36th Parliament, 1st Session
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 88
CONTENTS
Monday, April 20, 1998
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
|
1100
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
1105
1110
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
1115
1120
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
1125
1130
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John McKay |
1135
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1140
1145
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1150
1155
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Benoît Serré |
1200
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-39. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Jane Stewart |
1205
1210
1215
1220
1225
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1230
1235
1240
1245
1250
1255
1300
1305
1310
1315
1320
1325
1330
1335
1340
1345
1350
1355
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ARMENIAN PEOPLE
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Sarkis Assadourian |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | VOLUNTEERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1400
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL TEXTILES WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Janko Peric |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Karen Redman |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YTV YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Sarmite Bulte |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Hart |
1405
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CANADIAN FLAG
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Lynn Myers |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ETHOS RADIO
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Bill Gilmour |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | FERNAND LABRIE
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Hélène Alarie |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PARTI QUEBECOIS
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Denis Coderre |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1410
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | THE SENATE
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Bryden |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | C.D. HOWE INSTITUTE
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Jones |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR WEEK
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Joseph Volpe |
1415
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Myron Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1420
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Grant Hill |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
1425
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gilles Duceppe |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Pauline Picard |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Alexa McDonough |
1430
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Elsie Wayne |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
1435
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yvan Loubier |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jason Kenney |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | C. D. HOWE INSTITUTE
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
1440
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pierre Brien |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Chuck Cadman |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CIGARETTE PRICES
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Richard Marceau |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Andy Scott |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | TRADE
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. David Pratt |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. David Kilgour |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
1445
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jack Ramsay |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Anne McLellan |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEPATITIS C
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Mancini |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
1450
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Allan Rock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | YEAR 2000
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Susan Whelan |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Marcel Massé |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gurmant Grewal |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Diane Marleau |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ACQUISITION OF SUBMARINES
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphane Bergeron |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1455
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | HEALTH
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Greg Thompson |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Herb Gray |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Reg Alcock |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | POLLING
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jim Gouk |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | CORPORATE TAXATION
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Maud Debien |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BANKING
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
1500
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Paul Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PRIVILEGE
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Market Globalization
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stéphan Tremblay |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
|
1505
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | PETITIONS
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Thunder Bay Regional Hospital
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Stan Dromisky |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Pensions
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Nelson Riis |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Pat Martin |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Alfonso Gagliano |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Cummins |
1510
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter MacKay |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Banking
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Lorne Nystrom |
1515
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Monte Solberg |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | The Speaker |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Motion
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | GOVERNMENT ORDERS
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | NUNAVUT ACT
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Bill C-39. Second reading
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Preston Manning |
1520
1525
1530
1535
1540
1545
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Claude Bachand |
1550
1555
1600
1605
1610
1615
1620
1625
1630
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
1635
1640
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Norman Doyle |
1645
1650
1655
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell |
1700
1705
1710
1715
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
1720
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Roy Bailey |
1725
1730
1735
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Peter Adams |
1740
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Hon. Don Boudria |
1745
1750
1755
1800
1805
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner |
1810
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Dick Harris |
1815
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Rick Laliberte |
1820
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Derrek Konrad |
1825
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
|
1830
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Human Rights
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Gordon Earle |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Ted McWhinney |
1835
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Multilateral Agreement on Investment
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. John Solomon |
1840
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Julian Reed |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Young Offenders Act
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Carmen Provenzano |
1845
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Ms. Eleni Bakopanos |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Dredging of St. Lawrence
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Yves Rocheleau |
1850
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1855
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Canada Pension Plan Investment Board
|
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Alex Shepherd |
![V](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/b_stone1.gif) | Mr. Wayne Easter |
1900
(Official Version)
EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 88
![](/web/20061116191837im_/http://www2.parl.gc.ca/common/images/crest2.gif)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
Monday, April 20, 1998
The House met at 11 a.m.
Prayers
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
1100
[English]
NATIONAL HEAD START PROGRAM
The House resumed from February 19 consideration of the motion.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Madam Speaker, it
is my pleasure to speak in favour of Motion No. 261 as proposed
by my hon. colleague for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
I am also pleased to hear of the support for this motion from
other parties. As has been stated many times, this is not an
issue that needs to attract political sensitivities. It is
unfortunate that members of the Bloc appear to be attempting to
characterize this proposal in that fashion.
They referred to encroachment into the area of provincial
jurisdiction. They have tied this motion into the Canadian unity
debate. That is quite a stretch for the imagination. It may be
an example of paranoia, whereby the separatists now see every
issue as an attempt to attack Quebec. This motion should and
must be solely seen as an attempt to address problems experienced
throughout our society. It affects all Canadians.
As to the issue of provincial jurisdiction, I would first like
to point out that the motion includes the words “develop,
along with their provincial counterparts, a comprehensive
National Head Start Program for children in their first 8 years
of life”.
Just as with health and education, the federal government has an
acute interest in the proper development of our children. As
well, the primary purpose of this motion is to provide a good
start for our children. Extensive studies have shown that the
first eight years of life are critical in an individual's
development.
Inadequate attention and nurturing for our youngsters can often
lead to subsequent developmental difficulties. With a poor start
children may often wind up on the wrong side of the law. Since
the federal government has a significant stake in the area of
criminal law, together with our institutions of the police, the
courts, the prisons and the parole system, there may well be a
sufficient argument toward federal jurisdiction merely on the
basis of criminal law.
After all, the federal government should be interested in any
opportunity which results in such successful crime prevention
whereby a dollar spent on providing a good head start results in
the saving of many dollars down the road through decreases in our
criminal statistics. But as I said, this motion only proposes
the development of the program along with the provinces.
1105
The government has already implemented head start programs among
our aboriginal communities. They have been primarily limited to
reserves, but both aboriginal people living off reserve and
non-aboriginal people are also in need of such programs.
This government's own National Crime Prevention Council has been
very supportive of a national head start program. In its 1996
report at page 2 of the executive summary it states:
There is ample evidence that well-designed social development
programs can prevent crime and be cost-effective. Rigorous
evaluations, mainly American, show that crime prevention through
social development pays handsome dividends. In almost 30 years
of participant follow-up the Perry Preschool Program in Michigan
has been shown to be responsible for very significantly reducing
juvenile and adult crime.
This motion proposes that the government explore models based on
the Perry Preschool Program, among others.
The Secretary of State for Children and Youth has already spoken
to this motion. She commented on how successful the aboriginal
head start program has been. She pointed out that funding had
doubled due to its benefits. She encouraged further expansion to
include the protection of all our children and to assist needy
parents toward proper nurturing and caring of the next generation
of our society. This motion is on all fours with the secretary
of state's comments.
Additional comments have been made in this place about how a
national head start program can be a head start on the prevention
of crime, about how it is like a registered retirement savings
plan. Invest a dollar today to reap many more dollars in the
future.
The Minister of Finance should be the first to climb on board
and support programs of this nature. He should not concern
himself solely with attempting to solve the problems of the
present, but should plan ahead. By spending money today as an
investment in our children he can save much more in the future
through decreased health costs, crime costs and societal costs.
The Minister of Health knows that well fed, well adjusted
children from sound families lead much more healthier lives. The
Minister of Justice knows that this type of child is much less
likely to come before our justice system. The Solicitor General
will be very pleased to see less strain on his limited prison and
parole resources.
A couple of years ago the Minister of Finance recognized that an
investment in our children today would keep them out of jail in
20 years. He said that caring for children should be Canada's
number one priority. This motion encourages him to do just that.
I note that recently the province of Ontario provided $10
million to fund a home visiting program for new mothers. It is
known as Healthy Babies, Healthy Children. Hospitals will screen
all new mothers to identify babies and families who may need
extra support and services. It is to provide high risk families
with the parenting help needed and to avoid child abuse and
neglect. But already health authorities are saying the funding
is not enough.
Everyone appears to be on side as far as need and as far as
applicability. But, with all due respect, there is a definite
requirement for federal involvement. Pooling of resources will
reduce costs of implementation. Ideas and successes can be
shared. National standards will ensure children from all parts
of this country receive necessary assistance and protection.
Canada has come under criticism by the International Centre for
the Prevention of Crime. It has been pointed out that Belgium,
with a population of 10 million, spends $140 million a year on
crime prevention. Canada, with nearly three times the
population, spends only $10 million.
Crime costs Canadians approximately $46 billion a year. So far
caring for children through crime prevention measures, as
proposed by this motion, has not become our number one priority.
Back in August 1996 the former minister of justice commented
about the justice system and how the harm has already been done
by the time people come before the courts. He stated “We must
do more than deal with the symptoms of the problem. We must go
to the source”.
Programs as proposed by this motion go to the source. In 1996
the Child Welfare League of Canada argued the need to create a
comprehensive and permanent universal program cross Canada to
address funding for early intervention measures to assist our
children. Sandra Scarth, executive director of this
organization, in meetings with the former justice minister and
solicitor general pointed out the necessity to identify mothers
and children who are likely to be in difficulty and who need
regular intensive support from birth until school entry.
1110
Some of the facts presented were:
Child maltreatment in Canada is estimated at one in five.
There are 40,000 Canadian children in substitute care, such as
foster homes and group homes.
Child welfare authorities are monitoring nearly 200,000 children
who may be in unsatisfactory and unacceptable positions in their
homes.
One sex offender in three suffered some kind of sexual trauma as
a child.
Eighty per cent of female prisoners were physically and/or
sexually abused as children.
The risk of drug abuse is seven times as high for children who
have been sexually abused as for children who have not, and the
risk of suicide is 10 times as high.
The biggest factors in whether a parent will abuse a child are
childhood experiences, social isolation and physical or
developmental problems with the child.
Surely facts and figures such as these should be enough for all
of us to address how we can better provide for a proper good
start for our children. They are the most defenceless and least
protected members of our society. This motion is a good start
toward addressing some of the inadequacies toward these children.
We will all benefit from the further developments as proposed by
the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca.
There is much demand across this country, and rightly so, to
strengthen the Young Offenders Act, especially as it relates to
violent crime. Would it not be nice if we were able to head off
the problems before they entered the realm of criminality? Would
it not be nice if we never had to invoke the Young Offenders Act
or the Criminal Code in the first place? Of course we know that
such a state is unattainable. It would be Utopian, but perhaps
this House could move the country one small step closer by
supporting this motion.
I urge my colleagues in this place to give it careful
consideration.
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to address the
House today on Motion No. 261, advocating a national head start
program for Canadian children.
In the last decade we have learned a tremendous amount about
early child development. What happens in the first few years of
life, indeed as early as the prenatal period, can have a lasting
effect on the development of a child. A child's earliest
experiences often affect his or her capacity to learn, to be
healthy and to be productive throughout life. We now know, for
example, that the brain develops more rapidly in the first year
of life than had previously been believed.
While most children go through the early years of life getting
everything they need to develop to their full potential, some
children are not as fortunate. Unfortunately poverty is the
largest single factor affecting young Canadians today. Many
children who live in poverty have inadequate housing or do not
get enough to eat. Other Canadian children live in families who
are isolated without adequate social support or who face barriers
to accessing quality health care and social services. Still
other children experience neglect or abuse. It is estimated that
one in five children are living in conditions of risk.
The hon. member will be pleased to know that early investments
in healthy child development are a priority for this government.
The government is taking a preventative approach to physical and
mental health by optimizing early child development for all
children and intervening early for at risk and marginalized
children. The government recognizes the importance of supporting
families, which have undoubtedly the most important influence on
a child's development. Also recognized is the need to support
parents in their role as children's teachers and their
protectors.
The Government of Canada has developed three programs that
provide long term funding to community groups to design and
deliver programs to address the needs of pregnant women, young
children and families living in conditions of risk. The first
program is the Canada prenatal nutrition program, CPMP; the
second is the community action program for children, CAPC; and
the aboriginal head start program is the third.
The Canadian prenatal nutrition program, or CPMP, funds 264
projects in 751 communities. These projects offer food
supplements, nutrition counselling and support, education and
counselling on issues such as alcohol abuse, stress and family
violence. These projects also make referrals to other services;
8,500 in their first six months of operation.
CPMP participants are pregnant teens, women living in isolation,
women who abuse alcohol or other substances, women living in
violent situations and women diagnosed with other problems
including diabetes, et cetera. This program is successfully
reaching pregnant women who are at risk of low birth.
In fact the number of participants in 1997 and 1998 is 30% higher
than was anticipated.
1115
The community action program for children, or CAPC, funds over
450 projects across Canada so that children get a better start in
life and are ready to start school and improve their chances of
growing into healthy and productive adults. Activities include
home visiting, parenting classes, play groups, discussion groups
and counselling. Over 30,000 parents and children are involved
each week in CAPC activities.
In addition, these projects have created 1,000 jobs with 20% of
them filled by CAPC parents. The projects also account for
30,000 hours of volunteer time every month. I can speak from
experience regarding the CAPC. It is an exceptional program and
certainly one which is valued by the residents of my riding
Waterloo—Wellington.
Children at aboriginal head start spend an average of three
hours per day and four days per week in classroom activities.
Approximately 30,000 children are enrolled in the program with an
average of 30 to 40 children at any given site. Approximately
400 aboriginal people are employed in head start centres and
aboriginal communities are involved in the planning, development
and operation of all aboriginal head start projects.
Aboriginal head start, CAPC and CPNP have all proven successful
in working within broad based community partnerships channelling
resources into areas where they have the most positive impact on
at risk and marginalized children. The success of these programs
speaks volumes to the value of co-operative community based
interventions for children.
This community based approach is paying back dividends by
getting more children off to a better start in life, increasing
their school readiness and improving their chances of growing
into healthy and productive adults who will participate fully in
Canadian society.
There are some key issues raised by the motion in the context of
the national children's agenda which I would like to highlight at
this time.
First, the motion represents a major emerging theme in the
national children's agenda but is only one part of that agenda.
Early child development while a central theme to NCA is only one
piece of the overall agenda and discussions are still in an early
stage. No decisions have been made regarding the specific areas
of action. The national children's agenda is a more
comprehensive approach to child development than the present
motion covering children throughout their entire childhood. For
example, other areas of interest include supporting families
around work, family balance and effective safe communities. It is
important to support children in early years but that support
must continue throughout development.
Second, further consideration is needed on how to strategically
focus our efforts on the early years of childhood. The exact
development years which would be included in early child
development remains under discussion. The motion does not
consider the prenatal period which is crucial to child
development. For example, low birth weight babies are more at
risk for later developmental problems. As well, though the
motion refers to children ages zero to eight, it may be more
appropriate to start with children in their early preschool
years, for example under age four or five where no formal system
currently exists. Then as the system develops the program could
be expanded to include children ages six to eight when school
transition issues begin.
Third, the motion misses the importance of citizen engagement in
plans to improve the well-being of Canada's children. The motion
speaks to the need to work with the provinces and territories on
children's issues. However no mention is made of the importance
of engaging the public. The national children's agenda is
intended to be more than a product of governments talking to
governments and other partners will be engaged as the agenda
moves forward. All Canadians will have the opportunity to
contribute their views regarding possible areas for action and to
define how we improve the well-being of all Canadian children.
Fourth, full implementation by the year 2000 is overly
optimistic. Though the programs listed in the motion in the
federal government's CAPC provide good models on which to build,
full implementation of the national head start program by the
year 2000 is too optimistic. Given the overlapping areas of
jurisdiction and the cross sectorial approach needed to properly
address children's issues, negotiations for a national head start
will take some time, not to mention the time required for broader
consultations to engage citizens.
In light of the growing body of research demonstrating the
window of opportunity which exists in early childhood, and in
view of the growing political and public interest in the area of
child development, a system to enhance early child development is
critical and should be an early priority.
Clearly children's issues, particularly those relating to early
child development, are a priority as indicated in the September
23, 1997 Speech from the Throne, the recent first ministers'
meeting of December 12, 1997, and the commitment to
federal-provincial territorial development of the national
children's agenda. This is apparent.
1120
Motion No. 261 is consistent with this emphasis on enhancing
children's well-being. However, given the status of the national
children's agenda it would be inappropriate for the motion to go
forward.
Early in 1997 federal, provincial and territorial governments
began working together to develop the national children's agenda.
It would be inconsistent to now be advancing on another front on
a private member's motion and what it suggests.
Most recently at the December 12, 1997 meeting, first ministers
reaffirmed their commitment to new co-operative approaches to
ensure child well-being. Noting the progress of the national
children's agenda, first ministers agreed to fast track work on
that agenda. Until that work in progress has been outlined and
discussed Motion No. 261 is premature.
Therefore I ask all members of the House to vote accordingly.
[Translation]
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Madam Speaker, I will begin
by going over the wording of Motion M-261 introduced by my
colleague for Esquimault—Juan de Fuca, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should:
(a) develop, along with their provincial counterparts, a
comprehensive National Head Start Program for children in their
first 8 years of life; (b) ensure that this integrated program
involves both hospitals and schools, and is modelled on the
experiences of the Moncton Head Start Program, Hawaii Head Start
Program, and PERRY Pre-School Program; and (c) ensure that the
program is implemented by the year 2000.
Far be it from me to question the good faith of the hon. member
for Esquimault—Juan de Fuca and his noble intentions to prevent
child and youth crime. We are all concerned about giving
children a good start in life. We are all concerned about crime
among young people, especially the fact that it is on the
increase.
Either in their role as MPs or in their professional
activities, all of the members in this House have been in a
position to observe cases of youth crime. We all agree that the
deep-seated causes of this must be dealt with seriously.
Once again, however, the Bloc Quebecois is forced to point out
that this motion falls within an area of exclusively provincial
jurisdiction, and that it inaugurates new national standards and
directives we do not support.
The Bloc Quebecois is therefore opposed to the mechanisms
proposed by the hon. member for Esquimault—Juan de Fuca to fight
youth crime. We believe the provinces are better placed to
identify and assess community needs and to put into place
programs and various types of intervention with young people.
We know, and experience has shown, that each province has its
own particular philosophy about the prevention of youth and
adult crime. It may be a question of identity and culture. We
have only to think of the debates in the House regarding the
Young Offenders Act. It became clear that members' attitudes,
reactions and solutions with respect to this legislation
differed enormously.
The same is true in this debate. Quebeckers and Canadians often
see things differently, as is evident from their approach to
social issues. By setting up a comprehensive program such as
the one proposed by the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, the
federal government would not only be interfering in areas of
jurisdiction where it has no business, but would not be helping
children and young people whose situation requires an adapted
approach.
If the other provinces wish to have the federal government
intervene and set up programs to keep youth from turning to
crime, we respect that choice. Quebec's choice must also be
respected.
It must be pointed out that a good start has already been made.
I was most astonished to hear the Reform member who spoke before
me just now speak about the Bloc Quebecois' paranoia, because we
are opposed to this bill.
1125
If Reform members were to come to Quebec and find out what is
being done, they would perhaps not hold these views about us.
In fact, as I mentioned earlier, Quebec has already taken the
lead in this area. In his health and welfare policy, the Quebec
minister of health and social services has made the elimination
of youth crime a priority. What we have seen is that there has
been no increase in the number of young offenders in recent
years, but that their offences have become much more serious in
nature.
In addition, the causality and risk factors underlying this
major change in youth crime have been identified.
These include single parenthood, the absence and desertion of
the father, poverty, drug addiction, social exclusion, school
adjustment problems, the company of other young offenders,
parental crime and conjugal conflicts. The causes are numerous
and they were clearly identified.
Finally, Quebec advocates five priority measures to reduce the
prevalence and seriousness of delinquency by the year 2002:
making fathers more accountable; strengthening the father-child
relationship; taking action in the school environment;
supporting flexible interventions instead of rigid ones; seeking
a better balance in the funds earmarked for boys and girls who
are experiencing difficulties; giving special attention to girls
and, among other initiatives, adjusting any new measure and
action related to the Young Offenders Act.
As you can see, the approach taken by Quebec stakeholders speaks
for itself. They identified the problems, along with their
causes and risk factors. Then, they proposed solutions while
also setting realistic goals. This approach reflects the reality
of Quebec society, and more specifically that of young
offenders.
This action plan was part of the national priorities on public
health, on which all stakeholders were consulted, including the
health and social services network, community organizations,
professional groups, municipalities, and the education,
environment, transport, justice and recreation sectors. All took
part in the development of the program. Since it is the result
of a consensus, the program is based on joint action and is very
flexible.
This would unfortunately not be the case if Quebec had to
implement a program designed and developed in some federal
administration back room.
Let us tell it as it is. In what way would the federal
government be in a better position to resolve the problems
facing young children when poverty has been on the rise ever
since this government took office? There are serious child
poverty problems in Canada. There are 1.5 million poor children
whose basic needs are not met and who do not have what is needed
to get a good start in life.
But remember that where there are poor children, there are poor
parents. A study released in March by the economist Pierre
Fortin showed that 58% of the unemployed who are not eligible
under the employment insurance plan have no choice but to go on
welfare. These individuals cannot qualify for EI benefits. They
are therefore forced unto social assistance and on the way to
living in poverty.
What has the government done to help eliminate child poverty?
Not much. In fact, it has cut transfer payments to the
provinces, attacked the unemployed from all sides to increase
surpluses in the employment insurance fund and supported the
finance minister in his accounting operations. Injecting a
measly $425 million in the child tax benefit program will
certainly not help children get out of poverty in the short
term.
This centralizing policy which the Reform Party is putting
forward will once again prove to be useless and expensive
because of the overlap it will create in Quebec.
1130
We must avoid falling in this trap at all cost. The federal
government and the Reform Party must understand once and for all
that Quebec can look after its own business and take care of its
own problems as well. It does not need big brother looking over
its shoulder to achieve its goals.
As I mentioned earlier, Quebec has already taken the lead in
dealing with youth crime. The hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de
Fuca should come and see what is being done in this respect.
Perhaps the members of the Reform Party would then change their
minds.
[English]
Mr. John McKay (Scarborough East, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
congratulate the hon. member for bringing forward this important
motion to the House. I hope that he has as much success in
influencing the agenda for change as he did with respect to the
land mines issue.
This is a serious motion which deserves a serious and thoughtful
response. The essence of the motion links rising crime among
young offenders with dysfunctional family dynamics.
Do we put resources in at the front end of a child's life or do
we pay for it later on through involvement in the justice system?
Are the resources to go to programs to help families or do we
build bigger jails? Either way, we are going to spend resources.
What is the best way to spend them?
Stating the question is easy. The answer, however, is far more
problematic. Unfortunately influence in society is not like
physics. Every action has an opposite and equal reaction in
physics, but the same cannot be said of the sociology of social
programs.
In his support material the hon. member makes reference to
programs in Hawaii and New Brunswick. I am not so pretentious as
to dispute the efficacy of the programs or their research.
However, those results may not necessarily play out in a larger,
less controlled societal environment. In other words, the larger
the target community, the less measurable will be the results.
There does seem to be a correlation between a drop in juvenile
crime and meeting the basic needs of children. However, it is
not as neat as we would like it to be. There appears to be a
correlation but it is not neat.
I draw attention to an article by Cathy Campbell in Child
Health, winter issue 1998, volume 20, quoting Dr. Clyde
Hertzman, professor of health care and epidemiology at UBC:
“Lower income children who get good early childhood education
are healthier, go further in school, get better jobs and rely
less on the social welfare system”.
The National Crime Prevention Council estimates that crime costs
Canada $46 billion annually. If we took $1 million and invested
it in prison space for career criminals this would prevent 60
crimes annually. If we took the same amount and used it to
monitor 12 and 13 year old delinquents it would prevent 72 crimes
a year. Further, if that $1 million were invested in incentives
for young people to graduate from high school it could be
estimated that we would save 258 crimes annually.
In some manner we visit this dilemma every time there is a major
crime involving a juvenile which generates media attention or
when there is government initiated legislation in the field. If
and when the government tables its response to the justice
committee's report and recommendations on young offenders this
debate will be played out again.
Canada incarcerates children at the rate of four times that of
the United States and 15 times that of the average European
nation. So much for being a kinder and gentler version of the
United States. We are world class incarcerators of juveniles.
1135
I do not think that is something to be proud of. It certainly
gives one pause to consider one's very sense of who we are as
Canadians.
Canadians believe that juvenile crime is out of control, that
they are at risk every time they go to the store to pick up a bag
of milk or a carton of cigarettes. Yet arguably the young
offenders legislation is tough enough and puts away far more
children than any other civilized nation.
There is a discrepancy between what Canadians believe and what
is the reality of the legislation. The hon. member proposes a
long term solution which has some merit. Some members of his
party could easily be described as people who feel that the
government is not tough enough on crime, that the government is
made up of a bunch of wimps, that the young offenders legislation
is not tough enough.
The government responds, as it did through the minister of state
for children and youth, by saying look at all the things it is
doing. There was the Speech from the Throne, the aboriginal head
start programs, the Canada prenatal nutrition program, the $850
million in the budget and a further $850 million promised for a
child benefit system. The debate goes on and on.
One side firmly believes that we should toughen up all
legislation affecting youth and youth crime and the other is
saying we need more head start programs.
I do not find myself seriously disagreeing with the hon.
member's motion. I might quibble with the wording to ensure that
children are seen as part of the family and that programs should
be tailored to support the family. Beyond that, I would see his
motion as something that supports government initiatives and the
general direction of this government. Only it urges a more
coherent view on the government.
I support the thrust of this motion. However, I am concerned
that there is not an easy correlation between head start programs
and crime reduction. The government should continue to monitor
its initiatives in light of the tests set out in this motion.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I am
pleased to support private member's Motion No. 261 by the member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca. I congratulate him on bringing this
matter forward.
The underlying concern it represents for our children,
particularly the ages encompassed by the bill from time of birth
until age 8, is a concern that will receive support from people
across the country. I think it will receive support in the
hearts of every member in the House.
When we did the 10 year review of the Young Offenders Act we
travelled across the country and listened to witnesses, both
expert and professional, as well as lay people who had an
interest in the whole area of the development of youth, of
preventing youth crime and wrestling with the question regarding
what to do with the very small percentage of violent young
offenders who do create a threat to the lives and safety of
members of our society.
During that hearing experts told us that aberrant and over
aggressive behaviour could be spotted as early as grades one, two
and three in the schools by teachers.
I want to assure my Bloc colleagues that when we arrived in
Quebec, we found that Quebec had programs far ahead of some of
the other provinces. To set their minds more at ease, in the
Young Offenders Act meetings that we are holding across western
Canada today, as I stand and speak I make mention of the fact
that there are programs in Quebec that ought to be looked at and
perhaps emulated by other provinces if they have a real concern
about dealing with the early detection and preventive programs.
This is the three level approach that my party has taken to the
whole area of the Young Offenders Act. The two areas, of course,
lie within the jurisdiction of the provinces. The first is the
early detection and prevention where resources are placed in the
programs where a teacher, for example, seeing a child having
difficulties can refer that child to a program of the provincial
government where the child as well as the parents can receive the
help they need to keep that young child on track.
1140
We think this is a very worthwhile program, very much along the
lines of the head start program that my colleague from
Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca is referring to in this motion. There
are aspects of this ongoing in Canada already. My colleague from
across the way earlier mentioned the head start programs in some
of the aboriginal communities in Canada.
What we want to do through this motion is create a greater
awareness of the need to help the children and the benefit, not
only from a societal point of view but from the economic point of
view, as my colleague who just finished speaking touched on, we
think is extremely important.
We also looked at programs such as the Sparwood program and
the Maple Ridge program in B.C., two excellent programs where
young children who get into difficulty for the first or second
time with the law are diverted from the court system into these
community justice systems.
We met last week with Lola Chapman who heads the Maple Ridge
program. She gave us some astounding figures that gave me and my
colleagues great hope and encouragement that we can keep more of
our young children out of the criminal justice system while at
the same time catching them at a time when rehab efforts will
have the greatest impact on them.
Let me give an example. The figures she gave us started three
years ago. At that time in her area there was a juvenile court
sitting once a week and approximately 45 to 60 young offenders
passed before the court during one day. That is now down to an
average of eight per day. That is a very commendable achievement
on the part of those very concerned and dedicated volunteers who
support the program and work with the young people who are
referred to them rather than taking them into the court system.
The police and now the crown are able to refer them to this
program that has been running for approximately three years.
Miss Chapman spoke about the success rate and I asked her to
define what success meant. She said they consider a success to
include any young offender who has not repeated within at least a
year's time. She also said their success rate was 94%. That is
very commendable. The Sparwood program is a little different
but still has the same high success rate of over 90% in dealing
with young people who have brushed with the law for the first
time and who have never returned to difficulties. This is very
commendable.
When we look from the federal point of view of how to reduce the
number of people entering the youth justice system and what we
should really be doing with the Young Offenders Act we are
encouraged by these two programs. This is the early detection and
preventive program, the best of which I have seen so far in
Quebec, and also the diversion program. This program is involved
when young people get into difficulties for the first or second
time and they are diverted away from court. They have concerned
people who will stick with them 7 days a week, 24 hours a day to
help and guide them.
In those cases involving restitution in 100% of the cases
restitution has been paid and that again is another astonishing
figure. It shows the degree of accountability and responsibility
that we need to engender in our young people so that when they
become adults they have that sense of responsibility with them.
When we look at this whole area of the youth justice system and
what we should be doing with the Young Offenders Act, we could
introduce and have every community set up its own unique program
similar to what the Sparwood and Maple Ridge programs have set
up. I understand they are spreading across the provinces and it
is into Alberta now.
1145
We could reduce that very small percentage of violent young
offenders who threaten the lives and safety of members of
society. As the federal government and as federal politicians we
have to wrestle with that problem. What do we do with that very
small percentage of violent young offenders who threaten the
lives and safety of members of our society?
We must not shrink from the use of incarceration. At the same
time we must ensure that our educational programs and other rehab
programs in the institutions are sound and are getting through to
our young people so that the possibility of rehabilitation is
very real.
We visited closed custody and open custody facilities. We did
not see very much to encourage us with regard to the rehab
programs. In most cases they are voluntary and are not
compulsory. Young offenders can sit and watch TV or play cards
if they do not want to engage in the programs.
This motion brings an awareness. If that awareness is followed
through it will strengthen the early detection and prevention
programs at the point where it is so badly needed.
I only have another minute or so but I want to refer to the
Sydney mines project outside Sydney, Nova Scotia which we
visited. It involves children who have fallen through the
cracks, who have had to leave school, have bumped into the law
and so on. They are doing a magnificent job in getting those
young children up to speed in educational areas. They are
getting them on track and are moving forward. There have been
enormous successes.
We must divert our resources from the back end to the front end
so that we do not have a continually expanding criminal justice
system which simply eats away at more dollars and does not attack
the real cause of crime.
If poverty is a cause of crime which in many cases it is, then
we should look at the high taxation levels which have left one
family in every five living in poverty.
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I would like to speak in support of Motion No. 261. The member
for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca has raised a very important challenge
for this country.
I am speaking from experience in terms of my being in the
educational system and in the administration of a school district
for the last 12 years. I have also seen the beginning of the
aboriginal head start program in my community.
The member proposes that the first eight years of life are
crucial for child development. I remind the House and fellow
citizens of Canada that children in aboriginal communities were
affected by the residential school system policy, much to the
detriment of the parenting process in those communities. I must
caution that we do not try to institutionalize our children at a
very young age. We must not abandon the family structure of our
people. All Canadians want to live in a family environment.
Head start is crucial if the family environment is not intact.
If the parents are not able to provide the academic, social,
economic and emotional support, then the head start program plays
an important role. The head start program is the community
taking the leadership in an extended family role.
The community base is crucial. The aboriginal head start
program made that a major priority. Community groups had to be
involved in the development of head start. The other aspect is
the educational systems in Canada.
1150
Why could the schools not administer the head start program so
that an additional administrative structure is not created? We do
not need to duplicate administration. We want to create programs
and services for children and their families, not to spend money
on administration. We should allow the school systems to
administer the program as is done in the province of Quebec.
The head start program will require curriculum development. An
integral part of the aboriginal head start program is language
development. Neheyo-watsin, in my language, we cannot lose the
aboriginal languages of this country's aboriginal peoples. This
is the homeland of that language. If head start imposes English
or French as opposed to the community's first language, it is a
detriment and takes us back to institutionalization and
residential school policies. That is not the intention of the
community aboriginal head start programs.
The communities want to keep their languages first. If children
can keep the first language intact until the age of eight years,
then they can pick up a second, third or fourth language with
greater ease. However, their first language must be developed
first.
While the motion mentions provincial and federal partnership, it
begs to include community partnership in this development. It
mentions hospitals and schools. In educational and community
development, schools play a more integral part than do hospitals.
There is more readiness of schools than hospitals in our
communities.
Transporting a child of three, four or five years of age across
the community to another city or town to attend head start
programs or receive services is a little out of vision. Many of
the head start outreach programs are at the home base. This
allows the development of children at home by the parents with
support services from the head start program. Keeping a family
together is very important.
I have another example concerning crime. Reform members have
taken this as the flagship of reducing crime. There is a
statistic which astounded me. On a tour of the Saskatchewan
penitentiary during the royal commission hearings the
commissioners heard many briefs given by inmates. At the end of
the day the co-chair, Mr. Erasmus, asked the attending inmates
how many of them had come through the foster home program. Eighty
per cent of the inmates in that room had come through the foster
home program. This points to the family structure.
If immediate families cannot carry the burden of raising a
child, the extended families must immediately be put into place.
The community must be given the authority and the means to
provide that child support in the child's immediate surroundings.
By displacing children elsewhere in the province or in the
country is not to their betterment. We must keep the families as
close as possible within their immediate areas. This is a
concern I have with the head start program as well.
In my community I have seen the evolution of urbanization.
Because of low incomes and social housing, families are forced to
stay in a community with water and sewer systems. Traditionally
however, they lived along the rivers and lakes which is where the
clans raised and supported each other. Now, because of the way
neighbourhoods are designed, a sister could be living across town
and an uncle could be living on the other side of town, leaving
no family support system in the community structure.
There is also an evolution on the family farms. They have been
hit hard by declining incomes. The spouses must rely on a second
source of income which will take members away from the family.
The federal and provincial governments should support the family
as much as possible. Farmers provide for the wealth of the
agricultural community. They provide food for this nation and for
the world. The fishermen who provide the food do not diminish
their responsibility or their role in this country. Keep their
families intact. Do not compromise them by creating programs
that keep parenting away from their responsibilities. My message
is to keep the families intact.
1155
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise today to speak on
Motion No. M-261, a motion which encourages the government to
develop a comprehensive national head start program. I thank my
colleague the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca for
introducing this motion. I congratulate him for his compassion
and for the work he has done on this very important issue.
There is no doubt that youth crime is alarming. Social workers
are getting calls from parents who claim their children are
uncontrollably violent. It is even a problem among elementary
school children and preschoolers. It is not rare to see 10-year
old children behaving violently at school, nor is it rare to see
that between siblings. There is indeed something inconceivably
wrong with an 11-year old boy who rapes or a 14-year old who
stabs a 7-year old to death.
The truth is that harsher punishment or counselling and proper
parenting are simply not enough. What is the solution? The
solution might be found in programs such as head start which
would assist at risk children in their development. Head start
programs aim to level the playing field before children enter the
public school system. This is a constructive approach to deal
with the problem.
Every year thousands of disadvantaged children enter school for
the first time. Many have health problems and many lack
self-confidence. If children are allowed to fall behind in the
early years, then often their troubles are compounded in later
years. Extensive research has shown that it is possible to
enhance the ability of a disadvantaged child to cope with school
and their total environment.
[Translation]
A real head start program addresses the emotional, social and
psychological needs of children, as well as their health and
nutritional requirements. All existing head start programs have
been very favourably received by educators, child development
specialists, community leaders and parents.
This program will have a significant impact on communities.
To a certain extent, it will make it possible to find solutions
to a variety of situations: single-parent families, teenage
pregnancies, illiteracy, homelessness, alcohol and drug abuse,
and ill-treatment of children.
A head start program helps children to do better in school and
provides parents with the knowledge and services they need to
manage their lives better. Parents must participate directly in
their children's development, playing a great role in this
regard.
The head start program is patterned on the national action
program for children and on the agreement worked out by premiers
for the purpose of accelerating the work planned under this
program.
Naturally, funding for the head start program would come from
the federal, provincial and municipal governments and would
require the participation of community volunteers.
It would recognize that the needs of children vary by community,
province and region.
[English]
What is the priority? The priority must be our children. They
learn how to learn at an early age. Have members ever been in an
intensive care neonatal unit? Have they ever seen a baby
addicted to drugs or affected by alcohol? Do they know how much
that costs? It costs hundreds of thousands of dollars. Then the
child becomes a ward of the community, perhaps permanently
damaged.
