House of Commons Hansard #7 of the 37th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was bills.

Topics

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Sarnia—Lambton Ontario

Liberal

Roger Gallaway LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about gross contempt and in doing so relies upon general statements of principle, which are not Standing Orders or precepts of the House. They are simply general statements of intention.

Now, today the Prime Minister was outside this place. There were many members of the press there. Responding to that is somehow construed to be gross contempt. What is being said is that the Prime Minister is somehow constrained by the opposition in terms of speaking to the press outside of this place.

I submit, with all due respect, that in fact this is just simply a political point that he is attempting to make in the House of Commons. It has nothing to do with contempt and it has nothing to do with rules of procedure of the House.

PrivilegeOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I do not think I need to hear more on this point. The hon. member for St. John's West has raised a point suggesting that because the Prime Minister made a statement outside the House rather than in the chamber, it somehow constitutes a contempt.

The hon. member for St. John's West must know from his own experience that he is unlikely to sway the Chair on this point, because on March 18 last year I gave a ruling on a similar point raised by him when he suggested that a statement by the then prime minister made outside the House appeared to contradict the budget statements made by the Minister of Finance in the House. I indicated that statements made outside the House were not the responsibility of the Chair.

I quoted for him at that time, and I will quote again for the House today, Marleau and Montpetit, at page 379:

A Minister is under no obligation to make a statement in the House. The decision of a Minister to make an announcement outside of the House instead of making a statement in the House during Routine Proceedings has been raised as a question of privilege, but the Chair has consistently found there to be no grounds to support a claim that any privilege has been breached.

The hon. member St. John's West heard it then and he is hearing it again today, so I am afraid he does not have a question of privilege. He may have a legitimate ground for complaint and argument concerning the document he referred to in his question of privilege that was tabled the other day, but I note that the document has not been adopted as policy by the House. There has been no change in the Standing Orders and no change in the requirement that is before the Speaker that obliges a minister or the Prime Minister as a minister to make any statement in the House.

Accordingly, I can find that there is no question of privilege despite the unique argument that he has of course brought forward, similar to the one he advanced in March 2003 on which I previously ruled. I know he agreed with the Speaker's ruling then, so I assume he does today.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Dale Johnston Canadian Alliance Wetaskiwin, AB

Mr. Speaker, earlier in question period the Prime Minister, or maybe it was one of the other members, asked if we would convene the public accounts committee immediately. Certainly the official opposition has no objection to that. We are ready, able and willing to meet as early as 3:30 today for the purpose of electing the chair of that committee.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:05 p.m.

Ottawa—Vanier Ontario

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, you will recall that during question period, in response to a question from the member for Hamilton Mountain, I did say that the government would give consent for the committee to meet as early as this afternoon. If the proposal from the hon. member is that the committee be convened for 3:30 this afternoon, we on this side and in that corner of the House consent to that.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

It is very nice that this can be arranged on the floor but of course it is not, strictly speaking, necessary. I know the two whips will want to consult with the other whips and see what they can arrange. However they do not need the blessing of the Chair in respect of that. I am more than happy to give it for what it is worth but it is not required.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON

Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that there was going to be a motion moved yesterday setting up this new committee of public accounts. I know, through oversights on the government's side, I was not included on the membership of the committee of public accounts, an oversight because I am one of the few Liberals who was on public accounts when the Groupaction affair occurred and, of course I have intimate knowledge of the background of the case that is going before public accounts.

Therefore I would seek the unanimous consent of the House to be added to the committee as a member of standing.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger Liberal Ottawa—Vanier, ON

Mr. Speaker, the membership of the committee was established by unanimous consent of the House yesterday. If the member wishes to have his name stand as a supplementary member to the committee, then we would be delighted to accommodate him, but for the time being, once the committee membership has been struck, unanimous consent must be obtained from all party whips in order to change the make-up of that committee, which we do not have at this moment.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON

Mr. Speaker, what I would point out to the House is that I am seeking the unanimous consent of the House and what I am asking does not require the unanimous consent of the whips. I am asking simply to be a member of a committee doing important work of the House and I would have thought that the unanimous consent of the House would permit me to have standing on the committee. It is not good enough to be a supplementary member.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House?

