Debates of April 12th, 1994

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

As the hon. member says, S.O.S. Save our seats. That is the whole attitude of the Liberal government. I urge them to take the moral high road and to vote against this bill.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you rightly stated, last October 25, I was elected to represent the riding of Shefford. Let me first describe my wonderful riding. As you know, the region was settled by a group of Americans who came to Canada when the United States seceded from England. Thus, it is part of Quebec's Eastern Townships.

Over time, the boundaries of the riding changed and now include part of Montérégie, and, as I mentioned, part of the riding is in the Eastern Townships.

Shefford is partly an urban riding. The main city is Granby, a well-organized industrial city. The people of Granby are hard-working and they are proud of their roots.

I have lived virtually all my life in Shefford. At times, I moved from one area to another, but I never left the riding.

A proposal has been made to change my riding, to reduce its size. Other ridings would be extended while mine would be reduced to the size of the provincial riding of Shefford, including the town of Bromont. As you know, there is much discussion these days about Bromont, because of the Hyundai plant. Bromont is currently my neighbour. I would like members in the House to know that Bromont was previously known as West Shefford. This city was then part of the former riding of Shefford. Of course, we would welcome its constituents in the proposed new riding of Shefford, but, to do so, we would have to lose an entire section of the riding. So, the sector which includes Saint-Paul-d'Abbotsford, Saint-Césaire and Marieville is to be removed.

In fact, my riding is being downsized tremendously, while the neighbouring one, Chambly, will become extremely large with a population of over 100,000. While my constituency would have some 72,000 or 75,000 people, the one next to it would become exceedingly large.

I believe that the role of a member of Parliament is to represent his or her constituents. I think one of the objectives of this bill is to make ridings more or less equal in terms of population. If this is the case, we are missing the boat because, as I was saying, my constituency is going to become much less populated, while neighbouring ridings will be much larger.

In view of this situation, I decided to consult the municipalities. I asked members of my staff to consult municipalities and also contact other political parties in the riding. Because as you know, Mr. Speaker, we Bloc Quebecois members do not aspire to remain part of Canada, part of the Government of Canada any longer than necessary. However, one thing is certain: we have to think about the interests of those whom we represent.

As my colleague was saying earlier, we do not know what the future holds, but if what we want to do here cannot be fully achieved, Quebeckers will continue to be represented here in Ottawa, which is something we do not wish, as I mentioned earlier. It is in the interests of our constituents that we consulted a large number of our municipalities, if not all of them, since one of them told us that it did not really care. As you know, there are municipalities close to the boundaries which change ridings every time a readjustment is made. The municipality of Saint-Valérien, in Shefford, told us that it would like to become part of the beautiful riding of Saint-Hyacinthe.

We can certainly understand that, since the residents of Saint-Valérien have constantly been moved from one riding to the other following these readjustments, but this is somewhat unfortunate. These people do not feel as close to the heart of the riding which is the city of Granby.

On the other hand, the municipalities of Saint-Césaire, Saint-Paul-d'Abbotsford and L'Ange-Gardien, all beautiful villages which I hope you will come to visit when you have a chance, Mr. Speaker, have sent us council resolutions asking that they remain in the riding of Shefford because they feel part of it. These people have always gone shopping in Granby on Thursday or Friday evening. They do their business in that city. I believe that it would be somewhat unfortunate for them to become part of another riding.

The small municipality of Béthanie sent me a fax of its council resolution which I want to read because I find it interesting:

Whereas if the electoral boundaries readjustment is approved, the electoral quota of Shefford would only be 73,351, which is less than the majority of other constituencies; Whereas Béthanie is located very close to Granby and several services are provided to us by Granby, including ambulances, provincial police, hospital and other services, the municipality of Béthanie wishes to remain part of the constituency of Shefford, since it participated in the election of its member of Parliament, Jean Leroux, and it wishes to keep being represented by him. It is also easier to communicate with him, since there is no long distance charge and since his office is closer to our area.

This resolution was carried unanimously, Mr. Speaker.

[An hon. member]

Nice going.

[Jean H. Leroux, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Béthanie is a small municipality. On election day, there is only one polling station, and the majority of people there voted for the Bloc Quebecois. Since they live on the periphery of the riding, they have asked to remain part of Shefford, and that to me is what is important. The people who make up the constituency are the ones who should have the last word.

And we are going to stand up for these people and defend the interests of these small municipalities. I think they have their say in this matter.

A member is elected to represent all the residents of his or her riding. What this bill does is divide my riding in two and make the constituents who will have to leave the riding feel like temporary residents. To me, that is unacceptable. I think we should not let these citizens down, and I certainly have no intention of doing so. All of my constituents are entitled to equitable services.

Members are elected to represent their ridings and that is what we are doing here, in this House. Each and every one of us, whatever our political affiliation is, has a role to play, which is to represent our constituents. We also have the privilege to sit in this House and speak when we want to. This is a privilege which is not extended to all citizens. The people put their trust in us and we are here to represent their views. When we rise to speak in this House, we talk on behalf of our constituents. On the matter of electoral boundaries readjustment, our task is made very easy. We intend to make our position known to the Commission, because we think it is fair and equitable. If there are some municipalities which have not expressed the desire to stay in Shefford, we respect their decision. However, the vast majority of municipalities which are affected want to remain part of Shefford. As a member of Parliament, I intend to protect the interests of these people.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Before resuming debate, I want to thank the hon. member for Shefford for his invitation. I must say that I have travelled to Granby several times, with my wife, my children and other members of my family, to participate in hockey tournaments in winter and to visit Granby Zoo in

summer. I wish to thank the hon. member again for his invitation. We always got a warm welcome.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Fraser Valley East.

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

Mr. Speaker, on that invitation you would be a busy person because I am sure you will be invited to all our ridings.

