House of Commons Hansard #186 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was loans.

Topics

Financial Administration ActPrivate Members' Business

11:45 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

Is it the wish of the House to suspend the sitting to the call of the Chair?

Financial Administration ActPrivate Members' Business

11:45 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11.52 a.m.)

The House resumed at 12 o'clock.

The House resumed from April 6 consideration of the motion 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.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

April 24th, 1995 / 11:45 a.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

When the House adjourned, the hon. member for Mercier had fifteen minutes left.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

11:45 a.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, as the debate drew to a close a few weeks ago, I made certain references in connection with this extremely important question put before the House by the Bloc Quebecois: that Quebec should have at least 25 per cent of the members in this House.

I felt obliged to remind the House that this minimum fell far short of the kind of recognition the people of Quebec could expect. I recalled that, in 1965, the man who became Premier of Quebec in 1966 published his book Égalité ou Indépendance . This was Daniel Johnson, father of the Leader of the Official Opposition in Quebec, whose own father was an Irish immigrant and did not speak French. Daniel Johnson, born of an Irish father and an Irish mother who settled in Quebec, became the Premier of Quebec, and it was this man who, after having been a member and a minister, gave his party a fresh start when he said: ``The French Canadian nation must have equality within Canada, otherwise, it will be perfectly legitimate to look for ways to make Quebec a full-fledged State''.

After pointing out that the French Canadian nation was open to all and that, when people came from another country, they could choose to become part of it as they could choose to be English Canadians, he concluded: "I will explain why and how French Canadians are trying to identify with the State of Quebec, the only one where they can claim to be masters of their own destiny and can use to achieve the full potential of their community, while the English Canadian nation tends to make Ottawa the centre of its community life".

This text was a milestone in our history, in the history of Quebec and Canada. Since that time, Quebecers no longer refer to themselves as French Canadians-people do in the rest of Canada and, as you know, we are very proud of what has been achieved by French Canadians outside Quebec who are coping under extremely difficult situations. But in Quebec, we now call ourselves Quebecois and the vast majority of the population identifies itself as such.

Electoral boundaries readjustment is an opportunity to consider that the Quebec people have a right to minimum recognition, whatever their choice will be, and based on the historical importance of Quebec, Canada should support this principle.

If the rest of Canada had only given some indication that it was prepared to recognize the Quebec people, our recent history would have been quite different. If we go back to the minimum demands made by Premier Bourassa during the talks on Meech Lake and if we go back to the rejection of the Charlottetown accord, we find the same desire for minimum recognition, and the position that the Quebec people are entitled to certain guarantees.

However, in recent history-let us say, until the 1960s-it was equality that the people of Quebec sought. There were others, besides Daniel Johnson. There was also, it will be remembered, André Laurendeau, who was appointed by the Prime Minister of the time, Lester B. Pearson, to head the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism. André Laurendeau also desperately sought equality from coast to coast, with the focus on Quebec naturally, for the French Canadian nation, for the Quebecers of his time, as other French Canadians regularly did in this period of history.

André Laurendeau tried to convince Canadians. He succeeded in convincing many of the commissioners working with him. Unfortunately, he failed to convince Prime Minister Trudeau, who could have implemented the recommendations of the report, which, like many others, ended up on the shelf.

This episode, like a lot of others, reminds us that, for Quebecers, who have the possibility of a different future, the choice offered by Canada has always been: "Be a province like the rest or else".

The reality of history is that, once again, it was not the French Canadians nor the Quebecers who did not want to build a Canada which included not only an adequate but an appropriate place for Quebec. Why? Some accuse us of focussing on the past; the truth is the opposite. Why do they not level the same accusation at those who refused to accord Quebec a real place? Why did they refuse to do so? Perhaps they refused because the French colonists were from France, and France had been conquered and had decided to give up in the war in the colony. Are they not the ones who continue to treat the descendants of the French colonists not as French stock but as a conquered people? Otherwise, they would recognize what the world recognizes: that all the characteristics of a nation and of a people may be found here, in this land.

Any dictionary definition of the words people and nation fits those living in the territory of Quebec like a glove. We are a people; we are a nation. If the rest of Canada had not been focussed on the past and had really wanted to build a new country, it would have acknowledged this, because what counts for Quebecers and Canadians is building a future.

We must give ourselves the means to ensure the survival of our people and their cultural, social and economic development in the future. It is essential that Quebec develop its people, its culture and its economy according to its own dynamics and identity.

That is why the majority of Quebecers will opt for sovereignty. It must be noted that, for many of them, it will not be the first choice because Quebecers, who used to be called Canadiens or "Canayens", feel at home throughout the land but had to confine themselves to Quebec, where they could develop, as Daniel Johnson, Sr. used to say. In fact, it is important to realize the extent to which the first French Canadians were scattered throughout the territory, and the evidence is still there.

It is also important to realize that French Canadian women, who had the highest birth rate in North America between 1870 and 1960, saw, with breaking hearts, their children and young families leave for the United States. This is not very well known, but, for over 100 years, 10,000 French Canadians left every year

because they could not ensure their own development in the Province of Quebec and because Canada, Western Canada was closed to them.

And while French Canadians were leaving for the United States at the rate of 10,000 per year, there was a "Canadian"-as my former professor Michel Brunet used to say, using the English spelling of the word-immigration policy allowing immigrants from the British Isles and Europe to settle in Western Canada for a nominal sum. According to figures that appeared in Le Devoir in 1928, the cost of moving to western Canada was $968 for a French Canadian family with ten children but only $48 for a British immigrant.

If one wants to prepare for the future, one must look at the past. For Quebec, the past involved a search in difficult conditions by French Canadians either in the other provinces or in Quebec. There was an almost desperate search for our legitimate place as French Canadians and later, in the 1960s, as Quebecers, because we clearly developed an identity as Quebecers.

