Debates of April 12th, 1994

Via Rail

[Joe Fontana, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the member for Perth-Wellington-Waterloo.

I should point out that these rumours are simply that, rumours, and are based on unfounded speculation. This government has not made any decisions on service levels to VIA but members in this House should understand that the levels of budget for VIA have been established by way of the budget that was tabled in February.

VIA is presently undertaking negotiations with its labour unions. We are hopeful that it in fact can gain the efficiencies that it needs, that labour will co-operate in those deliberations and that in fact the public will also participate because the solution to a viable passenger rail system in this country is that all stakeholders can in fact make it possible.

No decisions have been made by this government, nor will they until such time as those negotiations have been completed.

Sexual Violence

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice.

After he promised on International Women's Day to consider the possibility of criminalizing excision, the Minister of Justice told us yesterday that he does not intend to amend the Criminal Code or to introduce specific provisions to deal with this form of sexual violence.

The minister considers the present provisions on assault to be sufficient. However, many countries, including France and Great Britain, have felt the need to legislate specifically on excision.

Why does the minister refuse to criminalize excision, when by doing so he could send a clear message to those who are guilty of it?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday I tabled a document with the House following question period in which I furnished written information with respect to the conclusions to which I had come on the subject of female genital mutilation, making it clear that I concluded after investigating the matter during the past month that the response lies not in further change to the Criminal Code but rather more effective education and enforcement of the present laws.

The document I tabled made it clear that during the past 30 days I conferred with among others the attorney general of Ontario. I have spoken to members of a task force which she put in place. I met in my office with the chair and members of the National Women's Committee that produced the report that gave rise to the original question. I examined the factual situation in Ontario, Quebec and British Columbia, the provinces in which this problem is most pronounced. The consensus of opinion was that the focus of the federal government at this time should be on education in partnership with the provinces and community groups. That is where we are going to solve this problem and lessen its incidence, not in further amendments to the Criminal Code. That is the conclusion to which I came.

[Pierrette Venne, Bloc, Saint-Hubert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, would the minister have us believe that these opinions and studies and those of his advisers will be more effective than formal legislation making excision illegal?

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, female genital mutilation is already a criminal misdeed in this country. It is plainly contrary to at least three sections of the Criminal Code.

Yesterday I furnished the hon. member with a copy of the document that I tabled with the House setting forth the analysis upon which I rely for those conclusions.

In my respectful view, it is not going to help dealing with this difficult and tragic problem for us to refine further a code that already prohibits the misconduct. Our focus must be on ensuring that the people who arrive as immigrants and the people who are in Canada already are aware that it is against the law and that the provincial authorities work with us in enforcing those laws sternly and efficiently. I believe that is the way to come to grips with this problem and that is the conclusion which I expressed in the document that I tabled.

Violent Crime

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the justice minister. Perhaps that is reflective of the growing fears of Canadians of the incidence of home invasions, drive-by shootings and other random acts of violence in this country.

I would ask the minister what specifically he intends to do to curb this urban terrorism and protect the safety of law-abiding citizens.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Mr. Speaker, may I first take this opportunity to say that I do not share the alarmist sense that the hon. member communicates in her question.

Of course I am appalled, as all Canadians are, with the savagery and the senselessness of the crimes to which she has referred. Clearly we cannot tolerate such violent crime in this country.

At the same time I urge the hon. member and Canadians to keep this issue in context. This country has a justice system which works. The statistics demonstrate that in terms of violent crime and crime in general in Canada we are still a civilized society.

I will conclude by saying that we should not be stampeded by these single events by jumping into what seem to be simple solutions. At the same time, we have to take them for what they are, symptoms that further actions require. By changes to the Criminal Code, the Young Offenders Act and by focusing on crime-

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Calgary North.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely respect this minister, but I would say that voicing the concerns of my constituents and other Canadians should not be labelled by the minister as alarmist.

In fact, I would suggest to the minister that his continued answers to the effect that, yes, there is a clear problem that we are deeply concerned about but let us stay cool is not an answer at all to Canadians.

