Debates of April 6th, 1995

Budget Implementation Act, 1995

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. There are many other things I could have talked about, but ten minutes only permits so much.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about the implementation of the federal budget. However I would like to take advantage of the occasion to pick up on a point made by the hon. member in the closing passage of his speech and look beyond the budget to examine the whole question of Canada's national debt; that constantly growing monster which requires $44 billion annually simply to feed. As the finance minister stated in the budget, service charges on the

debt will eventually reach $50 billion before the ratio of debt to gross domestic product starts to improve.

This is a good time, as everyone knows, to talk about the debt because officials from the Department of Finance have been meeting with Moody's, the bond rating agency in New York, to discuss a possible downgrading in Canada's rating. If the talks go badly and if Moody's ultimately downgrades our credit worthiness, the cost of borrowing money to service the debt will be even higher.

As has often been pointed out, the Liberal red book is silent on two questions: when will we eliminate the deficit and how will we then deal with the accumulated stock of Canada's debt?

A constituent of Don Valley West, financial analyst Ross Healy of Strategic Analysis Corporation in Toronto, has proposed a radical, elegant solution to Canada's debt problem called the Phoenix Rising Solution. At the heart of his proposal is an approach which is often used in corporate restructuring, cleaning up the balance sheet by converting excessive debt to equity. In this regard the Phoenix solution is conventional and even commonplace in the private sector, but for government the solution is unique, daring in the proposed scale of the financial offering and radical in its drastic alteration of government finances.

What is proposed is, in Healy's words:

-an equity underwriting of up to $780 billion which will be used to pay down the indebtedness of the federal and provincial governments. The equity' used is a 30 year stream of tax revenuesbundled up' such that there is sufficient present value to replace the indebtedness of the government. The new instrument we shall call the Canadian Phoenix Trust. Shares in the Canadian Phoenix Trust will be exchanged for current government indebtedness on a dollar for dollar basis. It is therefore a replacement of the existing debt with equity, as no `new' capital is required for its success.

Here are the details of the proposal. The federal and provincial governments sell the rights to a future stream of tax revenue to a tax free trust, the stream being large enough to create a present value of up to $780 billion, the total of all direct government federal and provincial indebtedness. Units of the trust would be swapped for existing debt obligations.

Using a 3.5 per cent nominal growth rate in gross domestic product and a 4.5 per cent tax free discount rate, it would require about 4.2 per cent of gross domestic product annually over 30 years to service and retire the $780 billion of equity so created. The moneys would come from existing tax revenues.

The cost of servicing current and provincial debts is about $60 billion annually and rising. As a result there would be an immediate saving of roughly 50 per cent in debt service costs. The moneys paid not only cover service costs but also amortize the full amount of the debt.

Like a mortgage, the blended annual payments of dividends and principal are paid every year, and trust income is a flat 4.2 per cent of Canadian gross domestic product for 30 years, the annual amounts growing in direct relation to the growth of GDP.

Two questions arise immediately. If such a scheme worked, what would be its advantage? Of course, most importantly, would such a scheme work?

First the advantages. Economists have calculated that the current high levels of Canadian government indebtedness constitute an enormous drag on the Canadian economy by crowding out private sector borrowers. These economists estimate Canada's gross domestic product would be between $110 billion and $140 billion greater per year without the debt.

Eliminating government debt would permanently lower Canada's interest rates, thereby improving the climate for innovation, investment and long-term growth.

With the government reducing costs of servicing the debt by 50 per cent, coupled with the existing budgetary measures proposed in February, Canada's federal deficit would be eliminated in two years, not simply reduced to 3 per cent of gross domestic product. The combination of stronger economic growth and future budgetary surpluses would allow governments to lower tax rates, thereby encouraging even stronger economic growth. The Phoenix solution would create a virtuous economic circle indeed.

The biggest question, of course, is can such a scheme work? More precisely, will investors buy? Why would investors swap their holdings of government bonds for Phoenix Trust units on a sufficient scale to make it worthwhile? In the words of Ross Healy and his associate, Enrico Sgromo: "Investors will swap if they feel that the Phoenix Trust units represent a good investment and the current Government of Canada bonds represent increasing risk because of the financial crises that the government finds itself in". Well, given the last and recent gloomy conversations with Moody's, at least the latter half of this proposition seems reasonable.

The major attraction for foreign investors in the short term is the very positive impact on the Canadian dollar, which would gain value immediately. Over the long term the participation in a growing economy with low interest rates would offer both foreign and Canadian investors the opportunity for major capital gains. The beauty of the Phoenix solution is that the better Canada does economically, the better investors do financially. When we succeed, they succeed.

I have only sketched the outline of a concept that has been more fully elaborated elsewhere. My purpose is to test a new idea and ask for constructive responses from my parliamentary colleagues and indeed from citizens who may be watching this program.

I do not claim that the Phoenix solution is perfect, only that it is better than all other solutions I have heard proposed to date for solving our debt crisis.

In the end it will be up to members of the international investment community to decide whether they are interested in exploring a new investment vehicle. Over the years that financial community has shown a remarkable capacity for innovation, sometimes to their cost, as Barings Bank recently discovered. But I suspect that the prospect of charging even a modest commission on the conversion of $780 billion from debt to equity might intrigue even the most jaded spirits on Bay Street and on Wall Street.

[Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, Bloc, Laval Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to speak to Bill C-76 which proposes to implement certain provisions of the federal budget tabled by the Minister of Finance in February.

Unfortunately, this bill confirms what the official opposition suspected when the budget was tabled. And how does it confirm these suspicions?

