Bill C-49 (Historical)

An Act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. I, in fact, said that there were parts of the bill with which I disagreed. I disagree with the way the boundaries are being rewritten. I do not care whether they are enacted on August 25 or on April 1. Inevitably, they will be in place and I disagree with that profoundly. That is not the purpose of Bill C-49.

Bill C-49 does not in any way change the boundaries. What it does say is that Alberta, which now has 26 seats, would have 28 seats if the next election were held under the new boundaries. I feel that having those additional members of Parliament in our province outweighs the disadvantages that affect me personally in the annihilation of the riding of Elk Island. Therefore, even though I am personally affected, I am putting my own personal preferences aside for the benefit of the larger good.

As I mentioned, I will be supporting the bill because, hopefully, as we plan for the next election, it will increase the certainty of knowing what the actual ridings will be. Otherwise, there will be uncertainty. I also will be supporting it because of the additional seats that will be provided in British Columbia and in Alberta, as well as in Ontario, to reflect the change in our demographic distribution in the country.

I have adequate reasons to vote in favour of the bill. However, the redistribution itself, which is not the issue of Bill C-49, which only has to do with the date of implementation, causes me a lot of problems, and I object to that, but that is not the object of this vote, so I am not being inconsistent.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to continue my speech on Bill C-49. As I was saying before question period, personally I would like the bill never to be enacted. I wish that there were no realignment of the boundaries because of the terrible, horrible job that has been done on it in the Edmonton area, including the annihilation of the Elk Island riding.

The commission totally missed the point on putting together in an equitable way people with community of interest. It totally missed it. Furthermore, the organization of ridings in Alberta now, the geography of the different ridings, is such that the work of members of Parliament will be made much more difficult due to its inefficiency.

The boundaries have been changed so that instead of having several members of Parliament with large ridings, it has pretty well been arranged so that every member of Parliament in Alberta will have a large riding. That is simply going to put us into vehicles. We will have to sit for hours in cars while we drive from the middle of the province to the boundary of the province. That is how long three of the ridings are. It is totally not needed.

The whole press to move this forward, to advance the date from the point of view of getting a better situation for the representation of our constituents in the House of Commons, and better work on behalf of the constituents by their members of Parliament in the riding, will be made much more difficult by these new ridings.

I am not going to complain. My riding disappears. I have already announced that I will be seeking re-election in a new riding for Sherwood Park, Fort Saskatchewan and part of Edmonton. I will do my very level best to continue the tradition that we have in this party, and which I have personally, which is to represent the people of the riding to the best of my ability and show them here the capability of having a government which is honest, shows integrity and is fiscally responsible, accountable and transparent.

It is atrocious that the commission in Alberta rejected every representation that was made to it. I sat the whole day at the commission hearings in Edmonton. I sat and listened to every one of the presentations. Every presentation, with the exception of one, said that what was being done was not acceptable and that it was not the way to realign the boundaries.

Even the City of Edmonton itself said in its presentation that it would rather have six members of Parliament with undivided interests in representing its cause than eight with divided interests.

The commission said that it would not listen and it would do it anyway, and it did. It went ahead and totally messed up the organization of the ridings. It is now going to be mandatory for members of Parliament to serve these combination constituencies with the result that many more hours will be spent driving. There will be a huge increase in costs to the taxpayer to pay for the mileage for the trips of members of Parliament as they travel throughout their ridings.

It is a matter which deserves the attention of Parliament. I do not know how we could get together with the Liberals in a non-partisan way but we ought to do that with all of the parties in the House. We must look at how the process can be revised so that members of Parliament who actually do the work can somehow have a real and meaningful influence on the way the boundaries are created.

I will simply conclude by saying that I will be supporting Bill C-49 because I do want to have the next election under the new boundaries. I also want to have the certainty as we plan for the next election that we can plan for the new boundaries. It is better to have that than to have two simultaneous organizations going without knowing with certainty what is going to happen at the next election.

Although this should increase it, we know that in our archaic system in Canada the Prime Minister can still call an election whenever he wants. Presuming it is the member in waiting, who everybody recognizes, he could, anytime after he becomes the leader of the party, call an election and he may in fact still do that. Maybe the ridings will still remain the same. If that is the case, so be it, but the fact is that it is good to have the certainty of knowing what the riding boundaries will be at the next election.

I should also add that I am happy to be part of a party that has always had, since its beginning here, when I was first elected in 1993 as a member of the Reform Party and later on as the Canadian Alliance, the policy that we should have fixed dates for elections, fixed intervals so people can plan. There are many ramifications to that. Returning officers need to rent office space sometimes months before it is needed because they have to be ready even though they do not know when an election will be called. It is a weak part of our democracy to allow the sitting prime minister or the leader of the party that has the most seats in the House, for one individual, without being required to tell anybody else in advance, to call an election on the day it starts happening. That is very inadequate and I wish we would find that kind of parliamentary reform. If the new prime minister believes there is a democratic deficit in this country, that is one of the aspects of it.

Even though I will be voting for the bill, it increases the certainty that the next election will be held under the new boundaries. At least we will know what we are working under. There still is no 100% certainty because anything could happen. We have the Liberals opposite who have shown us on more than one occasion that they are ready to call an election way in advance of any technical necessity of doing so, just simply for the case of increasing the probability of them winning. I sometimes fear, out loud, that the new prime minister may call a quick election because he will think that our party is still not organized. I assure members that we are doing our very best to be ready for whenever that election is called.

I will be supporting the bill on that account only and not because I am eagerly looking forward to serving the constituents in my area under the new boundaries and under the new conditions which are being spelled out for us. However, we will do our very best.

[Ken Epp, Canadian Alliance, Elk Island, AB]

Madam Speaker, once again I have to apologize for my rather weak voice, however, it is excellent because it prevents me from yelling at people. I will be sure to be extraordinarily gentle today.

I am very pleased to speak for a few minutes to Bill C-49, the bill which would advance the time at which the changes to the new boundaries take effect. I am very much concerned about this. Realistically speaking I should be voting against the bill but I will be supporting it when it comes to the vote. The new prime minister will be able to call an election whenever he chooses. It could be soon after his inauguration or at least as soon as the present Prime Minister resigns. It is a very interesting dilemma that faces the country politically at this time. He could call the election as early as February or March, but we are pretty sure that will not happen.

If he does wait until after April 1, which is the date proposed by the bill, then the question is whether it will be done under the old or new boundaries. If this bill does not pass, then we will live with that total uncertainty. For me it is a huge uncertainty. As I have mentioned previously in the House, I will no longer be called the member for Elk Island, nor will anyone be called the member for Elk Island because under the new boundaries, Elk Island will cease to exist. It will evaporate.

Of course, we want to believe in the total impartiality of the commission that made that decision. I have serious questions about that, but it is a real change in the way we are organized politically in Alberta. The commission has chosen to annihilate several of the rural ridings, one of which is the riding of Elk Island, and to use a hub and spoke approach. The new riding will now include part Edmonton, a major city and in fact Alberta's capital. The boundaries go out in spokes from the city in order to include larger numbers. I think that is an error.

I know it will be manageable. If elected to one of the new ridings, I will serve to the very best of my ability. It is going to be more difficult because of a serious mismatch in the community of interest definition, which is in the legislation and which the commission was duty bound to observe but which it deliberately chose to ignore. As a result, parts of the city will now be competing for the attention of their member of Parliament on issues which will be quite diverse from those which affect the rural parts. However, as I said, this is a reality and we have to live with it.

In that sense, I would like to vote against the bill. Personally I would like the election to be called using the old boundaries because we have a very good, closely knit riding. We all get along very well together. We have an extremely high degree of connectivity among the members of the communities that are involved. It would be much more effective to continue under that. However, as I said, I will be supporting this legislation because, among other things, this increases the representation of Alberta to within one seat of the number that it should have.

In listening to the speeches when this bill was debated previously and at third reading today, one of the things I have observed is that Bloc members are opposing this bill. They say that they are now being under-represented. According to the Constitution, Quebec has 75 seats regardless of its population. It is my understanding that the population of Quebec has increased at a much lower rate than the population of Alberta and British Columbia. As a result, the fact that they remain the same, relatively speaking, is still giving them a numerical advantage.

If we were to check the numbers I believe we would find that the number of voters per constituency in Quebec is lower than the number in either Alberta or British Columbia. In fact, an argument could be made that Alberta should have had three more seats instead of two, although I will concede that the strict application of the formula, as it exists, results in the two additional seats.

