Debates of April 6th, 1995

Readjustment Act, 1995

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot speak directly to what the hon. member has referred to, but my concern is that we will have members and their delegates arguing before boundary commissions for exemption and that will tie up the whole process.

We have already seen how members have run to the government to have the whole system changed at great expense to the Canadian taxpayers. I am concerned there might be loopholes that would allow government members and other members, from the Bloc for instance, to continue that.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, with respect, the member has not answered the question.

Is he not aware the section to which he refers whereby Bloc members, Liberal members or any member could ask to have their riding put in a schedule either because it is too large or for any other consideration is not there? The last section of this bill is entitled coming into force, section 40. The previous section to add to this schedule was removed at the committee by unanimous vote, including the Reform members who sit on the committee.

Given that is the case, surely the member will understand the whole premise of his speech today is wrong. Given that all of that was wrong, should we now conclude he is now in favour of the bill because the whole premise by which he thought the bill was wrong is not there? It was removed several weeks ago in the committee on a motion by a committee member and approved by all other committee members.

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the hon. member's premise. Obviously I addressed many points in my speech. The hon. member across the way has not addressed the concern I raised that there be a minimum level at which exemptions would not be permitted, 200,000 to 250,000, somewhere in that range. That is what we are calling for.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a regrettable aspect of the Reform member's speech, namely the denigrating of an MP's work.

The member started by saying that the choices made by Canadians were not all good ones. This is tantamount to insulting voters. Then, he criticized the number of members. These are facile comments. Indeed, regardless of which side members sit in this House, regardless of their option, the fact is that, as with any group, some people are more efficient than others. However, the overwhelming majority of members put all their energy into their work and try to do a good job.

The member also indicated that we try to protect the interests of our individual ridings. I categorically object to that statement. When representations are made, at any stage, it is always with the public interest in mind, to ensure that voters are adequately represented and to also ensure that certain criteria are taken into account.

I will end with a question which expresses my astonishment. The Reform member, as well as the NDP member who preceded him, both feel that a constitutional reform is essential. Do members not realize that, since the failure of the Charlottetown accord, it is no longer possible to reform the existing structure?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I reject the idea there is no possibility of constitutional reform. Canadians by and large want to ultimately change the system and there will be a day in the not too distant future when they will be ready to discuss that. Perhaps that is a little wishful thinking on behalf of the member from the Bloc Quebecois who would like to separate. Sadly for him that will be denied in an upcoming referendum which they surely will lose due in no small part to the ineffectiveness of the Bloc Quebecois to represent the constituents of Quebec.

Perhaps he has made an argument for me that certain backbenchers have not been effective in putting across the views of their constituents very effectively.

[André Caron, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I simply want to ask a question to the hon. member, but first I would like to make a short comment.

After hearing the hon. member's speech, I think I can see the difference between Reform and Bloc members. I feel that Reform members represent taxpayers, while we, Bloc members, represent citizens.

It is often said that citizens do not want their riding to change, or that their member makes representations on their behalf to preserve the boundaries of the riding. That is because the member recognizes that these people feel a sense of belonging to their riding.

People get attached to their riding, which is represented by a member of Parliament. Often, they will have created a sense of community in that riding.

To think strictly in terms of numbers when establishing the boundaries of a riding would be to make the same mistake as in 1982, when the Canadian constitution was changed and when the country's ten provinces, whose populations are far from being equal, were said to be equal. That created an artificial country.

I believe that, given the attitude which frequently prevails when setting electoral boundaries, we create artificial ridings which do not mean anything special. It is as though Canada was a big cake cut into pieces, with the hope that these pieces will somehow be equal. You simply cannot do that with a country. You cannot overlook the sense of belonging.

I ask the hon. member: Does he not think it is important to take into account the voters' sense of belonging when redefining electoral boundaries?

[Monte Solberg, Reform, Medicine Hat, AB]

Mr. Speaker, certainly I recognize there are differences from community to community. To the greatest degree possible boundaries should recognize this and try to embrace communities where there have been traditional boundaries.

However the first principle, the driving principle in my judgment, has to be representation by population. At the end of the 20th century we do not yet have a political system that either serves people on the basis of representation by population or contrarily has a counterpoise through a triple-E Senate. It is time that we started to move toward that.

In our amendments to Bill C-69, the one that called for a 15 per cent variance would have given us a closer system. That has to be the first principle that drives any changes to the boundaries. The second principle should respect trading areas and things like that. We agree with that absolutely. Let us not make that the first principle.

