Debates of Feb. 9th, 1995

Petitions

[Cliff Breitkreuz, Reform, Yellowhead, AB]

Madam Speaker, the third petition asks that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

I am pleased to present these petitions.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

Madam Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Shall all questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Committees Of The House

[David Anderson, Liberal, for the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Solicitor General of Canada]

moved:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 68(4)(a), the 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House on Friday, November 25, 1994 be concurred in.

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

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise today to participate in what really is a historic debate. It is historic not because the idea of redistribution is something that is new or that there is anything particularly novel or revolutionary about the bill that is before the House, or will be before the House as a result of today's debate, but because this is the first time in the House we have used a new procedure established about a year ago for dealing with the business of the House in allowing committees to draft and bring in bills.

The 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs contains in it a draft bill to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. In fact it replaces the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. That bill was drafted by the members of the committee who have been working on this for some considerable period of time.

As chairman of the committee I am particularly pleased to be able to speak on behalf of the government House leader to propose this motion for concurrence to the House.

Adoption of this motion will constitute an order to the government to bring in a bill based on the committee's report. I am optimistic that the House will deal with this motion quickly today so that concurrence can be had. The government will then move rapidly to bring in a bill with some minor adjustments possibly in language which can then be referred to the committee once again for a detailed study and possible report to the House and action.

The purpose of this new procedure is to strengthen the role of members of Parliament in bringing their ideas to bear on policy decisions affecting legislation. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had ample opportunity to hear witnesses put forward views on the bill that has been put before the House as part of the committee's report.

In my view the committee members worked together very well and in a very non-partisan way to come up with what in terms of our best judgment would constitute a good new set of rules governing the redistribution of electoral boundaries in Canada.

I would like to thank the members of the legislative counsel branch of the House of Commons, Ms. Diane McMurray and Mr. Louis-Philippe Côté, for their assistance in the drafting of the bill.

I would like to thank the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, and his staff members, Jacques Girard and Carol Lesage, who assisted the committee in its work.

The committee was also assisted by witnesses from across Canada, who came to Ottawa in July when we spent three days discussing ideas and suggestions on redistribution. I would like to thank them because their help was invaluable.

I would like to thank more particularly the committee members who worked so hard in July and since then, reading the drafts of the report and making suggestions for improvements. My special thanks to the hon. members for Bellechasse, Calgary West and Kindersley-Lloydminster, who, together with government members, tried to find the most effective way to change this legislation.

On this side of the House, the hon. member for Ontario, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell and the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River also made a major contribution.

Our meetings were extremely productive. We worked well together and I think the report reflects that, notwithstanding the dissent of the Reform Party on two important points. I hope to deal with those in my remarks.

How did we get to this point on this issue? People ask why we embarked on a change in the redistribution act. I suggest there were several problems with the old law and those are the problems we have tried to rectify.

First, the proposed maps which came out last year just shortly after Parliament first met came with no forewarning and no opportunity provided to members of the House for input into what those maps might contain. Members of the House and some members of the public were presented with what appeared to be a fait accompli. It was done at the very opening of a new Parliament immediately following an election based on those maps. The committee has addressed this problem. There will be consultation before the first map is produced the next time.

Second, the commissions were not required to provide any justification for their proposals, although some commissions did so in any case. It was accordingly difficult, if not impossible, for members of the public and for members of Parliament to understand the rationale for the changes that were suggested or for them to make constructive ideas as to how the maps might be improved. The committee has made it plain in its report that commissions must explain the rationale behind their decisions.

Third, the criteria for drawing boundaries were very general. Therefore the commissions could take virtually any approach they wished and the approach could differ from one province to another.

We found it difficult as members of Parliament and as members of the public to criticize the proposals because it was almost impossible to have any standard by which those proposals could be measured. The draft bill attempts to clarify the criteria while maintaining the overall principle of effective representation.

Fourth, many members complained that the commissions made completely unnecessary changes to electoral districts just for the sake of doing a redistribution. The committee has also dealt with this matter.

Fifth, many members of the House expressed concern about the size of the House of Commons and its continuing growth. The committee studied the matter but did not recommend any particular change from the present law.

Finally, the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing that reported some years ago made a number of recommendations concerning redistribution which were never considered in the last Parliament.

In fact, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act really has not been reviewed thoroughly in 30 years. Therefore the committee took the opportunity to look through every part of the act, to look at the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing and make a series of recommendations to this House.

The first issue I want to talk about is the cap or reduction in the number of seats in the House of Commons. Members of all parties came to this issue hoping either to cap membership or to reduce the size of the House of Commons. After very careful consideration of the matter, after hearing witnesses on this point and after reviewing the report of the commission I referred to, the majority of the members realized that a cap or reduction was simply not feasible at this time.

Under the present formula, there will be a modest growth in the House from 295 members to 301 after the next election. The difficulty with a cap or a reduction is related to constitutional problems, particularly the guarantee that no province will have fewer seats in the House than there are in the other place.

The number of senators is not equal or related to population size. It is in no way tied in with population as is representation in the House. The cap in the number of seats here would perpetuate the current inequities in representation by ensuring that the provinces which have hit their senate floor cannot go below that and the provinces that are growing would not be able to get the additional seats to which they might otherwise be entitled.

I am aware that members of the Reform Party disagree with the committee's judgment in this matter. They believe that the House could be reduced to 265 members, a significant cut from the current membership of 295. In their view that cut would not significantly jeopardize the equality of votes in this country. That is not a view that is shared by the majority members of this committee, nor does the majority believe it is what Canadians want.

In the province of Ontario most members will represent a riding of approximately 100,000 people. That is a large number of people to represent. It entails a significant volume of work and transactions with the constituents. The Canadian public would not be well served were we to increase significantly the size of ridings.

The ridings in some provinces would get much larger than those in other provinces. Without pointing to any direct examples there are some ridings in Canada that have fewer than 20,000 people in them. That is a very small riding compared with one with 100,000 although obviously the geographic difference in size may be very dramatic and indeed often is.

The difficulties of representation in a country as vast and diverse as Canada obviously are significant ones. The committee tried to grapple with that, but given that the increase was only six members it concluded this was not the time to make any change or reduction.

Many Canadians say they would like to reduce the size of the House of Commons. However when it comes to accessing a member of Parliament and finding the member available to deal with concerns or to meet with constituents, clearly the opportunities would decrease were we to increase the size of constituencies. My own view is that Canadians would find that they prefer the current set-up or something very similar to it.

In 1986 amendments were made to reduce the growth of the House of Commons. These changes reflected a balance between ensuring representation by population and the desire for a smaller House. Under the pre-1986 formula the House of Commons would have grown to almost 400 members. In comparison, the modest growth to 301 is acceptable and necessary to ensure that the growing places in Canada are well represented.

