Fernand Robichaud

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Yes, it is.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, if we want to suspend the current process, it is because we intend to make a number of changes. It would be hard to say: "We are going to suspend the process for 24 months, but after 24 months, we are going to start right back at the beginning, without taking into account the committee's findings or recommendations". I do not see how we can predict the outcome of the committee's study. It would be like saying to people: "We do not need your input. You have nothing to say, everything has already been decided".

As for the hon. member's concern that we could be tempted to resort to patronage, I can assure him that this is not what we have in mind. The process for selecting commissions is not open to this type of action and we have no intention of making changes in that regard. However, the committee, which is made up of representatives of all parties in this House, could make all kinds of recommendations and observations.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it is certainly not our intention to rush the bill, in the words of the hon. member who just spoke. We simply want to avoid a process like the one now under way, that is holding hearings where members or representatives of organizations, associations and municipalities wishing to make submissions to commissions must give notice, prepare their submissions and then appear before the commissions, the operations of which we are proposing to abolish. If we suspend the entire process, all of this work will have been for nothing. We simply want to save money by putting a stop to the process as soon as possible.

As for the public's participation, we want their input. We want the public to have an opportunity to express their views because when the matter comes before the House committee, the public will certainly be asked to propose ways of changing the process. The committee will also likely consider the possibility of capping the number of seats in the House at the current level of 295. Clearly, this is what the Reform Party members want, but the government is not prepared at this time to say that it will cap the number of seats at 295.

First, we want to get the public's opinion on this process, if it comes to that. I assure you that we want to encourage public input in the readjustment of electoral boundaries any way we can.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would just like to make a few remarks about the bill before us today. Of course, this bill raises fundamental issues that go to the heart of our democratic system and, as members of Parliament, we must admit the importance of these issues.

It must also be said that the process for redrawing the boundaries of electoral districts has been in place since 1964. On examining how the present system operates, we clearly see that it has several shortcomings. First, the commissions are not required to hold consultations before publishing their proposals. Second, the commissions are not required to give reasons for their proposals. Third, the criteria that the commissions must follow in setting the boundaries of electoral districts are very general.

Depending on the approach taken by the commissions, the results can vary considerably from one province to another. If we look at the proposals put forward by the commission for the province of New Brunswick, we see that the commissions can make recommendations which certainly do not represent the interests of the people of New Brunswick in this case. We received a map making really major changes, where we lose a riding in the north of the province and other ridings bring together communities that do not have affinities or common interests.

The criteria are so broad that one of the commissioners from New Brunswick told me what he thought of the proposed map for New Brunswick. He did not agree with the commission's proposal even though he was one of the commissioners, but the commission could only put forward a single proposal. He told us that he had been unable to influence the people on the commission to be a little more reasonable.

What we would like to do in readjusting electoral boundaries is just that, propose reasonable changes instead of turning the whole system upside down.

Finally, based on the existing formula, described in section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867, the number of seats in the House of Commons will increase from 295 to 301 as result of the 1991 census, and that concerns me in light of current fiscal restraints.

I have heard several members today express concern about the extra expenses the government and the people of Canada will incur if the number of seats does increase. Members from the Reform Party have indicated that this issue should be examined.

I will point out to the Reform Party members that the only thing to do about this steady increase in the number of seats is to suspend the procedure and review it, as we are suggesting.

I also heard members say that we are trying to prevent public participation in the process. On the contrary! We want to open it up, so that the people from all over Canada can speak on this 30 year-old procedure. I think it is justified.

In short, there is certainly no general agreement about the current procedure for readjusting the number of seats and electoral boundaries. The time has come to subject all elements of the present system to a thorough review, which has not been done, as I said earlier, since 1964. That is why the government has introduced the Act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. As mentioned earlier, this bill would suspend the procedure for twenty-four months.

Mr. Speaker, to give all members the opportunity to speak on this bill and go ahead and suspend the current procedure-

I therefore move:

That, pursuant to Standing Order 26, the House continue to sit beyond the ordinary time of adjournment for the purpose of considering the second reading stage of Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operations of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees Of The House, February 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, consultations are under way and we are not ready to give consent before we hear the result of these consultations.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the next speaker will not have time to finish his speech. I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to allow him to finish his 10-minute speech before the question is put to a vote.

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I find it very depressing to listen to the speeches of Bloc Quebecois members. They are painting a very gloomy picture of Quebec and making it out to be the most miserable place in the world. Truthfully, I would be most unhappy if I had to live there.

Would Bloc members not be better off singing the praises of Quebec expertise, and giving examples of the achievements of Quebec industries which are recognized around the world? Does the hon. member not think that if he spoke in a more positive tone, if he praised Quebec's merits, then businesses would consider relocating to the province, which would result in job creation and improve the lot of Quebecers? Does he not want the same thing as we want?

[The Budget, February 24th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, it has been agreed that hon. members on this side of the House, in other words, the Liberal members, will share their 20-minute speaking time, which means two periods of 10 minutes, with the exception of the ministers who will use the full 20 minutes.

[Supply, February 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will deal only with the points raised by my hon. colleague. There are indeed several ways issues raised by Canadians in their petitions can be brought before the members of this House, but to create the expectation perhaps that every petition could be taken up in this House would mean devoting a lot of time to issues which are often of very regional in nature.

However, I believe at the same time that petitions should be tabled and I would certainly be willing to consider proposals from the House committee presently reviewing the whole petition presentation procedure, if it were to suggest a better way to respond to petitions and in fact meet the expectations of the petitioners.