Debates of June 15th, 1995

Electoral Boundaries Readjustmentact, 1995

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

There is a quorum.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to see so many members opposite coming in to listen to the words of wisdom I am adding to the debate.

We now have a bill before us which is very badly flawed, which does not serve the interests of Canadians appropriately for four reasons. It increases and will continue to increase the number of members in every Parliament. It allows a very wide variance in the number of voters in each riding, thereby violating the basic democratic principle of representation by population since some voters will have greater weight than others depending on how many voters are in the riding.

The appointments of the commissions which will draw up the boundaries of our ridings will have an important check and balance to their objectivity removed. There will be real uncertainty, unnecessary disruptive uncertainty, because new boundaries would not be finalized until a few weeks before an election would take place, very much interfering with the ability of Canadians to participate properly and freely and effectively in the democratic process.

For those reasons which are substantial and very clear I urge members of the House to reconsider support for the bill, which is not serving the interests of Canadians as it ought to and has not been put together with appropriate measures.

I move:

That the amendment be amended by deleting the numbers 1, 4(a), 6(a) and 6(b)(i) and substituting the following:

"1, 4(a) and 6(a)".

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The amendment is in order. Resuming debate.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I was wondering whether there were questions and comments following my presentation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

There were two minutes remaining. That is why I did not call questions and comments. Questions and comments.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, since the reapportionment commission was holding hearings quite actively at the time the government heavy handedly intervened, and since in my riding there were no complaints about the way the redistribution had been planned nobody went to a hearing, including me.

I would like a little information. I would like to be informed as to how these things work. I wonder if the hon. member did have hearings in her riding and if she did if she would enlighten those of us who were not involved in that.

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, there was some confusion about the hearings relating to the redistribution process that as I said was nearly finished when the government interrupted it.

Because of the government's decision to introduce legislation to start the process all over again, some of the commissions were not sure whether they ought to hold hearings. Some held them and some delayed them.

The notice of those hearings was in come cases very short. There were hearings held in my area and there were representations made. In some cases there were some recommendations for a better redrawing or a less disruptive redrawing of the boundaries in Calgary, where my riding is.

I also had feedback from other hearings that there was no substantial concern with the way the commissions had been proposing to redraw. It did vary across the country.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, I certainly appreciated the comments from my colleague.

On this legislation, one of the major concerns I have, and I will speak to it in a moment or two as the seconder of this amendment, is that the government is behind in a time line. This legislation will impose a lot of restrictions on the commission in terms of its fulfilling its function in a very proper way. Would the member comment on the government's ability to deal with this circumstance under the current legislation?

[Diane Ablonczy, Reform, Calgary North, AB]

Madam Speaker, there will be a substantial difficulty put in the way of all of the players in this new drama that has been launched on us as far as redistribution is concerned.

All of the steps in this process need to be done thoughtfully and with good administration, good recording, good consultation. There is going to be tremendous pressure on all of the people involved to get the documents together and make the studies and findings. It is not going to be a process done with as much time and thoughtfulness as could be done because there will be tremendous stress on the process to get it done in time for the next election. It is particularly unfortunate that is going to be done in light of the fact that it had already been done at some length two years previously. There was really no reason to have this thing started up again in a hurry.

I do think the hon. member has pinpointed another difficulty with this whole process.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, it is certainly my pleasure to second the amendment that was moved by my colleague. We have done that for a very important reason.

The amendment that is before the House at the present time on clause 6 indicates that the commission will only recommend changes to the existing electoral district boundaries where the factors set out are significant enough for changes. That clause put a rather rigid parameter for the commission to follow. When one examines the motives behind that kind of a directive to the commission, what it really does is tell the commission not to touch the existing boundaries unless they really have to. In a sense, it is a partisan intervention that controls what the commission can and cannot do. It does not allow for an objective look at the boundaries as such, which is wrong. Therefore, the Reform Party has moved this amendment to deal with that issue and try in every way possible to allow the commission to have flexibility in boundary determinations.

We have also added, in support of this, a substitute amendment, clause 4.(a), which adds the requirement for the two non-judicial commission members to be residents in the province for which the commission is established.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My hon. colleague for Lethbridge has some very important remarks to make. Could we not have some Liberals in the House to listen to them?

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

I am sorry, the hon. member is well aware that we never refer to the presence or absence of anyone in the House. I am sure he will withdraw his comments.

[Lee Morrison, Reform, Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK]

Madam Speaker, I do withdraw my pejorative comment. However, I would again request that we have quorum.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

The member has called for a quorum. I do not see one.

