Debates of March 29th, 1995

Petitions

[Charlie Penson, Reform, Peace River, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 88 people from my riding. The petitioners believe they are already overburdened with taxation due to high government spending.

Therefore they request Parliament reduce government spending instead of raising taxes. I endorse that petition.

[Leon Benoit, Reform, Vegreville, AB]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I am delighted to present four petitions on behalf of 1,880 constituents of Vegreville constituency.

In all four petitions, it is recognized that public safety is the number one priority of the criminal justice system. It is also

recognized that the existing controls on law-abiding, responsible gun owners are more than enough.

The petitioners request that Parliament support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals that use weapons in the commission of a crime, support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the rights of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms, and request that Parliament support legislation that will repeal and modify existing gun control laws which do not improve public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be overly complex so as to be ineffective and/or unenforceable.

[Dave Chatters, Reform, Athabasca, AB]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 36 I would like to present a petition from the residents of my constituency of Athabasca, mainly from the Westlock area.

The petition requests that Parliament support laws that severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of a crime; support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use firearms; and support legislation which will repeal or modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety or have proven not to be cost effective or have proven to be so overly complex as to be ineffective or unenforceable.

[Carolyn Parrish, Liberal, Mississauga West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, it is my duty to present a petition on behalf of Mrs. Dorothy Polhill of Mississauga West.

In it the petitioners call on Parliament to oppose any amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which provide for the inclusion of the phrase sexual orientation.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 to present three groups of petitions.

The first group deals with euthanasia and is signed by 151 people in my riding. The petitioners pray that Parliament ensure the present provisions of the Criminal Code of Canada prohibiting assisted suicide be enforced vigorously and that Parliament make no changes in the law which would sanction or allow the aiding or abetting of suicide or any activity designed to terminate human life.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the second group of petitions deal with the release of repeat sex offenders. The petitioners pray and call on Parliament to enact legislation that would enable residents to be notified when repeat sex offenders are released into the community.

This legislation would make the safety of our children a priority.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, the third and final group of petitions is signed by 209 people from my riding and other parts of New Brunswick.

The petitioners pray and request Parliament not to amend the human rights code, the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or of homosexuality, including amending the Criminal Code to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation. I concur with all of these petitions.

[Paul Forseth, Reform, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present two petitions today from constituents in B.C.'s lower mainland and the riding of New Westminster-Burnaby.

In both petitions, the petitioners make it known that they are overburdened with taxation due to high government spending.

Therefore they pray and request that Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes and implement a taxpayer protection act to limit federal spending.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present to the House today.

The first one asks that the government not amend the human rights code to include in the prohibitive grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

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

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from a group of people from across British Columbia who request that Parliament support laws which will severely punish all violent criminals who use weapons in the commission of crime.

They support new Criminal Code firearms control provisions which recognize and protect the right of law-abiding citizens to own and use recreational firearms and support legislation which would repeal and modify existing gun control laws which have not improved public safety.

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

Mr. Speaker, the third petition contains 753 names to add to the tens of thousands of names I have tabled over the last few weeks.

It asks Parliament to reduce government spending, not to increase taxes, and to implement a taxpayer protection act in order to ensure that future tax increases will not afflict the Canadian public.

[John Cummins, Reform, Delta, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have one petition to present today and it says in part that the Minister of Transport has directed the Canadian coast guard to proceed with detailed plans for a program of unmanning all west coast light stations. The savings to the coast guard will be insignificant and the impact on the users of these services will be considerable due to the loss of local weather services, assistance in search and rescue and the manned presence on this remote rugged coastline.

Therefore, the petitioners humbly pray and call on Parliament to revoke this directive immediately and request a complete and thorough public inquiry in the province of B.C. into the need for the manned light stations on the west coast.

Questions On The Order Paper

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

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

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order pursuant to Standing Order 39.

I placed a question on the Order Paper on October 4, 1994. That was 179 days ago. I am seeking information on financial assistance provided to each federal riding in Atlantic Canada by ACOA.

It is my understanding that the government tries to answer all Order Paper questions within the 45-day period. However 179 days is an unacceptable length of time to respond to my question. It indicates either an inability or an unwillingness to answer.

Would the hon. member please advise me when I will receive an answer to the question I asked over five months ago?

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

Mr. Speaker, I know the question concerns the total amount of financial assistance provided by ACOA for each federal riding from November 4, 1993 to date.

I know the Minister of Supply and Services has been working diligently on preparing an answer to the hon. member's question. I understand that if the answer is not yet ready it is close to being ready and that I will be in a position to answer the hon. member soon.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the remaining questions stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Motions For Papers

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the notice of motion for the production of papers stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995

[Raymond Chan, Liberal, for Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

moved that Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, be read the third time and passed.

[Ethel Blondin-Andrew, Liberal, Secretary of State (Training and Youth)]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I rise in the House today to speak to Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

I greet this bill from a different perspective than has been presented to the House before. I would like to speak specifically to clause 30(a) which directly impacts on my riding of Western Arctic.

Once this legislation is enacted, four more communities will be added to my riding. The population of my riding will increase by over 1,700 people. The land mass will be increased by approximately 200,000 square kilometres. The increase in land to the Western Arctic is larger than many of the ridings in Canada. This makes my riding the second largest in terms of land mass.

It is a riding with very few roads. As a matter of fact, 90 per cent of my riding is not accessible by road. In the summer people can commute by boat along the Mackenzie River, but in the long winter the only forms of travel are by plane or on a sometimes rather treacherous winter road in very inclement conditions.

I am not here today to speak on the enormity of my riding and the difficulty in travelling from one area to another. Those concerns go without saying. It is what people would call part of the turf.

However, I would like to take this opportunity to welcome the four communities of Sachs Harbour, Holman Island, Paulatuk and Tuktoyaktuk into my riding and to encourage greater participation by aboriginal people, women and youth in the electoral process in both the north and in Ottawa.

The four communities which will be entering Western Arctic are Inuvialuit communities. They are represented by the premier of the Northwest Territories in the legislature. The riding is named Nunakput. It is with great enthusiasm that I will be working closer with her to best represent these areas. All four of these communities are on the coast of the Arctic Ocean, the third great ocean in Canada.

These communities are currently within Nunatsiaq. Once the redistricting is done they will be within Western Arctic riding. However, they have been well served by my colleague, the member for Nunatsiaq, who has served the communities since 1988 when he was first elected to Parliament.

The population of these four communities is composed largely of Inuvialuit people. Inuvialuit are western Inuit. They are distinct from the Inuit of the eastern Arctic. The Inuvialuit are descendants of the Karngmalit or Mackenzie Inuit who lived in a rich hunting territory containing woods, barrens and seas. This area contains much of the original Thule culture with its emphasis on the beluga as the main source of food, bone, fuel and hide.

Young people make up at least one-third of the population in all of these communities. They are a very young, growing set of communities. The cost of living in these communities, as with all northern communities, is very high. The living cost differential between Edmonton, Alberta in the south and these communities is between 185 and 190. This means that an item of food which costs $1 in Edmonton will cost between $1.85 and $1.90 in these communities.

Although there are many similarities between the four Inuvialuit communities, each has its own distinctive history. One of these communities, Sachs Harbour or Ikaahuk, is located on the most westerly island of the Canadian Arctic archipelago, Banks Island. Archaeologists have found Thule house ruins in several places on Banks Island, indicating that Inuit lived on those islands for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Sachs Harbour was named after the ship Mary Sachs of the Canadian Arctic expedition in 1913. Permanent occupation did not begin until 1929 when three Delta Inuit families sailed in their schooners to Sachs Harbour. The major attraction of the island was white fox. For more than 50 years the island has been considered one of the best trapping areas in the entire North American Arctic. The Banks Island people were particularly well off and well educated during the Delta fur trade boom of the thirties. The first Inuk doctor was a member of the well known Banks Island Carpenter family. Education has remained a powerful source in Sachs Harbour.

