Debates of March 24th, 1994

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

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise in the House today and do something unusual. I wanted to compliment the Liberals across the way. I wanted to compliment them on the red book.

In my view the red book is an unusual process in Canadian electoral politics. The red book is a departure from the standard fare of Canada's process. The red book actually lays out in front of all Canadians some promises which the party said was its platform and upon which its members would present their issues.

I wanted to compliment them as well on their motives. I believe theirs are pure motives. They do have the best interests of Canada at heart.

While we may have philosophical differences, the fact is we basically want the same things for our children. We want a good education and good jobs for our children. We would like safe streets for our kids and we would like safety nets if our children have serious problems in their lives.

The government has a role to play in those goals. Our government probably has lost some popularity in Canada. I reflect upon some poll results I read the other day. In terms of occupations, politicians were on the bottom rung just being beaten by lawyers. I wondered how we could improve the image of politicians.

I actually explored the red book wondering what my colleagues were attempting to do in terms of improving the image of politicians. I found that a Liberal government would take a series of initiatives to restore confidence in the institutions of government. That is on page 92 of the red book. I went a little farther and found that MPs would be more able to draft legislation. There would be a parliamentary review of some senior Order in Council appointments. I thought that was good stuff. My compliments for those things in the red book.

I did find some inconsistencies. I am sure members did not think the compliments would last forever. There is a disadvantage to first being in opposition and subsequently occupying the government benches. The disadvantage is there is a visible and vocal record. That record is on the use of closure by time allocation.

I refer to some documentation that expresses what the members opposite said not so very long ago: "This government is trampling on the rights of Parliament. A Liberal government would never do such a thing. This is a complete breach of parliamentary practice. It is a shocking display of the inability of the government to come to grips with the fact that it was elected to be responsible to this House of Commons. It was elected to do so and it is not being responsible. It is trampling all over this House".

It goes on: "One thing we are labouring under tonight is a closure motion. I could not go along with that bill without expressing my distaste at the activities of the government. It is a disgraceful performance. The government is obviously fearful of bringing its legislation before Parliament and having it exposed to the light of public scrutiny. If I had introduced legislation of the kind the government has, I would be embarrassed as well. I want to again say in the strongest terms that by using closure in this debate the government has shown complete contempt for democracy".

This is quite a fat document. I could go on but maybe I should stop.

[An hon. member]

More.

[Grant Hill, Reform, Macleod, AB]

I hear a cry for more. That is the way the hon. member was talking about closure then, referring to another comment. He sits here deadly silent now. He does not dare discuss this issue now because he knows what he said then was right. This is talking about someone else from the other side who had crossed and had the same problem with closure.

I want to make it very plain, the use of time allocation and closure is wrong. It is draconian. They both limit the debate on issues to a time period convenient to the government. They are like a calm and beautiful sea: very appealing to the senses, but a rocky reef lies just beneath the surface. I wonder what it is about crossing from this side to that side of the House. Suddenly the issue seems to be very different.

I also have a great deal of difficulty listening to some of the arguments from members opposite saying that we should swallow the soup of this bill because in it the bill allows us to limit the number of parliamentarians. That one part of the proposal I wholeheartedly endorse. I do not think Canada needs more than 295 parliamentarians. I promise if my colleagues brought a bill to us which said that one thing, they would have wholehearted concurrence from this group of Reformers.

However when it is brought with a soup full of other things, one does not get concurrence. Referring to that one issue in this bill does not make the soup palatable because the soup contains the strychnine of closure. That is not correct. I repeat: Bring to us a bill that says Parliament will not need to grow. Bring to us a bill that says Parliament can shrink and support will be immediate and forthcoming.

This brand new Parliament gives us the opportunity to change the way Parliament functions. We have the opportunity in this Parliament to say no to things like time allocation. We have an opportunity in this Parliament to say no to party meddling in boundary changes. We have an opportunity in this Parliament to say no to wasting $5 million of taxpayers' money on an exercise that need not be stopped completely. It could be modified. We have an opportunity with new parliamentarians to say no to this type of politics.

