Paul Crête

[Lobbyists Registration Act, May 5th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in the debate at third reading of the bill on lobbyists. I think that it is important to reflect on the role of lobbies. Their role is essentially to attempt to influence the positions taken by the government and parliamentarians on policy issues and to defend private interests.

I would also say that lobbyists end up reducing the direct influence that citizens have on their representatives. We have seen some instances of this in the past year, for example the lobby that formed around the somatotropin issue. One company that wanted to see somatotropin approved went so far as to hire a manager who was on leave without pay to lobby the government machine. There are also very obvious cases where Canadian banks are systematically making representations to MPs in an effort to either effect changes or to maintain the status quo in taxes and regulations.

I do not think that anyone is against the fact that lobbyists exist. The same thing goes on in all parliaments. What should be looked at, however, is their methods, because so many things have come about mysteriously in the past which could have been the result of lobbying. Parliamentary history, be it in Canada, England, the United States, or almost anywhere else in the world, is characterized by blatant examples of this. This has led other parliaments to reflect on the best way to monitor this activity to prevent abuses.

Other examples of this have cropped up recently in the news here in Canada. For instance, there is the connection between the Liberals, Power Corporation and certain decisions. Today, it is DTH television services. Yesterday, it was the railways. It is always there and it is always connected with important decisions. Under the Conservatives a major debate began on this issue because the Tory party was very close to the business community and there had been quite a few instances of practices that were doubtful, to say the least, the latest and most notorious example being the privatization of Pearson airport.

During the election campaign, the Liberal Party promised that it would make some major changes in this respect, and that was before it formed the government. Unfortunately, Bill C-43 is a typical example of much ado about apparently nothing. They promised us a transparent system, and what we get is, for instance, an ethics counsellor appointed by the Prime Minister and accountable to the Prime Minister. To the Bloc, this does not denote transparency. It is not the way to establish a code of conduct and restore public confidence in our democratic institutions, because how can you ask an ethics counsellor who is appointed by the Prime Minister to judge the actions of the government and the Prime Minister?

In the past, in fact this year, we saw situations where the ethics counsellor was put on the spot when he could not really give an independent opinion. We would have preferred the government to consider the Bloc's recommendations, including a request that the ethics counsellor be appointed by Parliament so that he or she is directly accountable to the members of this House and is free to criticize the government and in fact any parliamentarian, irrespective of the connection that is there.

We have a situation where a lobbyist approaches a member of the government, the counsellor evaluates the government's transparency in all this, gives an opinion and then reports to the Prime Minister who is himself a party to the case.

This is entirely unacceptable, and perpetuates the image that politicians are always looking out for their own interests. I think this government will assess this later on during debate. I think there is support in Canada to improve the situation, and the bill does not satisfactorily do so. Considering the commitments the Liberals had set out in the red book, it was very clear that they wanted to go a lot further.

Once it crossed the floor, how is it that the government did not manage to drop its old habits? We can only guess at what influenced it. I think the answer lies in the fact that, in Canada, political party funding is still very unstructured. Companies, unions, groups and pressure groups can all contribute to party funding. So, once a party is in power, it is forced to pay careful attention to the comments and suggestions of those who funded it.

I think that the big companies, such as the Canadian banking network, for example, want to make sure that their lobbyists have a lot of leeway.

We parliamentarians must ask ourselves the following question: Is this advantageous for Canadians? It is advantageous for Quebecers to leave all this leeway to lobbyists and to end up cancelling out the direct effect the public must have on the people they elected to represent them?

The second indication that a government has not let go of its old habits is the action of the lobbyists themselves. They are a highly polished group. We can see very clearly in the business of the Pearson airport that lobbying firms have interchangeable people. When the government changes, they have someone from the right family and the right school, who has access to a particular ear. When another party comes to power, they bring out of mothballs someone from the right family and thus ensure uninterrupted influence.

We in the Bloc Quebecois feel that the government should have given a much stronger message to the public that it wanted to ensure that the people of Canada were the primary agents of democracy and that they had the greatest influence on their members. To this end, we made some very constructive suggestions, which the government rejected. This is rather sad.

Let me give you examples of that situation. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of registration for lobbyists, regardless of the tier to which they belong. Currently, some lobbyists make representations to ministers, while others are in contact with senior officials or MPs.

