Fernand Robichaud

[Crown Liability And Proceedings Act, April 22nd, 1994]

moved that the bill be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Questions On The Order Paper, April 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I respectfully suggest that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Income Tax Act, April 15th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I could not agree more with the hon. member for Roberval when he says that co-operation from all hon. members in all parties and from the Chair is essential to the proper operation of this House. But I would like to add that the same kind of co-operation must be shown by members in debate, when we have to rise to indicate to the Chair our desire to speak.

That did not happen, and seeing that no one was rising in his or her place, you simply put the question, which was perfectly in order. Madam Speaker, for the sake of preserving the good will prevailing in this House, we would be prepared, on this side, to consent to revert to debate and give these people the chance to speak. We are prepared to do this to accommodate you as well as the hon. members opposite.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 13th, 1994]

moved that Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, be read the third time and passed.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, April 12th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you as well as all hon. members in this House that, as we are debating this bill, the government wants to respect the non-partisan nature of the electoral boundaries readjustment process. We want it to remain that way and at no time have we made any proposal with a view to changing the non-partisan nature of this process.

I listened carefully to the member from the Reform Party who just spoke. He said that we were right to review the readjustment process, mentioning the fact that, at the present time, with each readjustment, the number of seats automatically increases according to a predetermined formula. He said that, under the present circumstances, it would desirable for us to consider whether or not this number should keep on increasing, which of course leads to further government expenditures.

On the other hand, he also said that we want to limit the debate and that we want to proceed with great haste. Of course, we want to proceed with haste to stop the ongoing process for the simple reason that it costs a lot of money. It is true that a certain amount of work has already been done, but should the process be allowed to go on, even more money will be spent. This is why we tried to come to an agreement with the opposition parties to carry on the review of the process as quickly as possible. I was also surprised to hear the member mention that the government wanted to take advantage of its majority,

the heavy-handed way of the government to try to push this legislation through.

However, there is a contradiction here in that the member says that we want to push this through in a heavy-handed fashion. The member then turns around and argues that if the government were to be heavy-handed in saying that we would limit the number of members in this House at the present level, he would agree with that. I see a contradiction there. It is definitely not the intention of the government to be heavy-handed in that fashion.

We do not want to limit the debate. We want to make sure that every group, every organization and every person who has something to say on the revision of the process has the opportunity to make his presentation.

We have problems with the proposed amendments. There again I am surprised. When we drafted this bill and consulted the opposition parties, we proposed an 18 month period but the Reform Party, the very sponsor of the amendments we are debating today, wanted to make sure that the process would be longer; they said that 18 months was not long enough and all of a sudden they propose to reduce this period to 12 months.

We believe that 12 months is too short. We do not believe that this timeframe will cause problems for the committee in charge of reviewing the process, but rather that problems will arise once the committee's review is over. We will have problems in terms of the process which will have to be put in place to implement a new legislative framework based on the committee's recommendations.

We are convinced that the committee of the House in charge of studying this process will propose a solution which will meet and respect the desires of the people and the members who make presentations to the committee; such recommendations will imply changes which will have to be legislated. Therefore, we believe that a 12 month period will not allow the committee or the House to make an in-depth review of the recommendations which will be proposed.

That is it for the first amendment. Motions No. 2 and No. 3 are amendments that would maintain the existing commissions. We would have, on the one hand, a House committee which would study the process and propose changes if needed, and on the other hand, the commissions which would continue their studies and consultations, not in relation to the process, but in relation to the readjustment of electoral boundaries.

We believe that this would be a waste of money, and I am surprised that the hon. member who proposed these amendments would want to waste several million dollars. He said that the commissions are already in place, that they have done some

work, and that their abolition would mean the loss of $3.5 to$4 million worth of work.

His amendment would mean an even greater loss, and if we decided at some point to abandon what has been done, we would have wasted $3 to $4 million.

That is why we cannot support the amendments proposed this morning.

Motion No. 3 is the logical continuation of Motion No. 2 which would maintain the existing commissions.

For these reasons, we cannot support the amendments proposed this morning.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member who has just risen referred to the time allocation motion limiting his speech to 10 minutes. It has nothing to do with that. According to the rules, after a certain amount of debate speeches are reduced to 10 minutes. It has nothing to do with time allocation.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Since there are people watching, when the member of the Reform Party asked if there was a quorum, there was only one member of that party in the House.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I can assure the hon. member for Beaver River that we certainly will not do what she assumes we will do when it is time to appoint people to these commissions, because this is a very independent process, and we certainly intend to abide by this principle.

However, if I remember correctly what she said in her speech a few days ago, she did not entirely agree with the current process. She also said that in her presentation to the commissions, she would also express her dissatisfaction and mention certain changes she would like to see.

She invited her constituents to do likewise. The hon. member must know that the commission appointed to review the boundaries of her electoral district does exactly that, in other words, it receives submissions on new or existing boundaries and is not at all concerned with the current process.

My point is that if the hon. member comments on the process, it will be a waste of time. Giving hon. members an opportunity to do so, and the public as well, because the committee that reviews the entire process will certainly ask members of the public to come and testify, is the whole purpose of this bill.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, March 24th, 1994]

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-18, an Act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the allotted day of the second reading consideration of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, March 23rd, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, no agreement could be reached under Standing Order 78(1) or 78(2), regarding the proceedings at the second reading stage of Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

Under the provisions of Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to propose at the next sitting a motion to allot a specific number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings of the said stage.