According to the 1991 census, with a population of 85 people over the age of 15, 30 had a university education or non-university education with a diploma. The people of Sachs Harbour have remained very self-sufficient in comparison to many Arctic communities. They have continued to trap. Outfitting for big game hunts for polar bear and musk ox also takes place. Sachs Harbour has an 88 per cent participation rate in the labour force and has the largest average income of the four communities which in 1991 was $25,000 plus.

Holman Island, another community to be added to my riding, is situated on the Diamond Jenness Peninsula on the western side of Victoria Island. Victoria Island was the ancestral homeland of the Copper Inuit. During the winter they hunted on Banks Island and in the summer travelled to the centre of Victoria Island to hunt caribou. The people of Holman were taught print making by Reverend Henri Tardi, who came from Viviers, France to the settlement as an Oblate missionary in 1939.

In 1961 the Holman Inuit Cooperative was formed to retail the output and print making is now a major source of the community's income. Among the Holman artists the late Helen Kalvak is the most well known. Holman has a participation rate in the labour force of only 59 per cent.

Paulatuk is another community. This is interesting for all Canadians. Canadians seldom ask questions about the north. This is a great opportunity to let them know the constituency in which we exercise a democratic franchise is one that includes these wonderful communities. Paulatuk, the other community to be added to my riding after the redistricting, is located between the seashore and an inland lake on the Arctic coast. The name Paulatuk derives from the Inuktitut term for soot of coal. Coal is found in the vicinity and was used by the Inuvialuit inhabitants for heating.

The original inhabitants of the Paulatuk area suffered greatly from the effects of many of the outside influences brought in by some of the outside whalers. However, the early and extensive contact the people had with many of the European cultures meant they were more independent of trader and missionary influence than Inuit to the east. Many could do business in English and read and write their own language in Roman script.

Paulatuk is known for its carvers. The largest segment of the population in Paulatuk is between zero and fourteen years of age. There is a 14 per cent rate of participation in the labour

force. Of those who are in the labour force 30 per cent are unemployed. The average income in Paulatuk is about $17,000.

The fourth community is Tuktoyaktuk. It is the final community which will be added to my riding. Tuktoyaktuk means resembling a caribou. Legend has it that when caribou were plentiful a woman looked on them as they waded into the water and the caribou were petrified. Reefs resembling caribou have been seen at low tide.

Tuktoyaktuk was traditionally the home of the whale hunting Mackenzie Inuit. This community is the largest of the four communities and the most ethnically diverse, although the Inuvialuit make up almost 90 per cent of the population.

Tuktoyaktuk is now the sea edge base for oil and gas exploration in in the Beaufort Sea. I have many fond memories of Tuktoyaktuk. As a young teacher in the early seventies I spend three years teaching there. Over half of the population, 15 years and over, have not completed secondary education.

These communities are diverse. The land around those communities is awesome, serene and wonderful. The sea life, the animal life and the marine make-up and the ecosystem of that area are a tourist's dream. It is actually an eco-tourist dream. It is something that people from all around the world pay a lot of money to see. It is worth every penny.

In winter and late fall we can see the aureole borealis that everyone talks about. In the summer we can stand in some of the communities and see beluga whales from houses facing the Arctic Ocean. It really is quite a sight to behold. In winter the land is covered with snow and people go out throughout that season to enjoy the community.

The member of Parliament who represents the area, the hon. member for Nunatsiaq, has been very honoured and very gracious in representing the area. I look forward to having these additional communities added to the western Arctic riding once the whole issue of redistribution and readjustment has been completed.

Historically the electoral boundaries were drawn without any consideration of how they would impact on the aboriginal communities in the area. The western Arctic was no different. The Inuvialuit who lived in the most northwestern area of Canada were split between two federal electoral districts. In 1984 the Inuvialuit became the first aboriginal group north of the 60th parallel to sign a comprehensive land claim agreement.

However, the Inuvialuit who reside in the six coastal communities remain split in two different federal electoral districts. After recently having celebrated the 10th anniversary of the signing of the historic final agreement and the passage of Bill C-69, the Inuvialuit will finally all be included in the same electoral district.

There is a very interesting point in the documents put forward about the impediments to electoral participation. They noted the Inuit did not receive the right to vote until 1950. No ballot boxes were placed in Inuit hamlets until 1962. That was unfortunate. It is unthinkable in this day in age that any citizen of this country would not be able to exercise the right to vote in a democracy such as we have, in future elections. However, that was the case.

These communities will provide a positive contribution to the already diverse riding of the western Arctic. Now the Inuvialuit people from Inuvik and Aklavik will be together with the other four Inuvialuit communities of Sachs Harbour, Paulatuk, Holman Island and Tuktoyaktuk. They will be together in one federal riding of the western Arctic.

In years past we had the Lortie commission look at a number of issues regarding electoral reform. One I was much seized with, along with some of my colleagues, was in the names of Senator Len Marchand, former member of Parliament Gene Rheaume, and someone who is very capable and who has helped us, Mr. Marc LeClair, who worked with the aboriginal Liberal commission in looking at the impediments that faced aboriginal people systemically and structurally in terms of the districts and the distribution of seats in the House, and in looking at some of the historical impediments. It made for a very interesting exercise.

We undertook a subcommittee for the royal commission and were successful in meeting a number of groups across the country that spoke to the issues. It was quite extensive.

In the world wars aboriginal people were able to fight for their country. They loved this country and wanted to contribute. They made a great sacrifice. Upon their return to this country they did not have the right to vote until the 1960s. They could lay their life down for their country, they could honour their country, but they were not given the opportunity as other Canadians to exercise their democratic right to vote.

That was a great inequity. These were some of the things we dealt with. It should be of interest to some of the people in the House that there have been 13 self-identifying aboriginal people elected to the House of Commons, including myself, the member for Nunatsiaq and the member for Churchill.

These 13 out of over 11,000 members have been elected since Confederation. Ten of the aboriginal people were elected this century. Only three have been elected in districts where aboriginal people do not constitute a majority.

Six have come from my part of the territory where aboriginal people are a majority, in the Northwest Territories. The selection came from Churchill with an aboriginal population of 42 per cent.

It is astounding to think only 11 out of 11,000 people have been aboriginal. This is the home of the first peoples along with all other Canadians.

It is an esteemed privilege as a member of Parliament to be able to speak on behalf of the people who put us here, to come forward with a conglomeration of their views, with their convictions, their passion, their vision, their beliefs about this country.

Only 13 people of aboriginal descent have been able to do that since Confederation. One of those people was Louis Riel and that is a whole other story. We will not get into that. It is quite an interesting set of circumstances to think about.

My reason for standing is to address Bill C-69 and encourage more aboriginal people, more women and more youth to get actively involved in the electoral process.

Aboriginal people make up to 16 of the 24 seats in the Northwest Territory legislature. Unfortunately the representation of people in the House of Commons is not nearly anywhere as representative. There are only three members, ironically. They are all in the Liberal Party.

That does not stop the other parties from including aboriginal people. Look at the membership of the opposition. It has huge aboriginal populations in the north of its province. In James Bay there are some of the most outstanding aboriginal leaders in the name of Billy Diamond, Matthew Coon-Come, Ted Moses and Chief Violet Pachanos.

