Debates of March 27th, 1995

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The question is on Motion No. 1. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Pursuant to Standing Order 76.1(8), the recorded division on the motion stands deferred. The recorded division will also apply to Motions Nos. 2, 3, 5 and 7.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the question to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment is as follows: the hon. member for Delta-Fisheries.

The House will now proceed to consideration of Motion No. 4, which will be debated and voted on separately.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

moved:

Motion No. 4

That Bill C-69, in Clause 16, be amended by replacing lines 41 to 44, page 8, with the following:

"Constitution Act, 1867 and, notwithstanding the foregoing, when by application of this subsection the number of members to be assigned to the Province of Quebec is less than 25 per cent of the total number of members in the House of Commons, the Chief Electoral Officer shall assign at least 25 per cent of the total number of members to the Province of Quebec.

(2.1) The Chief Electoral Officer shall cause a notice to be published in the Canada Gazette forthwith setting out the results thereof."

Mr. Speaker, we are finally at the heart of the debate. We are nearing the point where we will know whether or not this House recognizes Quebec a right we have always considered normal, as one of the two founding peoples, the right to be represented according to our historical participation in Canadian institutions. Aside from what my friend, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, was saying awhile ago-since we hope that this bill on electoral boundaries will not apply to Quebec-we must continue to live with the institutions where we have been called to serve and work, in the hope of improving them until such time when Quebec democratically chooses to separate.

The Constitution Act of 1791, the first providing for elected representation, gave Quebec a large majority of seats. It means that in 1791, francophones controlled the legislative assembly. The Union Act of 1840 reduced Quebecers' share to half the seats in the House of the Province of Canada although, at the time, their numbers were far greater than those of the English speaking population.

On the eve of the union of 1867, there were, right here in Ottawa, in the Parliament of the Province of Canada, 65 members from Quebec and 65 members from Upper Canada. We had half the seats. What happened since then? From 65 out of 130, or 50 per cent, as we were on June 30, 1867, we went the very next

day to 65 out of 181, or a third, at least theoretically since the elections had not been called yet.

Today, as we sit in this 35th Parliament, we are 75 out of 295 and, should the trend continue, should we remain in this federal system which is relentlessly stifling us, we will have only 75 seats out of 301 in the 36th Parliament. Then it will be out of 310, 330, 340. This is Quebec's slow agony. Today we are called on to say if we accept this slow agony for Quebec, regardless of the referendum results. I am in good company to comment this situation.

Fortunately, we have Hansard , the official report of the debates, which allows us to see how our friends in this House looked at this issue, in 1992. I refer especially to page 12795 of Hansard of September 9, 1992, in which the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, the current Canadian Minister of Foreign Affairs said, and I quote: ``Another demand is the preservation of Quebec's representation within common institutions to fully reflect its particular status in Canada. Item 21 guarantees that Quebec will be assigned no fewer than 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons''.

The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel goes on to say: "This is in fact an extraordinary gain showing the remarkable generosity of our Canadian partners who thus recognize Quebec's distinctiveness". The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, who is now a government minister, will surely not change his mind when the matter is voted on. He will surely remember a speech he made as recently as September 9, 1992 and support the amendment tabled by the Bloc today.

Other people not known as sovereignists have considered this issue. These people have expressed conflicting constitutional positions. A case in point is Senator Jean-Claude Rivest who, when he appeared before the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on June 21, dealt in particular with the issue of a minimum level of representation for Quebec, what this minimum level should be and why.

In the June 21, 1994 issue, No. 18, of the Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Senator Rivest is quoted as saying: "However, the constitutional system that the Canadian constitution imposes on the various provinces varies considerably from province to province. In particular, the constitutional obligations that were imposed upon Quebec in 1867, and which were maintained in the 1982 Act are much greater than those imposed on other provinces.

