House of Commons Hansard #185 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was quebec.

Topics

Points Of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Colleagues, on March 31, the member for Crowfoot raised a point of order concerning answers given by the Minister of Justice in response to questions posed during question periods on March 27 and March 29. I would like to thank the hon. member for Crowfoot, the hon. Minister of Justice, the chief government whip and the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster for their contributions to the discussion.

The hon. member for Crowfoot contended the Minister of Justice had contravened the sub judice convention by commenting on a case under appeal in the Alberta courts, and in so doing could have compromised the outcome of the case. Making reference to several citations from Beauchesne's sixth edition and to the case of Regina v. the Atlantic Sugar Refineries Co. to support his arguments, the hon. member requested that the Chair review the matter and determine whether or not the minister had contravened the sub judice convention.

The hon. Minister of Justice responded that nothing he had said in relation to the case offended the convention, and maintained that there was a difference between commenting on the facts of a case while the case was before a court, and stating the government's opinion about the ruling which had been rendered by a court.

Under the sub judice convention, it is accepted practice that, in the interests of justice and fair play, certain restrictions be placed on the freedom of members of Parliament to make reference in the course of debate to matters awaiting judicial decisions. Similarly, it is understood that such matters should not be the subject of motions or questions in the House.

As I commented last Friday, we use the word "convention" when referring to matters which are sub judice (that is, under the consideration of a judge or court), as no ``rule'' exists to prevent Parliament from discussing such matters.

In Canada, the First Report to the House of the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities of Members, presented on April 29, 1977, remains the definitive study of the sub judice convention. This special committee was chaired by Mr. Speaker James Jerome. In its report, the committee gave a lengthy explanation of the purpose of the convention. With the indulgence of the House I would like to quote from the committee's report, issue No. 1, at page 1:4:

The freedom of speech accorded to Members of Parliament is a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, and to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents. This basic parliamentary freedom is to some extent limited by the sub judice convention. Under the convention as it has developed over the years Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts. No distinction has ever been made in Canada between criminal courts and civil courts for the purpose of applying the convention. It has also had application to certain tribunals other than courts of law. The purpose of the convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It exists to guarantee everyone a fair trial and to prevent any undue influence prejudicing a judicial decision or a report of a tribunal of inquiry.

The sub judice convention itself is poorly defined and its interpretaton is usually left to the Speaker. The difficulty that I face as Speaker is that any attempt to determine when a comment might have a tendency to influence something can be at best speculative rather than preventative, that is, I cannot make such a determination until after the comments have been made. Hence, it has been the approach of most Chair occupants to discourage all comments on sub judice matters, rather than allow members to experiment within the limits of the convention and test the Speaker's discretion.

As stated in the special committee's report, Issue No. 1, at page 1:12:

Your Committee is of the opinion that precise regulations concerning the application of the sub judice convention cannot be evolved and that it would be unwise to attempt to do so. Your committee recommends that the Speaker should remain the final arbiter in the matter, that he should retain the authority to prevent discussion of matters in the House on the ground of sub judice, but that he should only exercise his discretion in exceptional cases where it is clear to him that to do otherwise could be harmful to specific individuals. In exercising this discretion your committee recommends that when there is a doubt in the mind of the Chair, a presumption should exist in favour of allowing debate and against the application of the convention.

As to the matter raised by the hon. member for Crowfoot, I have reviewed the question period exchanges. I have reviewed them many times and the points raised by hon. members during the discussion on the point of order. I cannot conclude the Minister of Justice contravened the sub judice convention by stating the federal government disagreed with the decision of a court and planned to challenge the decision.

Let me make one additional comment. While the ultimate authority to judge on these matters rests with the Chair, I must emphasize that All members of the House must share the responsibility in exercising restraint when it seems called for. Again, I quote from the special committee's report, issue No. 1, at page 1:12: "It is the view of your committee that the responsibility of the Chair during the question period should be minimal as regards the sub judice convention, and that the

responsibility should principally rest upon the member who asks the question and the minister to whom it is addressed."

In conclusion, I urge all members and ministers to be prudent and exercise caution in their choice of words when dealing with matters that could fall into the difficult area of sub judice.

I want to thank all hon. members for their contributions.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:15 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, before the debate resumes I have a few motions and I think you will find unanimous consent for these.

First, I move:

That the Subcommittee on Aboriginal Education, composed of five members of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, be authorized to travel to Sudbury, Manitoulin Island, Sioux Lookout and Winnipeg from April 22 to 30, 1995 and that a staff of three do accompany the subcommittee.

(Motion agreed to.)

