Debates of April 13th, 1994

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on Bill C-18 at third reading. I would like to remind you that during debate on second reading, I stressed the fundamentally democratic nature of the Bloc Quebecois and its

intention to respect the character and autonomy of the people it represents in every riding of Quebec.

I would like to draw the attention of the member from Calgary West, who is wondering about our intentions, trying to understand our approach, to the strongly held democratic beliefs of the Bloc members. I would add that one of our party's main objectives-particularly when it comes to Quebec independence-is, as I have already said, to follow the democratic process every step of the way.

We are taking part in this debate for much more significant reasons than party politics, since, as a number of my colleagues stated in this House, the decentralization process started a few years ago in Quebec is being accelerated and decision-making powers are being transferred back to the regions.

Today I want to say again that the Bloc Quebecois is in favour of Bill C-18, a bill to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act for a two-year period and abolish the 11 electoral boundaries commissions. Our goal in supporting this legislation which suspends the operation of the Act for two years is, as you will have understood, to respect the regional character of the population and, at the same time, to avoid hampering the process of decentralization towards these same regions that is now under way in Quebec.

Yesterday, I was pointing out in this House that the government in office, the Liberal government, does not usually understand the deep meaning of decentralization. In our fundamental reasons in favour of that readjustment, we are stressing that if, and I repeat if, Quebec is still in the Confederation when this step takes place, we would want to make sure at that time that all of this decentralization pursued by Quebec would be fully respected.

However, as I mentioned yesterday, the Bloc Quebecois supports Bill C-18 with some reservations. First of all, it seems essential that we denounce once again the arbitrariness and inconsistency of some boundaries established in the past. To that effect, we must emphasize the importance of administrative divisions in Quebec. I remind you that these administrative zones not only have a strategic importance for Quebec, but they are also based on fundamental geographic, economic, industrial and cultural considerations, and we must fully understand all the work done by the economic, cultural and geographic communities in Quebec.

As long as Quebec remains part of the Canadian Confederation, the federal commissions readjusting electoral boundaries will have to take into consideration regional county municipalities as well as administrative regions.

As I said in my first speech, and this is the reason for our second reservation about Bill C-18, we consider decision-making an essential element of regional policy for the year 2000. Yet decentralized economic and social development is absent from Canadian policy as seen by the highly centralizing Liberal government. Again, the Liberal government's centralizing thrust works against the process and the work being done in Quebec.

Let us not be afraid of words; let us not deny history; it is high time that Quebec broke free from this centralizing federalism which is extremely costly and leading us to bankruptcy.

Decentralization of the political and economic decision making process appears to us equally essential to the creation of jobs in RCMs, particularly in my area of Sherbrooke, in Val-Saint-François and in the Asbestos region. Therefore, in the spirit of the reform of the Minister of Regional Development of Quebec, Mr. Picotte, and following the consolidation of regional development councils, the Bloc Quebecois commits itself to entrust the regions with political and economic decision-making.

The Bloc Quebecois proposes that the Government of Quebec should not be the only one involved in the developing of a consistent economic policy. The general direction of development must be defined by the regions in the first place.

I personally support the approach proposed by the Bélanger-Campeau Commission, according to which regional authorities are synonymous with regional government. Regional development councils will enjoy the credibility that comes with being elected and have the authority to pass regulations and raise taxes.

The rest of the provinces have to be told that. This way, Quebec remains original and authentic in its approach to regional development.

Decentralization of a central government, this bureaucratic monster which is well known to civil servants, must come from political sovereignty.

The Bloc Quebecois believes that decentralization of government funds and political power is the only way to promote development in eight regional strategic areas defined by the regional council of Eastern Townships, which brings us to the redistribution of all constituencies in the Eastern Townships.

Last spring, in the five-year development plan for the Eastern Townships, local decision makers were able to identify three major development themes.

First, development strategies are defined according to problems caused by delays and all the catching up to do. By promoting resource development, manpower training, research, technological development and business networking, these local

decision-makers are influencing economic development throughout the country.

Hence, we truly believe that people should feel they belong to their region and that ridings should be defined according to common interests shared by municipalities. That basically explains our position on Bill C-18.