I will be supporting Bill C-49 because I believe Alberta should have additional representation. I also believe British Columbia should have additional representation because it has grown a lot in the last number of years and is certainly entitled to two more seats as the new boundaries would provide. That is the reason I want the next election to be under the new boundaries but I wish the boundaries readjustment procedure could be reviewed and changed so there would be fairness.

What has really distressed me is that the commissioner in Alberta, instead of addressing the issue of commonality of community interests, gave reasons why he should not listen to that.

Alberta has two major cities, Edmonton, which is the capital, and Calgary, which is probably a more major industrial and business centre. Calgary, which has grown more within its boundaries, was entitled to two more seats. However, the commission, instead of just saying that its mandate was to provide for equal representation based upon population, said that if Calgary received two more seats then Edmonton should as well. I totally disagree with that. That is not the case. If Edmonton's population had grown within its boundaries, then yes, but the fact is that it did not.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, the decision is really not complicated. On the issue of Bill C-49, if you, the Liberals, are so democratic, why do you want to pass Bill C-49, whose purpose is to change the normal process, which is to wait one year before applying an order?

If you are great democrats, you should propose today to maintain the date of the order at August 25, 2004, instead of moving it forward to April 1, 2004. Then you would prove that you are democratic. Currently, the only thing you are proving is that you are fiddling with democracy.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, instead of saying coward, perhaps I should say “lack of fortitude” or “lack of leadership”? A man who has been waiting for 10 years to become prime minister and is unable to face his responsibilities is a man who lacks fortitude, lacks leadership, shirks his responsibilities and uses the Liberal majority to change, through Bill C-49, a process provided for by an act that normally should be a most objective and non-partisan act.

By moving up to April 1, 2004, an order that was supposed to come into force on August 26, 2004, the future prime minister is obviously showing that he has trouble facing his responsibilities.

Earlier, my colleague from Champlain said that the way the democratic deficit has been increasing in this House, we might sit for only 3 out of the next 12 months. In the meantime, there are problems in our society and people are counting on the future prime minister.

As I said before, it is a real competition among advertising agencies. They show him from every angle, but when the time comes for him to say something, he seems to be at a loss for words. We are facing a real democratic deficit.

You will understand why I said at the beginning of my speech that I was deeply disappointed to see my riding disappear. When I learned the news, I was confident, because under the Canada Elections Act that governs the approval of new electoral boundaries, I would have a year to meet with the new people and to get them to know me. These 12 months seemed to me like a reasonable time frame for those members who were greatly affected by the changes to the electoral boundaries.

But no, Bill C-49 brings us back to a five to six month time frame. I do not want to engage in a direct attack against the future leader of the Liberal Party, but I doubt that there will be a democratic process for the nomination of the 308 Liberal candidates in Canada.

The way things are shaping up, once the order comes into effect, there will be a partisan nomination process like we have never seen before in Canada. That shows that there is a democratic deficit and that Parliament is currently paralyzed. Nothing is getting done.

We have one king who is on his way out, and another who is anxious to take his place on the throne but who looks for opportunities to greet his loyal subjects without saying anything to convince them that he deserves to accede to the throne.

I would have liked Bill C-49 to be a little more democratic, with an appeal process for the people of Quebec and for all the ridings that were greatly affected by the new electoral boundaries.

What happened is that bounderies were imposed and a committee process was put in place, and then the commission decided that there was no recourse available any more.

How can we go visit our constituents to tell them that we live in a democratic country, that we are sensitive to the needs of the people and that we live in a country where consultation is allowed, when the government shows no respect for such a fundamental issue and for the sense of belonging that exist in a riding?

All this is part of a plan developed by the member for LaSalle—Émard in June 2002, when he was fired by the Prime Minister. This is a plan to ease him into power. Not only will it take him there, but it will also allow him to stay quiet, letting this series of images convince the general public.

It is too late, but I would have liked Mr. Kingsley at Elections Canada to put off the decision, and I wrote him about that. We all know how it went with the report; we waited and waited, not knowing when it would be presented and, finally, it was released on August 26. I wanted those of our colleagues hard hit by the readjustment to be able to run in the election using the current boundaries.

There could have been eight more seats. Of course, none were assigned to Quebec. Western Canada and Ontario got some, and the four in Prince Edward Island were maintained. The population of Quebec is larger, but the number of ridings remains the same, at 75. Once again, there is a political will not to treat Quebec right.

Why should we keep quiet when there is a democratic deficit in this place? Why should we not condemn this approach in this House? Why should we not worry about an adjournment, perhaps as early as November 7, to allow the future king to be crowned in Toronto in November? There will be a pre-election, but most members affected by the readjustment will be torn between the services they must provide to the public and the efforts they will have to make to get re-elected.

In making my decision, naturally my priority will be those who put their trust in me on November 27, 2000, but at the same time, understandably, I ought to intensify my efforts to try and convince the 50% or 60% of new voters I will have in my riding. Is it right that we should have another election now? Normally, we should be asking the public to assess and justify our work, which will not happen in my riding. Wherever I go, I will end up with about 30% or 35% of my riding. That makes no sense, and it is undemocratic.

In closing, I want to say that Bill C-49 des not solve anything. It is only the result of the future leader of the Liberal Party working with the House leader in order to be able to call an early election and especially to avoid his responsibilities as prime minister in this House.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

As my colleague for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles says, it is like wanting to change ships' captains, but I do not want to talk too much about ships. The present member for LaSalle—Émard is engaged in what I would call a popularity contest rather than a leadership race. We have reached the point where the Liberal leadership race has become a competition to see which advertising agency can sell Paul Martin the best. No one can get a word out of him any more. We cannot get him to speak. He does not know what to say.

I have never seen a government as cowardly as the one over there. In 1997, a new leader was elected by the Bloc Quebecois. The Prime Minister called an election a month afterward, for fear of losing them.

In November 2000, another new leader showed up, the leader of the Canadian Alliance. Again, the Prime Minister called an election. When Liberals are re-elected, government becomes a temporary thing. No longer one in place for four or five years, but rather one in place for three years and a bit. This costs the taxpayer a lot of money.

The present member for LaSalle—Émard and future Prime Minister is the most cowardly of the cowards I have ever seen. He is trying to find a way to become Prime Minister without being one.

Bill C-49 leaves me greatly disillusioned with the government House leader, who I always felt was the most loyal supporter of the present Prime Minister. But no, he too has got involved in the fancy footwork of the member for LaSalle—Émard. With Bill C-49, he is proposing an affront to democracy, in order to help the most cowardly member of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Madam Speaker—

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière—L'Érable, QC]

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak on Bill C-49. I am very upset by this bill, because it will result in the disappearance of the riding I have represented for seven years. I do not challenge this decision, but I do challenge the consultation process and the lack of recourse so people could change this terrible decision.

I represented the only rural riding in Quebec that fully covered three RCMs: L'Érable RCM, Bécancour RCM and Lotbinière RCM, as well as some municipalities in the Arthabaska RCM, for a total 70,000 constituents. This was the only rural riding in Quebec, with Plessisville as its largest town with a population of barely 8,000. However, its economic strength is based on the rural strength of L'Érable, Lotbinière and Bécancour RCMs.

The first phase took place in December 2002, when the commission advised us of its first recommendation. It made no changes to my riding of Lotbinière—L'Érable, other than suggesting the inclusion of three municipalities in the western part of the current riding of Lévis. That seemed acceptable and increased the number of constituents from 70,000 to approximately 95,000.

In March 2003, when the commission returned to advise us of its proposal based on its consultations and mathematical calculations, my riding had literally disappeared. From that point on, I consulted, and I received resolutions. During my numerous travels around my riding, I met people who asked me to do my best to preserve the only rural riding in Quebec.

Despite all my efforts, including appearing before the standing committee considering this matter, where I saw a dozen of my colleagues making recommendations all rejected out of hand by the commission, it became clear that the commission's goal was to take the population of Quebec, divide it by 75 and establish equal ridings of 90,000 to 100,000 people. No consideration was given to regional specificity nor socio-economic profile. Expert accountants merely applied mathematical formulas.

The changes were based on statistics compiled from the 2001 census. On that basis, we have to accept things, because if the population increased or decreased, some modifications must be made while obviously respecting the socio-economic profile of the regions.

My riding was divided in three, and my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean—Saguenay is also losing his riding. My colleague from Manicouagan is being assigned a 1,300 square kilometre riding. My colleague from Champlain saw his riding disappear, or almost, and was forced to annex the current riding of Saint-Maurice. This redistribution affects almost 60% of the ridings in Quebec.