The existing rules regarding the disclosure of the fact that these people are lobbyists vary. These people should all have to register in the same manner, so that we know exactly who is lobbying, not just those who are paid specifically to do it, but also all those who do it under cover, as director of public relations, director of governmental relations, etc. We want to have an accurate and comprehensive overview of the situation.

It is important, for reasons of transparency, to know about all the activities and dealings which relate to government contracts. Lobbyists should be required to disclose, on a regular basis, which contracts they are working on, so that we could have a clear idea of how such representations are made and how contracts are awarded. The process must appear relatively fair, and there must be sufficient transparency to be able to determine whether the most deserving group or company was awarded a contract, in compliance with acceptable standards and criteria.

We also think that meetings with senior officials should be reported. After being elected to the House of Commons 18 months ago, one of the first changes I noticed compared to my previous job was that lobbyists were calling us and knocking on our doors asking, "Could we meet with you to discuss this or that situation?"

I think that this type of relationship with elected officials is normal and should be reported. What is a little more nebulous, however, is the representations made to senior officials. One of the ways lobbyists can exert influence is by becoming involved in the drafting of bills or regulations before decisions are made.

It would be interesting to receive a list of these interventions to see whether or not a given clause has been included in a bill as a result of lobbying. The disclosure requirement alone may even reduce the number of such meetings. Again, I think it would be interesting because it would allow elected officials to have more control over, and more direct contact with, senior officials, thus allowing the people they represent to exert, through them, greater influence on the work done by senior officials.

Therein may lie one of the causes of the current situation in which high level bureaucrats, senior public servants, often seem to govern through a third party and exert some control over ministers instead of the other way around. Much about this type of influence remains unknown and unclear at the present time.

Another decision, which was suggested by the Bloc and which, I think, is very important because money has been described as the root of war, is to eliminate tax deductions for lobbying expenses.

Paradoxically, companies can now obtain tax deductions for lobbying expenses often incurred to influence policies to their advantage even when these policies are not in the public interest. It is a government incentive to spend money on this kind of lobbying, while ordinary citizens trying to get organized to apply pressure often cannot obtain similar services.

We could look at this in the context of the ongoing debate on gun control, without getting into too much detail. There is lobbying around this issue, lobbying by those who want more gun control and by major associations which oppose gun control. For my part, what I see mainly is citizens trying to express opinions, one way or the other, on this issue. But they cannot

exert the same influence, mainly because the companies or corporations on either side of the debate can claim income tax deductions for their lobbying expenses, while the residents of a village cannot.

Here is an example. I met in Saint-Médard-de-Rivière-du-Loup, a locality in my riding, with 25 or 30 people who wanted to talk to me about this bill. It was not possible for them to form an organized group and defray the cost this entails. Still, they had worthwhile arguments that made good horse sense to put forward and they should be given the chance to do so.

That is why I think it would be important to reinstate the relative balance between stakeholders and one good way of doing so would be to stop encouraging companies to hire lobbyists by making sure that no tax deduction can be claimed for this purpose, as it acts as an incentive to hire lobbyists.

How could we finally get a government that would stand up and seriously tackle problems like this one? This would have a direct impact on the way people perceive their elected representatives. Just look at the degree of confidence the people have in their elected representatives, I would say it is far from satisfactory and we have to do something about it. One way is to show all Canadians that there is no hidden force acting within the system, that nobody has more power than they should have because of the rules of the system.

What fundamental change should be made? It all boils down to party financing. If we want a responsible government that will make changes in this area, we have to make sure that political parties do not owe anything to anybody. We have this model in Quebec where only individuals can contribute to the financing of political parties, which makes the government much more at arm's length with companies, unions and other groups.

If federal political parties would agree to this kind of financing, the party elected to office would be under a lot less pressure in terms of keeping its election promises, instead of feeling the kind of pressure that has forced this government to introduce such a weak bill.

The subcommittee report on Bill C-43 is coyly entitled "Rebuilding Trust". The way to rebuild trust is to make sure that the public knows everything there is to know and has an complete overview of the situation, that there is nothing secret going on. The only way to achieve this goal would have been for the government to do almost exactly what it had promised during the election campaign so that Canadians could see a clear relationship between what the Liberals said and what they are doing.

