Debates of March 24th, 1994

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

In my opinion the yeas have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

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

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I declare the motion carried.

The House resumed from March 21, consideration of the motion that Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be read the second time and referred to a committee; and of the amendment.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I finished my speech the other night at 6.42 and I am certainly open to questions and comments.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest the other night to the speech of the hon. member for Beaver River who talked extensively about her riding. We all remember the time she was first elected in the House to represent the new riding of Beaver River. I had the honour of being her assistant at that time and of assisting her in planting the flag of Reform in the House of Commons. That was a momentous day. Obviously she feels very strongly about some of the proposed changes under the current scheme for her riding.

I was concerned during her speech on Monday. Some comments were hurled across the way which maybe do not appear in the Hansard transcript. They really raised questions about the partisanship or lack of partisanship and integrity of Elections Canada and its senior officials. There were a number of comments hurled across the way to the effect that Elections Canada was a partisan body. Its members have strong affiliations to another political party which is no longer recognized in the House.

The hon. member for Beaver River has been a member since 1989. She has run in two elections and a byelection. Could she comment at some length on her experiences with Elections Canada as a candidate and as a lone member of Parliament for a good deal of time? Did she find that Elections Canada was a partisan organization, that it had that kind of orientation, or was she happy with her dealings with that organization as an independent member and now as a Reform member?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his remarks. It is nice to have him as a colleague again in the House of Commons, this time as a fellow member of Parliament.

He has asked me to address the issue of how I feel about Elections Canada. Before I answer the question I might just answer how I felt about some of the remarks that were being hurled across the House. I suppose I was partly amused but also partly saddened by the consistent comments of the member for Vancouver South. He kept saying loudly across the House as I was speaking the other night: "I will lose my riding as well. It is not just Beaver River that is going to be dismantled". The member for Vancouver South was saying that his riding would also be dismantled.

That is all well and fine, but we need to draw the distinction in the House that it could be one reason the government is trying to ram the bill through so quickly, because he stands to lose his seat. I am in the position of standing to lose my constituency as well. In other words I will not have a place to run in the next election if I choose to run again.

That is why I think it is more important for someone in this party who stands to lose a constituency not to be so self-serving as to say: "Yes, let us put the whole process off". Then I would be serving my own interests and saying: "Whew, I am safe. I can carry on". There is a real discrepancy when someone from the other side was hollering: "I will lose my seat". It would be perfectly natural then for him to support his government on railroading the bill through Parliament and putting the whole process on hold. There is a real difference of opinion there. As a

matter of principle I am against it even though I stand to lose as well through this process.

My dealings with Elections Canada have always been very good. I have run in two general federal elections as well as one byelection in the spring of 1989. Even though I was treated as somebody who was almost literally a kook in western Canada because I represented a new political party that nobody had ever heard about and nobody knew anything about it, I must say the people at Elections Canada were most fair with me in the general election of 1988 and in the byelection of 1989 when we surprised Elections Canada and the whole country of Canada from sea to sea when I took 50 per cent of the vote.

Since then obviously my party has gained a great deal of strength and steam across the country. When I ran as only one of 200 and some candidates in the general election of 1993 we had undergone the process which is very general and very basic. People were appointed as returning officers in their constituencies. We underwent that in Beaver River because the previous returning officer had retired. We were subject to a new returning officer, Mr. Lorne Assheton-Smith from St. Paul. Those are political appointments, as we all know. I will send this comment in Hansard to Mr. Lorne Assheton-Smith, the returning officer from Elections Canada in Beaver River, indicating that he treated me fairly as a candidate and I have absolutely no criticism whatsoever of Elections Canada.

The criticism I would have is not of the whole situation. Maybe it is political to an extent with the Electoral Boundaries Commission, but the question on everybody's lips is: if they think they are replacing Tory hacks with something better, heaven help government members who are ramrodding the legislation through. They will do so at their own peril if they replace them with hacks of another political party who they think might serve their interests better. I think all of us would be ashamed to see that happen.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Secretary of State (Parliamentary Affairs)]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Beaver River that we certainly will not do what she assumes we will do when it is time to appoint people to these commissions, because this is a very independent process, and we certainly intend to abide by this principle.

