Debates of March 24th, 1994

Business Of The House

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, today the House will conclude the second reading stage of Bill C-18. Tomorrow we will commence debate on Bill C-17, the budget implementation bill. If this is not concluded tomorrow we will resume debate on this bill after the Easter adjournment on April 11.

After Bill C-17 is given second reading, we will call legislation as follows: report stage and third reading of Bill C-9 regarding economic affairs, Bill C-4 respecting the NAFTA side deals, and Bill C-2 regarding Revenue Canada.

We would then turn to the second reading debates on Bill C-7 regarding the control of certain substances and C-11 respecting tobacco.

If Bill C-18 were to be reported from the standing committee before we have completed this list, we would of course return to its consideration at the report stage and third reading. This would then put us in a position to proceed with the government's motion to ask the procedure committee to prepare a bill addressing issues connected with the redistribution process.

Finally, it is our intention to devote a day soon after our return to a general debate on agriculture. Depending on the progress of legislation, that debate could be held late in the first week we are back or, failing that, during the first week of May.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to clarify if the government House leader could indicate when the report stage for Bill C-18 might be expected since he mentioned it in his report.

[Herb Gray, Liberal, Windsor West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this would depend on the pace of work of the Standing Committee on Procedure which will receive Bill C-18 after this House votes second reading later today. Under the rules, I do not think that report stage could begin until after we return from the Easter break. Certainly we would want to call report stage and then third reading of C-18 as soon as possible after the bill is reported back to the House from the standing committee.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the amendment.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today as many of my colleagues have to raise some concerns about the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act that we are debating in Parliament.

My own riding like everyone else's has come up for boundary readjustment under the current proposals. I saw a couple of weekends ago in the newspaper the boundary proposals. The changes to my boundaries are not putting a big smile on my face. I have an extension of the boundaries, way up into the Merritt-Princeton area. I now have a riding that encompasses everything from urban commuters to Vancouver, loggers and farmers in the middle of my riding, right up into Merritt-Princeton which is into ranching and mining and interior towns that have very little to do with the current constituency of Fraser Valley East.

I have some problems. I have made presentations in writing to the electoral boundaries people to tell them that I will be making presentations to them when the opportunity arises to try and persuade them that perhaps those cities are better served in the Kamloops riding.

I am not willing to suspend the boundaries readjustment just because my own personal boundary is not to my liking. There are several important principles involved here that need to be addressed and that have been neglected by the government.

The first reason I object to the suspension act is that it thwarts the purpose of Parliament in the electoral process. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act requires the readjustment of federal electoral boundaries every 10 years. There is a commission made up of three people. Three people form this commission. The chief justice of each province appoints a chairperson and the Speaker of the House of Commons, someone who sits in your chair, appoints the other two.

Both authorities who make up these commissions, the chief justice and the Speaker, share the characteristic of total impartiality. The commission that we are considering suspending is a completely impartial commission. We have to be careful in whatever deliberations we make in this House that we do not take away from impartiality where impartiality is necessary. We must make sure that any commission is not politically motivated in any way.

My first concern is about this purpose of Parliament. What is the purpose of Parliament?

I would put to you, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of Parliament is not to interfere in independent judicial type bodies just because we do not happen to agree with the outcome. There is ample opportunity to make presentation to these boundaries commissions and I plan to do that, as I encourage every member to do. However, to step in at this stage and say that because some of the members of the government do not like the boundaries they are willing to thwart the entire purpose of the act is unconscionable.

Nowhere in the red book is there any mention that this act needed to be amended. Nowhere in the speech from the throne is there any idea or thought that this needed to be adjusted. The first whisper of this that came out was when the boundary readjustments came to the members opposite. Suddenly a crisis of monumental importance hit this House. It must be changed, it must be suspended, the judicial process must be set aside. Members opposite for some reason feel that they have to step in and somehow make it right.

I believe the public is going to see this very cynically. Why was this not an issue before? The reason, of course, is obvious. There is going to be political meddling in a judicial process and this political meddling is unconscionable.

Second, this matter has already been thwarted once before. Already we have had suspensions on this. Every 10 years we are supposed to have new boundary proposals. It has already been suspended once before. Now again we are going to set aside a $5 million commission, having already spent $5 million, when section 14 of the act says that each commission shall prepare with all reasonable dispatch a report setting out its recommendations.

The last instance was in 1991. Here we are in 1994 and we are again not going to have a readjustment. The proposal seems to be to put it off for a couple of more years. We will likely go into the turn of the century running on a 1981 census. That is totally unacceptable, which brings me to my third point, the province of British Columbia.

B.C. is the fastest growing province. Some 40,000 people from within Canada have moved to B.C., mostly from Ontario. The shift in the population is going westward. Thirty-five thousand additional people came from all other countries of the world. We received 20 per cent of Canada's immigration population. B.C. is a thriving region of the country.

By the looks of it we are going to go into the next election, whenever that may be, with the same seat distribution as we had in 1981. That is totally unacceptable. I do not understand, even if they were the best of intentions, which I question, why we would be saddled with inadequate representation going right through to the turn of the century.

There are other problems with this proposal. The proposal will increase the cost. Nowhere in the proposal by the government is there anything that suggests that this new review, another review, will save us money. It is just another review.

Every time politicians get involved in reviews and making proposals and considerations, the costs continue to rise. What will be the possible advantages? There may or may not be. History tells us, precedent has been set, that this is likely to cost us more money. It is a tremendous waste of the commissioners' time and our money.

Another point is the principle of openness. This needs to be dealt with openly. It needs to be seen to be open. It needs to be seen to be fair. It needs to be seen to be impartial. All of those things have been thwarted by this bill. This bill is a behind the scenes, I know better than you do attitude that we have seen, as we talked earlier in question period about business as usual. Instead of bringing this out for open discussion, instead of give and take on the floor of the House of Commons, instead of even bringing forward specific proposals, what we find here instead is a process that says: "We know best. Not only do we know best, we are not willing to allow opposition members to raise their concerns to their own liking. We are going to invoke closure".

I wonder when this government handed the new shoes to Mr. Martin if the new shoes were to step on this, to squelch any ideas of democracy-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. I would just like to remind members to refer to one another according to the positions being held by the respective members and not their names.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected and I will make no further reference to the boots.

However it does appear that taking the boots to some of these representations appears to be the purpose of this bill. While I originally prepared a 20 minute presentation detailing the entire pros and cons of a review process, I find now that it has unfortunately been reduced to 10 minutes because of this idea that closure somehow is in the best interest of democracy.

I think I need to summarize it in this way, since I have been restricted in my time. First, this thwarts the purpose of Parliament. Parliament is not to set boundaries to just jump in when members do not like what they see. Parliament is to set up a process. The process is in place. When it continually gets put off year after year it does nothing to enhance people's impression that this is truly a democratic and hands off process. That is the first principle, the principle that alarms me the most.

Second, as I mentioned, is this lack of proportional representation. I know the government says it is going to review it. It may have more, it may have less. Who knows what the review will come up with when the Liberals come up with these proposals? The fact is that we will go into the next election in British Columbia with fewer representatives than we deserve.

