Debates of June 14th, 1995

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the member for Calgary West, who has been in this House for a year and a half now, and has finally realized that Bloc Quebecois members are first and foremost sovereignists. And of course, this means that what we are seeking is that one day there will no longer be any Quebec members in this House.

This is the reason why, as long as Quebecers are part of the federal experiment, Bloc Quebecois members will oppose any change to the present formula for riding distribution. Its effect would be to weaken Quebec representation in the House of Commons, as long as Quebecers have not made up their minds on a new social covenant.

The present formula for the distribution of seats is not perfect because, historically speaking, during the 126 years of existence of this federation, Quebec has never had its rightful share of seats in the House of Commons. The six amendments proposed by the Senate, far from improving the content of the bill, actually make the situation even worse for Quebec. This is like the Robin Hood principle in reverse. We take from the poor, Quebec, to give to the rich, the rest of Canada.

The first amendment would reduce the maximum variation from the provincial quota from 25 to 15 per cent. What a nice equity exercise on the part of the non-elected members of the other place. According to the thinkers of the other House, one of the fundamental conditions of democracy is the fair mathematical share of regional representation.

I must admit that this is a very nice principle, but it does not explain the senate clause and the grandfather rights.

While the Senate is concerned about a perfect equality within the provinces, it seems to forget that there are several ridings in English Canada that do not even have 35,000 people. I am talking here, among others, about four ridings in Prince Edward Island, the riding of Labrador, the riding of Yukon and a few others. So, where is the senators' concern for equality for the voters in these ridings?

This amendment does nothing to improve this bill, and they know it very well. Besides, they even ignored what one of their peers was telling them. Senator Jean-Claude Rivest, a former advisor to Robert Bourassa, was demanding, like us, in the Bloc Quebecois, that Quebec be given 25 per cent of the seats in Parliament.

I would remind you very briefly that, concerning Quebec's share of seats, the 1985 Act on Representation is quite clear.

In fact, it stipulates that the returning officer must take into account, before distributing any other seats, the fact that 25 per cent of all seats in the House of Commons must be assigned to Quebec.

I am taking the liberty of reminding the House, with all of the respect it merits and which holds traditions so dear, that since the very first parliamentary session, Quebec has always enjoyed at least, and I stress at least, 25 per cent of all seats. This is neither an acquired right nor a favour that Canada has bestowed on Quebec: it is a simple mathematical calculation governed by the Constitution Act, 1867, and by clauses 14 and 15 of the act to provide for the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

It would therefore be a shame, and actually inadmissible, to put an end to this tradition which has been handed down from the very first Parliament. Why put an end to the tradition? Simply to compensate, yes, I said compensate, English Canada for having kept its allegiances straight when voting. Do not forget that Quebec was the cradle of Canada. Quebec brought it into this world, and not the other way around. The first amendment will not only reduce the maximum variation from the province's quota, but could also wipe certain electoral ridings right off the map.

Yes, the population of several of Quebec's rural regions has been steadily declining over the past several years. The government knows it. So, what is it doing about it? With this bill, it is ensuring that English Canada will get additional ridings, and that Quebec will lose a few. What a great exercise in democracy! This is what I would call the Robin Hood principle.

The other amendment I find particularly disturbing is amendment No. 6 which seeks to redefine the concept of community of interest.

The senators suggest establishing boundaries based on demographic and geographic considerations. I realize that to say this amendment totally ignores the human aspect is to say the obvious. It is unfortunate, and it makes no sense at all. On paper this might work, but theoretically, realistically, practically, on a day to day basis, we cannot ignore the human factor because in the end it determines how things work.

For a riding like mine that borders on several municipalities and has a very large territory, this amendment could be a disaster. Take the riding of Chicoutimi. Last year, when the federal electoral boundaries commission came to the riding, it suggested taking the municipalities of Ferland-et-Boileau, Saint-Félix-d'Otis, Rivière-Éternité, L'Anse-Saint-Jean and Petit-Saguenay away from the riding of Chicoutimi and annexing them to the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Jonquière.

This problem illustrates the importance of community of interest. In fact, these small rural municipalities on the Lower Saguenay, those the commission wanted to take away from my riding, have always considered La Baie, one of the larger cities in the riding of Chicoutimi, as their economic and social centre.

Most of the services used by the people in the Lower Saguenay are located in La Baie. The closest employment centre is there, as is the small business development centre. Ferland-et-Boilleau, the municipality closest to the riding of Jonquière is 45 km away. This is the community of interest proposed by these amendments. It seems rather unreasonable to me.