I would ask when the minister is going to table the changes to the Criminal Code and the Young Offenders Act that Canadians have been demanding and expecting. They want to know a timeframe.

[Allan Rock, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

I will be brief, Mr. Speaker.

When I said that I did not want the hon. member to be an alarmist, I respect the concern. I am just saying that we should keep it in context and that basically we have a safe and civilized society.

In terms of timeframe, I have already said that I propose to bring to this House before the end of June specific proposals to

change the Young Offenders Act and, at the same time, to turn it over to the parliamentary committee for its detailed review.

I have said as well that we are going to have legislation before the House before the end of June on other changes to the Criminal Code, including with respect to sentencing. We propose to fulfil that undertaking.

[The Speaker]

I thank the minister for being brief.

World Nordic Games

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

In March 1995 Thunder Bay will host the World Nordic Games. Our community, through the great work of all the volunteers, has worked very hard for the last four years to make sure that this event is an international success. The city and the province have also committed over $8 million, but unfortunately the federal government has failed to even come close to this amount, in fact less than a quarter.

Since the games are less than a year away, I ask the minister how much he is going to commit financially today to the Nordic Games, when will he make that commitment, and when will he announce what services will be provided so that the people who are involved in this process can get on with their job of making it a success?

[Michel Dupuy, Liberal, Minister of Canadian Heritage]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his short question.

I share his concern that the Nordic Games be a great success because I think it will bring a lot of tourism and business to North Bay.

The federal government has committed $2 million and is honouring its commitment. It is looking into the possibility of providing services to make sure that the games are a success. We are in close consultation with the minister concerned in Ontario and with the mayor of Thunder Bay. I am confident that putting our efforts together will ensure great games at Thunder Bay.

Presence In Gallery

[The Speaker]

Order. I wish to draw to your attention the presence in the gallery of Mr. Olexander Stoyan, member of the new Parliament of the Ukraine.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

Points Of Order

[Jean Chrétien, Liberal, Prime Minister]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a little correction to an answer I gave earlier on the number of people who are bilingual in Canada, when I referred to the francophone and anglophone population. What I should have said was that in 1971, 3 per cent outside of Quebec were fluent in the two official languages, and now because of our policy of bilingualism in Canada it has almost quadrupled at 11 per cent.

[Joe Comuzzi, Liberal, Thunder Bay—Nipigon, ON]

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I remind the Minister of Canadian Heritage that if he is going to North Bay to look for the World Nordic Games he won't find them.

Privilege

[Warren Allmand, Liberal, Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a point of privilege with respect to a statement made by the hon. member for Crowfoot in the House on March 25, the last sitting day before the Easter recess. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise the matter.

In a question to the Minister of Justice the hon. member stated that I had said: "that convicted murderers like Clifford Olson should not have to serve more than 15 years for their crimes."

Mr. Speaker, I want to make it absolutely clear that I never made such a statement. The statement by the member is absolutely false and I would ask him to apologize and withdraw his statement.

[The Speaker]

Order. The hon. member surely has a point of debate. I am sure there are other avenues that he can pursue at this time, but he does not have a point of privilege.

The House resumed consideration of report stage of Bill C-18.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I also have the pleasure-

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

Order, please. I wonder if members would come to order so that we might be able to resume debate.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems that the question period was very lively. The debate is still heated.

So, I also have the pleasure to speak to Bill C-18, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994.

Of course, as you were able to see from the various statements made since this morning, the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of the bill. Since the beginning of the electoral boundaries readjustment process, the Bloc Quebecois members, in keeping with the Elections Act, have decided to get involved in that process so as to defend the interests of their constituents, of their fellow citizens.

This morning, you heard our colleague, the member for Shefford, say that he has always resided in the riding of Shefford and that with the new provisions or new proposals introduced by the Chief Electoral Officer, he would become a resident of the riding of Chambly. So, it would be somewhat unusual for an individual who has always resided in one particular riding to represent a riding in which he has never resided, simply because of changes made to electoral boundaries.