One only has to recall the special language requirements imposed upon Quebec concerning the use of French and English in the legislature and in the courts, the provisions that were renewed concerning Quebec pursuant to section 23 of the Charter having to do with the language of instruction, and the constitutional obligation that only the government of Quebec has to maintain two school board systems".

So, says Senator Rivest: "The principle that the various provinces should be constitutionally equal is contradicted by the very text of the Constitution, which opens the way for the government of Quebec to demand, strictly at the constitutional level, i.e. in terms of the House of Commons, the Senate and the Supreme Court, special constitutional status that corresponds to the sociological, linguistic and historical reality of Quebec within the Canadian federation".

Senator Rivest added: "One example would be the 25 percent representation rule within the House of Commons, along with the fact that in the current Senate, Quebec has a markedly greater representation than do the other provinces of regions of Canada. A second example would be the Supreme Court. Only Quebec is guaranteed three seats on the Supreme Court. So when it came time to negotiate about the House of Commons, as I just said, we demanded 25 percent representation. From a federalist point of view, the basic problem of Quebec's society-and this is still Senator Rivest talking-and not the problem of the province of Quebec, is that it is inconceivable and no doubt unacceptable for Quebecers, for Quebec's society, to be part of the Canadian federation without the assurance and the constitutional and legal guarantees that the various Quebec governments have always sought and with which Quebec could retain, at the institutional level, not a majority, not equality, but enough of a critical mass to have influence corresponding to its historical, sociological and cultural reality within the Canadian federation. For Quebec, this is something that is not negotiable".

I am quoting Senator Rivest, who has not yet joined the Yes camp in the referendum debate. I asked Senator Rivest this last question when he appeared before us: "If Quebecers were to decide to postpone their move toward sovereignty, would you now be in favour of including a constitutional clause that would guarantee them 25 per cent representation"?

Senator Rivest replied: "I think that no matter how the Senate is reformed, it will be extremely difficult for the Premier of Quebec, assuming that the federal system continues, to agree to any constitutional standard, regarding the number of members, that would be below a 25 per cent threshold".

I just quoted two staunch federalists, two people who actively participated in the abortive attempts to reform Canadian federalism.

I see across the way some of the members who supported this minimum of 25 per cent, this critical mass that Quebec so badly needs in this House. The member for Cochrane-Superior voted in favour of the motion, as did the member for Saint-Maurice and current Prime Minister, the member for Sudbury, now Minister of Health, the member for Papineau-Saint-Michel, of course, after what he said, voted in favour of the motion and, oddly enough, the only two paired members, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the former Solicitor General, Mr. Lewis. I hope that he will not be paired in the vote, and that

he will support, as his colleagues have done, a minimum representation for Quebec.

The vote that will be held in this House will send a message to those Quebecers who still have doubts about the willingness to reform federal institutions. It will tell them whether there is, among the Liberal members opposite, the willingness to give Quebec a minimum guarantee that the Liberals themselves, when they were in opposition, felt so strongly that Quebec should have.

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

Mr. Speaker, I always respect the views of the hon. member for Bellechasse which he expressed so well this afternoon. I think the problem is that he chose a subject that is not part of the bill.

Actually, the issue he raised today by proposing this motion in amendment is a constitutional issue, one for a debate on the Constitution like we had during the debate to which he referred in his speech, right up to the vote. Was it on the constitutional question? Or was it on the Charlottetown accord? It was either one or the other.

I remember that evening when I was not in the House to vote on this question. It was a very important question, and I supported the Charlottetown accord.

I supported the accord, and the voters in Kingston and the Islands voted for it, but I am sure the hon. member for Bellechasse did not support the Charlottetown accord. I hope he did, but I am afraid he voted against it. I am sure that Reform Party members in this House voted against Charlottetown, and that is too bad, because it was a good accord and I supported it, as I said before.

The Charlottetown accord died. While some of us worked very hard on the referendum campaign to ensure its success, as I did, it was rejected by the people and we must respect that decision and try to get on with life.