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

The Speaker

The chief opposition whip and the chief government whip have indicated that they wish to have the committee meet this afternoon at 3:30. I am advised by the Clerk that in fact the consent of the House would be required to waive the 48 hour notice for calling the committee together.

Does the House give its consent to waive that notice?

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Points of OrderOral Question Period

3:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

No.

The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reinstatement of Government BillsGovernment Orders

3:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bryon Wilfert Liberal Oak Ridges, ON

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise on this issue today particularly because we have heard a lot in the House about taking action on various issues. It is regrettable that opposition members talk about taking action but are not prepared to do anything.

When it comes to the reinstatement of government bills, there is a time honoured tradition in the House and in Great Britain with regard to reinstatement. I do not hear any alternatives from that side of the House. If we do not reinstate these bills, what does the opposition propose?

We have debated, examined and reviewed a number of bills that are at various stages. We are asking, as the government, to reinstated them so we may continue in the public interest. The public interest is not served by the delay tactics of the opposition. The public interest is not served by the opposition pretending concern about the state of the issues, whether they are environmental or public safety issues or whether it is about democratic reform.

At the same time those members do not want to act because they would rather play politics. They would rather not look at the fact that since 1970, 1972 and 1986, it has occurred in the House. Maybe the opposition has a lot more time on its hands than we on this side of the House have but when something is examined and reviewed it is brought back to the current state in which it was left in order to proceed. I assume that part of the objective would be to hopefully complete the legislation and move forward. That would be in the public interest.

The public interest is not served by delay and it is not served by politicking or continuous chatter. It is only served when we take action and move forward on legislation in which all of us have been involved.

All of us have been involved in the various bills that are now being asked to be reinstated before the House. Unfortunately we have members across the way who are suggesting that we do not need to do this but they offer no alternative. It is very easy to criticize but, unfortunately, they are not prepared to act.

One of the things that we have talked about is that we have tabled an new action plan for democratic reform. However apparently it only is supposed to work on this side of the House and not on that side. We on this side of the House want free votes but I have never seen, in all the years I have been here, free votes on that side. On that side they always vote together. Why? It is because their objective is to defeat the government.

They are not interested in true reform. If they were interested in true reform they would loosen their own whips and allow the kind of votes that need to take place.

However, that is one of the reforms that has been tabled in the House. We hear a lot of rhetoric from that side but we have not seen any action.

What is the process of government? Bills are introduced in the House and once they pass second reading they go to committee. Many of the standing committees have reviewed legislation. Ministers and parliamentary secretaries have appeared before those committees. Members have debated the issues. Canadians are saying that they want to see certain legislation go through but the people on the other side would rather delay.

I find it incomprehensible to understand why they would want to delay legislation that is extremely important for Canadians, such as animal cruelty? Why would they want to delay that bill? More than one member in the House has received calls on the issue of animal cruelty, on Bill C-10B. No, we would rather have this whole thing start from scratch, because that is the only alternative. It is utter nonsense to suggest that we review something we have already reviewed.

As a former teacher, I do not think it is very productive to do that. Some teachers might want someone to write lines on the board 100 times but that is not very productive. I would rather use the time more effectively. I am sure there are colleagues on the other side who would like to be more effective than simply rewriting what we have already done.

I know some of my colleagues across the way work very co-operatively when it comes to getting bills through the House and making sure we deal with the information but we have some who would rather delay. Why do they want to delay? It is because they have no other suggestions and no alternatives. They want to start from square one.

The particular motion before the House is to restore the role of parliamentarians. It is for parliamentarians to examine legislation carefully. This is not a time limit where we are going to suddenly say that the bill has to be passed tomorrow. However we cannot deal with the legislation if we cannot move forward. At the moment we cannot move forward because some members have said that they do not want any action whatsoever.

They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say on the one hand that they want the House of Commons to be effective, to move forward and to have democratic reform when on the other hand they would rather stay pat and not do anything. I do not know what we would be doing but according to them they want nothing done.

The interests of Canadians are not being served by simply doing nothing. The public interest is only served when we are working and when we are working effectively on legislation that we have been dealing with.

