Debates of June 9th, 1994

Questions On The Order Paper

[The Deputy Speaker]

Shall the other questions be allowed to stand?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, Government Orders will be extended by 20 minutes, pursuant to Standing Order 33(2)( b ).

The House resumed from June 3 consideration of the motion in relation to the amendments made by the Senate to Bill C-18, an act to suspend the operation of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994.

Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994

[Elwin Hermanson, Reform, Kindersley—Lloydminster, SK]

Mr. Speaker, it is a good thing I have a glass of water. I am quite busy this morning.

Today I have an opportunity again to rise and speak about the changes the other place is proposing to Bill C-18. I am glad we have a chance to revisit this issue.

Bill C-18 as it was originally envisaged by the government was a very serious breach of the fundamental principle of democracy, namely preventing the intervention of political parties in the design, conduct and outcome of elections in Canada.

The electoral process in Canada is probably the most fair, unbiased and most professional in the world. Our electoral process is not perfect and I hope we will have the opportunity to discuss some improvements at a later date.

The original intent of Bill C-18 not only threatened the non-partisan aspect of our democratic process but it jeopardized the reputation that Canada enjoys internationally as a country that could be counted on to set high standards of impartiality with regard to the electoral process.

Witness that Canada is very often called upon to supervise or observe elections around the world. The Ukrainian and South African elections are two recent examples of this. I cannot emphasize enough the damage that would be done to Canada's international reputation if Bill C-18 were to have passed in its original form.

It should be obvious that Reformers were correct in their analysis of the bill. The government should have accepted our amendments.

The reasons this bill had to be amended are many but the concept of preserving a Canadian sense of fair play was certainly the most important. It is of paramount importance that all aspects of the electoral system be conducted at arm's length from the government and all political parties. This will ensure the fair play ideal that Canadians hold.

It is somewhat ironic that the body that is moving to protect democratic principles in Canada is the Senate. The formation of the upper House is about as undemocratic as one can imagine. The principle of appointing legislators in the British parliamentary system is not only undemocratic but it is outdated and not in keeping with the tide of democratization washing over much of our globe.

The old vice of the monarch choosing half the Parliament has now evolved to the point at which the Prime Minister recommends senatorial candidates to the Governor General. This is unacceptable to most Canadians. This makes senators nothing more than political hacks who have no legitimacy in the eyes of the nation.

Senators have become the focal point of Canadians' desire to democratize their country. Senators are the tip of the patronage iceberg and many Canadians, including loyal Canadians on this side of the House, want to remove this liability to democracy.

Many may ask, if the Senate is an undemocratic chamber why did it act to protect Canadian democracy? It almost sounds like an oxymoron, just like Progressive Conservative, or fiscally responsible Liberal.

Was this action of the Tory senators an indication that they are more democratic than their Liberal counterparts? Not at all. It is clear this was an attempt by the Conservatives to do the right thing for once and stick up for Canadians since they blew the opportunity to do that while they were in power for nine years.

The elected part of this party is now gone. In desperation the patronage recipients of a discredited Tory party are trying to restore credibility to their very discredited party. All I can say to them is good luck but do not hold your breath.

The issues of Senate reform, democratic principles and redistribution are inextricably linked. There is much concern from Reformers and in the country in general that we must reform the two component parts of our bicameral Parliament to balance adequate regional representation with the democratic principle of one person, one vote. It is impossible to accomplish this balance without including Senate reform.

With the current undemocratic Senate there is only one truly democratic chamber in Parliament, the House of Commons. This Liberal government and all previous governments strive to balance equality of individual Canadians with regional representation within this House. As time goes on, this issue is getting under the skin of more and more Canadians in all parts of the country.

As a result of the constitutional floors accorded some provinces with regard to the electoral district allocation, true equality of Canadians is already precluded. Many of the reasons for these floors can be traced to the sad reality of an unelected Senate.

There is a constitutional law that no province can have fewer elected members in the lower House than unelected members of the upper House. For instance, Saskatchewan is guaranteed six seats. Nova Scotia is guaranteed 10 seats and Prince Edward Island, 4 seats.

There is also an accepted convention that the redistribution process will not result in any province having fewer seats than it had in 1976. This results in Manitoba and Saskatchewan being guaranteed 14 seats each. Newfoundland is guaranteed seven and Prince Edward Island, four.