That has been going on since 1981. It appears it will go on through to the turn of the century with the same disproportionate representation that we had to go with this last time.

That is the second principle that is undesirable, the increased costs, the $5 million down the drain and the fact that we will not be able to use the extensive advertising. I have with me the sheet that describes the new boundaries which was delivered through the paper system to every household in Canada. Those costs are all for naught. Many of us prepared briefs and speeches for these advertised meetings. Our work is all for naught.

The fact is it is no longer an open process but instead, when things are not going their way, the process has been cut off. Another nail in the coffin of openness. In conclusion, I have a couple of proposals that I would like to make to the government.

First of all I would ask them to reconsider this whole idea of closure. I have sheets of Hansard that I dug up that I do not have time to read out today. I have almost three pages in the indexes from the last Parliament. It took three pages just to list the names of the speakers on the other side of the House that rose to speak against closure and time limitation.

It is a shame that when something that should be impartial and above reproach that government members, many of whom are listed in the three index pages, have chosen instead to clamp down on democratic discussion on this judicial process. It is a shame.

I cannot believe the government would use this bill to invoke closure to stifle free speech in the House. If it were not for the time constraints of Easter coming up the government would probably go on. It is a shame that to get a holiday they are going to invoke closure and clamp down on democratic free speech.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, thank you for allowing me to join in this debate. We have heard many strong negatives both from the government side and the opposition side about the way the revision of the federal electoral boundaries took place.

The province of Ontario is about to gain four seats. I would like to talk a bit about why I am against it. It is not to stifle free speech. The body politic of Canada should have some input into saying where the boundary changes should be made. As a consequence everyone is looking at the House as the sole

ownership of this. Let us give the public some say in its operation.

Most Canadians and particularly residents of Ontario did not hear about the revision. It came as a shock to them and they had to respond in some cases as early as the next two weeks. So to mobilize, to liaise one with another, to communicate with those groups who have been disturbed, to question why such changes have taken place, the time was not there. We are talking a lot of people and we are talking the affect. I am talking of mobilizing and reacting to the changes in my own province of Ontario.

Ontario presently has 99 seats. One of the rules under which this commission was to undertake change was that there would be a minimum of disturbance of existing boundaries.

They talk about the ripple effect. I want to tell you that if there was ever a ripple it was a big ripple in Ontario to get four seats. Ninety-three of the ridings were changed rather significantly.

The principle was that there be some approximation in size in the constituencies in Ontario. The commission's mandate gave a rather generous leeway. Twenty-five per cent is a rather large deviation from the norm.

As a consequence, in Ontario the demographic computer crunched them out closely with its cookie cruncher to the 97,000 to 100,000 range. Many ridings that were sitting well within that range and smack on 100,000 had radical change and it has upset the communities in which that change took place.

In my riding the county council will be taking a bus to the hearing. The city councils and the township councils will be taking a bus to the hearing because traditionally a constituency has a community of interest. That community of interest is focused on its local governments whether they be township, town, city or county.

Many of these fundamental community of interests were hacked in half and for no reason attached to another half of another county that was hacked in half. The rationale of community of interest seemed to go by the board. That is why we are upset. I can tell members that my constituents are upset. This is the second major change in southwestern Ontario and only one riding escaped without any change whatsoever.

As a consequence, I would like to make a point that the ripple effect in 93 of the 99 ridings was not acceptable to the residents of Ontario. These residents are not all Liberals although I would like to think they would be.

I have received protests from people from all walks of life and it does not have anything to do with my being a Liberal member. They do not want to be associated with someone who has been connected with another township. There is a narrow gap and we go back into another base.

It does not even have any sort of congruency or shape. It is stretched out to almost Lake Huron and on the other side, Waterloo county. It was a compact riding of 101,000 people meeting specific criteria where community of interest and size were dead on. The people in my riding want to know what the rationale was for the major surgery in the riding of Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.

I would like to read from the direction and general notes given to the commissioners on their mandate. The act directs the commission to divide Ontario into 103 districts. On the basis of the population of each electoral district in the province, it shall be as close as reasonably possible to correspond to the electoral quota of that province.

We all know that some of the ridings in northern Ontario, by their nature, by the ability to service the constituency, must necessarily be smaller than some of the ridings in the urban areas where one can contact and relate to their constituents in a speedier manner.

For those of us who were in urban-rural ridings, the norm would be about 100,000. The commission may depart from this quota where necessary or desirable. The commission's judgment lay in directives and it has given the two commissioners for Ontario tremendous scope.

First, the commission is to respect the community of interest or community of identity in the historical pattern of an electoral district in the province. That one has been shot out of the water in a big way.

Second, it is to maintain a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province. I concur with that.

In considering these factors, the commission must make every effort to ensure that except in extraordinary circumstances the population of each electoral district remains within 25 per cent, a reasonably grand margin of error I would say by any statement. The upper limit of the quota plus 25 per cent from the norm which is 122,000 to the lower limit of 25 per cent which is 73,000 is very rarely reached. The first principle was totally compromised so that the second principle could crunch out ridings with populations of 97,000 to 103,000. The community of interest and the community of economic interest, which is just as important in most of those ridings, was shot out of the water, to use a colloquial term.

I dare say that with Ontario gaining four seats, I am not prepared to compromise that nor would I like to see my friends from British Columbia suffer any loss of seats. I would like to add a little comparison. Take a look at the House today. These seats have been moved so close together that if even I put on a little weight, which has not happened for a long time, it would be difficult to get between the seats.

[An hon. member]

I am not a health nut.

[John Richardson, Liberal, Perth—Wellington—Waterloo, ON]

I am sorry. I did not mean to reflect on any other member in the House.

However, if some day in the future we approach the population of our neighbours to the south, we will need 3,000 seats in the House of Commons. We are going to have to look at the size of ridings in the country so we can keep a reasonable number in Parliament.

[Michel Daviault, Bloc, Ahuntsic, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have been in politics for about 20 years, and I have never seen such a mess. I must admit this is the first time I been particularly aware of the social and economic impact of adjusting the federal electoral map.

When I was quite young, my mother used to get bored while my father, who was a travelling salesman, was away, and she would do jigsaw puzzles. After looking at the proposed electoral map, my impression was that the people who drew this map must have been very bored indeed to perpetrate this proposal, pardon the expression.

I found it hard to understand the logic involved in this electoral boundaries readjustment proposal, and I did some quick research on ridings in East Montreal that were affected by this proposal. One conclusion is be that the proposal ignores socio-demographic and socio-economic factors to all intents and purposes. The proposal shows a complete disregard for any concept of community. In other words, it was botched.

A riding should first and foremost represent a community. We cannot get around this social fact. It is foolish to alter the boundaries of a riding and blindly carve up natural communities to satisfy the demands of fuzzy mathematical logic and administrative efficiency.

A member of Parliament is elected to serve the interests of his constituents, not those technocrats who very often have no concept of the practical needs of community groups. A member of Parliament must defend the interests of individuals, community groups and businesses and promote the development of economic activity in his riding.

