No, Mr. Speaker, I am not rising to move that the House do now adjourn but to speak to the substantive motion addressed by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
First of all, I may say it is rather ironic that a House whose members are appointed by the governor in council, by cabinet, to all intents and purposes, to sit until the age of 75 tries to teach us a thing or two about democracy in connection with such basic issues as electoral boundaries readjustment.
I am very pleased to see that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is listening carefully to my speech, as is the hon. member for Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine. We have worked very hard without a hint of partisanship. I would also like to mention the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior who showed a great interest in this bill. The hon. member was instrumental in having the bill drafted in its present form, especially one specific point that I will discuss later on, and I am referring to the 25 per cent deviation from the electoral quota.
I said earlier that the non-elected House, the Canadian Senate, wants to teach us a lesson about democracy, and I think there is something fundamentally wrong with this Parliament. It should be up to us to say that the other House should either cease to exist and be abolished or its members should be elected, one or the other.
In any case, the process started a long time ago with Bill C-18 which suspended for a certain period of time the work of commissions which had already been appointed until June this year so we are getting close to the deadline, and the Committee of the House on Procedure and House Affairs was subsequently instructed to draft a bill.
Strictly speaking, it is not a government bill, although it was tabled on behalf of the Government House Leader. This is a bill that was drafted in committee, before the Standing Committee of the House on Procedure and House Affairs, as I said before.
There was a very broad consensus among committee members on most clauses. In fact, there were far more items on which we agreed than on which we disagreed.
Unfortunately, there was one item on which we could not agree and since it was a fundamental rule, the crux of the whole debate, this meant that the official opposition, the Bloc Quebecois, could not vote for Bill C-69 on third reading. This item was the subject of a motion that I tabled in this House and that was defeated, a motion that guaranteed Quebec a minimum representation rate of 25 per cent, irrespective of its population at the time of the census.
We hope we will never have to apply this minimum guarantee, because in the next federal election, I assume or in any case I hope we will then be living within a new Quebec-Canada partnership so that this legislation would not apply to Quebec, which will have its own legislation that will apply to Quebec's 125 ridings.
This basic characteristic of holding 25 per cent of the seats was, and still is, related to the fundamental notion that Canada has two founding peoples, not equal in numbers but equal in rights. A pact, an agreement, was made in 1867 between two nations: the anglophone nation and the francophone nation.
They decided to pool certain things to be managed by this Parliament and they decided to grant the legislatures of the founding provinces, and those which subsequently joined confederation, specific jurisdictions which made them autonomous and sovereign states, when it came to their spheres of jurisdiction. Did they ever fool us in 1867. And I use the polite term, because I cannot use any other in this House.
Today, the interpretation of events given by our Reform colleagues, in particular the hon. members for Calgary West and Kindersley-Lloydminster, has made us realize that the Canada of today is no longer a bicultural and biethnic country, but a multicultural and multiethnic one: this is not the Canada of 1867, the one in which our fathers, mothers, grandfathers, grandmothers and ancestors so strongly believed.
In 1965, the premier, Daniel Johnson Sr., said that Canada will be made up of two nations and two cultures or it will cease to exist. We have already seen this in practice, the proof. Just look at what is happening today. This is what Mr. Johnson said in 1965, Sir George-Étienne Cartier said in 1867, Louis Riel said after him, and Franco-Ontarians were saying at the time that they were making demands-remember Regulation 17 in Ontario- at the time that they were pursuing the issue of having to fund public schools and fund their own private schools, because public funding for their schools was dropped altogether. These are the kinds of things that tend to be forgotten in this country.
There is a tendency to forget the heroic battles led not only by francophones in Quebec, but by francophones outside it and by Acadians to protect their rights. These were major battles. The fight against the Greenway laws in Manitoba. From 1889 on, the rights of francophones were suspended in Manitoba and they were only restored by the Supreme Court almost 100 years later.
Over the past 100 years in Manitoba, the percentage of francophones has gone from 50 per cent, one in every two Manitobans was francophone, to 4 per cent. That is the result of having no constitutional guarantees.