A lot of aboriginal people in that area could stand with any other member of Parliament from that province and be proud. In other areas, northern B.C., we have predominant members from the Liberal Party as well as from the Reform Party. We have many New Democrats. We could easily elect in those areas, in the upper places where we have the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en and where we could have aboriginal people represent not just themselves and their people but non-aboriginal people.

There cannot be a false assumption that because one is of this race or this background one cannot represent fairly other people from other races as well. The doors are open. The opportunities are there.

I encourage the participation of youth, women, people from ethnic minorities, the disabled. There is in this House of democracy, in this community of communities, in this home for true democratic practices and vision a home and a seat for everyone who wants to put their name forward who is capable of being able to come here and speak on behalf of the people who elect them.

Women who make up 52 per cent of the population are not representative in either the territorial legislature or the House of Commons. In the Northwest Territories there are only three female members of the legislature, one of whom is the premier. What a premier, what an outstanding member of the government we have in the name of the premier of the Northwest Territories.

We in the Northwest Territories are proud of the premier when she goes around the world, when she goes to parliament or wherever she represents us. There is no gender barrier to the competence of an individual who thinks well, who speaks well, who presents her views and who has a passion to represent people.

There are only 53 women members of Parliament or 18 per cent of the MPs in Ottawa. The way to ensure greater representation of women and aboriginal people is to become involved in the process. I urge all aboriginal people, in particular the people of the four new communities that will be added to the western riding, to get involved in the political process to ensure that there are good people who will bring the issues that concern them to Ottawa or to Yellowknife, whatever level of government they want representation at.

The youth are an integral part of any political process. Youth have the energy and the enthusiasm to bring victory to any individual seeking office including one of their own. We can look at the list of young people elected to the House of Commons over the years. I believe Father Sean O'Sullivan was elected when he was 21 years of age. My baby is 21 years old, the youngest child in my family. It is wonderful someone like that could be elected to the House of Commons.

Richard Cashin was elected when he was 21 years old; the hon. member for Sherbrooke when he was 24 years old; Lorne Nystrom when he was 22 years old; the Hon. Perrin Beatty when he was 22 years old; the hon. member for York North when he was 28 years old; and the Prime Minister when he was 29 years old. They were all young people. They are people who have contributed. They have given the best years of their lives to this honourable process. It is quite possible. Young people out there who are listening should know that this can belong to them, that a seat in the House of Commons can be theirs.

We are here but for a short time. It can be for years or it can be for a lifetime but we are not here forever. Young people, women, disabled people, visible minorities and other capable and competent people have to be encouraged to get involved and participate. The north with its young population has an abundance of vital energy. I encourage Canadian youth to organize and participate in the electoral process to ensure that their concerns are heard.

Over the last while we have heard many concerns about post-secondary education, employment, and programs and services for young people. We have heard the concerns of disabled people. One way of advancing views is by participating, by being here. There is something to be said about being here; about having a voice, a true voice; and about standing in the highest court in the land to represent people. That is one way to advance views.

It is my hope that Bill C-69 will encourage more people to become involved in the electoral process and that in the future, when electoral maps are being drawn, greater care will be given to ensure that aboriginal communities like the Inuvialuit do not have to wait 10 years to be joined together in one federal electoral district.

I should like to take the time remaining to discuss the main components of Bill C-69 which will impact Canadians living south of 60. First, Bill C-69 eliminates unnecessary decennial redistributions in provinces where there has not been a significant population shift which leads to unacceptable deviations from the provincial quotient.

The committee's bill provides that boundary commissions will no longer be established in provinces where as a result of the decennial census the number of seats to which the province is entitled remains the same and where none of the ridings vary by more than 25 per cent from the provincial quotient. This will eliminate unnecessary redistributions and result in savings to the taxpayers.

Bill C-69 also provides for quinquennial readjustments in addition to the current decennial redistribution. Quinquennial redistributions would take place in provinces where following a quinquennial census more than 10 per cent of the constituencies varied by more than 25 per cent from the provincial quotient.

It would not affect the total number of seats, in layman's terms, in the House or the number of seats allotted to the provinces. It would only allow for the boundaries of ridings within the provinces to be redrawn. By allowing for the riding boundaries within a province to be redrawn more than every decade, the effects of major population shifts in certain provinces would be minimized.

The appointment of boundaries commissions will be more transparent. The chair of each commission will continue to be appointed by the chief justice of the province. In appointing the two other commissioners, the Speaker will have to publicize openings, solicit applications for positions, and consult widely before making appointments.

Another change is that the Speaker's appointments can be reviewed and voted down by the House. The new requirements of public notice, solicitation of applications and consultations will make for a more open and transparent process.

The boundary adjustment process will be a more open and transparent process. Bill C-69 requires that at the beginning of the readjustment process commissions publish a notice of population figures and of their work plans and invite submissions from the public. I am certain it will encourage more public participation in the readjustment process.

Bill C-69 will ensure more informed public debate. The committee's bill requires commissions to prepare three alternate maps instead of only one, as is the current process, showing how riding boundaries could be divided within the province. Although commissions would still indicate their preference, they would have to justify their preferred option. The two additional maps would assist members of the public who wish to make submissions. I believe these new requirements will favour more informed public debate and encourage more public participation in the process.

Bill C-69 provides for the possibility of a second set of public hearings to be held where necessary. When in response to public comments a commission makes changes to the proposed boundaries of a riding that would affect 25 per cent of that riding's population, Bill C-69 provides that a second set of public hearings would have to be held. The change recognizes and reflects the importance of public participation in the process. After all, people are what the electoral process is all about.

Bill C-69 sets out the circumstances in which the boundary commission's current discretion to create exceptional ridings is to be exercised and requires the commission to justify the decision in its reports. This is very critical. Recognizing there may be some need for ridings to vary from the 25 per cent provincial quotient, the committee maintained the boundaries commission authority to create exceptional ridings. The country is diverse. There are exceptional circumstances such as the massive land track in my area that we have to cover; it is huge. It is a very cumbersome exercise for an elected member to traverse the huge land mass, for instance.

However, the committee's bill limits the exercise of that discretion to extraordinary circumstances where the population is more than 25 per cent under the provincial quotient and where the riding is isolated or not readily accessible from the rest of the province. In addition the bill requires the commission to indicate the reasons for this determination in its report. I believe it will favour a responsible and consistent exercise of the discretion.

The bill eliminates the current requirement that the commission's proposals be tabled in the House.

Considering that MPs should participate in public hearings like all other Canadians, the bill does away with added scrutiny by a parliamentary committee of the boundaries commission

proposals. In any event we have seen that the interventions of MPs did not have much of an impact on the commission's final reports. MPs will have the same rights as any other citizen to make representation in the course of public consultation.

This is consistent with the intent of conferring the boundaries readjustment process on independent commissions rather than Parliament and ensures that the boundaries readjustment process remains non-partisan and independent.

Bill C-69 sets out detailed criteria for commissions to consider in drawing constituency boundaries. The committee's bill establishes clear guidelines for commissions in terms of the criteria to be taken into account in drawing constituency boundaries including the community of interest, manageable geographic size and probability of future population growth. Hence the boundaries and finally the boundary commission.

The new boundaries would come into force in less time than under the current act. Under Bill C-69 it is estimated that the boundaries readjustment process will take a total of two and a half years, which is three months shorter than under the current process.

I hope aboriginal people would take advantage of the commission's requirements as would all other people. It is noted that the whole electoral exercise is quite costly. The administration of an election involves 450,000 people and costs approximately $100 million. It is no small or pretty penny to get members of Parliament elected. It is a major undertaking and it should be noted that very few aboriginal people participate in the process.

