HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Tuesday, October 7, 2003

Á

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.)

The Chair

Á

1110

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

Á

1115

Á

1120

Le président

Mr. Yvon Godin

Á

1125

The Chair

Á

1145

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Á

1155

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.)

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Â

1200

Â

1205

Â

1210

Â

1215

Â

1220

Â

1225

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Â

1230

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Â

1235

Â

1240

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 059

l

2nd SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Tuesday, October 7, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1105)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Let us begin. As you can hear, there's a bell. We have about twenty minutes, I think.

    There are a few organizational matters. First of all, with regard to Eugene Bellemare's Bill C-408, we're circulating some background information on the oath and matters pertaining to it. We'll be considering it fairly soon.

    Second, at the moment my thought is that we'll deal with the ethics code of conduct, the technical part of the ethics bill, on Thursday, but that remains to be seen.

    Third—and I want to say this as carefully as I can—we have received a reply from the Senate. You will recall that as a committee we wrote a letter to them. I have the reply here. I don't want to circulate it. I doubt, because of the vote, we can do it today, but on Thursday I'd like to have five or ten minutes to discuss that letter in camera. Is that agreeable?

    We have a report from our subcommittee on private members' business. I would like to ask Lynn to say very briefly what it contains; then I'll explain where I think we are on it.

    Go ahead.

    Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'm pleased to report that the committee met yesterday, and we have issued our first report. I'll just go over the standing order.

    As you know, in accordance with provisional Standing Order 92(1) the subcommittee has agreed that the following item of private members' business originating in the House of Commons should be designated as non-votable.; that is, Bill C-447, an act to protect the institution of marriage—Mr. Hill, from Macleod. And a copy of the relevant minutes of the proceedings, which is meeting number 4, has been tabled.

    I'll give this to the clerk, as outlined under procedure.

    The Chair: Colleagues, my understanding on that is we don't need a motion to receive this report. We have automatically received it.

    Under the Standing Orders, Grant Hill, the member concerned, has five sitting days to appeal this decision to the committee. Therefore my suggestion is that we not do anything at the moment with that report—we don't seek concurrence in it or anything of that type—until we've heard from the member whether he wants to appeal.

    If he does appeal—and I say this to his colleagues who are here—my suggestion is that he appear before the committee on Thursday to state his case. Following that appearance we will, as a committee, deal with the reception of the report.

    Are you comfortable with that?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Colleagues, let us turn to the main item of business. We'll proceed where we can, then go to the vote in the House, and then return to this item of business that we have.

    Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, September 23, 2003, we are on Bill C-49, an act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003. We are to be engaged in clause-by-clause consideration.

    Colleagues, do you all have a copy of the bill? Do you all have copies of the amendments? You should have a package and a chart as well as the agenda. The chart says “Article 1”, which at the moment is the main article, and then the amendments are listed in order. Do you all have that?

    I call clause 1. Let us deal first with NDP amendment number NDP-1.

    Yvon.

    (On clause 1)

Á  (1110)  

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    The amendment I'm moving is: That Bill C-49, in Clause 1, be amended by replacing line 9 on page 1 with the following:

motion is effective, for each province other than the Province of New Brunswick, on the first dissolution of

    You're quite well aware of the situation regarding the electoral boundaries readjustment and the commissions that there were. In this case, we're talking about offering a democratic chance every 10 years. I know there are some who may say that this is democratic too, but that's a question of interpretation. The idea is to give more Canadians the chance to be represented by members of Parliament. British Columbia has obtained more members, Ontario and Alberta as well, I believe, and so on. That's all right, and I think that, if an election is called, they want those people or those provinces to have the chance to have the number of members they need. I'd say that's valid, and there's no dispute on that point.

    In New Brunswick, the number of members has not been increased. How was the distribution done? That has to do with the Commission's interpretation. According to the Canadian system we have, Mr. Chairman, the report of the Commission that is appointed becomes final, and we can't appeal from its decision to a superior group at any time unless we go to the Federal Court.

    But in the region of Acadie-Bathurst, for example, the people really spoke. I believe that what the people of Acadie-Bathurst signed has never been seen before in Canada. First, 14 briefs were sent to the Commission. They always say that people don't want to take part, that they don't want to vote. I feel that the essence of democracy is wondering what happens to the people. When we look at how politicians are perceived, we see that we're at the bottom of the ladder; we're even lower than used car salesmen. That's our reputation.

    But let's look at the political system, Mr. Chairman. There's a commission that has the power to vary by 25 percent in its decision, and three people decide that they won't vary by more than 5 percent. That's what they decide, even though the act gives them the opportunity to go as far as 25 percent, and even though the act tells us that they can even go further in special cases.

    The Commission in Ontario, in Kenora-Rainy River, I believe, where Minister Nault was, went as far as 42 percent. Then the minister came to make a presentation to the Commission and said that things could be done another way, and that's quite all right. The Ontario Commission had decided to go as far as 42 percent, whereas at home in New Brunswick, the Commission said it was 5 percent.