In my riding there are problems with the boundary adjustments which are fairly major. However I would rather lose the next election because of boundary changes that were not proper. I would rather lose that election than be saddled with a parliamentary process like this one.

I take this opportunity to express these things in the strongest way I can. If the issue of closure and time allocation was right when they were on this side of the House then it is right when they are on that side. You cannot change the colour of your underwear when you cross the floor. You have to have some basic principles. You cannot change the colour of your hat because you have gone from this side to that side. You have to have basic principles. It is not good enough to just espouse vocally from this side of the House to that side of the House. There must be some principle. We cannot have it both ways.

I speak against this bill, this closure and this process and I do it as strongly as I can.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this important debate on the motion for second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs of Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. It is for several reasons that I have a special interest in the process of redistribution of electoral districts in our country which is now under way.

First, the electoral district of Bramalea-Gore-Malton which I have the honour to represent in this House lies within the cities of Mississauga and Brampton in the regional municipality of Peel, one of the fastest growing areas in Ontario between the 1981 and 1991 census.

Second, on the basis of the 1991 census, the combined cities of Mississauga and Brampton are entitled to two of the four electoral districts which are to be added to the total for Ontario, raising that number from 99 to 103.

Third, Bramalea-Gore-Malton would, in my view, be changed without good reason by the current proposals of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario.

As all hon. members are aware, the Constitution Act of 1867 requires that there be a readjustment in the number of members of the House of Commons after every 10 year census. The procedure for calculating the number of members of the House of Commons to which each province or territory is entitled is set out in sections 51, 51(a) and 52 of the Constitution Act of 1867. The procedure for establishing the boundaries of the electoral districts which will be represented in the House of Commons is set out in the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

I will not go into details of the procedures to be followed but would refer hon. members to the clear summary of those procedures provided by the hon. government House leader in his speech on Monday, March 21, 1994 which opened the debate on second reading and reference stage of Bill C-18. I would also refer hon. members to the excellent booklet entitled Representation in the Federal Parliament which has been prepared by and is available from Elections Canada.

For the purpose of clarity of debate, it should be emphasized that the calculation of the number of members of the House of Commons and the establishment of the boundaries of electoral districts are based on the number of people in a given area, never on the basis of the number of voters.

I would now like to turn from the general to the particular and describe how the electoral district of Bramalea-Gore-Malton would be affected by the current proposals of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario.

Let us start with the facts that as a consequence of the 1991 10 year census it has been determined that the province of Ontario is entitled to 103 members of the House of Commons and that the electoral quota for Ontario is 97,912, the ideal population for each of the 103 electoral districts assigned to the province.

The population of the cities of Mississauga and of Brampton have increased dramatically in the 10 year period between the 1981 and the 1991 census. In 1981, the population of Mississauga was 315,056 and that of Brampton was 149,030 for a total population of 464,086 for the two cities. That population entitled the two cities to the five electoral districts established under the 1987 representation order, namely Mississauga East, Mississauga West, Mississauga South, Brampton and Brampton-Malton. The name Brampton-Malton was changed to Bramalea-Gore-Malton in 1990. The 1987 representation

order provided for the first division of the city of Brampton between two electoral districts. Brampton had previously always been entirely within one electoral district, either Peel or Brampton-Halton Hills or Brampton-Georgetown.

The 1991 census disclosed that the population of Mississauga had grown to 463,388, and that of Brampton to 234,445, for a total combined population of 697,833. That population now entitles the two cities to two additional electoral districts, for a total of seven.

As I stated earlier, the electoral quota for Ontario is 97,912. If one calculates an electoral quota for the combined two cities by dividing their total population of 697,833 by the number of electoral districts to which they are entitled, namely seven, the resulting quota for the two cities is 99,690.

At page 13 of its proposals, the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario in the course of its comments with regard to Metropolitan Toronto, Etobicoke states that three districts within the city of Etobicoke would average about 103,000 which is close to what the commission believes appropriate for urban districts. The city of Etobicoke lies immediately to the east of the cities of Mississauga and Brampton.

