Stephen Harper

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

I listened with some interest to the speech by the hon. member for New Westminster-Burnaby, although I did miss a small portion of it.

I wanted to draw the attention of the House to how this kind of redistribution would affect a riding like this in a population sense. New Westminster-Burnaby is an urban British Columbia riding. Under the current boundaries this riding has a population of 112,510; 16.5 per cent above the electoral quotient established for British Columbia. Under the new boundaries, which I appreciate are not entirely satisfactory to the hon. member, there is a population of 101,881, or only 5 per cent above the electoral quotient. There is a considerable improvement in representation there.

It is interesting because that is allowed for under the current sets of acts that are leading us to this process in giving British Columbia two more seats. Maybe we do not want an increase in seats overall but we certainly recognize that British Columbia is entitled to more seats by virtue of the representation by population provisions of our Constitution.

We will all remember that the previous formulas were not so generous to British Columbia. We will also remember that, as I indicated earlier today, in the Charlottetown accord of only a year and a half ago the party opposite and what remains of the other two parties in the former House got together to limit on a permanent basis the number of seats and the representation in the House of the province of British Columbia.

I am sure that is colouring the reaction of members from that province when they see a committee being given an open ended mandate, a committee of this House, to re-examine the formula and to re-examine all kinds of other aspects of electoral reform.

I am wondering whether the member for New Westminster-Burnaby had any comment on that, whether he shared those concerns, whether his constituents shared those concerns. Since the boundary decisions or proposals have been published by the commission, has he had a widespread reaction from ordinary constituents or is this a reaction he is getting primarily from members of Parliament or politically active individuals?

I would appreciate his assessment of that situation.

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

Mr. Speaker, as always I enjoyed the speeches from the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette. He raised a number of issues which I would like to comment on and which maybe he would like to respond to. First, I would note his concern about regional representation and rural representation and the fact that both he and the previous speaker from Calgary Southeast have indicated the importance of Senate reform. I think that is very important to recognize.

I have heard a lot of complaints in the last few weeks from members who are being affected negatively by redistribution in various parts of the country. They wish there were some protections for large rural and remote ridings and that they did not simply just grow and grow in order to represent a certain level of population. I understand that concern. This is why our party has been so outspoken and persistent in pursuing the issue of Senate reform. That is of course what the Senate was designed to do. I find it strange that some members who are now in the context of their own riding, not the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette but others, complaining about lack of regional representation

and are opposed to the kind of meaningful Senate reform that our party supports.

I point out to the member, and I am sure the hon. member for Lisgar-Marquette is aware of this or he would not have made reference to these matters, that section 42(1)(a) of the Constitution Act of 1982 states:

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

That of course is the two-thirds amending formula. That:

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

In other words, some members not of this party but of other parties who are indicating that they are willing to look at the issue of regional representation in the context of reform of the House of Commons are really inadvertently misleading the public. There is no such opportunity to do so unless we enter into constitutional negotiations and get approval by two-thirds of the provinces. That is definitely off the table. I am glad the hon. member brought those matters to our attention.

The hon. member also discussed his concerns about boundary and name changes in Manitoba. My understanding of past practices has been that it is very common for commissions to accept recommendations, particularly on name changes. I am sure he will want to approach the commission on that basis. I am just wondering if that is simply his own viewpoint or whether he has heard this complaint from other constituents, whether there have been other kinds of complaints and what mechanisms are available.

I understand there will be hearings at some point in Portage la Prairie. Perhaps he could tell us a little bit more about what he has heard from his constituents and what they intend to do.

Finally, his comment about the constitution of the Soviet Union I thought was very interesting and something I would like to hear more about. Of course it is true that some of these autocratic or totalitarian states have had highly democratic constitutions but there are no structures of government behind them to protect people's actual rights. They are just pieces of paper. Maybe he could tell us whether he and his constituents feel that their rights in terms of representation would be better protected by the independent commissions that exist today and are operating as we speak that this bill would close or whether they would be better protected by a committee of this House controlled by partisan politicians.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Calgary North for her comments. The hon. member for Calgary North and I and other members of the Reform caucus from Calgary have been co-operating on a submission to be made to the public hearings in Calgary on April 20. We certainly appreciate her efforts in that regard and also the fact that she has really been in the forefront of making sure that her constituents are aware of this and are able to participate in the process.

The question I would like to ask the hon. member for Calgary North flows from the previous comment from the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester. So far today every speaker has indicated a desire to see the number of MPs capped or even reduced. Certainly nobody seems to be saying they want the number of MPs increased.

Blocking the public hearing process will not accomplish that. In fact, having the public hearing process will not accomplish it either because it is not a matter of the boundaries commission. It is a matter of the formula to which the House in conjunction with the Senate could make some alterations.

This whole process could be facilitated if we could agree on the issue of capping the number of MPs. I am curious as to whether the hon. member has observed the same thing in debate. Why does she believe the government is so reluctant to make this commitment if there seems to be support for this kind of measure from all sides of the House. I am sure she is hearing the same thing from some of her constituents.

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

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should have indicated to you a few minutes ago that Reform members are not presently sharing their time. I had indicated that in a discussion with your predecessor and I guess that information was not passed on. There was some lack of clarity on that.

I do not know how you want to proceed with this particular speaker, but after this speaker I do not think for the time being we will be sharing our time. We will not be sharing our time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtful remarks of the hon. member for Kamloops on this subject.

I want to raise a couple of points with him. I appreciate the dissatisfaction that exists in interior British Columbia. I have had the opportunity, not in a great deal of detail, to review some of the proposed maps from the commission and certainly interior British Columbia has some of the stranger proposals. Some of them are unusual. Most are fairly standard types of proposals.

I am sure the hon. member for Kamloops would agree it would be appropriate in the interim to point his constituents toward the fact that the commission will be holding hearings in Kamloops on May 24. I am sure he will do that.

One thing he raised in his speech that I want to bring forward concerns the legislative program of the government. Does he find it unusual that we are discussing electoral boundaries when the budget is yet to be discussed, the omnibus budget bill, unemployment insurance concerns? Does he find that this is a strange example of parliamentary priorities in his long experience here?

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

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's speech. I wonder if he could elaborate on one point.

