Debates of June 3rd, 1994

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I wish to inform the House that, following the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended for an extra 24 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)( b ).

The House resumed consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, when I rose before question period in a much noisier Chamber I was stating that our party was prepared to support the bill with some reservation, given the Senate and government amendments that have been tabled today. I was pointing out some of the concerns we had with the bill and the fact that most of the commissions have now reported or are close to reporting in terms of their particular roles.

The effects of the amendments are basically as follows. The Senate is trying to ensure that redistribution is completed prior to the next federal election and the amendments now agreed to by the government should accomplish it. They also go further. They keep the commissions that were originally to be killed by the bill in a suspended existence and allow the present stage of public hearings to be completed so that we save the money we basically had already spent on the process.

Furthermore, and this is important, the amendments will in effect serve as a safety net to the committee examining the redistribution process. They provide a backup position in case the committee is unable to reach agreement on the nature of reforms, particularly if reforms are reached that do not necessitate starting the process from scratch once again.

They make it politically difficult under the motion the House earlier passed, Government Motion No. 10, for the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to come up with a piece of work that is essentially partisan or that would lead to boundaries and a process that was not agreeable.

Also it is important this whole series of events has shown, particularly when the lower House is forced to act hastily, that the upper House can make a valid contribution. There are many problems with the Senate as it is constituted today and improvements could still be made, but I will leave that for another colleague of mine to comment on.

I point out that with the amendments the government has now introduced, or the Senate amendments that the government is supporting, particularly with the additional change that the government has made, the amendments to the bill are in substance virtually identical to what the Reform Party had proposed before the bill originally left the House.

Originally it was not our intention to see redistribution killed but this is as workable a compromise as we are going to get, given the obvious desire of the government to examine the process.

I urge the government to pursue in the future, not only with this bill, but also with motion No. 10, a really substantial all party agreement on changes to the redistribution process.

When we are dealing with the rules of the game it seems reasonable to expect that we would have a consensual approach. I urge the government to consider the opinions of the major parties in the House, the Liberal Party and the Reform Party. It should also, because elections concern minor parties, consider the effect on the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party and whatever input they would have into this legislation.

It might be noticed that I did not mention the Bloc Quebecois in my comments. Frankly I have been mystified at every stage of the bill at the unusual Bloc position of supporting the unilateral changes in the first place. Then the Bloc engaged in a filibuster when it said it wanted the bill passed quickly and now the Bloc says it does not want changes.

We have seen in recent weeks some of the difficulties in having an Official Opposition that does not have the same stake in Canadian democracy and in Canadian institutions, not just on this issue, but on others.

As is obviously the case for many other hon. members here, the recent attitude of the Bloc Quebecois and its leader worries me a lot. But it is important to note that the Bloc claims it will not run in the next federal election. Indeed, the Bloc is not as interested as the Reform Party or the Liberal Party in a system and in issues concerning the next election.

What this illustrates, albeit in a small way, is that they cannot constantly aim at leaving the Federation and still claim to be concerned by all things Canadian.

They cannot have it both ways. This is a fact that we should take into account when considering this bill and the amendments to the Election Act.

I would like to take the last few minutes of my speech to comment on Motion No. 10. This bill suspends the process beginning in September for a period of nearly a year and government motion No. 10 charges the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with studying a new law. It has laid out four items.

I will very quickly go over what our party feels very strongly the government should be considering. First, we had insisted and the government had accepted that this committee look at a formula to cap or reduce the size of the House. There has been

some comment on this because we have been urging, particularly in the case of British Columbia, that it achieve its fair representation.

We cannot have things every way and we recognize that. The size of the House should be capped. Maybe even the size should be lowered, but the proportionality of the provinces should be reflected. We would expect British Columbia and Ontario to increase their number of seats. Obviously this necessitates a new formula and some loss of seats for smaller provinces. You cannot violate the Constitution and forbid proportionality. At the same time you cannot cap the number of seats, as the Bloc Quebecois wants, and say that the smaller provinces that are losing share cannot decline in representation. You cannot have all of these things at once and then deny regional representation through the Senate.

That is another case where the Bloc's position makes no particular sense. Once again we would urge that the only valid reason for completely stopping this process rather than resuming it will be to come up with a new formula that will cap and reduce the number of seats which is what the public has been telling us.

Another aspect of the motion called for a review of the present method of selecting members of electoral boundaries commissions. The Lortie commission, which spent a great deal of time and money studying these issues and which on these subjects was really addressing non-ideological issues, recommended that the use of independent electoral boundaries commissions for each province and the Northwest Territories, as well as the composition and manner of their appointment, be maintained. The chairman is to be appointed by the chief justice of the province and additional members by the Speaker of the House. That is certainly what our party will be stressing.

The current commissions have not only the chief justices but also additional members who are, by and large, the academics with expertise in this field across the country. It is difficult to imagine finding more qualified people.