However, if I remember correctly what she said in her speech a few days ago, she did not entirely agree with the current process. She also said that in her presentation to the commissions, she would also express her dissatisfaction and mention certain changes she would like to see.

She invited her constituents to do likewise. The hon. member must know that the commission appointed to review the boundaries of her electoral district does exactly that, in other words, it receives submissions on new or existing boundaries and is not at all concerned with the current process.

My point is that if the hon. member comments on the process, it will be a waste of time. Giving hon. members an opportunity to do so, and the public as well, because the committee that reviews the entire process will certainly ask members of the public to come and testify, is the whole purpose of this bill.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Beaver River, AB]

Madam Speaker, we are talking about particulars the commission has come up with. Yes, I make no bones about it. I think there are real weaknesses in that and I think Beaver River deserves a longer life than it has had.

As I mentioned in my remarks the other day, it was a brand new constituency in 1988. Will it just evaporate into thin air? I do have problems with that. We have had negotiations with the government but I have no guarantees. What guarantee do I have that the system the government is talking about will be better? It has not given us any options. It has not said that it wants to move in this direction.

Yes, it makes me nervous. I am not going to sign on to something with my party and say: "Sure, let us come up with something that may be just as politically motivated". Canadians would be really frustrated with that. Even though I am frustrated with the proposals that are in place and I said that I would be going to the hearings, I suspect now I am not going to have a chance when I see the government bringing in time allocation. If it is talking about the process it wants to take part in being so important, why do we need to have it shot through Parliament faster than the speed of light?

I sat in the House and my friend from the riding of Kamloops has sat here too, listening to dozens upon dozens of members who are on the government side now screaming against the Tories last time all the dreadful things about time allocation. I can hardly believe it when I look across the aisle now. Is this the most important thing in Canada right now? Is this what this government is going to be proud of down the road? Will it be saying: "This is what we forced time allocation on. The biggest issue of the day was electoral boundaries"? I hardly think so.

I wanted a guarantee that some better process would be in place. If this is going to take place, as I suspect the government will be ramming it through, I would like a guarantee as a Canadian citizen and as a member of Parliament in the House that whatever changes the government makes it may grandfather them and put them into the life of the next Parliament after this

one so its fingerprints will not be all over it as the author of perhaps what might be its own demise.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I want to make sure the preachers on that side of the House have the benefit of what I have to say. Unlike the last two occasions I certainly hope they will actually ask me some questions.

Just to touch on the comments of the member for Beaver River, she said she was amused and saddened. She wants a guarantee that whatever the government comes up with will be better. That is what the bill embarks on.

Let me say to the member that the reason we have to deal with the issue this week given our recess is that if we do not do so we will put in place a very costly process of having reviews on boundaries that will not decrease the number of seats in the House or maintain the number of seats in the House but will increase the number of seats in the House by a total of six. I say that because much is being said by the big R Reformers about this bill being rammed through. What we have is a filibuster. The local media in my community was very upset by what was to transpire even though under the present situation Ontario would gain four more seats. We want to look at the number of seats in this Chamber. I can tell members that we should have the opportunity to do that.

We do not get the light every day on this side of the House. Therefore we are unable to take a complex issue such as this and give the members from the big R Reform Party assurance that we can do it that speedily. We will send the bill to committee where the members of the Reform Party can come forward as well as every other member in every party in the House. They will be able to bring us the reaction of their constituents. They will be able to ask some of their constituents to be witnesses and over a period of time we will come up with something better.

As I was looking at making a presentation today, I took the opportunity to review what all members who spoke on the issue had to say this past Monday. I can tell members that I feel somewhat amused on the one hand and saddened on the other.

It never ceases to amaze me how the members of the big R Reform Party, the ones that always preach free votes go ahead and do the opposite and vote as a block. One would think they were tied together with Krazy glue. Perhaps when they go through the exercise of coming up with a code of conduct, one of the things they will definitely do is use Krazy glue.