That is why we support the principle of this bill, which is to temporarily suspend the electoral boundaries readjustment process. Of course, we also support the principle of an equal vote for all citizens. But that principle, when applied too restrictively and too mechanically, can produce unfortunate distortions, and I will have the opportunity to get back to that later.

The readjustment of electoral boundaries at fixed intervals prevents the development, the building of a sense of belonging to one's riding. The example that I mentioned earlier concerning my colleague from Shefford is certainly one of the best we can give. He explained it to you very well a while ago. He has been a resident of the riding of Shefford for many years. He now represents this riding in the House of Commons and by virtue of the amendments proposed by the Chief Electoral Officer, he would become a resident of the riding of Chambly but would remain the member for Shefford. Therefore, I believe there are anomalies that must be avoided.

This case of my colleague from Shefford shows that people who live in the fringe areas of their electoral district and then switch periodically from one district to another on account of readjustments of the electoral map find it very difficult to develop a sense of belonging and to identify with their riding because of all this moving around.

As far as demographic criteria are concerned-as I said earlier-we fully support the principle of a equal vote for each citizen of Canada and of Quebec. We do support the principle that each citizen must be represented by a member of Parliament and that this representation is as important as that of any other citizen throughout this country. However, the demographic criterion used for the readjustment of the electoral boundaries too often masks other criteria which should be as important, such as social, economic cultural factors which, I think, should also be taken into consideration in the readjustment of the boundaries of this constituency.

As I emphasized earlier, this sense of belonging, the possibility of identifying with our riding, with the people of our riding are surely as valid as the strictly mathematical calculations mainly used for the readjustment of the electoral boundaries. These calculations inhibit the creation of a type of interaction specific to a riding, to a community. It is a fact that has been recognized, not so long ago, only a few months ago, by the National Assembly which amended its elections act to prevent further readjustment of the electoral boundaries for the next ten years.

It is thus assumed that there will not be any readjustment of the electoral boundaries in Quebec for ten years, which means that for ten years, the residents of a district will be able to feel part of their community and to identify with their MNA. Electoral boundaries are not readjusted at each election as was the case before under the Quebec elections act.

I think that we are now considering the spirit behind Bill C-18. We support the bill, for the reasons I have just stated. In fact, we are not afraid to say that. I will come back to that a bit later. If we have to consider amendments, we will perhaps have to think of redrawing the electoral boundaries on the demographic basis that I talked about earlier. However, as my colleague for Richelieu mentioned earlier this morning, we have to contemplate a more thorough reform of the parliamentary institutions and, in doing so-we know we cannot use certain terms-reassess the role of the other Chamber, the Upper House.

My colleague from Richmond-Wolfe, who is with us this afternoon, and my colleague from Richelieu talked about that issue regularly, and I think that it is quite justified. My colleague from Richelieu said that there are in fact, in the Upper House, a number of people with quite valuable and useful expertise, but those people often end up in that Chamber for reasons that are not too valid. People often get appointed to the Senate strictly on a partisan basis.

Therefore, their legitimacy is very questionable. The suggestion of my colleague from Richelieu was that those people who are qualified, who have plenty of skills should be able to use their skills in this House where people are democratically elected and where their legitimacy cannot be questioned. It was suggested that we should eventually revise and reform our parliamentary institutions and abolish that timeworn and rusty institution that supports friends of the party, friends of the government who periodically, depending on which party sits on the other side of this House, cause changes in the majorities in the other place. Then we could eventually consider such a reform.

Speaking of reform, I am wondering about the participation of our colleagues in the Reform Party in this debate. We are presently discussing a motion brought by them, but for some time now I have seen only members of the Bloc Quebecois taking the floor. I believe therefore we should question the seriousness of our colleagues who bring in a motion and leave it to members of the Bloc Quebecois to speak on that motion.

I therefore invite my colleagues in the Reform Party to be consistent and to rise on their own motion. We should not be surprised by the silence of our Liberal friends, although it is absolutely deplorable for the electors of the various ridings represented by Liberal members to see those members being so absent and silent during a debate of such significance for the future of their constituents. The interests of the constituents of those ridings represented by those Liberal members are at stake.

That being said, I will now leave the floor, at least I hope, to a member of the Reform Party.

