Peter Adams

[The Budget, February 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry.

Yesterday's budget established a path for solid economic growth. It lived up to the commitments that were made in the election. One of those commitments was job creation through small and medium size businesses.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry expand on what the budget does to address the concerns of small and medium size business?

[Petitions, February 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by over 400 residents of the County of Peterborough, many of whom I know personally.

They point out that the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, has allowed Bell Canada to increase local area calling rates by $2 per month for each of 1995, 1996 and 1997, which represents an increase of approximately 50 per cent over three years. They point out that the proposed increases far exceed the cost of living index and that the proposed savings in long distance rates will be of little benefit to the majority of senior citizens receiving the guaranteed income supplement and other low income individuals.

Therefore, these petitioners request that Parliament urge the CRTC to require Bell Canada to file a plan that will address the issues of accessibility to local telephone service and the affordability of local calling rates for senior citizens who are receiving the guaranteed income supplement as well as other low income individuals in our community.

[Member For Ottawa-Vanier, February 14th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure as president of the Liberal caucus of Eastern Ontario to welcome our new colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier. Even though he has not yet been sworn in as a member of Parliament, Mr. Bélanger attended our caucus meeting at 7.45 this morning.

Our new colleague brings a great deal of valuable business and political experience to Parliament. He has worked on the Hill. He knows Ottawa and the national capital region well.

It must be rare for a new MP to attend an official meeting before breakfast on the morning after a tough election campaign.

Mr. Bélanger's willingness to serve augers well for the future of this House. The positive results of all last evening's byelections auger well for the future of Canada.

Bienvenue and welcome to the new member for Ottawa-Vanier, Mauril Bélanger.

[Research And Development, February 13th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for Science, Research and Development.

In these difficult budgetary times I am deeply concerned about the risk of erosion of national institutions and processes. One example is our ability to do research and to train researchers in our national centres and ministries and in our colleges and universities.

Can the minister assure us that he will nurture Canada's capacity to conduct creative research and to train young researchers?

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see this matter of representation in terms of seats and in terms of furniture. If I felt that it was necessary to take over the Senate, for example, which might not be a bad idea, I would take it over and there are plenty of seats there.

The suggestion here is for six more seats. I am absolutely sure that we can find space for six more seats in this Chamber. I would think we could find more. The problem is not seats. It is whether, for modern times, an adjustment of six is worthwhile so that we can better serve the people of Canada.

The member is right. I expect this to be a phenomenally growing country in the next several decades and I expect Parliament of that day to deal with the conditions of that day. At the moment we are trying to deal with growth over a 10, 15 or 20 year period. I think six more seats in the two provinces I mentioned is a reasonable compromise to that.

The proposals come from a standing committee of this House. It is not something that has been brought forward to the government as has been the case in the past. We should respect our colleagues on the standing committees who struggled with this matter for a number of weeks and months.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comment. I think the member knows that one of the reasons this matter of electoral boundaries is so debated in this country compared with some others is the one that he has put his finger on, the fact that this is a growing country, that it is going to continue to grow.

There will always be debate on the appropriate size of ridings in a country like this. We have the additional problem that we have huge areas as the member knows from his own province that many people in the cities think are empty but which are fully occupied by aboriginal people and other Canadians, yet in very small numbers.

We constantly have to ask how those people should be represented in comparison with people in the very large cities like Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal and so on. It will always be a matter of debate.

The suggestion here is a reasonable compromise. It is going to involve an adjustment for the next 10 or 15 years of a few seats in the House of Commons to recognize the enormous growth in British Columbia and the continued growth in the province of Ontario.

There is one more thing I would like to say. He mentioned 18 to 67. Another variable in this has to do with communications and the way in which we, the member included, represent our ridings.

There was a time as the member knows when the people in the west all came here and spent their winter in Ottawa. They did the best they could even without telephones to represent the people of the west.

The hon. member flies. I drive three and a half hours to my riding once or twice every week. I am on the phone every day. I have a fax machine. I am on the E-mail. The member is speculating but in 20 years it may well be that members of this House can represent more people even more effectively than we can because of the change in communications.

I am sure members of the House then will deal with that matter and like us will change the legislation to adapt to those new modern times.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the member and the members opposite. I was canvassing this morning and I forgot to change before I came in. I apologize.

It is not possible at this time to cap or reduce. Hon. members concluded that the establishment of such a cap or reduction would require all provinces to agree to the amendment of section 51 of the Constitution Act of 1867, in order to eliminate the requirement of proportional representation among the provinces, and the amendment of section 51A of that same act to eliminate the so-called Senate floor provision which ensures that no province shall have fewer members of Parliament than it has senators.