We have maintained that this quest, which for some is still ongoing, could be realized in a small way through the amendment put forward by my colleague. Again, whatever happened in the past, we must live side by side. If it is still possible to convince my colleagues and the Canadian people that there is a Quebec people who want an equal partnership, there must be signs not only from this side but also from the other side.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Eugène Bellemare Liberal Carleton—Gloucester, ON

Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on what the member for Mercier said, a member whom I regard as a separatist while she claims to be a sovereignist. This separatist member of Parliament spoke of the people of Quebec with great pride, and I appreciate her pride in Quebecers, because I too am proud of them.

I must say right away that I am myself a fourth generation Franco-Ontarian. To the separatist member who just spoke, I say, Madam, that that did not prevent me from-

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)

I must remind the House that all remarks must be put through the Chair and not directly to another member.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Eugène Bellemare Liberal Carleton—Gloucester, ON

Thank you for calling me to order on this very important matter. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Mercier is very proud to show her allegiance, her patriotism. But I think that her patriotism is slightly out of place. She seems to forget that she belongs to the larger Canadian nation, that it is because of Canadian unity that the provinces and territories were able to develop and the two official languages of Canada were able to develop, not because there were people muttering in one region or another of the country, only looking inwards and only concentrating on petty local concerns.

Francophones outside Quebec have done well and been successful. I think I am a case in point. I did well financially, at school, in the elections, in politics. Never, ever, have Canadians outside Quebec, or inside Quebec for that matter, hindered my success. In fact, it is this national attitude that made me to want to succeed, to want to remain a part of this country.

The member for Mercier kept referring to Canadians who left the country and settled in the U.S. I must point out to her that most of those who did that were from Quebec. It is interesting to note that the member for Mercier uses the term Canadians when talking about negative things and Quebecers for positive ones; only Quebecers can do good.

I must say right away that everyone in Canada does good. If we are to become even stronger as a nation in the future, become a wealthier nation and achieve a level of education envied the world over, it will be through Canadian unity, not through this desire to separate and this constant infighting.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:15 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the hon. member that our future would be much brighter and our prosperity much more certain if the rest of Canada stopped refusing to recognize what Quebec demanded as a people, because these repeated refusals have led to crises which are an expression of the will of that people and nation.

You cannot silence a whole nation. The issue will always resurface because the right of nations is a fundamental one. Democracy is based on that right. Canada's prosperity would indeed be much greater. It could have been much greater if Quebecers had been recognized as a people and a nation, instead of denying that reality. This is true today and it will still be true tomorrow, for the only uncertainty which exists is linked to the possibility that you may reject our decision as a people. This is the only uncertainty; there are no other ones.

Sure, we can talk about prosperity and about the future, but do recognize that we are a people and a nation, and that the decision will be ours. In any case, you cannot overlook that basic reality.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:20 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is simply Monday morning or whether it is my tolerance and my patience wearing thin as day after day in the House we listen to this little band of separatists as they stand in the House to talk about destroying the country.

There is nothing more divisive or nothing more destructive to the country today than to listen to this group stand every day to say that it wants to be a separate nation within Canada. The strength of the country is in the participation of all provinces and all peoples, not the separation this band talks about.

They do not have the support of the majority of the people of Quebec. Only when they soften their separatist stand and talk about some sort of mushy sovereignist association can they even get anywhere close to a 50 per cent vote in the polls.

This band of separatists should be ashamed as they stand in the House. They collect their paycheques every month from the Government of Canada, from taxpayers in western Canada, as they stand here to talk about destroying the country. They should be ashamed of themselves. Perhaps they should consider going back to their ridings and staying there until they develop a different attitude, a Canadian attitude, before they show their faces in the House of Commons. The Parliament of Canada represents all people of Canada.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

Mr. Speaker, we were elected by our fellow citizens to discuss an extremely important issue to them, namely their recognition as a people and a nation. In fact, this issue is so important that, over the last 30 years, it has been very time-consuming and has kept us from dealing with other major concerns.

You cannot overlook that reality. You can claim that we are a small minority, but the fact is that we are not. We represent a people and a nation similar to many others in the world, which seek, peacefully, to be recognized and which have sought that recognition since the very beginning. This is what we are telling you, and we are also telling you that you will keep hearing about it. So, you better watch, listen and understand that this people and this nation have a right to exist.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:20 p.m.

Reform

Dick Harris Reform Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC

Go home.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:20 p.m.

Bloc

Francine Lalonde Bloc Mercier, QC

No, I will not go home. Mr. Speaker, that should be translated. I find it despicable to be told to go home while, as the representative for my constituents, I reflect on our history, pointing out that we want prosperity but that prosperity will only be possible if we are treated as equals.

This is a despicable and unacceptable insult. If you think that this is how you will make your country prosper, you are grossly mistaken.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:25 p.m.

Cochrane—Superior Ontario

Liberal

Réginald Bélair LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Government Services

Mr. Speaker, to begin with, I find myself wondering whether the real issue being debated is Quebec's borders or the electoral boundaries to be set by the new commissions.

Firstly, much has been said in this House and in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the subject of the new electoral boundaries, especially for northern Ontario and more specifically for my riding, Cochrane-Superior. The fate of my riding, and of northern Ontario in general, depends on the recommendations the commission will make.

First off, it must be said in this House that all Canadians, wherever they live in Canada, have the right to fair and equitable representation. Obviously, these two words are charged with meaning. In particular the word "equitable" is defined in Larousse to mean "in accordance with justice". Fair representation is the most important point which must guide us in this debate, and this means that rural regions in Canada should always have direct access to their members of Parliament. It is not enough for members of Parliament and their constituents to communicate with each other by telephone or fax, because this will ultimately depersonalize all that Canada represents.

