House of Commons Hansard #244 of the 35th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was negotiations.
Jerry Pickard Liberal Essex—Kent, ON
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have the privilege of presenting a petition from several people in my riding requesting the Minister of Human Resources Development to continue funding for agricultural employment services.
Peter Milliken LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-107, an act respecting the establishment of the British Columbia Treaty Commission, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
British Columbia Treaty CommissionGovernment Orders
Nunatsiaq Northwest Territories
Liberal
Jack Iyerak Anawak LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, before question period I was pointing out some of the contradictions of the party opposite in terms of its aboriginal affairs policy. I was referring to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, who has made some contradictory and naive observations regarding the hardships aboriginal people in British Columbia and all across Canada have faced over the last 300 or 400 years. I mentioned the attitude of wanting something like a DNA test for Indian people, which is very insulting to aboriginal people across the country.
The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville stated: "We cannot continue to assemble a system that creates entitlements because of the colour of your skin. We are building a South Africa. That may sound extreme, but that is exactly what we are doing. We are going to have the same strife that South Africa is going to have".
If the hon. member were up to date on the issue he would know that South Africa is enjoying good times as a result of doing away with the apartheid policies of the previous government. Now Nelson Mandela is president and he is doing great things for the people of South Africa. That is probably the way we should go with respect to aboriginal people in Canada.
The South African people who have resided in and maintained their lands in that area are finally getting an opportunity to address their concerns, which we are also doing in the area of Nunavut. I am happy to state that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development a couple of weeks ago announced to the general public of Nunavut that they will have a role in deciding where the capital of Nunavut will be. There will be a plebiscite in the communities to determine that. Such a decision-making role is precisely what the aboriginal people of British Columbia have always wanted.
British Columbia entered Confederation in 1884. I think I said 1871, which is the wrong date. At the time British Columbia entered Confederation, the aboriginal people of British Columbia were the majority. To overcome that fact, the government of the day quickly passed a law that basically stated that the aboriginal people would not have a vote.
I will correct a date I mentioned. It was in 1871. But in 1884 people all of a sudden found that because the aboriginal people were the majority they would able to do a lot of commercial fishing. The government of the day passed another law, which banned the aboriginal people of British Columbia from commercial fishing. They have debated that ever since.
I do not particularly like to revisit the history. We have to improve the state the aboriginal people are in and move forward. However, a lot of Canadian people do not know the history. Sometimes it has to be revisited or the people of British Columbia will not have the opportunity to correct a lot of the wrongs that were committed against aboriginal people at that time.
I have a letter written on October 13, 1995, from someone who says: "We the people of British Columbia will not give up our property, our home and our land, to which we have registered rights". This person reiterates what Squamish Chief Joe Mathias claims, that the aboriginal people own British Columbia 100 per cent. This person says: "Members of my family are Friesians. We were in Holland well before the Dutch. Are we now going to go back and say to the Dutch government that we own Friesland 100 per cent and we want compensation?" I do not think we would give that advice to this person, to go back to Holland to claim it back from the Dutch government. However, this person should understand that when he came from Holland the aboriginal people were already in British Columbia. They are still there.
I do not think aboriginal people are suddenly going to say you cannot stay on this land because it belongs to the aboriginal people. However, I think they have a very strong case. As aboriginal people, we believe we were here long before anybody else came along. People who took our lands do have some redressing to do. We have to face the fact that a lot of aboriginal people in British Columbia will say it is our land. If people can accept the premise that they were here first, then maybe the negotiations would go a lot more smoothly and hopefully will result in making sure that justice is served to the aboriginal people of British Columbia.
I would be prepared to answer any questions that may arise.
Margaret Bridgman Reform Surrey North, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the hon. member.
In his role as parliamentary secretary, is he quite satisfied with the length of time it has actually taken this government to bring this legislation to the House? As was said earlier, the legislation was already established through the agreement. It was just a matter of recopying it into a format for this House. I would like to know
whether he is satisfied with that type of delay of two years for something as straightforward as this.