Unfortunately, in this case as in several others, this government has a double standard. It campaigned to be elected, but today it is implementing the agenda of a party that the public completely rejected, that is the Conservative Party. This is as true in the case of lobbyists as in the other areas. This is why the Bloc Quebecois is very disappointed with the choices made by the government and wants the public to be aware of it. For once, it can be said that this has nothing to do with the constitutional or with the national issue.

We should realize that for the federal Parliament to serve Canadians well-and this is true for any provincial legislature, any government-the appearance of justice and the citizens' confidence in government are of critical importance. But as with many other issues, the government has lost an opportunity to make history. It is our hope that it will have the courage to go back to the drawing board.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, I am fairly happy with the example raised, because, in the end, history is being rewritten. For a number of years there was a placard war between the federal and the provincial governments. This is one of the main causes of the current deficit.

To continue with the placard example, let us look at day care. In Quebec, we developed a model for day care services. With national standards, Canada-wide standards, the efficiency of the Quebec system will continually be blocked. And you want justification.

I think Quebecers are fed up. They want full control over their future. This is what is going to happen, and this is how Bill C-76 is so rewarding for all Quebecers.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Madam Speaker, it is important to discuss Bill C-76, because this legislation is very instructive. Indeed, it will enable those Quebecers who might still be undecided to understand the message conveyed by the current federal government.

Several attempts were made to reform federalism. Recently, some members of the Quebec Liberal Party still entertained such hopes in a document referring to a quiet adjustment. The document said that the Canadian federation must be extensively decentralized, that it must fully respect provincial jurisdiction, and that federal interference must end, particularly in Quebec.

We now have the federal government's answer to these Quebec federalists who, in spite of multiple but vain attempts, may have thought, in good faith, that they could reform the federal system. The federal government's answer, Bill C-76, seeks to allow systematic federal interference in many areas which come under provincial jurisdiction.

We had national standards in the health sector. Now, we will have similar standards for post-secondary education. Quebecers fully understand the implications of such a measure. A student loan and scholarship program was developed over a period of 25 or 30 years in Quebec. Although not perfect, that program helped several generations of students, while reflecting the vision of fairness which prevails in Quebec regarding the need to invest in education.

Meanwhile, the federal government wants to impose national standards in that sector. Last summer, social program reform gave us an idea of what this means. It means that provincial governments will have to quickly adjust to a national program which will significantly increase the indebtedness of students. In fact, the only way to avoid that will be to increase the tax burden of Quebecers if the province refuses to endorse the federal government's vision.

If I were a young Quebecer today, I would see Bill C-76 as a clear indication of things to come under the federal system. The federal government's vision is "one Canada, one nation", along with national standards and ways of doing things which will standardize the way Quebecers will be treated, students in this particular case.

Assuming they listened to the Minister of Finance this morning, when he referred to some vague proposals, how can Quebecers and Canadians from other provinces believe for one

moment that this reform is being proposed in a spirit of co-operation with the provinces?

Let me give you concrete examples. I am not going back 10, 15 or 20 years. Take the national forum on health. The federal government decided, without first ascertaining the provinces' participation, to adopt a rather disjointed approach regarding the major issue of medicare. Even this afternoon, the Standing Committee on Finance heard officials representing the National Federation of Nurses' Unions, who said that the forum does not at all meet the needs identified, nor does it solve the problems related to Canada's health care system.

The bottom line is that, if a business in the private sector managed the health issue, for example, like the federal government does, it would have gone bankrupt ages ago, because the government has increasingly been asking the people out there on the front, those who have to deal with the problems, workers in the health care sector, nurses, auxiliary workers, doctors and employees of community service centres to make a personal effort and to find creative ways to do more with less. But the federal government did not think it was necessary in this case to secure the co-operation of the provinces or of the people who run the daily operations. A business that worked that way in the private sector would not last a year because that approach is totally unrealistic and incapable of meeting the needs of the industry, and it would find itself in the same situation as the government now finds itself.

How has the federal government managed to keep things running this way for so many years? It has succeeded because it has borrowed from future generations. Using slightly artificial means, it financed a health care system because that was what the people wanted. But the federal government also taxed, and Claude Castonguay, who can be called the father of the current health care system in Quebec, made this point well in an article for La Presse . He said in that article that the federal government exerted an irresistible pressure on provincial governments to commit themselves to the principles of universality and accessibility, by offering to pay for half of the provinces' costs. But, now that the system is bankrupt, Ottawa does not propose the solution put forth by Mr. Castonguay, which is to co-operate to resolve the problem. Instead, Ottawa decided to retain only its role as referee, whereby, paradoxically, even though it has significantly reduced funding, it will still be able to impose national standards.