I would have liked to have seen an appeal process in Bill C-49. Just imagine. We, as MPs, have been working with a certain portion of the public for six or seven years. When it comes time to go back to the ballot box, and for us to stand before our electorate, it will have changed dramatically. I have a decision to make in the next few weeks. I have to decide whether I will run for Érable or for Lotbinière.

One thing is certain, I will still be around to fight the Liberals during the next election. I will fight the person who I feel is responsible for the most antidemocratic act we have ever seen in this House.

Let us review the facts. In June 2002, the Prime Minister fired his finance minister because of his lack of loyalty. Then, frustrated at having lost in 1990, the member for LaSalle—Émard set things in motion to become the next leader of the Liberal Party of Canada.

Even though the Bloc Quebecois has strong reservations about the way the current Prime Minister does and manages things, we still think he was the victim of an incredible mutiny within his own party.

[Val Meredith, Canadian Alliance, South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise this afternoon to speak on Bill C-49, which is hopefully going to make certain the parameters under which we go into the next federal election.

I would like to support my colleague from North Vancouver who brought his concern about the uncertainty that we were facing with the new boundary redistribution. He tried to find some way to make it easier for all constituencies across the country to deal with this issue.

In my riding, we have a particular situation where for the first time in a long time--more time than we would have liked--Langley will have its own constituency when the election is called. It is hard to organize a brand new riding unless there is some certainty in the process. I would commend my colleague for seeing some of the problems and coming up with suggestions on how to deal with them.

This bill would allow constituency associations to get organized in preparation for the new boundaries after January. Considering that there will probably be a spring election, I think it is imperative that the new boundaries come into effect in order to bring at least some attempt to equalize representation in this country. I do not know if Canadians are aware of the discrepancy that we have in representation.

I wish to criticize Elections Canada for having only numbers based on the 1991 census on its website. It is abhorrent that Canada's election organization is at least 10 years behind the times with its numbers. However, even using those numbers, I want Canadians to know why British Columbians have a concern with their representation in the House of Commons.

I want to share with them that, as of 1991, in Prince Edward Island one member of Parliament represented 32,441 people. And we all know how populations have grown, particularly in my home province of British Columbia. In British Columbia, at that time, one member of Parliament represented 93,773 people.

Considering that our democratic system, and particularly the House of Commons, is based on the concept of one person-one vote, it is hard to convince my constituents that 93,000-plus equals the 32,000-plus in Prince Edward Island.

There is a concern in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario that this discrepancy would not really be looked after by these boundary redistributions and things would not change very much. I am at a loss to explain to my constituents, many of whom are concerned about the growth of this place, that Parliament would not be able to maintain the number of seats and just increase the representation, nor would it be able to reduce the number of seats.

The United States, over the last 90 years, has maintained the number of seats in congress. The population distribution is within half a per cent as far as one congressman representing X number of constituents. So we have this example of this very close representation on the concept of one person-one vote. Then we have Canada with the discrepancy I mentioned, with 32,400 in Prince Edward Island and 93,700 in British Columbia.

It gets worse. Alberta has the greatest discrepancy. It has 97,900-plus people. This, again, is using 1991 figures. It does not take too much to suggest that Alberta and B.C. were probably two of the faster growing provinces over that period of time.

Keeping that in mind, it does bring to light some of the problems that we have with equal representation in the House of Commons.

The bill at least allows for the next election to be fought with an increase in a number of seats in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario. My concern is that this is just a drop in the bucket as far as bringing equity into our parliamentary system.

I do not think Canadians are aware that Alberta and British Columbia have been allocated six senators and New Brunswick, which is a considerably smaller province, has ten senators; that the western provinces of Alberta, B.C., Manitoba and Saskatchewan have 24 senators and the Atlantic provinces have 30 senators.

Some of it is historic. Some of it is covered under the Constitution, but I think it is time that all Canadians put their heads around the issue of equal representation in the House.

I know that there was an amendment in 1985 to our Constitution that froze representation. It said that no province could lose representation regardless of population distribution. How do we think that makes people feel in some of the larger provinces like British Columbia, which is the third largest province in the country, when they know that, forever basically, unless we get our heads around it and change it, they will never have the representation in Parliament that their population justifies?

I must bring forward these issues because they are of great importance to our citizens. However, the proposed legislation does at least allow some semblance of trying to even the playing field, although it falls far short of coming anywhere close to it.

The Bloc members have raised some concerns. I do not really understand what their concerns are. I do not know why they would feel that Canadians should not be more represented based on population. It is not undermining the representation that they have in their province. I fail to see why they would not want to have some certainty in allowing the future to play a part in the next election.

As I mentioned earlier in my comments, this legislation is there just to bring certainty to support constituencies in their effort to organize before April 1 when the bill becomes a done deal.

I want to add my comments to those of other colleagues who are in support of bringing certainty to the process of making it easier for candidates who wish to run in the next election and have the opportunity to organize and be prepared. The legislation would also recognize communities like Langley city and Langley township which have for a great number of years been tag-alongs with other parts of other communities and never having one voice, one person to attend to their needs.

I am sorry I will not be representing Langley city. I have in the past represented part of Langley township and I will miss representing it. I am very happy that in the next election Langley will be able to vote for its own member of Parliament who will be able to give full attention to that one constituency. Therefore, it is very important that the proposed legislation make it through the process and be proclaimed before the next federal election is called.

I wish to thank the House for the opportunity of putting in my two cents' worth and wish that the Bloc members would support the bill because it is important for those parts of Canada which are terribly under-represented and will be for many years.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

I will take advantage of my colleague's question to read from the brief I presented to the travelling commission that went from region to region to consult on new electoral boundaries. In my brief I talked about the rural areas. I will quote from my text:

The brief I am submitting today represents the position taken by the caucus of Bloc Quebecois members representing the people in this vast region of Laval-Laurentides-Lanaudière, which has seen significant population growth in recent years, so much so that the commission, in all mathematical rigour, thought it would be a good idea—among others—to eliminate one riding from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and another from the Gaspésie—Bas-du-Fleuve, and add them to Laval-Laurentides-Lanaudière.

Such generosity did not trivialize regional representation from Canada's Parliament. Reflecting on the importance of rural areas, we have come to the conclusion that their importance should increase with their distance from the centres of decision-making. We strongly believe that the sheer size of the ridings offsets the relative scarcity of people.

In their speeches all members of Parliament proclaim the need for promoting the strengths of the regions, maintaining their vitality and their role in the national economy. But how does that align with the reduction of 25% in the current representation of Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean?

That is still the case under Bill C-49; in Gaspésie—Bas-du-Fleuve things were done somewhat differently.

In this region, the procedure is even more worrisome because the 1996 changes caused a reduction from 5 to 4 federal ridings. There are many ways to bleed the regions. Reducing their electoral representation is unacceptable in terms of equity and dignity for the region's residents.

Because of time constraints, I shall just give my personal thoughts on what I call the famous dogma of “one man, one woman, one vote”. Can I say this is simplistic? Yet it is very clear to me that if I live in the riding of Westmount—Ville-Marie, for example, my vote is worth much more than one person, and if I live in Gaspésie—Bas-du-Fleuve, perhaps my vote is worth much less than one person.

If, as a society, we want to be fair to the rural areas, it is time to look at the issue another way and recognize that voters can be well looked after in population groups of up to 140,000.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Champlain for his kind words. Let me share a secret with the House: he is extremely generous, so you cannot believe everything he says.

To answer his question, true, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard has repeatedly stated publicly that he is sorry about the democratic deficit. He is probably as sorry about that as he is about the national deficit.

Most of the time, talk is cheap unless it is backed up by action. On the democratic deficit, the future prime minister does not seem to be setting a good example, as evidenced by the fact that, as an internationally renowned and respected finance minister, he took care of Canada's deficit by going after the underprivileged while he had no qualms about doing business in warmer climates to avoid paying corporate taxes.

This is rather strange talk. How can he, on the one hand, say that cuts have to be made—and he intends to continue to make further cuts—to protect the state and, on the other hand, refuse to recognize that, if there is a deficit in the Canadian provinces and in Quebec, it is because management at the federal level is self-centred, with an “all for me, nothing for the others” philosophy?

The member for LaSalle—Émard is saying, “Since I am getting very rich, I will be able to give presents to anyone I want, and I will force the provinces to grovel before me”.

A democratic deficit is a situation where the people governments deal with ultimately are not powerful enough to force the governments to listen and to think. It occurs when people do not vote, when people tell us very clearly that they are not interested in politics and that all governments are the same. What people must know is that by not being interested in politics, they leave the door wide open to some individuals who get into politics to pursue their own interests first.