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the second motion is to authorize a committee to travel. I move:

That the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development and the necessary staff be authorized to travel to hold hearings and undertake site visits in Iqualuit, Resolute Bay, Cambridge Bay and Yellowknife between May 1 and 19, 1995.

(Motion agreed to.)

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, next I move:

That a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans be authorized to travel to Vancouver, Prince Rupert, Nanaimo and Campbell River, British Columbia, from April 27 to May 4, 1995 to discuss Pacific salmon issues, aboriginal fishing strategy, the merger of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans and the coastguard, and licensing.

(Motion agreed to.)

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to impose on the House this afternoon; however, I have one further motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order, the government may table its response to the second report of the Standing Joint Committee on Scrutiny of Regulations no later than June 5, 1995.

(Motion agreed to.)

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, earlier this day a vote was deferred until our return on Monday, April 24. I ask unanimous consent to further defer the vote until Tuesday, April 25, at 5.30 p.m.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is there unanimous consent?

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Order. The hon. member for Trois-Rivières seeks the unanimous consent of the House to revert to presentation of petitions. Is there unanimous consent?

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Rocheleau Bloc Trois-Rivières, QC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit three petitions all asking the government to abandon plans for voice mail for seniors.

The first petition is signed by residents of the Mauricie area, the second one is from constituents in my riding and the third one is also from my riding, more particularly from members of the AFEAS of Sainte-Thérèse, in Trois-Rivières, whom I want to salute.

The petition reads: "The petitioners call upon Parliament to ask the government to abandon its plan to install voice mail, particularly for seniors".

Of course, Mr. Speaker, I support these petitions.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:20 p.m.

Reform

Bob Ringma Reform Nanaimo—Cowichan, BC

Mr. Speaker, it pleases me to present a petition to the House in accordance with the standing orders.

The petitioners draw to the attention of the House that the disbanding of the Canadian Airborne Regiment is an act without precedent in Canadian history.

Therefore they request that Parliament initiate a royal commission or a wide ranging full public inquiry into the Canadian Armed Forces, including the reserves, to investigate, report and make recommendations on all matters affecting operations, tasking, resources, effectiveness, morale and welfare.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West, ON

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our colleague, the member for Nepean, I have the duty to present a petition from the Sikhs of Canada concerning the pending extradition of Mahesh Inder Singh.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

3:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

When we interrupted debate to go on to question period, the hon. member for Chicoutimi had about ten minutes left.

Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

3:25 p.m.

Bloc

Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, I was just telling this House that we should at least confirm that Quebec must be represented by 25 per cent of the members of the House. I was also wondering why the rest of Canada was so afraid, why some people are trying to deprive us of the perfectly legitimate right to equitable representation. Furthermore, on April 4, the leader of the opposition in the National Assembly of Quebec, the kid brother of the federal Liberals, presented exactly the same motion as my colleague from Bellechasse.

I repeat that Quebec has a legitimate and, above all, an historic right to a minimum of political power in the Canadian federation. As things stand right now, we do not get our fair share of federal transfer payments and defence spending and we have showed this on a number of occasions in this House. Just this morning, one of my colleagues pointed out that we do not get our fair share in R&D, nor do we get it in job creation, and that is hardly all.

Besides this reduction in its representation, Quebec will be facing other similar inequities in the next few months. I was wondering: What does the Prime Minister think of that? What do the hon. members for Gatineau and Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine think of that?

In the last vote on this issue, on March 28, I did not sense much support on the other side of the House. I can hardly understand what is going on. Is it not true that, in the political history of Canada and Quebec, the legislator has often expressed the will to assure regions, especially remote and rural regions, of a fair representation in the House of Commons? As long as the current formula for seat distribution between the territories and the provinces set out in the Constitution Act, 1867, as amended in 1915 and in 1976, is not changed and that this Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act remains relatively unchanged, is it not obvious that the same principles of representation for remote and rural regions should apply, especially to Quebec?

All members know that until Quebecers make a decision in favour of Quebec's sovereignty, it is very important that this province maintain a minimum representation of 25 per cent in all federal institutions.

As surprising as it may seem and in spite of all the constitutional mechanisms aimed at protecting provinces that are experiencing a relative population decline, one province has always had fewer seats than its share of the population ever since Canada was born 128 years ago. And, of course, some people will say that the fact that it happens to be Quebec is just a coincidence.

Even the most densely populated province, Ontario, was given several extra members at the beginning of the century and eight extra members after the 1941 census because it was considered to be experiencing a relative population decline due to the rapid growth in the western provinces. I will say however-and this should not come as a surprise to anyone-that Quebec which, at that time, accounted for 33 per cent of Canada's total population did not hold 33 per cent of the seats in this House. And, today, we have trouble holding on to 25 per cent. From 1867 to 1995, we never had extra seats, even when we could have demanded it. Is this double standard really acceptable? I submit that it is not and that it should not be.