Second, in any forward looking approach, it is primarily at the local level that development policy can be defined based on natural and cultural assets of the RCMs and on environmental protection.

Third, we should always start from a decision at the local level, when defining a set of criteria for building on our strengths through investments to modernize our agriculture, forestry and mining sectors and make them more competitive. Therefore, it is primarily for structural reasons that we support this bill.

If my colleagues will bear with me, I will try to explain the reasons behind specific actions by Quebec. Human resources development, manpower training, the potential for natural and cultural development, research and development, environmental protection, natural resources industries and business networking are a priority for my team, and we believe that the RCMs of my riding of Richmond-Wolfe and other Quebec ridings, and the revised electoral boundaries, will be the basis for economic development.

My question is: Should we be always waiting for federal subsidies to boost research and development in the RCMs of Val-Saint-François and Sherbrooke? No. The Bloc Quebecois replies that the time has come to repatriate all powers and public funds which belong to us as a sovereign country and to share them with the regions which represent the real power.

In Richmond-Wolfe, the Bloc Quebecois wants to do more than change the structure and the riding boundaries. We want some logic.

[Some hon. members]

Good.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

The members across the way are reacting to these words because they are not familiar with them. Do they know the words logic and decentralization? Decentralization is part of a logical process of regional self-management based on grass-roots democracy. Does that mean something to you?

Our approach favours the emergence of very decentralized and unbureaucratic organizations. Having read the Auditor General's report, we know the high cost of this bureaucratic monster, which is leading us straight to bankruptcy. In short, we oppose all authoritarian social and economic management policies of unified and centralizing administrations, like the Liberal government, which are ruining this country's finances, let us get that clear it once and for all.

By favouring the decentralization of decision-making, we will help the people in the ridings work for regional development instead of trying to develop an impossible Canada.

Adopting Bill C-18 on third reading is a good thing, but, in closing, I wish to say to hon. members that the next stage, consideration by the Senate, is not really essential for us. That institution costs us $43 million a year, but does not produce anything. Nevertheless, Bill C-18 is now at third reading, and we support it.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech of the hon. member for Richmond-Wolfe and I had the feeling that maybe the one who wrote his speech is the same person who wrote the speech of the hon. member for Bellechasse, because both have nearly the same theme. I wonder why he can discuss sovereignty or the separation of Quebec in a speech on new electoral boundaries throughout Canada. It is incredible! Maybe logic defies reason in his speech. In any case, I have a question for the hon. member.

Does he think that he will stay in this House after a referendum, if Quebec says yes to Canada and wants to stay here with other Canadians? If that is the decision, will he remain a member in this House and will he participate as a member, as he is doing now, and abandon his ideas of sovereignty and separation in order to defend his constituents' real interests?

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased that the hon. member is so receptive to the idea of openly discussing sovereignty in this House and that he is prepared to accept some of the arguments that have been raised here so that together we can consider what lies ahead for us.

Our course of action will be quite straightforward. Yes, the Parti Quebecois will win the next election in Quebec. A referendum process will be launched and will be won by the Parti Quebecois. The members of the Bloc Quebecois will be pleased to work in Quebec with considerable open-mindedness with a view to laying the groundwork for negotiations with English Canada. Yes, we will be participating in the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to comment on the speech by my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe. In my opinion, his comments were most relevant to this debate, unlike what the government member had to say.

He spoke at length about decentralization. I would like him to explain to us a little more how he would go about ensuring that

the will of local communities is respected if and when the process of redrawing the electoral map is undertaken.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to provide an adequate answer, I must point out that regional county municipalities in Quebec-as my colleagues have explained in detail-are municipalities grouped together and whose economic, cultural and social activities are closely related and involve people commuting between home and the workplace. These regional county municipalities were asked to develop strategic plans and first review all the problems experienced in their region, in terms of employment and social, educational and cultural development.