It will be able to treat people like the owner of an apartment building who has had a good relationship with a tenant for several years and has offered that tenant certain services, for free, which he or she could not afford, mostly because the owner had extra money sitting around. Suddenly, the owner, this endless source of funds, says: For next year, effective tomorrow morning, I am reducing my heating subsidy by 15 per cent. I am certain that you, as tenants, will all be able to find a way to continue to live comfortably under these conditions and that we will continue to get along just fine.

Faced with such a situation, the tenants, or the provinces, may well try for several years to make the necessary adjustments. But, in the mid term, it is inevitable that the federal government's choice will lead to a balkanization of our social programs. It will have exactly the opposite effect. That is because the federal government is no longer capable of providing the financial support for which it took responsibility, in an artificial manner, in the past. Today, it has offloaded the bill for its social programs, without handing over the responsibility for those programs as well. That is quite an achievement. It has decided that the provinces can make up their own minds how they want to finance these programs but at the same time, they will have to meet certain requirements that do not necessarily reflect their needs.

Briefly, Bill C-76 has killed any hope for renewed federalism. The federal government is stretched to the limit. It tried to finance these programs by borrowing money which, in turn, added to our cumulative debt, but today, it is no longer in control. It is at the mercy of international lenders, and we now find it is unable to provide adequate services. How did we get into this mess?

How come our system no longer makes sense? The trouble is that unlike many other countries, we did not have a chance to adjust our constitutional responsibilities to the market situation and to what is going on in the real world. This has led to the absurd situation we have today, where the federal government tables a bill that drastically changes the rules of the game without making the constitutional changes that should accompany this kind of decision.

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment to the member. Try cutting anybody's budget by 15 per cent and telling them that they have all the flexibility in the world to do what they want with what is left. There is something wrong with this approach, which will inevitably lead to the balkanization of Canada.

The Council of Canadians, an organization certainly that cannot be called separatist, told the finance committee last

week, concerning this bill, that if the federal government wants to impose national standards without providing the necessary funding, it will simply come up against a wall of negativity from the provinces.

The federal government cannot ask the provinces to maintain Canadian standards if they do not have the money to do so. And they will not have the money to do so. As the saying goes, "once bitten, twice shy". How can the provinces, which were humiliated once by the oh so wise federal government when it decided to hold a forum on health without making sure of the provinces' participation, how can they agree to take part in a process that is biased from the start?

[Supply, May 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed with the remarks made by the member who just said that Quebec is the country's poorest province because of eight to ten months of Parti Quebecois government. This province has been a part of Canada for 128 years and, before the PQ took office, we had ten years of provincial Liberal government, which proves that federalism is neither desirable nor cost-effective for Quebec.

Furthermore, it is one of the basic reasons why we will separate from Canada. It is very important to us to become responsible for our own development and to stop relying on transfer payments. In this respect, the federal government is sending us a most interesting message, saying that it can no longer borrow funds at the expense of future generations as it has done for the last twenty years.

You are trying to hide this behind a transfer of responsibilities to the provinces. Try this in any other area, Madam-

[Lobbyists Registration Act, April 25th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think it is important, in considering the motions proposed at the report stage of Bill C-43 on lobbyists' registration, to go back to the definition of lobbyist. Without reading the definition in the dictionary, I can say that a lobbyist is a person who gets paid to influence government decisions to the benefit of his employer, who can be a person or a company. For example, lobbyists are hired by the Canadian Bankers' Association to ensure that Canadian banks do not pay more taxes. Employers rely on public relations experts who make these kinds of representations. Another example is the courier companies that would like to break the monopoly enjoyed by Canada Post and make representations to that effect to members of Parliament.

We can see right away that this has a very long history. It involves what I would call the dark side of a politician's life. That is why it is very important, in dealing with this issue, to preserve openness so that ordinary citizens can see very clearly that elected officials responsible for running the government are free of any dishonest or undue influence. Legislation in this area must be very clear and there must be specific rules to ensure openness. The key principle is that decisions must not only be proper, they must also be made openly and legally without any undue influence.