I strongly believe that the constitution and the elections acts must reflect the Canadian duality and thus guarantee that Quebec retain a quarter of the members in the House of Commons until the people of Quebec decide otherwise. Beyond party or partisan considerations, this proposal, once again, is true to the traditional demands of Quebec. I remind you that this proposal got the support of the Liberal Party of Canada in the last round of constitutional negotiations. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel surely recalls it unless he has a very short memory.

It would be a lot wiser for the government to wait a few months before putting this legislation forward or, better still, put it off indefinitely. Let the government deal with this country's real problems. Does it not know that Bill C-69 is going to cost taxpayers an awful lot with its commissions that will have to

travel across Canada? Would that money not be put to a better use or spent more wisely if it were to go for job creation, for example, or for a family policy?

As for the Reform Party, it would like to see a decrease in the number of seats in the House of Commons. The day after the referendum, their wish will be fulfilled. The Liberal government claims that this country needs a readjustment of electoral boundaries. The day after the referendum, their wish will be fulfilled too. In a few months from now, both the Reformers and the Liberals will get satisfaction. After the referendum that we are going to win, do not forget.

As a result, there will be fewer members sitting in this House and Canada will really need a readjustment of electoral boundaries, since Quebec will be sovereign and will no longer be part of a country that, historically-and I dealt with the historical background before question period-has not wanted it. I stated the relevant facts earlier.

Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

Harold Culbert Liberal Carleton—Charlotte, NB

Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the comments made by the hon. member and his proposition for 25 per cent of the members of this great House.

I wonder if he is seriously looking at the possibility of forgetting the proposal for separation and instead having a future as part of this great country of Canada. There is no question in my mind that Quebec complements and plays a very important role in the make-up of this whole country.

Is the member now suggesting that the referendum should be put on the back burner and that in the future Quebec should continue to be part of this nation and this House of Commons? Is that why he is putting forward this proposal of 25 per cent? If that is the case, I think it is wonderful the hon. member is prepared to come forward with that. It suggests to me that he and other Bloc members are changing their minds and now realize what a privilege it is to be part of this great country.

Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

3:35 p.m.

Bloc

Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, historical facts from a more recent past will give us the answer to that question.

In 1965, the War Measures Act was proclaimed in Quebec. In the middle of the night, the government of Canada invoked the act. The army, used certain pretexts, supposedly to stop a separatist movement. Five hundred people were arrested without warrant. That is the first fact. The second one is even more recent. It happened in 1981, when the premiers of Canada, once again in the middle of the night, in Quebec's absence, went against what they had signed and accepted the unilateral patriation of the Constitution.

I could also remind the hon. members of the very recent Meech Lake accord in 1987. Everybody knows that one member of this House prevented his legislature from discussing the Meech Lake accord, with the result that everything that had been provided for in that accord was rejected. That member now sits on the government benches.

We could also recall the Charlottetown round of discussions and the way it all ended. It is too bad, but Quebecers will not forget these facts. Bloc Quebecois members will not abandon their option, which is to pave the way to Quebec's sovereignty. Through our efforts here, we will reach that goal.

The only thing we are asking for now, because we are still in this federation, is the preservation of our rights. It is that simple. When Quebecers make a decision on Quebec sovereignty, you will do as you please. When that moment comes, both founding nations will gain something, in my opinion.

Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

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

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my colleague's speech, I remembered the mandate we received from the electorate, which is to defend the interests of Quebecers and at the same time to promote sovereignty.

Would he not agree that we have before us a very clear opportunity to fulfil both objectives? By rejecting the amendment which aims to maintain at 25 per cent the representation of Quebec in the House of Commons, the government shows that the Constitution cannot possibly be renewed. The government has not even given us this basic right.

By negating our status as a people, as one of the founding nations of this country, is it not the federal government, and particularly the Liberal members who voted against this amendment or simply abstained from voting, who will be blamed for not protecting the interests of Quebec? Will they not bear the brunt of this decision by the present government, a decision which is in keeping with the thinking of previous governments as well as with the logic of the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982? Is the member not more comfortable with his position than Liberal members in general can be?

Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Gilbert Fillion Bloc Chicoutimi, QC

Mr. Speaker, the comment made by my colleague allows me to demonstrate that despite the past hundred years, the people of Quebec have matured and are not about to gamble with their future. They will make a decision based on events they have witnessed throughout history.