I am always impressed-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would accept all invitations. If I accept them all I might have to speak to what other members referred to earlier, a new mode of travel possibly. I do not know if it was a seat sale that was alluded to or otherwise, but I will accept all invitations.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always take heart, and it happens so frequently in the House as the previous hon. member mentioned, in talking about privileges of the House. The other thing that always impresses me is how passionately every member speaks about his or her own riding as they introduce the subject of what it is that makes their riding. Often it is called a microcosm of the Canadian identity. Often each member in their own way does represent that here in the House and it is always encouraging to me when I hear members talking with pride about their constituencies. Of course I do extend an invitation to you, especially since last week it was 24 degrees in Fraser Valley East. But I do not want to rub that in.

I do want to address the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act and also our proposed Reform Party amendments to it which I think would make it more palatable to Canadians and to those of us who are concerned with certain parts of this suspension procedure.

There is of course a huge boundary readjustment of my own that I am faced with in Fraser Valley East. The boundaries have now been extended to include the Merritt-Princeton area of the interior of B.C. It would make a logistical nightmare in some senses for me to try to service a riding that has three separate highways, each with one small town at the end of it. It would be very difficult.

I think it is important that we deal with the principle involved, not my own personal feelings about whether I agree with the adjustments in my own riding, in boundary alignments and readjustments. That is what I would like to address here this morning.

There are five particular reasons why I think this bill should never become law. First, I believe it thwarts the purpose of Parliament in the electoral process. The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act requires the readjustment of the federal electoral boundaries every 10 years. That is a requirement of an act of Parliament that has already been passed.

The first eight sections of the act deal with the appointment of the commissions that will decide these issues for the provinces and how those commissions are made up, how they are appointed and so on.

The important thing is that these commissions have almost a judicial impartiality. It is important that they have the freedom to make choices based on the impartiality that they supposedly have based on the requirements of the act.

When the Speaker or the chief justice of each province appoints someone to the commission, those are almost judicial positions. We have to accept that they are without prejudice. I believe we have to go along with their ideas at least as it fits into the process or else we thwart the purpose of Parliament.

Parliament specifically and importantly prohibits anyone in the Senate or anyone who is a member of Parliament from being part of that commission. The reason of course is because they do not want political interference. They do not want the partisanship that could enter into electoral boundary redistribution to be a part of it. It has to be impartial and it has to be seen to be impartial.

The timeliness of these changes is also important to me.

It states in section 13 of the act that as soon as possible after the completion of any decennial census, which is every 10 years, the chief statistician gives a report to the chief electoral officer and they calculate the seats and so on. The important thing here is the timeliness. As soon as possible after a census we need to make our redistribution so that we can more accurately reflect the needs of the shifting populations and so on in each of the provinces. "Then each commission shall prepare", it says under section 14, "with all reasonable dispatch a report."

The last census was in 1991, which is already going back three years, and so timeliness has already been thwarted once, I believe, by the last Parliament because it suspended the act for two years. That is not a big thing in some people's minds, but again it thwarts an impartial boundary readjustment. I am very nervous when parliamentarians interfere with what I believe should be an independent body and an independent report.

All boundaries were supposed to be redrawn as soon as possible after 1991. The last bill, C-67, halted the whole process. All 11 government commissions were eliminated. It was a total waste of their time and effort and the money involved.

I wonder why at this time we have to again dive into this process and shut the whole thing down again, with another $5 million being spent. I can only speculate. I know the new boundaries may be inconvenient but they are inconvenient for us all. Politics never was totally convenient. It could be that MPs

have to make new political contacts as their boundaries are shifted. Be that as it may, that is also part of this impartiality. It could even include boundaries in some areas that traditionally vote against the member. Some areas vote stronger for certain parties than others. Possibly that has caused some concern on the government side.

I am not sure what it is but regardless of how you slice it we are three years late already in what was supposed to be a very timely thing and now we are going to put it off for another two years, which means there will be another election and so on.

I think it is a mistake to keep putting off what should be an independent-I repeat independent-review. Our first amendment to this bill is that we should bring in a report. If we are going to have this interference, we should at least have it in place for the next federal election.

I am concerned about B.C. which is the fastest growing province and which already should have an extra two or three seats. We are going to go into the next century with the same number of seats and the same distribution that we had in 1981. Since 1981 we have had from within Canada alone over 40,000 people move to B.C., mainly from Ontario. There is a shift in population westward. There are 35,000 additional people who came from overseas. We get 20 per cent of all Canada's immigrants. B.C.'s population continues to grow at a faster rate than the rest of Canada and yet we are going to be stuck with a proportional representation that is mired in the 1980s.

People in B.C. have mentioned that this is unfair, it is not proportional representation, and it is going to skew the power base away from the growing population centres and leave it in the eastern areas, some of which have been nice enough to send us their people to populate B.C.

I am not sure if that is the intention of the government in bringing this in. I am not sure if it is concerned about maintaining a power base where it happens to have most of its seats. I am not sure exactly why it has been done.

I come back to the idea of impartiality, that Canadians have to accept and have to know with regard to boundary readjustments and the way this is put together that the people who sit on the commission are not political hacks. They are not doing things for the favour or the benefit of any one party. They are doing it truly for the benefit of the democratic process. I think that is thwarted, especially by delaying it for two years, which means another election that we would have to go through.

I support our first amendment which would bring it forward in a more timely fashion and would allow us to get on with whatever changes the government deems necessary in time for the next election. That could take some of the sting out of this. Some of the waste and so on would be easier to accept if we knew that a timely settlement of some sort was in the government's mind. I wish it would consider that first amendment thoughtfully.

I mentioned earlier the whole idea of cost. All the commission's work and the money spent in 1991 and 1992 were wasted. On the current process all of us received in the mail or saw in the newspapers a proposal for boundary readjustments. I have already asked to make a submission to the commission about boundary readjustments. I have some ideas, and all of us are free to make presentations to them.

Those meetings have been set up. They have been advertised. The entire newspaper propaganda idea through which all these ideas were sent to every Canadian household has taken place at huge expense. That expense is all for nought. It is a waste of the commissioners' time and it is a waste of our money.

