously non-partisan and
non-political. We must do it in a way that Canadians can see that
we have not engaged in political interference, that it is not
business as usual, that we have not looked at trying to further or
protect our own political interests, but looked at the best way to
achieve redistribution and electoral boundaries changes based
on what is best for the country.
(1255 )
We must ensure that representation by population is observed
in the next election. As I said earlier, the government is going to
have a very heavy political price to pay if it does not follow that.
I reiterate again that British Columbians are very unhappy. They
will be very unhappy if they go into an election in 1996, 1997,
1998 or whenever it happens with the same boundaries that they
have had based on the census of 1980.
B.C. and Ontario deserve nothing less than a fair shake as do
all of the provinces when it comes to distribution. We must
continue to subscribe to representation by population. This bill
flies in the face of that and will put British Columbia and
Ontario at a disadvantage in the next election.
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, I want to take a few minutes to respond to some of the
things that I have been hearing over recent minutes and hours
when I see the opposition delaying this bill today.
There is some irony here. People are saying in this House:
``This bill is going to delay the process by 24 months. We are
against delay'', but they are delaying the bill, ensuring that the
24 months will happen later had they not delayed the bill to start
with. Maybe that needs to be said.
What about the fact that the Reform Party wanted this delay to
be 24 months when the government initially asked for 18
months? Whose fault is that? Could it be that there is a little
duplicity going on, that we are not hearing the facts exactly as
they are?
2917
We heard in the speech today that the electors of the hon.
member's province are going to be unhappy if the redistribution
as presently planned does not take place. Mr. Speaker, I am sure
with your being a fond reader of the Globe and Mail you will
know of the story of some weeks ago which outlined perfectly
well how B.C. and Ontario were being short-changed by the
redistribution that is going to take place now unless we amend it,
that true rep by pop does not exist in Canada at the present time,
that it should be restored, that the whole debate about that needs
to take place and the process we have now has been there for 30
or 40 years unamended. What about the 1986 amendment that
was done by the Conservative government? That amendment
made it such that no province should lose seats even if it loses
population.
Which provinces are the victims of that? B.C. and Ontario are,
and that is the process that the member wants us to proceed with.
Then he says to top it all off that we need to elect our senators.
This is coming from a bunch of people who voted against the
Charlottetown accord and who campaigned against it.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I fail to see the logic in the hon.
member telling us that the 24 month suspension is unacceptable,
when in fact he himself, or at least his party, requested it. We
proposed a period of 18 months, and now he wants to reduce this
to 12. Well, what is it going to be? Make up your mind. What do
you want? Twelve, eighteen or twenty-four months? Convene a
caucus meeting, discuss the dress code?
[English]
Discuss suits. Do something. Discuss it privately and then
come back to the House and make up your mind whether it is 12,
18 or 24 that members want I say to my colleagues across the
way. We need to review this whole system of redistribution. At
second reading the Bloc members across the way voted in favour
of the bill if I remember correctly.
Of course they are filibustering a little bit today, but perhaps
that will change over the next few minutes or at least we are
hoping. If we are serious about not wanting any more delay let
the bill proceed so that we can go ahead with this review. If we
are serious about not having unnecessary delay, I say to the
Reform Party that it cannot have it both ways. It cannot ask to
lengthen the delay and say that it is against the delay after it did
just that. I say that to the members across the way.
(1300 )
Members must realize that the redistribution as presently
planned in the law is most unfair to British Columbia and
Ontario according to all independent observers. Rep by pop
exists the least in those two provinces because of the structure
there now and in particular as a result of the 1976 amendment
proposed with the previous government that made it such that no
province lost seats.
I call upon my colleagues, if they are serious, forthright and
honest about wanting no delay, to proceed with the bill. Let us
get the process started. Let us do things and let us do them
quickly so that we can have good and proper redistribution to
give fair representation to all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead):
Mr. Speaker, following up on what my hon. colleague from
Richelieu just said, I would like to participate in this debate and
speak about institutions. Not the kind of institution he referred
to, namely the other House, the Senate, or the House of
Commons, but existing institutions that ensure the development
of our local communities. I am referring here to the riding, an
institution in itself.
I would also like to say a few words about RCMs, an
institution which took root in Quebec in the mid seventies, and
about economic development institutions which have a
considerable impact on each of our ridings. Of course, I will tie
all of this in with the electoral boundaries reform process.
In principle, everyone agree that the objective must be greater
equity in the allocation of the number of voters by riding so as to
ensure that one riding does not carry more weight than another.
Obviously, everyone works toward the attainment of this
objective. When the time comes to undertake the process,
specific guidelines and criteria must be followed. Above all,
demographic measurements must not be the sole consideration.
The criteria must reflect the makeup of our communities and
respect the will of the people.
Over the past 20 or 25 years in Quebec, a sense of attachment
has emerged as a result of a process which was and still is known
as joint action. I recall taking part in the early 1970s in the Lac
Mégantic region in consultations carried out by the regional
development council of the eastern townships. This was the start
of the process of pooling the needs of the entire population of the
eastern townships. This sense of regional attachment which I
alluded to earlier developed over a period of many years and led
to tremendous economic and social development over a period
of some years.
The process was further cemented by the establishment of
regional county municipalities in the mid seventies, as I
mentioned. The first task undertaken by the RCMs was to put on
the table a development plan to be voted on by all elected
officials in a given region or sub-region. In the development
plan, the municipalities in each sub-region specified what kind
of com-
2918
munity facility they needed and where these facilities would be
located.
Subsequently, a complete network of economic institutions
and industrial commissions was developed. These operated in
various fields, not just in the industrial sector, but in the
business and community sectors as well. As a result, our various
regions, and I refer more specifically to the eastern townships,
developed their own personality and were at last in a position to
convince the authorities that economic and social development
should be adapted to their needs and the needs of people who
live there. When the time comes to readjust the boundaries of
electoral districts, these boundaries must take into account a
process that has evolved during the past twenty or so years.
(1305)
The proposed changes, as I said earlier, will have a disastrous
impact on much of my riding, especially on the Granit RCM
located in the beautiful Lake Mégantic area, which I am sure you
will visit one of these days, Mr. Speaker, since I understand you
are a fan of Quebec.
The Granit RCM has always been part of the Eastern
Townships. In fact, as I said earlier, about 25 years ago I was
involved in the consultation process to set up regional
development councils. The Lake Mégantic region was part of
the economic and social development process in the eastern
townships and established contacts with most of the authorities
involved, including not only local and regional authorities but
also authorities at the provincial and federal levels. Mr. Speaker,
you have been in government for a number of years, as I have,
and you know it is not easy for the average citizen to find his way
through the maze of institutions and governments.
When people have had a development model for a number of
years, they are very concerned about the consequences of
getting rid of this model overnight. And that is exactly what will
happen as a result of boundary changes in this particular part of
my riding. The Lake Mégantic region would be added to the
riding that includes the Thetford mines region, the centre for
asbestos, and thus included in the economic region of Quebec
City, which is a very nice area, I will grant you that. Just because
we want to stay in the Eastern Townships does not mean we have
anything against people in another riding.
I think it should be obvious to anyone who is the least bit
involved in this process that people should be consulted on any
changes being planned.
I heard the hon. member for the Reform Party say earlier that
it was necessary for the electoral boundaries readjustment
process to be politically neutral. I disagree. Since we are elected
representatives and the people have given us a mandate, it is our
responsibility and in fact our duty to be involved in any process
that would affect the future of our constituents. If I am not
mistaken, two-thirds of the members of this House-more than
200 came here for the first time five or six months ago. My point
is that most members of this House are serving their first term.
This means that during the past few months they attended many
meetings and read all kinds of documentation to get to know
their riding, their region, their constituents and the needs of
these constituents. They must be involved in these
consultations. And we cannot do this in a hurry. We need enough
time.
(1310)
In my own riding, I have started consulting the
municipalities, and I can say that with 67 municipalities-yes,
67-it takes weeks before we can get a clear picture of what
people want. We need time to consult our constituents and
ensure that any changes that are made will reflect the
institutions in place.
Mr. Michel Daviault (Ahuntsic): Mr. Speaker, this is the
second time I rise on electoral reform. First I would like to
apologize to our friends the interpreters for not bringing them
my speech, as I usually do. Unfortunately, if the people listening
to us could see the wilderness in which we are preaching today,
they would understand that sometimes we must be ready to
respond quickly.
So this is the second time I rise on electoral reform. I did so as
chairman of the Montreal Island caucus. I questioned my Bloc
colleagues and tried to gather information on this reform, and
today we are discussing the amendments proposed after the
report was tabled. The main amendment-the first one-would
reduce from 24 to 12 months the suspension period for electoral
boundary readjustment. The second and third amendments are a
logical consequence of the first one and would let the
readjustment proceed while the committee drafts its report so
that the commission can do its job.
When I spoke-I will come back to my first speech on this-it
was important to me, and many of my regional colleagues spoke
of the importance of representing the socio-economic,
socio-political communities in their ridings; in the regions, they
talk a lot about regional county municipalities, while in the
Montreal area, they talk about districts. It is important for
members to represent these communities, to have a political
representation as integrated as possible at the provincial,
federal, municipal, or school level.
In fact, I think that when we talk about the opportunity for
politicians to act with the increasingly scarce or limited
resources at their disposal, such actions must be better
co-ordinated at every level of government. In this respect, there
are administrative units that must be represented.
In my first speech I spoke about a fuzzy mathematical logic
because, in my opinion, the proposed reform has nothing to do
with real life. I told you about problems in the eastern part of
Montreal, in Mercier, Hochelaga-Maisonneuve,
Papineau-Saint-Michel, the riding of the hon. Minister of
Foreign Affairs, that will disappear, the riding of Saint-Léonard
that will expand considerably, as well as the riding of
Saint-Denis and my own riding of Ahuntsic. By the way,
``Ahuntsic'' is an Indian word that dates back to the beginning of
the colony. Mr. Ahuntsic was a young ferryman with the first
settlers and it is
2919
the Iroquois who gave him this nickname. So, that name goes
back to the very beginning of the colony.
(1315)
I re-examined the map and discovered another problem with
the riding of Bourassa-Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies, which
seems to me quite significant when you consider only the
figures.
The riding of Bourassa encompasses the city of Montreal
North, a developing area facing hard times and trying to regroup
its community organizations as well as its political demography.
The area is pretty well integrated.
Given the proposed readjustments, from a mathematical point
of view only, we will add to this riding, which encompasses a
whole city, about ten streets taken from the riding of
Anjou-Rivières-des-Prairies. Now, Rivières-des-Prairies is a
neighbourhood in the city of Montreal. In other words, we will
be adding to a politically and economically homogenous entity a
tiny area, made up of ten streets, only to respect some
mathematical criteria. I will come back later to the spreads,
because there are some things which are totally absurd.
I thought I would address the issue of ``juggling'' figures, and
since our friends, the translators, do not have copy of my speech,
I am looking forward to seeing how they will translate this nice
Quebec French expression, zigonnage, which says exactly what
I mean.
In my hands, I have a map which I want to show you. I want to
talk about the population spreads. In Quebec, there are about
91,500 constituents for every seat and the ridings are drawn
according to this average ratio.
If you look at the previous map, in the area of Montreal made
up of 23 ridings, 11 ridings were below the average ratio. Now,
on the new map, we have 17 ridings which are 5 per cent over the
average ratio. So, we went from a minimum scale which we were
not following to another scale which we are still not following,
since the variations are very large.
In fact, on the former map, the spread was of 20 per cent in
three ridings and 10 per cent in four other ridings. With the new
map, the spread in 17 ridings on the island of Montreal is over 5
per cent. We even have some pretty obscure spreads, some
incredible turnabouts. In Laurier-Sainte-Marie, the spread
went from minus 13 to plus 4, for a difference of 17. In
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, we went from minus 14 to plus 10, a
difference of 24 between the two maps. In Rosemont, it varied
from minus 5 to plus 12, a difference of 17. The two champions
in this respect are Anjou-Rivière-des-Prairies, which changes
from +20 to -0.54, a spread of 21, and the riding of Vaudreuil,
which will go from +20 to -8, a spread of 28.
Why do we have these wide swings? I do not know where the
riding of Vaudreuil will be on the next maps, because it will no
longer be part of Montreal Island.
In my first presentation, I assumed that the riding of NDG no
longer existed, which is not the case. NDG is now
Lachine-NDG. The riding of Lachine-Lac-Saint-Louis is
now Pointe-Claire-Dollard; Pierrefonds-Dollard will be
Pierrefonds- Beaconsfield and Saint-Henri-Westmount will
be Westmount-Ville-Marie. Ridings that ran east-west will
now run north-south, which creates a juxtaposition of small
towns on the West Island, which consists of medium-sized
towns. It takes two to make a federal riding, but instead of the
usual east-west twinning, they now run north-south.
It is rather messy, and I think we are just perpetuating a
system that did not make sense to start with. We have had the
same system for the past 30 years, and it led to an incongruous
situation that to us in Montreal was really incredible, and I am
referring to the riding of Laval-des-Rapides which straddled
the Rivière-des-Prairies, being half on the Island of Laval and
half on Montreal Island. When you realize, as I do, that the
people of Ahuntsic often wish the metro would be extended to
Laval, so that the people of Laval could leave their cars at home
instead of polluting our neighbourhoods, I find it hard to
understand why we should group two communities that so often
disagree on major political issues.
(1320)
So far, four ridings in the region have not been affected: the
three ridings of Laval, where Laval Centre is at +11.52, Laval
East at +12 and Laval West at +18. A subsequent readjustment
would normally create a fourth riding on the Island of Laval.
However, considering existing figures and population growth,
we can assume that for the next census, a fourth riding would
have to include more than just the north shore, on Île Jésus.
Are we to assume, after seeing what it means to have a riding
straddling two islands, that according to the same system, we
will get another incongruous situation when the next
readjustment creates another riding straddling the shores of two
islands?
That sounds rather far-fetched, but in any case, I would like to
point out that the riding of Saint-Laurent-Cartierville will not
change. This is the only riding out of 23 on the Island that will
not be affected in any way. Therefore, if we can presume the
member is thinking in electoral terms when she talks about the
map, we can certainly presume that our hon. colleague, the
Acting Speaker, will have no partisan motivation whatsoever
when she votes.
2920
This brings us to the amendments. I see myself having to
defend this in front of the commission simply because we could
not meet the deadline, because here in the House we follow a
very peculiar kind of procedure to say the least. To the
commission I will say: According to the present rules, you
should do this for my riding and according to other rules, you
should do that.
It is somewhat incongruous when you think that, whatever
happens, this whole process will and must disappear because it
is not logical for me to defend bits of Montreal districts that will
be taken away to be added to another riding for
socio-demographic reasons. One thing is sure: if I win, my
neighbour will lose; according to demographic and
mathematical criteria, someone somewhere has to lose.
On that point, I agree with the bill and I disagree with the
amendments because 12 months will not be enough. I agree with
the member for Beauséjour that we need 24 months and that,
after the committee has tabled its report, we will need time to
come back to the question and analyze it thoroughly and not in a
rush as I have to do it today; we will need to take the time to
study the issue properly.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, I am a bit surprised. First of all, I would like to invite
you to visit the beautiful riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
with your wife and children. You know that the Olympic
Stadium is in that riding, along with other tourist attractions
which you will certainly enjoy.
On a more relevant point, I am quite surprised by the
amendment proposed by our friends in the Reform Party.
Surprised, because this does not seem consistent with what they
were advocating in the past.
(1325)
You cannot say that what is good for the goose in not good for
the gander. If one has proposals, a strategy regarding public
finances, as they claim to have, I say with due respect that one
has to be consistent.
I would like to make two points. The first one is that they are
trying, clumsily, to make us believe that there is a crisis, an
imminent democratic peril. This rather unsavoury hotchpotch is
unfocused. It is presented as if the fact that electoral boundaries
will not be revised in the near future is going to deprive
Canadians of their right to vote and vitiate the democratic
process.
A short while ago, I found rather humorous the reference to
fair representation. There was one occasion in the history of this
country when fair representation was really threatened, and that
was in 1840, at the time of the union of Upper and Lower
Canada. One cannot say that by not supporting the amendment
proposed by the Reform Party we put democracy in peril.
This is my first point and I find questionable, to say the least,
this attempt to take us into a process which may involve the
spending of public money. I admit that 40 or 50 years ago, when
Canadian and Quebec society was evolving rapidly,
readjustment of electoral boundaries had to be done without
undue delay. Universal suffrage had to be fully established,
since entire sectors of society were still disfranchised. It was
also a time when rural life was making way for urban life.
I do not think that, at the present time, we are in a position to
use this kind of argument. I think that we can live with a
moratorium, provided that it is not forever-nobody wants the
status quo to last forever-but we think that in view of our
present financial situation and given the current political
agenda, there are other priorities and urgent problems the
Canadian government should deal with, before we undertake
such an exercise.
I could mention some of these problems, as we have done
previously. There is of course, among others, the question of
unemployment. In terms of a democratic emergency, I am much
more concerned about the 50,000 unemployed workers who
might be excluded from UI in certain areas of Quebec because of
the proposed reform. When it comes to democracy, I am much
more concerned by this kind of legislation than by the redrawing
of the electoral map.
Speaking of democratic emergency, and I discussed it with
colleagues from the Reform Party, I think that the real
emergency is to initiate an in-depth review of the subject matter
of the Canadian Human Rights Act, which we on this side,
together with other Canadian and Quebec groups, have been
calling for. That is a real emergency.
If we as parliamentarians and opposition parties are truly
concerned about democratic rights, I believe that it is legislation
of this kind that we must bring to the attention of the Parliament
as a priority.
On the other hand, as the member for Ahuntsic said-you
could say he is my neighbour since, in Montreal, we are all more
or less neighbours-we have every right to be concerned about
the kind of boundaries the commission is proposing. Let us take,
for example, the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve which, if
we went ahead with the present proposals, would be merged just
like that with the town of Saint-Léonard, which is poles apart in
social and economic terms.
I do not want to say anything bad about Saint-Léonard
because I know that it is a town with many attractive features, a
town where things worth mentioning happen. Nevertheless if, as
lawmakers, we want to promote coherent environments, I
believe that it would be somewhat incongruous to propose the
merging of Saint-Léonard with the federal riding of
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve which, as everybody knows, is a
working-class area proud of its roots, and where 92 per cent of
the population is French speaking. They are, as we know, two
2921
different entities with their own social and economic make-up,
and you do not need a Ph.D. in sociology to understand that you
cannot ask two dissimilar entities to live in harmony.
(1330)
If you are a member of Parliament and want to speak in public
and represent people, you should at least do so with some
consistency. That is real democracy. Real democracy means
ensuring that the conditions of representation are such that the
member can reflect the social and political interests of his
constituents, not to engage in a process that would soon lead to
some strange situations which my colleagues have not failed to
point out. That is why I cannot understand the amendment
proposed by the Reform Party.
We also find in other ridings some anomalies like those we
could come up with if the revision process were rushed. Not only
did they want to combine the city of Saint-Léonard with
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, but they wanted to take from us, to
amputate, dare I say castrate, the Angus Shops, a recent
residential development which is the middle class of
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and helps us achieve some social
balance. The people of the Angus Shops always felt that they
belonged to Hochelaga-Maisonneuve and always co-operated
in the social and community life of the riding. Redrawing the
electoral map could cut them off from the riding of
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
So I think that we must be careful when dealing with questions
like that and certainly not create emergencies where they do not
exist. I fully realize that it is useful to revise riding boundaries
periodically. Yes, things evolve and people move, but I do not
think that we should do so now, under the conditions presented
to us.
We should ask whether we do not have better things to do as
legislators. Could we not find something better to do with our
time than to engage in a debate like that? You know how the Bloc
Quebecois was able to identify, on the basis of Quebec's
interests-I see some government members nodding; they agree
with the excellent work of the Official Opposition and it is a
pleasure to know that we could co-operate with them on things
like that-the Bloc Quebecois was quick to identify some areas
where we think the government must act and make proposals to
us, areas which involve the vital democratic interests of
Quebe-ckers and Canadians.
I was just talking about the eagerly awaited reform. Many
groups in our society long for a reform, which is what
Parliament is all about, since it involves the Canadian Human
Rights Act. This law was passed in 1977 and has basically never
been amended. It is urgent to do so for the sake of democracy.
How is that urgency expressed? Just think of the whole issue of
employment equity. We know that in his latest report,
Commissioner Yalden, who is respected by Canadians as he has
been a public servant since 1956, told us that we are far from the
goals for employment equity set in the early 1980s. The same
goes for recognition of same-sex couples.
All that is to say that we should keep things straight. We think
that it is unhealthy to rush this process because we see no
urgency for democracy, unlike our friends in the Reform Party.
We think that when it comes to redrawing the electoral map, we
should take the time to do things right because democracy and
issues of representation are at stake. For these reasons, I cannot
support the amendment.
(1335)
Mr. Gérard Asselin (Charlevoix): Mr. Speaker, you have
been telling us that you travelled extensively in the province of
Quebec, as I am sure you have done right across Canada. But if
you have not visited the great region of Charlevoix yet, I invite
you to do so because, as you know, this is the region that used to
be represented by the former Prime Minister, and he certainly
promoted the region, the city of Baie Comeau in particular.
Charlevoix is both a tourist and industrial region on the north
shore of the St. Lawrence River, a very desirable tourist region
that several members from Quebec and Canada would love to
represent. Electoral boundaries readjustment could be used to
divide to conquer.
As several members indicated, a sense of belonging already
exists within regions, ridings, RCMs, municipalities and even
school boards. As I understand it, this government's priority is
to create jobs, reduce unemployment, keep students from
dropping out and provide increased security to low income
families as well as seniors.
The time the government will spend redrawing the electoral
map, dividing certain regions in Quebec and other Canadian
provinces in the process, will undermine the efforts of the men,
women and corporations that have been working together. As
you know, at one time, if one municipality-and it is the same
with regions-if one got a CEGEP, the neighbouring
municipality or region wanted one of its own. You ended up with
a lot of duplication between regions. White elephants were built
in various cities and regions, which the people now have to pay
for with their school taxes and their municipal taxes.
I think that more and more, since the last electoral boundaries
readjustment, people had thought-and they still do-that the
electoral map would remain the same for the next 20 or 25 years.
More and more, in socio-economic summits and sectoral round
tables, people have been taking charge of prioritizing viable
economic initiatives to create employment and this has
prompted mayors and councillors in some municipalities to
2922
assume responsibility for themselves and even make
compromises so that each region could get its fair share of
benefits.