The House affairs committee was somewhat conciliatory when it permitted the new commissions to be set up to accept an amendment wherein the same commission may depart from its application to the rules when considering the economies, the traditional and natural boundaries and rural characteristics of a territory, and the access to means of communication and transportation.

The commission may in its wisdom go beyond the 25 per cent quota when we talk about the population. This means that a riding may have less than the 25 per cent permissible quota in relation to the quotas of a specific province. This is the case for my riding of Cochrane-Superior and the riding of Timiskaming-French River.

In future it will be almost impossible to reach the quota of 97,000 people in a riding in northern Ontario and for that matter in most ridings in northern Canada. Suffice it to say that once the commissions and the hearings are set up, my colleagues from northern Ontario and I will fight to the end along with many concerned citizens and organizations to save the riding of Cochrane-Superior. This is not only for the sake of saving a riding but also saving a voice of rural Canada in Parliament.

In general across Canada there are 13 ridings with 100,000 square kilometres and more. Cochrane-Superior has 351,000 square kilometres with 41 organized main communities. It stretches from the border of Quebec to the east and goes west to the riding of Thunder Bay-Nipigon, which is some 425 miles.

In 1994 I logged 23,000 kilometres in order to try to serve my constituents as best I could. It would take 18 hours non-stop to go around the riding of Cochrane-Superior. To divide it into

four as was recommended, annexing the four parcels to existing ridings, would simply mean that in most cases those ridings would double in size and 16,000 people would be added per riding.

In other ridings, namely the urban ridings, a member of Parliament can attend a function at either end of the riding in the same day, in many cases within the hour and in some cases within minutes. That is not to say that urban members of Parliament have it easy. We in northern Ontario recognize those ridings have a much larger population and those members therefore spend more time with constituents. A member of Parliament should be accessible to his or her constituents no matter what.

In large rural ridings many people feel isolated and that is why there is a need for the member of Parliament to meet with his or her constituents. Those people also have to be heard and counted, and they need to feel they are a part of this country, that not everything is being decided by the urban ridings. Handicapped people and the elderly, given the long distances which they have to travel in rural ridings, practically have no chance of meeting their member of Parliament unless he or she visits them. To further increase in size rural ridings would mean disaster for many Canadians living in those ridings, especially in isolated areas.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to read to you a summary of an extremely interesting conversation I had with a public servant: "An electoral district is much more than a geographic division for electoral purposes. An electoral district represents an economic, social and cultural group of several thousand people. An electoral district is as much a tool for grouping common interests as it is a means of expressing the identity, lifestyle and shared values of its inhabitants. From this perspective, the electoral district should be given the same status as a town, a province or a country. Any substantial change in the boundaries of the electoral district could cause major economic and social changes in that area. The boundaries of existing electoral districts must be revised equitably and changes must not upset their economic and social equilibrium".

I have two concrete examples to illustrate my point. Let us consider first of all the selection of candidates. If my riding were split in four and annexed to the four neighbouring ridings, without fail, the chances of the party nominating a person from a rural region as a candidate would be about nil, if he or she were competing against a potential candidate from an urban region or larger town with many supporters and able to sell membership cards, etc. People from rural regions, in the true sense of the word, would have very little hope of ever being elected to the House of Commons.

The second example I want to mention concerns rural regions and their economic relationship with Canada. We are rich in natural resources. The viability and vitality of our economy depends on those natural resources, and the rest of Canada should appreciate our contribution.

I could also draw a comparison with New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Obviously, we cannot rewrite the Constitution Act, 1867 and the agreements concluded at the time, under which New Brunswick was guaranteed ten ridings and Prince Edward Island four ridings. However, together these two provinces have more or less the same area and population as northern Ontario.

At the present time we have eleven electoral districts, while New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island have fourteen. This is an example of inequity. As I said before, it would be very difficult to change this without amending the Constitution Act, 1982. My point is that we should at least recognize the fact that, compared with other regions in this country, northern Ontario is under-represented and cannot not afford to lose another seat in Parliament.

Canada is a huge geographic misunderstanding. This misunderstanding will not be resolved for many years to come. The fact that rural Canadians represent a minimal part of the population of Canada is not a good enough reason them not to be justly and adequately represented in the House of Commons.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:35 p.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, I thank the previous speaker from Cochrane-Superior for his remarks, not because I necessarily agree with them all but because they were on the topic of the bill which has been sadly lacking in this debate.

This is a debate about Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, specifically to scrap the process under way last year to redraw our boundaries based on the 1991 census and establish a whole new process.

We are now winding up a parliamentary debate on this that started over a year ago which in our view has yielded only minimal improvements to the electoral boundaries process.

The motion that had initiated this bill had asked the procedure and House affairs committee to examine methods of capping and reducing the size of the House of Commons, to improve the process by which boundaries commissioners are selected, to consider how the boundaries commissions conduct their work and to consider the involvement of the public. In three of these areas there were some minor improvements. However, the bill fails to address the already excessive and growing numbers of

members in the House of Commons. That failure in particular prevents our party from endorsing the bill.

The changes made to the boundaries process while useful for future census in our view do not justify scrapping the commission or rejecting the reports of the existing boundaries commissions.

While we are opposing this bill members of the Bloc Quebecois have been opposing this bill for an entirely different reason, one to which I will address my remarks.

The Bloc position on this entire process for bills C-18 and C-69 has been very inconsistent. It supported going through this process and then opposed it again.

Initially the concern was about boundaries. Now the concern is about Quebec's not having a guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats. Under the formula coming forward I will point out what we are actually talking about in terms of substance. We are talking about the demand from the Bloc Quebecois that Quebec be guaranteed 25 per cent of the 301 seats we will have out of this redistribution; in other words 75.25 seats. Quebec will get under the formula 75 seats. This is probably the most verbiage we have expended in the House over one-quarter of a seat.