I realize that $5 million is not the end of the world in some people's minds, but as a couple of people coming out of Parliament once said, a billion here and a billion there soon adds up to real money. Possibly government should consider that every $5 million is a significant amount of money, not just a chunk of change.

For all of the reasons that I mentioned earlier and especially because this has been done behind closed doors and brought in by closure and so on, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. I hope the government will accept an amendment that will bring it in before the next election and restore faith in the impartiality of our Electoral Boundaries Commission.

[Michel Bellehumeur, Bloc, Berthier—Montcalm, QC]

I am pleased to take part in this debate, Mr. Speaker, all the more so since I did not have a chance to speak at the time of the first debate because the guillotine went down before I could take the floor.

I want to take advantage of the motion moved by the Reform Party to tell you a little about my constituency and explain to you why this amendment by the Reform Party is unenforceable or illogical.

The object of the main motion is to reduce the suspension period of the law from 24 to 12 months and to delete sections 3 and 4 of the said bill. Since it will take more than 24 months to redress the illogical readjustments made to several constituencies, I am against shortening the suspension period of this act.

And I will tell you why. My native constituency was in turn called Berthier-Maskinongé, Berthier-Maskinongé-Lanaudière and, finally, Berthier-Montcalm. It was moved geographically from left to right without ever finding its true niche and it seems to me that following each and every adjustment, the

people most concerned were still making the same complaints and the same comments.

That is why, even though I sincerely hope that the people of Quebec will know where their interests and the best interests of Quebec lie in a possible referendum, I decided to hold a major consultation with my constituents.

Promoting Quebec's sovereignty should not prevent me from doing that since the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is still in force. I think it is my duty as a member of Parliament to follow the work of a commission which will ultimately cost Canadian taxpayers more that $4 million, of which $1 million will be paid by Quebec taxpayers whom I represent here.

One should also remember that, following a referendum win in Quebec, a referendum or even an election could be called at the national level. Somebody had to keep an eye on things, and to follow the situation closely.

I came to Ottawa to defend Quebec's interests and I think that changes to electoral boundaries are in Quebec's interest. That is why I asked some volunteers in my riding to consult the people.

I think that if a member of Parliament wants to make representations to the commission, he should not base them only on his personal assessment of the situation, but on what his constituents told him. I based my position on those consultations and I will make a few comments in this regard later.

In addition to those consultations, I have known my riding for 30 years. As a lawyer, I was called to the court houses of Terrebonne, Joliette, Trois-Rivières and Shawinigan. The jurisdiction of each one of those courts encompasses a small part of my riding, which is very large.

Since 1986, I have had the chance to study the communities of my riding and get to know them a little. In 1988, my political activities gave me the opportunity to learn more about all those communities. I think that I know the geography, needs, history and characteristics of my riding and its social, economic and political organizations very well. But still, I believe that was not enough to make a fair presentation to the commission.

Despite a member's attachment to the riding that he represents, he cannot decide alone on the representations that he will make to the electoral boundaries commission for Quebec to maintain or to modify the area that he represents.

That is why, as I was saying earlier, I undertook a consultation process with the help of volunteers, and I should take this opportunity to thank people like Ghislaine Guilbault, Raymonde Gaudreault, Jean-Marc Ferland and my staff for their good and loyal services. They all had to work very hard to contact 83 municipalities, RCMs and organizations affected by the new boundaries proposed by the commission for the riding of Berthier-Montcalm.

Of all the parties that were contacted, 25 took the time to write to me and 12 got in touch with me directly to make comments. I think it is important because many of them told me: "Michel, we are taking the time to talk to you because we know, having done so in the past, that it is useless to submit a brief or make proposals to the commission. We think that if a member makes representations on our behalf, he is more likely to be listened to."

I have to say that several municipal politicians have also complained about the commission's reasoning, which they find inconsistent. In trying to solve one problem, the commission is creating another. People say among other things that, in Quebec, boundaries of the RCMs were generally taken into account in the proposed electoral map, but not in the riding of Berthier-Montcalm. In this case, they are being split up to satisfy some mathematical criterion.

It also became evident, through these consultations, that many people are frustrated because they were not able to take part in the process until the new boundaries were almost imposed on Canadians. You will understand that the amendment proposed by the Reform Party does not satisfy them, and I am certainly in a position to tell you so.

Representatives of one municipality even told me that they disagreed completely with the proposals that they saw in the newspapers, but did not intend to submit a brief or make other representations to the commission. The mayor of this municipality told me, and I quote: "The commission must take into account various considerations that cannot be reflected in a single brief. So preparing a brief becomes too arduous a task. My position is based on experience, having submitted briefs to two commissions in the past".

Another mayor pointed out to me on April 8 that the new boundaries were detrimental to his municipality. He wrote: "I want to draw your attention to the drawbacks resulting from such a drastic change for us and our neighbours from Sainte-Lucie and Val-des-Lacs, a population already penalized by the economic situation and absolutely dependent on a social centre with its activities, its schools, its shopping facilities, its social services, the LCSC and the Laurentides General Hospital." He concluded: "It is obvious that the commission is ill-informed about our priorities and our needs".

I contacted this mayor and he told me: "Mr. Bellehumeur, I will not submit a brief because I am sure that I will not be heard, that nobody will listen to me".

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but conclude that reviewing the electoral boundaries is not just a matter of mathematics. There might not be general agreement about this, but I think it is wrong to say that since there are six million people in Quebec, you just have to divide this number by 75 to get the average number of people to be included in each riding. I think there are much more appropriate, fair and accurate criteria that seem not to have been applied.

One of them that comes up often is services provided to the public. Another is administrative regions. It is illogical to split an RCM that has been part of the riding of Berthier-Montcalm, or of Berthier-Maskinongé -Lanaudière since Confederation and to transfer it to the neighbouring riding of Joliette. As I was saying a moment ago, there are many such cases. The criteria the commission seems to have applied in drawing the new boundaries have not been respected in my county. Maybe I am unlucky, but that is a fact!