If the hon. member wants to amend the Constitution of Canada to provide some minimum number of seats for another province, that is fine. We already have some of those in the Constitution, with respect to Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick at the moment. We can deal with amendments to the Constitution of Canada. However, I am not going to support efforts to make those changes through the back door by changing the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

The hon. member knows this is a back door way of trying to achieve something that requires a front door approach. What he is asking us to do is ensure that another province be added to the list of those guaranteed protection under the act. In my view we have too many of them now. In addition to the two guarantees in favour of a Senate floor in all provinces but that are now full force in effect in respect of both Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick, we have the grandfather clause introduced into the Constitution by the previous government.

The grandfather clause ensures that provinces will not drop below the number of seats they had in the House in I think 1979. That clause is protecting several other provinces which in a normal redistribution would lose seats to more populous provinces.

Now we have the spectacle of the Reform Party urging on the House a reduction in the number of seats in the House. It would have abolished the grandfather clause and reduced the number of seats in many provinces. I am afraid we would have said goodbye to the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister because his province would have lost a very large number of seats. I can only imagine that when the electors got a chance to deal with him, having put forward such a proposition, they would have made short work of his political career, which I am sure would be a matter of considerable regret to many of us in the House.

The government rejected this idea and I see it has not come back in amendments today. I can understand why. I suspect that if the members of the Reform Party pushed the reduction in seats in amendments with the dire consequences that we all know would follow for the province of Saskatchewan among others, they would be in difficulty today.

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

It is beyond the scope of the bill.

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

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister from his seat said it is beyond the scope of the bill. I agree with him, but then so is this one.

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

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The Chair has made a ruling on whether the Bloc amendment was in order and within the scope of the bill. I wonder if he might withdraw that.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. parliamentary secretary would know better than to do that. We must put a positive interpretation on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that it has already been ruled to be in order. It does not mean that I do not have my views on what the amendment was. I made them earlier today. They are on the record. The hon. member may wish to re-read my remarks.

Looking at this motion today, the hon. member for Bellechasse should also bear in mind that what we are trying do by this law is get a law that will survive court challenges. He knows as well as I do that when we were considering the bill in committee we looked very carefully at previous court decisions in respect of representation matters in Canada.

We tried to come up with wording that would ensure our bill fell within the parameters laid down by the courts, interpreting the Constitution Act in ways to see that this complies in every respect with that act so that we will not have the electoral boundaries drawn up by a commission thrown out as being contrary either to the Constitution Act or to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and that will ensure the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act are not held to be inconsistent with the Constitution Act.

Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this act is not thereby disturbed.

The question is will a change provided for in this act disturb the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by the Constitution Act. It would or could depending on the number of seats added or taken away in order to achieve the result desired by the hon. member in his amendment.

Therefore the amendment may be contrary to section 52 of the Constitution Act. If it were, it could throw out the entire redistribution all across the country after it was complete. What needs to be amended here is not the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act but the Constitution Act to attain the result the hon. member desires.

Furthermore, if a guarantee of 25 per cent of the seats for Quebec affects the principle of proportionate representation then the motion could require this constitutional amendment under the seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population rule pursuant to section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which provides as follows:

(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1);

(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;

Given that this kind of constitutional amendment, this kind of guarantee, may require the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population and may not be done by a simple act of Parliament, again I suggest this is an inappropriate way to do it.

He knows perfectly well that the Charlottetown accord provided such a vehicle and amended the Constitution of Canada in respect of certain matters but adopted the requirements required by the Constitution for the 50 per cent where necessary in unanimity in certain other cases.

The constitutional accord was worked out on that basis. His amendment needs to be worked out on that kind of basis because it does affect the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House.