The population of Bramalea-Gore-Malton according to the 1991 census was 103,589 which is 5,677 above the electoral quota for Ontario and 3,899 above the electoral quota for the combined cities of Mississauga and Brampton. However the population of Bramalea-Gore-Malton is only 589 above 103,000 which is close to what the commission believes appropriate for urban districts.

It would therefore appear that there is no urgent and pressing necessity to alter the existing boundaries of Bramalea-Gore-Malton.

However the commission was not satisfied with the situation. After deciding that the electoral district of Mississauga South should remain unchanged with a population of 96,208 and that Mississauga East should be altered in area to reduce its population to 101,300, the commission decided to perform major surgery on Bramalea-Gore-Malton to cut its population back to 96,360 from 103,589.

The commission accomplished this feat by removing an area of Brampton lying east of Dixie Road and having a population of 36,593 from the northern part of the electoral district and adding a piece of the northwestern corner of Mississauga with a population of 29,364, most of whom live south of Highway 401 to the southwestern edge of the electoral district, for a net population reduction of 7,229.

This exercise seems to me to resemble cutting one end off a blanket and then sewing most of it back on to the other end in an effort to make a small reduction in the size of the blanket.

In addition the commission appears to have clearly violated one of its own operating principles. Highway 401 forms the entire southern boundary of Bramalea-Gore-Malton. In the course of its comments with regard to metropolitan Toronto, the area north of Highway 401, the commission states at page 15 of its proposals that "the commission believes that Highway 401 forms a physical barrier and should be used as a boundary wherever possible".

The proposed addition of the populated area south of Highway 401 to the rump of Bramalea-Gore-Malton runs directly contrary to the commission's view on the role of Highway 401.

The commission's proposal would create a distorted electoral district resembling a reversed letter L of which both extremities would have less in common and be further apart than is now the case within Bramalea-Gore-Malton, thus diluting the community of interest or community identity in the electoral district. Hon. members will thus understand why I have serious concerns as to how the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for Ontario is carrying out its mandate.

Inequality of representation in this House has also been encouraged by the provisions of section 15(2) of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act which provides for a maximum deviation of 25 per cent above or below the electoral quota for an electoral district in a province. In other words, if the electoral quota for Ontario is 100,000, meaning that each resident of the province would have equal representation in this House if the population of each electoral district was 100,000, it would still be perfectly possible and legal to have some electoral districts with populations as low as 75,000 and others with populations as high as 125,000.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order. It is with reluctance that I rise but the member has used up his full 10 minutes. If the member is going to be just a little longer we might ask the House if there is unanimous consent that he might conclude his remarks.

Would there be unanimous consent to allow the member for Bramalea-Gore-Malton to conclude his remarks?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Gurbax Malhi, Liberal, Bramalea—Gore—Malton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the subject of what shall be an appropriate number of members of Parliament has been referred to frequently in this debate.

At this point I would simply raise for consideration the possibility that perhaps this House would operate more efficiently and effectively if there were dramatically fewer members of Parliament than at present and that there be a fixed number. Those fewer members would have more extensive

staffs and research facilities but I believe the long term savings could be significant. Such a proposal would certainly merit consideration by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I thank the member for his co-operation.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to take part, as member for Lévis, in this debate on Bill C-18 to suspend for 24 months the operation of electoral boundaries readjustments across Canada.

You know it is not always easy to speak in a debate so late in the day without repeating what our hon. colleagues from both sides of the House have already said. I will speak anyway, because I think it is important to talk about democracy and its operation. We can never talk too much about democracy and truly democratic rules in this House. So, this bill gives me an opportunity to raise this extremely important issue.

Like my fellow members of the Official Opposition, I support this bill. I will not go over all their arguments, although I agree with the points like the savings to be made by deferring this readjustment for one thing. Members opposite also mentioned it would give more time to do a more thorough job and to better target readjustments to the democratic reality. I will simply insist on one point.