What is the issue? The issue from our side is that we want to reinstate legislation, something that has been done many times in the past, as I have said, namely the bills that were examined before Parliament was prorogued in November. This is very simple and it has been done many times before.

I am sure there are bills that members on the other side of the House are concerned about. Whether they support them or not, I think they need to be debated and they need to have a public hearings but his cannot be done if we simply freeze everything and say that we are not going to do everything because we would rather debate procedure, rather than debate the real issues.

We cannot get royal assent on a bill if we cannot get it back on the Order Paper and it dies. We do not want it to die. The Canadian public wants bills to be adopted and they cannot be adopted if we are going to reinvent the wheel, which seems to be the approach.

We will not start at zero. We will not give the same speeches or go through the same witnesses. We will not go through the same examination. It has been done and, I am sure, very thoroughly by the standing committees responsible for various pieces of legislation.

It is clear that because the committees will be established that in this case we will not be very productive if there are some bills that have been sitting around because of amendments that have not been dealt with that Canadians are saying let us move forward on, and yet we are more concerned in some quarters in the House with dealing with the issue of whether or not the government should be able to bring in closure. In fact, in Great Britain closure is automatic on every bill.

I hear about democracy. Some of the people on the other side really send me when they talk about democracy, when in fact they use the most anti-democratic means possible to hold up legislation. They say that they support free votes but do not ask them to apply free votes. Some members in certain quarters over there do not practice what in fact they preach. It is a bit hypocritical to suggest otherwise.

Of course none of this has escaped notice on this side of the House that parliamentarians are interested in getting work done. If at the end of the day a committee decides not to pass legislation, that is the will of the committee, but a committee cannot act if it is not constituted and it cannot be constituted unless we move forward. That is what we are prepared to do on this side of the House.

I think we all have much better things to do. Unfortunately, today we are taking up the entire day talking about whether we should reinstate bills. This is a waste of the taxpayer dollars. People on that side of the House, particularly those in the Conservative Party, always talk about whether money is well used. I think it is a misuse of taxpayer dollars to talk about whether we should move forward on legislation that has already been before parliamentarians. I would certainly commend the fact that we move forward as expeditiously as possible.

As the House knows, this proposal would allow ministers, within 30 days after the start of the session and after the motion is adopted, to apply to the Speaker for permission to reinstate bills from the previous session. That, in fact, is what we are trying to do.

As members know, when the last session ended we brought forward a motion to simply say that we wanted to reinstate bills, as was done before, and that we would do it in in a way that would not come as any surprise to my colleagues, either on this side or the other side of the House.

However it is not new. Perhaps some of the members on the other side were asleep, but it clearly has been a procedure that has been done many times. It was done in 1970, 1972, 1986 and 1991. In fact it is something that is there and it gives us the opportunity to deal with very legitimate legislation. Even in October 1999, the House adopted a similar motion to the one before us today.

Clearly the proposed motion is similar to the Standing Orders that allow private members' bills to be reintroduced following prorogation. I know dealing with the issues of private members is of concern to members on this side of the House and I am sure to my colleagues on the other side of the House.

What we are dealing with today is nothing new. It is nothing radical. It is nothing surprising. It is simply trying to get the business of the nation moving forward, and we cannot do that with the delaying tactics from the other side.

We need to get on with it. We need to ensure that legislation moves forward. As to what the result will be, that is up to the committee and ultimately to the House. However, we cannot do it if we cannot start immediately.

There has been derogatory comments made on the other side, for example, on Bill C-49 which sees the enhancement of the democratic character of our nation by having new boundaries. Clearly, some of the members on the other side would rather us have boundaries which reflect population changes which have not been seen in 10 years.

I come from a riding that is the second or third largest in Canada by population; close to 200,000. I think it reflects the fact that in a fast growing community, such as mine, need to have these changes. It may be all right for some members on the other side, but the reality is that we want to be up to date.

We believe these changes are important and Canadians have said they are important. If we are to have a census and we do not take action on what the census has told us, why have a census? If we are to truly represent British Columbia, which will get two new seats, or Alberta with two seats or Ontario with three seats, we have to be much more responsive. As I say, we will simply respond to what the census has told us.

