Susan Whelan

[Petitions, October 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition is on behalf of the constituents of Windsor West and requests that an allocation of funds be dedicated to improving the lives of Canadian children in poverty.

[Petitions, October 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition requests updated national abortion statistics for Canada in order to determine the effect of this procedure on the health of women.

[Petitions, October 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present pursuant to Standing Order 36. The first one is on behalf of the constituents of Essex.

The petition concerns the establishment of an independent body for the purposes of developing, implementing and enforcing uniform and mandatory quality assurance and control standards for mammography.

[Proportional Representation, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to participate in this important debate on an aspect of our electoral system.

My remarks will begin with some observations on Canada's electoral system and tradition, then comment on the experiences of other countries and point out some considerations we should bear in mind on this very important issue.

Canada's electoral system is a model for democracies around the world. It is a well functioning system with a long history that Canadians support. Indeed, other countries have sought out our expertise in designing their electoral systems.

As we all know, Canadians elect members of parliament through a first past the post, single member constituency system derived from the British electoral system. The first past the post system encourages pre-election consensus building within parties so they might present broad platforms to appeal to the majority of voters. This also means that each of the 301 federal ridings is represented by the one candidate who receives the most votes in an election. That means that individual Canadians at the local level can elect an MP and have someone from their area who they can identify and contact on issues of importance to them.

Canadians have a tested election system that has provided us with strength in terms of stability and consensus building as well as local representation for individual Canadians.

There has also been debate on the reform of the existing system. There has been little broad based public debate on possible changes to our electoral system. Most of it has centred on the possibility of a directly elected Senate.

In 1979 the Pépin-Robarts task force on Canadian unity proposed that 60 supplementary seats be added to the House of Commons and that these seats be allocated to parties in proportion to their share of the popular vote. In the early 1980s the Quebec government considered and in the end rejected a regionally based proportional representation system.

More recently, the MacDonald commission in 1985 and the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee in 1992 recommended that members of the Senate, but not those of the House of Commons, be elected by proportional representation.

A system based on proportional representation in Canada would likely result in more minority governments, would make post-election coalition building a major step in forming a government, could give marginal parties disproportionate influence on national policies, and could exacerbate regional tensions by making it more difficult to build national consensus among all Canadians.

Such fundamental change in the electoral system would require broad public debate and public support and possibly a constitutional amendment, which I will comment on in a few moments.

I will now consider other countries' experiences. A number of foreign countries have incorporated proportional representation into their electoral systems. Several points are important to note.

First, there is a wide range of possibilities for proceeding with proportional representation. Second, other countries' experiences vary. For some, proportional representation has been costly and divisive, and in some cases, abandoned. Some of the advantages of proportional representation cited by its advocates include higher voter turnout, more voter choice and more diverse representation, with more women and minorities in the legislature and in government.

However, a closer examination of the facts shows that these advantages are in fact not as clear-cut in actual practice. Indeed, proportional representation can be a complicated and costly system.

Now we have to take a look at constitutional considerations. Canada's constitutional provisions must be considered when assessing possible changes toward greater proportional representation. First, the constitution, sections 37 and 55, requires that provinces be proportionately represented in the House of Commons. Second, the Canadian tradition of one member representing one geographically defined constituency would probably be hard to change.

Any major public debate on changes to the electoral system which considers a greater degree of proportional representation could be expected to open up many other issues including: the question of representation of aboriginal peoples; distribution of seats, by province, by region, and urban versus rural; Senate reform; and roles, responsibilities and accountability of MPs elected from a party list. These issues suggest that a constitutional change might be required to proceed with proportional representation.

Mr. Speaker, I want you to know, for me particularly, that I am very concerned about the distribution of seats by region, urban versus rural. We should be well aware of the fact that it is important that our rural areas in Canada are well represented in the House of Commons, as they are today.

Particularly in a province like Ontario it is very important that we continue to have diversified representation, that we continue to recognize the different issues in northern Ontario and in southwestern Ontario, the different issues that we have in urban centres versus rural centres, and the different issues in Burlington, as the member has just pointed out.

Every area has different issues and every area needs to have someone there who can respond to those issues, represent those issues, bring them to a national consensus and bring them to an area where we can work together to resolve these issues and define what they are.

There would be tremendous public debate on that very issue. I do not know how we would resolve it to the satisfaction of a minority of people who need representation. We cannot allow them to not be represented.