With respect to the infrastructure program developed by the
current Liberal government, several municipalities and RCMs
have met with the Union des municipalités du Québec or the
Federation of Canadian Municipalities, as far as smaller
municipalities are concerned, to try to make the program as
effective as possible. Also, many small municipalities cannot
afford to pay for their share of this tripartite cost-sharing
program.
So, many have decided to get together to invest in joint
projects within a given RCM and buy sanitary landfill
equipment or some other piece of equipment, just to take
advantage of the program, create jobs and make the system
useful and profitable for the region without getting into debt,
especially the small municipalities, as in some cases the per
capita subsidy could be $15,000. They got together and
conceived a major project that would benefit small
municipalities. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we hear more and more
about high school drop-outs at the Grade 9, 10, 11, and even 12
level. In my riding where there are four school boards, they
co-operate to design programs to make primary and secondary
schools more cost-effective and interesting and to prevent kids
from dropping out of school in every community. I am sure that
this is done in Charlevoix and it must be done in every other
region.
(1340)
The Charlevoix region took control of its own destiny in this
regard and will do so again in the future to ensure its industrial
development. To ensure such development, we must deal with
small and medium-sized businesses and other economic issues.
For this, we need dialogue and co-operation between
municipalities, and that is when some municipalities will give
priority to certain issues rather than others.
Mr. Speaker, the riding of Charlevoix includes 42
municipalities on the North Shore of the St. Lawrence forming
four regional county municipalities, four chambers of
commerce and four school boards.
I think that this government has a lot of work to do to create
jobs and improve social security, and that it would be a good
thing to defer this bill for at least two years to let the economy
recover and allow us to dot the i's and cross the t's. I also think,
as the member for Charlevoix, that there is a lot to do at home, in
every region of Quebec, and mainly in Canada.
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker, like
my colleagues, I too wish to speak on Bill C-18 and express my
opinions, which are heavily slanted in favour of the riding of
Richmond-Wolfe which I have the pleasure of representing in
this House.
First of all, I would like to review some of the events leading
up to this debate on Bill C-18. As you know, every time the
census rolls around, Canada's chief statistician asks the Chief
Electoral Officer to establish electoral boundaries commissions
with a view to redrawing the electoral map to keep pace with
demographic growth and to ensure more balanced
representation in the House.
As a fundamentally democratic party, the Bloc Quebecois is
fully aware of the importance of such a process. One of our
party's fundamental objectives, in particular with an eye to
Quebec independence, is the exercise of democracy in its
broadest sense. Mindful of the inherent democratic rights of the
citizens of Quebec and Canada, the Bloc Quebecois wishes to
support any measure which will bring about a thorough review
of legislation which dates back thirty years, namely the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
Therefore, in this regard, and with certain reservations, the
Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-18 which calls for the
suspension of the operation of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act for a period of two years and the abolition of
the eleven existing electoral boundaries commissions.
The Reform Party has moved three amendments to Bill C-18.
The first would shorten the suspension period from 24 months to
12 months, the second would delete the clause providing for the
abolition of the commissions and the third would amend the
clause which grants the government the authority to abolish the
commissions. The Bloc Quebecois does not see the relevance of
such amendments and will certainly not support them. The
democratic objective pursued by our party leads our members to
support an in-depth review of the Electoral Boundaries
Readjustment Act. However, as I mentioned earlier, the Bloc
Quebecois supports Bill C-18 with certain reservations.
(1345)
First, we believe it is essential to point out the arbitrariness
and inconsistency of some boundaries established in the past
and, to that effect, we must emphasize the importance of
administrative divisions in Quebec.
As some of my colleagues have done, I will illustrate that
point by referring to the division of regional development
councils. These administrative zones not only have a strategic
importance for Quebec: they are also based on fundamental
geographic, economic, industrial, and cultural considerations.
Consequently, as long as the province remains part of the
Canadian Confederation, the federal commissions readjusting
electoral boundaries will have to take into consideration
regional county municipalities, as well as administrative
regions.
2923
We also feel that the decentralization of decision-making
authority is an essential component of the regional policy of the
year 2000, something which is definitely not a component of the
current central government's policy. Indeed, we are well aware
of how uncomfortable the federal government is when it comes
to delegating powers to regions and to provinces in particular.
Our second reservation regarding Bill C-18 has to do with the
total lack of consideration of regional autonomy in the
provincial and federal policies of English Canada as a whole.
Regarding this aspect, I would like to quote some reactions
following the announcement of the proposals made by the
Electoral Boundaries Commission.
As soon as the proposals made by the Electoral Boundaries
Commission for Quebec were announced, on February 9 of this
year, they were criticized by a good number of people
representing the political, social and economic sectors in the
Eastern Townships. Let us take the example of a municipality
which plays an extremely important role in the economy of the
riding of Richmond-Wolfe. I am referring to the city of
Valcourt, which benefits from the presence of Bombardier, a
company playing an extremely strong and powerful role in the
development and the economy of the area. The mayor of
Valcourt, Mr. Denis Allaire, finds it hard to understand why,
under the new boundaries, his municipality would become part
of the riding of Drummond, and he intends to voice his
opposition to such a change.
It must be understood that the electoral boundaries
readjustment is not an opportunity for a mayor or for corporate
or ordinary citizens to say that they do not want to become part
of a riding: these people are merely reaffirming their sense of
belonging to a riding and to an economic and socio-cultural
region. It is interesting to note that Mayor André Leclerc of
Warwick worried about the opposite situation, which would see
his municipality become part of the riding of
Richmond-Wolfe. The mayor feels that Warwick would be
removed from its natural ties, operations and activities with the
region of Victoriaville, in the riding of Lotbinière.
He also felt that this readjustment would disrupt the economic
regions.
I would also like to refer to a comment made in La Tribune by
the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, who
said: ``The member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead is not
pleased at all to see that part of his constituency will become
part of the Thetford Mines region''-this will help illustrate the
mistakes which can be made to the detriment of a region's
natural development-``and he intends to express his discontent
loud and clear to the commissioners when they hold their
hearings in Sherbrooke.'' It is not that he holds a grudge against
the citizens of the asbestos region, but Mr. Bernier maintains
that there is no affinity between the two poles. He said he knows
the riding very well and he is convinced that people of Mégantic
relate first to the Sherbrooke region and only secondly to
Saint-Georges-de-Beauce. Therefore, the Mégantic region has
no connection whatsoever with the asbestos region. Except for
family ties, the people of Mégantic and those of the Thetford
Mines region have pratically nothing in common.
(1350)
I would even add that in the Richmond-Wolfe riding, the
integration process which affected the municipalities of Rock
Forest, Saint-Élie, Deauville, Valcourt, Racine and Richmond,
made it so that the majority of the population, involved in the
development of a strategic plan for the RCM of Le Val
Saint-François associated with another extremely important
RCM, Sherbrooke, would see the best part of its discussions,
efforts and co-operation go up in smoke, just as the outcome of
the plan for joint action on economic, social and cultural
development in that region.
Evidently, the people in these communities have developed a
sense of responsibility over the years; they were asked to do
so- They were always told they should take their future into
their own hands and accept responsibility for their own
economic, social and cultural development. They were told it
was important for them to bring the decision centres closer to
their region. In this respect, the readjustment of electoral
boundaries goes against all the work that has been done over the
years in Quebec in the area of joint action and the establishment
of decision centres closer to the people involved and more
attuned to their analysis of local problems.
In Quebec, in recent years and more precisely since 1985,
regional conferences have given priority to joint action and
development projects focusing on municipalities and
surrounding regions. Over the years, this process has led to
thinking and developing a strategic plan involving the creation
of regional county municipalities-or MRCs as they are called
in Quebec-which co-ordinate their own plans at a higher level,
that of economic development councils or regional development
councils. As a result, each region in Quebec signs a general
development agreement with the government and the
Department of Regional Development.
The exercise of electoral boundaries readjustment
demonstrates that Ottawa is not sensitive to that. It does not take
regional development into consideration, does not understand it,
and sets limits which have nothing in common with natural
economic development and, in particular, nothing to do with the
fact that local governments are trying to make their own
decisions, to do their own analysis of problems, and to
implement their own solutions to development problems.
2924
Clearly, we support this review and, if Quebec remains within
Confederation, we would like people in charge of preparing new
legislation to take notice of these fundamental structures in
Quebec. Regionalization and taking charge of one's destiny is
something for the 21st century, and the Liberal government, the
government in power, will have to understand that some day.
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, I will
start by denouncing the attitude of Reform Party members to
their own amendment. It is curious, not to say strange, that
members elected on a platform to reform Parliament let the
other opposition party monopolize debate on their own
amendment. This is curious.
In my native region of Saguenay, we call that: ``Do as I say,
not as I do''. Like my colleague who just spoke, I am totally
against the amendment proposed which would reduce from 24
months to 12 the period allowed to study a new electoral map.
(1355)
Indeed, I think that we clearly indicated that we would agree
with the government position to defer this whole issue by 24
months. Why do we need more time ? First, we think that criteria
other than demographics must be considered. It is true that we
must have balanced electoral districts with about 70,000 people,
but we should also consider other criteria such as the size of the
territory.
We know that my riding of
Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans entirely encompasses the
provincial riding of Montmorency, a part of the provincial
riding of Charlevoix and a part of the provincial riding of
Beauport-Limoilou. So, a single federal district includes all or
part of three provincial ridings. I am sure that it is exactly the
same in the other Canadian provinces.
Second, of course, if we have large federal electoral districts,
chances are that we will have a very large number of
municipalities in that territory, each municipality having
different characteristics and different needs.
The third reason or third criterion that leads us to prefer a
24-month deferral is the number of regional county
municipalities, entities that are specific to Quebec and that
essentially constitute regional self-governments. When we
have a large federal riding, it sometimes overlaps more than one
RCM, once again with different characteristics, needs and
concerns.
Finally, the fourth point that leads me to prefer this deferral is
the social and economic components of each of these
municipalities.
Since we have an opposition role to play and are not here to
praise the government in office, despite what the member for
Saint-Boniface is saying, we can blame the Liberals for
delaying the bill with the consultations that are getting under
way. In this issue, it is as if the arms did not know what the brain
is asking for. I leave it up to you to determine who constitutes
the arms and who constitutes the brain, but we realize, because
of the delay in tabling this bill, that the consultations should
never have started.
In our opinion, the reform should have a greater scope.
Without calling it by its name, I would be remiss if I forgot that
the Bloc Quebecois, and the majority of Quebeckers in general,
are asking for the abolition of the other House, knowing how
efficient members of that House are and how efficient that
institution as such is. We know that in 1993, the other House sat
for 41 days, at a cost $43 million to the Canadian treasury.
Reform could also encompass out right abolition of the other
House.
In concluding, I would like to tell you that, nevertheless, in
Quebec, we are convinced that the reform will have a greater
scope because, very soon, Quebeckers will have to decide their
future in a referendum that will be coming in the new year.
The Speaker: I know that the hon. member has a little time
left to speak. If he is not done, he may continue after three
o'clock.
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.
_____________________________________________
2924
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[
English]
Mrs. Brenda Chamberlain (Guelph-Wellington): Mr.
Speaker, while our country is made up of people from different
cultures, backgrounds and histories, we are united under certain
symbols we hold close to us.
One of those symbols is our flag. Our flag is displayed
throughout the Parliament buildings. I am pleased to see so
many members of Parliament displaying the Canadian flag in
their offices. While some may also display the provincial flag
the Maple Leaf is always prominent.
The flag reminds us that first and foremost we are Canadians.
While we represent our individual ridings we do so in this
national forum for the good of all Canadians.
The pride we feel when the Maple Leaf is raised during the
Olympic Games is a reminder of how important our flag is for all
of us. We should never forget how much our flag means to us and
what it symbolizes to the world. I encourage every member to
display our Canadian flag proudly.
2925
[Translation]
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, this morning,
the Commissioner of Official Languages tabled his 1993 annual
report.
Many instances of discrimination against francophones were
reported again in federal institutions as well as in several
provinces. In fact, the commissioner stressed, and I quote: ``that
the system of providing federal services in both official
languages . . .was not yet functioning as it should''.
This year again, access to French language education is
difficult, if not impossible in certain regions. Also, the issue of
school governance by francophones has not yet been settled in
several provinces.
The Prime Minister stated recently: ``The million
francophones outside Quebec, that is my Canada''.
Unfortunately, this report reveals a huge gap between political
rhetoric and reality.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich-Gulf Islands): Mr. Speaker, our
Charter of Rights and Freedoms assures us of security, fair
treatment and equality under the law, freedom of thought, belief,
opinion, conscience and much more. Most of us know our rights
and freedoms, but what about our responsibilities?
Our responsibility to look after ourselves: to protect our
health; to gain as much education as we can: to be productive
citizens; and, to make the best of our life circumstances?
Our responsibility to family: the foundation on which our
children grow; where they are love; learn respect; compassion;
and, the difference between right and wrong?
Our responsibility to country: to take pride in our heritage; to
attempt to repay what society has given us: to participate in
Canadian politics and vote to register our views: to contribute to
the future of our nation; and, to be willing to serve in times of
need or peril?
We have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. What we must add
is a charter of responsibilities.
Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface): Mr. Speaker, I have
just received the booklet entitled ``Official Languages Myths
and Realities''. I recommend it as reading to every member of
Parliament and every senator.
Look at the facts and then share them, share them with
Canadians so that we can in fact make sure that there are no
longer any unnecessary language conflicts.
[Translation]
Mr. Speaker, this is a wonderful tool to educate, share and get
to understand one another better, and I certainly hope that every
member of Parliament and every senator will raise these issues
and share these facts openly.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Roger Gallaway (Sarnia-Lambton): Mr. Speaker,
public concern regarding the future of VIA Rail service in the
Sarnia-Toronto corridor continues to rise. A number of mayors
and municipal councils have expressed concern following the
release of certain internal documents attributed to VIA
management.
The transport department has done nothing to deny or disavow
such information. It is indeed ironic that in this time of
heightened emphasis on infrastructure our most elementary
public service, that is intercity rail service, is overtly and
benignly discouraged by government.
If Canadian National can charge its other customers using rail
service at the same rate that VIA pays, CN would have an
income of $30 billion per year and not the $3 billion per year it
had last year.
I call on the transport department to order Canadian National
to charge VIA a rail usage charge based on reality. Indeed VIA
receives federal subsidies which flow through to CN because of
this unilateral usage charge.
Let us make some sense of VIA by rolling back track rental
rates to a realistic number based on real market value numbers.
I call upon the department to make economic and
environmental sense and to guarantee passenger rail service to
both urban and rural Ontario.
* * *
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, two weeks ago my home town of Truro, Nova Scotia
proudly hosted the `94 Pepsi junior curling championships. At
that prestigious national event curling was showcased at its best
2926
as we saw the men's team from Alberta and the women's team
from Manitoba emerge as the Canadian junior champions.
From the Truro Nationals, the Alberta men's team led by
Colin Davison went directly to Bulgaria for the world
championships. Under the women's rules last year's Canadian
champions competed in this year's international
championships.
(1405 )
In Bulgaria this past week both the Kim Gellard junior
women's team from Toronto and the Colin Davison's junior
men's rink from Alberta won their respective world junior
curling championships.
As a member of Parliament, I am very proud of our young
Canadian athletes and congratulate our young men and women
as they return home from Bulgaria as world champions of junior
curling.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean): Mr. Speaker, as the
member for Saint-Jean, I am proud to congratulate Isabelle
Robitaille, Jacques Lessard, Claude Martel and Éric Dion, four
graduating students of the military college in Saint-Jean.
Yesterday they won the Jean Pictet debating competition on
international humanitarian law against 19 other teams from
Quebec, Europe, Africa and Latin America.
This achievement demonstrates the dynamism and
competence of the military college in Saint-Jean. It is, however,
overshadowed by the announcement that the college will be
closed because the Liberal government has stubbornly refused
to review its unjustified decision.
If the government's senseless decision is maintained, these
students could be the last to attest to the excellent teaching done
at the military college in Saint-Jean.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Philip Mayfield (Cariboo-Chilcotin): Mr. Speaker,
last Saturday one of my constituents, Teresa Mallam of Quesnel,
British Columbia, came to Ottawa.
Teresa, B.C. Report magazine's Cariboo correspondent, was
here to receive the Canadian Association of Journalists
prestigious prize for investigative journalism, an award that
Teresa won for an article written in June 1993 about the 1989
brutal murder of Mary Jane Jimmie of Quesnel.
Mary Jane Jimmie's murderer has not been apprehended, but
Teresa's persistence in going after the facts and attempting to
find out what really happened may now lead to the person
responsible being convicted and sent to prison.
I would like to offer my congratulations to Teresa for winning
the award and for the high standard of journalism she has
brought to the interior of British Columbia.
* * *
Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough): Mr. Speaker, Trent
University has the oldest native studies program in Canada.
It recently hosted its 11th annual Elders Conference with
2,000 participants from all over Canada, from the west coast to
the east and as far north as Igloolik. The conference was run by
more than 200 Trent students. It included exciting workshops
and a wide variety of social events. A play by the children from
the Kawartha First Nations, a large powwow at Curve Lake and
games highlighted the weekend.
The Elders Conference once again received considerable
support from the greater Peterborough area. This is gratefully
acknowledged by the organizers.
It is truly national events like this one, bringing together
native and non-native people, young and old, that demonstrate
Canada's strengths. They are evidence that our future lies within
the vision of the current Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development of this country rather than within the tunnel vision
of some members of the House.
* * *
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Don Valley North): Mr. Speaker,
during the campaign the hon. leader of the Reform Party made
the statement that the government's $2 billion infrastructure
program to help kickstart the $700 billion economy would be
like using a flashlight battery to start a 747 airplane.
With our unemployment rate being reduced from 11.6 per cent
to 10.6 per cent and with the creation of over 114,000 jobs
nationwide in the last two months, I think Canadians would like
to know what kind of battery the Prime Minister used. I hope he
uses the same batteries over and over again to create more jobs.
* * *
Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt): Mr. Speaker, northern
Ontario boasts a population of 825,000 and is a significant
wealth creating and exporting region of the country.
2927
However, due to a multitude of factors northern Ontario has
traditionally been a forgotten region of the country. In the
coming months we will attempt to rectify this oversight and
assert northern Ontario's position within the federation.
Following extensive consultations I hope to bring the region's
communities together to set policy priorities, develop an
economic vision and establish the regional partnerships
required to realize the opportunities set out in the government's
red book.
I trust the government will provide our region with the
support it needs to attain its goal of greater economic
self-reliance.
[Translation]
The people of Northern Ontario are entitled to voice their
expectations, to be heard, and to play a more important role in
the development of the regional and national policies affecting
them.
* * *
(1410)
Mr. Gaston Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe): Mr. Speaker,
recently, the Prime Minister of Canada said that one had to get
out of the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean area to find out what the
real world was like.
Similarly, his Minister of Foreign Affairs was glad to see
members of the Bloc Quebecois come to Ottawa, because this
would get them out of the backwoods and broaden their
horizons.
Yesterday, their spiritual father, Pierre Elliott Trudeau, made
another of his nasty statements when he said, and I quote, ``that
Quebec students do not know their French and when they
become intellectuals, they are intellectuals of the worst kind.''
Mr. Speaker, these ghosts from the past should realize that
Quebeckers are far too sensible to pay any attention to their
contemptuous remarks and that whatever this herd of snorting
dinosaurs may claim, Quebec is a modern and open society that
looks to the future.
Quebeckers will soon make themselves heard, and out of
these so-called backwoods will rise a great French nation in the
Americas.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East): Mr. Speaker, the
ultimate tax revolt occurred at the Boston Tea Party of 1773 and
the rallying cry behind it was ``no taxation without
representation''.
Did the Americans do wrong in opposing British taxation
without representation in the British Parliament?-of course
not. Taxation with representation is not only an entrenched
concept in our Liberal democracy. It is a fundamental rule of
fairness and common sense.
The burden of debt this government is inflicting on our nation
will fall on the shoulders of Canadians not yet old enough to
vote. They seem to go unrepresented in this government, yet
they deserve a say in the spending habits of their parents because
they are the ones who will end up paying the bills.
Parliament does not have the luxury of sending mixed signals
to money markets, investors and taxpayers, but most especially
we need to send a strong, unified message to young Canadians.
Let us start treating taxpayers' dollars like funds held in trust.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell): Mr.
Speaker, earlier today, the Commissioner of Official Languages
tabled his annual report.
As our language rights ombudsman, it is his role and his duty
to point out the shortcomings in the system, not to complain
about discrimination, as a member of the Bloc Quebecois was
saying, but to improve the system by pointing out its defects. He
has a role similar to that of an opposition party that reveals what
is wrong in the government, to protect the interests of the
people.
There is bad news, but there is also good news in this report.
For instance, the Commissioner of Official Languages has
commended the government for reinstating the Court
Challenges Program. He also indicated that the rate of
bilingualism among teenagers in Canada has risen in every
Canadian province and territory. Furthermore, and this is an
important point, the cost of providing bilingual services in
Canada was approximately 30 cents per $100 of service
provided or 0.2 per cent of the federal budget.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Comox-Alberni): Mr. Speaker, two
years ago in Courtenay, B.C., six-year old Dawn Shaw was
brutally raped and killed.
Her killer, now 17, is Jason Gamache. The biggest surprise to
come out of this trial was not that he had done the deed. Jason
Gamache was a repeat sex offender who was not allowed to be
with children and he was 11 months into therapy when he
murdered Dawn Shaw.
Not even the Courtenay RCMP was aware of this young
offender's record of sexual assault. Why? It was because the
Young Offenders Act prohibits any professional treating a
young offender from discussing the case in public.
2928
This case calls for two changes in our justice system: first,
major changes in the Young Offenders Act and, second, a public
registry of sex offenders. We cannot let Dawn Shaw's death be in
vain.
* * *
Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon): Mr. Speaker, yesterday
in the House I raised the question of young offenders and
pointed out that there was much we had to do in prevention. I
would also say as part of that prevention, we must also look at
the structural unemployment of young people. Officially we
have an unemployment rate of over 17 per cent of young people,
whereas in fact it is much higher.
(1415)
I know the government has a youth corps program. It is a start,
but it is not addressing the high unemployment of young people.
I urge the government to bring forward a real plan for youth.