Since the Liberal government cannot go on adding to the debt, it has decided to reduce the federal deficit by offloading the deficit to the provinces. Our Liberal big brother suddenly turned into an unwilling partner, a most unwilling partner, who decided unilaterally to reduce transfer payments to the provinces by more than $7 billion over the next three years.

These cuts will not take effect until 1996, to maintain the illusion that federalism pays, especially for Quebec. An illusion that will be particularly useful during the referendum campaign.

But the official opposition is keeping a close watch. This camouflage operation is despicable. Starting in 1996, Quebec stands to lose more than $700 million, and in 1997, more than $1 billion. This is intolerable.

What we have here is an irresponsible government that is trying to make the provinces take care of a situation the government created. The provinces are stuck with the bill, but they are not being given new powers. Only the federal debt is being decentralized, not government.

In the social sector, the long-awaited transfer of jurisdiction did not take place. Appearances to the contrary, the federal government insists on interfering in areas over which the provinces have exclusive jurisdiction. It withdraws but refuses to allocate an equivalent share of tax points to the provinces. Is this the much vaunted flexible federalism?

What is so flexible about letting one's so-called partners in this wonderful federation pay the bill, while imposing increasingly restrictive national standards in several areas?

Section 48 of this bill confirms that in addition to national standards for health care, there will be new standards for social assistance and post-secondary education. And provinces that do not play by the rules will see their funding cut.

The federal government's response is that these standards will not come into force before a consensus is reached among the provinces. Then why this attempt to introduce so-called national standards before there have been negotiations between the parties?

I will not dwell on the fact that the provinces were ordered to mention the Canada Social Transfer in all advertising and documentation referring to health care services offered by the provinces. Flexible federalism is dead in the water, long live imperial federalism.

But the empire is crumbling under its tax burden. In spite of cuts in social programs and transfer payments, the federal giant will need even more money to survive during the next three years.

The Canadian government's revenues will increase from $125 billion in 1994-95 to $137.4 billion in 1996-97. Taxes will increase by more than $3.5 billion over a period of three years. In fact, we will be paying more for less.

Need I remind the House that since 1980, the ratio of government revenues to GDP has increased by 18 per cent? Since the 1980 referendum in Quebec, taxes in Canada have increased at twice the average rate for G-7 countries.

It is shocking to see that as it prepares to cut payments to the provinces and increase taxes, this government refuses to do anything to stop duplication and the outrageous waste of public funds.

Where are the real measures to eliminate waste and overlap between levels of government? The answer is obvious. With the federal system, there will always be two departments of the environment, two departments of health and two departments of justice. By nature, the federal system extends its grasp ever further. The negative effects of the federal budget, renewed in Bill C-76, will hit all the provinces hard, particularly Quebec.

According to a recent study by Wood Gundy the expenditure control plan proposed by the federal government to reduce transfer payments to the provinces and the many changes over the past decade to established programs financing have increased provincial deficits.

The Government of Quebec has estimated that the cumulative effect of these measures from 1982 to 1994 meant a shortfall for it of $14.3 billion. The federal government's latest budget confirms that this trend will increase.

Federal money transfers in fact represent an increasingly smaller portion of Quebec's revenues. I will give you just one example. In 1983, federal transfers represented almost 29 per cent of Quebec's revenues. In 1994, they represented 20 per cent.

Wood Gundy believes that the cost of the federal government's withdrawal from established programs financing alone, responsible for 28 per cent of provincial deficits in 1993-94, will grow to 60 per cent of them in 1996-97. February's budget simply announced a worsening of the situation.

On the other hand, needs in the areas of post-secondary education and health care are on the rise. The provincial governments are faced with an existential dilemma: cut services or increase their deficit.

The official opposition has no choice but to criticize the government's lack of vision in reducing the deficit accumulated over the years. The government should have put its energies into eliminating useless duplication and overlapping jurisdictions with the provinces.

It should have trimmed the fat off its still cumbersome and ever costly structure. The Liberal government could have cut nearly $3 billion more over three years at the Department of National Defence alone. It failed to do so.

If it had gotten out of areas of provincial jurisdiction, in exchange for equivalent compensation in the form of tax point transfers, it would have created significant savings for both itself and the provinces. It would have meant savings for the federal government of nearly $3 billion in health care, professional training, post-secondary education and all programs relating to human resources development.

If the federal government withdrew from these areas of jurisdication, the Government of Quebec could, among other things, establish a real job creation strategy by tailoring human resources development and job training programs to key sectors of the province's economy.

But the federal government's actions tell a different story. The official opposition feels that this bill will actually impede job creation, because, instead of withdrawing from labour and education, which would permit the provinces to get to the heart of the problem, the federal government's role in these areas is actually reinforced by this bill.

As for Canada's tax system, the federal government still has given no real indication that it was serious about thoroughly revamping it. Some people still have the joy of exploiting tax havens!

Quebecers will soon have to decide which path to take. On the one hand, they have the option of taking their own matters in hand, of being masters of their destiny by founding a country they can call their own, and investing the imagination, creativity and constant quest for excellence that they are well known for in that country.

On the other, they have the option of remaining in a political and economic system that distinctly refuses to acknowledge their existence, of sticking with the status quo, which undoubtedly will lead them nowhere as a people. A stale political and economic regime crumbling under its own debt, deficit and taxes, unable to guarantee its citizens an acceptable standard of living. A political and economic regime which, without a doubt, is doomed to failure.

Sovereignty, admittedly, is not the miracle cure for all of Quebec's woes, but it will give Quebecers the power to pull the political and economic levers which will promote Quebec's growth.

