Jack Ramsay

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it seems clear that clause 10, including all of its subclauses, is a means by which compensation is going to be paid. That seems to be clear. Therefore one can conclude this clause is a direct result of representation being made to the government by someone.

Consequently what appears to be happening is that compensation is going to be paid. Someone has made application to the government for compensation and probably the sums have been clearly articulated. Through clause 10 this document is going to allow for that payment to be made.

The hon. member has laid this out so well and he seems to be clearly in opposition to what his own government is doing. Would the hon. member respond to what appears to be surfacing, that the application for compensation has been made, the legislation is in place under clause 10 to provide for that compensation and there is nothing we can do about it.

[Pearson International Airport Agreements Act, April 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I share the view of my Bloc colleague. I want to thank him for putting on the record the kind of sordid history of this whole mess.

I remember the need for disclosure that involved the Petrofina sale and I remember the cry of the opposition to the Liberal government of the day to provide the Auditor General with all details necessary to report fully on that purchase. I remember it refused to provide that. Then the government changed and as Canadians we heard the Liberal opposition demanding of the Conservative government to do the very same thing, to reveal all the financial details to the Auditor General so that he could make an accurate report to the public on the sale of Petrofina. That never happened.

The hon. member mentioned a contract that was let with regard to the development of the third terminal and that they had asked for the details of that.

Is the government prepared to provide information, to make a full disclosure on this? We do not need a royal commission of inquiry, but bring all the pertinent documents and table them in this House so that the public has access to them and the representatives of the Canadian people have access to those documents so that if we want to examine them we can or any interested body can make representation for that kind of information.

Would the member comment on that.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the hon. member's response to the last question indicated there is going to be the creation of a constitution for the Northwest Territories, my question and concern is whether the aboriginal people involved will continue to enjoy the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms within the Constitution of Canada as all Canadians now do.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have a follow-up question on the hon. member's response.

If the territories are going to create their own constitution, then I would be interested in knowing whether or not the aboriginal individuals will continue to have the protection of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as guaranteed to all Canadians within the Constitution of Canada.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her speech. I would like her to comment on a few observations I have.

The original treaty signed by the treaty Indian people with the agents of the crown were in part land settlements. They have never worked out, not that they could not have because in some areas there has been an enormous amount of wealth generated from Indian lands.

The reason they have not worked out is because of the power and control the department of Indian affairs has over the Indian people. They cannot sell their grain without approval from the superintendent of the department of Indian affairs and so on. It is all there in the history of the treaties and the treaty research many of the bands have conducted.

Our party is supportive of the fair, equitable and rapid settlement of these land claims so that the aboriginal people can form a base upon which they can become economically independent.

My concern about this agreement is that we are creating another bureaucracy. It seems to be a fairly formidable one according to what I have read.

Does the hon. member see the economic viability of this agreement? In other words, will we see a time when the people of Canada will no longer have to provide support through the various programs for this particular group of Indian people? I think there would be a lot of support from the people of Canada if that is the case, if that is what we can see within this agreement.

[Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claim Settlement Act, April 25th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the legal base that the hon. member laid out. I thank him for placing that on the record. I am sure it will be the subject of consultation and examination.

Would the member give the House a view on the question of the fee simple aspect of this agreement? Does the member concur that fee simple transfer on such a broad basis as is undergone in this agreement goes beyond any legal precedent we have seen in Canada?

[Justice, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the president of the Canadian Police Association, Neal Jessop, called for the removal of the chairman of the justice committee. Mr. Jessop said that his association could not work with the present chair, that he was out of step with public opinion and that he was an embarrassment to the government.

In the interest of swift and co-operative action on judicial reform, will the minister recommend to the Prime Minister that the chairman of the justice committee be replaced as soon as possible?

[Justice, March 25th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice and I begin by wishing him and his family a happy Easter.

However the chairman of the justice committee is widely quoted as saying that he believes convicted murderers like Clifford Olsen should not have to serve more than 15 years for their crimes. In fact the chairman of the justice committee believes the minimum murderers should serve is 10 years without parole.

Is the chairman of the justice committee articulating government policy, or is this merely a trial balloon on behalf of the justice minister?

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 24th, 1994]

It always makes me wonder when a member of the House stands up and criticizes other parties and other members as to what their motivation is rather than defending the bill his party has put forward.

It reminds me of question period when the Official Opposition presses the government too closely on an issue. It continues to drag up the old story that the Leader of the Official Opposition was a member of the former government. Whenever that happens it tells me that they are getting close to something the government does not want to discuss and the pressure is being placed on it by the Official Opposition.

When the member stands up and spends at least 50 per cent of his time criticizing the Reform Party it makes me wonder what he is afraid of. If the big R Reform movement in his constituency is not already pressing him a little too closely, four years from now he really will have something to worry about.

Nevertheless if this bill contained the means by which the number of members in this House would be capped, then as my colleague who asked the question before me stated there would be support for that in the Reform Party caucus. That is what we stand for. We do not need more representation across this country; we need better representation, representation that we have not received from either the Liberal or the Tory governments.

When we talk about debt it is his government that began that enormous slide into the debt hole. It left us with over $200 billion and another $300 billion was added by the Tory government. Now we are at a point where organizations like the Fraser Institute will not advise us. They say we may have gone too far and we may face a debt crisis that is beyond our control.

Will the member address the reason the capping of the number of members in this House is not within the bill itself. To me it is a farce when he stands up and talks about capping the number of members in this House because it ought to be in the bill but is not.

[Business Of Supply, March 17th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I was not able to complete my speech. Perhaps if I had I would have been able to cover that area. The concerns raised by members of families of murder victims, when they see the murderer released early, are very significant. We would like to see provisions whereby the victim's family can appear and testify at the section 745 hearings. We would like that section removed. I would like to see it removed entirely.

The hon. member brings up a good point of whether or not a parole should be granted to someone who is sentenced to 25 years in prison. Those who have advocated section 745 and would advocate the retention of it would say yes. But then where do we stop?

If the murderer in court says: "I am sorry and I will never do it again" should that mean we should release the person? Or sentence the person to a month imprisonment? I think there is an area of penalty here that we must address and I do not think the system is addressing it.

I hope I have answered the hon. member.