As you know, provincial elections are to be held this year and, normally, within 12 or 14 months of the elections, we should have a referendum in Quebec. So, if all goes well-and I honestly think, along with my colleagues, that it will-we are going to find ourselves in a totally new political context. Under the circumstances, what is the use of redesigning the electoral map when it may not be used by Quebec in future elections? It is therefore wise and perfectly advisable to wait and to defer the readjustment-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Perhaps the hon. member would like a drink of water? He would then be less disruptive.

[An hon. member]

Give him something to drink!

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

As I was saying, it would be appropriate to await the outcome of this referendum before making changes.

Personally, as member for Lévis, I would like to point out another reason why I think it should be deferred. Basically, to keep changing the electoral map all the time is counterproductive in terms of fostering a sense of belonging within a region or a community.

Some countries tend to keep the same electoral boundaries, despite shifts in population. This is done in France and other countries as well. There is evidence that it provides a certain stability and allows local communities to strengthen their feelings of solidarity and work more effectively to promote their economies.

We should not make changes as a matter of course, every other election. We live under a federal system, which means federal elections, usually every four years, and provincial elections as well. Generally speaking the provinces adjust their electoral boundaries as well, before every other election, as in Quebec. Unfortunately, there may be a lag, so that some voters, especially in the urban ridings I am familiar with, do not know to which riding they belong. In some cases, they do not even know their members. That may be because the members are not always very efficient-I am referring to the past because there are more and more Bloc members in Quebec, and people know us and will get to know us even better, because we are going to be very active. Why do people have problems? Because things change so often.

In terms of electoral boundaries, we have the territory covered by federal ridings and the territory covered by provincial ridings. Administratively speaking, voters want to identify with a territory. And what happens? Administratively speaking, although this may not be directly relevant to today's subject, the individual needs to identify with a given area. That is very important. It is very important for the individual to know to which area he belongs.

In the riding of Lévis, we have the Lévis Regional County Municipality, the territory covered by the provincial riding, school boards and LCSC areas. Provincial departments usually provide maps indicating which areas are covered by various services. If we add to all that the areas covered by federal services, by all the departments, the local employment centre and the rest, we could look at all the departments, and we would find as many ways to divide the area as there are departments.

Furthermore, there are a substantial number of federal government agencies and Crown corporations which also have their own areas. Imagine an individual trying to cope with these constant changes! People can get very confused-

[An hon. member]

There is a problem with the hon. member's microphone.

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

I will not start all over, Mr. Speaker.

Briefly, this is a very important issue. We have a federal electoral map, a provincial electoral map, and there are various what I would call administrative maps provided by provincial and federal departments.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. Since the microphone used by the hon. member for Lévis was turned off, we missed part of his speech. I wonder whether he could repeat the missing part.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

This is not a point of order as such. The hon. member has no text, so I think we will have to rely on Hansard .

[Antoine Dubé, Bloc, Lévis, QC]

Mr. Speaker, at least the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester will be able to read my speech tomorrow in Hansard , and I appreciate his interest. Speaking in the House is interesting when there are members who are interested in what one says, so I commend them for that.

Nevertheless, in the two minutes I have left, I do not want to appear to be opposed to change. On the contrary, those who know me in my community find that I am usually someone who identifies with change and who agrees with change. But I think that the commissions should consider two changes. The first change, which seeks a certain fairness in the number of electors represented per riding, is laudable. It is right in a democracy, but I was just talking about the disadvantages it causes when there are too many changes.

Some countries have a system of proportional representation. I think this is something to consider. I looked at what the latest commission dealing with it had to say and it did not look into it much. Major reports have been written and we could review them.

There is another change, Mr. Speaker, and I think it is the most important one we should make here in Canada or in any democracy, namely financing of political parties. It would be a better way to strengthen and improve democracy than to change electoral maps left and right, I think.

In 1977, Quebec passed Bill 2, as a result of which political parties are financed by individuals and not by corporations, unions, companies and businesses. What has this achieved? It has eliminated a lot of-in politics, often perception is what counts. Since then, people feel that their government is less subject to undue pressure from business. I think that this is an improvement that the people in the Reform Party would also want to support. It would improve election practices, improve government management and finally free the members elected from the various ridings from the pressures to which they may be subject on the basis of party financing.