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

Mr. Speaker, why is the opposition, through its amendment, asking the government to redo its homework? Because spending cuts are often made in the wrong places or simply mishandled. Let me give you an example. It was decided to eliminate transportation subsidies in eastern Canada. It is understandable that, after several years, this program had to be reviewed.

However, according to Transport Canada documents, the transition fund that will replace these subsidies cannot be used to help shippers or to invest in roads and other transportation infrastructures on a cost-shared basis. There may be interesting projects in the two options offered but what is important in the region affected is to ensure that the money will be used to achieve what should be the real objectives: to direct industrial development and to ensure that the new industrial structure can handle the challenges of the 21st century.

That is why the opposition is submitting a very constructive proposal to the government. The opposition is proposing that this fund-which amounts to $78 million in Quebec, $121 million in New Brunswick, and so on in the other Maritime Provinces-be used not only for the road infrastructure but also to establish a business assistance fund that will help develop the second and third stage processing sector or simply help business adjust to technological changes. It is important to invest in roads but they are only one aspect of industrial development.

If we put all our eggs in the same basket, we will end up with a road network that will have to be maintained over a certain number of years. The government is experiencing difficulties that do not augur well for the future but by investing in business, by establishing a fund from which companies could borrow money that they would have to repay later, the fund could last for

5, 10, 15 or 20 years and have a permanent impact on economic restructuring in eastern Canada, especially in eastern Quebec.

Suggestions like this lead us to call on the government to redo its homework and take a few more months to work through the bill aimed at making the changes needed to implement the budget.

Let me give you another example of this type of situation. In the next few months, we will see what I would call the automation of Canada Employment Centres. It is rather paradoxical that, next year, the so-called Human Resources Development Department will be focusing in a major way on replacing workers with machines. Computers will be made available to the jobless in some places. I can clearly detect in that the approach taken with seniors and voice boxes. But the people who deal with unemployment centres may not know how to work automated systems.

Citizens will be further removed from civil servants, aggravating the problem of individuals becoming file numbers and having a tendency to abuse the system. So, instead of striving for realistic goals, this measure will be counterproductive because machines are replacing people. The human resources sector differs from the car manufacturing sector in that robots can be used to build cars but, if you want to help individuals find work and reenter the workforce, it is essential that they establish good contacts in terms of professional counselling and feel that the people they deal with at the employment centre are able to help them with their personal circumstances.

As I recall, when I was touring with the committee on the Axworthy reform, someone came to me with a proposal that I think would have been much more appropriate than these changes. What of it was now up to the users, the UI recipients, to evaluate or assess the services they receive? Perhaps that, based of the information provided by the users, the government would abandon this reform, or at least make sure that the human element is not removed, and plans for adding new technologies.

I would also like to list a few areas where we urge the government to go back to the drawing board. It was decided to reduce to nil-that is no small cut-funding for agencies involved with public participation in and awareness of international development. Every organization with a mandate to make Quebecers and Canadians aware of the importance of international co-operation will not be getting a penny more. This was done in a very cavalier fashion. The organizations were informed by phone and, in my riding, the CREECQ received written confirmation after it had taken effect.

It is rather insulting and appalling for organizations dedicated to ensuring that there is a future for co-operation. On the downside of this decision is the fact that these organizations also drew a parallel between poverty in our part of the world and in the South. It made it clear that everything is interconnected and that choices made in Northern countries create poverty in the South. We often have the same attitude towards our underprivileged as we do towards third world nations.

These organizations made sure people were aware of the reality. Given the government's current tendency to copy the American model, which entails the disintegration of the middle class, it is easy to figure out that it wants to get rid of those who question its social measures.

This appears to be a very bad decision which will result in Quebecers and Canadians being less aware of the need to provide international assistance.

I also want to mention the abolition of the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women. This is another example of an unacceptable announcement. No ministerial statement was made. It was during a debate that we were informed that the Canadian Advisory Council on the Status of Women would disappear. This is another case of getting rid of those who question the government's actions regarding those who are in difficulty and who need a more flexible society.

The last example which I want to give relates to agriculture. The subsidy for industrial milk is reduced by 30 per cent. This means that either producers or consumers will be affected. And which consumers will be most affected if the price of butter goes up? It is those who have less disposable income. When the price of a pound of butter goes up 10 or 15 cents, that increase is not felt by those who earn $60,000, $70,000 or $80,000, but it has a direct impact on the budget of the poor, who have no choice but to reduce their spending even more.

All this is to tell you that we kind of wonder why the reaction to this budget is relatively positive in English-speaking provinces, while it is negative in Quebec. The media gave us the answer yesterday. Thanks to the federal system, Quebec is the province with the highest proportion of poor in the country. After 125 years, that finding alone would be enough to convince me that we must change systems and have control over our development as a whole. This is essential.

Whether in the context of an annual budget such as this one, or in the context of a more fundamental decision, Quebecers have a very different vision of development. This is why we want the federal government to do its job properly, while we are still part of that system. We are asking it to go back to the drawing board and to reconsider a number of legislative provisions which will have to be passed to implement this budget. We also hope that, when the time comes for Quebecers to make their fundamental decision, they will realize that a new system is essential for their development and also to change things which can no longer be tolerated in Quebec.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The vote is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[Some hon. members]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

Call in the members.

And the division bells having rung:

[The Deputy Speaker]

The recorded division on the motion stands deferred until the end of Government Orders on Monday, April 24, 1995 when the bells will be rung for not more than 15 minutes.

The House resumed from March 28 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.