I am not entirely sure this position is not changing again. Over the Easter break we learned from the leader of the Bloc Quebecois that apparently Quebec now wants 50 per cent of the seats. The position keeps shifting.

I want to address it seriously because there has been much misinformation and many misstatements made about this. I will outline the facts. The Bloc has made at least four assertions which need to be challenged, assertions of fact, assertions directly related to the bill and to the issue of 25 per cent of the seats.

The first and most obvious Bloc assertion is that this kind of guarantee could be achieved without a constitutional amendment. We know that is not the case. This was a provision of the Charlottetown constitutional accord opposed by the Bloc Quebecois which I will talk about later. It was in that accord precisely because it required a constitutional amendment.

The Constitution Act of 1867 lays out the formula for the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons every 10 years. That formula is contained primarily in section 51. Section 52 makes it clear that while the number of seats in the House can be changed, the House is not free to amend its formula in a way that would depart from the proportion of population among the provinces. Section 52 makes clear that principle is protected.

Furthermore, under the Constitution Act of 1982 under section 42(1)(a) the amending formula is explicit that changing the proportion of seats in the House can only be done with a constitutional amendment approved by Parliament and by two-thirds of the provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population.

The second incorrect Bloc assertion is that under existing constitutional formula only New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are guaranteed certain representation in the House of Commons. This is also not true. Section 51(a) of the Constitution Act of 1867 makes it clear all provinces are guaranteed in the House of Commons at least the number of seats they have in the Senate. That was a provision added in 1915.

Obviously under that provision it has an immediate effect on the representation of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, whose seats would fall below 10 and 4 respectively if that were not there. It also applies to all provinces. Quebec is in effect guaranteed 24 seats by that provision, many more than New Brunswick or Prince Edward Island, although Quebec has many more seats.

As well, the Constitution Act of 1982, section 41(b), the amending formula, makes it clear this particular provision as it relates to any of the provinces can only be changed with unanimous consent. We are all aware of the difficulties in getting unanimous consent. I will talk later about some of the things we would like to see. Clearly that is not in the cards today if for no other reason than all governments in the country realize they could never get the support of the Government of Quebec for any step, for any constitutional change, for anything positive or negative.

Another point where the Bloc is not correct in claiming that only New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are protected is there is an additional grandfather clause in section 51 of the Constitution Act of 1867. It is not an especially protected section but it guarantees to all provinces the representation they had in the House of Commons in the mid-seventies, a provision my party does not support and a provision that can be changed through an act of Parliament but which this bill does not change. Under that provision Quebec is guaranteed the 75 seats it has today. Were it not for that provision Quebec's share would probably fall by one or two seats.

The third Bloc assertion in this debate that has not been correct is that the demand Quebec be guaranteed 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons is one of the historic demands of the province of Quebec. I found this particularly interesting. I worked for the no side in the constitutional referendum. An argument frequently made both inside and outside Quebec was that this provision of the Charlottetown accord guaranteeing Quebec 25 per cent of the seats had in fact not been a historic demand of the province of Quebec and had

really just come out of the hurried negotiations in the summer of 1992. I decided to do a little bit of research and confirmed that was the case.

Perhaps we have overlooked something, but I cannot find any record of a major Quebec actor demanding a guarantee of 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons prior to the Charlottetown accord.

I would say that there are some origins, which may be in the Victoria conference proposal. In 1971 the Victoria constitutional agreement proposed that every province that at the time had at least 25 per cent of the population be guaranteed a constitutional veto indefinitely. This would have given Ontario and Quebec a veto over any changes to the Constitution. Of course it was ironic that that accord also failed, partly because of the attacks by the Parti Quebecois and the separatists in Quebec at the time. But ultimately, the accord was rejected by Quebec federalists as well.

Once again, the fact of the matter, as far as we can tell, is that this is not a historic demand, although like so many things in this country it has become a demand from the very separatist element that rejected it in the first place, much in the way certain versions of the Confederation agreement are now endorsed by the separatists who rejected that agreement at the time.

I want to get to the fourth Bloc contention, that somehow the failure to give Quebec a guaranteed representation in the House of Commons represents a violation of the agreement of Confederation. It is particularly interesting how it can represent a violation of an agreement that never existed. There never was any such provision in the Constitution of 1867.

In making this argument the Bloc Quebecois has pointed out the fact that in the old Canada, the union of the two founding provinces we hear so much about, the union of 1841 to 1867, Quebec had 50 per cent of the seats and there was a dual premiership, as members will recall.

Confederation came about because that arrangement broke down. It was completely unworkable to have the principal House where the guaranteed number of seats is invariant to population and where there will be some kind of equal marriage. It did not work. It brought about Confederation. And if Confederation were ever to fail for Quebec, as the separatists suggest it will, then of course the rest of Canada would never enter into an agreement that would recreate a union that already fell apart in the 1800s.

It is important to remember what the agreement of 1867 did. It did not guarantee Quebec a percentage of seats in the lower House, as we had had prior to 1867. It had three separate elements that dealt much more creatively with the concerns of Quebec and with the other regions and the new partners of Confederation.

First, it created the House of Commons, where representation would be on the basis of population, a principle understood in every democratic country in the world.

Second, it created a federal system. This is something we should not forget. Colleagues in the Bloc always say that Quebec's power at Confederation fell from 50 per cent to 35 per cent. In fact it did not. Its share of the seats at this level of government fell from 50 per cent to 35 per cent, but the most important feature of Confederation was the creation of a federal system and the creation of the province of Quebec as a separate legal entity. The Confederation agreement gave Quebecers local autonomy through their provincial legislature over a number of exclusive provincial jurisdictions.

I should add that my party is opposed to the historic attempts of the federal Liberals to undermine those exclusive provincial jurisdictions. Those jurisdictions should be respected, and in our view the federal spending power should not be used in a way that intrudes upon those exclusive competencies.