These limits make it almost impossible to cap or reduce the number of seats in the House in an equitable way over the long term. Nobody seems to mind the fact that most provinces have more MPs than senators. Perhaps this is because the MPs have legitimacy and senators do not because they are not elected.

The question then becomes: How do we give senators legitimacy, provide for a regional balance among the provinces and protect the principle of one person, one vote? The answer is a triple-E Senate, a Senate that is elected, has an equal number of members from each province and is effective in protecting regional interests. It is a Senate that has an equal number of members from each province to provide regional balance, elected by the people to give them legitimacy, and therefore effective in safeguarding provincial and regional interests. This leaves the House of Commons free to be the guardian of the rep by pop, one person, one vote system.

A triple-E Senate would also provide an opportunity for internal regional balance within large provinces. For example, in Ontario the population of the golden triangle region can be represented equally with the north. In provinces like Saskatchewan the urban and rural areas can achieve more equitable representation. A triple-E Senate could be a real problem solver for many issues that alienate Canadians in many parts of the country.

I believe very strongly that the problems arising with the redistribution process are a direct result of the refusal on the part of traditional parties to reform the Senate. The fact that an unelected Senate ensures the requirement for constitutional floors on the numbers of seats guarantees that some Canadians will be better represented than others in the House.

It follows that electing senators and an equal number from each province will allow more equitable distribution of seats in the House of Commons based on the principle of one person, one vote. It would allow the redistribution process to more accurately reflect the population distribution of the country.

One of the consequences of an ineffective Senate is the power vacuum created in balancing regional interests. This is supposedly the mandate of the upper chamber. However, first ministers conferences have grown in importance and power as a result of this vacuum. The increased frequency and authority given to such meetings have put far too much power in the hands of two smaller groups of individuals to be called democratic and responsible.

Canadians are weary of hearing that 11 men and women behind closed doors have come up with another proposal. Perfect examples of this are the public's reaction to the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords.

It is also worth mentioning that the House has given the procedure and House affairs committee the mandate to investigate the possibility of capping or reducing the number of seats in this House. Some very simple mathematical calculations make it obvious that guaranteeing certain provinces a minimum number of seats regardless of population will make it all but impossible to properly carry out the mandate over the long haul, unless we are willing to live with an even larger discrepancy in the number of people represented by MPs from different provinces, a difference that is already more than a factor of five.

For example, the riding of Cardigan, Prince Edward Island has a population of 29,150 while the riding of Brampton, Ontario has a population of 162,610, more than five times as many. That means a Canadian living in Cardigan has five times as much say as a Canadian living in Brampton. A triple-E Senate would then allow for a reduction or capping of the number of MPs without lessening the representation for sparsely populated areas of the country.

Canadians are outraged that the government continues to support an outdated 19th century appointed Senate. We are currently studying ways to move this House into the 21st century by investigating the matter of electronic voting and by allowing laptop computers into the House. Why then does the government refuse to update the 19th century upper chamber, which is a far more serious matter?

There are currently two vacancies to be filled in the other place, one for Manitoba and one for Quebec. Both of these provinces will be having provincial elections in the near future. Why will the Prime Minister not encourage the people of Manitoba and the people of Quebec to choose their own senators at the same time as their provincial elections are being held? There is no constitutional barrier to doing this, as was shown by the election of the late Senator Stan Waters, Canada's first and only elected senator.

I challenge the Liberal government with its red ink book and its rhetoric about a more open and democratic Parliament to practise what it preaches and to move toward Senate reform. I challenge it to do something that will give it a revered place in history.

I challenge this government to stop the patronage appointments to the Senate. I challenge it to take a stand and say that an unelected Senate is unacceptable and that this government will allow elected Canadians to sit in the upper chamber. Ending the patronage appointments is the right thing to do. This government now has a chance to do the right thing. The Tories before

them missed their chance to do it and we know what happened to them.

There are likely to be another eight or nine senators who will reach retirement age before the next federal election. That means eight or nine more opportunities for the government to show if it is committed to democracy or addicted to patronage. The hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia thinks there might be more if some of them pass away. Let us see if this government is committed to democracy or if it is addicted to patronage.

Once we get the elected part right, there will be more goodwill created toward the Senate. The constitutional changes that are required to ensure the democratic equality of all Canadians will be more achievable.

I would hope for the sake of Canada, our democratic system, the wish of Canadians for a reformed Senate, and to avoid future problems and disagreements over redistribution formulas that the government will move to democratize the upper chamber. There is no reason other than partisan self-interest why it could not do so.