1200
This is why we are having this debate today. We want to stress
the importance of little children, young and formative pieces of
clay. Children are and must be our priority.
[Translation]
We must create a special early childhood development program for
disadvantaged children. It is an investment we will never
regret.
[English]
In the first 18 months a child learns to think well or poorly of
himself. In the first two years children either learn how to
learn or do not learn how to learn. This is why we must provide
them with tools for their development and guide them on the right
path. It costs a lot more to send kids to prison than to send
them to school.
I am passionate about early childhood education for
disadvantaged, tiny children. Studies prove that if we love and
nurture, show affection to these little pieces of clay they will
be honour students. Furthermore, studies confirm that there can
be more than $7 in savings for every $1 spent on such programs.
We must be on the cutting edge of this initiative. We have
eliminated the deficit. It is now time to invest in our
children, our greatest asset. We have to take responsibility
because it is our duty.
Let us come out of this debate with a consensus. We must
continually rework the head start idea for it to become the most
cost effective program ever developed.
I see that the hour has come to an end. I will continue the
next time the matter is before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The time provided for
the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired
and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence
on the order paper.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
NUNAVUT ACT
Hon. Jane Stewart (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern
Development, Lib.) moved that Bill C-39, an act to amend the
Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, be read the second
time and referred to a committee.
She said: Madam Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure and an honour
for me to begin the debate on Bill C-39, an act to amend the
Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.
I remind the House and indeed all Canadians that on April 1,
1999 something very important will happen, something that is
reflective of who we are as a country and as Canadians, something
that describes how we have been able through the course of the
20th century to find ways and means of modernizing democracy, of
reflecting the will of the people of the land, and of taking
creative approaches through negotiation, building treaties and
discussion to find better ways to build governing structures that
are representative and reflective of the people we are elected to
represent.
On April 1, 1999 Canada will have a new territory, the territory
of Nunavut. Over the course of the 20th century we as a country
have found ways to build a nation, to make change. If we go back
to 1905, it was in that year that two new provinces were created
out of the Northwest Territories, the province of Alberta and the
province of Saskatchewan. In a peaceful way we reflected the
interests, the needs, and respected the requirements of the
people living in what we now know to be two very important
special provinces in our federation, Alberta and Saskatchewan.
At the beginning of the 20th century we had something very
important and now we have at the end of the 20th century
something equally important.
The creation of Nunavut is something we should all be proud of.
It is something that is capturing the attention of the world. We
know it is very rare that countries can in peaceful ways through
negotiation build, change, redraw their maps and in a very active
way remember and reflect on the fact that governments really are
about people.
Our challenge is to find modern ways to ensure that the people of
the country feel a part of it and feel that their ideas and their
concerns are reflected in their governing structures.
1205
Bill C-39 is an extremely important piece of the legislative
framework that will allow us to have a successful creation of or
transition to the new territory of Nunavut on April 1, 1999.
As a result of conversations with my counterparts in the
Government of the Northwest Territories, with the leadership of
the Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, with the work of the interim
commissioner Jack Anawak and of the Nunavut Implementation
Committee, we have identified that we need to build on the work
that has gone on in the past and to implement amendments that
will ensure the stable, safe and seamless transition to the new
territory of Nunavut in April 1999.
Bill C-39 then is not an end in itself but is one piece in a
long history of what the peoples of the eastern Arctic wanted and
require. It makes sense to have a government that reflects them
in modern times.
If we think back on the history, it is a fascinating one. We
know now that the Inuit people were in Canada's Arctic and high
Arctic over 4,000 years ago. I have had the great fortune to
travel to the north. I am constantly amazed at how the Inuit and
others living in the eastern Arctic have found ways to
acclimatize, to live and to thrive in very harsh environmental
conditions. If we think about that, 4,500 years ago, it is a
tribute to the human condition, to human nature and to the Inuit
people to see that they have stayed, thrived and flourished. They
are bringing up families in northern climes, something that we
have come to appreciate as very much a part of Canada.
In the mid-1500s Martin Frobisher, the explorer, was trying to
find a passage to the Orient. He travelled through the islands
of the high Arctic. Carrying on with our history, in the 1870s
and 1880s the British crown transferred the Arctic and the
islands of the high Arctic to Canadian authority.
In the early 1900s we saw structural changes to the Northwest
Territories and the creation of the new provinces of Alberta and
Saskatchewan. In the 1920s there were discussions with other
international parties, the Danes and the Norwegians, but again we
viewed these lands to be very much a part of Canada and have
defended that strongly.
It has been interesting to note that in the 1960s in the very
large territory of the Northwest Territories which crosses over
three time zones there were the beginnings of discussions about
the need for division. There was a recognition that there were
differences across that large geographic mass.
In the 1960s a task force was assembled, the Carrothers
commission, to look at the appropriateness of the geographic
alignment of that territory and how well we were able to
represent the interests of the people there with one governing
structure. As we know in the Mackenzie Valley and in the
Beaufort Sea at that time there was increasing interest in the
natural resources, an increasing population growth and an
interest in building toward stronger representative government.
In 1973 a significant decision of the supreme court allowed us
to start thinking about the Northwest Territories and other lands
in Canada in a new way. In 1973 in the Calder decision the door
was opened for us to consider the issue of aboriginal title in
Canada and the fact that it may continue to exist. In 1973 the
Inuit Tapirisat began to research the traditional occupancy of
the Inuit people in the far north, to reflect their information
and beliefs and to encourage us to work together to build a
modern land claims structure and strategy.
1210
The year 1973 was the turning point and gave us the interest to
build the modern land claims strategy that we now see being
implemented across the country, not only in the north with the
Inuit people, with the Dene and the Metis but in British Columbia
and Quebec where we are settling comprehensive agreements on land
claims and self-government.
Over the course of the seventies and into the eighties the
discussion about division and appropriate boundaries in the
Northwest Territories continued. There were different strategies
put forward. The Dene suggested that we break into three
different territories. The Inuvialuit, the Inuit people around
the Beaufort, became very interested in focusing on their
self-government in land claims agreements. We have settled those
and are proceeding to implementation in the western part of the
Northwest Territories.
In 1992 we came to understand more fully the importance of
settling what has come to be Canada's largest land claim
agreement, the land claim agreement in Nunavut. This is a huge
territory in and of itself, covering over 200 million square
kilometres of land. In 1993 the Nunavut Act legislation was
passed that allows us to settle the land claim and create the new
and innovative governing structures that we need so that the
people of the eastern Arctic feel that their government is
reflective of their interests and of their concerns.
While the government will not be dissimilar in many ways to the
governments we see in the territories, there will be some
differences. One that is of particular interest and that has been
strongly encouraged by the Inuit in the eastern Arctic is that
the government be decentralized and that there be bodies of the
government in remote communities so that people are connected
with their structures of government.
It is an interesting undertaking which as I said is reflective
of our capacity as a country to build democracy, to build a
nation and to understand that democracy is not static and has to
change and evolve, and that a country and a federation as
successful as ours can find ways in modern times to evolve and to
change.
The history that has brought us to this point has been a long
and arduous one. It has been 20 years since we have focused our
attention on building a new government in the eastern Arctic.
This has been strongly supported by all people in the Northwest
Territories, and it would have to be because when boundaries
change there are issues associated with division that have to be
negotiated.
I am proud to say that the discussions are currently continuing
and being undertaken to ensure we have the platform for governing
structures available on April 1 and are proceeding in a positive
fashion.
As I said at the outset, we have discovered that we need more
legislation to allow us to continue to make progress. That
legislation and these amendments are real and important. They
were not just dreamed up by this side of the House. The needs
were fed to us by our partners in the Northwest Territories, the
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, our partners in the Nunavut
Implementation Commission and the interim commissioner, Mr. Jack
Anawak, a former colleague of ours in the House who has taken on
the task of ensuring that we are implementing “Footprints In the
Snow”, the document that gave us the grand design for the
territory itself.
The amendments that are part of Bill C-39 fall into two broad
categories: the amendments that are particularly technical in
nature and the second group of amendments to ensure full
representation for the people of Nunavut both in the House and in
the other place.
1215
When it comes to the technical amendments, they essentially are
required so that we have a stable and even flow of activities
between now and April 1, 1999 and then into the future. We want
to make sure, for example, that people have the ability to have
their car licences continued, that people have a court structure
which has continuity, that for cases which have been or are being
heard there is not a requirement for a stoppage, but that things
can flow and continue.
We want to make sure that social services continue to be
provided and that we have platforms so that there is no stop or
start, that individual residents can be assured that their
circumstances will not change in terms of their day to day lives.
These technical amendments are critically important and they are
necessitated by the fact that we believe and are sure we can
create this new territory with a minimum of confusion, concern
and difficulty for citizens in what will be the western Arctic
and the eastern Arctic.
We can imagine the work that goes into preparing this platform.
The interim commissioner as we speak is in negotiations with the
Government of the Northwest Territories with the Government of
Canada, looking at arrangements, at contracts that have been
struck between the federal government and the Northwest
Territories and sorting them out to make sure that the assets and
liabilities in the territory are clearly split fairly and
identified and that there is an acceptable and fair approach to
the creation of this whole new territory.
When we look at the other set of amendments, they are equally
important because one of the things that we believe in strongly
in this country is that individuals must be represented within
their governments. At the federal level that means having
representation here in the House of Commons and it very clearly
means having representation in the other place.
With this bill we will confirm the member of Parliament for
Nunavut. My colleague, the member for Nunavut, ran in that
territory in the election of 1993 and for the first time it was
called Nunavut, but that needs to be confirmed in the
Constitution so that there is a place for the people of Nunavut
in this place.
As I have said, we have to ensure that the voice and
representation of the people of the Northwest Territories and the
western Arctic and eastern Arctic is heard in the Senate. That is
why we have to make an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867 to
ensure that their voice is heard in the Senate.
This bill is not about redefining the structures of government
as they exist. It is about making sure that the voices of the
people in Nunavut and western Arctic will continue to be heard in
their houses of parliament.
I would like to continue on by talking about the relationship we
have built among ourselves, the people of this country, to ensure
we do have a positive and successful transition to the creation
of Nunavut on April 1, 1999.
As can be imagined, it is not easy. What we see is a
willingness of the part of all people associated to make sure
this works. They reflect on their history. They reflect on the
importance of the land claim agreements. They reflect on the
importance of proving that we can continue to develop a democracy
that works, a federation that works, a nation that works.
1220
I have had the pleasure of sitting down at a principals meeting
in Iqaluit with my counterpart, the deputy premier of the
Northwest Territories, Mr. Goo Arlooktoo, and with the president
of the Nunavut Tungavik Corporation, Jose Kusagak, listening to
the interim commissioner talk about the plans and the
implementation strategies that must occur in the next few days.
It is a challenge and it is our view that the best approach we
have in place is the basic framework of our legislation package
so that the people of Nunavut, upon electing their government,
their men and women who will be in their territory to represent
them, can make the decisions that are required to build a series
of legislation that truly reflects the realities of the eastern
Arctic.
In this bill we are asking the House to confirm and to agree to
early elections. We want to make sure that before April 1, 1999
the men and women of the eastern Arctic have been elected and are
ready to take office on that very important and significant date,
to begin their work as representatives of the people who are
Inuit and non-Inuit.
There are things that are very important in this that we must
understand. First of all in the context of this land claims
agreement, we are not talking about self-government for the Inuit
people. We are talking about building a public government that
will represent all who live in the eastern Arctic, in the
territory of Nunavut.
With this public government, we will have a structure that
better represents the Inuit people who make up 85% of the
population but which, in addition, is representative of those
other Canadians who live in the territory.
To this point, the Nunavut Act would have the elections occur
after the transition, after the creation, after April 1, 1999. In
our view and in the view of the Nunavut implementation
commission, that is inappropriate. Rather, the election must
occur before.
This brings some great urgency to this piece of legislation and
why I would encourage all members of the House to support the
speedy passage of Bill C-39.
As we all know, the process of election, the process of
presenting oneself to the public for consideration takes time.
Individuals need to question proposed candidates, to get to know
them, to understand their point of view, to determine if they
have the philosophy that is so much defined for us in footprints
in the snow.
That is why I am asking the House to support us in moving Bill
C-39 through the process of legislation as quickly as possible.
We need to ensure that there will be representation for the
people of Nunavut in their government in Iqaluit, in their house
of Parliament here on this side and the other side.
As I say, this is a truly exciting time. Our job together, my
job as the representative from the federal government in this
very important initiative, is to have the platform ready, to have
the basic legislative framework there, to ensure that there is a
public service there to serve and support the men and women who
will be duly elected before April 1, 1999.
Our job is to provide that infrastructure but then to give it
over in a stable fashion as smoothly as possible, as efficiently
as possible to the individual men and women who will be elected
by the people of the eastern Arctic to sit on their behalf in the
new government of Nunavut in Iqaluit.
Members can see why Bill C-39 is required. It is required so
that technically we have the structure in place for the new
government to function.
1225
It is required so that the people of Nunavut can hold their
election and truly celebrate their new government on April 1. It
is required to ensure that the people of Nunavut will have their
voices heard here in Ottawa, in their national capital, in the
House of Commons and in the Senate.
As I said at the outset, this is just one small piece in what has
been a long and exciting and tremendously important history of
our eastern Arctic. I want to congratulate all those who to date
have put their time and energy into such a significant
undertaking.
I think of John Amagoalik who chairs the Nunavut implementation
commission, called Mr. Nunavut, who has over the course of his
lifetime really worked for nothing more than a clear
representation, a clear governing structure for the Inuit and
other Canadians who live in eastern Arctic.
I congratulate those men and women in the existing Government of
the Northwest Territories who have consistently supported this
approach, the minister of finance, John Todd, the deputy premier,
Goo Arlooktoo, the premier and the representatives from the
eastern Arctic and the western Arctic now who are working and
focusing on making this an effective example of how Canada works.
I want to thank those men and women here in the federal
legislature, the member for Nunavut who has so strongly supported
this initiative and provided me with direction and advice and I
expect will explain to the House her involvement in the whole
process.
This is an exciting time in Canada's history. We can be very
proud of our country. We can be very proud of its heritage. We
can be very proud that we are part of a nation that takes very
seriously the issues of democracy, the structures of government,
the focus that we believe that we can build ways and means that
represent all individuals who live in this nation. We can be
flexible and through positive initiatives of negotiations, of
treaties and discussions, keep our country moving forward in a
healthy and hopeful direction that is not static, that is not
arbitrary, but is thoughtful and always recognizes that the role
of government is to make the lives of its citizens better.
In my mind this undertaking, the creation of the new territory of
Nunavut, is a shining example of how we make progress in this
country, of how we show that our federation works, of how we
indicate to the rest of the world that we are unique and that we
are building a democracy that is second to none.
I will just ask all members to reflect on what is being asked
for in this legislation and to understand that by supporting it
they are supporting the values and the strengths that make this
country so great.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise to address the bill before the House, an act to
amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.
My remarks will focus almost exclusively on that portion of the
bill which amends the Constitution in relation to the Senate of
Canada. In fact, I want to use the opportunity of this debate to
make the case against the Senate in its present form and the case
for a reformed Senate to the benefit not only of the people of
Nunavut but of all Canadians. Before doing so, let me address a
few words on behalf of the official opposition to the good people
of Nunavut.
The territory of Nunavut was created by the passage of the
Nunavut Act in 1993.
As the minister has already said, it establishes a territory with
an area of two million square kilometres that encompasses much of
the eastern Arctic. It is a huge, rugged, impressive part of
Canada. This territory is inhabited by over 24,000 people, 85%
of whom are Inuit and 15% of whom are other aboriginal peoples
and non-aboriginals. As one of the largest and most thinly
populated regions of our country, its representation in
Parliament presents some unique challenges.
1230
On behalf of the official opposition, I wish the people of
Nunavut well. They will enjoy the full support of the official
opposition in developing democratic, accountable and effective
political institutions as well as federal policies that protect
and advance their interests. On this latter subject, I will
advise the people of Nunavut concerning two serious weaknesses in
the approach of the current Liberal government to Canada's north.
First, the government has no vision of the north other than to
bureaucratize it, overregulate it and overgovern it. If the
deficiency of the substitution of bureaucracy for vision is to be
overcome, it must be overcome by northerners themselves
developing their own vision. As they do so, the official
opposition pledges its help in communicating that vision to other
Canadians so it can be realized.
Second, I regret to say that this Liberal government is not
competent when it comes to constitution making. It has made no
effort and has no intention of attempting to repair the
weaknesses and defects of the Canadian Constitution. In passing
the Nunavut Act in 1993, we believe the federal government has
made a major constitutional error. Nunavut will pay a heavy
price in the future if that error is not remedied.
I refer particularly to the point made by Reformers when the
Nunavut Act was passed that in effect the federal government was
creating a new province. By doing so without following the
provisions of the current Constitution, namely by failing to get
the required approval of the other provinces, it was creating a
situation where the Nunavut Act itself and every law and
regulation passed under it may someday be challenged in the
courts as being constitutionally invalid. This is an inexcusable
mistake for the federal government to make with respect to the
creation of Nunavut. The official opposition will do everything
in its power to remedy that mistake.
Several of my colleagues, in particular the chief opposition
critic for Indian affairs and northern development, the hon.
member for Skeena, will analyse part 1 of this bill and propose
improvements that will benefit the people of Nunavut in practical
ways.
My intention is to focus entirely on part 2 of the bill. This
section seeks to amend the Constitution of Canada. In particular
it provides for the representation of the Yukon territory, the
Northwest territory and Nunavut in the Senate of Canada. It
raises not only for the people of Nunavut but for all Canadians
the issue of what representation in the Senate of Canada means
today and what it should mean in years to come. This is a subject
which is long overdue for a thorough discussion in this House.
When Reformers first arrived in this House, despite the fact
that our Constitution guarantees freedom of speech and that all
of us were elected on a platform that included Senate reform, we
were amazed to discover that references to the Senate were often
considered taboo and were discouraged, if not suppressed. The
standing order that prohibits the use of offensive words against
either House or against any member thereof was never intended to
prevent reference to defects in the operations of either House or
in the performance of the duties of members, nor was it meant to
suppress frank and open discussion of the need for parliamentary
reform.
One of the most profound ways in which we can show our respect
for Parliament, for either House and for the office and person of
its members is to acknowledge shortcomings when they exist and to
advocate remedies for those shortcomings. Constructive criticism
of the upper house and its members by members of this House and
the advocacy of reform, even the advocacy of the abolition of the
upper house must not be misconstrued as offensive or
disrespectful. There is ample historical precedent for this
position.
1235
The Canadian Senate and other upper houses and the conduct of
their members have been intensely analysed, scrutinized and
debated in the legislative assemblies of Canada in the past. In
the Confederation debates in the legislative assemblies of
Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick that gave birth to our
country, discussion of the proposed Senate and the limitations of
the existing legislative councils dominated those debates.
The reform, retention or abolition of upper chambers was the
subject of intense debate and discussion in the Manitoba
legislature in 1876, the New Brunswick legislature in 1892, in
the Prince Edward Island legislature in 1893, in the Nova Scotia
legislature in 1928, in the Newfoundland legislature in 1934 and
in the Quebec assembly in 1968. If we need other Commonwealth
examples, we could cite the debate and discussion of this subject
in the New Zealand legislature in 1951 and the frequent
discussion of this subject in the Australian lower house right up
to the present day.
Of course discussion of the Senate in this House has been
primarily discouraged by the unwritten and unspoken agreement
between the two traditional parties whose members dominate the
Senate. Why such an agreement? Because the current Senate is an
institution which, if ever held up to genuine and prolonged
public and media scrutiny, would not survive in its present form.
As I am sure everyone will agree, fortunately there is one
particular circumstance under which full discussion of the Senate
in all its aspects is not taboo and cannot be discouraged or
prevented. That is when the government itself introduces
legislation that refers directly to the Senate, representation in
the Senate, changes to the Senate and changes to those sections
of the Constitution governing the Senate. That is precisely what
we have in part 2 of the bill before us, in particular clauses 43
to 47.
Today we have been given the perfect opportunity, and I might
say the rare opportunity, on behalf of the people of Nunavut who
are being offered representation in the Senate of Canada and on
behalf of all Canadians, to do three things: one, to make the
case against the status quo of the Senate as presently
constituted; two, to consider the case for and against Senate
abolition; and three, because Reformers always want to get on to
positive alternatives, to make the case for a reformed Senate, in
particular an elected, equal and effective Senate. It is now my
intention to lay these three cases before the House.
The case against the status quo Senate, the Senate as it is, the
Senate to which this bill proposes to send a senator from
Nunavut, could fill volumes. However let me outline only seven
of the most serious and telling arguments against the Senate in
its present form, arguments which we have to take into account if
we genuinely respect that institution and want to ensure it has a
future in the 21st century.
The first point is that the Senate was defective and
fraudulently constructed from the very beginning. In other
words, the Senate of Canada, if you will allow me to use a
theological expression, Mr. Speaker, was conceived in sin. I am
not referring here to the drinking bouts which characterized the
Quebec and Charlottetown conferences at which the proposal for
the Senate was first put forward.
In the 1860s, John A. Macdonald and the other Fathers of
Confederation particularly from Upper Canada were confronted with
a dilemma. They had a deadlock in the Parliament of the United
Colony of Canada, an equal number of seats for Lower Canada and
Upper Canada, but with the population of Upper Canada rising
rapidly. They wanted a new assembly based on representation by
population, rep by pop as George Brown put it, but how to
persuade Lower Canada, Quebec, to agree to give up equal
representation which it already had in the colonial assembly.
Said Sir John A. and others “We will create two houses with rep
by pop in the lower house and equality between Quebec and Ontario
in the upper house. Moreover, we will assure Quebec and Atlantic
Canada as well that the main function of this upper house, this
Senate based on equality, will be to protect local and regional
interests, including the language and culture of Quebec”. Thus
the Senate of Canada was conceived and brought into the world.
1240
We have John A., our first and best prime minister, declaring in
the Confederation debates: “In order to protect local
interests, and to prevent sectional jealousies”—which was the
19th century term for regional alienation—“it was found
requisite that the great divisions into which British North
America is separated should be represented in the upper house on
the principle of equality.
Likewise we have George-Etienne Cartier arguing that Quebeckers
should accept this arrangement which limited their province to
perpetual minority status in the House of Commons because in
compensation, Quebec would be represented in the Senate by a
block of senators equal in number to those from Ontario.
There is only one thing wrong with this whole scheme. It was
defective at best, and some observers would say and have said
that it was even fraudulent. The new Senate was not to be
democratically accountable. It was to be appointed which
virtually guaranteed that in a time when democracy was in
ascendancy, an appointed Senate would decline in influence,
respectability and effectiveness in relation to the lower house.
The new senators were to be appointed by the prime minister
which meant that rather than representing local and regional
interests they ended up representing the partisan interests of
the prime minister who appointed them. Thus from the very outset
the effectiveness of the Senate in safeguarding local and
regional interests, the big selling point to Quebec, was
compromised. What good was equality no matter how it was defined
in such an unaccountable and an ineffective chamber?
Second, I want to argue that the Senate was and is a compromised
house and that by the end of the 19th century it had become
apparent that it was already a compromised institution. It was
compromised in terms of accountability. It was compromised by
partisan patronage. It was compromised in its ability to
represent regional interests. Its equality was compromised by
ineffectiveness.
In referring to the Senate as a compromised house, do not
misunderstand me. Reformers are often accused of being unwilling
to recognize the value of compromise but that is not true. Of
course we recognize the value of compromising to achieve a
greater more principled objective such as the creation or
preservation of a country. What Reformers object to is the
tendency of old line politicians in Canada not only to compromise
but to then compromise their compromises, and then to compromise
again until there is no discernible principle left in either
their positions or their actions.
This is precisely what has happened to the institutions of both
the House of Commons and the Senate throughout the 20th century
under Liberal and Tory mismanagement. A two house parliament, a
bicameral parliament, is itself a compromise. It is a principled
compromise between geography and demography with representation
according to the principle of population, numbers of people, in
the lower house and representation according to the principle of
geographic area in the upper house.
Lincoln said it most succinctly when he described the compromise
made by the American founding fathers: “The convention that
framed the United States Constitution had this difficulty: the
small states wished to so frame the new government that they
might be equal to the large ones regardless of the inequality of
population; the large ones insisted on equality in proportion to
population”. What did the American founding fathers do? These
are Lincoln's words: “They compromised it by basing the House of
Representatives on population and the Senate on states regardless
of population, and the executive on both principles”.
In Canada we started out down the same road, but then we
compromised the compromises. Representation by region or
province in the Senate was compromised by patronage. Then we
started jigging the numbers of senators allotted to each
province, departing further and further from the principle that
Sir John A. himself enunciated in the Confederation debates, that
the great divisions into which British North America is separated
should be represented in the upper house on the principle of
equality.
Then in later proposals, like the Charlottetown accord, it was
even proposed that some seats in the Senate be based on race and
some on gender, some by direct election and some by provincial
appointment, until there is no discernible principle left as a
basis for Senate representation or to guide the Senate's
activities.
Similarly over the same period, successive federal governments
began to compromise representation by population in the lower
house, minimum numbers of seats for P.E.I. and Quebec,
overrepresentation for rural ridings to compensate for their
geography, underrepresentation for cities, underrepresentation
for the fastest growing provinces like British Columbia.
1245
Since 1867 with respect to parliamentary representation
successive Liberal and Tory regimes have compromised the
compromises until we have neither genuine representation by
population in this House nor genuine representation by province
or by area in the upper house. By compromising the compromises
they have rendered both chambers less effective in serving the
public and less effective in representing national interests than
they would otherwise be.
My third point is that the Senate is hopelessly tainted by
patronage, and I have already referred to patronage as
contributing to the decline of the Senate in the early days. Let
me now explicitly list this factor of patronage as a specific and
particular reason why this institution is falling into disrepute.
It appears to the public, and it is the public we are here to
serve and the Senate is also here to serve, that the majority of
senators have been appointed not on the basis of acceptability to
electors and not on the basis of ability or achievement but
primarily on the basis of their service to party and the sitting
prime minister.
With respect to 20 of the last 28 appointments to the Senate by
the current Prime Minister, if we asked an average citizen
primarily informed by news reports why they think these people
were appointed rather than others, the most likely answer today
is the appointed people had strong connections to the Liberal
Party.
Let me give a couple of examples. On March 6 of this year
Senator Fitzpatrick, a prominent B.C. Liberal organizer whose
friendship with the Prime Minister dates back 35 years, found
himself appointed to the Senate. Only later did the public
become aware of the business relationship between Senator
Fitzpatrick and the Prime Minister.
In 1987 the Senator and the corporation he formerly owned and
operated co-ordinated a stock flip that helped earn the Prime
Minister a quick $45,000 profit. In other words, the Prime
Minister appointed a long time party activist, personal friend
and financial benefactor to the upper house. A reasonable person
operating on the general information available to the public
would conclude that this was, whatever else it was, first and
foremost a patronage appointment.
The same type of patronage connection was evident when Brian
Mulroney appointed Senator Fernand Roberge to the Senate in 1993.
Senator Roberge was president of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel in
Montreal, once Prime Minister Mulroney's favourite watering hole
and the site of much of his plotting to unseat Joe Clark as the
Tory leader. Senator Roberge was one of the insiders assembled
for Mulroney's second run at the party leadership in 1983.
Senator Roberge organized the friends of Brian Mulroney gathering
of 5,000 people when Mulroney launched his winning leadership
campaign and a hospitality suite operation to woo stray
delegates. Senator Roberge was also a member of the candidate
selection committee for Quebec during the next election.
What is the public to think when it reads through the list of
Senate appointees and finds these things? Senator Angus from
Quebec, former chairman of the PC Canada fund, known as one of
the most successful political fundraisers in the country's
history, helped raise money for the Mulroney failed leadership
campaign in 1976 and a successful one in 1983.
There is Senator Buchanan of Nova Scotia, former Tory premier of
Nova Scotia but one with a notorious reputation for provincial
patronage. Senator Cogger was co-chairman of the federal
Conservative 1988 election campaign in Quebec and a long time
friend of Mr. Mulroney. Senator Jessiman of Manitoba is a long
time Tory fundraiser from that province.
I could go on and on but let me deal with some of the
appointments by the current Prime Minister. First, Senator
Bryden of New Brunswick, candidate for the Liberal leadership in
New Brunswick and the person who managed the Prime Minister's
1990 Liberal leadership campaign; Senator Joyal from Quebec,
former Liberal MP and prominent Quebec Liberal backroom worker;
Senator Robichaud from New Brunswick, former secretary of state
in the Prime Minister's government and active worker for the
Liberals a great deal of his life; Senator Taylor, former Alberta
Liberal leader.
I will tell the House what the public thinks of such a list. I
have carried this list around with me for a long time.
The public is not amused, the public is not impressed, the public
is led to believe that personal and partisan connections to the
Prime Minister, patronage connections, not ability or
acceptability to electors, are the principal criteria for
becoming a Canadian senator.
1250
Fourth, the Senate is further discredited when some of its
members are tainted by allegations and charges of ethical
misconduct, including allegations of criminal misconduct and no
preventive or pre-emptive steps or concerns are shown by the
Senate unless the whole thing gets into the media, and no
proactive steps are taken to investigate or to suspend during the
possibility of investigations or to discipline or remove such
senators by the Senate itself.
For example, there has been a swirl of influence peddling
allegations for years surrounding Senator Michael Cogger. This
senator is alleged to have accepted more than $200,000 from a
Montreal businessman vying for government grants, using his
influence as a senator to lobby on behalf of the business
community for $45 million in federal-provincial grants. This
Conservative senator for Quebec was acquitted four years ago on
influence peddling charges but the Supreme Court of Canada has
ordered a new trial in this influence peddling case.
I raise this case not for the purpose of saying anything for or
against Senator Cogger. That is not my point. It is to ask why
the Senate itself, why for its own protection, why for its own
self-respect does it not take a more proactive role in
investigating these types of rumours until they get the life that
they have, and if necessary disciplining in some way, not for
criminal content but for the ethical aspects of the misbehaviour,
when the alleged misconduct reflects negatively on that
institution. And it is not only that institution. The public
does not make a lot of distinction between parliamentarians in
the upper house and the lower house. If we are all frank to admit
it, it reflects on everybody, including respected members of the
House.
In another case the name of Saskatchewan Senator Eric
Berntson has been repeatedly mentioned in connection with a fraud
scandal involving well known provincial Conservatives in that
province. Senator Berntson is currently standing trial on a
charge of breach of trust arising from that scandal. The charge
is in relation to a January 1987 transfer of $125,000 in public
funds from the PC caucus to the Progressive Conservative Party of
Saskatchewan. It is alleged that Senator Berntson obtained money
from his legislative expense allowance by submitting false
invoices from three companies. In November Senator Berntson was
committed to stand trial on another charge of defrauding
taxpayers of $68,000.
Again, the point here is not whether Senator Berntson is guilty
or not guilty of fraud. That is for the courts to decide. My
point is that these rumours have been swirling around for years,
particularly in Saskatchewan and all too frequently allegations
of unethical conduct, including even allegations of criminal
misconduct, arise against members of the Senate. When that body
is so slow and so reluctant and so half heartedly becoming
proactive in acknowledging these things and investigating them
and doing something to discipline its members then it is the
Senate and I would argue the Parliament of Canada that get
discredited as institutions.
My fifth point is that the Senate is further discredited by the
unconscionable work, travel and spending patterns of some of its
members, not all of its members. That is why it is important to
distinguish. The Senate is further discredited by the work ethic
or lack of work ethic exhibited by some of its members and by the
abuse of travel and other privileges.
What is the public to think of former Liberal Senator Andy
Thompson's work ethic? Senator Thompson showed up for Senate
sittings about once every two years, just enough to fulfil his
requirement to keep the Senate seat. Between 1990 and 1997
Thompson collected $519,550 for attending 14 sitting days in the
Senate. With an attendance rate of 2.6% that means he collected
$37,110 per day. That is getting up into the Wayne Gretzky
league.
The Senate itself did nothing about this delinquent behaviour
until it was forced to do so by pressure from the media and the
official opposition in this House. Even after that the most it
could do was vote to suspend Thompson without pay.
What is the public to think about Senator Eyton's attendance
record or the eight other senators, Kolber, Lucier, Pitfield,
Lawson, Angus, Carney, Austin and Sparrow with attendance records
of less than 50% between June 1990 and November 1997?
What is the public to think of Senator Taylor's travel budget?
Senator Taylor billed Canadian taxpayers $105,000 for travel
expenses. This bill included the cost of flying in eight of his
nine children at taxpayer expense for his induction. He said it
was one of those once in a lifetime occasions when they pay for
the family to fly down to the ceremonies.
1255
What is the public to think about Senator Lucier's place of
residence? We are talking about representation of a northern
territory in the Senate of Canada. This senator is supposed to
represent Yukon, to provide regional representation for that vast
northern territory through his seat in the Senate. Senator
Lucier lives in British Columbia and he has said that the
Senate's legal staff approved his change in residency five years
ago when he moved to Vancouver.
I do not want to be one sided on this. Defenders of these
defective work habits and attendance records and travel abuses
will say, and I regret that they say this, we have all of this in
the lower house as well. Perhaps there is regrettably some truth
in that. On some other day I will address the need for reform of
the House of Commons.
The great difference between the House and the Senate on this
score is that in the case of elected members of this House if the
public finds out about these abuses or if it judges something we
are doing to be an abuse, whether it is or not, the public can do
something about it. It can refuse to re-elect. It can throw us
out. But in the case of our unelected, unaccountable and largely
untouchable senators there is nothing the public can do to rid
the chamber of such abusers and such abuses. That is what makes
party patronage or unethical activity, lousy attendance or abuse
of privilege even more odious when it occurs in the Senate than
in the House of Commons.
I am talking about some members of the Senate, not all. That is
the reason I mention names. I do not want to impugn people who do
not deserve to be impugned. The Senate is discredited when the
principal occupation of some of its members is primarily partisan
political work. Some senators certainly work hard but the work
they do, supported by their Senate salary, their Senate office,
their Senate staff and their Senate travel allowance, is
primarily partisan work.
Senator Tkachuk billed $98,329, the second highest of all
senators for travel in the fiscal year 1996-97. He explained his
bill was higher due to his role as co-chairman of the Tory party
and his need to travel to various party functions across the
country. The senator explained that as campaign chairman he had
to travel all over the country for the party before the election.
The president of the Liberal Party from 1975 to 1980 was a
senator, Senator Graham, appointed in 1972. This senator also
co-chaired the national Liberal campaign in 1997.
Another senator, Senator Hays, was president of the Liberal
Party during a campaign in 1997. The chair of the
national Tory campaign in 1988 was Senator Atkins,
appointed in 1986. There is a strange coincidence between these
appointments occurring in one year and two years later full time
political work. The Alberta election chairman for the federal
Tories in the 1993 election was Senator Ghitter.
During these periods I do not deny that these senators do a
great deal of work but it is primarily partisan political work.
In attempting to justify this activity some will say
that it is all work necessary to the democratic process. What
the public does not support is this work being done on the
payroll and the budget of the Senate. Nor does the public
appreciate seeing Liberal and Tory senators paid from the public
purse managing and directing campaigns against parties like
Reform, the Bloc and the NDP which have no representation in the
Senate.
Even more serious is that some of this political work done by
senators is of such an unsavoury character that no amount of
whitewash can justify it. Perhaps in this connection I can
mention a personal experience. Maybe some believe that people
get a negative view toward institutions because of their
experiences younger in life. Perhaps that may be my case.
When I was in my teens I once had occasion to attend a reception
given for new Canadians who had just received their Canadian
citizenship. My family was very much involved in politics and
political life in Alberta. I used to go to these things and I
found them an inspiration. In the midst of one of these
festivities I remember a prominent Edmonton lawyer, a well known
Liberal, struggling to his feet because he was drunk and walking
over to one of our new Canadians. I remember who the fellow was.
1300
I remember who the fellow was. At least I can picture him. He
was a fellow of Italian background. This lawyer put a hand on
each of his shoulders. This is a new Canadian who has just been
made a citizen a few minutes before. He says in a very loud
voice so that everyone else in the room can hear, particularly
the other new citizens, “You are now a Canadian citizen, but I
hope you realize that it was a Liberal government that let you
into the country and if you ever vote for a Tory government they
will probably send you home”.
This lawyer was doing political work. I would argue it is
political dirty work, intimidating new Canadians to vote Liberal.
Why do I mention this incident in the context of a discussion
about the Senate? It is because this lawyer was eventually
appointed to the Senate from which he continued to do this
political work, particularly in Edmonton, only with greater
prestige and greater authority.