Readjustment Act, 1995

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

Mr. Speaker, Bill C-69 being debated today deals with the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

This bill would certainly improve the current situation. For one thing, the provincial commissions will now have to hold hearings before starting their work and will have to produce three maps for every region covered, that is, three redistribution proposals. If there is sufficient public demand, the commissions will have to hold new hearings. We must admit that the process has been improved compared to the current situation.

The bill also requires the commissions to consider certain elements in setting satisfactory electoral boundaries. Clause 19( b ) of the bill outlines the criteria to be considered: first, community of interest; second, a manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated, rural or northern regions of the province, and; third, the probability that there will be a substantial increase in the population of an electoral district in the province in the next five years.

Finally, clause 19( c ) stipulates that the commission shall recommend changes to existing electoral district boundaries only where the factors considered above are sufficiently significant to warrant such a recommendation.

It is interesting to note that the first criterion refers to community of interest. However, another provision of the bill specifies that an electoral district cannot vary by more than 25 per cent from the provincial quota. For example, if the electoral quota for Quebec is 100,000 voters, the commission can establish ridings that have between 75,000 and 125,000 voters.

The commission can agree that there is a community of interest but that the number of voters does not meet standards.

Take, for instance, the riding of Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine which is now below the provincial quota but has a vast territory.

The bill does, however, provide that under certain circumstances, the commissions are not obliged to apply the 25-per cent rule. However, these circumstances are so restrictive that one wonders in what cases they would actually apply.

In accordance with subsection 19(3), a commission may depart from the 25 per cent rule if an electoral district or territory is geographically isolated from the rest of the province or is not readily accessible from the rest of the province.

What does geographically isolated mean? Who is going to define this? The provincial commission? The courts? The bill gives no indication. To get back to the case of the Magdalen Islands, they are, of course, geographically isolated. Should the population rule apply? Residents had their own federal electoral district until 1968, and to this day, Quebec law has guaranteed them their own provincial riding. With all due respect for the work being done by the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, we think it would make very good sense for the Magdalen Islands, located in the middle of the ocean, 210 kilometres from the Gaspé coast, to have a member exclusively for the islands.

It will therefore be up to the residents to make a case that the islands are geographically isolated. That should not be difficult. Complying with this initial rule should not be a problem. Subsequently, they will have to show that the population of the islands would justify establishing a new riding. Of course, this

would have certain consequences. If the Magdalen Islands are entitled to have their own member, the riding of Bonaventure will lose the constituency that would form the new riding on the islands. So there is still a problem for the Gaspé peninsula.

What happens to the ridings of Gaspé, Matapédia-Matane, Rimouski-Témiscouata and Bonaventure? What about them? Does subsection 19(3) provide a way to deal with the problem of the Gaspé peninsula? Unfortunately, the subsection is not sufficiently detailed. The Gaspé peninsula is a region with a decreasing population, where members must cover considerable territory. They must deal with problems that do not exist, or at least not in the same way, in the more central areas of the country or province represented. Members are concerned about representation in the Gaspé peninsula.

Subsection 19(3) is far too restrictive to be acceptable to us. We had suggested maintaining in the bill before the House today the rules now in effect. What are these rules?

At the present time, a provincial commission may depart from the 25-per cent rule in any case where any special community or diversity of interests of the inhabitants of various regions of the province appears to render such a departure necessary or desirable. So in fact, provincial commissions have far more leeway when they have to deal with specific cases. They have far more flexibility than they have under this bill.

So a region, like the lower St. Lawrence, the Gaspé or the Islands, would have benefitted more under current legislation than they will under the extremely restrictive legislation they want us to adopt today.

Clause 19 is for the official opposition a major reason for not supporting this bill.

Clause 16 is unacceptable as well, both for what it says and for what it does not say. Its silence speaks volumes. The government is turning a deaf ear to the traditional request by Quebecers and their successive governments for minimum representation in the House of Commons, as enjoyed by some of the Atlantic provinces.

Representation of the Atlantic provinces is guaranteed, as you know, by the senatorial clause which dates back to 1915. We have no argument with this provision.

It enables Prince Edward Island, with a population of 120,000, to have four members in this House, because the senatorial provision specifies that a province may not have fewer representatives in the House of Commons than it has in the Senate. Prince Edward Island is guaranteed four seats in the Senate. The same rule applies to New Brunswick. It has a guarantee of ten seats in the Senate.

Although its population does not warrant its having ten seats in the House, New Brunswick is entitled to ten seats. We have no problem with that. The Terms of Union of Newfoundland with Canada of 1949 also covered this point and could be used to guarantee proper representation of Newfoundland in both the House of Commons and the Senate. This is just what it did; it guaranteed Newfoundland six seats in the Senate.

If we accept the senatorial clause that guarantees are to be given to Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Newfoundland, why is there such an impediment to giving guarantees to Quebec on the subject of minimum representation?

Quebec is one of the two founding nations of this country. The collective memory of Quebecers has not forgotten that, in 1867, we were one of the two founding peoples. Allow me to remind you that on June 30, 1867, on the eve of the day the British North America Act was to come into force, Quebec, then called Lower Canada, had 65 of the 130 seats in the Parliament of the Province of Canada, that is half the seats, 50 per cent of the members.

Through its representatives, that is to say those elected to represent us, Quebec accepted at the time of the British North America Act to be limited to 65 seats out of 181 in the Parliament of Canada. This was the agreement reached by the Fathers of Confederation which was to come into force on July 1, 1867.

There was no referendum at the time. There was no consultation of the people of Quebec before the decision was made. It is also important to note that women were not consulted, since they did not have the right to vote at that time. There was no constitutional provision for a minimum representation for Quebec. The only guarantee we got was that Quebec would have 65 seats, although it did not say out of how many. On that point, there was nothing in the act.