The second question I have was referred to by the previous government speaker from Vancouver Centre, in which she implied that this commission has the authority to actually state whether or not the parties involved are ready to negotiate. That is not necessarily my interpretation of what the act actually states. It states that the commission can assess the readiness of the parties. I think that is possibly a little loose from the point of view of what the criteria are to base that assessment on. It could turn to a dictatorial type of thing from the commission's point of view that you must meet these specified criteria.
Jack Iyerak Anawak Liberal Nunatsiaq, NT
Mr. Speaker, in responding to the question I may not necessarily satisfy the member. I look at it from the point of view that it has taken two years for this particular government, but it has taken since 1871, which is 124 years, to arrive at this stage. I think what we should be rejoicing in is the fact that we have finally come to this stage today, so let us move forward from here. While I would be very hopeful that the negotiations will be expeditious, it has taken 124 years. I would hope that when the negotiated settlement arrives it will be the best for all concerned, but especially for the people who have been trying to get to this stage for the last 124 years.
On the other question, we have to do our bit as members of Parliament to ensure that the best possible procedure is taken to ensure a more expeditious conclusion of land claim negotiations in British Columbia.
Lee Morrison Reform Swift Current—Maple Creek—Assiniboia, SK
Mr. Speaker, I was a little bemused at the secretary's remarks with respect to the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville's question on treaty cards and DNA. I would expect that a secretary of state could recognize a bit of sarcasm when he sees it.
The secretary must be aware that there is a stampede of people who have just a few drops of aboriginal blood trying to get their hands on treaty cards. If he thinks this is not a problem, he should consult with the band councils that have to deal with this and the problems created by Bill C-31. The secretary has to be aware that treaty cards have become articles of commerce. If he is not aware of this, he should not be secretary of state. If he is, he should not pretend to misunderstand the member for Yorkton-Melville.
With regard to the question of apartheid and who has it and who does not, it does strike me as curious that while South Africa is doing away with apartheid, the secretary of state advocates and applauds the establishment of homelands within the Dominion of Canada. I think we should be moving beyond all of that and be talking about one Canada, not a whole bunch of little enclaves divided on the basis of race and history. I know all that was irrelevant to Bill C-107, but it was a response to the irrelevant remarks of the secretary of state.
Jack Iyerak Anawak Liberal Nunatsiaq, NT
Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to get a question from the hon. member.
I am a member of Parliament and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, but I am also an Inuk.
Whether the government of the day or governments past or the member believes it or not, as far as I am concerned all of Canada belonged to the aboriginal people long before, in some cases 30,000 years, anybody else came along. That is my belief. However I have to be realistic. Some 30 million people now live in Canada, the majority of whom are other than aboriginal. We have to deal with that reality.
However, the wrongs that have been done to the aboriginal people are very wrong. This is how I feel. I am not naive about aboriginal concerns. If the hon. member wants me to elaborate on aboriginal issues and aboriginal concerns I can do that quite well without any lessons from the member across.
I live in the small community in the north in which I grew up. In 1962 the Inuit got the vote. I know about aboriginal concerns. I know some people came north and started putting up "no trespassing" signs on gravel deposits. No trespassing signs on my land? I have no lessons to learn from the hon. member across. Aboriginal people have been on the receiving end of a lot of wrongs for a long time. This attempts to correct the injustices that have been done.
When the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville makes a statement like that I am unlike the member across. I do not think the person is joking. I realize there may be some problems with the status cards. That probably is the case. Is it the Indians, the aboriginal people doing that? I do not know. I must say I am naive in that regard. I can honestly tell the member that I do not know. I apologize for not knowing because it is part of my responsibility.
One my responsibilities is to ensure that there is expeditious approval of bills that deal with the concerns of aboriginal people. I hope the hon. member, when we are dealing with this particular bill, will give his support to it so that we can correct the injustices that have been dealt to the aboriginal people in British Columbia.
Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, before I get into the text of my remarks I will make a few comments on the parliamentary secretary's remarks.