If only we had known. We had no way of knowing or those who should have seen it coming did not. And now we are faced with a situation where the survival of francophone communities, in particular outside Quebec, is a daily struggle. Even the survival of the francophone community in Quebec is a weighty issue, and we have to deal with it every day because each new day brings with it new menaces.
Do not forget that we only represent two per cent of the population on the North American continent. Therefore, we should be equipped with some legal protection in our battle as North American francophones. Where were those who, in the Senate, claimed to have promoted a guarantee of 25 per cent for Quebec?
Where was the senator for Stadacona, the one who claimed to have promoted protection of 25 per cent of seats for Quebec? Where was the senator for Lasalle, the one who claimed that Trudeau had made an offer that Quebec had rejected?
There is nothing in the Senate's report about a guarantee of 25 per cent. The Senate's greatest omission is to have failed to consider the issue of representation for Quebec and probably francophone communities as well, to ensure a guaranteed minimum in this House.
We must not forget that other provinces such as Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick have, because of the senatorial provision of 1915, a constitutional guarantee of never having fewer members in this House than they have senators in the Senate.
Quebec does not have this guarantee. The national home of the francophone people in Canada has no guaranteed representation in this House.
Some passages in Canada's history have been forgotten. Oddly enough, the forgotten bits almost always have to do with one party. I think that we are at the point where, to solve this puzzle, we are going to have to cut our losses and define what should have been defined in 1867, go back to the real spirit of the founding fathers, which was to see the two nations work together, as equals, neighbours and partners.
The Senate's motions in amendment are totally unacceptable, except for one, which merely corrects a technical error we made. The first amendment proposes reducing the allowable variation from the provincial quota from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. For Quebec, which, like Ontario by the way, has no constitutional guarantee as I mentioned earlier-we think about franco-Ontarians who are scattered across a large area and have no more protection than Quebecers at that level-reducing the allowable variation from the quota from 25 per cent to 15 per cent directly imperils the ridings in the Gaspé Peninsula and the Lower St. Lawrence.
I can hear behind me my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, who represents a riding that would be directly affected if the allowable variation from the quota were reduced to 15 per cent from 25 per cent. The only way it would be possible to guarantee adequate representation would be to eat into the metropolitan region of Montreal, to ask ridings in that area, Montérégie and the Laurentides to have 125 per cent representation everywhere. Given the territory, given the uniqueness of the people there, given the fact that the Magdalen Islands are stranded out in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, there is no way we will be able to maintain adequate representation in these regions if we have to accept that the allowable variation from the quota will be reduced from 25 per cent to 15 per cent.
It would also be impossible to keep the riding of Manicouagan, which stretches far to the north and we would be putting at risk ridings like Abitibi, at least in the future-not with the current figures but in coming censuses, if this law were to apply in Quebec.
The same reasoning would certainly apply regarding the boundaries which would be imposed in Ontario's north.
I believe that by maintaining the 25 per cent variation which has been the standard for the past 30 years, ever since the first legislation on electoral boundaries readjustment, we have kept a very sensible provision on the books that allows for making adjustments where necessary.
The 25 per cent variation reflects the situation in rural Canada. The fact is that in Quebec and Canada we have a number of cities with a high population density because of developments that have taken place during the past fifty years. However, rural Canada, which in the process lost some of its population, must maintain a strong and powerful voice in this House.
In the past few days, and I do not have to elaborate, we have seen the effects of reduced rural representation in this House. Some votes would probably have been different if rural areas had been represented as they were 30 years ago in the House of Commons, when the regions were far better represented.
Obviously, we cannot support the first amendment proposed by the Senate. Therefore I suggest retention of the variation of up to 25 per cent from the electoral quota of the province when establishing electoral boundaries.
The Senate also suggests deleting provisions that would allow 20 members of this House to challenge appointments made by the Speaker of the House to provincial commissions instructed to establish electoral boundaries.
I believe this provision is a guarantee that will simply encourage the Speaker to conduct consultations prior to these appointments with the various political parties recognized in this House.