This is particularly the case with senior positions such as returning officers who are responsible for administering the electoral machinery within the person's electoral district and for subdividing the district into polling divisions. Research was unable to identify any past or present returning officer of aboriginal descent.

The lack of experience is no viable or legitimate excuse. Elections Canada has noted in the impediment to electoral participation that 253 of the 295 returning officers appointed for the 34th general election had no previous experience managing elections. In a sense I am pleading for participation on the part of the government, individuals and communities to organize and get involved in the public process.

The commission is required to publish its plans and hear submissions from the public. This is one way to get involved in the electoral process but, more important, to ensure that electoral boundaries are drawn with more respect to the ties of neighbouring communities. It is my hope that in future aboriginal people will be able to elect members of Parliament from their areas where aboriginal people are the majority.

I congratulate the committee for the hard work it has done in reviewing the current process and in proposing improvements. It could not have been simple.

I also hope that aboriginal people, women and any other group, in particular the youth who are not adequately represented in the House of Commons, will take part in the public consultations on electoral boundaries to ensure that the boundaries are fair and respect the binding ties of neighbouring communities, in particular aboriginal communities but in fact all communities across the country.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the process the final stage of which is being undertaken today started yesterday, more than a year after the introduction in this House of Bill C-18, which suspended the electoral redistribution process then under way and provided for a 24 month waiting period before starting a new debate on redistribution.

Unfortunately, the Reform Party then opposed Bill C-18 and the 24 month delay initially provided under this bill. However, the House of Commons passed the bill suspending the whole electoral redistribution process for 24 months.

Later, in considering Bill C-18, the Senate did exactly what the Reform Party wanted to do in this House. It moved an amendment to Bill C-18 providing that a new bill had to be tabled by June 1995; otherwise, the old law would apply again, reviving the commissions suspended under Bill C-18.

When the bill came back from the Senate, the government should have stood up and affirmed the will of the people represented by the hon. members in this place by approving the bill as presented and with the relevant amendments adopted in this House.

Yet, the government then chose to go along with a Senate amendment that put us in a tight squeeze by reducing the amount of time available to do our work. It was, in my opinion, an unacceptable concession, which the Reform Party managed to secure through the Senate.

Following final passage and Royal Assent of Bill C-18, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was given the mandate to draft a bill to be submitted to the House. We worked on this for a very long time. I attended all the sessions, including those in the summer of 1994, in July 1994, in which we heard a great many witnesses, including political party representatives, hon. members of this House who came to testify, university experts and others. While working on this bill, we enjoyed the continuous collaboration of the Chief Electoral Officer and his staff.

Although we spent a lot of time on this bill, we have precious little to show for it. Of course, the bill before us, Bill C-69, contains a few sweeteners. These sweeteners are improvements compared with the present situation.

For instance, the provincial commissions will now be able to hold hearings before proceeding with their task, which is clearly an improvement on the current situation. The commissions will have to produce three maps for the regions they cover, three electoral redistribution proposals. If there is sufficient popular demand, the commissions will have to hold new hearings. Granted, the process was improved in this regard.

The bill also sets out the factors to be considered by the commissions in establishing electoral ridings.

These considerations or factors are described in subparagraph 19(2)( b ), which states that, in determining reasonable electoral district boundaries, the provincial commission shall consider the following: first, the community of interest; second, a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province; third, the probability that there will be a substantial increase in the population of electoral districts in the next five years. And finally, the commission shall recommend changes to existing electoral district boundaries only where the above-mentioned factors are sufficiently significant to warrant such a recommendation.

It is all fine and well to make a policy statement like that, making community of interest a guiding principle for every commission. However, we inevitably come across another provision, which sets the maximum variance from the provincial electoral quota at 25 per cent. For example, if, in Quebec, the provincial quota was 100,000 voters or a population of 100,000, the commission would be entitled to make electoral districts with up to 125,000 voters but no less than 75,000 or equivalent population.

The commission may observe a community of interest, but note that the number of voters is not significant enough. Let us not take an hypothetical case, but a real one. At present, the population of the electoral district of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is 43 per cent below the provincial quota of 50,000 or 51,000, but encompasses a huge area. This district is at risk; it may actually be eliminated. While this bill allows the commissions not to apply this 25 per cent rule rigidly, the considerations are so restrictive that I wonder if they will ever be able to do so.

The only time a provincial commission can depart from this rule is when, as mentioned in paragraph 19(3), an electoral riding or district is geographically isolated from the rest of the province or is not easily accessible. Who will define "geographically isolated"? The commissions, to start with, and of course the courts. No definition was provided. I consider the Magdalen Islands geographically isolated. No one will deny that. Will the population factor apply? I suggest that the commissions consider this factor. Magdalen Islanders had their own electoral district up until 1968. Under Quebec law, they are guaranteed their own district. It is not that the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine is not doing a good job at representing the district, but I think it would be highly desirable to have a member of Parliament just for the Magdalen Islands.

Magdalen Islanders will argue that they are geographically isolated, and I think that they can qualify under that factor. Then it will be a matter of satisfying the provincial commissions that the population of the islands does not vary too greatly to justify the creation of a separate district. But I can see a downside to this. While the new electoral district of Magdalen Islands gains a member of Parliament, the district of Bonaventure shrinks in terms of voters ratio. What will happen to the Gaspesian Peninsula then?

What becomes of the ridings of Gaspé, Matapédia-Matane, Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine and Rimouski-Témiscouata? What do we do? There is a problem in the Gaspé peninsula. Does clause 19(3) allow us to deal with it globally? I am not sure. We need more information. This is a region with a dwindling population where MPs, whatever their political allegiance, have a large area to cover. They must cope with problems that do not exist, or that take a very different form, elsewhere in the province or in the country. The Gaspé peninsula is the first thing that concerns me.

Maybe clause 19(3) will apply to the riding of Manicouagan, which is indeed geographically isolated and particularly inaccessible, as my hon. friend from Manicouagan argued so convincingly before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and again here in the House at the report stage, if memory serves.

Maybe it will also apply to the northern regions of Quebec and Ontario. Last Monday, the ridings of Cochrane-Superior and Nickel Belt in northern Ontario were mentioned.

They cover a vast area and their population, with certain exceptions, is generally on the decline. Will the division be made strictly on the basis of the numbers? Will a greater deviation be allowed?

Clause 19(3) is much too restrictive, in my opinion, for us to give it our approval.

We had suggested maintaining, in the bill before us, criteria now being used by the provincial commissions when deciding whether to waive the rules. What are these criteria?

At the present time, a provincial commission may waive the 25 per cent criterion in any case where any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the

province appears to the commission to render such waiving necessary or desirable. In other words, the provincial commissions now have a much broader criterion when looking at particular cases.

I think that a region like the Gaspé or the Magdalen Islands, even the Lower St. Lawrence, would have benefited much more under this criterion than under the extremely restrictive wording being proposed to replace it. This may not be as bad as the initial suggestion to include a schedule of the ridings in the act and freeze them, thus giving a form of statism to the act and to the list of ridings and making it extremely difficult to work with.

Consequently, the official opposition considers clause 19 to be a major obstacle and cannot support the bill.

Clause 16 is also questionable and even unacceptable, given what it says and what it does not say.

Following the representations made last summer to the Standing Committee on the Procedure and House Affairs-by the hon. member for Mégantic-Compton-Stanstead, by the president of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada and, previously, on June 21, by Senator Jean-Claude Rivest of the Stadacona senatorial designation-we understood that the government would be receptive to the traditional request made by Quebecers and their government for guaranteed minimum representation in the House of Commons, as is the case for some Atlantic provinces.