The proposed administrative boundaries transform a number of communities into a meaningless expanse of statistical data and arbitrary geographic divisions. Let me explain. All this has no connection with the activities of these communities. I am talking about neighbourhoods, urban districts, people living in a naturally homogeneous environment, which may be cultural, ethnic, religious or economic, a living community, organized in human terms and not for administrative purposes alone.

As I said before, I made some enquiries among my colleagues in East Montreal to assess the impact of the proposed readjustment. Here are a few examples. I may recall that Montreal is divided into administrative units referred to as arrondissements or districts.

In the riding of Mercier, the urban district of Mercier-Ouest is cut in two. This means breaking up a natural demographic unit for the sake of mathematical considerations. From now on, three federal members will be working to promote the interests of the same social groups and the same economic organizations, while at the provincial level, a single member is able to take care of the same needs in the provincial riding of Bourget.

In the federal riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve we see the same lack of logic. Why cut the provincial riding of Bourget in two? This arbitrary division is as distasteful to the people of Mercier as it is to the people of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. Once again, this means fracturing a natural urban district.

Furthermore, the proposal adds onto the northern part of the riding a population which has no natural affinity, other than geographical, to the riding of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve. It would be more appropriately added to the riding of Saint-Léonard, in terms of socio-demographic affinity.

In Rosemont, the riding will get part of the riding of Saint-Michel which, again, has no social affinity to the population in Rosemont, while, the riding would welcome the annexation of part of Outremont, so that its boundaries would coincide with those of the LCSCs-local community service centres-and urban districts.

The case of Papineau-Saint-Michel is rather peculiar. The riding of the Minister of Foreign Affairs has been struck off the map. What is the reasoning behind this decision? Part of the population of this homogeneous riding, which includes the former town of Saint-Michel, its parishes, recreation services, health care institutions and community groups, has been moved to the riding of Saint-Léonard, a riding which practically coincides with the town of Saint-Léonard. We now have a situation where the population of the former town of Saint-Michel will be a minority, in the new riding.

The other half of Papineau-Saint-Michel has been moved to the riding of Saint-Denis, which will extend to Acadie Boulevard. People in Montreal realize how ridiculous this is. The community resources of two districts in Montreal's centre north will be disorganized as a result.

In my riding of Ahuntsic, the results are positively outlandish. Parishes are being cut in two and communities divided, just to align the riding on the Laurentian Autoroute. For the sake of geographic convenience, part of the northeast corner of Ahuntsic is transferred to another riding. This area, which is isolated from all other areas with the exception of Ahuntsic, has a large Italian community, which in the process would also be isolated from its natural centre, the Italian parish of Notre-Dame-de-Pompéi. This community would no longer enjoy integrated federal representation. Between this area and its new riding lies the vast Miron quarry dump.

Saint-Sulpice, where I live, is faced with a similar situation. The parish is separated from its community organizations, and so forth. Yet, this neighourhood portion is isolated from its new riding by the Metropolitan Boulevard, a high-technology centre, schools and recreational centres. The government is destroying an integration process that has been patiently developed for the last ten years.

In the proposed project, we find the same lack of logic that appeared in the case of the riding of Laval-des-Rapides, between 1976 and 1989, when it overlapped Laval and Montreal. It had to be seen to be believed!

May I also point out that the numerous divisions of employment centres do not fit electoral boundaries, which undoubtedly contributes to maintaining the confusion among people towards services provided by these centres and by the federal government.

I would also wish to remind you that the very concept of a one-stop window implies harmonization, at all levels of government, of administrative divisions, so that we can provide services and grants from the same social, demographical and economic territories. That is a major demand by the economic and community development co-operatives, the CDEC of Montreal.

We cannot ignore the map of disadvantaged areas that was drawn by the Island of Montreal School Board, major social and economic data. It is more than desirable that Montreal be given, at the federal level, effective electoral representation which takes into account the indicators of disadvantaged areas.

In concluding, I would point out that the criteria for the division of these federal electoral maps have not been reviewed in almost 30 years. These criteria should be developed on the basis of social demographical and social economical data, rather than on the simplistic basis, should I say, of raw and blind mathematical data! On the basis of administrative and/or geographical convenience that has nothing to do with the real areas where people live.

Participating in public hearings on the basis of this redistribution would amount to saying that we view it as an acceptable basis for negociation while it is not.

Negociating on an individual basis, county by county, would cause other Montreal ridings to lose their homogeneity.

The overall proposal made by the commission is unacceptable. The parliamentary committee has to start from scratch again. Dealing with the same commission and doing all over again what has already been badly done would only lead to the same results.

The system has to be changed and this is why I will vote for the bill.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Halton—Peel, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the riding of Halton-Peel was originally created by a gentleman many of us know: Gerrymander.

One would think with the proposed boundary changes the member would be quite thrilled that a new riding would be created. I believe the new dividing line was created by his brother for it splits a community right in two in a line that is anything but straight. Some of it does not even follow road allowances but travels through the middle of farmers' fields.

It is so ridiculous. Part of the farm on which I live is in the new proposed riding and the other part is in the other. There was immediate response from a returning officer, from a Chamber of Commerce and from a municipality exhorting an appeal of that line.

As a bit of an aside, it is also interesting to note the borders printed on the map in the book the commission released. You will see that the new boundaries are printed upside down on the map. It puts part of the land mass in the southern part of the proposed riding in Lake Ontario. It was cause for some concern. We will have to enroll fish I suppose.

Having said that I was prepared to launch an appeal trying to point out to the commission where changes could be made that might at least improve the situation.

I was very disturbed with the proposal to create new ridings at a time when we consider ourselves to be in a period of extreme restraint. When we want less and less government spending it seems this process is creating more and more.

In my region and others nearby school boards are considering reducing the number of trustees in an effort to save money. The last report I saw was that the region of Durham is proposing to cut five trustees saving $200,000 through that process. It does not really show a great deal of leadership to advance the cause of increasing the numbers in this House.

Other countries operate reasonably successfully with much higher populations per member than Canada. Australia is one of them with actually double the population per member in its House.

We have a lot of things to consider. If we are going to review legislation which is 30 years old, at least it is appropriate that we do it now if it has not been done in the past. As has been mentioned, it may be that it has outlived its usefulness and we have to reconsider what will be done in the future.

In terms of the argument my friends in the Reform Party put forward about time allocation, I would like to point out the reality to them. I do not think it is the intention of any government to impose time allocation for frivolous reasons.

Hearings were scheduled to begin in April on this proposal by the commission. We are now going into a recess for two weeks. I am not sure what the Reform Party would have preferred to do, whether it would have preferred to stay and debate this for another couple of weeks. We could have filibustered. However there is plenty of time in the time allocated to put the points of view across and make sure all of the arguments are on the table.

I am sure the Reform Party is as interested in the reform of this process as the rest of us. I do not think any hon. members would disagree with the fact that it is time for a change. We cannot go on filling up the House especially if we have a few guys my size. If we went on without any changes we would be forced to knock out the back walls, or put another row in the front, or only elect lean people.

I enthusiastically support this thrust. The time has come for change. The time has come to reconsider how the people of Canada are represented. The time has come to listen to those people and give them time to bring their views forward so we can truly represent the people of this country.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak against Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I do that with some mixed feelings.