This type of political work, performed by senators and supported
by public funds, discredits the institution. It discredits the
whole federal political system, especially in the eyes of new
Canadians who are its victims.
Someone will protest and say this is all grossly unfair. Are
there no good senators? Are there no senators who are hard
working and conscientious? Are there no senators who render
public service? Are there no senators who are distinguished
persons in their own right? I would reply, “Of course there
are”.
To be fair I will name some of them, although members will agree
it is difficult for mere mortals like ourselves, and even more
difficult for the public operating on partial information and
media perception, to separate the sheep from the goats.
Here is a partial list of senators who are distinguished persons
in their own right.
Senator Keon is a renowned cardiac surgeon who in 1969 helped to
found the Ottawa Heart Institute. Sister Peggy Butts has
dedicated much of her life to teaching at schools across the
country and working to help women and the poor. She is a
recipient of the Weiler Award which acknowledges and honours
exceptional contributions to the community and social development
in Canada.
Senator Archibald Johnstone is a distinguished World War II
veteran. He served as a crew member with the Royal Air Force
heavy bomber squadron and retired with the rank of flight
lieutenant.
Senator Anne Cools is a former social worker who has dedicated
herself to helping women and the poor.
I want to make a special appeal in a few minutes to these and
other distinguished senators to divorce themselves from the other
senators and become allies of Senate reform. But before I do,
let me say what must be said, with no disrespect intended. I say
that successive prime ministers abuse even these distinguished
appointments in the following way.
In the inner circles it is referred to as applying the holy
water principle. A prime minister wants to appoint his political
friend to the Senate and he wants to appoint someone for purely
partisan political purposes, so to make the appointment less
odious to the public he seeks out and appoints at the same time
some distinguished and honourable person to sanctify the other
appointment.
Let me illustrate this. When Prime Minister Mulroney appointed
eight special senators to help ram his GST legislation through
the upper house, most of them were Tory patronage appointments:
Normand Grimard, a party fundraiser; James Ross, a long time Tory
activist; Eric Berntson, a former Tory deputy premier of
Saskatchewan; Michael Forrestall, a former Tory MP; et cetera.
But they also included Senator Keon, the renowned cardiac
surgeon and founder of the Ottawa Heart Institute, a
distinguished non-Tory appointment to sanctify the other
patronage appointments.
When the current Prime Minister makes his Senate appointments he
does the same thing.
When in 1997 he appointed as senators the former Liberal premier
of P.E.I. and a former Liberal MP who was in his own government,
he also at the same time made a distinguished non-partisan
appointment in the person of Sister Peggy Butts.
When this year he appointed as senator a prominent B.C. Liberal
organizer and fundraiser, a two-time failed Liberal candidate
from Newfoundland, he also at the same time appointed the
distinguished World War II veteran Archibald Johnstone.
The tactic is to sanctify patronage appointments with a few
distinguished appointments, but in the end the reputation of all,
including the reputation of the Senate, is diminished rather than
enhanced.
Let me quickly identify the seventh. Some political scientists,
I suppose, would argue that this is one of the most weighty
arguments against the Senate in its present form. I refer to the
cost of the Senate, particularly the enormous cost in relation to
the insignificant benefits.
1305
Over the past 30 years the Senate of Canada has cost the
taxpayers of this country some $1 billion. This breaks down
approximately as follows: senators' salaries, $354 million;
senators' travel, $133 million; senators' office expenses, $72
million; Senate administration and services, $441 million.
We would argue that there is no way that Canadians have received
anywhere near $1 billion in benefits from this institution.
Certainly Canadians have not received $1 billion in legislative
improvements as a result of sober second thought. Certainly
Canadians have not received $1 billion in effective
representation of regional interests.
For example, I do not know exactly what percentage of that
billion in Senate representation represents the cost of British
Columbia's Senate representation.
During the last 30 years none of B.C.'s big, major, provincial
and regional issues from the state of the west coast fishery to
the unique B.C. aboriginal issues to B.C.'s unique constitutional
positions to B.C.'s views on equalization have been given
anywhere near the representation on the national stage that a
province that is going to be the second largest province in
Canada deserves. The only way a B.C. senator has been able to
get national attention for B.C. in recent years has been to muse
publicly about B.C.'s secession.
Regional representation of B.C. interests in the Senate has been
completely ineffective. The same can be said for Senate
representation of regional interests in every part of the
country.
The cost of the Senate is staggering. The benefits,
particularly with respect to regional representation, which Sir
John A. himself said was the reason it was being set it up, are
negligible.
I say this is an ominous conclusion since, if the abolition of
upper houses is studied in the provinces of Canada and in other
British jurisdictions, the principal argument for the abolition
of upper houses has, in the end, been the excessive cost in
relation to minimal benefits.
Time does not permit me to further elaborate on these defects of
the old status quo Senate. I want to get on to the more positive
dimensions, but further elaboration should not be required.
The seven deadly sins of the current institution are: fraudulent
beginnings, compromised principles, partisan patronage of the
worst kind, unethical conduct and work habits, abuse of
privileges, a higher priority to partisan political work than to
the public service, and excessive cost in relation to negligible
benefits.
If these grievances and defects are not addressed, what will be
the inevitable result? The result will be increasing public
dissatisfaction, with dissatisfaction growing into anger, and
anger resulting not in demands for reform, but demands for
complete abolition of the whole place.
Perhaps it would therefore be appropriate to conclude this case
against the Senate of Canada with a reference to one of the most
infamous ends to a parliamentary institution in all parliamentary
history.
We had nothing to do with the planning of this debate at the
time, but it is ironic that it was 349 years ago to the day,
April 20, 1649, that Oliver Cromwell walked into the chamber of
the so-called rump parliament in England.
This was an institution that had so discredited itself with
inactivity and corruption in the pursuit of self-interest that
one of its own members, Cromwell, the man who had defended that
parliament against the king, who had risked his life to try to
save it, who had risked soldiers' lives and had soldiers killed
to try to save the institution, now turned against it.
The record says that he came to that British parliament on this
day in 1649 and at first he sat in a seat at the back. As he
listened to the discussion in the rump parliament, the one for
which he had sacrificed lives, the members debated not how to
reform the parliament and make it a better servant of the people
and the king, all they discussed was how to perpetuate it exactly
as it was.
According to historians, Cromwell got up from the back seat and,
contrary to accepted practice, went to the front. He walked up
and down in the aisle between the seats and gave one of the
shortest, hottest speeches of denunciation of a parliamentary
institution that has ever been made.
I will read it in part just to give members a flavour.
He said:
It is high time—to put an end to your sitting in this place,
which you have dishonoured—; ye are a factious crew, and
enemies to all good government; ye are a pack of mercenary
wretches—Is there a man amongst you that has the least care
for the good of the Commonwealth?—Ye are grown intolerably
odious to the whole nation; you were deputed here by the people
to get grievances redress'd, are yourselves become the greatest
grievance. Your country therefore calls (for a cleansing of)
this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous
proceedings in this House—Depart immediately out of this
place; go, get you out! Make haste! — Be gone!
1310
It is to prevent the necessity of any such terrible speech ever
being given or such drastic action ever being taken in relation
to the Senate of Canada that I now turn to the case for and
against Senate abolition and the case for genuine Senate reform.
If the Senate was fraudulently conceived, has compromised its
basic principles, is tainted by patronage, unethical conduct and
bad work habits, and is excessively costly, it is understandable
why some members might ask: Why not simply abolish it?
This is the position of the NDP and a position which commends
itself to many as long as it is not critically examined.
The reason a majority of Reformers oppose abolition, despite our
vehement opposition to the Senate as it is, is very simple. It
is a reason which rests on the very nature of our country and the
prerequisites for good government and national unity.
If we were to abolish the Senate—and we ask the NDP members to
think about this, particularly those from Atlantic Canada and
western Canada—Canada would have a one-house parliament in which
the heavily populated areas of southern Ontario and southern
Quebec would have an absolute majority of the seats.
In such a parliament, I ask, how would the regional interests of
Atlantic Canada, western Canada, northern Canada, northern and
rural Ontario, and northern and rural Quebec ever be properly
addressed? If Canada were a small country perhaps the effective
representation or accommodation of regional interests could be
ignored. However, Canada is the second largest country on the
face of the earth. Our regions are big enough to be countries in
their own right.
National unity, as well as good government, therefore demands
that we develop national institutions which recognize and
accommodate regional interests rather than ignore or subjugate
them, or rather than leave regional representation exclusively to
the provincial governments.
The way that the other big federations, the U.S., Germany and
Australia, have reconciled the interests of heavily populated
areas with those of thinly populated areas is by properly
adapting the two-house parliament to their needs. It is high
time that Canada did the same.
For those who think this would represent some Americanized
departure from our form of federation or the British
parliamentary system, let them study and improve upon the
Australian model rather than the American model if they prefer.
Suffice it to say that what we should be striving for in terms
of parliamentary institutions is a two-house parliament that
works: a lower chamber based on genuine representation by
population in which the heavily populated areas rightly enjoy the
greater influence, but also an upper chamber in which there are
equal numbers of senators per province or state, as in the U.S.
and Australia, where the thinly populated regions will have the
greater influence.
Then, in that two-house parliament, let those two houses be so
conjoined that laws do not become laws and federal policies do
not become policies until they pass both houses, thus reconciling
the demands of both representation by population and
representation by area.
It is the position of the official opposition therefore that, of
course, we should abolish those features of the Canadian Senate
which render it useless and repugnant to voters and taxpayers.
Abolish patronage appointments. Abolish inequitable
representation. Abolish unethical activity and practices.
Abolish ineffectiveness. However, do not throw out the baby with
the bath water.
Let us not be tempted to believe that abolition would simply be
the first step toward reform of the Senate.
If the Senate is completely abolished it is highly unlikely that
it will be replaced in the foreseeable future with a reformed
Senate. Among the members of this House who are suddenly
advocating Senate abolition, I have detected no strong interest
in establishing any other checks and balances on themselves, in
particular the regional checks and balances which a reformed
Senate provides.
Those premiers who would prefer to maintain their own monopoly
on representing their provincial interests, rather than sharing
this responsibility with a federal institution, would not be in a
hurry to reinvent the Senate if it were abolished.
If the Senate were abolished there is little likelihood that a
reformed Senate would ever be established in its place, and the
Canadian federal system would continue to fail to balance
representation by population with representation by province.
1315
It is therefore the position of the official opposition that the
useless and offensive features of the current Senate should be
abolished and an elected, equal and effective Senate should be
created in its place. The long range interests of Canadian
federalism are better served by Senate reform than by the short
term expedient of Senate abolition.
It is long overdue that I put before the House the information
and the arguments which will hopefully lead all hon. members to
support the proposition that the Senate should be reformed and
that we should get on with it. I will outline the objectives of
Senate reform and its benefits to the people of Canada, the
benefits to ordinary citizens with aspirations for jobs and
better services and with concerns about taxes, deteriorating
health care and national unity.
As the official opposition envisions it, the objectives of
Senate reform are threefold. The first is to give the people of
Canada more democratic control over representation in the upper
house by electing those representatives, and to ensure that
senators, whoever they are and whatever they are and whatever
they do, are servants of the people of Canada, not servants of
the party of the prime minister who appointed them. The first
objective of Senate reform is therefore to democratize the place
and to give Canadians the benefits of that democratization,
namely accountability of the Senate and the senators to them.
The second objective of Senate reform as we envision it is to
make the Senate an effective legislative chamber, more effective
in its analysis and amendment of legislation and policy, yes, but
in particular more effective in bringing regional perspectives
and regional interests of people in different parts of the
country to bear on federal government policy and legislation.
The views and the interests of the fisherman in Newfoundland are
different from the views and the interests of the businessman in
Montreal. The views and the interests of the logger in northern
Ontario are different from the views and interests of the factory
worker in southern Ontario. The views and interests of the
prairie farmer, the Alberta roughneck, the northern trapper, the
urban westerner or the retiree on Vancouver Island are all unique
and different. All these views and interests are shaped by
geography, by where these people live and work as well as by
other factors. The challenge is to bring the uniqueness and
diversity of these views and interests more effectively to bear
on federal legislation and policy.
As I pointed out in the throne speech debate, there was hardly
any regional sensitivity at all in the government's legislative
program as contained in that speech, despite the fact that in the
last federal election the Canadian electorate regionalized the
House more definitively than it has for many years.
The government's legislative program and the government's budget
did not even acknowledge the urgent requirement for a new
Atlantic economic development initiative to address the crying
need for more jobs and better incomes in that part of the
country. The government's legislative program and budget did not
even try to link the needs of both the west and east coast
fisheries—the conservation needs, the management needs, the
people needs, the community needs—and to address them as
national issues.
Despite the government's acknowledgement that the national unity
problem is rooted in the discontents of Quebec and that it is a
priority, there is nothing in the government's legislative
program or budget that specifically addresses the regionalized
nature or dimension of this problem. Likewise there is nothing
explicit in the government's legislative program or budget that
addresses the need for recognizing and complementing the Ontario
government's efforts to stimulate job and income growth through
tax relief with a parallel federal initiative.
There is little or nothing in the government's legislative
program or budget that explicitly addresses the needs of the
north despite the fact that this region comprises the greater
part of the country. There is nothing that seeks to harness the
ideas and energies of the new west or the Pacific region to
national objectives such as economic growth, strengthening of
social services or national unity.
In the U.S. such frontline industries for the new economy as
Boeing's aerospace facilities and Microsoft's headquarters in the
Pacific northwest are located there in part because of leverage
obtained over military contracts and development funds by western
states in the U.S. senate, but there is no equivalent of that in
Canada.
My point is that the second objective of Senate reform should be
effective regional representation and action through the Senate's
legislative role.
1320
The third objective of Senate reform as envisioned by the
official opposition is to give practical and institutional
expression to the great principle of equality of citizens and
provinces. We fervently believe that the great principle of
equality for all rather than special status for some will prove
to be the foundation for national unity in the 21st century, and
to have one chamber in the Canadian parliament where the voice of
the people of each province regardless of their size or their
stage of development is equal to that of any other would be
conducive to national unity and ensuring the continuation of this
great federation to the benefit of all its citizens no matter
where they may live.
We can identify practical benefits to Canadians no matter where
they live coming from Senate reform. The objectives of Senate
reform as we see them are democratic accountability, effective
regional representation in national legislation and policy, and
affirmation of equality. Who in the House could possibly
disagree with such objectives?
I turn now to two trails to Senate reform. The academic
literature in Canada including studies commissioned by various
parliamentary committees and task forces contains many studies
and proposals for Senate reform. I could read off a page of
them, but I will not bore hon. members by listing more of them.
Suffice to say there is a great wealth of information available
on this subject from the Library of Parliament.
What I would like to do is get down to the practical measures
required to advance the concept of Senate reform beyond mere
academic discussion. I would like to advance Senate reform to
the stage where the public is agreed, the provinces are agreed
and parliament is agreed on a plan of action which will start us
down the road to real Senate reform, a plan of action that will
transform the Senate from an obsolete 19th century embarrassment
into a useful, functional, respectable 21st century institution.
In particular I want to outline for hon. members the two trails
to Senate reform. The one trail which I will refer to as the
Meech Lake-Charlottetown trail to Senate reform is one to which
both the federal Liberals and the federal Conservatives have been
attracted in the past. The current Prime Minister always refers
to it when he is questioned about Senate reform.
First I want to examine the Meech Lake-Charlottetown trail to
Senate reform and argue that it is a dead end, that it leads
nowhere and should be abandoned by any parliamentarian or citizen
who genuinely desires reform of the Senate.
I then want to lay before the House what I will unashamedly call
the western trail to Senate reform. It is a trail which has its
origins in a genuine desire from one great region of the country
to advance its regional interests, not by threatening separation
but by increasing the effectiveness and regional sensitivity of
the institutions of the central government.
The western trail to Senate reform is over 20 years long. I
will argue that it can become the Ontario trail, the Quebec
trail, the Atlantic trail, the northern trail, the national trail
to Senate reform, if we absorb its lessons and support its
initiatives.
First I will refer to the Meech Lake-Charlottetown trail to
Senate reform. Both the Meech Lake constitutional accord and the
Charlottetown constitutional accord contained half-baked
proposals for Senate reform. Both accords were opposed by many
Senate reformers in all parties and both accords were rejected by
Canadians, the Charlottetown accord being rejected through a
constitutional referendum.
It is important to understand why the Senate reform proposals
contained in these accords were rejected as well as the context
in which the accords as a whole were rejected so that future
attempts at Senate reform and constitutional change do not
founder on the same rocks. I must say that I have been
absolutely amazed at the superficiality of the comments made by
the Prime Minister on this subject. I want to take some time to
examine it thoroughly.
Members of the House, in particular those from western Canada,
will have the following understanding of the events surrounding
Meech Lake, Charlottetown and their Senate reform proposals. In
1981 the Government of Quebec under Premier Levesque refused to
participate in any further federal-provincial conferences on the
Constitution unless Quebec was given special rights and
assurances.
In 1986 Premier Bourassa announced that Quebec would resume a
full role in constitutional councils of Canada if five Quebec
demands were met, namely recognition as a distinct society, the
right to opt out of national programs and to be compensated for
them, a greater role in immigration regulation, a role in supreme
court appointments and a veto on future constitutional
amendments.
1325
On April 30, 1987 the Prime Minister and 10 premiers met in
private at Meech Lake and without consulting their legislatures
or electors drafted an agreement to meet Quebec's five demands
and provide for a second round of discussion on further
constitutional change including Senate reform. In order to get
other premiers to accede to Quebec's demands the Prime Minister
had to grant similar rights to other provinces, including the
right to veto future constitutional amendments.
The resulting Meech Lake accord was then translated into a
constitutional amendment and unanimously approved by the first
ministers on June 2 and 3, 1987 in Ottawa. The premiers all
agreed to return home and push a Meech Lake resolution through
their legislatures without amendment as quickly as possible.
While the western premiers supported the accord with varying
degrees of enthusiasm, the majority of their people opposed it.
The more they found out about it, the less they liked it. What
bothered them more than anything else was the top down, closed
door approach to constitution making that Meech Lake represented.
The process discredited those who participated in it as well as
the content of the accord.
Second, westerners objected to the rigid amending formula. If
every province were given the right to veto substantive
amendments, the chances of securing the constitutional amendment
to reform the Senate, for example, would be drastically reduced.
Third, westerners objected to Meech's token references to Senate
reform and the lack of substantive assurances that real progress
would be made in this area in any second round of constitutional
negotiation.
It had taken the federal Conservative government a very short
time to translate Quebec's five constitutional demands into a
full blown constitutional amendment. Yet despite the presence in
the cabinet and caucus of western MPs whose constituents had been
demanding a triple E Senate since 1984, the federal government
had no triple E Senate amendment in preparation and was
unresponsive to representations by the Alberta government on that
subject.
The poorly conceived token effort at Senate reform contained in
the Meech Lake accord consisted of a proposal to appoint senators
from a list submitted by the relevant province, provided the
appointee was also acceptable to the federal cabinet.
There was also a promise to convene a first ministers conference
at which Senate reform would be further discussed. Since every
province would have a veto over future constitutional reforms and
the Quebec government had already declared its antipathy toward a
triple E Senate, the promise of Senate reform through a first
ministers conference was meaningless.
Obviously these meagre Meech provisions for Senate reform were
unacceptable to those who desired genuine Senate reform and who
had developed comprehensive proposals for a Senate that was
elected with equal representation and effective powers.
As hon. members will know, after the collapse of Meech, the
Mulroney regime made one more attempt at a constitutional accord,
an effort which culminated in the Charlottetown accord of 1992.
While the process whereby Charlottetown was developed gave some
belated attention to securing public input, mainly through the
Spicer consultation, its Senate reform proposals were hardly more
in tune with western Canadian thinking where Senate reform had
been under active consideration for more than 10 years than those
of Meech. The Senate reform proposals of the Charlottetown
accord were contained in section 2(a) of the agreement.
For the written record I would like to have section 2(a) of the
Charlottetown accord recorded at this place in Hansard. To
save the time of the House I seek consent to dispense with the
actual reading and have it recorded in Hansard as read. Do
I have that consent?
The Speaker: Is the hon. member referring to unanimous
consent right now or at the end of his speech?
Mr. Preston Manning: Maybe now, if we could get it.
The Speaker: The hon. member would like to table
information. Is there unanimous consent to present the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Speaker: The House has heard the gist of the motion.
Is there agreement to accept the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
1330
Mr. Preston Manning: I think it is important in this
discussion to have the relevant statutory instruments in the
actual text so that members have in one place everything we are
saying. If we are denied unanimous consent then I can read it.
Here is the Charlottetown accord section on institutions:
A. The Senate
7. An Elected Senate
The Constitution should be amended to provide that Senators are
elected, either by the population of the provinces and
territories of Canada or by the members of their provincial and
territorial legislative assemblies.
Federal legislation should govern Senate elections, subject to
the constitutional provision above and constitutional provisions
requiring that elections take place at the same time as elections
to the House of Commons and provisions respecting eligibility and
mandate of Senators. Federal legislation would be sufficiently
flexible to allow provinces and territories to provide for gender
equality in the composition of the Senate.
Matters should be expedited in order that Senate elections be
held as soon as possible, and, if feasible, at the same time as
the next federal general election for the House of Commons.
8. An Equal Senate
The Senate should initially total 62 Senators and should be
composed of six Senators from each province and one Senator from
each territory.
9. Aboriginal Peoples' Representation in the Senate
Aboriginal representation in the Senate should be guaranteed in
the Constitution. Aboriginal Senate seats should be additional
to provincial and territorial seats, rather than drawn from any
province or territory's allocation of Senate seats.
Aboriginal senators should have the same role and powers as
other Senators, plus a possible double majority power in relation
to certain matters materially affecting Aboriginal people. These
issues and other details relating to Aboriginal representation in
the Senate (numbers, distribution, method of selection) will be
discussed further by governments and the representatives for
aboriginal people in the early autumn of 1992.
10. Relationship to the House of Commons
The Senate should not be a confidence chamber. In other words,
the defeat of government-sponsored legislation by the Senate
would not require the government's resignation.
11. Categories of Legislation
There should be four categories of legislation:
1) Revenue and expenditure bills (“Supply Bills”);
2) Legislation materially affecting French language or French
culture;
3) Bills involving fundamental tax policy changes directly
related to natural resources;
4) Ordinary legislation (any bill not falling into one of the
first three categories).
Initial classification of bills should be by the originator of
the bill. With the exception of legislation affecting French
language or French culture (see item 14), appeals should be
determined by the Speaker of the House of Commons, following
consultation with the Speaker of the Senate.
12. Approval of Legislation
The Constitution should oblige the Senate to dispose of any
bills approved by the House of Commons, within thirty sitting
days of the House of Commons, with the exception of revenue and
expenditure bills.
Revenue and expenditure bills would be subject to a 30
calendar-day suspensive veto. If a bill is defeated or amended
by the Senate within this period, it could be repassed by a
majority vote in the House of Commons on a resolution.
Bills that materially affect French language or French culture
would require approval by a majority of Senators voting and a
majority of the Francophone Senators voting. The House of
Commons would not be able to override the defeat of a bill in
this category by the Senate.
Bills that involve fundamental tax policy changes directly
related to natural resources would be defeated if a majority of
Senators voting cast their votes against the bill. The House of
Commons would not be able to override the defeat of a bill in
this category by the Senate.
Bills that involve fundamental tax policy changes directly
related to natural resources would be defeated if a majority of
Senators voting cast their votes against the bill. The House of
Commons would not be able to override the Senate's veto. The
precise definition of this category of legislation remains to be
determined.
Defeat or amendment of ordinary legislation by the Senate would
trigger a joint sitting process with the House of Commons. A
simple majority vote at the joint sitting would determine the
outcome of the bill.
The Senate should have the powers set out in this Consensus
Report. There would be no change to the Senate's current role in
approving constitutional amendments. Subject to the Consensus
Report, Senate powers and procedures should mirror those in the
House of Commons.
The Senate should continue to have the capacity to initiate
bills, except for money bills.
If any bill initiated and passed by the Senate is amended or
rejected by the House of Commons, a joint sitting process should
be triggered automatically.
The House of Commons should be obliged to dispose of legislation
approved by the Senate within a reasonable time limit.
13. Revenue and Expenditure Bills
In order to preserve Canada's parliamentary traditions, the
Senate should not be able to block the routine flow of
legislation relating to taxation, borrowing and appropriation.
Revenue and expenditure bills (“supply bills”) should be
defined as only those matters involving borrowing, the raising of
revenue and appropriation as well as matters subordinate to these
issues. This definition should exclude fundamental policy
changes to the tax system (such as the Goods and Services Tax and
the National Energy Program).
14. Double Majority
The originator of a bill should be responsible for designating
whether it materially affects French language or French culture.
Each designation should be subject to appeal to the Speaker of
the Senate under rules to be established by the Senate.
These rules should be designed to provide adequate protection to
Francophones.
On entering the Senate, Senators should be required to declare
whether they are Francophones for the purpose of the double
majority voting rule. Any process for challenging these
declarations should be left to the rules of the Senate.
15. Ratification of Appointments
The Constitution should specify that the Senate ratify the
appointment of the Governor of the Bank of Canada.
The Constitution should also be amended to provide the Senate
with a new power to ratify other key appointments made by the
federal government.
The Senate should be obliged to deal with any proposed
appointments within thirty sitting-days of the House of Commons.
The appointments that would be subject to Senate ratification,
including the heads of the national cultural institutions and the
heads of federal regulatory boards and agencies, should be set
out in specific federal legislation rather than the Constitution.
The federal government's commitment to table such legislation
should be recorded in a political accord.
An appointment submitted for ratification would be rejected if a
majority of Senators voting cast their votes against it.
16. Eligibility for Cabinet
Senators should not be eligible for Cabinet posts.
1335
We now have on the record section II(A) of the Charlottetown
accord. It contains 10 clauses pertaining to the Senate of
Canada. Four of these clauses were supported by Reformers, their
content having been part of our party platform since 1987. They
included: clause 8, which provided for equal numbers of senators
per province; clause 10, which made clear that the Senate is not
a confidence chamber and that the defeat of a bill in the Senate
would not bring down the government; clause 15 giving the Senate
power to ratify or reject federal appointments for regulatory
boards and agencies like the Bank of Canada; and clause 16
providing that senators not be eligible for cabinet posts.
Reformers acknowledged these positive features of the
Charlottetown agreement and were supportive of them.
Unfortunately it is what is omitted from the Charlottetown Senate
reform proposals which left the Senate both undemocratic and
ineffective in safeguarding regional interests.
The Charlottetown agreement did not contain a clear statement of
the purpose of a reformed Senate. That is where the trouble
started. If it had been clearly stated that the purpose of a
reformed Senate would be to balance representation by population
in the House of Commons with democratic representation of
provincial and regional interests in the Senate so that the laws
reflect the interests of both the heavily populated and less
populated areas, it would then have been much easier to define
the power and the structure required to achieve that objective.
In the absence of a clear statement of purpose, the issue of
what interests were to be represented in the Senate—regional
interests, provincial interests, racial interests, linguistic
interests, gender interests—became confused. The failure to
state the intent of Parliament and the legislatures in reforming
the Senate also surrendered to the courts jurisdiction in
defining the Senate's future role.
In the absence of a clearly stated objective, no wonder the
Senate reform proposals in the Charlottetown accord exhibited
considerable confusion on exactly what interests the first
ministers wanted to be represented in a reformed Senate.
According to clause 7, senators could be either elected by the
population or elected by the legislatures. But election by the
legislatures simply means appointment by the provincial
governments, replacing federal patronage appointments to the
Senate with provincial patronage appointments. Clause 7 also
permitted a province to choose senators on the basis of gender.
Clause 9 provided for some Senate seats to be allocated to
aboriginals on the basis of race.
Clause 14 permitted some Senate seats to be designated on the
basis of language, francophone senators. Francophone and
aboriginal senators were to have special voting powers not
granted to all senators, thus compromising the principle of
equality.
In addition, the Charlottetown agreement seemed to imply that
elected senators would be elected at large for each province with
no provision for senatorial districts. Under such a scheme all
the elected senators from Ontario could presumably come from
Toronto, the most heavily populated area, or all the elected
senators from B.C. could conceivably come from the lower
mainland, the most heavily populated area. This of course would
frustrate the whole purpose of an upper chamber, that is to
provide more effective representation for thinly populated areas.
All of the above provisions weakened rather than strengthened
the ability of the Senate to provide straight, effective
democratic representation of the thinly populated areas of Canada
in Parliament.
It was however the clauses of the Charlottetown accord, clauses
11, 12 and 13 dealing with the proposed powers of a reformed
Senate, where the deficiencies of its Senate reforms are most
obvious.
Bills affecting the French language and culture could only be
passed if they carried a double majority in the Senate envisioned
by Charlottetown.
This meant that such legislation must receive a majority of 50%
plus one votes in the Senate plus a majority of the votes of the
francophone senators.
1340
If Quebec were to elect a separatist government, as it did in
1976 and again in 1994, which appointed separatist senators, as
few as four of these senators could presumably kill any federal
language, cultural or broadcasting legislation affecting all of
Canada as long as it also affected French language and culture.
Bills changing the natural resource taxation could also be
defeated by a majority of 50% plus one in the reformed Senate and
the House of Commons could not override such a decision. But with
respect to other taxation and spending measures, the
Charlottetown proposals gave the Senate only a suspensive veto so
that it could not exert consistent downward pressure on spending
or taxation.
In the case of all legislation other than legislation materially
affecting the French language and culture or natural resource
taxation, defeat or amendment of the bill by the Senate under the
Charlottetown proposals would lead to a joint sitting with the
enlarged House of Commons where Ontario and Quebec would each
have more seats than the entire Senate put together. In other
words, on all legislation other than French language and cultural
legislation and natural resource taxation legislation, the will
of the Senate could have been overridden by the House of Commons.
It was this general override provision which rendered the
reformed Senate provided by Charlottetown largely ineffective.
I go through all of this to make the point that the Meech Lake-
Charlottetown trail to Senate reform has proven to be a dead end.
It is primarily instructive on how not to reform the Senate.
If we truly want to reform the Senate let us start with Senate
reform proposals that have some currency and some support among
the public, not those that come from the government or special
interests through some top down process. If we truly want to
reform the Senate, let us not put forward half-baked Senate
proposals such as those contained in the Charlottetown accord
which compromise rather than achieve the real objectives of
accountability, equality and effectiveness.
The Prime Minister never tires of responding to questions about
the Senate from Reformers in this House by saying “but you voted
against the Senate reforms in Charlottetown”. We can see what a
shallow and misleading retort that is. The Prime Minister
studiously avoids the issue of why Reformers and a majority of
Canadians voted against Charlottetown and why Reformers opposed
rather than supported the Charlottetown Senate reform proposals.
Canadians in general and Reformers in particular will support
Senate reform proposals that provide effective and accountable
regional representation and balance in national decision making.
Did the Senate reform proposals in Charlottetown provide this?
The short answer is no.
Charlottetown offered a partially reformed Senate, another one
of these compromises of the compromises in which all provinces
would have equal numbers of senators. It would have been a
Senate only partially elected. It would have been ineffective
because on all matters other than French language, culture and
perhaps natural resource taxation, on all other matters of
regional or national interest, it could have been overridden by
an enlarged House of Commons.
Charlottetown offered a one and a half E Senate, equal, only
partially elected, and ineffective, as compared with the triple E
Senate, equal, fully elected and truly effective, which is
desired by Reformers. That is why we and the majority of
Canadians rejected the Charlottetown approach to Senate reform
and why I now want to draw the attention of the House to an
alternative approach, the approach I have labelled the western
trail to Senate reform.
My own experience and acquaintance with the western trail to
Senate reform includes the experience of my father Ernest C.
Manning who was premier of Alberta from 1943 to 1968 and who sat
as an Alberta senator from 1970 to 1983 after his retirement from
provincial politics. There is an old saying that to get into the
American or the Australian Senate you have to win an election but
to get into the Canadian Senate you have to lose an election or
preferably two or three. This was not the case for my father who
spent 33 years as an elected member of the Alberta legislature
and who never lost an election. He won nine general elections in
a row.
1345
Until recent years it was also axiomatic that to be appointed to
the Senate you had to be a member of either the Liberal or
Conservative parties. In my father's case not only was he not a
member or supporter of either of those parties, he spent 33 years
fighting Liberals and Conservatives at both the provincial and
the federal level. During his last 10 years as premier of
Alberta my father had increasingly addressed himself to the need
for stronger western representation in all national institutions.
The west he believed was coming of age in Confederation and
needed and deserved more effective representation on the boards
of national companies and organizations and in all federal
institutions.
After his retirement from the Alberta legislature he was
surprised one day to get a call from Prime Minister Trudeau
offering to appoint him to the Senate. According to Trudeau he
too wanted to strengthen regional representation in the upper
house and he was prepared to reach outside Liberal ranks to do
so.
My father thought it only fair to advise Mr. Trudeau that if he
accepted the Senate appointment he would use it to criticize and
attack those policies of the Trudeau government with which he
disagreed. In fact, my father was quite candid in saying that in
all his dealings with federal administrations, the King
administration, the St. Laurent administration, the Pearson
administration and the Diefenbaker administration, he felt the
fiscal and constitutional policies of the Trudeau Liberals were
the worst that he had every encountered.
However, Mr. Trudeau in typical fashion was unfazed and replied
to the effect that perhaps it would be better for such sentiments
to be expressed within the dignity of the red chamber rather than
on the street. So my father went to the Senate with the idea of
strengthening western representation and exploring the potential
for increasing the Senate's accountability and effectiveness.
When my father arrived he was one of just two independent
senators. He sat with no party caucus and took no direction from
any whip or party leader. Over the years particularly as a
member of the Senate's banking and finance committee he primarily
focused on the review of legislation, particularly the scrutiny
of federal fiscal and economic policy from both a western and a
national perspective.
In particular he was in the Senate at the time the federal
government imposed its infamous national energy policy. He was a
witness to the utter impotence of the upper chamber, the chamber
of sober second thought, the chamber that Sir John A. swore would
protect local interests and prevent sectional jealousies. He was
witness to the utter impotence of the Canadian Senate to even
challenge the regional discrimination of the national energy
program let alone mitigate or correct it.
The national energy program was the most regionally
discriminatory policy ever imposed on any region of the country
by any federal administration. Certainly this was so if regional
discrimination was measured in terms of dollars and cents because
this particular policy confiscated over $100 billion of wealth
from western Canada, $40 billion from the imposition of revenue
taxes and another $60 billion from compelling western oil and gas
to be sold at less than market values.
If the Canadian Senate had any power at all to either represent
regional interests effectively or to play a role in balancing the
interests of thinly populated resource producing areas against
those of the heavily populated areas, that power should have been
exercised in modifying the national energy program. If the
Senate could have been effective in modifying the terms of the
NEP or the Petroleum Administration Act by even 1%, that would
have saved western Canada about $1 billion.
If the Senate could have doubled its strength and been able to
effect that policy by 2%, if it could have just slightly modified
the terms of the Petroleum Administration Act by 2%, that would
have saved western Canada $2 billion. But the Senate was utterly
impotent to make any changes and any balancing in that national
energy policy.
Of course the Senate was completely ineffective in playing that
role just as it has proven ineffective in representing the
regional interests of Atlantic Canada with respect to the
destruction of the east coast fishery and the interests of Quebec
in preserving its language and culture, the interests of rural
and northern Ontario and Quebec in promoting economic development
outside the golden triangle, the interests of the prairies in
agricultural reform and in reversing the discriminatory CF-118
decision, the interests of the north in northern economic
development, and the interests of B.C. in getting the west coast
fisheries, B.C. aboriginal policy and infrastructure on the
national stage.
1350
When it comes to effectiveness and accountability in
representing regional interests, the primary function the upper
house in a big federation with an unevenly distributed population
must perform, the Canadian Senate has proven woefully inadequate.
Over the years my father endeavoured to persuade other senators
to sit as independents rather than as party representatives and
to strengthen and use their regional voices.
By the time he left there were five so-called independent
senators but their numbers were never enough to affect the
outcomes of votes or to provide a strong impetus for reform
within the Senate.
In 1981 my father therefore joined with Gordon Gibson, a former
executive assistant to Trudeau and prominent west coast
journalist and author, and Dr. Peter McCormick, a keen analyst of
federal politics and institutions from the University of
Lethbridge, under the auspices of the Canada West Foundation, to
produce a definitive study on the reform of the Senate.