    There was the opportunity to choose between the economy and the linguistic aspect, and the economy was chosen. But even in economic terms, the people back home don't agree. In economic matters, the Brunswick mine, the Bathurst sawmill and the Bathurst Airport have absolutely nothing to do with Miramichi. The commissioners said they had chosen the economic aspect by giving those regions to Miramichi. Even there, people say that they made a mistake with regard to the economy.

    On the linguistic issue, they did the same thing with the two language groups, not only with the Francophones. They put a Francophone segment in Miramichi, and they took an Anglophone segment and put it with Miramichi. The Anglophones of Acadie-Bathurst say they're becoming a smaller minority among Francophones because roughly 80 percent of the population of Acadie-Bathurst is Francophone. So the Anglophone are saying that Anglophones are being taken away from them and they're being made into an even smaller minority among the Francophones. The Francophones are saying they're now in an Anglophone majority. Two weeks after the Commission's hearings, Mr. Chairman, the municipality of Miramichi passed by-laws as you called them earlier. The municipal council voted and decided that they wouldn't work in French anymore, but in English only. That's how the Francophones were welcomed.

Á  (1115)  

    At the same time, there were hearings in Miramichi and people from the region presented briefs in which they said that putting the Francophones from Acadie-Bathurst in Miramichi was not acceptable. The linguistic problem was raised loud and clear.

    Mr. Chairman, the 14 briefs that were presented there were all designed to tell the Commission that it was wrong; the 14 briefs, without exception. After that was done, 2,600 persons signed a petition which was subsequently presented to the Commission. When those people understood that the Commission would not change its mind, they signed postcards that they sent to the Speaker of the House. They should have sent them to the Commission, but that was submitted to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; we talked about that in our report.

    Seven thousand postcards signed by people from Acadie-Bathurst were sent to Parliament. Mr. Chairman, Yvon Godin didn't sign those 7,000 cards. In fact, it was a Sunday afternoon during the Canada Winter Games; in the middle of a snow storm, 400 persons attended a public meeting in Tracadie-Sheila to ask that they not be forced to be part of Miramichi.

    So the 7,000 cards arrived here, and the Commissioner of Official Languages ruled on the question. She said that, in her opinion, the situation was not consistent with the spirit of the Official Languages Act. In March 2002, Jean-Pierre Kingsley, Chief Electoral Officer, said in one of his speeches that, in view of the diversity of our country, one of the important factors that must be considered was the linguistic question.

    In March 2002, the Commissioner of Official Languages was invited to speak to the commissions. Her message was that the linguistic aspect had to be taken into consideration. I spoke about it yesterday to the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and to the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment, when we met the members and Mr. Kingsley as well. Some commissioners from Quebec, Ontario and Nova Scotia also came to make a presentation to the subcommittee.

    But the Commission took no account of what happened at home. After the Commissioner of Official Languages stated her views, the Commission even said in its report that the Commissioner of Official Languages had no business interfering in the Commission's decision. The Commissioner issued a final report saying that that was not the case and that she was entitled to get involved and to state her opinion. She is in office to give opinions. After that, the House Committee on Official Languages, consisting of members from the five political parties, made a unanimous recommendation that what had happened in Acadie-Bathurst and Miramichi was not right and that it supported the recommendation of the Commissioner of Official Languages.

    The members of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs then met because that's part of the process. I withdrew from the committee so as not to be in conflict of interest. I did not attend the meeting where New Brunswick was discussed, but I made a presentation on Acadie-Bathurst. The committee unanimously supported the Commissioner of Official Languages and the Official Languages Committee and asked the Commission to review its decision and to maintain the status quo. The Commission refused.

    Then, Mr. Chairman, the Association francophone des municipalités du Québec and the Mayor of the municipality of Bathurst, who represents the Anglophone segment of Acadie-Bathurst, made an application to the court.

    I wouldn't want to take up all the committee's time, but, if you had any questions, it wouldn't trouble me to answer them. I believe you understand where I'm headed.

    The entire population has swung into action because it doesn't agree on this change. For example, in Acadie-Bathurst, the Commission decided to take a street, South Tetagouche, Highway 180, from the other side of the electoral district and put it in Miramichi. It took North Tetagouche, another Bathurst street, a street where people live... The member for Miramichi will have to cross in front of the Acadie-Bathurst office in order to represent someone in a street. He himself said that made no sense; he told the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs so. It wasn't easy for the member for Miramichi to come and speak to the committee. As he says, it's not that he doesn't want these people to be in his district, but it makes no sense. That's understandable. It makes no sense.

    Is there a time limit?

Á  (1120)  

    Le président: No, that's quite all right.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: We could take a break and go and vote, then come back if necessary.

    The member for Miramichi himself said this made no sense. In Bathurst itself, they took Chamberlain Settlement. They took Miramichi Avenue--not the district, but there's an avenue in Bathurst called Miramichi--then Rough Waters, and there's a place there called Chamberlain Settlement. They even took that.