The government is proposing moving the date that the redistribution process would resume to June 22 from February 6. This has the effect of creating a 12-month period to review the redistribution legislation. The government had originally proposed 24 months and the other place proposed six months.

When this bill was debated the last time around in this House the Reform Party proposed an amendment that provided for-guess what-a 12-month period. The Liberals unanimously voted it down. Now they are proposing the very same thing. This shows two things. First, they are not willing to support a common sense idea if it comes from this side of the House. Second, they are admitting to feeling a little embarrassed about the ridiculous nature of what they tried to do.

Even the media has acknowledged the Liberal retreat. An article in the June 3 Toronto Star reads:

The Liberal government has backed away from a confrontation with the Senate, agreeing to extensively amend a bill that would have prevented riding redistribution before the next election. The government House leader proposed the compromise yesterday, winning tentative support from senators and Reform MPs who had strongly objected to the original bill.

We've given the matter further thought. We've listened to public comment-We're a government that's ready to listen, the government House leader told reporters. But the proposed amendments also help the government. British Columbia, which stood to gain two House of Commons seats prior to the bill, objected to it strongly. Even rank and file Liberals were against it at the party's national convention last month.

The move to pass the original Bill C-18 was so unpalatable that even the Liberal's own party membership could not support it. Had the Liberals taken our advice in the first place we could have saved a lot of House time.

Perhaps we would not have had to deal with the motion just prior to this one, where we extended the sitting until 10 o'clock every night until the House recesses for the summer. Let us have some common sense here so we do not have to introduce these motions at the last minute to accomplish the business we need to accomplish. Had the Liberals taken our advice in the first place we could have saved a lot of House time and allowed for more constructive legislation to be considered before the summer recess.

Also, the bill as amended will allow for the redistribution commissions to complete their hearings and report to the Chief Electoral Officer by September 16. Again this is what we proposed the first time around and the government rejected it. It almost seems that it rejected the ideas we presented out of pure partisan spite only to reintroduce them under its own name.

In conclusion, it is clear the Liberal government came up with a raft of bad ideas regarding C-18. As a result those of us on the procedure and house affairs committee are left to repair the mess that has been created. The Liberals have a majority on that committee as well as in the House. Will they attempt to force their predetermined wishes on the committee or will they begin to listen to some of the excellent proposals offered in good faith by Reform MPs? They have now admitted through their amendments to the bill that we were right the first time. Perhaps they have learned that we do have something to offer.

This country is far too precious to play politics with. Democracy is not free. It comes at a very high price. Last Monday we honoured those who gave their lives to protect democracy 50 years before on the beaches of Normandy. We owe those who fought that day more than we can adequately express. It would be a terrible shame for their sacrifice to be wasted on petty partisan attempts at boundary gerrymandering.

In Canada the principal tenets of democracy are something we should be proud of. They are not something to be tampered with to suit the needs of the government.

I would support the bill as amended because it is basically what we had proposed in the first place. I appreciate the opportunity to speak to Bill C-18.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I carefully followed the proceedings on Bill C-18 at all stages and also joined in the debate at all stages.

The hon. member for Rimouski-Témiscouata just made a comment I did not quite understand, and I am afraid I was momentarily distracted.

As I was saying, Bill C-18-

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

-was introduced by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and considered at all stages, where I took part in the debate, and to me it was clear that the government wanted Bill C-18 to be adopted as is, without major amendments in this House.

In fact, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons said so on several occasions, not only from his seat here in the House, but also when he appeared, at least twice, before the Senate, to defend his amendments. I read and reread what was said by the government House leader in the Senate, and his replies to questions from Senators Prud'homme, Lynch-Staunton and others were a clear indication that he did not intend to add any amendments.

What happened between the time Bill C-18 was passed in the House and today? Basically, two things happened which made the Government House Leader change his mind.

We had the Liberal convention which voted on a resolution requesting that redistribution take place in time for the next election.

Resolutions on the subject all had the same goal. There was also the position taken by the Conservative majority in the Senate. The Conservative majority, seems more like a Reform majority. We now apparently have a reform majority in the Senate, since comments made in the Upper House by hon. senators who defended the majority position reflected the same arguments used by Reform members in this House. We can say there is a kind of strange osmosis between Conservative senators and Reform members. I think they are starting to find out they have things in common. The missing link lies somewhere between the Reform Party and the Conservative Party. The family is getting back together.