The people of Quebec have reached a point where they will have to make a decision. Of course, that decision will be to hand the government of Quebec all political and economic powers to allow Quebec to govern itself without having to constantly wait

for actions from this Parliament that never materialize, for instance responsibility transfers that do not come with the required funds.

There is no doubt that we are now at a crossroad. The decision will be made. I am convinced that with the debate to be held in the coming months, a majority of Quebecers will say no to these fruitless battles we have been involved in for too long.

Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, at third and final reading today.

I am pleased to have this opportunity because, although I am opposed to the way the Liberal government has handled the issue, the debate which has taken place around the issue of electoral boundary readjustment has produced some very good suggestions for change. This debate today gives me a chance to comment in more detail than I did earlier this year when I spoke on the concurrence motion that was presented before the House.

Bill C-69 was first tabled in the House of Commons on February 16, 1995. It has been dealt with in committee and is now back in the House for third reading. Bill C-69 repeals the existing Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which has been in place since 1964.

In early 1994 the commissions established under the 1964 rules and appointed in more recent years began issuing their proposals for the new electoral boundaries, which they had been working on for months previous. The proposals generated considerable concern and debate, especially since the federal election had just been held and concluded.

In March 1994 the government introduced Bill C-18 to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. As originally drafted, Bill C-18 would have abolished the 11 electoral boundaries commissions and suspended the act itself for up to two years. Because of concern that this would unduly delay redistribution-and the Liberal majority in the House of Commons refused to acknowledge this-the other place proposed amendments to suspend the act only until June 22, 1995 unless new legislation was put in place before then and rather than abolish the committees to suspend them until that time.

The bill in front of us today is meant to address those matters. The government is doing what it can to ensure it has full passage before June 22. At the outset, let me say that I will be opposing the bill when the vote occurs at the conclusion of the debate. I will do this because I believe the government is interfering with the independence of what should be a completely non-partisan arm's length relationship between the people of Canada and its politicians.

There is a place for politicians to debate process and procedure and to set rules that will apply in the future. However, in this case the independent process had begun its course and was acting according to its existing mandate when the government unilaterally shut it down and began setting new rules that would be applied retroactively.

With the passage of this bill the new rules will be in place and the work of the many existing boundary commissions, much of it completed after numerous public hearings were held, will be put on the shelf to gather dust. I expect such will be the case of the Saskatchewan Boundaries Commission which for all intents and purposes has completed the work of readjusting the federal boundaries within my province. Because of the provisions of this bill, that commission will likely not be reappointed and Saskatchewan residents will vote within the same boundaries that were originally set for the 1988 general election when the next general election is called.

Political constituency boundaries are like provincial and national boundaries. Despite the fact they are often arbitrarily drawn, they help to recognize economic, social and geographic patterns. They are most easily accepted by the public when they recognize those patterns.

We in Canada have developed a system that is based on a reference to population and changes in these constituency boundaries take place when populations shift. I realize that in a system of representation by population this is an important consideration. I agree with those who, inside and outside this Chamber, argue that it makes no sense for one member of Parliament to represent a constituency populated by 110,000 and another MP to represent a population of 55,000 or less.

Even though each citizen of Canada has one vote in a general election, the votes when counted are not equal. In the case I just outlined, those smaller constituencies require only half as many votes to elect their representative as do those in the larger constituencies. Those representatives in turn vote on matters of concern to all the people of Canada in this House on their behalf.

The boundaries commissioners who are appointed to redraw boundaries when populations change are also charged with taking into account local trading patterns, communities of interest, geographical barriers to movement and local economic conditions. Past experience has shown this has not always been the case. Therefore, changes in the way we do this stuff is important.

To a certain extent this bill addresses a few of the problems we should be looking at for the future. I will address some of those changes in just a moment. First, I think it is important that we do

not overlook the fact that the system is in much more need of an overhaul than this bill provides.

There is talk about the need to reduce the number of members of Parliament. This is a matter I support and one which I think this Parliament should examine in greater detail. There has been much talk about building an electoral system around a couple of different concepts, like proportional representation, or perhaps a preferential ballot. This is another matter I support, the discussion of these different systems of elections. We would be doing ourselves an injustice if we did not pursue that debate as well.

The House of Commons is only one part of what we call Parliament. It is impossible and I think irresponsible to reform one part of this picture without addressing the other. I talked about the other place in my remarks on the concurrence motion.

I want to stress again that as long as we are hitching our horse to an electoral system based completely on representation by population, we must address the problems this creates in regional fairness. We can best address this by reforming the second chamber of Parliament. I support the idea of abolishing the currently unelected and unaccountable Senate and replacing it with a new elected, accountable and certainly more useful second chamber that can address more equitably the grievances of the regions.