    At first, the Commission had even decided to take all the native reserves in New Brunswick and put them in Miramichi. It even decided to put Belledune, which is on the other side of the district, in Miramichi. It made a mathematical game of it. As we said yesterday in the committee, there's someone sitting behind a computer and deciding how to do it. So the commissioners settled matters for all the districts in New Brunswick and said to themselves that now they should play a mathematical game for Acadie-Bathurst and Miramichi.

    When I made a presentation to the Boundaries Commission, I asked why Saint-Louis-de-Kent had been put in Beauséjour. At the time, I could understand the reasons for that. That's because, 10 years ago, the people of Saint-Louis-de-Kent said that it made no sense to take Saint-Louis-de-Kent, which is Francophone, and to put it with Miramichi. At the time, the Commissioner of Official Languages spoke on the matter. The Commission's response was thus that it wanted to correct the problem from 10 years ago. So I asked why a new problem was being created with Allardville, South Tetagouche, North Tetagouche and others. I was told that the important thing was to make decisions.

Á  (1125)  

[English]

    The Chair: Yvon, I'm afraid I have to interrupt, to suspend the meeting because we have to go to vote.

    Colleagues, I'm suspending the meeting. We will resume immediately following the vote.

    The meeting is suspended.

Á    

---

Á    

Á  (1145)  

    The Chair: The meeting is resumed.

    We're considering NDP amendment number one.

    Yvon Godin.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

     As I've already said, I'm trying to exclude New Brunswick from the application of Bill C-49 in order to give the court time to rule on the matter. If I remember correctly, I was around for the last readjustment about 10 years ago. The Société des Acadiens et Acadiennes du Nouveau-Brunswick strongly opposed it. Professor Denis Duval presented the case. He did a lot of work. Denis Duval was asked to come and make a presentation to the Official Languages Committee. What happened at the time? Everything fell through because the court didn't have the time to rule.

     This time, Mr. Chairman, the same thing is going to happen. That's the concern of the people of Acadie-Bathurst, the people of the region. It's also the concern of the Association francophone des municipalités du Nouveau-Brunswick. It's not just the municipalities of Acadie-Bathurst that are concerned, but also all the Francophone municipalities in New Brunswick, and they are speaking out through their association. They're the ones who applied for a judicial review.

    In an attempt to expedite the process, we asked the government to tell us if it was going to challenge the judicial review. In that way, we would have had an opinion from the court quickly and the process could have been accelerated. That would have advanced matters, and Bill C-49 would not have had the same impact. To date, we have had no news from the government or the Department of Justice. The government has even hired a New Brunswick lawyer named Robert Basque; he's from the Moncton region. Some of you may know Robert Basque. He's a procedural professional, not a specialist in the subject matter of the case. He won't argue the merits of the case. He won't be wondering whether the minorities' rights have been interfered with or not, or whether the government is right or not. He excels at delaying proceedings before the courts. Ultimately, what's going to happen? The danger is that the case will never be heard. Those are the concerns.

    Mr. Chairman, the case is so important that Professor Michel Doucet of the Faculty of Law at the University of Moncton is arguing the case. The faculty people have studied the case and are very much interested in it.

     Mr. Chairman, you know that virtually all minority claims have been settled in court in Canada. Here in Ottawa, in the Montfort Hospital case, the court ruled. In the food inspectors case in New Brunswick, the court ruled again three or four weeks ago. We had to go to court for that. We're winning each case little by little, but we have to go to court. In the case of the French-language schools in Prince Edward Island, once again it was the court that ruled. In the case of the French-language schools in Manitoba, once again it was the court that ruled. We can see that, in this case, it's the court once again that will rule if it has a chance to rule. In cases in which the court has had the chance to rule, the minorities have won.

    There's one thing that I find unfortunate. The Commission Chair is appointed by the Chief Judge of the province and commissioners are appointed by the Speaker of the House. Before even presenting my brief to the Commission, I asked that the commissioners resign because of conflicts of interest. That was reported in all the newspapers. I'm talking to you about public matters, not secret matters.

Á  (1155)  

    Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): I would like the chance to speak.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Do you have a problem?

[English]

    Mr. Geoff Regan: No, no.

    I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

    I wonder if any of our colleagues in the opposition would like to advise us if they're going to filibuster this bill, contrary to what they indicated last week or to the assurances we received last week. That's the question I have.

    The Chair: By the way, the member can reply to that if he wishes, but as far as I'm concerned, Yvon is in order. He has the floor and he can discuss....

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Can I ask him about the assurances that were given, whether they're going to—

    The Chair: You understand that better than I.

    Yvon, if you would care to reply.... As far as I'm concerned, you're in order, but you heard the question that was put in good faith.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Well, I will just answer this way: if I recall, Mr. Guimond said on the record that he will not filibuster the committee, but I have never pronounced myself on this. That's on the record.

    The Chair: Okay, that's fine.

    Please continue.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: To be very short, if I have the assurance of the government that they will vote in favour of my amendment, I could stop it right now. If not, it means that I would have to try to convince them. That's my job, to convince them.