The motion asks that they review the rules governing and the powers and methods of the commissions and whether they ought to commence their work on the basis of making necessary alterations to the boundaries of existing electoral districts wherever possible.

Several recommendations here are relevant. If anything we would be restricting, as the Lortie commission suggested, the latitude in terms of population deviation. We should look at more frequent and partial redistribution after each general election rather than after each decennial census. Those are things we would encourage the commission to study, but we would also suggest that minor changes in those areas are not grounds for suspending, stopping or restarting the process.

Finally, the motion asks that we review the time and nature of the involvement of the public in the work of the commission. We would support strongly the Lortie commission recommendation which was that far from increasing the role of politicians, that their role be decreased, that we looked more at two stages of public hearings rather than a second stage where hearings are in the House of Commons.

Those are our concerns. They are concerns we continue to have about the process being suspended. However, with these amendments there are reasonable safeguards to protect the interests of the public as well as the interests of various parties.

At this point, I congratulate the government on finally seeing the light on some of these issues and accepting amendments that we had originally proposed and that the Senate also has proposed.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am rather surprised at the comments made by the hon. member of the Reform Party. He said that the position of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois was rather ambiguous. I think he is bothered by the fact that the goal of our leader, the leader of the opposition, is so clear cut and that the sovereignty of Quebec is clearly part of that goal, and I think we will soon be there. I am sure that what brought on the hon. member's comments is the fact that the Reform Party is going nowhere fast.

Incidentally, the hon. member said that our attitude in this debate had been rather puzzling. I just want to remind him that in eastern Quebec, where according to the readjustment plan submitted to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Commission, a whole riding will disappear, the only party that bothered to speak on behalf of the voters in that riding was the Bloc Quebecois. We did not see the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, who was directly concerned, or the Reform Party, which says it intends to campaign in Quebec when the next federal election is called.

They did nothing except approve the amendments from the Senate. I thought the Reform Party was in favour of an elected Senate, a Senate that would have real clout, and now they go along with a proposal to add amendments to a bill that is a perfect example of how parliamentary work can become a complete shambles.

The bill was tabled too late. Amendments were proposed which were not what the government wanted in the first place, and now we are told our position is wrong, although the position taken by the government and the Reform Party makes no sense at all.

I would also like to ask the hon. member whether he is aware of the fact that a committee of the House will consider the criteria to be used in determining electoral boundaries. In fact, it was recommended by the House that the committee be able to consider criteria other than demography in determining electoral boundaries, which we feel is entirely appropriate. As far as I know, the Reform Party, like the other parties in this House, is involved in the work of this committee.

So I would like to know whether the hon. member is aware that the committee exists and that it will amend the legislation, at least we hope so, to make determining electoral boundaries more than just a roll of the dice, the only criterion being the number of voters and without any consideration of other important criteria including the size, of the territory and the number of municipalities, things he should be aware of, because in the western provinces these are important considerations, and I am thinking of Saskatchewan particularly.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, if I understood the question correctly, we recognize the demands of the public in some regions, including western regions, for regional representation in the Parliament of Canada.

Naturally, the committee can study the way to do it within the readjustment process, and we support that. However, there is a limit to the capacity to represent the regions in this House. According to the Constitution, this chamber represents the population. This is a constitutional fact.

If we want effective regional representation, we have to reform the Senate. This is our position and I believe that, in this regard, the position of the Bloc contains a contradiction. You cannot oppose Senate reform and support an effective regional representation in Parliament.

I would also like to make a few personal comments about the position of the leader of the Bloc Quebecois. I will no say anything specific, but just point out that there is another contradiction here between the public objectives for the next election and the fact that the Bloc does not intend to run in that election. This is intrinsic to their position on sovereignty. One cannot have sovereignty as the ultimate goal and pretend to be concerned about the future of the country. This is a fact.

I say to the government that the position taken by the Bloc in this debate demonstrates that we have an opposition party that has a vested interest in disagreeing with every possible proposition. We have seen it during the constitutional debates. The same applies to the electoral legislation. I am advising the government to follow the consensus of federalist parties and to be wary of the Bloc position, given its raison d'être.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member.

I listened to his speech with great interest. I know that the hon. member for Calgary West is something of a party expert in matters of electoral reform. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster is a member of the House committee on procedure and House affairs which is about to embark on a study as he knows pursuant to House reference of replacement arrangements for the current electoral boundaries readjustment act.

In his speech he set out a series of parameters. I thought I heard him say things to the effect that any new bill would have to comply with certain minimum demands like a freeze on the number of members if it was going to be acceptable. I could go on with a list but I do not want to repeat everything he said.

I was very surprised to hear him suggest that the committee had to comply with these demands if the Reform Party was going to agree to the bill.

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister has been impressing on me the importance of entering on this discussion with an open mind so the committee can come to its own conclusions based on the evidence that it hears from the witnesses it expects to call both next week and in July when the committee will be having hearings while other members are away.

