Lost his last election, in 2000, with 37% of the vote.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 March 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I would like to get an indication from the Chair as to how we will debate the motions.
Since Motion No. 4, which is under my name and which is seconded by the hon. member for Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup, is of a different nature than those which relate to a variation of 15 per cent or to the deletion of special clauses, would it not be appropriate to debate them one after the other, and to vote on them separately?
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 March 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, what are we to make of a political formation, namely the Reform Party of Canada, which calls for a triple E Senate where the provinces would each be represented by six senators-every one of them, from Prince Edward Island to Quebec, to Ontario, to British Columbia-regardless of their relative population, but not when it comes to representation in the House of Commons? They would like to make this House as uniform as possible, with every member exactly the same height. If they could all come in a five foot eleven and 172 pound format, that would perfect. That is pretty well what the Reform Party of Canada is suggesting.
The Reform Party had better make up its mind. How can it be for a triple E Senate, with six senators representing 120,000 people in one case and the exact same number of senators representing Ontario, the largest province in Canada, with 30 per cent of the total population? This does not make sense. Either the Reformists are for equal representation or they are not. Somehow they manage to be both at the same time.
I hope that Reform members will rise on this issue and elaborate on their view of a tripe E Senate, while the House of Commons can function very well with a deviation of plus or minus 25 per cent.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 March 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the comments by the member for Kindersley-Lloydminster. I was very surprised to hear him say that the hon. member for Cochrane-Superior, who made a first rate presentation before the procedure and House affairs committee, had ulterior motives. He defended not only the interests of his riding, but a global vision of rural Canada, which has been slowly emptied of its population and has had to have its boundaries redrawn.
It is with great pleasure that I acknowledge the presentation made by the member for Cochrane-Superior to the procedure and House affairs committee, which revealed, among other things, how difficult it was to work with a schedule, and showed that it would probably be better to include a clause in the bill dealing with the special circumstances resulting from geographical isolation. I will come back to these points in a moment.
The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster seems to believe that the history of Canada started on October 26, 1993, the day he was elected to this House. Since the beginning of Confederation, we have had nine constitutions, including the 1982 Constitution. If the member had looked at the British North America Act, he would have found that the first schedule to this act deals with the electoral districts of Ontario. The 82 electoral districts are listed in there, and what do we find?
That, in 1867, the founding fathers had decided that electoral boundaries would essentially be determined by county. Therefore, in 1867, counties became the basis for representation throughout Eastern Canada, which included Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. People's sense of belonging started with their county. Suffice it to list the constituent counties of 1867. I will name the first nine only. They are the counties of Prescott, Glengarry, Stormont, Dundas, Russell, Carleton, Prince Edward, Halton and Essex. The list goes on, because there are 82 of them. When a county had to be divided, because the population was too large, it was indicated. However, the territorial division, and people's sense of belonging found expression in the county, as clearly established in the British North America Act.
The riding I now represent, Bellechasse, comprises four counties: Dorchester, Bellechasse, Montmagny and L'Islet. In the past, it was represented by four members in this House-one for each county. Nobody threw stones or threatened to blow things up because representation varied from one riding to another.
It was in 1964, when we began to no longer use the county as the basis for representation in the House of Commons, that we upset the whole system. Now people, wherever they live in Canada, have a hard time identifying with their electoral ridings, which have changed, naturally, because of significant shifts in population.
We believe in the principle of representation by population, to start with, but in a tempered form, which must reflect the history of Canada and the fact it started out as a rural country and remained so for a very long time. People drifted toward the cities, but their first loyalties had been to the rural areas in each of the provinces of Canada-in the Atlantic, in Quebec, in Ontario or in the western provinces.
Today, of course, there are fewer people in the rural ridings and an adjustment must be made. However, does it have to be to the third decimal point to avoid there being any variation between provinces or between ridings? Should we work towards the 15 per cent proposed by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster, or should we stick to the traditional way of doing things in this country, a tolerant and open-minded electoral system which for the fact that the number of voters in a riding which is made up of 50 or 60 different communities is per force much lower, while at the same time allowing for the boundaries
of a given urban riding to be modified to take in new constituents subsequent to an extension to one of this riding's main arteries into what would have been another riding and would have divided a natural community?
We should decide on a case by case basis, determine whether the social fabric is homogenous in a given urban riding and whether adding a block or two would upset anything. If the fabric is not homogeneous in another urban riding, for example, if there is a variety or a mosaic of populations to be represented, the situation is different. Let us avoid generalizations and the Reformers' approach which is to generalize everything, level off both peaks and valleys any way they can and split hairs in their counts. It is an approach, an attitude which, from the point of view of legislation and electoral representation, we believe is to be condemned.
We would much prefer living with a variation of 25 per cent between ridings. But the Reform Party goes much further. It would like to drop subclause 19(3), which would permit commissions to allow a variation of more than 25 per cent because of geography, geographic isolation or inaccessibility. Obviously, we cannot agree with the Reform Party's proposal.
This would rule out a separate riding for the Magdalen Islands, considerably expand the riding of Manicouagan in Quebec, affect the riding of Cochrane-Superior, the riding of Nickel Belt, all of northern Ontario, as well as his own riding. The hon. member may have a death wish, but you can be sure that I will not fly in his plane.
