Debates of Oct. 28th, 1998

Nunavut Act

[Louise Hardy, NDP, Yukon, YT]

Mr. Speaker, I share the member's concern. It will have to be addressed at committee. The whole area of the judges being federal judges is of great concern because they are not going to be accountable to the people of Nunavut.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to rise today to speak to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice and to amend other acts in consequence.

I would like to state that I will be sharing my time today with the member for Tobique—Mactaquac.

This bill amends the judicial system and the appointment of judges in the new territory of Nunavut which will be created on April 1, 1999.

This new territory is being created as part of the Nunavut land claim agreement, originally signed by the Progressive Conservative government in 1993.

I will repeat this for the benefit of everyone in the House because I have heard several people state the size of the new territory and no one has been right yet. For the record, the new territory will be 2,242,000 square kilometres, which is approximately one-fifth the size of Canada and 69% of the existing Northwest Territories.

It is important to ensure that a smooth transition occurs in April when Nunavut comes into effect. Obviously it is imperative to have a judicial system in place and to have the necessary people appointed and in place to begin work on April 1, 1999.

The amendments put forward by this legislation are going to establish a unique court system in Canada. Currently all Canadian jurisdictions operate with a two-court system where a provincial or a territorial court works in conjunction with a higher court, either a Queen's bench or a supreme court, depending on the terminology used. This legislation will implement a one-court system unique to the eastern Arctic.

This legislation to amend the Nunavut Act is necessary because under the original act a two-level court system would be implemented in the new territory. By amending the act the Inuit of Nunavut hope the judicial system will more accurately reflect their traditions. Whether this will be the result remains questionable.

One of the concerns of the Inuit is the location of prisons. Currently there is no federal facility in the north, so anyone serving a sentence of more than two years must go to a facility in the south. The only other option is an exchange agreement whereby a regional facility would agree to house the inmate. This issue, however, while important to the Inuit, is separate from the judicial system and not addressed by this legislation.

With these amendments there will be three judges appointed to travel to the various outlying communities in the new territory of Nunavut. These three judges will preside over civil, criminal and family cases. Currently the judge who presides over all of the cases in the eastern Arctic also follows this system for most civil and criminal cases. She is based in Iqaluit and travels to the remote communities as required. Cases dealing with issues such as divorce and adoption, however, are referred to the supreme court based in Yellowknife.

Under this legislation the three judges appointed to hear cases in Nunavut will have the same power and authority to hear all cases without the need to refer to a higher court level. At the same time, a court of appeal, about which I have heard a number of questions asked, will still exist should appeals be made, namely the Nunavut court of appeal.

This legislation will allow a one-level court system to be introduced to the eastern Arctic. The western region of the Northwest Territories, as well as the rest of Canada will closely watch this experimental system. Should it be successful, I understand that the western region is considering adopting a similar approach for its own judicial system.

I have had the opportunity on a few occasions to travel to the western and eastern Arctic and I am looking forward to the creation of Nunavut on April 1. Last year I had the opportunity to speak to other amendments to the Nunavut Act that will help to ensure that programs and procedures are in place and operational on April 1, 1999.

This legislation will also provide additional seats in this House, which will allow representation for both territories which are currently the Northwest Territories.

The PC Party was instrumental in establishing the basis for this new territory. I am pleased to have had the opportunity to work on this piece of legislation, one that will ensure everything is in place and ready to go next April. This will be an historic time for Canada and it provides an excellent opportunity to introduce a one court system.

Whether the court system meets the high expectations of the Inuit remains to be seen, but it will be an opportunity to see how the justice system can be adapted to unique circumstances.

While a one court system has been discussed on different occasions as an alternative to the two court system, it has never been implemented. Given the conditions existing in the eastern Arctic, it is an excellent opportunity to introduce such a system.

It is assumed that the one court system will have the advantage of being both cheaper to operate and more efficient with only one level of court to travel to the various communities instead of two. This should reduce the operating costs, particularly since it is necessary to fly to the outlying communities.

This is especially relevant when one considers that the new territory of Nunavut consists of 26 communities with a total population of approximately 26,000 people. This system may also improve efficiency since each judge will be able to preside over the various types of cases and it should reduce the scheduling program problems that the two court levels would entail.

On the other hand, this means only one system is available for different types of offences combining territorial and federal issues and jurisdictions. This may raise concerns about the fairness of a system that hears cases from all levels.