I am wondering if the hon. member is saying we are not to enter on this discussion with an open mind but in fact are to come to the conclusions that he has recommended in his speech. If so, I hope he will communicate those views to the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister who I think would be appalled if that were the case given the representations he made to me.

Second, I did not hear him mention his support for the Senate in his speech and I know in public utterances, rather pious public utterances I may say, outside this House the hon. member suggested that the Senate should block this bill.

I did not hear him mention that again in his speech here and I wonder if perhaps he could illumine the House on that point and let us hear his views on what the Senate should do, should have done, or should continue to do with Bill C-18.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer both questions.

First, on the issue of the committee study, obviously myself as well as the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister would expect the committee to do a wide ranging study, but in the end we have to give the public a reason to suggest why we would completely suspend and eventually kill the process that has been under way.

I would suggest that there are certain minimum parameters that would justify killing it this time as opposed to waiting for

next time. We are not going to change a couple of commas in the Elections Act and use that as an excuse, as I said before, to flush $5 million or $6 million down the toilet. I would suggest that the public itself has some fairly obvious parameters in mind.

I am rushed here but I will answer the second question which concerns my position on the Senate.

Obviously now that the Reform Party supports the bill I would urge the Senate to give it consideration and to see the wisdom in supporting it. The Senate has the constitutional power to pass or defeat any piece of legislation. That power is not conferred upon it by myself.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to note to all members that the making of law in Parliament is a dialectical act, that there are many players, and what we have seen has been a constructive interaction as it should happen between the House and the Senate and in fact the public at large.

If we were looking at the players involved we would have to take note of the resolutions of the Liberal Party, federal and British Columbia branch, the resolutions passed there and adopted unanimously by the annual meeting of the Liberal Party, conversations between members of the House and senators and a process that results in a measure coming back from the Senate and being acted upon by the House. I will have more to say on the substance of that in a moment.

Let me address one of the problems that has worried me in connection with this whole process under way and that concerns some issues of the constitutionality of the very act upon which the electoral commissions have been operating, the Representation Act of 1985.

When that first appeared it seemed to me that in artificially capping the representation for British Columbia and other fast-growing provinces it raised basic issues of constitutionality that should be tested. Since the end result was to eliminate the seat of a New Democratic Party member from Vancouver, the mayor of Vancouver launched a legal action challenging the constitutionality of this measure.

I would have preferred to see the challenge based on the simple issue of the artificial capping. Instead, it raised the more fundamental question whether a measure changing the proportional representation of provinces in the House could be adopted by legislation of the federal Parliament alone and not by the more complicated and difficult procedures envisaged under the Constitution for that.

I would add that several of the Conservative senators, and there are contradictions here, who are now arguing very strongly, and I welcome their support, for extra seats for British Columbia participated as cabinet members in the decisions which in effect limit B.C. now to two seats instead of the five that it would otherwise have been entitled to in accordance with the 1991 census. But that is in the past and we look forward to the future.

I should say though that when the mayor of Vancouver launched his action the federal government did not support it. Nor did the government of British Columbia. I think this is worth comment because its chief legal officer at the time has suggested that perhaps Bill C-18 has a Quebec angle in it, designed artificially to preserve Quebec seats in the House. I think this is a rather far-fetched idea but if it were so then in relation to the Representation Act of 1985 why did the Attorney General of British Columbia not intervene in that litigation before the Supreme Court?

I simply commend to members the litigation, in particular the opinion of Justice Lambert which seems to me even more persuasive today than it was then.

Let us come on to this particular issue with the Senate itself. I welcome the discussions that we have had with individual senators. I welcome the response made by the Senate to what I think and hope will be an acceptance of the proposal made now by the House.

I see a similar contradiction in the position of the Reform Party opposite. I think if you capped the size of the House of Commons, the point about the Representation Act of 1985, then automatically either you gel permanently the size of the representation from fast-growing provinces like British Columbia and Ontario or you reduce those. You diminish the representation of provinces in which the Reform Party has of course members. Saskatchewan and Manitoba are the very obvious examples.

There are contradictions there. It is very important to remember this before taking absolutist positions on how many seats we should have. I think it is worthy of note that British Columbia delegates to the Liberal Party and British Columbia members have contented themselves with asking for two seats more and not the five that on census returns we would be entitled to.

Let me come back to the issue of what this is all about, Bill C-18, its substantive measures. It would have been a pity if discussion of this had been buried in discussion of other issues on size of provincial representation in the House.

We missed an opportunity in the 1980s to update our constitution in the areas of the electoral processes. The electoral processes are more important even than constitutional processes. They are pre-constitutional, they go to the root of constituent power. It is basic that they should be in the Constitution.

