Debates of June 14th, 1995

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995

[Stan Keyes, Liberal, Hamilton West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, there would not have been a waste because there would have been more legislation put through the House.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals' rationale is sometimes very hard to understand. They do not seem to think that debate and taking the votes seriously is important. They have become so arrogant on that side that they think just because they introduce a bill it should get speedy passage through this place without the cut and thrust of debate and serious consideration in voting.

There were a lot of members tonight who put great effort into some of the amendments on that bill. Members on that side would have quickly rushed through the process without allowing those members to stand and vote for the principles in which they believe. We know the Liberals do not believe in free votes because they sent talking points around saying that it was not a free vote. The Liberals want to bring six more MPs in here and tell them that they do not want free votes. The Liberals want them to be their little voting machine slaves. It is a shame and this House deserves much better than what the Liberal government is giving us.

The government is supporting one of the amendments that came back from the Senate. I assure the House that it makes sense. We will be supporting it as well. That is the commissioners must be residents of the province which they are serving.

There are some other changes. The Senate suggested that the variable quota be reduced from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. Of course, the Senate heard us arguing a very good case here in the House and agreed with it. I believe there is one other amendment Reform can support. The other amendments we do not find acceptable.

Part of the reason for the problem tonight was because the Liberal government mismanaged this evening's activities. We talked to the Liberals. We wanted to arrange the situation much better than we did, but they were not interested. It is very typical of what they have done with Bill C-69. They have mismanaged the process. They have set targets which they cannot reach. They have tried to pass legislation that is unacceptable to Canadians. It is receiving obstruction or meeting a roadblock in the Senate and with real justification.

In wrapping up, I want to thank the Senate for sending this bill back. I certainly wish the Senate had been elected so that it would have more legitimacy. It could do this on a more regular basis. It could offer sober second thought, as it is supposed to, to legislation this House passes that is ill conceived and not of the quality Canadians deserve.

The government has introduced a motion to send this bill back to the Senate with some amendments. These amendments do not concur with the wishes of the Reform Party because of the arguments that not only myself, but my colleague from Calgary West and perhaps some others will bring forward.

I would like to move an amendment to the motion. I move:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following:

a Message be sent to the Senate to acquaint Their Honours that this House agrees to Amendments Nos. 1, 4(a), 6(a) and 6(b)(i) made by the Senate to Bill C-69, an act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundary commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, and this House disagrees with Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 4(b), 4(c), 5, 6(b)(ii), 6(c) and 7.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair will reserve on the amendment to see if it is valid.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to say to the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, who commented rather negatively on the reception given members by the standing committee, that it must have taught him a lot about Quebec. When I made my proposal on the ridings in eastern Quebec, he asked me whether it was to protect the ridings of real French Canadians, to use his expression. He felt that what was happening was self-serving. So, we had an opportunity to give him a good history and geography lesson and show him that there is also a strong anglophone minority in eastern Quebec and in the Gaspé.

We argued that the ridings should be left as they were. One of the reasons was in order to support this section of the population, which is both substantial and historically important. These people are the descendants of the loyalists, who came and settled of their own volition, particularly because they were fleeing a system they could not live with. I was quite surprised by the hon. member's ignorance of these facts. I hope he has learned an important lesson he will long remember, that there is an anglophone minority in Quebec and that it is scattered pretty well throughout the province, in the Gaspé-

[An hon. member]

They are well served.

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

They are indeed well served, as the member says. In the Gaspé, for example, the anglophone minority has college-level courses in English in Gaspé. For all of the Gaspé, there is a regular service and regular train service is maintained because, for one reason, many of these people have family in Ontario and elsewhere. They are very well served in many places.

I particularly wanted the member to realize that not only improper things had happened in committee, that one person at least learned something.

My question concerns another matter. Does the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster not think that the Senate could have considered many other aspects of the legislation? Including the fact that a little more than half the Reform members were

elected by fewer than 40 per cent of the electorate and that their democratic claims are not really very high.

Could the Senate not have looked at that? While it was doing a superficial job, it could have gone a little further and looked to see if the members in the House representing the fewest voters were not members of the Reform Party?

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question from my colleague, the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup.

I remember the procedure and House affairs committee meeting the hon. member is reflecting upon. That committee meeting was held just a few days after one of his colleagues made the suggestion that in the referendum we expect to be called this fall, if the separatists have the courage to call it this fall, only old stock Quebecers should have the franchise. Those are not my words. I am quoting his colleague. In other words, only old stock Quebecers should be allowed to vote. Those are not my thoughts and I would certainly not suggest that but one of his colleagues did.

I saw some of the flip-flopping on the whole electoral boundaries issue. For a while the critic for the Bloc was in favour of the bill then later opposed it. He supported some parts of it and then was not sure.