Given the seriousness of the issue however and the genuine interest in dealing with it, the committee recommends this whole matter of the size of the House be revisited with a goal of overcoming the barriers to a cap before the 2001 census. We will have had the benefit of the quinquennial census in 1996. We will be able to see what the growth in the population is and where the shifts have occurred.

If members in the next Parliament feel they are able to make changes to cap the House at 301 or reduce the numbers, they would be free to make that decision based on the further analysis available to them in the 1996 census.

The second problem is the method by which commission members are selected. According to the committee, there was a problem with the selection process. We heard a number of witnesses on the subject, many of whom indicated that we had a good system but there were always certain considerations, political or otherwise, involved in the selection process.

The committee decided that the process could be made far more open and recommended several changes. First of all, applications for positions will be invited by public notice. The Speaker of the House will have to consult several people before proceeding with an appointment, notice of which is to be tabled here in the House.

If members of this House do not agree with the Speaker's decision regarding these appointments and if 20 members have signed a notice of motion, a member may present a motion requesting a vote in the House on one of the appointments. The vote will be crucial, because if the majority considers the appointment is unacceptable, the Speaker must submit another name.

One of the problems with the way redistribution is done is that after 10 years-redistributions occur after each decennial census, one occurred in 1991 with another occurring in 2001-population growth and shifts are often very significant, resulting in large and disruptive changes to electoral districts, which started out at a reasonable size and have grown into something either very large or very small.

The committee was of the view that if there were more frequent redistributions, this problem could be ameliorated considerably. Accordingly the committee has recommended that after a quinquennial census, that is the short and more simple census that occurs every five years in between the decennial ones, a redistribution would take place within a province. There would be no reallocation of seats among provinces as happens after a decennial census, but there would be within a province a redistribution where figures warrant. We put a minimum on that.

Constituencies would have to be significantly beyond the provincial quotient before such a quinquennial redistribution would take place. By doing this we are optimistic that we will avoid these massive shifts every 10 years. It would happen in certain provinces, probably not very many, after five years. Of course the question of whether or not one occurs depends on the population shifts within the province.

The committee proposes that redistribution will only take place in principle where it is necessary to ensure effective and equal representation.

The second matter is public input and the commissions. One of the major difficulties with the current act is the process for public consultation. Our draft bill proposes a number of improvements that strengthen the role of the public in providing advice to the boundaries commissions. The first is a requirement for the publishing of a public notice at the very beginning of the process. The notice must include the following information: first, the population figures for each electoral district currently on the map; second, the percentage of deviation for each riding from the provincial quotient; and, third, a statement of how the commission plans to proceed.

Each commission, therefore, must issue its own policy statement announcing the principles on which it intends to act in performing its redistribution work.

The second change consists in asking the commissions to produce three maps and include their reasons for selecting these boundaries. In this way, the public will be informed of the options available. The public may take part in the commission hearings and suggest alternatives. It can indicate its preference

for one map or another, without going to the trouble of preparing its own maps. Currently members and the public have a problem because they lack the resources to prepare alternative maps for submission to the commission.

The third change is with respect to the public hearings. The committee was of the view that there should be an additional round of public hearings if the commission makes dramatic changes to the electoral map after soliciting public input.

The final change relates to the process that currently exists whereby there is parliamentary review of the drafts of the commissions.

As members know, following the completion of the commission's second draft, the matter may be referred to a parliamentary committee which may then pass along to the commissions its recommendations. The commissions may accept or reject the recommendations but the process is available only to members of Parliament who make their representations to a parliamentary committee.

This special procedure is being abolished in the new act. All proceedings before the commissions will be in public and there will be no particular special parliamentary input opportunity provided. We think this will make the process more open. We believe it will allow the public to participate in the process and see that there are no back door deals being made between members of the House who may have been considered to be placed in a privileged position vis-à-vis the commissions.

Clearly members of Parliament have an important say in what riding boundaries should be. There are few Canadians more interested in electoral boundaries than the members of the House. However their opportunities to participate in this process should be played out in public in front of the members of the public. We believe that will be the result of this legislation.

The draft bill contains a number of changes to the current provisions that govern how the commissions decide to draw boundaries. We have adopted the principle of the least amount of change. Many members complained that commissions recommended changes for the sake of change rather than because change was necessary.

The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception made a presentation-it was sent to the committee and I thank him for it-to the commission in Newfoundland where there had been very minor shifts in population and yet boundaries had been altered in several of the ridings in that province when there was really no need to do so on the basis of population change. In his submission to the commission he suggested that the commission should have left the boundaries entirely alone.

We have dealt with that. In a province where there has not been significant change, where there is no increase or decrease in the number of seats and where there is no particular deviation from the provincial quotient there will not be a commission appointed.

Many people expressed concern about the open-ended way that community of interest is defined in the current act. Commissions really have a carte blanche to interpret the act the way they see fit. Therefore, we have changed the definition of community of interest in an attempt to narrow it and focus it so that it will be a better standard against which to measure the work of commissions.

The committee also heard evidence from members in growing urban areas that commissions did not take into account the fact that their riding was experiencing or was about to experience tremendous growth. Often this is measurable. Plans of subdivisions are registered; the construction is ready to proceed; and it is obvious in some ridings, particularly in the large urban centres, that within a year or two there will be another 10,000 or 15,000 people living in a particular riding.

Commissions will now be able to consider evidence about future growth when they deliberate on the drawing of electoral boundaries and adjust the boundaries accordingly.

The proposed bill would also remove the ability of commissions to draw electoral boundaries beyond the 25 per cent allowed variance from a provincial quotient. The current law allows a commission to draw boundaries so that a riding exceeds or is less than the provincial quotient. For example, if the provincial quotient is 100,000 people per riding, the boundaries under the current law could allow for a riding to contain less than 75,000 people or it could allow the constituency to contain more than 125,000.

This will be eliminated in the bill. We will require that if there is to be a riding created that is beyond the quotient I mentioned, the riding must be specified in the schedule to the act. In other words, the House will fix which ridings will be allowed to deviate beyond the parameters set out in the legislation. Those ridings will be named in a schedule and then the boundaries of that riding will not be touched by the commissions.

The committee was of the view that this was the fair way to deal with this issue rather than leave an extended discretion in the commissions.

There was an argument put before the committee and one on which the parties in the committee disagreed, that the 25 per cent deviation was too large. The Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing and some of the witnesses who appeared before the committee favoured reducing the variance to 15 per cent. The Reform Party has indicated its desire to limit the variance to 15 per cent.

There is considerable merit in the suggestion from the pointof view of equity and fairness in the electoral system. I will

concede that point, I respect members who have taken the view that it is the right way to go because they have strong arguments on their side. Nevertheless for large parts of rural Canada particularly a change to reduce the degree of variance from 25 to 15 per cent would result in a significant shift of seats from rural Canada to urban centres.