Just as the phoenix rose from his ashes, apparently the Reform Party has benefited from an electoral infusion of Conservative support. We shall see.

I am very sorry to see that the government caved in to the wishes of a House that is not elected and is dictating to us its concept of a democratic approach to setting electoral boundaries and guidelines for electoral boundaries readjustment, since basically, that is what we will have to do on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

All things being equal and the government having consented, despite denouncing what the Conservative senators appointed by former Prime Minister Mulroney had done with the GST, despite all this, today we realize that the more things change, the more they stay the same. Once again, the government bent to the will of the other house. This is one time too many since at the start of its mandate, the government had the unique opportunity to send a very clear message to the Senate and to show that the Upper House was and is the embodiment of democracy, according to the classic definition. The government missed this unique opportunity to make it very clear not only to the Senate, but to all Canadians that decisions are made in the House of Commons by the elected representatives of the people.

Of course, the other house may from time to time make some technical adjustments or indicate that a bill may have been poorly drafted. At times the Senate may serve this useful purpose. I also believe that a few extra legislative advisers could achieve the same results. The role of an unelected Senate in 1994 is not to propose such substantive amendments to a bill. For this reason, my colleague from Richmond-Wolfe proposed yesterday that funding to the other house be cut off, which to all intents and purposes amounted to proposing the abolition of the Senate.

Virtually everyone in this country objects to the idea of an appointed Senate like the one we now have. Since there is no chance whatsoever of reforming this institution either in the short or medium term, abolishing it outright is the simplest solution.

When we, the members of the Bloc Quebecois, have fulfilled our mission, working with Quebecers, to achieve sovereignty for Quebec, then of course the debate on whether Canadians want an elected Upper House, or a Triple E Senate, as mentioned by my colleague from Kindersley-Lloydminster, can be reopened. However, it will be quite another matter to convince Ontario which will account for probably more than half the population of Canada to agree to having one-ninth of the senators. I wish them good luck, but it will be their problem. That debate will take place in Canada. We will have our own debate in Quebec.

For all of these reasons, Mr. Speaker, given that the Bloc clearly stated its position, supported Bill C-18 as originally introduced, listened to the Reform Party argue that Bill C-18 should be amended and finally, voted against these amendments, we will not change our position. We stand by the original version of Bill C-18.

If the government has decided to bend to the will of the Senate, then so be it. Let it live with the consequences of this act of weakness. So as not to delay the work of this House, we will consent to the bill being passed on division.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those opposed will please say nay.

[An hon. member]

Nay.

[The Deputy Speaker]

In my opinion, it is very easy this time, the yeas have it.

[An hon. member]

On division.

(Motion agreed to.)

The House resumed from June 1 consideration of the motion that Bill C-34, an act respecting self-government for first nations in the Yukon Territory, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Yukon First Nations Self-Government Act

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I really do not have a long prepared text for my speech this morning.

This long and detailed bill on the First Nations self-government act which has been introduced by the government deserves a great deal of consideration. It is a lengthy bill and has major ramifications when it deals with the granting of self-government to large parts of our country by creating a new level, a new idea, a new vision of government by certain classes of people.

It is a little bit different than the whole vision we have always had that Canadians are exactly the same from coast to coast, that we are going to set up some kind of self-government for one particular class of Canadians.

Reformers very much believe in the equality of all Canadians from coast to coast and this type of bill requires a great deal of consideration. We cannot move ahead too quickly on this and the House should take the opportunity to look at the bill and examine it in great detail.

In the deliberations the government and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development have had with the aboriginals in the development of this bill I hope the wishes of the rest of Canadians have been taken into consideration. It will have ramifications for natural resources and on how we govern this country. It could become unmanageable to have another level of government introducing its opinion into the development of the country. We already have three levels and a fourth level is going to make it more and more difficult. Therefore I hope the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can give us his assurance that this bill is advancing the cause of Canadian aspirations rather than causing roadblocks and problems in the years ahead.

[Herb Grubel, Reform, Capilano—Howe Sound, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss the problems of Bill C-34 and its attempt to help the Indian communities in Yukon to achieve the kind of economic and social aspirations which I think is their legitimate right and which I would like to support.

Unfortunately I believe this bill will not achieve this objective. In fact, it is my judgment this bill will do a great deal of harm, much like policies of the past have done an unfortunately large amount of harm.