Call in the members.

And the bells having rung:

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

We have quorum. Resuming debate.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak to this amendment that is before us and as well to Bill C-69 and the recommendations that come from the Senate.

I want to say something about the process this bill has gone through between the fall of 1993, when this Parliament began, and today. One of the most disappointing things I have found about this Liberal government is it came to this assembly ill-prepared. This bill is another item that demonstrates the ill-prepared way in which they took on the responsibilities.

The Liberal Party spent 10 years in opposition. One of the basic functions and purposes of the loyal opposition is to be a government in waiting. That is the basic purpose, to prepare itself for government. The Liberals were to know what kind of a budget they would bring to Canadians. They were to know what kind of a social program they would bring to Canadians. They had to know what kind of a redistribution bill would be brought before this House of Commons in 1993.

When this government came here it was not prepared in any way. We spent one year with nothing but procrastination, with studies, with no answers to questions. It was not a government in waiting.

What did the Liberals do in opposition? What did they do on this side of the House? They are doing about the same thing today.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize we are all here to debate the truth so the public will be informed on everything. But I think it is important that when a member stands up he knows that of which he proposes to speak.

There is no way an opposition party under the old system could possibly have intervened in the system; it is an arm's length system-

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Please continue.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate your ruling that is not a point of order but a sensitivity of the hon. member to the irresponsibility that went on in this House for 10 years where the Liberal Party members sat on this side of the House and did nothing but play politics and attempt to get into the powerful position of being government. But they did not know why they really wanted to get into government, other than getting the perks, being ministers and having powers. Supposedly they were going to run the country with those terms of reference. There was no preparation at all.

Since coming to this House in the fall of 1993 I have observed what has gone on over and over again, whether the budget, the social policy, the health policy, which is delayed until this fall. The government still does not know what kind of a health policy Canadians are going to have or what kind of a-

[Anna Terrana, Liberal, Vancouver East, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We are here to discuss Bill C-69 and not the performance of one party or another.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Ringuette-Maltais)]

Resuming debate.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

Madam Speaker, I am discussing the process relative to Bill C-69. I prefaced my remarks to that. My preface was that Bill C-69 is in a process that was ill conceived, that was based on a lack of preparation by this government, and was basically incompetent.

At this time we are faced with trying to design the ground rules by which a commission is going to establish the constituency boundaries across this nation. We are going to put them under a terrible time constraint to do a good, competent job.

There are a couple of other arguments with regard to Bill C-69. My colleague from Calgary Centre outlined very clearly to us a concern that we are going to expand the number of seats in this House from the current 295 to 301. The Reform Party has taken a very clear position, saying we are prepared to reduce the number of seats in this House, which is responsible. It is a response to the Canadian public at the present time, who recognize that we must be frugal and respond to their direction at this time. The Reform Party is prepared to do just that.

We have to ask a question, which relates to my first comments: Why does the government not do that? My colleagues have said very clearly in their debate that the government does not listen and has not listened to the Canadian people and what it is they want.

Another point I want to make, which I feel is different, is the reason the government is not doing it is because it does not have the political will. It is playing the old political games of the 1970s and the early 1980s, when government had more money and was not afraid to go into debt and the public was not holding it accountable. The object was to not get into any political problems, not make any difficult decisions. Just expand the House of Commons and no one will know the difference. Just add on and play the old political game.

The Liberals have not changed. They do not realize that society has changed, the political system has changed. The demand on the public purse and the leadership of the country and the leadership in the provinces is saying be more frugal and adjust your cloth according to the budget of the country. That means we have to start here.

I give the Minister of Finance some marks for bringing about approximately an $8 billion expenditure reduction in the budget. He has brought about reductions, which his Liberal friends resisted for a long time. It took months before the cabinet could turn it around and say they were going to support the Minister of Finance in these expenditure reductions. They just said they would not do it. Finally somebody told them the public wanted expenditure reductions and it was done in the last budget. That took some political will. As Liberals they are still afraid to make some major decisions for the country, and that concerns me very much.

[Joe Volpe, Liberal, Eglinton—Lawrence, ON]

We are making this one.

[Ray Speaker, Reform, Lethbridge]

In Bill C-69, again we see a lack of political will to make a major important decision.

I think I should leave it at that, because the government wants to defend its position, which is indefensible and unacceptable at this time.

[The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Maheu)]

Is the House ready for the question?