Once the diagnosis was established, a strategic plan was developed for each regional county municipality. Let me use the example of the Eastern Townships, where there are seven regional county municipalities. Together, these municipalities examined and put together their strategic development plans, and then quickly selected major thrusts and common development projects, favouring a decentralization of the Quebec government to the regions, a transfer-the hon. member opposite should listen-of funds to the decision makers at the regional level and, consequently, a decision-making process with real spending power.

When we look at the proposed electoral reform, we realize that this structure is not understood and is simply ignored. The powers that be in Ottawa do not understand this structure and they draw electoral boundaries which systematically undermine an effort which has already been going on for some ten years in Quebec. These are the major structuring arguments which lead us to participate in this debate, and this may be the reason why some hon. members are not listening to what we are saying.

If hon. members are receptive, they will understand that what is taking place in Quebec is really a decentralization in favour of the real decision makers, those who are key players in the field. First, these people can identify problems and, second, they can provide original and effective solutions.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on the proposed suspension of the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. I rise to oppose Bill C-18 and to support the Reform amendment to that bill.

There are three issues here that need to be addressed and have been addressed. I would like to put my thoughts to them. The first one is the issue of government interference with due process; the second is the issue of proper representation for the people of Canada; the third is the proper use of funds and the affordability of the process that we are looking at.

In terms of government interference there are several things I feel the government is doing in proposing this bill. In 1964 the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act put into place a system that was non-partisan and operated under general principles, a system to look at electoral boundaries within our country and make a choice in a system to make it fair to Canadians.

On a whim the government has decided to dismantle a due process. The people of Canada look at the motivation and wonder what motivates this and what in future might happen the same way, as well as government interference in the process here in this House in terms of time allocation and the closure on bills.

I have a quote here from a few years ago of a former member of this House who represented a constituency in B.C. when closure was enacted by a former Conservative government to enact the legislation that this government is trying to annul.

Let me quote from Hansard of December 17, 1985. The Right Hon. John Turner stated:

The proposal of the government to impose closure on Bill C-74, an act which in effect amends the Constitution of this country with regard to the number of members who have the right to sit in this Chamber, cuts very deeply into the ability of the House to represent adequately the people of Canada. The House of Commons, its make-up, its essence and how we operate should not be tampered with in a careless, callous and cavalier fashion.

I warn those who sit on all sides of this House, particularly those who sit on the backbenches of the Conservative government, to take heed and pay close attention to what the government is attempting to do, because it affects all of us and our ability to represent adequately the people who did us the honour of sending us to the House.

This is the first time in the history of the House that a government has made redistribution a partisan issue.

Now we have a second time.

At all times previously redistribution, a measure to redivide the seats of the House of Commons, has been done in a non-partisan, impartial manner. There was all-party agreement, in fact for 30 years.

If the action so heartily condemned by the leader of the Liberal Party was wrong then, why is it suddenly so right now? Does time change these things, or is it power? Suddenly debate and a thorough review of the best approach to take in an atmosphere of freedom are no longer valid concerns when he is the one in power.

Is it any surprise that MPs on this side of the House are now suspicious of the government's motives and undefined plans?

Government interference is also in the fact that it is allowing or seeks to allow or disallow the input from the public, from Canadians. Instead it wants to put the decision to a parliamentary committee of which of course it would control the outcome.

The very act of redistribution takes at least two and a half years, possibly longer. It involves the striking of commissions, it takes a look at geography, drafts boundaries, involves consultative processes and perhaps, as we saw in 1981, court challenges in the process.

Besides that, Elections Canada has to look at it and put into place all the returning officers needed. Polling districts have to be set up.

The 1988 election had to operate from a 1981 census. The potential of the process that we now see if this is delayed for two years as suggested would be looking of course at something that would take us into the year 2000 before we had redistribution.

We would be looking at 1981 numbers and I would like to reflect that in my own area. My constituency right now is made up of three centres, Coquitlam, Port Moody and half of Port Coquitlam, and happens to be one of the fastest growing areas in the lower mainland.

In the 1992 referendum there were 77,900 voters and in the 1993 election there were 86,324 voters. According to Statistics Canada in the three centres the population in 1991 was 136,000; in 1996 that is projected to be 158,000; in the year 2006, 197,000.