This has an impact not only on the quality of decisions but also on the quality of democratic life in any society because citizens who believe that parliamentarians are influenced by all kinds of hidden forces on which they have little control may feel that their role as citizens is less important than it should be and that they may not take part in democratic life to the extent that they should.

Yet it is very important, and that is the message conveyed by several of the motions before us. They are designed to improve on this bill because, as it stands, it contains very interesting principles, but the wording does not go as far as it should to ensure the kind of transparency to be expected regarding lobbying.

Take Motion No. 22 for example. It specifies that the ethics counsellor should be appointed by the House. The difference between being appointed by the House or by Cabinet may elude laymen. But there is a very definite difference: Cabinet appointees are actually appointed by people they will have to evaluate later on. This is totally unacceptable.

People know full well that, in their everyday life, if they hire someone to keep an eye on their property and their own activities, they control the way this person perceives them and does his job because they are the ones paying him. That is why a high degree of transparency is required, and it is recognized in every parliamentary system that individuals appointed by the House of elected representatives have greater credibility.

Here is a case in point: the returning officer responsible for the entire electoral system of a country or province. If appointed by the government instead of the House of Commons as a whole, he will certainly have less credibility. The same problem arises here. That is why an amendment was moved to ensure that appointees will truly be serving the people of Canada, not the government, let alone the Prime Minister. This is not a chief of staff or a political adviser we are hiring, but a person who will be able to ensure that things are done within acceptable ethical limits.

Similarly, to ensure transparency, the number one criteria in my view when it comes to lobbying activity, we must be able to hold public inquiries. We all recall the example provided by the Prime Minister, with his personal ethics counsellor briefing him on such and such situation in a confidential report. We could not even have access to the document per se. In such case, even if what the Prime Minister says and the report says is true and accurate, because there is not a strong enough colour of fairness, equality and transparency, the medium becomes the message and, since the medium as such is not believable due to its lack of flexibility, no effort is made to check that the content is sufficiently objective.

I think that it would be in the government's best interests in the future to recognize the need for this kind of courageous action. Of course, we may find out that there is abuse-nobody is perfect on this earth-and we will deal with this in due course. But in the long run, this will improve the system by ensuring that the public in general can assess the situation, have access to facts and conclusions and, therefore, be truly in control of the system. It is important to have an amendment to that effect and that it be passed.

Another amendment deals with the tabling of the ethics code. Let the rules of the game finally be laid on the table. What are the rules and regulations? What game is this? What constitutes acceptable behaviour and what does not?

In this area, this democratic society of ours, one of the most developed democratic societies in the world, still has a long way to go. It needs to get out of the dark and the slightly ambiguous situations we sometimes encounter, such as the whole issue of Pearson International Airport.

An act on lobbyists which would clearly define the various situations would have two positive effects. First, it would deter those who might be tempted to line their pockets when they are not supposed to, or who might be tempted to do things more or less legally. Second, it would give a clear picture to everyone.

For these reasons, the opposition must ensure that the bill will be the best possible piece of legislation and that it will reflect the objective pursued. The government seems to have forgotten the principles which underlie its election promises. It now has an opportunity to amend the bill and ensure that it accurately reflects the commitment made during the election campaign.

Let us consider the ethics counsellor, for example. If the counsellor is appointed by cabinet, then he is actually designated by those whom he must monitor. This creates a strange situation. The person responsible for saying that a minister acted inappropriately in a certain situation will have been hired by cabinet, which includes the minister in question. This puts the incumbent in an impossible situation. I am prepared to predict that, if the bill is passed in its present form, problems will surface in two, three or five years, and the next government will have to make changes and improve the legislation to make it more acceptable.

I do wonder about this bill. Why does the government not put more distance between itself and lobbyists? Why does it perpetuate the impression that governments are more or less puppets controlled by secret groups? What is the purpose of acting like that? Since becoming a member of Parliament, I have come to realize that lobbyists can take up my whole day. They can ask to meet regularly with me. They can act so as to get a lot of my time, through visits and meetings, sometimes at the expense of my constituents. Why does the government not clarify the whole situation and make our lives as members of Parliament easier and simpler by promoting direct contact with the public?