    The Chair: Please continue.

[Translation]

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I was talking about the democratic process. When I see that the Commission Chair is appointed by the Chief Justice and that the members of the Commission have been recommended by persons in the government, I'm obliged to say that there is political influence in this case.

    It goes further than that, Mr. Chairman. It's not enough for the Chair of the New Brunswick Commission to be the father-in-law of one of the members and it's not enough that the Minister of Labour recommended the Commission members. Now the government counsel is the husband of the assistant to the Minister of Labour. Think of it! How do you think people can trust the system?

    Mr. Kingsley made a speech on March 13, 2002. He had invited all the commissions in Canada to come to Ottawa. He had invited parliamentarians and the Commissioner of Official Languages. In his address in March 2002, Mr. Kingsley said, before all the commissions in Canada:

Tomorrow morning, Ms. Dyane Adam, Commissioner of Official Languages, will discuss the concept of community of interest from the perspective of the country's two official languages.

    Why did Mr. Kingsley invite the Commissioner of Official Languages to speak to all the commissions in order to address, as he said in advance, the concept of community of interest--he did refer to community of interest--from the perspective of Canada's two official languages?

    It would be unfortunate if you, members of the committee, said that you weren't ready to accept the fact that the Francophones of Acadie-Bathurst can be heard by the court. That's the decision you'll have to make today. You believe in the two official languages, but I am on a committee where Anglophones will say they're not going to give the Anglophones of Bathurst, New Brunswick, the chance to be represented before a court in order to say that people don't agree. That's what we're going to experience today here if you adopt this bill without amendment.

    I'm going to continue talking about what Mr. Kingsley said. Mr. Kingsley may not have given any orders, but he gave the Commission his opinion. He said, in March 2002: “In short, we are not talking about a process that is uniform across the country necessarily.”

    You know, Mr. Chairman, that the variance may be plus or minus 25 percent. In the Acadie-Bathurst region, it's 14 percent, thus within the 25 percent limit. We don't even need to request special permission. Mr. Kingsley said this: “In short, we are not talking about a process that is uniform across the country necessarily. Like the diversity that is so much part of Canada...”

    I like those words because that's our country. That's what we have to understand.

  (1200)  

    Even if some people don't want to understand, our country is indeed in the image of the diversity that characterizes it. In terms of geographical characteristics, our country is not like other countries. In France or Belgium, for example, millions of people live within a few square kilometers.

    In addition, we're talking about history, what happened in the past. Mr. Chairman, I'll say that, 10 years ago, we had this problem in New Brunswick with the same districts, Miramichi and Beauséjour-Petitcodiac. At that time, the SAANB had already instituted proceedings in order to go to court with lawyers and Denis Duval, a professor at the Edmunston campus of the University of Moncton, in New Brunswick. They had to drop the case because of time. This time, not only from the historical standpoint--and I think we have to consider that as part of history--but also in an official languages perspective, we must give the communities the chance to speak out in their own region. We're talking about history, but also about geographical, historical and linguistic characteristics. So I ask myself the question: what's meant by linguistic characteristics? One can speak out before the Commission on the subject.

    On the social, cultural and linguistic aspect, I'm simply going to give you an example, Mr. Chairman. I was born in a small village called Saint-Sauveur--it's not in Quebec, but in New Brunswick--which is located between Bathurst and Tracadie-Sheila. As far as I can remember, when I was very young, I, Yvon Godin, always went shopping in Bathurst. I, Yvon Godin, went to high school in Bathurst, I went to the hospital in Bathurst, I went to the movies in Bathurst and I went dancing in Bathurst. I never went to Miramichi because the two places have no common interests, cultural, social or linguistic. Absolutely none.

    When I appeared before the Commission, I said exactly what I've just told you. I was able to convince the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which consists of representatives of all the parties, the Liberal Party, the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc québécois and the Conservative Party, and the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. It wasn't four or five persons to three; there was unanimity. The only people we didn't manage to convince were the people from the Commission. When the members are appointed on a recommendation by a political party, you begin to ask yourself questions. In addition, that commission favours a member who has interests linked to the chair of the same commission. So you ask yourself other questions and you wonder, since we asked him to do the most respectful thing possible, that is to say resign, why didn't he do it. I don't mean he's not a good judge or a good person, but I don't think it looks good in this case. I want to reread the text because it's important as a whole:

Like the diversity that is so much part of Canada, geographic, historical, linguistic, social and cultural characteristics will have to play a central role in your thinking when the time comes to define the community of interests that justifies electoral boundaries.

    If that doesn't tell you anything, we have a serious problem.

  (1205)  

    If that doesn't tell the Commission anything, we're entitled to wonder what kind of commission it is. It may render a final decision which cannot be appealed unless we go to court. And say that we now have before us Bill C-49, which takes us up to April and which states that the court will not look at the facts.