At the same time, while there may be some adjustments to the new system and some minor hurdles to overcome, the system will be unique to the new territory and closely monitored by the Government of Canada, particularly the western portion of the current Northwest Territories.

The legislation is necessary to establish the judicial system as a one court system, another step in ensuring a smooth transition to the new territory on April 1, 1999.

The Progressive Conservative Party has always supported the creation of Nunavut and the land claims settlement that set out the establishment of the new territory. I am looking forward to the creation of Nunavut next year and will continue to support legislation that assists in this endeavour.

I welcome the opportunity to study the legislation at committee.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for South Shore speak about the issue of incarceration. I guess it will not have much effect in terms of incarceration.

I would interested in probing the member further on that subject given that it is obviously part of the justice system. There will have to be agreements in place to house the inmates who are convicted for more than two years, hopefully as close as possible to their homes so that it will enhance the prospects for rehabilitation.

The Conservative Party certainly has a long history of building prisons. The one that comes to mind right away is the one that the former Conservative prime minister from Quebec built in his riding. I think it was the Port Cartier prison.

Does the hon. member have any other thoughts with respect to how incarceration issues will be dealt with? He seems to have displayed some expertise on the subject given his comments this afternoon.

I do not know if the hon. member has the information available, but I would like to know the number of inmates we might be talking about that are generated from the actions of the court system. If he could provide some information on that it would be helpful.

The member also mentioned that if these amendments were successful in terms of the application of the one court system to the eastern Arctic the people in the western Arctic would be looking with interest at the experiment, if that is what we want to call it.

Does the hon. member have any information with respect to what sort of political pressure is currently being exerted by the people in the western Arctic with respect to how quickly they would want such a system implemented?

I would appreciate if the hon. member for South Shore could enlighten the House with respect to those issues.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the first issue is that prisons and museums tend to be the same in relation to the act before us and some of the justice applications the hon. member is discussing.

I am not a legal professional. Nor do I profess to be. My party has looked at this issue and will be studying it in great detail in committee. As the hon. member is aware, we have a golden opportunity to look at a trial case of implementing a one court system in northern Canada where there are huge amounts of territory, a duplication of task and an overlapping of jurisdiction. If we can solve the problem with the one court system then we are in favour of it.

On the question of whether or not incarceration will take place in the north there is an agreement in place. The details of that agreement after a two year sentence are unclear. We will be looking at that in committee. A number of questions with respect to the legislation have not yet been answered. It is important to remember that it is a trial case. We have a perfect opportunity to introduce a one court system, to look at it and to study it further.

On the third question of the western Arctic and the Yukon territory, they have been looking very closely at this system. It is something they would be very interested in. They also have the opportunity to wait and see. For them there is a benefit to be derived from that.

In the eastern Arctic there are 2.242 million square kilometres of territory and 26 villages. It is a very difficult to wait and see if they need the single court system now.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today to Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other acts in consequence.

I reiterate the remarks of my colleague from South Shore who has been a strong and vigorous spokesperson not only on behalf of his riding but on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada in the Indian and northern affairs portfolio.

I also commend the efforts of the hon. member for Nunavut. Although we do not share the same political affiliation, I know the member is deeply committed to achieving progress for her constituents as they enter the 21st century as residents of Canada's newest territory.

It was unfortunate to witness the Leader of the Official Opposition cynically using the debate of the Nunavut Act in parliament earlier to promote his own partisan agenda with respect to Senate reform. The Leader of the Official Opposition's lengthy diatribe against of the upper chamber, which at one time included his father, proved once again that while he can play opposition politics with the best of politicians he does not have the qualities to lead the country. The people of Nunavut deserve better.

Fortunately Canada had a leader with the foresight and vision to pursue an aggressive activist agenda. Canadians had the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney who set the wheels in motion to establish the Nunavut territory by signing the Nunavut land claim agreement in 1992.

The creation of Nunavut is one more reason why Mr. Mulroney was named a Companion of the Order of Canada. Furthermore, under the previous Conservative government and the former constitutional affairs minister Joe Clark, who is re-emerging on the national scene, aboriginal people were full participants at formal constitutional negotiations for the first time in Canadian history.

Brian Mulroney remains a convenient scapegoat who the Liberals are happy to blame and denigrate in compensation for their shortcomings.

Nonetheless it cannot be stressed enough that the previous Progressive Conservative government gave aboriginal peoples a voice at the constitutional table, a voice through the royal commission, a voice in the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, and a voice for Inuit people by signing the Nunavut land claim agreement.