Third, the agreement of 1867 created the Senate. It created a separate chamber, one of the purposes of which was to provide guaranteed representation for various regions of the country. I have spoken on this many times, as members will know. That is in fact the chamber where regional representation for Quebec and for other provinces was to be guaranteed.

That part of the accord has not worked out the way the regions of this country would like it to work out. One of the things that constantly mystifies us as western Canadians is the demand of Quebec separatists to abolish the upper chamber, rather than make it the very basis of regional representation that we in the regions of the country want against the enormous population weight of Ontario. That is rejected time and time again, although it is a feature of virtually every democratic federation in the world.

The history of that, I should point out, is quite interesting. Quebec was originally guaranteed 33, a third of the seats in the upper House. Later, as this country grew, as western Canada entered, that guarantee fell to 25 per cent, since we recognized four regions. Today, of course, we have seats for Newfoundland and the territories, which are outside of the original regional agreement.

There has been a guarantee in this Parliament for Quebec to have a certain representation. That representation is guaranteed in the Senate. Our provinces in the west would like to see that chamber become more effective. We would like to see ourselves guaranteed effective representation as well. That is the way to address this issue.

Members will recall that the Charlottetown accord was rejected through most of the country. The Bloc Quebecois, which suddenly finds it is fond of the 25 per cent guarantee in the Charlottetown accord, forgets that that guarantee was part of a package-not just the whole accord, but specifically part of a package of reforms to both the Senate and Commons.

These reforms were rejected for a number of reasons, not simply because of the issue of departure from representation by population but also because of the expansion of the size of the House of Commons, an expansion that would have gone dramatically to 337 members overnight and would have moved even more quickly into the future. That was one reason for rejection, something we are now replicating with this act, although not as badly.

Of course it was also rejected because of the obviously inadequate provisions as they related to the Senate, the failure to guarantee election to the upper House, the failure as well to guarantee effective powers for that body to protect the various regional interests that chamber is supposed to secure.

I do not want to go on too long because I have talked at length over the past year about this bill. We remain opposed to the provisions of this legislation, to the idea that we should scrap the existing boundary commissions and start from scratch. The few worthwhile improvements here can certainly be deferred to the 1996 census. We would save the taxpayers $5 million.

I do want to emphasize that in opposing this bill we in no way endorse the obstructionist tactics of the Bloc Quebecois, who are opposing this bill for entirely different reasons related to the separation of Quebec. The 25 per cent guarantee they have demanded for Quebec and the rationale they have used to back that demand simply do not stand up to factual scrutiny.

I should add in closing that it is increasingly clear that the reason the members of the Bloc Quebecois are so interested in guaranteeing a certain number of seats for Quebec in the House of Commons is that I think they are coming to realize that Quebec will be here in the House of Commons by the time the next election comes around and will be here for many more elections after that. We look forward to that.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:50 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened in particular to the last part of the MP's speech. He knows his Canadian history. He knows the recent history of Quebec since Charlottetown and Meech. English Canada has said no to Quebec several times.

Does he not think that the people of Quebec, one of Canada's founding peoples, have a legitimate claim to this 25 per cent guarantee? I think that Quebec's request is quite modest. There is almost unanimous support for it, and I fail to understand why the hon. member from western Canada wants to completely ignore, under false pretexts, Quebec's legitimate request. I sincerely hope that he will explain the reason why.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, I support the principle of representation by population in the House of Commons. It is a democratic principle enshrined in the Constitution.

In fact, Quebec could end up with close to 25 per cent of the seats in the House after the proposed redistribution.

In addition, when the hon. member talks about post-Meech Quebec, one thing is clear to me, and that is that Quebecers want to keep their Quebecois and Canadian identity and it is only within a federal state that both will be possible.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

12:55 p.m.

Liberal

Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, the debate concerns Bill C-69, which is comprehensive in its scope but nevertheless has a precisely defined mandate, and that is concerned with electoral boundary redistribution. It is not a place to re-examine or to start again debates that were conducted in other arenas in which I and other hon. members had the privilege of taking part. It is not a reprise of the Charlottetown accord debate or of other debates relating to what was called the statut constitionnel particulier for the province of Quebec or any other special arrangements. There may be a case for these special arrangements, but it is not a matter germane to the discussion today.

What we are concerned with here is a change, a reform, if you wish, a modernization of the process of establishing electoral boundaries in Canada. It is correct to say that we are somewhat undeveloped in constitutional terms in our attitude toward the electoral processes and in the timid way in which we move up to the necessary and inevitable constitutionalizing of the electoral processes. In some other constitutional democracies, some more ancient than our own, others much more recent, the process is fully constitutionalized and there is a role for Parliament that in some senses we seem to be abdicating here. There is no particular problem in Parliament itself establishing electoral boundaries, provided it is governed by a code of constitutional principles, ideally in the constitution itself, and provided there is a full and effective power of judicial review. The progress toward full equality and participatory democracy in the United States has been achieved in just that way.

More recently, in the post-World War II German constitution, the constitutionalization of the electoral processes is achieved in the constitution, in electoral laws and in a substantial series of decisions by the courts.

I do believe that this will come to pass in Canada, that the courts will recognize that the electoral processes go to constituent power, which is a pre-constitutional power but it is the basis on which constitutional government operates: fair, open, and honest elections, open to public scrutiny in all aspects of the processes.

I think the best way is to draft it into the Constitution itself and certainly have an active, vigilant constitutional court that has the sophistication not to be afraid of electoral issues, as for many years our own courts were. They are not difficult to examine. The issue of basic fairness and the probity of the issues have been discussed and examined by supreme courts as diverse as those of Germany, the United States, Japan and India. The process works.

What has been done is that a very strong committee of the House-I call it that in the language that the courts use but it is a strong committee-which happened to have excellent representation from the main opposition party, the second opposition party and government members, made a long examination of this issue and has brought forward a bill.