Bill C-49 is an example of this. For the future prime minister of Canada, calling an election in April is the way to avoid answering questions in the House, to avoid dealing every day with journalists, some of whom are pretty tough. This is probably something that the member for LaSalle—Émard does not feel like to do at all. I understand how this could cause stomach ulcers or a bit of high blood pressure, or even an absolutely horrible nervous breakdown.

This is what I had to say about the future prime minister and the democratic deficit.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in this House, not a day goes by that the merits of democracy are not praised, and rightly so.

In the name of democracy, we exchange ideas, we debate social issues and we legislate. In this whole process, there are rules to be followed that our legislators have set out and that we must abide by. We can decide together to change some standards, since nothing is permanent. But this must be done in accordance with the system in which we live.

Can we decide to change the rules to accommodate just one person? I doubt that very much, and I will take the few minutes I have to show that the purpose of Bill C-49 is not to further the public's general interests, but only to look after the interests of the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard.

First, for those who have just joined us, I want to say what the debate is all about. After each decennial census, the House of Commons reviews the number of its members according to the Canadian population. After numerous steps and consultations, a representation order is proclaimed to confirm the new electoral boundaries. However, the legislation provides that the coming into force of the new electoral map cannot occur less than a year following the proclamation date. Why this time frame? Although the government tries to pretend that this is just a formality to accommodate the Chief Electoral Officer, it is much more complicated.

When, as representatives of the people of our respective ridings, we have the interests of fellow citizens and respect for democracy at heart, we cannot proceed without the required formalism. We are the first ones to deplore the lower voter turnout, to deplore the lack of interest for politics.

Is it possible that we are prepared to effect major changes, so major that some people's ridings will disappear—as is the case for Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and Mauricie—without even taking the time to provide the public with proper information on the impact of these changes? This is where we have a major disagreement with the government. Here, as in many other areas, what is worth doing is worth doing right.

The present time frame in this bill makes it possible to do as I am doing at this time in my own riding, that is to inform people of the changes being made and what to expect when the next election is called. People need to feel that we have taken the necessary time to keep them informed and have not rushed to push through at top speed the election of the future crowned head of the Liberal Party of Canada. The Liberals claim the purpose of what they are doing is to reflect as well as possible the new demographic realities. That is not where we have a problem; it is with the government trying to convince us of the urgency to do something. That is why we have no choice but to denounce this as false.

The last federal election was held in November 2000, which means that the government has until November 2005 under the law to call people back to the polls.

Since the order on the new electoral boundaries was issued on August 25, 2003, this leaves us until August 25, 2004 for the new electoral map to take effect. From August 2004 to November 2005 is more than a year. The government can very easily leave the legislation as it is, and call an election after August 25, 2004. That is, moreover, what logic would dictate, because it would allow Parliament to make progress on some very important matters that have, unfortunately, been at a standstill since the Prime Minister's announcement during the summer of 2002 of his intention to retire in February 2004. Everyone knows that the candidate for his position is the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard, whose coronation, nothing more than a formality, will take place in November.

I will digress for a moment to talk about this famous convention to be held in November, and the way the government has been paralyzed for more than a year now. Hon. members are aware that rumours abound in the best of families, in the most respectable of circles. The Parliament of Canada is no exception.

Although I am aware that rumours must not be given more credence than they deserve, I would still like our audience to know about the most persistent rumour that is going around the Hill at this time. It is obvious that the government does not know which way to turn, with a present PM and a future PM both around.

The members opposite would have a hard time telling us with a straight face which one of the two caucus meetings is the most important: the one organized by the member for LaSalle—Émard or the one organized by the member for Saint-Maurice, the present and real prime minister. This is why it is rumoured that Parliament could adjourn as early as November 7 until February. That is right, February. Because of an ambiguous situation, a clear lack of leadership and a childish fight for power, Parliament could recess for several months, leaving a lot of work undone. And if an election is called after that for the spring, we might as well give the Liberal government's score for its third mandate right away. The result will be quite simple. Nobody will ever forget it. Efforts: zero. Work: zero. Listening to the people: zero. Accomplishments: zero. In short, the Liberal government's global score on ten points will be zero, four times over.

But let us get back to the issue at hand. We were saying that this future prime minister should take office in February 2004. Is it really that urgent to call an election right away? There is no doubt that this is what he wants to do, since his friends and supporters are already working to pave the way for him, for instance by promoting Bill C-49. Why does the government feel it has to adopt an act before the new electoral boundaries take effect? Did it get confirmation that the member for LaSalle—Émard intends to call an election for the spring, only three years and a bit into its current mandate?

Parliament is neither a place for reflection nor a portrait gallery of former prime ministers. We are here to legislate on important issues. The Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, of which I am a member, is currently considering Bill C-18 on citizenship. This is the government's third attempt since 1977 to modernize the Citizenship Act. Many witnesses have appeared for the third time before the committee due to the prorogation of work and election calls. This time, the committee has reached clause by clause consideration. Things are plodding along: slow and steady wins the race, as the saying goes. However, there is nothing to indicate that we will be able to complete work on Bill C-18 once again, particularly since we have had to put it on hold to consider the thrilling idea of a national identity card.

If the future prime minister decides to call a spring election, Parliament will be prorogued, and all our work will be abandoned. What credibility will this Parliament have when we need to call witnesses for a fourth time and start all over again? Will they trust our wish to move on this? With Bill C-49, we risk once again playing the fools, and it comes down to this institution's credibility.

That is the danger with this bill. It is much more than simply advancing the effective date of the new electoral map. It is about respecting people.

By considering an election call in the spring of 2004, the hon. member for LaSalle—Émard is saying that he is not bothered by such considerations. Voters who brought in a majority Liberal government in November 2000 expect more from him. The change in leadership will not change this government. It is the same party with the same members. Under the new prime minister, the government will still be formed by members of the Liberal Party of Canada, as per our democracy. It is and will be merely a continuation, no matter what that 65-year-old greenhorn would have us believe, in his attempt to personify renewal. The hon. member for LaSalle—Émard should not count his chickens yet; everyone will remember that he was one of the key players in this government over the past ten years. We do not need to be fortune tellers to know that this is not the coming of the messiah.

We still have to wonder why the future prime minister is so eager to call an early election. Instead, he should use the next few months to show Canadians how his government would be different. If he were not afraid to show his true colours, he would not be concerned that a few months would cost him a lot of seats in the House of Commons.

He is also showing a total lack of leadership. He is trying to avoid setting up a ministerial team and, in doing so, alienating some of his partisans, and that could cost him dearly in the next election.

Election organization is usually partisan in nature. There is however one basic fact that is really crucial to proper elections. I am talking about the administrative structure that ensures the proper enforcement of the Elections Act, including the role played by the returning officers, the ROs.

Raising the number of federal ridings from 301 to 308 will not be done without some major changes to the boundaries. When the boundaries are changed, the mandates of the ROs are over. New returning officers will have to be appointed, based on their knowledge of the law and their judgment—meaning their respect for democracy. Once the ROs are appointed, they will need to be trained and given the necessary tools to properly enforce the law. Support staff will then have to be trained, polling divisions will have to be set up, polling stations accessible to everyone, including the handicapped, will have to be located, and the list of duties to carry out goes on and on.

Reducing the time set aside to complete the electoral administrative process is deliberately choosing amateurism and a “who cares” attitude. As a matter of fact, with Bill C-49, it is “who cares as long as we win as soon as possible”.

The opposition parties have grown accustomed to seeing the government call general elections after only three years and a bit, even though it is a blatant waste of time, energy and, mostly, public money. By the way, do you know that the last federal election, which took place in November 2000, cost taxpayers close to $250 million? As a matter of fact, in 2004, it will be the fourth election since 1993 for a total of about one billion dollars. With four elections in eleven years, when traditionally there is one election every four years, one does not need to be an accountant to realize that we have had one too many under the Liberal regime. It is high time we looked at fixed election dates.

We are all ready to face the music should the next election campaign take place in the spring of 2004. However, we are no fools and we know full well that an election campaign is not something you plan on a paper napkin between the aperitif and the crème brûlée. To be well structured and more than smoke and mirrors and a litany of empty promises, something the party in power is so good at, a campaign must be carefully orchestrated. The stakes are huge and the challenges many.

First, each party must have enough time to make people understand the true choices as well as the ins and outs of the various stakeholders' positions. To do this effectively, political parties must rely on a proven and well thought out platform. That is done in cooperation with party members and in consultation with a number of social players in order to clearly reflect the needs of the people.

However, it is an entirely different story when it comes to the Liberal Party of Canada, which is not in the habit of consulting the public, let alone listening to and following up on their concerns. Nevertheless, for anyone who truly has the public's interests at heart, this process should be given the time it needs and not be rushed in a moment of defiance for purely electoral considerations.