There is an argument made, and a very forceful argument by rural members, that the difficulties of representation in a large geographic riding with many communities that involve extensive travel between the parts of the community is more difficult than representation of a few blocks in a city core. Urban members sometimes dispute that.

I would not want to pass judgment on one side or the other. I represent a riding which is largely urban but which has a modest rural component, in the islands in particular.

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

Sitting on the fence, no slivers?

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

No slivers, absolutely no slivers, to satisfy the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. I do think that there are difficulties in rural representation but there are challenges to urban representation too, of which the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster is unaware. I think his riding is far more rural than many, but perhaps not all.

However I know that he will argue the other side. I want to point out that he is arguing from a position of particular strength because in the province of Saskatchewan the commissions have ignored the 25 per cent variance and have gone to a variance of something like 5 per cent. The 15 per cent would make no difference whatever in his province.

I commend the commission for Saskatchewan for having drawn boundaries this way. I remember in the last Parliament hearing a lot of complaints about the boundaries that were drawn. Those have dissipated this time because we have a new bunch of members from Saskatchewan. We got rid of the complainers and got in a new group that complain about different things. I recognize that some of them are on this side. They are not complaining at all. They are simply delighted. They are pleased with this draft bill and are going to support it. I hope that the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster will share his views with them in due course.

We have decided on the 25 per cent. It is what has been in the law for some time. I submit that it is a reasonable test and standard by which we could operate. To avoid difficulties, particularly a difficulty that would be felt very keenly by rural members and by rural populations in Ontario and Quebec in particular, there is no reason at this stage to advance a change. The committee has left this at 25 and recommends it to the House.

In addition to the substantial changes I have outlined, the committee made a number of other changes that will make the system more efficient, including the suspension of the process should an election be called.

In the dissenting opinion of the Reform Party, members of that party argued that the changes in the act proposed by the committee did not justify the suspension of the process. That of course has already taken place and that will be complete if the bill is passed. New commissions will be appointed to operate under the new act. They will be appointed in the manner proposed in the act. They will make their proposals public in the manner proposed in the act and they will be present three maps to the public instead of one.

I do not agree with their position. The changes we have made here are substantive. They are valuable. They are a dramatic improvement of the current electoral system for the reasons I have outlined in my speech. Accordingly I disagree quite strongly with the rather negative view, in my opinion, expressed by members of the Reform Party in the dissenting report.

When they read the report in its entirety, as I know they already have and I am sure they will again, and as they hear the very reasonable remarks I am making today in encouraging them to support this matter, I know the member for Calgary West will recant his heresy and support this excellent proposal from the committee.

I am optimistic that the bill will be dealt with expeditiously. I am optimistic that we can have it in place before June 22, which is the day the old system kicks back in if we do not get a new law passed. This new law represents a good deal for Canadians. It represents a significant improvement over the existing requirements in respect of redistribution. I invite all hon. members to support it.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will not take the same amount of time as the member for Kingston and the Islands, since, in general, he summarized quite objectively the work of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Apart from the final part of his speech, which was more of an exchange with the Reform Party than a direct statement on the report tabled, the member for Kingston and the Islands provided a very accurate description of the situation and the proposed amendments.

I would point out that the official opposition participated fully in developing the proposal, which will eventually be submitted to the House, once the report is adopted, so that we will end up with the best possible legislation. We have demonstrated the seriousness of the parliamentary work that all members of this House are called on to perform, even though the aim of our

political party is to ensure this act does not apply in Quebec and that we will not be covered by it in the next federal election. However, we took part in the committee's work and we took our job seriously.

I will come back in a few minutes, in order to complete the picture, to one or two items the member for Kingston and the Islands did not mention in his statement.

I too, of course, would like to thank the member for Kingston and the Islands, the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster and the member for Calgary West, who contributed in a generally non-partisan way to the work that, while not without its flaws, produced excellent results.

I would also like to thank those who helped us, particularly people from the office of the chief electoral officer, namely Jean-Pierre Kingsley, himself, as well as Jacques Girard and Carol Lesage, who provided incredible and ongoing assistance whenever we sought their help and cooperation. I would also thank colleagues who came to Ottawa in June and July, in the height of summer, to make representations before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Where I have more of a problem with the bill that will eventually be tabled, the draft prepared by the committee, is that absolutely no discussion of miminum representation for Quebec was permitted. We ran headlong into the great wall of China in trying to discuss the question of a guarantee of 25 per cent of seats, raised by Senator Rivest when he appeared in June. The idea was that Quebec could never have fewer than 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, because it would lose its power of influence over decisions being made.

Needless to say Senator Rivest is not known as a sovereignist, at least not from the old guard. His point of view was to a large extent taken up by my colleague, the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, when he appeared before the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in July, stating that a constitutional guarantee was required to ensure that Quebec's current 25 per cent of seats be retained regardless of possible fluctuations in its population.

We would of course like to resolve the issue of Quebec's representation in this House in an altogether different manner. But, should Quebec continue to require representation in this House, this critical mass must be recognized, and it is in this sense that all of our colleagues in the House must recognize it, as must Quebec's population in general. While commissions are currently examining Quebec's future, we have not been able to convince our colleagues to subscribe to a proposal guaranteeing 25 per cent of seats to Quebec.

We have a better understanding of the situation in which we find ourselves, that is to say, we are at a juncture where a decision must be made in Quebec between attaining sovereignty, controlling our own laws, creating our own legislation, collecting taxes and signing our own treaties or, on the other hand, becoming a member like any other in the Canadian federation. This will be the true test in the next referendum in Quebec. And Quebecers must know what system will govern them if the outcome of the referendum in Quebec is negative. We can see it already, the slightest request such as this has been denied. The need to guarantee a minimum level of representation for Quebec in the House was not acknowledged. This had to be said at this stage.

Another point made in the report tabled by the member for Kingston and the Islands pertains to so-called special ridings. Under present legislation, provincial commissions may consider special circumstances and allow for greater fluctuations in a riding's population than provincially allowed. Thus if we take the classic example of a riding with 100,000 voters, the number of voters could currently vary from 75,000 to 125,000, given the 25 per cent deviation allowed. But, as it stands, the current legislation grants provincial commissions the discretion to take special circumstances into consideration, for example, the riding of Labrador, which does not meet the electoral quotient, and Îles-de-la-Madeleine, which, as it was mentioned several times in committee, may not meet it.

This will no longer be possible in the future, since a provision stipulates that special cases will have to be listed in a schedule to the bill. For reasons which are debatable, the committee chose to adopt such a schedule blindly, that is to say ridings to be listed in the schedule were not debated in committee. This could be a valid way of doing things; we will see as we go on.