My own riding is disappearing in this change which is going to take place across Canada and very significantly in the province of Ontario. There has been only one call into my office regarding this change and perhaps that is because they were anticipating going to the hearings, as I was. However I anticipate receiving many calls when the people in my riding discover what is taking place in this House.

In no way was this a burning issue with the people in this country. There are far more important issues we should be dealing with. While I say I had mixed feelings about what was happening in the riding I represent, I was looking forward to making a representation at the hearings. We would have an opportunity to make representations again when the reports came back into this House.

In looking at the changes I realized there were some winners and some losers. There are going to be winners and losers no matter where this comes out. We will not come up with a plan that will please everyone. That just is not possible. There is no evidence in this bill that will approach anything near that.

There is the suggestion that politicians will be able to do a better job than Elections Canada. That is a leap of faith most Canadians would have a difficult time making. Our track record in the past has not been one of doing a better job.

The decision was made 30 years ago to take this process out of the political arena. That was a good decision that was made back then. I think it is even more appropriate today, given the mood of the Canadian voter.

We just have to reflect back to October 1992 at which time politics in the country took a dramatic turn for the better. The Canadian people said back then that they were no longer going to be led by the political parties. They were going to have a say in what was going on in the country. They sent out that very clear message.

That message can be ignored in the House at our peril. The former government ignored the message that was given to it by Meech Lake. The former government ignored the message that was relayed to it through the Spicer commission at a cost of some $27 million in taxpayers' dollars. The government was told what the priorities of the Canadian people were and that the Constitution was not number one. In spite of that the government ignored it, went on with its own agenda and suffered its fate in the last election.

The mood of the Canadian people that was evident in 1992 and 1993 is still there. They want to be heard. They want to have their say. The process we are about to embark on will be a denial of that.

We are not talking about process today. We are talking about product. We knew this was coming down the pike some time ago, but nothing happened until the proposed boundary changes hit our desks and hit the public. All of a sudden it became an issue. There was no secret about what was happening. It is not about the process. It is about the product and it is about self-interest: my fiefdom and what is going to happen to me. I think that is wrong.

The issue is not new. It has been there but it is in the forefront now because some people's ridings will be affected by it. The government is going to circumvent the public hearings that were to take place so that the public could have input into the process.

How do we justify wasting the $5 million in taxpayers' dollars that have been spent to this point? The suggestion has been made that the $3 million we might spend in hearing from the public would be a further waste of taxpayers' dollars. I do not find spending $3 million to hear from the taxpayers a waste of money. Again I go back to the mood of the voters. They want to be heard and $3 million to allow them to have input will be money well spent.

Time and time again I have heard from members on the other side about the number of seats. They are shocked that Reform would support anything that would increase the number of seats in the House. There is nothing in the bill that restricts the number of seats. Had that been in there, the Reform Party would have supported the bill. It is not there. I would ask members on the other side: Why is it not there? There is no intent. It is left out purposely so that avenue would still be there.

Hearings were due to start in days and the process is being cut off. People were preparing to come to these hearings to state their case. Again it is an example of government knows best: "We will decide what should happen here and we will let you know". That is not going to fly with the Canadian people.

I was shocked at what was taking place. Really I should not have been because the government has a track record of no faith in the Canadian people. When we think back, this is the government that did not have faith in some Canadian people to select its candidates. The government had to go in because it did not trust Canadian people to pick the right candidates. This is the government that does not believe in recall. It does not trust Canadian people to have recall at their disposal.

This party is led by a leader who finds referendum revolting. The thought of listening to the Canadian people on major issues is revolting. Those words will come back to haunt the government in years to come. The government can act when it wants to. When it has a self-interest it can get moving. There was something the Canadian people wanted it to get moving on. We wanted it to get moving on it and we were prepared to support it. I am referring to the gold-plated pension plans. This is something that we could have taken action on and should have taken action on, but nothing is happening. The words we hear are: "What is the hurry? We are here for four years". The government may not be in a hurry about that but the Canadian people are. The Canadian people want action. The government brought us action on this but not on the pension plan.

The question of the legality of the process was raised in the House yesterday. The answer given to that question bore no relationship to the question. I suspect because a legal opinion has not been sought the government does not have an answer as to whether the whole process is legal.

I see some similarities here between the cancelled Pearson airport deal and what we are about to do today. The Pearson airport deal was cancelled, not because the project was not a good project but because of the process.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Bonavista—Trinity—Conception, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Your Honour is well known for leniency on relevancy, but what do the points the hon. member is raising-he is covering the waterfront-have to do with the item being discussed?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I do not believe the member has a point of order, so I will resume debate with the hon. member for Simcoe Centre.

[Ed Harper, Reform, Simcoe Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the point I was just about to make was on the similarity between the cancellation of the Pearson airport deal and what we are about to embark on here. The point I am making is that the deal was cancelled on the airport four months ago and nothing has happened. We are about to change this deal and I would suggest that nothing is going to happen. We will go into the next election with nothing having been resolved. That is one of the real dangers in this.

Just let me summarize with a few comments. The government needs to have more faith in the Canadian people to look at this matter and do what is right. There will be some very interesting comments coming out of the hearings that were scheduled. The government should not throw away the millions of taxpayers' dollars already spent up to this point. That is what will be done. It is going to throw away $5 million of our taxpayers' dollars.

This process does not belong in the political arena. With the vested interest that politicians have, how can they address the issue objectively and do what is best for the Canadian people? If we support the bill we will kill any chance for change before the next election.

With those remarks I will conclude. I thank the House for allowing me to make this presentation. I certainly will not be supporting Bill C-18.

[Andy Scott, Liberal, Fredericton—York—Sunbury, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I also rise to speak on the matter now before the House concerning the redistribution of the federal electoral boundaries.

It is clear from all indications that Canadians are not happy with how the review and the proposals for change have been handled. Further, Canadians are reasonably consistent in their message as to why. They will not take judgments from on high without more consultation.

The preliminary steps leading to the proposed boundary changes fail to include local level consultation. It is not enough to hold out the promise of public input later on, because people know how difficult it is to amend such proposals after they have been designed in the way they have. People have once again sent

out a clear signal that they will not accept another top down, arbitrary decision by government.

Within my own constituency when a map appeared in a special insert in the local paper I heard a number of consistent messages from constituents. First, they were shocked to learn that the boundary changes were even being discussed. For most of them seeing the map in the paper was the first time they had ever heard of the exercise. Another common expression was one of disbelief. After we had all campaigned so vocally about the need to be more inclusive and since the government has practised this agenda so consistently since the election, people find it hard to believe that we would revert to the old style of top down governing.

As members we have all worked hard to gain the trust of our electorate. I know many of us do not wish to see that trust jeopardized when the potential not to do so is so easily avoided.

Another sentiment I have heard from my constituents is one of anger. People are angry, not only because the government had not bothered to consult with them but also because of the incredible amount of dollars invested in the exercise. People were shocked, wondering where was the need for this use of their hard earned tax dollars. Where did it come from? People were wondering why nobody had bothered to mention it to them earlier and why nobody had asked for their opinion.