Their study was entitled “Representation: The Canadian
Partnership”. It argued that reforming the Senate of Canada to
make it elected with equal representation from each province
and effective powers to advance and protect regional interests
would go a long way toward addressing the need for regional
fairness and balance in national decision making.
Time does not permit me to tell the full story of the evolution
of this concept but the major milestones along the western trail
to Senate reform include the following.
In the mid-1970s Premier Lougheed's citizens advisory committee
on the Constitution came to similar conclusions on the need for
meaningful Senate reform. This was the mid-1970s, over 20 years
ago.
Ted Byfield coined and popularized the shorthand phrase triple E
Senate referring to elected, equal and effective through the
Alberta report and newspaper columns. Jim Grey and Bert
Brown created and advanced the work of the Canadian committee for
a triple E Senate.
The Alberta government's special select committee on Senate
reform pushed for inclusion of the triple E Senate concept in the
Meech Lake negotiations.
Don Getty, who succeeded Lougheed as premier of Alberta,
appointed a Senate reform task force to meet with all other
premiers and provincial governments to promote the triple E in
1988.
It was Getty, with urging from Bert Brown and Dr. David Elton of
the Canada West Foundation, who secured the passage of the
Alberta senatorial selection act by the Alberta legislature in
1989.
On the initiative of Premier Klein, and to his credit, the
Alberta senatorial selection act is in the process of being
updated by the Alberta legislature this month. This statute
ought to be studied by every member of this House. Perhaps it is
not perfect. Perhaps it can be improved but it is a mechanism
for at least democratizing the Senate without having to amend the
Constitution.
I have sent a copy of this act to the premiers of every province
and territory, along with a list of upcoming Senate vacancies in
their jurisdictions, and a plea that they enact similar
legislation to at least begin the process of democratizing the
Senate.
Copies of this legislation will be readily supplied to anyone
interested in it by the Alberta government, by my office or by
the office of the honourable member for Nanaimo—Alberni, the
chief opposition critic for Senate reform.
While the Alberta legislature was focusing on drafting the
senatorial selection act to at least begin the democratization of
the Senate, in 1988 the fledgling Reform Party of Canada began an
even more ambitious project.
We undertook to draft a full blown triple E Senate
constitutional amendment, to submit it to public scrutiny at
hearings across the west and to present it to the western
premiers meeting in Parksville in 1988.
All this was accomplished. For those who are serious about
this business of Senate reform and who are not just content with
superficial retorts and analysis, for those who want to look at a
draft constitutional amendment to make the Senate of Canada
elected, equal and effective, the kind of amendment that should
have been at Meech but was not, the kind of amendment that should
have been at Charlottetown but was not, the kind of amendment
that should be on the government's constitutional agenda and is
not, I commend to the House this constitutional amendment.
1355
Again, I seek the consent of the House to dispense with actually
reading this amendment and have it recorded in Hansard as
read.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Is there unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: No.
Mr. Preston Manning: I would point out that this is
ridiculous. Almost every large chamber in the world, the U.S.
Congress, the British House of Commons and the Australian
upper and lower houses, gives the simple courtesy of allowing a
statute to be put into the Hansard without actually reading
it so it is available for others. It is a common courtesy around
the world and I am surprised it is not extended in this House.
And so let me read into the record a draft constitutional
amendment to reform the Senate of Canada.
Motion for a Resolution to Authorize an Amendment to the
Constitution of Canada
WHEREAS the Constitution Act, 1982, duly in force and
effect throughout Canada, provides that amendments may be
initiated to the Constitution of Canada by resolutions of the
Parliament of Canada and resolutions of the requisite number of
legislative assemblies, depending on the nature of the subject
matter;
AND WHEREAS the Senate of Canada was originally intended to
bring to bear provincial, regional, and minority interests in the
law-making process at the national level and to provide an
effective balance to representation by population in the House of
Commons;
AND WHEREAS experience has shown that the Senate has not been
able to perform its role effectively because the distribution of
seats and the selection process of Senators have undermined its
legitimacy;
AND WHEREAS a reformed Senate, if properly constituted, could
perform the role originally intended for it and alleviate
feelings of alienation and remoteness toward national affairs
which exist, particularly in the less populous regions of Canada
and among minority groups;
AND WHEREAS the amendment proposed in the Schedule hereto
recognizes the principle of the equality of all provinces and
provides new institutional arrangements to assure all regions of
Canada an equitable role in national decision making, thereby
fostering greater harmony and co-operation between the
governments and people of Canada;
AND WHEREAS Section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982
provides that the subject matter of this amendment may be made by
proclamation issued by the Governor General under the Great Seal
of Canada where so authorized by resolutions of the Parliament of
Canada and of the legislative assemblies of seven provinces
having fifty per cent of the population of Canada;
NOW THEREFORE the [House of Commons, or Legislative Assembly
of the province] resolves that an amendment to the Constitution of
Canada be authorized to be made by proclamation issued by His
Excellency the Governor General under the Great Seal of Canada in
accordance with the Schedule hereto.
SCHEDULE
1. Sections 21 to 36 inclusive and Section 53 of the
Constitution Act, 1867, are repealed and the following
substituted therefor:
The Senate
21. The Upper House, styled the Senate, constituted by Section
17 of this Act, shall be comprised of 108 members called Senators
who shall be drawn from throughout Canada and elected in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23.
The Speaker: I can well understand sometimes when we have
to read a great deal. I go through that myself during the putting
of questions. However, as it is almost 2 p.m., I think we will
break for statements by members and then the hon. member will
have the floor when we return after question period today.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
ARMENIAN PEOPLE
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise in the House today to commemorate the 83rd
anniversary of the Armenian genocide of 1915 at the hands of the
Turkish government, the first genocide of the 20th century but
sorrowfully not the last.
Armenians, Jews, Ukrainians, Cambodians and Rawandans, among
others, have all been victims of genocide.
In 1996 this House designated April 20 to 27 of each year as the
week of remembrance of inhumanity of people toward one another.
This week allows us to consider the horrible loss of life and
terrible suffering that the crimes of genocide have inflicted
upon its victims.
The premeditated mass murder of 1.5 million Armenians is not a
tragedy, it is a genocide. Let us recognize the horrors of
genocide and pledge to eliminate this evil from our society.
* * *
VOLUNTEERS
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise today with pride to salute this country's unsung heroes
during this, their special week, national volunteer week.
I am particularly proud of the volunteers in my riding who daily
give of themselves to make the Prince Albert constituency a great
place to live and work.
1400
Last month the governor general saw fit to honour 53 such
dedicated volunteers across Canada with his annual Caring
Canadian Award.
On that short list of 53 were 3 of my own constituents and I
recognize them for their accomplishments today. On behalf of
their neighbours, friends and fellow residents in the riding of
Prince Albert I congratulate Marilyn Brown, Ralph Hjertaas from
the city of Prince Albert and Marie-Jeanne Leblanc of the
community of Zenon Park.
They all exemplify the daily extraordinary courage and behind
the scenes effort that the governor general seeks to reward. I
salute them and all volunteers this week.
* * *
NATIONAL TEXTILES WEEK
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, today
marks the launch of National Textiles Week.
Since 1989 textile exports from such companies as Tiger Brand,
Montreal Woollens, Cambridge Towel, Penmans-Forsyth, Barrday and
others have tripled. This $10 billion industry has embraced
NAFTA and exports to the United States are four times greater
than before free trade. The Textile Human Resources Council is
also launching its textile management internship program at
Mohawk College.
Bringing together management, labour, government and education,
this exciting program will train young graduates for emerging
careers in the textile industry.
I congratulate the entire textile industry for its important
role in Canada's economy.
* * *
CANCER AWARENESS MONTH
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
April is Cancer Awareness Month. Few people in the House have
not been touched personally by this disease through friends,
relatives and immediate family.
This past weekend Linda McCartney, Paul McCartney's wife, died
from breast cancer. Occasionally the passing of a high profile
individual draws attention to this cruel and widespread disease.
In 1997 nearly 150,000 Canadians were diagnosed with cancer. The
most frequently diagnosed cancers are breast cancer in women and
prostate cancer in men. Individuals must take responsibility for
their own health and get regular breast and prostate exams and
take advantage of the availability of these services for early
detection.
Through funds for research the medical profession is building a
meaningful body of knowledge, and I believe effective cancer
treatments and a cure will be found in my lifetime.
Last fall I had the opportunity to be present when the Corinne
Boyer Foundation made an endowment to the chair of ovarian cancer
research at the Ottawa hospital and Ottawa university.
These are the actions which are needed to fight this battle.
Private individuals—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Parkdale—High Park.
* * *
YTV YOUTH ACHIEVEMENT AWARDS
Ms. Sarmite Bulte (Parkdale—High Park, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the YTV Youth Achievement Awards were held last night in
Toronto.
These awards celebrate the achievements and successes of
ordinary Canadian kids doing extraordinary things in disciplines
ranging from acting, music and dance to bravery, business,
science and technology.
This past fall over 1,300 nominations were received from across
the country. A distinguished panel of judges recently
deliberated over the 147 finalists, choosing 16 grand prize
winners in 15 categories for this year's awards.
Last night 26 outstanding young Canadians were featured in a
live variety showcase broadcast nationally on YTV. The awards
show combined great entertainment with inspirational stories and
a celebration of great performances by talented young Canadians.
Today's youth are Canada's future leaders. Last night's winners
are indeed testimony to the quality and capabilities of our young
Canadian people. My congratulations to all the nominees,
finalists and—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Okanagan—Coquihalla.
* * *
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the constituents of Okanagan—Coquihalla who
are concerned about the multilateral agreement on investment.
Canadians have only received information from the alarmists with
some groups going as far as instilling fear in our senior
citizens. The tactics of such groups as the Council of Canadians
I find deplorable. They say to seniors that the MAI has chilling
implications for Canadians. They say it will undermine the
sovereignty and will trample our social programs. The official
opposition will not support any agreement if our social programs
and sovereignty are not protected.
Canadians want an agreement that will protect our investments
abroad and provide a level playing field. Canadians want the
benefit of jobs that foreign investment will bring and the
opportunity to compete in new markets.
The Liberal government has failed Canadians by following a
policy of secrecy and top down decision making that is
jeopardizing an agreement that could be beneficial to all
Canadians.
* * *
1405
CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I rise to congratulate Pierre Roy, Joe Bilocq and Raymond
Carrier, who have persisted in ensuring that the Canadian flag is
flown at city hall in Quebec.
For almost two and a half years these three people would arrive
early each morning to raise the Canadian flag. Finally on April
7 of this year Quebec City council agreed to officially fly the
Canadian flag once again outside city hall.
I along with the residents of Waterloo—Wellington and all
Canadians who believe in our great flag salute these great
Canadians for their loyalty, commitment and dedication to their
country. They are heroes. They set an example for us all. Merci
beaucoup.
* * *
ETHOS RADIO
Mrs. Rose-Marie Ur (Lambton—Kent—Middlesex, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, an official launch will occur this Friday in my riding
of one of Canada's first volunteer based community Internet radio
stations.
The Strathroy Community Resource Centre, with funding from human
resources development, is co-operating with Fanshawe College and
the United Way to set up Ethos Radio.
A new website and broadcast facility have been established with
a mentoring program for 15 local youth participants. This is a
unique achievement.
As the statement of principles developed for Ethos Radio says,
community is not a place but an attitude of mind. It is a
process, a flowing river and not a frozen structure. The
important features of the community are its inclusiveness,
commitment and consensus.
I congratulate the Strathroy Resource Centre for taking this
initiative and enabling the youth of rural Ontario to access the
world.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
now is the opportunity for the Prime Minister to honour his
promise for Senate reform.
The Nunavut bill introduced in the House today proposes to amend
the constitution to create a new Senate seat for Nunavut. Instead
of dictating to the people of Nunavut, the Prime Minister has the
opportunity to allow the people to choose their own
representative in the Senate.
After more than 28 straight patronage appointments to the
Senate, the new territory of Nunavut should reflect the modern
democratic ideals to which most developed nations aspire, not the
outdated principles of the Liberal Party which still clings to
Senate appointments stemming from the last century. The old
style of Liberal paternalism is no longer credible in this age of
democracy.
I challenge the government to amend the Nunavut bill to allow
the people of Nunavut to elect their Senate representative,
giving them responsible, accountable government, not patronage
politics.
* * *
[Translation]
FERNAND LABRIE
Ms. Hélène Alarie (Louis-Hébert, BQ): Mr. Speaker, Professor
Fernand Labrie, Director of the Laval University hospital
research centre, has been awarded the Killam prize in health
sciences. This prestigious $50,000 award honours eminent
world-class Canadian and Quebec researchers working in the
private or public sectors.
Fernand Labrie is one of Quebec's most distinguished scientists
and most eminent ambassadors in the field of science. He is
recognized by his peers throughout the world as a role model for
young people embarking upon a career in science.
Dr. Labrie's work on a number of sex hormone-dependent diseases
has contributed greatly to the development of knowledge. It is
worthy of mention that his clinic at CHUL has become the most
important centre in the world for prostate cancer, having
treated over 2,000 patients in the past 15 years.
On behalf of the Bloc Quebecois, I wish to congratulate this
great Quebecker, whose scientific efforts have contributed to
improving the lives of many.
* * *
PARTI QUEBECOIS
Mr. Denis Coderre (Bourassa, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the least that
can be said is that the PQ government is having a hard time with
its third referendum on separating Quebec from the rest of
Canada. There will be one, there won't be one, nobody knows
how, why or when. One week they want one, the next, they no
longer want one.
The PQ whip, Jacques Parizeau himself, had to call the
sovereignist troops to order and to remind them that Quebec
independence remains the priority on the separatist agenda.
The real problem with the PQ is that one never knows what to
expect. This political uncertainty creates a climate of
insecurity.
It creates confusion as well, as the focus of the separatist
agenda keeps on being reopened to question, with a thousand and
one different stunts that do not hold up to scrutiny.
The fact of the matter is that the separatist government is
rudderless and blows wherever the wind takes it as it tries
convince Quebeckers that independence is the remedy to all their
ills.
So, Mr. Bouchard, will there really be a referendum, or will
there not, should the PQ get back in power? People are
entitled to know.
* * *
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, today
Canadians heard about the heroic fight of hepatitis C victims in
Ireland who after years of fighting finally won a fair
compensation package from their government.
Sadly it took the death of a prominent activist to bring enough
shame on that government to act.
1410
The Canadian government has the opportunity now to act with
compassion and end the battle being fought by the wounded, the
sick and their loved ones.
Instead of acting with fairness and justice the government has
drawn an arbitrary line separating those who would be compensated
from those who would not.
Today the victims of hepatitis C stood united on Parliament Hill
refusing to be divided by government motivated by cost rather
than compassion.
I call on the government to ease the suffering of all hepatitis
C victims and to offer a fair and just compensation package for
all now.
[Translation]
There must be justice for all the victims of hepatitis C. By
showing some compassion, the federal government would avoid
forcing the victims to suffer through lawsuits.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, on the weekend the Leader of the Opposition released to
the press the text of the speech he just made today condemning
Senate patronage appointments.
A story in this morning's Ottawa Citizen told us that the
member for Calgary Southwest was to quote from Oliver Cromwell
“Ye have grown odious to the whole nation—are yourselves
become the greatest grievance”. That kind of thing.
My picture appears among the 10 who are the target of the
member's 17th century rhetoric and I would like to set the record
straight. I am the commoner, not the senator. Thus I am
sensitive to the context of Cromwell's remarks which the member
called “one of the hotest speeches of denunciation ever made in
parliament”. What Cromwell was in the process of doing was
abolishing parliament. The speech that the Leader of the
Opposition saw fit to celebrate today was the maiden speech of
England's first and only dictator.
It is not the Senate that is the danger to democracy around
here. It is the Leader of the Opposition.
* * *
[Translation]
C.D. HOWE INSTITUTE
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the C.D.
Howe Institute recently published two studies that should make
all federalists, especially those favouring a hard-line approach
towards Quebec, sit up and take note.
The way the federalists tell it, the sovereigntist offer of
partnership is nothing more than a nasty separatist trick to
hoodwink the public. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, the
sovereigntist offer of partnership is a legitimate proposal and
the Institute recognizes that agreements will be signed between
Canada and a sovereign Quebec.
The way the federalists tell it, the federal government is a
cash cow for Quebec. According to the C.D. Howe Institute, even
with equalization payments factored in, Quebec families pay, on
average, $652 more in taxes to the federal government than they
receive in transfers and services.
There are therefore people in English Canada giving serious
thought to Quebec's sovereignty proposal. This is an indication
that common sense will prevail following Quebec's accession to
sovereignty.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL VOLUNTEER WEEK
Mr. Jim Jones (Markham, PC): Mr. Speaker, from April 19
to 25 Canada celebrates National Volunteer Week. Far too often
people who volunteer in our community are forgotten. These
people work tirelessly to help others with no compensation aside
from their own feelings of giving back to their neighbours.
It is with pleasure today that I thank all volunteers across the
country who devote their time and energy to helping out.
In my riding of Markham alone there are numerous groups and
individuals who deserve public mention and recognition for their
services to our town.
I would like to show my gratitude to all those who volunteer
their time for charities, youth, sports, organizations, coaches
and teachers who stay after school to help students.
Many of us in the House owe our being here to all those who
volunteered on our campaigns. Dedicating one's time to make our
communities better is a most precious gift. All volunteers from
coast to coast help make Canada the great country that it is.
* * *
NATIONAL ORGAN DONOR WEEK
Mr. Joseph Volpe (Eglinton—Lawrence, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am pleased to inform the House and all Canadians that this week
is National Organ Donor Week, a time for us to focus and to
recognize the special generosity of those who donate organs and
tissues.
During this week professional and voluntary organizations
encourage families to discuss and make decisions about organ and
tissue donation. In addition, health professionals are urged to
examine ways in which they might participate in the organ and
tissue donation awareness process.
All levels of government are working together to enhance
Canada's organ and tissue donation and distribution system. I
invite Canadians to consider organ and tissue donation and to
sign a donor card or the consent portion of their driver's
licence if they have not already done so.
1415
I would like to thank the thousands of Canadian organ and tissue
donors and their families for their selfless gift of life. I
would also like to salute the many volunteer and professional
organizations that promote and support organ and tissue donations
during this week and throughout the year.
* * *
CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. Myron Thompson (Wild Rose, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, where
there is smoke there is fire. That is a fact. Where there is a
violent criminal there is danger. That is also a fact, unless
you work for CSC where smoke might be fog and a repeat violent
sexual offender is your gardener.
Eric Wannamaker, jailed for assaulting young girls, denied
parole 60 days ago, reported by the Calgary Sun to have
been caught twice outside the fence with a young girl, and who
had a shrine of pictures of young girls in his cell, was
considered a low-risk by CSC. Again they were wrong.
Wannamaker and his buddy Gordon Kennedy, also a convicted sex
offender, who had recently been granted day parole, drove away
from the Bowden Institute in the Kennedy family car and kidnapped
Kennedy's 14 year old stepdaughter.
My constituents in Bowden are afraid. As their MP I want to be
able to tell them something that will allow them to sleep at
night. Knowing how CSC functions there is nothing I can say. As
long as CSC continues to give repeat violent offenders a fourth
and fifth chance, while pointing to stats to prove its success—
The Speaker: Oral questions.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
[English]
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, parliament has been recessed for two weeks. The health
minister has had two weeks to contemplate the fate of thousands
of hepatitis C victims who are suffering because of government
negligence.
Hundreds of these victims came to parliament today to ask the
minister, to plead with the minister, to beg the minister to
compensate them for the harm which the government did.
I have a simple question. Will the health minister now do the
right thing and compensate all these victims?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have already made clear to the hon. member and to the House how
difficult this decision was.
I can assure the hon. member that there is no less sympathy on
this side of the House than on that side of the House for those
who are suffering from the illness, no matter when they became
ill.
The health ministers of Canada, when they dealt with this
difficult decision, did so in light of the implications of the
decision on the health system in general. Indeed, we confronted
the question as to whether governments should pay cash
compensation to all of those harmed by the health system. We
concluded that it would not be possible to sustain Canada's
public system of health care if we took the—
The Speaker: The hon. Leader of the Opposition.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, these victims did not come to parliament to hear more
bureaucratic answers, more legal and accounting reasons why the
Government of Canada could not respond to their needs.
They even came from hospitals and, as I understand it, the
minister did not even meet with them. Could he not look them in
the eye?
However, officials with the Irish Hepatitis C Society met with
these victims. They spoke of how the Irish government initially
refused to pay compensation, but then it changed its mind.
Will the health minister not do the right thing and change his
mind?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, the hon. member should know that I have met more
than once with victims and representatives of victims. I have
dealt directly with them. Indeed, I telephone them personally in
advance of government decisions so they will know the decisions
the governments have made.
The Government of Canada and the governments of all the
provinces have not refused to compensate victims. The
governments of this country have accepted responsibility for that
period of time during which something could have been done,
should have been done and was not done.
The facts speak for themselves. All governments of Canada have
taken a responsible position on this most difficult issue.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, part of leadership is knowing when you are wrong and
being big enough to change your mind.
Ontario changed course and compensated the Dionne quintuplets.
Alberta admitted it was wrong on the sterilization issue and
changed its position. The Irish government heard exactly the
same arguments the minister has responded to and changed its
mind. Many of these victims are so sick they could hardly come
to parliament today.
Why is the health minister going to force these victims to sue
him in court in order to get the compensation which is rightfully
theirs?
1420
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member speaks of leadership. Leadership is
also shown by governments across the country by making the tough
decisions on difficult issues that affect the continued
sustainability of the public health care system.
What would the hon. member do about those injured by breast
implants? What would he do with those mothers who must care for
children who have brain damage as a result of high risk births?
What would he say to the study released last week by Canadian
researchers showing that thousands of deaths every year can be
traced to taking prescription medicines?
Would the hon. member propose that cash payments be made to all
of those victims?
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, members of
the Irish government argued just like this health minister argues
today. They argued for four years and those victims finally won.
They won a fair compensation package for every single victim of
Hepatitis C from tainted blood.
The victims are here today and they are asking this health
minister to meet with them so he can learn the example from
Ireland. Will he meet with those victims today?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
first of all, I have met often in the past with victims and their
representatives.
Second, Health Canada some months ago sent its own
representative to Ireland to look at the facts of that system.
The facts are that about 1,800 victims so far have been
compensated. We are covering 22,000 victims.
In Ireland the infection stemmed, for the most part, from a 1977
tainted blood supply brought about by the failure of the
government to screen donors properly. The government itself
distributed the tainted product which infected 1,500 expectant
mothers.
We in this country have taken the same approach—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Macleod.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we have
talked about feeble excuses and here, of course, again is just
another feeble excuse.
The minister says the Canadian regulator was not responsible.
That is not true and he knows it. If the Canadian regulator was
responsible there is negligence. We are going to spend more
money on these victims if they go through the courts.
For the sake of the victims, not for those of last week or for
those who will be victims in the far distant future, but for the
ones who are here, will he meet with the Irish individuals, find
out and tell us why does the Irish system not work for Canada?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I have said to the hon. member in response to his question that
Health Canada sent representatives to Ireland to meet with
officials to examine the facts and to look into exactly how the
Irish system is organized and how compensation was paid.
What we learned was that almost all of the victims in Ireland
can be traced to 1977 when, because the government did not screen
properly, a donor infected the blood supply. The government
itself distributed the product that caused most of these
infections. Because of that fault the Irish government paid
compensation.
We are applying the same principle in Canada. When governments
could have acted—
The Speaker: The leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
[Translation]
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in the
case of the hepatitis C victims, the federal and provincial
governments have signed an agreement covering the period from
1986 to July 1990. However, the issue of compensating the other
victims remains.
Without calling the agreement for the 1986-1990 period into
question, would the Minister of Health be prepared to consider,
as a special, humanitarian measure, putting in place a special
plan to compensate individuals infected with hepatitis C before
1986 and after July 1990?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
governments in Canada, including the Quebec government, have
recognized this matter as a rather difficult one.
We have followed the situation since the beginning and
identified a four-year period, between 1986 and 1990, during
which the governments could have acted to prevent infection.
That is the period that was eventually selected for
compensation, and all governments in Canada, including the
Quebec government, have agreed—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Bloc Quebecois.
1425
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Bloc Quebecois has supported the agreement to compensate those
infected with hepatitis C between 1986 and 1990 from day one.
But for the other victims, we are faced with a special situation
which demands special attention.
Could the minister consider the situation with greater
compassion and, as recommended in the Krever report and by the
Hemophilia Society, institute a special—I repeat special—no-fault
compensation plan for individuals infected before 1986
and after July 1990?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
provincial ministers themselves identified as a threat to the
health system as a whole any plan to compensate all victims
regardless of fault.
All Canadian health ministers, at the provincial and federal
levels, have agreed that only those infected during the period
when governments could have acted to prevent infection should be
compensated.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the Minister of
Health continues to be insensitive to hepatitis C victims
excluded from the program, although the latest figures show that
the federal government is headed towards a substantial surplus
for 1997-98.
Is it not disgraceful that the Minister of Health refuses to
reconsider assistance to all hepatitis C victims, when his
government, with its deep health cuts in recent years, is
generating surpluses it had not even expected?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
health system in general poses risks for everyone. I wonder
whether the hon. member is suggesting that Canada's governments
should compensate all victims for all risks.
Has the hon. member asked her colleague, Minister Rochon, in
Quebec City, if he is open to such an approach? All Canadian
health ministers have agreed to adopt the approach I described.
Mrs. Pauline Picard (Drummond, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since the
provinces have paid until now to look after hepatitis C victims,
and since they will continue to do so in future, should the
federal government not pull its weight and provide appropriate
compensation for all those who contracted hepatitis C?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, all
governments in Canada have acted together. As I said, we
identified a four-year period during which action was possible to
prevent these infections, and we agreed to compensate those who
contracted hepatitis C during this period.
I think this is a wise, prudent, appropriate approach and I
repeat that we have adopted an appropriate approach in these
very difficult circumstances.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Finance.
“Whenever bankers rush to do the same thing at the same time it
is a sure rule that problems will follow”. So states today's
Financial Times. Through his delay, our finance minister
resembles a pipe major leading the parade of mega-mergers.
Let me remind the finance minister that he has a duty to the
Canadian public that comes before his Bay Street buddies. Small
depositors, small businesses and small communities across this
country want to know why the Canadian government will not launch
an immediate inquiry into these revolutionary changes and massive
concentrations in the banking industry.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to respond to the leader of the
opposition. Perhaps instead of reading the Financial Times
if she were to read some of the Canadian papers she might know
that some time ago the government did that very thing. It is
called the MacKay task force and it will be reporting this summer
or September at the latest.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, why
does the Minister of Finance keep hiding behind the task force on
financial services when its members have said themselves they are
not looking at the bank merger issue?
Canadians want to have a say in the future of our banking
industry.
Unfortunately the finance minister says they have to wait until
the bankers have had their say, wait until the task force
reports, wait until the mergers are unstoppable, wait until there
is a loss of tens of thousands of jobs. The bank mega mergers
are not waiting. Why is this government waiting until it is too
late to make a difference?
1430
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let us be very clear. The decision on the bank mergers
will be made by this government, by this Parliament and by the
Canadian people. It will not be made by any financial
institution. Anybody who has any doubt about that had just
better watch us.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. Today in the House of
Commons the Minister of Health sounds more like an accountant or
a lawyer. The Minister of Health is responsible for the blood
system. My question is very direct. Will the minister reopen
the hepatitis C compensation package, a package that leaves up to
40,000 Canadians, innocent victims, with nothing?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member sounds as though this is a decision made by one
government, one party. The approach I have described was taken
by all governments of all parties including the Progressive
Conservative governments in Prince Edward Island, Ontario,
Manitoba and Alberta. I wonder whether the hon. member is saying
that the Progressive Conservative governments of those provinces
are also taking a wrong policy approach to this issue.
We are sounding not so much like lawyers and accountants as we
are like ministers of health concerned about the implications of
this most difficult situation where the sustainability of the
health system will—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the Conservative Party.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
package announced by the Minister of Health is not fair and it is
not honourable. Sadly it effectively denies innocent victims
fairness and compassion. I want to remind the House that the
government has the constitutional authority to correct this human
tragedy, to act unilaterally as we did in 1991 with HIV. Will the
minister exercise moral and constitutional leadership to correct
this injustice?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I remind the hon. member that it is her party in power in Prince
Edward Island, her party in power in Ontario, her party in power
in Alberta and Manitoba. They were at the table with us taking a
position in relation to this very difficult issue which we
believe is in the public interest.
If the hon. member's approach were taken, the public health care
system would have to pay to all claimants who suffer harm as a
result of risks inherent in medical practice. The ministers of
health from all governments in this country have decided—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat.
* * *
BANKING
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
official opposition's policy on bank mergers is very clear. If
there is no competition, then there is no merger. On the other
hand the Minister of Finance does not seem to have a policy. Why
does he not admit that he is using his task force to cover up the
lack of a policy? Why does he not admit that he is perfectly
happy to let our big banks write the banking policy for this
country? That is what he is doing.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, perhaps the hon. member ought to follow the debate in
the House. We set up this task force because we very clearly
understood changes would be brought in as a result of
globalization and technological change. The basic questions the
task force will have to answer are what impact will there be on
small business, how will consumers be protected, how will rural
communities be affected, what impact will this have on
competition, what will happen to our current employees. These
questions are the reason we set up the task force.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister has lots of questions but he has no answers. He
is the minister. He is supposed to have some answers.
The country has been waiting since last year for this government
to open up the banking industry to real competition, yet the
government delays. Why the delay? Why is the government
delaying bringing in legislation that would provide competition
for consumers and businesses in Canada? He promised the
legislation. Where is it?
1435
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the question one has to really ask is to what extent
will foreign competition provide new bank branches in rural
Alberta, to what extent will foreign competition provide bank
branches in rural Ontario. The real issue is why is the Reform
Party fronting for the big banks; in one mandate, in one year,
from Medicine Hat populist to Bay Street populist.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, last
week, the CIBC and Toronto Dominion banks announced their
intention to merge, as did the Bank of Montreal and the Royal
Bank before them. These mergers are the result of market
globalization.
Instead of assuming some leadership in this matter, the Minister
of Finance put the federal government in a position where it is
now trying to catch up to the banks and to this major movement.
How can the Minister of Finance justify the fact that his
position and that of his government was not made public two
years ago, when the Bank Act was last reviewed and when everyone
knew that bank mergers were about to take place?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, that
is why we broke with precedents and did not look back to the
past to decide about the future of our financial institutions,
and why we set up the MacKay committee to review these issues.
We will make a decision in due time, that is when we are ready,
not when the big banks would want us to do so.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Finance can say anything he wants, but the fact is
that he is watching the train go by while the rest of the world
is streamlining operations and has been doing so at an
accelerated pace over the past five years.
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to consider the possibility
that a special House committee be quickly set up to look at this
merger, at its impact on workers, and also at the general
attitude of the banks regarding loans, for example?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, why
do the Bloc Quebecois and the other opposition parties refuse to
face reality?
I want to congratulate my Liberal colleagues for setting up a
Liberal caucus committee to review these issues. I also
congratulate my Liberal colleagues who have been reviewing these
issues for three years, while Bloc members have been making
empty speeches.
[English]
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
Clint Eastwood over there keeps looking at the issue but he does
not do anything about it. We now have six big banks. We are
looking at four big banks. We might go down to three big banks.
How many big banks is enough competition for the minister? One?
How many?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the real issue is does the Reform Party want to sit down
along with the government, along with the Canadian people, and
take a look at the future of the Canadian financial institution
system? Is the hon. member interested in what small consumers
have to say? Is he interested in the problems of rural Canada?
Is he interested in how in fact Canadian banks can turn
themselves into large global powerhouses? Or does he simply want
to stand up here and because a couple of banks decide to get
together allow them to set the agenda?
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
I do want to know what small businesses are saying. I have heard
what they are saying. Two-thirds of the members of the Canadian
Federation of Independent Business have said that they are
opposed to these bank mergers.
Why is the minister not responding to them? Why is he going to
allow financing to become more difficult for small businesses,
for terms to become more difficult, to choke economic growth and
job creation? Whose side is the finance minister on? The side
of small business or the side of the big banks? Of Main Street
or Bay Street?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every time there is a new moon, Reform seems to change
its position. If in fact that is Reform's position, then why did
his leader, why did his party say that they were in favour of
these mergers provided there was more foreign competition?
They had better make their minds up because the situation from
this side of the House looking at them is confusing. Every time
they speak it is confusing for the Canadian people.
* * *
[Translation]
C. D. HOWE INSTITUTE
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance.
The C. D. Howe Institute has released a study which contradicts
what the federalists are always claiming, which is that the
federal government is being treated by Quebec as a cash cow.
What is the Minister of Finance's reply to the C. D. Howe
Institute's statement, supported by a study, that Quebec
families pay $652 a year more in income tax to the federal
government than they get back from it?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
C.D. Howe Institute's analysis covers less than 40% of the
federal government's total cash expenditures.
According to Statistics Canada, the federal government spent
approximately $3,750 more per family in Quebec than it received.
1440
Mr. Pierre Brien (Témiscamingue, BQ): Mr. Speaker, will the
Minister of Finance admit that there is an imbalance between
what people are paying and what they are receiving, and that
this could not be otherwise with a federal government which has
imposed huge cuts on the provinces in recent years, particularly
in health and education, while continuing to collect more and
more tax from those very same people?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have just given the hon. member his answer. It is clear, we
have reduced taxes and we will continue to reduce them in the
years to come.
If the hon. member has not understood, perhaps he wants the
figures per person rather than per family. Again, according to
Statistics Canada, the federal government spent about $1,500
more per person in Quebec than it received.
* * *
[English]
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
justice minister has had her job for almost a year now. The
Young Offenders Act was supposed to be one of her priorities but
we are still waiting. She has used words like “timely
fashion”, “soon” and “complicated”. Indeed her
parliamentary secretary has told us to be patient. Now we find
the real reason for delay is her lack of power or influence
within her own caucus.
Will the minister admit she is in over her head and is unable to
do the job Canadians expect of her?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, unlike the hon. members on the
other side of the House, we on this side understand that the
renewal of the youth justice system is not a simplistic process.
In fact it is one that requires the integration of very important
values, protection of society, rehabilitation and reintegration
of young people and crime prevention. That is what the renewal of
the youth justice system in this country will be about.
Mr. Chuck Cadman (Surrey North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
is a sad day when politics and lobbying interfere with the
security and safety of Canadians. The Minister of Justice is
having problems with her own caucus on proposed amendments to the
Young Offenders Act. The minister has had the benefit of an
extensive justice committee review of the present legislation.
She has had extensive input from provincial justice ministers.
She has had extensive input from Canadians.
Will the minister do the right thing for the country or will she
succumb to her backbenchers, many of whom have not studied the
issues?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated,
we will not take a simplistic approach to this issue seemingly
aggravated by those on the other side of this House. Let me
assure the hon. member that I look forward to working with him
and other members of his party when we table our response to the
standing committee report on youth justice.
* * *
[Translation]
CIGARETTE PRICES
Mr. Richard Marceau (Charlesbourg, BQ): Mr. Speaker, this
morning we learned that, with the increase in the price of
cigarettes, cigarette smuggling is back with a vengeance in
southern Quebec and Ontario.
Before the situation returns to early 1990 levels, has the
solicitor general approached his colleague, the minister
responsible for customs, regarding special action to eliminate
this scourge?
[English]
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, as a matter of fact when consideration was given to
increasing the price of cigarettes or the taxes on cigarettes,
the RCMP was consulted in that exercise and felt that the
increase that was suggested, and in fact the increase that we
saw, was in the margins of what could be managed by the system as
it exists now.
* * *
TRADE
Mr. David Pratt (Nepean—Carleton, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Secretary of State for Latin America and
Africa. In light of U.S. President Bill Clinton's recent journey
to Africa, can the minister tell this House what steps he is
taking to better tap into the trade potential between Canada and
Africa's emerging markets?
Hon. David Kilgour (Secretary of State (Latin America and
Africa), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for
Nepean—Carleton.
For the last two weeks or so, business groups, the hon. member
for Etobicoke—Lakeshore and I were in six countries in western
and southern Africa to try to increase investment flows and
trade. The member will know already that Canada's trade with
sub-Saharan Africa last year was about three quarters of a
billion dollars, up one hundred over the year before.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it has
become very clear that the reason the justice minister has unduly
delayed bringing in amendments to the Young Offenders Act is
because she cannot control her own caucus.