We are all concerned about youth crime. We know there were
provincial, territorial and federal meetings on the Young
Offenders Act. I would like to see similar meetings on the very
high rate of youth unemployment.
_____________________________________________
2928
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[
Translation]
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Today,
La Presse published sections of a document prepared by the
Department of Human Resources Development for the next
federal-provincial conference to be held next week, on income
security.
According to the document, the government has excluded any
possibility of transfers to Quebec of authority, budgets or
officials. This position is a direct contradiction of Quebec's
demands as reiterated last Friday by Premier Johnson, who is
supported by a strong consensus in Quebec on this issue among
the parties involved.
Are we to understand that this document represents the
government's official policy on manpower training, and that
having rejected all transfers requested by Quebec, the Prime
Minister will only allow joint use of the same building, where
the wasteful practices we have witnessed for a number of years,
which have prevented the unemployed from getting the training
they need, would be perpetuated, but now under the same roof?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, the working paper from which sections were produced
in this morning's media is a paper being used as a basis for
discussion at the deputy minister level.
It is quite possible that the ministers will continue to
negotiate on the basis of a document that may be amended. So
far, we have had a number of friendly and useful negotiations
with Quebec. We believe that we can continue those
negotiations on the same basis.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, this document which appears today on the first page of
Montreal's biggest newspaper was prepared by the Minister of
Human Resources Development and reflects the minister's
position.
The document, and therefore the minister's position,
indicates that bilateral agreements on joint use of buildings will
be signed immediately with the provinces. However, yesterday
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs informed the House
that there would be no administrative agreements with the
provinces on manpower training for the next two years.
I want to ask the Prime Minister who is right in this case?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, once again, this document was used as a basis for
discussion at the last meeting. Documents that are used as a
basis for discussion basically contain matters that have yet to be
negotiated.
Furthermore, yesterday I did not say there would be no single
window, certainly not. I said that we suggested to the Province
of Quebec, as we did to the other provinces, that we could have a
single window for providing manpower training programs, and
that is our position. Consequently, the position the Minister of
Human Resources Development is exactly the same as mine.
Hon. Lucien Bouchard (Leader of the Opposition): Mr.
Speaker, I think it is easy to interpret the minister's remarks. In
any case, the document is correct in that there will be no transfer
of officials, authority or resources.
Finally, the bottom line for both ministers is that the same 25
provincial and 27 federal programs will now be administered in
the same building, so the client does not have far to go to be
utterly confused.
I want to ask the Prime Minister, who must be aware of the
contradictions here, whether he realizes that by refusing to
transfer federal responsibility for manpower training to Quebec,
he is perpetuating an annual waste of $300 million, at the
expense of Quebec's unemployed, of whom 20,000 are still
2929
waiting to register for training courses that could help them
improve their chances of getting back to work?
(1420)
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Queen's Privy
Council for Canada, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs
and Minister responsible for Public Service Renewal): Mr.
Speaker, I repeat that my position is that we are pursuing
negotiations with the Province of Quebec and that we have an
agreement with the Province of Quebec on eliminating existing
overlap.
As I said yesterday, and I say it again today, we are about to
negotiate an agreement on income security with the provinces,
and meanwhile, we are prepared to negotiate agreements which,
at the very least, will include the single-window concept and
which may include other aspects of manpower training. Once
the reform project has been finalized, we are prepared to
conclude more extensive agreements with the provinces,
including Quebec.
* * *
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
During the campaign, the Liberal Party, in its red book,
promised to assist military industries in their conversion to
civilian production. Once in power, the government started by
cancelling the helicopter contract and then reduced the Defence
budget without introducing a defence conversion program. As
we can witness today, this government's decisions have had a
disastrous impact on companies such as Paramax and Oerlikon.
Is the Prime Minister ready to recognize how important it is to
implement, as soon as possible, a defence conversion strategy,
as he promised, in order to alleviate the impact of military
budget cuts on employment?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, we
are quite aware of the situation at Oerlikon, but as the member
knows perfectly well, it will be several years before this
company closes its doors. We already have assistance programs
in place and military industries in Quebec such as Pratt &
Whitney and Canadair are already receiving a lot of support
from the federal government. I would suggest that the member
take the time to review the situation at Oerlikon.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, is the minister aware that because of his pussyfooting
and in the absence of a short-term strategy, high-tech industries
such as Paramax and Oerlikon will soon have to resort to
massive lay-offs? We do not feel like waiting. Action is needed
right now. Why abandon all thought of putting in place civilian
research and development programs to help the defence
industries?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, the
member seems to be quite mistaken about what programs
actually do exist.
The government's program is set out not just in the red book
which he referred to but also in the speech from the throne, the
budget, and in many discussions we have had in which the
member has participated. We have reinforced the importance of
the conversion to a knowledge based, scientific innovation
economy. That is the plan of the government. That is the
direction we are going.
I hope he will get on board and help us to go in that direction.
* * *
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the Minister of Finance told investment dealers that
further deep spending reductions are coming. He said: ``There
are no sacred cows. There are a whole series of government
programs that we simply did not have time to get at in the
government's first budget''.
In March, however, the Prime Minister told an Edmonton
audience that all spending reductions for the next three years
were on the table.
Will the Prime Minister end this stream of mixed signals
coming from the government and tell the House whether the
government will be announcing additional spending reductions
in the months ahead?
(1425 )
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
said that the cuts that we had provided for in the budget were
needed to achieve our goal of 3 per cent of GNP for the deficit.
But we said that there was other work being done.
We are looking at this time at other opportunities for cuts. The
minister of federal-provincial relations, who is responsible for
renewal of the government, is looking at all the boards and
commissions that are reporting to Parliament or to the Prime
Minister or to ministers in order to cut more. More cuts are
coming and we are working on them.
I repeat that the program we put forward in the budget is the
program that will lead us to the goal that we stated clearly in the
campaign and in the budget. We will do everything necessary to
reduce the deficit in relation to GNP at 3 per cent.
2930
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker, a
supplementary question. Let us get this absolutely clear.
If I understand the Prime Minister, he is saying that there will
be additional spending cuts in addition to those outlined in the
recent budget.
Is that the correct understanding of the government's
position?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
will make the answer very clear. C'est oui.
Mr. Preston Manning (Calgary Southwest): Mr. Speaker,
just so that we have this absolutely clear, we all know that the
finance minister is talking about further spending reductions to
try to boost investor confidence in the Canadian economy.
However, investors realize that the Minister of Finance will not
prevail unless he is fully supported by the Prime Minister.
Will the Prime Minister assure us that he supports the finance
minister when that minister calls for additional spending
reductions not contained in this year's budget?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
yes, mais oui ça veut dire yes.
The Minister of Finance has my full confidence, my full
support. He has the full support of all members of cabinet and all
members of the caucus.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, my
question is directed to the Minister of Industry.
The daily newspaper Le Soleil reported that a ministerial
briefing note addressed to a federal Cabinet minister expressed
concern about the demise of Oerlikon Aerospace's operations in
Saint-Jean. The note warned the government that the firm had
very few orders on the books and that without a true
diversification and conversion program, it was in danger of
folding.
Now that the minister knows about Oerlikon's very uncertain
future, does he intend to move quickly to support the
diversification of the company's operations and thus ensure the
survival of this high-tech firm which has seen its workforce
shrink from 750 to 300?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
understand full well that the hon. member, like the member who
earlier raised questions on the same subject, is very concerned
about this company's problems. Oerlikon is working on a
number of contracts. In fact, it recently received a contract
worth $15 million.
Our goal is to find ways to help companies grow, not just in
the field of military equipment, but in others areas of research
and development, in keeping with the new economic climate.
We are prepared to work with Oerlikon, just as we are
prepared to work with other firms.
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, I have a
supplementary question.
Will the minister not recognize the need to take urgent action
instead of waiting for the company to shut its doors, as we saw
happen with Hyundai?
(1430)
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
think that Oerlikon shareholders also want to take action rather
quickly. First, the company needs to address this issue.
Secondly, governments may also help Oerlikon, but not
necessarily by granting subsidies. Oerlikon needs to have a
commercially-sound business plan. This will be the key to its
success and to the success of other firms.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
Ministers of this government continue to send out mixed
signals on important economic issues. Yesterday the Prime
Minister suggested that the drop in last month's official
unemployment rate was the result of successful Liberal
economic policies. On the same issue the Minister of Finance
admitted that much of the drop was due to 28,000 young
Canadians giving up their job search.
Does the Minister of Human Resources Development regard
driving young Canadians out of the job market as successful
economic policy?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the figures released last Friday
show that over the past two months 115,000 new jobs were
created in Canada. Most important and what we can take some
confidence in is that 75 per cent of those jobs were full-time
jobs.
I share the hon. member's concern about the real problem this
country's young people face. One of the reasons we have started
a major recasting of many of the programs is so that we can
specifically target the needs of young people.
In this case the Prime Minister was certainly correct when he
said that generally the economy is improving as a result of the
new sense of confidence Canadians have as a consequence of
this government's actions.
At the same time we are also aware of the need to begin to deal
adequately with youth unemployment. If the hon. member can
show some patience for a day or two I think he will see the
2931
beginning of a very serious attack on that problem by this
government.
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville): Mr. Speaker,
my supplemental is also for the Minister of Human Resources
Development.
The Prime Minister suggested yesterday that the
infrastructure program should receive some credit for the drop
in unemployment in March. The fact is that not one dollar of
infrastructure spending has yet been spent. It should be no
surprise that financial markets are confused by the contradictory
statements made by the ministers of this government.
At this time when credit rating agencies are reconsidering
Canadian issues and no level of government has any spare cash,
will the minister cancel the infrastructure program and save$6 billion in borrowed money for Canadians?
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Human Resources
Development and Minister of Western Economic
Diversification): Mr. Speaker, the only confusion is that of the
hon. member.
The Prime Minister said very clearly what we have all said.
The investments under the infrastructure program are an added
bonus that will create further confidence and activity and will
help get the engine of this economy going.
I can tell the hon. member that last week, in the company of
the President of the Treasury Board in my own province of
Manitoba, a neighbouring province to his, we announced133 projects for over $130 million creating close to 3,000 jobs in
that one province alone. Manitobans are very happy about that.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, the
future of MIL Davie Shipbuilding in the Quebec City region
remains very much in doubt. To survive, the only shipyard in
Quebec needs a quick decision from the federal government on
two specific issues. However, the government is still deferring
its decision on the proposal to build a ferry for the Magdalen
Islands and refuses to disclose its intentions regarding the
multi-functional ``smart ship'' project.
My question is for the Minister of Industry. If the government
still believes in employment, why is it putting off its decision on
these two projects, when they are part of a real defence industry
conversion strategy and would ensure the future of this
shipyard?
(1435)
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, it is
clear with respect to both of the projects the hon. member
mentioned that it is important for the government as the steward
of the taxpayers' money to make decisions that are
fundamentally in the best interests of the taxpayers ultimately.
With respect to the project of replacing the Lucy Maud
Montgomery I know my colleague the Minister of Transport is
giving active consideration to what his department's needs are
with respect to that ferry. The decision will be taken in due
course. As to where the contract will be let, that will need to be
done on a commercial basis.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond
(Beauport-Montmorency-Orléans): Mr. Speaker, does the
government realize that, with every passing day, its inaction
threatens the survival of the biggest private business in the
Quebec City region and that it would be dangerous to put off its
decision for partisan purposes until the election in Quebec?
[English]
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry): Mr. Speaker, I
would certainly agree with the hon. member that it would be
wrong to put off important decisions for partisan reasons.
I would point out to him however it is important that a large
decision involving a lot of the taxpayers' money must be made
for the right reasons. It will not be subject to this kind of
pressure in order to make a decision which would prove to be the
wrong one.
* * *
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister.
Today the 1993 annual report from the Commissioner of
Official Languages was tabled in the House. In his report Victor
Goldbloom states: ``Given the present economic circumstances,
we are more convinced than ever that the bilingualism bonus
should be eliminated''. Last year those bonus payments cost
taxpayers nearly $51 million. Increased budgetary expenditures
as opposed to the government's stated intent of deficit reduction
sends out a mixed signal.
Will the Prime Minister follow the commissioner's strong
recommendation to eliminate bilingualism bonuses, thus
assuring tax weary Canadians his government is serious about
deficit reduction?
2932
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
do not think the commissioner has made a strong
recommendation. He has recommended we look into that and we
will look into that.
Mr. Bob Ringma (Nanaimo-Cowichan): Mr. Speaker, I
wonder if the Prime Minister might explain if any decision to act
in this long overdue area will result in the cancellation of tens of
millions of dollars in retroactive bilingualism bonus payments
to the RCMP?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker,
there are always some administrative problems with any
program. We are looking into it.
This program has been a very good incentive in Canada in
helping a lot of people to learn the other official language. It is a
great asset when people can do that.
In fact, the report indicates that the number of young
Canadians who have become bilingual since the program was
instituted has gone from 3 per cent to 11 per cent. That means the
number of young anglophones who have learned French and
francophones who have learned English has quadrupled since
this program was instituted. It is a great thing for Canada.
All those who can have the two official languages feel better
about it. The hon. member who is bilingual should be grateful
we made it possible for him to learn the other official language.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The future of rail
transport is being compromised by current government plans.
Yet, rail freight remains a major development tool in several
regions.
As far as the Official Opposition is concerned, a moratorium
must be declared on the elimination of further sections of
railway in eastern Canada to allow true consultation to take
place with those affected.
(1440)
Here is my question: Will the Prime Minister agree, first of
all, to declare such a moratorium and, second, to hold regional
public consultations before taking actions that could prove to be
extremely harmful to the economic future of several regions?
[English]
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his question.
As he knows, this question has been asked of the Minister of
Transport a number of times in this House. Also, he should know
that the critic for his party and the Standing Committee on
Transport are looking at rail rationalization.
I should point out to the members there is a regime in place
called the National Transportation Agency that is to look at rail
abandonment and rail rationalization. That is the vehicle by
which rationalization is considered. No, we have no plans to
declare a moratorium. There is a system in place for that to
occur.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, I would have preferred my question to be answered by
``yes''. Perhaps I will get an affirmative answer to my
supplementary question.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to reconsider government
plans that are liable to further emphasize disparities between
Eastern and Western Canada?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to answer that question. I think that transportation is
an important issue, and the parliamentary secretary answered
the question well. However, at the present time, we have many
programs to review. Just yesterday, his leader was asking us to
cut budgets. Today, the hon. member is asking us to increase
government spending.
* * *
[
English]
Mr. Ron MacDonald (Dartmouth): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In February of this year Canadian fishermen were absolutely
elated that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was able to
obtain a NAFO moratorium on the fishing of 3NO cod. However
that celebration was quickly muted by the fact that the European
union abstained on the vote thereby retaining their right to fish
this very endangered stock.
Can the minister tell us what the current status is? Has he been
able to convince the European union about the seriousness of the
situation off the east coast of Canada?
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I want to thank the member for that very difficult
question.
As the member well knows the Prime Minister made clear on
behalf of this government that we intended to deal with the
problem of foreign and domestic overfishing and that we would
do so by agreement if possible and by unilateral action if
necessary.
I am pleased to report to the member that this morning in
Brussels the European Council of Ministers unanimously
ratified the February 17 moratorium on 3NO cod. The
government promised action. We have begun the process of
taking effective
2933
action. More action will follow in the weeks and months to
come.
* * *
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, I wish
the answers we got to our questions were as good as the ones the
Liberal members get from their ministers. Talk about mixed
signals.
My question is for the minister of heritage. The minister of
heritage released a 40-page book during the spring break telling
Canadians that any and all questions about out of control costs
of the Official Languages Act are based on misconceptions. He
says it is a myth that the costs are in the billions and that the true
cost of providing services in both official languages in 1992-93
was $319 million.
Can the minister tell this House why his number is
dramatically lower than even the number of the Commissioner
of Official Languages, which was $654 million?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the figures are correct but they do not pretend to cover
all forms of support to the official languages of Canada.
Mr. Randy White (Fraser Valley West): Mr. Speaker, that is
what we have been saying all along. The fact is that the true
costs, the full costs, the direct and the indirect costs are not
known. We have been asking in this House for a debate on that
very issue. Will the minister commit to a debate on that very
issue?
(1445)
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, the figures are available. If my colleague has not been
able to read them, I would be glad to provide them to him.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, cod fishermen in
the Gaspé region believe that there will be an increase in crab
quotas and they want part of it. Of course, crab fishermen are
defending their turf and tension is rising. Cod fishermen are
poor and idle, many of them are nearing the end of their
unemployment insurance benefits. They are fighting for a
decent living, they are fighting to put bread on the table. The
minister cannot keep on ignoring them.
My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Since
the minister has not yet tabled his fishing plan for crab in zone
12, nor his plan for the future of fisheries, nor his financial aid
program for fishermen, when is he going to give a clear answer?
Will he wait for the situation to deteriorate even more?
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the member for his question and for his interest
in this matter. I offer him the same courtesy as I have done so in
writing to both him and his leader and that is for a full briefing
on any matter that affects the fishermen of Atlantic Canada.
I can tell him that while he has not found the time the
fishermen and their unions in Quebec have found the time and I
have met with them repeatedly on this subject. Were he as well
briefed as they, he would know that within a matter of a few
weeks both the Minister of Human Resources Development and
I will announce a wide-ranging and comprehensive response to
the fishing crisis in Atlantic Canada, one that is generous, one
that recognizes the depth of the crisis in the region, but one that
is responsible in terms of the fiscal capacity of the government
of the day.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Bernier (Gaspé): Mr. Speaker, by being
indecisive, the minister has created tensions in the fisheries.
Does he not recognize now that fishermen are expecting more
than a government statement, that they want precise
explanations on the decisions to come? People are waiting,
tension is high.
[English]
Hon. Brian Tobin (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans): Mr.
Speaker, both the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the
Department of Human Resources Development have been
engaged in the broadest consultation on the future of the fishery
that has ever been undertaken by the Government of Canada in
its history. We think that consultation is going to result in a
positive, constructive and realistic announcement within a
matter of a few weeks.
If the member is serious about wanting to know more he
should take me up on the offer that I have given to the fishermen
from the province of Quebec, fishermen from the Gaspé region,
and come and receive a full briefing on the subject.
I would be interested in hearing the member's positive and
constructive comment on this difficult situation. It is easy to
make noise. Sometimes it is more difficult but more worthwhile
to try and make some sense.
* * *
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister clarify the mixed signals his
government is sending out on criminal justice. On one hand the
justice minister talks about tightening the criminal justice
system. On the other hand a senior Liberal member has been
2934
widely quoted on his agenda of having lifers paroled at 15 years.
The justice minister says he welcomes such suggestions.
Would the Prime Minister please tell the Canadian people
which of these two members reflects the Liberal position?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, may I suggest that the hon.
member is not being fair to the facts. The truth is that two weeks
ago or perhaps three the chair of the justice committee, if that is
the hon. member's reference, gave his own views with respect to
penalties for murder. I was quick to say on that occasion that he
did not speak for this government, that he was expressing his
own view. Indeed, I disagree with him.
He is but one voice on a committee of 15 persons on which his
own party is well represented. The committee will have ample
opportunity to influence the policy of this government on
criminal justice.
As to mixed signals, may I make it plain that our position has
been uniform and clear throughout. It has been that we are going
to deal with crime in this society just as we said on the platform,
both by making the laws of this country more effective and
enforcing them more effectively. That means, among other
things, changes to the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders
Act as necessary, at the same time recognizing the importance of
crime prevention and all that that means to the same effort.
(1450)
There are no mixed signals. Our position has been
straightforward and consistent throughout.
Mr. Paul E. Forseth (New Westminster-Burnaby): Mr.
Speaker, Canadians want action. They want a clear guarantee
from the Prime Minister that killers who perpetrate drive-by
shootings, kill people in restaurants and invade peoples' homes
will be locked away until they are no longer a threat.
Will the Prime Minister give that guarantee today?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, I spoke yesterday in
response to a question in this House expressing my own horror at
the recent savage and senseless crimes. I expressed my view as
well that we must not let our anger and our concern regarding
those recent events have us jump to conclusions about simple
solutions to these problems.
Yes, it is time for action. As I said yesterday, this government
is at present putting together proposals which will come soon to
this House to make the criminal laws of this country more
effective and also deal with the need to respect the importance of
crime prevention in these initiatives.
Before long the hon. member and this House will see concrete
action from this government.
* * *
Mr. John Richardson (Perth-Wellington-Waterloo):
Mr. Speaker, this question is for the Minister of Transport or his
designate, the secretary.
Recently the newspapers have been full of rumours about VIA
Rail cuts to passenger rail service for Canadians, more
specifically, the route from Sarnia, London, Stratford,
Kitchener, Waterloo, Guelph, Brampton to Toronto. This route
is presently one of the most patronized routes in all of Canada.
Could the minister or his designate provide the assurance that
this rail route will not be abandoned?
Mr. Joe Fontana (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport): Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the
member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.
I should point out that these rumours are simply that,
rumours, and are based on unfounded speculation. This
government has not made any decisions on service levels to VIA
but members in this House should understand that the levels of
budget for VIA have been established by way of the budget that
was tabled in February.
VIA is presently undertaking negotiations with its labour
unions. We are hopeful that it in fact can gain the efficiencies
that it needs, that labour will co-operate in those deliberations
and that in fact the public will also participate because the
solution to a viable passenger rail system in this country is that
all stakeholders can in fact make it possible.
No decisions have been made by this government, nor will
they until such time as those negotiations have been completed.
* * *
[
Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Justice.
After he promised on International Women's Day to consider
the possibility of criminalizing excision, the Minister of Justice
told us yesterday that he does not intend to amend the Criminal
Code or to introduce specific provisions to deal with this form of
sexual violence.
The minister considers the present provisions on assault to be
sufficient. However, many countries, including France and
Great Britain, have felt the need to legislate specifically on
excision.
2935
Why does the minister refuse to criminalize excision, when
by doing so he could send a clear message to those who are
guilty of it?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tabled a
document with the House following question period in which I
furnished written information with respect to the conclusions to
which I had come on the subject of female genital mutilation,
making it clear that I concluded after investigating the matter
during the past month that the response lies not in further change
to the Criminal Code but rather more effective education and
enforcement of the present laws.