Then, with the expansion of the Canadian territory and the inclusion of new provinces in the Confederation, the proportion of seats held by Quebec in the House of Commons constantly diminished until, in the last few decades, it stabilized at somewhere slightly above 25 per cent. Clearly the Fathers of Confederation erred when they failed to include a clause guaranteeing Quebec a minimum representation and, at that time, it should have been 50 per cent.

It is rather difficult to rewrite history and to claim 50 per cent today. What we are asking for is a guarantee of at least 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Should Quebec participate in the elections for the thirty-sixth Parliament, for

the first time in its history, its representation would fall below 25 per cent, since it would have only 75 seats out of 301.

This explains our proposal which, basically, is the same as the Liberal proposal of 1992, when they were in opposition. Let us see what the hon. member for Papineau-Saint-Michel and present Minister of Foreign Affairs was saying at the time. He was happy to seek for Quebec a guarantee of at least 25 per cent of the seats, saying that it would be a major gain for Quebec.

Yet, none of the Liberal members who were in this House in 1992 and are still here today supported our motion for a minimum of 25 per cent. How is it that these members changed their minds in so short a time? Why do they refuse Quebec something which is really minimal? Why do they refuse to make a move in the right direction? Why do they refuse a simple overture to Quebec? Why do they refuse a small sign of attachment to Quebec?

Why is this government refusing to show that it cares about Quebec, that it wants it to remain in Canada? Canada has no interest in having Quebec under-represented or diminished in the House of Commons. Quebec must keep its representation because it is a nation. It is one of the founding peoples. As a founding nation, francophones occupied all of Canada and went even a little farther, since our territory went as far as Louisiana.

It goes without saying that this request from Quebec must be supported since the large majority of Quebec members in this House voted in favour of guaranteeing Quebec a 25 per cent minimum representation. Daniel Johnson, Leader of the Official Opposition in the Quebec National Assembly, presented the following motion: "That the National Assembly of Quebec reiterate the goal of maintaining a representation of at least 25 per cent for Quebec in the House of Commons of Canada and request the Government of Quebec to make representations to that effect".

Thus we know that there is a large consensus in Quebec, going beyond party lines, to claim this minimum guarantee of 25 per cent. When we see the Progressive Conservative Party, the official opposition that is the Bloc Quebecois, and the independent member for Beauce support such a motion to include in Bill C-69 a guarantee of a 25 per cent representation, it is obvious that this issue achieves a large consensus in Quebec.

Needless to say that Senator Rivest also supported this provision. Even the governments of Quebec which requested that such a provision be included in our legislation have given it their unwavering support, and as far as I know, the current government had never retracted what had previously been agreed to.

How strange it is indeed to see the government finally recant on something that it supported in September 1992. This government reneged on what our Canadian partners had unanimously accepted. Of course, it was in the context of the Charlottetown accord. But should Quebec be punished because the rest of Canada decided that this accord was not to their advantage?

You will therefore concede that the bill before us today for third reading is incomplete. Especially when it comes to the criteria used to determine whether there can be a departure from the boundaries of a riding or those used to designate special ridings. It is also incomplete because it fails to deal with the issue of the representation of one of the country's two founding peoples. The vote on the amendment proposed by the official opposition demonstrates without a doubt that the federal government's failure to guarantee in this bill fair representation in this House for Quebec was not an innocent oversight: it was deliberate.

Would Canadians have been against the government finally recognizing Quebec's distinct society status, status as a founding people, as a nation on which this country was built? I am convinced the answer is no. This is the smallest request Quebec has made over the past 50 years.

I would be helpful to go back to the beginning and to remember that Canada's history all started with the arrival of Jacques Cartier in Gaspé, in 1534. Then comes the founding of Quebec City by Samuel de Champlain in 1608; the founding of Trois-Rivières and Montreal in the decades that followed and afterwards, the establishment of the first public government in New France, as Canada was called then.

Our first public institutions were created in 1663, when the King of France established the Sovereign Council of New France. We slowly stopped being French, became Canadians, then French Canadians and, ultimately, Quebecers.

Meanwhile, in 1774, the Quebec Act restored civil law in Quebec and allowed us to have an unelected legislative council. They were afraid to give francophones, who were so peaceful, democratic institutions, institutions to which Quebecers could elect their own representatives. And yet, Quebecers, Canadians of the time, had shown great pacifism and open-mindedness.

Finally, in 1791, thanks to the Constitutional Act, we were granted the right to elect our own representatives to our very first national assembly, in Quebec City. In 1791, we gained partial control over our institutions. Things went fairly fast after that, except that Canada was divided into Upper and Lower Canada. The assembly elected by Lower Canada has no extraterritorial power and cannot legislate on matters concerning Upper Canada and vice versa.

In 1867, the institutions we still have today were created. It may seem somewhat paradoxical for a sovereignist to rise in this House to ask for a 25 per cent representation. We have not left yet. We are still part of Canada. It is our duty and our responsibility, in accordance with our commitment to defend Quebec's

interests, to ask all parliamentarians in this House to grant us 25 per cent of the seats.

We were here first, we joined the union in 1840, we decided to live together. You will lose nothing in giving us 25 per cent of the seats. It would be a nice gesture toward a nation, a people you claim you want to keep within your ranks. It seems to me that if the government wants to give an obvious sign of its love for Quebec and is serious about keeping us in Canada, it must guarantee us a 25 per cent representation.