Today we are debating yet another piece of legislation introduced by the government that is a proud legacy of the former Progressive Conservative government. I am not concerned, however, with what will happen when the Liberals run out of the policies stolen from the previous government. Canadians will simply turn to the Progressive Conservatives to achieve meaningful progressive change to improve the country. Although our party's ambitious policies were unpopular at the time, history once again has shown that by and large Progressive Conservative policies are for the betterment of all Canadians.

Bill C-57 deals with providing the best possible court system for Nunavut. There may be those who object to granting the people of Nunavut a single court system. They may object on the basis of jurisdictional concerns that the bill would create an intrusive precedent. They may object on the basis that the bill somehow violates the equality provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I do not share these objections. Bill C-57 appears to recognize the unique circumstances in which the people of Nunavut live. First and foremost in this unique environment is that the Inuit people will also form a strong majority of Nunavut's population: 17,000 of the 22,000 residents or 77%. Nunavut's territory also represents approximately one-fifth of Canada's size. Yet its total population is only 22,000 or less than one-quarter of 1% of the population of the country.

Let us compare Nunavut's size and population with other jurisdictions. Nunavut's 1.9 million square kilometres fall just under the figure for Greenland. Nunavut is five times the size of Germany, four times the size of Sweden, and one-fifth the size of China.

Then we factor in population distribution. Nunavut has only one-hundredth of one person for every square kilometre of physical territory. Canada as a whole has nearly three people per square kilometre. Ontario has 11 people per square kilometre. China has 120 people per square kilometre while Germany has 220 people for every square kilometre.

Nunavut's main human and territorial characteristics are not only unique to Canada. They are unique to the world. For example, Nunavut has only 20 kilometres of highway. Moreover, there is a disparity between communities. The largest community is its future capital, Iqaluit. More than 3,000 people call Iqaluit home. The community is located approximately 2,000 kilometres from Ottawa. Its average temperatures range from -30°C in January to 15°C in July. Iqaluit residents experience 24 hours of daylight per day in June but find no more than six hours of daily sunlight in December.

On the other hand, Grise Ford is Nunavut's most northern community, a full 2,700 kilometres from Ottawa. Its population numbers around 130 people who experience an average temperature of -35° in January and 10° in July. These hearty souls also live in 24 hours of daylight in June and around the clock darkness in December.

The member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough has experienced numerous challenges practising law in the rural area he comes from. He told me it was difficult for home to conceive how court proceedings, be they related to criminal civil or family law, would occur effectively and efficiently in such a broad jurisdiction with such a small population, with such a diversity of communities.

As has been already mentioned, Bill C-57 amends several existing federal statutes. It amends the Nunavut Act to establish a single level trial court at the superior court level to be known as the Nunavut Court of Justice.

It amends the Judges Act to provide for three superior court judges on the Nunavut Court of Justice and to provide for full membership in the Canadian Judicial Council for the senior judge of each of the territories. It amends the Criminal Code to provide the new structures and procedures for the Nunavut court of justice in the following areas: jurisdiction of the judges, summary conviction appeals, a mew statutory form of release, judicial interim release, and elections as to a mode of trial.

Finally, Bill C-57 amends the Young Offenders Act to ensure that structures and procedures for single level trial court are consistent with the new structures and procedures in the Criminal Code.

I therefore welcome Bill C-57 as a positive measure that recognizes the unique conditions of the people of Nunavut. I look forward to working with my caucus colleagues from South Shore, Nunavut and other members and, most important, the people of Nunavut to critically examine this legislation at the justice committee.

We need to ensure that Bill C-57 accurately reflects both the needs of Nunavut and the obligation of the Government of Canada to protect the new course of justice. Let us continue to build on the legacy for Inuit self-government left by the former Progressive Conservative government.

[David Pratt, Liberal, Nepean—Carleton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member's comments with great interest. It is interesting to know that he is a lawyer and perhaps brings a different perspective to this legislation than some of us who are not from the legal profession.

My question in terms of this new system to be applied to Nunavut is whether there will be flexibility within the system in terms of responding to the needs of aboriginal communities. One of the things we have learned in this country is that there are some very different traditions as far as justice and the application of justice.

Coming in this morning I heard on CBC radio the whole issue of adapting sentencing circles to southern communities like regional municipality of Ottawa-Carleton. I am interested in knowing whether there is flexibility within the system, if the hon. member knows or has this information at his disposal. I would like to know whether there is enough flexibility in the system to allow for those sorts of options in the north with this new legislation.