However, what the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should be doing, in my opinion, is undertaking far-reaching consultations, not just reserved for parliamentarians. It is all well and good that the hon. member for Labrador make representations, for example, that his riding be included in the schedule or that the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine make representations that Îles-de-la-Madeleine recover the independent riding status it enjoyed before 1968.

But in my opinion, the committee should open its consultation process up to the community and allow the local population and others to state their opinions. It seems obvious that the ridings of Labrador and Îles-de-la-Madeleine should be allowed to elect a member although their populations are lower than what the act stipulates, and it may well be that, for very special reasons, people elsewhere in Canada may reasonably argue that their ridings should be listed in the schedule. For the schedule to truly reflect the wishes of the people and for the members of this

House to truly understand those wishes, the consultation process must be opened up.

If it turns out that it is impossible to hold open hearings for all members of the public to air their views-and then we would have to find some other suitable means-I suggest that we revert to the current procedure whereby provincial commissions are granted the discretion to take special circumstances into consideration. And in cases like Labrador, Îles-de-la-Madeleine, maybe Manicouagan and the Gaspé Peninsula, they should be able to allow a deviation of more than the proposed 25 per cent which has been the generally accepted criterion since 1964, when the independent commissions were created and the House stopped drawing up the electoral maps.

At any rate, we will have the opportunity to discuss this issue again before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and to find the best possible solution.

It was mentioned earlier that the population would be consulted more. Yes, there will be more public consultation, and that is normal because the electoral map is designed first and foremost for the people and not for the elected members of Parliament. Everyone agrees with this principle, including myself. Just as electoral laws are designed for the voters and not for the elected parliamentarians. We are the ones who must meet these criteria.

The process for designating provincial commission members was greatly improved. The process now taking place behind closed doors will be replaced with a much more open process in which the members will be appointed jointly by the Speaker of the House and the province's chief justice. There may even be a parliamentary debate if at least 20 members of this House request it. We think that opening up the process is an excellent thing.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs discussed for several months the issue of limiting or reducing the number of members in this House. This proposal was particularly favoured by our colleagues from the Reform Party.

Basically, we agree with the proposal to reduce the number of members in this House. However, we do not look at the issue in the same way. Of course, we in the Bloc Quebecois want to cut the number of members in this House from 295 to 220, simply by removing the 75 members from Quebec who will leave this House after the referendum.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

As you can see, this will free a number of seats amounting to about half of those reserved for the opposition from all parties.

There is no need to renovate the House, tear down walls or push back everything to my left or in front of you, Madam Speaker. The House will see a major change after the Quebec referendum, since half our side of the House can be used to make room for bigger desks for the other members, as they see fit. The right to self-determination also applies to Canada. Our Canadian friends will be free to refurbish this House as they see fit.

Quinquennial censuses will, of course, produce data allowing us to make timely changes to the electoral map much more quickly and avoid the major changes required after decennial censuses, which confuse the population. This is also a desirable improvement which was brought by the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Someone said earlier that members would no longer have a say in this. I entirely agree with the fact that members-contrary to what has been the case for the past 30 years-should no longer have the last word on electoral boundaries redistribution, but until now they did have some input-and they still do since the legislation has not been amended-so that commissions were able to consider problems that might be raised by members.

I am not sure whether it is such a good idea to eliminate the right of members to comment, since they may want to make recommendations, which the commissions may or may not consider. I agree that members should not have the last say on electoral boundaries, but I would question the wisdom of not letting them intervene at all.

Of course, members can go before the provincial commissions. But would it not be a good idea to let members intervene specifically as a group, as parliamentarians, either directly or through a committee like the one on procedure and House affairs?

That being said, I simply want to remind the House that the non- partisan approach that was apparent throughout the proceedings of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is an indication that working through a committee like the one that tabled its report this morning can be very effective. As far as the other committees are concerned, we will have to wait and see. However, I hope we will soon see other standing committees take the same non partisan approach we have seen in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

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

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to Motion No. 20.

On April 19 of last year this House gave a mandate to the procedure and House affairs committee to investigate the process of adjusting boundaries of electoral districts and to bring forward a bill for this House to consider. The committee was specifically mandated to formulate a cap or to reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons, to look at the

adequacy of the present method of selecting the members of the electoral boundaries commissions, to look at the rules and criteria used by the commissions to alter the boundary lines, and to review the involvement of the public and the House of Commons in the work of the boundary commissions.

Bill C-18 which received royal assent on June 15, 1994 was a serious interruption of the non-partisan electoral process. It suspended the existing Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Such a move on the part of the government could only be justified, and I stress this, if it makes significant improvements or modifications to the boundary readjustment process.

There are no significant modifications proposed in this bill. That is not to say there are no improvements being proposed. Many of the smaller issues were dealt with in a very satisfactory manner. Where the government proposal falls short is on the larger issues. There are three: the size of the House, the size of population variance of the individual ridings, and the rules governing the adjustment of boundaries.

The positive aspects of the bill are easier to deal with in smaller numbers so I will mention them first.

First, the process of instructing a standing committee to prepare the bill has been a positive and productive exercise. Unfortunately there is a majority of Liberal members on the committee. In the final outcome they have their say. Some very good proposals were set aside because the majority was not willing to listen to other members and participants on the committee.

Particularly I would like to commend the staff of Elections Canada, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley in particular, whose assistance in drafting the bill was invaluable. I would encourage this House to continue using the committee procedure that we used in the future.

It was also a pleasure to work specifically with the chair of the committee that was very fair in hearing all sides of the presentations with regard to this matter. We appreciated the involvement of the Official Opposition, although it seemed to be a bit of an academic exercise when, as my colleague for Bellechasse mentioned, its motive is to extricate itself entirely from this House. I was rather surprised to see a member of the government, the Liberal side, applauding it. I think it was the member for Etobicoke-Lakeshore applauding that. Perhaps there is a separatist on the Liberal side as well. I am not sure.

There was invaluable input by the member for Calgary West who is a constitutional expert and is very knowledgeable about the Elections Act. I appreciated his input on the committee. It was a pleasure to serve with him.

Another improvement is the redistribution of ridings within each province to occur following each quinquennial census. These mini adjustments every five years will lessen the dramatic and highly disruptive changes that have occurred in the past. The Canadian population can change drastically over 10 years. Smaller changes brought about more often are preferable to the current practice.

The government's refusal to accept the last redistribution is evidence that smaller changes are easier for people to accept. An additional bonus of a five-year distribution is a much shorter time frame for the redistribution process.

The boundary commissions will be encouraged to make the public better informed of their work and to provide alternatives to each distribution proposed. While the role and involvement of the public is increased, the influence of members of Parliament is reduced. I applaud that. If MPs have an intervention they wish to make, they are encouraged to take part in the existing public meetings. I see this change as a positive step in ensuring the boundary and readjustment process remains as politically neutral as possible.