Watching them in the House, I am very much reminded of another great neo-Conservative, Margaret Thatcher, who is passé now. I am reminded of another person. The Reform Party members very much have a soulmate in the former President of the United States, Ronald Reagan. He got elected promising to cut the deficit and the debt. Of course the United States of America became the biggest lender nation in the world when the new right took control as the Reform dream about. He took the country from the biggest lender to the biggest debtor. However something that Ronald Reagan said is applicable here. It is that phrase he always used so well, "there they go again".

Any time I review debates by the Reform Party that certainly is the impression I get, there they go again. Let them preach. Let them be sanctimonious. Do not give credit on any of the initiatives.

When I reviewed the debates one of the things I found was that for the most part they admitted they do not want to change the size of the House of Commons.

Interestingly enough, there was not one person who would support it because if we stay with the status quo, we will definitely change the House of Commons by six members which will cost us a million dollars a member. If one starts multiplying $6 million by 10 years one has $60 million. Then one continues on and keeps adding members to the House of Commons.

Certainly that was not what my constituents told me they wanted to see done. My constituents told me they want us to do more with less and to make the House operate more effectively.

Let us be very clear we are talking about ramrodding a bill, and we are talking about that. If we did not use time allocation on the bill, we would not have the opportunity to change those costly hearings that are going to take so much time and energy on the part of Canadians. I think that is an important point to know.

The suggestion has been made that the bill by the government came through the back rooms of the Liberal caucus, that it did not see the light of day with constituents, that somehow it was all politically manipulated.

As soon as the electoral boundaries readjustment proposal for the province of Ontario was put in place I received numerous calls from constituents. I have had discussions with people representing local governments. I was in the process of drafting a private member's bill on this issue which called for representations by members of the House of Commons without increasing the total number of members. I was reflecting what my constituents were telling me which was restricting the number to at least the present size.

We also wanted to talk about making sure that the community of interest represented by ridings was maintained. When I read through the debates, I noted that the member for Beaver River said that her riding would disappear and it only had the opportunity to go through two elections.

I read some other contributions from members of the Reform Party who said that there is not one Canadian, not one constituent that is upset with the proposals. I have to tell them that they are wrong.

Back on December 17 the local paper, the Kitchener-Waterloo Record stated in a story ``if you live in Kitchener, Waterloo or Cambridge and think you have trouble now figuring out who your MP is, just wait until the new election if proposed riding boundary changes come into effect.

If the changes proposed by the Federal Election Boundaries Commission for Ontario are accepted parts of Kitchener will be tacked on to Waterloo riding, parts of Waterloo will be attached to a largely rural riding, North Dumfries will be cut away from Cambridge and part of Cambridge riding that used to be part of the Kitchener riding will go back to Kitchener". I am going to spare you by not reading the whole story but it goes on and on.

Let me talk about what some of the civic leaders have to say. Waterloo Mayor Brian Turnbull said he is really disappointed in a redistribution that would see a large part of the city included in largely a rural riding that has no historical ties to this part of the province.

Woolwich township Mayor Bob Waters said he intends to fight redistribution. I was talking to Mayor Lynn Myers of Wilmot township which by the way was taken out from the Waterloo region in the last redistribution process. I would like to see a joint submission.

Now what did Mayor Myers say, whose riding was taken out of the Waterloo region? Lynn Myers bluntly said "Wilmot is not happy in the riding of Perth-Wellington-Waterloo". Now he is worried about being lumped into a new urban riding that has no natural ties, has an unholy alliance and it would be an unhistoric alliance. He said that ever since redistribution he hated every minute of it. That certainly is reflective of many of the constituents involved.

There was a story in the K-W Record yesterday that headlined that Reform is filibustering, which is exactly what they are doing. The editorial reads:

Common sense does take hold in Ottawa from time to time. Thank goodness it has finally asserted itself over the issue of federal electoral redistribution. The public is in no mood to pay millions of dollars to implement new boundaries that, as far as the Waterloo region is concerned, make no sense. Nor are people eager to shell out more money to expand the number of members of Parliament.

The ruling Liberals have wisely asked the Bloc Quebecois and Reform Party to consider a joint suspension of redistribution until a parliamentary panel can study the desired size of the House and the number of seats for each province.

It certainly does not sound like a community where nobody is upset.