Clearly some of the mechanisms we have in terms of the British tradition of justice differ greatly from the aboriginal system. I ask the hon. member if he has any information on that and whether we will be seeing more creative types of justice applied to northern communities that adapt more to the needs and the traditions of the people who live in those communities.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

In Canada we have many provinces and territories. We have provincial and federal laws. I am sure this new act will help the people of the north. I assure the hon. member that what he just asked will be studied in committee in the near future.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the hon. member. He made a reference to the Senate and how the Reform Party has been too negative about the other place and all the wonderful senators and so on.

I notice in the most recent polling that a growing number of people just want to abolish the Senate. An Angus Reid poll a few months ago said 41% want to abolish it, 43% want to reform it. There was a Pollara poll in December of last year that said 34% want to abolish it and 33% want to reform it.

I wonder if he would join a drive that has been spearheaded by the hon. member for Sarnia and me to abolish the Senate as a project for the new millennium in terms of increasing democracy in this country. It appears to be the wishes of the Canadian people. I know the Conservative Party has a very democratic leadership selection process in terms of being a grassroots party.

[Bob Kilger, Liberal, Stormont—Dundas, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I remind members we are discussing Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice and to amend other acts in consequence. Did we change? Did I miss something?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

No, although there has been in debate the notion of changed representation and the question of the other place.

[Gilles Bernier, Progressive Conservative, Tobique—Mactaquac, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member from the NDP for his question.

What I made reference to was that when we had such a debate in the House of Commons the Leader of the Opposition did not talk about that at the time. He was more interesting in talking about the Senate. That is what I was relating to.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I begin by acknowledging clearly the contribution those people who live north of 60 make to Canada and the contribution they have made in the past. Let me acknowledge for example that their presence has been extremely important for the maintenance of Canadian sovereignty in the high Arctic in the past.

These people live in an area of Canada that experiences a harsh climate. It is a difficult lifestyle. It is a difficult place to earn a living.

As a member of parliament who represents a northern riding in British Columbia with many small and remote communities, I have some understanding of what it would be like to live north of 60, although obviously I do not understand it completely.

Let us examine what this bill is about and ask ourselves some very serious questions with regard to where we are headed. To listen to some of the members in this place today we would think the people who currently live north of 60 do not have a justice system and have no access to justice.

We know that is not right. We know these people have had access to justice since the inception of Canadian sovereignty in 1867.

What we have come to understand, certainly from the Reform Party's point of view, is that this is another piece of legislation that is a furtherance to the whole concept of Nunavut. Nunavut from the perspective of many people in the Reform Party is a very badly flawed and fiscally irresponsible idea which is bereft of intellectual discipline.

Acknowledging that people who live north of 60 live in a harsh climate and difficult circumstances does not mean that it is somehow a good idea to adopt the notion of Nunavut and then spend $300 million of taxpayer money just to implement it.

For the 25,000 or so people who live in this area to be covered under Nunavut, equivalent to a medium size town in rural Canada, these people are to receive an expenditure per capita of about $12,000. Let us not forget that about half these people are children below the age of majority. It is not a very large population at all but it is a huge expenditure.

In order to implement Nunavut the government now has to set up a judicial system, to set up a legislature, to set up a senate and all these trappings that go along with the concept of the territory of Nunavut.

Nunavut in the opinion of many, including some constitutional experts, people who were around the table in 1980-1981 when former Prime Minister Trudeau was in the process attempting to patriate the Constitution to Canada, is actually the creation of a province through the back door.

In strict terms, if the Government of Canada and the provinces were in agreement that a new province should be created there is a process that must be followed in order to effect the constitutional change required to see that come about.

However, the Government of Canada arbitrarily and in isolation has decided to create this new territory called Nunavut and it is a province in everything but name.

I suggest there will come a time when somebody, some province or some group will challenge the constitutionality of the legislation which brings Nunavut to life. I suggest there is a good likelihood the challenge will succeed.

For the expenditure proposed, and the $300 million implementation cost is only a small part of the overall cost, we can only wonder what could have been achieved for the people who live north of 60 and what they are getting. What they are getting is a huge bureaucracy. Along with that the idea that large bureaucracies somehow increase people's standard of living and create wealth is being reinforced. We know they do not.