The document I tabled made it clear that during the past 30
days I conferred with among others the attorney general of
Ontario. I have spoken to members of a task force which she put
in place. I met in my office with the chair and members of the
National Women's Committee that produced the report that gave
rise to the original question. I examined the factual situation in
Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, the provinces in which
this problem is most pronounced. The consensus of opinion was
that the focus of the federal government at this time should be on
education in partnership with the provinces and community
groups. That is where we are going to solve this problem and
lessen its incidence, not in further amendments to the Criminal
Code. That is the conclusion to which I came.
(1455)
[Translation]
Mrs. Pierrette Venne (Saint-Hubert): Mr. Speaker, would
the minister have us believe that these opinions and studies and
those of his advisers will be more effective than formal
legislation making excision illegal?
[English]
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, female genital mutilation is
already a criminal misdeed in this country. It is plainly contrary
to at least three sections of the Criminal Code.
Yesterday I furnished the hon. member with a copy of the
document that I tabled with the House setting forth the analysis
upon which I rely for those conclusions.
In my respectful view, it is not going to help dealing with this
difficult and tragic problem for us to refine further a code that
already prohibits the misconduct. Our focus must be on ensuring
that the people who arrive as immigrants and the people who are
in Canada already are aware that it is against the law and that the
provincial authorities work with us in enforcing those laws
sternly and efficiently. I believe that is the way to come to grips
with this problem and that is the conclusion which I expressed in
the document that I tabled.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, my
question is also for the justice minister. Perhaps that is reflective
of the growing fears of Canadians of the incidence of home
invasions, drive-by shootings and other random acts of violence
in this country.
I would ask the minister what specifically he intends to do to
curb this urban terrorism and protect the safety of law-abiding
citizens.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): Mr. Speaker, may I first take this
opportunity to say that I do not share the alarmist sense that the
hon. member communicates in her question.
Of course I am appalled, as all Canadians are, with the
savagery and the senselessness of the crimes to which she has
referred. Clearly we cannot tolerate such violent crime in this
country.
At the same time I urge the hon. member and Canadians to
keep this issue in context. This country has a justice system
which works. The statistics demonstrate that in terms of violent
crime and crime in general in Canada we are still a civilized
society.
I will conclude by saying that we should not be stampeded by
these single events by jumping into what seem to be simple
solutions. At the same time, we have to take them for what they
are, symptoms that further actions require. By changes to the
Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act and by focusing on
crime-
The Speaker: The hon. member for Calgary North.
Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary North): Mr. Speaker, I
sincerely respect this minister, but I would say that voicing the
concerns of my constituents and other Canadians should not be
labelled by the minister as alarmist.
In fact, I would suggest to the minister that his continued
answers to the effect that, yes, there is a clear problem that we
are deeply concerned about but let us stay cool is not an answer
at all to Canadians.
I would ask when the minister is going to table the changes to
the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act that Canadians
have been demanding and expecting. They want to know a
timeframe.
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Justice and Attorney
General of Canada): I will be brief, Mr. Speaker.
When I said that I did not want the hon. member to be an
alarmist, I respect the concern. I am just saying that we should
keep it in context and that basically we have a safe and civilized
society.
In terms of timeframe, I have already said that I propose to
bring to this House before the end of June specific proposals to
2936
change the Young Offenders Act and, at the same time, to turn it
over to the parliamentary committee for its detailed review.
I have said as well that we are going to have legislation before
the House before the end of June on other changes to the
Criminal Code, including with respect to sentencing. We
propose to fulfil that undertaking.
The Speaker: I thank the minister for being brief.
* * *
(1500 )
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In March 1995 Thunder Bay will host the World Nordic
Games. Our community, through the great work of all the
volunteers, has worked very hard for the last four years to make
sure that this event is an international success. The city and the
province have also committed over $8 million, but
unfortunately the federal government has failed to even come
close to this amount, in fact less than a quarter.
Since the games are less than a year away, I ask the minister
how much he is going to commit financially today to the Nordic
Games, when will he make that commitment, and when will he
announce what services will be provided so that the people who
are involved in this process can get on with their job of making it
a success?
Hon. Michel Dupuy (Minister of Canadian Heritage): Mr.
Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his short question.
I share his concern that the Nordic Games be a great success
because I think it will bring a lot of tourism and business to
North Bay.
The federal government has committed $2 million and is
honouring its commitment. It is looking into the possibility of
providing services to make sure that the games are a success. We
are in close consultation with the minister concerned in Ontario
and with the mayor of Thunder Bay. I am confident that putting
our efforts together will ensure great games at Thunder Bay.
* * *
The Speaker: Order. I wish to draw to your attention the
presence in the gallery of Mr. Olexander Stoyan, member of the
new Parliament of the Ukraine.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to make a little correction to an answer I gave earlier
on the number of people who are bilingual in Canada, when I
referred to the francophone and anglophone population. What I
should have said was that in 1971, 3 per cent outside of Quebec
were fluent in the two official languages, and now because of
our policy of bilingualism in Canada it has almost quadrupled at
11 per cent.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi (Thunder Bay-Nipigon): On a point of
order, Mr. Speaker. I remind the Minister of Canadian Heritage
that if he is going to North Bay to look for the World Nordic
Games he won't find them.
* * *
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grâce): Mr.
Speaker, I want to raise a point of privilege with respect to a
statement made by the hon. member for Crowfoot in the House
on March 25, the last sitting day before the Easter recess. This is
the first opportunity I have had to raise the matter.
In a question to the Minister of Justice the hon. member stated
that I had said: ``that convicted murderers like Clifford Olson
should not have to serve more than 15 years for their crimes.''
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it absolutely clear that I never
made such a statement. The statement by the member is
absolutely false and I would ask him to apologize and withdraw
his statement.
The Speaker: Order. The hon. member surely has a point of
debate. I am sure there are other avenues that he can pursue at
this time, but he does not have a point of privilege.
_____________________________________________
2936
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
(1505)
[Translation]
The House resumed consideration of report stage of Bill
C-18.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères): Mr. Speaker, I also
have the pleasure-
2937
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I wonder if
members would come to order so that we might be able to
resume debate.
[Translation]
Mr. Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, it seems that the question period
was very lively. The debate is still heated.
So, I also have the pleasure to speak to Bill C-18, the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994.
Of course, as you were able to see from the various statements
made since this morning, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the
bill. Since the beginning of the electoral boundaries
readjustment process, the Bloc Quebecois members, in keeping
with the Elections Act, have decided to get involved in that
process so as to defend the interests of their constituents, of their
fellow citizens.
This morning, you heard our colleague, the member for
Shefford, say that he has always resided in the riding of Shefford
and that with the new provisions or new proposals introduced by
the Chief Electoral Officer, he would become a resident of the
riding of Chambly. So, it would be somewhat unusual for an
individual who has always resided in one particular riding to
represent a riding in which he has never resided, simply because
of changes made to electoral boundaries.
That is why we support the principle of this bill, which is to
temporarily suspend the electoral boundaries readjustment
process. Of course, we also support the principle of an equal
vote for all citizens. But that principle, when applied too
restrictively and too mechanically, can produce unfortunate
distortions, and I will have the opportunity to get back to that
later.
The readjustment of electoral boundaries at fixed intervals
prevents the development, the building of a sense of belonging
to one's riding. The example that I mentioned earlier concerning
my colleague from Shefford is certainly one of the best we can
give. He explained it to you very well a while ago. He has been a
resident of the riding of Shefford for many years. He now
represents this riding in the House of Commons and by virtue of
the amendments proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer, he
would become a resident of the riding of Chambly but would
remain the member for Shefford. Therefore, I believe there are
anomalies that must be avoided.
(1510)
This case of my colleague from Shefford shows that people
who live in the fringe areas of their electoral district and then
switch periodically from one district to another on account of
readjustments of the electoral map find it very difficult to
develop a sense of belonging and to identify with their riding
because of all this moving around.
As far as demographic criteria are concerned-as I said
earlier-we fully support the principle of a equal vote for each
citizen of Canada and of Quebec. We do support the principle
that each citizen must be represented by a member of Parliament
and that this representation is as important as that of any other
citizen throughout this country. However, the demographic
criterion used for the readjustment of the electoral boundaries
too often masks other criteria which should be as important,
such as social, economic cultural factors which, I think, should
also be taken into consideration in the readjustment of the
boundaries of this constituency.
As I emphasized earlier, this sense of belonging, the
possibility of identifying with our riding, with the people of our
riding are surely as valid as the strictly mathematical
calculations mainly used for the readjustment of the electoral
boundaries. These calculations inhibit the creation of a type of
interaction specific to a riding, to a community. It is a fact that
has been recognized, not so long ago, only a few months ago, by
the National Assembly which amended its elections act to
prevent further readjustment of the electoral boundaries for the
next ten years.
It is thus assumed that there will not be any readjustment of
the electoral boundaries in Quebec for ten years, which means
that for ten years, the residents of a district will be able to feel
part of their community and to identify with their MNA.
Electoral boundaries are not readjusted at each election as was
the case before under the Quebec elections act.
I think that we are now considering the spirit behind Bill
C-18. We support the bill, for the reasons I have just stated. In
fact, we are not afraid to say that. I will come back to that a bit
later. If we have to consider amendments, we will perhaps have
to think of redrawing the electoral boundaries on the
demographic basis that I talked about earlier. However, as my
colleague for Richelieu mentioned earlier this morning, we have
to contemplate a more thorough reform of the parliamentary
institutions and, in doing so-we know we cannot use certain
terms-reassess the role of the other Chamber, the Upper House.
My colleague from Richmond-Wolfe, who is with us this
afternoon, and my colleague from Richelieu talked about that
issue regularly, and I think that it is quite justified. My colleague
from Richelieu said that there are in fact, in the Upper House, a
number of people with quite valuable and useful expertise, but
those people often end up in that Chamber for reasons that are
not too valid. People often get appointed to the Senate strictly on
a partisan basis.
2938
(1515)
Therefore, their legitimacy is very questionable. The
suggestion of my colleague from Richelieu was that those
people who are qualified, who have plenty of skills should be
able to use their skills in this House where people are
democratically elected and where their legitimacy cannot be
questioned. It was suggested that we should eventually revise
and reform our parliamentary institutions and abolish that
timeworn and rusty institution that supports friends of the party,
friends of the government who periodically, depending on which
party sits on the other side of this House, cause changes in the
majorities in the other place. Then we could eventually consider
such a reform.
Speaking of reform, I am wondering about the participation of
our colleagues in the Reform Party in this debate. We are
presently discussing a motion brought by them, but for some
time now I have seen only members of the Bloc Quebecois
taking the floor. I believe therefore we should question the
seriousness of our colleagues who bring in a motion and leave it
to members of the Bloc Quebecois to speak on that motion.
I therefore invite my colleagues in the Reform Party to be
consistent and to rise on their own motion. We should not be
surprised by the silence of our Liberal friends, although it is
absolutely deplorable for the electors of the various ridings
represented by Liberal members to see those members being so
absent and silent during a debate of such significance for the
future of their constituents. The interests of the constituents of
those ridings represented by those Liberal members are at stake.
That being said, I will now leave the floor, at least I hope, to a
member of the Reform Party.
Mr. Maurice Dumas (Argenteuil-Papineau): Mr. Speaker,
all my colleagues have already invited you to visit their riding. I
do not have to do the same, since you probably have been to
Mirabel Airport a few times to catch a plane. You were then in
the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau.
With the last electoral reform, the population of
Argenteuil-Papineau would rise from 72,000 to 98,000.
Should I rejoice in this increase, or deplore the changes in the
electoral map?
Before making my case, I would like to talk about some of the
anomalies or aberrations created by the reorganization of
electoral maps or any other boundary change requiring
expropriations. I would like to relate a rather bizarre event
which took place when part of Sainte-Scholastique was
expropriated to make room for Mirabel Airport.
I do not know who determined what lands were to be
expropriated, but an astounding event occurred in the village
where I live, Saint-Canut. A line was drawn through the middle
of a house, through the middle of a property. Really, it did
happen. The house was later demolished but, at the time, people
wondered why certains parts of the village were being
expropriated and others not.
(1520)
This reminds me of different electoral map anomalies. My
colleague from Laurentides represents the neighbouring riding,
where two municipalities are included in totally inappropriate
territories. For example, the village of Sainte-Sophie is
adjacent to the riding of Laurentides. Children go to school in
Saint-Jérôme which is in the riding of Laurentides.
Sainte-Sophie is socially part of the riding of Laurentides, but
on the electoral map, it is part of the riding of my colleague from
Joliette.
Moreover, that same riding of Laurentides includes the
municipality of Chertsey, which is much closer to the riding of
Joliette. In view of this fact, how, I wonder, do senior officials,
cartographers, geographers, all those people who draw
boundaries, manage to get such results?
Personally, I cannot complain about the electoral reform since
the areas which would be added to my riding, namely the city of
Saint-Jovite, the village of Lac-Carré, as well as La Minerve,
La Conception, Labelle, Lac-Supérieur and Mont-Tremblant,
are all part of a strong sovereignist riding which, for decades
now, has been represented by the Parti Quebecois in Quebec's
national assembly. So, as a sovereignist and partisan of a
sovereign Quebec, I should be pleased with an addition to my
riding which I am likely to benefit from.
However, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that in the best case
scenario, I will not be campaigning in the next federal election,
for the simple reason that important events will have taken place
in Quebec. Indeed, the Parti Quebecois will surely be elected in
the coming year. A referendum will be held the following year
and, at that time, Quebec will become a country and a sovereign
nation. Consequently, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois
and I will no longer be in the picture during the next federal
election. However, the fact remains that, as members currently
representing Quebec, we have to play the role which we assumed
and we must defend Quebeckers' interests, and this is precisely
what we are doing today.
Two municipalities would be added; I just mentioned
Saint-Jovite. Earlier, my colleague from Laurentides deplored
the fact that Saint-Jovite and the surrounding municipalities
which I just named would become part of the riding of
Argenteuil-Papineau. I have no complaint about that, but I
think that these municipalities have nothing in common with
Argenteuil-Papineau, since they are located in the south-north
axis from Saint-Jérôme to Mont-Laurier. Moreover, these
communities all have an identical profile, they belong to similar
regions
2939
which they must continue to be part of, and I believe that
Saint-Jovite should remain part of the riding of Laurentides.
Thurso is also being added to my riding. This municipality is
of course located on the way to Ottawa, and its mayor,
councillors and citizens have openly voiced their opposition to
their community becoming part of Argenteuil-Papineau. I can
understand that, since this municipality is much closer to the
Outaouais region than to the regions of Lachute, Mirabel or even
Oka, which are also part of Argenteuil-Papineau.
(1525)
Consequently, I have little choice but to oppose the
amendment proposed by the Reform Party.
Mr. René Canuel (Matapédia-Matane): Mr. Speaker, I
listened very carefully to the excellent speeches made by my
colleagues and I will not repeat what they just said. I simply
want to know how some decisions that make absolutely no sense
are arrived at.
What are the reasons for making a riding in eastern Quebec
disappear? And I am talking about my riding,
Matapédia-Matane. Geographically, it is one of the most
beautiful ridings, and the people who live there and whom I have
the pleasure of serving are truly attached to their RCM and to
their parish. I have travelled throughout the riding and people
are very disappointed. Is this decision based simply on a
demographic ratio? Are numbers the only important factor?
Apparently, yes, Mr. Speaker.
For a region like mine, a rural MP is terribly important. I do
not mean to say that MPs from urban areas are not important, but
I would say that maybe rural MPs are particularly important
because of the distances involved. The various parishes are
approximately ten miles apart. It takes hours, if not days, just to
go around my riding.
In our part of the country, the MP plays an essential role. Just
spend one day in my office in Matane, Amqui or Mont-Joli and
you will know what is asked of an MP there. It is incredible.
After going everywhere else, people end up inevitably in their
MP's office because they trust him. He has a say in the important
decisions on regional development.
Regions experiencing growth face different problems than
regions which are in decline. Unfortunately, our region is in
decline. Is the importance of rural people being neglected in the
distribution of electoral districts? I think so. Rural people are
not considered important and I would even say that they are
treated as second-class citizens. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but
there is no such thing as a second-class citizen. Every person
has the right to live where he or she wants to, to feel a sense of
belonging to the place where he or she lives, and that sense of
belonging must be respected. Unfortunately, this was not to be
the case in my riding.
In our view, the commission's proposal will only further
impede recovery in an area that is already considered to be
among the poorest. It will mean the loss of a much-needed voice
in Parliament for eastern Quebec. It would make it harder for a
member of Parliament to defend the interests of an ever-larger
riding.
(1530)
This proposal would not allow cultural, political and
socio-economic forces to do all they could to bring about the
economic recovery everyone wants, especially in our
underdeveloped regions. This goes beyond simple statistical
calculations and the straightforward application of a
demographic formula.
I am very happy that the subject has been raised in the House
because when I toured my riding, I noticed that there was
widespread dissatisfaction. People were asking: Will we feel
like voting in a federal election if the federal government shows
no respect for our community, our living environment?
In Quebec, regional county municipalities are becoming more
and more important and I think that it is a good thing. The
boundaries of a federal riding are also very important. People
are wondering whether they will go to vote if they change
ridings.
As I said earlier, there are now five ridings in eastern Quebec:
Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Gaspé,
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, Matapédia-Matane and
Rimouski-Témiscouata. The ridings of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup and Rimouski-Témiscouata
have a population of about 73,000. The riding of Gaspé is the
largest with an area of 12,268 square kilometres. My riding,
Matapédia-Matane, is close behind with an area of 10,959
square kilometres, and the riding of
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, is the smallest with 5,476
square kilometres. As for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine,
it is the least populated, with 52,000 inhabitants. Is the number
of inhabitants the only criterion? I say no. There are other
criteria.
As for the number of municipalities in each riding,
Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has the most, 49. In
Matapédia-Matane, there are 46. The riding of Gaspé has the
fewest, 30.
In the proposals made by the commission, the number of
ridings in the East would decrease from five to four. The riding
of Matapédia-Matane would no longer exist. The riding of
Gaspé would see its population increase from 62,000 to 80,000
with the reform. The riding of Gaspé-Matane would cover a
gigantic area of 17,783 square kilometers.
If you tried to cover that distance in Toronto or Montreal, you
would soon be all over the city.
2940
The riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will also
be significantly enlarged to 11,375 square kilometers from
8,155 square kilometers.
The Bloc Quebecois cannot accept eliminating a riding in the
East. If we lose a riding, we will lose political influence in the
House of Commons, and so will our region. However, I share my
colleague's view that hopefully in four years we will not have to
ask ourselves these questions.
As a rural region, eastern Quebec would once more be
marginalized by this redrawing of the electoral map. The rural
community is in crisis. It is particularly the people from those
small parishes who come to see their member of Parliament
more often.
(1535)
At a time when many organizations and stakeholders want to
decentralize government services and bring elected
representatives closer to the people, reducing the number of
ridings would go against the wishes of the people.
We deplore that, again, taxpayers will have to bear the cost of
this reform.
The riding of Gaspé-Matane would include communities
like Amqui, Cap-Chat, Gaspé and Matane. So try to imagine the
distance the member will have to travel to meet his constituents,
and vice versa.
Earlier, a member said that VIA Rail did not exist anymore in
our region. Buses are a rare sight. Our roads are in bad shape.
What is left for these people to travel? They have nothing, and
the government now wants to increase the size of their riding.
That is absolutely senseless, and that is why I share my
colleagues' view.
[English]
Mrs. Dianne Brushett (Cumberland-Colchester): Mr.
Speaker, I have a comment for the hon. member for
Matapédia-Matane. I grew up in rural New Brunswick-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Order, please. I do not
mean to interrupt the member, but I just want to be sure we all
understand that there is no comment or question period as such.
However the member can certainly use up to 10 minutes to make
an intervention on this particular piece of legislation.
Mrs. Brushett: Mr. Speaker, the intervention is to share the
sentiments of the hon. member for Matapédia-Matane and his
values for the rural communities of Gaspé. Rural New
Brunswick and rural Nova Scotia have the same values, needs
and long distances between small communities. We too know
that representation must come from each geographic region and
not necessarily from statistics.
It is important to bring forward ideas. Somehow the hon.
member is presenting ideals that we all share and want, yet at the
same time he feels they will not be here for the next election.
That is entirely contradictory in spirit and thought.
[Translation]
Mr. Osvaldo Nunez (Bourassa): Mr. Speaker, I wish to
express my support for Bill C-18 which suspends the process of
redrawing federal electoral boundaries.
My riding of Bourassa takes in the entire city of Montreal
North. Currently, I represent the 85,516 residents of this
municipality. Under the proposed readjustment, the riding's
population would increase to 94,214, whereas the average
population of federal ridings is 91,500.
If the proposed reforms are carried out, my riding will extend
beyond the limits of Montreal North. This municipality is
steeped in history. It has its own well-established traditions and
a very strong identity. For over 75 years, it has been home to a
vibrant community, organized with people, not just
administration, in mind.
(1540)
In our opinion, the new administrative distribution is totally
arbitrary. Montreal North has its own community, economic,
social and cultural agencies. There are many community
agencies in Montreal North that are doing an amazing job.
Montreal North has over 3,000 volunteers. My riding, like the
rest of the province, was hard hit by the economic crisis from
which we are just now emerging. Fortunately, we can count on
community agencies that are doing incredible work.
One local community social service centre in Montreal North
recently celebrated its 20th anniversary. A few days ago, a
benefit dinner and gala were organized by the CLSC foundation
of Montréal-Nord. All local officials were in attendance,
including yours truly in his capacity of federal MP. I want to take
this opportunity to praise the remarkable work of the director
general of the centre who has been there since day one. I also
want to assure the centre that it can count on my complete
co-operation.
The residents of Montreal North also have close ties to the
mayor of their city who has held this post for over thirty years.
He recently celebrated three decades in office and I was on hand
for the festivities. He enjoys the public's support. Unlike me, he
is not a sovereigntist or a member of the Bloc Quebecois.
However, I would add that-
An hon. member: Just give him time.
Mr. Nunez: That will come. I wish to point out his
contribution to the economic, social and cultural life of
Montreal North. Montreal North also has a recently formed
economic and community development corporation that is
doing a great job for the people of Montreal North, especially
with boards on economic issues that bring together
representatives of the people.
2941
The citizens of Montreal North want a federal riding that they
can really identify with. In fact, I have consulted the residents of
Montreal North about changing the name of my riding.