[Maurice Dumas, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all my colleagues have already invited you to visit their riding. I do not have to do the same, since you probably have been to Mirabel Airport a few times to catch a plane. You were then in the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau.

With the last electoral reform, the population of Argenteuil-Papineau would rise from 72,000 to 98,000. Should I rejoice in this increase, or deplore the changes in the electoral map?

Before making my case, I would like to talk about some of the anomalies or aberrations created by the reorganization of electoral maps or any other boundary change requiring expropriations. I would like to relate a rather bizarre event which took place when part of Sainte-Scholastique was expropriated to make room for Mirabel Airport.

I do not know who determined what lands were to be expropriated, but an astounding event occurred in the village where I live, Saint-Canut. A line was drawn through the middle of a house, through the middle of a property. Really, it did happen. The house was later demolished but, at the time, people wondered why certains parts of the village were being expropriated and others not.

This reminds me of different electoral map anomalies. My colleague from Laurentides represents the neighbouring riding, where two municipalities are included in totally inappropriate territories. For example, the village of Sainte-Sophie is adjacent to the riding of Laurentides. Children go to school in Saint-Jérôme which is in the riding of Laurentides. Sainte-Sophie is socially part of the riding of Laurentides, but on the electoral map, it is part of the riding of my colleague from Joliette.

Moreover, that same riding of Laurentides includes the municipality of Chertsey, which is much closer to the riding of Joliette. In view of this fact, how, I wonder, do senior officials, cartographers, geographers, all those people who draw boundaries, manage to get such results?

Personally, I cannot complain about the electoral reform since the areas which would be added to my riding, namely the city of Saint-Jovite, the village of Lac-Carré, as well as La Minerve, La Conception, Labelle, Lac-Supérieur and Mont-Tremblant, are all part of a strong sovereignist riding which, for decades now, has been represented by the Parti Quebecois in Quebec's national assembly. So, as a sovereignist and partisan of a sovereign Quebec, I should be pleased with an addition to my riding which I am likely to benefit from.

However, Mr. Speaker, I must tell you that in the best case scenario, I will not be campaigning in the next federal election, for the simple reason that important events will have taken place in Quebec. Indeed, the Parti Quebecois will surely be elected in the coming year. A referendum will be held the following year and, at that time, Quebec will become a country and a sovereign nation. Consequently, my colleagues from the Bloc Quebecois and I will no longer be in the picture during the next federal election. However, the fact remains that, as members currently representing Quebec, we have to play the role which we assumed and we must defend Quebeckers' interests, and this is precisely what we are doing today.

Two municipalities would be added; I just mentioned Saint-Jovite. Earlier, my colleague from Laurentides deplored the fact that Saint-Jovite and the surrounding municipalities which I just named would become part of the riding of Argenteuil-Papineau. I have no complaint about that, but I think that these municipalities have nothing in common with Argenteuil-Papineau, since they are located in the south-north axis from Saint-Jérôme to Mont-Laurier. Moreover, these communities all have an identical profile, they belong to similar regions

which they must continue to be part of, and I believe that Saint-Jovite should remain part of the riding of Laurentides.

Thurso is also being added to my riding. This municipality is of course located on the way to Ottawa, and its mayor, councillors and citizens have openly voiced their opposition to their community becoming part of Argenteuil-Papineau. I can understand that, since this municipality is much closer to the Outaouais region than to the regions of Lachute, Mirabel or even Oka, which are also part of Argenteuil-Papineau.

Consequently, I have little choice but to oppose the amendment proposed by the Reform Party.

[René Canuel, Bloc, Matapédia—Matane, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the excellent speeches made by my colleagues and I will not repeat what they just said. I simply want to know how some decisions that make absolutely no sense are arrived at.

What are the reasons for making a riding in eastern Quebec disappear? And I am talking about my riding, Matapédia-Matane. Geographically, it is one of the most beautiful ridings, and the people who live there and whom I have the pleasure of serving are truly attached to their RCM and to their parish. I have travelled throughout the riding and people are very disappointed. Is this decision based simply on a demographic ratio? Are numbers the only important factor? Apparently, yes, Mr. Speaker.