My question to her is this. Is she not up to the job? Is that
the real reason she is not doing the job that millions of
Canadians are asking for? Is that the real reason for this
unacceptable delay in bringing in amendments to the Young
Offenders Act?
1445
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I said before, those on that
side of the House seem to think there is a simplistic approach to
the renewal of the youth justice system in this country. They
seem to think it only involves toughening up the Young Offenders
Act.
People on this side of the House take a more holistic and
integrated approach to what is a very complex issue. That
approach will be reflected in this government's response.
Mr. Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
understand that she is not even going to accept the
recommendations provided by the justice committee to Parliament,
that she is not going to accept the recommendations made by
hundreds of people across this country, including the chiefs of
police and the Canadian Police Association.
If she is in charge of her own portfolio, will she stand today
and tell us when she will bring in amendments to the Young
Offenders Act?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have said on a number of
other occasions in this House, the government's response will be
filed in a timely manner.
* * *
HEPATITIS C
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the Minister of Health. We heard today that
there is no clear figure to determine how many victims fall
outside the government's hepatitis C compensation package.
Can the minister tell this House what that figure is and how it
was determined?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am told by epidemiologists at Health Canada that somewhere
between 50,000 and 60,000 people were affected pre-1986. That is
the best they can do.
The number is not precise because not all provincial governments
have done trace back programs to determine the exact number. In
general, that is the present belief regarding the number of
people infected prior to 1986 through the blood system in
general.
Mr. Peter Mancini (Sydney—Victoria, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
we also learned today that the hepatitis C victims in Ireland
were forced to fight a long and hard battle for compensation.
Tragically, it took the death of a prominent Irish activist and
victim to convince that government to compensate all victims.
What will it take for this government to finally do what is fair
and just? Is there anything these people can do to convince this
government to reconsider?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it was precisely to prevent decades of fighting and litigation
that I put on the agenda of health ministers last summer the
whole question of compensation for hepatitis C victims.
As a result, discussions ensued. We analysed the facts. We
looked at the history and together as governments, federal and
provincial, including New Democratic governments in British
Columbia and in Saskatchewan, we are taking the right approach by
compensating those who were affected during a period when
something could have been done to stop it.
If we take a different approach, we will imperil the
sustainability of public health care in Canada. That is the
basis of the decision we made.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
minister is absolutely wrong when he uses the timeframe of 1986
to 1990. It is simply a frame of convenience.
He knows full well that tests were available that other
countries use, specifically West Germany, to identify the problem
which is now known as hepatitis C. Will the minister not
acknowledge that and with that consideration reverse his decision
and include all victims of hepatitis C in this country?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member is quite right in saying that, as Mr. Justice Krever
pointed out, at various points in time and in various countries
prior to 1986 there were tests that were in place. I think even
one American state had a test before 1986.
The balance of the evidence and certainly the better judgment is
that it was in early 1986 that Canada should have acted to follow
the lead of competitor countries like the United States which then
put the test in place federally.
That is the point in time at which most informed commentators
believe the line is drawn between infections—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlotte.
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, I am not
sure if we have an accountant or a lawyer speaking on behalf of
the ministry or the government today.
That is a flawed position. These people deserve compensation.
It is as simple as that. He should not simply be looking at the
dollars because he does not know himself how many victims are out
there. It could be as few as 20,000. It could be 30,000. It
could be 40,000.
Will he not do the honourable thing and act unilaterally to
compensate these victims?
1450
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is not a question of dollars. It is a question of the
sustainability of the public health care system.
If the honourable member is suggesting because a test came on
stream in 1981 or 1982 that the victims back to that year should
be compensated, then he is agreeing with the ministers of health
of Canada. He is just drawing the line at a different place. He
is just saying that was the date after which something could have
been done to make a difference.
If the honourable member is agreeing with me in principle but
drawing the line at a different place on the calendar then that
says a lot about his position. He is indeed supporting the
position of the ministers of health of Canada.
* * *
YEAR 2000
Ms. Susan Whelan (Essex, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the president of Treasury Board.
A recent press article suggested that not one federal government
department has taken advantage of the services offered by an
elite team assembled to assist with the pending year 2000
millennium bug. What assurances can the minister give the House
that federal departments are dealing with the urgency of the year
2000 crisis?
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
in fact the information contained in the article was wrong. We
already have six packages that have been put forward by six
departments and of these two already have been asking for funds.
But what is reassuring is that we already have retainers for
$100 million where we get the resources necessary in order to
fill up the needs of the year 2000 bug if ever there is a
problem. We feel we have put our systems in place and we are
properly equipped to deal with the problem.
* * *
INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
last night millions of Canadians watched in anger as officials
from CIDA admitted that hundreds of millions of dollars do not go
to the needy countries where it is supposed to go.
This money is going to huge Canadian corporations instead of
helping the poorest of the poor in developing countries. This is
totally unacceptable.
Will the minister call in the auditor general immediately to
investigate this?
Hon. Diane Marleau (Minister for International Cooperation
and Minister responsible for Francophonie, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the program to which the MP is referring is CIDA Inc. It
is a program designed to encourage private enterprise to invest
in the developing world.
The reality is that one out of three of those companies
implements a successful program. For every tax dollar invested
in the developing world by CIDA Inc. five dollars comes back to
Canada and twelve dollars goes to the developing world.
* * *
[Translation]
ACQUISITION OF SUBMARINES
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of National Defence.
As everyone said it would, the federal government took advantage
of the fact that the House of Commons was not sitting to
announce the acquisition of four used submarines, just as it did
in the case of the helicopters, so determined is it to avoid
being questioned about this $750 million purchase.
How does the minister explain that not only are his government's
priorities highly questionable, because it has chosen to buy
used submarines rather than give money back to the provinces so
that they can ensure basic services, but that, in addition,
these new submarines are not even capable of travelling under
the Arctic ice?
[English]
Hon. Arthur C. Eggleton (Minister of National Defence,
Lib.): Mr. Speaker, these submarines are state of the art.
They were commissioned by the royal navy of the U.K. at a time
when that was part of its defence future. It has since decided to
go to nuclear submarines.
These were very slightly used in the days when they were part of
that defence department program. We have acquired them for a
quarter of the cost needed to build new ones. That is a great
bargain. At least we can replace our 30 year old submarines. We
have the capability to patrol our shores and the Arctic.
* * *
BANKING
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): My question is to
the minister of finance, that Bay Street banker, Mr. Speaker.
The Speaker: Colleagues, I ask you to please be very
judicious in your choice of words and I would ask the honourable
member to put his question.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, if the
two bank mergers go ahead, the two large megabanks will have 70%
of the banking assets in this country.
It would take about 100 banks in the United States to have 70%
of the banking assets in that country. I submit this is obscene
concentration.
In the name of democracy, is the minister now prepared to
establish an all party parliamentary committee to study these two
mergers and give Canadians a chance to say their peace?
1455
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, just as it is difficult to understand from day to day
what the Reform Party position is, it appears to be equally
difficult to understand the position of the member for
Qu'Appelle. He now wants to have an all party study.
The day before yesterday he said that we should simply say no to
the mergers. There seems to be some inconsistency within the NDP
as to what exactly its position is.
The fact is in order to protect small business, in order to
protect rural communities, in order to make sure Canadian
consumers are taken care of and that there is full competition is
why we put in place the MacKay committee. That is why there is
going to be full—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Charlotte.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Greg Thompson (Charlotte, PC): Mr. Speaker, we have
not had a lot of information from the health minister today. So
this question is to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Based on information in a story that ran in The Globe and
Mail on April 3, can the Deputy Prime Minister not see that
the health minister compromised his position in relation to
cabinet solidarity and secrecy in the sense of who supported his
position and who did not? Does this not send a message to the
government that something has to be done? Maybe the health
minister should be replaced because of this breach of
confidentiality?
Hon. Herb Gray (Deputy Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member is sending a message that Premier Harris
should be replaced, that Premier Klein should be replaced, that
Premier Binns should be replaced, all Conservatives like him.
They shared in that agreement and they continue to stand by it.
* * *
PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES
Mr. Reg Alcock (Winnipeg South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
disabled Canadians want the same access to training and jobs that
all Canadians enjoy.
Can the Minister for Human Resources Development tell us what he
is doing to ensure that they receive it?
Hon. Pierre S. Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources
Development, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his
very good work as chair of the parliamentary committee for
disabled Canadians.
We want to do even more. This is why our government is moving
forward on many fronts to help persons with disabilities. Just
last week we signed an agreement with the Government of Manitoba
to launch an employment assistance for persons with disabilities
agreement in that province. We hope to sign similar agreements
with other provinces and territories in the near future.
These agreements will help persons with disabilities to prepare
for and enter the workforce.
* * *
POLLING
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, access to information documents show that Liberals have
increased spending on public opinion polling by 68% in three
years, spending $28 million from 1994 to 1997. Almost half of
that was without competition.
Given the Liberal criticism of the Tory governments and its
spending on the polls, how does the Liberal government justify
this whopping 68% increase?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and
Government Services, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I do not know where
the member gets the figures.
Maybe he should consult with his advertising firm which said:
“There is no evidence that the process is unfair or weighted in
favour of Liberal political allies”. Since we have been in
government we have had an open process. That is how we give
contracts to Canadians who qualify.
* * *
[Translation]
CORPORATE TAXATION
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Minister of Finance.
Two years ago, with much fanfare, the Minister of Finance
announced the creation of a committee to examine corporate
taxation. Now, he has once again hastily tabled this
committee's report just before the House adjourned.
Are we to understand from the minister's actions that this
report will once again be shelved?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Not at all, Mr.
Speaker. First of all, I would like to thank the chair and
members of the committee for their work.
As members perhaps know, the report will be submitted to the
Standing Committee on Finance for study. We have, however, said
that our priority is to lower personal taxes.
* * *
[English]
BANKING
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my question
is for the Minister of Finance. He is well aware that if the
bank mergers are permitted to proceed we will see the loss of
thousands of jobs in that sector. He will appreciate the
reduction in competition in that vital sector. He knows that
there are major implications in allowing foreign banks to come
into Canada.
1500
In light of those three aspects, would he agree with me that it
would be appropriate, at least for the finance committee of the
House, to do an in-depth analysis of the impacts of these bank
mergers on the financial community of Canada and on Canadians
generally?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, absolutely. That is why it is our intention to submit
the MacKay report to the finance committee for exactly that
purpose.
[Translation]
The Speaker: I have a question for the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean. Does the question of privilege arise from question
period? For your information, I like matters of privilege to be
submitted to me in writing one hour before they are raised.
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay: Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it relates to
question period.
The Speaker: If it has to do with something that took place
during question period, I recognize the hon. member for
Lac-Saint-Jean.
* * *
PRIVILEGE
MARKET GLOBALIZATION
Mr. Stéphan Tremblay (Lac-Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I will try
to make it short. It has to do with globalization and the issues
raised in this place today.
Two years ago, when I entered politics, I took an oath to serve
my constituents. Today, in a context of market globalization, I
think it is becoming increasingly difficult to do so. That is
why I jump out of my seat as a member of Parliament to start a
public debate on globalization—
[Editor's Note: The member left the Chamber with his chair.]
[English]
Mr. Randy White: Mr. Speaker, you are not allowed to
steal chairs from the House.
The Speaker: I was just going to rule that is not a
question of privilege.
ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
1505
[English]
ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
you do not mind I think I will keep a hand on my chair while I am
speaking.
[Translation]
I am very pleased to table in this House today, in both official
languages, a number of Order in Council appointments which were
made recently by the government.
Pursuant to Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to
the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is
attached.
* * *
GOVERNMENT RESPONSE TO PETITIONS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant
to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both
official languages, the government's response to 31 petitions.
* * *
[English]
PETITIONS
THUNDER BAY REGIONAL HOSPITAL
Mr. Stan Dromisky (Thunder Bay—Atikokan, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have the privilege and honour of presenting a
significant petition signed by over 1,600 citizens from my riding
of Thunder Bay—Atikokan.
My constituents endorse and support Thunder Bay Regional
Hospital and the trustees of the hospital board in their vision
of a new centrally located hospital to serve not only the
citizens of Thunder Bay but all Canadians of the northwestern
Ontario region, including thousands of citizens from the first
nation communities.
The petitioners call upon parliament to ensure that the federal
government, through Health Canada, Indian and Northern Affairs
Canada and such other ministries and agencies as parliament shall
direct, provide appropriate funding and support of the capital
cost for this new hospital.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it is my
honour to present a petition on behalf of a number of
constituents from the Kamloops constituency, primarily the
community of Clearwater in the North Thompson valley.
They point out a number of reasons they feel the multilateral
agreement on investment is not in the best interest of Canada and
simply call upon Canada not to sign the MAI.
PENSIONS
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have a
petition on another matter. The petitioners are primarily from
the communities of Logan Lake and Kamloops.
They point out their concerns in terms of the way the government
is dealing with the pension system for Canadians and call upon
the House of Commons to advance cautiously in terms of any
changes to the retirement system of the country without very
clear consultation with Canadians.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I
have a petition signed by a number of people from all over
western Canada who are very concerned about the multilateral
agreement on investment. They feel the MAI is so fundamentally
flawed that the Canadian government should not enter into any
kind of a liberalized trade agreement of this nature at this
time.
At any time the government sees fit to enter into an agreement
of this nature, there should be built in protections for labour
standards, environmental standards and other issues to make sure
that people are not put in the back seat to the profits of these
organizations. I respectfully submit this petition.
* * *
[Translation]
QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, Question
No. 77 will be answered today.
.[Text]
Mr. Dick Proctor:
Can the Minister of Public Works and Government Services specify
what was the monetary cost of the Canada Post mailing “We're
back at our post”, the two-sided postcard sent out following the
recent postal strike?
Hon. Alfonso Gagliano (Minister of Public Works and Government
Services, Lib.): Information concerning Canada Post's
operational and material costs is privileged and commercially
sensitive. Consequently, the cost of the “We're back at our
post” advertising cards mailed shortly after the 1997 postal
strike cannot be specified.
Canada Post has not relied on government funding since 1988.
Therefore all its expenses, including corporate advertising
campaigns, are self-funded.
The “We're back at our post” advertising cards were
distributed to restore public confidence in Canada Post by
announcing the immediate resumption of postal services. As well,
they reinforced Canada Post's commitment and readiness to serve
Canadians in a dedicated, hardworking manner.
[Translation]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the other questions
stand.
[English]
Mr. John Cummins (Delta—South Richmond, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on October 28, 1997 I asked Question No. 33 regarding
the Oak Bay Marine Group company which is perhaps favoured by the
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
1510
On March 26 of this year I was informed by the PCO that it hoped
to have the answer in a week. On April 16 I was informed that
the answer was being assembled. It is still not here and I would
like some idea of when I can expect an answer to that question.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, it is the first day back
after the break. I am not fully familiar with the situation of
Question No. 33 but I assure the member that I will look into it.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, on December 2, 1997, I
asked Question No. 56, again concerning the Oak Bay Marine Group.
On March 26 the PCO reported that the response was complete,
that it had been signed off by the minister a few weeks previous
to that and that it was with the government House leader for
tabling.
On April 16 the PCO simply said that it was still with the House
leader for tabling. I would like to know where that question is.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, my response is the same. I
apologize to the member. I am sure what he says is true. I will
also look into the whereabouts of Question No. 56.
Mr. John Cummins: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 51 concerning
the aboriginal fishery was asked on December 1, 1997.
On March 26 the PCO said that from the department's point of
view the answer was complete and that it had gone to the minister
to be signed off.
On April 16 the PCO said that it had yet to receive it from the
department. I would like to know where my question is.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, again I have noted Question
No. 51.
The member has obviously kept very careful track of the
responses he has had at various stages of these questions. I
urge the member and others to approach me at any time and I would
be glad to look into these matters.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I would similarly inquire as to where the answer is
to Question No. 21.
Some information was received although it was not the
information we were looking for. I again ask the representative
of the government when we might expect to receive an accurate
answer to our question.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I thank this other member.
With respect to Question No. 21 he says that he has received some
other information. I am always glad to respond to these points.
I am available. From time to time if members would care to
approach me, I would be glad to follow up on these matters fully.
The Speaker: Shall the remaining questions stand?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
REQUEST FOR EMERGENCY DEBATE
BANKING
The Speaker: I have received two letters asking for an
emergency debate. The first one I received is from the hon.
member for Qu'Appelle.
Both these letters deal basically with the same subject matter,
so I will first give the floor to the member for Qu'Appelle. Then
I will give it to one of the co-signers of the other letter, the
member for Prince George—Bulkley Valley.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I will
be brief. This morning I sent you a letter seeking leave under
Standing Order 52(2) to seek an emergency debate on the two
megabank mergers we have been hearing a lot about recently.
Four of our six big banks have plans now to merge. This will
completely transform the financial services industry in our
country. It will impact on the constituents of all members of
Parliament. It is a very fundamental change, perhaps the most
fundamental change in the Canadian financial services industry in
the history of Canada.
The government said again today that it plans no parliamentary
action until the report of the MacKay task force some time in
September. That is about five months down the road, which is a
long time to go without dealing with the issue in the Parliament
of Canada.
I submit that an emergency debate is needed now. The financial
markets have reacted starting back in January. They are still
reacting to these announcements. It is about time we had some
democratic parliamentary reaction from the floor of the House of
Commons.
1515
For those reasons I submit to you that this is a legitimate case
of a request for an emergency debate on a very important issue
that we as elected parliamentarians should deal with here in this
House in a truly democratic manner. We owe it to our
constituents.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Medicine Hat is going to
put the case for the other one.
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, to
some degree I want to echo the comments of my colleague from the
NDP.
I point out that we have two parties asking for this. I can
tell you, Mr. Speaker, quite honestly that we did not get
together to make this happen. I think it reflects the concern of
the people of Canada over the possibility of a bank merger in
what a lot of people would argue is a policy vacuum left by the
government.
I want to point out that Canadians are facing the possibility of
seeing our six big banks reduced to four, two of which will have
the resources, really, to overshadow all of the competition.
My friend has pointed out that the government has no plan to
deal with this issue, except to say that there is a group that is
studying this right now, but it will not be reporting for several
months.
We are very concerned that because many shareholders are
involved in this and because the international investment
community is watching this closely the banks will be allowed to
drive the agenda to the point where the government will be forced
to make a decision in their favour without proper public input.
Therefore, I am also asking that you give serious consideration
to our request to have an emergency debate on this issue. We
think it is one that Canadians are very concerned about and,
again, the government has no policy on the issue.
The Speaker: As I said earlier, both of these
requests are in order. There is no question that you were
discussing it between the parties before. That is not part of it
at all.
In my view, they do not meet the requirements for an emergency
debate. I would not suggest outright that perhaps some
consideration be given to another vehicle for discussing this
particular matter. Perhaps something could come up this Thursday
when hon. members could consider another way of venting their
opinions on this particular matter.
* * *
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, there
have been consultations among the parties and I think you will
find there is unanimous consent for the following motion. I
move:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 51, on
Tuesday, April 21, 1998, the first spokesperson for each
recognized party during the debate pursuant to the aforementioned
standing order may speak for no more than 20 minutes and may
split their time.
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have the unanimous
consent of the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(Motion agreed to)
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
NUNAVUT ACT
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-39, an
act to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867, be
read the second time and referred to a committee.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I want to resume the discussion of this bill, in
particular the subject of Senate reform.
Since I spoke this morning two interesting things have happened
in the House. The first was that we saw a Bloc member run out of
the House carrying his chair. I have not witnessed this before.
During the election I had a speech, actually, on “To whom does
this seat belong?” One of my lines was that some members think
it belongs to them, but I never expected to see it taken quite
that literally.
The second incident was that the member for
Wentworth—Burlington made a statement in an S. O. 31 knocking my
earlier comments on Senate reform. I just want to say that I
understand the member for Wentworth—Burlington is upset today.
One of the newspapers mistakenly confused him with a senator from
New Brunswick of the same name. In some countries a member of
the lower house would be pleased to be confused and mistaken as a
senator, but this member went to great lengths to distance
himself from that connection.
This is yet another argument in support of Senate reform.
1520
When we broke for question period I was in the process of
reading into the record the Reform draft constitutional amendment
to reform the Senate of Canada, dated May 17, 1988. I can
continue to read this into the record, however, I would like to
again seek the consent of the House to dispense with actually
reading it and to have it recorded in Hansard as read if
there is unanimous consent for doing that just to save time.
The Speaker: Ordinarily we would not ask the same
question, but we are here now. The hon. Leader of the Opposition
has told us of the intent of a motion that he would put forward.
Does he have permission to put the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Peter Adams: No.
Mr. Preston Manning: I am reading into the record the
proposed constitutional amendment of May 17, 1988. I will pick
up on section 21.
21. The Upper House, styled the Senate, constituted by Section 17
of this Act, shall be comprised of 108 members called Senators
who shall be drawn from throughout Canada and elected in
accordance with the provisions of Sections 22 and 23.
22. (1) Each of the Provinces of Canada is at all times entitled
to be represented in the Senate by 10 Senators and the Yukon and
Northwest Territories are each entitled to be represented by 4
Senators.
(2) Any province which may be created, pursuant to the
provisions of the Constitution, after this section comes into
force, shall on and after its creation be entitled to be
represented in the Senate by 10 Senators.
23. (1) Senators shall be chosen by the people of each Province
and Territory through popular elections held throughout Canada in
accordance with the provisions of this section.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in sub-section 5, Senators
shall be elected for a term of 6 years and Senators shall be
eligible for re-election.
(3) Senate elections shall be held throughout Canada on the last
Monday of October every three years.
(4) The first election, hereinafter referred to as “the initial
election”, will be held on the last Monday of October not less
than one year nor more than two years after this provision comes
into force.
(5) One half of the Senators elected from each Province and
Territory at the initial election shall be elected for a term of
3 years and the balance of the Senators elected at the initial
election shall be elected for a term of 6 years.
(6) The Legislature of a province or territory shall divide the
Province or Territory into senatorial electoral districts, having
special regard to geographical considerations, and determine the
number of Senators to be chosen from each district.
(7) The election of Senators shall be based on the single
transferable ballot method of election.
(8) The Legislature of a Province or Territory shall make laws
in relation to procedures for the election of Senators within
that Province or Territory, the financing of elections, the
funding of election campaigns, and the nomination of candidates.
(9) The Parliament of Canada may, except as is otherwise
provided in sub-section (8) of this Part, make laws in relation
to procedures for the election of Senators.
24. Any person is eligible to be elected as a Senator for a
Province or Territory if that person:
(a) is a Canadian citizen;
(b) is of the full age of 18 years at the date of the election;
(c) has been ordinarily resident within that Province or
Territory for an aggregate period of at least five years during
the ten years immediately preceding the election and is resident
within that Province or Territory at the date of the election;
and
(d) has not been a member of the House of Commons or a
Legislative Assembly for a period of one year prior to the date
of the election.
25. A Senator shall not be a member of the Governor General in
Council, or a director, officer, or member of a federal crown
corporation, board, commission, agency or tribunal.
26. (1) If a vacancy occurs in the Senate, not more than two
years from the date of the election, then such vacancy shall be
filled through a by-election.
(2) The term of a Senator elected at a by-election shall be for
the unexpired term of the Senator whose seat was vacated.
27. The Senate is empowered to establish its own procedures for
the election of the Speaker of the Senate and for the conduct of
its business.
28. (1) Bills proposed to Parliament, other than Bills for
appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing any
tax or impost, may originate in the Senate equally as in the
House of Commons.
(2) A bill shall not be taken to appropriate revenue, or to
impose taxation, by reason only of its containing provisions for
the imposition or appropriation of fines or other pecuniary
penalties, or for the demand of payment or appropriation of fees
for licences or services.
29. A Bill certified by the Speaker of the House of Commons and
the Speaker of the Senate as being a Bill to appropriate money
solely for the ordinary annual essential services of the
government shall be presented to but need not be passed by the
Senate.
30. A defeat of a government sponsored Bill, motion, or
resolution in the Senate shall not constitute a vote of
non-confidence in the government so as to require the
government's resignation.
31. (1) Where any Bill that has been passed by the House
of Commons and presented to the Senate
(a) has been refused passage by the Senate, or
(b) has not been finally dealt with by the Senate and not less
than 60 days have elapsed since the Bill was presented to the
Senate of which at least 45 days were days in which Parliament
was sitting, or
(c) has been amended by the Senate and the House of Commons has
duly advised the Senate that it does not concur in all or some of
the amendments made by the Senate,
the Bill, in the form in which it was presented to the Senate but
with such amendments made by the Senate as may be concurred in by
the House of Commons in the case of a Bill to which clause (c)
applies, may be referred by the Speaker of either House to the
Reconciliation Committee for the purpose of seeking to reconcile
the differences and seek a mutually acceptable compromise.
(2) A joint standing committee known as the Reconciliation
Committee which shall be composed of ten Senators and ten members
of the House of Commons is hereby established for the purpose of
this Section.
(3) The Senate and the House of Commons shall elect from among
its members persons to be appointed to the Reconciliation
Committee established pursuant to this section.
(4) This section shall apply equally, with the necessary
changes, to Bills that have been first passed by the Senate.
32. (1) No appointment of a person
(a) to be a Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada;
(b) to be an officer, director, or member of any federal Crown
Corporation, Board, Commission, Agency, or Tribunal, having a
regional impact, including those set forth in the Appendix
shall have effect until such time as the appointment of that
person has been affirmed by the Senate.
(2) If no action is taken by the Senate after 30 sitting days of
a nomination being referred to it, then the appointment shall be
deemed to have been affirmed by the Senate.
(3) The Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the
Senate together shall determine those federal Crown Corporations,
Boards, Commissions, Agencies, and Tribunals which, in addition
to those in the Appendix, have a regional impact.
2. The Fifth Schedule of the Constitution Act, 1867, is repealed
and the following substituted therefor:
1525
This is a revised oath of allegiance for the Senate:
I,—, do swear, That I will faithfully represent the people of
the electoral district of—who have elected me to represent them
in the Senate of Canada [or as the case may be], and be faithful
and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth.
Then follows a declaration of qualification, modified in
accordance with section 24, and an appendix which reads:
Select Crown Corporations, Boards, Commissions, Agencies, or
Tribunals, for example:
Air Canada
Bank of Canada
Canadian Broadcasting Corporation
Canadian International Development Agency
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission
Canadian Transport Commission
Canadian Wheat Board
Export Development Corporation
Federal Business Development Bank
National Energy Board
National Harbours Commission
National Parole Board
St. Lawrence Seaway Authority
We have therefore read into the record this 1988 constitutional
amendment to reform the Senate of Canada along the lines of a
triple E Senate.
I want to point out to members that this amendment provided for
a 108 member elected Senate: 10 members per province and 4 per
territory.
In the hearings that accompanied this amendment's development we
also found considerable support for six to eight senators per
province, a smaller Senate, and one per territory, with
considerable debate over whether equality per province or
equality per region was preferable.
This amendment also provided for half the senators to be elected
every three years to six year terms by a single transferable
ballot method of election.
The Reform amendment provided further for the division of each
province and territory into senatorial districts in order to
ensure genuine regional representation and to ensure that the
upper house was not a mirror image of the lower house.
The 1988 triple E amendment required that a senator should not
be able to hold office in the cabinet or accept other federal
appointments in order to secure greater independence of the
Senate from the House and from the Office of the Prime Minister.
The amendment also provided for free votes in the Senate so that
it would not become a House of the parties, which has become one
of the big problems with the Australian Upper House, and
stipulated that a defeat of a government sponsored bill, motion
or resolution in the Senate would not constitute a vote of
non-confidence in the government so as to require the government
to resign.
This amendment provided for the Senate to be coequal with the
House in terms of powers, which of course is theoretically the
case at the present time. It provided for a reconciliation
committee based on the West German model to resolve deadlocks.
In the view of western Reformers, if the Senate deadlocked over
a bill like the Petroleum Administration Act, which was the
centrepiece of the national energy program, and could find no way
to reconcile the conflicting interests, it would be better for
Canada if the legislation was not passed than to have
discriminatory legislation passed.
1530
Finally, the 1988 triple E constitutional amendment required
that appointments to the Supreme Court of Canada and to crown
corporations, boards, commissions, agencies and tribunals having
regional impacts and listed in an appendix be affirmed by the
reformed Senate.
To pick up our story of the trail of Senate reform in the west,
fortified by the Senate reform initiatives of the Alberta
legislature, the Senate reform initiatives of the Reform Party,
the work of the Canadian committee for a triple E Senate and the
research of the Canada West Foundation, Alberta moved toward the
next big milestone on the western trail to Senate reform.
This was the Alberta Senate election of 1989 in which over
600,000 Albertans were persuaded to participate. If anyone thinks
it is an easy task to persuade 600,000 people to do something
they have not done before, they ought to participate in that
exercise. In that election Reformer Stan Waters received over
257,000 votes to become Canada's first democratically selected
Senate nominee.
I would like to point out that is the largest number of votes
that any member of this Parliament ever received. Of course it
was large because his constituency was province wide. However,
257,000 people said that that individual should sit in the
Parliament of Canada. Eight months later in June 1990 a reluctant
Brian Mulroney was finally persuaded to actually accept the
results of this democratic election and appoint Stan Waters to
the Senate of Canada.
All of this history, all of these milestones on the western
trail to Senate reform are detailed in chapter 11 of my 1992 book
The New Canada. I record them here to make one simple,
important point which is that most of the background work
required to reform the Senate in the direction of greater
accountability, equality and effectiveness has already been done.
I would argue that as much work has been put into this effort in
western Canada over the last 20 years as has been put into
defining Quebec's constitutional demands over the same period.
However this effort has not received one-tenth of the attention
of Quebec's constitutional demands. Why? Because it has not
been accompanied by the threat of secession. It is now time that
such attention was paid.
The immediate future presents new opportunities to pick up the
western trail of Senate reform and move toward the objective of
providing an accountable and effective Chamber in the national
parliament to ensure regional representation and input into
national decision making and legislation.
Let me first describe the opportunity and then issue a
challenge, a challenge to the present senators, a challenge to
the Prime Minister and the federal government and a challenge to
this House, a challenge to act on the present opportunities.
The province of Alberta under the leadership of Premier Klein is
in the process of reactivating its senatorial selection act. It
is proposing to proceed with the conduct of a senatorial election
this fall in conjunction with the Alberta municipal elections.
It is proposing to elect two senators in waiting and as soon as
there is an Alberta vacancy in the Senate, to then request the
Prime Minister to appoint a democratically selected senator to
fill the vacancy.
In proceeding along these lines, the premier and the legislature
of Alberta are completely in tune with public opinion on this
subject in that province. In late February of this year, an
Environics West poll reported that 91% of Albertans surveyed said
they wanted Alberta's next senator to be elected by all
Albertans, compared to only 7% who favoured appointment by the
Prime Minister and 2% who said they did not know. In proceeding
along these lines, Albertans are rejecting the arguments by the
intergovernmental affairs minister that an elected and equal
Senate will not serve western interests.
The intergovernmental affairs minister argued three months ago
that a Senate in which the Atlantic provinces held 40% of the
seats, which would be the case under equal representation by
province, or even 20% of the seats, which would be the case under
equal representation per region, could easily outvote and
frustrate representatives of Alberta's interests in a Senate in
which Alberta's representation would at best amount to 10% of the
seats. The minister said:
Today (that imbalance) is not important because the (appointed)
Senate is not very influential. But the day they are elected,
they want to be influential and then the under-representation of
Alberta will be a problem. (Reformers) have to explain to
Albertans why it would be good that eight per cent of Canadians
(in the Atlantic provinces) would have 40 per cent of the seats.
1535
I am sure members can see the flaw in that line of reasoning.
One would wonder how this can happen after all the discussions on
this subject. The minister's statement completely confuses
representation by province with representation by population. We
are not trying to get equality of representation by population in
the Senate. We want that in this House. We are trying to get
equality of representation by areas of province in the upper
house and that has been the whole intent.
I should say that Albertans are also insulted by the insinuation
that they have not thought this thing through or that they do not
understand their own interests. Albertans do not share the
intergovernmental affairs minister's negative opinion of Atlantic
Canadian regional interest. Albertans do not see Atlantic Canada
as forever dependent on or beholden to the federal government.
Albertans see in Atlantic Canada a region that suffers regional
alienation from Ottawa and central Canada as much or more than
western Canada. Albertans see for example the interests of
Newfoundland and Nova Scotia in the development and expansion of
the east coast oil and gas industry. Albertans see in that not
an opponent but a potential ally of the western provinces in
protecting and advancing provincial control of natural resources.
Albertans will take their chances in favour of stronger, not
weaker, regional representation for Atlantic Canada in a reformed
Senate.
In proceeding with the election of two standby senators
Albertans are also rejecting the argument that step by step
election of senators is inadvisable and that democratization of
the Senate should be deferred until there is general support for
electing all senators.
Albertans believe that a start, a first step however small down
the road to a democratic Senate is better than no start at all.
Every journey, as the proverb says, begins with a single step and
the election of one senator, then two senators, then three will
hopefully end in the election of all senators.
This of course is what happened in the United States where at
one time senators were appointed by the state legislatures. Then
the state of Oregon began to elect senators directly in 1907. For
a short time the U.S. Senate contained a mixture of
democratically elected senators and the others. The American
public soon showed a distinct preference for directly electing
their senators rather than having them appointed. In 1913 the
U.S. Constitution was amended to provide for a fully
democratically elected Senate.
This is why I wrote to each of the provincial premiers in
February of this year outlining the Senate vacancies that will
occur in their respective provinces in the near future. I urged
each province to put in place its own senatorial selection act.
If the federal government continues to drag its feet on
democratization of the Senate as it drags its feet on every other
proposed reform of federal institutions, then the provinces
should take the initiative.
In proceeding with an Alberta Senate election this fall, Alberta
is also dismissing as lamentable, even laughable, the Prime
Minister's lame argument that the election of senators
accountable to the people will prevent any further reforms to the
Senate, in particular the achievement of equality.
The Senate has been inhabited exclusively for the past 131 years
by appointed senators who have resisted every major proposal for
reform. We can hardly do any worse. They have resisted
proposals for greater effectiveness, greater accountability and
greater equality. We can hardly have a more reform resistant
Senate than the appointed one, particularly when that is combined
with a Prime Minister who, while professing a commitment to
Senate reform, invariably finds excuses for not proceeding.
Election is not wise because it will prevent equality says the
Prime Minister. Equality will be difficult because Ontario and
Quebec will never agree says the Prime Minister. Effectiveness
is not attainable because accountability and equality are
unattainable. Round and round we go. The time is not right for
Senate reform, or the proposals are not right, or the provincial
climate is not right, or the federal climate is not right, or the
moon is not in the right phase. Excuses, excuses, excuses.
In the opinion of the official opposition, the time for such
lame excuses is over. It is time for leadership and action.
1540
I want to end this presentation of the case for Senate reform
with a challenge to this Parliament and to the federal
government.
First, to the current senators whom I will divide into the two
categories of distinguished senators and the others. To the
others, and you know who you are, your colleagues know who you
are, and if we have anything to do with it the media and public
will know who you are. To those senators who discredit the Senate
by patronage connections or by unethical behaviour or by abysmal
attendance records, or by sloth or by greed, or by the abuse of
travel and expense accounts, by the blatant misuse of positions
for purely partisan work, by the failure to be accountable to
anyone, by the failure to represent regional aspirations and
concerns, to those senators we have only one request. Resign.
Resign before the Senate is entirely discredited and you are
kicked out lock, stock and barrel by the abolitionists.
In one of the public meetings we had years ago discussing the
Senate amendment, I think it was in the Peace River country of
B.C. or Alberta, when we got to this point of reforming the
Senate, someone raised the question of what should be done with
the senators who would be left behind. Given the standing rules
of the House I cannot repeat in this Chamber and in the presence
of civil company some of the suggestions that were made. All I
can say is that the most charitable one was the one which
suggested that those senators be granted immunity from future
prosecution if they went quietly. That was the tamest of those
suggestions.
I have a particular word for the senior Tory senator from
Alberta whose reputation as he knows and as other people know was
tarnished from the very outset when he took by appointment from
the hand of Brian Mulroney the Senate seat which the people of
Alberta had given by democratic election to the Reformer Stan
Waters.
In late February when Senator Ghitter was convinced that Alberta
would not proceed with a senatorial election, he offered to
resign his seat to make way for an elected senator if the Prime
Minister would so appoint. Now that Alberta is proceeding with a
senate election, we challenge this senator to act on his offer
without conditions. Resign and run in the Alberta election, if
the Tories will have you, and join with Albertans in challenging
the Prime Minister to appoint the winner of that election.