My riding is named Bourassa, after an outstanding man, a
former director of Le Devoir, a great intellectual. But we have a
problem because there is a provincial riding with the same
name, Bourassa, and there is always confusion. My constituents
want the riding to be called Montreal North, so it is more closely
identified with our city, just as ridings in other Canadian cities
are called Calgary West, Calgary East, Edmonton North,
Edmonton South and Québec-Est; they take their name from the
city where the riding is located. That is not the case in Montreal
North and I am often asked where Bourassa is. Sometimes it is
also confused with the former Premier of Quebec, Robert
Bourassa.
(1545)
We want to keep our riding as it is now. For all these reasons, I
oppose the amendments moved by the Reform Party and I
support the bill. Rather than proceed with arbitrary
administrative revisions, I think that we should instead look at
the basic criteria for forming federal constituencies. Once
again, Mr. Speaker, I would vote for this bill.
Mr. Jean Landry (Lotbinière): Mr. Speaker, it is with
pleasure that I rise today to speak on Bill C-18, concerning the
revision of the electoral map. I must tell you that, when I heard
that the Liberal Party had decided to introduce this bill, there
was no doubt in my mind that they could count on my support.
The first thing I wondered about was those people who had
decided to draw lines any old way, in their offices, without
knowing what they were doing. When they got to my riding of
Lotbinière, a beautiful riding along the St. Lawrence River up to
the Pierre Laporte Bridge, in Quebec City, or just about, let me
tell you that what they had in mind, what they wanted to do to my
riding was complete nonsense. It made no sense in practical,
professional, political, social or cultural terms.
I can tell you this: many of my constituents called to ask me:
``Mr. Landry, what is going to happen to Lotbinière? Will you,
as a Bloc Quebecois member from Quebec, come to our defence
or settle for come what may?'' At that time, to reassure my
constituents, I told them in a conference and the newspapers:
``Look, I am a Quebecer. I am in Ottawa and I intend to stand up
for the riding of Lotbinière at the federal level, as well as the
interests of Quebec and Canada. That is my duty, and as long as I
will be sitting in the federal Parliament, this will remain my
vision of the riding of Lotbinière at the federal level.''
But there is more to it. From then on, I looked at the basic
criteria used by the commission. I was told: ``Look, we have to
standardize all this as much as possible to make ridings match
the RCMs.'' I was told that the population pool also had to be
taken into consideration. I must say that, in my riding of
Lotbinière, we met all the requirements. We had the required
population and regional county municipalities. What the revisal
office was planning to do was basically to tear apart this most
beautiful riding of mine because there is only one major town in
my riding, namely Victoriaville-Arthabaska.
Let me tell you what was going to happen to
Victoriaville-Arthabaska. In their office here in Ottawa,
officials decided to draw a line right across here and chop off
Victoriaville-Arthabaska, the biggest town of the riding, and
tack it onto the riding of Richmond-Wolfe. Which meant I
would find myself with no large town in the riding of Lotbinière.
That is nonsense. I must also tell you this because it is very
important. Not only were they taking away a town, but there
were ties involved, the ties between the people of that town and
the rest of the population of the riding.
Victoriaville-Arthabaska is the queen city of the area which
includes Princeville, Daveluyville and Warwick, and it was
shunted off towards Sherbrooke, to be attached to
Richmond-Wolfe.
(1550)
Such a drawing of electoral boundaries leaves me speechless.
To me, and to the whole riding of Lotbinière, it did not make
sense.
If such electoral boundaries had been implemented, the riding
of Lotbinière would have been wiped off the federal electoral
map in a few years.
If that was the intent, it was a mistake. I am glad to see that our
colleagues from the other side adopted the same position as we
did because it is sad to see so much money being wasted. Some
would say that money is not the only thing, but we are going
through difficult times and we need money.
Instead of going ahead with the new boundaries suggested, I
would rather see the money used to create jobs and train
workers. Then, I would find that we put the money to good use.
We must not forget that we are talking about not a few hundred
thousand dollars, but millions. And you know that millions can
go a long way.
Of course I do not accept the Reform Party's amendment at
all. I am glad that we took a position that will soon be adopted,
confirming the present boundaries of the riding of Lotbinière. In
four years from now, if the Bloc Quebecois is not here any more,
I will at least be able to say with pride that as the member for the
federal riding of Lotbinière, I took a stand when I had to. That is
what is the most important for me and my constituents. In four
years from now, we will see whether we have to change our
position.
In my riding, social and cultural life is centred on
Victoriaville and Arthabaska. It is all there.
2942
I am glad that there has been a change in direction because I
felt we were heading the wrong way. My constituents are quite
pleased also because I told them last week that we would
probably not have to appear before the commission. I certainly
hope this bill will be passed soon and that all consultations will
be called off.
Mr. Speaker, when my colleagues across the way or my
colleagues on this side come up with good ideas on electoral
boundaries readjustment, I can look at them with an open mind. I
like to be able to stand back to get a better understanding before
I make a decision with this team.
I like this House and, for the time being, I am here to defend
the interests of both Quebec and Canada. At this very moment, I
do not talk as a separatist as such. I am here to look out for the
interests of Quebec and Canada, and my position on the electoral
boundaries readjustment is quite clear.
Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon.
member for Verdun-Saint-Paul for his applause at the start of
my remarks, but it might be wiser to wait and see what I have to
say.
I think what my colleague meant is that, for the time being, he
takes to heart the interests of both Canada and Quebec. That is
my interpretation.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill
C-18 and more particularly on the amendment moved by the
Reform Party. I have to say I do not agree with the amendment,
because it does not give us enough time to examine fully the
impact of those boundary readjustments.
(1555)
I remember that in 1985-86 we went through the same
exercise. We had to redefine a riding on Montreal's south shore,
a process which took quite a bit of time because it was suggested
then to cut out from Longueuil the area which was expanding.
Indeed, a proposal had been made to remove from my riding the
whole industrial zone where lots were available for
development purposes. I was going to find myself trying to
promote the economy of my region with almost no opportunities
left to do so. Primarily for that reason, I asked the mayor of
Longueuil for his opinion on this issue, and I also consulted with
representatives of the Liberal Party, who were opponents but
also colleagues, and we agreed that it would not be a good idea to
divide Longueuil in that fashion.
Consequently, we had to redefine five or six ridings. The
decision not to reduce the number of constituents in the eastern
part of the riding but rather to the south meant that we had to
redraw the ridings of Saint-Hubert, La Prairie, Saint-Jean,
Chambly and Verchères. You can imagine how long this exercise
took. This is why I support the bill proposed by the Chief
Electoral Officer in the document on new electoral boundaries.
There is another reason why I believe more time is needed,
particularly in the case of Longueuil and the vast region on
Montreal's south shore. The Montérégie is the region which has
been experiencing the strongest growth in Quebec over the last
fifteen years. It is in that region that the largest number of jobs
were created. I believe it is also where the population has
increased the most. In fact, it is for these reasons that a new
riding is proposed on Montreal's south shore, as well as on the
north shore, in Laval.
I should point out too that many studies are currently
underway, including the Pichette report, commissioned by the
Quebec government, which also proposes the creation of new
regions on the south shore. The south shore would no longer be
managed by the Société montérégienne de développement or
SMD, but would be divided into two sub-regions which would
be managed by the greater Montreal area. We would have
Montreal, two regions on the south shore, Laval, the West
Island, as well as the east end of Montreal which could form a
large community for the purposes of economic development.
Obviously, this will result in major changes on Montreal's south
shore.
As I just mentioned, the south shore is currently managed by
the Montérégie. I personally sit on the Partners for Employment
committee-along with members of Quebec's national
assembly, mayors, reeves, representatives from regional county
municipalities, as well as senior federal civil servants-and I
realize that the Montérégie region is not necessarily easy to
manage. There are many interests which are not common.
(1600)
The people in Granby, Bromont and Saint-Jean do not have a
lot in common with the residents of Longueuil, Boucherville and
Saint-Lambert. That is why we have undertaken an in-depth
review of how to better manage the Greater South Shore of
Montreal in order to be more efficient at all levels, whether it be
economic development, social affairs, cultural affairs, or
tourism. So, we are currently conducting this in-depth review to
make sure our region can prosper in the areas I just mentioned.
So, the fact that we have two years and commissions to help us
examine in detail how we can divide the ridings on the South
Shore is very useful, and I think we really need all of these
things.
Of course, for the last fifteen years, I have been very involved
on the South Shore of Montreal. I do not need to be reminded,
but I feel I must point out that, in 1983-84, during my term as
chairman of the Chamber of Commerce of the Greater South
Shore of Montreal, we addressed this issue. As you can see, it is
a lengthy process.
2943
In those days, we talked a lot about decentralization and
accountability. If we want to get to know each other better, we
need to feel a sense of belonging to be able to take charge of our
lives and meet our responsibilities.
I for one have always believed that decentralization and
accountability will help us pull through and take charge.
Unfortunately, the Liberal government tends to centralize
everything and to manage from the top, which I think hinders
progress, and I cannot agree with them on this. We absolutely
need to ensure that the people at the grass root level, those who
know their needs, who know what they have, who know their
resources and their market, can take charge.
How can we go about it? By giving this responsibility to
smaller areas. And it is in this spirit that I have been working
with the Partners for Employment committee on the South Shore
for a long time now.
Here is another suggestion. If we want to make people aware
of their responsibilities, we will also have to ensure that
municipalities have the resources they need to prosper and to
help businesses to prosper.
Again, who is closer to small and medium-sized businesses
and thus better able to help them create jobs? People who know
well the needs of these small and medium-sized businesses
must be the ones to give them the support they need to prosper
and create jobs.
That does not seem to be important to the Reform Party. On
the contrary, it appears to me that a sense of belonging to a
region must absolutely be achieved if we want to create more
jobs and work together to improve everybody's lot. It is in that
spirit that we, in Quebec, have been working for a long time to
delimit regions that are so homogeneous that people living in
them can recognize and understand each other, grow and prosper
together.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against this amendment by the
Reform Party and I hope that it will be defeated-and I think it
will, since the government is against it-so that we can all
prosper, create jobs and do better.
(1605)
Mr. Réginald Bélair (Cochrane-Superior): Mr. Speaker, I
am pleased to rise in the House today to participate in this debate
for several reasons. I will start by pointing out how
recommendations were made regarding the readjustment of
electoral boundaries. The act is rather obsolete as it goes back to
1964. It is obvious that conditions have changed in 30 years. But
what irritated me the most in all this is how the Ontario electoral
commission proceeded to propose new boundaries.
This commission proposed that each riding should have at
least 80,000 residents without taking into account regional
affinities or distances to be covered so that every member can
serve his constituents properly. I could give you a few examples
of regional affinities.
First of all, my immediate region, that is the eastern part of
the riding, was divided in two. A region that, since its
foundation, has always shared the same economy, the same
culture, the same social programs. It is more than a habit, it has
become a tradition for this region to stay together. But it has
been divided in two. The western part of the region was twinned
with Algoma, which extends as far south as Lake Ontario. The
name James Bay was added to Algoma, as the riding would now
be shaped like a snake going around the region of Timmins to go
east and then north to the western shore of James Bay. It makes
absolutely no sense.
The second part was twinned with the city of Timmins, which
would become Timmins-Cochrane. After consulting with
people and with business, municipal and other leaders, it
became obvious that it would be totally inappropriate to twin a
small, rural part of a riding with a large city for the simple
reason that the constituents, the voters of the large city would
prevail over those of the small, rural region because of their
numbers. And God knows that numbers in this country speak
loud and clear. So much for the eastern part of my riding.
In the western part of my riding, the situation is somewhat
similar. The western part of my riding was twinned with the
existing riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon. Again, municipal
leaders and chamber of commerce directors told me they wanted
to stay rural so that their identity would not be diluted, would
not be lost within the big city of Thunder Bay that boasts some
100,000 residents.
What I am telling you, Mr. Speaker, is that the electoral
commission's proposal was, in my opinion, outright
provocation. A provocation that ignored regional affinities and
distances to be covered in the vast region of northern Ontario. It
is an immense region! There is a limit to taxing the energy of a
member. I know what I am talking about because my riding is
the fifth largest in Canada and, naturally, the largest in Ontario.
This bill was born as a result of the representations made by
all parties in this House.
(1610)
The proposed legislation will be used to correct the glaring
errors and outdated provisions and will give birth, if you want,
to a new act which will define the terms of reference of electoral
commissions throughout Canada.
I personally look forward to this new legislation, not really
because my riding was going to disappear, but because two
ridings in northern Ontario were supposed to disappear. Of
course, once again, southern Ontario stands to inherit, or shall I
say gain these ridings. With the four ridings already proposed by
2944
the commission, that would have meant six more ridings for
southern Ontario.
Again, Mr. Speaker, I am telling you that we would have
fought like crazy to at least keep the 12 ridings we currently
have in northern Ontario, and I would like to make a digression,
if I may. Native people are slowly but surely heading towards
self-government. And 13,000 Native people live in my riding
and 30,000 more live in the neighbouring riding of
Kenora-Rainy River, represented here by my colleague,
Robert Nault. I have always believed, and my colleague will
agree, that it is about time we create a new riding which would
be 98 per cent native and where the main goal would be to elect
an Indian or a native member to represent these constituents in
the House of Commons.
If you link all of this to the fact that we were about to lose two
ridings, you will understand that it was out of the question. If we
were to think positive, we would in fact consider adding a
thirteenth riding.
One final word, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious that our party will
vote overwhelmingly in favour of Bill C-18 and we hope, as I
mentioned earlier, that the next bill which will define the terms
of reference of the commissions will be a little more reasonable
and sensible than the current legislation.
Mr. Paul Mercier (Blainville-Deux-Montagnes): Mr.
Speaker, I am glad that the bill before the House gives me an
opportunity to introduce my constituency to the House at last.
Most people know where my constituency, that is
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes, is located. It extends from the
Mille-Îles River, in the south, up to but excluding Mirabel, in
the north, and many of us have gone through it to reach Mirabel
Airport or to spend a relaxing weekend in the Laurentians.
People who travel through the riding would be well advised to
stop once in a while to enjoy its special attractions.
As for electoral redistribution, the problem in my
constituency does not come from big distances as it does in the
constituency of my colleague who spoke before me and who told
us about its huge territory. On the contrary, mine is mainly a
very densely populated urban constituency, and I can easily get
around the riding by bike, as I often do. Small distances have
their advantages.
Our problem does not stem from big distances but from the
rapid population increase, so much so that an electoral
redistribution based on the current population would probably
be outdated at the time of the next election.
This rapid population growth in my constituency is due to
several factors which I will now enumerate.
(1615)
First of all, there is residential development which is growing
extremely fast. Many people from Montreal and Laval choose to
come and live with us because of the advantages of this
semi-rural and urban riding, where we are both close to leisure
activities and occupations in Montreal and leisure activities in
the Laurentians. Because of these advantages, the population is
growing very rapidly. Cities such as Lorraine and Rosemère
have mostly very high-standard houses. Other cities in the
riding have a wide variety of dwellings that attract people. Thus,
a city such as the one that I know best since I was its mayor for a
long period of time needs a new primary school every year to
deal with this population growth. So, we do not know what the
distribution figures for the new population will be in three or
four years. The fact is that a division that would be decided
today would be outdated by that time.
Apart from that very rapid residential development
advantage, there is also the fact that our riding is the location of
several industries, from a giant company such as GM, in
Boisbriand, to many small and medium-sized businesses
created by the strong dynamism of the people, and
medium-sized industries such as Stablex, Novabus or
Hyprescon.
Nevertheless, we must not forget that part of the riding is
covered by provincial Bill 90 which protects agricultural land
and that agriculture in the riding is on a very high level,
especially market gardening, since we are close to Montreal,
which means that the riding's economy is expanding despite the
recession and will continue to expand, which in turn makes it
attractive to investors.
In the riding, we have autoroute 13 and autoroute 15 running
north-south and autoroute 640 running east-west. The riding is
very conveniently located in terms of its distance from Dorval
Airport and Mirabel Airport. It is also 20 kilometres from the
Port of Montreal, which means it has an ideal infrastructure. It
has a number of very modern, well-situated industrial parks set
up very recently, especially Boisbriand and Blainville which are
along one of the major highways, and we are very proud of our
labour force whose skills are very attractive to investors.
We have a number of educational institutions of very high
calibre, including the Institut d'ordinique which is
well-positioned to help develop high-tech industries, and also
Lionel Groulx CEGEP and other institutions, so that we are able
to provide a quality labour force.
Another aspect which may be interesting for people who go to
the Laurentians for recreational purposes is that we have a
number of recreational resources but are much closer to
Montreal. Of course, we still have a lot of green space. There is
still a lot of countryside in the riding. For instance, we have the
``Domaine vert'', a protected area where no construction is
2945
allowed, a huge expanse that has equestrian trails, bicycle paths,
hiking trails, and so forth.
We also have a large number of golf courses. Then, there is the
Blainville Equestrian Park where every year two international
events are held, as well as a very impressive fireworks display.
We also have an historic event which has become a tourist
attraction. There is a church in Saint-Eustache that still bears
the marks of shots fired at Quebec's patriots by the British.
Fortunately, those shots hit the stones of the church and we have
carefully preserved those stones to remember this extremely
important event.
(1620)
This being said, I will now conclude by saying that, since our
riding offers some advantages that stimulate its demographic
growth and since the makeup of its population changes
constantly, any decision made today regarding the distribution
of electoral districts would likely become obsolete tomorrow. In
a nutshell, this distribution would divide our riding into two
ridings that would include three cities that are not part of the
existing riding. On one side, we would have Sainte-Thérèse,
Boisbriand, Saint-Eustache, Deux-Montagnes and
Sainte-Marthe, for a total of 130,000 people, and on the other
side we would have Blainville, Rosemère and Lorraine, which
already belong to our riding, plus Bois-des-Filion,
Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines and Terrebonne, which would be
added to our riding to the detriment of neighbouring ridings.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I support this bill to postpone the
decision regarding the distribution of electoral districts.
Mr. Pierre de Savoye (Portneuf): Mr. Speaker, an electoral
map is much more than a matter of paper and lines. An electoral
map is not a sheet of paper where we find what we call ridings at
the federal level, or, more colloquially in Quebec, counties. An
electoral map is above all people that have some common
cultural traits, economic resources and infrastructure links.
When technocrats, in an office tower, pore over the map and
try to redistribute the population in fairly equal numbers among
the electoral districts, lines start to move. We are sometimes left
with the impression that the movement of these lines is based
exclusively on a mathematical formula aimed at roughly
balancing out the 295 electoral districts in Canada.
If this were really the way of doing it, a computer could no
doubt do it better and faster. Let us take, for example, the
existing electoral map for my riding of Portneuf. There we find,
in the eastern most part of the riding of Portneuf, a small portion
of Quebec City. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the riding of Portneuf there
are about 600 constituents who live in Quebec City. They live on
the other side of CFB Valcartier, which puts about two
kilometres between them and the rest of the riding. They are to
be found on both sides of Valcartier Boulevard, along a stretch
of about a kilometre and a half.
No matter how hard I try, Mr. Speaker, you will understand
that I have great difficulty, as a member of Parliament,
identifying with these constituents, since their problems are not
really related to those experienced by the rest of the riding of
Portneuf. So, no matter how hard I try, I must face the fact that
those people would be better served if they belonged to the
neighbouring riding, strictly on the basis of geography, of
belonging to one municipality rather than to another, of
commuting to one's work place, etc.
(1625)
Because of the proposal before us regarding the electoral
map, in the next election, if any, these people will now be part of
the neighbouring riding further east. But that is not the only
sacrilege, if I may use that term, that we can see in the electoral
map of the riding of Portneuf. At the other end, on the west side,
I have two municipalities that belong to the RCM of Mékinac.
These are people who deal particularly with municipalities in
the neighbouring riding of Champlain.
Here again, we see the problems with relations and services.
For instance, if these people have to deal with the Canada
Employment Centre, they will not go to the office in Portneuf,
but to the one from the neighbouring riding. And, of course, it is
still possible to communicate with that employment centre, but
that increases the paperwork. In fact, yours truly has to interact
with four employment centres. That is a lot a employment
centres, a lot of people to get to know, a lot of contacts to make
and to maintain. Ultimately, that creates a waste of time, a waste
of effectiveness, and citizens are not being served as well as they
could be otherwise.
In fact, just recently, at the beginning of the break preceding
Easter, I had the opportunity, with my colleague from the riding
of Champlain, to meet the council of the municipality of
Lac-aux-Sables. One night, two members of Parliament and a
municipal council met at Lac-aux-Sables to consider the
possibility of letting my colleague assume my responsibilities at
the employment centre and in other organizations in his riding
since, for reasons of distance, it would be easier for him than it
would be for me to assume those responsibilities for residents of
Lac-aux-Sables. My intention was not to give up on those
responsibilities but simply to rely on a colleague that I fully
trusted and who would be in a better position than I to carry out
those responsibilities from day to day.
We discussed the issue. I must stress that the meeting was held
at the request of the municipal council. After a long and useful
discussion, we came to the conclusion that it would actually be
much simpler for the constituents of my riding to be served by
the member of the neighbouring county because their belonging,
2946
their spirit, their culture, their ways, their communications were
closer to the neighbouring riding.
However, the new proposal regarding the electoral map that
we are discussing does not mention anything about that
municipality and perhaps the neighbouring municipality
becoming part of the neighbouring riding. I want to say, and I
might conclude on that, that when a review of the electoral map
takes place, it might not be a bad idea for those who are working
in office buildings to come and visit the various ridings, to go
into the field and see where the real borders are between people.
Again, an electoral map is not a piece of paper with straight
borders running across. A riding is made up of people. Those
people have needs and I am sure that it would be very easy to
communicate with the member from each riding and the
members from neighbouring ridings to see how people could be
better served.
(1630)
The decision on where to draw the line has nothing to do with
the number of constituents. The basis representation is not only
a matter of numbers, but also, and more importantly, of culture
and cohesion among people. I think I have spent the 10 minutes
I had. I would like to thank the House for listening and I hope
that it will listen as carefully to the following speakers.
Mr. Jean-Paul Marchand (Québec-Est): Mr. Speaker, I was
anxious to rise and speak on Bill C-18, a bill that proposes a
review of electoral boundaries. I must say that the current
proposals for readjustment are very favourable to my riding of
Québec-Est, since it would add to it the beautiful town of
Loretteville. Québec-Est is a rather large riding with about
80,000 voters, which also includes the two small municipalities
of Vanier and Ancienne-Lorette. They are within the territory of
Quebec City, the capital of the future country of Quebec. It is
entirely logical to add Loretteville to the riding of Québec-Est.