I began to wonder what was the rationale for the Bloc's arguments regarding Bill C-69. I asked the hon. member the reason. I asked whether the member was trying to design an electoral system in Quebec that would give the advantage to old stock Quebecers. That is a very honest question in light of the comments his colleagues made, not mine. I assure the hon. member that I am not as ignorant of the situation in Quebec as he might have this House believe.

This goes to the more important issue of democratic principles. If his colleagues can suggest that democracy can be abused to the point where only certain people would have a franchise based on their ethnicity, that causes some concern as to whether or not they are legitimate spokespersons for the democratic process and the whole process of determining how the electoral boundaries readjustment act is crafted.

The other very interesting question is, why would they even care? If they lose the referendum, they have lost the argument. That means Quebecers have decided they want to stay in Canada. I suspect that is what Quebecers will say when the referendum is held, if it is ever held. Why would they care? They have lost and would not represent Quebecers.

On the other hand, if the separatists win the referendum in Quebec, they say they are going to leave, that they are going to separate. It is going to be unilateral and they are gone. Therefore what do they care about how Canada crafts the electoral boundaries readjustment act?

It just shows how irrelevant the Bloc Quebecois is to legislation we are considering in this House. It shows how irrelevant the Bloc is as Canada's supposedly loyal official opposition.

[Morris Bodnar, Liberal, Saskatoon—Dundurn, SK]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has been speaking about keeping the number of seats as they are at present. Under such a proposition the province of Saskatchewan would lose about two seats, which would mean that almost 20 per cent of the seats in Saskatchewan would be lost.

Does he agree that the province of Saskatchewan should lose almost 20 per cent of its representation in the House?

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I touched on that in my speech. Saskatchewan is seeing a reduction in the total number of MLAs. They have gone from 66 to 58. The people in the province with whom I have talked applaud that. They want less government.

If we start reducing the number of seats in the House of Commons the way we proposed in the procedure and House affairs committee, Ontario would lose a few seats as well. The province of Quebec would lose a few seats. Instead of B.C. increasing its number of seats it would lose a few and, yes, Saskatchewan would lose a few.

We are fair minded in Saskatchewan. We know what we could lose. We believe in smaller government and we are prepared to accept it.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The amendment of the hon. House leader of the Reform Party is acceptable as to form.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in replying to questions from my colleague, the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster suggested that I had acted inconsistently and without due consideration on the committee. I wish to point out that, throughout study of Bill C-69, I supported the proposals made, offering my critical analysis.

It was not until report stage, in the House, that an amendment was proposed to guarantee Quebec 25 per cent of the seats. It was from that point on that I decided I could no longer support Bill C-69, not because it had been badly drafted, but because the issue of the 25 per cent guarantee for Quebec was not accepted by the majority of members in this House. I therefore voted against it at third reading.

I wish to point out the facts, so as not to give rise to a debate as indicated in Beauchesne.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

I rise on the point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. If you were to review that point you would find there is no point of privilege. If you were to review the blues on the speech of the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster you would see that he merely stated a fact, that there were several changes of position by the Bloc Quebecois in the course of the electoral redistribution debate.

The Bloc member is certainly capable of describing what was his motivation. I think you will see that the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster was simply establishing the fact he behaved that way, and in any case it is not a violation of his privileges to do that.

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want the House to know that I do not doubt the abilities of my colleague, the hon. member who served with me on the procedure and House affairs committee, but I brought into question why he and his party would change position on the electoral boundaries process from supporting the government to opposing the government. In fact I believe they changed critics. I think that is fair comment. I do not think I made any personal allegations against the member.

If the House deems that I did, I would certainly withdraw them. It was certainly not my intent. I was trying to deal specifically with the positions taken by the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois with regard to all the legislation including Bill C-69 which we are debating this evening.

[The Deputy Speaker]

My colleagues know very well that the Chair always takes questions of privilege seriously. I will therefore reread the blues and, if need be, communicate my decision to the House as soon as possible.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would find it interesting, as I begin my speech, to go over the reasons that led the Bloc Quebecois to intervene on several occasions during study of the bill on the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

The Bloc Quebecois was elected to defend the interests of Quebec, and in that sense, faced with this bill, it has shown its complete respect for democracy by making no assumptions about the choice Quebecers will make in the referendum. We wanted to ensure that, in the event that Quebecers voted no, they could continue to have the advantage of the best electoral map possible in their continued representation within the government of Canada. But I am sure they will decide to vote yes, for a number of other reasons.

To answer the member's question, I have no doubt that Quebecers will decide to vote yes, for all sorts of historical reasons. For more than 125 years, and particularly over the last 30 years, they have tried everything they could to change the system and they were never successful. The most recent example was here in this House, when the Liberal majority refused to give Quebec the 25 per cent minimum it was asking for. This 25 per cent minimum, already agreed to in the Charlottetown accord, would have been a demonstration of respect for Quebec, but the present Liberal government, under the direction of the Prime Minister we all know, refused to make this minimum gesture. This is one more reason, symbolic but practical, why Quebecers will opt for full control over their future development.

