Bill C-49 (Historical)

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

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[Ghislain Fournier, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to speak to a topic of such significance for my constituents and all the other people in Quebec as well as in the rest of the country, of course. I am pleased to take part in this debate on changing the date when the new electoral map will come into force. This issue is of the utmost importance, in my view. It is all about respecting the laws of the land. It is also all about showing some respect for the people who elect us as MPs.

The government is asking that the representation order under Bill C-49 be effective on the first dissolution of Parliament, that is on April 1, 2004, or after that date. In other words, it is asking that the new electoral map, which gives three additional seats to Ontario, two to Alberta and two to British Columbia and which makes many other changes to ridings, come into force to benefit the party in power. This is too big a favour to ask of us.

To my colleagues I say no on my behalf and on behalf of my political party, the Bloc Quebecois. Some things are pretty clear though. An election is looming large on the horizon. The Liberal Party, with a majority in the House although it does not have the support of the majority of the people across the country, is trying to usurp privileges by setting the act aside and replacing it with another one. Is that the meaning of democracy you want to leave as a legacy?

The representation order was to come into effect at the earliest on August 26, 2004. If the new ridings are an absolute must to win the election, wait for another four months. It is not the end of the world, another four months plus or minus. Otherwise, do what we are doing. Do waht all the Bloc Quebecois candidates are doing: Work hard to get elected.

You are trying to do something really disgraceful. That is petty partisanship. That is totally unacceptable. What about the people's trust? What about the federal government's integrity? How dare you play into the hands of one individual by speeding up the coming into force of the new electoral map? In order to accommodate its new leader, the Liberal Party across the way is going against the spirit of the law.

Under section 25 of the Electoral Boundaries Adjustment Act, the representation order is effective on the first dissolution of Parliament that occurs at least one year after adoption of the change in question. That is a minimum. In other words, it cannot take effect until August 26, 2004.

So far, the electoral boundary adjustment process has been carried out in compliance with the legislation. Note that I have not said that it made use of all means allowed under that legislation. Is the government not duty bound to see that its own laws are complied with, in the best interests of everyone? Whom are they trying to convince of the usefulness of Bill C-49? Who is supposed to be served by it? Certainly not the general public, despite the claims to the contrary by those across the way.

It is not in anyone's best interests for a government to make use of its majority position in the House to undo an act that does not suit its electoral plans. This is antidemocratic. What impression is it giving, to our young people, for example? What about our international image, when it is trying to pass itself off as a model?

Now let us look at this bill from Quebec's point of view. The new boundaries are contrary to the interests of Quebec, and even more so those of the regions. The Bloc Quebecois and a considerable number of regional organizations have spoken out against the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission's decision to maintain the number of federal ridings in Quebec at 75, rather than bringing the number to 77, with the additional two reflecting its demographic weight, as the Bloc Quebecois was demanding.

It is simple: these measures reduce the demographic weight of the regions of Quebec. This too is unacceptable. The Liberal MPs from Quebec are not unaware of this, as they must admit. It is their duty, as they are well aware, to stand up and vote against this bill when the time comes.

I am a living testimonial to the problems caused by these new adjustments, and most certainly will not remain silent. With them, my constituents and those in the adjacent electoral districts would be doubly penalized.

For one thing, access to MPs will be harder for them. The great distances to our offices will be costly in time and money. I should point out that they are too poor to be able to spend money on anything that is not absolutely necessary, so they will simply be unable to travel to demand services to which they are entitled.

Also, they would see their situation worsen prematurely. I repeat that the member for Manicouagan and the Bloc Quebecois say no to Bill C-49. There are limits to injustice, and these would be exceeded if the bill were passed.

Several regions in Quebec have lost one or two ridings. For instance, the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region lost one; it has three left, whereas it used to have four. The Mauricie also lost one, and has only two left. This is not consistent with the needs of Quebec.

With this reform, Quebec's representation goes from 75 ridings out of 301 to 75 out of 308. This is a major drop, especially since the opposite should have happened. As I have said repeatedly, this should have been taken into account.

The Bloc Quebecois suggested that the number of seats allocated to Quebec federally be increased from 75 to 77. This would have made much more sense and would have been much fairer. It would have preserved the identity and increased the representativeness of the regions.

The people living in the regions are people like everyone else. How can their electoral weight be allowed to be less than that of people in urban centres or, worse yet, that of people from other states in the same federation? That is pure demagoguery.

Again, it is only fair to have ridings of a reasonable size that can be represented effectively by a member of Parliament. My riding of Manicouagan, for example, will cover 340,000 square kilometres, or 58 times P.E.I., which has four seats, and therefore four members of Parliament. The Island of Anticosti in my riding is larger than P.E.I. This gives you a pretty good idea of how huge the riding of Manicouagan is. I repeat that those who live there are full-fledged citizens.

Believe me, the current riding of Manicouagan is not all forest or all water. Many major issues are ongoing. To meet their MP, people have to travel by plane or boat. On the Lower North Shore, we do not have a road connecting us with the rest of Quebec yet. In winter, I have to use a snowmobile to visit my constituents and, listen to this, between Blanc-Sablon and Natashquan, there is no road at all for 500 kilometres.