I think if the events had been different with the Trudeau government patriation project of 1980 to 1982, provisions on electoral representation would have been included in some detail. As it is, our constitution in comparison to virtually every other liberal democratic constitution of today is naked as to provisions as to electoral representation.

You look at the United States, France, Germany, Japan or India and you find detailed provisions in the constitution or else, and sometimes in supplement, detailed decisions of the Supreme Court, jurisprudence constante in the civil law sense. This makes for a body of opinions, a body of rules that guide in the case of the United States the state legislatures which are charged with the duty in effect of becoming electoral boundary commissions and the similar bodies in other countries.

We do not have this. I think the preoccupation in the 1980s and the early 1990s with the single issue in the Constitution prevented us from making changes that would bring us into the 21st century. This is very basic.

I think in terms of electoral commissions that the process of the appointment of commissioners is casual and ad hoc and not really very acceptable. I say this having served as an electoral boundary commissioner in a pre-political capacity. The Speaker of the House, Madam Sauvé, asked me if I would serve. She said she was anxious to get a non-partisan figure of recognized public integrity. It was an honour to serve. But I think the process in which simply the Speaker appoints is not good enough today. This is as serious a function as that performed by Supreme Court judges and other senior crown officials. Perhaps it should go to Parliament for some sort of confirmation which would inevitably insist upon multipartisan representation or participation in the choice of the commissioners.

One of the things that is very noticeable with the recent group of commissioners is the absence of continuity. When I sat we had a great advantage. A member of our commission, Olive Woodley from Vernon, had served on several different commissions. Therefore when I from my specialized professional viewpoint would advance a proposition she would counter by saying "this is how we did it in the past and this is why". Of course, I yielded to those arguments when they made sense.

It is a fact that none of the members of the 11 commissions, 33 in all, has had any previous experience. They are neophytes. References have been made to the judges as chairmen but the judges traditionally have been neutral and have not interfered. So the work is thrown upon the lay commissioners. Is this a good thing?

In the past the chief electoral commissioner was consulted by the Speakers in making appointments. This time the chief electoral commissioner was not. We have this in evidence to the committee on House Procedures, given on the evening that Bill C-18 was adopted by the House.

The chief electoral commissioner also throughout the regime of Mr. Castonguay constituted himself a member of each electoral commission. Mr. Kingsley interpreting his mandate narrowly and I think correctly abstained from doing this. So there are commissions in a sense sent out on to uncharted seas.

One of the problems also as I have said is that there is nothing in the Constitution on this. Mr. Trudeau would have liked to have got around to it but the facts were he was diverted by the gang of eight and other situations and this was left out. If you look at the electoral law passed conformably to the Constitution on this you will find that while it establishes some antinomies, things that may be considered, it gives no guidance as to how they are to be applied. I think this is wrong and that it is for Parliament to establish the norms guiding and governing electoral boundary commissioners.

Let us take one example, the principle of continuity. In that special relationship that Edmund Burke discussed between the member and constituents, the continuity is very, very important. It does not really make sense with 208 new members in the House to have this wholesale revision of boundaries even in a province like Newfoundland that I understand increased only 738 people between the 1981 and 1991 census. Why revise all five constituencies? Is it a make-work project?

I do not imply that the commissioners did not act with due care and consideration. When I acted as a commissioner we accepted that being a member of Parliament is a difficult role and that one should respect the relationship between member and constituent and that continuity was a factor to take into account.

I think this time the commissions have gone too far the other way. In an absence of instruction they are entitled to do that. I think it is time for Parliament to lay down rules.

Let me take some other examples of variations that a more experienced commission in terms of continuity would have established.

I was intrigued that my colleagues from the Kootenays made the point that the commission had taken a two-dimensional topographical approach to the constituency boundaries in the B.C. interior. A three-dimensional approach is needed because there are mountain ranges in the middle. What they have done in that area is to reinsert what was the rule until 1960 but was changed then because somebody had pointed out the mountain range in the middle of the constituency and that to get around it

involved a laborious 48-hour journey. Therefore there are areas where knowledge becomes very important.

More important, I would raise the issue of the absence of guiding constitutional principles here.

In the detailed jurisprudence of the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Justice Brennan elaborated on the principle of what he called benign discrimination in the formation of electoral boundaries. Mr. Justice White in the same case raised the issue of properly taking into account racial factors in making decisions.

What they were concerned with was whether-and again I use another term of art-you can indulge an electoral commission in positive gerrymandering artificially to create an electorate by geographical distortion to produce a majority for one minority group that otherwise would not be represented. Why it came to the Supreme Court of the United States was that another minority said: "You helped this one but not us".

I raise the issue of whether electoral boundary commissions in Canada should be operating on the basis of creating artificially single ethnic majority constituencies or not.

I simply cite the example in British Columbia of the five city seats held by the Liberal Party. It was not planned that way, but it does happen that the five members each represent different ethnic communities. There is representation from the Caribbean, from Italy, from the Punjab, from China via Hong Kong, and from what used to be called one of the two founding nations. There are five different people, but each running in a constituency that is multiethnic.