A bill cannot be permitted to push aside-and I mean push aside-the human factor without a thought in order to establish electoral boundaries. This is a serious mistake, and I find it most regrettable. My comment is, simply: "Stop wasting taxpayers' money with useless and pointless bills. Let us get down to the real problems of our society, which are growing with every passing day".

It is time to deal with the economic slowdown, when statistics indicate that for the sixth straight month there has been no net job creation in Canada. The government is setting an example by its inertia in this area.

The Prime Minister is too busy to study a new plan for reducing unemployment insurance benefits. Perhaps he thinks it will help the growth of employment, which is in a state of exhaustion. Let us stop wasting our time and taxpayers' money and get down to this country's real problems.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to make this presentation.

I have come to this place with high ideals and really wanting to understand the whole Canadian scene. I have been very privileged to have my place in Parliament here right next to the members of the Bloc and to hear the presentation we just had.

I have some questions for the member. One is that he indicates that it is somehow fair that the Quebec people should have 25 per cent of the members of Parliament, irrespective of their population. On the other hand, he speaks of the lack of fairness when there is not a proportional representation in other parts of the country. I would like to ask him how he can defend from a fairness point of view that particular model.

I certainly have respect for the people of the province of Quebec. I have said this before. During our campaign we had people there who sported bumper stickers that said "My Canada includes Quebec". Certainly I have that personal conviction. Regardless of what happens politically in that province, we will not take a chainsaw and cut them out and float them off into the ocean. They will remain physically here, with whatever kind of political arrangement we have.

I would like to have him explain how he proposes to justify that in perpetuity they should have an advantage over other Canadians in this particular regard and how he thinks that might generate more love and understanding toward them from the rest of Canadians.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. With regard to my preamble, I believe I answered his question when I said that the present seat distribution formula in this place was not perfect. One must remember that historically Quebec never had its fair share of seats in the House of Commons over the last 125 years.

In order to stop the gradual erosion of Quebec's influence in our federal institutions and, especially-and I think this is the key word-to reaffirm the Canadian duality, members from the Bloc demand that Quebec retain 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons as long as we are part of the federal experience.

As you know, in the fall, Quebecers will decide their political future. The member emphasized this in the preamble to his question. It is then that Quebec, depending upon the choice made by Quebecers, will be either a province or a country. This is the choice Quebecers will have to make. In the meantime, they know that if Quebec remains a province in this federal system that cannot be renewed, this province will be limited. It will remain a colony of English Canada and we will remain a minority forever and ever.

[An hon. member]

Amen.

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Amen. And we will naturally be ruled by the present unitary federal government, whereas we would have a new lease on life if we became a country. I hope Quebecers will make that choice. I am convinced they will. Then, with new and more efficient methods, we will proudly develop this country.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it will be a pleasure for me to let the member for Elk Island have the floor.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member did not answer my question. He simply restated what he said before about the history and the present formula which I already know. What I want to know is how he defends the premise that the number of members of Parliament from the province of Quebec and only from the province of Quebec should not be related to the population.

In the past it has been a fixed number of 75. We know that relative to the rest of Canada, Quebec's population has gone down. The mathematical fact stands. If it were not for that we would not be asking for more members in the House. That results when either the population of Quebec goes down or the population of the rest of the country goes up. That necessitates more members in this House by the present formula.

How is it that the Quebec members believe that they and they alone do not have to submit to the same rules of representation by population that the rest of Canada does? How does he justify that?

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, of course, here we must refer to the notion of the two founding nations. If Quebec had been respected when this country was formed, it would not have been allowed 25 per cent of seats in this House, but 50 per cent.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Yes, fifty per cent of seats. Two equal founding nations means a 50:50 sharing. Whereas now we are claiming our fair share of seats, that is 25 per cent.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a short comment. Like my colleague from Chicoutimi, I had the opportunity to hear the hon. member for Calgary West, who seems to already understand a large part of the proposed agreement to be submitted to Quebecers for ratification in the fall. We all understand, of course, that the Canadian fibre was first woven in Quebec, in Lower Canada, in Ontario, and that we in Quebec naturally propose to repatriate our own powers, while opening the door to a European-type model and proposing economic integration and a certain kind of political association with Canada.