    We parliamentarians like to say we're democratic and to boast about our country's democratic sense, but you'd think we don't have a say in the matter. We don't have the chance to say no. We can have our say and vote. In that case, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Official Language Committee, the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and 7,000 citizens of the riding of Acadie-Bathurst in New Brunswick said they did not agree. There were also 2,600 persons who signed petitions and 14 briefs that were presented by the Association des municipalités, the Association des Acadiens, various mayors of various regions, citizens and presidents of local improvement districts. All those people are opposed to this change. We have the chance to say no and to give them a chance to go to court. It's not a matter of the number of members, but of the way in which electors are distributed.

    If the Commission had decided on the basis of all the recommendations to keep the status quo, this would have been final and the election would have taken place. But no. Three persons made a decision which is not in the public interest, which is not in the interest of Canadians and which is not in the interest of the two minority groups. The Francophones don't want to be in an Anglophone riding and the Anglophones don't want to be even more in the minority.

    The two linguistic communities have taken the same position. You have to wonder what's happened. Why has all this occurred? How is it that a commission could so stubbornly oppose the will of the people of Acadie-Bathurst? Believe me, the next Liberal candidate will be from Nipisiguit. The new district of Miramichi will include his village or street. He'll say to himself that it's good for him because he could run against the incumbent Charles-Hubbard in the next election. He's happy about the change. He couldn't care less about the entire population. He's happy because he can run.

    Mr. Chairman, what are we to think when that person tells us the results before the Commission has made them public? At first, the Commission had decided that Saint-Louis-de-Kent and Acadieville would be in Beauséjour, and we didn't want to go to Miramichi. The Commission decided that Acadieville would return to Miramichi. He knew the results before they were made public. How is it that a former provincial Liberal member from New Brunswick, who retired, ran again and is once again a provincial member, has all that information? How can we have trust in the system? That's why only the court can resolve this. Either the government is afraid of this case being examined by the court or he wants to hide something. You can stop a process, but you can't prevent people from thinking and having their own opinions on certain incidents.

  (1210)  

    Mr. Chairman, I said I'd lived in Saint-Sauveur. I've also lived in Allardville. I know those people. I've even been president of that town's Local Improvement District. It's called a Local Improvement District when it's not incorporated in a municipality. I was president for a number of years. When I meet those people and they tell me they don't want to be in the district of Miramichi, that has nothing to do with Charles Hubbard, and I want that entered in the record. It has nothing to do with the member there, despite the fact that he doesn't speak French at all. Everyone knows that Charlie doesn't speak French, but that's not the problem. It's that there's no community of interest.

    For example, there is a federal employment insurance office in Bathurst, and all the people from Allardville go to the Bathurst office. When you have a problem, you have to call your members. At that point, the member will have to start doing business with the Bathurst office, with which he's never done business, or people's files will be sent to Miramichi. The part of Tracadie-Sheila where Rivière-à-la-Truite and Negouac are located is part of Miramichi. The employment insurance files are not at Bathurst; they're in Miramichi.

    As a federal member, Mr. Chairman, I can tell you that many of my clients who are people from Rivière-à-la-Truite and Negouac are part of Miramichi. With all due respect, I'll say they can't even have that service. Rivière-à-la-Truite is totally Francophone. Now they want to add Allardville. It makes no sense.

    With regard to the economy, the Brunswick mine is going to Miramichi. All the workers come from Bathurst. They don't come from Miramichi. It's called the Brunswick mine in Bathurst; they don't talk about the Brunswick mine in Miramichi. It takes about 45 minutes or an hour to travel between Bathurst and Miramichi. There were 86,000 inhabitants in the district, 66,000 of whom were voters. In Toronto, there are as many as 130,000, I believe. Mr. Chairman, I was even ready to agree, if necessary, to putting the people from Belledune in Acadie-Bathurst because of the community of interest in economic matters and so on. Those people talk to each other. They work together. They live together. I believe it's special.

    Yesterday I was listening to the member for Abitibi say that the rural side of people was special in his riding. In my riding, it's special. It's special when people celebrate the Acadian Festival on August 15 in a small village of 5,000 inhabitants, when 30,000 people show up and your next boss takes the trouble to take part in the parade. We celebrate together. They say that transferring Rivière-à-la-Truite to Miramichi will break up the community. I know that some of those people will call the office of the federal member for Acadie-Bathurst to obtain services, but those people will no longer be able to take part in the community. When we have economic development meetings, they'll no longer be part of the gang. They're no longer there. It's no longer the same gang. That's because they're doing business with the people of their district.

    That prevents the kind of economic development we want to do. It must be kept in mind that we had the Brunswick mine in the Acadie-Bathurst region, more particularly in the Bathurst area. Noranda has been there for more than 40 years. When I was president of the union in 1982, 1,400 people worked in the Brunswick mine by the hour and 300 more from the place worked there, for a total of 1,700 persons. There were 550 persons working at the mill, at the Belledune smelting plant. Now there are approximately 850 working by the hour and 150 local people, a total of 1,000 persons. The Brunswick mine and the smelting plant have cut back their number of employees because of technology.