In our opinion, clause 19.(3) is an inadequate safeguard. What we proposed in committee was to maintain the current situation allowing the commissions to depart from the rules on the 25 per cent variation every time they see fit to do so for reasons related to a community's special characteristics or the various interests of people in different parts of the province. The government has considerably reduced the impact. The commission will now be able to deviate by more than 25 per cent, but only below that percentage. This means that it cannot go above 125 per cent. Therefore, this criterion is also inadequate in a homogeneous urban riding.
As you can easily understand, Mr. Speaker, there is no way we can support either of the amendments proposed by the Reform Party of Canada. Could you tell me how much time I have left?
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 March 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief. Where the bill refers to section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, as amended in 1986, what we want to do is not change this provision but simply say that for the purposes of Bill C-69, it should be interpreted in such and such a way. I believe that is all I wanted to say.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995 March 27th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, thank you for recognizing me on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands.
If you read Motion No. 4 in the Notice Paper, you will see it relates directly to clause 16 of Bill C-69. So much so that subsection 16 (2) says:
(2) On receipt by the Chief Electoral Officer of a return referred to in subsection (1) in respect of a decennial census, the Chief Electoral Officer shall calculate the number of members of the House of Commons to be assigned to each of the provinces, subject and according to the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 .
The amendment I proposed, which is in the Notice Paper, would be added to this.
However, when they refer to section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, in subsection 16 (2), what are they referring to? Certainly not the text adopted in 1867 by the Westminster Parliament, pursuant to the Imperial Act which created the federative kind of constitution we know today.
Section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, referred to in subsection 16 (2) of Bill C-69 which is before us, refers to a legislation adopted by this Parliament, which received assent on March 4, 1986. At that time, the federal Parliament of Canada, acting on its own pursuant to section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, did adopt the provisions of section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
With your permission, I will table the 1986 legislation, that is chapter 8 of the 1986 Statutes, to show how this new section 51 was introduced and became part of an act entitled Representation Act, 1985. It is highly appropriate, when we talk about electoral redistribution, to establish a fundamental rule which will apply right at the beginning, which will govern the provinces, and then to say to the officer or the chief returning officer: before making any other distribution, you must consider that 25 per cent of the seats must be assigned to Quebec. It is in that same spirit that the amendment has been moved today.
To make matters clear, Representation Act, 1985, was challenged in our courts. It was challenged in a case called Campbell vs. Attorney General of Canada -which is reported in 1988, 49 Dominion Law Report, 4th Edition , p. 321-where the British Columbia Court of Appeal, comprised of five judges in this particular case, decided: ``That the Federal Parliament had all the authority to vote the above-mentioned act in 1985, that it did not need the support of the provinces, that the proportionality criteria in representation should be understood within the Canadian dynamics of proportionality, where there were Senate clauses, where deviations were made, and that this act, even at the time, did not affect the proportionality criteria''. This opinion from the British Columbia Court of Appeal is most interesting.
Now, what about the way we have to deal with this bill? Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which concerns amendments, reads as follows: "Subject to sections 41 and 42"-where the consent of the provinces is required-"Parliament"-which means us-"may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and the House of Commons". As the Campbell case indicates, we are well within federal jurisdiction here. Section 44 does not specify a particular procedure. I may recall that unlike other amendments that may be made with the support of the provinces, in this case we can amend the relevant provisions through a bill.
When I move a motion in amendment that refers to the Constitution Act, 1867, as Parliament was in 1985 when it passed the 1985 readjustment legislation, I am well within the scope of this debate, and I submit, with respect, that my motion in amendment is entirely admissible at this stage.
We are merely establishing a basic rule, one of many basic rules in this kind of legislation, rules according to which the commissions may deviate by up to 25 per cent and special circumstances may be taken into consideration when establishing certain electoral districts. Establishing an additional rule that would guarantee Quebec 25 per cent of the seats is, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, just another rule to add to the bill that would make it more comprehensive. I submit this with all due respect, Mr. Speaker.
Communications Security Establishment March 21st, 1995
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I agree to the withdrawal of my amendment the way the hon. member for Scarborough-Rouge River described it.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service March 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, there is no need to go back two years. In December, Michel Robert, the chair of the CSIS review committee, stated that Canadian political parties had not been investigated, and, a month later, the CSIS review committee was forced to contradict him, saying that there had in fact been a file entitled "Preston Manning" on the Reform Party.
I would therefore ask the Solicitor General how he can play down the scope of the report by the inspector general of CSIS, which concludes that there is no justification for the use of informants on university campuses and during electoral campaigns.
Canadian Security Intelligence Service March 15th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. In a report made public yesterday, the inspector general of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, better known as CSIS, notes serious irregularities in the use of informants on university campuses and in political parties during elections.
How does the Solicitor General explain his statements that CSIS did not spy on or infiltrate political parties, when the inspector general of CSIS criticizes his failure to issue any sort of guideline on dealing with these political party informants during electoral campaigns?
Gun Control February 10th, 1995
I hope we will be sitting next week.
Does the minister not recognize that his inexplicable delays in introducing the bill serve to maintain public uncertainty and give rise to alarmist speculation?
Gun Control February 10th, 1995
Mr Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. For nearly a year now, the Minister of Justice has told us every week that a bill on gun control will soon be introduced. Last December, the Minister of Justice confirmed that the bill would be tabled at the beginning of the session. Last Friday, the minister stated it would be introduced this week, but we are still waiting.
Since his bill is ready and he committed nearly a year ago to introduce it, what is the Minister of Justice waiting for?