These matters are all important to addressing the real economic and social issues facing all Canadians. The government should be prepared to take the next step in this matter as soon as the debate on this bill is complete.

In presenting his report to Parliament the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which by and large drafted this bill, the member for Kingston and the Islands suggested that there were a number of problems with the process of looking at boundary changes. For the most part I agree with him. Those problems have to be addressed.

The member for Kingston and the Islands said there was a problem with the beginning of the process. Newly drafted boundaries maps often appeared to the general public as if by magic. For most ordinary Canadians the first they knew there was a boundary change in process was when they saw a redrawn map published in a local newspaper. The new boundaries appeared as if they were a fait accompli, a done deal. The work had been completed. Although public input was sought at this point, to many Canadians this seemed like a futile gesture. Most of the work had already been done.

Changes considered and brought forward in this bill now make the consultation process start earlier. The public will be notified before the boundaries commissions begin the process of redrawing the maps. Public input will be considered at that stage. This is very important and I am pleased to see it included. So much of the work goes on in that early decision making that the role of the public must be considered.

At the same time we know today that the existing commissions are not required to justify their rationale for making the early decisions, those decisions which determine the basis for readjusting the boundaries. The new rules will require the commissions to justify themselves. This is also most supportable.

In our own case in Saskatchewan, the most recent commission made its early decision to give our two largest cities, Saskatoon and Regina, four instead of three seats each. That decision subsequently affected every other seat in the province since there were no additional seats to be had in Saskatchewan.

There were 14 seats before redistribution and there were 14 seats after redistribution. When the commission decided to move two additional seats into the urban environment it meant that two rural seats would basically disappear. On that point there was no public input prior to the decision being made. Subsequently the commission was not asked to justify why the two urban seats needed more MPs and the rural areas needed fewer.

In a historical aside, I think it is worth noting that I found in the history of federal representation in Saskatchewan a very interesting circumstance. If we look at the historical record we note that the first federal election in which the newly formed province of Saskatchewan participated was back in 1907. Ten federal constituencies were contested. In 1907 Saskatchewan had 10 seats out of a total of 221 in the House of Commons. That number fluctuated considerably over the years to a high of 21 seats in the elections of 1924 and 1933 when the House total was 245 seats. Today in a House of Commons of 295 members, Saskatchewan residents are represented by 14 MPs.

If the House of Commons expands to 301 seats, we will continue to have the 14 seats for a while but then we will begin to lose seats, eventually ending up with just 10 again sometime in the early part of the next century. After 100 years of history we will be right back to where we started: 10 seats in 1907, 10 seats in 2003.

I might add that according to Canada's Chief Electoral Officer, if the government ever addresses the question of a smaller Parliament, Saskatchewan will again lose more seats. It will likely end up with no more than eight members of Parliament representing every citizen within its provincial borders. This is more than enough reason for Saskatchewan residents to say that we should make sure that we look beyond representation by population in the second chamber and develop a system that will ensure there is fairness in regional representation.

Going back to the bill, another problem in this mix of existing rules left any sort of national standards for the basis of decision making as non-existent. Every boundaries commission made their own set of rules and set guidelines for how they would adjust the boundaries within their area of jurisdiction.

As a result, there was no consistency across Canada. Some constituencies were created under guidelines which took into account normal local trading, economics, social and even religious patterns. Others were created for population or even for political purposes.

This meant that some commissions made changes that were completely unnecessary. They only did so because they were given the opportunity to make changes on rules they established for themselves. The whole matter of unnecessary changes is crazy. I think the committee has recognized that in proposing changes in this bill.

The changes proposed in this legislation will now make public input more useful, consultation more widespread and boundary changes necessary only when warranted by dramatic population shifts. These are definitely changes that have to be made.

I agree that the role of the public must be strengthened because this exercise is ultimately for them. The boundaries on which MPs are elected have an effect on the type of representation the people within those boundaries can expect or should expect. In drawing up those boundaries the needs of those who will be directly affected must be respected.

I also like the principle of "least amount of change" which this bill proposes, although I do not support its retroactivity. The principle of least amount of change means that no boundaries readjustment commission would be appointed when the population does not warrant it. If there is no substantial population change, then there is no new commission, no new work done to adjust boundaries, no public hearings, no new maps or advertising and with that no new expenditure of public money to create something that does not need to be changed. This is a positive element.

For the benefit of my constituents back home in Saskatchewan, as I mentioned earlier, this likely means that there will be no new map for Saskatchewan's federal boundaries. The Battlefords-Meadow Lake constituency created for the 1988 election and which was in place for the 1993 election will likely remain in place for the next federal election whenever that may be.