[Darrel Stinson, Reform, Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have had a question on the Order Paper for 348 days now and I am starting to wonder if I will have to wait-

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member is quite entitled to raise that point, but he should raise it at a different time. Since the hon. member will not get a response at this time, I would ask him to raise that point the next time Questions on the Order Paper are discussed in the House.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak on the electoral boundaries issue because it relates to representation by population and, more importantly, to responsible government.

I would like to point out that the House of Commons is built on the principle of representation by population. This great country of Canada came to be not by chance, but rather by strong convictions that all people could work together for the betterment of all. Perhaps it was the right man in the right position in the 1850s and 1860s, or perhaps it was a strong determination that a dream of federalism could work, but I know that compromise played an important role in the final decision. To make responsible government work in the 1850s, before Confederation, it took a lot of people working together, in particular the compromise for trade by George Brown, a man who put his country before himself when he proposed the great coalition in 1864.

My hon. friend from Chambly spoke the other day of the French influence and what he felt was a lack of support by Reform members of this House for the French cause or French history. I want to assure my friend that Reformers are not so ignorant as to deny the history of their own country, nor to be unaware of those who shaped it from its beginnings.

To be honest, I would first have to acknowledge our aboriginal people, whose beginnings we can trace well back to before Christ. On the west coast of Canada the use of cedar gives us many of our time clues. We can actually trace cedar growing on the west coast of B.C. to at least 3500 B.C.

Later, as Europeans came to our country's shores, they claimed the land as theirs. Does that not seem odd? So many others were already in occupation of this land. True, the first European settlements were French settlements, after Cartier's visits of 1534 and 1535. Those settlements were along the coast of Nova Scotia. In the 1604-05 settlements there was severe hardship. The hardship was due to very cold winters, the lack of fresh water, and sickness. Those settlements did not remain at that time.

Later came settlement in Quebec in 1608, as my colleagues from the Bloc have stated. That, of course, was Champlain's settlement in Quebec. As I recall, Champlain was very concerned about those in his small settlement. He wondered how to keep the morale up. His order of good cheer was to increase the morale and bring some relief and entertainment to those inhabitants who were so far from home. It is interesting to remember that many years later, Voltaire referred to New France as those few acres of snow.

Meanwhile, some French settlers had returned to the Acadian shores, and by 1613 these Acadians, peaceful farmers who tilled and looked after the land, really bothered no one. Yet that did not prevent the expulsion of the Acadians in 1755. Of course, they did not swear allegiance to the British crown. When they were expelled from Grand Pré, it was an injustice; it was cruel.

Does it matter now that the English at the time feared the unrest to the south in the 13 colonies, which they thought was about to explode because they knew the Americans in the 1760s protested against the unjust taxation by the English? I think they called them the "intolerable acts". We are all aware of the Boston Tea Party. Well, does it matter now? I do not think so.

Reformers are also aware of Longfellow's epic poem, "Evangeline", the immortalized young Acadian woman who spent her life in search of her lost love, only to find him as he lay dying. Let me assure the Bloc, it is part of our tragic history as well.

I watched the Anne Murray show last Friday night, dedicated to the fine music and musicians of Nova Scotia. She spoke with pride of her Acadian ancestry.

What of the 30 years following 1755? Many English, later nicknamed loyalists, fled to the 13 colonies, often to escape being tarred and feathered-peaceful, law-abiding citizens-all because they wanted to remain obedient to the English crown. Is that not odd? A few years earlier cruelties had taken place because Acadians did not want to swear allegiance to the British crown. Wrongs on both sides.

Many fled persecution by the Americans with only the clothes on their backs. They trekked for miles through unknown forests, hostile Indian lands, the same as the Acadians. So many came here in those years that in 1784 the colony of New Brunswick was created.

We in this House are well aware that we are talking about over 100,000 loyalists. They came to all parts of Canada, to Nova Scotia and Quebec-so many came to Quebec that Upper Canada was created-to P.E.I., to areas of Newfoundland.

By 1791 the Constitution Act became a reality. The Quebec colony split into Upper and Lower Canada. Upper Canada contained many of the loyalists. The Constitution Act created elected assemblies with limited powers. Here again, we have England in control, so concerned dare she give much authority to these colonies. She has just seen what happened far to the south. At least she thought that was the lesson she should take from all of this. Was she wrong? I think history proves that she was.

To go back, following the downfall of New France in 1759 and 1760 with Montreal's capitulation, decisions had to be made. The first two governors, following military rule from 1760 to 1763, were Murray and Carleton. Both these governors tried to protect the Canadien way of life: Catholic religion, French civil law, the language, the culture; English criminal law, though.

Hesitation came when Murray did not introduce the elected assembly. Why did he not introduce the elected assembly? He had a minority of English people in Montreal scrambling for it. He was under constant attack. Why did he not do it? He was trying to protect the majority of French Canadians who at that time could not be elected to serve. Murray did not introduce it and the rest is history.

Due to our diverse history our country has many tragedies. Perhaps there are those who feel they should be divided into nationalities. I do not. These are the tragedies of our country. They are our tragedies.

To my friend from Chambly, I acknowledge that there was a British-French rivalry in the 1600s and 1700s. Of course there was. The wars continued at that time. Each nation wanted to control the rich resources of North America. What were those rich resources? The cod fishing grounds of Newfoundland and Acadia, the fur trade of the St. Lawrence. But where are they now? The cod are gone. Do we blame each other?

Does it matter that in the last 20 years our Liberal and Conservative governments did not care for this vast resource wisely? In the fur trade, the animals pushed further and further into the remaining forests and hinterlands.