He raised the issue of opposition to the Charlottetown accord that had occurred in most parts of Canada, but particularly in his riding. He referred to the provision in that accord which would have guaranteed the province of Quebec a minimum of 25 per cent of the seats in the House of Commons in perpetuity and also that the accord would have resulted in a growth of seats in the House of Commons.

He mentioned there is growth and that B.C. is getting two more seats. He also thinks most people in his riding could live with the boundaries. Therefore would he and members of his riding be concerned that the parliamentary committee composed and dominated by politicians who supported the Charlottetown accord might use the process of electoral review and reform to propose amendments to the formula and the act that would implement aspects of the Charlottetown accord through the back door? We have seen that on other issues.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am rising today on Bill C-18, an act to suspend operation of the electoral boundaries readjustment process.

Mr. Speaker, you will know, having studied these questions, it is never a good time to adjust boundaries of sitting politicians. It is never a good time to do districting. It always causes problems and controversy. In the past these things were resolved in the House through political processes in which the powerful members of parties imposed solutions on the Chamber as they occasionally do in other aspects of debate.

Since 1964, as the government House leader has indicated, we have attempted to move toward an independent process for that. We have had an independent process. The process has actually, in my view, worked reasonably well. The problem has been the periodic interference of politicians with the operation of the process.

This motion asks the House to give its consent in principle to Bill C-18. That would be a contradiction. It is not possible to agree in principle with something entirely lacking in principles.

This bill is an indication of what is wrong with Parliament today and what is wrong with the operations of this place and explains why many citizens have such a jaded and cynical view of what transpires here.

We have a wide range of euphemisms in describing what we are about to embark on by adopting Bill C-18. The basic pitch for Bill C-18 is that we are prepared to bring the public into a consultation in order that we can have a better process for defining electoral boundaries.

What we have is an attempt to railroad for a long time the process for redistribution that is mandated by the Constitution and specifically by this bill, which serves only to suspend the existing process which is about to enter the public hearing phase. We are asked in effect to suspend the public's right to debate the boundaries for which we have already as a Parliament and as a government authorized the expenditure of millions of dollars so that we can turn that study over to the operations of a parliamentary commission dominated by politicians.

Doug Fisher, the former member of Parliament and widely respected columnist, noted in the Ottawa Sun on March 18:

It's ridiculous, even beyond irony, how quickly the newly-elected become owners of their ridings.

Just as an aside, I am as guilty of that as anyone, referring to my riding. Calgary West is not my riding. It is the riding I represent in the Parliament of Canada. There is a big difference between that and my riding. However, that is the talk and is the attitude most of us have here only a few months after being elected.

Mr. Fisher goes on:

In large part our costly decennial census is to establish where the people are so electoral constituencies can be adjusted to reflect: (1) the equality of each citizen's vote; (2) the total number of MPs in the next Parliament; and (3) the number of constituencies for most provinces (not all-some have "floors" against losses).

Some weeks ago the official redistribution process produced the new riding maps required by shifts revealed in the 1991 census. At once many MPs, most of them new, particularly Ontario Liberals, began to protest the riding changes. Of course, this means an attack on the enacted formula for increasing the number of MPs.

The chief justification for sticking with what we have is the presently popular one of saving money.

Yes, stalling redistribution would probably save $25 or $30 million in the short run-

That is an exaggeration. It is about one-tenth of that.

-but it offends the "rep by pop" principle and stacks up some already inordinately populous ridings and leaves others small and decreasing in numbers. The electors who must be done first, of course, are those in large cities and their suburbs.

That is Mr. Fisher's commentary. I am going to elaborate on it. It is reflective of what is wrong with Parliament today. It is very interesting how in question period and in debate, day after day a government member or government minister defending a particular position or a particular bill, no matter how ludicrous the argument, can receive not only an ovation from the side opposite but usually a standing ovation for the silliest of comments. Yet when something is brought in that affects the personal self-interest of members of Parliament, it is amazing how quickly and independently they can mobilize to get action. I am always amazed that whenever we raise questions here about issues like pay, the pension scam or the ridiculous tax-free unaccountable expense allowance, we get hoots and hollers from the other side and the independent voice rises up with all this concern.

The same is true with electoral boundaries. As soon as our own electoral fortunes are put in some jeopardy or our political plans for the future are threatened, government backbenchers can bring great pressure to bear on government members, but the rest of the time we run from committee to committee busy working, approving things, having the satisfaction of merely being present among the great men and women who form the cabinet, maybe even getting some photographs of ourselves for our householders where we can be seen with the leaders. As I say, when it concerns self-interest like electoral boundaries or pensions or some issue like this, boy does the voice of the independent member ever rise to the fore in a hurry.

This is why this is such an important issue for me and many members of my party. This is really the first time in this Parliament where members of our party are being asked to make a difficult decision between what is the right thing to do based on the principles that govern this country versus protecting our own narrow self-interest through getting together and having all party agreement on something.

Many of us in this party, and this will come out in debate and it is no different for me, are dramatically affected by the proposed changes. Many of us are unfavourably affected by the proposed changes. I am sure there are some who will even support stopping this process, and I respect that. But for the majority of us that is not a basis to interfere with a process that is independent and should be independent, is consultative and should be consultative, and by and large has been working and is necessary and mandated legally and constitutionally.

I say that is a very important issue for us. That is the reason we are going to oppose this bill. That is not to say that the process cannot be improved, not to say that there are not legitimate issues that the public wants addressed. What this party is looking for is some real commitment on the part of the other

members of the House, particularly the government, to show that it has some real plans to address the problems that it claims are behind its decision to suddenly try and suspend this process.

Let me spend a few minutes talking about some of those things. The government House leader has today provided a number of arguments for this particular bill and this particular course of action, as did my friend from the Bloc Quebecois. I want to comment on some of those things because I think it is important to say what could be improved and also to say where in very many of these instances the rationale for proceeding is simply not consistent with the actions that are being requested here.

First, there is the issue of public consultation. We, as members of Parliament, will be prepared to consult the public on a new process leading to new boundaries. As I already said, this bill blocks a public hearing process which is about to get under way and which is mandated by the bill. Some, not just myself as a member and other members, but private citizens have already contacted these commissions with the intention of making submissions. In the past it has been claimed that these boundaries are presented as a fait accompli. That is simply not true. It is true that the parameters of the act which are mandated under the Constitution are a fait accompli but the boundaries themselves are not a fait accompli.