I have spoken to this bill several times. I participated in debate at each reading and in committee, always to argue that rural regions must have adequate representation.

Unfortunately, I have never at any stage seen amendments that are as out of touch with Canadian reality as those put forward by the Senate. Before talking about the substance of the amendments, I wondered why the Senate was so out of touch with Canadian reality. Why do senators seem to be from Mars rather than from the country in which we live?

My first thought was that it was certainly not for lack of travel since, as we know, our senators travel a great deal within Canada. They travel at taxpayers' expense on a regular basis. There must be a real reason why senators decided, among other things, to demand that the maximum variation from the quota, which makes it possible to determine the number of ridings, be reduced from 25 to 15 per cent.

I found a reason which I think is significant: an amendment like this one will, somewhat insidiously, impose even greater restrictions on Quebec representation. In fact, if we look at the current electoral map as a whole, we see that there are constitutional, historic protective measures for very small ridings, like those in Prince Edward Island. Although I have no intention of depriving the people of that province of their members of Parliament, the Tories' amendment would give Quebec ridings even less weight because lowering the maximum allowable gap to 15 per cent would reduce the total number of members and expand the areas represented by members to an absolutely unrealistic extent.

Consequently, to replace the 25 per cent variation by a 15 per cent variation would be somewhat disrespectful of Canadians and Quebecers, while also showing a total ignorance of geographical considerations, as well as a systematic attempt to promote centralization. Indeed, to define boundaries strictly in

terms of arithmetic would result in an overrepresentation of urban areas, while also promoting a migration to those urban centres, something which, in the long term, would be very harmful to Canada's future. Should there be a snowball effect, it could lead to the situation which exists in some southern countries, where there are very large cities with shanty towns, while the rest of the territory is very sparsely populated and people have access to very few adequate services to ensure their future.

Let us not forget that Canada was not developed by concentrating its population in certain areas. Indeed, it was always felt that the territory as a whole should be populated. However, the amendments proposed by the Senate would go against that historical pattern. I find it quite disturbing that a House of non-elected representatives would come to such conclusions.

Another rather surprising amendment by the Senate provides that a group 20 MPs would no longer be allowed to challenge appointments to electoral commissions. We, as elected representatives, and this is particularly true when we form a sufficiently large group, should be considered a watchdog, for the public, regarding this issue. I think that the Conservative amendment would have an effect opposite to the intended one and could create many more unacceptable situations.

There is another aspect to the Senate amendments which I would like to bring to the attention of the House and I am referring to the different definition it gives of "community of interest". The people in the Senate use the same words as before but provide a definition that restricts the concept of community of interest to demographic and geographic considerations as well as the existing boundaries of municipalities. However, the definition now no longer considers the human factor.

For instance, in a riding like Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup which I represent, there are 55 municipalities and four regional county municipalities I have to cover. Perhaps the senators overlooked this or perhaps some of them are not aware of this because they were never members of the House of Commons, but a member has to sit in the House four days a week in Ottawa, spend day five in his riding and on the weekend participate in social activities and meet his constituents. In a riding like this one where there are 55 municipalities, we get to the point where people are no longer able to meet their member of Parliament.

Narrowing the definition of community of interest and decreasing the quota will lead to situations that make no sense at all. If we look at the draft electoral map the commission used to conduct consultations in my riding, if, for instance, the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup were to go on in the same way until the next election, it would include 72 municipalities. From 55 to 72, I do not know whether you have any idea what this means in the way of additional work, but it has the effect of creating an even greater gap between the voter and the individual who is supposed to represent him.

Shutting off communications between constituents and their elected representative has the somewhat perverse effect of strengthening the power of the other House which cannot claim to represent the electorate. Our strength has always been that we can say we are there to represent the people. Even more so when we represent more than 50 per cent of the population, as in the case of most members of the Bloc Quebecois, many Liberal members, but only a few Reform Party members. But in any case, the way the legislation works, we are elected by the people, and as far as I am concerned, that is the principle that gives us the right to have the final say on bills, as opposed to the Senate.

Distancing us from our electorate would help weaken the link between the electorate and government decisions and would give very bad results.

In particular, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the effect that such a decision as reducing the variation from the provincial quota from 25 to 15 per cent would have on eastern Quebec. Currently, there are five ridings in eastern Quebec: Gaspé, Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine, Matapédia-Matane, Rimouski-Témiscouata and Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, which is my riding. Keeping these five ridings, even with the current map, would require a decision from the electoral commission. But, if the variation were reduced from 25 to 15 per cent, which is now being called for, it is certain that one riding would disappear, possibly two. This would have the following effects on all of the inhabitants of those areas: it would encourage depopulation and the neglect of their regions and it would take the weight of representation away from these people who are in one of Quebec's resource regions. The same thing would happen in several other regions in Canada.