    In five years, it will close. Mr. Chairman, this isn't just Yvon Godin, member of Parliament, speaking.

  (1215)  

    The Bathurst Chamber of Commerce spoke out against the changes. It says they'll stop the economic development of our region. Everyone has been asked to take themselves in hand. They've started creating economic development committees. The Province of New Brunswick has invested $25 million for economic development over the next five years and wants to develop the Bathurst Airport. In the meantime, with one stroke of a pen, the Bathurst Airport has been taken away from us.

    In the Commission's first report, they took away Val-Comeau, the parish of Saumarez, the parish of Allardville and the parish of Bathurst, excluding the town of Bathurst. Then they went to South Tetagouche and North Tetagouche and drew a line called Rosehill Road.

    I didn't tell you that 14 briefs were presented to the Commission in Acadie-Bathurst requesting that there be no changes, whereas only one brief was presented in favour of the change, but in Miramichi. Perhaps I've already said it, but I would like to make sure that's on record. That brief was presented to the Commission, and I could present it to the committee if you want me to table it. Someone told the commissioners that they had made a good decision, but that they had not gone far enough. He recommended that they go as far as Highway 11.

    Thank you, sir. You sold what was left of our electoral district. That's exactly what the Commission said. It said that it had received a good report and that Claude Boucher had sent it to Miramichi. That's exactly what the Commission did. It went after Rosehill Road and set the boundary at Highway 11, which takes away Bathurst Airport from us. Although Bathurst Airport is outside the town limit, it's five minutes from the town. If you come to Bathurst, you deplane at the airport and you're in town in five minutes.

    How do you expect the community to feel? An airport is almost like a church or a post office. It's something that's part of the community. However, despite the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Official Languages Committee and the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which were unanimous, the Commission said that it had not gone far enough. One soldier came and told it that it had not gone far enough, and it decided to listen to him and to give a little more. It's almost like turning the knife in the wound. That's how people feel. Then people responded by saying that it made no sense.

    You know that the public, the community groups and groups like the Bathurst Chamber of Commerce, talk about the closure of the Brunswick mine and the probable closure of the smelting plant. You never know, perhaps you'll experience that in Abitibi or perhaps you've experienced it in other mines. It's not fun when it happens in a region where you were born, where your parents were born, where your grandparents were born.

  (1220)  

    I'll give you an example. I was young and I went to Gagnonville, where the mine created a village. It's called a mining village or a mining town because of the mine. Ultimately, the mine closed and virtually everybody went back to where they came from. Back home, people can't go back to where they came from because they are from there and they want to stay there. If you come and visit, you'll see that it's a beautiful part of the country. It's very beautiful along the Baie des Chaleurs and along the Atlantic. It's beautiful for tourists and for people who come and visit us. They think it's a beautiful region.

    This change will prevent us from developing the region economically. I don't think the Commission had people's interests at heart. It didn't consider people's interests with regard to economic development or respect for their language. Mr. Kingsley spoke about that. I don't interfere in the business of the provincial commissions; I'm at the federal level. Every commission is independent. That's what Mr. Kingsley said in the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, in the subcommittee and everywhere he went. He made the following comment:

In short, we are not talking about a process that is uniform across the country necessarily.

    He gave guidelines:

Like the diversity that is so much part of Canada, geographic, historical, linguistic, social and cultural characteristics will have to play a central role in your thinking when the time comes to define the community of interests that justifies electoral boundaries.

    Mr. Kingsley didn't mention economic development. I'm talking about it because the Commission talked about it. It had a choice between economic development and the linguistic aspect, and it chose the economy.

    I want to explain to the committee how important it is for the communities in the Acadie-Bathurst region to join forces and form committees to successfully fight... You can't prevent a mine from closing, can you? A mine isn't like a forest where, when you cut down a tree, you plant another one beside it which will mature in 50 years. As soon as you start removing ore from a mine, you begin counting the days until it closes. Or doesn't grow back. It's like a peat bog.

    Mr. Chairman, when you look at the Commission's decision, you see it was on the wrong track on this point, as it is on the linguistic aspect. He talks here about geographic, historical, linguistic, social and cultural realities, but not economic realities. There isn't even any question of that.

    The Commissioner of Official Languages asks who's in the best position to know the community of interest. Perhaps one day we'll all be seated here together and one of you will have the same problem. Then we'll wonder what we did on October 7, 2003. What did we do when we didn't support the amendment to exclude a province that could be excluded? We're not asking for the earth. As I told you, in New Brunswick, the point isn't to add another member, and this doesn't represent a major change in the number of persons.

    When the Commission decided to take people from Acadie-Bathurst and put them in Miramichi, to justify that, it said that Miramichi was at -21 percent. The variance was too close to 25 percent and it had to be reduced. Mr. Chairman, if the Commission had to put people from Acadie-Bathurst from Miramichi because the variance was -21 percent in that district, I would like it to explain to the judge why it transferred Saint-Louis-de-Kent from Miramichi to Beauséjour. Since the variance was already -21 percent, it would have been natural to leave Saint-Louis-de-Kent in Miramichi, then to add others, if that had been the purpose.