As you know, representation for the Atlantic provinces is guaranteed by the senatorial clause, which dates back to 1915 and which we do not question.

The senatorial clause allows a population of 120,000 people in Prince Edward Island to be represented by four members in this House. Indeed, that clause provides that a province cannot be represented by fewer members in the House of Commons than senators in the Senate. Since four Senate seats are guaranteed to Prince Edward Island in the senatorial clause, that province can also be represented by four members in this House. The same rule applies for New Brunswick, which is guaranteed ten seats in the Senate, under the Canadian Constitution.

Although the number of residents in that province does not justify such representation, New Brunswick gets ten seats and we accept that. The terms of union between Newfoundland and the Canadian federation, ratified in 1949, also contained provisions guaranteeing adequate representation of the province of Newfoundland, both in the House of Commons and in the Senate. In fact, Newfoundland was guaranteed six seats in the Canadian Senate.

So if we agree with the senatorial clause that provides guarantees for Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, why are we up against a wall when we talk about the same guarantees for the Province of Quebec, when we talk about a minimum level of representation for Quebec?

Quebec, which as a people and as a nation, is one of the two founding peoples of this country. We are told this time and time again. We learned this from our history teachers. It is part of our collective conscience as Quebecers that in 1867, Quebecers were one of the two founding peoples. I may recall that on June 30, 1867, the day before the coming into force of the British North America Act, 1867, Quebec, then known as Lower Canada, was entitled to 65 seats out of a total of 130 in the Parliament of the Province of Canada, that is, 50 per cent.

This was agreed to by the members who were elected to represent us at the time-there was no referendum to ask what the people of Quebec thought and certainly not the women of Quebec, since they did not even have the right to vote at the time and the Fathers of the Confederation were all males-but there were no constitutional provisions that provided for minimum representation for Quebec. The only guarantee Quebec obtained was those 65 seats, but 65 out of how many?

On July 1, 1867, it was 65 seats out of 181. Later, when Canada's territory was expanded with the addition of new provinces including Manitoba, Prince Edward Island, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and finally Newfoundland, Quebec's share of representation in the House of Commons dropped steadily, stabilizing during the past 20 or 30 years at a level slightly over one-quarter. Obviously, the Fathers of Confederation made a mistake by not including a minimum representation clause for Quebec, which at the time should have been 50 per cent.

We can hardly rewrite history and today insist on 50 per cent. People will say: Who do you think you are? We are not in a country that allows such deviations from the norm. Be that as it may, we are not asking for the representation that we had in 1867, in other words, 50 per cent. We asked for a minimum guarantee of 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. In the next general election, should Quebec participate-my good friend from Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine will agree it is pretty doubtful that we will be able to-when the thirty-sixth Parliament is elected, Quebec, for the first time in its history, will fall below this critical mass of 25 per cent, since it will have only 75 seats out of 301.

Hence our proposal, which was akin to the Liberal 1992 proposal. I read on Monday of the pleasure of the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel and Minister of Foreign Affairs at being able to guarantee Quebec minimum representation of 25 per cent, saying that this represented a significant gain for

Quebec. The hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel described the guarantee of 25 per cent for Quebec as an incredible step forward.

Well, as regards our motion which was voted on yesterday, once again none of the Liberal members in this House in 1992, who are still here today, voted in favour. Why did the members change their minds in the space of three years? Why deny Quebec something so minor? I would like, in passing, to recognize the very open-minded approach to the matter taken by the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway, who voted with the official opposition to guarantee Quebec minimum representation of 25 per cent, as did the hon. member for Beauce, as if this were perfectly natural.

It was perfectly natural, since the vast majority of members from Quebec present in this House yesterday voted in favour of this minimum guarantee of 25 per cent. We can therefore say that there is very broad consensus in Quebec, which goes beyond party lines, that Quebec should enjoy a minimum guarantee of 25 per cent. When the Progressive Conservative Party, the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway and the independent member for Beauce all support the motion to include guaranteed representation of 25 per cent in Bill C-69, it is obvious that there is broad support in Quebec on this point. I need not add that Senator Rivest had given his support for this provision. Even the support of the governments of Quebec, which had called for the inclusion of this provision in the legislation, did not fail. As far as I know, as well, the present government never shied away from what had been agreed in the past.

It is strange to see the government back away from something it supported in September 1992-the vote was on September 10, 1992-without much justification. Two days ago, on Monday, I listened to the arguments which the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands and the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River put forward, arguments which were not convincing. I do admit, however, that under normal circumstances, these two people are extremely convincing, but, for people to be able to convince others, they themselves must be convinced.

It goes without saying that, when people rise to make representations that they are forced to make-because any old reason to vote against the amendment will do-they obviously cannot be convincing. The unconvinced cannot be convincing. This was the impression that I got the other day from the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the impression that he did not believe in the things that he was saying and that he was using the pretext of constitutional technicalities as a reason for refusing to support a motion which had already been allowed by the Chair and declared admissible following a procedural debate. It is a little odd that the debate swung in this direction.

You will understand therefore, that, at the end of the day, this bill will be incomplete, as I said earlier, because of its stand on the issue of allowable deviations from the boundary rules in special ridings and because of its failure to take a stand on the issue of one of the country's founding peoples. Was this an intentional omission on the part of the government?

We might have asked ourselves this question when debate began on the bill. But, after the vote yesterday on the official opposition's motion guaranteeing Quebec 25 per cent of the seats in the House, it was quite clear that the government had not simply overlooked this detail, but that it was omitted by design. The government does not want to guarantee Quebec fair representation in this House and does not want to accept as a criterion the fact that the nation of francophones in Quebec is a founding people, the cradle of francophones in America. The day we took such a decision was a very sad day indeed.

Would Canadians have been unhappy to see the government finally recognize Quebec's distinct society status, founding people status, status as a nation which built this country? I think not. Yet, yesterday, all it would have taken to recognize this was a majority vote in this House. But it was denied us. It was the most modest demand formulated in the last 50 years.

Without going back to prehistory, we can go back several decades: in the 1930s, there was the Rowell-Sirois commission in Quebec; in the 1950s, the Tremblay commission also studied constitutional issues; the Laurendeau-Dunton commission reviewed what was happening in this country in terms of the Constitution.

I invite our friends from the Reform Party, who think that Canadian history started with their election, to read about the events of that period. It would be a good idea to return to the source to understand that Canadian history started, we are not sure exactly when, with the first people to land on our shores, probably the Vikings who landed somewhere near Newfoundland at the beginning of the millennium. Then there was the arrival of Jacques Cartier in Gaspé in 1534, the founding of Quebec City by Samuel de Champlain in 1608, the founding of Trois-Rivières and Montreal in the following decades. And finally, the establishment of the first government in New France, as Canada was then called.

In the beginning, we had a government of companies. As you probably remember, the King of France entrusted private companies like the Company of One Hundred Associates and the Dutch West India Company with the administration of the territory. The King of England, for his part, gave the Hudson's Bay Company the English part of the territory that later became British North America. Territories throughout the continent were administered by private companies.

Our first institutions, not democratic but public, were granted in 1663 by the King of France through the establishment of the Sovereign Council of New France. These institutions reflected the values of the time: a governor, an intendant, the Bishop of Quebec City and those co-opted by them for a total of seven people, near the end of colonial times, but without any democratic guarantees.

We, francophones, had a hard time achieving our democratic rights on the American continent. Our motherland never gave them to us.