Canadians are democrats first and foremost. I think they would like to see a system that is based on a more democratic type of system.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Kilger)]

It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-Turkey; the hon. member for Bourassa-Immigration.

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

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

Mr. Speaker, at the start of this the last statement on this bill, I would like to identify my reasons for opposing it.

First, the Bloc Quebecois was elected to defend Quebec's interests and to promote sovereignty. Personally, as a member, I said, obviously, that I wanted to protect the interests of the people in my part of the country.

When the electoral map is to be redrawn resulting in the disappearance of one of the five ridings of eastern Quebec-be it Gaspé, Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine or Matane-Matapédia-or a change to the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup or Rimouski-Témiscouata, I believe it is important that all members of this House understand the need for legislation permitting true representation of the people, one that would not be simply based on a mathematical computation.

To this end, while we have been in this House, we have made representations to the electoral boundaries commission, we have spoken during second reading, we appeared before the standing committee. After all that, I would once again ask people to make sure that consideration is given to a region's natural configuration in the make-up of federal ridings, if the federal map is to be used again.

I gave as an example my riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. If the electoral map were ever changed, I would like the people in the RCMs concerned to be asked what riding they would like to be in in order to be sure that people are where they want to be and not stuck somewhere as the result of mathematical or geographical calculations that have nothing to do with reality.

When changing electoral boundaries, we are reminded of the past a bit-very large ridings across Canada with a scattered population that is difficult to reach. In the past, there have even been protected ridings in Quebec to ensure better representation for anglophones in the Eastern Townships. However, when we consider the electoral map as one of the tools of democracy for the future, we must ensure it provides for better representation and that it is an effective tool for the exercise of democracy.

I have been a member for a year and a half. I think all members of this House think the same way. The work here is apportioned fairly well. Whether we come from a large or a small riding, area-wise, our work is quite similar. However, it is another matter when we are talking about our work in our ridings. Some ridings are located right downtown, a few streets away from each other, whereas the one I represent encompasses a total of 55 municipalities. There are even ridings with 80 municipalities. This all affects the work of MPs and the way they will go about doing it.

The number of municipalities is not the only issue. We should also consider the extent to which government services are spread out in a riding. MPs must try to compensate, particularly in rural areas. In major centres, all of the government services can be found; people in those ridings can always find the office which can provide them such and such a service. But for people in rural areas, the MP's office is often the only resource they have to help them locate the government services they need. The workload, therefore, is heavier and when a riding is particularly large, this obviously has an impact on the amount of work to be done.

Therefore, it is very important that we take into consideration the size of the territory covered if we want to ensure that MPs will be able to represent their electorate well. They must also be able to see their constituents regularly.

Other important factors which must be taken into account are activity and industrial sectors. For example, this week, we had an opposition day on agriculture. If we move closer to basing representation purely on demographic considerations, the impact of the agricultural sector will be reduced, the impact of MPs representing such ridings will also be reduced, and even society as a whole will be negatively affected because agriculture has an impact on the population as a whole.

Therefore, we must ensure that we continue to be able to take into account this kind of sector. That is why it seems to me that the current bill lacks nuance and subtlety in the way that the boundaries of ridings can be determined. That was one aspect that I wanted to discuss, but there is another-and it was perhaps the greatest disappointment during the entire consideration of the bill-the Liberal majority's refusal to grant Quebec a minimum of 25 per cent of all of the seats in the House of Commons.

I equated this behaviour with someone slamming the door on another person, an egotistical act committed by the majority and a sort of negation of the fact that Canada has two founding peoples. Initially, in this House, two founding peoples created this country. Through immigration policies and the way that the provinces were created, Quebecers, the first explorers of this vast continent, will become a smaller and smaller minority as time goes by if they choose to stay in Canada, a choice which will mean that they will be a minority without any real impact compared to the position they have had in North America for centuries.

I believe that this tendency to reduce Quebec to a minority reflects the same attitude that gave us the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. There is some consistency there. In the same way as Quebec Liberal members were not very proud of patriation in 1982-and were reminded of that during the 1984 election-the Quebec people told them that they were not very pleased with their vote on this amendment. We were very surprised to see Quebec Liberal members vote against our amendment which, basically, was to guarantee a minimum representation in the House.

I believe that it is something that all Quebecers will remember for a long time. They will remember it, in particular, when they have to decide whether they want to become a country or not, and one of the reasons for their choice will be that they have no hope of regaining the place they had in this country, given that they are refused even this small guarantee of survival.