I think that it would be tremendous progress and I still do not understand why, although people dealt with it as part of that royal commission on electoral reform and party financing. Although the general public was heard on this subject and agreed with this reform, it got nowhere.

If I have one suggestion to make, and I conclude with that, we really should look into the financing of political parties by the people.

[Fred Mifflin, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise to speak on second reading of Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and refer it to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

I do not want to engage myself in a certain tone of debate which talks about issues that are not really pertinent to the act or to the substance of the issue because of the limited time and because it is not my style to engage in that kind of debate.

I want to have a look at why I am supporting the bill. I am going to restrict it to my riding of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception to try to give all sides of the House an indication of how it is viewed by my constituents. I have received many phone calls, and quite frankly the constituents who have called me are dumbfounded. That is the best word to describe them. They are dumbfounded by what is going on.

Let us look at the chronology from their viewpoint. There was a comment made in the House that I will correct. The last change did not take place in 1980. It took place in 1988. As I was entering politics the change was made, and let me say what it did to my riding. The name of the riding of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception has been around for a long time. It describes and rightly so the three bays on the east coast of Newfoundland: Bonavista Bay, Trinity Bay and Conception Bay. Before the present boundaries were set the southern part of my riding took in the northern half of Conception Bay, almost a straight line down through the bay. The previous boundary took in the northern part of Conception Bay and all of Trinity Bay but only the southern part of Bonavista Bay, not including the well-known Terra Nova Park.

After the last census and the study of the commission that we are now trying to put on hold it was argued, and rightly so, that the riding of Bonavista-Trinity-Conception should include all of Bonavista Bay because there was a similarity with communities with respect to issuing fishing licences and the consideration of the community of interest, geographical reasons and similarly aligned issues.

It was argued that all of Bonavista Bay should be included. It was also argued that for the southern part of the previous boundary certain communities-I think there were seven of them including Brigus, Collier's, Whitbourne, Georgetown and Markland-should not be included because they were closely related to St. John's and had more of an urban interest. Their community of alignment was with the riding of St. John's East.

The third major reason was that Bonavista-Trinity-Conception as it was then comprised pre-1988 only had a population of around 75,000 or 76,000 whereas Gander-Grand Falls or Gander-Twillingate as it was then called had more than Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. It was felt that including the upper half of the northern half of Bonavista Bay would balance it more reasonably with other ridings in Newfoundland.

Considerable debate took place and the changes were eventually made. My constituents understood all the rationale that was used. After only one election the same rationale that was used to result in the present boundaries is being applied to revert to the old boundaries, except the rationale is used in reverse. It is said that the alignment of the northern part of Bonavista Bay is not in with the southern part of Bonavista Bay and the five or six communities that had an alignment more with the urban thinking of St. John's East really should belong to the district of Port de Grave because that really should belong to Bonavista-Trinity-Conception.

This is very difficult to understand for constituents who are only now getting used to a change that was made six years ago. Now they are being told that within two months they have to appear in four different locations in the riding either to agree or disagree, and the ones who disagree have to give some rationale why they disagree. That is very hard to understand.

What is also very hard to understand is that the population of Newfoundland from 1981 to 1991 had an increase of 793 people in 10 years. For this we are to realign what was realigned before, just take the rationale and use it in reverse. We will have 36 hearings in Atlantic Canada for 32 seats. That is about one per seat, except in Newfoundland where we have seven seats and there we will be 15 hearings. I am not sure what rationale was used there. I would not want to speculate for the members of the House.

The point I am making is that the changes that were made in 1987-88 were quite acceptable. The total population of the riding has not changed. The population of centres in the riding has not changed. People have not realigned themselves to my knowledge, so that has not changed. Why all of a sudden do three commissioners draw lines and find some rationale for those lines? I do not understand it.

What is more important is my constituents. Not only do they not understand it and have difficulties with it, but they are saying to me: "You are going up to preach restraint, you are going up to lower the deficit, you are going up to balance the budget. How can you possibly, apart from the ridiculousness and the timing of this measure, support it from the viewpoint of expenditure?"