They tried to exercise in New France the same absolute domination as in Old France. Gradually, we stopped being French while, of course, maintaining good relations with what was then our mother or home country and became a more and more distinct nation.

At first, we called ourselves Canadiens or, as we used say, "Canayens". So, on one side, there was us Canadiens and, on the other, the English who occupied part of the land.

From 1663 to 1759, we operated with these institutions. Then, in 1759, the battle that took place on the Plains of Abraham was a victory for some, but for us it was a defeat. It brought about constitutional changes, again, military government in 1759, a royal proclamation in 1763 which ceded the colony of New France to England in exchange for Guadeloupe and Martinique. It is clear that errors of judgment were made somewhere along the way because, while anglophones had won here, in America, when, on the Old Continent, the British won the war against the French and the Treaty of Paris was signed, they got New France, but France kept Guadeloupe and Martinique.

Those are great travel destinations, but in terms of the relative value of the two, I think it was a sucker deal at the time.

Still no democratic institutions. In 1774, the Quebec Act that was handed to us-because we got whatever was left over-nonetheless restored civil law in Quebec, which allowed us to have a legislative council, but not an elected one. They were afraid to give francophones, so peace-loving, democratic institutions in which Quebecers could be represented by the people of their choice. Instead, we were given a legislative council appointed by the governor.

But the Quebecers, Canadiens of those days had certainly demonstrated great pacifism and great open-mindedness because there were 63,000 francophones in Quebec at the time of the conquest and only 3,000 to 4,000 survivors of Wolfe's regiment. With that kind of power relationship, had we been even slightly vindictive, the slightest bit vindictive, we would not have had to go into overtime to decide the fate of these 3,000 or so people. We went along with a de facto situation and, guided by the elites who governed us in those days, whether we liked it or not-we will not rewrite history-we tolerated this situation.

Finally, in 1791, the Constitutional Act gave us for the very first time the right to have elected representatives and the first House of Assembly in Quebec. Naturally, we did not take any chances. It is like in a car: there is an accelerator, but there is also a brake pedal. The Westminster government allowed us to have a house of assembly made up of elected members, but it also maintained a legislative council, which was appointed by the governor and which could oppose the decisions of the assembly.

In 1791, we gained control over some institutions. The situation evolved rather rapidly and the country was divided into two parts: Upper Canada and Lower Canada. The assembly elected in Lower Canada had no extra-territorial jurisdiction. Consequently, it could not legislate for Upper Canada, nor could Upper Canada legislate for Lower Canada. We then move on to the 1830s with the Patriotes' rebellion and the infamous Durham report, which recommended unifying the two Canadas to finally assimilate and anglicize the French-speaking nation in America, something which was not to happen.

For eight years, while English was the only official language in the house of assembly of the Parliament of the Province of Canada, French Canadians fought, in their own language, to have French recognized as an official language. Thanks to their tenacity, justice was finally done in 1848, when they obtained the right to use French, which also became the language used in the legislation. I will end with 1867 and the emergence of new institutions.

You will understand, Mr. Speaker, why I simply cannot agree when I hear simplistic comments such as those made by the Reform Party, to the effect that Canada started to exist in October 1993. Canada has existed for a long time. As a member of one of the founding nations which forged Canada's Constitution, I respectfully submit that, given our long common history, this critical mass of 25 per cent is the breath of life which Quebec needs if it remains, but I hope it will not, part of the Canadian federation.

In any case, it is better to be safe than sorry; it is better to buckle up, even if you do not wish to have an accident. It is from that perspective that I wanted to discuss the 25 per cent rule. This rule is so fundamental that, even though Bill C-69 includes some improvements, the fact that Quebec is not guaranteed a minimum of 25 per cent of the total representation in the House of Commons is reason enough, in fact the only reason, for the Bloc not to support this bill at third reading. Consequently, we will oppose this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, we are now debating Bill C-69 for the last time in the House. The bill is consequential of Bill C-18 from some time ago and the perceived need to redraw the act which allowed the commissions to redistribute the ridings in various provinces.

The bill is a result of the Liberal fiasco of interrupting the boundary redistribution with Bill C-18. The fiasco was started because Liberal members did not like the new maps produced by the commissions. Making a show out of calling for a fundamental review of the redistribution process, the government ordered new boundary maps drawn under new rules, costing Canadian taxpayers more than $5 million in wasted commission reports.

Although there have been some minor improvements to the process of selecting boundary commissioners and publicizing the process, no substantial change to the composition of the boundary readjustment commissions, no substantial change to their powers and no substantial change to the method of drawing boundaries are proposed by Bill C-69. All the changes made to the redistribution act could have been made without throwing out the maps produced at great cost.

This whole exercise was a crass political manoeuvre on the part of the Liberals hoping to have boundary lines redrawn closer to their liking. There was no requirement for the redistribution process to be suspended and for the expensive work to be thrown out in order to examine the process.

Notwithstanding the minor technical improvements made to the act, the bill should be defeated by the House for two major reasons. Bill C-69 fails to address the problem of a rapidly growing House of Commons and it lays suspect the concept of equality of vote as a guiding principle in the redistribution process. The bill does not move the House of Commons any closer to respecting the mandate of representation by population, the cornerstone principle for a lower House in a bicameral system.

What is interesting about these two failures is that the Liberal members of the procedure and House affairs committee were initially in favour of tighter variances and a capped or reduced number of seats in the House of Commons. Capping or reducing the number was a major part of the mandate the House gave to the procedure and House affairs committee.

Witnesses were brought in from all over the country to discuss this issue with us. Many of the Liberals on the committee agreed that the restrictions on the size of the House were a good idea.

Allow me to give members a few examples. Going back to our procedure and House affairs committee meetings of last summer, on July 7 the member for Scarborough-Rouge River, a very active member during this entire process, said: "I have always been in favour of the view that the House should be taking control of its numbers. We ought to, by formula or in another way, be capping the size of the House of Commons. I am in favour of capping, whether it is 250, 300 or something over 300. It is not a big problem".

It seems pretty clear the member for Scarborough-Rouge River was in favour of dealing with the issue of the growth of the House. He was not alone on the Liberal side of the table. At the same meeting the member for Ontario said: "I too support any initiative that might have the effect of limiting or capping the number of seats".

The member for Vancouver Quadra, very experienced in matters of riding redistribution and constitutional considerations, added: "I have no problem at all with capping". He was clear we had to recognize some of the difficulties in doing it.

The Reform members on the committee were able to satisfactorily answer those concerns. The pattern of support for the idea of a smaller or capped House continued into the fall. In our meeting on October 20 the member for Scarborough-Rouge River again indicated his support for the concept: "I oppose further growth in the House without any restrictions. I tend to be in favour of a capping arrangement at some point and I very much want to see that issue addressed".

It is very strange the member has spoken in favour of and has supported the bill at all stages even though that issue is not addressed at all.

The chairman of the procedure and House affairs committee, the member for Kingston and the Islands, wanted to shirk all responsibility for capping the House and leave the problem to a future Parliament.

The Liberal dominated 51st report from the committee says: "Many members of the committee reluctantly came to the conclusion that a cap or reduction in the size of the House of Commons is not feasible at this time".

I got a very different impression from many of the Liberal members during the committee hearings. Reformers demonstrated that a House based on 265 members plus a few more to account for senatorial limitations is workable. We included this in our minority opinion, an opinion the Liberal brass ordered defeated.

On October 20 the member for Vancouver Quadra added: "I think many of us would like a more compact House. This House certainly architecturally has been stretched to the breaking point".