The refusal to make the Magdalen Islands a special case, and consider it a separate riding, is another disappointment, even if it does not have the same national significance. This shows a lack of sensitivity and in that regard I should mention that the Quebec Electoral Law considers the Magdalen Islands as a separate riding, outside the norm for other ridings. At the federal level, this riding has existed in the past, but later the islands were joined with either Gaspé or Bonaventure.

This puts the member who represents this area in a very awkward position, since there are very distinct interests. This is clear when you consider the territory to be covered and the isolation of the place, and also when you consider its relationship with other Canadian communities surrounding the Gulf. I find the decision not to recognize the islands as a separate riding regrettable, because a member representing solely the islands could have made a very interesting contribution. This does not mean that there could not be in Canada some other exceptions of that kind, which could be given special recognition.

The reason I am against this bill is that the provincial commissions which will be established to readjust the electoral boundaries will have to apply the three following criteria: community of interest, reasonable size, and significant population increase over the next five years. This is the exact opposite of the argument I presented to the committee when I said: "Would it not make sense, when considering eliminating a riding, to give it the opportunity to continue being represented in the House of Commons until the next census and, if it shows that the population is still dropping, to eliminate it then but only then?"

The situation is reversed; for a riding to be exempt, one must forecast a significant increase in the population of the area over the next five years. This flies in the face of regional development. For instance, eastern Quebec has seen its population drop for the last 10 to 15 years as a result of deliberate policies on the part of centralizing governments which have pushed people to leave the area in search of a job.

For the past few years, all the economic stakeholders have been working hard to reverse this trend. It will take a few years. Demographers say that it will take another 10 years, if the measures being implemented are successful. But, if in the meantime, you take away their ability to be represented, you are thwarting the efforts of the people who want to develop that particular part of the country.

Therefore, I believe that electoral boundaries commissions should have to consider other criteria over and above the three I already mentioned, namely: community of interest, reasonable size, and significant population increase over the next five years.

I have already listed them, but the main ones are the economic profile of a region, its size, the number of municipalities of which it is comprised and geographic unifying factors. These are all factors that should be considered and would, in my

opinion, make for a more balanced definition of electoral boundaries.

So, if you apply to the five electoral districts in Eastern Quebec the rules contained in the bill as it stands, you inevitably end up with a higher rate of depopulation and conditions unfavourable to building a new rurality. This situation is not unique to us. Every region in Canada is similarly affected, and I think the government should really be responsive to this.

In conclusion, after following this bill as it went through several stages, I think that it should be defeated because the government did not fulfil the mandate it should have given itself, that is to ensure that all citizens of this country are adequately represented on the electoral map and that this map will promote a more participating democracy.

One more thing, and I will conclude on this. I think it is very important to make sure that the cost of our democratic mechanisms are well within reasonable limits and that this is probably the least expensive system allowing us to achieve interesting results. Under the present circumstances, the government could have come up with a better mechanism and I think that it would have gained from listening to representations in that regard.

I hope that the people of Quebec will be able to clearly see that, in that regard, the Bloc fully carried out its mandate to protect the interests of Quebecers and respect the choice they will make in the referendum. Either way, they will have been represented in this place by members who will have done their utmost to ensure adequate representation.

As we examine electoral boundaries, we also notice duplication in the representation provided by members of Parliament. In the day-to-day work of members, there is clearly duplication resulting in additional costs to the government. There is also, in a way, unhealthy competition between provincial and federal members of Parliament, which does not promote efficiency in the system. I think this is one of the main reasons why a majority, the vast majority of Quebecers condemn the federal system in its present form and have been trying for 30 years to change it and make it better, but the actions taken in recent years have shown that this is impossible and that the only way to get things moving again is to vote "yes" in the referendum to make sure they are in control of their future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments of my hon. colleague across the way.

"Slamming the door in our face" I think was the terminology he used for not immediately agreeing to providing 25 per cent of the seats in this House for the province of Quebec. I suppose many Quebecers, and indeed many other Canadians, consider that the separatists from Quebec who propose separating from Canada are slamming the door in other Canadians' faces.

We are adults and should resolve our problems as individuals and as a country through serious discussion, through caring and sharing our thoughts and ideas with all areas of this great country. It would certainly be childish to suggest that one needs four or five strikes and then, like children, take the ball and bat and go home.