It does not touch the issue of whether one province should have 25 per cent representation in the House. It would not have been germane to its mandate. In any case, I would have thought that with the evolution of constitutional democracy in Canada such an issue now could only be decided by full participatory democracy with the assent of the Canadian people expressed in a popular referendum vote. The Charlottetown process at least established that principle and I think all parties wish to work with it.

I listened with great sympathy and admiration to the arguments advanced by members of the second opposition party. However, I feel this was not the arena in which to discuss limitations or increases to the size of the House other than those that followed logically and inevitably from the census figures, which is one of the vines that we have in terms of the electoral process as it now stands.

What has been done here is that an attempt has been made to open up the process of the establishment of electoral boundaries by looking to the issue of who makes the decisions. If it is constituent power it goes to the power of Parliament itself and it is probably a power more awesome than that of the judges. Yet to date, it has been exercised by commissioners who were appointed on the discretion of the government of the day and answerable to nobody other than their own conscience in so far as the courts have not, as I have mentioned, exercised a review control in Canada.

What has been done in this bill is a compliment to the collegial atmosphere in the committee on this particular point. A system has been set up where while the executive retains the power of appointment-at least Parliament does-there is a process of public advertising and consultation. There is the obligation to consult with the leaders of all the parties. Does it go far enough? We shall see. However, it is certainly an advance on the present system.

I say that having served as an electoral commissioner myself. I was asked by the then Speaker of the House, Madam Sauvé, if I would serve as the electoral boundary commissioner because she wanted to get it out of politics. It is not a job that gets any particular awards but it is something to do in the spirit of public service. This is fine but it is still a system without controls. That is why the present proposals are an advance.

If we look again at the reports of recent boundaries commissions, the justifications are at best skeletal, a few lines. They do not really explain the why or how and on what basis and what criteria the decisions were arrived at.

In this particular bill which the committee has brought forward, the boundaries commissions are now required by law to provide three alternative maps for every constituency in which they report. They are required to provide a justification for their choice of opting for one rather than the other two.

Again I think it is a significant advance. It may be that one could have gone further, but in the nature of the committee as it was operating and the desire to build a consensus, the chairman of the committee felt this was the way to go. I think it is a good choice. Therefore, I am optimistic about the progress that will be made when this bill is adopted. We do need an open process. We also need as much public participation as possible and a high degree of scrutiny.

I think there is still a role for the courts. I would like to see this in the same way the justice ministry has financed litigation involving the Official Languages Act. Maybe test cases could be taken up when issues of electoral boundaries come up that raise constitutional principles: Is the principle of equality of representation adequately recognized in what the commissions have done? There are constitutional principles that can control this. Courts in Japan, India and other countries have little difficulty in applying them and the road would be open here.

This bill is an example of a committee interpreting its mandate in a full respect for criteria of relevance. It has not tried to go beyond the mandate as defined. It recognizes that other

problems, cognate as they may be, are to be handled in other bills. Therefore, I think it is a significant advance.

It does not, I repeat, replay Charlottetown. The Charlottetown accord was quite decisively voted on by the people of Canada and is now in the dustbin of history. Parts of it were interesting and valid and may be worth bringing back but that is a matter for debate elsewhere and on another occasion, not here.

While I appreciate the eloquence of the hon. member for Mercier and the contributions he made to the debate, I do not think it really bears too much on the mandate of the committee.

I appreciated the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary West. On many of the matters he has raised a great deal of research has been done by him and by others. There are points that I might share with him but again, I do not feel that for this particular bill this is the occasion to get into these matters.

I take pride as a member of the committee concerned. It worked very well. It is an attempt to replace a system that was somewhat arbitrary in the sense that the commissioners were selected by a process in which there was no real review. They were not required to provide criteria for their decisions. In essence we had situations where decisions could be, as was said of Lord Eldon's chancellorship "an inequity as long as the chancellor's foot". That is not good constitutionalism.

This is a good step forward. It is on that basis I commend it to the House.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

1:05 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Mercier Bloc Blainville—Deux-Montagnes, QC

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite, in referring to the speech by the hon. member for Mercier, indicated his interest in what she said and, in turn, I may say I was very interested in the way the hon. member opposite used examples from other countries and went back in history to support his argument.

I would be interested to know whether he was aware that, at the beginning of the nineteenth century, the Hungarians within the Austro-Hungarian Empire were in a situation quite similar to that of present-day Quebecers in the Canadian federation. In other words, they were an unhappy minority. They rebelled and were defeated, but subsequently, the Austrians, who were the ruling majority in the Empire, decided to negotiate and in the process recognized the so-called double monarchy, a structure in which both peoples, the minority and the majority, enjoyed a certain level of equality to defend interests they might or might not have in common.

In the same century there was another situation very similar to ours, and I am referring to the Norwegians who were not happy about being part of the kingdom of Sweden. They were an unhappy minority. Like the Hungarians, they rebelled, and were defeated. Subsequently, the Swedes agreed to negotiate and recognized a status also referred to as a double monarchy, which also included a parity structure that was different from Parliament but nevertheless a parity structure. I may recall that, in the twentieth century, both Hungary and Norway became independent. They were recognized as independent states.

I want to ask the hon. member opposite whether he feels-and he may not agree-that in this Parliament, representation should be based on population?

Does he agree there are two founding peoples here and at what level would he see a parity structure that would recognize that fact, or does he deny there are two founding peoples in this country?

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his remarks. I am quite familiar with the history of the Austro-Hungarian empire and its particular constitutional theory. I make reference to it in a number of my books and am very often quoted by learned Quebecers in the debate on the development of the quiet revolution.

Nevertheless, all of the facts must be examined. The Austro-Hungarian empire was not a developed democracy as we know it today. We must also recognize that the dual monarchy was, in a way, intolerant of the rights of other minorities. The claims of the slavic minority were not recognized, which gives us cause to look at the failure of the Austro-Hungarian empire, in view of its defeat in the first World War.