To the distinguished senators, and I acknowledge your existence
and your contributions as distinct from the others, I offer a
different challenge. Identify yourselves, clearly identity
yourselves to members of this House, but more important to the
media and the public as champions of reforming the Senate from
within. Do not just talk about the need for Senate reform in
generalities. Do something. Sponsor a debate in the Senate, a
real no holds barred debate on genuine Senate reform.
Answer the suspicions and charges of an impatient public
concerning fraudulent beginnings, compromised principles,
patronage, excessive partisanship, excessive costs,
unaccountability, inequality, ineffectiveness in the Senate as it
is. Answer these charges and suspicions not with denials which
no one will believe, or protestations of innocence, but by
distancing yourselves publicly from those who discredit the
Senate and by declaring in concrete terms your commitments to
Senate reform.
Discipline those among you whose activities discredit the entire
Senate institution and whose abuse of public position and public
trust may well bring the Senate walls crashing down upon all your
heads.
Sponsor your own Senate reform bill so that we in this House and
the public at large can see where you stand in relation to the
demands for equality, for accountability, for effectiveness and
other reforms necessary to make the Senate a 21st century
institution.
The Senate is often described as a Chamber of sober second
thought. A lot of jokes have been made about that phrase. It
brings to mind that New Testament parable about pouring new wine
into old bottles, a parable on institutional reform which is as
applicable to political institutions as it is to religious
institutions.
The political vineyard in Canada is producing some new wine,
demands for more accountability, effectiveness and respect for
equality in all our federal institutions. This is strong stuff
which should not be rejected or discarded simply because of its
novelty or its harsh taste but which needs to be gathered and
stored in proper institutions to mellow and be available for
present and future use.
As is always the case in the contest between old wine and new
wine, there will be those who will argue that the old wine is
better and that the old wine bottle is to be preferred to the
new. As is often the case, it is the best representatives of the
old vintage, not the worst, who constitute the greatest obstacle
to the production, storage and use of a new wine.
1545
In every instance where there is a contest between the
proponents of institutions as they are and institutions as they
should be, between the defenders of the status quo and the
advocates of reform, the greatest obstacle to change is never
found in the protests of the worst representatives of the status
quo. Rather it is the indifference or the objections of the best
and most distinguished representatives of the old order that is
the greatest obstacle to change and reform.
The public expects it and is unimpressed when the worst
political appointees in the Senate object to our efforts to
abolish patronage appointments, when senators surrounded by
clouds of unethical or even illegal conduct protest our demands
for accountability, or when senators who regard the Senate as an
extension of their party object to our insistence that it be made
an effective chamber of regional representation. The public
expects such senators to be against real Senate reform and their
opposition to Senate reform cuts no ice.
When the best and most distinguished senators appear indifferent
to these features of the status quo or worse yet defend the
status quo and join in the protest against reform, that is an
obstacle which truly does delay and prevent genuine reform and
makes things worse rather than better. I therefore challenge the
best and the most distinguished members of the current Senate to
declare themselves in deeds and not just in words clearly and
strongly in favour of reform of the Senate. If and when that is
done they will find themselves with allies in this House, in
particular among the official opposition.
Now I have a challenge to the federal government, to the
intergovernmental affairs minister and all other ministers and
members with an interest in national unity. Start to see and
support Senate reform for what it is, not some eccentric side
issue but a means of addressing regional aspirations and concerns
through a national institution; concerns and aspirations which if
not recognized, if not represented, if not accommodated in
concrete ways, have as much potential for destabilizing the unity
of this federation in the future as any of the current
discontents in Quebec.
We have no great demands of the Prime Minister. No great
reforms are to be expected from a Prime Minister whose credo is
that the status quo is good enough.
With respect to Senate reform, all we ask is assent to one tiny
step: agree to appoint the next senator elected in Alberta to
the first Senate vacancy for that province. Even Brian Mulroney
ultimately bowed to the will of the public and appointed Stan
Waters; surely this Prime Minister can do no less.
Finally, I have a challenge to the members of the House. I
would like to ask for a ringing endorsement of genuine Senate
reform from the 36th Parliament but I realize that day will not
come until there are at least 150 members elected in this House
with a commitment to that objective.
All I am asking the House for today is a token, a token step
toward Senate reform but one that would be appreciated by the
people of Nunavut and encouraging to Senate reformers everywhere.
I ask members of the House to support a simple amendment to the
Nunavut bill before us which will be moved by one of my
colleagues at report stage. It is an amendment to the effect
that prior to appointment of any senator for Nunavut the people
of Nunavut should be asked by plebiscite: In your opinion,
should Nunavut's first senator be selected by the Prime Minister
or through election by the people of Nunavut?
[Translation]
Mr. Claude Bachand (Saint-Jean, BQ): Mr. Speaker, as the second
opposition party, the Bloc Quebecois will not have as much time
as the leader of the opposition, who, according to my
calculations, spoke for over two hours.
I draw the attention of the leader of the opposition to the fact
that, during these two hours, he did not, to my knowledge,
pronounce the word “Inuit” once. I find it absolutely deplorable
that in such an important debate, which concerns one of Canada's
great peoples, the Inuit, the leader of the opposition would
launch an all-out attack against the Senate, while barely talking
about the Inuit people during a two-hour speech.
1550
Over the last few weeks, the Reform Party has been showing that
it should not be the official opposition for aboriginal issues.
It should be the Bloc Quebecois.
I can provide examples. Before the Easter break, the Reform
Party launched a major attack on the Stoney community. The issue
was the death of a woman and her child, but instead of
addressing it, the Reform Party discussed only the economic
aspect. The Chief of the Assembly of First Nations strongly
condemned this attitude, saying that it was not right. And what
is the Reform Party now doing? It will probably decide to sue
the Chief of First Nations.
In this context, I again say that the Bloc Quebecois welcomes
Canada's aboriginal people, including the Inuit and the Metis,
and tells them that, if they have specific claims, they should
take them to the Bloc Quebecois and the other parties, rather
than to the official opposition.
The leader of the official opposition has just clearly
demonstrated that he has no interest in aboriginal issues,
except to play petty politics and to seize the opportunity to
present his case against the Senate, as he did today, or to
discuss the economy of aboriginal reserves, as he did in the
past, rather than dealing with the fundamental aboriginal issue.
I had to make that point.
I will now deal with the bill before us.
Effective April 1, 1999, the map of Canada is going to be
substantially changed because a huge area will be created that
will come under a legislative assembly, in which many Inuit will
of necessity be involved in decision making. I say of necessity
because, at this time, 80% of the residents of the area are
Inuit, and 20% non-aboriginal.
This will therefore be reflected in the decision-making
structures of this new territory and for once the Inuit will
really find they have decision-making power on many issues that
have always been very important to them.
This is the first time since Newfoundland's entry into
Confederation in 1949—which I hardly need point out took two
referendums—that we have seen the creation of a territory of such
importance with such responsibilities as far as government
autonomy is concerned.
Nunavut means something. I have already given an explanation of
where all of the lands are situated. Every time I have the
opportunity to speak, I like to point out where the new
territory is located geographically.
This territory, which, under this bill, will be given the
opportunity to come into existence on April 1, 1999 is an
immense territory covering 1.9 million square kilometres. I
have not done the calculations but, with a total of 17,000 Inuit
living there, there are very few inhabitants per square
kilometre.
That vast expanse will now be under the jurisdiction of the
Inuit.
As I said earlier, they make up 80% of the population. The
other 20% will not be left out. They can, of course, run for
office; it will be done through universal suffrage. I think
however that 80% of the seats in the legislative assembly will,
of necessity, be held by Inuit.
I have had several opportunities to visit Nunavut. We
parliamentarians often tend to visit the capital of a territory
or province, and this was so in my case. I have been to Iqaluit
twice. The first time, in 1993, I had just been elected and the
Prime Minister had decided that Parliament would start sitting
only in February, so I took advantage of the opportunity to
visit the Far North.
I take a special approach to visits. The first day I often just
wander around the place and talk to people. I rarely identify
myself. I do not tell them that I am an MP. This way, I get a
better idea of what kind of life people lead there.
Life in the Far North is hard. It used to be even harder because
most decisions affecting the people there were taken in Ottawa.
1555
What we have before us today will change this situation to
ensure that the power is devolved toward those who know what
their specific needs are. Given the huge area involved, we can
see that there are many needs. There are needs with respect to
infrastructure, communications and education.
Let me remind members that, all too often, education programs
designed here, in Ottawa, were implemented in the Northwest
Territories, and the people had to comply with requirements in
terms of education, health and economic development. All
decisions used to be made in Ottawa. This will be a very
significant change for these people.
In my travels, I was also struck by the hospitality of the
Inuit.
They are very open people who like to discuss. We have had a
great deal of fun at the place where I lived, in bars and at the
various decision making places in Iqaluit.
The Inuit are a people I greatly admire; they have been living
on this land from time immemorial. Long before the arrival of
Christopher Columbus, Jacques Cartier and other European
discoverers, the Inuit had already settled here, with their own
political and cultural systems and all the societal
considerations associated with settling a territory.
I was shocked at the time by the price of food in this region,
and I later made it one of my favourite themes. It seemed to me
that food prices were disproportionate. I will quote some
statistics later on, in this regard. But the most alarming
thing, in my opinion, is the fact that between 50% and 80% of
the population is unemployed.
I was amazed to see that food was twice as expensive in Iqaluit
as it was in the greater Montreal area for instance.
So, these people are in very extremely difficult circumstances.
The fact that they will now be able to take control of their
destiny and look after themselves pleases me tremendously. I
think this was a fundamental need of theirs.
There is much discussion at present. There are plans to
establish a legislative assembly before the new territory is
officially created on April 1, 1999. I remind members once again
of the specific character of Nunavut. This can be seen by the
fact that they have even considered eventually having half the
seats in the legislative assembly occupied by women. The respect
owed to mothers and to women in general is a serious matter for
aboriginal nations.
The Inuit and native peoples are often much more advanced than
we are when it comes to the status of women.
The very fact that they are considering a parliament or
legislative assembly with 50% of the seats held by women is very
interesting. I think it would be worthwhile to look closely at
how people arrived at the idea of having this percentage of
women in the legislative assembly.
The capital of Nunavut is Iqaluit. The committee to prepare the
way for the legislative assembly, which I will get to later, did
one important thing and that was to recommend that the
government hold a referendum to decide where Nunavut's capital
would be, and Iqaluit was the choice.
Another thing about Iqaluit, and I make a point of drawing this
to members' attention, is that 10% of its inhabitants are French
speaking. Naturally, Inuktitut is the official language of
Nunavut, and there are people there who speak English, so there
is still a fairly high rate of assimilation.
Without wishing to give advice to the future assembly, but as a
Bloc Quebecois representative and French speaking
parliamentarian, I would greatly appreciate any efforts that
could be made to preserve the French language, because it is,
after all, one of Canada's two official languages. Obviously,
Inuktitut will probably be the language used in the legislative
assembly.
1600
I take this opportunity, with many of Nunavut's inhabitants
listening today, to point out that, if they could make an effort
to preserve the rights of the 10% of the population that is
French-speaking, it would be a very worthwhile gesture.
Nunavut occupies one-fifth of Canada's surface and is composed of
three regions: Qikiqtaaluk, Kivalik and Kitikmeot. These three
regions contain 28 communities of Inuit operating, as you know,
on an essentially municipal basis.
These communities are run by mayors, while aboriginal reserves
are under the authority of chiefs. Aboriginal reserves have a
specific way of appointing the chief and band council. In Inuit
communities, the municipal structure is often in place and
people elect mayors rather than chiefs of communities.
So, the Nunavut government will allow Inuit people to have the
place that should have been theirs since the very beginning. It
also reflects the wish of Inuit people regarding self-government.
These people have negotiated for close to 25 years to arrive at
this result.
The Bloc Quebecois strongly supports the bill. There are a few
minor things which we may try to change but, overall, this
legislation allows the Inuit people to take their destiny into
their own hands.
Therefore, we can only agree with it.
Earlier, I mentioned that 50% to 80% of the people are
unemployed. Since the legislative assembly will hire a number of
public servants, it will help economic development. We should
probably warn them not to create a bureaucracy that is too
burdensome. Still, if Canada can provide funds for training, it
will be a very good thing to create 600 or 700 jobs for people
whose first responsibility will be as public servants for the
legislative assembly. An effort will have to be made to ensure
that this training can allow these people to hold important
positions in the public service of that government.
Another interesting point is that, like in aboriginal reserves,
60% of the population is under 25 years of age. Therefore, it
will be important to give them the tools needed to build a solid
foundation for their legislative assembly, so that they can
adequately control all the programs and address an issue that is
extremely important to them and to Indian reserves: their young
people.
The birth rate of aboriginal and Inuit people is twice that of
the Canadian population as a whole. This will eventually create
a problem that has to be looked at now. In fact, this problem is
already surfacing in the reserves and villages. There are major
demographic pressures, given how young the population is. This
issue will have to be looked at very carefully.
The legislative assembly will probably be well informed of these
statistics, and I am sure that it will take the necessary steps
to control the situation properly.
What we have before us is the most important land claims and
self-government settlement there has ever been in Canada. I have
been here since 1993, and we will remember the many
self-government and land claim agreements there have been in the
Yukon, the Sahtu, the Mackenzie Valley, and elsewhere. But there
has never been such a large amount of land involved. That is
very obvious, as we are talking about 28 communities over a
territory of 1.9 million square kilometres.
There is a communication problem. We will see that the
philosophy the Inuit will adopt concerning their legislative
assembly will be aimed at decentralization as much as possible.
In the past, all decisions came from Ottawa. Now, they must not
all come from Iqualuit, and people will have to look at the
possibility of having certain powers passed down to the
communities, precisely in order to lessen the isolation of such
a vast territory.
1605
I referred earlier to the geography of Nunavut. It is one of
the four great regions, principally Inuit, which will be the
second to gain recognition. Inuvialuit has already been
recognized in the part that is completely in the west of Canada.
This one will be located right in the middle, and will
encompass a large part, one-fifth in fact, of continental Canada.
The other part, Nunavik, occupies the entire northern part of
Quebec.
I would just like remind the House that the Government of Quebec
is also opening up and intensifying negotiations concerning
Nunavik and the Inuit who live there. I think, in fact I am
convinced, that this will be the third region to be recognized,
in terms of self-government land claims in Quebec, since the last
region that involves the Inuit is in Labrador.
Negotiations there are dragging out. They are making little
progress, while things with Nunavut are reaching a conclusion.
The western side, Inuvialuit, is already done. Soon, I hope,
the same will be the case for Nunavik in northern Quebec, and
the last one will probably be the people of Labrador.
Nunavut is located in the middle and the east of the Northwest
Territories. The bill before us will divide up the Northwest
Territories. The lines are already pretty well drawn. There
will be one legislative assembly, the one already in place in
Yellowknife, NWT, and then another for the other part, the old
eastern part of the Northwest Territories, with Iqualuit as its
capital, as I have said.
This is a territory with many water courses, running to the
Arctic Ocean and to Baffin Bay on the east.
Furthermore, Baffin Bay separates Nunavut from Greenland, which
does not, by the way, mean that, because the respective
territories are separated, there is no contact. I must point
out that, for years now, the Inuit have had a circumpolar
conference. It is supranational. Naturally, Inuit from
throughout Canada speak to each other, but they are also going
to speak with Inuit from Greenland or Russia. This is a very
important body for them, an international body that allows them
to put forward common claims.
Obviously, the isolated and polar nature of this territory is
already a particular feature that must be taken into account. I
think that there are dealings with other countries that it is
important to monitor and I think that the circumpolar conference
is ideally suited to this task.
There is possibly a dispute with Quebec that I must mention. I
have just drawn a broad outline of Nunavut's geography, which, as
I have said, is very far-flung. The Belcher Islands, however,
which lie beyond this general outline, were also included in
Nunavut. These islands lie a few kilometres off Quebec's shores.
I know that there is a dispute with Quebec. I do not think that
the purpose of the bill before us is to resolve that dispute.
It seemed to me important to state Quebec's position and to tell
members that Quebec is claiming these islands, because they are
much closer to Quebec's territory than to the territory of
Nunavut.
Basically, the territory of Nunavut was marked off, and then,
much later, two islands were dragged in. I have trouble seeing
the logic behind this land claim.
Quebec has most definitely not thrown in the towel on these
islands and there will certainly be other discussions.
With the probable exception of the Belcher Islands, which may
well, I agree, be inhabited by Inuit, but Inuit much closer to
Quebec than to Nunavut, the territory of Nunavut—with the
exception of the Belcher Islands—normally corresponds very
closely to the traditional lands of the Inuit living in Canada's
north and to the lands inhabited by their ancestors from time
immemorial.
1610
I will now summarize the legislation. The bill seeks to ensure a
smooth transition and a delegation of the powers that were all
concentrated in Yellowknife, in the Northwest Territories. These
powers will now be decentralized and decisions will be made in
the Nunavut.
The bill amends the Act to establish a territory to be known as
Nunavut and to provide for its government, whose short title is
the Nunavut Act. The act already exists. It was passed on June
10, 1993, by the political parties present in Parliament at the
time.
The 1993 act also ratified an agreement. Before a bill is
introduced, it is often preceded by agreements in principle and
various processes that eventually lead to a final agreement
requiring that a bill be passed, as is now the case. The same
was done with the Nunavut Act. The bill before us today goes a
little further, since it calls for constitutional amendments,
among others.
At the time, the Nunavut Act provided land titles over a
territory covering 350,000 square kilometres, and mining rights
over 35,257 square kilometres. This is important, since we often
have debates here on mining rights. Until now, it was Canada
that developed, mined and benefited from mining or oil rights,
with very little going to aboriginal people.
The 1993 Nunavut Act gave Inuit people an opportunity to achieve
self-financing, and we should support this idea.
We absolutely must break the financial and political dependency
of aboriginals and Inuit on Ottawa. The 1993 Nunavut Act was
right on target.
It also provided for hunting and fishing rights in that
territory. Whenever I have the opportunity to make a speech on
Indian affairs or on Inuit people, I stress that these things
are extremely important. Hunting and fishing are often the
foundations of their economy, whether it is caribou, seal or
whale.
The hon. member for Nunavut invited us the other day to a day of
festivities with dances and traditional food. I always enjoy
traditional Inuit food. Whether it is frozen caribou, seal or
Arctic char, they are all delicious foods.
So, hunting and fishing are very fundamental activities in
Nunavut.
When 50% to 80% of the population is without a job, these foods
become subsistence, practically. Earlier, I also explained that
prices in stores in the north are often twice what they are in
the south. Therefore, these people have to hunt and fish to
compensate, and I think that the right to hunt and to fish is
the very foundation of Inuit family subsistence.
The act provided for a share of the oil, gas and mining
royalties on crown lands, as well as the right of first refusal
with regard to sports and commercial development of renewable
resources in Nunavut. For game and fish, the 1993 act gave these
people the final say. It is a kind of veto on everything that
occurs in the territory, and its purpose is to ensure the
subsistence of Inuit families.
It also established the legal and political framework for the
establishment of the new territory. Furthermore, it provided for
the creation of the famous Nunavut commission I mentioned
earlier, whose mandate was to advise the governments of Canada
and the Northwest Territories, as well as Nunavut Tunngavik
Inc., the three parties concerned in the establishment of
Nunavut.
We saw the establishment of Nunavut Tunngavik Inc., which was
the agency responsible for managing the whole financial issue, to
ensure a harmonious transition toward the establishment of the
new territory and its legislative assembly, on April 1, 1999.
What did the commission do? It examined several political and
administrative issues. In particular, it looked at the transfer
of services from the Government of the Northwest Territories to
the new Government of Nunavut. At present, Nunavut is
administered by Yellowknife, by the Northwest Territories.
1615
Before the legislative assembly of the new territory is
convened, it should be determined which jurisdictional aspects
will be devolved to the new territory and a time frame should be
set. They have looked into this.
I referred earlier to the funding and development of training
programs so that Nunavut can have its own public service. Inuit
affairs were normally dealt with by Indian and Northern Affairs
officials in Ottawa. Now, from the moment they have their own
legislature, Inuit people will need to have an efficient public
administration.
One way to promote the economic development of the region is to
have decently paid public service employees.
I mentioned earlier that 600 to 700 jobs would be created. Funds
must be set aside now to train these people to ensure that they
can start performing their duties as soon as the new government
takes office.
Naturally, the commission is also responsible for organizing the
election of the first government and identifying the
infrastructure needs, which are enormous because of how isolated
most of these regions are.
A referendum was actually held to select the capital of Nunavut.
Three municipalities were in the running: Iqaluit, Rankin Inlet
and Cambridge Bay. In the end, Iqaluit won out and it will be
the capital and seat of the next legislative assembly.
The commission also recommended appointing an interim
commissioner to Nunavut, a position held by our former
colleague, the hon. member for Nunavut's predecessor, Jack
Anawak.
Most of the recommendations are reflected in the bill before us
today. Several amendments will be made to the Nunavut Act,
including those I just mentioned. This bill makes a number of
changes to the act.
In 1993, the act provided that elections would be held after the
territory was established. This makes little sense for, if the
territory is officially recognized on April 1, 1999, a
legislative assembly should be in place and ready to take
immediate action.
We are developing not only the public service, but also the new
philosophy. We want to be ready, come April 1, 1999, to put the
legislative assembly into action.
A number of people are now saying that it will be hard to do all
this by the April 1, 1999 deadline, but the information I have
for now is that everything possible is being done to ensure that
the whole thing is up and running on time.
The elections are apparently going to be held before April 1,
1999, precisely so that the legislative assembly will be ready
on the date I mentioned. The legislative assembly will have 19
members. There will therefore be 19 electoral ridings in
Nunavut. I think I am very lucky to represent the riding of
Saint-Jean. It takes me perhaps 30 minutes to travel from one
end of my riding to the other, or an hour to cover the whole
area.
Nunavut is so vast that it would take more than one hour by
plane to make the same journey.
I was saying earlier that the territory will cover an area of
1.9 million square kilometres and have 19 ridings. This means
that each riding will cover 100,000 square kilometres.
This is huge as ridings go. In fact, this is why there are many
discussions about decentralization taking place in preparation
for the next legislative session. The idea is to give each of
the 28 communities a little more power so that it is not
necessary to ask for Iqaluit's permission every time urgent
action is required, since people live in isolated communities.
The Inuit themselves admit this. They say that their government
will be extremely decentralized, but that it will be necessary
to wait for the commission to wrap up its work and the new
assembly to take up its role before deciding on the extent of
this decentralization.
Many government departments and agencies will be created in the
territory's various communities. Approximately 20 are being
considered.
There will therefore be 28 communities. Departments and
agencies could be decentralized in various municipalities in the
interests of maximum decentralization of power.
1620
One last detail on the Nunavut Act, which is that the elections
will be based on the current NWT election legislation. The
Northwest Territories Elections Act will therefore be the model
for the coming elections for the Nunavut Legislative Assembly.
Another amendment to the Northwest Territories Act will be to
adjust the number of seats required in the Legislative Assembly
of the Northwest Territories, because after April 1, 1999 they
will have lost part of their territory. The east will come
under the new legislative assembly. The Northwest Territories
will go from 15 seats to 14.
The purpose of the bill is to amend the 1867 Constitution Act in
order to ensure that Nunavut is represented in the House of
Commons as well as in the Senate.
There are certain problems. Unlike the leader of the official
opposition, I will not spend 35 minutes talking to you about the
Senate, and then only 5 on the Inuit, but will try to do the
opposite.
I must admit, however, that I have certain reservations about
the Senate. Of course, in the present system certain senators
represent certain regions, and we in the Bloc Quebecois MPs
would be ill advised to tell the Nunavut not to elect senators
because of our position on the Senate.
I must admit that there some thinking is still needed on this.
I believe everyone is aware of the Bloc Quebecois position on
the Senate.
We simply want it abolished. When adding a senator is suggested
to us, therefore, we are not all that receptive, but we do not
want to take it out on Nunavut by saying it is the only region
not entitled to have senators.
I would however like to make a point here. As I have said, we
want to clarify our position a bit perhaps. At present, this is
an irritant to us. The entire Senate, in fact, is an irritant.
We spent an official opposition day demonstrating the
inefficiency of the Senate, its costs in particular. For us,
the true power must lie with the elected representatives, not
with appointed senators.
There may be other ways to view the Senate, as the Reform Party
leader demonstrated earlier.
But if the Senate were elected, it could create other problems
in our opinion. Who, in a given territory, would decide: the
senator or the member of Parliament?
There are many problems. Consequently, the Bloc Quebecois is not
beating around the bush. It proposes the outright abolition of
the Senate.
There are other minor changes. The day that Nunavut is
established, the laws and ordinances of the legislative assembly
of the Northwest Territories will become the laws of Nunavut. We
do not want a legislative and political void. When Nunavut is
established, people will simply apply the laws that applied
previously in the Northwest Territories, in Yellowknife.
This will prevent total chaos on April 2, 1999, by making sure
people will not find themselves without laws.
So, to avoid legislative void, the Northwest Territories Act
will apply to the Nunavut territory. Therefore, the laws and
ordinances of the Northwest Territories will form Nunavut's
legislative basis.
The new government will have powers equivalent to those of
existing territorial governments. It is anticipated that the
whole transfer could be completed around the year 2009. There
are many things to transfer in the areas of culture, public
housing, health, education, and so on. So, there is a lot of
work ahead. People will be able to start operating on April 1,
1999, but it must be realized that it will take some time before
the delegation is fully completed.
There is also the issue of leases signed with the federal
government regarding Nunavut's administration. These leases will
of course be transferred to the Nunavut territory.
As for sharing the assets and liabilities of the Northwest
Territories with Nunavut, there is no agreement between the two
territories. The governor in council has the power to transfer
the property of certain assets to Nunavut and to terminate
certain federal contracts.
1625
This means that in the meantime cabinet will be able to make a
number of transfers while hoping that everything will be done by
April 1, 1999 but knowing full well that everything cannot be
done by then. The laws currently applying to the Northwest
Territories will remain in force until such time as the people
become completely autonomous as far as the Nunavut legislature
is concerned.
The authorities and powers of the interim commissioner will also
be clarified. At present, he is recruiting many people for the
future public service of Nunavut. The interim commissioner, who
is our former colleague, Mr. Anawak, is currently busy looking
for qualified people to hold important positions in the future
public service.
His mandate will end the day the first official commissioner of
Nunavut is formally appointed. The new territory of Nunavut will
then appoint a commissioner who will be directly assigned to
Nunavut on a permanent basis. Mr. Anawak must be listening in. I
want to salute this man who, for nine years in this House,
represented the riding of Nunatsiaq, which is now represented by
my hon. colleague opposite.
With respect to the public service of Nunavut and its
establishment, some $39 million has been invested in employee
training since April 1996. The process is already under way to
recruit the 600 to 700 public service employees who will be
responsible for carrying out the administrative and executive
functions of the new government.
The establishment and division of the Northwest Territories into
separate territories is nothing new. Originally, the Territories
covered a much larger area known as Rupert's Land.
I think these names can still be found in geography books.
Talk of splitting the territory into an eastern and a western
portion is therefore nothing new. Members know that the present
boundaries of the Northwest Territories were set in 1912, at the
same time as those for Manitoba, Ontario and Quebec.
Furthermore, it was at this time that we were given the northern
tip of Quebec, that will eventually also be called Nunavik, and
that will also probably be part of the drive for self-government
that is part of the far north Inuit land claims.
Until 1950, the federal government administered the Northwest
Territories. There was a territorial council whose members were
appointed and this council was chaired by a commissioner
appointed and serving in Ottawa. Ottawa decided who was the
public servant and who was the commissioner.
He was based in Ottawa and from here made decisions affecting
territories thousands of kilometres away.
Things have changed significantly. This, of course, was the
forerunner of the legislative assembly of the Northwest
Territories.
In conclusion, I would like to read, as I always do, a short
passage in Inuktitut, and perhaps my colleague will tell me if I
pronounced it properly.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[Translation]
As I was saying in Inuktitut, I hope that the return of this
bill to the legislative agenda will encourage the Department of
Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the government to
take action to compensate for their mistreatment of the Nunavut
Inuit. I hope that the creation of Nunavut will bring harmony
and prosperity to your communities.
Long live Nunavut.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): It is my duty, pursuant to
Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be
raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the
hon. member for Halifax West, Human rights; the hon. member for
Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, Multilateral Agreement on Investment;
the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, Young Offenders Act; the
hon. member for Trois-Rivières, Dredging of St. Lawrence; the
hon. member for Durham, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
1630
[English]
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, I am
very pleased and honoured to have the opportunity to speak to
this historic piece of legislation, an act to amend the Nunavut
Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.
I noticed earlier the hon. Leader of the Opposition in his
remarks commented that the NDP had a certain position with
respect to Senate reform and that we should take note,
particularly members from the Atlantic area, of his words of
wisdom. The NDP has clearly stated its position with respect to
the Senate. It is unequivocal. It is on record.
I was quite disappointed to hear the hon. Leader of the
Opposition, as was mentioned by my colleague from the Bloc, spend
two hours commenting on Senate reform when this very important
piece of legislation is before the House.
There is quite a bit of excitement surrounding the legislation.
This is a very exciting time particularly for the people of
Nunavut, for the Inuit.
A few weeks back I had the honour, along with some of my other
colleagues, of attending a celebration of the coming into being
of Nunavut. It was quite evident when we saw the rich cultural
heritage that was being displayed and we sampled the cultural
foods and so forth that there was a lot of excitement and a lot
of hope surrounding the legislation. That is where we should be
putting our focus today in terms of the hopes and aspirations of
the people in the north with respect to the legislation rather
than using it as a platform for a particular political agenda
around Senate reform.
The legislation would pave the way for Nunavut's first general
election. Timely passage of the bill would allow for a
territorial election to actually precede the formal creation of
Nunavut.
I am aware that the provisions contained in Bill C-39 are the
result of long negotiations and discussions between the federal
government, the Government of the Northwest Territories and
Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated.
The creation of Nunavut and the unfolding of aboriginal
self-government through public government in this new territory
will be watched closely throughout the world. I must confess
that I am not as fluent in Inuktitut as the previous speaker.
From Qurluqtuuq or Copper Mine to Qikiqtarjuaq the early years of
the territory of Nunavut will be monitored by many throughout the
globe.
Before we send the bill to committee I want to congratulate all
Inuit who have worked on and participated in this effort over the
last 22 years and before.
Central to the success thus far in the historic effort that is
the creation of Nunavut has been the careful negotiations between
Inuit negotiators and those aboriginal groups on the borders of
the land that is to become Nunavut. The success in the
negotiations with first nations people living in northern
Saskatchewan and Manitoba, the Denesuline, is a credit to all
involved. Although the 60th parallel exists in our textbooks and
laws it is irrelevant to the Dene who inhabit this region. The
60th parallel is also irrelevant to the caribou, fish and other
wildlife that share the region.
The painstaking work of Nunavut Tunngavik Incorporated, which is
formerly the Tunngavik Federation of Nunavut, is a testament to
the bright possibilities that mark the birth of this new
territory.
In less than one year Canada's third territory will come into
being thanks to passage of the Nunavut Act on June 10, 1993. On
behalf of the leader of my party and my caucus colleagues I wish
to indicate support of the bill at this stage as our party
supported the Nunavut Act in 1993.
The amendments in the bill would allow for an election prior to
the April 1, 1999 coming into being of Nunavut. With passage of
the bill an elected assembly from the moment it comes into
existence will govern Nunavut.
It is very important that the assembly be in place at the time
Nunavut is officially created.
1635
The other amendments in the bill are the result of prolonged
negotiations and would help to ensure the transition to Nunavut
is a smooth one. The proposed interim commissioner would have
responsibility for working on the division of assets and
liabilities between the governments of Nunavut and of the
Northwest Territories. The commissioner would also work to
clarify how Northwest Territories laws would apply in Nunavut.
Clearly these issues must be closely explored in committee.
The bill would also clarify liability for leases relating to
staff housing and office facilities. The legislation also
reassigns one of the two Northwest Territories seats to Nunavut
and creates a seat in the Senate.
Support for the bill will be an important part of the effort to
move ahead aboriginal self-government in this region. This will
allow for province-type powers essential to the development of
the social, cultural, economic and political well-being of Inuit.
Nunavut comprises, as we have heard, 1.9 million square
kilometres, roughly one-fifth of the entire Canadian land mass.
It is almost the size of Greenland. This clearly represents a
tremendous opportunity for Inuit to manage wildlife and resources
in a formal fashion in government, having managed them for so
many thousands of years before Canada came into being. This will
seek to formalize inherent Inuit rights to fish, wildlife and
land that have been their rights since time immemorial.
With a population of roughly 24,600, Inuit comprise over four
out of every five people in the territory to be. The
representatives elected to bring this new territory into being
would be accountable to a largely aboriginal electorate. The
land claims agreement already passed recognizes Inuit title to
350,000 square kilometres of land and includes provisions for
joint management and resource revenue sharing.
It is difficult for many southern Canadians to understand the
social and economic nature of the region to become Nunavut. With
a litre of milk costing roughly $7 and a loaf of bread $3 and
with about 20 kilometres of paved road in almost 2 million square
kilometres of land, the challenges and the opportunities facing
the voters of Nunavut and their families are unique and most
certainly require their own territorial government.
Nunavut means “our land”. The bill would facilitate giving
meaning in history to that title. This new territory will be
able to work in concert with native development corporations such
as Nusai and Qikiqtaaluk Corporation representing concerns such
as shrimp fishing, trucking and the hotel industry.
The Nunavut government will be elected by all voting residents
of Nunavut, Inuit and non-Inuit. The government elected will be
responsible to all citizens of the territory. Increasingly,
beginning after the first election and the formal birth of the
territory in April of next year, the government of Nunavut will
assume responsibilities currently exercised by the Government of
the Northwest Territories with the transfer of programs such as
culture, public housing and health care to be completed by the
year 2009.
While the federal government's co-operation with the Nunavut
Tunngavik Incorporated and the Government of the Northwest
Territories is to be commended, it also serves to further
underscore the dismal failure of the government in so many areas
concerning self-government for aboriginal peoples.
The Liberal government should take the efforts and relative
success in the developing creation of Nunavut and learn from it
in its relations with aboriginal peoples throughout the land. The
government should be taking the lead instead of waiting for
costly and confrontational court actions to determine the history
of our relations with aboriginal peoples.
Delgamuukw is an excellent case in point. It is astonishing
that on the one hand the government can proceed with positive
steps in the creation of the territory of Nunavut but stumble and
fall so terribly in its abject failure to respond coherently to
the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples.
1640
As I mentioned earlier in these comments, the government did
manage to engage in successful negotiations with Nunavut
Tunngavik Incorporated, the body that now affords representation
and a negotiating structure for the Inuit of Nunavut. Why then
has the government failed to carry this model forward and
negotiate self-government?
The supreme court in the recent Delgammuukw decision encouraged
the government not to continue to rely on the courts but to
negotiate in the spirit of self-government recognized in the
Constitution Act.
One of the issues that will need continued work in the future,
which is not covered by the bill, is the area of the court
system. There are no commitments in the legislation to move to
develop community courts and to recognize the role of aboriginal
justice. This glaring omission merits serious attention in the
months to come. Although the bill would establish the supreme
court of Nunavut and the court of appeal of Nunavut, it is silent
on the issue of aboriginal justice and this silence condemns the
Inuit to the existing judicial arrangements.
Furthermore, the issue of the status of Nunavut in the Canadian
charter remains unsettled. Although the legislation would permit
the new interim commissioner to enter into full employment
contracts with future government of Nunavut employees and go
beyond simple recruitment, much concentration is required on the
whole issue of staff development and training. The Royal
Commission on Aboriginal Peoples stated:
An important goal is to ensure that the majority population of
Inuit can staff their own governing institutions. The importance
of training to self-determination cannot be overestimated.
Systems must be developed to ensure Inuit are trained and
educated in such a way to ensure their full ongoing participation
in all aspects of policy making, management and operation of the
administrative, cultural, economic and other institutions
developed. Given that many of the new jobs to be created will
require some form of post-secondary education, according to the
commission it is alarming that the government has not addressed
the fact that less than one per cent of this population has a
university degree.
The challenge at hand for all is to ensure that education is
available particularly in areas of accounting, financial
management, organizational development, planning and business
development. Public education materials and programs must be
developed in co-operation with the aboriginal population to
ensure all understand and develop the dramatic changes in texture
and responsibility of government in the land that will become the
territory of Nunavut.
While the minority population of Nunavut currently pervades the
territorial administration, the challenge in part will be to see
how the majority culture of Nunavut can be “knit together with
the culture of the minority population”, as the Royal Commission
on Aboriginal Peoples suggested.