  (1225)  

    You can understand the purpose when you look in the files. You see that the polling stations that were removed from Albert County had voted for the Canadian Alliance and the Conservatives. The people who had voted at those stations were sent to Fundy--Royal. People in Saint-Louis-de-Kent voted Liberal. That's what the people at home think, that's what the press think and that's what the experts think. That's where the problem lies.

    That's the main reason why the Chairman should have resigned, knowing that the member involved was going to become his son-in-law the day he was going to submit his report. Judge Guy Richard tabled his report in Parliament with the Speaker of the House and the Chief Electoral Officer in the morning, and the wedding took place that same evening. The Saturday newspapers, the New Brunswick Telegraph-Journal carried pictures of the groom with former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau's ex-wife and her son Sacha, with his new wife Jolene, and the caption stated that it was the daughter of Guy Richard, Chairman of the Federal Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick. I can tell you that that hit hard back home when we saw that.

[English]

    The Chair: Colleagues, just for your information, we have about 14 minutes to the vote, but I'll advise you a couple of minutes before.

    Excuse me, Yvon. You have 14 minutes.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

    I don't know if you think the Prime Minister will tell us that.

  (1230)  

    The Chair: (Inaudible--Editor).

    Mr. Yvon Godin: I brought my pyjamas.

    An hon. member: I look forward to it.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: You want to see my pyjamas?

[Translation]

    Mr. Chairman, my colleagues and I, among others, have trouble when we hear talk about making things more democratic and letting the people decide. That's fundamental. It's even harder than developing a bill to amend an act. In this case, we're directly affecting the people in the field. I wonder why we have to face all that. We have a Commissioner of Official Languages, who is appointed by the Prime Minister. We are a democratic country, but he's the one who appoints everyone. Well, that's our system.

    The Commissioner said that the spirit of the official languages had not been complied with, and the Chief Electoral Officer explained what, in his view, constitutes a community of interest.

    Next year, the Acadians will celebrate the 400th anniversary of their arrival in Canada. They have always fought. Among other things, they had to fight to obtain recognition from the Queen of the harm they had suffered. Two motions were put before the House of Commons; both were defeated. Today, we're waiting; it would appear the government is going to approve it.

    The key factor is always time; you have to try to convince people. But in this case, I didn't think I had to do it; I thought that it was a given. However, we've just realized that there are no givens where we live. What could have led the Commission to make this decision? After all I've told you, you may not agree with me, but you probably have doubts. It's nonsensical.

    For Acadie-Bathurst, we're talking about court proceedings. The others have appealed; they're going to institute court proceedings. But I'm talking here about something that starts somewhere and that will finish somewhere else. Every time the boundaries are readjusted or altered, we can't leave power in the hands of three people without having the opportunity to appeal.

    That makes no sense in a democratic context, Mr. Chairman. I can cross the road today--please excuse what I'm about to say--and kill someone on the road. I'll then have to go to court and be judged, and, if I'm not satisfied, I'll go to a provincial court of appeal and I'll be judged. If I'm still not satisfied, I can apply to the Supreme Court of Canada. We have the opportunity to appeal in order to obtain justice.

    Various people take part in the process, which is more objective as a result. There's a different judge in every court. The case can thus be reexamined more openly. We're not stuck with the decision that's been made.

    Mr. Chairman, you yourself have legal training, don't you?

    The Chair: No, but that's unfortunate.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Professor of geography and northern Canada?

    The Chair: I'm not an expert professor.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: But you certainly have some common sense.

    The Chair: Yes, that's correct.

    Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, that's why I said that we didn't need to have any lawyers in Parliament in order to make the laws. People with common sense can make the laws and have them checked by the lawyers afterwards.

    Let's get serious again, Mr. Chairman. I think it's important that the people in our regions, whether back home or in your region, can have their say in matters. Last night, Mr. Chairman, you appeared before the Subcommittee on Electoral Boundaries Readjustment of the Standing House Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and you yourself questioned the process. The commissions were even called into question. I don't blame the commissions because that's the system and it's up to us to change the system. They set the limits in the province. In certain electoral districts, there weren't even any changes in the first decision, whereas there were in the second round. The public wasn't even able to have a say in the matter.

    I say that, because, once again, the public has been excluded from the process. Some commissions didn't even touch the electoral district in their first report, but everything changed in their second report. Are we going to see that every 10 years? Mr. Chairman, didn't we learn our lesson 10 years ago, as was the case back home?

    The Commission Chairman was well aware of what he was doing. You can check the transcripts, but, when I asked him why he was taking Saint-Louis-de-Kent and putting it in the Beauséjour, he told me it was to correct the problem from 10 years previous. But what was the problem 10 years ago? It was a group of Francophones who weren't pleased about going to Miramichi.