The parliamentary secretary was discussing the issue of land ownership. He said that in his opinion the land that we know as Canada is owned by aboriginal people. I remind the parliamentary secretary this issue has been dealt with in the courts. It has been dealt with in the Delgamuukw decision which was originally heard in the B.C. supreme court and was appealed to the B.C. court of appeal and is going before the Supreme Court of Canada at some point in the very near future. The decisions of the courts to date
have been that land ownership and ownership of resources resides with the crown.
I will talk for a minute about who benefits from that ownership. Thirty million people live in Canada and to a great extent the wealth of the nation and the standard of living that those people enjoy depend on the land base and resources.
We are talking about the B.C. Treaty Commission. In British Columbia approximately 96 per cent of the land is owned by the crown. The balance is owned by individuals on a fee simple basis. What the Government of British Columbia is talking about doing under the auspices of the B.C. Treaty Commission is negotiating agreements which will convey, in its own words, approximately 5 per cent of the land base to approximately 3 per cent of the population. A good deal of that population does not live on reserves.
In addressing the concerns of people in British Columbia who depend on forestry, fishing and mining for their livelihood and all of the secondary and tertiary jobs that spin from that, it is clear that the issue of land ownership and resource ownership is a very serious one.
I will talk a little about British Columbia's participation in this process and the concerns expressed by ordinary citizens in that province. As I have said, the land base is very important to the economy of the province.
The Government of British Columbia and the Government of Canada are entering into a negotiating process to settle, depending on who you are, treaties or land claims with aboriginal peoples. There has been virtually no public consultation. The beginning of that consultation process is starting to happen, but in my view it is happening in a way that is going to make it very difficult for the real views of ordinary British Columbians to be heard.
On a straightforward philosophical basis, most British Columbians are opposed to the general principle behind the treaty process. With the negotiation of the agreements described by government to date we will have, as my Reform colleague said a few minutes ago, enclaves within Canada which will have a land base and which will have their own governing bodies.
There is a great deal of concern over the divisiveness this will create. The parliamentary secretary referred to South Africa as have other people in the Chamber. In South Africa the people are working to break down barriers between different parts of society, between black and white. They have been working at removing the different status that people received in that country based on their racial origins.
In Canada we are going in the opposite direction. We are erecting further barriers. I suggest there are barriers right now. I think they are inherently wrong. That is one of the reasons native people find themselves in the very difficult circumstances they find themselves in. As a country we have treated them differently.
Most of us on this side of the House believe very strongly that Canada is a very big welfare state. The welfare state that government policy has created around native people is many times larger and it has been very harmful to native Indian people. It has been very destructive. We need to do away with that, to break down those barriers, to do away with the Indian Act and start to treat everybody in our country as equals.
That leads me to the next point. In a democracy one of the fundamental principles of democracy is equality before the law, individual freedom, individual liberty and the notion that we all participate in a democracy on the same basis.
Sovereignty inherently rests with the Government of Canada. The provinces are way stations but in the end, citizens have to a certain degree an ability to exercise personal sovereignty in that they are able to vote, they are able to participate in the democratic process and they are able to influence to some degree at least the direction the government takes.
When we start looking at people, whether native Indian or other racial minorities or groups that have distinctive characteristics and start treating those people differently and we suggest they should have different status, whether that status is supposed to assist those people or not however well meaning that might be, the end result is that we create divisions in our society.
We create an us versus them mentality and we violate the fundamental principles of democracy. We violate the fundamental principle of equality before the law. We do that as a nation at our peril.
We can see what has happened in British Columbia with the implementation of the aboriginal fishing strategy. No doubt it was a well intentioned strategy. The result is that we have native fishermen and non-native fishermen on the rivers in conflict with each other. We have the very real possibility of violent conflict right on our doorstep as a result of that policy. I would suggest to the House that the aboriginal fishing strategy is one component of what the government's agenda is all about.