We have discussed issues like unemployment insurance reform, where the first proposal was quite bureaucratic, which was to create a two-tiered system: one for people who do not use it often and one for people who do. If the representation of the people from these regions is reduced, decisions which are out of sync with their reality will be more readily accepted.

If the human resources development committee had not been able to meet with Quebecers and Canadians across the country, it would not have achieved the result that it did, which was to convince the government that this proposal was not in sync with reality.

It is true for other legislation as well. When it comes to a vote, in the end, if there are fewer members representing these areas, the country's future will suffer. It is not true that Canada comprises only large centres and nothing else. The people who represent these various parts of the country must be given a real

right. If they are not, we will be facing very negative situations in the medium term.

By way of example for the members of the House, I would point out that, when the rural fact is denied in one way or another, the voters always have the last word.

The Conservative government had set up a devastating post office strategy. They believed, in good faith, that a significant number of municipal post offices had to be closed. We saw the results in the election. I do not say this is the only reason for the change in government, I think there were a number of good reasons for it. However, the fact that the people in rural settings felt they would not be properly represented by those they had elected led them to terminate the relationship, because they felt not enough attention had been paid to this detail.

If we do not permit the rural communities sufficient representation, we will find ourselves in the same situation.

It is perhaps understandable that an institution, such as the other House, should be so far removed from the concerns of the public that it does not give the importance of representation its due, but I think it is our responsibility here in the House, because we are elected by the people, to bring things back to reality. The quota is perhaps the most important criterion. In talking of a variation in the quota in defining boundaries, 25 per cent was rightly given as the most reasonable variation. In this regard, the member for the Reform Party preceding me argued in support of the 25 per cent.

If members appearing before the committee representing urban centres felt that 25 per cent was the maximum permissible and those representing rural communities felt it was the minimum, it seems a pretty reasonable choice over the figure of 15 per cent. This figure would mean completely absurd situations and the combining of communities that had nothing in common simply in order to satisfy arithmetical criteria, which should not be the case in my opinion.

To conclude, I want to say that we should take this opportunity to ponder the usefulness of sending bills to an institution such as the other place. In fact, nowadays, in the society we live in we can no longer distinguish, as was done 100 years ago, between members of the Commons and the Lords. We should keep in mind that our system is based on the British one and that a non-elected house was created to advise members coming from the working class and whose real wisdom was in doubt due to their lack of education. I do not believe that this was ever a problem, but more than ever today, one cannot assume that elected members are less educated. In this respect, we can hold our own to the same degree as any senator. This situation no longer reflects today's reality in this country.

Keeping this in mind, this bill shows that we could perhaps find a better use for the $40 million the Senate costs every year.

To conclude, I do hope that this is the last time we will revisit the changes to the electoral boundaries. For my part, I am convinced that the electoral map will never again be used in Quebec, since in the fall, we will decide to take full control of our destiny. After the referendum, we will suggest to the rest of Canada an association which will put an end to the constitutional industry, ensure that neighbours of equal status deal with each other on an equal footing, and eliminate the negative effects, the useless spending and the overlap due to the present system, so that we can debate the real issues, and each of us build our own house as we really want it.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of having the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup as my neighbour, in the next riding. The riding that he has the honour of representing shares its eastern border with my riding of Bellechasse, so that we have a common border. The communities of Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies, Sainte-Louise-des-Aulnaies, Mont-Carmel, that is from the St. Lawrence River to the Maine border, are the eastern limit of the riding of Bellechasse.

My colleague from Chicoutimi was saying that it is a beautiful riding. Indeed, all the ridings that we represent are the most beautiful in Canada or in Quebec, because that is where we live, those are the people that we represent. So, it is quite normal for us to think that our ridings are the most beautiful. The South Shore, most of which I have the honour to represent with my colleague from Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, is definitely a beautiful region.

These ridings may look alike in many respects, with more or less the same number of municipalities, about 60 of them, and with the new map, about 70. I now realize that it took me about 18 months before I managed to cover my whole riding. I do not know about the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup; perhaps he will have the opportunity of enlightening me by answering my question.

I am bringing up the point raised by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster in committee and here, during debate. Let us expand rural ridings; that is no problem, we can simply have more staff. Let us add two or three assistants in the ridings. However, as far as I know, on the ballot, we do not vote for parliamentary assistants, for riding assistants, we vote for the member of Parliament.