However, people are still entitled to be properly represented, on the same footing as all Canadians. Of course, there are more people on Prince Edward Island, but one must admit that it is easier to meet people on the other side of the street than people who live three hours away by boat or plane.

Before I would support a government that wants to pass one law and repeal another for very partisan purposes, I would first defend my constituents and try once more to see them treated more fairly rather than more unfairly.

The distant regions of Quebec should not suffer so that citizens in Ontario, British Columbia or Alberta can be better represented. Quebec has a right to be fairly represented. In addition to taking away this right, there is an attempt to speed up the coming into force of the new electoral boundaries. Once again, I am against it and the Bloc Quebecois is against it. If this goes through, in addition to being underrepresented, we will suffer more consequences sooner or later.

It is just not right and not fair. I shall state my opposition formally. I am making enormous efforts to ensure that each of my constituents has equal access to the services I can provide as their member of Parliament. Unfortunately, I have not yet perfected the art of being everywhere at once. But it is certainly not for lack of trying.

The future leader of the Liberal Party has been saying that we need to decrease the democratic deficit. And then here are his colleagues ready to change the law to serve his electoral interests. If the member for LaSalle—Émard, with the help of his collaborators, is blatantly fixing the law for partisan purposes, when he is not even prime minster yet, should we not be seriously asking what he will do in the future?

Is the hon. member afraid to face the opposition in the House? He would like the next election to take place as soon as possible, probably next spring. Why such a hurry? If he were to abide by the dates set out in the act for the coming into force of the new boundaries, he would have the time to define a clear legislative platform. He would be able to state his opinion on issues that are important to Canadians and Quebeckers.

What does the man who aspires to be this government's leader fear? He is afraid of answering questions from the opposition and especially from the Bloc Quebecois. We are wondering about his sense of democracy. We have serious doubts about his respect for the fundamental values of the people. How could we think otherwise when a principle as fundamental to democracy as respect for the law is ignored by the very people who have been chosen to defend it?

What can we do when, at the highest level, at the parliamentary level, individual interests come before the the public good? We are not talking about petty quarrels here, we are talking about government rules and legislation.

We are also talking about being honest with the public. People rely on accurate information. Since this suits a few individuals acting out of pure partisanship, one law is being thrown out in favour of another. Power is being used for purposes that I personally feel are unjustified.

Where is the democracy in this? The basic principle of democracy is obeying the law. It is the government that will make the democratic deficit worse. What we are discussing today is not a simple matter of having MPs represent a certain number of constituents, it is an improper use and abuse of parliamentary power for strictly partisan, even personal reasons.

The Constitution commands us to abide by the law. The members opposite are hiding behind a new law to justify their actions. Do they think that the public is ignorant and that people are incapable of analyzing, understanding and judging their actions?

Quebeckers understand and know how to put things in perspective. They remember. On election day, we will remember the way democracy was used, laws abided by, and people in the regions treated. We will remember on election day and we will ask Quebeckers to vote against this antidemocratic government.

A word to those who are prepared to approve Bill C-49; if they cannot heed my advice, then at least let them respect the principle behind the new electoral map. Let them follow their conscience and vote against Bill C-49. Let them show some self-respect as citizens and parliamentarians and show respect for the constituents, taxpayers, and citizens of Quebec and Canada.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-49, an act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003, be read the third time and passed.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to share my time with the hon. member for Halifax West.

Despite the brevity and unassuming title of the bill, it is of great importance to Canadians. Canadians deserve to have the representation in the House of Commons that the census has determined they should have.

I made a long speech on the merits of the bill when it was referred to a parliamentary committee before second reading. I am grateful for the support and contribution of members of all parties.

I know some of our colleagues—and especially the whip of the New Democratic Party, I think—had concerns about the Acadian community. This issue was discussed. Members of the Acadian community have stated that they are now quite pleased with the way we want to go.

That being said, I recommend that the House pass the bill as soon as possible so that Canadians can benefit from the improvements made by this bill in the next election.

Finally, all political parties, and they are part of the institution of Parliament, all constituency associations and all hon. members deserve to know as soon as possible what the boundaries will be like for the next election so they can proceed with the organizational work that is necessary in a representative democracy.

I also want to indicate to the House that there has been consultation among all political parties about certain constituency names where corrections would be in order. I have had that bill produced. It will be handed to the House leaders later this day. When we approve this bill, perhaps today, and today would actually be my preference, or tomorrow if it is not, then at that time I would propose for adoption to the House amendments to the riding names, which have been agreed to with all political parties in the House of Commons in order to accommodate the wishes of as many hon. members as possible.

With that, I thank colleagues for their support.

[The Speaker]

It being 3:04 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion at report stage and second reading of Bill C-49.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Electoral Reform

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his excellent question.

I am pleased to inform colleagues that the government intends to proceed with Bill C-49 on the Monday following the Thanksgiving recess. Given the new interest in nominations, I am sure her NDP colleagues will want to support the bill. Then the member for Halifax will have an opportunity again to be nominated.