Comparisons may be made between Canada and the Austro-Hungarian empire of the 19th century, and in particular the Ausgleich agreement, as it is known in German, of 1867. However, very very few of them may be made. As to whether the Canadian constitution can accommodate a situation similar to that of the Austro-Hungarian empire of the time, I would like to point out that the federal system is very flexible and capable of accommodating many different constitutional arrangements.

The prerequisite today, however, is that these claims be approved by popular vote. This is the fundamental reason for the failure of the Charlottetown accord. Under these circumstances, should the question arise in the future, yes, our federal system can accommodate any constitutional variation, provided it has been submitted to and approved by a popular vote.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Reform

Stephen Harper Reform Calgary West, AB

Mr. Speaker, in deference to the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, I will not ask a question outside the scope of the bill, but rather one within its scope.

He made some comment about the constitutionalizing of these provisions. One thing that is being kept in the bill which is in the existing legislation is the variation of 25 per cent from the quotient for the size of populations of electoral districts. He will also know that in this bill not only do we keep that variation in normal circumstances, but we continue to leave open the possi-

bility of extraordinary circumstances where those variations will get much larger.

The hon. member will know that in the United States the general direction I think it is fair to say has been partly imposed by the courts over time. In the House of Representatives ridings are created that are almost equal in population, of course with their peculiarities which we would not necessarily allow here.

On the question of variation, as an academic expert I would like him to inform the House why we have gone in the direction of allowing very large variations in Canada, whereas the United States with a country of similar size has been able to create constituencies that are virtually equal in size. Would he like to see our country consider moves in that direction in the future?

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

Ted McWhinney Liberal Vancouver Quadra, BC

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary West for the very thoughtful question. He will know that we discussed this matter in committee and on some of these points our views were closer than the report of the committee might indicate.

The United States constitution, in its evolution, is assisted by the fact of equality of representation in the Senate, so that Americans do not have to justify to the extent other countries do disproportionately large electorates for some states and disproportionately small electorates for others.

The United States Supreme Court has said, at least Mr. Justice Douglas has said, that equal things are to be treated equally, according to the doctrine of equality before the law, but unequal things do not have to be treated with the same canon of legal equality. Putting it this way, I can see the case, as a city member, made for country constituencies, that a lesser number of voters should be tolerated. I can see the case for going to 15 per cent. I had some problems with the 25 but I recognize that in committee, a consensus emerges and one accepts it.

We are not yet in the same situation as Japan where the supreme court had to rule on a situation where the electoral districts in Tokyo had five times the number of electors as the districts in the neighbouring country regions. Obviously that is a disproportion that cannot be tolerated.

Where do we draw the line? The committee, with some accommodation from urban members like myself and the hon. member opposite, tried to recognize the special quality of life of country constituencies and that perhaps a lesser number of electors was required. The 25 per cent has to be seen in that light. However, it would be simpler if we had a Senate with equal representation or something of that sort. The reform of the Senate is a subject on which the hon. member and I have many views, but it is, again, not a matter for this discussion.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

1:15 p.m.

Bloc

Michel Bellehumeur Bloc Berthier—Montcalm, QC

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to speak again at the third reading stage of this bill on behalf of the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, the sovereignist party in Ottawa, on an issue as important as the act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

I would like to explain in very simple terms to the people listening to us that this bill establishes regulations for future federal elections.

At first sight, this bill might seem of little interest to Bloc members. English Canada provinces could settle the matter among themselves since, when the next federal election is held, Quebec will probably be a sovereign country.

However, in October 1993, I was elected-I reiterate this fact because I know that my colleagues across the way like to hear it-first, to look after Quebecers' interests and, second, to promote sovereignty in Ottawa, as I often do.

However, in fulfilling the mandate of looking after Quebecers' interests, Bloc members must be vigilant. It is because of this vigilance that we are denouncing this bill, which goes against Quebecers' interests.

The process that led to the drafting of Bill C-69 went through Bill C-18, which was tabled in this House over a year ago. Bill C-18 suspended the electoral boundaries readjustment process then in progress for 24 months before a new debate on redistribution could start.

Unfortunately, the Reform Party objected to that bill and its proposed 24-month suspension. Nevertheless, the House, as we know, passed Bill C-18.

However, when the bill went to the other House, the hon. senators did the job that Reformers had initiated in this place. The other House included in Bill C-18 an amendment providing that a new bill must be tabled by June 1995 at the latest, or else the old legislation and the commissions suspended by Bill C-18 would be reinstated.

The bill before us has two objectives, the official objective and the unofficial one, which is just as important if not more so: to reduce as much as possible Quebec's political weight in this House.

Of course the strategy has changed. Since Lord Durham tabled his report, English Canada, the federalists have taken a different approach. The approach may be a more subtle one, but the ultimate goal has remained unchanged: the assimilation of Quebecers.

How can this be achieved? By failing to recognize Quebec, the people of Quebec, as a founding nation, by not recognizing its distinctiveness, by quashing their every demand and legislating to reduce the political weight of Quebecers in Ottawa by increasing the number of members from outside Quebec, members who will vote against Quebec and put Quebec in its place at the first opportunity.

But history has taught us that one does not have to come from outside Quebec to vote with the English Canada majority and against Quebec in particular. We need not think back very far indeed to realize that. I can see it happen regularly since coming to this place. I saw it again with my own two eyes during the vote at report stage, when Liberal members from Quebec ignored Quebecers' wishes and defeated a motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois to ensure that a minimum of 25 per cent of seats in the House of Commons go to Quebec.

Yet, this was a very simple motion and it read as follows: "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 to the Province of Quebec".