Any constituent in my riding, whether living in Saint-Pamphile- de-l'Islet, in Saint-Jean-Port-Joli, in Lac-Etchemin, in Bromont or in Sainte-Claire-de-Dorchester, has the right to meet me. As a rural member, I find myself in a situation where these constituents, because of distances, because of all the

restraints, because of the multiplication of municipal councils and other municipal and regional organizations, are less able to meet me than the constituents of an urban member.

I want to ask my hon. colleague whether he has the same problems and whether he believes, like the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, that the increase in constituency staff will compensate for the extension of rural ridings in such a way that the voice of rural constituents will be adequately heard in the House?

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

Mr. Speaker, place names like Saint-Roch-des-Aulnaies and Sainte-Louise-des-Aulnaies help me answer the hon. member's question. A few weeks ago, we had the opportunity to meet with mayors of that regional county municipality.

Our discussions dealt with the decentralization requested by various regions in Quebec. To go to that meeting, I had to travel 75 kilometres through the regional county municipality which includes those two communities, at one end of my riding.

That shows that having a larger territory would not be a suitable solution, because we already have to cover a very large territory.

However, I would like to suggest another solution. I think the hon. member for Bellechasse will agree. We realize that double representation should be eliminated because it serves no purpose. Today, we have federal MPs and provincial MNAs whose ridings overlap and whose jurisdictions overlap also. One never knows who is responsible for what. When people come to us in our ridings, the last thing they want to know about is whether their question concerns a federal or a provincial jurisdiction. The only thing they know is they want to see their member.

This is what Quebecers came to realize. A great many of them, over 70 per cent of Quebecers according to the polls, would like to deal with only one member of Parliament, someone who would represent them at a National Parliament in Quebec City and who could probably be sent to the joint Parliamentary assembly in Canada to make suggestions on how to manage the partnership between Quebec and Canada once Quebec has opted for sovereignty.

We would then be able to reduce a lot of the unnecessary costs and settle many of the problems we currently have. As federal MPs, if we have to call a provincial MLA who is not a member of our own party, we find it a bit awkward. Oftentimes, when our constituents come to us, they do not know if they will be able to find a solution to their problem at one level or the other. It is up to us to try to find out if there are provincial or federal programs that can be helpful to them. I think this is where we have a problem.

Finally, I want to say that in a region like mine, the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, as well as in the riding of Bellechasse and all along the shores of the St. Lawrence, home to the only French-speaking community in North America, where a lot of Lévesques, Pelletiers, Ouellets are living-

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Crêtes, Langlois.

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

Langlois and Crêtes, as well, yes, although there are not so many Crêtes in that area, I think.

I want people to realize that Quebecers have gone beyond the plumbing all the way to the architect's plan. We, in the Bloc Quebecois, are here to protect the interests of Quebec, which is why, during this debate on the redistribution of seats, we have tried to ensure that Quebecers are as well represented as possible. We are a few months away from a much more crucial decision which would not only ensure us an adequate representation, but also give us full control over our own development. I think this is what the future holds for the province of Quebec and this is what Quebecers will decide.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, first let me explain exactly what it is we are debating tonight.

At the moment we are debating Senate amendments to Bill C-69 which amends the previously amended bill from the Senate, Bill C-18, which sought to amend and suspend the Electoral Boundaries Commission. If that explains what we are doing, let me add a little more. If we accept all or some of these amendments the process will continue amended. It will amend Bill C-18 which will then be suspended. The amended process will begin again and we will have amended boundaries for the next election.

However, should we decide not to proceed with any of this, the process continues just as it was before with no amendments whatsoever. This is the incredible journey we have been on in the government's quest to, for reasons that are becoming less and less clear by the day, redo the electoral boundaries all over again. I think I will stop there before I confuse myself.

The member for Bellechasse addressed a very interesting point in his speech. He really addressed the role of the Senate in making these amendments. It is an interesting question because I think all members of the House feel some concern about the role of the Senate. We are here at the end of the 20th century, nearly the 21st century, and we will be one of the very few countries even if we include the non-democratic world that actually has a quarter of the seats in its Parliament unelected.

There are two proposals to deal with that, as the hon. member for Bellechasse suggested, either of which would be preferable to the status quo. One is to abolish the Senate, the proposal of the Bloc Quebecois. I find it interesting that it comes from the Bloc because Quebec was the last province to eliminate its own upper house, in 1968, in the living memory of virtually every member of this institution.

At the same time, Mr. Parizeau has created a council of ministers, a council of unelected regional advisors, to really parallel the very role the Senate is supposed to play in the Chamber, which it does not. It was admirable innovation by Mr. Parizeau. I do not know if it is working quite as he hoped but it is interesting that he would appoint an unelected second cabinet.

We prefer to have the Senate elected but the question we have to ask ourselves, given the government supports status quo federalism and does not believe in changing anything and believes in appointed senators, is what the senators are supposed to do. Senators have constitutional responsibilities to execute. Bills go to the Senate, the Senate is paid to consider those bills and the Senate has considered those bills.