We are not talking in negotiating these treaties about moving away from the apartheid that we already have and treating people as equals, we are talking about building further walls. We are talking about finding new and better ways to segregate people by race and treat them differently. By doing that, as I said earlier, we are endangering the future civility and peace in our country.
We need to not stand with our backs to the future gazing serenely over the past, over the wreckage of failed policies and massive outlays in expenditures by governments which have not worked and which have created a system of dependency and paternalism. We need to strive toward policies that include all people.
The Government of Canada has a serious obligation to deal with this problem and to deal with it in a manner that is going to at the end of the day bring all Canadians together as equals.
At the time British Columbia joined Confederation in 1871 the terms of union clearly spelled out that the federal government shall take all responsibility for existing and future obligations to native people.
There was one proviso in that agreement. The provincial government had an obligation to designate areas for reserve lands. The provincial government from 1871 through into the 1920s continued to set aside and designate lands as reserve lands to the point where in 1924 the federal government acknowledged in writing that B.C. had met its obligations under the terms of union and therefore was discharged from any further obligations in that regard.
This is a very important and fundamental point because Canadians residing in British Columbia have been contributing through the tax system to the settlements of land treaties in other parts of Canada. They have been required to assist in the underwriting of the costs of the Nunavut settlement, of the Yukon land claims agreement, of the Saulteaux-Dene-Métis agreement and so on.
Now British Columbians will be asked to pay twice: once as taxpayers through the federal system and once as taxpayers and citizens of British Columbia through the alienation of land and resources. That is fundamentally wrong. That is asking the people of British Columbia to accept a situation of double jeopardy.
I believe very strongly the province of British Columbia should not be at the negotiating table other than as an observer. If the federal government intends to convey land and resources, it ought go to the province to find out for what the province is willing to sell those assets, the land and resources, in pursuit of the land treaty negotiations.
When we talk about these land claim issues and when we talk about treaty settlements and so on, as I said in my remarks a few minutes ago, the government tends to treat native Indian people as if they are all the same, whether it is the Gitksan and Wet'suwet'en people in my riding, the Niska people or the Casca-Dene people. They are not. They are individuals like all Canadians. They have many different aspirations, goals and desires. They do not all think the same way. They do not all want the same things; they want many different things.
In many cases the leadership in these native communities is acting in a fashion that is not supported by the majority of people they supposedly represent. I am deeply concerned when native Indian people come into my constituency office and say that they are very concerned about the ramifications for self-government because they do not know what it means. Quite frankly I do not think any of us know what it means. The Government of Canada and provincial governments have been talking for the last couple of years about recognizing an inherent right of self-government but they have never defined it. They have never said what that means.
The implications for that kind of statement are very serious indeed. It is instructive to note the native Indian people of British Columbia voted against the Charlottetown accord at almost the same rate as non-native people did although the provision for native self-government was one of the five key components of the agreement.
The ordinary grassroots people in native Indian communities certainly are not overly enamoured with the idea of native self-government. Their leaders are because their leaders understand the position of power and the position of authority they will end up in as a result. However the ordinary grassroots people in native communities are not in favour of it and certainly have grave reservations.
I remember very clearly that the Native Women's Association of Canada actively campaigned against the Charlottetown accord for the very reason the inherent right to self-government was one of the five key components of the agreement.
It is fine for the parliamentary secretary to stand and say that this is what all native people want, but it clearly is not what all native people want. They voted against it. I suspect that if I were to go into his riding I would find many native Indian people, aboriginal people, who would be very much opposed to the concept of self-government even though the member supports it.
Having given this matter a great deal of thought and having expressed my concerns, particularly in British Columbia, for two years now, I am convinced there has to be a better way. There has to be a way that the Government of Canada in concert with the provinces can negotiate agreements which will be inclusive rather than exclusive, which will bring Canadians together rather than separate them forever on the basis of race.
We have to recognize we are settling agreements that will be set in constitutional concrete. We have to think in terms of 50, 100 and 150 years down the road. We cannot settle the agreements on the basis of a five, ten or fifteen year window.