Bill C-34 deals with an independent ethics commissioner reporting to the House of Commons. Who could argue against that? Again, this is something Canadians have said they want to see. It is something we said we are prepared to act on quickly. Yet every day we hear the other side complaining about why the ethics counsellor is not reporting directly to Parliament. We have a bill that will do just that and the opposition members are still complaining.

I do not understand for the life of me how they think they can have it both ways. Either they want an ethics commissioner who is independent, who reports to the House and they are prepared to vote on it and move forward, or they are not. They cannot simply say one thing and do another, although some of them obviously have Ph.Ds in that regard because they have mastered this to such a degree that they say one thing and do another.

As the former parliamentary secretary to the finance minister, I remember that. On one day members of the opposition would say that we should spend $2 billion. The next day they would say that we would have to cut $3 billion. Only Harry Houdini could probably do that. However, the reality is that we had to balance the books on this side and we could not take, and thank goodness we did not take, the advice of some of my colleagues on the other side.

There is the issue of public safety. We have the public safety act of 2002 and amendments to the Criminal Code. Some of our friends in the Conservative Party continually talk about the Criminal Code. Who could argue against protecting children and other vulnerable groups of people, which is the public safety act? Apparently some members can because they do not want this legislation to go forward.

To me the protection of children is paramount. Why we would even waste any time wanting to debate whether that bill should go forward? It is disgraceful to suggest that the protection of children should take second place to the procedural wrangling of the opposition. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

The Westbank First Nation self-government act is another example. Again, that has been debated and discussed, and the opposition would rather drag its feet.

We want to ensure clean water, a good environment and a strong health care system, issues that really need to be debated in the House. They need to be debated in committee. Unfortunately, the opposition is more interested in procedural wrangling.

I would suggest that the time has come to move forward. The time has come to put people first and to put the workings of this Parliament ahead of the politics across the way. If the members opposite do not support the legislation, fine. However, unless we have the debate on that legislation, we will be unable to do the business of the nation. We cannot do the business of the nation under the current situation.

As I said before, even Great Britain, which of course we model ourselves after, has closure. The opposition uses the word closure as if somehow it is a dirty word. That is done for every bill in England. The parliamentarians have a discussion on one day, then they move on. Here, we talk about different issues. Sometimes a long discussion is good. Unfortunately, the group on the other side is only interested in dragging its feet. It is not interested in dealing with the nation's business. Whether it is cruelty to animals, or protection of children, other than concern, these are hardly issues which I would think there would be much to say about. Let us put those things first and move forward.

Unfortunately, we continue to have to do this once in a while, and it is regrettable. However, we do not have the support of our colleagues on the other side because they play politics. I know they are obviously concerned about other things, but we are not afraid on this side of the House to talk about the issues. We are not afraid on this side of the House to deal with the issues. We are not afraid on this side of the House to let the chips fall where they may. However, we cannot do it if we are going to spend hours and hours wrangling over whether we can move forward with legislation, which every member in this House has been involved in, whether it has been examining or discussing it in the committee.

Let us move forward and let us get on with the business of the nation.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Ottawa—Vanier Ontario

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger LiberalDeputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I think you would find unanimous consent of the House to adopt the following motion:

That notwithstanding Standing Order 106(1), the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be permitted to meet on February 10, 2004, at 4 p.m. for the purposes of Standing Order 106(2).

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is there unanimous consent to move the motion?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Committees of the HouseRoutine Proceedings

3:30 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

The House resumed consideration of the motion, of the amendment, and of the amendment to the amendment.

Reinstatement of Government BillsGovernment Orders

3:30 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC

Mr. Speaker, I thank you for recognizing me at this point. For the people who are watching us and for those who will read this some day, I would like to read again into the record the motion before us:

That, during the first thirty sitting days of the present session of Parliament, whenever a minister of the Crown, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill, states that the said bill is in the same form as a government bill in the previous session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as the House of Commons had agreed to at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed in the current session to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of the prorogation of the previous session.

I would like to briefly come back to some of the comments made by the hon. member for Oak Ridges. He said among other things, “Public interest is not served by the delay—”. I wrote down exactly what he said. He added that we should not be wasting time, going back to the drawing board or reinventing the wheel, because “everything has been done”.