Have we kept the mighty St. Lawrence free from pollution? Are the Belugas not being slowly poisoned? What about the Beluga who pushed her baby toward a boat so scientists could see her baby's open sores? The scientists in that documentary honestly felt that the Beluga wanted them to see that. Do the animals know what we are doing?

The Bloc is arguing for a 25 per cent guarantee. When the city of Quebec fell in 1759 to the British General Wolfe and later when Montreal fell in 1760, New France as it had been was gone.

Under the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the proclamation promised protection for the Canadian way of life, including its traditional laws and the Roman Catholic religion. That does not mean we destroy representation by population.

However, I would like to assure the member for Chambly that Reformers do not think Canadian history began with Reformers, but rather we are very much aware of the contribution made by the early French settlers. Representation by population, won by the population, fairness for all, equality for all-that is where we are coming from.

However, if we are talking about Reformers, which Reformers was my hon. friend referring to? The 1800s or the 1900s? I see my friend over there is laughing again. This always gets a laugh from him. Well, if he will listen for a little while, I will see if I can get him to be serious for a moment.

In the 1800s in Upper Canada we had Bidwell, Ryerson, Mackenzie and Baldwin. Why? We had the hated family compact, a small group of English gentry, for want of a better word, who wanted to keep the control in their own hands. The truth was the majority of Upper Canada's inhabitants were very poor. Immigrants were encouraged to come to Canada in the great migration.

I want to share briefly with the House an article I read many, many times to my students, just to put them in the picture, not of the French Canadians' plight but in this case the Europeans' plight when they came to Canada in 1815.

"Most immigrants who came to Canada during the great migration were very poor, but they could get cheap transportation to Canada. Passage to Montreal or Quebec by sailing ship in the 1820s was seven pounds, about two month's wages for a farm labourer, with meals included. Children travelled for half fare. These immigrants faced extreme hardships, both on board ship and in the colonies to which they travelled. Sicknesses such as cholera were common aboard ship. Tens of thousands died on their way to North America. The survivors faced great problems as they tried to find work or to clear the land for pioneer farms."

The following description of a plight of an immigrant family living in a cave in Upper Canada was written in 1821.

"The mother, who continued to shed tears, told me that she and her family were Irish immigrants. They had been induced by a series of misfortunes to set sail for Canada, with the intention of obtaining land, and had, after many difficulties, got thus far in their voyage. But, being now destitute of money, they were unable to procure a lodging and knew not where to apply for work, assistance or information. A husband and these two boys', said the woman,are all who remain to me. My little girl died on the ship and they threw her into the sea. Aye, sure, that was the worst of all', continued she in an agony of grief, `poor babe, she had neither prayers nor a wake'."

We do not often hear these stories, but let me remind the House that there are many of them. As a teacher for 30 years, I have books full of them.

Often, after years of working the land, instead of the promised land deeds, these new Canadians received a bill for the total price of the land and of course they did not have the money. The promises that were made to them were all lies, and many of them lost their land. They were promised roads, schools and help that never materialized.

Who were those first Reformers? They were the new Upper Canadians, who were lied to and could see no way of changing or of change coming under the existing system. Hardships? Oh yes.

So we had moderate and radical Reformers from 1824 to 1837. I choose those years because that is when it seemed to rise to a crescendo.

Finally, when peaceful constitutional means did not bring relief or results, William Lyon Mackenzie King became a radical Reformer. How many times was he elected to the legislative assembly? How many times did Bond Head throw him out? He was re-elected again. Frustration? I guess he was frustrated.

We are talking here about fair representation; the result, the rebellion of 1837. What am I saying? Rebellion did not just happen; it took many years of injustices created by a few at the top who tried to control others. Reformers came about because of necessity. Necessity is the mother of invention.

I am well aware that the rebellion in Lower Canada happened again because of oppression by a small group in control. In this case again, English Governor Sir Francis Bond Head, in my opinion, should never have been in the position of power he was in. In history we often find people who are in positions they should never be in. He appointed who he wanted to be his executive and legal counsellors.

In Upper Canada the Anglican Church dominated the scene. John Strachan, of course, the first Anglican Bishop of Toronto, wore many hats.

How did the family compact get its name? Well, they inter-married, many of them, and gave jobs to friends and relatives. I think we call it patronage, do we not? Is it happening again today?

We are talking here of a privileged class of judges and magistrates, again family compact connections in a colonial society, all leaders of Upper Canada, members of the dreaded family compact and in Lower Canada the Chateau Clique, the same composition appointed by one governor, Bond Head. He chose his executive and legislative council from a group of British merchants. The mandate, what was it in Lower Canada? It appeared to be to force the Canadian population to adopt the British way of life.

Louis Papineau emerged as a brilliant orator of the reform movement in Lower Canada. The frustrations of the Canadiens were rooted in both of the following: a cultural division between the French and English in Lower Canada; and the undemocratic nature of the colonial government. Power was abused. There is the saying: Absolute power corrupts; power corrupts absolutely. That is certainly true.

Last night I briefly watched part of a documentary on J. Edgar Hoover. It was frightening. I think perhaps he epitomizes the master of civil servant control and how dangerous it can be if it gets out of hand. Why? It must be that the people who are elected and can be removed, must be accountable.

What happened to Hoover? We saw people who lost their lives. Was it justified that they lost their lives? We saw a president killed. Who killed him? We saw some terrible things happen and all because power was not placed properly.

Wrongs have happened in our country's history. Reformers arose in the 1800s out of necessity. In Upper and Lower Canada again Ryerson, Bidwell, Mackenzie, Papineau, Baldwin, La Fontaine were all reformers. On the east lawn there are statues of two reformers: La Fontaine and Baldwin. My friend from Chambly, these reformers were good men. They were all good men. Unfortunately when people want change and nothing happens they become frustrated. Rebellions happen.