The Senate has suggested six sets of amendments. It has taken some time to study these. In all honesty, although some of the people in the Senate are not my favourite people and that is probably an opinion they share, they have conducted themselves very responsibly on this issue. They have examined a case in which Parliament has grossly abused its authority in a way that is irresponsible financially because it is costing us $6 million. It is irresponsible democratically because it is suspending a process set up by Parliament to be independent. It is irresponsible in a basic governmental sense. The reasons for doing this are obviously for self-interest in interrupting this whole process, so evident it is quite embarrassing to this body.

The Senate has examined these things and proposed a number of amendments. I do not support all its amendments. If I have time I will go into describing why I support some and why I do not support others. The Senate has looked at a number of issues that need examination and has given us an honest opinion. Certainly no one here doubts the chairman of the committee in the Senate that examined this bill is an outstanding constitutional expert, Senator Beaudoin. Everybody recognizes that and certainly he has tried to play a useful role in this debate.

It is also interesting to note that the Bloc Quebecois's opposition is based on the absence of a guarantee of 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Bellechasse has repeated this fact tonight. It is also interesting because that would obviously be an unconstitutional amendment to this bill. Senator Beaudoin knows that, as do all the constitutional experts, but this is also interesting because it must be remembered that the solution to these problems, as far as the Bloc Quebecois is concerned, is in fact a Parliament where Quebec would have 0 per cent of the members.

The important course taken by Quebec at the present time, the course taken by its premiers over the last thirty years, would have disappeared, and this is the solution. Quebecers should not forget that. The Bloc Quebecois's solution does not guarantee 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. Its solution lies in a Quebec with 0 per cent of the seats in the Parliament of Canada.

Let me go over these amendments in some detail to give my party's considered position on them. To repeat what the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster said, one amendment is certainly acceptable to the Reform Party, just as it is acceptable to the government. In Amendment No. 4(a) the Senate is proposing to add a requirement for the two non-judicial commissioners to be resident in the province for which the commission is established. The Senate recognized that is a tradition and something that really should be in the bill.

It is fair to say in the committee that studied this bill, of which I was a member, this requirement was inadvertently omitted by the technical drafters. This is an amendment the Liberal government will accept and which we are certainly prepared to accept. Our amendment also accepts this change and clarifies something that should be in the bill. It would be an abuse to have a commission that contained members who were not resident in the province.

Consistent with what we have advocated in the past, the Senate has proposed that the allowable deviation from the provincial quotient be reduced in its general application from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. This is was one of a series of amendments the Senate is proposing because it felt, not without some justification, we have drifted so far from voting equality in a number of clauses of the bill that there needs to be some correction. Independent of that we in the Reform Party had already supported this consideration when the bill was before committee last summer and also when Bill C-69 was in the House.

Our view is there should be more equalized voting power, that the 15 per cent discrepancy should be acceptable between various rural and urban constituencies in all but the most exceptional cases. That would achieve this. We argued for this at all previous stages of the bill.

The contrary argument is there need to be special discrepancies for rural areas but 15 per cent is a wide discrepancy. It means a variation from 85 per cent to 115 per cent. We would actually have quite a wide variation in the number of constituen-

cies plus the fact the bill actually allows for exceptional circumstances that go beyond that, not just those laid out in the senatorial clause or the grandfather clause of the Constitution but discrepancies that go over and above that for exceptional ridings in the far north of the various provinces. We propose in our amendment that this amendment from the Senate be accepted and we have argued for it at all previous stages of the bill.

The Senate has proposed along the same lines in its Amendment No. 6(b)(i) to eliminate the provision that a commission will only recommend changes to existing electoral district boundaries where the factors set out are significant enough to warrant such a recommendation. This was basically designed to encourage the commission to give greater consideration to electoral boundaries.

We had a lot of debate on this and related topics in committee.

The government should remember I was troubled by the comments of the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader in the House and before the Senate committee on legal and constitutional affairs. He really tried to convey the impression there had been massive agreement on this legislation.

In our case we disagreed fundamentally with the entire purpose of this legislation, with the idea of suspending electoral boundaries right from day one. We had questioned also the purpose of re-establishing the commissions prior to the next census when it would be necessary. There were disagreements beyond that in terms of the amending formula, for the number of seats in terms of the quotient. Beyond that there were many items in which we had multiple differences before arriving at an agreement.

When the member for Kingston and the Islands suggests we had agreed on all these areas, we had agreed on all these areas only after our first, second, third, fourth and fifth preferences in many cases had been rejected.

To say there had been enthusiastic agreement about all these things from the Reform Party is certainly an exaggeration. As he knows and knows full well, both opposition parties and particularly the Reform Party have opposed this bill at every important stage of its development.