There was 21 per cent growth from 1986 to 1991 in Coquitlam alone, and 26 per cent growth in that same period in Port Coquitlam. By the time we come to the year 2000 which is potentially where we would be if the process is shut down and the representation is not there we would be looking at numbers that do not reflect the proper representation by population. The skewing would be that much worse than it has been.

I was interested to see the numbers that were assigned to this project that has happened and hopefully in the public consultations this will be looked at.

The target number in our particular area was 96,000 voters. Certainly some of these things need to be reviewed.

I was interested to review that the United States House of Representatives has in total 435 representatives. They represent ridings of approximately half a million people. That maximum is set by their constitution and like ours their boundaries are adjusted every 10 years.

Britain, on the other side of the scale, has 651 members. There are so many members and so little room in the House they cannot accommodate these members. In fact to vote they have to file past the Speaker. This limits debate. It shortens the question period.

We do have to look at numbers and in fact the Canadian people are saying they do not want the numbers increased. The cost is high enough in this House.

What do the Canadian electors want? My second point is they want proper representation. Effective representation comes from representation by population. The numbers that come from each constituency should reflect the population. Those numbers should be equal as much as possible for the constituency.

However, outside in rural areas to make up for that we need reasonable regional representation.

Once again I would make a point of the importance of the other place, representing regionally and equally across this country, an elected Senate that is effective and therefore equal representation of all Canadians.

The third thing we have to remember is the affordability of the process. The process that is in place has met the criteria proposed by the body that the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act is proceeding on budget. It has accomplished to this point its purpose on budget and would be wasted if the process were put aside. I propose that what we do need is proper use of funds. We should let this proceed to the point at which the public can be consulted, the input is in place and we get the feedback that Canadians want from this process.

It is true that we do not need more seats in Parliament. The Reform stand is that Canada is already one of the most governed countries of the industrialized world. Do we need more representation? No, we need better representation. Do we need more costs? No, we need better representation.

We need representation by population. We need regional representation. We need proper use of the money that has already been spent and a step in the right direction for public input on how best to spend money in future electoral processes.

With these comments I would like to support the motion for the amendment to put aside or to postpone Bill C-18, as proposed by my Reform colleagues.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Port Moody-Coquitlam in her speech stressed very greatly the importance of not increasing the number of members of this House.

In the negotiations that were carried on there was some discussion about that issue and I know that members of the Reform Party pressed to have a committee to not only consider whether there would be any increases but to have a commitment that it be frozen. It would have been happy had such a clause been included in this bill.

I have two questions for the hon. member. First, did she in making her statements bear in mind the fact that this bill merely suspends the process for two years? It is not a bill that in any way interferes with the process or changes it. The process will resume in two years time if nothing else has been done. Did she bear that in mind when she quoted from the speech by the Right Hon. John Turner who was after all criticizing a bill that changed the process right away? This was not a case of a suspension bill, this was a change in the process. I note there is no change in this process in this bill.

Second, would she support this bill if it contained a clause that limited the number of members of the House of Commons to 295?

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in answer to the first question, a suspension of process, what does that mean? That means an interruption in a process that is already in place. What this does is take it to a Liberal dominated committee again. What is its intention? We do not know. Why suspend it if you feel that it will proceed? Let us carry on with what is there and use the process that is there.

As to the other question, if the number of members were limited to 295, certainly that would be an improvement and from the feedback from my constituents they would heartily endorse a freeze on the number of members of Parliament. Perhaps this should be looked at more carefully over time and perhaps that could even be reduced depending on what we would find to be the proper representation by population and the proper regional representation model that would apply to the Canadian people.

[Dan McTeague, Liberal, Ontario, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member on her comments. She certainly made some efforts at researching this issue. The hon. member has also referred to her own riding in the context of where she might be if we do not have redistribution in the next 10 years.

The hon. member may not know that my riding currently has about 210,000 constituents. I had absolutely no difficulty in attesting to and recommending that this government proceed with the legislation as it had planned for the very simple reason that the riding next to me had only one-third the number of constituents.