We know that for many decades now both Liberal and Conservative administrations in Ottawa have attempted to practise this faulty fiscal policy and it has nearly bankrupted the country. We now have, even among Liberals which is something I never thought I would see in my lifetime, the acknowledgement that we have to look at ways of increasing people's living standards and improving their lifestyles other than through government intervention.

What is being proposed for Nunavut is a massive infusion of federal dollars to implement and on an ongoing basis maintain, which is somehow supposed to improve the standard of living of people in that area. I suggest this is not about wealth creation but about an ongoing transfer of wealth from the rest of Canada to a very large geographical area, very sparsely populated. I believe the thinking behind Nunavut is faulty.

There are a number of questions that come to my mind when I look at the bill before us. What is missing? How much will this piece of legislation cost? How much is it going to cost to implement and maintain? Who is going to pay that?

I do not think 25,000 people in the high Arctic will be able to underwrite the cost of this on an ongoing basis through their tax base. I just do not see that.

What we are saying in effect is that the Canadian government, i.e. Canadian taxpayers from coast to coast, is going to underwrite the costs of this new justice system in perpetuity. I say there is something fundamentally wrong with that. A justice system can be made available to people who live north of 60 and all the other departments of government available to most Canadians can be made available on a much more cost effective basis which would be much more fair to the taxpayers in the rest of Canada.

Again I say this is the result of an intellectual process which is at best faulty and which is at worst bankrupt.

The people who came up with this brainchild and passed it through the House of Commons in form of legislation continue to support it and to enact further legislation to effect the implementation of Nunavut. They have not been honest with themselves or with the people north of 60 whom the legislation is supposed to benefit. Nor have they been honest with the rest of Canada.

There are many parallels. I know this is not a land treaty or a land claim agreement, but in the great deal of the thinking behind Nunavut and what has gone into supporting it is the notion that people north of 60, who are predominantly of aboriginal extraction, Inuit, should have a greater degree of say and control over their own lives.

I do not think anyone in the House would disagree. I do not think anyone wants to say that these people should be dictated to from Ottawa. Lord knows that as a British Columbian growing up during the sixties and seventies I certainly got a bellyful of Ottawa dictating to British Columbia and to me as a citizen of British Columbia how I should live.

[An hon. member]

They still do.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Yes, they still want to dictate to us. That is why Reform is here. That is why it is important that we do not abolish the Senate. That is why it is important that we have an effective Senate, an elected Senate. It is one way of assuring the regions of Canada, including the north of Canada, that there will be an opportunity for balancing the very strong representation by population that we have in the House of Commons. This is the fallacy in the thinking of my friend who raised the issue a few minutes ago.

On the surface it is immediately attractive but in the long run it will not serve the regions of Canada. As a matter of fact it closes the door forever for them to have an opportunity of equal and effective representation based on a regional model rather than representation by population.

If we abandon the idea of a triple E Senate we forever resign ourselves to having central Canada dictate to the rest of Canada and the regions how we will live our lives. That lets down our constituents, particularly those of us who come from rural parts of Canada.

I see many parallels in the thinking that has gone into Nunavut, the institutions that are being created including the justice system, and the thinking that has gone into and is currently going into the treaty process in British Columbia.

For example, in the Nisga'a agreement in British Columbia, the first land claim agreement to be resolved or supposedly to be resolved—it is not resolved yet—the government intends to create a separate justice system, exactly as it is attempting to do with the legislation on Nunavut. This somehow leaves the impression that these people do not have access to justice at the present time, are being left out or being hard done by. I simply argue that this is not the case.

I do not understand the justification for telling a group of people, whether it is on an ethnic basis as in the case of Nisga'a or on a geographical basis as in the case of Nunavut, that they are entitled to a separate justice system which will cost an extraordinary amount of money for the number of people it is designed to serve.

Members on this side of the House have a great deal of difficulty with the lack of responsiveness in the justice system at the present time and the feeling that it is not achieving what it ought to achieve. However it is still there for all Canadians. I do not see how members opposite can make a legitimate argument that somehow people are slipping through the cracks and need their own justice system to be better off. I just do not understand that thinking at all.

The intellectual justification for the $300 million cost of Nunavut does not stand up to the light of day. The legislation is in furtherance to that whole bad idea. This is meant as no disrespect whatsoever to the people who live in the high Arctic but is simply a recognition of fact.

Therefore I cannot support what is being proposed. As much as I would like to recognize the contribution of people who live in the high Arctic, I will have to vote against the legislation when it comes before the House.