Accordingly, it is a matter that needs to be dealt with as an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, not as an amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

For that reason in spite of the very eloquent remarks he made and in spite of the suggestion that members of the House have voted previously in support of the general principle of this proposition, in this case the House would do very well to reject the amendment he has proposed and allow it to be brought forward if he wishes as a private member's bill to amend the Constitution Act or wait until the House gets a bill before it that deals with the Constitution Act and the representation of the people in that act. We can then touch on it.

I note that for the record in respect of the committee's own proceedings on this matter it recommended that a review of the question of the size of the House, the number of members here or whether there should be a reduction, should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the next Parliament when the 1996 quinquennial census will be complete and in the hands of Parliament so that members can look at the representation of the population in the various provinces and make a decision as to whether we should attempt a freeze or reduction in the number of MPs based on the shifts in population reflected in the quinquennial census.

I am optimistic that a new committee will come up with an answer to the hon. member's problem and look at amending the Constitution at that time to achieve that result. We should keep our socks on and be patient. Perhaps in the next Parliament we will be able to deal with the issue.

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister will probably give us an earful on that as well.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is with some interest and almost disbelief that I hear some of the arguments, particularly put forward by the Bloc today, suggesting Quebec should be entitled to 25 per cent of the seats of the House of Commons in perpetuity regardless of the role that history will play in the future of our country and a number of other reasons.

Before I respond to that I will quickly respond to the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands who suggested that if Saskatchewan were to lose a few seats in the House along with other provinces somehow it would reflect badly upon those of us who suggest Canadians want less government rather than more government.

I say to the hon. member that in the province of Saskatchewan, while there are many things the provincial government has done which I disagree with, one of the things it has done that I do agree with is that it has reduced the number of provincial seats from 66 to 58. If the current provincial government in Saskatchewan gets re-elected, one of the reasons it may win re-election is the fact that it has reduced the number of seats in the province. This is contrary to the wisdom of Liberal members in this House who seem to think we need to expand the number of seats in this place to please Canadians and to serve them better.

With respect to the amendment proposed by the Bloc, the Liberals agreed with the Reform Party on most of the proposals which were put forward, including this one. On the others, the Liberals backed away from these principles. The Bloc pursued a very interesting strategy in that it supported the government even though it disagreed with the government on this issue all the way through the progress and development of this bill.

It seemed rather odd that the Bloc would stand with the government. Liberal and Reform members did not agree at any point that Quebec should be guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats in the House. I am not too sure why, but all of a sudden the Bloc decided that this had become a major issue and it would have to reverse its position on the bill.

Let us take a look at what would happen if we followed the Bloc proposal. The Bloc want to guarantee that Quebec will have 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons regardless of population. It claims this is Quebec's historical proportion of seats. The Bloc may be proposing this because it knows it will lose the referendum and it wants to remain in the House.

In any case, it violates the principle of representation by population. Seats are added to provinces to account for population growth and proportional shifts. If all the provinces insisted on retaining their proportion of seats, a provincial redistribution would simply not occur. That would create even greater discrepancies in the population of provincial constituencies as the country continued to grow. I would like to give a couple of examples of this. I hope the Bloc members are paying attention.

In 1925 Saskatchewan had 21 out of 245 seats in this House. If Saskatchewan demanded to have its historical proportion of seats, it would now receive 26 seats out of 301 in the next redistribution. That is almost double the current total of 14 seats.

Who would give up those seats? Certainly, Quebec could not because that would not guarantee its 25 per cent. I guess those seats would have to come from the province of Ontario. Or perhaps the province of British Columbia would give up a few. I am sure all of us would have to give a bit to make Saskatchewan and Quebec happy if they were guaranteed their historical percentage of seats. Saskatchewan would have to have 26 seats and Quebec would have to have 25 per cent of the total. It would be a big problem.

Let us look at an even more interesting scenario. The province of Nova Scotia at one time had 21 out of 213 seats in this House. That was at about the turn of the century. A few years later, Alberta and British Columbia received their representation and they only had seven members in this House. If we locked things in in that scenario, Nova Scotia would now have 30 seats in this House and Alberta and British Columbia would probably still be under 10 seats, even though their populations far surpass the province of Nova Scotia. What would we do about that?