I know my friends in the Reform Party like petitions. We have thousands of signatures on a petition which supports the proposals in my private member's bill. As this thing goes through over the course of the next two years there will be, I dare say, thousands and thousands more. Who knows, maybe the members of the Reform are just waiting for that one phone call from a Canadian to be inspired. Maybe one Canadian will phone and inspire them to start thinking about the issue, start thinking about the actions we are taking today.

I would like to reiterate this because I think it is important. If we did not act this week we would have those costly and useless hearings held, if it were ever suspended, which would inconvenience civic politicians, citizens and certainly every member of the Chamber would be spending time at those hearings.

Therefore, it is not a question of whether we agree with the electoral commission in the sense that we think it did a good job. Given its mandate it has no choice in holding the line on the seats in the House of Commons. That is not an option. That option belongs to politicians.

I despair to a large extent when I listen to the member for Beaver River. She talked about the dirty fingerprints of politicians. Every member of the House is a politician. Some would like to be preachers and have their Sunday sermons and others would like to spend their time on codes of conduct, but Canadians elected them to bring their best judgment here. They were elected as politicians. I can only say to them that by forever questioning the ethics of this Chamber they do a great disservice to this Chamber which is the greatest Chamber of debate in the country.

I do not know what happens in the strategy room of the Reform Party but I do know what happens in caucus at the Liberal Party. First, let me state that in the Liberal Party we do not spend our time looking at codes of conduct for our members. There is the assumption that we are equal and that we know how to run our lives. We do not pretend to be holier than the average citizen. We are here to try to reflect and represent this country. I hear my friends say that we should.

Let the Reform Party be unanimous in their code of ethics. Let them have a free and open debate on it. We would be very much entertained. I am sure it would remind us of the great Jimmy Swaggart hour on Sunday mornings.

I mentioned before that funny things happen during election campaigns. In my riding of Waterloo a person who ran for city council and did not succeed-actually he came after me in the election-was a Reform candidate. This individual now fills my seat on Waterloo city council.

I have a great deal of respect for him. I could not quite understand what happened to him that he was a Reform candidate. Certainly some of the things he said did not make a great deal of sense.

However he has supported the infrastructure program for the city of Waterloo. He found good reasons to support it because he saw that the work being done was good for the community and good for the country.

Let me share this with you. It was moved by Councillor Connolly, seconded by Councillor Hoddle at the February 21 meeting of council in Waterloo, that the present recommendations of the Federal Elections Boundary Commission for Ontario, of boundary changes to ridings in the Waterloo region be redrawn and new boundaries be discussed with all Waterloo regional municipalities and its members of Parliament to arrive at a solution that keeps our region in tact. It was passed unanimously.

Therefore there is a great deal of support for what this government is doing. If we did not have to forever listen to and argue with members on the preaching of sanctimony versus reason we could have a committee composed of members of the House of Commons. In the period of two years we could certainly come up with something better. In that way this House would work much, much better.

I am supporting this bill because not to do so would mean supporting the status quo. That is why I call them big R Reformers; they do not act like reformers even though they call themselves Reformers.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member casting disparaging remarks about the Reform Party. He likens us to Ronald Reagan who was elected as President of the United States on the promise of reducing the deficit and trying to get the massive debt under control.

There is a different system of government in Canada from what the Americans have in the United States. In Canada the executive branch and the legislative branch sit together whereas Mr. Reagan had to contend with the Democrats who dominated the Congress. In this government and in this Parliament the executive and the legislative branches are one and the same. Therefore they have much more power and ability to deal with deficits and debt than Mr. Reagan did.

Does the member recognize and acknowledge that fact?

I listened to the hon. member's remarks on fighting redistribution and heard that there was an uproar in his constituency over this proposed redistribution. I do not hear that uproar in my riding nor do I hear it in Canada. I do not see it on the front pages of the newspapers; I do not hear it being discussed. I continue to believe mightily it is an issue for members of Parliament much more so than it is an issue for Canadians.

I agree that one issue which is important to Canadians is the expenditure of money. The almost $5 million which has been spent to date will be lost if this government motion succeeds.