If I have time I will discuss what kind of changes commissions are generally interested in looking at. In the last process I am told by officials of Elections Canada that 20 per cent of the proposed ridings were altered in that particular public hearing process.

The second point is that we are prepared to proceed on a non-partisan basis. I take the government at its word that there is certainly no question of the committee or politicians drawing the boundaries. Yes, they want to block the independent commission and set up their own study of the process but there is no thought that politicians themselves would redraw the boundaries. I accept that. I would be shocked to believe that any party in this House would propose such a thing.

It is interesting when we are supposed to be proceeding on this question, which is one of the questions of the fundamental rules of the game and of how electoral law operates, that the government is prepared to proceed with this bill and presumably with its entire agenda on this without the consent of one of the three recognized parties of the House. From that fact alone we have every reason, and I suggest the Bloc Quebecois also should have every reason, to be suspicious that this is in fact a non-partisan venture.

You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that one of the acts of the previous government that I supported was it changed a part of the formula in the Constitution for redistribution that had been put into the act in the 1970s which had special discriminatory measures against Alberta and to a lesser degree British Columbia. There was a formula that talked about different kinds of provinces and treated them differently. When the Conservative Party revisited the formula and revised it and did it in a way that limited the growth of the Commons, it did away with those discriminatory provisions. That was a formula instituted by a previous Liberal government.

The government says: "It has been 30 years and we have a long time desire to study the electoral process. Furthermore, this process has not been revised in some time". I cannot say that I am an expert on everything that has transpired with the bill since it was tabled in 1964 but just looking at a copy of it I can say that it is not the case that the bill has not been amended since 1964. There is a list in the back of the present publication of the bill by Elections Canada that describes or gives a list of amendments from 1964 to 1992.

Just glancing at this I see a list of about 25 or so amendments that have occurred over that period. I suspect some of them are very small, but by and large this is a process that has been functional except for the periodic interference of politicians.

If there was this desire to study this process, if this had been a pressing matter, why did this not come to the fore before the tabling of boundary proposals that were not particularly looked upon favourably by members of this House? Why did we not undertake that process before?

In 1985 we had debate over the formula. We changed the formula in the Constitution which mandates this process. At that time we did not do a comprehensive revision of the process. There was no debate on this issue. While we set these new boundaries in place in 1987 and elected MPs in them in 1988, there was never any study throughout that time.

I was here for a large part of that time. I do not remember any call on behalf of any number of members to have a parliamentary study into this before getting into the next process. I did a quick glance of my red book. I did not find any particular mention in the government's election plan of a desire to alter the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. Last year we had the Lortie commission. We spent millions of dollars on that commission to look into all aspects of electoral law. It and the committee that studied that report deferred discussion on this set of issues.

As my friend from the Bloc mentioned, there is no agreement on those things in the Lortie report. The government has expressed some interest but it is not bound by the Lortie report. The Bloc is not bound by the Lortie report. We have strong objections to the Lortie report. We have spent millions of dollars having a royal commission study some of these questions and none of us are prepared to move on them. Why are we now

talking about instituting yet another study, this time by members of the House of Commons?

It is important to mention one fact here. We had a briefing by officials from Elections Canada on Friday. I would bring to the attention of the House that senior officials of Elections Canada said that far from this being an issue of discussion there had been no consultations with Elections Canada on this bill and that senior officials were not provided with a copy, a draft or otherwise until it was tabled in the House of Commons. That was only last Friday.

This is in sharp contrast with the repeated consultation detailed in the Chief Electoral Officer's report, the most recent report "Toward the 35th General Election", during previous electoral reform efforts, including for example Bill C-213 in 1991, Bill C-78 the Referendum Act and most recently Bill C-114. Members can see the details and the consultations that occurred with Elections Canada in adopting those courses of action.

Let us look at the issue of cost. This is the most interesting for me. The government with its $40 billion deficit is now concerned with the great costs that may be incurred in proceeding with a $2 million to $3 million completion of work already in progress.

The claim is we are going to save money by doing this. We have budgeted $7.8 million for this process of which more than half is already spent.

It is important to note that there is absolutely nothing in the course of action we are asked to take that could possibly save money. Even if we establish a parliamentary committee it will be travelling around the country studying these questions and racking up costs. Meanwhile people at Elections Canada will still be paid to prepare a revision to the process when it kicks in a second time. We are simply wiping out the $5 million that has been spent. We are incurring additional costs and time here in the House and we are ultimately going back to square one on some kind of electoral boundaries readjustment process.

There is a very outside chance, if we can ever get a sense of what precisely it is any party is actually proposing we change about this process, that we may get a better act or better boundaries. What is absolutely clear is that it will cost a lot more to proceed with this course of action.

When this bill was placed on the Order Paper on March 17, it contained the standard recommendation: "His Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances and in the manner and for the purposes set out in the measure entitled Bill C-18". In other words, we already recognized in tabling this bill that it will cost more money than we have budgeted, not less. It will cost more whether we come out at the other end with absolutely nothing or whether we approve the process or change it or anything. It will cost more money. The least costly action without doubt is to proceed in the manner we are already proceeding.

If we can get some commitment to improvements before we decide to flush $5 million down the toilet, I guess we would be prepared to look at that. In the absence of that, we see no reason in proceeding in this manner.

The government has talked about precedents, about previous suspensions of the process. I was here when that occurred in the 1985-87 period when we suspended the process. Ultimately the reason we suspended the process was the same and only reason we have today to suspend the process, because the public does not like the growth in the number of seats in the House of Commons.

In 1985 the government suspended the process for that reason and brought in a new amending formula under the Constitution to limit the growth of seats in the House of Commons. In the previous redistribution the seats were supposed to grow from 282 to 312. Under the act brought in by the former Conservative government we were limited to 295 and to much smaller growth in the future.

That may still be too much growth. Our party has offered the suggestion to the government that all parties get together to make a commitment to an amending formula that would permanently cap the growth of seats in the House of Commons. That could be done if we respect certain elements of the Constitution that require interprovincial agreement.