We also have to look at the importance of provincial representation and provinces, the distribution of seats and why and how the constitution was written, why certain guarantees were made, and we have to encourage development in those areas where they may not have large populations, such as the Atlantic provinces. We need to encourage and ensure that those provinces grow economically and grow in population. It is important that we look at that.

When we look at other countries' experiences, it just does not hold up. One of the advocates says that it includes higher voter turnout, more voter choice and more diverse representation of women and minorities, but the facts say that is not happening. There are not those clear cut examples. They are not there in reality. In fact, it is a more expensive system. We have to look at what is working well in Canada, at why it is working well and at why would we want to change from what we have.

There is an opportunity after every national census to make representations on the boundaries of each riding and to discuss what should be included and what should not. Sometimes members of parliament themselves will go forward to make suggestions that would make their area larger or that would give their boundaries a higher population because they recognize that there are communities or centres of communities that need to be connected and need to be together. They need to be represented in a way that reflects the way in which they live and work together. We cannot just put a line down the middle of a community and expect them not to be insulted by that.

It is important that we continue to talk about and debate the system but it is important that we continue to have representation. I thank the hon. member for raising this issue. I know it was raised during the procedure and house affairs committee's consideration of election issues. I believe it would be premature of the House to pronounce itself on an issue as complex and far reaching as proportional representation or to have a national referendum on it at this point in time. I am therefore calling upon all hon. members to oppose this motion.

I would thank you for your wonderful job as Speaker in the House of Commons over these past few years. I have very much enjoyed having you in the chair and having the opportunity to work with you.

[World March Of Women, October 17th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, with a population of nearly six billion on our planet, we should be aware that two-thirds, or approximately four billion, live in relative poverty, while 1.3 billion live on one American dollar a day. Seventy per cent of those living in poverty are women. These conditions are in part what has prompted the organization of the World March of Women.

Canada also faces poverty issues. Children who live in low income families made up 13% of all children under the age of 18 in 1997. Of that number, 40% were living with a single female parent.

Homelessness, often equated with the extreme side of poverty in Canada, is affecting young women at an earlier age. Women and men from countries all over the world have signed a petition that will be presented to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, along with a list of demands to help eliminate poverty and, in particular, the feminization of poverty.

Let us add our voices to those calling for an end to poverty for women in Canada.

[Committees Of The House, June 14th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in both official languages the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Industry concerning the committee's recent examination of the Competition Act.

Although varied opinions exist among the competition policy experts, they were not so diverse as to prevent a consensus that we believe is captured in this report.

Due to the public policy forum process underway and the necessity for further study, we have limited this report to preliminary findings suggesting a direction for future work.

On behalf of all committee members, I would like to thank those who participated in our hearings for sharing their insights with us and to thank our clerk, Richard Rumas, and our researchers, Dan Saw and Geoffrey Kieley, for their diligence.

I am confident that the public will agree that this report reflects both their concerns and common Canadian values and priorities in the domain of competition policy, law and enforcement.

[Fisheries And Oceans, June 8th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on May 4, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced $15 million in funding for much needed dredging assistance to dredge marinas and marine access areas devastated by low water levels in the Great Lakes basin.

Can the hon. minister tell the House what has been done since that time to assist Ontario's marinas that have been left high and dry by low water levels?

[Petitions, May 31st, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the constituents of Essex, I have the honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36.

The petition concerns the insufficient support given to family farms and requests the enactment of a five year farm act to ensure financial stabilization.

[Labour, May 18th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, for three weeks now the people of Pelee Island have been cut off from the mainland, isolated by a crippling labour dispute with the ferry operators. Farmers are unable to plant their crops. Tourism has stopped in its tracks and the entire economy of the island is in severe jeopardy.

How has the Minister of Labour tried to resolve the situation which involves an Ontario provincial government agency?

[General Motors Of Canada, May 16th, 2000]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform the House that a delegation from General Motors of Canada's Women's Advisory Council will be meeting in Ottawa today.

As members of the House know, General Motors of Canada is one of Canada's leading automakers. Its Women's Advisory Council is a group which advises senior management on issues impacting women in the workplace.

Founded 17 years ago, the council has been instrumental in prompting advances in company policy. Its efforts have contributed to bringing forward programs such as job sharing, telecommuting, formal mentoring and more. The group's efforts to develop practical solutions to issues which face women in the workplace have resulted in a better, richer work environment for all General Motors of Canada employees.

On behalf of my colleagues I would like to extend a warm welcome to the General Motors of Canada Women's Advisory Council. I hope they enjoy their time in Ottawa.