It is for these reasons that I have grave concerns with respect to the work of the B.C. Treaty Commission. I am convinced that the province of British Columbia should not be at the table other than as an observer. If we continue down the road we are going, I am certain it will only create further problems in our society. The net result will be that those people who we would most like to help will be the people who will be most hurt.
British Columbia Treaty CommissionGovernment Orders
Nunatsiaq Northwest Territories
Liberal
Jack Iyerak Anawak LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, the comments about my riding demonstrated the need for some lessons on the history of aboriginal people in Canada.
My riding, Nunatsiaq, spans over three time zones from Tuktoyaktuk in the west to Pangnirtung in the east, from Arviat in the south to the home of Santa Claus in the north. However the fact remains that the native Indian population of Nunatsiaq is probably less than .05 per cent. The area I represent is Inuit. It is 85 per cent Inuit.
The ignorance of people like the hon. member opposite is why aboriginal people in Canada must be recognized. At the beginning of his comments the hon. member quite clearly said that this could not be native land because the courts said so. He may very well believe what the courts have said, but whose courts? Whose justice system determined that this was crown land? We did not set up the present justice system. By the way, we were not asked whether it was the kind of justice system we wanted or whether it was the kind of government we wanted. We were not asked any of those questions by the Government of Canada when the provincial and territorial governments were set up.
There has to be an understanding. We have a bit of a problem with all the things that have happened. I do not want to revisit all of it. However I want to point out to the member and to all other Canadians that a great injustice has been done in the past and we are trying to correct the situation. If we take a little more time as the government than members opposite would like to see, I say we can afford to do it because it has taken 124 years to arrive at this stage.
We have to ensure that expeditious approval of negotiated claims is achieved. I am sure members opposite will ensure that we have their support when the bill comes to committee. I hope the member ensures that he understands the issues, whether it is the justice system or righting the wrongs that have been done over the years, before thinking that every aboriginal person who comes to him is representative of aboriginal peoples at large.
I take back my comment about all aboriginal people, but the majority of aboriginal people know that wrongs have been done to them and are trying to right those situations. I apologize for making the hon. member think that I was representing all aboriginal people. I am a Canadian, I am an Inuk, and I do not represent all aboriginal people. However I have a problem telling the House that in a lot of cases I do not always agree with the president of Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, but I have no problem saying that she is my leader for the benefit of the Inuit people at large. We as aboriginal people have leaders who may not necessarily be representative of all aboriginal peoples, but by and large they represent the majority.
Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the parliamentary secretary's remarks. I was offended that he would refer to me as ignorant. He may disagree with me on a philosophical basis and that is fine; that is what Parliament is all about. However I can assure the House that I am not ignorant. I am not ignorant on this issue. I have spent a great deal of time on it.
I should like to respond to some of the remarks the member made in talking about representatives of native people. I have never had the opportunity to spend much time in the member's riding, but I have spent a great deal of time in British Columbia and I have met with many aboriginal people. I can assure the member that great numbers of aboriginal people have real concerns about their own leadership.
In my riding massive amounts of federal tax dollars are turned over to aboriginal leaders with no accountability whatsoever. Members of that community cannot even go to into the band office to get a breakdown of how the money is being spent. We see aboriginal leaders driving around in fancy new pickup trucks and fancy new cars while the people in their communities are getting by on virtually nothing. That is the kind of situation we are faced with in British Columbia.
I find it very difficult to listen to the member talk about representatives of aboriginal people. There are any deeply concerned people in my constituency who write to the ministers involved: the Minister of Health, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
In the case of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans they write to tell him they have a problem supporting the AFS. There is no accountability for how that money is being distributed. They just see a bunch of rangers going around their communities with fancy new pickups and new jet boats. There is no accounting of how the money is being spent.
The Minister of Health is signing health agreements with aboriginal hereditary groups, not elected representatives, in my riding. The people who live in those communities come to me with serious concerns about the future of health care for them under that kind of system. The native leadership in those instances is always
talking about how it is working for the good of its people and how it is trying to further the interests of its people.