Furthermore, if the government is serious about capping the number of seats then why is it not clearly stated in the bill that the number of seats will be capped? If that were stated, the bill would probably have the support of the Reform Party but it is not. There is just a vague acknowledgement that the steadily increasing number of MPs will be looked at, but there is no commitment to stop it.

I ask the member for his comments on that.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, I certainly know of the separation of powers in the United States of America. I also have had the good fortune to read the book by the leader of the Reform Party. I certainly understand there is a close attachment to the new conservatism that has died out in Great Britain and the United States. Certainly the president had a great deal of monetary policies to do with the incredible increase in the debt of the United States. Let us be very clear on that.

The other point raised suggests that I cast aspersions that were demeaning to the Reformers. I get Quorum like everybody else and I see reference to their code of conduct. There is a member of Parliament who refuses to dine alone with a woman even on a professional basis. Another columnist talks about the pious Reform caucus with a score of MPs more righteous and apt at sermonising than Preston Manning. Another columnist writes that now some holier than thou Reformers are putting together their own code of behaviour. Who am I to say? I just read it and some of it must be correct.

I have nothing against Reformers personally. Mr. Connolly was a candidate against me in the last election. We got along great on many issues and personally we get along very well, but something does happen when they get into that group, close the doors and decide on debate.

The member also raised the matter of money. He said that $5 million had already been spent. That is correct, but if we continue with this process we are going to spend $3 million more. If we put in six new members of Parliament we are going to spend $6 million more every year.

If we continue with the process in the longer term we are going to keep adding members to the House of Commons. We would be knocking out those walls and the Reformers would need binoculars to see the Speaker. Therefore time is of the essence. We have to deal with this issue very quickly. However I will be fighting very strongly to maintain the number of members of Parliament at 295.

I mentioned the subject of my private member's bill. I am willing to have everybody in this House and in committee sit down to see how we can improve this place to better reflect the constituents whom we represent. This must be dealt with in a serious fashion. It must not be used as an opportunity to filibuster. My wish and my hope is that we will come up with a bill that is a great improvement over the one we presently have.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

It always makes me wonder when a member of the House stands up and criticizes other parties and other members as to what their motivation is rather than defending the bill his party has put forward.

It reminds me of question period when the Official Opposition presses the government too closely on an issue. It continues to drag up the old story that the Leader of the Official Opposition was a member of the former government. Whenever that happens it tells me that they are getting close to something the government does not want to discuss and the pressure is being placed on it by the Official Opposition.

When the member stands up and spends at least 50 per cent of his time criticizing the Reform Party it makes me wonder what he is afraid of. If the big R Reform movement in his constituency is not already pressing him a little too closely, four years from now he really will have something to worry about.

Nevertheless if this bill contained the means by which the number of members in this House would be capped, then as my colleague who asked the question before me stated there would be support for that in the Reform Party caucus. That is what we stand for. We do not need more representation across this country; we need better representation, representation that we have not received from either the Liberal or the Tory governments.

When we talk about debt it is his government that began that enormous slide into the debt hole. It left us with over $200 billion and another $300 billion was added by the Tory government. Now we are at a point where organizations like the Fraser Institute will not advise us. They say we may have gone too far and we may face a debt crisis that is beyond our control.

Will the member address the reason the capping of the number of members in this House is not within the bill itself. To me it is a farce when he stands up and talks about capping the number of members in this House because it ought to be in the bill but is not.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Madam Speaker, we do not govern by divine right. We are mortals. We on this side of the House recognize that anyway.

We understand it takes time to put a bill together that will stand up to the scrutiny of time. That is what we are doing. We are starting the process toward it. Many members in my caucus and I very much wish that is what we are going to be looking to do.

We can possibly come up with a plan saying that for whatever constitutional consideration and to recognize some of those agreements we are going to cap the size of the House of Commons at, let us say, 300 members. I could live with that as a final cap on numbers. It is very important to get this bill moving so we can get to that.

If the big R Reformers want to improve this place, then please listen to a small r reformer. Let us get moving in that direction.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will try to keep my contribution to this debate as relevant as possible to the subject before the House: Bill C-18, am Act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

I had some trouble following the train of thought of the hon. member for Waterloo, since his speech covered a variety of topics, including some criticism of the behaviour of Reform Party members. That is not the intent of my speech today.