Seats are allocated on the basis of population shifts relative to the population of the entire country. It has to be that way because Canada is a nation which has always grown at different rates at different stages and times in its history. The government must adapt and pass laws to fit the reality of the day, not the reality of a century ago. We cannot always navel gaze into the future to predict exactly what is going to happen.

Fixing seat allocations at an arbitrary moment in time is folly. No one can know how the country will develop in the next century. We must not create something which future generations cannot live with and cannot change which, in fact, would be reason to continue some of the divisive arguments we have heard in the past between different regions and provinces within the country.

As Quebec currently has one of the slowest growing populations in Canada according to Elections Canada projections, in order for Quebec to retain 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons other provinces would have to surrender them. Otherwise more seats would constantly have to be added to the House of Commons and given to the province of Quebec. The House would become enormous in no time if we followed that practice.

The current formula predicts a House with 318 members by the year 2016 AD, with 75 seats going to Quebec. If Quebec were to have a guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats, other provinces would have to surrender five seats. If the other provinces were not prepared to surrender five seats, then six seats would have to be added to the province of Quebec to bring it up to the 25 per cent mark. As time went on, the number of extra seats required in an already growing House would increase.

This is clearly anti-democratic. It is typical of members of a party and a movement in Canada that cannot even agree on a question regarding the future of this country and whether or not Quebec will remain in Canada. They want to make sure the question will be carried in their favour. They cannot agree on the referendum question and the timing for that question because they want to guarantee the answer will be the one they want. Therefore, they will design the question to fit the scenario. Certainly this is anti-democratic, just as it is anti-democratic

for the Bloc to be declaring that Quebec deserves 25 per cent of the seats of the House of Commons regardless of its population.

It was these types of principles and this type of reasoning which defeated the Charlottetown accord. I am disappointed the member for Kingston and the Islands was defending the Charlottetown accord, an accord that demanded a double majority in the Senate based on language and one that also guaranteed Quebec 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. The member cannot have it both ways. He cannot speak against 25 per cent in this House now and then speak in favour of the Charlottetown accord which included those same measures.

Also, the member for Kingston and the Islands and others in this House have suggested that because the Charlottetown accord called for an elected Senate somehow we compromised in our position. I remind all hon. members in this House that we called for a triple E Senate which was not only elected but also had equal representation from each province to overcome the concerns of the province of Quebec. Should its population decline it would have had that protection in the Senate with an equal number of representatives in the upper House, the same as every other province in Canada.

It makes sense. It is the way this country needs to be governed and it is about time that the members in this House from the other parties realized it.

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

Mr. Speaker, to start with, I would like to respond to the Reform Party's contentions. Just because you neglected to come to the defence of your people in Saskatchewan, we do not have to follow suit in Quebec. We were elected to defend the interests of Quebec.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Would the hon. member please direct his comments through the chair?

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

I will repeat, then, that if the Reform member raised the issue of Saskatchewan, but failed to defend the province as he should have, it is not my problem. We were elected to defend the interests of Quebec and defending the interests of Quebec entails ensuring that we will have a minimum to look forward to, in the future, in Canada.

I have never represented Canada in the House. I represent a riding in Quebec which is part of Canada and I hope that it will cease to be a part of it in the very near future. The Parliament of Canada will be sending a clear message to Quebecers if it decides that Quebec does not deserve 25 per cent of all seats. A message that Canada will give us no minimum guarantees, that we are not one of the founding peoples and that we do not even deserve 25 per cent of the seats in Parliament.

If Parliament votes against our proposal, it would mean that Quebec deserves less protection than Prince Edward Island, because Prince Edward Island has a guarantee under the constitution. And it does have, for its population, a very large guarantee indeed. And the people of Quebec will always remember this clearly, whether from within the current system or from their own sovereign state.

