Elwin Hermanson

[Young Offenders Act, February 10th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in response to whether or not there is substantive material here that we are dealing with, I would concur with the hon. member for Skeena. What the amendments we are discussing today really include is so minor it does not substantially change the material beast of Bill C-37, which is not even a half-baked measure, perhaps not even a quarter-baked measure as far as solving the problems of young offenders and their criminal activity are concerned.

I had the privilege in January before we came back to the House to visit many schools in my constituency. In a free question and answer period students were able to dialogue with their member of Parliament.

They brought up the case of the Young Offenders Act. It was not something I mentioned in my brief presentation to them. They indicated it was insufficient. It has no support among young people. They felt it was casting them in a bad light. They were demanding change.

When will this Liberal government realize that even young people want reform of the Young Offenders Act? Give us some meat. Give us something that is substantive and will change the Young Offenders Act to protect the reputations of our young people.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am not trying to monopolize the time. I do have a following brief question. I would encourage the hon. member to make sure his colleagues, particularly those in Ontario at the federal level, make it very clear to Canadians that they are not ambiguous in suggesting that in certain parts of the country they would abolish the existing Senate and replace it with a reformed Senate, and in other parts of the country indicating they would abolish it and not replace it. I would like to hear those kinds of responses from the premier of Ontario and federal representatives of the party in Ontario.

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my fellow member from Saskatchewan, the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake. I agreed with the majority of the hon. member's comments.

He began by saying that he felt in Canadians' eyes that this was perhaps a low priority issue given the state of our economy and concerns over employment. I would add to that concerns over high deficits and high taxes. However, because of the self-interests of politicians, he and I both recognize the issue has come to the floor of the House of Commons.

I also heard him say he would oppose the proposal based on the principle that it was a matter of interference where interference was not required. I concur with his observation in that regard.

The hon. member talked about the fact that if we capped or reduced the number of seats in the House of Commons, Saskatchewan would have fewer seats than its current 14. I think the hon. member and I are approximately the same age; I am not sure who is older. However, when I was young the province had about 21 seats if I remember accurately. Now we are down to 14 seats and I expect, unless there are some constitutional changes, that floor will remain.

I am not sure what the number of seats in Ontario was at the time when we had 21 seats, but I know it was less than the 99 it now enjoys and we know it is now going up to 103 under the new proposal.

If we do nothing Saskatchewan will remain at 14. Ontario may increase its seats to 115 or 120 if we look far enough down the road. Saskatchewan is losing clout no matter which way we look at it as far as the number of seats in the House of Commons is concerned.

The member correctly reflected on the solution, which was Senate reform. I was pleased to hear the hon. member say that, because I thought members of the federal New Democratic Party were supportive of abolition of the Senate. I know that provin-

cial members, particularly western spokespersons for his party, have supported the triple E concept.

I wonder if the hon. member is supporting the triple E concept of Senate reform, one that is not abolished but rather is reformed so that it is elected, has equal representation from every province, and maintains the effective powers that would give clout to provinces such as Saskatchewan which, no matter what way we look at it, is going to lose clout in the House under the current scenario or under the past scenario whether we are looking at new legislation or the status quo.

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

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the comments that the member for Peterborough made. I would welcome him out west to the province of Saskatchewan to see how well we are able to serve our constituents considering the technology we have.

We have this immediate problem of an expanding House of Commons. I want to ask the member where we are going to put the extra seats. Are we going to put them in the middle here? Are we going to put them in the gallery, behind the curtains? We have some constitutional issues to deal with.

Some of these we can deal with as the House of Commons. Some do not need provincial ratification. This is an immediate problem.

If we wait 10 years we exacerbate the problem and suddenly we are trying to find place for 30 or 40 more seats in this House. Are we going to renovate? What is his solution?

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

Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the member's presentation which of course was excellent.

As the member knows, the population of Canada in our centennial year of 1967 was approximately 20 million people. We were quite proud of the 20 million that we accomplished at our centennial. Approximately 30 years later our population is about 30 million.