There are other requirements that would allow us to cap the growth of seats in the House of Commons and still respect the general principle of rep by pop, provided we could get agreement of the House and agreement of the Senate. If that were to be done to answer the one legitimate public demand out there at the moment, which is that we limit the growth of seats in the Commons, in all honesty it would be perfectly legitimate. The electoral boundaries adjustment commissions have no mandate to examine that question. They are simply to draw boundaries under the current formula and under the current calculations.

We can have these public hearings and it is going to surprise many people that what they think they are to talk about is not the purpose of the commission. The purpose of the commission is to change boundaries. It is a catch 22. Either we give a legitimate reason for doing it and react to public demand, or we admit that all we are concerned about is the boundaries. In fact we are concerned about them before the public has actually had any chance to speak its own mind on the issue.

I would point out that the government has an ancillary motion to the bill that looks to reviewing the issue. We will review the issue of number of seats. We will review the issue of operations. We will review the parameters of discussion and of commission deliberation on boundaries. We will review, review, review. All

the bill really does is suspend the process and suspend public input in the interim.

That would be very interesting since the government is a master of studies and reviews. We have 15 or 18 studies or reviews of government legislation. We are reviewing foreign policy. We are reviewing defence policy. We are reviewing social policy, unemployment insurance and welfare. We are reviewing tax policy. We are to review family trust. We are reviewing the GST. We are reviewing just about everything.

Would it not be interesting if we were to take the attitude that until we finish the review of unemployment insurance we will stop paying it; or, until we finish our review of foreign policy we will shut down our embassies and suspend their operations; or, until we review our defence policy we will tell our guys in Bosnia to take a holiday and enjoy the sights?

It is a very different aspect when it comes to being not just a review. We are very anxious to review these matters. I am sure members of the House affairs and procedures committee from this party would be all the more willing to review an important question like that one. Members who are concerned with parliamentary reform and electoral reform would be happy to study some of these questions. In the absence of any sense that this is going anywhere other than suspending the process, I do not think we will take a look at that.

I would also note that there has been some hint at it. We know the real reason is that there has been political outcry from certain members about the proposed boundaries. I would call on members of Parliament, particularly Liberal members of Parliament, to play a different role on this question. I appreciate there are severe pressures.

There are many members on the Liberal backbenches. Most of us in opposition are inexperienced members and are not aware of the process involved in these kinds of issues. Having been surprised, having tried to figure out how we were going to have some influence and suddenly having discovered that Parliament cannot vote down these proposals because the commission is independent, we demand that Parliament can the process.

I call on members of the Liberal frontbenches to educate their backbenchers or their MPs on exactly what the issues are. I noticed the government House leader did some of that today. He informed them-and it is very important to inform members, particularly some members who have spoken in the House-about the fact that this was not an option. We do not have the option of saying that we are not going to redistribute seats in the House of Commons. This is required by the Constitution and we have had a readjustment every census since Confederation. That is an important democratic protection.

It has its origins in the reform bill in Britain of 1832. For centuries we had virtually no redistribution in the House of Commons. We had ridings in Great Britain wherein there were two or three eligible voters. They were called rotten boroughs. Some members of the government are fond of quoting Edmund Burke who is sometimes called a conservative and proclaimed to be the father of modern conservatism. One speech Liberal members like to quote is the one in which he said he did not feel he had to represent his constituents; he was protecting something called the national interest. Of course he made most of these statements from the safety of a rotten borough because he could not get elected making statements like those.

I hope that is drawn to the attention of the frontbench so that it can provide some leadership on it that says we have a legitimate process in place, that we have already delayed it and that we should now get down to business. Our friends in the Bloc mentioned many objections today as did our friends in the government and others in the past. Many of the objections to the particular boundaries have nothing in common. What is good for myself and my riding may be bad for the person in the next riding. I said there is never going to be a good time to redraw boundaries. Other than keeping the seats pretty much as they are, there would never be any particular alignment of boundaries that would be satisfactory to the vast majority of members of Parliament. That is the one option, for reasons of protection of the public and the voter, the Constitution rules out.

I want to mention a serious concern about the intent of the act. It suspends the process for a period of 24 months, which would effectively mean it would be virtually impossible to foresee a situation where we had a redistribution prior to the next election. If there is not a redistribution prior to the next election which we expect in 1997-98, the first redistribution from the 1991 census would probably not occur until early in the next century, at which time we would likely already have the results of another census requiring redistribution.

If the bill for that reason is not in violation of the Constitution I suspect it is certainly in violation of the spirit of the Constitution and might be a very interesting reference to the Supreme Court. This has always been a question. I am not a constitutional lawyer. I would be more than happy to hear the interpretation and advice on this question from hon. members such as the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra. The Constitution requires Parliament to redistribute seats in the House of Commons and has always done so. What if it simply refused or undertook actions which amount to a refusal? What then would be the recourse of the population? Would it then be incumbent upon the Supreme

Court to redraw the boundaries for us? In that context I think the bill raises some very substantial difficulties.

I would also like to comment on the position taken by the Bloc Quebecois on this bill. It is most interesting, but I hope the Bloc will carefully reconsider its position and its support for this measure.

It is interesting to see how a party that claims to be a party of principle, that exists for the sake of Quebec's independence, for the sake of its own ridings and the ridings of Quebec in this Parliament, it is very interesting to see how that party could be concerned about the redistribution process and the possibility that existing ridings might change in the next election.

I think the Canadian public, especially in Quebec, will take a good look at the reasons for all this. The Bloc Quebecois claims to be concerned about the cost of government and the federal system, but they are prepared to support a plan that will most certainly increase those costs. The advantage of this plan is that ridings will not change in time for the next federal election.

I think this demonstrates a lack of confidence on the part of the Bloc Quebecois in its ability to achieve its goal, the independence of Quebec, before the next election.

Of course I realize that in the Bloc Quebecois, as in the Reform Party and the Liberal Party, there are members who for obvious reasons object to the proposals for electoral reform made by the present commissions.

We realize that. But I would ask the Bloc Quebecois to think twice about giving the power to change this process to commissions appointed by the government and to committees of this House where government members have a majority. Quite frankly, I think the Bloc should take a long, hard look at this plan.