Any cap or reduction would unfairly penalize provinces with growing populations unless constitutional guarantees of disproportionate over-representation for provinces with smaller or declining populations were abolished. The abolishing of such guarantees could result in a sudden and drastic loss of representation by provinces with smaller or declining populations and by large, sparsely populated rural areas anywhere in Canada, including in the north.

The committee's decision means that the current compromise system of calculating the number of seats in the House of Commons will apply to the redistribution of seats based on the results of the 1991 census. The small increase in the number of seats from the current 295 to 301 would appear to be reasonable, given the overall increase in the population of Canada. Two of the six new seats will go to the fast growing province of British Columbia and four more to populous Ontario.

The committee does not recommend any changes in the structure of the federal boundary commissions. The chair of each commission would be appointed by the chief justice of the province and the other two members would be appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons as has been the case in the past.

However, the bill which has been prepared by the committee provides for the Speaker to publicize the upcoming appointments and solicit applications. The Speaker would be expected to hold a wide range of consultations before making any appointments. The Speaker would then table his or her appointments in the House of Commons where a procedure would exist for 20 or more members to request a vote on any individual appointment. In the absence of a negative resolution, the appointments would be final after 10 sitting days. I am in full agreement with this opening up of the appointments process which has been recommended by the committee.

With respect to the powers, processes and proceedings of the federal electoral boundaries commission, it should be emphasized that a major reason for the suspension of the redistribution process last year and the approval of the order of reference of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was the perception by many Canadians, and I include many of my constituents among them, that they had been excluded from the process.

Many people felt they were suddenly surprised by extensive proposals for major changes in electoral boundaries without having had any opportunity to influence the content of those proposals. That was certainly the case in the riding of Peterborough.

The recommendations contained in the report now being debated are designed to ensure that Canadians have a better opportunity for fuller participation in an improved redistribution process based on the 1991 census. Among those recommendations are the following.

In order to ensure that the public is better informed about the redistribution process from the outset, electoral boundary commissions "should provide general information about the redistribution process and statistical information on the province and census results as well as a general statement describing the manner in which it intends to proceed with the readjustment of electoral boundaries. Interested parties would then have 30 days in which to submit comments on the general parameters of the process".

Electoral boundaries commissions would be required to prepare three plans and maps showing alternate ways in which boundaries could be drawn rather than a single map that was proposed in the past.

There is also a provision for a second round of public hearings on the proposed boundaries recommended by a commission if the changes which result from the first round of public hearings are significant. The second set of hearings could be held if the commission or the Chief Electoral Officer so decided.

Members here will be interested to know that they will in future be on equal footing with other residents of Canada with respect to the proposals of commissions when the requirement that the commissions' proposals be tabled in the House of Commons for debate and study by a committee is eliminated.

The time period between the proclamation of a representation order based on the final report of the commissions and its coming into force will be reduced from 12 months to 7 months. This delay is provided in order to give Elections Canada, returning officers and political organizations time to reorganize their operations on the basis of the new electoral boundaries.

On the subject of the actual drawing of electoral district boundaries during the course of redistribution, I am especially interested in and support the committee's recommendation with respect to the factors which must be considered by electoral boundary commissions. I refer here to community of interest, manageable geographic size for districts in sparsely populated rural and northern regions of the province, and the probability that there will be a substantial increase of population within those areas over the next five years.

They would also be directed to recommend changes to existing boundaries only where these factors are sufficiently significant to warrant them.

Community of interest is more clearly spelled out in the bill prepared by this committee.

Clause 19(4) provides that "community of interest includes such factors as the economy, existing or traditional boundaries of electoral districts, the rural or urban characteristics of the territory, the boundaries of municipalities or Indian reserves, natural boundaries and access to means of communication and transport".

In my riding, the township of Ennismore and the First Nation of Curve Lake were specifically put at a disadvantage because community of interest was not defined in this way in the previous attempt to reallocate those boundaries.

These provisions should ensure that future electoral boundaries commissions will be obligated to consider the factors specified which should result in the drafting of more reasonable and acceptable boundaries.

In an effort to minimize the possible effects on electoral boundaries of changes in population recorded as a result of the major 10-year census which is conducted in the years ending with a one, 1991, 2001 and so on, the committee recommends that there should be redistribution of electoral districts within provinces on the basis of the five-year census. Those are the census which take place in the years ending in six, 1996 and 2006. In those years, although there might redistribution within a province there would be no change in the number of electoral districts in that province.