My own constituency has 22 different ethnic communities. To gain a nomination for an election you have to seek an interethnic consensus. That is closer to the Canada of the 21st century, but it seems to me in B.C. the commission is pushing us the other way, back to the 19th century configuration.

Again, there are perfectly legitimate reasons for doing that. The United States Supreme Court sanctioned just such a rule in the United States. But this is too serious and challenging a constitutional issue to be left to commissioners appointed ad hoc for one particular journey at one particular time. It should be decided by Parliament.

Those principles should be in the Constitution, whether it is an amendment to the charter, or the jurisprudence of the Supreme Court, or both, as it is in the United States and the other countries I have cited. In other words, the committee on House procedures has an obligation to establish some sort of motor principles, directive principles, that could be carried out by electoral boundary commissions in the future and indeed in the present case.

There is another big gap in our constitutionalism on electoral processes. There is no mention of political parties, although 25 years ago the German Supreme Court decided they are the key to the parliamentary processes and must be included and subject to the law.

What I am saying is we missed an opportunity in the 1980s to bring our Constitution up to date on what is basic to any free and democratic society: a system of fair, responsible electoral representation. We have to do it now. The time limit imposed by the Senate originally, in effect six months, was not enough. Two years would have been reasonable, but I think it can be done in one year.

I therefore welcome the amendment proposed by the government House leader to the bill as returned by the Senate. I welcome the indications being given that this may be agreeable to the Senate. I welcome the support of the Bloc and I do welcome the support, if somewhat tardy, of the Reform Party on this.

There is a heavy responsibility for the committee on House procedures. It can be done. It will give us a truly modern Constitution that responds to the need which is basic to a free and democratic society: a fair, open electoral system implemented by people responsible to Parliament and subject therefore to all-party control as to their operations. If possible, put the controlling principles into the Constitution, into the Charter of Rights and Freedoms so that every citizen of Canada can read them, study them and apply them.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the comments of my hon. colleague from Vancouver Quadra. We happen to sit on that same procedure and House affairs committee which will be reviewing the electoral boundaries redistribution process.

He mentioned in his speech that he has been an electoral boundaries commissioner. What adequate provisions in the selection of all Elections Canada officials, including those who would be responsible for determining who the new commissioners, would he consider might be fair? What would be the best process for determining it is not a partisan process and there could be absolutely no question of gerrymandering or political influence?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, I speak of course only as a private member, I cannot engage the government. My own recommendation is conveyed in a series of writings over a period of time. I spoke most recently to the Institute for the Administration of Justice which is a sort of trade union of the Supreme Court judges of Canada.

My own suggestion would be that while the government might nominate the process should be approved by a parliamentary committee. It could be the committee on House management, but it should go to a committee. In that sort of situation there

should be an opportunity for examination of the nominees as to their qualifications. I would anticipate the sort of situation there is in other countries, a form of multi-party support for the eventual commissioners who would be nominated.

Once you get it into a system where Parliament itself speaks on the qualifications and makes a decision you would inevitably get a system where the government alone is not imposing its will, but you would get a consensus choice. It would narrow down to the people with recognized competence, but you should probably be aiming for a permanent standing electoral commission.

You can look at the errors the 1993 commission made. They are very similar to the ones I would have made 10 years ago as a commissioner if I had not had a wise person on the commission who had already served two or three times and was able to say that something was a foolish proposal or that something should be changed.

I envision a standing commission, but I also envisage ratification of the appointments by a parliamentary committee or some other parliamentary process.

[Margaret Bridgman, Reform, Surrey North, BC]

Madam Speaker, in reference to the hon. member's statement on the capping of MPs, I cannot quite seem to follow how that is actually going to carve the boundaries out in stone or stabilize the electoral boundaries.

Where I am coming from in this is that I see three components here as far as mathematics is concerned. There is the number of MPs and the total population of the country. Divide the MPs into that and you come up with a figure on representation. Based on that and the movement across the country plus those persons coming in, I cannot see when you get that figure of representation how that is not going to affect moving the boundaries about as well to accommodate that.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Madam Speaker, our dilemma here relates to the federal system and the gelling of regionalism in terms of particular provinces. The reality is if the size of the House is kept at 295 and the population jumps by a million, let us say predominantly in British Columbia and Ontario, then either you deny the fast-growing provinces the benefits of their increased population or you take them away from Manitoba, Saskatchewan and probably Quebec.

Having sat as a commissioner but also being a member, I wonder if that is fair to the people in those provinces. I wonder if it is politically realizable, first of all. Would we ever get a measure of that sort through the House or through a constitutional amendment if it is needed, but I also wonder if it is fair. I do express grave reserves. It has been pointed out to me as a commissioner about changing boundaries arbitrarily. We have to recognize that members do build up a relationship of trust with the constituency; it is one of the worthwhile things in a democratic society.