I invite the Reform Party to come and just try to sell its opinion to Quebec that we do not deserve 25 per cent of the seats. Quebecers will be quite clear in their reply, particularly to Reformers but also to any other party which would come to Quebec with the message that we in Quebec, who founded this country, do not deserve 25 per cent of the seats. I look forward to seeing the day that the Liberals come to Quebec to say that they rejected our proposal.

The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands told us earlier that he was very concerned about the legality and constitutionality of this clause. I would urge him to vote on this amendment based on the substance of the issue and to let the Supreme Court determine the validity of the argument. It is not for us to interpret whatever decision the government makes on this issue.

I would also like to remind my colleagues in this House of the remarks made by a true Canadian visionary, Mr. René Lévesque. During the 1970s, Mr. Lévesque said: "If we stay in this system as it is now, we will shrink. With the ever increasing majority, we will always remain a minority and will never have the opportunity to become a nation within this country".

For us, the proposal on the table is the least we need to see if you are ready to treat us on an equal basis in this society and to accept a minimum number of changes.

When the hon. member said earlier that a constitutional amendment might be needed, well, if this is what it takes to guarantee equality to francophones in Quebec and the whole population of Quebec, then it is up to you to introduce it. If you do not, you will be burying you head in the sand and giving Quebecers even less hope for a future within Canada than they have now.

I would like to point out that the first time my grandfather voted in his life, he voted for Laurier. This was the first he voted. He would often tell me this story, and he was very proud of it. The prime minister, then only a candidate, used to travel by train and stop in every municipality on the way. From the last car, he gave a short speech in each municipality, and it was on the basis of this that people voted.

It was then that my grandfather understood that the debate in Canada would always be about who best answered the question "Will French Canadians be treated as the equals of English Canadians?" This was how he saw the situation. He used to say that the British North America Act had been signed by Quebec, by Quebecers, because they felt it gave them a minimum of security with respect to their expectations.

The same man, several years later, voted for what was called the Bloc populaire. This party was no longer talking about equality in Canada. This came after a very significant moment in history when the importance of the 25 per cent was brought home. It was when Quebecers voted in an overwhelming majority against conscription, but had it shoved down their throats anyway.

Our great fear is that without this guarantee in the future, you will treat us more than ever like a minority, systematically reducing our representation to 15, 12, 10 per cent and maybe even achieving what some might like to see happen. But if we do not get this commitment from the present government-and I think that the proposed amendment is an amendment in principle-it will be a clear message, a very symbolic and significant sign that Canada no longer wants Quebec, no longer wants it to play the role it has always played since the introduction of the British North America Act.

In voting on this amendment, the Liberal majority, and Reform members too, because we are told that it is a free vote for them, will be making an important statement. Furthermore, I have the impression that there are among the ranks of the Reform Party a few hon. members who will, on their own, decide that the amendment is very acceptable.

In conclusion, I would say that this type of amendment is one of the very reasons for our presence here. The Bloc was elected to defend the interests of Quebec, to let Quebecers see the machinations of the system, because if we had not been here, this amendment would not have been tabled. If the Bloc Quebecois did not form the official opposition, if it were not a significant party in the House of Commons, there would never have been a debate on this issue. Our question to the federalists is this: "Are you ready to let Quebec take its rightful place or do you want to put it in its place?" I hope that you will make the right choice.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few brief comments on the matter raised by hon. members opposite.

I listened carefully to the remarks of the mover, a colleague with whom I have worked on a number of parliamentary matters. I have to give him great credit for working very well in the parliamentary committee system and making a significant contribution there and in the House.

I listened carefully to the remarks of my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. On the issues of providing a minimum number of seats in Parliament to the province of Quebec and of capping the number of members elected in total to Parliament, I think members opposite would find a fair bit of support on the government benches, at least for the capping.