One of my problems is with the name Québec-Est, because
the riding is not on the east side of Quebec City, but rather to the
northwest. The name has been kept for the sake of tradition,
because the riding has a long history. Several Prime Ministers
were born in that riding and at least one has represented it. This
is a riding I love, a riding I am proud to represent.
I have no objection to taking Loretteville, that would be an
asset for the riding. Québec-Est does not have the ski runs of the
Laurentians, we do not have the Rockies, we do not have any
geographical feature which would set us apart, but we have a
quality of people second to none in Quebec or Canada. It is
important to talk of the quality of the people, because a riding
links groups together, and in this case it links three
municipalities which work well together, and have a special
drive because of the quality of the people.
In the town of Ancienne-Lorette-a town I like, and where I
live-there is a group called Solidarité Emplois. It was set up by
two retired persons, Mr. Dubé and Mr. Déry who said: ``We are
fed up with unemployment. We are not going to wait for the
Liberal Party to do something, because when the time comes to
create employment you don't wait for the government. We are
going to act now''.
(1635)
These people have put in place a program called
``Solidarité-Emploi''. They have brought together a number of
volunteers and have made representations to find unemployed
people in the city of L'Ancienne-Lorette. With the assistance of
volunteers, they have found some employers and served as
contacts between the employers and the unemployed. This is
what a number of people in L'Ancienne-Lorette, in my riding of
Québec-Est, have achieved.
This is an example of the quality of the people who live in
Québec-Est. Surely we could add the city of Loretteville
because I have no objection to this revision of the electoral map.
The other example comes from the town of Vanier. The town
of Vanier is completely surrounded by Quebec City. This is a
small municipality which is pretty dynamic. Vanier also has its
own problems of unemployment, among others. Perhaps it is
one of the municipalities which has to struggle the most against
unemployment and yet, it surprisingly shows lots of dynamism.
There is a particular organization called ``l'ADEC-V''. We
still have volunteers, some good citizens of Vanier, who
campaign every year to raise funds to help people on welfare and
give Christmas gifts and food baskets to the needy.
In this group called l'ADEC-V run by a certain Mr. Lemoyne,
there are 65 volunteers who carry on a whole series of activities
all year round.
Mr. Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting a
Franco-Ontarian colleague in such a flight of oratory. However,
I invoke the rule of relevance, citation 459 in Beauchesne, which
says that members persistent repetition or raise issues which
clearly have nothing to do with the bill being considered.
It is very interesting to hear him talk about volunteers from
his riding, but we must admit that it is just a little too much. This
is stretching things out.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): I am sure that other
members were wondering if this was relevant. I am also sure that
the member from Québec-Est is soon going to show the
connection and come back to the issue under consideration.
Mr. Marchand: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. You are quite right
and I applaud your great wisdom! I was coming to that. I was
going to make the connection between these eminent individuals
who live in the riding of Québec-Est and stress with great
emphasis how important it is not to change the electoral map
2947
without thinking about it for a while. As we well know, it could
have disastrous effects.
In the past, it had disastrous effects and because of changes in
the electoral map, people had to get used to a new riding. As we
know, it takes years to build a riding such as Québec-Est.
I do not disagree with the planned electoral boundaries
readjustment since in my case, Loretteville would be added to
my riding, and I welcome this change.
(1640)
It is obvious that reviewing electoral boundaries takes much
longer than 12 months; it takes at least two years. And it requires
a lot of serious thinking. We know that the only reason why the
Reform Party is putting forward this motion to conduct this
review in 12 months is because it wants to take advantage of
these changes as soon as possible. Twelve months. In the next
election, they could even-As we know, they hope to win more
seats.
At any rate, I submit that it takes a minimum of two years to
review any changes in the electoral boundaries and that it would
give the Reform Party a bit more time to refine its parliamentary
strategies so that in two years, when those changes are made, it
might actually win more seats. As it stands today, should an
election be called, it could lose some of its most important
members.
In conclusion, I would say that this bill is very important and
that we need at least 24 months to make sure that the
readjustment process is fair and equitable. I thank you for your
attention.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): Is the House ready for the
question?
Some hon. members: No.
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre): Mr.
Speaker, electoral boundaries readjustment, be it in Canada or in
Quebec, even though always the result of logical decisions that
could be based on questions of demographic or geographic
balance, is nonetheless never sheltered from what can be called
the ``political touch''. Indeed, only the magic touch would
explain some of these readjustments, but I am not one to get
shocked at such things.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I have represented Laval-Centre
here since October 25, 1993. Laval, the second biggest city in
Quebec, now encompasses three federal ridings, named very
logically. In the east, there is Laval-East; in the centre,
Laval-Centre, and in the west-yes, you guessed it, Mr.
Speaker-Laval-West. This electoral boundaries distribution
within Laval redressed a previous rather absurd situation in
which the Laval-des-Rapides constituency was partly in Laval
and partly in Montreal. This great riding was separated-what
an ugly word-by the Back River, or Rivière-des Prairies, that
no one could swim across. The river was not an example of
pollution clean-up in those days nor is it today.
To see our member of Parliament, we had two options: cross
the bridge or watch TV. Mind you, the then member for
Laval-des-Rapides, who also sat in your chair all those years,
did a remarkable job. Like you, Mr. Speaker, she was a TV star.
However, when I look at the distribution within Laval proposed
by the reform which Bill C-18 would suspend, I am surprised
that some strange particularities are maintained. I will come
back to that at the end of my speech.
This debate is not about the need to review the distribution of
electoral boundaries but about the need to rush into some minor
and some major adjustments.
(1645)
According to Mr. Bernard, distinguished professor of
political science at the Université du Québec in Montreal, it is
impossible to create several identical ridings; some will have
more affluent constituents, some will be more rural. An
unbalanced distribution of constituents among the ridings will
be advantageous for some parties at the expense of others.
Laval is a region with a total area of little more than 250
square kilometres, but 315,000 people live on that small
territory. A third of the labour force works off the island.
Are the three ridings in Laval similar? No, Mr. Speaker. Of the
three, Laval Centre is undoubtedly the most urbanized, but the
poorest.
The majority of households in Laval Centre rent their
housing; over there, they celebrate Canada Day by moving. Just
think, between 1988 and 1991, 50 per cent of the population in
Laval Centre changed address. I am sure that in the
neighbouring riding of Laval West, represented by the Minister
of Canadian Heritage, they must celebrate Canada Day
differently.
Social and economic conditions in Laval Centre are the worst
in the region. The education level is slightly lower and, with the
large number of single individuals and one-parent families, 20
per cent of the population of Laval Centre lived below the
poverty line in 1990.
To believe one can form equal ridings in Laval is wishful
thinking.
I have no problem in saying, as Professor Bernard did, that the
desire to reduce inequalities among ridings while preserving the
benefits their party could derive from it has created and is still
creating important problems for lawmakers.
For political reasons the riding of Laval-des-Rapides has
straddled a river for a long time. The same political
considerations probably explain why the border between Laval
East and Laval Centre, a border everybody knows in Laval, is
the Boulevard des Laurentides, but this border stops abruptly,
right between two Hydro-Québec power lines.
2948
Would you believe that this enclave is located west of the
Boulevard des Laurentides. It is part of Laval East. Does this
make sense? I bet you could not find one voter in that area who
could make sense of it.
Democracy requires that citizens fully participate in the
making of decisions which affect their community. Whether it is
through their representatives in Parliament, such as all of us, or
through public consultations, Canadians and Quebeckers have
the right to be heard and I have no doubt that this Parliament will
be listening to them.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon.
member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, Federal Deficit;
the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi, Old Age Security; the
hon. member for Richelieu, Rights of Francophones; the hon.
member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, Unemployment;
the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, Human Rights.
(1650)
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
today's debate on electoral boundaries readjustments brings out
two basic elements of the mini-reform the governments wants
us to swallow. There are two things that really bother me in all of
this. Although I really wonder about the very relevance of
today's debate, I must say that I am more than puzzled by the
provisions and directions stipulated in Bill C-18. I have a
feeling that not only is the Liberal government not doing much,
but it has the bad habit of going backwards.
First, let us talk about the relevance for us, members of
Parliament, to go over the readjustment of Canadian electoral
boundaries. I really wonder if this issue is very high on the list of
priorities of most Canadians. The government brags about
listening to the people. The Liberals hold public briefings and
national consultations in order to establish their priorities and
we end up today, in this House, discussing the number of ridings
we should have in Canada. What a crucial debate that is for the
political, economic and social future of our country.
Has the minister taken part in these public consultations? If
not, there must be some way to provide him with a report on
these hearings. If so, then it is very disturbing. Either the
consultations took place on another planet or the minister does
not give a damn about what Canadians think. If the minister
asked the people of Brome-Missisquoi what the federal
government's priorities should be, I do not think that many
would say the readjustment of electoral boundaries. I want to
tell the minister that the people want the government to take
action, and what the real priorities they would like to see on the
agenda of the House are.
I will conclude by appealing to the reason of a government
which seems to have no more compassion. The issues that
should be discussed in this House are job creation, control of
expenditures and preservation of social programs. The slow
economic recovery, the astronomical unemployment rate and
the disastrous state of public finances should convince the
government of the need to act quickly. And if, despite
everything, the government sticks to its idea of electoral
boundaries readjustment, let us at least hope that it will do it
intelligently and reduce, not increase, the number of members of
Parliament. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Gilbert Fillion (Chicoutimi): Mr. Speaker, like many of
my colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois, I also consulted the people
I represent in the riding of Chicoutimi on the proposal made by
the electoral boundaries commission for Quebec. So that you
know exactly what I am talking about, Mr. Speaker, and I will be
brief because I know that time is nearly up, the riding of
Chicoutimi is made up of seven municipalities.
(1655)
They are, of course, the cities of Chicoutimi and La Baie, and
the five rural municipalities of Ferland-Boileau,
Saint-Félix-d'Otis, Rivière-Éternité, Anse-Saint-Jean and
Petit-Saguenay.
Under the commission's proposal, these five rural
municipalities that make up the area called Lower Saguenay
would be taken away from the riding of Chicoutimi and added to
the riding of Jonquière.
Each one of these municipalities refuses categorically to
become part of another riding. There are many reasons for that.
The riding of Chicoutimi has two major economic centres,
namely the cities of Chicoutimi and La Baie. The municipalities
of Lower Saguenay have always been economically associated
with the city of La Baie. Several services located in La Baie are
provided to residents of Lower Saguenay. I will list only a few
examples: the Canada Employment Centre, the Small Business
Development Centre, La Baie Hospital.
Moreover, the Lower Saguenay municipalities had set up
services in which they had invested time and money, like the
Chamber of Commerce, the Société touristique du Fjord and the
Société de développement de La Baie. Excluding these
municipalities from these organizations because they do not
belong any
2949
more to the riding of Chicoutimi would jeopardize their entire
economic and tourist development.
People in the riding of Chicoutimi have been working for
years to reduce the very high unemployment we have in our area.
So, for them, electoral boundaries readjustment is not a
problem. They want those millions of dollars to be used to find
ways of reducing unemployment.
These five municipalities have been working together for a
long time on these matters which are essential to their
development. unemployment now stands at 16 per cent, and that
is what the people of Chicoutimi want us to talk about. They
want solutions. That is the reality, Mr. Speaker.
For decades, they trusted the Liberals and the Conservatives.
Today, they have had enough. They want to work. They are tired.
They are fed up with being overtaxed. So, it is time to stop the
futile debates in this House and to tackle these problems first of
all.
My constituents in the riding of Chicoutimi are fed up with
seeing their purchasing power diminish, which causes more
unemployment. They have enough of all the obstacles those two
political parties and the former governments invented in the last
30 years to put a damper on job creation in small and
medium-sized businesses.
In the Saguenay-Lac-Saint-Jean region, those governments
have caused an exodus of young people by stripping them of all
hope of survival in their region, because we do not get our fair
share of R and D. Both governments have neglected regions like
mine. Those are the problems, Mr. Speaker, which my
constituents and taxpayers in Chicoutimi want us to talk about.
(1700)
[English]
The Deputy Speaker: Is the House ready for the question?
Some hon. members: Question.
The Deputy Speaker: The question is on motion No. 1. Is it
the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the motion stands deferred.
The next question is on motion No. 2. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Deputy Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Deputy Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Deputy Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 76(8), a
recorded division on the proposed motion stands deferred.
The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions on Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. We will vote on the
deferred motions as listed on the Order Paper. The first vote will
be on motion No. 1.
Call in the members.
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on
the following division:
(Division No. 26)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-46
2950
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Zed-190
PAIRED MEMBERS
Brien
Bélisle
Debien
Fewchuk
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Peterson
Young
(1745)
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
Mr. Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to apply the vote we just took to the remaining motions
in amendment plus the report stage.
[Translation]
Mr. Massé: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I was not
here for the first vote, but I would like to participate in the
second one if I may.
[English]
The Speaker: Hon. members have heard the proposal. Is
there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Hermanson: Mr. Speaker, just to make it clear, we are
supporting the second vote on the motions; only the vote on the
report stage would be reversed. I think we better make that clear.
The Speaker: It is absolutely clear.
(The House divided on Motion No. 2, which was negatived on
the following division:)
(Division No. 27)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Riis
2951
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-46
NAYS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Zed-191
PAIRED MEMBERS
Brien
Bélisle
Debien
Fewchuk
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Peterson
Young
Hon. Herb Gray (Leader of the Government in the House
of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada) moved that the
bill be concurred in.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
(Division No. 28)
YEAS
Members
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Asselin
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Bachand
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellehumeur
Bellemare
Berger
Bergeron
Bernier (Beauce)
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Bouchard
Boudria
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Canuel
Caron
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Crête
Culbert
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Savoye
Deshaies
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Dubé
Duceppe
Duhamel
Dumas
Easter
Fillion
Finlay
Flis
2952
Fontana
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gagnon (Québec)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Gerrard
Godfrey
Godin
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grose
Guarnieri
Guay
Guimond
Harvard
Hickey
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Jacob
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
Lebel
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Lee
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Lincoln
Loney
Loubier
MacAulay
MacDonald
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Marchand
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Mercier
Milliken
Minna
Mitchell
Murphy
Murray
Ménard
Nault
Nunez
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Paré
Patry
Payne
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Picard (Drummond)
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Proud
Péloquin
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rocheleau
Rompkey
Sauvageau
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Speller
St-Laurent
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Tobin
Torsney
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Venne
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
Zed-191
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Althouse
Benoit
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Cummins
de Jong
Duncan
Epp
Forseth
Frazer
Gilmour
Gouk
Grey (Beaver River)
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Hayes
Hermanson
Hoeppner
Johnston
Manning
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
Meredith
Mills (Red Deer)
Morrison
Penson
Riis
Ringma
Robinson
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Solberg
Solomon
Strahl
Taylor
Thompson
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams-46
PAIRED MEMBERS
Brien
Bélisle
Debien
Fewchuk
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Peterson
Young
* * *
(1750 )
The House resumed from April 11 consideration of the motion
that Bill C-17, an act to amend certain statutes to implement
certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on
February 22, 1994, be read the second time and referred to a
committee; and of the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to Standing Order 45(5)(a), the House
will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on the
amendment.
The question is on the amendment.
The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived
on the following division:
(Division No. 29)
YEAS
Members
Althouse
Asselin
Bachand
Bellehumeur
Bergeron
Bernier (Gaspé)
Bernier (Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead)
Bouchard
Canuel
Caron
Chrétien (Frontenac)
Crête
Dalphond-Guiral
Daviault
de Jong
de Savoye
Deshaies
Dubé
Duceppe
Dumas
Fillion
Gagnon (Québec)
Gauthier (Roberval)
Godin
Guay
Guimond
Jacob
Landry
Langlois
Laurin
Lavigne (Beauharnois-Salaberry)
Lebel
Leblanc (Longueuil)
Leroux (Richmond-Wolfe)
Leroux (Shefford)
Loubier
Marchand
Mercier
Ménard
Nunez
Paré
Picard (Drummond)
Plamondon
Pomerleau
Péloquin
Riis
Robinson
Rocheleau
Sauvageau
Solomon
St-Laurent
Taylor
Tremblay (Rimouski-Témiscouata)
Tremblay (Rosemont)
Venne-55
2953
NAYS
Members
Abbott
Ablonczy
Adams
Alcock
Allmand
Anderson
Arseneault
Assad
Assadourian
Augustine
Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre)
Baker
Barnes
Beaumier
Bellemare
Benoit
Berger
Bernier (Beauce)
Bertrand
Bethel
Bevilacqua
Bhaduria
Blondin-Andrew
Bodnar
Bonin
Boudria
Breitkreuz (Yellowhead)
Breitkreuz (Yorkton-Melville)
Brown (Calgary Southeast)
Brown (Oakville-Milton)
Brushett
Bryden
Bélair
Calder
Catterall
Cauchon
Chamberlain
Chan
Chrétien (Saint-Maurice)
Clancy
Cohen
Collenette
Collins
Comuzzi
Copps
Cowling
Crawford
Culbert
Cummins
DeVillers
Dhaliwal
Dromisky
Duhamel
Duncan
Dupuy
Easter
Epp
Finlay
Flis
Fontana
Forseth
Frazer
Fry
Gaffney
Gagliano
Gagnon (Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine)
Gallaway
Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier)
Gerrard
Gilmour
Godfrey
Gouk
Graham
Gray (Windsor West)
Grey (Beaver River)
Grose
Guarnieri
Hanger
Hanrahan
Harper (Calgary West)
Harper (Simcoe Centre)
Harris
Hart
Harvard
Hayes
Hermanson
Hickey
Hoeppner
Hopkins
Hubbard
Ianno
Iftody
Irwin
Jackson
Johnston
Jordan
Keyes
Knutson
Kraft Sloan
Lavigne (Verdun-Saint-Paul)
LeBlanc (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso)
Lee
Lincoln
Loney
MacAulay
MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys)
Malhi
Maloney
Manley
Manning
Marchi
Marleau
Massé
Mayfield
McClelland (Edmonton Southwest)
McCormick
McGuire
McKinnon
McLellan (Edmonton Northwest)
McTeague
McWhinney
Meredith
Milliken
Mills (Red Deer)
Minna
Mitchell
Morrison
Murphy
Murray
Nault
O'Brien
O'Reilly
Ouellet
Pagtakhan
Parrish
Patry
Payne
Penson
Peric
Peters
Phinney
Pickard (Essex-Kent)
Proud
Reed
Regan
Richardson
Rideout
Ringma
Ringuette-Maltais
Robichaud
Rompkey
Schmidt
Scott (Skeena)
Serré
Shepherd
Sheridan
Simmons
Skoke
Solberg
Speller
Steckle
Stewart (Brant)
Strahl
Szabo
Telegdi
Terrana
Thalheimer
Thompson
Tobin
Torsney
Ur
Valeri
Vanclief
Verran
Volpe
Walker
Wells
Whelan
White (Fraser Valley West)
White (North Vancouver)
Williams
Zed-182
PAIRED MEMBERS
Brien
Bélisle
Debien
Fewchuk
Lalonde
Lefebvre
Martin (LaSalle-Émard)
Mills (Broadview-Greenwood)
Peterson
Young
(1800 )
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The House will now proceed to the consideration of Private
Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
2953
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[
English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North) moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should seek to ensure that
all manufacturers of foods and beverages be required to print ``best before'' and
expiration dates clearly and legibly on the outside of the product packaging in a
non-encoded format.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to encourage each member
to support Motion No. 217.
Simply put, this motion is about the integrity of Canadian
food in terms of freshness information, quality and health
safety, as well as the interests of food manufacturers.
Where safety is the primary concern, an expiration date is
critical. Products which pass their expiration date must be
removed from the shelves. This applies primarily to vitamin
products and single source foods which supply basic nutrition
such as infant formula. The problem in the latter case may be
one of loss of vital nutritional quality which could seriously
affect the health of infants.
I would like to focus, however, the remainder of my debate on
the issue of best-before dates. But whether we speak of
best-before or expiration dates, it is in the best interests of all
that they meet the standards of quality and legibility. It is also
important that these dates not appear in a coded format. They
must be easy for consumers to interpret.
2954
(1805)
The motion represents in this sense a win-win situation for all
parties concerned. It is an opportunity for the House to assume a
leadership role on behalf of both the welfare of Canadian
consumers and the competitive interests of Canadian industry.
At stake here is nothing less than the consumer confidence of
a solid majority of Canadians. They would like to be assured that
the foods and beverages they consume are safe, nutritious and
wholesome. They would like to be assured that subtle and
unseen defects in food quality are made known to them before
more obvious, visible changes occur. They would like to be
reassured that securing the integrity of Canadian food is given
top priority by government.
The printing of best-before and expiry dates clearly and
legibly on all products in a format easily understood by all is
something Canadians should be able to claim as a right.
Currently food and beverage manufacturers are required to
place best-before dates only on products with a shelf life or
so-called durable life of 90 days or less, that is on most
perishable goods. Yet as far back as 1987 consumers had
expressed their wish to see date marking extended to canned and
frozen foods which currently are often exempt from such
requirements.
This consumer interest has not abated. A survey conducted in
1993 by the Grocery Products Manufacturers' Association of
Canada showed that 97 per cent of consumers looked at
best-before dates when buying a food product for the first time.
Recent statistics therefore make the case for the motion before
us more compelling and timely.
Many consumers groups including the Consumers'
Association of Canada actively support the extension of date
marking to all foods. The association has even gone one step
further, supporting the view that prepackaged foods with a shelf
life of less than 90 days should also bear a packaging date
indicating when the product was first placed in its container and
offered for sale.
Given the clear desire expressed by the consumers group for
better, more comprehensive freshness information, and given
that business thrives best when consumers wishes are met, one
would expect the food industry's response to be one of voluntary
compliance. This regrettably has not happened yet.
The Canadian industry's stance has to be revisited,
particularly in light of the globalization of markets. It is known
that European industries offer precisely what consumers want
and expect where date marking is concerned.
The government, in the nation's interest should ask how
would Canadian food products without the desired changes in
date markings as alluded to earlier eventually compete with
imported products? Industry representatives have cited cost,
wastage of products and the need for consumer education as
reasons for their opposition to a new date marking system.
These are valid arguments, but I would ask these business
people to consider the possibility that if consumers are able to
access imported foods bearing more detailed dating information
they may simply purchase these imported items rather than
those made in Canada.