As the member for the riding of Fredericton-York-Sunbury I can assure the House that I felt the sting of this action when people questioned my involvement in and my responsibility for the proposed changes. People were not happy, and that is essentially why I feel compelled to rise today and encourage the government to have this process stopped.

I want to acknowledge that riding boundary redistribution is in many respects necessary, but I take issue with the way the process for determining changes has occurred. I further question some of the present assumptions about how boundaries should be redefined. I addressed my concerns about the process earlier. I continue to believe that decisions should have been made based on consultation with the many people affected. I question how many Canadians know the criteria upon which decisions for change were even made.

We must realize that decisions of this nature have an enormous impact upon the political culture of our country. People tend to feel connected to the regions and communities of which they are a part. We all belong to many types of communities, each of which has boundaries in its own way. In many respects we are defined by our professional communities, our religious and social communities, and for many we find comfort in defining ourselves by our political communities.

My most recent witness of this assertion was during the last election. I watched and worked with people from all parties who travelled considerable distances many times over and who put parts of their own lives on hold because of their commitment to the electoral process. Last October became their focus.

We do people an injustice when we suddenly tell them that they no longer need to feel committed to the region they have always known and that now they must suddenly align themselves elsewhere. Making such a transition is not difficult. In fact it is embraced when those who must make the change participate in the decision making that moves them from one location to another.

If anything, commitment and investment are firmly entrenched from the start. It is this kind of stake in the social and political consciousness of our citizenry that we want to promote among Canadians. Imposing arbitrary political boundary changes upon people works counter to the fundamentals of inclusion and affiliation.

I accept that redistribution becomes necessary when there are major demographic shifts. Sometimes this may mean that the entire country must face reoganization, or it may simply mean that certain regions must change.

The changes proposed for New Brunswick in many respects fail to make any sense at all. With my own riding, for instance, all the rural areas have been disconnected from the constituency and given over to my colleagues' ridings. Were I selfishly motivated I would support the changes proposed since it would make my job much easier. I would not have to travel the considerable distances to reach the borders of my riding. I would only have to deal with concerns pertinent to an urban setting rather than worry about both rural and urban problems as the distribution now requires.

That is not what being an MP is about. I do not want to lose the rich blend of rural and urban that makes our riding a most unique and inviting place to live. It is obvious that my reasons for supporting the motion to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act are not personally or politically motivated. I know this to be true of my colleagues with a view similar to my own.

I know the people of my riding just as other members are familiar with the citizens in their ridings. We work hard to build communities with our constituents. The people of their respective ridings know the intricacies and peculiarities of their places as well. These are the people who should be deciding where boundaries should be drawn and on what basis changes should be determined.

I do not question the competence or intentions of the commissioners but outside experts do not know our political regions or the people who live there. They cannot make informed decisions

about changing the lives of so many citizens without starting with the involved people first.

I worry as well that by following through with electoral boundary reform the government will not be seen as acting on its primary agenda of job creation and economic development. I also think the government will find it difficult to convince Canadians that it is acting prudently in its acknowledged need to practise sound financial management.

I fear spending millions of dollars to redefine electoral boundaries is indefensible in the light of the economic trials faced by so many Canadians. The government is recognized as honest, hard working, concerned about citizens and known for practising sound fiscal management. We are not known for excessiveness. We are the ones with the plan to help Canadians through the difficult period in order to make this a strong, united and able country prepared to meet the 21st century.

We need to remind ourselves of our own priorities and in keeping with that, we should recognize our error without singling out anyone or pointing fingers in any direction. Simply put, we should cut our losses and move on from here. Canadians are tired of governments trying to justify their errors or failing to admit that a mistake has been made. We are bigger than that. We must move on.

I join others in this House who have spoken against boundary redistribution at this time and I support the call to suspend the act until such time as Canadians have a greater opportunity to be a part of the process from the front end.

[Maurice Bernier, Bloc, Mégantic—Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seemed important to participate in this debate on a legislation which would postpone for 24 months the process initiated by the federal electoral boundaries commission. It seemed important to do so since the redistribution of electoral boundaries is not an operation one does for statistical purposes; it is not an exercise for an apprentice geographer who would like to practice his trade and increase his skill and knowledge. Redistributing could change the habits of the citizens and of the decision-makers in a given living environment.

In my riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, if the proposed reform were to be implemented, it would have disastrous effects. That is why, before we proceed with such a redistribution of boundaries, we must determine the basic criteria for changes which might be necessary under certain circumstances.

In the present legislation, one of the main criteria is equal representation for each and every constituent. This is basically commendable since in a democracy, we must ensure that no group of individuals has more power or better representation than others. But we must also consider other principles; I am thinking here more specifically of respect for the living environment, in other words communities of interests, as mentioned in the documents presented to us.

When one undertakes such an exercise, one has to take into account the sense of belonging of the people, instead of separating them and creating a situation where it will be many years before this feeling emerges again. That is why I would like to take the next few minutes to explain in graphic details the impact the proposed changes would have in my riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead.

I will first remind the members that, for the time being, as we speak, the Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead riding has a population of 75 000. It is nearly entirely located in administrative district No. 5, that is to say in the Eastern Townships, in Quebec. In this riding, there are two regional county municipalities, structures that were created about 20 years ago now with a view to planning the social and economic development of some communities. Presently, the riding is made up of two whole RCMs and part of four others. I am talking about the RCM of Granit, which includes the Lac-Mégantic area, of which nearly all of the municipalities are in the Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead riding.

There is also the RCM of Sherbrooke, two out of eight municipalities of which are in my riding, as well as the RCM of Memphrémagog, of which more than half the municipalities are now part of my riding, and some municipalities of which are part of the provincial riding of Beauce, next to Lac-Mégantic.

According to the proposed reform, the Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead riding would be split into two new ridings, one called Mégantic-Frontenac and the other one, Compton-Stanstead. As for the district of Mégantic-Frontenac, this new district would be primarily comprised of the municipalities of Lac-Mégantic and the vicinity as well as municipalities around Thetford Mines.

This would effectively jeopardize what I mentioned a minute ago, that is to say this sense of belonging developed over the years within the Lac-Mégantic area and the Eastern Townships as a whole.

Let me give you a very concrete example. Recently, two RCMs from my district, namely the RCM of Haut-Saint-François, which encompasses East Angus, Cookshire and La Patrie, and the RCM of Granit which, as I said earlier, includes the Lac-Mégantic area, have agreed on a major economic development plan based on tourist activites around Mount Mégantic which straddles the two regional municipalities.

It took years of discussions to get these people to see their economic development as a common venture and come up with a joint action plan to develop this fabulous tourist site, thus contributing to economic growth in that area. If boundaries were to be readjusted as planned, Lac-Mégantic would end up in the same district as Thetford Mines and would be split between two administrative regions: on the one hand, the Quebec administrative region and, on the other hand, the Eastern Township administrative region, which includes Sherbrooke and Lac-Mégantic.

This would make the political channels that much more complicated, with more members having to meet to promote issues and more officials having to learn to work together, and that, as I said earlier, is very important and takes years.