With regard to Amendment No. 6(b)(i) the Senate has in its consideration come upon something that deserves re-examination. There are probably a lot of things like that, given the timetable forced on this bill. The re-examination here is that there should be this special factor, clause 19(2)(c), that if factors are not significant enough to warrant such a recommendation the commission should not recommend changes.

That is covered in several other clauses of the bill, as the Senate pointed out. There is the definition of community of interest which describes existing constituencies as one of the most important basis of any new electoral map. Wide deviations are already allowed, the 25 per cent plus additional consideration for constituencies that go beyond 25 per cent in come cases. There are already many factors in the bill that give a very high priority on keeping existing ridings intact.

As well, the bill as it is now probably provides to members a bit of a false assurance. One of the things we were told in our committee hearings last summer by people who had been involved in the drafting process is to stop thinking of our ridings as individual ridings. This is a trap that we fall into as members of Parliament. We represent a riding and if that riding changes we see that as a change to our riding. Commissions do not draw ridings, they draw boundaries to ridings. It is impossible to change one riding without changing another riding.

Once the criteria set out in the act require a change to any riding, almost always that has a domino effect that impacts on the vast majority of ridings in a province. Therefore in practical terms once one hits the basic triggers laid out in the bill it is impossible to preserve existing ridings exactly as they are in any case.

For that reason the Senate has pointed out a consideration which is probably not terribly useful and which the House should withdraw. That is why in our amendment we propose accepting Amendment No. 6(b)(i) from the Senate.

Let me now talk about those Senate amendments the House should continue to oppose. In doing so I will lay out the considerations the Senate did give in suggesting these amendments. In every case they have some merit and we should understand the reasoning.

The Senate proposed to eliminate this new clause we have in the bill that would give 20 members of the Commons the ability to challenge the Speaker's appointments to boundary commissions. The Senate did that for a couple of reasons. It was concerned about the role of the Speaker. The Speaker is required to give rulings every day and his impartiality is an important criterion of his effectiveness. The concern was that setting up a mechanism in a bill that allowed people to challenge the Speaker in and of itself provided a situation where the Speaker's authority could be easily undermined not just on this issue but on a number of issues.

The Senate was concerned about the introduction of fairly blatant partisan politics into the process. I would not deny that is the case. In supporting this amendment we in the Reform Party recognize that it would force the Speaker to consult with all three parties and maybe in some cases with representatives of other parties.

We did that not because we prefer partisanship but because we have come to the conclusion that a certain amount of partisanship may enhance the independence of the process. Let me explain what I mean by that.

There is no doubt that the process we have today is independent. If we look at it on paper it is independent. It was established in 1964 and nobody has suggested that it leads to undue political interference. However, what has the reality been since 1964? The reality has been that every time boundary commissions have made proposals for change, the House of Commons has intervened not to interfere directly in the process but to use its power to quash the process completely.

In a sense the House of Commons can always interfere, and it interfered on a grand scale. In the past the outcome of that interference has been a new formula for distribution of seats among the provinces under the Constitution. This time that particular route was rejected and we made no major changes along those lines. That was fairly blatant political interference.

We in the Reform Party are hoping that the process of consultation, which will ensure that the Speaker not only hears from the government but hears from all parties, will bind all parties and all members into the process so they do not invent the kind of wild stories and conspiracy theories that were necessary to justify the kind of interference we had in 1994. That is what we are hoping and I think the Senate should take that into account. There is a dynamic here. The dynamic is partisan. We have been unable to secure true independence and we feel this is the next best alternative.

These appointments are not a ruling by the Speaker and thus challenges to his appointments. While they would be embarrassing and would certainly undermine the credibility of the Speaker were he to propose any kind of commissioner that was not accepted on a partisan basis, it is certainly not likely to be seen as a non-confidence motion.

I would like to continue to analyse some of the amendments. The Senate proposed to eliminate the use of the special trigger based on population shifts for the very establishment of a boundaries commission in the first place. The Senate was concerned that we were in effect violating the Constitution by not automatically having boundary commissions, and that because the boundaries would not be considered in a certain province it would easily put the legislation before the courts in some kind of a court challenge.

Once again the Senate has something which it has a right to consider. I believe in this case that the senators are fundamentally wrong. Senator Carstairs argued, and I think she is correct, that the Constitution requires only interprovincial decennial redistribution and not intraprovincial decennial redistribution. In other words, the failure to have intraprovincial decennial redistribution would not in our view contravene section 51 of the Constitution Act.

As well, by not changing the boundaries if they are at least within 25 per cent we are in effect reasserting boundaries that already exist and that presumably have survived any previous court challenge.

The reason we supported the measure originally was that it was a considerable cost saving. In the redistribution that will likely recommence after the bill is passed, it will not be necessary to re-establish commissions for Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Prince Edward Island, as well as the Northwest Territories. That will save over $1 million in the next process.