Then, as for accessibility, is it right that the boundary of a riding run through a neighbouring riding? Is it right to create some kind of doughnut hole in the middle of a federal riding? I do not think so. Has anyone stopped for five minutes to consider whether in terms of geography and accessibility this was viable for taxpayers? I think no one considered that kind of concern for very long.

There are also other criteria that could be examined, but this is not the place to do it. In my capacity as member for Berthier-Montcalm, I intend to submit a brief if the issue is not settled in the House by April 20. Mr. Speaker, any member who wants to represent his riding, as is his duty, should listen to his constituents. But when you want to get things done, it is much better to deal with one member instead of two as the reeve of the D'Autray RCM said. That makes perfect sense and everybody in this House would agree that this should be a consideration.

It is not just a matter of drawing boundaries on a map. The whole context should be examined and consultation should take place before any proposal is made. People should be involved instead of being presented with a fait accompli. We should be listening to the wishes of the people and try to reconcile contradictory views and ideas that do not quite fit. Most of all, we should avoid the traditional practice of forcing new ridings on people.

During the last election campaign, I realized much to my surprise that constituents in the Montcalm area of my riding did not know they were part of the riding of Berthier-Montcalm. They all thought they were part of the Joliette riding and were wondering what I was doing there. Most likely, they did not see much of their former member. True, he needed two terms to get to know the extent of his own riding, so it is easy to understand the confusion the constituents were in.

Mr. Speaker, you will have concluded by now that I oppose the amendment since much more than 24 months would be necessary to correct all those deficiencies. And two years is not that long, after all. Canada may then have only 220 ridings to readjust so that there will be savings there for everybody.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my friend and colleague, the member for Shefford, talked about my riding, Chambly, a little while ago. Two weeks ago, before the Easter recess, I said in this House that I did not understand why a number of voters of my colleague's riding were transferred to mine, and why the population of my riding increased from 75,000 to 110,000 while the population of his riding decreased from 110,000 to 75,000. I still do not understand.

As my friend from the Reform Party said, are we proceeding with this readjustment simply because the act says that we have to do it every ten years? Are we doing this for the fun of it, because the act says we have to do it once every ten years, without asking ourselves if it is appropriate, if it is good or not? That is not important, just do it.

The member for Maskinongé-Montcalm just said that his new riding will be full of holes. On the South Shore of Montreal, and I assume no one did it on purpose, this electoral redistribution, by a curious coincidence, will result in the Liberal party standing to gain another riding in the next election because on the South Shore or in the Eastern Townships the riding of Saint-Lambert will have a strong contingent of new Canadians. But I assume that is only a coincidence and not a calculated Machiavellian act.

All of us in this House, like the member for Beauséjour, who is always flashing that smile that we all like, or like the members of the Reform Party, did not suddenly become members of Parliament. Before being elected to this House, you must work a long time, get involved in your riding, and meet your constituents. You know, it could be that our door-to-door campaign for the last election was only the end of a cycle. But I am sure that the member for Beauséjour and all the other members of this House have spent many years-10 or 15 years or more-criss-crossing their ridings and meeting disadvantaged groups, social groups, unions, employers in some cases, fishermen for people in the maritimes.

We did not become members of Parliament by chance. We were chosen, elected and sent here by the people. And by constantly rubbing shoulders with these people, which frequently happens almost instinctively, the members here present have embraced or somewhat adopted their constituents' philosophy, so they generally come here with a precise idea of the philosophy or opinion or direction that they convey in their respective

riding. Making an electoral division just because the Elections Act says it has to be done every ten years seems to ignore that aspect of the job of a member of Parliament.

In my case, for example, I will be called to represent between 30,000 and 35,000 new constituents, whom I do not know, in municipalities-I heard earlier my colleague in front of me mention municipalities like Béthanie and so on-where I never set foot in my life. And overnight, I will have to represent these people. There are group dynamics emerging in our society. People get used to living together, they arrive at a consensus and convey it to their member of Parliament if he or she has not already perceived it naturally.

In my case, I am afraid that I do not know what people whom I do not know might want. And if we are to simply change numbers, I am sure that my colleague from Shefford would be a much better representative of these people than I, because I simply do not know these municipalities, these RCMs, these potential constituents.

Of course, the Bloc Quebecois will make it its duty to represent everybody in Quebec. But the fact remains that for specific or particular aspects, the member for Shefford, who is already there, would certainly do a better job than I, because of the group dynamics and the thinking of people in these regions. He would be able to pinpoint what should be done in that riding, whereas for me, as a new member to these people, by the time I go around and get acquainted with everybody's problems, by the time I get to know their municipalities and the problems of these municipalities and these RCMs, I am afraid these people will suffer the consequences. Therefore, I do not agree with the argument that democracy requires that the electoral boundaries be readjusted every ten years, no matter what comes out of the process.

The county of Chambly which I represent and which has about 75,000 constituents is relatively dense. Mr. Speaker, you said earlier that you travel a lot, especially in the county of Shefford. Unfortunately, I never had the pleasure to see you in the county of Chambly, but I hope that you went through it. If not, I invite you to visit it.

The Richelieu River runs right through my county from one end to the other. My county is the heartland of the Patriots. Therefore, I am not the first independentist mentioned in the House of Commons. Incidentally, I was informed recently that five independentists from Beloeil had lost their lives during the battle of the Patriots, in 1837. These people, some Préfontaines and some Lafrances from Beloeil, are from my county. The reason I mention the period of 1837 is because these people live together and know each other. They were builders. They built bridges on the famous Richelieu river. They built churches, they built their parish. These people are used to living together. There is a spirit of community among the residents of a same region. It is an unwritten tradition, but it exists all the same.