[Joe Jordan, Liberal, Leeds—Grenville, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I understand that some members are getting ready for the next election. In fact, I read this morning that the member for Halifax held her nomination meeting last night.

Could the government House leader provide the House with an update as to the plans for Bill C-49, a government bill designed to address some of these anomalies with riding redistribution?

Business of the House

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to answer that question. I think it is an excellent question.

This afternoon we will continue with the debate on Bill C-48, the resource taxation measures. We will then turn to a motion to refer Bill C-38, the cannabis legislation, to committee before second reading. If this is complete, then we would follow with: Bill C-32, the Criminal Code amendments; Bill C-19, the first nations fiscal institution bill; and Bill C-36, the archives bill, if we get to that. There is some discussion going on about Bill C-36.

Tomorrow we will begin with Bill C-19, if it has not already been completed, and then go to Bill C-13. If we have not completed the list for today, we could as well continue with that.

Next week is the Thanksgiving week of constituency work. When we return on October 20, it is my intention to call Bill C-49 to begin; that is the redistribution legislation, for the benefit of hon. members. When that is concluded, we would return to any of the business not completed this week or reported from committee.

Thursday, October 23, shall be an allotted day. That is the sixth day in the supply cycle.

Committees of the House

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Peterborough, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 46th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference of Tuesday, October 7, 2003, in relation to Bill C-49, an act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003.

The committee has considered Bill C-49 and reports the bill with an amendment. I would like to thank the committee and, before it, the subcommittee, which worked on the important matter of reorganizing our electoral boundaries following the last census.

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

This has nothing to do with another chamber that is supposed to represent regions. Whether it does adequately is a debate for another time. We are not talking about that. We are talking about the House of Commons of Canada, not another institution. There is no parallel with that in any other country in the world.

The same applies in Quebec. Does a person in Hull want to be represented by someone from Chicoutimi? To put the point much better, does the person from Chicoutimi want to be represented by someone from Montreal who may have never even seen that community? That is the automatic result of a system like this.

The other issue is when we meet constituents, as we often do. When my constituent, Mr. René Berthiaume, introduces me to a relative or a friend he says “Hi, I want you to meet my MP” and he says my name. Regardless of the quantity, whether it is 20%, 30% or 50% it does not matter. MPs are elected only because they are on a party's list. I do not see the democratic value of that. The hon. member is saying to us that this results in more people participating in the electoral process.

This morning I had in my mail a book published by Queen's University about reforming parliamentary democracy, edited by Leslie Seidle and David C. Docherty. The report talks about the New Zealand example and how Professor Jonathan Boston did his work on that example.

I will quote from the report. It states:

As Boston cautions, it's too early to dissect all the ramifications of New Zealand's experiment with electoral reform. Certainly the power that was once enjoyed by a single party in power (and the front bench of the governing party) has been dispersed.

Therefore the only thing that has been achieved is that there ceases to be a majority government. It goes on to state, “Yet, according to Boston, the surge in public confidence that was hoped for has yet to materialize”.

Therefore it did not result in increased voter participation. It did not even do that which is advocated by the hon. member. It is not the great panacea that it is supposed to be.

There is something else. During an election, whether in my riding, in the member opposite's or my colleague's riding, people send us to Ottawa to represent them for all sorts of reasons. Some might vote for me, Don Boudria. Some might think that I should be their MP; that is possible. Others vote for the Liberal Party.

I do not know why people voted for me. Did they vote for Don Boudria or for the Liberal Party? Some vote for the Liberal platform, while others vote for the Prime Minister. All I know is that when it is all added up, I am here in the House of Commons, as is the member opposite and everyone else here. All the votes for all these reasons are all added up.

In his proposal for proportional representation, the hon. member claims—and that is where he is mistaken, in my view—that all the votes for people who are not elected belong to the political party, that no one wanted to vote for the candidate, the platform or the leader and that all these people voted only for the party, at the expense of all other considerations. There is nothing to prove this.

If this is true, it is an insult to the members in this House. Does this mean that each and every one of us was elected based solely on the political party we represented in our ridings and for no other reason? Not a chance.

That is what we are being told. We are being told that all the residual votes are added to a list proportionate to the number of votes per party, and not proportionate to the popularity of the leaders, candidates or anything other than, of course, the parties. These votes belong, therefore, to the parties.

At this level, our constituents sometimes ask a few of us, “How come enough of you did not vote, independently of your colleagues on this bill or whatever, the way we expected you to?” There are all kinds of reasons why this can happen, such as the party platform or because of being a minister, and so on.

Whatever the case may be, these are the kinds of comments we hear from our constituents. The day we no longer have any constituents, how are we to vote against our party, should we decide to do so? What would automatically happen to us, the next time, on that list? Would we be 194th on the list the next time? This is inevitable.

Then the hon. member said that there are only two or three countries in the world, which he named, with a system similar to ours. This is nonsense.

In fact, France had a system based on proportional representation, and it got rid of it. Why? Because people could no longer relate to the members they had elected. France got rid of this system and now elects members to represent ridings. Yes, it is true that there is perhaps a second ballot. However, members are still elected to represent ridings, and not by proportional representation, in France's national assembly. I go two or three times a year, and I am well aware that France has no such system, although it once did.