We do not wholly recognize the right to consider that everything has been done. It was done by the old government. Now we have had a new one announced to us. We find ourselves faced with a new government that is serving up to us as leftovers what the old one served up to us as something modern. It is pretty strange that no one has figured that out. And we are being accused of being idiots because we do not want to go along with this government scam which wants to reinstate all the old bills while pretending to be something new.

Let us look at the reality properly. Who is making us lose public interest? Who is wasting government funds? Who has held up passage of bills, held up the royal assent on bills? Who indeed? I know you cannot answer my question, Mr. Speaker, but if you could you would know the answer, considering how often you are present for the debates in this House.

The government over there is responsible for this decision. It is the one responsible for the delays. It is the one holding things up. It is the one asking us to start all over again. Since it is a bit embarrassed at making us waste our time, it is asking its friends to agree to act as if we had not prorogued last November 12 and to continue where we left off, as if it were still November 12.

In the motion, you will note one thing has been forgotten: private members bills. Some of those had got to committee and we had voted on them. But no, the private members bills start all over again from scratch. It would have just been far too democratic to include them as well, to save us the waste of time of starting all over.

At 5:30 p.m. we will start the first hour of debate on a bill that has already been debated. We will also debate one of my bills, Friday afternoon at 1:30. I have already debated it and I will ask my assistant to print out for me the first speech I gave, and I will just reread it in the House. I will not make a different speech, because the bill is the same. I have not changed my mind about it since, and I am going to read it verbatim. That is what I call wasting people's time. It is really a total waste of time.

If Parliament had not been prorogued when the member for LaSalle—Émard became the new Prime Minister on December 12, he could have convened Parliament on January 12. He could have done so on December 15 and we could have been back in session. The then Prime Minister could have carried on until the new one took office, as is normal practice. We could have continued sitting, since the new government simply wanted to take up where the old one had left.

What was the reason for that charade of a prorogation on November 12 and for the recess until February 2? The Liberals now want to make up for lost time because they cannot wait for an election to be called. They have known for a long time that the legislation would not take effect until August. They just wanted to change that to April 1 in order to be free to call an early election.

Given the marvellous report the Auditor General just tabled, an April election would be an excellent thing. It will still be fresh in people's minds how corrupt this government was. Since the new government is a clone of the previous one, people will remember and vote accordingly in April, sending the Liberals back to the opposition benches to be treated as they have treated the opposition. For ten years now, they have been arrogant with us and have spoken to us as if we were morons and only them were right. They will not even listen to reason.

The member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot is frustrated. He rose in the House and said, “Mr. Speaker, I have experience. I was a member of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and I am really knowledgeable about this issue we are about to review”. He is talking about the Auditor General's report. He is very familiar with such reports. When Groupaction was involved in little scandals which have now been confirmed, he was sitting on the committee.

He said, “Mr. Speaker, I suggest you seek unanimous consent. I would like to put my skills at the service of the committee”. Who is stopping him from doing so? The government is stopping him, because that member speaks his mind. He is an efficient member.

Once again, we have a Prime Minister who is talking about having more democracy in committees, provided that committee members are puppets, people who keep their mouth shut. Committees are for puppets. Competent members do not sit on committees.

When a member requests the unanimous consent of the House to sit on a committee, he gets a clear no. Mr. Speaker, consent was refused. This competent member will not sit on the committee. Who is wasting our time? The Liberal Party, this bogus new government, is wasting our time.

What does the government want to reinstate? A lot of bills. Last Fall, there was much division in the Liberal Party. Mr. Chrétien wanted to stay as Prime Minister until February, but he had to leave before that. He could not take any more cheap shots and stabs in the back. There was no room left for more stabs. He was thoroughly thrashed, and he had to leave early. That is what he did. He left earlier than he had planned.

That caught the new Prime Minister by surprise. He did not think he would have to face the music this soon. He was surprised, because his initial plan was this, “Chrétien will leave in February, I will have three or four weeks to form my government and prepare a budget. I will recall the House, table a budget, and call an election”.

The calculations were foiled. Now we have a Prime Minister who had to come back to this House earlier than planned, with the Auditor General's report today to boot. It is a total and utter disaster because they have to apply closure. They tell us that, if we have more to say, then we have until 8 p.m., but we cannot go much later than 8 p.m. because their television shows come on at that time. There is a good serial drama at 8 p.m.