When you add 35,000 new electors whom he does not know to an MP, you distort the group dynamics, to the detriment not of the MP or the federal government, but of the constituents concerned. Now if you want to talk about more practical things, take telephone communications.

In my riding, things are not as bad. From one end of my riding to the other, people cannot call one another direct and have to make a long-distance call. As far as I am concerned, as a member of Parliament, if I want to be able to serve my constituents and be available, I have my office in the middle of the riding where I can call everywhere without high charges to my government, meaning the taxpayers. Also, my constituents can call me from anywhere in the riding without having to pay long-distance bills. For some people, specifically older people, long-distance charges are significant and unforseen expenses, particularly when they have to speak to their elected representative, which can penalize them.

So imagine the surprise when I was told that people in my riding would have to constantly use Bell Canada long-distance service in order to communicate with their elected representative. That could be very expensive for them. You could argue that it is only a small technical problem. But when we are talking about the representation of members of Parliament, there is a risk in doing that, because we could become less and less representative through such occurrences. This redistribution of the electoral map could prevent members of Parliament from doing their job. This is my first concern.

[Jim Hart, Reform, Okanagan—Similkameen—Merritt, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in this House to speak in favour of the motions that the Reform Party has placed before all members of this House today. I do this because I feel so strongly that we need changes in government. We need changes in the way we have been operating.

These amendments to this motion would limit the delay to 12 months on this process and would formally keep the commissioners who are already in place. I am very strongly in favour of those motions. Of course my preference and the preference of all members of the Reform Party would be that Bill C-18 not proceed at all.

I am an ordinary Canadian, an ordinary person. I have serious concerns about the things that have been happening in this country such as the way our country has been run, the enormous deficit and debt that all Canadians face, and unemployment. One of the biggest items that every member in this House heard people speak about during the election campaign was that Canadians wanted more accountability. That is worth repeating. The Canadian people demanded more accountability from their

elected representatives during this last election. They demand it now and they want to see it.

This is a sad, sad day for ordinary Canadians, for ordinary people. What has happened here is that the government members opposite are trying to ram through something that takes away a process that the ordinary people in this country can get involved in. They can make their presentations and recommendations to a body that has been set up for redistribution of electoral boundaries. It is a sad day and I urge everyone in this House to think about that. People want more involvement in government and the government is taking that away from them.

This bill sends a message loud and clear that the government and members opposite and some members on this side do not believe that people should be more involved in what happens in the process. They do not believe that what happens in this House should be a part of what the people of Canada are thinking.

I spent some time in the last two weeks in my riding. I heard of major concerns throughout the riding about the way the redistribution was laid out. We would be losing two communities in my riding which have a strong economic tie to the rest of the region of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt which I represent. Merritt and Princeton would become separated from that riding and would join Coquihalla riding, a new riding that would be established in B.C.

I had a meeting with the mayor and council of Merritt while I was there last week. They want to make their presentation. They want to go to the commission. They want to submit a presentation on behalf of the people of Merritt. That sounds like a good idea. It sounds like a way for all people to get involved if they have concerns. It is not up to us in this House to draw the boundaries, to draw the lines.

The reason this whole process was established was so that politicians would not be able to tamper or tinker with the drawings of electoral boundaries.

I have had the opportunity to speak to many of my friends across the way in conversations over coffee and sometimes just in the hallways or on the bus from the Confederation Building to here. I have heard from them the underlying reason for trying to stop the redistribution process. They know it is taking way some Liberal stronghold areas. There is no other reason. They are tampering in a process that was set up so that the government and members of Parliament could not tamper with it.

It is unacceptable that this is going on. Possibly, as one other member of the Reform Party has already indicated, this is even unconstitutional. It is a sad day for Canadians. It is a sad day for all of us.

There has been a lot of talk about the cost of this process. Let us take a look at the costs. It budgeted $8 million for this process. So far there has been $4 million to $5 million spent. I thought it was $5 million but this morning I heard that maybe it was only $4 million. It seems that the government is not quite sure how much it actually spent to date on this process. Anyway it is in the area of $4 million to $5 million.

It wants to scrap the whole process. It wants to put everything on hold so that in 24 months it can spend another $8 million to $10 million and restart the whole thing. Is that in the interests of the Canadian people?

Do members opposite believe that Canadians will stand by when the country is facing a massive deficit and debt and place before them another $8 million to $10 million bill when it is not necessary? We could simply put the process on hold for a12 month period, have a committee study it if they wish, as our amendments suggest, and then Canadians can get value for their dollar, something that they are not doing by eliminating this redistribution process.

Would it not be worth mentioning that we are kind of crowded in this House? We are at the maximum probably in seating without major adjustments to this place. I received a letter yesterday from a constituent who said we should look at capping the number of members in the House of Commons. That is a good idea and I think we should look at it.

People are tired. We have too much government. It is a good idea. Absolutely we should do that. He also suggested we should reduce the number of seats. I think we should reduce the numbers on that side of the House, but maybe strengthen them over here.

What we should be looking at is Senate reform. The west, the northern regions, the Atlantic provinces want accountability too. If we limit the number of seats in the House, then we have to look at strengthening the other place, the Senate chamber. It is something that requires serious consideration.

This whole process, as I said earlier, should have Canadians wondering what the government is all about. Does it really mean that it wants the people involved in government, because it is stifling that by stopping this right now? It is stifling the process for the people of Canada so they cannot make their representations, their concerns and their presentations to these commissions. The commissions were set up independently so government could not be involved and would be at arm's length from the whole process. That is the way it should be.

I have serious concerns about my riding but I am willing to make presentations on behalf of the people of Okanagan-Similkameen-Merritt regarding those concerns. I will not have that opportunity now and the people of Canada do not have the opportunity to do it either.