The other challenge is to have the opportunity to oppose ideas and hold real debates that rise above the ongoing partisan trench wars. To do so, political parties have to rely on the mobilization of their members and try to convince those less inclined to support them so that their view is at least considered. If the campaign is organized on a whim, or a power trip, then some groups risk being left out in the cold. What do we stand to gain as a society if our government represents only a very select part of the electorate? The answer is obvious.

The organizational side of things is nothing without the many people who become actively involved during the election. And most volunteers do not come knocking at the door.

Hundreds, even thousands of people across Canada have to be recruited for this undertaking to run smoothly. These are people who, through their work, foster the emergence of a political conscience and sense of social duty. If we want to have a higher turnout than in previous years, then we must ensure that these volunteers do not feel rushed by a last minute deadline. Without their invaluable support, rest assured that voter turnout will decline at an even more alarming rate than we have seen over the past few years.

Among all these challenges, the greatest remains that of convincing the public that politics is much more than what they read in the paper or see on television.

Beyond partisanship, political power is the source of the major policy thrusts are made. Is this an issue so insignificant that a handful of elected members can decide to call an early election to serve their own personal interests? I think that our duty goes way beyond such considerations. Can we accept a voter turnout of about 60% in a so-called democratic society such as ours? I for one am not satisfied with that; in fact, it is a source of serious concern for me.

Can we ignore the fact that people are losing interest in politics while major debates are taking place? Let us look at issues on which the involvement and interest of the public are crucial. Should same-sex marriage be allowed? Should we have a national identity card? Should abortion rights be challenged? Should the federal government recognize its responsibility in the fiscal imbalance experienced by Quebec and the other provinces of Canada?

All of these issues concern the public. Public participation is important at election time, so that these topics can be discussed and voters can make informed decisions regarding the party they want to put into office. It is up to us to ensure that the public feels concerned by these issues and by our work.

However, it is difficult to ask people to become actively involved and make themselves heard in an election campaign when at the same time we are trying to pull a fast one on them.

It has been demonstrated that Bill C-49 is futile. By moving up the effective date of the new electoral map, we are denying the pulbic the right to be properly informed about the changes that will take place at the next election.

In closing, allow me to make a final prediction: if under the guise of showing respect to the public the government gives it a slap in the face and shows it contempt, rest assured the public will remember come election day. Unfortunately, this could result in aneven lower voter turnout than in the 2000 election. No one will be a winner, especially not democracy.

[Jason Kenney, Canadian Alliance, Calgary Southeast, AB]

Madam Speaker, I support the motion and the passage of Bill C-49 at this time because, and only because, it would permit for elections to be held next year, ensuring that they reflect to a slightly better degree the growth of population in the country.

However, I would like to focus my remarks on the fundamental inequity in the system of electoral boundary division in the Canadian federation. Indeed, it is my conviction that the division of districts by population, province and region in no way reflects the convention amongst democratic countries, nor indeed I would submit the intention of the Fathers of Confederation, to allow for a lower chamber which represents as closely as possible the citizens of this country in districts by population, where members of Parliament have roughly an equal voice in terms of the number of constituents they represent. That is not at all the case in this place today.

In fact, the gross inequities which we find in the populations of electoral districts across the country will only increase under Bill C-49 after the proposed redistribution.

What am I referring to? I am disappointed that I cannot share these remarks directly with the member for Acadie—Bathurst who is outraged about any changes to the electoral map.

However, I would ask him and others to consider the principle of fundamental fairness, and the longstanding and broadly held principle of representation by population. We do not have such a system in the House today or contemplated in the bill now before us.

What am I talking about? In Canada there are roughly 31 million people according to the most recent census data. After this redistribution there will be 308 seats in the House of Commons. There should almost be an exact average, if we had a system of representation by population, of 100,000 people per constituency. If we were to actually have a lower democratic chamber that reflected representation by population, each one of us would represent more or less 100,000 people.

In fact, today, before redistribution, there are some members of this place that represent fewer than 30,000 people and others that represent more than 140,000 people. There is an enormous variance in the size of electoral districts which I believe is fundamentally unfair and unhealthy for democracy, particularly in a complex federation.

This has real implications for the future of the country. The reality is that there are trends in population growth. It is true that three provinces tend to see significant population growth: Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia.

Some members may think that is unfair. Some members may regret it. I originally grew up in Saskatchewan in a small town. I have seen depopulation and I feel badly about it. I wish desperately that underpopulated parts of the country could turn that trend around. I support thoughtful policy initiatives to create meaningful private sector economic development in areas of the country experiencing underpopulation, particularly rural regions and remote communities.

However, reflecting on the tragedy of depopulation of some parts of the country does not change the fundamental fact that Canadians and newcomers to this country make a free choice to move to areas with greater economic opportunity and that those areas continue to grow.

I represent the fastest growing city in the country, Calgary. Every year some 25,000 newcomers arrive to make their lives in Calgary because it is a city that presents them with marvellous opportunities to live, work and raise a family.

I have a constituency which is in full growth in every direction. There are new housing developments springing up. My constituency has grown by over 40,000 people since the 1990 census. Every month thousands of new people arrive in Calgary, many of them in my constituency.

Today I am left with the disadvantage of speaking for and representing some 140,000 Canadian citizens while there are other members of the House who are representing fewer than 30,000. I submit that it is fundamentally undemocratic and it runs contrary to the basic Canadian value of fair play. We should all have our equal say and we should be equally represented in our federal democratic institutions.

If the average riding ought to have 100,000 citizens on the principle of equality of representation, what in fact is the case? Let me go through the numbers from west to east.

British Columbia has a population now of slightly under four million people. Under the bill it would have 36 federal electoral districts. British Columbia would have just over, on average, 110,000 citizens per riding which is 10% more than the national average ought to permit.

In my province of Alberta there is currently a population of three million people. We have 26 seats which means an average population of 116,000 per constituency. That will only go down to an average population of 107,000 per riding after redistribution. Of course, that will change rapidly because over 50,000 people a year move to Alberta. That is the equivalent of the entire population of a federal electoral district in certain provinces.

Saskatchewan, with a population now of a little over 900,000, has 14 seats and after redistribution it would still have 14 seats because this is one of the provinces that is protected in terms of seats. These are provinces that can never see their number of seats in the House of Commons go down. Saskatchewan has a population per riding of 65,000.

In Manitoba it is not much different. There is a population of about one million. Again, there are 14 seats before and after redistribution. The average population per riding in Manitoba would be 71,000.

Ontario has 10.5 million people and after Alberta it is the fastest growing province. With 104 seats after redistribution, the average population per riding would be about 104,000. Again, that is an inequity that will continue to grow as more and more people move to the province.

The Province of Quebec is another province that is guaranteed 75 seats forever in federal redistribution regardless of its percentage of the population. With a population of around seven million it has an average population per riding of 93,000. It is not too far off the average, but I think we all recognize the unfortunate demographic trends in Quebec. A lower birthrate in the future implies that it will continue to have smaller ridings in terms of population because of the effective floor of 75 seats.

New Brunswick, with 10 seats and a population of 650,000, has roughly 65,000 people per riding.

Nova Scotia, with 11 seats and a population of 940,000, has an average of 86,000 people per seat.

Prince Edward Island stands out because it is by far the smallest province. Of course, as part of this guarantee of floor of seats, it cannot have fewer seats than it has seats in the Senate. Insofar as there is no momentum to create a more equal balance of seats in the Senate, it is guaranteed four seats in the House of Commons notwithstanding having a population of only 130,000. This means 32,500 on average per seat in the province of Prince Edward Island.

In Newfoundland, with a population of a little over 600,000 and 7 seats, there is an average population per riding of 86,000 per seat.

Mr. Speaker, I know that you who are now in the chair represent one of the three great northern territories of the country, populated by a marvellous, brave people who keep the sovereignty of our country in some of the harshest climates that we have, but it is very thinly populated. All three northern territories together have fewer people than live in my constituency. In fact, Mr. Speaker, perhaps when you are back on the floor you can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that none of the three northern territory seats have a population of 35,000.

This is not an argument against any of those underpopulated regions. I want to reiterate that I have a great heart for rural communities, for people who live in the regions and for places that are not in great economic shape right now. We need to support those regions as best we can with good policy. But that has nothing to do with the principle of equality, of representation by population, which is central to the institutions of modern liberal democracy.

I would submit that this bill, this redistribution and the one before it, and the one after it if we do not correct the system, will do Canadians a gross injustice.