In many instances they are not concerned about their people. They are concerned about their personal well-being. They are making sure they are well off while the rest of the people in those communities are left to suffer and are hung out to dry.
That is why the aboriginal people in British Columbia voted against the Charlottetown accord. That is why they do not want self-government. In spite of all the grandiose statements by people like Ovide Mercredi and the federal minister of Indian affairs and the minister of aboriginal affairs in British Columbia, these people do not want it and it should not be shoved down their throats. Their individual rights and equality should be respected by the Government of Canada, not abrogated and trampled on.
Hedy Fry LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Health
Mr. Speaker, the last speaker was concerned about the word ignorance. I would not use that word but would use the term misunderstanding and misinformation.
I have heard members of the third party mention a few things which I perceive to be a complete misunderstanding of what this commission is being set up to do. The question was asked about whether the commission had any role to play in making sure that the parties were ready to negotiate. There was no understanding that that was a role.
I will read very quickly the role of the commission: "The duties of the commission are assessing the readiness of the parties, Canada, B.C. and First Nations, to negotiate". A clearly stated duty is to encourage timely negotiations. Therefore, with respect to the concern over stalling, that is something the commission is set up to ensure does not happen.
Another comment from members of the third party was that everything was being done in secret, nothing was being done in the open. The role of the commission is to prepare and maintain a public record of the status of negotiations.
I have another comment with regard to constant references to being Canadian together rather than apart because of race. This is a clear denial of the cultural heritage of people who do not belong to a majority group.
One of the things I clearly saw as a physician when we discussed aboriginal health issues was that the aboriginal people had a great deal of health problems. This was because their culture had been denied for so long. The lack of spirituality which is an inherent part of their culture has led to loss of self-esteem and hopelessness. This has led to the large number of suicides and abuse we now see in the aboriginal community which have clearly been traced back to loss of cultural identity. These things are important to a people. It does not mean that people are different because they are given their cultural heritage. Cultural heritage is inherently what people are; it is what makes them the way they are.
I am really concerned about those statements. They show a lack of understanding of basic human dignity and human rights.
Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC
Mr. Speaker, the member is quite right in saying the role of the B.C. Treaty Commission is to assess whether the parties are prepared for negotiating.
In the case of one aboriginal group within my riding, the government is entering into agreements for negotiating with hereditary governments, not with elected representatives. People from that community continually come to my office and ask: "Who do these people represent and why is the government dealing with them? Why is the government signing agreements with them? Why is the government going to negotiate with them?" Their rights have been completely ignored in this whole process.
Yes, there are very serious problems in Canada's aboriginal communities. It is not because of a loss of culture nearly so much as it is a complete reflection of the state of the welfare industry which has been built up around native Indian people. This symptom will be found in any community, be it aboriginal or non-native, wherever we go. If people are treated as wards of the state and are going to be forever on a short leash from the Government of Canada, those are exactly the kinds of problems we can expect to find in communities like that.
Perhaps the hon. member could take time out of her busy schedule to come to my riding. I would be more than happy to take her to some of the aboriginal communities and introduce her to some of the people who have serious concerns about the direction in which both the federal and provincial governments are going. They have very serious concerns because they know it is not good for them. They know the government finds it very easy to deal with collectives but has a very difficult time dealing with individual rights and individual responsibilities.
Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, it is my great pleasure to speak on Bill C-107.
In the House we are usually pressured to deal with immediate problems. We get representations from constituents about existing problems and they want immediate solutions. This is one of the rare opportunities we have in this House to pass this bill and build for the long term health of Canadians, particularly young aboriginal Canadians.
It is also fitting to be here with the member for Vancouver Quadra. Both of us were in Beijing. At that meeting a platform of action was adopted. It particularly acknowledged the importance of including the aboriginal communities in decision making specifi-
cally recognizing their knowledge of environmental management, addressing their right to education, to ensure equal access to health care and to acknowledge traditional health care. It is an important step. Around the world people are talking about giving aboriginal peoples the tools to do what they need to do.