In my saying that the basic principles underlying this bill are false, I do not wish to suggest that I have an answer to the complex problem on how to help the native population of our country. Nevertheless, I am in the kind of situation where I do know there is an illness and that the medicine which is being proposed will not help alleviate the problems but in fact will make them worse.

Let me say what I mean. All of us-it is a human condition-dream about having a rich uncle who pays us a guaranteed, generous income so we can retire somewhere on some south sea island and be happy ever after. It is part of the human condition that we all have these kinds of dreams. However, in our experience, as we have matured, we have known that this is a dream which cannot be fulfilled. The rich uncle, even if he gave money to us, even if we could go to the south sea island, would not help us be any happier than we are. Often in fact we would be forced to leave.

Studies have shown that people who have the means to engage in this kind of fulfilment of their dreams come back unhappy and resume their old lives.

This is why we as parents typically, even if we could afford to, tell our children: "No, your education is finished, you cannot count on more support from me, from my family, from your parents. You will from now on be on your own". The rich families of this world establish trust funds to say: "At age 35 or 40 you will be able to draw on this money".

We understand it is in the human condition that we need an obligation, that we need a job, that we need to work. We have refused to give in to our children, yet we have been misguided when in the past we have given in to the demands of the native community to give them more physical goods, to allow them to live on their south sea island equivalent. This is my judgment of what is going on.

I have read a sociological economic study of conditions on these reservations. Let me tell you the story of what is known on these reservations as the lazy house. In the olden days, when families lived in their traditional ways the man in the house had a task. The man had to cut wood, make sure that his family was comfortable. He went out to hunt and fish to supplement the food supply. The housewife, the mother, was fully occupied doing the kinds of chores we have all seen our wives doing and we in fact have participated in helping in the family.

Of course with modern houses you do not have to go and cut wood. Electricity or gas supplies the heat. You do not have to stir the wood in the stove in order to cook meals. Instead of having to tend a garden in the summer you just buy the food from the supermarket.

I can understand it. When I was in my twenties I was saying to my parents: "Hey, listen, you know you can afford it. Give me some more". These people have come to the Government of Canada and said: "It is our right". It has been supported by people like those heckling me saying: "Yes, of course you poor people, we will give it to you". Well, we give it to them.

This is what I read has been the consequence of this policy. They would not do it to their children but they do it to the natives. The lazy house now means the mother has so much time on her hands she does not know what to do with it. The father, his very existence, the meaning in life has gone away, just like the meaning of life has gone away from people who go to the south sea islands and have the option to come back.

This is the interpretation that I read of what is wrong with the native communities. I do not have to repeat what is wrong with the native communities. The books are full of it. My wife, the doctor, treats the wounds, treats the cigarette burns on the arms of the people, of the wives who have been mistreated by men whose meaning of life has gone because we were like the rich uncle who says: "Oh my poor teenage nephew. He needs a steady flow of income".

I know I am going against the conventional wisdom by suggesting that it is short-sighted for the government to do what many of us have decided is short-sightedness of supplying our children with ways which lead to complications of the sort I have described.

I do not know the answer to the native communities and the problems which persist. If we go back 50 or 100 years, every year the answer is to give them more resources and they will be happy and will get rid of the problems. We give them more and more and more.

I have the budget here. We already are increasing expenditures at a time when all the other spending programs are being cut, for example, to old people. The future is being burdened by increasing debt. We are increasing spending on natives by $300 million a year. That has been going on over the last 100 years.

I hear people saying: "You do not know what you are talking about. You mean to spend even more". The problem has not got any better. From what I know, it has been getting worse all the time. That is why we are now going for other institutional innovations. Now we have to make this absolutely permanent so they never, ever have to do certain things that I believe are the essence of human dignity, of a life worth living on this planet.

It is the natives who have called those houses lazy houses. We have seen what happens if we do this.

Sometimes the best thing we can do for our children is to say no. I believe that even though we do not have the answers, saying no would mean that we are not giving more medicine for the cure of this problem which I think history over the last 100 years suggests is the wrong medicine.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Questions or comments? Perhaps some of the members who were heckling would have the courage to get up and ask a question or make a comment.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[Ron Irwin, Liberal, Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development]

Mr. Speaker, I heard the hon. member and his reference to the Yukon legislation and the four First Nations that are involved. His reference to lazy house is a reference to the aboriginal people of those four First Nations. Maybe he could clarify this. He is in fact saying they are lazy, they live in a south sea environment and the men go around burning their wives with cigarettes.

Is it his intent to leave that on the record?