[Werner Schmidt, Reform, Kelowna, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for the erudite and learned manner in which he exposed what happened in Nunavut, in the establishment of Nunavut, and with the legislation that came from the south. He exposed some of the errors and shortsighted thinking that went into the initial legislation and recognized the contribution of these people.

I pay tribute to my colleague from Yukon who compassionately indicated how necessary it was to provide justice for the people of that part of Canada. My hon. colleague said that we all want justice, and I think we all want it.

Would my colleague subscribe to the notion that if there is to be justice it should be equal justice for all people in Canada? One element of an equal justice system is a system that is more or less parallel. We have a situation where apparently justice is the issue. Equality of citizens before and under the law is another issue and the object of a thorough and fair justice system.

How will there be equality of justice in establishing a totally different kind of conceptually directed justice system in one part of Canada, in this case in Nunavut, as compared to the other provinces? Why should there be a separate system in this part of Canada?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question. He has put his finger on a big part of the problem.

According to the notions that were inculcated in me as I grew up, Canada was founded and based on the notion of civic nationalism. That means our participation in this democracy does not depend on our gender, our colour, our language or our religion. It does not depend on any identifying or distinguishing characteristic. It depends on the fact that we are of the age of majority and we have one person, one vote. We all have the rights and freedoms afforded to us under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Before that rights were extended to us under the British North America Act.

The legislation is another indicator that we have to be on guard against a danger. Canada is in danger of breaking away from the notion of civic nationalism into what I would consider to be a regressive and less attractive notion of ethnic nationalism. We see this expressed in many areas. We even see it expressed in the House. I say that with the greatest of respect, because I do not want to unfairly or without warrant attack any other members of the House.

Let us consider the section of the Constitution that guarantees and spells out our rights and freedoms. The next paragraph states that notwithstanding that we have these rights and freedoms, the government has the right to abrogate them when it feels it is in the best interest of the nation. I do not see how any right thinking person could ever accept that somebody's rights would be taken away for any reason whatsoever. Those rights should be immutable. They should be there as a pillar or a cornerstone never to be affected by any action that government may take.

What is being proposed under the whole concept of Nunavut gets dangerously close to breaking away from the notion of the equality of all Canadians before the law and the right of all Canadians to equal access to the institutions of government, including the institution of justice. It falls perilously close to the notion of ethnic nationalism, which is something I could never support and I believe a majority of Canadians would never support.

[Roy H. Bailey, Reform, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a question regarding the judges system in the new territory.

In 14 months we will be into a new millennium. With the type of justice system the bill will bring in, what hope do these people have to have enshrined later on in the history of the new territory the same type of justice system the rest of Canadians enjoy?

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I fully understood the member's question, but I am reluctant to believe that the people who will be looking to justice under the bill we are debating will have the same access and the same disengaged treatment other Canadians expect from the system.

It is vitally important in a civilized nation such as Canada that all citizens fundamentally believe that the justice system is unbiased, disengaged and will render justice in an even-handed manner which takes into account no factors other than the facts of law any justice system should recognize.

When I look at and contemplate the thinking behind the bill it causes me some concern. It does not cause me as much concern as the whole concept of Nunavut in the first place, but I am certainly not embracing the notion that some Canadians by dint of their geographical location or other distinguishing reasons ought to have access to a different justice system with different rules and regulations and different protocols than the rest of Canada has access to.

I do not know if I have answered the member's question succinctly enough. I hope I have. It is the best I can do for the member.

[Rob Anders, Reform, Calgary West, AB]

Mr. Speaker, this amendment to the Nunavut Act gives rise to the question of whether or not it was properly thought out in the first place by the government. It is talking about a different system of justice, something separate from what the rest of Canadians enjoy. Certainly, then, there would have been room to go ahead with a different system for selecting people in the Senate. They will have to make a new seat for this territory.

[Mike Scott, Reform, Skeena, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make it short because I know you will not let me have it any other way.

Obviously the government is cherry picking, to answer the member's question. The government says “Heads I win, tails you lose”. It will not allow any notion of Senate reform when it comes to Nunavut but it will embrace changes to the justice system if it deems that is what it would like to see happen.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Tax On Financial Transactions

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should show leadership and enact a tax on financial transactions in concert with all OECD countries.

Mr. Speaker, I have consulted with all parties and I understand there is unanimous consent for the following motion:

I move:

That the motion be amended by removing the words “all OECD countries” and replacing them with the following: “the international community”.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

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

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Debate is on the motion as amended.