This concrete example illustrates the effects a decision to make two new districts out of this one could have. Decisions made by electoral boundaries commissions do affect people in their everyday life.

This kind of decision should never be made without proper consideration and not by officials alone. Time should be allowed to consult the people involved, the general public, to ensure that the result of the readjustment will truly be in the interests of these people.

I spoke more specifically about the riding of Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, but as chairman of the Bloc's Eastern Townships regional caucus, I must mention that the same exercise would considerably modify the ridings of Brome-Missisquoi, Richmond-Wolfe and Frontenac.

I come back to what I said at the beginning: what is the main reason for making this change? It is to ensure that the number of people represented in each riding is more nearly the same.

I would like to give you some eloquent figures in this regard. If you compare the present situation to the one proposed in the reform, the riding of Frontenac now has 61,000 people; the new riding of Mégantic-Frontenac would have a population of about 72,000, so a balance is being restored here.

In the riding of Brome-Missisquoi, the difference is barely 8,000 and in Richmond-Wolfe, it is 10,000 at most. In the riding I represent, the change would be scarcely 2,000, so this argument does not hold for ridings in the Eastern Townships.

That is why I will support Bill C-18, which would delay this process and provide for time to consult the people and involve the representatives and elected members of each of the ridings so that the change we finally come up with will benefit all the people we represent.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak in opposition to the closure or time allocation motion introduced today by the government.

This motion refers to Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It is not good to have the government move to cut off debate so that this bill can receive approval quickly.

I wonder if this is the tip of the iceberg, the arrogance and lack of respect for debate in Parliament. If it is this will be an all time record because even the previous Conservative government took longer than five months to reach these heights of disrespect for this institution.

I am speaking in opposition to Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I believe we should allow the process which began some time ago under the old legislation to continue until it is completed. I submit that there has been sufficient time, energy and money invested in the process to date to make it irresponsible on the part of the government to suggest that the process be halted.

I am aware of the criticisms of the present process which are contained in the report of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing in relation to the boundary readjustment legislation. I am also aware that the present boundary readjustment process was delayed in the last Parliament with the idea that a new process could be put in place prior to the call of the general election in 1993.

What happened was that the special committee of the House of Commons on electoral reform ran out of time and was unable to deal with this subject. Therefore, the process which we are now involved in began and has run until we now have boundary proposals from the provincial commissions before us and public hearings are set to being shortly.

What will happen if Bill C-18 is passed? We know that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs will be charged with reviewing the whole process and making recommendations for change. However, can we be assured that the process which will result from this study will be put in place prior to the next general election? I do not think so.

We have a process in place now which if allowed to go to completion will bring into effect new boundaries before the next election. We are assured of that fact. Therefore, the next election will be fought under boundaries which are representative of the population distribution as presented in the last census. Doing anything to jeopardize this process does not make sense to me. At this time I want to endorse the position taken by the Brampton Board of Trade in a letter dated March 22, 1994 to the Prime Minister where it states: "It is not appropriate nor

necessary for a review committee to step in at this time and shut down the public process".

We as members of this House do not have ownership of our ridings. We should not feel threatened by changes proposed if these changes recognize representation by population. This is one of the main reasons for having our 10 year census so that boundaries can be drawn which accurately reflect population distribution.

If Bill C-18 is approved we may be fighting the next general election on the boundaries which reflect population as it was distributed in 1980. If the government is so vitally concerned about the process of redistribution and whether it creates ridings which accurately represent rep by pop then there is nothing to prevent the procedure and House affairs committee under its mandate and under the new rules to study the matter at length and bring in a bill in due course which would replace the existing boundaries readjustment act.

Why suspend the process of redistribution under the present act while this is being done? Surely the government is not thinking that it won a majority under the existing boundaries, so let us make sure there are no changes prior to the next election. Surely this is not the new politics described in the red book.

If Bill C-18 passes and the process of redistribution is held up once again due to political manoeuvring and if as I suggest there is not enough time after the procedure and House affairs committee reports to put new boundaries into place, then we will be party to the kind of politics which the Canadian people rejected at the last election.

Surely this is not the wish of the government. It is not the wish of the Reform Party of Canada. Therefore let us go forward now with the system we have presently in place. Let the public hearing process begin. If we do this we are assured that new boundaries will be in place prior to the next election. Money already spent will have been spent for results.

However if the government is adamant that the boundaries readjustment process is flawed, and it may very well be, then the government members know what they can do. They can utilize the new rules, have the procedure and House affairs committee study the issue, report back and bring in a bill which we would consider. If it is reasonable, we could look at agreeing to it so that a new procedure will be in effect to accommodate the results of the next census.

In closing, I again want to reiterate my opposition to the closure motion. We have not had a full debate on this motion. This is vitally important. It is a matter of principle for this House and for Canadians. Do we allow the government to limit debate so that Liberals have a chance to fight the next election with the boundaries unchanged since 1980 or do we take costs and work done into account and public pressure on politicians to clean up their act?

Obviously the government is willing to ignore the wishes of the people. Well, we are not. That is why we oppose this motion and why we oppose the bill.

This morning a government member found it incomprehensible that Reform would support a process that would see the House continue to grow in numbers. I find it incomprehensible that the member was not aware that this was one of the very reasons Reform could not support Bill C-18. There is not, I repeat, there is nothing in this bill that puts a cap on or limits the number of seats. Had it done that, the government might very well have had the support of Reform on this.

I am concerned about one other thing. The member I believe from Waterloo mentioned that he and his constituents were very comfortable with their riding as it is and I can understand that, but I wonder, has his riding not grown in numbers. My riding of Mission-Coquitlam was 116,000 in 1991, having grown 26 per cent from the previous census and is now approximately 125,000. Do I just forget that because I am comfortable with the way things are? What about representation by population?

It is far past time that we started to be accountable as politicians.

[Brent St. Denis, Liberal, Algoma, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am quite amazed at some of the things I have been hearing today. It is quite incredible that we see the opposition to this legislation that we are seeing from the Reform Party.

Significantly, one of the first phone calls I got on this matter some weeks ago was from the Reform Party Association in my riding which was quite concerned that the changes that were proposed would so change the riding of Algoma that neither the present member nor any future member could adequately serve the constituents in a way that they have become accustomed to.

It also was amazing to hear the Reform Party argue for continuing the process as it has been put in place. There is an expression in business and more than most, business influences Reform like no other group.

There is an expression that says "cut your losses". Yes, several millions of dollars have unfortunately been utilized to start this process but what about the untold millions of dollars of mistakes that might occur should we allow this process to proceed? I say that we should cut our losses.

We could ill afford to allow this process to proceed given a set of rules that do not adequately serve Canadians nor adequately serve Parliament. I do not mean that we should have rules that serve individual members of Parliament. I would be pleased in the new riding of Algoma-James Bay to serve communities in

the far north like Hearst and Kapuskasing, Dubreuiville, Chapleau and so on.

I would be pleased but I am not sure they would be best served by a member of Parliament who in a new proposed riding has to serve an area that stretches from Lake Huron all the way through to James Bay.