I think the answer has to do with the way that federal political parties are financed, and particularly the contributions made by corporations, including Canadian banks. Indeed, banks are known to make large contributions to several political parties. The Bloc Quebecois does not accept money from corporations, but the law currently authorizes such contributions.

If our elections act allows such donations, we are sure to find it difficult to pass a law to enforce tighter rules on lobbying because the people who contribute to election funds are the ones who hire lobbyists. Both acts would be at cross purposes. It is easy to understand why this Liberal government, after making terrific promises in its red book, is not able to deliver the goods, and comes up with such a toothless bill.

To conclude, I urge government members to examine carefully the proposed amendments and more particularly Motions Nos. 22, 25, and 19. Passing those amendments would give us a bill that would allow once and for all adequate control of lobbyists and make it clear to Quebecers and Canadians alike that politicians are here primarily to serve them.

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know where the hon. member heard that I chose to stay here. I think that it is quite obvious from our approach and our desire to stay until the end of our mandate. I think that it is quite obvious given the number of times we showed that we favoured sovereignty and that we want Quebecers to make that choice in a democratic fashion.

However, on the issue of the bill before the House, it is interesting to note that it is not the official opposition in Ottawa that asked for the 25 per cent. The Leader of the Opposition in the Quebec National Assembly, who is the leader of the Quebec Liberal Party, proposed that the Quebec National Assembly reiterate its objective of keeping at least 25 per cent of the seats in the Canadian House of Commons for Quebec and call on the Quebec government to make representations to that effect.

This reminds me a little of the type of consensus we see on the issue of jurisdiction over manpower. It is the kind of unanimous opposition we in Quebec can summon against this. It is the Liberal majority in this place that voted against giving Quebec 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons. It is the kind of results we will keep in mind.

The official opposition in Quebec agrees with the official opposition in the House of Commons in this regard. The Quebec government wants to assume that responsibility, to ensure that minimum level of protection. I think that there is a consensus the Liberal majority must face.

We must be able to hold serious discussions in an effort to address the problems. My father told me that, long before I was born, electoral boundaries were imposed on Quebecers even though 80 per cent of them voted against them.

Later, the Constitution was patriated unilaterally without the agreement of the Quebec government under Mr. Lévesque or of the federalist governments that followed. We are still living with this Constitution today but the Liberal majority does not have a problem with it just because one of the provinces did not sign the agreement, and that is very difficult for us to accept.

However, I did like one element of the presentation by the hon. member across the way. He said that we should sit down and negotiate. I think he should speak with his leader and all Liberal members because it is obvious that the leader of the government has repeatedly denied the need to amend the Constitution.

It is clear that the current Prime Minister is trying to make Quebecers forget their own reality by providing good government for both Canadians and Quebecers. According to the figures we got earlier today, we are for the first time in 125 years the province with the largest number of poor people in Canada. This kind of situation calls for fundamental changes. If the system has produced such results for 125 years, the only solution, in my opinion, is to get out.

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, at the start of this the last statement on this bill, I would like to identify my reasons for opposing it.

First, the Bloc Quebecois was elected to defend Quebec's interests and to promote sovereignty. Personally, as a member, I said, obviously, that I wanted to protect the interests of the people in my part of the country.

When the electoral map is to be redrawn resulting in the disappearance of one of the five ridings of eastern Quebec-be it Gaspé, Bonaventure-Îles-de-la-Madeleine or Matane-Matapédia-or a change to the riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup or Rimouski-Témiscouata, I believe it is important that all members of this House understand the need for legislation permitting true representation of the people, one that would not be simply based on a mathematical computation.

To this end, while we have been in this House, we have made representations to the electoral boundaries commission, we have spoken during second reading, we appeared before the standing committee. After all that, I would once again ask people to make sure that consideration is given to a region's natural configuration in the make-up of federal ridings, if the federal map is to be used again.

I gave as an example my riding of Kamouraska-Rivière-du-Loup. If the electoral map were ever changed, I would like the people in the RCMs concerned to be asked what riding they would like to be in in order to be sure that people are where they want to be and not stuck somewhere as the result of mathematical or geographical calculations that have nothing to do with reality.