I can only speak for myself. If the Constitution is capable of providing a floor for the province of Prince Edward Island for a particular reason-whatever it was at the time-I do not see why the people of Canada would not be prepared to discuss a floor for the province of Quebec for whatever reasons exist at a particular point in time. I can see what the reasons are, as can members opposite.

Conceptually I do not have a problem with capping or with floors if that is what the political discussions yield. However, those discussions, those changes are constitutional as my colleague from Kingston and the Islands has pointed out.

We are not going to be able to wag the dog with its tail here. Capping of the House of Commons and providing a floor to a particular province or region is a constitutional matter which we are incapable of addressing in this bill.

The Speaker has already ruled that the motion is not out of order. We could legislate. However, given the remarks of my colleague from Kingston and the Islands, I am not too sure that adopting this provision would have the result intended. It might skew the interpretation of the Constitution.

I wanted to signal to my colleagues opposite that I hear, I understand and I am not unsympathetic to the concept. However, I believe it is constitutional. It is odd and I find it odd. I know members opposite will understand that it is peculiar to say the least that members opposite would be looking for changes in a Constitution they have indicated they wish to abandon within a few months.

That regrettably points out perhaps an Achilles' heel, perhaps a weakness in the perspective of the Bloc, which makes a contribution to the problem. We do not always agree; many times we do not. However, to the citizens in the province of Quebec, I think it is fair to say that the only way we will get constitutional resolutions to the many issues that may confront Canada is to get back into that envelope of discussion. That is in the hands of the Prime Minister and the premiers. It is a matter they do not want to address now.

At the present time we have to deal with redistribution the way it is. I want the record to show those remarks.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be able to rise this afternoon to speak on a matter that seems to be only a technical consideration of figures. However, basically, it is an opportunity to show Quebecers how the rest of Canada envisions Quebec.

My hon. colleague opposite mentioned a moment ago that since the Bloc Quebecois sanctions Quebec's sovereignist agenda, we should not give too much importance to the readjustment of electoral boundaries since Quebec will have ceased to exist as a province within a few months. He is perfectly right. If there is something which does not motivate me to speak too long, it is certainly the rearrangement of an electoral map including Quebec, because I fervently hope that sovereignty will be proclaimed very soon. But it is a good opportunity to show Quebecers what the rest of Canada thinks of the role of Quebec in the Canadian confederation.

Giving Quebec 25 per cent of the seats is more or less proportionate to what we pay in taxes. There is an old maxim that says "No taxation without representation". Let us go back in time to see how we have been treated since the conquest of Quebec, or New France, by England.

It must be realized that some 250 years ago, this territory was totally owned by New France. We had families, we spoke French, and economic, social and cultural activities were all conducted in French. Then came the conquest. It did not simply transfer custody over the country from the King of France to the King of England. It also brought forth assimilation dynamics which caused the territory to be separated between Upper Canada and Lower Canada a hundred years later.

We must not forget that at the time, the economic situation was critical in Upper Canada whereas it was very comfortable in Lower Canada, Quebec in other words. The Union was essentially a means for Quebec and its sound economy to help finance Upper Canada where the economic situation was rather on the slow. And the federal government did not stop there. To finance wars which were continuaaly breaking out, it introduced taxes to get even more money. Was that money put to good use for Quebec and Quebecers? Just looking at the way investments were made tells us that it is not the case.

Why are decisions made the way they are? Simply because Quebec no longer carries any political weight. If we have only 25 per cent of the seats, it means that we are losing 75 per cent of the political power. It is easy to understand that the sovereignist agenda would finally give back to Quebec 100 per cent of all the powers required to ensure its own viability, protect its economy and take on its role on the world scene.

Today, we have the opportunity to show that even with 25 per cent, which is exactly what Quebec has been requesting all along, even with 25 per cent, we face opposition from the government.