This is all very interesting but when faced with a vote on the issue in that very meeting, all Liberal members voted against a reduced House or a House frozen at 295 members. They all

voted for a House that grows to 301, the status quo formula for continued growth.

Their personal support for capping the House continued. As late as November 1 the member for Scarborough-Rouge River said in committee: "We should be addressing the size of the House in our report. I do not think as a committee we have nailed that one down yet". He added at a later meeting of the committee on November 22: "It would be naive to leave this issue without discussing the size of the House".

It was at this point that the chair, speaking for the government, indicated that it would be better to leave the problem of a growing House to some future Parliament. This comment seemed to concern the Liberal members who thought that capping or reducing was a good idea.

The member for Mississauga West who also participated in our deliberations wondered why the next Parliament should be asked to investigate the problem: "Is there any good reason why we cannot do it?"

The answer to that is a very loud and resounding no, there is no good reason the bill could not have contained provisions to cap or reduce the size of the House of Commons, other than a lack of political will on the part of the government to deal with a controversial issue that would be acceding to the wishes of Canadians.

Her comments that day were reinforced by her colleague from Vancouver Quadra when he agreed with her that the work on the problem of size should start now. All of these comments are in the committee transcripts.

There was a very real level of non-partisan agreement that capping and reducing the House was in order. The Liberal members of the committee wanted it and the Reform members of the committee wanted it. My friend from Mississauga West was absolutely right when she said: "I think the Canadian public wants us to limit the size of the House". It seems that the only people who do not want it are those in the government inner circle who really call the shots.

It is always interesting to hear what any given government member thinks about a particular issue and then compare their response after a caucus meeting or after the whip has had a chance to talk to them. Time after time we see them mysteriously changing their minds about what is in the public interest.

I noted with interest that the hon. member for Bellechasse was surprised that the Liberals had changed their minds. I do not understand that. Liberals have been changing their minds ever since this country was established in 1867. There is nothing they stand for and there is everything they stand for; it is whatever is convenient at the time.

It is time that the House and the government acted on principle, on what is right and on what is in the best interests of the Canadian public. It should consult with the Canadian public rather than flim-flamming around from one position to another, depending on the whims of the inner circle of the Liberal Party.

There seemed to be a pretty clear consensus among Liberals that capping and reducing the size of the House was a good idea. Why then was the issue suddenly and strangely dropped from the committee report, the bill which the government introduced, and all subsequent comments from those Liberal members? Suddenly, it was not an issue any more.

The answer is quite clear. They were whipped into line by the party brass. The red book promises of giving ordinary members of Parliament more autonomy and control over committee and House business is demonstrably dead. It is one more example that the red book promises of open government and restoring integrity were nothing more than tricks designed to win support from a public weary of unethical politicians. How else can the Liberals explain the practice of standing firm on an opinion one day and then voting it down on the next?

It was the same with the back to work legislation which the House dealt with last week. Many government members spoke in favour of designing legislation that would prevent costly strikes which damage the economy. Then they voted against the bill introduced by the hon. member for Lethbridge which would have done just that. Then within 24 hours the same members stood in support of the bill legislating an end to the crippling rail strike. It just does not make sense. It is pure partisan politics at its worst.

It is exactly the kind of top-down decision making Canadians from coast to coast are sick of. It is the Charlottetown accord approach to making decisions. They are trying to impose their will on Canadians. The Liberals are demonstrating that they hold a very low opinion of the thoughts of their own backbenchers. They expect them to act like trained seals, to always toe the party line and to vote when and how they are told to.

We saw exactly the same thing when we were discussing the allowable variance from the provincial population quotient, which is also a part of Bill C-69. Several government members expressed support for the idea of making constituencies, as close as possible, equal in population.

The member for Mississauga West went so far as to vote in favour of a Reform suggestion to move to a 15 per cent variance in population quotient. In our committee meeting on October 20 she admitted: "I voted with you on that, if you recall, and got into big trouble". Big trouble for expressing her own opinion in a committee meeting of this House. The member admitted that

she was censured for voting contrary to party wisdom. That is not open government; it is authoritarian top-down government.

I know the Liberal member for Vancouver Quadra will agree with me when I say that the monarch in Parliament is sovereign and MPs share in that sovereignty. Members of Parliament should not merely be puppets to their party brass. It is bad policy, it is bad for Parliament, and it is bad for Canada.

Canadians elect MPs to represent their interests in Parliament. It is a shame that the government would not allow its members to exercise that responsibility. The support was there to create a redistribution bill that would meet the needs and wants of the majority of Canadians, but the government brass whipped its members into line to enforce its own agenda.

The Parliament of Canada should not be run in an authoritarian top-down decision making process. Every vote and every committee should not be considered a matter of confidence. Every member should not be forced by the inner circle to toe the line. That kind of practice reduces the House of Commons to nothing more than a grand rubber stamp for what the cabinet has already decided behind closed doors.

I doubt the government had an open caucus debate on these issues before it determined to add seats to the House of Commons and allow the vast population variance differences that are included in Bill C-69. I doubt very much there was a very open debate in the Liberal caucus about this issue. I suspect the decision was made and members of the Liberal caucus were told that they would support Bill C-69. They were probably given four or five talking points to back them up as they were sent out to sell the government agenda.

There was a rare opportunity here to make a positive change to our redistribution system. The government did not allow its members to make those changes in the area of a capped or reduced House to protect the equality of Canadian votes with a tighter variance.

I want to briefly reflect on some of the observations made by the hon. member for Bellechasse. He took it upon himself to give Reformers a lesson in Canadian history. I want to assure the hon. member that Reformers are very aware of the history of our country. We are very proud of our past. We are very proud of all of those from the past who contributed to this country to make it the great country it is.

I would like to remind the hon. member for Bellechasse and others who might share his concern about our understanding of Canadian history there are reasons that people came to this country. They came particularly to my part of the country, the west, and I believe they came to the province of Quebec, Ontario and Atlantic Canada because they wanted to get away from some things in their country of origin. They wanted to escape repressive regimes. They wanted to escape governments that imposed undemocratic principles upon them.

I am a bit concerned about the Bloc members' position on Bill C-69. They want to impose a principle that in my opinion and the opinion of my Reform colleagues is undemocratic. That is, we would put on the floor of the House of Commons 25 per cent of the seats for one province in this country, regardless of changes in population.

That is why a lot of people left their country, to escape those types of oppressive laws and come to a place where the democratic principles of representation by population were adhered to. I believe that is the principle the people of Quebec adhere to as well. I also believe that is one of the reasons many people in the province of Quebec voted against the Charlottetown accord.

Canadians, both within and outside of Quebec, find it abhorrent that we would call for special status for anyone in this country. It is not a principle that was accepted in the Charlottetown accord. It was repugnant back then and it is repugnant to Canadians today.

We have to ask: Why would they want special status? Why would they want to be guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats of the House of Commons whether their population justified it or not?

I think of two or three arguments that might be put forward. One argument might be that somehow their representatives are not as good as the representatives from other parts of the country and they need that floor and need that protection. I do not accept that argument. Quebecers can send qualified and able members to this House who can represent them adequately, just like we can in the rest of the country. I challenge that argument.

Another argument might be that they are superior to other Canadians and deserve to have 25 per cent of the seats in this House. I reject that argument as well. It is a false argument. We need to look upon each other as equals in this country, equal citizens with equal responsibilities, equal privileges and a law that affects us all in the same manner.

There is one other argument that might be put forth. They might say that they are one of two founding races and somehow that bestows some special privilege upon us. All of us know that the native people were here before those of English or French origin.