I would also like to comment on what was said about electoral redistribution and representation by the Bloc Quebecois member who just spoke. For instance, in referring to the Magdalen Islands, he mentioned regional representation.

Mr. Speaker, you and I are very concerned about regional representation in this country. That is why we support a thorough and complete reform of the Canadian Senate. The real representation for Canada's less populated areas should be in that house. The Bloc Quebecois has consistently opposed such reform, and now it mentions the possibility of regional representation here in the House of Commons, which works on the principle of "rep by pop". I see a contradiction here as well, a policy for parliamentary reform which needs work, and I say this with respect, not only for the sake of the Parliament of Canada but perhaps also for the sake of the Parliament of an independent Quebec, if the Bloc is able to achieve its goals. From the Bloc's comments it is clear there are a lot of problems with their current position.

I see I only have a short amount of time left. I know my party has a number of people who have asked to speak to Bill C-18. We are aware from Elections Canada that the process of looking at these boundaries is going to continue until it clears both Houses of Parliament. In the meantime we would like to use our speeches to educate the public as to the opportunities that exist here and what exactly is the state of this law and this process.

Many members will be explaining how the changes that the commission has proposed affect them. We will be explaining it in open forum here to the public. Members of the Reform Party will certainly be free to say whether they like or do not like those changes and any proposals which they would take to the independent commissions and which they would urge the independent commissions and other citizens to look at. I think we will see very quickly the number of difficulties with politicians trying to direct such a process. I believe most of our members will be indicating that getting ourselves involved in this process without a clear plan is not the method to use.

I have asked a number of members of my party to indicate to the public how both politicians and constituents can contact Elections Canada and participate in the public hearings in their ridings. There is a process being set up now. Elections Canada is already incurring the costs of setting it up and we might as well make sure the public is aware of the opportunities. We can use this particular debate to do that.

This will indicate the kinds of things that the public really would want to see before we begin to intervene and change this process or incur further costs or further delays.

The main reason is to mention that the only reason most people would really want to see this process stopped is to agree that we limit the number of seats in the House of Commons. Canadians are dramatically overgoverned. I call on the government and the Bloc Quebecois to sit down with us and reach a formula very quickly that could lead to a permanent capping of the number of seats in the House of Commons.

We could introduce that through both Houses and that would suspend the process for reasons the public would support and then would allow us to get on with business in a way that would not only serve the public interest and would not have the extreme delays planned in this bill but would fulfil a legitimate public reason for doing so.

Let me finish by moving:

That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word "That" and substituting the following therefor:

Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day six months hence.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 18th, 1994]

The member says ask it to give back the grant that it received to do that study. I think it would probably be willing to do that. In fact, our party has advocated, with the support of the business organizations of this country, an elimination of most, not all, the major business and industrial subsidies. I know individual firms will fight that but we found no resistance to that policy from business organizations. In fact, it is one of the reasons why many of them have been supporting the Reform Party and, I would add, in increasing numbers since the budget came out.

Those were the policies. What I did not see in that list of policies that the business community said were needed to increase jobs was any mention of an infrastructure program. I did not see any mention of increased spending. It was precisely the opposite. It did not say it needed an extra $40 billion in borrowing this year and $100 billion over the next three years. There are a few things in here that are the same as the track the government is on, but the things here are a very different policy than what the job creators say need to be done to create the jobs in this country.

Let us go back for a second to the budget which underlies this particular borrowing bill because it is important to review that and I know I have done this before. The budget is based on a series of economic assumptions. In particular are the following first year assumptions of growth at an annual rate of 3.0 per cent; that interest rates will range in the neighbourhood of 4.5 per cent for the short term benchmark to 6.4 per cent long term; that inflation will remain low in the 1 per cent to 2 per cent range; and that the ability of the tax system to generate income for the government will recover as the economy recovers. It fell last year from about 17.7 per cent down to 16.1 per cent.

These are all important assumptions and most of them are defensible. However, what happens in the subsequent year assumptions to justify these kinds of targets? Growth is projected to increase permanently to about 3.8 per cent. Inflation will continue to stay at record lows. The revenue GDP ratio that the tax system establishes will rise. Unemployment and job creation will increase. Interest rates will not only fall but stay at record lows.

I would point out, as I did in my earlier comments, that these assumptions are somewhat better than the Progressive Conservative assumptions but very much reflective of the same kind of thinking. After a very short time period we are reasonably pessimistic in the first year but after that we can be more optimistic. What we have is a pattern of record low interest rates, record low inflation, a return to growth, not as high as the Conservatives project, and job creation.

What is interesting and I emphasize it again is that overall the government's estimates are more honest than the Conservatives, although still along the same pattern. What is very interesting is the job creation estimate. It is the most realistic estimate in the budget, given the policies of this government.

It is estimated that the unemployment rate will fall from about an 11.2 annual average to 11.1 per cent this year and to 10.8 per cent next year; in other words, an extremely modest, almost no change policy on the total state of the labour force in the country. I say that is a very interesting projection for a government that claims that job creation is its primary purpose.

What this government has done and I commend it for that, although I wish it would be more frank in it, is admit that there is a link between ongoing high deficits and high spending and high levels of unemployment. It has admitted the link for the first time.

Previous governments said that they could keep these high deficits and could engage in gradual reduction strategies, keep deficits very high but the unemployment rate would fall. This government has admitted that as long as it keeps the deficit high, the unemployment rate is going to stay high.

The reason for that is the simple economic fact that the funds needed for job creation are created through private sector investment. Those are the same kinds of funds that governments hit when they go into the marketplace to borrow sums of money in the range of $40 billion a year.

One problem in the government's projections not just for future years but even for this year-it has come up in the House and I want to raise it again-is the projection on interest rates. In my initial speech on Bill C-14 I had indicated to the House that

interest rate projections were already about half a point above, on the long term, what they had been projected to be in the budget.

I said that they were between 6.8 and 6.9 per cent. I apologize to the House if I mislead the House on that. I had written that speech a few days before and by the time I had written it, interest rates were then over 7 per cent on 10 year government bonds.

It is interesting in that context to look at the pattern. There is a very definite pattern that has occurred in the financial markets since the budget was tabled and since we had our prebudget debates when the government gave an indication of its direction.