In closing, I would like to urge all members in every corner of the House to please consider once again what Canadians have asked us to do, to bring accountability back to the House of Commons and to let them be more involved in the democracy process. I want every member of the House consider that. I ask hon. members to support the amendments that are before us today.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, to my hon. colleague across the way, first he mentioned the fact that it is more costly. There is no issue here. The reality is if we proceed-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I wonder if I might seek clarification from the member? Is she on debate? There is no questions or comments period in the standing orders we are presently under. Is the member on debate?

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Yes, I am, Mr. Speaker. Could I ask the Chair a question? When you say am I on debate, what exactly is it that you would like for me to do?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I do not want to put any restrictions on any member, but according to the standing orders of this debate at this time, each member who seeks the floor is recognized by the Chair and has 10 minutes to make his or her intervention.

I wondered if perhaps the member was seeking to ask a question of the member who last spoke. There is no questions or comments period following the interventions at this particular stage of debate. The hon. member for Guelph-Wellington.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member across the way said that this is a costly process, and this side of the House quite agrees with that. People in general and certainly in my riding of Guelph-Wellington have expressed deep concern at the cost of the process and how much will be gained.

The other issue that the member across the floor has talked about is the fact that this would create more government. For us to create more government at a time that people feel we should not be moving in that direction is not responsible.

I do not believe we are taking the position-I certainly am not-that we do not think people should be involved. People should be involved. People have been involved at the local level from riding to riding. Many people have talked to me on this issue and expressed concern. They wished that the government would take a leadership role in deciding what should happen with this issue. We have attempted to do that.

I believe my role when I was elected was to be a leader, to show leadership and to make decisions supported by concrete facts, information building, public information being included in that communication process. I am comfortable with the direction the government is moving in.

The charge by my hon. colleague about Liberal stronghold areas being protected is not so. I cannot agree with that. That would not be the reason I would look at not supporting this amendment. The reality is that many members-I would put myself in this category-find themselves living outside the actual area that they represent. It seems odd to me that there would be decisions and directions moved in this manner.

Another colleague of ours finds part of his farm in one riding and his house in another. This does not seem reasonable. I hope the member across the way knows that some of the boundaries that were proposed are not credible. They do not make sense.

To have a situation in which we would have public input on every single area, 295 ridings or perhaps more-my colleague talks about maybe 300 or 304 ridings, I do not know where this process would end-is not a good thing at this time. The points of view are varied but in general there is wide support for the government.

I will speak on behalf of Guelph-Wellington and the information that I have received from my constituents. It is that this process, the way it was first initiated, was quite a hodge-podge. They are comfortable with us as a government saying no to this process in the manner that it has been proposed. They are concerned about cost and they are concerned about more government.

My colleague has indicated that is the question. That would be the result of the process we are embarked upon at this time. I would say this to members. From my point of view and from what I have been able to gather from public input, from talking to people, they are comfortable with this decision.

This is exactly what the Reform Party wants us to do, listen to our constituents and find out what they truly want us to do. In acting on that I am comfortable on this topic at this time.

[Translation]

[Monique Guay, Bloc, Laurentides, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am convinced I will not have to invite you to come and visit my riding since you must have been there already on skiing vacations. The riding of Laurentides has 43 municipalities and 110,000 voters. It is a huge riding but the new electoral map brings appalling cuts to this area. Without any reason, several municipalities will be taken from my riding and will become part of a neighbouring one.

You must understand that the riding of Laurentides is located along a highway, highway 15 or 117. It is a network, a tourist region and it is therefore very important that the area be maintained as a whole and remain united. If you take municipalities out of a tourist network, it becomes very difficult for those municipalities to make a name for themselves in another riding which may be, for instance, agricultural or something else.

I would like to tell you about municipalities that are very disturbed by the new electoral map and which approached me and explained their problem. You have Mont-Tremblant which is booming and must count on the touristic network of my riding to be able to advertise and attract tourists. If Mont-Tremblant became part of Berthier-Montcalm, which is a totally different kind of riding, the people of Berthier-Montcalm would be hard pressed when it comes to the economic development of Mont-Tremblant. Furthermore, they object to Mont-Tremblant being taken out of my riding.

The town of Saint-Jovite along highway 117 and all those towns to the north, including Labelle, which are part of the tourism network, are being removed and added to Argenteuil-Papineau, which has an entirely different focus. So, of course, the mayors, the councillors and my constituents called and said: What can we do? We do not want to leave the riding of Laurentides. We feel at home here. We do not want to be part of another riding where they may be too busy to look after us, because it takes a long time to cover the whole riding. I have a very big riding with a lot of constituents, and it takes a lot of travelling, but we have a network where everything connects. In fact, we used to have the "petit train du Nord", a train that went through all the municipalities now in my riding. Where the train used to run has now been turned into parkland.

If part of this tourism network is removed and added to another riding which is different again, it will make the park far less attractive because the park needs the Laurentides Tourism Association and the services in my riding to develop as it should.

I am against the amendment, and I think the readjustment process was a hasty affair. They took a map and looked at the number of constituents in a given riding. They decided there should be 75,000 inhabitants per riding, so they take this particular part out and add it on somewhere else. Some ridings have a lot of small municipalities with very few people, but the member may end up with 70 municipalities in the same riding. This does not make sense. A member can never do a good job under those circumstances. To do a good job, the redistribution process must be reasonable. There should also be a good infrastructure.

I know some people in my riding who told me during the election campaign: So I am in Laurentides? I said yes, you belong to the riding of Laurentides. They were not aware of this.

It takes a few years for people to get used to belonging to a riding or to identify with the riding. Shifting people from one riding to the next every eight years does not create a sense of community.

I am also against reducing the number of members, because we already have 110,000 constituents and if we get more, I am going to have trouble looking after everyone. It already takes two and a half hours to drive across the riding. It takes me longer to drive from one end of the riding to the other than it takes to drive to Ottawa. These are huge distances.