In other words, these food industry representatives may
ultimately do themselves a disservice by allowing cost
associated with implementing a new dating system to prevent
them from honouring consumers' wishes. A new date marking
system would best ensure competitiveness that in the end would
allow for recovery of attendant costs.
I am encouraged that industry officials who participated in a
recent Food and Drugs Act regulatory review stated their
commitment to respond to consumers' preferences. This is a
positive sign. At the same time I am discouraged that
manufacturers are not yet providing on a voluntary basis the
information consumers want.
(1810 )
Since current Food and Drugs Act regulations are not meeting
consumer demands this House should indicate its support for
regulatory change. That quite simply is the purpose of this
motion.
I would like to call to the attention of the House the three
recent documents relevant to this motion that have been
produced. This is a three volume document titled A Strategic
Direction for Change-A Review of the Regulations under the
Food and Drugs Act. I have here two of the volumes. These were
recently completed by the health protection branch of Health
and Welfare Canada in consultation with the former Department
of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whose food labelling
function has since been transferred to the Department of
Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
The first two volumes of this thorough one-year review of the
regulations under the Food and Drugs Act were released last
November and December respectively. The proposed
implementation plan, volume three, was released just last
month. I am encouraged that the proposed implementation plan
addresses some of the desired ends of the motion. However, I
believe more can be done and soon.
The implementation plan is disappointing on several counts.
It states that the government will only ``support the use of
best-before dating on other products with a durable life of more
than 90 days on a voluntary basis''.
The revocation of durable life date exemptions for
commissary foods and prepackaged doughnuts are the only
concrete
2955
steps taken to extend the best-before requirements. This is not
enough. These requirements must be extended to all products.
In fact other parts of the plan state that in the course of
drafting new regulations, the health protection branch will
merely review current practices and consider requiring, dates on
low acid or previously frozen foods. The words supporting,
reviewing and considering, though well-intentioned, do not
spell action to the consumer. Consumers want action, and now.
To wait until October 1995 for prepublication of the new Food
and Drugs Act regulations, as the proposed implementation plan
calls for, will not give timely justice to the issue.
Admittedly there are some who would argue that they would
not like to see yet another regulatory burden placed on Canadian
businesses. This motion makes the case that this so-called
regulatory burden would in fact be a regulatory blessing not
only to consumers but to businesses as well. We have a
responsibility as a nation to champion the causes of both private
and corporate citizens.
Fellow members, recognize that limiting manufacturers'
obligations to print best-before expiry dates shifts the burden of
making informed purchases to the consumers. Recognize that
Canada has an obligation to ensure its consumers are able to
access superior products, preferably those manufactured in
Canada, in their markets. Recognize as well that we, elected
representatives, have an obligation to institute regulations
which protect private and corporate interests. Recognize further
that we have a duty to regulate in the national interest.
Permit me therefore to cite a specific example of an instance
in which a better date marking system could benefit Canadian
consumers. A man goes to a grocery store and purchases a jar of
tomato sauce. The jar does not display a best-before date as it
has a shelf life longer than 90 days if unopened.
One night the man opens the jar, pours out half of its contents
and returns the remainder to his refrigerator. Several days later
he re-opens the jar and notices that its contents have a foul
odour. He examines the jar thoroughly to see whether its label
contains any shelf life information. He finds none. What he does
find is a cryptic string of numbers and letters on a remote corner
of the label. The code reads: STD 10 305 N3 E500.
He calls a phone number on the label to determine what it
means and is told by the operator that the code indicates the jar
was processed on the 305th day of 1993. Who would know that,
Mr. Speaker? I did not. Its contents if unopen are good from one
to one and a half years. However, once opened the sauce has a
durable life of just five to seven days but only if the product is
kept refrigerated.
(1815)
The man is angry that he has wasted half a jar of the product.
He is angry that he had no way of knowing how long it would
retain its freshness without making a phone call. He wonders if
other products in his cabinet may be subject to similar spoilage.
In essence, he wants to know why manufacturers do not provide
more detailed date information about their products in a format
consumers can both recognize easily and understand fully. This
example is a true to life story as brought to my attention by one
of my constituents in Winnipeg North.
It is important to note that there are many other products such
as carbonated soft drinks whose durable life is deemed to be
longer than 90 days but is shorter than many consumers suspect,
just a few months in many cases. As if to acknowledge that fact,
Pepsi corporation recently instituted a voluntary date marking
system for its diet canned and bottled soft drinks in the United
States.
In the absence of such markings, what is to prevent consumers
from stocking up on these products only to find they have
spoiled in just a few weeks? It is common practice after all for
supermarkets to sell particular items at a discount when their
stock on those items begins to gather dust.
Again, this underscores the need to extend the practice of best
before dating to all foods and beverages regardless of their shelf
lives. What I and many consumers would like to see is a
standardized label. Consumer groups informed the health
protection branch that labels should be consumer friendly, that
is clear, understandable and difficult to overlook.
At this time manufacturers of foods with durable lives of less
than 90 days are only required to express best before dates as a
stream of letters and numbers. The code begins with the last two
digits of the year followed by the month expressed as an
abbreviation and then the date. The words ``best before'' must
precede the information given.
Presently a container of milk with a best before date of April
12, 1994 would bear the legend ``best before 94Al12''. The fact
is this code may not be comprehensible to other Canadians.
What does Al mean? Does 12 mean the twelfth day of the month
or the twelfth day of the year? A standard letter, one of a
particular colour, shape and size which consumers could
immediately locate on all foods and read rather than decipher
would provide an anchor for the eyes.
In my own experience I have found containers of milk or juice
whose best before dates are smeared, printed in faint or small
type or hidden away on a remote part of the product packaging.
It is laudable when government departments undertake an
extensive process of consultation with an eye toward improving
the regulatory framework of a particular piece of legislation, but
2956
the proposed implementation plan for regulatory reform under
the Food and Drugs Act in my opinion could go even further
with date marking requirements.
Knowledge, it is often said, is power. We should move to
make certain that food manufacturers give consumers the power
to make good choices, informed decisions about the foods they
buy, bring home and serve to their families.
I urge all members of this House to register their support for
motion M-217. Let us demonstrate to the food industry and in
effect to all Canadian industries that we in government expect
our businesses to remain accountable to the public at large,
particularly when discharge of accountability means a return on
investments many times over.
At stake here is consumer confidence in the integrity of
Canadian food products and the competitiveness of Canadian
food producers. We need to make it clear that meeting consumer
demands is good business for Canadian business.
(1820)
[Translation]
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières): Mr. Speaker, first of
all, I wish to commend my colleague from Winnipeg North for
this motion which, in my opinion, will greatly benefit
consumers in Quebec and Canada without forcing
manufacturers to spend outrageous amounts to apply the new
practices.
The introduction of this kind of motion is a clear indication of
the member's interest, which I share, in the health of consumers
and of the regard he has for them.
One must recognize that it is often difficult in this day and age
to see and to interpret the labelling on products for sale. So, the
House must absolutely ensure that manufacturers of food and
beverages be required to print ``best before'' and expiration
dates clearly and legibly in a non-encoded format. The Bloc
Quebecois will support the motion. We will do so, Mr. Speaker,
for various reasons which I will outline.
All of us in the House are consumers who, when shopping, do
not always look for the expiration date, so we can sometimes
buy products which are past their prime. This motion will ensure
that the expiration date is clearly marked, so consumers will
avoid mistakes. Thanks to the improved labelling of food
products, from now on consumers will be able to buy only fresh
products. Clearly printing a product's expiration date will show
consumers that the manufacturer respects his customers and
cares about their welfare.
Such a measure would be in line with the management
philosophy related to the implementation of ``total quality'' in
our businesses, a philosophy focused on identifying and
adequately meeting customers' needs.
Another aspect of the proposed measure is the health of
Canadians and Quebeckers. Using products after their
expiration dates may be hazardous to one's health and it is our
duty to protect the health and welfare of our people. Our
children must be able to rely on healthy products that will allow
them to develop normally.
A society as advanced as ours must have the means to
recognize the freshness of its food products: it is a sign of an
advanced society.
But this debate seems paradoxical to me in some respects,
given the unacceptable situation faced by hundreds of thousands
of Canadians and Quebeckers who live at or below the poverty
line, as one would expect in an underdeveloped society. Mr.
Speaker, consumers need money to buy-that is of paramount
importance.
Mr. Speaker, you will recall that the Liberal Party of Canada
made a list of election promises in the famous red book. Indeed,
the Liberal government promised Canadians in the election last
October to create jobs, real jobs. Where are these real jobs? In
the infrastructure program that creates only temporary jobs?
What has the government really done? It wants to close the
military college in St-Jean, which will cost at least 1,000 jobs.
In manpower training, the government refuses to transfer any
jurisdiction, funds or staff to the provinces. In income security
reform, it will cut $7.5 billion over the next two years from the
income of the poorest people in our society and thus cause
poverty to increase, while tax shelters that benefit the wealthy
are maintained.
The government must keep its promises to the people. It must
now take concrete action instead of making pious wishes! Such
action would involve not only the clear legible labeling of the
freshness of products by manufacturers but also job creation,
industrial restructuring, the conversion of military to civilian
industry, help for small and medium-sized businesses and the
creation of real jobs that will give Quebeckers and Canadians
the money they need to buy fresh, clearly labeled products.
We talk about products available on the market, but if people
have no money, how can they buy them? The mother who goes
shopping for her family every week knows that well. How many
mothers must choose what food to buy because they lack
money? Parents no longer choose between shoes for the children
and a summer vacation, but which child will have a new pair of
shoes this year.
In the same vein, what can we say about the dozens of food
banks all over Canada that are needed more and more so that
thousands of Canadians and Quebeckers can eat regularly? Even
worse, the almost permanent nature of these food banks is
striking proof of the deep malaise affecting the Canadian
economy.
2957
(1825)
As recently as yesterday, I met the managers of
Moisson-Mauricie, a food bank located in my riding of
Trois-Rivières. I would like to take this opportunity to
congratulate them and congratulate all of the volunteers who
work there and thank them, on behalf of the people, for the
remarkable job they are doing.
Moisson-Mauricie provides food products to about ten
organizations which then redistribute the food to the needy. I
was told yesterday that sometimes the food bank did not have
any food to hand out. To me, it is sheer nonsense, it is an
alarming and unacceptable situation which shows how serious
this issue is.
Given these concerns, on behalf of the Official Opposition, I
reiterate our support of Motion No. 217.
[English]
Ms. Beth Phinney (Hamilton Mountain): Mr. Speaker, I rise
to support the motion presented to the House by the member of
Parliament for Winnipeg North.
My hon. seat mate has asked us to support Motion M-217. It is
worth conserving the words of this very thoughtful motion:
``The government should seek to ensure that manufacturers of
food and beverages be required to print best before and
expiration dates clearly and legibly on the outside of product
packaging in a non-encoded format''.
What my hon. friend is saying here is that when we go
shopping for food products we should easily be able to
understand what we are buying and how long that product will
be good.
What he is saying is that easy to understand packaging labels
should be a right. Canadians are proud that we produce the
highest quality food products in the world. We should have
labelling standards of an equally high standard.
Today food and beverage manufacturers are only required to
place best before dates on products with a shelf life of up to90 days. In fact, no shelf life standards exist and it is the
manufacturer's decision to determine the appropriate shelf life
period for its products and label them accordingly. That is just
not good enough.
It shifts an unreasonable burden on to consumers to make the
purchasing decisions with no fair basis for making these
decisions.
It puts manufacturers with rigorous standards at a
disadvantage. It does not meet the highest possible standards
that Canadians expect of our food products.
It is really quite extraordinary that we require all kinds of
nutritional information to be printed on food packages but we
fail to say when the food was produced and how long it retains
its quality.
According to the Grocer Products Manufacturers of Canada's
own survey 97 per cent of Canadians are interested in knowing
the shelf life of products. The current lack of standards is not
meeting consumer demands and quite frankly I think most
Canadians would be astounded to learn how lax our formal
standards really are.
The Consumer Association of Canada supports the extension
of date marking to all food.
What we need, as my hon. colleague pointed out, is basic
information presented in a straightforward manner. We need
easy to read, easy to locate labels on all foods to give consumers
the facts they need to make informed decisions.
There are complicated encoded messages on products so that
manufacturers can determine their sales figures and inventory
information. Why should information not be provided to
consumers so they can know vital information about the same
food products? If it is good enough for manufacturers to know
the information why is it not good enough for consumers?
As we move to produce environmentally friendly products
surely we can move to produce consumer friendly labelling on
the most essential of all our products, our food.
Knowledge is power and consumers do not have all the
knowledge they need. We all know that more and more people
are stocking up on many foodstuffs through bulk purchases.
Indeed all major supermarkets are encouraging consumers to do
so through advertising and marketing strategies. Consumers
have a right to know how long those products are good for
before they stock up these bulk purchases.
(1830)
Another major trend in modern society is the move to foods
purchased without packaging. We have all seen and used the
bulk bins in our local groceries to scoop out bulk amounts of
literally anything from soup to nuts.
Should there not be labels on these bins to tell consumers
when the items were prepared and how long they retain their
maximum quality? Should those foods not have some kind of
durability date? Should products produced on totally different
dates be mixed in the same bin? Surely what we need are some
basic labels to give real meaning to the phrase health food.
This issue is not a philosophical debate; this is a completely
practical matter. To see how modern our standards are, just last
evening I walked through a local supermarket and examined the
most primary foods to see which products had packaging dates
and best-before labels. I do not want to name names or blame
anyone. The problem is the lack of any uniform standards.
While I was walking around last night I looked at the chicken
and the hamburger packaging. They had labels which had both
date packaged on the top and best-before written on the other
corner. Somewhere between these two expressions was a date,
but I had no idea what date it was: the date it was packaged or the
best-before date. Not only that, the date that was on there was
2958
yesterday's date. Were those goods packaged yesterday, or was
this the date when they were no longer any good?
Since all the meat packaged in that area had yesterday's date
on it, I had to assume that was the day they were packaged but
maybe I assumed wrongly. Maybe if I had bought those things
today they would be past their best date.
On the major canned food goods in the store that I walked
around which families stock up on for emergencies, there was
almost no best-before dates. There was one major exception:
sardines packaged in New Brunswick had very clear labelling
and I salute the manufacturers for that. Some jars of peanut
butter had best-before labelling and some did not. Some jams
said to refrigerate after opening and some did not. Frozen foods
had no best-before labelling at all.
I might have made some errors and I might have omitted some
products, but this was when I was casually walking through the
store and arbitrarily picking products up and checking. I also
had somebody check each one if I could not find it on the label.
We both may have missed it, but we both tried to find the
best-before dates. In fact walking around the store last night I
noticed that no packaged foods had any information about how
long the product retained its quality once the seal was broken.
I am not claiming that the standards I found are typical of all
products or all grocery stores. I am saying that there is no way of
knowing what to expect precisely, because we lack something
as simple and as important as a expiry date and a best-before
date on many foods and beverages. They should be marked
clearly and legibly on the outside of product packaging.
I have heard the argument that if people do not like the
labelling standards on food at their local supermarket they
should just shop somewhere else. I am afraid that many senior
citizens in my riding of Hamilton Mountain would find it
extremely difficult travelling from supermarket to supermarket
to find easy-to-understand packaging. We are not talking about
standards for luxury items. We are talking about standards for
food, the most essential of all the goods we package.
Canadians should be entitled to know when the food they eat
was prepared and how long the food they purchase maintains its
freshness. We need such basic information about the food we
consume.
I commend the member of Parliament from Winnipeg North
for presenting this important motion to the House of Commons
and I support him fully.
(1835 )
Mrs. Jan Brown (Calgary Southeast): Mr. Speaker, my hon.
colleague from Winnipeg North has put forward a motion which
I believe all of us here can support at least in principle. I
acknowledge each of you being here at this late hour tonight
talking about food and I am very pleased to be speaking to this
motion.
The motion recognizes that there are changes coming in
consumer preference regarding the packaging of food and
beverage products. These changes address the changing mindset
in the marketplace. Combined with food safety concerns,
Canadians are now more health conscious and selective.
Canadians scrutinize the appearance, the quality as well as the
labels of food and beverage products. As people tighten their
belts they are increasingly paying attention to food prices.
Ultimately this is the single most important factor to consider
before purchase.
The Grocery Products Manufacturers of Canada have been
polling grocery buying since 1987. They approached people
buying groceries with the following question: ``When you are
buying a product for the first time from the supermarket or
grocery store, what kind of information would you be sure to
look for on the label of a new food product that you were buying
for the first time?''
For every year that the study has been conducted from 1987
through to 1993 consumers have answered with unswerving
consistency. They most want to see the list price. The second
most desired information is the printing of best-before dates.
The polling showed that cooking instructions and ingredients
came in third and fourth place respectively.
This polling is only a snapshot of what consumers want on a
more global basis, but it does show a consistent interest over six
years for the appearance of best-before dates on packaged
product. This demonstrates there is consumer support for and
interest in this information.
The marketplace is where the consumer has economic
influence to bring about change. However for companies to
provide this information costs would have to be incurred.
Special encoding machines have to be bought or slight
modifications will have to be made to the existing machinery.
Traditionally companies are loathe to increase their cost of
production if they do not believe that there is going to be any
basic positive economic spin-off.
In this case it has not been made clear to the companies that
the printing of this information would increase the saleability of
a product and that is something we need to consider in our
debate on this topic. In supporting this motion we can help
consumers get their message across to the processors and
manufacturers if we give consideration to that element.
2959
It is interesting to note that some companies are voluntarily
putting this information on their products. One of these
companies is Pepsi-Cola. What I am about to say is definitely
not an endorsement of Pepsi-Cola. However Pepsi has
recognized the need for better, more accurate labelling on their
products. They realize that Pepsi drinkers want to know how
long their Pepsis will keep the fizz fresh. To meet this consumer
demand Pepsi announced last week that it is going to be printing
on all its products what it calls a freshness date, so watch that
fizz. The date will be clearly and legibly stamped on the product
and it will include the day, the month and the year.
This motion is an adequate response to one of the
recommendations made by the health protection branch in 1993.
It published a review of the regulations under the Food and
Drugs Act entitled ``A Strategic Direction for Change''. This
review was comprehensive and as such the recommendation that
it be put forward came as a result of thoughtful review. We
always need to consider that those particular reports contain
nuggets of information that will lead us in the right direction.
However we always have to look at that end user which is the
consumer.
It stated that consumers expect the food label to provide basic
information about the contents of the food, who made it and its
shelf life in clear, understandable language that is easy to read,
and we heard this from my hon. colleagues prior to my
presentation tonight. This report also confirmed the need for
best-before dates when it stated the main issues for consumers
emerging from the consultation was a lack of ingredient
information for many foods, the content and understandability
of the ingredient list, the understandability of claims, and the
need for best-before dating on more foods.
(1840)
This report goes on in greater detail about best-before dates.
There was extensive interest from consumers regarding the
extension of date marking to all foods both for packed on dates
and best-before dates.
The Consumers Association of Canada advocated a date of
manufacture. This organization also supported a durable life
date for products with a shelf life of greater than 90 days in the
case of low acid foods and hermetically sealed containers and
refrigerated foods.
I wonder how many of us have purchased bags of hermetically
sealed foods only to find they are really quite questionable in
terms of freshness when they are opened.
Over all, although legibility was very important, the location
of the information on the label was not a priority. In some cases
providing information elsewhere on the label was acceptable.
Even the food industry representatives conceded the
importance of consumer information and generally support such
current requirements as the ingredient listing on prepackaged
foods and best-before dating.
Having said that, the food industry does have some concerns
and legitimately so. First, it is not clear which products will be
included under this motion and I would ask the hon. member to
give some consideration to that as he goes forward in this debate
on the next reading.
The report by the health protection branch stated that the
extension of requirements for a durable life date to all foods was
not generally supported by industry. They would prefer a
voluntary approach rather than a legislated one. Interestingly
the requirement for a durable life date given to food is a routine
measure in European countries.
The industry cite cost, wasted product, and the need for
consumer education as reasons to oppose mandatory
best-before dates. This motion would apply it seems most easily
to retail dry packaged goods. However as we all know these are
not the only ones that are in the marketplace.
Like the speaker before me I too did some consultation but I
spoke to some of my industry colleagues in Alberta who do not
necessarily deal with dried packaged goods to determine what
they might think of this motion because they are in the
processing and manufacturing side of things.
The concern of industry members from the Alberta potato
industry is with the application of the best-before date. They are
concerned about the extent to which this motion would apply to
fresh produce.
Presently they too are investigating the use of packed on dates
as an attempt to satisfy the consumer demand for information on
freshness. When you look at bags of potatoes and sometimes
they are a bit soft or there is mushy stuff inside the bag it would
be really helpful to see a packed on date on those bags.
Further when it comes to meat products, regulation becomes
quite tricky. It is important that if we improve measures that
they apply equally to all areas and that regulatory compliance is
not overly complex. We see ourselves caught up so often in the
food industry with regulations that are built on other regulations
and they interact and overlap with other departments and it
becomes really quite self-defeating.
As I have stated, I support this motion. It is clear that
consumers want best-before and expiration dates to be printed
clearly and legibly on the outside of product packaging in a
non-encoded fashion. This is driven by a well-founded need for
better information to be provided to consumers. This reflects the
fact that consumers are better educated about health related
issues and as a result of this more people are paying attention to
what they eat and from where they are getting their food.
2960
I have also mentioned some concerns that the industry has put
forward. We have to pay attention to the consumers' interest but
we must also try to accommodate the concerns of the processors
and manufacturer. When we construct regulations we should
ensure that the printing of this information is based on a sound
business decision, giving consideration to the marketplace and
the consumer. We have to give consideration to the cost of the
machinery needed for encoding, which is an additional cost of
production.
(1845)
If the cost of production does not increase then the cost that is
passed on to the consumer will be kept to a minimum and
ultimately this is what we want.
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton-Middlesex): Mr. Speaker,
I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak in this debate.
I would like to begin by thanking the hon. member for
Winnipeg North for introducing this motion. The question of
best-before dating is an important component of the labelling of
food and beverages. This is an issue that affects all of us as
consumers and it is certainly worthy of consideration by this
House.
Under the food and drug regulations the labels of most
perishable and semi-perishable prepackaged food with a shelf
life of 90 days or less are required to carry a consumer friendly
best-before date. The requirement is somewhat different for
products that are packaged at the retail premises. These products
must show the date they were packaged as well as the
best-before date.