I ask all Quebecers: Is it worth staying within a Confederation when common sense requires that we get what we are entitled to according to historical rights, and that raises objections and eyebrows? I am thoroughly convinced that I could have explained all of this to empty benches and that the government's position would have been the same.

I hope this will make Quebecers understand that there is no alternative to the historical decision we must make. There is only one solution, the one that will give us 100 per cent of our powers and not limit us to a mere 25 per cent or even less.

[Suzanne Tremblay, Bloc, Rimouski—Témiscouata, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am obviously very happy to be part of this debate. The reason of the amendment proposed by the Bloc Quebecois is that Quebec be guaranteed by Canada a minimum of 25 per cent of the total number of members in the future. I think that many arguments have been put forward and I think it is very important to be aware that we are going through a significant moment of our lives.

We have asked on several issues in the past for a sign that would allow Quebec to try and understand or see if Canada truly wants a Quebec that stands up within Canada. It is not in the interest of Canada to have a weak Quebec but rather a strong Quebec which will be able to keep its representativeness, because Quebec is a nation. It is a people, a founding people.

In 1982, Canada undertook a societal project that denied Quebec its distinctiveness and said that henceforth there was only one national identity in this country. This society project treats all ten provinces on an equal footing. As a founding people, as my colleague just said so eloquently a moment ago, francophones were present on the whole territory and even further down to the south since they were even to be found in Louisiana, and when each of the provinces joined the Confederation, francophones formed a majority almost everywhere.

The population in Quebec also experienced significant growth, but if we analyze the immigration policy of Canada we will see that Canada has deliberately increased Ontario's population by immigration and it has anglicized this country. This was a deliberate decision on the part of the government. We are asking for a concession from this country that wants to keep us all together. Everyone says that Canada is much better off with Quebec. If that is true, make some concessions. Give us the minimum we are asking for, which is 25 per cent of the representativeness. That is all we are asking.

I wonder why the government would be stubborn about that. Earlier, when I was behind the curtains, I heard the hon. member from Kingston and the Islands say that he had doubts about the legality of the amendment. I think that is not a very strong argument because at this point in time, I do not see how we could question the decision made by the Speaker to the effect that this amendment was admissible. Therefore, if the Speaker said that the amendment was in order, I wonder how we could challenge that. Other arguments must be found to justify a vote against this amendment.

It seems extremely important to me that we recognize that Quebec does bring an essential contribution to Canada. Confidentially speaking, between you and I, if English speaking Canada is not already an American state, it is because we are here. We make the difference. Without French speaking people, what makes us different from the Americans? We eat like them, we drink like them, we do the same things, we watch the same TV. Everything will reach us much more easily. As you know, American imperialism is expanding all around the world. It will cross our borders much more easily.

What makes a Canadian a Canadian is the fact that he can say he lives in a bilingual country. Canadians are in a country where a large percentage of the population, 25 per cent, is francophone. It is a country with a dual culture. It has the underlying wealth of two cultures, the English and the French cultures.

What other country in the world can claim such a cultural wealth? We are really, I believe, vital to Canada. We have said that, so long as we are not sovereign, we will defend the interests of Quebecers.

It must look rather odd for a sovereignist to rise in this House and say: "Hang on to the furniture, give us at least 25 per cent representation". We have not left the country yet. We are still here, and our duty, what we see as our basic responsibility, is to say to the all of the hon. members in this House that it is their duty to give us 25 per cent representation. We were here first; you conquered us. We formed a union in 1840. We decided to live together. We established a sort of trade agreement. We built a railroad that we are in the process of demolishing. At least give us 25 per cent representation. It will not cost you anything. On the contrary, it will mean a lot for you. You must realize this while there is still time.

After we go, if ever we leave, because we are basically hoping to, it will not have cost you a thing to give us the 25 per cent we are asking for as a gesture of openness and understanding toward a nation you claim you want to keep with you. It seems to me that, if the government really wants to prove conclusively that it cares for us, it must maintain our level of representation.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?