The changes proposed just for my riding alone are reason enough to quash the whole process. I am aware of many problems across this country. One only has to look at Algoma riding to see what, with all due respect to the commission-it did the best it could given the resources available to it-changes have been proposed and to see how frankly unrealistic and ridiculous they are.

It would not serve the people of my part of northern Ontario to continue this nor would it serve Canadians at large. I respect that there are urban centres that have seen their ridings bloom to great numbers. We have to do something about that.

It is just as difficult to serve a large geographic area as it is to serve a large population. I have in the neighbourhood of 40 communities right now in my riding with 40 reeves, mayors or Indian chiefs. They need as much my personal attention in terms of my being available to visit with them and talk to them as the constituents in a large urban centre.

I argue that notwithstanding the importance of representation by population, representation by geographic area is equally important. If one has 100,000 or 200,000 citizens in a confined geographic area one needs a lot of staff, I argue, to support the needs of those people. The member of Parliament can travel within that confined area relatively easily.

If one has a riding such as in the case of the current Algoma riding, it is seven and a half hours drive from one end to the other. No amount of staff can take the place of the member of Parliament visiting the communities in that riding.

If one would increase rural ridings because one is devoted mindlessly to population only representation, one forgets that individual communities spread out by great distances will lose access to their member of Parliament. In a way that does not happen in urban centres. It is a different kind of representation. If we do not stop this process and revisit seriously the subject we will never have a recognition that there is a shift that is going on from rural areas to our urban centres and an inexorable shift because of the current rules.

In northern Ontario we currently have 12 ridings if we include the riding of Parry Sound-Muskoka. The proposal would reduce that to 10. We have lost seats in the past and if the trend continues next time it could be nine or eight. Where do the people who live in cities come from? Unless they are born there they come from the country. Why are they coming from the country, in rural areas? It is because of the economy of this country. When there is no work in the rural areas people go to the city even if there is no work in the city.

We have seen a shift in the population from our rural areas to our urban centres partly because of the economy. Should we allow shifts in the economy to so gravely affect shifts in the way our ridings are distributed.

We could have good times again and we will under a Liberal government. In fact I think the red book should be called the well read book because clearly the opposition parties have read it. I am sure we have done more for literacy in this country with the red book than any other document published in recent history. I encourage everyone to read it again because our commitment is to rural Canada. If we allow this bill to go through then we are recognizing that rural Canada is important. We are allowing Canadians the opportunity to have a serious say on how our boundaries are drawn and to get away from this notion that we can only have representation by population.

Again with all due respect to the commission, I think it makes a lot more sense-and I will make this argument to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs-that not only do we have to revisit the subject of representation, but it makes more sense that the first draft of new maps be generated with some public consultation. At the very least, the representatives of the public at the federal level, the members of Parliament, should have some say. I have no problem with input not only coming from sitting members of Parliament but from candidates who fought the last campaign. It is not a partisan issue. Boundaries for ridings is not a partisan issue and should not be.

All of the parties that fought the campaign in Algoma understand the need to have fair representation for the rural areas of this country. There is no argument that the urban areas need full representation too. If we have a riding that all of a sudden because of economic reasons and so on has grown to 200,000 would it not make more sense simply just to carve a new boundary down the middle of that riding and make two ridings of 100,000? Rather than have a domino effect throughout an entire province why not simply look at the problems.

We may want to add seats to Parliament but that is something we can debate later on. We cannot cap the number of seats here forever, but we want to consider how quickly the number of seats rises. However, if we are going to make corrections it is much better to look at the problem areas and do some fine-tuned adjustments.

If we look at northern Ontario, the changes that have been proposed are so strange and so massive that it does not seem logical. I use the riding of Algoma and the proposed riding of Algoma-James Bay as classic examples of why this system does not work. I say to my Reform friends, and I have a lot of respect for my Reform friends, to consider what they are doing

here in arguing against rural Canada. We need a system that works.

On that note, I would just say that this is not an issue of limiting debate. We want to give Canadians adequate time to consider new rules. The less time we take here the more time Canadians will have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak today on this bill to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and to voice my support for the proposed legislation because, in my view, we are not prepared to make the changes that have been recommended by the electoral boundaries commissions.

Several years ago, following a recommendation from a provincial electoral boundaries commission to eliminate a riding in the eastern part of the province of Quebec, we launched a study to determine the criteria by which a riding is defined. Our study took into account not only the population of the riding, but a number of other factors such as the overall size of the riding, the number of municipalities and regional municipalities and so forth.

It is important that we endorse this bill today and that we reject the amendment moved by the Reform Party so that we can come to a clearer understanding of what the electoral map of the future should look like.

Let me describe to you, for example, the situation in eastern Quebec. At present there are five ridings in eastern Quebec: the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine which is represented by a Liberal MP, Mr. Patrick Gagnon; the riding of Gaspé which is represented by Bloc MP Mr. Yvan Bernier; the riding of Matapédia-Matane held by Mr. René Canuel, the riding of Rimouski-Témiscouata held by Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay and lastly, my riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. Under the proposed electoral boundaries reform, one of these ridings is slated to disappear.

Some notable differences can be found as far as the four proposed ridings are concerned. For example, according to the new electoral map, in the riding of Gaspé, more than 330 kilometres would separate the towns of Amqui and Gaspé. Or should I say a distance of 330 kilometres in the summer, and 1,000 kilometres in the winter?

Moreover, each of the existing five ridings has developed its own unique culture. These cultures have been in place for many years. They did not emerge suddenly when the ridings were created. They existed long before then. There is a certain homogenous quality to the social fabric of each riding, based on its socioeconomic calling, its distinctive geographical features and its history. The proposed redrawing of the electoral map, a process based solely on making a demographic calculation and on dividing the number of people by the number of ridings, in no way satisfies the development requirements of a region like ours.

In my opinion, other factors must be taken into consideration or else we will remain locked in a vicious circle where each time a region's population declines, the number of elected representatives will be reduced. A region represented by fewer MPs has less influence in government. Therefore, our regions will continue their downward spiral. An electoral map drawn solely on the basis of population would be a virtual insult to rural areas.

Therefore, it is important that we take the time to review the situation and find other criteria for determining electoral boundaries. All I can say is that we would prefer the status quo to a new electoral map which would wipe out a riding in eastern Quebec. If a riding was eliminated, future elected representatives would find themselves with ridings that are far too large. They would have to deal with new municipalities.

For example, in my riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup which would take in the regional municipality of Témiscouata, there would be over 60 municipalities grouped together in four different regional municipalities: Basques, 11 municipalities; Rivière-du-Loup, 16 municipalities; Kamouraska, 18 municipalities; Témiscouata, 20 municipalities. Elected representatives might need longer parliamentary breaks just to travel to the various parts of their ridings.

For instance, the population of the riding would increase from 73,747 to more than 88,000 over a really vast area. But the disappearance of a riding like that one also has a negative economic impact because it would require additional financial resources. With the economic difficulties we are now facing, there is no guarantee that the four new ridings replacing the five old ones would get more money to pursue their economic development, which would in the end compromise representation for each municipality.