I do not believe boundaries should be changed and preserved solely for the ease of the campaigning of the sitting member. Granted all members would like to run in an area where they have already won an election because they have developed many contacts and made many friendships during the years they represented that area. However, deliberately altering the redistribution procedure to give an incumbent MP an advantage would be a very serious breach of political ethics.

The irony of the suspension of the redistribution process is the process that was already in existence worked when MPs or members of the public were dissatisfied with the boundary commission proposal. There was already a procedure in place to have changes made to electoral maps. If the members took the time to make presentations at boundary commission hearings, they could do so.

The member for Prince George-Peace River and a number of his constituents made a presentation to the British Columbia boundaries commission. The commission considered their proposal and made alterations to the proposed constituency lines. Some of the Liberals of Ontario have done the same thing. There may not have been the need for the undemocratic Bill C-18. The Liberals panicked. That was unfortunate.

As for the process of selecting and reviewing the appointment of boundary commissioners, minor but sensible changes were made to the role and authority of the chief electoral officer, and the manner of redistribution has been clarified.

These aspects of the bill are positive. That being said, all those improvements and changes could have been made without interrupting the redistribution process and without throwing out

the $5 million worth of reports produced by the boundary commissions.

The report of the procedure and House affairs committee fails on every major issue on which it was mandated to act, namely the number of seats in the House of Commons, the population variance of the electoral districts and the priority of criteria used to determine new boundary lines.

Most Canadians want less government. Most Canadians believe there are already too many MPs. Even when presented with a workable solution that reduced the number of seats in the House, the Liberals refused to take any action as to its size. They refused to reduce the number of seats, to cap the number of seats both at the current membership of 295 and 301, as is proposed.

They even refused to reduce the growth of the House in the future. It seems like the Liberals were willing to put self-interest ahead of the national interest. That is truly regrettable. Their reasons for refusing to act are pretty flimsy. They claim that such a cap or reduction in the size of the House of Commons is not feasible at this time. They lack the political courage to act because they say the number of seats that would be taken away would be insignificant and could be regarded as highly disruptive.

The Liberals also quote constitutional problems in limiting the size of the House of Commons. These problems arise because of the way Senate seats are allocated. Using the House of Commons to make up for the inadequacies of the other place is unacceptable.

It is the refusal of this government like the Tories before it to reform the upper chamber so that it actually represents the provinces and regions of this country effectively that is creating the problem of uneven representation in this House. The House of Commons is supposed to be the chamber where all Canadians are represented equally.

Representation by population is the principle upon which this House is built. The upper chamber is completely ineffective in representing provincial and regional interests as a result of being unelected and unequal.

Just because the modern Senate is increasingly incompatible with the confederation of today, that is no reason to prevent this House from representing Canadians as well is it could. It would seem that the government's resistance to an improved Senate is hampering the effectiveness of this House.

It is in the best interests of all Canadians to have the House of Commons organized as efficiently as possible. If this arrangement has the additional benefit of creating pressure for a reformed Senate, that would be a bonus. We should not weaken the House of Commons by binding it to its present form, nor should we allow it to grow out of control for the sole purpose of avoiding making changes to an out of date Senate.

There is no excuse for refusing to establish a smaller House of Commons. In my own province of Saskatchewan, people would be willing to accept having fewer MPs as long as the reductions were equitable with reductions to other provinces as well.

As a matter of fact, in the province of Saskatchewan the number of provincial seats has been reduced and the public has accepted it and embraced it. Perhaps it is something that the federal government should have a look at.

If as a result of the reduction of MPs Canadians got a triple-E Senate, elected by them, accountable to them and working in their best interests instead of being partisan rubber stamps, it would make the opportunity to save taxpayers money by electing fewer MPs even more attracted to them.

I have heard that many Liberals from rural ridings in Ontario complain about the problems associated with geographically large ridings. However, I have a riding that stretches more than a four and a half hour car ride in some directions. I can say that if members are resourceful and committed to serving their constituents it is more than possible to adequately serve the needs of a large riding.

For instance, I have set up a mobile constituency office that travels around the riding to get to people who cannot get to me. We already allow extra travel allowances to members with large ridings. If as a result of a reduced House some ridings become bigger, the cost of the extra travel will hardly make a dent in the savings from having fewer members.

Modern communications technology makes more constituent contact possible. Increased use of available technology makes this possible without extended travel. I want to tell members of the House who represent urban ridings that no matter how concentrated and compact their riding is, I can fax across mine faster than they can drive across theirs.

Fewer ridings will mean that each MP will serve more constituents. Again I would argue that the modest increases in resources of a member's office either in staff or equipment is a more cost effective way of dealing with the needs of Canadians than having more members. Not only do Canadians want fewer federal politicians,but it makes good fiscal sense as well.

The Liberals are refusing to do anything about the size of the House. They took the political easy way out. They recommended that somebody else, possibly a future Parliament, do something about the growth of the House.

The time to take action is now because the problem is now. This bill is an excellent opportunity to deal with the issue. No time in the future will be any better than the opportunity we have right now. I would imagine that the Liberals in the future, if there are any, will be no more willing to deal with the problem than those in this government are now. They are simply unwilling to entertain any solution which varies from status quo thinking. Liberals simply never want to take action on anything.

Another major flaw in this legislation is that it does nothing to solve the problem of some ridings, even the ones in the same province, with varied levels of population.

A plus or minus 25 per cent variance means that even within the same province one constituency can have a population approximately twice as large as another. This is an unacceptable variance in voting power. I urge all members to remember that this variance is not between ridings which have suffered recent population changes that are about to be corrected. Rather, this is a starting point. This is how the commissions are allowed to set things up in the first place.

Ridings may start off with this large variance and then go through five years of population change before anything is done about it. As unequal as that may seem, this large variance will be exceeded by those ridings that will be placed into a special schedule.

The schedule ridings are exempt from the allowable quotient. If there is already a huge allowable variance available to the commissions, surely there is no need for a special schedule. Conversely, if a schedule of special cases is to be created, such a large variance is not required.

One member of Parliament can represent anywhere from fewer than 20,000 constituents to over 120,000 constituents. That is incredible and that is the starting point, if we include a schedule plus a huge variance of 25 per cent.

The reasoning behind including both is beyond the wildest dreams of the gerrymanders. If the House determines which seat should go on a schedule, it provides tremendous opportunity for biases along party lines, for biases among rural versus urban members, for the opportunity for infighting and horrible conduct on the part of MPs. The encouragement of horrible conduct on the part of members and parties is not something that I would want to see. It did not have to be there. They could have corrected this problem.

I urge all members of the House to vote against the report until this gross inequity is resolved. Having these two flaws in the bill at the same time makes a mockery of the principle of equality of voting power even within the same province. The situation is further exacerbated by the constitutional requirement to start out with unequal provincial representation.