Quebec's influence on decisions made in this House will not start to decline in 100 years, but immediately. In the next federal election, Quebec will no longer have the same decision-making influence, it will be smaller. The figures speak for themselves. Our numbers will be reduced, falling below the 25 per cent level of representation we have always had in this House. Never in the history of Quebec have members from Quebec opposed a motion to protect Quebec's legitimate rights, to protect its political weight within the Canadian federation.

What are we, members from Quebec, here for? What have we been elected to do? Every member from Quebec in this House, regardless of political affiliation-whether red, blue, yellow, whatever-was elected by Quebecers to look after Quebec's interests. This motion to ensure a 25 per cent minimum was designed to protect Quebec's interests and that is why we presented it.

We and all these other members have the duty to protect among other things Quebec's political and decision-making influence. The federal government ignored Quebec in this bill. The same way, Quebec will ignore Canada before long. When I see the government and the third party, the Reform Party, hand in hand, joining forces against Quebec, I know it is high time that we pack up and leave.

The Bloc motion would have guaranteed one quarter of the seats to one of the two founding nations of Canada, while also complying with the traditional and legitimate requests of Quebecers to preserve minimum political leverage within the Canadian federation. The attitude of the Liberal members is hypocritical. Barely three years ago, these same Liberals defended Quebec's right to 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Back then, they formed the opposition. It is strange how time changes things sometimes.

Given that attitude, many of the positive aspects of this legislation are eliminated. Members worked hard to come up with a bill designed to improve the whole redistribution process. However, their efforts were vain, since the government ignored some very important recommendations.

Had some specific provisions been included in it, this legislation could have sent an ultimate message to Quebecers. Instead, the government preferred to team up with the Reform Party to once again put Quebec in a vulnerable position. Nevertheless, as I said earlier, there are some positive aspects to this legislation and I will list a few.

For example, after a decennial census, the changes to the electoral map will be followed by a readjustment five years later, so as to avoid drastic changes in the electoral districts. This is a good change which fulfils a need.

The population of each electoral district will be allowed to vary by more or less 25 per cent from the electoral quota for the province. This is a minimum which, I think, had to be included in the bill.

Provincial commissions will have to hold public hearings before starting their work. Again, this is in response to a legitimate request made by constituents from every riding.

In determining electoral district boundaries, the provincial commissions will have to consider the community of interest, the size of each district, as well as foreseeable geographic changes. In a riding such as Berthier-Montcalm, which I have the honour to represent, the need for such criteria is obvious. Otherwise, we end up with ridings of 50, 52 or 60 municipalities. There has to be at least a certain sense of belonging and the bill ensures that this is the case.

Provincial commissions will have to submit three draft maps and hold new hearings if necessary. Again, this is very good.

As the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup mentioned, something had to be done. I am referring to the member's comments because he put the finger on an extremely important aspect of the issue. He said the following: "It seems to me that it is not simply a question of ensuring adequate mathematical representation but of ensuring adequate representation". These are two very different matters. Equity cannot be measured mathematically. If it could, we would fix the problem

on our calculators and save a lot of money. But when a riding is as small as six blocks of Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver versus 55 or 60 municipalities, like my riding, Berthier-Montcalm, should other criteria not be taken into consideration to ensure that the citizens of these ridings are as well represented in Parliament as those of urban downtown ridings in big cities?

The suggested changes addressed this issue, but, as I said earlier, the snub on Quebec that this bill contains is totally unacceptable. In fact, and I will close on this note, Bill C-69 gives no mandate in this area and it could easily have given one to some parliamentary committee. I think that it is not the means to resolve the problem of Quebec's dwindling representation in the House of Commons that is lacking.

Worse yet, Bill C-69 gives no guarantee that the continual reduction in the number of members in this House from Quebec will be halted. On the contrary, the bill maintains the formula set out in section 51 of the British North America Act, which results in a weakening of Quebec's influence within federal institutions.

You will understand that, as long as the people of Quebec have not made a decision on their future, which will certainly be in favour of sovereignty, it is very important that Quebec maintains adequate representation within federal institutions.

I disagree with some of the comments which the Reform member made and I think that, given that we are here to defend the interests of Quebec, we are here to play to win from within the system and we will do everything possible to guarantee Quebec minimum representation, and demanding 25 per cent is a way of guaranteeing Quebec a minimum impact on decisions made in this House.

We are not demanding this because they say we are going to lose the referendum, on the contrary, we are going to win it. However, I think that, at the very least, a member who represents the interests of Quebec had an obligation to present this motion, to guarantee Quebecers the 25 per cent we have always had since Confederation and which we will lose in the next election because of a Liberal government that failed to make any provisions for this in the bill.

All Quebecers, whether or not they agree on sovereignty, agree that Quebec should at least keep 25 per cent. And since everyone likes Quebecers or at least that is what they say, we should be able to get unanimous consent in this House.

I want to ask the Liberal members from Quebec and the government to rescind the previous vote so that we can have a bill that reflects the unanimous demands of Quebecers, including Quebec federalists with their stuffed beaver policy, as some radio commentators refer to Daniel Johnson's policy.

Even Liberal members from Quebec-and I see some members across the way who were in the National Assembly before and are very much aware of Daniel Johnson's political allegiance-even Mr. Johnson said yes, Quebec should have at least 25 per cent. I think Quebecers are unanimous on this.

I am sure there is some formula we could use in this House to rescind the vote at the report stage and include the motion presented by the Bloc Quebecois. I think that, all things considered, after everything we read in the papers and all the pressure on the Liberals across the way in connection with the Bloc's motion, which was entirely legitimate, I am sure there is some way to rescind this vote and guarantee 25 per cent of the seats for Quebecers.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995Government Orders

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Jean-Paul Marchand Bloc Québec-Est, QC

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member.

How does he see the role of members from Quebec who support this bill? Does he think that members from Quebec who support this bill are defending Quebec's interests?