Mr. Speaker, the government fulfilled its obligation in respect of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act when it appointed a committee to draft and bring in a bill to the House. The procedure and House affairs committee, which I have the honour to chair, worked for a considerable period of time drafting and bringing in amendments to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. In most cases the amendments were agreeable to all the members on the committee.
There were only a couple of items on which there was disagreement. I am sure that will be reflected in the speeches from the other parties in the course of the evening. Basically there was substantial agreement on the elements of the bill.
The end result of the work the committee did was to give Canadians a more open, transparent and effective system of readjusting electoral boundaries. The bill which was brought to the House by the government based on the committee report and in substantial compliance with the committee report was adopted by the House following on that committee's work.
In other words, there had been consensus at the beginning. There was consensus basically all the way through, although I respect the fact the opposition parties voted against the bill in the end for two different reasons. One was unconnected with the bill and condemned the bill for something it did not contain. The other was due to disagreement with one of the provisions in the bill which carried on a provision from the previous law that allowed for ridings that vary by more than 25 per cent from the provincial quotient.
As I have indicated, the motion proposed by the government House leader agrees with Senate amendment 4(a) which would add a requirement to the law that members of a boundaries commission be resident in the province for which the commission is established. That was omitted from the bill largely by oversight on the part of the committee and we are happy to agree with the Senate that the provision could be fixed. I acknowledge the oversight on the part of the standing committee and I am glad to see it corrected by this amendment.
However, the other amendments proposed by the Senate in my submission are unacceptable because they would repeal the most important innovations set out in Bill C-69, each of which was supported by at least two of the parties in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs when introduced and considered in that committee.
These amendments therefore upset the balance struck by the standing committee in improving the system for electoral boundaries and in my view should therefore be rejected.
I respectfully disagree with Amendments Nos. 1 and 6(a) to reduce the maximum deviation from the electoral quota for a province from 25 per cent to 15 per cent. This quota was agreed on after extensive discussion, after extensive hearings in the committee and I admit over the objections of the Reform Party which wanted to reduce the quota to 15 per cent. There is a genuine difference of opinion on that. Members of the Reform Party will likely maintain that difference of opinion tonight.
Members of the Bloc and members of the Liberal Party are both of the view that in a country as large and as geographically diverse as Canada limiting the boundaries to 15 per cent of the provincial quotient, a deviation of 15 per cent either way, would be too restrictive and might result in serious inequities, leaving members to represent enormous ridings scattered over a vast distance with very few people in them but obviously trying to make up for the lack of population by adding to those ridings in a very substantial way.
We do not feel the system in the past has worked that badly. The most recent set of commissions has done a poor job and we have come up with a new and better way of appointing of those commissions and in our view a better way of having the commissions work where there is public input early in the process. That was a provision agreed on by all parties in the committee.
I also disagree with proposed Amendments Nos. 2, 3, 5, 6(b)(i) and 7 which would repeal the provisions that would avoid unnecessary electoral boundaries readjustments in provinces where shifts in population did not require them. Again, this set of provisions was agreed to by all parties.
Why would we spend money on having an electoral redistribution in a province when there has been no significant change in the population, no new seats in the province and the boundaries are more than adequate? Yet the committee formed that view very strongly. We put this in the bill. The Senate has decided in its view this should come out. We disagreed with that and are requesting the Senate simply acknowledge the House is insisting on these amendments and accept that we disagree and allow the bill to proceed.
Amendments Nos. 4(b) and (c) which in my view are unacceptable eliminate the provision of parliamentary oversight of appointments to electoral boundaries commissions. The appointment process in our view had flaws. The committee agreed on this. After extensive discussion in committee we agreed on this new appointment procedure.
Mr. Speaker, under the procedure in the bill you have the right to make nominations of persons to act as commissioners. Those names are to be submitted to the House of Commons and will be considered here. If members object motions can be moved that if carried could result in your having to come up with a new appointment. We think that is a fair and reasonable way to proceed. We supported it. The House supported at the time the bill came here and we hope it will be supported in the Senate later.
Also we disagree with Amendment No. 6(b)(i) which would redefine community of interest by incorporating the definition recommended by the royal commission on electoral reform and party financing. I think all members of the committee considered whether to adopt that definition. The definition was agreed on after extensive discussion among all members of the committee, and there was substantial agreement on it.
Bill C-69 was a good agreement, approved by all committee members on almost all points. There are, however, some clauses in the bill that are not to everyone's liking.
The member for Bellechasse, who is here now, did not agree with the bill, because he felt certain provisions were not included. He will probably talk about them in his speech. That is fine, but unfortunately everybody cannot have everything they want in the bill.
We have before us a fine bill, and I hope that all the members here will support the motion currently before the House proposed by the government House leader to send these amendments and the wishes of the House to the Senate for its consideration and quick adoption of the bill.