I would say we can live with an increase in the size of the House for the next period of time. The countries that have gelled their membership, like Great Britain, have a huge House first of all, but also have a relatively static internal organization. There are no provinces and no regional subdivisions which have to be respected under the constitutional order, so there is much more flexibility.

I would hate to have to say to colleagues in Saskatchewan that they must give up two seats, or that Manitoba must give up four seats so British Columbia can have more. My resolution of the dilemma is simply to allow the increase to go for at least the next decade and let us see what happens. It is only going to be two, four, six, for the next 10 years. Otherwise I do foresee anguished political choices which involve my voting to deprive people in other provinces of seats and I do not want to do that.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, as I rise to speak on Bill C-18, I feel like saying that the saga goes on. This legislation has created quite a mess; I can personally attest to that. The causes are not hard to find. The Liberal government dragged its feet on the issue of the electoral map. It introduced this bill much too late, which caused electoral boundaries commissions to sit, because the legislation had not yet passed all the stages.

Now we are at the stage where a non-elected Senate is proposing an amendment and, all of a sudden, the other parties decide that it looks like the most appropriate solution.

To give you an inkling of how absurd the situation is, I will tell you about my own experience with the electoral boundaries commission's hearings in eastern Quebec.

Around ten groups had registered to come before the commission the days I was there. Only two, I believe, finally appeared because people understood that the hearings had been suspended for 24 months. Elected representatives, who sit in the House of Commons, had voted this 24-month delay. And now, we have to reconsider this bill, which has been sent back here by non-elected people, and give a different message to voters.

Because witnesses are not appearing at hearings, we are going to have to start the consultation process all over again. Needless to say, this will result in more waste, since commission members, who travelled across Canada, have incurred travel expenses and received a salary, as they should, for the work they had done. They were mandated to hold hearings, because the government did not present its bill on time.

Fortunately, these people are extremely competent; at least, those I met at the hearings in Rimouski were. The Bloc Quebecois was the only party to make presentations, both in Rimouski and in Percé, and I had the opportunity to say that the disappearance of a riding in eastern Quebec was unacceptable. It is unacceptable that this area be torn apart in such a way.

It was interesting to see the commissioners' reaction to our brief. They explained that the present legislation does not give them any flexibility in the interpretation of the criteria.

So, we will still have submitted our recommendations. The House of Commons committee that will convene on what I would call the architecture of the legislation, the make-up of electoral ridings, will have to take into account, in the redistribution, such criteria as demography, but also the territory covered, the number of municipalities being served, as well as sociological and economic components of the territory.

What is surprising is that the current commissioners proposed to us possible amendments to the initial proposition that they had made. Due to the inadequate representation of groups that had registered but withdrawn because of the message given by the government that everything was postponed for 24 months, we are now in a situation where a very interesting debate on other adjustment possibilities cannot be held.

Today, as I was saying earlier, the saga continues. We are back in the House with amendments from the other place with which the government suddenly agrees. The government, which initially felt that a 24-month timetable was needed to adequately review the legislation in time for the next election and still allow for consideration of criteria other than demography, is now back-tracking. It has decided that a 12-month timetable is enough. They gave the population a new message and I wonder who will be able to find their way in the mess created by the government and by the amendments of non-elected people who allow themselves to make propositions regarding a vital element: representation. The redistribution of electoral ridings is for the next election.

The next general election should normally be held in four or five years but it might as well be in one or two years if this government systematically refuses to acknowledge the repeated requests of opposition parties for a clear constitutional position. This government, as a result of the referendum on the sovereignty of Quebec and the benefits that province will gain from it, will certainly be forced to adjust and possibly ask Canadian electors what position they want to take, what kind of government they want to hold negotiations. We might have to do that. Therefore, it is important that the type of representation that we have be clear and accurate, but this government does not obtain a passing grade in this regard, it does not satisfy the need for a democratic and satisfactory electoral system.

I would like to draw the attention of this House to an inconsistency in the amendment under title 2, page 1, which proposes to replace lines 17 through 21. The amendment provides for the temporary suspension of electoral commission work. At the same time, this House will examine the criteria which should be taken into account for the modification of the electoral map. We might once more find ourselves in an absurd situation where the House committee could ask experts-and I hope that the members of the electoral commissions can be considered as experts-to come before the committee when their work as commissioners has been suspended. Commissioners whose work has been suspended would therefore be asked to appear as commission members. This is unheard of.

Of course, these people could always be asked to appear on an individual basis, but in that case they would be entitled to extra pay, which will add to the saga surrounding C-18 and the costly mess it has created. Why do we find ourselves in a situation where the government and the Reform Party are forced to change position, which further complicates everything?