Australia was mentioned as an example. Once again, this is not true. In Australia's Parliament, or the House of Representatives as it is officially called, members represent ridings only. There may be two ballots, but that is an entirely different debate; it is not proportional representation. Members represent constituents. They do not represent a territory that is 5,000 km long or anything like that. This is not the case in Australia either.

When the hon. member says that Canada, the U.S. and some other country were the only ones—he said that only two or three had the same system as ours—he was suggesting that the others had a proportional representation system.

That cannot even be said of Australia. We travelled to that country. The House leader for his party, who is sitting barely a metre away from him, was there with me to visit Australia's House of Representatives. Of course, Australian senators each represent a region, a state. They are elected based on the size of their states. But that is another debate. We are talking about the other house.

As for the members of the House of Representatives, they represent an electoral division and nothing else. To claim in this House, as the member did earlier, that it is any other way does not reflect the reality.

Some may say that the debate is worthwhile. The hon. member does have the right to bring any issue before the House for debate so that it can be discussed further. That is legitimate, if he thinks this is something that is viable.

I disagree. I think that the system we have is a good one and that it is worth keeping. We can improve our current system in a variety of ways. For instance, in our country, we have a bill before us—it is before the parliamentary committee; as a matter of fact, the meeting is about to start—to ensure that, in the various electoral districts of this country, the redistribution is effected in as near a future as possible. This way, the right of the people to representation by population will be recognized. We want to expedite the process, to change and improve it so that, as Canadians, as citizens of this country, we are better represented in the House of Commons. We want to make that process better. I even made that suggestion in this House a few days ago. But that is another debate.

If the hon. member wishes to talk about creating a system for the other place, let him go ahead. He said something like this, “Listen, as for the proportional system that exists in several countries, with respect to the upper house, we want to close it and include in this house the supplementary parliamentarians who would be elected by the proportional system”. In fact, what he is suggesting, if I understand the system he is proposing today, is that we have senators sitting in the House of Commons. A few moments ago, he gave a reply along those lines to the hon. member for Mississauga South.

These are some examples showing why I think the system he is proposing is not any better. It is not an improvement for our country. Whatever the outcome, proposing a national referendum on the issue in less than a year, when the debate has barely begun, and no evidence has been presented for his contentions, is clearly premature. In my opinion, we should not even think about going down the road to proportional representation. In any case, work is currently being done on reports that will be published later.

There are all kinds of other reforms that could be undertaken. We have implemented some together. As for improving the democratic process, Bill C-24, which we passed recently, proposed one improvement. That was to reduce dependence on large corporations and large unions and have individuals become more involved in the democratic process. That is one way to modernize Canada's Parliament, and this government did it. I must say that some hon. members opposite also voted in favour of these measures, and I thank them.

Bill C-49 proposes electoral redistribution so that we can benefit from what the commissions told us. That is one way to make improvements, and there are others.

But throwing it all out, to replace it with a proportional or semi-proportional hybrid system, or some other, is really going too fast. In any case, we are certainly not prepared to hold a referendum on this within a year or less.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[The Speaker]

The House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the referral to committee before second reading of Bill C-49.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

Madam Speaker, discussions have taken place between the parties and there is an agreement to further defer the recorded division requested on Bill C-49 until the end of government orders on Tuesday, September 23.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a few minutes to speak to Bill C-49. It should be obvious to everyone in the country that this particular bill has only one purpose and that is to allow the new boundaries to be in place by April 1 instead of the day in August which it would normally be.

To have this bill in front of us now is simply a concession to the wannabe Prime Minister so that he can call an election early before people have a chance to really look at him and examine what he stands for and what his performance has been in the House of Commons. It is about an early election. That is really what it is about.

I certainly cannot object on the grounds of the fact that it gives Alberta a little more of the representation that it is entitled to by population. But I would like to talk about what is actually happening in the re-drawing of the boundaries.

I am in the Edmonton area and in Edmonton we were very distressed, all of us, when we went to the committee. I went the day of the hearings in Edmonton and I sat there all day to hear the presentations. Every presentation, save one, was against what the committee was doing. That one was from a town nearby that used to be in the Elk Island riding before the boundaries were changed in 1997. The only reason that presentation was put forward was so that the riding would have a member of Parliament who would now be physically closer to it. It is impossible to have all people close to their members of Parliament.

Instead of hearing all of those individuals, including the presentation from the city of Edmonton that said it would rather have six members of Parliament in the City of Edmonton who would represent the city than eight members of Parliament with divided interests, instead of listening to that message which it heard over and over, the committee decided in its report to give reasons why it should not hear this and so it was ignored.

Furthermore, it has changed the boundaries in such a way that we will now spend hours and hours sitting in our vehicles. Instead of having compact constituencies, it has divided them up into long, narrow constituencies so that we will spend hours in our vehicles instead of doing our work. I object to that very strenuously.