Some will say we need this enormous disparity in representation in the House in order to reflect the differences of the country, that Prince Edward Island deserves its say and so forth. I agree with that principle in the democratic institutions of a federation, but I believe, as does my party, and I believe a majority of Canadians would agree, that the regional disparities of the country ought to be reflected in a democratic chamber designed for that purpose, and that would be the other place. That would be the Senate.

In fact, it is not accurate to say that by supporting equality of representation by population, I or my party wish to diminish the democratic authority of the provinces or the regions. Quite to the contrary, I and my party have consistently supported a Triple-E Senate, one that has equal representation by province with effective powers and is elected and therefore accountable to the Canadian people.

What I and my party propose is that if we were to adopt the norm among modern democratic federations by adopting equal representation by sub-national jurisdiction in the upper chamber, i.e., equality by province, we could then reconstruct the redistribution framework for the lower house to allow for real representation by population.

As it is, Mr. Speaker, when you stand up in this place you represent nearly one-fifth as many constituents as I do. Mr. Speaker, your 30,000 and some constituents get five times as much say, proportionately speaking, as my constituents do. I do not begrudge the citizens of Yukon a strong voice here and you certainly are an effective parliamentarian. I do not begrudge the citizens of Prince Edward Island a strong voice. But I believe the strength of that voice should be in the house of the regions, which is the Senate, allowing this place to properly and truly reflect the diversity of this country on the basis of population, because the long term demographic trends that we see reflected in the bill today are going to continue exponentially. We are going to see continued population growth.

In 1950, my city of Calgary had a population of less than 200,000. Today we have a population of one million. It is entirely conceivable that in another 50 years it will be a population of two million or more, but if we continue the current system of floors and special treatment for particular provinces in the framework of electoral redistribution, then increasingly, the citizens of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario will have proportionately less say in this, the lower chamber, which is supposed to represent the people.

I stand here knowing that we are not going to see immediate change on this question at any time in the foreseeable future, but I want to use my voice on behalf of my 140,000 constituents to sound a wake-up call, a call for us to recognize that a system of electoral redistribution created in 1867, when there were four provinces with a total population in the country of a couple of million people, is not going to be appropriate for the dynamism of this country as we grow in this century, and a call for us to recognize that we must have an electoral system which reflects, in this lower house, representation by population.

This is a plea for democratic reform of both houses of Parliament. Let us give the smaller provinces an equal say for their regional concerns and interests in the upper house, because as it is, the inequity there is just about as bizarre as it is here. The province of British Columbia, which is arguably a region in itself with four million people, has six seats in the upper house, whereas the province of New Brunswick, a beautiful province with great people, has a population of 650,000 and 10 seats in the Senate.

I do not begrudge the people of New Brunswick their proper say, either by representation by population in this House, or an equal say, even as a smaller province, in the upper chamber. In fact, I think the 650,000 people of New Brunswick should have the same number of senators as the four million people of British Columbia. But I think it is outrageous that people in one smaller province should have 40% more Senate seats, like New Brunswick does compared to British Columbia, and at the same time should have their MPs here represent on average 65,000 people while the MPs in British Columbia, like my colleague from North Vancouver, today represent on average 115,000 people.

Essentially, what we are telling the people in British Columbia is that they are second class citizens. That is fundamentally unfair. We are telling them that not only do they not have the same voice and their voice does not carry the same weight in the lower chamber, but they do not even get status in the upper regional chamber equal to that of people from provinces with 10% of the population.

Prince Edward Island, one of my favourite provinces, has four senators for 130,000 people. British Columbia has six senators for four million. I do not begrudge P.E.I. its equal say. The opponents of a Triple-E Senate say that we could not possibly give Prince Edward Island the same number of seats as other provinces. Why could we not give them an equal voice? As it is, Prince Edward Island has almost as many Senate seats as my province with its three million people.

On top of that, and this is the problem, in this House the 130,000 people of Prince Edward Island, fewer people than live in my constituency, have four MPs. The people who have the great blessing to live on that beautiful island get four times the say in this place that my constituents do.

I am not making this case for special pleading for my community, for my city or for my constituents. I am just asking that we consider a democratic system founded on principles of basic fairness. I am not asking for anything exotic. I am asking for democratic institutions: a lower house based upon equality of representation by population, and an upper house based upon equality of regions, which is the norm among modern, liberal, democratic nations.

With that, I will close by once again reiterating my support for this bill, because at least it does something to provide a better reflection of population growth in the growing regions. But I issue a plea that we as a Parliament seriously consider the need for fairness as the population of this country continues to grow in particular regions.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise on debate at third reading of Bill C-49, an act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003.

At the moment we have in force an electoral map that is 12 years old and based on the census of 1991. It has become clear that it is possible to have the new redistribution, as has been done based upon the census of 2001, come into effect in less than the 12 months it would normally take and has taken under the old statute, which provision has been in place and in force since the 1960s. I guess at that time, when redrawing the maps, it was complicated and took a long time to do that.

With modern technology, as we have heard from the Leader of the Government in the House, it is possible now to do it much more quickly. In fact, with the click of button, the people at Elections Canada can show if the boundary were moved in one direction what that would do to the population numbers and if it were moved in another direction what that would do. This would have taken a lot of time 30 years ago.

The question is, does it really make sense to have a full year delay? The commissions went through a long process from their hearings, to their first set of reports and proposals, to preparing responses to those, to coming in with their final reports, to having Parliament review them and make objections or not, to their responding to those. After that long process, does it make sense to add another 12 months beyond that before their order comes into effect?

It is important and necessary to take some time because it takes time for Elections Canada to redraw the boundaries, make the changes it has to and prepare the new maps. However the point is that it has been made clear by Elections Canada that the period of time now required for that is not 12 months. The new boundaries can come into effect by April 1 next year.

The question becomes, does it make sense? Is it democratic for us to proceed now on the basis of a 12 year old map? Is it democratic to have the possibility of an election next spring under the old boundaries which are based upon a census from 12 years ago, now almost 13 years ago? Is that logical and democratic to have seats based upon where people lived 12 years ago when we can have it based on where they live today, or at least where they lived three years ago, rather than 12 years ago. It makes much more sense. It seems to me that we should not want to delay beyond the minimum amount of time we need to bring these new boundaries into effect.

One thing the change would do is allow political parties to organize themselves. If we do not do this, we could have a situation next year where the parties would be asking if the election was under the old boundaries or under the new boundaries. We know we will probably have an election next year, but under which boundaries. Do we organize ourselves now, January 1 for example, under the new boundaries or do we exist under the old boundaries and then have to scramble at the last minute when we hear the election will be under the new boundaries. What do we do?

I think members ought to agree, and I hope that they would agree, that it makes sense, that it is logical and that it is fair to all parties to have certainty in that regard. They will know what boundaries they will run under in the next election and that the boundaries will reflect the population, as closely as possible, as it is today, not as it was in 1991.

We are aware that under the proposed distribution the provinces of Alberta, British Columbia and Ontario will be entitled to more members of Parliament. Do we really wish to deny them those members if there is a spring election? Would that be fair? No it would not. We know the opposition members are saying that the election could be in the fall. We also know, and it has frequently occurred, that when we have a new leader, a new prime minister, the new prime minister seeks a mandate from the people to govern the country.

If that were not done, we would have outcries of rage from the opposition benches. Really they cannot have it both ways. They cannot say the individual has to have a mandate, then say there should not be an early election. In fact they would demand and insist that the person have an early election. Moreover, as I said a few minutes ago, if the members across the way were not afraid of that election, if they had real confidence, they would want an early election, but they seem to be afraid of that and are opposed to it.

Therefore, we ought to cooperate in this regard. We ought to be cooperating among the parties to move this forward, to make this change that makes our electoral map more democratic, more representative of today's situation, and makes it come into effect as of April 1. We know from Elections Canada that this can be done effectively and there is no real reason to delay it further.

I hope that members will strongly consider supporting the bill. I move:

That the question be now put.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak on Bill C-49. This bill is unusual, because I did not think that the Liberals in 1994 did the opposite of what they are doing today. This was news to me this morning; I did not know that.

Apparently, to guarantee democracy, we have to do what we are now doing. Under this bill, when the Electoral Boundaries Commission tables its last report—its final report—in Parliament, the effective date will be twelve months later.

What effect will this have on certain regions, and what do we as members do if we object?

First, anyone who objects is thought not to want Canadians to have the best possible representation, because the new electoral map means more members. There are currently 301 members, and there will be 308 once the new electoral map comes into force.

Why, as members, should we deny our constituents the right to be represented by additional members in the House of Commons? It is easy, I will not lie: our party will vote in favour of this bill at third reading. However, we first want to make known our objections.