In this particular case, my hon. colleague across the way noted some of the concerns he and perhaps others have had. We could sit down and cite, back and forth, historic concerns probably for several days and weeks. However, we have to take a point from where we are today and move forward. We cannot move forward and accomplish our goals when we have such things as a referendum and separatists and separation hanging over our heads. What we really need is an opportunity to sit down and, with serious discussion, negotiate where this country is going in the future.

I compliment my hon. colleague across the way for even suggesting that. The fact that they are talking about whatever percentage of seats in this House indicates to me that indeed deep down they are looking to stay in Canada and to stay in this House of Commons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member heard that I chose to stay here. I think that it is quite obvious from our approach and our desire to stay until the end of our mandate. I think that it is quite obvious given the number of times we showed that we favoured sovereignty and that we want Quebecers to make that choice in a democratic fashion.

However, on the issue of the bill before the House, it is interesting to note that it is not the official opposition in Ottawa that asked for the 25 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition in the Quebec National Assembly, who is the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, proposed that the Quebec National Assembly reiterate its objective of keeping at least 25 per cent of the seats in the Canadian House of Commons for Quebec and call on the Quebec government to make representations to that effect.

This reminds me a little of the type of consensus we see on the issue of jurisdiction over manpower. It is the kind of unanimous opposition we in Quebec can summon against this. It is the Liberal majority in this place that voted against giving Quebec 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. It is the kind of results we will keep in mind.

The official opposition in Quebec agrees with the official opposition in the House of Commons in this regard. The Quebec government wants to assume that responsibility, to ensure that minimum level of protection. I think that there is a consensus the Liberal majority must face.

We must be able to hold serious discussions in an effort to address the problems. My father told me that, long before I was born, electoral boundaries were imposed on Quebecers even though 80 per cent of them voted against them.

Later, the Constitution was patriated unilaterally without the agreement of the Quebec government under Mr. Lévesque or of the federalist governments that followed. We are still living with this Constitution today but the Liberal majority does not have a problem with it just because one of the provinces did not sign the agreement, and that is very difficult for us to accept.

However, I did like one element of the presentation by the hon. member across the way. He said that we should sit down and negotiate. I think he should speak with his leader and all Liberal members because it is obvious that the leader of the government has repeatedly denied the need to amend the Constitution.

It is clear that the current Prime Minister is trying to make Quebecers forget their own reality by providing good government for both Canadians and Quebecers. According to the figures we got earlier today, we are for the first time in 125 years the province with the largest number of poor people in Canada. This kind of situation calls for fundamental changes. If the system has produced such results for 125 years, the only solution, in my opinion, is to get out.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[The Deputy Speaker]

As no other speaker wishes to ask a question or make a comment, we will resume debate. The hon. deputy government whip.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, most Quebecers do not agree with the position of the last speaker and obviously do not want to leave Canada. This is why Quebec separatists have postponed the referendum.

I would also like to remind the Bloc member that Quebecers rejected the constitutional amendments that would have guaranteed them a percentage of the seats in the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, before I continue, I want to point out that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell.

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak on this bill. It really is an extremely important bill, which deals with how we as Canadians determine how we will be represented in our House of Commons.

While I have had the privilege of being a member of the committee on procedure and House affairs, which dealt with this bill, I joined the committee only part-way through the process. I am aware that the members of that committee spent a great deal of time on it. It was an innovative process in that it was the first time a committee fulfilled a mandate that we as a government promised to give members of the House of Commons, as members of committee, to actually initiate legislation, to bring legislation forward to the House from the members of this House as opposed to from the government.

I want to compliment those members of the committee who have been on this project since the beginning for the excellent work they have done and the detailed consideration they have given to all aspects of this bill.

I said it was an important bill and it is. It deals with how we are represented democratically as Canadians. That is a very difficult issue in a country like ours, which is so disperse, so disparate, so diverse geographically and demographically.

We have huge concentrations of people in urban centres such as Montreal, Toronto, Vancouver, and yet we have huge and vast expanses of the country with very little population, with very little opportunity for people to have direct contact with their elected representatives.

One dilemma the committee faced was how to deal with equal representation by population for people in very concentrated areas and in very dispersed areas.

It is not an easy challenge. One has to recognize that representation by one's elected representative is more difficult when the member of Parliament has to travel perhaps thousands of miles even to see the parts of his or her constituency. One may have a very small population in a vast northern riding or in a riding such as Labrador and still have less contact with one's constituents than with a much larger population in an urban area that is much more compact.