This past weekend I was at a breakfast where a Metis leader spoke to us. He brought the point home to us again that in most of this country Canadians do not view Canada as being the home of two founding nations. In particular, if they are one of the first people or of Metis origin, they very much doubt that concept.

I want to close by saying I appreciate the opportunity to make my final remarks on Bill C-69. For all of the reasons I have put forward in my speech at third reading, I urge the House not to pass Bill C-69. We are not getting the job done. If we are not prepared to face the issue square on and if we keep wanting to put off the tough decisions into the future, those decisions will become even tougher to make.

If we let this House expand to 320 members, some 20 more people will have a vested interest in maintaining their seats in this House of Commons and not seeing the size of this House reduced. It is going to have a negative snowball effect which is not good for the country. Unfortunately there are too many politicians in this place who have a vested interest and are not able to put the well-being of the country ahead of their own self-interests.

I urge all members of this House to do the right thing, the thing even Liberals argued for in committee, to cap the size of the House, to respect representation by population, and to vote against Bill C-69.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to very briefly run over the very positive aspects of the bill before the House today. I am afraid the opposition members, as is their wont, have dwelt on the negative aspects.

We have heard the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster complain about two aspects he feels were not there. We have to deal with what is there. We have a good bill here and the hon. member should have acknowledged that and indicated supported for it in his speech.

The hon. member for Bellechasse had several complaints about things that were not in the bill, but what is in the bill is clearly quite acceptable to everyone, and he should support the bill for that reason.

The bill provides a new, and I suggest better, appointment process for commissions and for the commissioners. It puts a limit on the need to appoint commissions in provinces where there have not been significant population shifts. That is a major change. It will save money. We have another major money saving device in this bill. Redistributions will cost less as a result of this bill.

We have established quinquennial review, that is quinquennial redistributions in provinces where there have been significant population shifts within the province. Therefore we will avoid massive changes every 10 years.

We put a new clause with new directions to commissions instructing them on how to do the redistribution within the boundaries they decide on. We have suggested new ways of doing it that in my view are more restrictive than the rules that were there before. We directed them more pointedly to deal with items such as community municipal boundaries and boundaries of existing electoral districts. I think it is a significant improvement. All the members of the committee agreed it was an improvement when we made those changes.

There are limits which I suggest are much tighter on the right of commissions to deviate beyond the 25 per cent limit on the provincial quotients. Now they cannot create a riding that is bigger than the limits, which they could do before. Those are prohibited. They can only create one that is smaller than the 25 per cent deviation. That is circumscribed very tightly because it must be geographically isolated from the province or very remote. Without quoting the exact words, it is significantly different from what it was before. Again, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster who harps on this point has fewer grounds to complain than he had in the previous bill. He should be supporting this bill.

The publication of plans is different. There will be three of them. There will be an opportunity to comment before the maps are published for the first time. The member for Kindersley-Lloydminster says that the maps presently drawn by the boundaries commissions are thrown out the window. That is not true. They could be used as one of the three maps by the new commissions. There is no reason in the world why those could not be used as one of the three options put forward by the commissions when they publish maps.

Members will have an opportunity to comment with members of the public in advance of publication, after publication and after significant changes in the maps.

This is an improved process. It is more open. We have rid ourselves of the parliamentary review. We have made the process more open, more accountable to public pressure, and more accessible to the general public in that sense.

We have abolished the very expensive publication process for the maps. We have made them available to people who want them, not to publish them in newspapers at great public expense. It is saving literally millions of dollars.

The commissions will give reasons for their decisions, which was not the case before. This will help explain to the public why the commissions have drawn boundaries in the locations they have. The period for implementation of redistribution has been shortened under the bill so that it will happen in a faster time frame than was the case before.

Those nine or ten very positive improvements to the legislation are encompassed in the bill. All I hear in lengthy speeches from the opposition are complaints. There has not been mention of any of the very positive aspects. I invite hon. members to look at the brighter side and not dwell on the things that are not there.

I should like to turn to a couple of things that are not in it and say something about them. I will deal first with the complaints of the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister and then I will turn to the hon. member for Bellechasse.

The member complained repeatedly that members of the House were not free to express their views in the committee. We obviously had a very free expression of views. He has quoted extensively from speeches of members, particularly members on this side. I can understand why he would want to quote them. In his remarks he said how they shared a view one day and changed their minds another.

Part of the advantage of committee work is that we get to hear witnesses and study various options. The members of the committee looked at the things we could do. He may have forgotten that we spent three days in July last year, and he was there, hearing witnesses. We worked quite hard with long sessions lasting all day.

Having heard the evidence of witnesses we had discussions. They influenced us in various ways. Some of us were swayed by some witnesses and felt that maybe we should do this one day and then, having read other material and reflected on it, we changed our minds. That was true of many members of the committee.

Had I been expressing views in the committee as the chairman of the committee, I am sure he would have been quoting me as having said one thing one day and maybe something else the next. My views changed too as I read up on the subject and was persuaded by various witnesses, by discussions with my colleagues on the committee and by material I read on a subject such as the royal commission report on electoral reform and party financing.

Having seen all that material, having formed our views and having reflected on the matter, many members changed their minds. The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster attributed all kinds of reasons to this that are not really accurate in every case at all and certainly not generally fair to hon. members who made up their minds. He should not indulge in such speculation on the reasons people make up their minds the way they do.

Naturally there are discussions in caucus. Naturally there is a consensus building on issues like this one. On the bill itself there was a significant change that he pressed for. That was the elimination of scheduled ridings and a change to put the power back in commissions to make the decisions that could have been made in the House because of various complaints from members. That was the response to complaints that he raised. The members on our side looked at it and decided there was a better way. I think the bill reflects that. I heard no criticism of that aspect of the bill from the hon. member in his speech.

The committee looked at the evidence, weighed the evidence and came to conclusions. We did not all come to the same conclusions. That is quite obvious from the speeches this afternoon. However, we came to conclusions on a bill that has very positive aspects that will have a significant impact on the way we do redistributions in the country and a very positive influence in that regard.

The redistribution done under the bill will be good. It will be better than what we had before, in part because the process is more open, in part because the commissioners will be more responsive to the wishes of the members of the House as they are chosen essentially by the members of the House, and because the opportunity for public input is very significantly enhanced under the bill.

In reflecting on whether or not to support the bill I invite members to consider those items, to look at the positive side and ignore the very negative side.

Another complaint the member made dealt with the size of the House. Frankly that is not a matter for a redistribution bill. It is a matter for changes in the Constitution of the country. The committee was very reluctant to get into constitutional change. The number of seats assigned to the provinces under the Constitution is set out in the Constitution Act. It is a matter of constitutional amendment to change it.

The hon. member wanted either to cap or decrease the size of the House. Most members on our side have considered the matter. There was some initial attractiveness to the idea. Last summer there was a lot of media attention focused on the size of the House and whether or not we really needed a House of this size. They reflected and decided that with 295 members for a country the geographic size of Canada we were not significantly over-represented in the House.

Our population is growing. Most of us in Ontario represent about 100,000 people. That is a significant number. We cannot get to meet them all in our term of office; it is virtually impossible to do so.

I am sure the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister knows from his own experience, having been in the House now for a year and a half, how difficult it must be for him to meet his electors. Members of Parliament do not have all the time in the world to be out in their constituencies. When we go to our constituencies it is difficult to go door to door when we are trying to do our work as representatives, meet groups and people in our offices who ask to see us, not just to see the people who

perhaps would be interested to meet us but do not have the opportunity.