While the Senate has raised some concerns of a legal nature, I believe they are incorrect. I also believe they are dealing largely with theory. I believe very few people would challenge a redistribution simply because it failed to change a riding that already existed.

Finally I will comment on the redefinition of community of interest the Senate is proposing. Its definition came from the Lortie commission which had a number of worthwhile recommendations on the electoral redistribution process. We in the Reform Party worked hard to provide another definition because we fundamentally reject the Lortie commission's approach that there basically be affirmative action-racial kinds of criteria involved in the drawing of boundary commissions.

The Senate and the Lortie commission have some legal support in suggesting that there are court decisions. There are legal precedents that not only recommend this but, in the case of some courts, are actually pushing this kind of approach. Whether or not that is the case, it is in our view clearly contrary to the best interest of our country and to the idea of a non-racial Canada that we support. We feel the Lortie commission and the Senate are mistaken in that regard. We were satisfied that all three parties in the committee agreed that approach was not appropriate.

That is the Reform Party's review of the various amendments the Senate has proposed. I hope it sheds some light on why it proposed them as well as why we accept or reject them.

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

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I wish to thank and commend the hon. member for Calgary West for wanting to know more about the institutions which will be proposed to Canada by a sovereign Quebec. I think he should be reminded, and I want to reassure him on this, that the parliamentary assembly, one of the institutions provided for in the economic association proposal, will be an elected assembly.

The members of this assembly will be elected by the Parliament of Quebec and the Parliament of Canada or all parliaments in Canada together, depending on the type of representation they choose. They will not be appointed randomly. This joint assembly will bring together elected members from Quebec and Canada.

A decision on this economic association proposal will be made after the people of Quebec have voted in a referendum to take full control of their own development, which means passing all legislation, collecting all taxes and making agreements, including perhaps an economic partnership agreement with Canada. It is very interesting to share views on this proposal. I suggest that the hon. member for Calgary West do so at some point in time.

Quebecers will have to choose between a federal system in which they have very few powers and another one in which they will have 100 per cent of the powers in the Quebec Parliament, which has always been the heart and cradle of the Quebec nation, formerly referred to as the French Canadian nation. This nation will have the credibility and strength required to negotiate with Canada a mutually satisfactory agreement to get us out of the constitutional mess we are in.

I would like the hon. member to tell us if he would be prepared to talk his colleagues into accepting the referendum results if, as I suspect, it meant that Quebec achieved sovereignty and took full responsibility for its development in the future.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I find the member's remarks very interesting. I am a bit confused. I think Quebecers will be just as confused as I am during the referendum campaign.

In responding to the member for Bellechasse, the member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup talked about the need to have only one member in Quebec City and only one level of government and the need to eliminate duplication and overlap, as members of the Bloc always say.

Now, in the agreement signed by the three sovereignist leaders, we see a proposal for a new Parliament for an independent Quebec and the rest of Canada, and not only a Parliament, but also a new cabinet, and we know what will happen. There will be public servants, offices, etc. They are also proposing a tribunal to solve some problems between the two nations.

In fact, they are proposing a new level of government with independence. I think that it is contrary to the commitment of the Parti Quebecois, which is to eliminate a level of government, and we must take into consideration the fact that this PQ government has already promised to hire all federal public servants here, in Hull. I cannot understand this position. It will be interesting to see how they will explain to Quebecers the creation of a new level of government after independence.

Regarding the member's question, he asked me if I would accept the result of a referendum. Obviously, we cannot recognize Quebec's power to determine the future of all the provinces, but the result of a referendum is clear. It is the expression of the will of the people. If the result is affirmative, it means that the majority really wants to separate, and if the result is negative, it means that they want to remain part of Canada. What I want to know now is if members of the Bloc will accept a negative result this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have thirty seconds left so I will simply say that on the issue of civil servants, we now have 18 percent of all civil servants and 24 per cent of the population. When federal civil servants join the Quebec public service, there will be a significant economy of scale for us and we will be better off.

As for accepting the results, I will return the question to the member. Does he believe that people who form a nation, and who have fought for the last 250 or 300 years to obtain the complete control of that nation, will stop now? The struggle will stop only when Quebec is absolutely sovereign and that is the answer of Quebec sovereignists.

[Stephen Harper, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, as I said many times before, I am not a Quebecer, but here is how I understand Quebec's history: Quebecers want to form a society within a bigger Canadian society. They want to keep both their Canadian identity and their Quebec identity and that will only be possible in a federal state.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Before giving the floor to the member for Chicoutimi, I should perhaps bring to the attention of all members Standing Order 18 which states, in part:

No member shall use offensive words against either House or against amy member thereof.

I draw that to the attention of all members and obviously not just the member who is about to speak. I remind members that the rules bar us from using offensive words against either house or any member thereof.