On February 1 and 2 we hit basically a trough not seen in a long time in interest rates in this country. Let me quote interest rates on government securities. We had a bank rate of 3.87 per cent. We had a rate on six month treasury bills of 3.76 per cent and we had a rate on 10 year government long term bonds of 6.4 per cent.

The government projected in its budget that for this year, 1994, the long term rate, the rate on 10 year bonds, would fall to 6.4 per cent which is actually what it was at on February 2 and that it would fall further in subsequent years to around 6.1 per cent.

It projected that the short term rate, and it used as its benchmark the rate on 90 day commercial paper, would actually rise slightly this year to 5 per cent, which is indicated by the term structure, and would stay there for the next several years. Those numbers are actually identical to the projections that the former government used in framing its last budgetary policies.

The rate on commercial paper continues to be below the rate of the government's projection, that is true, but that rate has been continually rising. It has not been rising as fast as the rate on key government securities.

According to today's Globe and Mail from the period from February 2 until today the bank rate has gone up from 3.87 per cent to 4.22 per cent. That is an increase of 35 basis points. The rate on six month treasury bills has increased from 3.76 per cent to 4.58 per cent. That is a three-quarter of a full percentage point increase in the time period every single week, most of it is since the budget was tabled. On 10 year bonds there has been an increase from 6.4 per cent to 7.38 per cent. It has been hovering around 7.4 per cent for the last several days, or a full percentage point above what the government had projected.

The government has not published all of its interest rate projections for this year, only two. The government continues to insist it can live with numbers like this and come in at the same target that was projected in the budget. I really question that.

What the government certainly cannot have is a continued increase in the rates over the next several weeks. Even since the bank rate was set last week we have had another quarter cent drop in the value of the Canadian dollar.

That is occurring. We know it and we know why. We know it as individual Canadians when talking to our friends and neighbours. We know it as public policy analysts looking at some of the financial newsletters in this country. People are taking their capital out of this country. They are taking their capital out of Canadian government bonds because they are denominated in Canadian dollars. They are putting it elsewhere because there is an increasing insecurity about the financial state of this particular institution, the Government of Canada.

This lack of caution on interest rate projections is the most serious error by this government in its financial planning. We have a debt structure where a huge percentage of our debt is loaded at the front end. The average term of government debt in Canada is two and a half years. The average term excluding treasury bills is four and a half years. These are very short timeframes and very sensitive to unforeseen increases in interest rates.

The government also provides information in the budget which underestimates the sensitivity of its borrowing to changes in interest rates. It is important to note the sensitivity analysis.

People ask me why if all interest rates went up 1 per cent the government says its debt charge would only go up $1.7 billion. Why not $5 billion? Why not 1 per cent of the debt load?

The reason of course is that the debt rolls over. It does not roll over 100 per cent in a single year, but over a very short period of two, three or four years most of it will roll over. The real underestimation in that kind of sensitivity analysis is it does not take into account the fact that the debt itself compounds, not just the interest payments. The debt itself compounds when the level of interest payments and the level of the deficit are underestimated. That is a very serious issue. It is one of the reasons we got ourselves into these kinds of problems.

I remind the government of the importance of real deficit targets. An article in yesterday's Financial Post said that the government does in fact have figures for the third and subsequent years of its financial planning period and it is prepared to table those in August. Why in August? Why do we not see them now? I suspect we will get the same story in August as we got in the budget: The situation is much more serious than government thought and it needs to re-evaluate it. We have heard that story before.

Not only do we have to have a deficit target. Any country in financial problems has to have a debt target. I go back to the fact that the Maastricht treaty does not speak simply of a 3 per cent deficit-GDP target. It speaks of a 60 per cent debt to GDP target. If it is over 60 per cent debt to GDP the only way to achieve that target would be to run zero deficits or even surpluses.

Canada's debt to GDP ratio under this budget even under the government's own assumptions is estimated to rise to a level of 75 per cent of GDP by the end of the planning period. Once again that is only for the federal government and is on a net basis, not on a gross basis which the Maastricht treaty talks about. It talks about gross basis and about all levels of government in the country. These are unsustainable levels.

With respect to the committee and report stages, we agreed to bypass report stage because we are anxious to have meaningful debate and we did not have amendments from committee. Nevertheless I want to mention some things that could have been mentioned in a report stage debate. I did not want to hold the bill up for that, but it is important that we mention it.

Once again there are problems in the process and in some technical aspects. We agreed not to have a report stage debate. However we thought that before we had the third reading debate we would at least have the published minutes of the committee hearings. This is another problem. I point out once again how much the government views this entirely as a rubber stamp process.

I do not have those in my hands and I doubt I will today. Just before I spoke I received a transcript of our hearings on this bill. However the public and we do not have published minutes of the committee hearings and debate on the technical aspects of this bill although we went through report stage and are now on third reading.

That is inexcusable. We are not in so much of a rush here that there is not the right of Parliament and the public to have final published minutes and proceedings of the committee that are relevant to the debate we are now having in the Chamber.

Because of that I am going to take a few minutes to outline some of the technical aspects of the bill. I will indicate quickly some of the discussion in committee and how it might be helpful to the government in the future.

The budgetary deficit is projected to be $39.7 billion. Against that the government is borrowing through internal accounts a sum in the neighbourhood of $9.5 billion. That is the temporary surplus we have on non-budgetary accounts, mainly superannuation accounts.

The government must cover exchange fund earnings of $1.1 billion which are included in budgetary revenue but in fact are not available for normal budgetary purposes and a reserve of contingencies for $3 billion. This is one of the ways the government gives itself some leeway. Although it commits to keep the deficit within bounds it allows for considerable reserve so that it can have access to more borrowing without going directly to Parliament in this fiscal year. That is how we reached the total borrowing authority of $34.3 billion, which the public will note is different from the budgetary deficit.

This is not the greatest control system. The budgetary deficit itself includes $2.4 billion reserves for as yet unplanned expenditures. It is true that Parliament would have to authorize additional expenditures if they were of a non-statutory nature. However these various contingencies of $2.4 billion within the budgetary deficit and $3 billion within the borrowing authority itself provide the government with considerable flexibility to err not only in its interest rate projections but also in various other aspects of its financial planning.