We have increased by 10 million people in 30 years. Looking forward from the 1991 dicennial census to the 2001 dicennial census our population could very well increase by 3 million people. We are in the guessing game but it is a fair guess.

At the current time we have about one member of Parliament for every 100,000 residents of the country. That means by the year 2001 perhaps we will need one dozen, two dozen or as many as 30 more members of Parliament if we do not restrain the growth of the House of Commons.

Can the member condone this piece of legislation which does not deal with that pressing problem?

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt, but I believe the hon. member who is speaking is wearing a campaign pin for the Liberal candidate in Ottawa-Vanier. I know that maybe the Reform Party candidate is giving him a hard time but I would prefer he follow the instructions in the orders of the House.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's remarks but I would point out to him that my colleague from Calgary West suggested constitutional changes that can be determined within this body and without agreement of the provinces because it did not affect the senatorial floors and so on.

He did not appear to support these moves, even though he had the opportunity. In fact he changed his mind.

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's praise of this proposed legislation.

As my colleague the member for Calgary West mentioned in his speech earlier when he quoted the hon. member, he very clearly indicated he was opposed to an increase in the number of members in this House. When serving with him on the procedure and House affairs committee I distinctly remember him saying that even an increase to the number of 301 was totally unacceptable. I think he used such illustrative language as we may have to knock out walls and destroy the beauty of this House of Commons if we do not come to grips with the rapidly expanding House of Commons.

We have a growth of population coming both from outside our borders and from within our borders. This legislation is set up in a way that the number of seats are determined by population. People are coming into Canada, about 200,000 or more a year, so that represents two seats per year. Then there is the growth within the country. I am not sure of the latest figures but it may be a similar amount. Even if it were half that much that would be three seats per year. Therefore by the year 2001 the increase of six seats from 295 to 301 may seem small by comparison.

This legislation does absolutely nothing to counteract that problem. In fact it just says that we cannot do anything about the problem. We will leave that for some future body, some future commission, some future committee of members to deal with.

How could the member change his position on this matter?

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Vancouver-Quadra who not only served on the committee of procedure and House affairs but was very active in the discussion relating to the whole process we are currently discussing and have spent some time on.

Being an academic who has been involved in looking at this process historically and currently he speaks with some authority I am going to ask him to take off his academic hat because I also know he has practical experience, having served on a commission. He also knows very well the contents of the motion that has been presented by the procedure and House affairs committee for the consideration of the House.

He served on a commission in British Columbia in the past and who knows, he may in the future if he continues to follow various careers. There was a strong feeling in the interior and northern part of British Columbia that the ridings should be at the low end of the variable quotient, say minus 20 rather than zero. That was a strong representation both from members and from the population. In the lower mainland he heard the opposite hue and cry. The population is growing very quickly, as the member would agree. They asked to have their growth taken into consideration and put them down around 20 per cent on the negative side of the variable quotient.

I know the hon. member is not biased; he is a very fair minded man. However, if he and his fellow commissioners were biased and perhaps all lived in the lower mainland and wanted to represent the concerns of the lower mainland ahead of the concerns of the interior and northern British Columbia, would this legislation prevent him from carrying out that bias?

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

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my rural colleague give his speech. I am also from a rural riding.

The motion that has been drafted by the procedures and House affairs committee in clause 19(2) says that the criteria for selecting boundaries should consider a manageable geographic size. That is what the hon. member has just argued. The very next clause talks of the probability that there will be substantial increase in the population of an electoral district in the province in the next five years. In other words, in the province of Ontario, I believe the hon. member would argue because of the size of his riding that his riding should be quite a bit less, maybe close to 25 per cent less. The problem is that his colleague from Mississauga will also suggest that her riding should be about 25 per cent less in population because she is going to experience strong growth.

They cannot have it either way. One has to take precedence over the other. I would like to know whether the hon. member thinks geographic size is the important criterion and the rural riding should be kept smaller or whether he should bow to his urban colleagues who suggest that their ridings should be shrunk to allow for expanding growth and that they should be on the low side of the variable quotient.