The committee has proposed some innovative ways of ensuring when riding boundaries are decided upon. Of course they will not be decided by us but by independent commissions. However those factors will be taken into consideration. The very unique nature of this country will be taken into consideration. Ridings will be constructed so that people are equally well represented regardless of geography, dispersion of the population, sparsity of the population, or concentration of the population.

I did want to speak about the whole concept of community of interest. That very clearly is a factor many of us felt was not adequately respected in the previous report of the electoral boundaries commissions, a factor that I feel has been tremendously strengthened in the legislation now before the House.

One must not only look at numbers when deciding on ridings, how large they are and what their boundaries are. One must look at the commonality of interests in the people to be represented by the same member of Parliament. Do they identify themselves as a community? This is probably nowhere more important than in deciding what groups of people are going to be represented by

the same individual. Of course, there will always be diversity and differences within any community no matter the size.

It is extremely important that when members of Parliament walks into this Chamber to represent their constituents, they do so for a group of people who feel they have something in common. They identify themselves as a community historically or by virtue of common interests.

I also want to respond to some comments that have been made about the 25 per cent representation. Members from the Bloc know very well that what they have talked about this week cannot be achieved except by constitutional change. To pretend anything else is simply not being straightforward with people.

I do not think we could identify a handful of people in this country who want to go through the turmoil of talking about constitutional change again. There are so many bigger and much more important issues which touch the lives of people daily.

People have contacted me asking why we cannot have a much smaller House of Commons. That is certainly an option. Again, it would require a constitutional change because of minimum representation which is guaranteed to some of our smaller provinces.

I also tell people it is entirely possible to have a very much smaller House of Commons but we would lose something in doing that. Canadians would lose much closer and more personal contact with their members of Parliament.

The people I have talked to value the ability to be in personal contact and have a personal response from their members of Parliament, when they want to discuss an issue with them or have a problem resolved or have recommendations for government action. This is extremely important to Canadians. Coming back to the first point, it is extremely important given the diversity of this country. Therefore, people should be cautious when they suggest we have fewer elected representatives. They would also then have more remote representation.

Mr. Speaker, I only have a few seconds left. Therefore, I move pursuant to Standing Order 26:

That the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment for the purpose of considering Bill C-69.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Would those members who object to the motion please rise in their places.

And more than 15 members having risen:

[The Deputy Speaker]

More than 15 members have risen, pursuant to Standing Order 26(2), the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn.

(Motion withdrawn.)

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was listening closely to the parliamentary assistant and I thought it was rather presumptuous of her to state without any doubt that Quebecers do not support the theory of Quebec's sovereigntists. Although it is true that Quebecers rejected the Charlottetown agreement which kind of guaranteed Quebec 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, I want to point out to the hon. member that English-speaking Canadians and the residents of the rest of Canada also voted against the agreement.

So, she should not blame us for the failure of the Charlottetown agreement. I would also remind the hon. member that her leader, the current Prime Minister of Canada, warmly welcomed in his party the man who torpedoed the Meech Lake accord. I also want to take this opportunity to say to the hon. member that it is not because the sovereignty option is currently down in the polls that one must conclude that Quebecers support the federalist option.

I think that, for various reasons, but mostly because of everything that is going on, because of previous threats they have received, because of fear-mongering, Quebecers are reluctant to opt for this avenue, but remember that a marriage run by fear is not a happy one. The hon. member should remember this, because with the growing debt and the deficit they will never get rid of-although they will never admit to it-one day they will have to say to Quebecers: "Please, leave. We are no longer able to afford to be so big, so fat. We can no longer afford all this splendour".

This will quickly put an end to the member's rejoicing. So, I would ask her to be a little less presumptuous and to tell us what is wrong with giving Quebecers 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons, when they used to have, at the very beginning of Confederation, almost 50 per cent of them?

I want to remind the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell that Confucius said that the hen has no business ruling the farmyard.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it would be easy to play on the word sovereignist and claim the support of a majority of Quebecers.

But after yesterday's declaration it has become clear that there will not be a referendum before next fall and that separatists are afraid of what Quebecers might decide. It is very clear that they want a sovereignist interpretation which would please Quebecers.

But the truth is that they constantly avoid the real question, which is separation. They want to avoid a clear definition of their aim, which is separation, and they do not want people to know that they are separatists. It is a very clear question. I do not understand the problem with asking the question right now.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have such a large audience and to see all the members of the Bloc who are eager to hear my speech, which will lead them to vote in favour of Bill C-69. They are all here in front of me.

Let me begin with the member who has just taken us back to Confederation and talked to us about the representation in the House of Commons in 1867. One does not have to be a great historian to know that, in 1867-The member, who knows his history, knows perfectly well that the Union Act, 1840 and the British North America Act are not the same thing.