There is nothing wrong with a little bit of leeway. However I would think if we got into errors of that magnitude it would be appropriate for the government to have a system whereby it came back to Parliament. It would explain those errors and ask Parliament for the appropriate authority and discuss why it had erred.

One of the problems with the present reserve and contingency requirements is that they are actually open to multiple justification for their usage. We do not have simply a margin of error on an interest rate or a margin of error on statutory spending. Most of these things can be used in one way or another. That is a serious deficiency of this particular process.

There is another important issue raised in committee which the government should examine. That is the nature of its debt management.

There were some technical questions concerning not only the term structure of the debt but also the tendency of the government to borrow almost exclusively in Canadian dollars. It does so at a time when the value of the Canadian dollar is increasingly unstable and there are risk premiums involved. This will increase the cost of this borrowing to the public, to the government and to the taxpayer.

It also encourages the government in a somewhat less than responsible attitude toward borrowing. By borrowing in Canadian dollars there is a sense of greater flexibility should there be a financial crisis. With the lower yields offered on other currencies it should consider diversifying and of course reducing that borrowing.

I will end very quickly by reminding everyone of the budgetary situation. The government faces a $40 billion deficit. It was higher than we had believed even during the election campaign. The government's response has been the smallest of expenditure cuts, even smaller tax measures and the adoption of various programs that are something probably less than effective in

getting economic recovery. As well it will only add needlessly to our burden.

I oppose the bill. I urge the government once again to reconsider this borrowing and some of the expenditure plans which underlie the borrowing. I promise we will continue to fight this bill and these kinds of policies.

I urge the government to look at its counterpart, the Democratic Party in the United States, which reconsidered in particular the strategy of adding additional spending programs on top of a deficit management situation.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I am rising to speak on third reading of Bill C-14, the borrowing bill. I will not waste the time of the House in saying that we are opposed to this bill and opposed to the general budgetary and borrowing policies of the government.

Bill C-14, an Act to provide borrowing authority for the fiscal year beginning on April 1, 1994, will make the national debt increase again in the coming year, with the deficit reaching $40 billion and the borrowing authority $34.3 billion. This means that the national debt will grow by nearly $100 billion over the next three years. That is why we from the Reform Party continue to oppose this bill.

The parliamentary secretary for finance said in his statement earlier today that generally speaking, and I quote: "this borrowing is a normal part of government operations". That is correct. It certainly has become normal for the Government of Canada to borrow sums of this kind. It is not just a normal part of the Government of Canada, but it has become a normal part of the operations of crown corporations. It has become a normal part of the operations of provincial governments, a normal part of the operations of municipal governments to borrow millions and even billions of dollars.

What is the consequence of this? The consequence is that at the federal level we owe half a trillion dollars of debt that will increase under the current budgetary policies by another $100 billion over the next three years. As a nation we owe publicly, all levels of government, approximately the value of our entire economic output in a single year. That is the consequence of the normal activity of borrowing.

The Prime Minister said earlier this week we borrow from the left, we borrow from the right. We borrow from Canadians. We borrow from foreigners. We borrow for today. We borrow for tomorrow. We borrow to pay interest on what we borrowed yesterday. We certainly do borrow. That is the one thing that governments do. That is the one thing the government does, and

that Conservative governments have done. They borrow, borrow, borrow.

Having said that, let us look at the amount of money involved in this particular act of borrowing. The bill requests authority for fiscal year 1994-1995 for $34.3 billion borrowing representing a deficit estimated to be at this point, $39.7 billion.

The parliamentary secretary in his statement in question period suggested that the hon. member for Elk Island was incorrect in his analysis of this, that we are not borrowing any more than $34.3 billion. That is not correct. We are asking for borrowing authority to go into the marketplace to borrow $34.3 billion but as I will discuss later in my speech we are borrowing on top of that. We are borrowing from a number of non-budgetary accounts, particularly government superannuation accounts, which themselves represent liabilities of the government.

The member for Elk Island was entirely correct in his analysis although the technical borrowing requirement in this bill is somewhat lower than the borrowing stated in the deficit. I will discuss that at some length.

As I said in my speech at second reading it is hard for ordinary people to get a handle on exactly what these kinds of numbers mean, but let me try to do that. I did that before but let me try to do it again and be a little clearer.

When we talk about borrowing or a deficit of $40 billion we are talking about the equivalent of enough money to eliminate the goods and services tax entirely and pay it back twice. We are talking about enough money to not only pay our current old age security system but to pay it two more times to every single recipient. Another way of putting it, with money like this we could talk about increasing the budget of every single federal program by over 30 per cent.

That is the consequence of the kind of borrowing and borrowing policies that governments of all stripes and governments at all levels have been pursuing for the past generation.

What are we doing with the money? What is the alternative? One of the reasons we are borrowing as much this year is we have the famed infrastructure program that now is turning into a program for just about anything any municipality wants to do. The federal government is encouraging other levels of government also to borrow additional money to fund new infrastructure projects.

What does infrastructure include? There are traditional and clear economic definitions of what an infrastucture program is. Infrastructure is not simply investment or capital. Infrastructure is those kinds of capital investments that have a use for a wide range of future economic activities.

We began to see the broadening of this definition when we saw convention centres funded under this program. In the city of Calgary the current controversy is the possible funding of the expansion of operations and seats within the Saddledome in order to persuade people to keep the National Hockey League franchise in Calgary. It is part of the bargaining between the Saddledome Corporation, the Calgary Flames and others.

Many Canadians are hockey fans, including myself. Many of the people calling my office to protest this are also hockey fans. But is this really an infrastructure program? Is this the kind of project we want our money to be spent on?

I know it annoys other members who have served more than six years but our party puts a lot of emphasis on the need to reduce spending on things like MPs pensions and some of the other perks and even some of the salaries. In particular, we talk about the tax free expense allowances that are extremely generous, non-receiptable, that are included in the pay of every member of Parliament. Why do we talk about them? Not because we believe the deficit could be eliminated by cutting them but because of something I read on an airplane recently.