One of the key commitments made by our party in the last election was to act on implementing the inherent right to aboriginal self-government. We did so because we saw the place of aboriginal peoples in Canada as a litmus test for our belief in fairness, in justice and in equality. Sadly, it is a test which we as a nation have too often failed.
In the red book we promised to implement the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to govern themselves by negotiating self-government agreements. On August 10 we delivered on that commitment. We released our policy on aboriginal self-government and presented the principles which will guide the negotiations. This is a pragmatic and practical policy, one which we believe will work.
One of the key reasons we think it will work is that it is the product of some 18 months of consultation with aboriginal groups, provincial and territorial governments, as well as others on what they thought our policy should be in this area. In co-operation with provincial and territorial counterparts, our policy aims for direct negotiations with aboriginal people in their communities on issues directly affecting their lives.
As a government we believe the time has come to stop the endless, fruitless debates about how many angels can dance on the head of the constitutional pin and get down to negotiating practical, pragmatic and realistic arrangements that implement the inherent right of self-government. Our approach is new but it is animated by principles as old as our country, principles of respect, of tolerance, of fairness and of compassion.
In the case of British Columbia the policy provides that negotiations on self-government will take place at the same table as discussions on land and resources. The process and structures already in place for treaty negotiations and confirmed by Bill C-107, the British Columbia Treaty Commission act, will also be used to negotiate self-government issues.
These two sets of discussions, self-government on the one hand and land and resource uses on the other, complement each other perfectly. It means that for the first time the parties will be able to have all of the issues dealt with at one table under one set of negotiations. This will be more cost effective, something I am sure members of the third party will herald as a great achievement. It eliminates overlap and duplication and permits a much more comprehensive approach to achieve progress, something I also hope they will herald. We are committed to ensuring that the same principles and practices of openness which have characterized the B.C. treaty making process will also be applied to the self-government decisions and discussions.
There seems to be some confusion on the part of members opposite, particularly in the third party, as to just what our inherent rights policy is all about. Let me lay down the main elements so they can see for themselves how the BCTC process can be utilized to negotiate fair and meaningful self-government agreements.
As a government we propose to negotiate self-government agreements with aboriginal groups and the province or territory concerned. These negotiations and the agreements they produce will be based on a number of principles.
We begin with the premise that the inherent right of self-government is an existing aboriginal right under the Constitution. What does that mean? It means we will recognize that aboriginal peoples were self-governing before the arrival of Europeans and that they never gave up that right to govern themselves, even though that right has been ignored or suppressed for many years.
Because this right is in the Constitution, it is enforceable in the courts. Litigation, as we know, is lengthy and costly and often serves only to create conflict rather than engender understanding. It can discourage a willingness to work together as Canadians to build a better, stronger future for our country. Is that not what we are here to do?
In the end, it is unlikely that the courts would go much beyond providing broad principles, leaving the details of self-government to be negotiated by the parties who would have to live with those agreements anyway. It is far better, this government believes, to negotiate practical ways of implementing this right at the outset, tailoring each agreement to the unique circumstances of each community or region.
Bill C-107 is not a one size fits all exercise. That approach has been tried and it only led to gridlock and frustration on both sides. What we need is an agreement and a process that is flexible enough to accommodate the diverse needs of diverse communities. This policy will do that.
The second guiding principle in our negotiations is that aboriginal self-government will be exercised within the existing Constitution. As a consequence, the right of inherent self-government does not include a right of sovereignty in the international law sense and it will not result in independent aboriginal nation states.
Our goal is to enhance the participation of aboriginal people in Canadian society, not place them outside of it. The policy will not create little enclaves dotted across the country. It will provide aboriginal people with the tools they need to manage their own
affairs and realize their own potential. It will mean an end to conflict and it will open the door to progress for all Canadians.