    I'm pleased that he did that because, if I wasn't pleased that he had done that, I wouldn't agree on the principle I have. But if he corrects the problem, why is he now taking the community of Allardville in order to send those people to Miramichi? It will be their turn to be unhappy for the next 10 years. Mr. Chairman, if what I'm saying makes no sense, someone will have to enlighten me.

    I told the Commission that, if it could give me technical explanations so that I could understand the reasons for the change it had made, I would be able to understand and would keep quiet. It's like arriving in Toronto--there may be some people in Toronto here--and saying that, in the same city where there are 20 members, for example, they're putting one side of the street in another electoral district. That won't change much. People will go to the same federal offices. When you talk about economic development, they're all together, they're all close, because they are from both the two sides of the same street. I've seen districts where one side of the street is in one district and the other isn't. I find that funny. It's like dividing the stakes in half, whereas I don't have any. They've divided things so much that there's nothing left. It's really divided.

    I can understand that that can be done. In a city, you have to make the divisions somewhere, and the city is so concentrated that that can be in the street itself. They'll cut along the streets, along the street corners. They could have explained that to us. How can they come to Bathurst and take the little street called the little village of Little River, which is just one street with maybe 10 houses or so, and say that those people are going to be served by Miramichi, an hour away? How do you expect that to make sense when the population back home was only 86,000 inhabitants? It wasn't the end of the world, 86,000 persons, because there are districts with 130,000.

    Mr. Chairman, in 1995, when they changed the name of the district of Gloucester to Acadie-Bathurst, I said openly, publicly, that the Anglophones were saying that they didn't want the word “Acadie” in the name. The struggle, the rivalry between French and English has always existed. It's existed for a long time, and it exists in many places. But look at the progress we've made since 1995. With the electoral boundaries readjustment, when they wanted to call it Chaleur-Péninsule, it was the Anglophones who came and submitted a brief saying that they didn't want to lose the name “Acadie“.

  (1235)  

    Among us Acadians, things are going well, we're working together, we're doing economic development and we don't want those efforts to be lost. We're going to hurt our region if you remove the word “Acadie”. It's incredible the progress we've made together. I prepared a brief on that and ultimately that part was changed back to Acadie-Bathurst.

    Can people from the south of the province tell us what our district should be called? Who are you to come and tell us what we should call ourselves? Who are you to tell the people of Acadie-Bathurst that their riding will be called Chaleur-Péninsule? Is that the Gaspé Peninsula? Is it the Niagara Peninsula? What does a peninsula represent in Canada? What peninsula are we talking about? Is the name Chaleur a reference to the Baie des Chaleurs in Gaspé? What is Chaleur? Ultimately, we've agreed to come back to Acadie-Bathurst. Mr. Chairman, I simply wanted to show you how far they were ready to go to make changes for the simple pleasure of making changes.

    Let's come back to the question as to why Saint-Louis, Allardville and the parish of Bathurst, with the exception of the town of Bathurst, were put in Beauséjour. I asked the Commission why it had made that change. It was just to move people from one place to another. That goes against what Jean-Pierre Kingsley said. It goes against what the Commissioner of Official Languages said. It goes against what the Official Languages Committee said. It goes against what the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs said. It goes against what the population of Acadie-Bathurst said. It goes against what the member for Miramichi, Charles Hubbard, came and told the subcommittee of the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I don't like talking about this, but I'm obliged to agree with Mr. Godin that this makes no sense, as he said. I found him brave to come here and say it because it's like telling people you don't want to represent them. But that wasn't the question. It's that it doesn't make sense.

    Mr. Chairman, what have they done? They disregarded all that. It's now October 7, 2003, and the report was tabled in July. The Commission no longer exists, and we don't even know how the map of New Brunswick stands at present. We talked about Allardville excluding Saint-Sauveur, but, when you look at the map, you see that the line passes through Saint-Sauveur. The people of Saint-Sauveur are still wondering why. We asked Elections Canada to tell us whether part of Saint-Sauveur was part of Miramichi. We asked Elections Canada four times, and they can't tell us.

    Now we're going to pass a bill that says we're going to rely on the system and that it will be ready for April 1. Mr. Chairman, I have my doubts. I have my doubts because, at the last election, a lot of people were mixed up on the voters' list. How many will be mixed up if we try to ask one quickly this time? There's more than one reason for this 12-month period. First, you have to have a good list of electors in order to give people the opportunity to vote democratically. Second, you have to give people the opportunity to appear in court because that's the only thing they have left. They can't appear before the government and we can't amend the act in that respect. We can bring the date forward, but we can't amend the act. The people of Acadie-Bathurst want justice to be done, which they won't get if we pass Bill C-49 as it stands.

  (1240)  

Justice won't be done then.

[English]

    The Chair: Yvon, je m'excuse. I think it is time for the vote.

    Colleagues, what I've proposed to do is suspend until 3:30 today. We will begin again as close to 3:30 as we possibly can.

[Translation]

    Is that all right, Yvon?

[English]

    Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned until 3:30 this afternoon, in this same room.