These regulations have been in place for almost 20 years and
they are there so that consumers can easily determine how fresh
a product is and how long it is likely to stay fresh. It is obvious
that this is a very popular measure. The Grocery Products
Manufacturers of Canada regularly conduct surveys of grocery
attitudes of Canadian consumers. When they ask what kind of
information consumers look for on a label, food products they
are buying for the first time, best-before dates consistently rank
at the top along with the price.
At the same time it seems there are some misconceptions
about these dates. A best-before date is not an expiry date.
Products do not go bad as soon as they pass the best-before date.
This date is only a guide. If your milk is best-before April 12
you can still drink it on the 13th or the 14th or even later if it has
been stored properly.
It is important to emphasize as well that this is not a question
of food safety. There are regulations that enforce the use of
expiry dates where there is a safety concern, such as infant
formulas or formulated liquid diets.
This motion, however, would extend the regulations to
require best-before dates on foods and beverages with a shelf
life longer than 90 days. While this is a popular idea and it might
help consumers rotate products on their own shelves there are
questions about how useful this information would be. It would
entail additional costs for industry, costs that would have to be
passed on to the consumer.
At present these products are not required to carry such
information, although many manufacturers provide it on a
voluntary basis for products like peanut butter and salad
dressings.
One of the largest soft drink bottlers announced at the end of
March that it would start putting freshness dates on its soft
drinks. This subject was recently reviewed by the government in
consultation with all interested parties during phase I of the
review of the food and drug regulations. During this review all
interested parties had a chance to be heard. It was an very open
and up-front process.
We found strong support for retaining the present
requirements for perishable and semi-perishable foods having a
shelf life of 90 days or less. We also found support for the
voluntary use of best-before dates of foods with a shelf life of
more than 90 days.
During phase II of the review we will further study to ensure
that the regulatory requirements adequately reflect current
needs. Some changes are being proposed and we are continuing
to review the regulations.
This whole question is a part of a larger area of food
regulations. Since last summer food regulatory issues including
food and beverage packaging and labelling which used to be
dealt with by the food division of the former Consumer and
Corporate Affairs of Canada have become a part of the mandate
of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
I would like to take some time today to talk about the
expanded role of that department. Agriculture and Agri-Food
Canada is one of the oldest government departments. It actually
predates Confederation. Originally the department was
responsible for immigration as well as agriculture. But times
and the mandate of the department have changed.
(1850 )
Immigration has not been part of the mandate for a long time
but recently the department acquired not only the agri-food
packaging and labelling functions of the former CCAC but also
the food products branch of the former Industry, Science and
Technology Canada.
These additions ensure that all federal services relating to the
agri-food industry are housed under one roof, making it easier
to do business with the federal government. Now the
department's responsibilities extend all along the food chain,
from the family farm to the food processor to the wholesale,
retail and food service sector to the consumer's table.
2961
The department is now responsible for the inspection of a
wide range of manufactured goods in 4,500 non-registered
establishments as well as imports to ensure label compliances
and consumer protection from economic fraud.
By providing a single access point for the administration of
federal agri-food labelling regulations and policies, these
organizational changes will benefit both consumers and the
competitiveness of the Canadian food industry.
A single federal access point will provide more convenient
and efficient service and greater national consistency and
uniformity in the administration of its regulations and policies.
It will also reduce the frequency in cost of after-the-fact label
corrections.
Since the reorganization, the department has opened 12
offices across the country to provide single window access for
people with concerns about labelling. The food division is now a
part of the food production and inspection branch of Agriculture
and Agri-Food Canada.
The overall objective of this branch is to enhance
marketability of agriculture and food products by eliminating or
controlling plant and animal diseases and by facilitating
compliances with food and safety quality standards.
Our present system of food inspection has served us well.
Food safety has always been a priority for this department. Our
track record is excellent and surveys consistently show that
Canadians have more confidence in the safety of their food than
do consumers in the United States.
Nowhere is the old expression ``the proof of the pudding is in
the eating'' more appropriate. We are working with the
provinces to develop a national inspection program that
harmonizes standards across the country and streamlines the
delivery of services. We are moving to a more market driven
system in which the beneficiary of the inspection system is
given the choice to pay for services deemed to be of value.
We are building new assurances of food safety into the system
through the introduction of inspection methods like the hazard
analysis and critical control points, internationally recognized
as a most effective means of identifying and correcting
problems during processing rather than at the end of production.
Although the focus of this motion is the best-before date on
packaging, I would like to add another dimension. As a member
who represents a large rural riding of Lambton-Middlesex in
southwestern Ontario, I am very interested in food quality. I am
a strong believer that foods produced and processed with
chemicals that are banned in Canada should not be allowed into
Canada. Our inspection methods are second to none.
We in Canada know that when we sit down to a chicken dinner
which has been raised and processed in Canada meeting the most
stringent standards that we are eating wholesome chicken. This
may not be true with U.S. chicken which can be dipped in
trisodium phosphate or zapped with gamma rays to pass
inspection.
As consumers, we must continue to have programs in place to
protect the high quality of food Canadians have enjoyed. Our
platform committed us to ensuring that only safe, wholesome
food enters the Canadian market. This is exactly what we are
doing and we are working hard to do it efficiently.
To conclude, whatever we do to improve industry
competitiveness, consumer safety will not be compromised.
I strongly support the member in his motion.
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron-Bruce): Mr. Speaker, it gives me
great pleasure to speak in this debate today.
First I would like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg
North for raising this important issue. I believe that Canadian
consumers are very discriminating when it comes to freshness
and quality of food products. I also believe that it is in the best
interests of the Canadian food industry and this government to
ensure a healthy and safe food supply.
The issue that the hon. member is raising is one that certainly
is deserving of our attention today.
(1855 )
I want to take the focus off of this particular motion for a
moment and perhaps put a different focus on this. As a primary
producer I want to tell my colleagues in this House that having
been at the root source of the products that we sometimes take so
for granted it is important to recognize that there has been a lot
of effort put into the manufacturing or the producing agencies.
The farmers have done so very much to ensure that we have safe
products. As we walk through our aisles in our food stores we
recognize and take for granted the food that we see there. There
is so much of it, particularly those of us who have travelled in
areas of the world where they do not have the abundance that we
enjoy.
We also take for granted that all the food we have on our
shelves is safe and that should be encouraged and I would hope
that the policies that we enforce in this country will continue to
ensure we have that safe supply of food.
Some time recently I read an article which indicated the
calamities that befall those people who short-change the health
inspection system. Our American neighbours in the process of
trying to expedite things formed a system called the streamline
inspection system. This system was brought into being so that
they could accommodate the inspection of chicken products as
they were going through the assembly line much more quickly.
2962
There were consequences. An article appeared in a paper which
indicated one child had died, another 300 people had fallen ill to
salmonella. They have since turned from that policy in other
directions concerning inspection.
In 1991 another article that was posted in a paper coming from
south of the border indicated that meat safety labels were going
to cost $500 million a year more because they were
implementing new safe handling label requirements. These
were announced by the USDA that particular day.
We see that we cannot short-change the system without
consequences. Our food supplies in this country, while not only
having been safe, have also been reasonably priced. I think that
is another thing we need to recognize. Thirty-seven per cent of
the food that we buy today is consumed in other than our homes,
particularly in restaurants and other eating establishments; 63
per cent of the food that we buy is consumed in our homes. This
came to light in a recent discussion we had in a public forum on
GST debate.
We have to recognize that in this country we have been
blessed. We have a great food source. We have reasonably priced
food and it is also a safe source.
It is important to note that this is something we have perhaps
taken for granted. We have all gone to our refrigerators and
found that there was food there which we thought was quite
edible and yet found that it was not. As my hon. friend has
already indicated, there are codes which most of us do not read
and perhaps all of us do not understand.
At this point I would like to discuss the packaging and the
labelling regulations in Canada and some of the issues that
revolve around them. Under the food and drug regulations which
are administered by the Department of Agriculture and
Agri-Food, the labels on most perishable and semi-perishable
prepackaged foods with a shelf life of 90 days or less are
required to show a durable life date, commonly referred to as
best before date, in a clear non-encoded manner.
The product should also display storage instructions if it
needs to be stored at other than room temperature. This is only
applicable when the food is packaged at the non-retail level.
When the product is packaged on retail premises the regulations
require the label to show the packaging date instead of the best
before date. For prepackaged foods with a longer shelf life, such
as canned or frozen foods, manufacturers currently use a coded
dating system for their own inventory control purposes. In
many instances the manufacturers will voluntarily display a best
before date for customers to use.
For example, peanut butter and salad dressing commonly
have best before dates, though they do not have to.
(1900 )
The purpose of these regulations, which were introduced in
1974 and became effective in 1976, is to provide consumers with
useful information regarding the relative freshness and potential
shelf life of food.
It is important to remember that foods which have exceeded
the best before date before being sold may still be acceptable for
consumption but they may not be as fresh. However, this is not a
health issue. When safety is an issue, such as with infant
formulas or formulated liquid diets, products must carry expiry
dates.
Consumer surveys show the importance consumers attach to
best before dating. Many surveys done in Canada reveal that
after cost freshness, as has already been mentioned tonight, is
the most important food quality consumers look for, followed by
nutrition and composition. The freshness of a product tends to
be equated with health and safety.
A survey done for Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada in 1992
showed that 94 per cent of consumers usually or always look for
the best before date when they shop for groceries.
The requirements for durable life dating information on food
labels have strong support and acceptance by consumers and
industry groups alike which see these as effective ways to
produce useful product freshness information to consumers.
There is no doubt that best before dating is an important issue
for consumers. The current system is working well in Canada
and I think it should continue to be voluntary for products with
longer shelf lives.
Canada boasts one of the safest and healthiest food supplies in
the world. We are recognized internationally for the quality of
our food and our safety standards. This is the result of
co-operation between government and industry. I encourage
everyone to keep up the good work.
I commend my colleague from Winnipeg North for this timely
and important motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The time provided for the
consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the item is dropped to the bottom
of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
_____________________________________________
PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
[
Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38
deemed to have been moved.
2963
The Deputy Speaker: Hon. members, I must inform you that
we will change the order of proceedings. I will first give the
floor to the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.
Mr. Réal Ménard (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve): Mr.
Speaker, last March 18, I asked the Minister of Justice what I felt
was an extremely important question which was also very much
in the news following the release of the annual report of the
Chief Commissioner of the Canadian Human Rights
Commission, Mr. Yalden. The question had to do with sexual
orientation and more specifically with the recognition of
same-sex couples.
At that time, there was a controversy and the issue made the
news. Since 1979 Commissioner Yalden and his team have
reminded us that it is a basis of discrimination and that, although
various common law courts across the country have rendered
decisions on the issue-and later we can go back to specific
cases which set precedents-the Canadian Human Rights Act
and, more fundamentally, even the Canadian Charter of Rights
and Freedoms, do not specify that sexual orientation should be a
prohibited ground of discrimination.
This creates a rather absurd situation in that no appropriate
safeguards exists because the legislature has not, at least in any
substantial way, updated the Canadian legislation since it was
first passed in 1977. By contrast, most provinces, including
Quebec which has always been a leader in that field, recognize
in their charter that discrimination based on sexual orientation is
a prohibited ground of discrimination.
I was very surprised to see that the minister, who was said to
be courteous as well as one of the more liberal members of
Cabinet, pussyfoot around the issue and seemingly unable to
give clear indications of his government's intention to make
very specific changes to correct this injustice.
(1905)
By rising in the House this evening, I hope to get some
additional information and some genuine assurances that, as we
are hearing from departmental circles, a bill will in fact be
tabled in the fall, as many groups are demanding. The Human
Rights Committee has heard representations on the subject from
a number of witnesses and groups.
I see that you are signalling to me that my time is nearly up so
I will conclude my remarks. It is important to remember that this
kind of discrimination takes many forms. Consider, for
example, one case that was before the courts involving a
homosexual couple that had lived together for nearly 15 years.
When the father of one of the partners died, the other was unable
to get leave to attend his father-in-law's funeral. A major effort
is needed in this area and I hope that we can count on the
minister to act speedily and with an open mind to bring about the
necessary changes.
[English]
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve asked
a question of the Minister of Justice about amendments to the
Canadian Human Rights Act in this House on March 18, 1994, as
he mentioned.
In the throne speech the Prime Minister committed the
government to amending the Canadian Human Rights Act.
These amendments will add the ground of sexual orientation to
the 10 grounds on which discrimination is prohibited in the
federal public and private sectors under the act as it currently
stands in the statute books.
In fact, on August 6, 1992 a case brought under the equality
guarantees of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
Haig and Birch v. Canada, the Court of Appeal of Ontario
ordered that the Canadian Human Rights Act must be read to
include that ground as of that date. The Attorney General of
Canada at the time did not appeal the order to the Supreme Court
of Canada. The government views this as the current and correct
state of the law.
Therefore the amendment to which this government is
committed to making would give Parliament the opportunity of
bringing the act up to date.
I want to add that this government views this amendment as a
matter of fundamental justice and not as a matter of conferring
special rights to a particular group in Canada. The amendment
would ensure gays and lesbians and moreover heterosexuals
protection against discrimination in the areas of services and
employment and against hate propaganda which are covered by
the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Such an amendment would not be a departure from what has
been going on in other jurisdictions of our country. Eight
provinces and territories, Quebec, Ontario, Manitoba, Yukon,
Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, British Columbia and
Saskatchewan, have already amended their human rights
legislation to add the ground of sexual orientation.
The level of protection is now the norm in Canada. This
government wants to add the federal laws against discrimination
to this list and thereby assure Canadians-
[Translation]
Mr. Gaston Péloquin (Brome-Missisquoi): Mr. Speaker,
the Liberal Party's position on old age security is so complex
and unclear that we cannot make any sense of it. Contrary to
what the Minister of Human Resources Development suggested
when I asked him questions on that matter, the Official
Opposition is not alone in its concern over this confusion.
2964
This confusion is not a figment of our imagination. It is the
result of contradictory statements by the Minister of Human
Resources Development and the Prime Minister. Senior citizens
associations also reacted strongly against the government's
hidden agenda. Our senior citizens demand clear answers on the
future of their social programs.
(1910)
Last month, when I asked the minister about that, I asked him
to apologize to seniors he had upset. Indeed, after the minister
indicated that Canadians could have to choose between old age
pensions and youth training programs, he was rebuffed by the
Prime Minister who said that his government had no intention of
touching old age pensions.
The federal government is brutally attacking the seniors'
meagre income by taking $490 million out of their pockets. Not
only is the minister refusing to apologize for having upset these
people, he is now increasing their tax burden when they cannot
do anything to increase their income. This measure will affect
more than 800,000 seniors, 600,000 of whom earn between
$25,000 and $50,000.
Besides, statistics show that the vast majority of these
600,000 seniors have income of about $25,000. The government
should stop saying that only the well-to-do seniors will be
affected by these drastic and unfair fiscal measures.
How could seniors regain the $200, $300 or $400 they lose
every year and that they need to survive? Will we force them to
go back on the job market? Will they have to cut back on their
outings, their housing or their food? Can the minister give us a
clear answer as to the future of the income security programs for
the people who built this country?
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker,
the Prime Minister and the Minister of Human Resources
Development stated clearly in this House that it is not the
government's intention to touch old age security benefits and I
would refer members to page 56 of the budget papers which sets
out increases in OAS which will take place over the next few
years.
The government is not looking at reducing the pensions of
Canada's seniors. There is a responsibility by the government to
ensure that the next generation of Canadians can have the same
security as this generation.
Our society is aging and we need to prepare for a doubling of
the senior population over the next several decades. We must
begin now to be ready for these changes. The aging of society
brings with it opportunities as well as challenges and the issue
is one of readiness, not cost cutting.
The government's paper will not focus only on pensions but
will look at aging more broadly. While we must of course be
fiscally responsible and ensure sustainable programs we know
that planning for an aging society cannot be done overnight.
Governments, employers, individuals and families cannot
engage in short term thinking. Canadians know that the sooner
you begin planning for retirement the more likely you will be to
have the kind of retirement you want. That is as true for this
nation as it is for individuals. Now is the time to start looking at
the kind of programs today's working age Canadians will need
and want for their retirements in the next century.
The paper we are preparing will be about people, their values,
needs and responsibility. We will look at trends in our society,
the fact that people are living longer and healthier lives, the fact
they are retiring younger and living longer, the fact that family
structures have changed, especially with regard to the role of
women and that of a number of older seniors, those over age
85-
The Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the member but
the time is up.
[Translation]
Mr. Louis Plamondon (Richelieu): Mr. Speaker, I asked the
minister a question and thought that his answer was clear, which
was surprising coming from this minister. But the fact of the
matter is that francophone and Acadian communities in Canada
are still facing the same problems resulting from cuts.
I had put the following question to the minister: in view of
some discrepancies between his own statements and those of his
senior officials, can the minister confirm that funding for the
Fédération des communautés francophones et acadienne du
Canada will not be cut by 5 per cent?
(1915)
And the minister's answer was: ``I am pleased to say that we
have managed to spare communities such as the one he just
mentioned from existing cuts in my department.'' That sounded
clear to me, but these communities keep getting conflicting
information. I did not get to ask a supplementary question at the
time. Had I had the opportunity, perhaps I could have got the
minister to be more specific as to what cuts were made in funds
allocated to the Francophonie.
Since I have four minutes to discuss the issue, I would like to
take this opportunity to ask the parliamentary secretary whether
the Court Challenges Program, a program abolished by the
Conservatives that the Liberals were talking about restoring,
2965
will be restored? Will this equity program for minorities in
Canada be restored and what kind of funding will it have?
I would also like to get more specific information on the cuts
made in the Francophonie budget because, as much as the
minister claims that overall operations are not affected, there
are other programs of paramount importance to the
Francophonie. Take for example the operating budget of certain
small associations, not that of the large Fédération des
communautés francophones et acadienne, important as it may
be. There is also the community radio assistance program. Is
that program affected by this 5 per cent cut on top of the 10 per
cent cut already made by the Conservatives? Is the postal
subsidy cut? Will the aid to French-language publications be
cut? What about the $112 million school governance program
that Lise Bissonnette, the editor of Le Devoir, called a way of
subsidizing illegality? Will it be eliminated?
Francophone and Acadian communities want an unequivocal
answer. Unfortunately, the Bloc Quebecois members are the
ones fighting for Francophone communities outside Quebec,
while their own elected representatives in Ontario, New
Brunswick and western Canada, themselves francophones, do
not take the trouble to defend the interests of their own people
and press the minister to give them a clear answer. I have no use
for one of the minister's typical grey answers. It is either black
or white. Are there cuts, yes or no?
Mr. David Walker (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Finance): Mr. Speaker, the educational rights of francophones
outside Quebec are clearly recognized in the Canadian Charter
of Rights and Freedoms. These rights were clarified by two
Supreme Court decisions: the Mahé case in 1990 and the
Manitoba reference in 1993.
Most provinces and territories have school legislation
consistent with Section 23 of the Charter. School governance
has been granted or soon will be.
[English]
Education is under provincial jurisdiction. The role of the
federal government is to assist the provinces to meet their
constitutional obligations.
For almost 25 years the federal government has helped the
provincial and territorial governments to provide members of
the French minority community with the opportunity to be
educated in their own language.
Since the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into
effect in 1982, statistics show that more and more young
francophones are educated in their own language.
[Translation]
The federal government recognizes that francophone
minority groups still face difficulties, but it is working to
address these deficiencies.
[English]
French minority language education remains a high priority
for the federal government and for the Department of Canadian
Heritage. That is why the special initiatives on school
governance and post-secondary education in French have been
exempted from the latest budgetary restrictions. It is expected
that federal-provincial agreements negotiated under these
initiatives will result in significant improvements for the
francophone communities in these provinces.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup): Mr.
Speaker, on March 18, 1994, I put a question to the Deputy
Prime Minister concerning her sensitivity to the plight of the
unemployed.
I realized how powerless the Deputy Prime Minister was in
the face of the unemployment problem. Since then, I have also
come to realize how powerless the Minister of Finance is and
how he has failed to take any action to address the situation. In
the words of Mr. Laurent Laplante, a respected journalist, ``by
focusing all of their efforts on wrestling the inflation monster to
the ground, the Conservatives ended up dragging the country
into the first ever made-in-Canada recession. Mr. Martin has
decided to go one step further and make the recession
permanent.''
As a complement to the question I am going to ask, and to
which the minister did not really answer, I would like to echo the
voice of that young engineer who stunned everyone at the
seminar on employment, a few days ago, when he said that he
had a master's degree in a very specialized field and nobody was
able to find him a job. This sort of broke the empty rhetoric
usually heard at such gatherings.
I would like to know whether or not the government has a job
creation strategy based on some government action, and really
established as a primary objective of the government. At the
present time, we only see some sprinkling here and there. The
infrastructure program will create almost no jobs for women
and, anyway, it is just a drop in the unemployment bucket. There
are no programs for specific groups either.
Was anything announced for unskilled workers? What do we
have for graduates in various trades, technologists or university
graduates? Is there anything specific to ensure the recovery of
entrepreurship in Quebec and Canada?
2966
I would like the government to finally give us some answers
on this and really get to work instead of riding the wave as far as
job creation is concerned.
[English]
Mr. Maurizio Bevilacqua (Parliamentary Secretary to
Minister of Human Resources Development): Mr. Speaker, if
the hon. member is referring to a comprehensive strategy on job
creation, I would like for him to be mindful of the fact that the
government has really begun a process of modernizing and
restructuring Canada's social security system, creating job
opportunities through the infrastructure program, the Canada
youth corps and the national apprenticeship training system.
I am sure the hon. member would have to agree that since we
have taken office in October over 100,000 jobs have been
created.
We want to not only create jobs but they should be long term,
high paying jobs. What is important to note about the jobs that
we have created thus far, particularly the latest statistic released
recently, is the fact that these are full time jobs. They are not the
part time jobs that we saw during the Conservative years. These
are full time jobs that will once again provide to Canadians,
particularly young Canadians, the type of confidence that is
required to bring about economic renewal in our country.
There is no question about the fact, and I remember his
question clearly about the Group of Seven and the industrialized
countries, that to them unemployment is an important challenge
to face. That is why we are looking at ways to upgrade our
training programs. We are looking at the entire social security
system and ways to modernize and make it relevant to the lives
of Canadians in the 1990s and beyond.
The Deputy Speaker: It being 7.23 p.m. this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7.23 p.m.)