For a region like mine, a rural MP is terribly important. I do not mean to say that MPs from urban areas are not important, but I would say that maybe rural MPs are particularly important because of the distances involved. The various parishes are approximately ten miles apart. It takes hours, if not days, just to go around my riding.

In our part of the country, the MP plays an essential role. Just spend one day in my office in Matane, Amqui or Mont-Joli and you will know what is asked of an MP there. It is incredible. After going everywhere else, people end up inevitably in their MP's office because they trust him. He has a say in the important decisions on regional development.

Regions experiencing growth face different problems than regions which are in decline. Unfortunately, our region is in decline. Is the importance of rural people being neglected in the distribution of electoral districts? I think so. Rural people are not considered important and I would even say that they are treated as second-class citizens. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but there is no such thing as a second-class citizen. Every person has the right to live where he or she wants to, to feel a sense of belonging to the place where he or she lives, and that sense of belonging must be respected. Unfortunately, this was not to be the case in my riding.

In our view, the commission's proposal will only further impede recovery in an area that is already considered to be among the poorest. It will mean the loss of a much-needed voice in Parliament for eastern Quebec. It would make it harder for a member of Parliament to defend the interests of an ever-larger riding.

This proposal would not allow cultural, political and socio-economic forces to do all they could to bring about the economic recovery everyone wants, especially in our underdeveloped regions. This goes beyond simple statistical calculations and the straightforward application of a demographic formula.

I am very happy that the subject has been raised in the House because when I toured my riding, I noticed that there was widespread dissatisfaction. People were asking: Will we feel like voting in a federal election if the federal government shows no respect for our community, our living environment?

In Quebec, regional county municipalities are becoming more and more important and I think that it is a good thing. The boundaries of a federal riding are also very important. People are wondering whether they will go to vote if they change ridings.

As I said earlier, there are now five ridings in eastern Quebec: Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Gaspé, Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, Matapédia-Matane and Rimouski-Témiscouata. The ridings of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup and Rimouski-Témiscouata have a population of about 73,000. The riding of Gaspé is the largest with an area of 12,268 square kilometres. My riding, Matapédia-Matane, is close behind with an area of 10,959 square kilometres, and the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, is the smallest with 5,476 square kilometres. As for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, it is the least populated, with 52,000 inhabitants. Is the number of inhabitants the only criterion? I say no. There are other criteria.

As for the number of municipalities in each riding, Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup has the most, 49. In Matapédia-Matane, there are 46. The riding of Gaspé has the fewest, 30.

In the proposals made by the commission, the number of ridings in the East would decrease from five to four. The riding of Matapédia-Matane would no longer exist. The riding of Gaspé would see its population increase from 62,000 to 80,000 with the reform. The riding of Gaspé-Matane would cover a gigantic area of 17,783 square kilometers.

If you tried to cover that distance in Toronto or Montreal, you would soon be all over the city.

The riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will also be significantly enlarged to 11,375 square kilometers from 8,155 square kilometers.

The Bloc Quebecois cannot accept eliminating a riding in the East. If we lose a riding, we will lose political influence in the House of Commons, and so will our region. However, I share my colleague's view that hopefully in four years we will not have to ask ourselves these questions.

As a rural region, eastern Quebec would once more be marginalized by this redrawing of the electoral map. The rural community is in crisis. It is particularly the people from those small parishes who come to see their member of Parliament more often.

At a time when many organizations and stakeholders want to decentralize government services and bring elected representatives closer to the people, reducing the number of ridings would go against the wishes of the people.

We deplore that, again, taxpayers will have to bear the cost of this reform.

The riding of Gaspé-Matane would include communities like Amqui, Cap-Chat, Gaspé and Matane. So try to imagine the distance the member will have to travel to meet his constituents, and vice versa.

Earlier, a member said that VIA Rail did not exist anymore in our region. Buses are a rare sight. Our roads are in bad shape. What is left for these people to travel? They have nothing, and the government now wants to increase the size of their riding. That is absolutely senseless, and that is why I share my colleagues' view.