I will support this motion and vote for it in the end, but I want to urge the government to look seriously at this process because it seems to me that what is being done is politically motivated. How else can one explain arranging the constituencies so that it makes it more difficult for the member of Parliament to be an effective member of Parliament and spend good time with people in the riding? This is what has happened in this particular case and I really deplore it.

On the other hand, Elk Island will disappear. No longer will you be able to say, Madam Speaker, “the hon. member for Elk Island”. That riding will be gone according to the new boundaries and the new one will be called Edmonton--Sherwood Park, which is the main town in my riding. I may put in a suggestion to add another town which is not insignificant.

The fact of the matter is that we will do our very best as members of Parliament in the Canadian Alliance to represent the people in whatever ridings we get. We will work hard to do that, but I am really sad that this commission did so much damage in our effectiveness.

The riding where I now live extends 200 miles. It goes right alongside another one that is 200 miles long. Why should we have two members of Parliament waving at each other on the highway as they go back and forth to meetings in their ridings? That is a useless waste of a member of Parliament's time to just sit in a vehicle and drive. We have no other means of transportation there that can be used.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-49 respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003.

Obviously, we have understood, as a result of what my colleague from Jonquière and others have said, that the purpose of this bill is quite simply to move up the effective date for the new electoral map for partisan purposes.

The current act is clear. It was passed by this House, and it was known before this new electoral map was adopted that once it was, and had been published in the Canada Gazette , it would take effect one year after the date of publication.

It is obvious that the reason we are discussing this today is that the member for LaSalle—Émard and future Liberal leader has decided that it would be better for the election to be held next April or some time next spring. So, you will no doubt have understood that, if that was his choice as Prime Minister, an election held in April or some other time next spring would be based on the current electoral map.

Obviously they can give us all kinds of reasons for wanting the new map. We have heard the Canadian Alliance tell us just now that, yes, it does give greater representation to the west and to Ontario, and that is the reason for it. I point out that this means Quebec loses representation.

We had 25% of the ridings, and that will drop to 24%. We in Quebec have opposed this new distribution very strongly, for the simple reason that the population increase on the north shore of Montreal might perhaps have justified two additional ridings and that nothing ought to be done to the rest of Quebec. That is what ought to have happened. If there is an increase on the north shore, let them make it into two more ridings, as they added ridings elsewhere: three in Ontario, two in Alberta, two in British Columbia.

That is not what happened, however. The Chief Electoral Officer has opted for his way of doing things, and it has had terrible consequences for the regions of Quebec. Once again, the worst part of all of this is that the redistribution under this proposed bill advantages other parts of Canada and disadvantages Quebec.

Furthermore, because an MP from Quebec, the member for LaSalle—Émard, who will be the next leader of the Liberal Party, intends to hold an election in the spring, the Elections Act had to be amended, despite the fact that it was supposed to be a totally non-partisan piece of legislation. That was the intent. That is why an independent chief electoral officer was appointed, on the basis of accepted standards, through a process open to all members of this House. When the redistribution process began, we knew full well that, once the new electoral map had been approved and published in the Canada Gazette , it would be come in force one year later.

Everyone knew that. Every member of Parliament, including the member for LaSalle—Émard, knew about this. The reform went ahead in accordance with the legislation. Then, a census was conducted. Members new the law, and yet this change is now before the House.

In my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, this is causing a very significant imbalance. The municipality of Saint-Colomban, which is in the middle of the northeastern part of our riding, was pulled out of the riding and moved to another. More specifically, Saint-Colomban is bounded on the south by Mirabel, on the west by Lachute and another municipality that is part of the riding, on the north and northeast by Mille-Isles, also in our riding, and on the east, in one tiny corner, by another municipality in a different riding.

It is being pulled out and moved solely for demographic reasons. Geographical considerations have not been taken into account. Some people in Saint-Colomban feel that they are being picked on, and are hurt—the pain is almost as bad as having a tooth pulled; after all, they have been a part of our riding for over a century.

The people in this municipality are asking why. We have had to tell them that it was because there had been a redistribution and so, mathematically, some people had to be removed, because we were over the prescribed maximum. We were within the 25% variance, because we have 106,000 inhabitants and the average is 95,000, with up to 25% more allowed.

Still, because new ridings have to be created and some in Quebec removed, we must review all the ridings on the Montreal North Shore, to the detriment of some, including the citizens of the municipality of Saint-Columban.

It is all the more difficult because, according to the legislation, with which the Chief Electoral Officer and all members of the House are familiar, this new electoral map was supposed to come into effect, according to the existing legislation, in September, 2004.

That is the reality of it. Because of the desire of a member of this House, the member for LaSalle—Émard, who will be the next prime minister of Canada, to have an election next spring, we will penalize the citizens of Saint-Columban and those of Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean who have lost one riding.

One riding is also going to be taken away from the people of the Mauricie, for the benefit of people in Ontario who are going to gain three ridings, the people in Alberta who are going to gain two ridings, and the people in British Columbia who are going to gain two as well. They are fighting today to push things through, because they know that the election will be held in the spring. Once again, they are trying to use the law to change the procedure that this House has approved. That is what is happening. The members voting in favour of this bill want to change the electoral process approved by Parliament.