The tourism network is in good shape, and people want to stay in that network. I will keep doing my job in my riding. I think it is very important for people to identify with a region. I think it is very important for a region's development. I intend to go on working with my constituents, and if these electoral boundaries have to be changed, the municipalities concerned and I-in fact, I would lose a large number of municipalities which have already been identified-will take steps to prepare a brief and protest against changes that make no sense at all in a region where municipalities need each other to survive.

You know that when people go to Saint-Sauveur, they will also visit another municipality next door. They will see a show in Val-David and have dinner in Sainte-Agathe or go boating there. In this region, we all have to help each other. Otherwise, if you take a few small municipalities and destroy their tourism network or move it somewhere else, you lose the dynamics that tourism needs, because this is not an easy sector.

I will go on doing my job in my beautiful riding of Laurentides, and as far as breaking up the riding is concerned, I will do my utmost to keep that from happening.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I would not want the member for Shefford to be jealous, but I have to say I spent even more time in the Laurentians.

The member for Richelieu.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I almost feel I have to begin my speech by inviting you to come and visit my riding. Even though it has already been said, it is one of the most beautiful in Canada. I think that it comes second after yours, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I will be allowed one more minute for having said that.

The debate on this bill brings me to make some comments that might differ a little bit from the other comments that were made. First, in terms of the relevance of the legislation, it is surprising

to see a government reject a change based on the principle of a better redistribution of ridings on the basis of population.

The proposed reform, after several years of extensive debate and reflection, to allow the representation in the House of Commons to be directly related to the population of a riding, while also taking into account the sense of belonging to a region, while taking into account, for instance, the principle of the regional county municipalities in Quebec, the principle also of the economic relations that can be established in various regions-of course that will and desire of the House and all Quebeckers and Canadians was extremely valid. However, basically, if we really wanted a reform, would we start with that kind of redistribution? We would probably start by asking ourselves what our institutions represent and how useful they are.

Based on that, the first reform would be to ask if we have one House too many. Do we Quebeckers and Canadians still need two Houses? One is commonly called the Senate but in the parliamentary language of the House of Commons we call it "the other House". Do we still need that other House? That would be the first point to consider.

Then we will talk about the distribution and number of ridings, how many people should be represented by a member of Parliament and so on. Ultimately, many Quebeckers and, I am sure, many Canadians want the other House to be abolished.

By attacking the other House, I do not want to attack the venerable people who sit there; we know that there are some very competent individuals. Of course, there are also some bagmen for the big parties such as Mr. Rizzuto for the Liberals and Mr. Nolin for the Conservative Party. They were appointed to their position and they are well-paid party workers who raise funds for the old parties.

But except for these few cases, let us admit that there are some really capable people who should run for election to this House to make their contribution instead of going to that big dormitory, which sometimes becomes a nursery school, as we saw in some debates. But of what use is that big dormitory to which those hon. sleepyheads go? That is the real question.

If we talked about reform by first dealing with the usefulness of the other House, we would realize that the members of that body have knowledge and skills which would be much more useful to the community in this House here. In fact, that other House is a sort of relic of colonialism, meant to protect the interests of the wealthy and to cool the ardour of the people's representatives. That is why one of the requirements to sit in the other House was to have property worth at least $15,000. That requirement still exists, although it is meaningless today, but back then it was a lot. Therefore it was a House to protect the wealthy from some legislation that could have threatened their wealth or economic power.

Over time, the situation evolved. That other House became the defender of the regions. That is why we often heard about the importance of the second Chamber in western Canada, for example, because that House in a sense embodied the regions. Historically, that House had a certain role to play as a defender of the regions; that was acceptable too.

But now, people band together in associations, unions, environmental groups and all kinds of organizations. They have means to make their demands heard and associations to represent them directly to elected officials and they no longer feel a need to have that House to defend them. That House has become so useless that the time has come for us to think about whether it should even exist. Those associations no longer go through the other place. In fact, I wonder how many could answer if I were to ask all the hon. members here the name of the senator representing them in their regions. In my region of Sorel for example, what is the name of our senator? I am involved in politics myself, yet I do not know. If I, as a politician, do not know who my senator is, you can imagine that he must not be getting much mail or too many calls. There are even senators who refuse to give out their fax numbers. I found that out when some of my constituents said: "Maybe we could stop that unemployment insurance bill from going through in the Senate; give us the fax number." So, I phoned around and, as it turned out, almost half of the senators I phoned refused to give out their fax numbers; they did not want to be disturbed. It is incredible, but true.

My point is that the upper house has lost its raison d'être, and that may be where reform should start. Let us start by reviewing the need for our institutions. Based on that review, we will be able to say: "The other place no longer meets our needs; it must be abolished." That would mean $40 million, $60 million or $70 million less to collect from the taxpayers. Furthermore, the senators' expertise could be put to good use elsewhere. They are obviously committed to politics if they agreed to sit in the other place. So, we are telling them: "Get elected democratically and come and sit with us in the House of Commons. Find a seat. Get the people's seal of approval."

This leads to the next question. Are there enough members in this House or too many? As far as I am concerned, the answer rests in the comparison between Canada and other democratic nations, preferably North American democratic nations.

Let us take the United States as an example. They have a legislative body, the members of which are not called members of Parliament, but congressmen. If I recall correctly, there are some 450 of them representing 250 million people, while we are 295 for a population of 25 million. If the United States were to have as many congressmen as we have members of Parliament in Canada, they would need 2,950 seats in the Congress. Their

population being 10 times ours, they would have ten times more members of Parliament than we do, relatively speaking. Obviously, something is wrong.

Do you think it is right for a small province like Prince Edward Island, a province no bigger than my riding, to have 32 MLAs, four federal MPs, one representative of the Queen, one lieutenant governor and even, at times, one Supreme Court judge? Obviously, something is wrong. And that is the true reform which should take place.

Abolish the other place and reduce the number of MPs. Do not increase their number, reduce it. If there were 150 of us here, it would be more than enough, because what is the role of MPs once they have been elected, especially government members? They do nothing but vote according to the whip's instructions. They are like sheep. The best example is the one provided by the member opposite who is looking at me with a smile. These people roared like big cats when they formed the opposition, but have now become sheep or paper tigers with no role to play. They simply sit and when the bells ring they come and vote like sheep. They do not even ask themselves whether they should have been consulted. They are not consulted at all.

