Peter Milliken

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 29th, 1995]

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

[Business Of The House, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, immediately following the completion of Private Members' Business on Wednesday, March 29, 1995, the House shall continue to sit for not more than three hours for the purpose of considering a motion "That this House, in light of the UN Security Council consideration of renewed mandates for UN forces in the former Yugoslavia, take note of the rotation of Canadian forces serving with UNPROFOR in Bosnia-Hercegovina and Croatia".

That the first three speakers during debate thereon shall not speak for more than twenty minutes and no speaker thereafter shall speak for more than ten minutes;

That, during debate thereon, the Chair shall not accept any dilatory motions or quorum calls; and

That, at the end of three hours' consideration of the said motion, or when no further Members wish to speak, whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day.

[Committees Of The House, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 70th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding the selection of votable items in accordance with Standing Order 92. This report is deemed adopted on presentation.

[Government Response To Petitions, March 29th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 31 petitions.

[Financial Administration Act, March 28th, 1995]

The hon. member knows there are no points of order during the adjournment debate.

That continues to be the case. Collective bargaining is a completely separate issue from Bill C-58 and would have to be looked at by both the government and Parliament as a separate matter. The RCMP already has its own labour-management forum for members to raise and discuss issues of concern regarding forced management.

Created in 1974, the RCMP division staff relations representative, the DSRR program, was intended to respond to concerns expressed by members for greater involvement in management issues. That program has proved to be successful and workable-despite the assertions of the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway-at which members at all levels can voice their opinions through representatives elected by the force's general membership across Canada, regardless of rank, category or grade.

Each division elects at least one full time representative and two part time representatives. These people met three times with the Solicitor General in the last 14 months. They continue to meet. The system works well and the RCMP members are represented well at those meetings with the Solicitor General.

[Financial Administration Act, March 28th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Burnaby-Kingsway says Bill C-58 will if passed deny RCMP members collective bargaining rights.

RCMP members have never had the legal authority to enter into collective bargaining. How can they possibly be denied these rights by the passage of this bill if the right is one they never had? He is misleading the Canadian public when he makes that statement. They have never had the right to engage in collective bargaining. Therefore they are not being denied these rights by this bill.

Collective bargaining is not a natural or inherent right but a right granted by Parliament. Collective bargaining rights have never been extended to RCMP members under either the RCMP act, the Public Service Staff Relations Act or the Canada Labour Code.

The Solicitor General has repeatedly said Bill C-58 has one purpose and one purpose only, to confirm the status quo that existed before the Gingras decision and with regard to the management of the RCMP.

[Questions On The Order Paper, March 28th, 1995]

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

[Government Response To Petitions, March 28th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 25 petitions.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 27th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that it has already been ruled to be in order. It does not mean that I do not have my views on what the amendment was. I made them earlier today. They are on the record. The hon. member may wish to re-read my remarks.

Looking at this motion today, the hon. member for Bellechasse should also bear in mind that what we are trying do by this law is get a law that will survive court challenges. He knows as well as I do that when we were considering the bill in committee we looked very carefully at previous court decisions in respect of representation matters in Canada.

We tried to come up with wording that would ensure our bill fell within the parameters laid down by the courts, interpreting the Constitution Act in ways to see that this complies in every respect with that act so that we will not have the electoral boundaries drawn up by a commission thrown out as being contrary either to the Constitution Act or to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act and that will ensure the provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act are not held to be inconsistent with the Constitution Act.

Section 52 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provides that the number of members of the House of Commons may be from time to time increased by the Parliament of Canada provided the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by this act is not thereby disturbed.

The question is will a change provided for in this act disturb the proportionate representation of the provinces prescribed by the Constitution Act. It would or could depending on the number of seats added or taken away in order to achieve the result desired by the hon. member in his amendment.

Therefore the amendment may be contrary to section 52 of the Constitution Act. If it were, it could throw out the entire redistribution all across the country after it was complete. What needs to be amended here is not the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act but the Constitution Act to attain the result the hon. member desires.

Furthermore, if a guarantee of 25 per cent of the seats for Quebec affects the principle of proportionate representation then the motion could require this constitutional amendment under the seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population rule pursuant to section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which provides as follows:

(1) An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1);

(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada;

Given that this kind of constitutional amendment, this kind of guarantee, may require the consent of seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the population and may not be done by a simple act of Parliament, again I suggest this is an inappropriate way to do it.

He knows perfectly well that the Charlottetown accord provided such a vehicle and amended the Constitution of Canada in respect of certain matters but adopted the requirements required by the Constitution for the 50 per cent where necessary in unanimity in certain other cases.

The constitutional accord was worked out on that basis. His amendment needs to be worked out on that kind of basis because it does affect the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House.

Accordingly, it is a matter that needs to be dealt with as an amendment to the Constitution of Canada, not as an amendment to the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.

For that reason in spite of the very eloquent remarks he made and in spite of the suggestion that members of the House have voted previously in support of the general principle of this proposition, in this case the House would do very well to reject the amendment he has proposed and allow it to be brought forward if he wishes as a private member's bill to amend the Constitution Act or wait until the House gets a bill before it that deals with the Constitution Act and the representation of the people in that act. We can then touch on it.

I note that for the record in respect of the committee's own proceedings on this matter it recommended that a review of the question of the size of the House, the number of members here or whether there should be a reduction, should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in the next Parliament when the 1996 quinquennial census will be complete and in the hands of Parliament so that members can look at the representation of the population in the various provinces and make a decision as to whether we should attempt a freeze or reduction in the number of MPs based on the shifts in population reflected in the quinquennial census.

I am optimistic that a new committee will come up with an answer to the hon. member's problem and look at amending the Constitution at that time to achieve that result. We should keep our socks on and be patient. Perhaps in the next Parliament we will be able to deal with the issue.

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister will probably give us an earful on that as well.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, 1995, March 27th, 1995]

The hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister from his seat said it is beyond the scope of the bill. I agree with him, but then so is this one.