Once again I commend the Inuit involved in all aspects of the
negotiations which led to the bill and to the development of
Nunavut as a whole. As I said at the outset, there is a lot of
excitement surrounding the legislation. Even as I am speaking
now I understand there is a web page on the Internet sponsored by
a school in Nunavut. They are having a second by second
countdown to the day that Nunavut will come into existence. It
is not a day by day countdown but a second by second countdown.
That shows how much excitement there is surrounding the whole
concept.
This accommodation extends not only to the chief negotiators but
to all those involved at every level, particularly families who
so often had to endure long absences during the varied steps of
the process.
Canadians owe a debt of gratitude to the Denesuline and to the
Government of the Northwest Territories for the endless
negotiation over the years to arrive at this point. The efforts
of the minister and her staff in this instance, not to mention
the many people in the federal government who have all brought
goodwill and hard work to bear on the development of Nunavut,
deserve to be commended.
I look forward to a very careful examination of the bill in
detail over the days and weeks to come.
Mr. Norman Doyle (St. John's East, PC): Madam Speaker, I
am very pleased to say a few words on Bill C-39, an act to amend
the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.
My colleague, the member for South Shore, is the critic for
aboriginal affairs and northern development but he could not be
present today. He is a little late in getting here so he asked
me to make some remarks on his behalf.
1645
The creation of the new territory in the northeastern and
central region of Canada on April 1, 1999 is a very historic
occasion. This will create Nunavut as a separate territory from
what is currently the Northwest Territories. This will happen
about 50 years from the date of another milestone in Canadian
history, the day Newfoundland entered Confederation.
I want to begin with a brief history of the events leading to
this momentous occasion, the creation of a new territory in the
north to be called Nunavut. It has been a long time in coming to
fruition and the journey has not been without a lot of hurdles.
The first attempt to divide the Northwest Territories into two
regions was made back in 1965 and was initiated by the western
region of the Northwest Territories. The bill died on the order
paper at that time. The next event of significance was the
release of the Carrothers report in 1966 and its recommendation
that a division of the Northwest Territories would not be
beneficial at that time to the Inuit living primarily in the
eastern region. Instead, the report made a number of
recommendations, including the creation of electoral
constituencies in the eastern and central Arctic, the appointment
of a commissioner who resided in the Northwest Territories and
the transfer of federal programs to the territorial government.
It should be noted that at that time the commissioner of the
Northwest Territories was based out of Ottawa. His
recommendations were to set the stage for division of the
Northwest Territories at a later point in time when the regions
would be in a better position to assume control of their
administration and governance. These recommendations were acted
on in the following years.
In 1976 another bid was made for division of the territory, this
time by the ITC, an organization representing Inuit in Canada. A
plebiscite on the issue of division followed in 1982 and it
garnered a 56% rate of approval, particularly strong in the
eastern Arctic.
That year also saw the formation of a constitutional alliance
consisting of members of the legislative assembly in the
Northwest Territories with representatives from aboriginal
groups. Its objective was to develop an agreement on dividing
the territory. Although an agreement was reached in 1987 it was
not ratified by the Dene Nation and Metis Association, which had
a land claims settlement in the western area and objected to the
proposed boundary. Thus the agreement failed and the group
dissolved.
In 1990 the Progressive Conservative government asked John
Parker to determine the boundary between the two land claims
settlement areas, the Denis-Metis nation in the western area and
the Inuit in the eastern region. The proposed boundary was
taken to a plebiscite in May of 1992 and received a 54% vote.
One important piece of information that I have not mentioned is
that in 1990 it was agreed that a vote on the Inuit land claim
agreement would take place. The Inuit ratified the agreement
with a vote in November of 1992 that resulted in 85% of the
people voting in favour of the settlement. So on May 25, 1993
former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney's government signed the land
claims agreement into being.
1650
The Nunavut land claims agreement will create the Nunavut
territory on April 1, 1999. The agreement is the largest
aboriginal land claims agreement in Canadian history.
Nunavut means our land in Inuktitut and it represents 2.242
million square kilometres, roughly one-fifth of Canada's land
mass. The capital of the new region will be Iqaluit on Baffin
Island.
The land claims agreement sets out the creation of the new
Nunavut territory and gives Inuit title to 350,000 square
kilometres of land. Along with the land agreement is a cash
settlement for $1.1 billion over 14 years. In return the Inuit
agree to relinquish rights and aboriginal title to other lands
within the proposed Nunavut.
There are a number of challenges that must be overcome before
the creation of Nunavut in April 1999. This legislation, Bill
C-39, addresses some of these concerns. It confers greater
powers to the interim commissioner, Jack Anawak, to enable him to
enter into leases on behalf of the new territory and ensures that
employees hired for the new government are permanent rather than
temporary positions.
Even more important, this amendment to the Nunavut Act provides
for an election prior to the date the new territory comes into
existence. This is of critical importance since it ensures a
government will be in place to begin work immediately without
having to go through the process of an election in what is
obviously going to be a critical and a dynamic time for the new
territory.
Another issue of concern to the western region was the number of
elected representatives required for governing after the division
occurs. The western region will be left with 14 members but the
regulation requires 15 members to form a government. Amendment
to this legislation will reduce the numbers needed to 14. This
will ensure that the western region is also in the position to
offer a continuation of services for their area.
Furthermore, this legislation amends the Constitution Act, 1867
to create another seat in the Senate to recognize the new
territory. Currently there is only one seat for the Northwest
Territories, but the senator representing the Northwest
Territories resides in what will become Nunavut. This amendment
eliminates any uncertainty along these lines.
One of the greatest concerns expressed by the Inuit and others
affected by the change is the need for continuation of services.
This legislation helps to ensure that this will occur. At the
same time there are still concerns for those people living in the
eastern and the central Arctic area. Is the infrastructure going
to be in place? Will financial assistance be provided and will
there be enough of it? Are there going to be enough people to
fill the expected 600 new positions in Nunavut?
The new territory will consist of approximately 24,000 people,
85% or 18,000 of them Inuit. Inuktituk will be the working
language and the hope is to have 85% of the staffing positions
filled by Inuit in the long term and 45% in the short term.
The federal government has provided approximately $40 million
for training and education to prepare the people living in the
eastern and central Arctic for positions in the new government.
With the settlement of land claims in this area, however, a
number of new positions are available for the Inuit and it may be
difficult to find people for all these positions. With
Nunavut's plan to have government offices spread out over 11
communities attracting workers to the outlying areas may also
present a challenge.
The Nunavut implementation commission has reported that Nunavut
will have to attain 50% of the people for these new positions
from outside of their region.
1655
At the same time a report by the government of the Northwest
Territories suggests that only 10% to 15% of its staff will move
to Nunavut. That means Nunavut will not have a large
corporate knowledge base from which to build.
Furthermore it is questionable whether the infrastructure will
be in place in time and Arctic conditions may also be a factor.
Moreover, there is little or no private sector space available
since everything is typically built on an as needed basis.
Although the entire infrastructure is not required immediately
and it is my understanding that the timetable factors in a delay
of two years for a summit, a continuation of services will not be
possible without adequate infrastructure.
The division of the Northwest Territories creates some
interesting and difficult questions for operations such as the
Northwest Territories Power Corporation and workers compensation
board. According to the divisional secretariat of the Northwest
Territories, economies of scale will be a deciding factor in
determining how essential services such as these are affected.
Both territories will likely share hospitals and correctional
facilities until Nunavut has infrastructure in place for these
facilities. That may create problems, however, since the
Yellowknife correctional facility is not large enough to
accommodate the needs of the entire region.
The western region of the current Northwest Territories has
expressed concern over lack of recognition of the problems facing
their areas as well. They also have to ensure that the
continuation of services is provided during the division of
territories. They are obviously in a better position to do so
since the infrastructure exists and the legislative, judicial,
financial and administrative systems are in place.
Nunavut will have a public government with Inuit and non-Inuit
representation. Although Nunavut was created as part of the land
claim agreement, the Inuit chose a public government format. The
land claim agreement raises another interesting point about what
constitutional rights Nunavut will have. Although one would
presume its powers would be equivalent to those of the Yukon
Territory and the western region, Nunavut will be created as part
of a land claim settlement agreement under section 35 of the
Constitution. This is another area that is not clarified for the
new territory and may create uncertainty.
A Progressive Conservative government initiated the process when
the Nunavut land claim agreement was signed in May of 1993 and
will culminate in the creation of Nunavut on April 1, 1999. The
creation of this territory is a positive move for the eastern
region. The PC Party supports self-government for aboriginal
peoples as a means of improving their economic development.
While I agree in principle with this legislation as it attempts
to rectify some omissions in the Nunavut Act, there are still a
number of challenges, as we are all very much aware, facing the
new territory as it counts down to April 1, 1999.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I am very honoured today to speak to Bill C-39, which is the act
to amend the Nunavut Act and the Constitution Act, 1867.
As we discussed a few moments ago, I will be speaking both in
Inuktitut and English because of the importance of this bill to
my riding.
As the House is very well aware, the map of Canada will change
in less than a year from now. April 1, 1999 will mark an
important day in the history of Canada.
This is equally important to Nunavut residents and to people in
the rest of Canada. The coming into place of the Nunavut Act
amendments brings us one step closer to our dream. After years of
decisions being made by outsiders, Nunavut residents will finally
have a chance to control their own future. We should all be
proud of that.
1700
This is very significant for me. The people I represent will
have the opportunity to make decisions and to control over their
own lives. I think of the people who have gone through all the
years of having decisions made by people in Ottawa or other parts
of Canada who had no idea how those decisions impacted people.
I was quite disappointed earlier today. I thought today we
would be talking about the Nunavut Act amendments. I really did
not see that when the Leader of the Opposition spent two hours
talking about something which I felt was very much a side issue.
I felt very cheated of this day. I was told that April 20 would
be the day we spoke about the Nunavut Act amendments and the
opening of possibilities for the people of Nunavut.
This is a very important day for me. It brings us one step
closer to seeing the creation of our government. I think of the
people who had no control over their own lives. They see so much
hope in the new Nunavut government.
I think of the parents whose children were taken away from them
to go to school. They had no control over whether or not their
children would go to school thousands of miles away. They did not
see them for a year or two at a time. These people whose children
are now grown and working still feel they will have an
opportunity to make decisions that will help the Nunavut
government be responsive to the people it represents.
I think of the people who were relocated from other parts of
Canada and who moved to the Nunavut area. There are other people
who lived in other parts of Nunavut who were relocated by the
government. They are waiting today for a chance to run their own
government, to make decisions in government and to help their
government make decisions that are responsive to the people.
I see the Nunavut Act amendments as taking them one step closer
to that goal. It is an opportunity to right something that went
wrong 50 years ago or however many years ago those decisions were
made.
[Editor's Note: Member spoke in Inuktitut.]
[English]
This bill also continues the good work set out by the original
Nunavut Act as we argue that there are certain things coming out
which were not foreseen. Now we have to finish up the Nunavut
Act so that we can get a government in place by April 1, 1999. To
make sure that the Nunavut government is able to get off on the
right track, it is the responsibility of everyone here to help
pass the Nunavut Act amendments.
1705
A lot of work has been done by the Government of Canada, the
Government of the Northwest Territories, Nunavut Tunngavik and
the people of Nunavut and others over the last 30 years. People
worked really hard for about 30 years and I want to remember
those people.
As I speak here today, I feel that I have come on at the end of
the struggle. It is now less than a year to April 1, 1999 and I
want to remember the many people who worked over these past years
with a lot of determination and courage to get to this position.
I would also like to remember those people who will not be with
us when we see the results of all their efforts on April 1, 1999.
I would like to take this opportunity to ask the other members
of Parliament to support the Nunavut Act amendments because no
territory or province in this country can succeed unless it has
the support of the rest of the country.
The people of Canada bind Canada together. They make it work.
The settling of our land claims is a perfect example of how
flexible our federation is and how Canadians from coast to coast
to coast are willing to work together. That is the responsibility
of all Canadians.
It is important when speaking to this legislation to remember
why Nunavut is being created. I spoke a bit about that earlier
but I would like to say it again. It is being created out of
hope. It is hope for the children and youth of Nunavut and hope
for a better future. It is also hope for a better deal for the
Inuit who have relied on Nunavut's land and resources for
thousands of years.
I also see this more as a bill about democracy and making
democracy work for the people of Nunavut. I see it as being
necessary to ensure fair representation at two levels of
government, both the federal and territorial levels. This
legislation will allow for that.
Bill C-39 is about hope. It provides a smooth transition to the
larger new territory of Nunavut. It also allows elections to
take place prior to April 1, 1999 which is very important to me.
As it is now, we will not have an elected government on April 1,
1999. We will be able to hold an election after that date, but
come April 1, 1999 there will not be an elected government to
take over if we do not allow this legislation to pass.
I urge everyone in this House to not delay the passing of the
act. We must get it through by the end of June 1998. We have
already lost so much time dealing with different issues, waiting
for new legislation and waiting for new directions for the
interim commissioner's office that we do not have much time left
to make sure that we have an operational government by April 1,
1999. If we delay it any longer, we will not have time to put
into place what needs to be in place to have good government
administratively and legislatively to represent the people.
The Inuit have had their own form of government since time
began. When I talk about a community, I mean a group of people
who live together. Communities were nomadic, but most stayed
together through the spring, summer and winter camps or met up
with different people. These communities had their own form of
governing their own group of people. We see this as a chance for
the Nunavut government to use some of those traditional ways of
governing along with the new methods of governing we have learned
over the years.
1710
The creation of the Nunavut government is an opportunity for us
to take the good points of these two types of government and work
them into the new legislation for the Nunavut government. It is
also an opportunity for the older people to participate by
passing on their traditional knowledge of how we used to be
governed.
In my maiden speech I talked about how adaptable Inuit people
are. We have adapted over the last 50 years at a phenomenal
rate. I would like to use that example to show that we will be
adapting again to the new government. Not everything will in
place by April 1, 1999, but I look at the new Nunavut government
as a child. We will grow as we pick up good habits from the
experience and adapt things to the way we want to govern
ourselves.
Justice is another initiative we will be watching very closely.
The new Nunavut government is already covering new ground by
creating a unified court system. It will give us an opportunity
to deal with incarceration. One of my colleagues mentioned there
might be problems with incarceration within the new Nunavut
territory. I know we will not have all the infrastructure
needed. We will need to use the infrastructures of other
territories and provinces for the time being until we can get our
own. This issue has been talked about by many people, especially
at the community justice system committee. They want to deal with
incarceration of the people of Nunavut. They have some very good
ideas.
With the new Nunavut government they will have an opportunity to
pass what they know on to the young people and try to deal with
their social issues in that way. I am very optimistic that a lot
of the ideas which were used in traditional camps can be
incorporated into a Nunavut government. They can be adapted to
the new way of governing and can be done within the law of the
country. I would like to think that this government is flexible
enough to allow these ideas to be put into place within the new
Nunavut government.
I talked about our new government being in place by April 1,
1999. It is hard to grasp exactly what we are going to see on
April 1, 1999. As my hon. colleague mentioned, people are so
excited about the possibilities. People are planning events now.
I cannot indicate strongly enough how important it is that we
make sure this legislation goes through. I see it as being one
of the most important pieces of legislation accountable to the
people of Nunavut. Any efforts to put up roadblocks to this bill
will be denying democracy especially to the people of Nunavut.
This is not the Canadian way.
I do not want to talk so much about Senate representation. I
want to deal more with the actual Nunavut Act. That is just one
little piece of the legislation. This legislation is trying to
ensure there is a representative for the western Arctic and one
for Nunavut.
I do not think this is the time or place to be dealing with how
we want to set up the senator.
1715
I want to concentrate more on what it means to the people of
Nunavut to make sure these amendments go through because the very
crucial ones are not being addressed, as far as I am concerned,
by the opposition party.
He talked about the plebiscite. I know that is getting the
opinion of the people, but I see that as another delay that we do
not need right now. There have already been three plebiscites in
getting this far and I think that is an issue which can be dealt
with at another time. I do not think this is the time or the
place. We still have a responsibility to ensure that we do not
deny fair and equal representation, but I do not feel this is the
place for it.
Doing the right thing is supporting this bill. As I said,
railroading this bill will deny the Nunavut residents quality
health care and access to education. We have all these
agreements with our southern counterparts because, as I said, we
do not have all the facilities and the necessities in our area.
If we railroad this legislation what is going to happen to the
court cases, both criminal and civil, that are before the NWT
courts? Are they going to face a technicality? That could
likely happen if the bill does not receive the opposition's
support.
I will not go into all the technical reasons for which we want
to pass this legislation. To me the Nunavut act amendments have
a human element to them. I know those other technical pieces are
relevant and necessary, but I want to deal more with what this
means to the people of Nunavut.
In the new government Inuktitut is going to be the working
language. That is a new initiative on the part of the people of
Nunavut. Even though 85% of the people are Inuit, they are not
represented in the jobs that are available in our area. If one
is unilingual Inuktitut it is very difficult to get jobs in the
communities or work for the government. Elders are hoping this
will give the people more opportunities to get involved and
participate in working with and for their Nunavut government. It
will give them such pride to be able to speak in their own
language in any office in the government and within the schools.
In closing, again, I would plead with members of Parliament to
pass this legislation because it is so crucial to the
continuation of the great work of the people who have strived to
make a new Nunavut government. We have less than one year to go.
We want to work and do all the great things. Just give us a
chance to do so.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I was
quite taken back by my fellow colleague and her vision of
Nunavut. I was speaking to her earlier on a personal basis and I
actually managed to get very close to her riding over the Easter
holidays when I was in Churchill.
I know the hon. member has a great vision of Nunavut and of the
people of that great part of our country.
1720
I want her to know that even though I am member of parliament
from Southern Ontario we strongly believe that this is very much
part of our nation and our history.
I would like to know from her how she sees the future, for
instance, of tourism in the north. I know there are a lot of
questions about how that will affect the ecological balance of
some of those communities. I know that it is very fragile in
some areas.
I am just wondering how she would balance creating more wealth
by attracting visitors into the community with their traditional
ways of life, as well as protecting the environment.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Madam Speaker, one of the
challenges we have is that economic development and tourism right
now has the most potential in the north of creating employment.
Within the Nunavut land claims agreement and settlement
different bodies have been created to safeguard the environment.
We hope to work with each of those bodies. As well, we are in
the processing of creating a national park. Those advisory
boards right now are working with different community groups to
ensure that in creating a park all these issues are taken into
consideration.
Tourism has one of the biggest potentials in our area. We just
do not want to see it getting too crowded.
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
like my colleague, I enjoyed very much what the member had to say
about Nunavut. I know this is something the people of Nunavut,
particularly the Inuit, have been working toward for many, many
years. However, it seems to me that the stage they are at now is
one where all sorts of things have to be put in place. It is not
easy to set up a new territory, particularly a territory which is
going to be twice the size of the province of Ontario and one
which involves very diverse conditions.
I know that one of the reasons the people want this new
territory is so they can deal with the serious problems and
challenges which the communities face. It seems to me that the
preparation has gone on for many, many years and we are getting
to the crunch time. I wonder if the member would care to
elaborate on the timing from here on in.
It is my understanding that if we do not proceed promptly in the
House of Commons at the present time, the schedule, which will
culminate I believe next April, or whenever it is, could be
seriously put out of kilter. I wonder if the member could reply
and explain to us the timing of events which will follow the
passing of this legislation.
Mrs. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: Madam Speaker, I could not
stress enough the importance of getting this legislation through
at this time. We have had many delays over the years. As I
indicated, we have less than a year until April 1, 1999 and we
have to be given the opportunity to put into place the elections
and the other possible things. The interim commissioner needs
direct information that is in this bill to be able to continue
his work.
I cannot stress enough the importance of getting this
legislation through as soon as possible.
Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, I guess all MPs at one time or another would say during
the course of their sojourn in this place that they are proud to
represent their own constituency. In my case I would say that I
am proud to represent the constituency of Souris—Moose Mountain
which is in Saskatchewan.
1725
I know that the hon. member, who represents the area under
discussion, is very proud as well, and indeed should be proud of
the area that she represents in this House. She has spoken very
passionately about the need for the House to pass this bill and
the excitement of the people over what will take place in less
than one year.
I do not think the hon. member need fear the opposition not
supporting what she has said. When we take a look at the
tremendous impact, the tremendous area, the tremendous change
that must take place, led by people like the member opposite, I
know it is going to take place and the people of Nunavut will be
satisfied with what they gain through their relationship with the
rest of Canada.
The population of Nunavut will be over 24,000. That may not be
a lot of people, but they will be spread over a large area. I
complain about my constituency being too large, but by comparison
the only way an MP could possibly reach all of the communities of
Nunavut would be by aircraft and through the modern technology of
communication.
We know that the language will be different because 76% of the
people of Nunavut speak neither English nor French. We do not
have the typical founding nations in the area. The challenge
that is there for the people of Nunavut is great.
The people of the area need to feel that the rest of Canada
welcomes them as a partner in Canada and welcomes them to the
traditions of our parliamentary democracy.
I think they have a tremendous advantage. The hon. member said
previously that they are not as fortunate. I would like to
suggest to her that perhaps they are more fortunate because they
have an opportunity to take a look at some of the mistakes we
have made over the past 100 years or so. Maybe they can bring
about the type of government which will correct those mistakes.
It is going to cost a lot of money. The province in which I
live was a territory much the same as the hon. member's.
Saskatchewan was in a part of Canada known as the Northwest
Territories. It did not become a province until 1905. A
tremendous amount of money went into Saskatchewan, particularly
in the building of the railroads and the settlement that took
place.
That is not the case with this addition to Canada, but
the Nunavut people will have to be patient with the rest of
Canada. The progress of the opening of this particular part of
Canada should be quicker than even that of western Canada because
of modern techniques in transportation and communication.
If I remember correctly, there are some regulations forthcoming
that women will very much form a part of the government in the
new territory. During the break I met with an Indian band. The
chief and the entire band were women. It is the very first in
Canada. I complimented them as I sat down to eat with them. I
pointed out that if we make sure we have an equal balance with
women things will progress because nobody is closer to
understanding the needs of young people and youth. Just as I
told my friends in the Ocean Man Reserve in Saskatchewan, this
was the best thing I had seen for a long time. I would say the
same to the hon. member.
She talked about having flexibility, which is very important
particularly when going into something new. When the provinces
came into Canada, particularly those in western Canada, they
experienced all kinds of difficulties with governing themselves
and with breaking away from other types of government. Nunavut
will experience this, but that does not mean that through the
experience it will not develop a better type of government. I am
sure it will.
1730
From listening to her speech I am sure the hon. member opposite
has a great deal of pride in representing that area. She speaks
from the heart. That is the kind of person that will make it go.
I am sure many people in that territory will be watching this
debate. They will see and understand what is going on, which
will only add to their excitement.
I recently watched a television program on this topic. They
talked about the tourism industry and the ongoing excitement.
Between now and April 1, 1999 there will be a great deal of
excitement. I would like members to carry the same excitement I
witnessed in watching these people as they develop and become
part of Canada. They are not just people in a faraway land but
part of Canada connected by the democratic process, by radio,
television and all other media, and connected by the hon. member
herself being part of the House of Commons. I am very proud to
wish her well.
I hope she will convey the message back to her people to go all
out and be the very first of all institutions to say that they
will elect their own senator. That would put them in first place
again. Government members may not agree with that but they could
make history by doing it and would never regret it. The member's
people would choose their own representative in the red house.
That would make it great. If we were to do this all over again
and I was talking for the first time to the people of
Saskatchewan, I know what they would say. They would say go for
it. I say the same thing to the member.
They will have an elected assembly. She is a member of the
House in which she represents her constituency well. She should
go back to her people and tell them to do something brand new.
They should bring in the very first elected senator from their
territory. I do not think it would ruffle the feathers of
members of the government in which the hon. member sits. It
would be the right move for them rather than having somebody in
Ottawa appointing somebody where they live. That would be a
mistake.
The member has a lot of good things going for her. She talked
about the language, about maintaining her culture and about a
free election for an MP. Let us add to that a free election to
the Senate. Nothing but good could come of this.
The Reform Party supports this move. We know there is a
tremendous cost involved. There is a tremendous cost involved
with many things. An hon. gentleman asked a question about the
tourism industry. If I had time that is where I would be going.
I would want to go right up there and look at it myself, be there
and be part of it.
We wish the member well. We support this move. We hope she
will be as diligent in the development and as painstakingly as
possible make sure that many of her people get involved. We want
them to preserve their culture. We want them to preserve their
language. At the same time they must admit that if they are to
expand and grow they will have to make some fundamental changes
like everybody else has had to do to put their new area in touch
with the day.
Canadians can be and will be proud of the member. The
government is proud of her as a member. We welcome that. I
caution the member to step out, to be bold and to be brave just
as she is now in saying that they want this relationship with
Canada. They would be the very first area in Canadian history to
say thanks but no thanks, we will elect our own senator in our
own way. That would be history making beyond anything they could
expect in a year's time.
1735
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I
listened very carefully to what the Reform member had to say. He
ended by mentioning that this could be an even more historic
occasion for the people of Nunavut.
I hope he listened to the member for Nunavut previously
describing what has already gone on, the enormous efforts of
literally generations of people to develop this new and very
special territory. He mentioned a band in which there was a
particular role for women. I do not know if he realizes that the
people of Nunavut have gone through various thought processes
about the nature of their new legislature and the nature of the
way in which it should be elected. They have a very special
vision of their new territory.
I believe this is a great day not only for Nunavut but for all
the people of Canada. We are to have a new territory built
around the culture of a group of people who are the most Canadian
of Canadians, that is the Inuit people. They have a vision for
themselves and a vision for Canada.
At the very beginning of his remarks the member made the point
that the Inuit are a very special part of the mosaic of Canada.
We should all realize that.
The careful preparation they have done has already produced the
design for a new and very different legislature. It will rule
people in two million square kilometres of Canada, twice the size
of the province of Ontario. This new territory will be very
special for the people who live there. It will also be a beacon
for the Inuit in the other parts of Canada and around the world.
The Inuit of northern Quebec, for example, will in the future
look to Nunavut as the fount of their language, Inuktitut. The
Inuit people of western Canada will be looking to Nunavut. The
Eskimo of Alaska will be looking to Nunavut as a special Inuit
based territory. The people of Greenland who also speak
Inuktitut will be looking to this new territory and this new
dynamic legislature. Even people in Siberia who speak a form of
Inuktituk will be looking forward to it.
This is an extraordinary event for the people of the new
territory of Nunavut and for all the Inuit in Canada and around
the world. It is a great day for the Inuit Tapirisat which has
been working toward this and for the Inuit Circumpolar
Conference, which unites the Inuit around the pole, that has been
working toward this for many years.
Today is a great day. The people of Nunavut in this remote part
of Canada have been watching today's events on the parliamentary
channel. They follow events all over Canada with the greatest of
interest, but this is a particularly great day for them. They
have been listening to their member of parliament speak. What
did they hear this morning? And this is my question for the
member. They heard a Fidel Castro length of speech, over two
hours of technical lecturing on the history and evolution of the
Senate of Canada.
The member ended his speech with the same sort of comments. If
Reformers are so keen on the matter of the Senate and if they are
truly interested in the future of this wonderful new territory,
as the member opposite tried to indicate, why did they not use
one of their opposition days to debate that issue? They are
given a generous allocation of days from which they could pick.
One of my colleagues says there is one this week. Why did they
not pick one of their days to debate for a whole day the issue of
the Senate?
Why did they take up time on this wonderful day for the people of
Nunavut?
1740
Will the member respond to that question? If the Senate matter
is so important to them, and if at the same time the member is
interested, as he says, in the future of the Inuit in Canada, why
are we not debating the Senate issue on Thursday, the opposition
day the Reform Party controls?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Madam Speaker, I say to the hon. member
who asked the question that I spoke with altruism. I was not
trying to indicate something. I do not put on a sham when I
talk. I was saying what I truly meant to say when I talked about
my desires as an individual member of the House in the support of
the new territory.
I do not know why the hon. member would cast doubt upon my
integrity in my speech. I have never really had that happen
before. I have spoken in hundreds of different places, in
provincial legislatures and in this House. I am somewhat
disappointed that he would take the speech I made in the House
today and somehow cast that upon what I was trying to say to my
hon. colleague.
I wished the hon. colleague well. Is he doubting that I wish
her well? I find that rather distasteful. All I said was that I
think it would be a great day for these people. It would be a
wonderful day. Over the past they have developed their own style
of government. They have been promised a member in the Senate.
They should be the ones who make the selection. That is not
taking a pot-shot against anybody. That would be the right way
to go. If I had an opportunity to go back to my own province on
this again, I know what it would do.
This was a condemnation of me as a speaker who came to
congratulate them. I have read a great deal about the
background. I even got a prize at the hon. member's function
when she asked who was their most famous inhabitant. I knew it.
It was Santa Claus and I got a nice T-shirt. I certainly would
not agree with degradation from the hon. member opposite. I
would hope that he was not attacking me personally because I
would feel quite badly about that.
Mr. Peter Adams: Madam Speaker, I would simply repeat my
question. I apologize if the member feels personally upset about
it.
Why did we have the longest speech in parliament, a two hour
lecture, 38 pages long, on the Senate on the day when the people
of Nunavut are looking forward to having their new territory
established in law?
Mr. Roy Bailey: Madam Speaker, if I recall—and I was not
here for all of it—there were sections in it that we could have
agreed to which would have shortened the speech by a great deal.
The government opposite refused to do that.
An hon. member: On three different occasions.
Mr. Roy Bailey: Three different times whole pages could
have been deleted and the government opposite refused to do it.
It chose to do that. It chose to take away the celebration of
this day. It was not me but the government opposite.
I want to say in closing that I wish these people well despite
the intervention. I mean it from my heart. I do not care what
questions they want to throw at me. It is a dead issue. The
Nunavut is not a dead issue. I wish them well. I hope they do
walk out and say this is the person they want for the Senate.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to
participate in this debate both as a minister and as a member of
the House, in my capacity as minister responsible for the
administration of the Canada Elections Act and as a member of the
House.
We should all rejoice on this great day.
This is the day we commence the debate on the creation of the new
territory in the great land of Canada.
1745
[Translation]
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the hon.
member for Nunavut, who is doing such a good job of representing
her constituents in that beautiful part of the country, the
Canadian North.
[English]
The parliamentary secretary to the government House leader said
in his remarks a while ago that we were by way of this
legislation creating a territory which is much greater than my
own province of Ontario. The province of Ontario is so large in
its territory east to west that it is greater than most European
nations. And here we are creating a territory that will be even
larger than that province.
I wish the people of Nunavut well on this great day. I am here
to join with my colleagues in cabinet, as did the minister of
Indian affairs earlier today, in wishing them the very best on
the beginning of this brand new and great adventure which is the
creation of this new territory. I am already looking forward to
April 1, 1999 when the map of Canada itself will change to
reflect the coming into existence of Canada's third territory.
I also believe that what we are seeing today is a continuing
process of constitutional change, an evolution of this country,
the creation of provinces, of territories. We make changes from
time to time to accommodate the fact that we are very much a
living society which changes all the time. We are not stagnant.
We have not remained the same as some people sometimes pretend.
We have in fact grown, evolved and made this country better for
many Canadians, hopefully for all Canadians. The process we are
starting today will contribute to that.
[Translation]
What I find disappointing, however, on this big day is the
speech by the Leader of the Opposition, not the earlier one by
the hon. member for Souris—Moose Mountain. His was a fine
speech.
I was disappointed by the speech by the Leader of the
Opposition, earlier today. His diatribe lasted nearly two hours.
He used as his excuse for taking up half a day for his litany to
the House of Commons that he was refused unanimous consent to
table his speech. So it was the fault of the people who refused
to allow him to table his speech if he spoke too long.
Most Canadians will have trouble understanding his reasoning.
Why? Simply because it is not all that logical.
[English]
What happened a little earlier today is this. We have seen an
opposition party which has been, I would say, unsuccessful in its
attempt to criticize the government effectively. It has done a
miserable job of doing that. It has failed miserably in
criticizing the government. Polls and so on will demonstrate
that and the result of a byelection only a few days ago confirms
it.
We now have the situation where having been unsuccessful in
attacking the government, the Reform Party has commenced
attacking the institution. This manifested itself a few weeks
back on the appointment of one member of the other place. The
Leader of the Opposition made remarks and was challenged to
repeat them outside the House. They were outrageous. He refused
to do so. He was embarrassed. A little while later, we saw the
despicable event of the same person attacking the occupant of the
Chair in this Chamber. There were attacks upon the other House,
the flag flap and so on.
1750
What we have seen today is part of an attack against the
institution of Parliament. It is bad enough that this vicious
attack would take place, but it took place on this great day for
so many aboriginal Canadians. That is what upsets me as a member
of this House.
I am sure some members across, including the member who gave an
excellent speech moments ago, cannot feel all that good about
what the leader of the Reform Party did earlier today.
That is how I think. I am sure there must be members of the
Reform Party who also find what happened earlier today to be
extremely distasteful. If there is no member of the Reform Party
who finds what happened earlier today to be distasteful, then it
is even worse than I thought it would have been.
I will get back to the leader of the Reform Party in a moment.
We heard the Reform Party's comments on constitutional reform.
Some of us remember what Reformers said a little while ago. Some
years ago we had the Charlottetown accord which was designed by
the premiers and the prime minister at the time, who certainly
was not the leader of my party.
The day after the draft agreement it was decided that the people
of Canada would have a direct say in the process. Most of us in
this room, including the leaders of all parties except one, put
partisan politics aside and went to the people of Canada. The
leader in question had just become an avowed separatist after
being a federalist, but we will leave that one for another time.
Except for that particular leader, all other political leaders in
this House joined forces and went to the people of Canada, along
with all the premiers and the head of aboriginal federations in
Canada, to speak in favour of the draft constitutional amendment
and seek the approval of Canadians.
When we in this House put everything aside, when we shifted
everything and put Canada first, there was one aspiring political
leader, a hot button political leader, who chose to do otherwise.
He campaigned against the accord, pontificated from afar as he
did. The accord was eventually defeated. That is fine. I
accept that.
The accord in my own constituency had the largest majority in
favour of it from the Quebec-Ontario boundary to Vancouver. I
campaigned for it every single day, rain or shine. I am very
proud of the fact that in my constituency there was favour for
the accord, the document which I thought would have contributed
to the strengthening of our country.
I remember at the time when the accord was eventually defeated
the same person, who is now the Leader of the Opposition, say
“Let us put all constitutional discussion aside for at least
five years”. I hate to quote the man using his own words but
that is what he said.
An hon. member: Quote him again. You might just learn
something.
Hon. Don Boudria: The member across seems to be sorry
that we are quoting his leader. It is maybe a sorry state but we
must quote the Leader of the Opposition given some of the
contradictions. Now five years later, the same person, the
Leader of the Opposition, stands in this House asking for
constitutional changes which according to him should have been
made before.
Is there something slightly inconsistent with that kind of
reasoning? Is there something just slightly wrong? Do you know
what is wrong? They are Reformers and it is the Reform Party.
That is what is wrong, as the secretary of state just so
eloquently pointed out. The leader of the Reform Party having
made these comments is now stuck with what he said at the time.
1755
An hon. member: Quote him again.
Hon. Don Boudria: I will gladly quote the leader of the
Reform Party again. I would prefer not to quote too much of what
he said in the speech he made today because he was attacking
members of the other place on an individual basis.
The written text sent around to some of the media outlets
described how a person in Alberta had said something
inappropriate at one point or another in his life to someone who
was seeking Canadian citizenship and the person allegedly went on
to become a senator. That was the criticism of the individual
and the attack and attempts at the destruction of the
institution. It is a little hard to understand.
I remember some pretty dumb comments being made both in this
place and elsewhere by Reform Party MPs, but I have never
advocated abolishing the Reform Party. Maybe I should have but I
have not done it yet. Neither have I advocated abolishing the
House of Commons because some members thought that people of a
different ethnicity should work at the back of the shop, or some
other similarly ridiculous comments that were made in the last
Parliament.
Mr. Dick Harris: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I would like to remind the hon. member that he is wrong
in his statement. In the last Parliament he did advocate the—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): Resuming debate.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I must say I would have
liked to have wiped the party off but through the electoral
process. In the last election in my own riding the Reform
Party's votes were cut in half. It had in the previous election
something like 11% or 12% and I think it was down to about 8% at
the polls the last time. I want to tell the hon. member—
Mr. Charlie Penson: Madam Speaker, I
rise on a point of order. I would ask that you seek quorum in
the House.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): There is a quorum at
this point. Resuming debate.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, apart from all other
problems of the Reform Party, it seems its members cannot count.