If there were 150 MPs, or half the current number, perhaps the debates would be more democratic, with a greater participation. This is what reform should be all about. A reform should first look at the institutions and their relevancy. Then, there should be a second debate on the number of MPs, followed by a third one on the role of the member of Parliament. It goes without saying that the MP's role is to represent his or her riding, to act as ombudsman and protector of the individual who has a problem with UI, the company which did not get a subsidy, or the person or organization who made representations and did not get an answer from a minister or the government. The MP is also a legislator, but that is unfortunately the role which is most neglected. In my next speech, I would like to elaborate on this extremely important role of legislator which MPs should have but do not have right now in our institutions as they currently exist.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to respond to some of the remarks-

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Richelieu, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not think that we have a quorum.

[Some hon. members]

Quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

I will ask the clerk to count the members present.

And the count having been taken:

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

We have a quorum. Resuming debate.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, before I talk on Bill C-18, I would like to respond to some of the remarks made by my friend from the Bloc who spoke before me. He mentioned the other place and suggested that we should do away with it. He said there was a growing mood in Canada for abolishing the Senate.

I would like to address that and say that the reason the other place has no credibility right now is that it is not elected and it is not accountable.

I suggest it is essential for the future of Canada and for regional fairness that we have a strong and vibrant Senate. Our vision is that senators should be elected and be accountable and there should be regional fairness in their distribution.

Going to Bill C-18, I have spoken on this issue before. I have to say we are very much opposed to this bill because it smacks of political interference.

It is very clear from the news reports I read in British Columbia while I was there for the recent hiatus that people in that province are deeply concerned that what we have here is business as usual. We have politicians who when they do not like something, instead of going through due process and allowing a fair and unbiased process to proceed, want to get involved by commandeering that process and steering it in a direction that is favourable to them.

Furthermore there is a good deal of concern among taxpayers that we have $5 million invested in this process right now and we are in danger of losing that. As a matter of fact we will lose the value of that money if this process is indeed suspended for 24 months and the commissions are abolished.

At the same time the government talks about a commitment to capping the number of MPs it attacks us on these benches for not wanting to see this happen. We have asked time and again and have moved an amendment to say if you want our support on a motion then instead of saying you are going to review the number of MPs, cap the number of MPs, make a firm commitment to it. There is no commitment in Bill C-18 to do this.

I find it very difficult to support a motion which we only look at reviewing the number of MPs, only look at studying something. If we do not think it is right then we should make a commitment up front that we are going to come up with a formula for capping the number of MPs.

I think the government would find a good deal of support from this side of the House, possibly unanimous support, if it moved in that direction but we have not seen that. I was in my riding recently, as were most members. I received very little expression of concern from my constituents on the matter of electoral boundary changes. Believe me, my riding changes dramatically, maybe not as dramatically as some of the other people in this House but it does change dramatically. It increases by about 25 per cent. I already have one of the largest geographic ridings in Canada. It is very difficult for a member to service now and it is going to become even more difficult under the proposed changes to the electoral boundaries commission.

However, there is a process in place and the people in my constituency are prepared to live with that process. They are prepared to work within it. I believe that should be the position that all of us take as members in this House, that rather than trying to hijack the process we work within it.

Because the process will be suspended for 24 months if this bill passes, British Columbia and Ontario will go into the next century, indeed the next millennium, with the same electoral boundaries and the same distribution they had based on the 1980 census. If there is one thing that generates a good deal of concern and anger in British Columbia, and I am sure that Ontario feels the same way, it is the fact that we are being short-changed. We are not receiving a proper representation based on our population, which is something our democracy ascribes to. I have been hearing a lot from my constituents on that.

Let me suggest that the government proceeds with this bill at its political peril in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada as well. If the country goes into another election without redistribution having taken place, there will be a price to pay and the government should be aware of that. There is a strong feeling and strong sentiment in British Columbia that that is the case. People are not happy with that.

If the government wants to introduce Bill C-18 and wants to have an opportunity to examine the process, why not do it in 12 months? Certainly anything that can be done in 24 months can be done in 12 months. We do not see a reason for holding up the process any longer than is necessary. Furthermore we do not see a requirement to suspend or to abolish the present commissions and come up with new commissions 24 months from now and start all over at square one. Why not at least retain some of the value of the dollars that have been spent?

I support the Reform amendments for those reasons.

I feel very strongly that the government should make a statement that it is going to cap the number of seats rather than just talk about reviewing the number of seats. We have to put a firm cap on the number of seats. We have to show Canadians that we are indeed concerned about the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. We certainly do not need more representatives in this House than we have now to oversee the affairs of the country.

We want to retain the current commissions and preserve the value of the work that has been done. This can be done and still allow the government the opportunity to review the work of the electoral boundaries commissions and to review the process that is in place. I support very strongly that if we suspend the process we only suspend it for 12 months and not 24 months.

We must keep the process scrupulously non-partisan and non-political. We must do it in a way that Canadians can see that we have not engaged in political interference, that it is not business as usual, that we have not looked at trying to further or protect our own political interests, but looked at the best way to achieve redistribution and electoral boundaries changes based on what is best for the country.

We must ensure that representation by population is observed in the next election. As I said earlier, the government is going to have a very heavy political price to pay if it does not follow that. I reiterate again that British Columbians are very unhappy. They will be very unhappy if they go into an election in 1996, 1997, 1998 or whenever it happens with the same boundaries that they have had based on the census of 1980.

B.C. and Ontario deserve nothing less than a fair shake as do all of the provinces when it comes to distribution. We must continue to subscribe to representation by population. This bill flies in the face of that and will put British Columbia and Ontario at a disadvantage in the next election.