In a further effort to minimize the possible effect of population changes recorded as a result of the major 10-year census, the committee also recommends that no electoral boundary commissions should be established where no significant changes in population have occurred. If the number of electoral districts to which a province is entitled remains unchanged as a result of the 10-year census and none of the existing districts is above or below the 25 per cent provincial quotient, no commission would be established.

In the case of the five-year census a commission would only be established if more than 10 per cent of a provinces electoral districts vary by more than 25 per cent from the provincial quotient.

I know this is very clear to you, Mr. Speaker, but I would like to explain a little bit further. While the committee has not recommended any change to the maximum possible population deviation at 25 per cent above or below the provincial quotient established as the ideal average population for electoral district as a result of the 10-year census, the committee does recommend the elimination of the provision which permits an even greater deviation in exceptional circumstances.

However, the committee does recognize that there may be exceptional circumstances by recommending that electoral districts whose population deviation is greater than the permissible 25 per cent should be specifically set out in a schedule to the legislation which can only be amended by an act of Parliament. The exceptional ridings will be listed separately and can only be changed by an act of Parliament.

It is essential that the process of readjustment of electoral boundaries be completed so that the next federal general election, which is expected to take place in 1997 or 1998, be contested on the basis of electoral districts whose boundaries fairly reflect their populations as established by the 10-year census that was conducted in 1991.

It would be grossly unfair to residents in areas where they have been major changes in population if that election was contested on the basis of the present electoral district boundaries which were established on the basis of the census of 1981.

I am delighted to have the opportunity to speak in this debate and I would be glad to attempt to answer questions or engage in discussion with members.

[Committees Of The House, February 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak in favour of the government's motion for concurrence in the 51st report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

It should be noted that the bill included in the report before us is the result of the first use of the new procedure under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons whereby a committee can be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill. Standing Order 68(4) to (8) which was approved by the House on February 7, 1994 sets out a process for committees to draft legislation.

On April 19, 1994 the House of Commons adopted the following motion:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, in accordance with Standing Order 68(5), respecting the system of readjusting the boundaries of electoral districts for the House of Commons by electoral boundaries commissions, and, in preparing the said bill, the committee be instructed to consider, among other related matters, the general operation over the past 30 years of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment act, including:

(a) a formula to cap or reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons;

(b) a review of the adequacy of the present method of selection of members of electoral boundary commissions;

(c) a review of the rules governing and the powers and methods of proceeding of electoral boundary commissions, including whether those commissions ought to commence their work from the basis of making necessary alterations to the boundaries of existing electoral districts wherever possible;

(d) a review of the time and nature of the involvement of the public and the House of Commons in the work of electoral boundary commissions;

That the committee have the power to travel within Canada and to hear witnesses by teleconference; and

That the committee report no later than December 16, 1994.

The committee reported to the House earlier than that, on November 25, 1994 when the chair presented the 51st report of that committee to the House. As a new member of the House I am delighted that committees now have this power to develop and bring forward legislation of this and other types.

I would also like to thank the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, Mr. Jean-Pierre Kingsley, his staff and the staff of the committee and all the witnesses who appeared before the committee, including fellow members of this House, for their expertise and advice which were invaluable in assisting the committee in its consideration of the various complex and sensitive issues with which that committee had to deal.

Turning to some of those issues, the report says: "Many members of the committee reluctantly came to the conclusion that a cap or reduction in the size of the House of Commons is not feasible at this time". Significant among the reasons given for that conclusion which appear to be counter to the instructions that the committee was given by the House-

[Petitions, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have a third petition which is from more than 125 citizens of Peterborough and the surrounding area.

The petitioners point out that at the time of the extradition of Lakota-Chippewa native American Leonard Peltier from Canada to the United States, the information provided surrounding Mr. Peltier's case was fabricated by the U.S. authorities. Since that time new information has emerged which indicates that Leonard Peltier was not guilty of the crime for which he has spent the last 18 years in prison. Therefore the petitioners request that Parliament hold an external review of the 1976 extradition hearing and that he be brought back to Canada for asylum.

[Petitions, December 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I have another petition which is signed by more than 120 people of the Peterborough area which reads:

"We the undersigned residents of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following: Whereas babies and young children lack the ability to defend themselves against abusers; and whereas thousands of innocent, vulnerable, defenceless children every year fall victim to sexual abuse, serious physical and psychological harm, maiming and death; and whereas child abusers must be dealt with harshly by the criminal justice system, your petitioners humbly pray and call upon Parliament to amend the Criminal Code to ensure stiffer sentences and mandatory treatment for all child abusers".