Since Quebec is about to propose to Canada the free movement of goods, people and capital, as well as the establishment of some common institutions, does the hon. member for Chicoutimi agree that, contrary to what our colleague from Calgary West said, a major economic integration would prevent any region of Canada from being isolated from the others, and that this free movement, this major economic integration, would involve some political integration and a common political institution to manage the agreement, the partnership that would result not from a law imposed by a foreign Parliament but from a treaty freely negotiated between Canada and Quebec?

[Gilbert Fillion, Bloc, Chicoutimi, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that, when Quebec becomes sovereign in the fall, you will see no boundaries or barricades being built between Quebec and Ontario or the other provinces. It is therefore in the best interests of Ontario and the other provinces to do business with Quebec. Rules can certainly be drawn up at the political institutions level, through discussions between members from Quebec and Ontario, to govern trade. In that case, I feel every Canadian province would stand to profit from the birth of this new country.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member who has just been speaking continues to mislead the House by talking about sovereignty association. He is a separatist and he should tell it as it is. He is a separatist and he should stop misleading the House.

[The Deputy Speaker]

That is not a point of order, however, the hon. member for North Vancouver now has the floor on debate.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I feel tempted to repeat what I just said and maybe I will as part of my speech.

Before beginning my remarks on Bill C-69 I would like to remind the House that almost two years after the 1993 election the debt and deficit has risen by almost $100 billion. That is just in the two years since the Liberal government took office.

In the past 24 hours the government has spent almost $100 million more than it took in. That is about $4 million per hour or $67,000 per minute in money we simply do not have, money we have to borrow. This borrowed money continues to collect interest that adds to the more than $550 billion debt burden our children and grandchildren will have to carry.

Some weeks ago at a public meeting in Vancouver the Liberal member for Halifax said that as a traditional tax and spend Liberal she had crashed and burned when the Minister of Finance announced his budget in March of this year. If serious action is not taken very soon to seriously start addressing the problem of the debt and deficit, the hon. member is sure going to crash and burn again and again and again. It will be to the point where the international lenders will stop supporting our foolishness.

Today we find ourselves debating again Bill C-69, which exists simply because of Bill C-18, which we debated earlier in 1994. I said then that the Liberal government should be ashamed of itself because of what it was doing. It was imposing the will of unhappy Liberal MPs on the voters of Canada. It was probably because they were worried they would not be re-elected to collect their gold-plated pensions at the pension trough. They were worried that if the boundaries changed they would not be able to collect their pensions.

They have protected the content of those pork barrel pensions with Bill C-85, which they are also ramming through the House this next week or so. Now they have brought back the electoral boundaries issue in a last ditch attempt to control the shape of their ridings. Without regard to the huge investment of time by the Electoral Boundaries Commission and without regard to the millions of dollars that have already been spent on a non-partisan process, the government is still trying to jam through ill-conceived and selfish political agendas.

Politicians have no business setting their own electoral boundaries. Human nature being what it is, some members might be tempted to act in their own interests, to trim areas of opposition from their ridings or to add little areas of support to their ridings. Even if that did not happen, there would be the suspicion of course that it was happening.

The important thing is that the whole process should not only be non-partisan but it should be seen to be non-partisan. Politicians should have absolutely nothing to do with the process.

One of the disturbing parts about this whole process is that the increase in population in the province of B.C. entitles us to two more seats in the House under the present rules. Even if we were to hold static the number of seats we presently have, at the very least they should be redistributed so that B.C. has a greater proportion of the seats.

I vigorously oppose Bill C-69.

[An hon. member]

Fifty per cent.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

My hon. colleagues say we should have at least 50 per cent. Sometimes I would agree with them. The west obviously has a much more sensible attitude to politics than we have seen over on the opposite side of the House. We could certainly do with a greater percentage of the seats.

I am proud that Reform Party members stood against the government's attempts to ram through Bill C-18. They tried to do it in a clandestine fashion on a Friday afternoon when they thought no one would notice. I am proud that my colleagues stood and prevented that from happening.

Canadians are starting to see time and time again that Reformers stand up for democracy while the government continues to practice the old line Victorian style of politics. It punishes any Liberal MP who dares to represent their constituents by voting against a government bill. That method of operation is completely outdated. It is not appropriate to the information age. It may have been perfect in the olden days when the present Prime Minister first came to the House, but it is totally inappropriate for the information age. Shame on this government.

In previous Parliaments the issue of constituency representation in the form of free votes was never an issue because the three worn out, old style, dictatorial, arrogant, old line parties all played the same game of agenda politics. They never did want to and still do not want to govern the country according to the wishes of the majority of Canadians. They simply saw government as an opportunity to enact their own political agenda without regard to the concerns of Canadians.