I would be very surprised if appointments made by the Speaker of the House following consultations with the recognized parties were subsequently criticized by members. I think it is quite simply a precaution to ensure that the process follows normal procedure.
So the Senate is asking us to remove this provision. The non-elected House is saying: "You who have been elected by the people do not even have the right to discuss who will sit on provincial commissions and who will be appointed by your Speaker". Let them get on with their own rules, but they better not meddle with ours.
If they want to discuss, we will discuss. We will not, however, be told how to behave by the non-elected House, by the honourable senators, who do not have to put their head on the chopping block every five years, like the members of this House, and who are not accountable for their actions to the public, who are accountable to no one. We will also not support the Senate's proposal with respect to allowing this House to overturn an appointment made by its Speaker.
The Senate is also proposing that the provisions providing exceptions to the establishment of a commission after a decennial census be removed. The best example in this regard is the Province of Newfoundland and the region of Labrador. The latest census reported a change of fewer than 1,000 persons over the previous one, if memory serves me, in Newfoundland and Labrador. However, a provincial commission was set up and it turned the whole electoral map upside down.
We had provided, in Bill C-69, that no commission would be set up in such a situation. We can see that the population did not change and that the population did not shift from one region to another, and so no commission is set up. Taxpayers' money is saved, and people continue to feel they belong to their region. The people of St. John's, Newfoundland, know that they are going to vote in St. John's East or St. John's West or some other riding- Bonavista, for example-it does not matter, the feeling of belonging remains. So, why set something in motion when
there is no need to? We will also oppose the motion the Senate is sending us to this amendment.
We are also asked to eliminate the discretionary power of the provincial commissions to reject changes to the electoral map if these changes are not significant enough. Excessive change must be avoided. Many, I would say, even, almost all, members appearing before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in June and July of last year, made the same complaint, regardless of their political affiliation, with a few exceptions among Reform Party members, who wanted to muddle things even more.
But the Liberal and Bloc members who appeared before us all shared the same concern. They wanted to retain this sense of belonging, so that someone who lives in Lachine, for instance, will not be in one riding for one election, in another riding for the following election, and goodness only knows where for the provincial election in between. This was one of the concerns expressed by all the members who appeared before the committee.
Therefore, the provincial commissions should, of course, have discretion to correct certain small problems that may arise because there is a realization that, at a given time, a municipality has closer ties with a nearby town or, economically, leans in a particular direction. The commissions should be able to make these small changes, but not to turn everything upside down if there is no need to. Here, as well, moderation is preferable.
The Senate is also proposing that the notion of community of interest be redefined. In clause 19(5) of the bill we set out the criterion of community of interest as follows:
-"community of interest" includes such factors as the economy, existing or traditional boundaries of electoral districts, the urban or rural characteristics of a territory, the boundaries of municipalities and Indian reserves, natural boundaries and access to means of communication and transport.
The amendment proposed by the Senate would make community of interest the basic criterion from which all subsequent changes would flow.
Let us remember that the amendment which the Senate is proposing and on the basis of which we would have to decide electoral boundaries must be read with the other amendment being proposed by the Senate, which is to reduce the variation from the quota from 25 per cent to 15 per cent, in other words a minimum variation, with community of interest as the basic criterion. The criterion of community of interest is extremely important, except that it comes up against the mathematical wall of the 15 per cent deviation. They cannot seriously be telling us that the boundaries will be defined on the basis of community of interest, having just said that the variation is only 15 per cent, because the criterion of community of interest is subordinate to the 15 per cent variation which the Senate is also proposing.
Therefore, not only am I of the opinion that we must not change our definition of the criterion of the community of interest, but that we also have to retain a variation of 25 per cent from the electoral quota of each province in order for the two criteria to have a real impact in practice. The constituents of Bellechasse, my riding, should know what to expect from one election to the next, which parish could become part of the riding and which one could cease to be, what minor or major adjustments could be made to take demographics into consideration, but still take into consideration the community of interest.