In conclusion, let me simply say that the changes presented by Bill C-69 do not justify the suspension of the current process and the discarding of the work of so many commissions that was virtually complete. However, the debate has been worthwhile. The changes will improve the process for the future. At the same time, let us not forget there is that bigger picture to look at, a picture that should include a review of the total number of seats in the House, the concept of proportional representation or preferential ballot and the concept of a second chamber of Parliament that is accountable to the people of Canada.

Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation of our colleague from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. I think that his position was clear and well put.

I would like to ask him a few questions, perhaps two, particularly on the issue of an elected Senate. But before I get into the subject, I would like to justify, just a little, my participation in the debate.

As a sovereignist member of Parliament from Quebec, it might seem strange that I would want to get involved in the representation of Canadians in the House of Commons, but it should be well understood that constituents gave us the mandate to be the official opposition in the House. I think that it would have been inappropriate for us not to deal with this issue claiming that it does not concern us.

It concerns us, first, because of the mandate which we received, as I just mentioned, and also because, in view of the association with Canada that we want to promote, it is in our best interests, as Quebecers, to ensure that Canadian Parliament works in the best way possible.

I would like to remind my colleague, whom I was interested to hear mention that the representation of Saskatchewan's members in Parliament would be reduced in the future, why we, in the Bloc Quebecois, were moved to present an amendment which was defeated by the House. The aim of this amendment was to ensure that, should Quebec remain in Canada, its representation would never drop below 25 per cent.

Why are we insisting on that figure? I think that this 25 per cent is very small if we consider what we have been. When you come into the lobby of the House of Commons, there is the opposition door and the government door. If you look above the opposition door, you can see two medallions. In one of them, there is Louis XIV and in the other, François I.

Above the government door, you notice two English kings. What does that mean? It means that you can see, carved in stone, what Canada was when we entered Confederation. By the way, we entered Confederation on a vote by the Parliament of what was then Lower Canada. There was no referendum. At the time, Canada was a duality, what people used to call the French Canadian people and the English Canadian people. That is how people saw Canada.

In 1982, Canada changed. Canada was a country with ten equal provinces, and in those provinces there were citizens who were all equal, irrespective of their origins, but that is not really my point. My point is that the nature of the country in which we live was changed and it was done forcibly, and, I may recall, by means of a law passed by the Parliament of England. So this is not exactly conducive to good relations between peoples, and

when I say peoples, I am referring to the people of Quebec and the people of Canada.

The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake rose to complain that Saskatchewan would have fewer members. As members from Quebec, we also rose to complain about this eventuality, and the House of Commons ignored our complaint. We protested on the basis of our historic responsibility as the homeland of French Canadians. Today, French Canadians call themselves Quebecers, possibly to the dismay of some people in English Canada.

And now my question is about the Senate. The hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake suggested, to compensate for the decrease in representation of the provinces, an appointed or elected Senate that would act as a kind of counterweight to the fact that the House of Commons would then perhaps represent more ridings and the Senate would then represent the provinces and play a kind of protective role.

Considering his experience in the House of Commons-the hon. member is an experienced member of Parliament who was here throughout the Mulroney era-does he really believe that in the present situation, Canada will ever achieve the kind of constitutional reform that would allow for making changes in its institutions?

Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

4:05 p.m.

NDP

Len Taylor NDP The Battlefords—Meadow Lake, SK

Mr. Speaker, there are a number of comments within the member's question to which I would like to respond.

I will start by addressing the question because the answer is quite simple. I am a great optimist. I believe that people can work together and reach compromises that will be acceptable to most Canadians.

We have built an entire heritage of doing that. We are in the process of reaching agreements with aboriginal people that I wish were further along in process than they are today. We are reaching that point and I know we will do so with the province of Quebec, its people and its leaders as well.

I have no hesitation in saying that when we share the will we will share also the dream of developing a political system that we can all work with and live under.

At the same time, in approaching his question the member made the comment that the Bloc Quebecois is playing a role as the official opposition in the House of Commons. He talked about the Bloc Quebecois ensuring that Parliament is as effective as possible as the official opposition. He implied that the Bloc Quebecois therefore was able to represent the interests of Saskatchewan people because they are the official opposition. I do not think anything can be further from the truth.

After 18 months in office, the present government enjoys unprecedented popularity among the Canadian people. It is not for anything that the government has done. It is because the ineffective opposition is not communicating to the Canadian people the devastation that the policies of the government are creating on the people of our country.