If more money were made available, we would have to determine if the increase is significant and adequately meets the demands of the municipalities. This reform of the electoral map would have all kinds of administrative repercussions. For example, in the areas covered by Canada Employment Centres, various such elements do not seem relevant to us at a time when the population is feeling insecure regarding the effects of reforms, as it does in Eastern Quebec with respect to unemployment insurance. The increase in the number of weeks of work required to qualify for benefits is already something the region

must respond to quickly and come to grips with, without us adding other contradictions like reducing the number of ridings.

The commission's proposals to readjust the current boundaries of Eastern Quebec ridings raise many questions. I speak as the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup but also as chairman of the Bloc Quebecois caucus from Eastern Quebec. I also think all members from the East are surely aware of the impact such a decision would have. We would much prefer to maintain the status quo and, in that sense, the bill would allow the elections commission to gain time, maybe to think of other criteria to be considered in future, and to come up with much more reasonable solutions.

In conclusion, I would say that figures sometimes speak louder than words. Let us look at the geographical size of the existing constituencies: Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine would go from 8,155 to 11,375 square kilometres; Gaspé would go from 12,268 to 17,783 square kilometres and would become part of the new Gaspé-Matane constituency; Matapédia-Matane would disappear; Rimouski-Témiscouata would go from 6,367 to 8,564 square kilometres. In the case of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, or Témiscouata, it would go from 6,367 to 8,564 square kilometres. Those are truly huge areas, which it would be almost impossible to represent adequately.

The Bloc Quebecois is pledged to protecting Quebec's interests. For us, that means promoting sovereignty, but we are also representing a population which will have to make a decision regarding its constitutional future. We certainly do not want to abdicate our responsibilities by saying that, according to our scenario, there will not be another federal election. We want to be totally honest and ensure that, regardless of their decision, those whom we represent will enjoy the best possible conditions, whether it is within the Canadian federation if they so choose, or in a different structure.

In conclusion, it is important to support this bill, especially considering the savings involved, since the amendment proposed by the Reform Party would result in hearings being held and in a postponement of the debate. We would end up wasting money on a commission with no specific criteria, and we would still have to look at the whole issue later on. Let us be clear with the public. They just voted in an election, they can wait a little for electoral reform to be completed. It may be that the definitions of RCMs were taken into account in establishing the criteria and that is interesting. However, as regards the rest of this process, let us give ourselves some more time. That way, if we have to use that electoral map again, Canadians will be ensured of the best possible representation.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill and the motion currently before the House.

I am not surprised to see a number of the opposition rising and joining what has been called around here from time to time the ranks of the perpetually indignant. I know of what they speak because it was not but a few months ago I sat in opposition myself.

They are upset or feign being upset because of the use of time allocation. I understand that too because I sat over there. There is a reason the government believes that the time should be allocated. I ask the members opposite, as we have debated this throughout today would the result be any different in the ultimate vote if we had extended the time for debate? Under all the circumstances I think not.

I want to explain why I support the bill. Notwithstanding that I have a riding with over 150,000 people, I could sure use a smaller riding, as could my staff. So could many other members whose ridings exceed the norm of 90,000 or 100,000 people. That is one reason I might want to see this redistribution process go ahead immediately.

I come from the province of Ontario which would get another four seats in the process. Therefore my Ontario colleagues and I would probably want to see the bill go ahead and we would have another four seats. Why do I not want that to happen?

The reason is that the process as currently constructed will increase the membership in the House of Commons to 301. That is a very significant item because a close look at the statutes indicates that growth continues. It goes on and on over the years. MPs have realized it is time to put a stop to that.

I want to correct one item. One of the members who spoke within the last half hour said the last time there had been a change in the electoral boundaries was in 1980. That is not accurate. The last electoral boundary change took place for the 1988 election. I know because I was elected in 1988 on the new boundaries. The process took place in 1986-87. It is not long ago that redistribution took place. I have nothing against redistribution, in fact I am in favour of it.

Getting back to what I was speaking on a few moments ago, I sit on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. About a month ago the Chief Electoral Officer was before us describing the process.

At that time I and other members spoke on the issue of the increase in the number of members. For every new member we add to this House, it costs the taxpayer roughly half a million

dollars. Add six members and that is $3 million per year. That is an annual cost of $3 million forever. That is the financial issue.

I have not even mentioned the cost of renovating the House of Commons. Every time a piece of carpet, a wire or a pipe is installed it seems to cost us $10,000. There just is not any more room in this House. There would have to be a significant renovation.

In any event, 301 members is not what Canadians want. They want a Parliament that works. They want to see it work with 295 members and not 301 or 310 or 320 as time goes on. In my view the position the opposition parties are taking seems to be a desire to show blind submission to a process that was put in place about 30 years ago and keeps on growing, keeps on causing the numbers of members of Parliament to grow and the costs to grow.

A number of the interventions today were from members of the Reform Party. I would have thought there would be some element of reform in the way they are addressing this.

I accept that the redistribution process is calculated to be fair and that it is there for a reason. But lying behind that is the growth in the numbers of MPs and I want to put a stop to that.

Yes, $5 million has been spent on the current process. But how much more money would continue to be spend on the existing process if we did not stop it right now? If we do not stop it this month or next month we will continue to spend the rest of the $8 million and I suspect, as per usual, it would not be a surprise to see them go away beyond budget. The process simply has to be completed.

I will tell the House why I support this bill. It is because I want to cap the growth in the number of MPs in the House. The only way to do it is to grab hold of this process and stop it dead right now. Put it on ice because the changes to cap the growth in the number of members in the House involves a change in the Constitution. We do not make those overnight in this place. I do not think any country makes constitutional changes overnight.

This is the way to do it. The matter is to be referred to the procedure and House affairs committee, an all-party committee, not a Liberal mechanism as was alluded to earlier by one of the Reform Party members. It is an all-party committee and it will study the issue and report back to the House where the issue will be debated. I cannot imagine that the government would want to put closure on that debate when it comes back. However, at the moment we have to do this piece of business to stop the growth and the procedure. If we do not do this, within a year or two it is going to give us 301 MPs running in the next federal election.

I will end there. I hope the message is clear. I hope some of my colleagues opposite will understand it. We will redistribute the boundaries at some point. We have to. We certainly have to in my riding. However, let us get a handle on the number of MPs that are needed to serve the country as a whole, refashion that process, refashion that mechanism first.

Message From The Senate

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed certain bills.

[The Speaker]

Order. I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:

March 24, 1994

Mr. Speaker:

I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Beverley McLachlin, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in her capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 24th day of March, 1994 at 4.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving royal assent to certain bills.

Yours sincerely,

Anthony Smyth Deputy Secretary Policy, Programming and Protocol

A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:

Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.

Accordingly, the Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.

And being returned:

[The Speaker]

I have the honour to inform the House that when the House did attend Her Honour the Deputy to His Excellency the Governor General in the Senate chamber, Her Honour was pleased to give in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:

Bill C-3, an act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act-Chapter No. 2.

Bill C-5, an act to amend the Customs Tariff-Chapter No. 3.

Bill C-14, an act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1994-Chapter No. 4.

Bill C-19, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1994-Chapter No. 5.

Bill C-20, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1995-Chapter No. 6.