The Liberals have brought us here. On the one hand, we are told we are free to do as we like but, on the other hand, we have to consider how this bill benefits Canadians.

I would not want to be accused of having prevented British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario from having more members. But it is quite normal, if an election is called, for people to receive the best representation.

However, I have difficulty accepting the fact that members are being accused because they want to have an indepth debate in the House on the government's position, particularly since one member has been campaigning across Canada for the past year and a half, at the taxpayers' expense, and he is almost never in the House of Commons. I remember one senator who did not attend sittings in the other place, and everyone knows what happened to him. That hon. member is supposed to represent the constituents of his riding in the House of Commons, not to wage an election campaign for a year and a half. He should know his position now and what his job will be as of November.

The fact is that the power of the government or of a single individual can deny people the democratic opportunity to be represented, as well as the opportunity to contest the commission's decision. It makes me laugh when the government says it is not being partisan, that it is never partisan. According to them, it is only our side that is partisan.

Who has something to gain? I will give you the best example we have, at present. The riding of Acadie—Bathurst has a majority of francophones, some 80%, with about 20% anglophones. It is a riding where people have learned to live side by side. If we look at the boundary criteria, when one can deviate by as much as 25% from the provincial quotient, we are talking about history, culture, and so on.

Historically and culturally, I can tell you that the population of Acadie—Bathurst has more affinities with Bathurst.

I can say that in South Bathurst, there is the Big River, the Little River and the Middle River. In our area, we have a lot of rivers. The people in North Tetagouche and South Tetagouche have more affinities with the people in Bathurst than they do with the people in Miramichi.

If we look at the way the members of the Electoral Boundary Commission for New Brunswick were appointed, it is clear and obvious. The member of Parliament, who is the minister responsible for the Liberals from New Brunswick, recommended the names of the two commission members to represent New Brunswick to the Speaker of the House of Commons. No other members of the House of Commons, except the Liberals, were aware that suggestions could be made to the Speaker of the House.

The way the commissioners are chosen is this: the chief justice of each province decides who the chair will be. Now, remember that the chief justice of the court is usually appointed by the Prime Minister of Canada, and once again, it is a Liberal. The chief justice of New Brunswick was the former New Brunswick Liberal leader. It is not a coincidence; it just happened that way.

It just so happens that the chairman of New Brunswick's commission was the future father-in-law of the member for Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, who is a Liberal. It is quite the coincidence, but no one knew it.

In the meantime, people from Acadie—the Bathurst are not happy at all, but not necessarily because of the appointments. It was a little later that people began to dig and question what happened.

For the benefit of those who are listening to us, ten years ago, people from the town of Saint-Louis-de-Kent, which was part of the Beauséjour—Petitcodiac riding, opposed the changes to the riding because they were going to become part of the riding of Miramichi. The Commissioner of Official Languages said this was not right, but the commission did not reverse its decision.

It is funny, this time. I am happy for the people of Saint-Louis-de-Kent because I think they were lucky that the commission sent them back to the riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. If the people of Saint-Louis-de-Kent are sent to the riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, and the people of their town, 98% of whom are francophone, are sent to the riding of Miramichi, then all the intentions do not hold water.

One has to wonder. We can only hope that it is not political influence, since the rules state that an MP can appear before the commission to table briefs, as I did in September 2002.

At the time, I had asked the chair of the commission why he included the town of Saint-Louis-de-Kent in the riding of Beauséjour—Petitcodiac. The transcript will show for certain, but I remember him saying, “The problem that the former commission created ten years ago has been fixed”.

I told the chair that if the problem from ten years ago was corrected with respect to the linguistic aspect and the community of interests, why, for instance, were Allardville, Val-Comeau and Saint-Sauveur included in the riding of Miramichi? He said the problem was that there were not enough people in the riding of Miramichi. The provincial quota was less than 21%, whereas the riding of Acadie—Bathurst had more than 14%. So a certain number of constituents from Acadie—Bathurst had to be included in the riding Miramichi.

The people in Allardville as well as in Saint-Sauveur and Val-Comeau protested for the same reason as the people in Saint-Louis-de-Kent did. One cannot fix a problem at one end of a riding by creating the same problem at the other end.

I asked the chair why he was doing that. He told me, “Because I need bodies. I must do it and that is that”. It is hard to understand.

This is why I believe it is important that people be allowed to appeal the commission's decisions. Under our electoral boundaries readjustment process, the commission publishes its final reports, after which it is disbanded. It does not exist anymore. It is gone. It then comes under the government's responsibility. However, in this respect, the regions have the right to appeal; they have the right to go to court to ask for a ruling.

That is why I say that Bill C-49 is regrettable because the member for LaSalle—Émard will be the Prime Minister of Canada—we will know for sure in November. One member of his staff, who works on his election campaign, Elly Alboim, came before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and clearly stated that he had appealed to the Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, to see whether it was possible to change the date and get the machine in gear now. In the meantime, the Canadian Alliance is trying to make people in Vancouver believe that it cares about the people in Vancouver and that is why it asked the government to change the date, resulting in the bill before us. This is shameful. The Alliance does not even have the support of the Conservatives right now—oh, I beg your pardon—the Progressive Conservatives. It could not even get them to vote the way it did, yesterday. And now it wants to take the credit for that. I find that rather shameful.

This morning, the Leader of the Government in the House stated that, with our new electronic system, members press three or four buttons and the monitor appears. If so, then surely we can know where our riding starts and ends. However, in July 2003, I asked Elections Canada, “Is part of Saint-Saveur in Miramichi?” Again last week, no one could answer my question. From July 2003 to today, quite a few seconds have passed. Surely the computer and the monitor have been operational since then.

Yes, Mr. Speaker, Elections Canada has a good system. I am a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and of the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment. Yes, we can say, “I am going to change that street and put it here or there”. Yes, we can say that, in Toronto, Yonge Street is in another riding and, bingo, we know where it ends. However, when it comes to rural areas, it is not that simple.

So, two weeks ago, I personally asked the Chief Electoral Officer, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, if he could tell me if the inhabitants of Saint-Saveur in New Brunswick were part of Miramichi on the new electoral map. Once again, I received a letter saying no one knew the answer yet. There is still no answer.

If we look at the map, the boundary seems to include Saint-Saveur. However, when it comes to people, no one can say. The people of Saint-Saveur have been in the dark for three or four months now. They still do not know what riding they will be part of.

As a result, in terms of representing people in a democracy, an increase in the number of members in the House is good, but it is also important to ensure that all constituents are represented. This is not just a one way street.

It is unacceptable, when we see people from back home, from the Bathurst chamber of commerce, opposed to changes to the riding. It is unacceptable when we see the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick demand a judicial review. It is unacceptable when people from the Société des Acadiens et des Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick ask for the status quo.

This is unacceptable, when we are told that 7,000 people in Acadie—Bathurst signed and mailed in postcards to the Speaker of the House of Commons indicating their unwillingness to see changes made to their riding, because of the communities of interests.

This is unacceptable, when we are told that the English speaking constituents themselves do not want to be moved to Miramichi, because they will feel still more of a minority with its francophone minority.

This is unacceptable, when we are told that 2,600 people in the electoral district have signed a petition calling for the status quo to be maintained.

This is unacceptable, when we are told that the Commissioner of Official Languages has indicated to the commission that it is not right to make changes to Acadie—Bathurst because of the community of interests.

This is unacceptable, when we are told that the Commissioner of Official Languages was invited in March 2002 to tell the commissions for all Canadian provinces that they needed to respect Canada's official languages.

This is unacceptable, when we are told that the Standing Committee on Official Languages has said that the position of the Commissioner of Official Languages and of the people of Acadie—Bathurst must be supported.

This is unacceptable, when we are told that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has told the commission to support the Commissioner of Official Languages.

In light of all this, we have no choice but to say that there is something wrong here; we have no choice but to tell Parliament that we do not agree with the date change the Liberals are trying to bring in on behalf of the member for LaSalle—Émard, who is afraid of showing his true colours to the people of Canada. He is afraid to be in the House and to make decisions. He is afraid, lastly, to take his proper place. All of his team, all of his advisers, tell him to make sure he does not have to make any decisions. In fact, the decisions he has made since 1993 in the Finance portfolio have been to cut employment insurance, to make cuts to health and social programs. That is what the future prime minister has done. As a result, he cannot show his face before the election. He is making himself scarce; Canadians need to know this.

Depriving an electoral district of the possibility of going before the courts to see whether the right thing has been done is, in my opinion, unacceptable.