When changing electoral boundaries, we are reminded of the past a bit-very large ridings across Canada with a scattered population that is difficult to reach. In the past, there have even been protected ridings in Quebec to ensure better representation for anglophones in the Eastern Townships. However, when we consider the electoral map as one of the tools of democracy for the future, we must ensure it provides for better representation and that it is an effective tool for the exercise of democracy.

I have been a member for a year and a half. I think all members of this House think the same way. The work here is apportioned fairly well. Whether we come from a large or a small riding, area-wise, our work is quite similar. However, it is another matter when we are talking about our work in our ridings. Some ridings are located right downtown, a few streets away from each other, whereas the one I represent encompasses a total of 55 municipalities. There are even ridings with 80 municipalities. This all affects the work of MPs and the way they will go about doing it.

The number of municipalities is not the only issue. We should also consider the extent to which government services are spread out in a riding. MPs must try to compensate, particularly in rural areas. In major centres, all of the government services can be found; people in those ridings can always find the office which can provide them such and such a service. But for people in rural areas, the MP's office is often the only resource they have to help them locate the government services they need. The workload, therefore, is heavier and when a riding is particularly large, this obviously has an impact on the amount of work to be done.

Therefore, it is very important that we take into consideration the size of the territory covered if we want to ensure that MPs will be able to represent their electorate well. They must also be able to see their constituents regularly.

Other important factors which must be taken into account are activity and industrial sectors. For example, this week, we had an opposition day on agriculture. If we move closer to basing representation purely on demographic considerations, the impact of the agricultural sector will be reduced, the impact of MPs representing such ridings will also be reduced, and even society as a whole will be negatively affected because agriculture has an impact on the population as a whole.

Therefore, we must ensure that we continue to be able to take into account this kind of sector. That is why it seems to me that the current bill lacks nuance and subtlety in the way that the boundaries of ridings can be determined. That was one aspect that I wanted to discuss, but there is another-and it was perhaps the greatest disappointment during the entire consideration of the bill-the Liberal majority's refusal to grant Quebec a minimum of 25 per cent of all of the seats in the House of Commons.

I equated this behaviour with someone slamming the door on another person, an egotistical act committed by the majority and a sort of negation of the fact that Canada has two founding peoples. Initially, in this House, two founding peoples created this country. Through immigration policies and the way that the provinces were created, Quebecers, the first explorers of this vast continent, will become a smaller and smaller minority as time goes by if they choose to stay in Canada, a choice which will mean that they will be a minority without any real impact compared to the position they have had in North America for centuries.

I believe that this tendency to reduce Quebec to a minority reflects the same attitude that gave us the unilateral patriation of the Constitution. There is some consistency there. In the same way as Quebec Liberal members were not very proud of patriation in 1982-and were reminded of that during the 1984 election-the Quebec people told them that they were not very pleased with their vote on this amendment. We were very surprised to see Quebec Liberal members vote against our amendment which, basically, was to guarantee a minimum representation in the House.

I believe that it is something that all Quebecers will remember for a long time. They will remember it, in particular, when they have to decide whether they want to become a country or not, and one of the reasons for their choice will be that they have no hope of regaining the place they had in this country, given that they are refused even this small guarantee of survival.

The refusal to make the Magdalen Islands a special case, and consider it a separate riding, is another disappointment, even if it does not have the same national significance. This shows a lack of sensitivity and in that regard I should mention that the Quebec Electoral Law considers the Magdalen Islands as a separate riding, outside the norm for other ridings. At the federal level, this riding has existed in the past, but later the islands were joined with either Gaspé or Bonaventure.

This puts the member who represents this area in a very awkward position, since there are very distinct interests. This is clear when you consider the territory to be covered and the isolation of the place, and also when you consider its relationship with other Canadian communities surrounding the Gulf. I find the decision not to recognize the islands as a separate riding regrettable, because a member representing solely the islands could have made a very interesting contribution. This does not mean that there could not be in Canada some other exceptions of that kind, which could be given special recognition.

The reason I am against this bill is that the provincial commissions which will be established to readjust the electoral boundaries will have to apply the three following criteria: community of interest, reasonable size, and significant population increase over the next five years. This is the exact opposite of the argument I presented to the committee when I said: "Would it not make sense, when considering eliminating a riding, to give it the opportunity to continue being represented in the House of Commons until the next census and, if it shows that the population is still dropping, to eliminate it then but only then?"