This community of interest is not an abstract notion, it is a notion that can be seen in action. And the people in the best position to define communities of interest, all partisan politics aside, are probably the hon. members of this House who, each day, each week or each month, depending on the distance they have to go, travel the roads of their ridings. And when there are no roads, they take the plane, or use a helicopter, sometimes even a snowmobile or a dog sled-whatever means of transportation is available.
Therefore, who is in the best position to define a community of interest? I will not pass judgment on my own case, but, take the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior, whose riding is huge, for example. Is it he who is in the best position to talk about the community of interest in Cochrane-Superior and to tell us that the town of Kapuskasing is the community of interest for such and such a region or is it a senator from Ontario representing this region who is in the best position to talk to us about it? There can be only one answer: the representatives elected by the public, whose basic mandate is to defend the interests of all of their voters, of everyone who voted for them, of course, but also the interests of everyone, of everyone who voted against them, of everyone who did not vote or have the right to vote, because MPs basically are the representatives of everyone who lives in the territory they represent. What an important role! A role which must not be subordinate to the interests of a minority appointed to the other place, most of whom are there for purely political reasons and were either defeated or were never successful in getting elected in general elections.
It takes some nerve to come and propose amendments on behalf of people who were defeated, people who, with a few notable exceptions, just cannot get elected.
It is high time we slashed government spending, and one of our first decisions should be to suspend the other House for a time, perhaps five years, to find out whether we really miss it. This could be in the form of a constitutional amendment or we could agree to get rid of the Senate for five years. If we really need it, nature, like Parliament, abhors a vacuum. We will create a new Senate and make new appointments according to a system
to be determined by the Canadian people, by the members of the other House.
But for the time being, we should get rid of the surplus. Let us have a garage sale but keep the main House, the House of Commons. We represent the people, and we are elected by universal suffrage. The rule should be that from the president of the largest mining company down to the worker doing the simplest tasks, everyone has the same right to vote so everyone should have the same access to his member of Parliament. The House is what counts.
In Canada there is a consensus on at least one thing: there is one House too many at the federal level, and it is certainly not the House of Commons where people's elected representatives speak on behalf of the people, but the Senate. The problem is to decide whether we should reform the Senate or get rid of it. I suggest getting rid of it for five years.
The Senate does have its uses, however. It pointed out that we had overlooked a clause that would provide that commissioners should reside in the province for which they were appointed. That is what the Senate pointed out to us. This from parliamentarians who in most cases do not even have an office in the senatorial district they happen to represent.
A legal adviser earning a modest salary could have done this. Our employees are not overpaid, and members of the House are not overpaid either for the work they do. If they are, it will be up to the voters to determine whether the member who represents them is getting too much money for the kind of work he does. That is up to the electorate in a general election.
One or two legal advisers could have pointed out that the clause was missing. We do not need a House with 104 individuals and their staff, their operating budgets and all the expense and waste of time that entails. How many bills are languishing before the other House right now?
The bill concerning Pearson Airport has been lying around for quite some time. It was passed in this House when the government first came to power, by a House of Commons that had just been elected, and then put on hold by the other House.
The same thing happened to Bill C-69. In this case, it is even worse because Bill C-69, which concerns electoral boundaries readjustment, is not a case of gerrymandering and is not intended to give special privileges to parliamentarians. Bill C-69 met with a very broad consensus on its wording, with the notable exception of the request for a minimum of 25 per cent of the seats for Quebec. We will have a chance to get back to this issue in the debate that will take place this fall in Quebec. In our proposal for partnership to be extended to Canada, we will suggest a number of institutions where we will have a representation rate of 25 per cent.
That being said, as the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands indicated when he spoke for the government, we will only support the Senate motion that would make it mandatory for a commissioner appointed for the purpose of electoral boundaries adjustment to reside in the province for which he or she is appointed.
I hope that when it comes to a vote, the Senate will sit up and take notice and stop these delaying tactics that are useless, futile and cost money. They prevent us from allowing electoral boundaries readjustment to take its course and, I also hope that these commissions can be set up again so that hon. members and the public will be able to resume the process under the rules established by Bill C-69, and we will have a balanced electoral map for the next general election, in which I do not hope to participate.