What happened to these reformers? Some in positions of power referred to them as Yankee loving traitors. Does it sound familiar? How often have we heard this in this House? Reformers try to talk about reforming health care. We try to talk about serious things that need to change and are going to have to change if we retain them. Yet we get accused of being American, of trying to force American doctrines in this House. I am really

sorry to see debate reduced to these attacks and misrepresentations. Usually it is to avoid answering a question.

Responsible government. Baldwin and La Fontaine worked hard for it. How important was it to address the rights of fair representation, the rights for responsible government? Finally England faced its responsibilities. When a rebellion happens you have to see the writing on the wall.

Unfortunately though the colonial secretary, Lord John Russell, was in no way committed to responsible government. It was totally unacceptable to him. Although both rebellions failed, they succeeded. They succeeded because Britain became alarmed. Sixty years earlier it had lost its 13 colonies. Someone saw sense.

Lord Durham was sent to Canada. He was nicknamed Radical Jack, probably because he was a powerful advocate for political reform in the 1830s in England. He was instrumental in getting votes on the secret ballot and was also instrumental in getting the vote for all men. I believe he was probably chosen because of this. He certainly was a man who would look at the other side of things. He was a sick man; he was a dying man when he came to Canada.

Durham's appointment was seen as a welcome change on both sides of the Atlantic by those wishing for political change. He arrived in 1838. He was not well, as I said, but he was determined to do his duty.

Responsible government was suggested to Lord Durham, the new Governor General, by Robert Baldwin, a reformer for all of the six British colonies remaining in eastern North America: Upper Canada, Lower Canada, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia, P.E.I. and Newfoundland.

Many similarities existed in the injustices in all six, injustices which led to the American revolution. Robert Baldwin was a moderate reformer. His proposal for responsible government appealed to Lord Durham. It was similar to Britain's form of government.

After the rebellion, Durham had to deal with political prisoners. His leniency toward the rebels, especially in Lower Canada angered the English minority in Montreal. Because of the constant antagonism against him, after five months he resigned and went back to Britain. He still wrote the Durham report and the result of that, as we know, was the Act of Union in 1840.

Favouring responsible government, the reaction in the Canadas for this favour it was now going to receive in Upper Canada was pretty positive. The Reformers knew political leaders were to emerge, like Francis Hincks who had been a newspaper man with the Toronto Examiner , and the Baldwins again, the people who had waited years for change. In Lower Canada, Étienne Parent and Louis La Fontaine were also anxious to see these changes.

Lord Elgin was actually going to be the man who was instrumental in putting responsible government forward. He was actually the son-in-law of Lord Durham. He was married to Mary, Lord Durham's daughter. When he came the instrument was going to be the rebellion losses bill to make amends to those people who had lost valuable property.

We know what happened. We received responsible government. Lord Elgin listened to the people. He gave royal assent. In 1848, Nova Scotia had it because the Reform government was in power. In 1849, New Brunswick and the Canadas had it. In 1851, P.E.I. had it and Newfoundland had it in 1855.

What about the native people in Canada? What about the genocide committed on the Beothuk Nation in Newfoundland? We have made so many errors. What about the Japanese? During the war maybe we had to have security restraints but we did not have to give away all their property.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to give the member a few more minutes to finish her talk?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Daphne Jennings, Reform, Mission—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you. What of our errors in the way we treated our Japanese Canadians? They had a lot of valuable real estate, especially in British Columbia, which ended up in the hands of a lot of suspect people. I did not like what happened in British Columbia. It was wrong.

We have a lot to be ashamed of, but it is all of our shame. It is our history. It is us. We have to be equal. We have to care together. To remove and sell off people's possessions is wrong.

Should we visit the sins of the fathers on the sons? I think not. In my classroom we would often say: "Yesterday was another time; tomorrow is the first day of the rest of my life". That is where we should be going in Canada today. We had two mothers in Ireland, one Protestant, one Catholic, who tried to go for peace, who also used that idea. We have to make it a better world.

Any electoral changes must be to protect all Canadians equally, as equally as our Constitution at present will allow. I hope my friend from Chambly will concede that Reformers know their history. Perhaps it is with a little different emphasis, but I hope I respect all cultures in our country: no special privileges, no special interest groups, all of us working together in a federal union.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a comment and a question. We are currently debating the motion that Quebec should keep at least 25 per cent of the seats in this House.

I listened carefully to my colleague. After going over 200 to 300 years of history, she said we should forget all that. But she did not mention the events that have occurred in the last 20 years.

I would like to remind her of the reasons why Quebec is so distrustful and why it is asking for this protection. As recently as 1980, the federal government defeated the Yes side in the Quebec referendum after spending hundreds of millions of dollars. In 1971, for instance-why was it not mentioned?-Parliament passed the Official Languages Act, which since then has become the perfect instrument of assimilation.

In 1970, the Canadian government invoked the War Measures Act in the middle of the night in order to send in the army and stifle the separatist, the sovereignist movement. They arrested 500 people without warrants. Do you think we will forget this overnight? No way. One cannot forget those events.

More recently, there was Meech Lake. I will not spend too much time on this, since a member of this House sitting across the way, who was then a member of the Manitoba legislature, prevented debate on this matter, thus killing the accord. No one seemed to be sorry about the Meech Lake failure, except Quebecers of course.

Today, the hon. member, who claims to be a good teacher, would like to wipe the slate clean and forget about those events.

My question is this, Mr. Speaker: Do you think Quebecers can trust this government to set the record straight regarding those events?