The situation is reversed; for a riding to be exempt, one must forecast a significant increase in the population of the area over the next five years. This flies in the face of regional development. For instance, eastern Quebec has seen its population drop for the last 10 to 15 years as a result of deliberate policies on the part of centralizing governments which have pushed people to leave the area in search of a job.

For the past few years, all the economic stakeholders have been working hard to reverse this trend. It will take a few years. Demographers say that it will take another 10 years, if the measures being implemented are successful. But, if in the meantime, you take away their ability to be represented, you are thwarting the efforts of the people who want to develop that particular part of the country.

Therefore, I believe that electoral boundaries commissions should have to consider other criteria over and above the three I already mentioned, namely: community of interest, reasonable size, and significant population increase over the next five years.

I have already listed them, but the main ones are the economic profile of a region, its size, the number of municipalities of which it is comprised and geographic unifying factors. These are all factors that should be considered and would, in my

opinion, make for a more balanced definition of electoral boundaries.

So, if you apply to the five electoral districts in Eastern Quebec the rules contained in the bill as it stands, you inevitably end up with a higher rate of depopulation and conditions unfavourable to building a new rurality. This situation is not unique to us. Every region in Canada is similarly affected, and I think the government should really be responsive to this.

In conclusion, after following this bill as it went through several stages, I think that it should be defeated because the government did not fulfil the mandate it should have given itself, that is to ensure that all citizens of this country are adequately represented on the electoral map and that this map will promote a more participating democracy.

One more thing, and I will conclude on this. I think it is very important to make sure that the cost of our democratic mechanisms are well within reasonable limits and that this is probably the least expensive system allowing us to achieve interesting results. Under the present circumstances, the government could have come up with a better mechanism and I think that it would have gained from listening to representations in that regard.

I hope that the people of Quebec will be able to clearly see that, in that regard, the Bloc fully carried out its mandate to protect the interests of Quebecers and respect the choice they will make in the referendum. Either way, they will have been represented in this place by members who will have done their utmost to ensure adequate representation.

As we examine electoral boundaries, we also notice duplication in the representation provided by members of Parliament. In the day-to-day work of members, there is clearly duplication resulting in additional costs to the government. There is also, in a way, unhealthy competition between provincial and federal members of Parliament, which does not promote efficiency in the system. I think this is one of the main reasons why a majority, the vast majority of Quebecers condemn the federal system in its present form and have been trying for 30 years to change it and make it better, but the actions taken in recent years have shown that this is impossible and that the only way to get things moving again is to vote "yes" in the referendum to make sure they are in control of their future.

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on a regrettable aspect of the Reform member's speech, namely the denigrating of an MP's work.

The member started by saying that the choices made by Canadians were not all good ones. This is tantamount to insulting voters. Then, he criticized the number of members. These are facile comments. Indeed, regardless of which side members sit in this House, regardless of their option, the fact is that, as with any group, some people are more efficient than others. However, the overwhelming majority of members put all their energy into their work and try to do a good job.

The member also indicated that we try to protect the interests of our individual ridings. I categorically object to that statement. When representations are made, at any stage, it is always with the public interest in mind, to ensure that voters are adequately represented and to also ensure that certain criteria are taken into account.

I will end with a question which expresses my astonishment. The Reform member, as well as the NDP member who preceded him, both feel that a constitutional reform is essential. Do members not realize that, since the failure of the Charlottetown accord, it is no longer possible to reform the existing structure?

[Readjustment Act, 1995, April 6th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, as I was listening to my colleague's speech, I remembered the mandate we received from the electorate, which is to defend the interests of Quebecers and at the same time to promote sovereignty.

Would he not agree that we have before us a very clear opportunity to fulfil both objectives? By rejecting the amendment which aims to maintain at 25 per cent the representation of Quebec in the House of Commons, the government shows that the Constitution cannot possibly be renewed. The government has not even given us this basic right.

By negating our status as a people, as one of the founding nations of this country, is it not the federal government, and particularly the Liberal members who voted against this amendment or simply abstained from voting, who will be blamed for not protecting the interests of Quebec? Will they not bear the brunt of this decision by the present government, a decision which is in keeping with the thinking of previous governments as well as with the logic of the unilateral patriation of the Constitution in 1982? Is the member not more comfortable with his position than Liberal members in general can be?