As it is plain to see, the legislation the report recommends does nothing to guarantee or even encourage the electoral equality of Canadians. This alone is reason enough to warrant the defeat of the bill unless corrected by amendment.

The third area of weakness in the bill is the primacy it gives to community of interest over voter equity. While not stated as such, boundary commissioners are instructed to consider sociological considerations ahead of making constituencies reasonably numerically equal. That is an automatic consequence of having such a high population variant quotient.

This is a social engineer's dream. These considerations combined with overly generous variances will result in a system that represents Canadians by characteristic rather than as citizens of a specific geographic area. It is this manifestation of special interest politics that we wish to avoid.

Some of the considerations found within the definition of community of interest can and should be used to break the tie between alternative proposals with comparable voter equity. They should not be used as a primary factor in determining electoral boundaries.

As I stated in the beginning of my remarks, the minor improvements made to the redistribution process do not save the bill from its vast omissions, flaws and missed opportunities. The legislation proposed by the report in no way justifies the action taken by the government to interrupt the pre-existing process.

The actions of government members in producing the report confirm that the original motive behind Bill C-18 was crass partisan manipulation of the electoral process. Ontario Liberal backbenchers and a few from Atlantic Canada were not happy that their ridings were changed. They appeared before committee and told us that was the problem. When a party wins almost all the ridings in a province, why would it not try every trick in the book to play again on the same field?

The government motive here was to redo the last redistribution simply because the new lines were not put on the map where it wanted them to be. Some of them went down Sixth Avenue rather then Tenth Avenue.

Bill C-18 was brought in as an attempt to cover the whole operation in the guise of opening the process to improve and modernize it. This report and the lack of meaningful change it contains prove there never was a sincere intention of significant improvement or modernization.

Let us talk about the real crux of the matter. The problem is that the country needs reform in many areas. One of the lesser priorities is electoral reform. It is an important area, I agree, and I know my colleagues would accept that. However we need social program reform. We need reforms to the way we expend funds from this place. We need reform of our justice system. The Liberal tradition is to talk about reform but in the end to do nothing about reform. It is becoming very clear that the only

people who will really reform the country are those who bear the name Reform in their party title.

Canada has a very proud democratic tradition. Canadians deserve the best electoral system that can be provided. I assure the House that I will work for positive and constructive electoral reform. I will work for reform of the Senate. I will continue to work for a capping and a reduction of the seats in the House of Commons, not because it helps me out but because it is what Canadians want. They want action. They want real reform.

The motion the government has presented to enact the bill, a new boundary readjustment act, is not real reform. It is a matter of tinkering around the edges, a bit of cosmetics to try to cover up the fact that it did not approve of where the boundaries were drawn in the last readjustment process.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I regret to interrupt, but I wonder if I could seek unanimous consent of the House to revert to tabling of documents. A document that should have been tabled this morning was not and I am seeking unanimous consent to do so.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Aboriginal Affairs

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

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 32(2) I am pleased to table a special report on suicide among aboriginal people entitled "Choosing Life", prepared by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, in both official languages.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Committees Of The House

[Jean Augustine, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a question of the hon. member who just spoke. I begin by saying that one thing Reformers do not have is a sense of humour. Oftentimes in discussion we need a sense of humour.

I thought the hon. member across the way was alluding to the fact that they were making way for 75 Liberals on the other side of the room. That was really what my applause was: the fact that we would have 75 Liberals across the room looking directly to the rest of us on this side of the House. They would be replacing the ones who are presently there.

Somehow I seem to be confused by the convoluted discussions around what is, what is not, and what Reformers are and are not for. What are the positive aspects of the bill that he supports? They seem to have been lost in the argument.

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

Madam Speaker, I assure the hon. member that the Reform caucus has a wonderful sense of humour. We are very amused at the Liberal polka represented in this bill and in many others: one step forward, two steps backward and side-step the issue.

There are some positives in the bill or the motion that may become a bill if the government so chooses. One of the more positive aspects to which I am sure other colleagues will also refer is the selection of commissioners. There are some minor improvements in the selection of boundary commissioners. There is more consultation with members of the House. It could become less the sole jurisdiction of the Speaker to choose the two commissioners selected from the federal level. Of course the provincial selection remains unchanged.

Another positive aspect is the alternatives that will be presented to constituents. Rather than presenting one map, there is the potential of three: one preferred and two alternative maps. These are minor improvements that certainly did not justify a suspension of the process.

Other than those minor details there are more flaws and omissions. What really concerns me is the omissions and the lack of change in the bill. Had we wanted to make these minor improvements we could have done that in the form of an amendment to the bill that could have taken place while the existing process was under way.

What has happened is that the initial adjustment process started some time ago was interrupted by elections. In fact we have some terrible discrepancies. We now have members representing huge populations while others are representing very few Canadians. The bill does not correct that problem. It just tinkers around the edges and makes a few cosmetic changes and few minor improvements.

[Harold Culbert, Liberal, Carleton—Charlotte, NB]

Madam Speaker, I have a couple of points to make and perhaps a question I would like to address to the hon. member across the way.

I listened very carefully to the comments he made. They were somewhat in depth. Being from the province of New Brunswick, one thing we found with the presentation to us shortly after coming to the House was that there was a unilateral change. There were no additional seats. There was no need for additional seats. There would still be 10 seats in the province of New Brunswick, the same as before. Yet every riding in the province of New Brunswick, according to the new proposed mapping, was to be changed.

From my perspective politically the changes in my riding would have been great. I represent my constituents. The message they brought forward to me was about why we were making changes and spending millions of dollars for the sake of change. I had to admit that in that light it made absolutely no sense to me.

I particularly wanted constituents with concerns to appear before the committee to make comments. I intentionally did not appear at that committee hearing because of the exact reasons the hon. member suggested. I did not want it to be perceived in any way that there was a political reason for making those suggestions.

The comment to me was why change for the sake of change. Because a couple of urban areas slightly increased in population, they were going to change 10 ridings in the province of New Brunswick and spend millions of dollars. This makes absolutely no sense.

I would like to address this type of issue. It occurred not only in New Brunswick but in several other provinces as well. Addressed in the bill is the criterion that we can look at it and make some sense of it from the perspective of the Canadian taxpayers who ultimately will be paying for the changes in redistributions or riding maps.

I would ask the hon. member to comment, relative to the concerns he had previously made.

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

Madam Speaker, the member for Carleton-Charlotte makes a very good point. It was raised by many MPs who appeared before the committee. If any readjustment is required in a province it creates a domino effect.

Certainly my province of Saskatchewan is very similar to New Brunswick. Many constituencies have not seen significant population change. However the fact that one or two areas have seen population change-and it is usually an urban area that grows-it means the boundaries somewhere in that province have to be redrawn. As soon as boundaries are redrawn they affect neighbouring constituencies that would have less people as a result of boundaries around the city being tightened. It affects the next one and the next one.