The hard part is that it is being done for partisan purposes. I am thinking of the people in Ontario, who are going to gain three ridings, the people in Alberta who are going to gain two ridings, and the people in British Columbia who are going to gain two as well.

However, Quebec, which is losing two ridings, is really losing political clout, because we were at 25% and we are dropping to 24%. The Quebec regions are being penalized in relation to the urban centres. We are entitled to demand compliance with the legislation adopted by this House and understood by the Chief Electoral Officer and all the hon. members before the redistribution process began. This is where things get problematic. Everyone was familiar with that way of doing things; everyone was well aware that, once the electoral map was adopted, it would come into effect one year after appearing in the Canada Gazette , meaning in September 2004.

Obviously, if the next leader of the Liberal Party wants to call a spring election, he will have to do so under the old electoral map. This suits those of us from Quebec. It is that simple. If, as a member from Quebec, he does not like this, he can wait and hold a fall election; it is that simple. Then, he can call an election under the new electoral map, because this procedure was known to all the stakeholders in Quebec, when the redistribution process began.

This does not take into account the name changes, and I will end with this, because the electoral map is not the only thing changing. The names of ridings were changed too. The Chief Electoral Officer even went so far as to ask the commission members to review this matter. As a result, the Quebec members decided that ridings could not contain more than two names. When they started their consultations, they determined that ridings could have just one name. So, initially, the suggestion was to give my riding of Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel a single name, Outaouais. Obviously, we fought this, and we told them that the only way to properly represent the riding was to keep the name Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel.

Finally, the commission decided to allow two names, at their discretion. In the end, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel became Argenteuil—Mirabel. I hope that this House will do everything in its power to ensure that Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel in Quebec will have the same rights as Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, the neighbouring riding on the opposite side of the Outaouais river, which is entitled to keep three names while my riding has just two.

[Jocelyne Girard-Bujold, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the bill introduced by the government. The Bloc Quebecois is against Bill C-49 in principle and against its referral to committee before second reading.

This morning, the important thing is to tell the voters what is hiding beneath all this, to expose this sleight of hand, this manipulation of public opinion and democracy that the government is about to perpetrate.

The Bloc Quebecois does not object to this process taking place after every census, every ten years. That is a normal democratic process and naturally apolitical. This process began in March 2001, when the most recent census data were published. From that starting point, the process was automatically set in motion. That is normal and that is what was done. That is how it should be done.

But this bill now before the House is trying to prevent the process from continuing to its end, as provided by law. This bill is an attempt to alter an established process. It is introducing politics into an apolitical process.

If this government can do this, then why is it that I, as a member from the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, am seeing it butchered by this process? My region, which currently has four ridings, will be cut down to three. It has been butchered. We knew, as we went into this process, that our region was experiencing a decline in its population and its number of voters.

We decided that we would join forces and appear before the commission when it held meetings in my region. As the Bloc Quebecois member responsible for the Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean region, I called upon all the mayors of all the cities in the region. I asked them to send us a resolution saying what they wanted us to put before the commission. Through their municipal councils, 99% of the people in my region—almost all of them—sent us resolutions saying that they wanted to keep the status quo, that is, keep our four electoral districts.

Why did they want to do that? We are always saying that we are an isolated region, an enclave surrounded by forest. We cannot attract people from elsewhere because the region is cut off.

Within our region, there was the potential to respect the spirit of this legislation and keep what we had. But, initially, under the process, there had to be an electoral quota of at least 95,000 constituents per riding. Our population numbered 310,000. Divided by four, this figure no longer met the criteria, because we either had to be less than 25% or more than 25%.

We testified before the committee. The members listened with extremely open minds. They heard our demands. But they decided to uphold their decision.

There is another process in the House; members of Parliament can testify before a committee of other members. At that point, the Liberal members circumvented our efforts.

As members representing that region, we said that we would be able to ensure that our region was designated. This legislation would allow us to do this. This is important, given our demographics and our young population.

For several years now, the Saguenay--Lac-Saint-Jean region has undertaken an initiative to attract immigrants and people from the outside, in order to repopulate and increase our numbers.

Instead of understanding this argument, a Liberal member said during a meeting of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Subcommittee that this was enough and that we would not get anything else. She did not listen to the other members; she ignored our representations and our arguments. She had already formed her opinion and said that it was that or nothing. This subcommittee chaired by a Liberal member did not respect what its peers had to say. After all, we represent the people.

Furthermore, the regional Liberal members are saying that they have political clout in their regions and their party. The hon. member for Chicoutimi—Le Fjord did not use his political clout to defend his region. The Liberal Party and the member should be ashamed. Our region had the right to keep its vested rights, because we had taken all the necessary steps and we had the support of the population.

If this government can change the normal process, why can I not say, “Too bad, but I take issue with the fact that you did not listen to me”. This is a double standard. Why should they have the right to do something when I do not have the same right, to represent my region?

I notice that the bill does not give this power to members or the regions concerned. They are being undemocratic. And why? In order to please an ordinary member, the member for LaSalle—Émard.

We have been talking about this since yesterday. It is time to talk about this member, since he is the future prime minister. He said he will be more transparent and that he will ensure that the House of Commons will be seen to be more democratic. Yet, his first move, even before becoming prime minister, is an undemocratic one.