The Liberal government and the Reform Party must have received strong messages from their constituents, the former at the Liberal convention and, in the case of the Reform members from the West, they must have had the message that the electoral map had to be changed as soon as possible in order to allow British Columbia, for example, to have adequate representation.

We, from the Bloc Quebecois, have never been against the fact that each province be adequately represented in the electoral process. We only wanted to show that the blind application of demographic criteria has a major negative impact on regions whose population is dwindling.

When studying what characterizes an economic, social and cultural area, we realize that the first thing that brings about atrophy is the loss of jobs, which leads to the migration of young people and even of seniors, because they no longer have access to essential services. Then, one day, those people no longer have any representation.

That is the effect that the electoral map had on the eastern part of Quebec. For several years, there were five constituencies in eastern Quebec. The proposal which was made by the electoral commission pursuant to the legislation and which only takes into account the demographic criteria results in the elimination of a riding. Therefore, the people living in the Gaspé Peninsula and in the Matapédia area will find themselves in the same riding, even if municipalities are 300 km apart, not to say 1000 km in winter.

This kind of representation is unacceptable to constituents, to all the people living in that part of Quebec and Canada. And this could happen elsewhere. If I look for example at the evolution of the demographic situation in Saskatchewan, I think it would be important to take those other criteria into account because if we consider only the demographic factor, we will systematically contribute to the perpetuation of something we did before, that is reduce the impact of resource regions, regions where we have made sure we occupied the territory and had good representation.

It is not only out of social concern that we want to guarantee the future of our regions, it is also for economical and cultural reasons; if we do not occupy the territory as we did in the past, the resources in our part of the country will become progressively under-utilized. Therefore, the type of representation we want to guarantee is very important.

We were told: "The Bloc Quebecois does not want to participate in the next federal election, it says there will be no such federal election because it will win the referendum on sovereignty. So why does it take action on this issue?" Let me tell you that our mandate is to defend Quebec's interests and, in so doing, we must respect the choice that Quebecers will make in the referendum.

We believe we can bring them to choose Quebec instead of Canada, but if they were to decide otherwise, we all want to be absolutely sure we conscientiously fought for Quebec's interests. To do so, we must anticipate all possible scenarios and make sure that Quebec will always be well represented within Canada.

Even though I hope this will not happen, if Quebecers were to choose to stay in Canada, they will require adequate representation. Adequate representation means, for example, what we were given by the Meech Lake Accord which was rejected, following initiatives of the party which now forms the government. We were offered 25 per cent of the seats, and this percentage will have to be maintained in the future.

So, we are fighting for the interests of Quebecers, for the region where a riding was done away with. We are defending the interests of people in the Lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé Peninsula and the Magdalen Islands. We want to make sure that the number of ridings in this region will guarantee adequate economic, social and cultural development.

Just imagine that under the Conservatives, although we had five members and even ministers, our regional TV stations were closed. We do not want to be, in the future, in a situation where we could be further disadvantaged because we would had an even smaller representation.

Also, how can we be sure, given the uncompromising attitude of the present government in its dealings with the provinces, and given its determination not to re-open the constitutional issue, that it will not have to hold elections within a year? We have to consider every possibility and try to protect Quebec interests in accordance with the overwhelming mandate we received as a result of the October 1993 election.

In the area of readjustment of electoral boundaries, the Bloc Quebecois has done its duty. It co-operated with the government for the 24-month period, but it also participated, when possible, in the hearings to have maximum representation.

The other side, however, never ordered the electoral commissions to stop working. We found ourselves in a terrible mess, in which we are sinking deeper with this new amendment. For my part, I believe that, by agreeing with the arguments of a non-elected House, the government is insulting Canadians and Quebecers. The House had decided that a 24-month suspension was appropriate, but under the pressure of more or less official representations from a non-elected body, it reversed its decision, and I believe that it is setting a dangerous precedent. For people who all said that they wanted Parliament to be effective, Bill C-18 is the perfect example of everything one should not do to make sure that it sails smoothly through Parliament.

With this bill, they accumulated every possible blunder. They set a deadline, presenting all kinds of arguments in favour of it. The Reform Party and the Liberal Party did not agree on what it should be, and today they both come back with a shorter deadline. They give us the same arguments, but this time to justify the new deadline. This is not doing much to improve the government's credibility among voters.

This is a wonderful opportunity to highlight how useless the Senate is or, in some cases, how obstructive it can be. This year, we are going to spend $43 million to keep that useless place in operation, when in fact there is a consensus in Quebec that this institution is totally useless. In Quebec, we abolished the Legislative Council 25 years ago. It was similar to the Senate, and since we abolished it, we have not had to put up with annoying situations of this kind.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Everyone in Quebec loves the Senate.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Everyone in Quebec loves the Senate. Well, I invite the hon. member making this comment to come to Quebec this summer and ask people if they know who their senator is. I think he is in for quite a surprise!

[An hon. member]

Some question!