Nothing could be more clear than the policies that are affecting the people of Saskatchewan. The elimination of the Crow rate in any other Parliament in our history would have been a raucous debate in this Chamber. There would have been members yelling and screaming from their chairs. They would have done everything within the rules, within their power, to prevent the government from changing the Crow rate, which devastates the rail transportation system and the agriculture system in Saskatchewan.

We have completed, over the last couple of days, debate that implements the changes to the Crow benefit. There were 23 Bloc speakers on the bill that changes the government's relationship with Saskatchewan farmers. Of those 23 Bloc speakers, not one defended Saskatchewan's interests on the Crow rate. In between these debates, the Bloc even introduced a motion stating that because of the minuscule payout to the Saskatchewan farmers in compensation for this huge program they have lost, Quebec was somehow discriminated against in the process.

That is not an official opposition representing the interests of Saskatchewan people. That is not an opposition that is going to bring the people in any part of the country to the conclusion that the policies of the government are wrong for all Canadians.

Until we have an effective opposition in the country composed of people who care about all of Canada, the government is going to continue to have undeserved popularity.

Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

4:05 p.m.

Reform

Monte Solberg Reform Medicine Hat, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise to address Bill C-69.

Bill C-69 really has not received much news coverage. On the face of it, it is a technical piece of legislation completely lacking in sex appeal.

At its essence, it can be an important bill for a couple of reasons. First, it points beyond itself to the desperate need to bring about some reform of the Canadian parliamentary system. It points to some of the flaws that we have in our system today. It should be scrutinized, regarded and debated in the context of overall reform of the Canadian parliamentary system.

The bill will find opposition among three different groups of people. It will find opposition among people who believe in real representation by population. It will find opposition among people who feel that we are already over-governed to a great degree. It will find opposition among people who disapprove of the idea of granting power to unelected and unaccountable bodies like a boundaries commission.

First, let me talk about representation by population in the context of the reform of the whole parliamentary system. Reformers believe in the idea of absolute representation by population. In other words, to the greatest degree possible constituencies should have the same population.

However, as a counterpoise to that, to balance the idea of constituencies which perhaps would congregate in heavily populated areas, we have to have a triple-E Senate. It should have an equal number of senators from each province; it should be an elected Senate and it should be an effective Senate. It is something that our party has been fighting for since its inception in 1987.

We are proud of the fact that we are the only party that has ever elected a senator. The late Stan Waters was elected in the Senate election of 1991 in Alberta and was subsequently appointed to the other place. That could have been a very valuable way to start the trend toward a triple-E Senate.

That system would probably give some regions, such as Alberta and Saskatchewan, as my hon. friend from The Battlefords-Meadow Lake has just talked about, and other regions of the country some representation and protection from the tyranny of the majority that we have found when we have a pure representation by population system in a country that is as geographically large as Canada.

Reformers believe in the idea of representation by population because it underscores a commitment to the idea of equality before the law. It is a very important concept which, to some degree, has been forgotten in the past several years. It has been superseded by a different type of equality which governments have come to believe in, that is, the equality of outcome. All Canadians want is equality of opportunity, and they would find that, to a large degree, in a system that had absolute representation by population, along with a triple-E Senate. It is is a very pragmatic concept, a concept familiar to countries which have large geographical areas, such as the United States and Australia.

It is a pragmatic idea because it prevents countries which are big and sparsely populated in some areas from falling apart. In a country as large as Canada, we have very disparate points of view and divergent interests. Sometimes, certainly under a pure representation by population system, those ideas that we find in different areas of the country would not be adequately addressed in a House of Commons, for instance. We need a counterpoise to that and that is why Reformers are big supporters of a triple-E Senate.

Bill C-69 gives us neither of those concepts; certainly not representation by population and definitely not any kind of change that would give us a triple-E Senate. In fact, it offends the principles that underlie both of them.

One of the things that Reformers find hard to deal with is the 25 per cent variance regulation in Bill C-69. It means that constituencies can vary in size by 25 per cent from the mean. That could lead to discrepancies of as much as 67 per cent in population size between constituencies. That is a huge difference in population size. It permanently dispels the idea that we can have equal influence for our votes in a Canadian system.

That may be a quaint notion to a lot of people in this place, but I would argue that people back home very firmly believe in the idea that each vote should carry the same weight. We would argue strongly that the government has to begin to move that way. That is why the Reform Party has suggested, at least, to amend the variance to 15 per cent between constituencies. If we did that, it would mean that, at most, we would have a variance of 35 per cent in populations between constituencies. That is not perfect, but it certainly brings us closer to the idea of representation by population until such time as we can have constitutional reform that can address some of the real problems that affect the Canadian parliamentary system.