Anyway, at the time of Confederation in 1867, there were in fact three regions. There were, of course, 24 seats for what was then Upper Canada, 24 seats for Lower Canada, and 24 seats for the three maritime provinces, that is ten for New Brunswick, ten for Nova Scotia and four for Prince Edward Island.

We all know that Prince Edward Island chose not to enter Confederation at that time and joined a few years later. So, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia each had 12 seats; 12 and 12 are 24, right? Twenty-four for Quebec and 24 for Ontario. For a member to claim that Quebec had 50 per cent of the seats in 1867 is the opposite of the truth, as Sir Winston Churchill and his parliamentarians said so well.

Those are the facts. With all due respect, the hon. member opposite does not know what he is talking about. Twenty-four out of 72 is not 50 per cent. Our friend who wants to leave the room, no doubt on very urgent business, should know better.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there is some laxness in the negative turn of phrase used to avoid using unparliamentary language. There is a lot of laxness in the content of the hon. member's speech; I hope there will not be as much in his vocabulary.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I too heard language that came very close to being unparliamentary. I would ask all hon. members to respect the rules.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

I will go on, after being interrupted by a Bloc member. Another Bloc member claimed today in a speech, and again this was not what actually happened, that it was because of certain federalists here in Ottawa, and only because of them, he said, that the War Measures Act was invoked during the October crisis.

I have here some excerpts from a letter I would like to quote to relate certain facts: "Under the circumstances, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, I request that emergency powers be provided as soon as possible so that more effective steps may be taken. I request particularly that such powers encompass the authority to apprehend and keep in custody individuals who, the Attorney General of Quebec has valid reasons to believe, are determined to overthrow the government through violence and illegal means". And it goes on.

I read further on: "The chief of the Montreal Police has informed us that the means available to him are proving inadequate and that the assistance of higher levels of government has become essential for the protection of society", etc.

Of course, I was reading from a letter the Quebec government of the day wrote to the Canadian government at the request of the Montreal chief of police. I do not mean here to defend or criticize the War Measures Act, but I want to tell members opposite that when they talk about the War Measures Act, they should tell the whole story instead of hiding half the truth the way they so often do.

Earlier today, we heard members across the way say they reject this bill even if they unanimously endorsed it in committee. They changed their mind along the way because one of them saw fit to move this motion to ensure Quebec will never have less than 25 per cent of seats in the Commons. Those same members opposite keep whining, like one of them is doing now while I am speaking. They tend to forget that they opposed the Charlottetown accord that gave that kind of assurance.

[Gaston Leroux, Bloc, Richmond—Wolfe, QC]

It was rejected everywhere.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

It is not true. I am sorry but in French-speaking areas outside Quebec, in my own riding, 70 per cent of my constituents supported the accord. The hon. member across the way says it was rejected everywhere, but it is not true. Obviously, the accord did not pass, though. But when I hear Reform members demanding an elected Senate, something they rejected in the Charlottetown accord, and when I hear Bloc members demanding 25 per cent of the seats, something they refused in that same accord, I am entitled to question their sincerity.

Some people across the way are remembering the truth in a selective manner. They are indeed remembering the truth in ways that pleases them.

I for one am in favour of this bill. It is not to change the Constitution. It is nothing of the sort. It is just to modernize our electoral laws. Let us do it now. If we do not pass this bill, those same people across the way are going to accuse us in very short order that we did not proceed with the bill and redistribution could not take place on time.

I will say to them at that particular time, they know everything has to be installed by June; otherwise it will not proceed. I have here the timetable for the boundaries readjustment in front of me. Unless this bill clears the House by the end of June, unless Royal Assent is given by June 22, this whole thing will not be possible.

I say to the members across the way, shame on them for having deliberately held this piece of legislation to give better, more effective representation to all Canadians.

[Benoît Tremblay, Bloc, Rosemont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, a little while ago, I heard the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell read a letter concerning the October crisis. He did not read it all and did not say who wrote it. We know that it can only have been signed by the Premier of Quebec at the time, Robert Bourassa. I am very sad to hear the member recall these events as if they were something Canada and the Canadian Parliament should be proud of.

I believe that everything that has come out regarding the Cabinet discussions at the time clearly shows that if ever there was a dark time in Canada's recent history, it was then. I can assure him that now that we have a Premier with a backbone in Quebec, we will not see such a letter in the months to come.