The member talked about the prospect of capping the number of seats that we have in this great House. Given the situation in which one may have a riding that does not have as many as the hon. member's riding does, would she not agree that it might be better to redistribute between the existing ridings?

Perhaps more important, rather than talking about the waste that might occur by having to suspend the electoral boundaries, we might be doing something that helps the Canadian public and the taxpayer.

[Sharon Hayes, Reform, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, there are many things that can be done to help the Canadian public and certainly-I hope the Liberals are listening-the Canadian taxpayer.

It is not simply electoral boundaries and that is another thing I hear loud and clear. There are inequities in the system right now. There are very large ridings and very small ridings but with the process in place, I believe in the public input that would be given to that process. Many of the things that the hon. member asked would be put on the public agenda and discussed. Then something very real could come out of that.

I feel that should be put in place and followed through as it is already very much along the way. Finish it and get the public input. It is not just the hon. member and I. The public wants a voice in this as well.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as some of the other speakers have in this debate offered an invitation to you and indeed to the rest of the House to visit their ridings, I would also like to do that. I am certainly proud of my riding.

I would have to admit that I am just a little biased as far as that riding is concerned. I was born in that riding as was my father. His father was born pretty much in this area of the country and then emigrated to Alberta and homesteaded in this constituency. I am about the third generation Johnston in that area. I guess members can understand my affinity for it.

As far as redistribution is concerned, or representation by population, I guess it is always difficult to arrive exactly at representation by population when one considers what a huge country Canada is and that over the last many years the population has more or less gravitated from the countryside to the larger cities.

In my opinion to try and arrive at true representation by population would be extremely difficult if one does not take into consideration, as one would have to, some method of considering the size and vastness.

My riding has many small towns in it. The population continues to grow as opposed to some in rural Saskatchewan where the population shift is really dramatic from the country to the city.

It is interesting to note that the guidelines state that Alberta constituencies should not exceed a maximum population of 122,000 approximately or a minimum population of around 73,000. Certainly my riding does fit into those upper and lower limits.

I agree with my colleague who included an amendment to this bill that would limit the amount of seats in the House of Commons and put a cap on it at 295. I would feel quite comfortable supporting the bill in that form. Why the government chose not to put that in the bill is really a mystery to me. This could have been one time when we had unanimity in the House.

The west side of my constituency is quite sparsely populated. As we move into the cities, which are along the corridor of No. 2 highway, they are really the largest populated centres of our constituency. As we move to the eastern side of the constituency again we come into an area where the population dwindles off.

In one of the local papers recently faxed to me the editorial was that they have not seen much of their MP lately. That is a problem. The larger the constituency gets as far as area is concerned, the bigger problem that becomes. It becomes a physical impossibility to be seen the desired number of times in a given area of the constituency. It is something that we find in these large areas. If one tried to get anywhere near 100,000 people in southeastern Saskatchewan one would have to take in a very large area of that province. To a certain extent that holds true in the southern portions of Alberta as well.

My party suddenly needed a speaker.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We could have a vote right now.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

At any rate, it certainly gives me an opportunity to brag about my constituency. I also have to say that we have an extremely well informed electorate there as is evidenced by the fact that I am here today. It was given a choice. We presented the constituency with six candidates to choose from and I was the fortunate person to come here and share this experience with the House.

As far as postponing the process, I have in my constituency many people saying that they would like to present briefs to this panel and have their views heard as to what they plan to do as far as the constituency and what they would like to see done. I am really at a loss as to what to tell these people. I tell them that we would really like to see this bill die in the House but that we do not think there is any danger of that. We have to recognize the simple mathematics that the people who introduced the bill certainly hold sway over the result of the bill.

As a result of that I have people in my constituency looking to me and asking what to do. Apparently there is very little they can do. Maybe what they should be doing is preparing their brief now for what will take place in maybe a year or two from now.