This is serious. It is easy to see the mote in someone else's eye and not the beam in one own's eye. This bill does not respect the regions, does not listen to the members from the regions, and it will gradually diminish the representation of our regions in this Parliament.

Why are they doing this? It is the members from the regions who are reacting the most vigorously. They are the most in touch with their voters. They know what the public needs. A complacent government does not want to hear about the real problems of individuals. That is too painful.

What is more, the commission's decision is irrevocable. What is done, is done. In my region, in each riding, senior people in the Liberal Party are saying they will challenge this process all the way up to the Supreme Court. I want democracy to prevail, the effective date—August 25, 2004—to stand, and the democratic process not to be tampered with.

That would allow our region to keep four members who could still question this government's actions and state exactly what the regions want. I will therefore be voting against this bill.

[Deepak Obhrai, Canadian Alliance, Calgary East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to speak to Bill C-49, which talks about boundary changes. As I listened to the parliamentary secretary as he spoke to the bill, I picked up on a couple of words he mentioned, which to me indicate why things are wrong with the government and what the problem is with this whole system of boundary changes and representation. He said that the boundary changes are effective representation for regions and that the regions of Alberta and British Columbia get the seats they deserve.

Let us in honesty look at this whole thing. This is like giving little crumbs off the table. There is a fundamental flaw in our Constitution, which is that we do not have equal representation. Regions do not have equal representation. That is what he did not talk about. When the parliamentary secretary talks about effective representation, I do not know what he is talking about.

Let us look at this for a minute. Historically, one can agree that when the Constitution was first brought in for this country the seat allocation and representation reflected the reality of that time, which, as the parliamentary secretary said, was around 1800. Today we are talking about the year 2004. The dynamics of this country have changed. Where are these dynamics being represented in this bill by the government? Nowhere.

Now we will have two extra seats for Alberta and two extra seats for British Columbia. And guess what: the prime minister in waiting says that the west needs equal representation and these seats will give it that representation. Give me a break: two seats will give us equal representation? How can everybody tout that western alienation will be taken care of by these four extra seats?

Now the Liberals have changed the date. They have brought it forward to April to suit their political agenda. It is all about politics. It is to suit their political agenda so that the member who is going to become the prime minister in November can call an election at his own given time. If this is not political manipulation, what is it? To couch it in terms of saying that this will address some of the western alienation is just plain wrong.

Let us look at the other chamber, which could be used effectively to represent equal regions of this country. Let me just tell hon. members what the seats represent right now. This has nothing to do with different regions in this country. This is just to say that it is time to look at the Constitution and change the formula and the members to reflect the reality of 2004. Alberta has a population of three million and Nova Scotia has a population of 940,000, yet Nova Scotia gets 10 more Senate seats. Let us talk about where we can make an effective difference to the regional diversity of this country. It is a great thing to have regional diversity from the west to the east, all the way out from the Prairies into Ontario, Quebec and Nova Scotia. It is a beautiful country, but regional diversity needs to be reflected. This government cannot reflect that unless and until it changes what is required in the Senate.

Proposals have been made to address this inequality. Right now, if we do not want to change the Constitution, the first good step we can take is to listen to the provinces. We should take the names of the people the provinces put forward to the federal government and appoint those people to the Senate. It should not be the gravy train.

Amazingly, this gravy train started with Prime Minister Trudeau. When Prime Minister Mulroney came along, he was the first one to take a pot shot at the gravy train big time, and guess what? He got on the gravy train and gave to his friends. Now the gravy train is moving again because the time has come for the Prime Minister to go. He is the engine of this gravy train and people have already started climbing on.

The fact of the matter is that until there is effective representation where the voices of Canadians are heard equally with regional diversity, only then can we say that the power is with the people of Canada. Canadians are looking at the inequality coming out of the second House, and that is driving western alienation. That western alienation will not go away just because there is a new face in the Liberal Party. It will not go just because that new face says that they have changed and will be going in a new direction. There is no new direction. We just have to ask people out in the west.

The Liberals are touting that four extra seats will be going to the western provinces. They think this will address many of the concerns of people in the west and will give them good representation. I would like to know how this will give the west good representation when only six senators from each province have been appointed to that chamber. What qualifications do most of them have? They worked for the Liberal Party. Defeated Liberal candidates are given patronage appointments. The Prime Minister's old buddies are all headed to that chamber. That chamber has become a joke and it should be getting the respect it deserves.

We have an opportunity to change that and reflect the reality of Canada. Canada is a big, wide country from the west coast to the east coast. Regional diversity is extremely strong. Those who have travelled across the country know that. I spent some of the summer in Nova Scotia which is a beautiful region in Canada. Like the west, it has its own regional diversity.

The boundary changes and the extra seats that are going to the west will really not change much. This will not address western alienation. The government needs to take the first steps toward reforming the other House by listening to the provinces and the premiers. The Prime Minister has the chance now to appoint people to that chamber on the advice of provincial governments.

It is fine to have extra seats but they will not represent the real regional diversity of the country.