Two weeks ago, at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, I put forward an amendment to exclude New Brunswick from this readjustment. I can say that, pursuant to the committee's procedure, when I spoke about my amendment and explained it, the Liberals refused to accept it. Granted, I planned to speak for a long time, to try and make them understand how important this amendment was.

We eventually came to an agreement, and I appreciate that. I will state publicly that I am pleased with the agreement we have reached with the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons. I must give credit where credit is due. I am pleased with the agreement under which the government committed not to put up objections, drag things on or put forward dilatory motions. I am pleased with it.

The House leader said so publicly and the letter he signed was put on the record, still I think government could go further. It could say, “Partisanship aside, there is no reason to get involved. We will let the Association des municipalités francophones go before a judge and explain its case, and let the judge decide”.

This would at least be one area in which the Liberals did not interfere. Granted, the chair of the commission was a Liberal, and the two commissioners were Liberals, to say nothing of others. They should let the court make a decision based on all I said in this House today. Seven thousand people have signed postcards and sent them to the Speaker of the House, a person who should be impartial and who appointed the two individuals on the recommendation of the minister responsible for New Brunswick.

This would show some willingness to give democracy a chance and to make decisions that are good for and fair to all Canadians, and the people in our area in particular.

I will close by saying that we can only hope that the Liberals will change their minds. They should tell their future leader, the future prime minister—who may be afraid of going before the Canadian voters—that he ought to call an election in November next year and let us adopt the necessary procedures, so that we can represent the people in our areas.

[Inky Mark, Canadian Alliance, Dauphin—Swan River, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the debate on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.

We should make it perfectly clear that the bill is not about boundary changes for the upcoming election. It is about pushing the date for the boundary changes up to an earlier date, from August 25 of next year to April 1 of next year.

For our viewing audience, I would like to give some background information.

On September 15 the Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons introduced legislation to accelerate the coming into force of the new electoral boundaries generated by the recently completed electoral redistribution process.

The new electoral boundaries were proclaimed on August 25, 2003, but, under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, they would not take effect until the first dissolution of Parliament occurring at least one year after proclamation, i.e., August 25, 2004.

As we have heard, the rumour is that the House may dissolve itself as early as November 7.

By virtue of the proposed legislation, this one year grace period would be shortened. The new boundaries set out in the 2003 representation order would now be enforced upon the first dissolution of Parliament occurring on or after April 1, 2004.

The April 1, 2004 date was selected following the public statement of the Chief Electoral Officer that he could be operationally ready to proceed with the new boundaries as of that date.

I raise the question, as other members already have this morning in the House, what is the rush? Why are we rushing ahead to move the date up to April 1, 2004?

There is no doubt that the leader in waiting for the Liberal Party is anxious and wants to call a quick early election, just like our current Prime Minister did in the last election in 2000.

Before the leader in waiting for the Liberal Party calls an election, Canadians need to find out who the man is. The only way that can be done is to actually have the next leader of the Liberal Party stand in the House and answer some very hard, serious questions. I am sure Canadians from coast to coast to coast would be interested to know what kind of person will be leading the Liberal Party in the next election.

As we know a lot of questions have been raised in the House about some of the past history of the former minister of finance and the dealings of his former company, CSL. People need to know whether he paid his share of Canadian taxes and whether his companies received grants that were really made up of Canadian tax dollars. We need to know whether he operated above board and in a transparent manner. The position of a prime minister is very important. He is the leader of the country. Besides that, there is plenty of time to have a fall election after the boundaries legislation comes into effect on August 25, 2004.

I came here in 1997, as did many members in the House, and since that date we have had two elections in the course of those six years. My understanding, according to the rules of operation, is that the mandate of any government is five years. Roughly, we have had a mandate plus one year and we have had two federal elections. Every time we have an election it costs the taxpayers a lot of money.

Maybe there is some rationale for fixed terms. Every four years on a set date the electorate would go to the polls so we would not have this manipulation of the system. Bill C-49 is a good example of manipulating the timelines and the dates as to when one can have an election. I do not think Canadians are looking for that. They are not looking for governments of the day to waste tax dollars.

This is not the first time that governments, certainly this Liberal government, have attempted to block riding changes. Just to recollect, this is not the first time the Liberals have moved to alter the date on which redistribution takes effect. Unlike their two previous attempts, this bill advances rather than delays the new boundaries. It is rather ironic. This one actually advances the changes; the previous attempts have wanted to delay changes.

In February 1994 many Liberal backbenchers objected when they saw the proposed new maps that followed the 1991 census. Their response was Bill C-18, which would have thrown out the work already done and suspended the redistribution process for two years. The end result would have been for the 1997 general election to be fought on boundaries drawn up after the 1981 census, some 16 years prior.

At the time, the Progressive Conservative Party had sufficient numbers in the Senate to amend Bill C-18. The suspension period was reduced to one year from two. The boundaries commissions were allowed to complete their current phase of their work. After one year the boundaries commissions could continue their work from the point where it was suspended. The end result was that Bill C-18 could not kill redistribution and that an election call in 1997 would have to be fought on boundaries drawn on the basis of the 1991 census.

The Liberals tried again in 1995 with Bill C-69. That bill died on the Order Paper when Progressive Conservative senators insisted on a proper examination of the bill and its related issues in committee.

While we are talking about boundary changes, let me make some comments about boundary changes. There is no doubt that boundary changes are always good news because the country changes, the population base changes and demographics change from province to province. The current change is good news for the west because B.C. and Alberta will get more seats. In central Canada Ontario will get more seats.

In other words, I guess it is an advantage to grow one's province on a population basis, to have more babies. Maybe we need to go back to the plan that Quebec used to have to give grants to families to have more kids. Maybe it would be a good program for all of Canada because we know that one deficit in our country is people. That is why our immigration numbers have increased substantially. Perhaps we could do more to increase our own numbers in the country through birth.

On the subject of boundaries, there are two issues I would like to bring up. They are the changes to the boundaries relative to size and population base. It is a world phenomenon that people are moving from rural areas to urban areas. Not only is it happening in this country but it is happening around the world. That is going to create problems for ridings in our country that are very rural in nature. I noticed that with some of the boundaries that have changed there seems to an access to large urban centres in most areas. I suppose that eventually the population base in the rural areas will be outnumbered and outvoted by the folks in the city. I suppose that is inevitable with the change in demographics.

One thing I would like to say is that there are also limits to boundary changes in terms of geography. I know that many of the rural ridings which are very rural in Canada have no option except to get bigger. My own riding of Dauphin—Swan River is going to annex, I believe, another two municipalities to the riding and it is already over 200 miles long and over 100 miles wide. The question that needs to be raised is just how much space and population can one member of Parliament serve?

Already my riding has five provincial constituencies in it. Whenever I leave home it takes literally half a day sitting in my vehicle to get from place to place. I am wasting half the day if I am driving. I am fortunate enough that during the summer I can hop in my airplane and fly around the riding, but most people do not have that access.

Again we need to look at service. In Dauphin--Swan River I have eight satellite offices. I have eight offices in the riding and a staff of 11, but most members do not do that. I am very blessed with good staff and they do a great job. In other words, it is about serving the public but there are still limitations to that, not only on the geographic side but also on the dollar side. It costs money to provide service and that is an issue that needs to be raised.

Another thing with which I have a concern, like many MPs in the House, is the names that will come with the changes in the boundaries. At House leaders meetings there have been lists of submissions from members of Parliament who want the names changed to reflect the ridings. I agree that the members do know best, not a commission that was established because of politics. Members know the history of their ridings.

For example, originally my own riding was two federal ridings. One was called Marquette and the other was Dauphin--Swan River. The problem with the boundary change was that they forgot about Marquette which is of huge historical significance to the riding. Marquette was one of the first French explorers to explore that part of the country. Southwestern Manitoba at one time was known by Marquette. I believe that Joliet and Marquette explored the headwaters of the Mississippi right down to the mouth of the Mississippi. It is very important to the folks who now encompass the south half of my riding. They want the name Marquette put back where it rightfully should be.

I hope that through Bill C-51 all the name changes that have been proposed will be put back where they should be.

Let me close by saying that we as a party support the bill. We do not support this great rush to change the dates to give the new leader of the Liberal Party the option of calling a snap election anytime he wishes after April 1. Canadians deserve better.

Canadians need time in the House to find out just exactly who this new leader of the Liberal Party will be. To be fair to Canadians, I believe that the date of August 25 should remain. In any case, Bill C-51 talks about the name changes submitted by the members of the House. We support the bill. We will certainly vote in support of the bill, but we are not very happy about the intent of this bill.