As I mentioned a minute ago, I think people feel we are already over governed. I remind members of an article in that ubiquitous journal that sits on just about everybody's night stand, Readers Digest . About a year ago there was an article about how much money is spent on governing Canadians, how much it costs to run Parliament. When I think of that article I cannot help but think of our unelected Senate and the people over there who sadly do not enjoy the confidence of Canadians, and how at times they have not displayed the type of conduct we would like to see from all parliamentarians. I specifically think of the GST debate.

It is necessary to make those people accountable. If we had a triple-E senate it is entirely possible that we could trim the size. Reform has called at various times for Senate reform that could possibly leave us with six senators from each province. Some people have suggested we only need two from each province. We look to the American example and we can see they can get by with two senators from states as large as California, which has a population almost as large as Canada's. Somehow they manage to make that system work. One thing that could be done is trim the number of senators.

A lot of people would agree with me if I said there are a lot of backbenchers in the House we probably could do without because there is not always enough meaningful work to go around. I mean no disrespect to any particular backbencher. However, in a private moment if they were true to their heart of hearts, many backbenchers would acknowledge we could probably get by with fewer members of Parliament and still do the essential work required to make the government run.

The article mentioned it costs somewhere in the order of $770 million to run Parliament. If we could get the number of members of Parliament to about 265, as Reform suggested, it would still leave constituencies of a size allowing members to deal with the concerns.

If we could get the size of the Senate down, make it effective, elected and equal, it would have the confidence of the people and could serve a necessary purpose and perhaps go a long way to healing some of the wounds that divide the country.

Concerning boundary commissions being given a lot of power to make changes, I am concerned about that and Canadians should be concerned about it as well. It is conceivable that power could reside simply in the statues for the government to administer.

The boundary commissions people are unelected and unaccountable. They have the power to set boundaries. I would not suggest they have this in mind but if they wished they could do a tremendous amount of mischief with the boundaries. It has been suggested by other members that has happened in the past, that boundaries were drawn somewhat arbitrarily because of political and other reasons that really do not have anything to do with the proper function and the proper way representatives and their areas should be chosen. That bothers me.

We need to move away from that to the greatest degree possible and enshrine in statutes more precisely how rules should work so there would be less latitude for unelected, unaccountable bodies to change the boundaries to suit either their own needs or perhaps the needs of their political masters.

In Bill C-69 we see the tremendous latitude boundaries commissions have to make exceptions to the 25 per cent variance rule by allowing them to exempt certain constituencies. In the past this has applied to very large constituencies. There is nothing in the rules preventing boundary commissions from making exemptions for constituencies that are not as large.

Reform would like to propose bigger changes which would require a different forum and a different debate. In the context of this bill we would like to see a rule that would put a limit on the minimum size of a constituency that could be exempted on the schedule. We are suggesting somewhere in the range of 200,000 or 250,000 kilometres. We are concerned that as long as it is left open, we will see MPs from various areas of the country coming forward, lobbying to have their boundaries exempted, not for any good reason, but because they want to keep their boundaries for very political reasons.

I point to the reason we are here discussing Bill C-69. There was a very unseemly scene not too long ago when the boundaries came out under the current bill. MPs from the government and the Bloc were running to the government saying: "Please do not change my boundaries. It will ruin my chances for re-election". It stopped a situation in which we already had a process underway to draw new boundaries.

Reform constituencies were very much affected by this. The member for Beaver River, the deputy leader of the Reform Party, was to lose her riding altogether. Nevertheless, Reform did not squawk about this. Members across the way and in the Bloc squawked, made a big deal about this, made sure their own interests were protected at the expense of Canadian taxpayers and at the expense of slowing the entire process down, forcing it back into the House under new legislation, tying up members' time to deal with this once again. That is entirely inappropriate.

The government has made a grave error. It has gone to great lengths to protect its own interests as it has done with other issues like MP pensions. For once it would be nice to see the government put the interests of its constituents and of the people of Canada ahead of its own interests. That is all Canadians want.

That whole unseemly situation gave birth to Bill C-69. It is why we are here today. What Canadians really want ultimately is a complete change to the underpinnings of the Canadian system. They want representation by population. They also want a triple-E Senate which would go a long way to giving the regions representation and in healing some of the wounds as a result of a faulty system today.

A fair and transparent democratic set of institutions is all Canadians want. The government and Bill C-69 have failed to give them that. For that reason I will not be supporting this legislation.

Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am a little curious as to something the member said. He referred to the schedules in the bill whereby members could apply to have their ridings exempted from redistribution because it would be included in the schedule.

Is he aware that in committee that section of the bill was removed?