Reinstatement of Government BillsGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

An hon. member

Les Bougon

Reinstatement of Government BillsGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Bloc

Suzanne Tremblay Bloc Rimouski-Neigette-Et-La Mitis, QC

No, Les Bougon comes on tomorrow. Tonight its Le Bleu du ciel , written by Victor-Lévy Beaulieu from my riding. It is a very good drama. I recommend it to anyone listening, it is worth watching.

We will be allowed to speak until 8 p.m. because the government wants to introduce legislation such as Bill C-49, among others. We wasted so much time in November that the Senate had to stop before they were finished with Bill C-49 and Bill C-53. These bills will probably have other numbers because we are now in the third session. Numbers will change, but not the objective.

The new Prime Minister, with his outdated mentality, made promises. He wants to be elected, so he made promises. He promised western Canada four more representatives, two for Alberta and two for British Columbia. This requires changing the legislation. The electoral boundaries that were not to come into effect until August, have to come into effect in April if he wants to have these new ridings to keep his promise and hold an election in the spring.

He thinks that with four ridings he will be able to defeat the Conservatives in the West. It seems to me that he has miscalculated. It will take him more than four to get a majority in western Canada. I hope, for the people watching CPAC in the west, that the translation is very good and that they realize there is no guarantee in electing the new Prime Minister because he is even more outdated that the last one. That says a lot. If we did not want the other one before, why would we take this one now?

With 177 members, the Liberal Party is so weak that they cannot believe they can win in the next election and set up a solid cabinet. They are challenging several of their own members, telling the older ones that it is time for them to go. Several members are being challenged. We know what is happening to my friend, the hon. member for Hamilton-East. The Prime Minister might have a little surprise on March 6. He is pushing aside some of his members, telling them, “You have to leave your seats, we need a clean slate, new blood, because I do not think we can form a good cabinet with you along”. That is the message he seems to be sending out.

It is not very pleasant to have your own party tell you that your time has run out. As for some of the parties, members and future candidates who think that some parties, including my own, no longer have a purpose here, they too might be in for a surprise in Quebec. We know very well some of the people who will be running in the next election and I fear that the riding of Outremont might get shortchanged.

Nobody will be surprised to see the Bloc Quebecois vote against this bill to bring forward the effective date of the new electoral boundaries. That bill would be a great disservice to Quebeckers. The people in Quebec will not be better served by this bill.

For instance, the riding of my hon. colleague from Manicouagan will keep its name, but, under the new boundaries, it will encompass an area 58 times the size of Prince Edward Island, which has four MPs and four senators. He would represent a riding 58 times the size of Prince Edward Island.

In my riding, there are exactly 225 kilometres between the city of Rimouski and the farthest village of Saint-Athanase, located in a rural area, with no major highways to get there. The roads are in rough shape because there is not enough money to repair them. Depending on which side you are coming from, roads covering the last 30 kilometres are not always paved.

The hon. member for Oak Ridges told us that he is kept very busy, because his riding has close to 200,000 constituents. I would point out to him that it is easier to serve 200,000 constituents living within 10 blocks of each other, but it is not as easy to serve 71,000 or 96,000 constituents scattered throughout a vast area. I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that your riding is fairly large, as are those of several members. It is not easier to serve fewer constituents, because you often have to travel long distances.

As you might have realized, we are not very supportive of this bill, especially since, with seven new ridings, the political weight of Quebec will be reduced compared to the rest of Canada. If you look at the ratios, 75 out 301 and 75 out of 308, the shift is obvious.

My hon. colleague told the House he used to be a teacher. In his history classes, he must have learned that politicians play politics. He accused us of playing politics. There are 301 of us here and playing politics is the only thing we do. He himself plays politics all day long. That is the only thing he does, but with the blinders he is wearing, he thinks he has a monopoly on the truth.

I know many people, on our side, who believe they do not have all the answers all the time. We are prepared to listen to intelligent comments, but nothing that would insult human intelligence. This is simply an insult to human intelligence.

It is rather important for the people to realize that those who are wasting time and delaying the process here are not in the opposition but rather on the government side.