[Rodger Cuzner, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I am honoured to be able to participate in debate prior to second reading on Bill C-49, an act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003.

The representation order referred to in the title of the act is the end product of a process for adjusting our electoral boundaries which takes place after every decennial census.

While this process is probably little known to most Canadians, it is fundamental to ensuring effective representation in the House of Commons for all regions, all provinces, all communities and all citizens. Given the importance of this process, I would like to spend a little bit of time today reviewing its key elements.

We should go back in this case to 1867 to find the origins of the electoral boundaries readjustment process, or the EBRA process, as it has become commonly known.

In addition to establishing a system that is based on representation by population, our Fathers of Confederation recognized the geographical, cultural, political and demographic diversity of our provinces and the importance of integrating these factors into any formula for distribution of seats in the House of Commons.

In addition to establishing a Parliament composed of two houses, the British North America Act of 1867 included section 51, which stated that the number of seats allocated to each province must be recalculated after each 10 year census, starting in 1871.

The act included a simple formula whereby the total number of seats was to be calculated by dividing the population of each province by a fixed number, referred to as the electoral quota or quotient. The quotient was derived by dividing the population of the province of Quebec by 65, the number of seats then held in Quebec under the Constitution. This formula provided the basis for the process we have today although there have been a number of important changes over the years.

For example, the famous Senate floor rule was added in 1915. It states that a province cannot have fewer seats in the House of Commons than it does in the Senate. This clause had the immediate effect of guaranteeing four seats to the province of Prince Edward Island and continues to provide a floor for a number of provinces today.

In 1946, the formula was changed so that 255 seats were allocated based on provinces' share of Canada's total population rather than the average population per electoral district in Quebec.

In 1951, the 15% clause was adopted to prevent too rapid a loss of seats in some provinces. Under the new rules, no province could lose more than 15% of the number of Commons seats to which it had been entitled in the last readjustment.

In the following decade, we entered what may be referred to as the modern era of electoral boundaries readjustment. Up to and including the boundary readjustment of 1951, the House of Commons itself was responsible for fixing the electoral boundaries of the electoral districts through a committee established for that purpose.

Concern about the level of influence exercised by the House led to the passing of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act in 1964. The new act was also brought in against the backdrop of the experience of our neighbours to the south, who were beset by the problem of gerrymandering. The act, which provides the statutory mechanism with which to carry out the constitutional requirements in section 51, is strongly based on the idea of maintaining the independence of the electoral redistribution process.

In the interests of political neutrality, the act establishes independent commissions in each province. As originally passed, each commission was to be chaired by a judge designated by the chief justice of the province, and there were to be three other members, including a representation commissioner and a public servant who would sit on the commission. The post of representation commissioner was later abolished and those duties were transferred to the Chief Electoral Officer.

In addition to being independent, it was recognized at the time that the process should provide opportunities for everyone to express their views, including the public and members of Parliament. To this end, each provincial commission publishes proposed electoral maps in the newspapers and the public is invited to public hearings held in various locations.

Members of Parliament, who invariably have strong views on both the names and boundaries of electoral districts, can appear before the commissions during the public hearings and there is also provision for them to make objections to proposed changes through a committee of the House of Commons. The final decision, however, rests within the commissions.

The current guidelines for determining boundary adjustments are found in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, as amended in 1984. As set out in the act, the division of the province into electoral districts must proceed on the basis that the population of each electoral district in the province shall, as close as reasonably possible, correspond to the electoral quotient for that province.

However, making changes to electoral boundaries is not just a mathematical exercise. Rather, it is a delicate balancing act that must consider a number of factors, including the community of interest or the community of identity, or the historic pattern of an electoral district in that province, and a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated rural and northern regions. In other words, the commissions must consider social, cultural, linguistic, geographic and other factors.

The commissions may depart from strict voter parity in order to take these factors into consideration so long as the population of each district remains within 25% more or 25% less of the electoral quota for that province. Exceptions to this range are possible, but only for remote and sparsely populated ridings. This 25% leeway reflects the Supreme Court's 1991 decision on Saskatchewan's provincial electoral boundaries, which concluded that the objective of the right to vote in the charter was to attain effective representation rather than strict voter parity.

This brings us to our present task. As all members will be aware, we have just completed the redistribution process and have new, up to date electoral maps. The only question is whether or not to accelerate its effective date. If operational concerns are satisfied, there is no reason not to do so, since this process is complete.

I have spoken today about the need for an independent electoral process. This will in no way change the EBRA process. It remains as independent as it always has been. The views of the public and members of Parliament have been heard. What has changed is that in this present case, the Chief Electoral Officer has told us that he does not need the full one year grace period that is prescribed in the act. In that case, I think we can all agree that it only makes sense to implement the new boundaries as soon as possible.

The sooner we act, the sooner the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta will get the seats they deserve and the sooner our electoral map will reflect all the other important changes in the demographic characteristics of Canada's electoral districts. If we delay implementation of the new ridings longer than is operationally necessary, it would be unfair not only to these particular regions but to all Canadians.

For these reasons I support this important legislation and I call upon all members to do so.