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

I suppose I could even put the same question to the members of this House. Do they know which senator is responsible for their riding? The Senate has put before the House proposals which have influenced the government. The justification for such action remains a mystery.

Now we find ourselves in the position of probably having to hire an information officer to explain to the public what is going on with Bill C-18. A bill was introduced and a decision was made to postpone the process for 24 months. Now the Senate has intervened and the process will be delayed only 12 months. Is some other body preparing to tell us to act differently?

Our message to the people of Canada is that this Parliament does not know what it is doing. If it acts this way when an issue like this arises, what will it do later on when dealing with other matters?

I hope that we can settle this matter once and for all, and then move on to something else. I hope that we can focus our energies on bringing about real economic recovery to take the place of the timid measures which this government has introduced, and in the process, end this debate which has taken up more of Parliament's time and energies than it deserved to.

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry]

Madam Speaker, it is the end of the week and I am sitting here listening to members from the Bloc talking about an issue that they will not even have to deal with two years from now. If they win or lose the election, they all said they are going to quit and go back to their roots.

I want to ask a very specific question because the member talked in his speech about how much he cared about the economy and about putting people back to work.

He mentioned during his speech a couple of times, not just the economy of Quebec but the economy of Canada, and I was struck by the sensitivity to the whole country and not just Quebec.

As he knows, we had a Moody's downgrading yesterday afternoon. We are hearing from many people that the uncertainty with regard to the issue of separation in Quebec is one of the factors that is causing the jitters in our economy.

Does the member not think it would be much more productive, in trying to put his constituents back to work, all of the people who are out of work in the province of Quebec and in every region, to talk about building Canada rather than trying to destroy it?

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, I find this question particularly interesting because the present uncertainty is not due to this issue. It results from the failure of the Canadian federal system to resolve its own problems over the past 15 years. It never resolved its problems. In 1982, it managed to repatriate the Canadian Constitution without Quebec's consent and since 1982, not one single government in Quebec, whether sovereigntist or federalist -and we cannot say that people like Mr. Bourassa or Mr. Johnson have no backbone- has agreed to sign it. This goes to show that the federal system has problems of its own to resolve.

The present uncertainty of the federal system reveals itself in the national debt. As for Canada's rating problems, in the short term, the deciding factor is not the Quebec issue, but this $500 billion debt and the fact that it was allowed to grow from approximately $100 billion in 1980 to over $500 billion today. That is a $400 billion increase in just 15 years! If I were an investor, I would tell myself: "There is something wrong with those guys. We cannot tell where they are going". That is the problem with Canada.

Also, the hon. member indicated that he was pleasantly surprised by my sensitivity to the whole country. Of course, I have am concerned with Canada, in economic terms. I do have economic concerns with regard to the Free Trade Accord which governs trade throughout North America as well as the new accord which replaces the GATT accords and which has a global scope. I want countries in the South to have healthy economies because they import our products. I want English Canada, and Ontario in particular, to be able to keep going the way it is now because Ontario is our main client in Quebec and vice versa. This is something we must bear in mind. So, I want excellent economic relations to be maintained between Quebec, the United States, and Mexico.

The best way of ensuring direct economic relations for the future is to see to it that a small entity like Quebec can develop unhampered, take decisions quickly and get out of the system to rid us once and for all of this dinosaur, the Canadian federal system.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup mentioned that he had attended one of the public hearings to consider the new boundaries as they were readjusted by the current boundaries readjustment commission.

I too had the privilege of appearing before the commission in my province of Saskatchewan. I found the hearings to be very fair. In fact there were some of the same sentiments in Saskatchewan. Not many submissions were made because of the confusion surrounding the whole issue and the government's mismanagement of the entire affair. I found the whole atmosphere, the environment of the discussion, to be totally non-partisan. I found the committee to be competent and willing to listen to the constructive proposals that were brought forward through the submissions.

Not being very familiar with what was happening in the province of Quebec I wonder whether the hon. member found the same environment and the same competence among the

commissions in his province, at least at the hearings he was able to attend.

[Paul Crête, Bloc, Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup, QC]

Madam Speaker, in response to the last part of the question, I can say that the legislators on the commission were Quebecers. They are very competent in their field, as I pointed out in my speech.

Yet the commissioners themselves told us they were required by the act to consider only the demographic factor when other criteria should be taken into account. That was the issue referred to the House committee.

I think it is important to take these criteria into account and to give ourselves the time we need to do so, as provided for in the initial 24-month timeframe.

I would like to add one more thing. Given the mandate we received from Quebecers, we must anticipate all possibilities. If we are faced with another election for one reason or another, we must have as good an electoral map as possible in order to defend ourselves. Finally, as long as we pay taxes to Ottawa, we will be represented because there is no taxation without representation. Quebecers decided they wanted to be represented by sovereigntists, and they did so in a more significant way than for any other party in Canada.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We still have two more minutes.

Is the House ready for the question?