The pressure for change is here in this House today and it is not going away. At the moment, with the exception of Reform MPs and a few independent minded Liberal MPs, most MPs are nothing more than voting machines; no matter what their constituents say, they follow the orders of the Prime Minister when they come into this House to vote. All of the debates, all of the questions, all of the committee meetings and hearings, all of the witness testimony, all of the travel junkets are nothing more than make work projects to keep MPs busy between votes. Those votes we already know the outcome of because the Prime Minister had already decided before the first word of debate was spoken.

Last year the government introduced approximately 60 bills. We debated them. We questioned them. We commented on them. At the end of the term we had passed 60 bills. We may as well have piled them up on a table 60 high and come here for one hour on one day and voted once. The outcome would have been exactly the same.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. member for Vancouver North will have 14 minutes left the next time the bill is debated.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Charles Caccia, Liberal, Davenport, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on June 1, I asked the Minister of the Environment whether the government planned to regulate emissions of dioxins, furans and hexachlorobenzenes from incinerators. I also asked whether the federal guideline for human exposure to dioxins and dioxin related compounds was adequate to protect human health. In response the minister stated that the exposure levels for dioxins and furans were under review by Health Canada.

Dioxins and dioxin-like compounds such as furans are highly toxic chemicals produced when various types of waste, particularly chlorinated plastics, are burned. Every day Canadians are exposed to dioxins and carry this persistent toxic compound in their bodies.

At present Canada's dioxin guideline is set at 10 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day. It has been maintained that this level of exposure is safe. However a recently published review, which took three years to conduct, in the United States by the Environmental Protection Agency pointed to dioxin being even more dangerous than was originally thought. The Environmental Protection Agency's reassessment found that even at extremely low levels dioxin affects human development, reproduction capacity and the immune system. The Environmental Protection Agency's reassessment of dioxin strongly suggests that safe levels of exposure set so far in the Canadian guidelines may no longer be safe or acceptable.

The time has come to shift the burden of proof so as to protect the environment and public health in this respect. The existence of safe doses needs to be re-examined because evidence from human epidemiological studies, from animal cancer studies and

from biochemical research tells us that dioxin represents a cancer hazard to people.

The findings of the Environmental Protection Agency suggest that the environment and our own bodies are already overburdened with dioxin-like compounds. Given the persistence and toxicity of dioxin and dioxin-like compounds, one must conclude that the prudent course of action would be to prevent pollution, coupled most importantly with a reduction in our dependence on dioxin producing activities such as incineration.

In this context I ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to inform the House whether the federal government intends to take steps to phase out airborne dioxin emissions from incinerators across Canada and to reassess the Canadian guidelines for exposure to dioxins presently set at 10 picograms per kilogram of body weight per day.

I am looking forward to hearing the parliamentary secretary's reply.

[George S. Rideout, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, the major source of dioxins and furans identified in Canada today include municipal and hazardous waste incinerators, effluents from pulp and paper mills, long range atmospheric transport from other countries and contaminants in such chemical products as pentachlorophenol and PCBs.

As a result of Canadian regulatory and guidelines initiatives dioxin and furan emissions from municipal solid waste and hazardous waste incinerators have decreased by 80 per cent in the last four years.

Between 1989 and 1994 dioxin and furan emissions from bleached kraft pulp mill effluents have decreased by 82 per cent. Some dioxin contaminated pesticides are either strictly regulated or banned.

In addition, the levels of dioxin and furans in the Canadian environment have declined significantly. Annual releases from pulp and paper mills have dropped from more than 350 grams of dioxins and furans to less than 9 grams. Less than 50 grams of dioxins and furans are released from municipal solid waste incinerators in Canada per year. I am sure the member would agree these are good news stories.

A federal-provincial task force has been established by Environment Canada to identify and characterize additional sources of releases of dioxins and furans in Canada. This group will prepare and analysis of sectors and areas requiring further action to eliminate measurable releases of dioxins and furans and will recommend time lines for their virtual elimination from the environment. This task force may recommend further regulations under CEPA or modifications to existing guidelines.

Furthermore, federal guidelines relating to contaminants are constantly under review as new scientific findings are reported. Health Canada is currently looking at federal guidelines for human exposure to dioxins set in 1990 to determine whether it is necessary to revise them.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 11.37 p.m.)