I want to talk about the creation of these anti-government
sentiments by the people across the floor and the criticism that
has been made of members of the other place.
The hon. member across says to listen to the people. I hope he
does not think that what he says in this House and particularly
what the leader of the Reform Party says is synonymous with what
the people of Canada think. I submit that what the leader of the
Reform Party says is seldom the same as what the people of Canada
think or want.
I want to get to the remarks and the unjustified attacks on
individuals who sit in the other place. If members of the other
place did the same individually to members sitting in this House,
Reform MPs would be the first to rise on points of order and
questions of privilege. They would say a whole variety of things
about those people making false accusations.
The member for Edmonton North said on March 7, 1988 to a member
of the other place “Sir, retire. Get a motorhome and go to
Florida”. This is the kind of inappropriate remark, as though
someone had reached a certain age in life and the only thing they
had a constitutional right to do was to get a motorhome and take
off some place because a Reform MP did not want to look at them
any more. Those kinds of remarks against senior citizens are
inappropriate.
The hon. member across never did withdraw. She never asked and
she never apologized and she should have.
1800
Who are the kind of people who presently sit in the Senate? Let
me give a few examples of the excellent Canadians who sit there.
If members want to compare attendance records I would suggest
that the hon. member across might want to look at the attendance
records of people sitting not only in this House but in his own
caucus. He might want to look at that very carefully before
making accusations against people in the other place.
If we just look even at the voting record in this House
recognizing that votes are only held usually on two or maximum
three days a week, even then we would find, particularly in the
party of the hon. member across, that it is not always something
to brag about, and I am putting it mildly. The hon. member should
remember that as well when he criticizes members elsewhere.
Let us look at the kind of distinguished people who sit in the
other place, recognizing that the method by which we are
selecting them has nothing to do with the wishes the Government
of Canada has at this time. Most people sitting on my side of
the House campaigned in favour of the Charlottetown accord to
improve the system. It is the people across the way who refused
to improve it.
We have people like Dr. Wilbert Keon, a world famous heart
surgeon; publisher Senator Richard Doyle; a very famous author in
Canada, Senator Jacques Hébert, a person who in my opinion has
done more for Canada's youth than most of us put together could
ever achieve in terms of what he has done, Katimavik, World
Canada Youth, an author who has written the book J'accuse les
assassins de Coffin, something which changed capital
punishment in this country. With all of the excellent work that
he has done, he is one of our colleagues in the other place.
There are actors who sat here recently, famous people, Senator
Jean-Louis Roux; corporate people like Eyton, Kolber, Di Nino;
public servants, people of the calibre of Michael Pitfield, Roch
Bolduc, Noel Kinsella, Jack Austin and Marie Poulin; teachers and
professors, Doris Anderson, Dr. Gérald Beaudoin, Ethel Cochrane,
Rose-Marie Losier-Cool; municipal and board of education
councillors and people with general experience in municipal and
local government, senators John Lynch-Staunton, Lucier, Milne,
Spivak; judges who now sit in the Senate, Senator Andreychuk;
business people, senators Erminie Cohen, Joseph Landry, Walter
Twinn, Charlie Watt; people who are learned in the law like
Normand Grimard, Duncan Jessiman, Derek Lewis, Donald Oliver;
people involved in labour unions, dentists, children's rights
advocates like Landon Pearson.
I am speaking of people who have sat recently in the Senate. Do
members know who the Leader of the Opposition was quoting to
support his argument? Oliver Cromwell, the only dictator ever to
have taken over England. That is how he defends himself, giving
speeches and referring to dictators.
Let me quote these words in finishing: “I would say over the
first year I was there one of the very first things that struck
me was that the Senate is very, very different from the public
perception of the Senate. You know, the Senate has taken an
awful lot of ridicule and the idea that it is sort of, you know,
one step before the graveyard for a lot of old burnt out
politicians and this stuff, I was very impressed with the calibre
of a lot of people in the Senate”. Those were the comments of
Ernest Manning and the member across should remember them.
1805
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Madam
Speaker, that was really an enjoyable little speech. I can hear
that the hon. member did listen to the speech or read it because
at least he got some good meat out of it.
What really astounds me is that for 30 years we have had
successive Liberal and Conservative governments fill that other
place. Every time they change governments they change the
positions in there. Why have we $600 billion of debt in this
country if they have been doing such a terrific job? They are
supposed to be the house of second thought to guide this House
along if we do not know the proper procedures or the financial
situation of the country.
For 30 years I sat on my tractor and my combine and have heard
that things are improving in this country. Where have they
improved? We are number 12 as far as income per capita is
concerned, the worst of the industrialized nations. I think it
is time that someone in this House stood up for two hours and
really put the facts before this House. That is why we have the
problems, because the house of second thought or sober thought
never realized there was no thought in this House. It did not
know how to run this country.
We have $600 billion of debt piled on the future of our children
and grandchildren. The leader of the official opposition is not
supposed to say what is wrong with this place. They cannot
listen to him. I think it is high time we started to take the
bull by the horns and then take him by the tail, swing him and
throw him out. That is what is going to happen.
From one member we came to 52 members. We are now 60 members and
the next time there will be 152 Reform members on that side. Then
let us see if they are going to listen to what this leader is
going to say about the Senate. They will not be getting
reappointed, I can tell them that. They will get elected because
people will have the right to do that.
Not only that but farmers will not be thrown in jail anymore for
selling their own grain when they can get a better price. That
is the way we will have this country run. We will have a
democracy out here. We will not have a dictatorship. When I see
this House and this country compared to the democracy of Cuba I
get real upset.
I think we have the right in this House to say what is wrong
with this place and to try to improve it. That is why we are
here. That is why we will say it time and time again whether it
takes an hour or two hours, so I hope the hon. gentleman can give
me an answer. Why do we have these problems in this country when
it has been Conservatives and Liberals continuously running this
country and putting us into this mess?
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the
opportunity to respond to some of this. I am a little bewildered
by what the hon. member is seeking to get.
I am not questioning the honesty of the hon. member. I am sure
he is honest and I am sure upon reflection he thinks most people
in this place are, hopefully all of them, as well. I question
his judgment but I do not question his honesty at this point. I
am sure he is an honest person even if occasionally he makes
these remarks by accusing others of being dishonest. I am sure
there is honesty in him notwithstanding those inappropriate
remarks.
Getting back to the subject he raised, before he puts his other
foot in his mouth, I will try to answer the questions that he has
put forward. First of all, what we are debating today is a bill
to create a new territory, to allow that territory to exist, to
be represented in both houses of this great country. That is
what it is about.
When the hon. member talks about the so-called mess that he
sees, when he talks about all these things that he sees being
wrong with this country, I want to advance the following
proposition to him. Yes, this House is to hold governments
accountable. Yes, this House is to make the place better. This
House is not to destroy this House or the other house in the
process. That is wrong and I will keep saying it when it occurs.
This happens to be, notwithstanding the member's comments, the
greatest country in the world. It has not been destroyed. It is
still the best.
It is going to get better with or without the agreement of the
hon. member across. Canadians generally want this country to be
better. That is what is going to happen. That is why it will
get better.
1810
The hon. member in his remarks said that this country is not
democratic enough and that is why he is making his comments. It
is his leader who invoked the words of a dictator in his speech.
Is there not something wrong with that reasoning? Is there not
at least something that is potentially defective with that way of
looking at it?
This country is working and it is working well. Yes, we want our
parliamentary institutions to modernize. We want the federation
to improve. That is exactly what this bill is doing. It is
creating a new territory to make the federation better. That is
one of the reasons why we are debating this bill.
Having now answered the hon. member, I restate to the people of
Nunavut our best wishes and hopefully the best wishes of everyone
in this House for this bill to proceed after some debate to the
committee, return to this House, eventually pass the other place
and receive royal assent in good and proper time so that the
people can continue to build the building blocks of this great
country and make it one step better by the creation of Nunavut.
That is my wish to the good people of Nunavut. I look forward to
that great day, April 1 next year, when all this finally comes
together. Hopefully at that point we will all be together, all
partisan considerations aside, to rejoice with the people of
Nunavut.
Mr. Dick Harris (Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Ref.):
Madam Speaker, the hon. House leader across the way is really
missing the point we have been making today.
The point was that we in the Reform Party believe that the best
thing we could do under this new government formation of Nunavut
would be to give it a real democratic tool to work with. It will
have the right to elect its member of Parliament. Give it the
right to elect its senator. Do not impose the mistakes that the
Liberals and the Tories have made for decades. Do not impose that
mistake on this new government. Give it a chance. Give the
people of this new government a chance to have a true and pure
democratic process. That is what we are asking for.
The problem is that this government is so steeped in tradition
and bad habits in this patronage system that it cannot see past
all these things that have been so destructive to democracy in
this country.
Hon. Don Boudria: Madam Speaker, the Senate as presently
constituted in terms of the system of appointment was obviously
not invented by anyone presently sitting in this House. It was
there long before we came along. There have been changes from
time to time to the system. The age requirement has been
altered. The distribution between provinces has been altered.
There have been changes made to that process.
An hon. member: You missed the most important one.
Hon. Don Boudria: The hon. member says I have missed
something important, presumably referring to the election of
senators. I campaigned for the election of senators. I
campaigned for the Charlottetown accord at the same time that the
Reform MPs, some of whom are sitting in this House, actively
campaigned against it. There is a bit of duplicity in some of
the comments we are hearing today.
1815
Mr. Rick Laliberte (Churchill River, NDP): Madam Speaker,
I am very honoured to speak on behalf of our caucus on Bill C-39.
The Nunavut Act has made a major change in the perception of our
country. The design of the northern territories—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rick Laliberte: I may be missing part of the dialogue
that is taking place in the House.
This legislation introduces the preliminary requirements for the
preparations leading up to 1999. It is very much needed. I can
understand the reason for these acts, bills and the points which
are being raised.
I am honoured to speak on this bill which plays a part in the
history of the development of our country.
The hon. member from the official opposition stated that the
design of this House is like a vessel. I still view it that way.
This is a vessel that was created by the British North America
Act which colonized this region of North America. In attaining
our sovereignty and in living with and learning from the
aboriginal people we have not redesigned or re-envisioned our
country in our symbolisms to adopt the original people of this
land.
Members will see that the Northwest Territories has been
governing itself with a legislature designed not according to
party structure but one which is designed to govern by consensus.
I will be intrigued to see what symbolism and designs will be
adopted in the Nunavut legislature.
People have been bantering about the issue of the Senate today.
They should take the time to listen to the aboriginal peoples'
view of governance in this country. If they want to be radical
there are issues which we could debate, but this is not the time.
Debating the Senate has no place in this act. Let Nunavut
prepare itself with as much time as it has. It has less than 12
months to prepare itself to govern a gigantic region. Nunavut's
communities and peoples have diverse needs. Give Nunavut the
time to prepare. Let it take on the Senate debate with the rest
of Canada when it is prepared. Now is not the time. We wasted
many hours of debate today, hours that could have been fruitful.
Dialogue could have taken place for the people of Nunavut.
Congratulations could have been extended to the new Northwest
Territories in governing itself and its regions.
I raise the example of governance by consensus. Today the
Leader of the Opposition asked why not adopt an American style of
representation. Look at the history of American governance. The
Iroquois confederacy is here in our neighbourhoods. The
democratic system was designed from that. Those concepts and
perceptions were adopted. That is what Canada has to do today.
If we are going to debate we have to open up these walls. This
vessel has to be re-envisioned. The legislative structures of
our provinces should also be re-envisioned.
The design of this House involves us arguing against the other
side, arguing with fellow Canadians about the future of our
country and our children. We should be supporting each other for
the benefit of our future and our children.
We should find better means and better ways. We could create a
circle.
1820
I envision the Library of Parliament. The parliamentary library
is a round building. That building survived a fire. It
persevered a test. It is a symbol of the strength of this
country. It was the only circular building of the parliament
buildings and it survived the fire. Why could we not use that as
a symbol of the unity of this country? If there were times of
war when we had to make a decision to send our young men and
women to war, why could we not decide in the round room in a
symbol of unity?
Even the symbol of our flags and governance structure could be
decided that way. I do not think a partisan setting is the right
place.
I think those symbols will be adopted by the new territories
that are being created in the north. Nunavut will certainly
search their aboriginal ancestry, the symbolism of their peoples
of the past and their history of governance.
Referring to aboriginal people as being uncivilized is untrue.
Look at the future of our sustainable development and figure out
who was uncivilized. The industrial age is poisoning and
polluting our world. Find out where the future of our country
and our world is going. Question who really was uncivilized.
Give credence to the aboriginal people of this country and
empower them to share their views and adopt this form of
governance on this land for their future and for the future of
everyone.
I congratulate the people of Nunavut for creating the dialogue,
for lobbying the powers that be to recognize their need in a
self-government public style model of governance. In future
years we will see them debating national issues. They will have
seats recognizing their territories in this place and in the
other place. They will truly share their view and their dialogue
which is rightfully theirs.
One of our ancestors, a great leader of the Metis people, Louis
Riel, envisioned the future as being part of this great country
by building on and allowing the people of those regions that were
joining this country to be given the same privileges, rights and
opportunities to reflect their views and their ways of life in
the laws and in the Constitution of this country. You cannot
stifle those people.
It came to pass in 1998. The issue of Louis Riel returned along
with the struggle which he and the Metis people had for
recognition in this country. They never did anything wrong.
They wanted to represent themselves the same way the Nunavut
people want to. It is the same way with the people of Alberta,
British Columbia, Saskatchewan and other regions of this country.
The people of Quebec want to represent and reflect the needs of
their people and their future. That is a right we have in the
democratic structure of this country.
For us to debate other issues aside from Nunavut is wasting
their time. They need time to prepare. Let us pass this bill as
fast as we can and allow the other place to give it sober second
thought. Hopefully, in passing this legislation Nunavut can
prepare itself.
Mr. Derrek Konrad (Prince Albert, Ref.): Madam Speaker, I
would first like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to
something as important as the creation of this new territory of
Nunavut. I would also like to take the opportunity to
congratulate the people themselves on this auspicious day when we
are debating the bill to create the Nunavut territory.
Now that the time of official establishment of the territory is
getting close it is reassuring to see that the government is
making sure, through the first part of this bill and its many
amendments to the original Nunavut Act, that the territory is
going to be a little more effective.
1825
I would like to state my support for the amendment moved by the
Leader of the Official Opposition, which was seconded by my
colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, who is the critic for
Indian affairs and northern development.
I would urge hon. members of the opposition parties as well as
all democratically minded members of the government to support
Reform's amendment. This amendment only makes sense. The people
of Nunavut should be consulted on how their senator is selected,
the same as they have had a chance to voice their opinion on the
many other political procedures that will govern them.
I would like to add that this amendment makes all the more sense
when we take into consideration the fact that the people of
Nunavut are taking a whole new approach to government in the
territory. Their new ideas on government have been encouraged and
are being put into practice in this bill.
The people of Nunavut are adopting a system in which the
legislature will have no political parties. Members will be
elected without party platforms. This form of government, while
not generally adopted by Canadians as a whole, recognizes the unique
character of this piece of Canada. Implementing non-party
government recognizes and accedes to a desire for a different
form of government, one to replace the status quo.
We are calling on the government at this time to take the
logical next step, to give the people of Nunavut the right to
select their representative and to send him or her to Ottawa as
their own representative for their region in that place which was
supposedly established for the protection of the regions.
The Prime Minister now makes all Senate appointments. He
recommends the governor general. He names all nine supreme court
justices and the heads and members of all federal boards, panels,
commissions and agencies. It is not too much to expect that
Canada in general and Nunavut in particular be spared one more
Liberal crony in the upper chamber.
In light of this, I ask whether it makes any sense at all that
the people of Nunavut who have a refreshing approach to
everything else and who get to do everything else differently
should have their senator be some Liberal hack appointed by the
Prime Minister. The answer is no. It just does not make any
sense at all. The two just do not go together.
The people of Nunavut have offered interesting new ideas and
approaches to government. Those ideas and approaches are based
on their cultural background.
The government, with this bill, has the chance to do the same.
Will the government take this opportunity to offer those fresh
new ideas for once and implement them?
I would like to remind members that earlier today the Minister
of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said in her speech
“We have to ensure that the voice and representation of the
people of the Northwest Territories and the western Arctic and
eastern Arctic is heard in the Senate”.
We could not agree more. We want to ensure that the people of
Nunavut have representation in the Senate and not the other way
around. What we do not want to see is some Liberal Party hack
appointed to the Senate to represent the people of Nunavut,
rubber stamping Liberal policies when he bothers to come to
Ottawa at all.
We call on this House to support the amendment of the official
opposition so that the people of Nunavut have a say in how their
senator is elected.
We look forward to the passage of the Reform amendment, the
ensuing election and the welcoming of the Nunavut senator to
Parliament upon his or her appointment.
If the amendment is defeated it will be with a lot less
enthusiasm that the official opposition will support the bill.
Given all the positive reasons for holding a Senate election put
forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition and supported by
our members, it should pass—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I must interrupt the
hon. member as it is 6.30 p.m. You will have approximately 15
minutes left at the resumption of debate on this bill if you so
wish.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
1830
[English]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to
have been moved.
HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Madam Speaker, the
day before international human rights day I challenged the
Minister of Foreign Affairs about the Liberal government's
silencing of a First Nations chief and the attempts to silence
Canadians concerned about human rights abuses.
Chief Gail Sparrow of the Musqueam First Nation was to give a
speech to address APEC representatives on November 25. The
government then told Chief Sparrow her speech was to be shortened
by one minute. The government then cancelled Chief Sparrow's
presentation altogether. Why? Because Chief Sparrow had the
gall to give casual mention to human rights in her speech. Her
first draft to the representatives included the phrase “I
encourage you to ensure there is respect for the dignity of all
people”.
The Prime Minister's office chose to silence this First Nations
leader in order to ensure that APEC leaders like General Suharto
of Indonesia would not be reminded of their systemic human rights
abuses. Shame.
Or was this a slap in the face for the Musqueam people for
daring to suggest to the Department of National Defence that the
government should not pave over part of Deadman's Island to build
a helicopter pad for APEC visitors without first properly
investigating what impact this might have on Musqueam grave sites
and heritage?
Regardless, the government did everything to silence the
Musqueam people and others who dared to raise human rights issues
while at the same time bending over backward for the political
comfort of those like Suharto who are responsible for the death,
torture and abuse of citizens of their own countries.
The government had the opportunity to refuse to invite Mr.
Suharto to Canada by using section 19 of Canadian immigration law
to have Suharto declared a war criminal and unfit for entry into
Canada. When I questioned the minister of immigration about
Suharto being allowed to enter Canada, she indicated that he had
not been convicted of any crime. When I asked her who would
convict him, she had no answer.
Far from keeping known human rights abusers like Suharto out the
government instead chose to deploy many large canisters of tear
gas indiscriminately over peaceful protesters. Even worse,
Canadian officials met with Suharto in Indonesia to assure him
his security provisions would be met.
Signs posted by UBC student Craig Jones calling for free speech,
democracy and human rights were torn down by RCMP officials, even
though the signs were outside the so-called security zone. Why
did the government go so far out of its way to silence Canadians
concerned about human rights and those who were raising these
concerns by peaceful and democratic means?
Why did the government not use its power to prevent a known
human rights abuser like Suharto from entering Canada? Why did
the government go out of its way to assuage General Suharto's
concerns about security while in Canada?
As things now stand, history will remember Suharto as a bloody,
ruthless and evil man. I am ashamed that the Liberal government
went out of its way to assuage and to welcome this man, even to
the point of silencing Canadians like Chief Sparrow and Craig
Jones.
The government will likely respond with generalities about
protecting heads of state, about how Chief Sparrow could have met
one on one with APEC leaders, about investigations into RCMP
activities. Not good enough. The responsibility lies with the
Prime Minister's office and with this government. The issue of
silencing a First Nations chief is not an issue for the public
complaints commission but for the Prime Minister's office.
I ask, is the government's first priority in respecting the
rights of our own citizens or is it in paving the way for known
international human rights abusers to be comfortable in Canada?
Is the government's priority in silencing Canadians like Chief
Sparrow and Craig Jones in order to offer a platform for known
human rights abusers like General Suharto?
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Madam Speaker, the hon. member is all
at sea, or as somebody said, all in the grass, in his statement
because it has a number of purported statements of fact that just
are not so.
Far from being an insult to the Musqueam people or to Chief
Sparrow, the government went out of its way with the APEC
conference to recognize the role of our native peoples.
The single event of the APEC conference that was held outside
the downtown Vancouver area was the episode at the Museum of
Anthropology in the University of British Columbia, the heart of
my constituency. The significance of it is simply that it is on
territory historically with which the Musqueam people are
associated and in functions there they take a major part.
1835
In fact Chief Sparrow was given the unprecedented opportunity of
greeting every one of the APEC leaders who arrived with our Prime
Minister. She was the only person other than the Prime Minister
to be allowed to do so.
The only issue on the speeches was simply the time factor. All
those who were to speak were given strict time limits. It was
found that times were in excess and this is how the program was
changed. However, there is no particular issue that Chief
Sparrow met the heads of the APEC countries and that her ideas
and influence were certainly present.
The leaders' declaration issued after the APEC conference
contains language that reflects the links between economic
development, the well-being of people, including workers, and of
course the role of native peoples. In fact this is a theme dear
to the present government. If one consults the most recent
declaration of the Americas conference which just concluded in
Santiago, one will find a similar expression inserted at Canada's
insistence on the role of native peoples in our culture.
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP):
Madam Speaker, on March 17 I asked why the government would not
agree to full parliamentary hearings on the multilateral
agreement on investment and the negotiations surrounding the MAI
when the very ability of our governments to make sovereign laws
about the economic future of our country was at stake.
In particular I asked whether the Liberal government would agree
to the recommendations of the Saskatchewan government that there
be a full impact analysis of the MAI, a full parliamentary debate
and a vote. All we are asking for is that Parliament be allowed
a say on the matter while we can still make a difference. Why?
Because the scope of the MAI goes well beyond legislation that
MPs will ever see in Parliament. The MAI limits the future
ability of the federal, provincial and municipal governments in
this country to make laws in the public interest of Canadians.
The Saskatchewan NDP minister responsible for trade agreements,
Bernie Wiens, wrote to the Minister of International Trade in
February “Virtually every aspect of provincial jurisdiction over
local economic and social management will be directly affected by
an MAI. No such agreement should apply to Saskatchewan without
its explicit consent”.
Signing the MAI would mean that foreign corporations and
investors must be treated the same as Canadian corporations, but
when foreign corporations think they have been hard done by they
could sue the Government of Canada or other jurisdictions or go
to arbitration. Canadian corporations would not be extended the
same right.
Foreign investors and corporations would be protected from any
future laws that tried to protect or create jobs or laws to
strengthen Canadian environmental standards or compliance with
Canadian research and development objectives. If forced to
comply, they could be compensated by Canadians. It is ironic that
the Liberals will bend over backward to compensate foreign
companies but not the sick and innocent victims now afflicted
with hepatitis C.
Members of the Reform Party cannot wait for the MAI. Showing
their true colours as nothing more than shillers for big foreign
business, Reform's main criticism of the Liberals is that they
are negotiating in secret rather than spending huge amounts of
taxpayer dollars to tell everyone how great the MAI will be for
big foreign corporations.
The Reform member for North Vancouver slipped and gave away the
real reason they love the MAI. It would protect and accelerate
moves toward private health care. That is what Reform wants to
see in Canada, private, for profit health care, a two tier health
care system, one for the rich and one for the rest of Canadians.
The MAI would deliver a two tier health care system.
The campaign being led by the Council of Canadians and by the
NDP in Parliament for public debate on this issue is finally
starting to click with people. Toronto Star columnist
Rosemary Spiers said last Thursday:
Canada will not sign the MAI this month, we are told, in Paris.
It may later, but this delay shows that public pressure can
sometimes make a difference. It is a lesson the government
better have learned for the next time because there are more
national negotiations coming down the pipe. One example is the
financial services agreement which is almost finalized without
even coming before the House of Commons. This would provide for
example, a 100% foreign ownership of Canadian banks.
The Government of Saskatchewan has outlined reasonable fair
guidelines for good international trade agreements: the
protection of health care; labour and environmental standards,
among others, which I and the NDP support.
I would call on the Liberal government to express support for
these principles as well as for public hearings and a vote on the
MAI before proceeding any further on our children's future.
1840
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am always amazed
that the NDP of all groups would be so opposed to advancing the
state of our nation forward.
I would really like to ask my hon. friend, and I realize he
cannot answer it in this debate, what his information base is for
the kinds of bizarre statements that have been made over the last
year. And they are bizarre. They are being taken from a draft.
They are not being taken from the text of any agreement. They
are being taken from a draft.
My hon. friend has had more experience in Parliament than I have
had. He should know very well that when a number of nations get
together, a draft is a compilation of a wish list of all of those
nations.
What has been ignored all through these months is the fact that
a set of reservations has been put in place for Canada, a very
large list of reservations I might add. The minister has made it
very clear that many of those reservations are make or break
deals.
When the hon. member comes along and plays Chicken Little, as
the NDP has been doing for months now, the sky is falling and
disaster is upon us, I would ask him to remember one thing.
Canada now has 54 investment agreements which are bilateral. We
have one trilateral agreement. Since the 1950s when the first
one was signed, no company has dictated policy in Canada. No
health care has been put in jeopardy. No education has been put
in jeopardy. Our treatment of native peoples has not been
threatened in any way.
I ask the hon. member to consider the fact that history does not
bear him out. History shows that Canada works better with rules
than it does without rules. We intend—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The hon. member for
Sault Ste. Marie.
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Mr. Carmen Provenzano (Sault Ste. Marie, Lib.): Madam
Speaker, I rise further to my question to the Minister of Justice
concerning the relatively new phenomenon of violent group crime
by teenagers and young adults of both sexes.
Violent group crime by teenagers and young adults of both sexes
is by all accounts a growing problem in Canada. This disturbing
new phenomenon has revealed itself in communities across the
country including my hometown of Sault Ste. Marie.
In fact as I stand here today a young man from my riding is
undergoing intense physical therapy in a Sudbury hospital after
apparently falling victim to a brutal hatchet beating by a group
of attackers composed of teenagers and young adults. Two of those
alleged attackers are young offenders. One of them who at 17
only narrowly qualifies as a young offender is attempting to have
his case transferred from adult court to youth court. One of the
questions being asked right now in Sault Ste. Marie is why should
a 17-year old charged in such a savage crime even have the option
of applying for trial in a youth court.
In my opinion and that of a great number of Saultites and
Canadians, such accommodations to persons charged with such
violent crimes are an insult to the victims. They are
inappropriate and in effect amount to a further attack upon them
and their families. In fact, they are an insult to the very
notion of basic criminal justice.
To illustrate how strongly my constituents feel about this
matter, I refer to a petition I recently collected in my riding.
This petition called upon Parliament to commission a Canada-wide
study of violent group crime by young people and to invoke tough
punitive measures to combat such criminal activity.
Five thousand Saultites signed this petition over a three week
period. In doing so they voiced their concerns about youth crime
and asked the government to address this growing problem before
it becomes epidemic. These people clearly recognize, as I do,
that we know very little about the phenomenon of youth group
crime, that we need to examine what dark antisocial impulses
motivate and compel some young people to act in concert and to
commit senseless acts of violence without forethought or remorse.
They recognize that in order to attempt a solution to the problem
we need to establish not only tougher laws but gain a better
understanding of the causes and effects of youth crime.
1845
We need to have a meeting of the minds across the country
between educators, psychologists, police and legislators to
arrive at some understanding of this phenomenon and to formulate
a deterrent to violent youth crime.
We need to find answers to basic questions before we offer
solutions. The first questions we need to answer are the ones
that begin with why.
Why are some young people so desensitized to violence that they
band together and commit unspeakable crimes, often without
provocation? Why are they not apparently concerned about or at
least aware of the consequences of their actions? Why are these
young people clearly unable to identify with the victims of their
crimes? Why do they appear to be so unattached or non-attached
to the consequences of their actions? Why are these consequences
not more harsh for young people who go well beyond the bounds of
youthful misadventure into the world of violence and even murder?
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I am sorry to
interrupt but the hon. member's time has expired.
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Madam Speaker,
the Minister of Justice appreciates the member's concern about
youth crime, particularly violent youth crime and especially the
tragic events in the member's riding. We are very sensitive to
that.
The Minister of Justice will soon be releasing a comprehensive
response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights. A key focus of this response will be on how we can
take effective action to deal with violent youth crime. The
youth justice system must be capable of responding effectively to
the full range of crimes committed by young people, including
serious crimes of violence.
The phenomenon of violent youth crime or gang crime, the degree
of violence exhibited by group members and especially the rise of
female participation in these groups is of concern to the
government.
Youth crime is a complex problem best addressed through a
multifaceted strategy. Multi-disciplinary, co-operative
approaches involving families, communities, the voluntary sector,
victims, mentors as well as mental health and child welfare
systems must be encouraged.
As a government we recognize the importance of ongoing research
on the phenomenon of youth group crime. The member has asked for
a national study of group violence by teenagers. The government
has devoted a lot of time and resources over the past three years
to examining the youth justice system in some detail.
[Translation]
In fact, this issue was discussed by the first ministers when
they met for the first time in August 1997, and by the Minister
of Justice and her provincial and territorial colleagues during
their meeting, in December of last year.
The minister and the government are now urging all members of
the House to express their views when the minister tables her
response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice, and
when the legislation is introduced in the House.
DREDGING OF ST. LAWRENCE
Mr. Yves Rocheleau (Trois-Rivières, BQ): Madam Speaker, I rise
today to follow up on a question that I put to the Minister of
the Environment on March 25 and to which I received an
unsatisfactory reply.
I am going back to the issue in the hope of getting more
information. As we know, on March 23, the Minister of Fisheries
and Oceans announced his department's decision to agree to the
Montreal port authority's request and authorize the dredging of
the St. Lawrence River to a depth of about one foot, to further
deepen the waterway from 11 to 11.3 metres.
The decision was immediately criticized by all environmental
groups concerned by and involved in this long-standing issue,
including Stratégie Saint-Laurent and St. Lawrence Vision 2000.
Stratégie Saint-Laurent monitors all ZIPs or zones d'intervention
prioritaire, including the Lac Saint-Pierre ZIP, whose members I
salute. These people rightly care about the future and the
development of Lac Saint-Pierre, this extraordinary body of water
which could be seriously affected if the federal government
continues in this direction without holding public
consultations.
1850
This is a major project to dredge off the bottom of the St.
Lawrence River 350,000 metric tonnes. This potentially polluting
material—this will have to be established—may be floating in
the water of the St. Lawrence and carried by the current. We do
not know. Consultations are required so we know what we are
dealing with. We do not know either where this potentially
polluting material would be disposed of.
We are talking about a major project involving the dredging of
350,000 metric tonnes.
This work would be done without public consultation, even though
the Quebec government has just demanded that the public hearings
provided for under the law be carried out with respect to the
port of Sorel, where 20,000 cubic metres are to be dredged,
We know about the public health protection requirements imposed
by Environment Canada on individuals who are no longer allowed
to pour dirt and sand in lakes or rivers to build a pier, for
instance. In light of what society normally demands of private
companies in terms of respecting the environment and ensuring
through established standards and mechanisms that the
environment is respected, what right does the Government of
Canada have to authorize the dredging of 350,000 metric tonnes
without complying with the legislative requirement for public
hearings?
The fisheries and oceans minister's response was that
consultations had taken place. But, according to Marc Hudon, of
Stratégie Saint-Laurent, the groups that were consulted still
have a great many questions to ask the government in spite of
the consultations that have taken place.
I think that this is a matter of public interest with a capital
P and a capital I. The port of Montreal may have wishes and
concerns with respect to its ability to compete with foreign
ports, which is understandable, but in the public interest,
Environment Canada must take its responsibilities and show
impartiality—
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): I have to interrupt the hon.
member. The time allotted has run out.
[English]
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I would hope to
place a few facts on the table to put the fears of the honourable
member to rest.
The approved dredging project is to permit the port of Montreal
to further deepen the waterway from 11 metres to 11.3 metres
below chart datum.
The depth of 11.3 metres is already available in most of the
waterway portion aimed at by the project. The dredging project
represents 2% of the navigation channel and less than .07% of the
whole St. Lawrence surface between Montreal and Cap à la Roche
which is a distance of 150 metres.
The port of Montreal carried out a number of technical
feasibility studies which were completed in May 1996. The
project was subsequently submitted to DFO for review under the
Navigable Waters Protection Act and under section 35(2) of the
Fisheries Act. Both the NWPA and the Fisheries Act triggered the
requirement for an environmental assessment under the CEAA.
The port of Montreal conducted a thorough review of the
environmental impacts of the proposed project. As required under
the CEAA, the DFO subsequently reviewed the findings for the port
of Montreal and requested advice from other agencies including
Environment Canada and the Quebec department of environment and
wildlife. As well, two rounds of public consultations were held.
After carefully considering input from federal and provincial
departments and agencies as well as the public, the department
concluded that the project was not likely to have adverse
environmental effects given the mitigation and compensation
measures that were being imposed, as well as the monitoring
program which will be implemented.
1855
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I rise
in reference to a question I posed on April 1 to the Minister of
Finance regarding his position on recommendations made by the
Senate banking committee that the proposed CPP investment board
be allowed to increase its foreign property rule from 20% to 30%
over a five year period. This would allow the board to invest in
foreign securities as opposed to domestic ones and would bring
that component up to 30%.
My objection to this recommendation is twofold. First, much
consideration has been given not to tie the hands of pension
managers who need better investment vehicles to enhance the
return on investments of pension funds. I would like to draw the
attention of the House to the fact that the vast majority of
mutual funds now operated by these same managers cannot even
perform at the average of the growth in Canadian stock exchange
prices.
In other words most managers underperform even in terms of the
averages of a TSE 300 composite index. Their inability to
achieve even average returns in Canada should give us a clue to
allowing them to expand investments in volatile foreign markets
with CPP beneficiaries' money.
This volatility would include foreign exchange fluctuations as
well as the general uncertainties of unknown regulatory
environments. We only have to think of southeast Asia to believe
that is one of those markets.
Can it be demonstrated that the current 20% rule diminishes
potential returns in Canada regardless of the limit? For
instance, the United States has an unrestricted limit for pension
funds, but historically and currently only 10% of these funds are
invested in foreign investments.
I refer to Japan which similarly has an unresticted rule but
only invests 19%. Australia, which allows its pension managers
full discretion of total foreign investment, only invests 16%. In
other words it would appear that the norm in the world is under
the 20% rule in any case. Why the necessity of changing it?
There seems quite frankly to be no empirical evidence for
increasing the limit.
My second concern is what I call the cascade effect. If the
foreign property rule is increased for the Canada pension plan
investment board, it follows that it should also be increased by
their pensions, not the least of which is registered retirement
savings plans.
Investors are free in this country to invest in foreign assets.
The question is do we want to provide an income tax subsidy to do
so. Needless to say those who maximize their RRSP contribution
limits and take full advantage of the existing foreign component
are also the highest income earners. I suggest it is
inappropriate to provide them with further tax deferrals with
Canadian taxpayers money simply so they can make foreign
investments. Quite frankly they are already free to do so with
tax paid money.
The minister stated that he would study this with his provincial
counterparts. I wonder if the minister could not be more
definitive in saying that he opposes this move at this time.
Mr. Wayne Easter (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Fisheries and Oceans, Lib.): Madam Speaker, first I
compliment the member for Durham on his continuing work and
interest in this area.
Let me take the opportunity to express the minister's gratitude
to the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade
and Commerce for their work and the report they produced on the
Canada pension plan investment board and its draft regulations.
The new investment board is a key part of the fundamental reform
of the CPP approved by the House last year. By investing new CPP
funds prudently in a diversified portfolio of investments to earn
higher returns, the board will help ensure that the CPP will be
there for Canadians in the future.
We are pleased to see that the committee's report is generally
supportive of the investment provisions and the governance
structure of the CPP investment board that were developed jointly
with the provinces. There are a number of ideas in the report,
however, that federal and provincial governments will want to
consider carefully.
1900
The minister has therefore forwarded the committee's report to
provincial colleagues as joint stewards of the Canada pension
plan. It is our firm intention to provide the committee with a
full response as soon as possible after provincial colleagues
have had the opportunity to review the committee's
recommendations.
The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault): The motion to adjourn
the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the
House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to
Standing Order 24(1).
(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)