First of all, I must say, it is always distressing to see a government using a motion for time allocation, for closure, to put an end to debate.

It is always, or nearly always, a distressing moment for parliamentarians to see this desire to gag a democratic debate. We did not support the motion, because it is the very essence of our parliamentary system that debate should take place without undue haste, and with as much for reflection and consideration as possible.

In the case of Bill C-18 before the House today, the debate started on Monday this week, after notice given Friday last week. And after one day of debate, they imposed closure. Why the hurry, when the government could easily have scheduled the tabling of this bill a week or two earlier?

I have somewhat mixed feelings when I speak to Bill C-18, because I strongly object to restricting the debate on a bill in this House, especially after only one day of debate. It is not a matter of life and death, and the government could have taken steps to avoid this.

On the other hand, and this is why I have mixed feelings about the substance of Bill C-18, I share a number of views held by members of the government majority. Bill C-18 asks us to suspend the current process for electoral boundaries review and would refer the issue of representation in this Parliament, including section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; but more about this later.

Madam Speaker, 1867 was a landmark, an historic date, since on July 1, 1867, the constitutional system in this country changed and became a so-called Confederation, although it was actually an extremely centralized federation, witness the constant debate and struggle, every day and every moment, to ensure that provincial legislatures are able to operate in their fields of jurisdiction. Before 1867, Quebec had half the seats in the Legislature of the Union Parliament; 65 out of 130 for Lower Canada, and of course the remaining 65 for Upper Canada.

It was a dramatic change, and no wonder the Liberal government never consulted the population. Why did the government that was in power just before the Union-and I must make a correction here, because it was not the Liberal government, since it was the Liberal Party which requested a referendum-why did it not conduct a referendum in Quebec, in Lower Canada, on the institutional changes in 1867? Because, according to most historians, the referendum would have been a lost cause.

We started our journey into the institutional desert in 1867, when we lost the equality between two nations: Quebec and English Canada, which itself was seeking its own identity. And as we went on, decade after decade and decennial census after decennial census-since the present Constitution requires a census every ten years-we saw Quebec's political power being eroded.

Seventy-five members out of 181, and now, 75 out of 295. If the proposed redrawing of the map now before the people, as submitted by the provincial commissions, is approved, we would hold 75 of the 301 seats. Our representation would continue to be eroded!

Over the years, there has clearly been a collective loss of memory in some circles. Yet, we must constantly remind people that in 1867, Quebec held half of the seats in Canada's parliament. What could be more legitimate than to seek a status that would allow us to manage our own affairs, according to the wishes of the majority of our people. In fact, just prior to Confederation in 1867, the Parliament of the united Canada of 1840 operated according to the double majority rule, which meant that decisions made required the backing of a majority of the members representing Upper Canada and a majority of the members representing Lower Canada. Quebec enjoyed de facto a veto over all decisions affecting it. On this score, we have certainly lost ground.

I can speak openly about Bill C-18 without any ulterior motives since I campaigned right up until October 25 as a candidate who was seeking to become the last federal member of Parliament for Bellechasse. And this has continued to be my position. Therefore, I can allow myself great latitude when it comes to this bill to readjust or redraw electoral boundaries.

During my speech the other day, I mentioned that the Bloc Quebecois, which is dedicated to defending Quebec's interests and to promoting Quebec sovereignty, will never support the empty chair policy or the scorched-earth policy, regardless of what the future holds for Quebec, and that the decision ultimately rests with Quebecers and with Quebecers alone. In this regard, we must see to it that our future is protected, regardless of the decisions that will be made.

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

Madam Speaker, there does not appear to be a quorum in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The quorum has been attained.

[Fernand Robichaud, Liberal, Beauséjour, NB]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since there are people watching, when the member of the Reform Party asked if there was a quorum, there was only one member of that party in the House.

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

Madam Speaker I thought that the House was suspended and the members were to be called in because there were only 16 members in the House, which is not a quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We have now attained a quorum and I have said so.