I come up failing, Mr. Speaker. I cannot answer their questions.

Not an old but a wise mentor of mine once told me: "You know, Fred, being in politics is very simple; if you can't explain it, you really should not be doing it."

Well, I cannot explain this, Mr. Speaker, and therefore I am not so sure we should be doing it. Because of that, I am a very strong supporter of this bill to delay this ludicrous action that is taking place, so we can refer it to a committee, study it and come up with some reasonable recommendations.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before resuming debate I will take a moment to make a comment to an earlier intervention by the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception on a point of order concerning relevance.

Some of his colleagues who shall remain unnamed from his great province would be the masters I might say of making a discourse on how it might be relevant. But it always amazes me in the short five years that I have been here that members always are able to make a relevant point to the motion or the bill being debated, and certainly I appreciate the member's participation in today's debate and his relevance to the subject matter.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to find a germ of relevance in my representation as well.

I have listened with a great deal of interest to this debate today. We are talking about closure, redistribution and political interference or non-political interference in the political process in Canada. That is one of the things that we can treasure.

When we look at other countries in the world and reflect on the tragedy that happened in Mexico yesterday, we think of the very real and very great political discourse that goes on in the country. We see our colleagues from the Bloc who are here and while we are at completely different poles we are able to discuss these things rationally and without fear of personal harm. That is something we really need to treasure in our country and to hold very dear. I guess that is one of the reasons that I wanted to speak to this motion.

When this bill was first introduced I really did not feel all that strongly about it. My riding of Edmonton Southwest is affected very little. We lose a little bit to the northwest but as members would know, Edmonton Northwest is represented by my colleague who shares the same last name. So we do not win or lose on that one. In the south we lose a little bit and we gain a little bit so that the effect on our constituency is not all that much.

What we do have is a sense of fairness that when we get into a political debate or into an election here in Canada most of us do not have to go to bed at night thinking that there has been any gerrymandering going on with our electoral boundaries. This is something that I think is particularly important.

In the last election I was running as a rookie. The people from Elections Canada who were looking after things were all appointed by the Conservative government that preceded this government. I must compliment all of the people that I was associated with at Elections Canada. They were impartial and fair to everyone. In particular, I would use this occasion to compliment our returning officer, Patricia Collins, who went out of her way to be fair to me.

When we as a political institution start to change the rules that are established, whether we like them or not, we are treading on fairly thin ice. That is the reason that I am standing to speak against this motion today. If we do not like the rules then we have the privilege of changing them any time we want. However, there is no reason to suggest that the electoral boundary change cannot go forward as it would normally have done.

I am not in favour of changing the number of seats in the House. It could have been frozen at substantially less years ago. However the very people who are now making the case for freezing the number of seats, during the Charlottetown accord when the number of seats in this House were going to grow amazingly, not one word was raised against it. Different times make different priorities.

When I thought I wanted to speak to this and the new wrinkle of closure was added to the soup that an earlier colleague described, I thought why not phone the Library of Parliament and ask them to send over a few topic headings under the term "closure" and then I would glean from that a few examples of members' opposite when they were in opposition railing against the government of the day on the issue of closure.

There are three pages. So we just grabbed one to use as an example. Then I thought I had better be a little careful because I am sure that when members opposite were railing against closure when they were in opposition they had no idea that these words would be coming back at them in such a short time.

However, I must use one example and this is from Hansard , May 29, 1991, the hon. member representing Ottawa-Vanier:

Since I began my remarks on the government's heavy-handed motion to reinstate certain bills, for which it could not receive unanimous consent because they are indeed not very good bills, a new element has been introduced into the debate-closure. It is now using its majority, the tyranny of the majority, to impose upon the rest of us its will.

That is far from being democratic.

Therefore, I am a little nervous about introducing this because I know that if we are as successful as we hope to be, we will be sitting on the other side of the House.

[An hon. member]

Not to worry about it.

[Ian McClelland, Reform, Edmonton Southwest, AB]

Not to worry about it? Fine, not to worry about it.

[An hon. member]

Do not worry about it.