Once we pass our accepted variance limits and begin to draw the first boundary, in most instances the boundaries within the entire province are redrawn. It is an unavoidable problem even though maybe three-quarters of the land mass is not significantly affected by the population change. The new process will not significantly change that.

In response to the member from Etobicoke, another improvement is that readjustment will take place every five years, which may mean that changes will be a little smaller; they will not be as massive as they were in the past.

As soon as we begin to draw a boundary, for example if we draw a boundary around Carleton-Charlotte, it will affect neighbouring ridings and there is no avoiding that. No matter if it is every five years or every ten years we have to redraw all the boundaries in the entire province. The key then is to make those boundaries in the best possible places. That is the job of the commissioners with public input which they had in the previous legislation and which they will have in this legislation.

Again, there are some minor improvements in this legislation which allows for a little more public input and some alternatives.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot resist asking a question of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster who I thought really scraped the bottom of the barrel to find complaints about the committee report.

However, I congratulate him on his speech where at least he vigorously defended the Reform Party position in respect of the two principal issues on which we disagree. I think he is picking up and harping on a subject that I know the hon. member for Calgary West will harp on when he gets on his feet. That is the bill to suspend the current redistribution system which in his heart of hearts he knows is flawed.

He realizes that many of his own members found the proposals of the commission quite unacceptable when they came out. It just so happens that he did not in his case. He knows that some of his colleagues did. I know the hon. member for Calgary West was not very happy with the proposals when they first appeared. I know that the members from British Columbia were quite unhappy with the proposals when they appeared. That was true across this House in every party where there were members from British Columbia.

I think the hon. member realizes that while he can denounce to his heart's content and look for difficulties, really he knows that the previous process was flawed and needed some repair. He must acknowledge, and I invite him to do so, that the proposals put forward in this bill are not tiddly-winks as he suggests. In fact they are significant improvements on what was there

before, particularly the appointment process for members of the commissions and particularly the requirement on the part of the commissions that they publish their proposed way of doing things in advance before they embark on map drawing. Then when they have done their map drawing they present three maps instead of one.

Surely that is a very significant improvement which cannot be ignored. It is not some minor adjustment as the hon. member is trying to suggest in his speech which I think unfairly represents the very diligent work the committee has done.

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

Madam Speaker, I suggest to the member for Kingston and the Islands that the improvement is certainly valid but certainly is not worth the $5 million of taxpayers money that was spent to suspend the process and start over again.

I would indicate to the member that I might be willing to bet my MPs trading card that his members will probably not be entirely pleased with the new boundaries as they will be drawn up next time. We will never please all the members of this House when we redraw the boundaries. It is absolutely impossible.

In closing, with regard to the other point the hon. member made, yes, members of our party were unhappy with the way the boundaries were readjusted. However we respect and are prepared to play by the rules, including the member for Calgary West.

The people from the city of Calgary who appeared before the commission and made their representations in fact saw some amendments to the electoral map that made some improvements. They used the system, made it work. It was an impartial commission that heard it. They corrected the problem. They played by the rules. The Liberals were not prepared to play by the rules. They wanted to make their own.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am rising today to speak in favour of the government motion for concurrence in the 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the electoral boundaries adjustment process.

The issue of governance is one that affects every member. As the member for Mississauga West with the second largest and possibly the most diverse riding in the country I have a keen interest in the bill before the House today which can affect my riding profoundly. It is definitely not tiddly-winks in this one.

Canada has a long tradition of fairness and compromise in dealing with the allocation of ridings in our nation. Since Confederation this House has taken extraordinary steps to ensure that such diverse areas of Canada as Prince Edward Island, Quebec and the Northwest Territories each receive special consideration. While Canada is a federation of many different cultures, ways of life and ethnic backgrounds, the ties that bind this country have from time to time been rather tenuous.

One of the most important ties we do have is a strong federal government represented by members of Parliament who are seated in this House. In order to build harmony and foster a sense of balance and fairness, we must occasionally examine and adjust the way we are governed and the method by which we choose those representatives who are seated here today. Our prime concern should be one of fairness and equity.

In 1900 over 80 per cent of Canada was rural and largely English or French background but we have changed rather dramatically. In 1995 we are largely urban with a huge influx of new Canadians, each with different points of view and a strong desire to participate in the new land they now call home. Yet representing this diverse population in a fair and equitable way through the redistribution of ridings remains a highly controversial issue.

In the riding of Mississauga West over 250,000 residents struggle each day to pay bills, become familiar with new customs and pursue their piece of the Canadian dream. This riding is at least the size of three average Ontario constituencies and double the entire population of Prince Edward Island, which by the way sends four excellent members to this House.

Clearly the time has come to address the challenges presented by a rapidly growing, highly urbanized area such as Mississauga West. Over 40 per cent of this riding speaks neither official language. With many of the 131 languages spoken, schools have fewer than 10 per cent English or French speaking students. This is an amazing transition in only 10 years.

As background I point to the growth patterns of the city of Mississauga in the region of Peel. Since its incorporation in 1974 Mississauga has tripled in size. Growth projections provided by city staff show a steady, planned, accurate and predictable growth pattern.

In 1974 the population was 165,000. It currently is just over 500,000. Only the recessions of 1982-83 and 1993-94 slowed a very steady and dramatic pattern of growth. This year Mississauga is Canada's ninth largest and again fastest growing city. I represent half of it.

With more than $850 million in new development we have exceeded the predictions for this year by more than $250 million, a figure which matches the pre-recession levels of growth for 1988-89. Industrial growth in 1994 was also 30 per cent ahead of the previous year.

I remind the House that these growth rates are equally common throughout the entire greater Toronto area. In the areas like Markham, Brampton and Oakville the story is very similar. New urban areas attract thousands of people annually along with new businesses and an appetite for government services, not to

mention a vocal and persistent desire for direct access to their member of Parliament.

We all know how much work it is to build new cities. Each of us knows of the struggles to fund schools, roads, parks and other aspects of infrastructure. These are the urgent and visible needs of all new communities. What are the less visible needs? Many new Canadians require a great deal of help from their federal member and his or her riding office. There is no longer a tradition of volunteer community help to fall back on, as is more common in rural areas. Urban areas tend to be more threatening, less welcoming and frankly, tougher places to fit into.

My own riding office routinely deals with over 100 phone calls per day. The majority of those involve relatively complicated questions dealing with immigration and unemployment, not to mention pertinent advice and instant solutions to all our budgetary problems.

The cultural and language problems are immense. Imagine trying to deal with at least 40 different major ethnic groups, each with special needs and problems. By now members of my staff have learned bits of language from all around the world as they try to offer friendly and efficient assistance to the best of their abilities. I actually have one staff member who is in hospital.