We talk about the difficulty of trying to represent a rural riding. I have never had the opportunity to try and serve an urban riding but I would assume that the transportation problem, the physical problem of trying to get around the constituency is somewhat less of a burden. It would seem to me that whatever formula the committee ultimately comes up with must take into consideration the actual physical territory that the member has to cover. Surely it is not just the plains that have this difficulty. I know my neighbours to the west in British Columbia have large tracts of terrain they have to cover.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to invite you to my constituency. I would be pleased to introduce you at our annual stampede and rodeo, and that goes for all members of the House. It is an event that is second only to the Calgary Stampede as far as being an excellent show. I am a little prejudiced but I think that you are a little closer to the action at our show. I believe the Speaker has actually been to the Ponoka Stampede and I would very much like to invite all members of the House to come and join us on the July 1 long weekend.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great attention to the speech of the hon. member and I congratulate him on the discourse. He said, if I heard him correctly, that if the bill had a cap on the number of MPs at the present level of 295 members-I think he said 195 in his speech but I am sure he meant 295-he would have supported the bill.

That being the case, how can he justify the comments of his colleague who moments before him said that the bill distorted representation by population. If that is true, how could he vote for such a reprehensible bill?

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I am not 100 per cent sure if I have the question straight, but to answer a part of the question, if the bill did cap the number-the hon. member is completely correct, I meant 295 not 195-I would be tempted to support the bill.

Perhaps my colleague is not prepared to support the bill. That is her prerogative. But I would be prepared to at that point.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I really appreciated the speech by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin. I thank the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands for allowing a more adequate vision of the hon. member for Wetaskiwin.

The hon. member gave us a good description of the role of a member of Parliament representing a rural riding, as I do. Does the hon. member agree with current standards allowing a variation of 25 per cent of the provincial quota for a riding, in many if not most cases, to compensate for the size of the territory and reduce the number of constituents the member must represent when he or she has many communities to visit?

The hon. member for Wetaskiwin said that some of his constituents had not seen him since the beginning of this Parliament. Well, it sometimes takes several months or even an entire year to cover a whole riding.

I also want to ask how the hon. member for Wetaskiwin can reconcile his party's objective of limiting or reducing the

number of electoral districts with that of adequate representation for rural ridings requiring much more travelling. And while we are on the road, of course, we cannot meet with anyone.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to answer the member's question, the 25 per cent allowance for geographic size in many cases would be adequate. In my view there are cases where it would not be adequate.

It is most difficult in larger ridings. We find that people in the large ridings, the electorate, are really very mobile. They have to be in order to live in areas that are sparsely populated. Rather than MPs continually make house calls it would be incumbent upon them to have meetings in a central area, advertise them well and make sure that people got there to make their representations.

Further, it is most important to reform the Senate to the point where it is elected, equal and effective. It is most important in my view. In that way we would be looking after more regional representation. It is one of the facts of Canadian life that the population is very widely but not very evenly distributed.

Therefore it is all the more important that we have regional representation, a Senate with equal representation from each province that is actually effective in blocking, revising or sending bills back to the House or committee and is elected by popular vote. That is absolutely essential in Canada.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Red Deer, as many Reform MPs have suggested, recognizes the importance of representation by population as well as regional representation.

We have had debate on Bill C-18; we are coming to the end of it. The Liberals proposed that something was terribly wrong. Reform looked at the situation. We were sincere in reviewing it. We were sincere in our agreement with Canadians that there were too many seats. We looked for ways and looked for a commitment from the government to find solutions. When that was not forthcoming my colleagues and I became very concerned about the whole process.

We are amused at why Bloc members who do not seem to have an interest in the matter would be so concerned. Once again it is-

[The Deputy Speaker]

I gather from the hon. member's remarks that he is speaking on debate rather than on questions or comments. Is that correct?

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

I have a question. I am trying to say we hear Bloc members and wonder who they are speaking for. We hear the Liberals and we know they are speaking for themselves. Canadians have to ask who can represent them on this issue. On many issues it seems like Reform has been representing the people.

Has the hon. member for Red Deer consulted with constituents? Does he feel he is representing them on Bill C-18?

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Just to correct my colleague, Mr. Speaker, the riding is Wetaskiwin.

Actually I have consulted with my constituents not only federally but at the provincial level as well. I made representation a couple of years ago to the commission that was looking at redrawing the electoral divisions in Alberta. I think I am representing the wishes and views of my constituents here today.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.