I cannot remember who said it, but it was an interesting phrase. He said that what concerned him about fiscal policy is that he wished fiscal policy was framed by people who had a stake in its outcome. That is the whole point with the pensions of members of Parliament and why it is a concern when we talk about how we are using the money we are borrowing.

Very shortly, and we will have a debate on this, and it will not be long before the value of the pensions of former members of Parliament will exceed the total amount of money that Canadian taxpayers are spending on current members of Parliament. These are the people who made the decisions that put us where we are today financially. They have made themselves permanent wards of the state so that we borrow, borrow, borrow to support this extravagant scam endlessly. That is why Canadians are concerned about these kinds of expenditures and this level of borrowing.

Let me turn to the red book. The government always insists that we read the red book. Of course we always take those suggestions to heart. Let me spend a little bit of time to talk about what the red book said about borrowing.

I quote from pages 19 and 20 where the government talked about balanced policies for jobs and growth. One quotation is from track two of its economic strategy.

A Liberal government will reduce the deficit.

Under this budgetary policy and the borrowing bill the deficit will be higher than was planned last year. It is supposed to come down after we make accounting changes. It is supposed to come

down but it is higher than it was projected to be during the time we were debating the red book in the election. In fact it is $10 billion higher. We have not reduced the deficit.

It says:

We will implement new programs only if they can be funded within existing expenditures.

I admit there has been some cutting and reallocation but expenditures are increasing. In fact program expenditures are increasing so not all new initiatives are being funded within existing expenditures.

The red book said:

Nine years of Conservative government have seen Canada's debt almost triple, from $168 billion in 1983-84 to $458 billion today. Despite repeated promises to reduce the deficit, the government has turned in deficits in the $30 billion range every year: the latest was $35.5 billion.

Of course that was all accurate. That was the best information at the time the red book was written. But what is the policy today? The policy today is to increase the deficit another $150 billion in the life of this Parliament. We are going in the same direction the Conservatives had been going in the last 10 years.

Does the budget project a deficit below $30 billion? Not quite. It says that in the third year we will finally go below $30 billion but we do not publish the data for the third year or show the columns where we can see the deficit going to $30 billion. We are merely told to accept that as an act of faith and as an extension of the boom times which we assume are coming.

On page 20 of the red book-the red ink book. I like the red ink book expression.

After nine years of Conservative budgets, the federal government's deficit is 5.2 per cent of gross domestic product. This is too high.

What is the projection in the budget for this year? It is a deficit GDP ratio higher than 5.2 per cent. Off hand I cannot remember but I believe it is close to 6 per cent.

The next statement concerns the 3 per cent target and as advocated by the member states of the European Community and the Maastricht treaty, that of course is not entirely accurate. I discussed that in previous debates and I will discuss it today if I have some time.

In any case this budget and these borrowing proposals are very different than the promises outlined in the red book. I would also note, as I have noted before, this is the highest planned deficit and the highest planned borrowing in our history. We have had higher deficits and we may in fact have a higher one after the accounting changes. Last year's deficit may still prove to be higher than this year's. This is the first time we have ever started with a deficit and with borrowing requirements this high.

The tendency has been in the past years for us to be underestimating our requirements and to be exceeding those requirements in the course of the year. Last year's borrowing authority for fiscal 1993-94, Bill C-117, that was given royal assent on May 6, 1993 had requested at the time borrowing authority of $31.5 billion based on a $26.5 billion estimated financial requirement. That was for last year. We see in fact that under this bill the borrowing requirement has increased.

The government justifies these policies, this particular level of borrowing, by saying that it really can justify it through two objectives or two goals. One is that it will help us achieve a lower deficit later and that it will help lead the government in its plans toward economic growth and job creation. Let me just express the scepticism as both a taxpayer and an economist that I have about deficits today achieving lower deficits tomorrow and in particular an interim target of 3 per cent of GDP.

I was a supporter at one time of the previous government when it first came to office which used much the same kind of rationale for not dealing with the problem quickly. What did we see in the eighties and early nineties? We saw that as governments refused to deal quickly with their debt and deficit problems they accumulated deficit on top of deficit, debt on top of debt and we have the situation today in which the biggest factor behind the long term deficit and the growth of debt in Canada is not in fact the recession. It is the accumulated debt and the interest payments on that debt.

When we have that kind of a dynamic it makes it very difficult for deficits today, which will add to debt and add to debt charge burden, to lead to lower deficits in the future.

Some members of Parliament of the governing party are apt to refer to the great early 20th century economist, Lord John Maynard Keynes, in justifying this kind of economics. I wonder how many of them have in fact read what Mr. Keynes wrote on this subject and what kind of analysis he used and what kind of circumstances under which he justified these kinds of budgetary policies.

I know the hon. member for Capilano-Howe Sound has, as I have in the past, read these things. We can certainly say that these were not the policies advocated by a learned man such as that. I do not agree with everything he wrote but he never advocated permanent, ongoing structural deficits, not at all.

It is also important to say that he wrote at a time when governments had very little permanent financial obligations of their own. Governments were in fact a source of funds rather than a drain of funds. It was a very different situation and one that cannot be justified at this point.

The second point the government has made is that these borrowing policies will lead to economic growth.

Just as an alternative opinion-our party has a very different economic philosophy-let me read what the job creators of this country said about economic growth and job creation. We know that with governments being as insolvent or increasingly insolvent as they are jobs will come in the future from the private sector. I think the Liberal Party generally acknowledges that fact.

The Canadian Chamber of Commerce in a news released dated February 14 said a million jobs can be created according to preliminary results from entrepreneurs in a study the chamber had conducted. It had 658 responses so far from employers representing a range of sizes of firms, all the way from very small firms to some of the very large firms. It indicated that with the right kinds of economic policies there were capacities within these firms for a total increase of employment of one million Canadians.

The kinds of economic policies it said were necessary, if the debt and deficit were reduced, if payroll taxes and corporate tax rates were lowered, if the government regulatory burden were eased and training and education of the labour force improved, could create an average of 14 jobs per firm in the next three years.

[Points Of Order, March 16th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that you are trying to clarify this and I appreciate the parliamentary secretary for bringing it up.

Maybe you could also clarify something for him. In his answer to me yesterday during question period he raised the fact that the matter had been brought up in committee. I wish you would clarify that as well, both the question and the answer.