These are just some of the problems with monster ridings like Mississauga West. I know that as I speak each of us is thinking about our own home riding, its problems, its challenges and its special situations. In that respect we are all alike in this House, men and women trying to do the best we can in the situations we are faced with each day.

However rapidly growing areas such as York North, Ontario riding, Scarborough and Mississauga West need special consideration in dealing with redistribution. This report goes an immense distance toward meeting the needs of such high growth communities.

I draw attention to the size variable of plus or minus 25 per cent which has been discussed in this House. This provision will allow high growth areas more flexibility in establishing realistic long term boundaries. Such growth predictions and subsequent planning efforts are relatively accurate. Growth areas can be easily identified and subsequent adjustments made. There is very little risk of error, judging from past predictions and actual growth patterns.

The new electoral boundaries process will include the direction that a commission be established following each five-year mini census if more than 10 per cent of the province's constituencies vary by more than 25 per cent from the provincial average.

These five-year mini census adjustments further serve as a method to ensure fairness in riding sizes without changing the actual number of seats for each province. Thus an area like Mississauga West or Mississauga generally could be divided into four or five ridings, each with 25 per cent room for growth.

In effect for the first time ever we would be exhibiting good planning and a recognition of the special circumstances in which cities like Mississauga find themselves. After all, politicians serve people, not geography. Politicians work for people, not hills, mountains and fields.

In the past, growth has overwhelmed ridings such as Mississauga West which expanded from 140,000 to 250,000 people in 10 years and from 80,000 to 163,000 eligible registered voters. Ten-year adjustments are inadequate. We need to recognize that the urban residents in new communities create tremendous work while their area is expanding and establishing its roots.

Federal services do not keep pace, further adding to the burden on an MP's office. Unemployment insurance offices, Canada Post, passport centres and district tax offices cannot keep up. The flight of city dwellers to suburban areas is much quicker than the corresponding addition of new federal services to meet their demands. We know that many immigrants who currently land at Pearson airport will settle in the outskirts of urban centres where taxes, rents and services are less expensive.

The 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding electoral boundaries also recognizes an often overlooked aspect to riding boundaries: communities of interest and existing municipal boundaries. In the past the gremlins of redistribution often cobbled together some fairly innovative, if convoluted, riding boundaries. Many were more representative of a pretzel than a riding. I can only speculate on the motive behind the more innovative electoral creations.

Suffice it to say the best interest of communities and of people will only be served if the riding boundaries are sensitive to communities of interest. They must recognize the cohesiveness and shared concerns of certain geographic or municipal areas.

Some proposals in the recent past had Brampton and part of Mississauga in the same riding. This may not be troubling to some people, since we know Mississauga is the gateway to Brampton, possibly the centre of the new universe as I know it, but it does create problems of a practical nature.

Think of the extra unnecessary work created in a riding that is geographically split or extremely diverse in interests, economics or lifestyle. It becomes a delicate and largely futile effort to

keep many very different areas in balance. My colleague for Bramalea-Gore-Malton knows exactly of what I speak.

The report we are debating today addresses these sensitive situations. The new guidelines also provide a greater opportunity to enhance our relationships with area municipalities, not unlike the very co-operative process under which the government's infrastructure program was developed and implemented.

Local planning staff, area residents and municipal leaders will have a far greater role and responsibility in ensuring the needs of their communities are taken into consideration long before final boundaries are decided on. MPs will not be required to make the decisions of King Solomon, with very diverse interests forcing a member to choose between one community of interest and another quite opposite one.

There is another innovation. This report specifies, as has been mentioned, that three different alternatives for each riding redistribution be presented by the electoral commission with a detailed rationale for the one they have chosen. The commission will collect and justify its preferred option, but the alternatives will be available to those who wish to raise objections for the first time ever.

This new procedure alone adds immeasurably to the empowerment of local citizens and civic officials. The hearings will then allow citizens to select another option with equal population distribution based on alternative communities of interest or geographic characteristics.

Until now the boundary setting process has been at very best something of a mystical, partisan federal rite occurring once within each decade. Now the process will be viewed as clear cut, straightforward and inclusive. The five-year review is a further refinement, reflecting the belief that expanding areas change dramatically in a short period of time and therefore need more than the current ten-year review.

Last, the report attempts to bring fairness and balance into riding redistribution. We must be fair to Canadians regardless of where they live. Each Canadian is equal in voting power to the next. Each vote should, as close as is constitutionally possible, carry the same weight as the next.

While the urban areas are growing rapidly, it is a matter of political fairness that new ridings continue to be established where the people live. This shift seems inevitable and needs to be recognized. My 250,000 constituents deserve full representation, full enfranchisement and full democratic powers.

The population of Mississauga West will soon reach 300,000 people yet we have only one voice in Parliament, as strong as it is. We need to approach this challenge with an open mind and a commitment to equity. It is not likely that we will ever please all Canadians regardless of our best efforts.

Some will always cling to old notions in a process that is long out of date. I understand how difficult it is to serve areas that are losing population with vast geographic areas between pockets of small populations.

The report also addresses the concerns of low population areas and rural establishments. Some ridings have tremendous historical roots dating back to Confederation. They find the idea of redistribution or expansion suspect. I am also keenly aware of the arguments in favour of certain special status cases such as Prince Edward Island. My favourite line, to the member who sits in front of me from P.E.I., is it takes eight of him to make one of me.

These exceptions to the general rule of representation by population have long served Canada's best interests. I understand that certain compromises may be necessary to ensure harmony and equity.

The time has come for all MPs to recognize that rapid growth also creates special circumstances of equal importance. The government motion for the very first time comes to grips with the growing problems in urban Canada. For the first time, it introduces five-year census adjustment rather than ten. It allows rapidly growing ridings to be set at limits 25 per cent below the provincial average to allow for expansion which will probably occur within those five years.

It stresses communities of interest as a prime criteria for drawing riding boundaries. It requires the presentation of three different options for intelligent community input on riding redistribution.

I invite all hon. members of the House, regardless of political persuasion, to consider these proposals carefully and to wholeheartedly endorse the government motion.

In conclusion, I would like to very humbly thank the committee for allowing me to join it halfway through its deliberations. I feel as though I rode in on a white charger just in time to save the large ridings from once again being subjected to the very cavalier attitude that has been prominent in the past.

The chairman has been a marvellous chairman and I really consider it a great privilege to have served on this committee.

[Jim Silye, Reform, Calgary Centre, AB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to make a comment on this bill on electoral changes. It centres more around the size of the House of Commons.

I cannot believe that the chairman of the committee in his speech said that to introduce a cap or to reduce the size of the House is not feasible because of constitutional problems. The logic that the member for Kingston and the Islands uses is that we should not address the size of the House of Commons and its

growth. He is defending the status quo and it is just an excuse for lack of leadership.