Third, the charter of rights and freedoms will apply to aboriginal governments as it does to all other governments in Canada. This of course makes sense only if we are talking about protecting rights within Canada.
The fourth principle is that federal, provincial, territorial and aboriginal laws must work in harmony.
While we are prepared to negotiate a wide range of powers, there are some areas that must remain with the federal government. As a general principle, matters which are integral to the aboriginal culture or internal to the aboriginal group are open for discussion. These might include areas such as education, health care, policing, natural resource management, agriculture, the establishment of governing structures, internal constitutions, elections and a leadership selection process.
However there are a number of areas where there is no compelling reason for aboriginal governments to exercise law making authority. Those areas include matters relating the Canadian sovereignty such as international diplomatic relations, foreign policy, national security and defence, international treaty making, immigration and international trade.
It includes as well matters affecting the fundamental national interest such as the management and regulation of the economy, the banking system, currency or broadcasting, postal service, the emergency and peace, order and good government powers and to matters relating to the maintaining of law and order such as the Criminal Code.
While this is a federal policy, we know we cannot go it alone because many of the jurisdictions contemplated by this policy are provincial. It is essential to have the territory or province concerned involved in the self-government negotiations. Its involvement will be crucial to the ultimate success of the process.
Not only do the provinces have jurisdiction over many of these areas, they also bring with them invaluable expertise in their administration. Having the three parties at the same table will allow new aboriginal systems, such as education, to be harmonized with existing provincial structures and minimize conflict down the road so as to create the best possible aboriginal governments. I am sure that is something we all agree with.
Fifth, where all parties agree we are prepared to protect rights and self-government agreements in new treaties. Finally, the government has made it clear that all funding for the negotiation and implementation of self-government agreements must come from existing resources. There will be no new money.
I have outlined the principles that will guide our discussions. As a government, we believe that they are both fair and realistic. We believe they provide a solid foundation on which to build. We believe they advance the rights of aboriginal people in a way which also protect the rights of all Canadians.
I have spent some time discussing inherent right because I am pleased to report that those involved in the B.C. treaty process have endorsed our self-government policy. Chief Joe Mathias of the First Nations Summit said that the new policy "means finally we have an important initiative that will bring First Nations into the 21st century".
Surely that must be our goal. With this bill we can begin to create the certainty that will encourage economic growth. We can provide the aboriginal people of B.C. with the tools we need to create the future they deserve.
We can move beyond the adversarial postures of the past to a new relationship based on mutual respect, trust and understanding, a new relationship that reflects the true Canadian values.
Some 50 per cent of all the aboriginal peoples in our country are under 25 years of age. It is an important point if we are to address their needs and make sure they have the systems in place to be the best they can be so that Canada can ensure them a long and successful future. It is an important point because all too often we talk about how we believe our young people are one of our greatest resources. Yet we do not always put our money where our mouth is in terms of implementing policies that will allow them to be just that, our greatest resource. We must do that more and more.
I am pleased to support Bill C-107 and encourage all parties in the House to pass it quickly and to agree with us in our position.
British Columbia Treaty CommissionGovernment Orders
Nunatsiaq Northwest Territories
Liberal
Jack Iyerak Anawak LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
Mr. Speaker, it is always encouraging to listen to members that understand what processes we go through, the hardships we go through. One of the most often asked questions by members opposite, and other people I am sure, concerns the definition of self-government or inherent right. The two seem to always be an issue with some members of the public or politicians.
I will try to define what I think inherent right and self-government are. The hon. member elaborated on it. One time I was asked about the inherent right of self-government. I replied that as far as I am concerned it is the acceptance or the acknowledgement that we have been here for a few more years than anybody else. In the Indians' case it is something in the neighbourhood of 35,000 years;
in our case it is a little shorter, only 3,500 years. However, we do not feel left out by the fact that the Indians have been here 30,000 years longer than we have.
The words inherent right and self-government to us have always been accepted as they are without trying to put them in a little box the way people quite often like to do. It is asked, is this the way it is going to be? Some people would say there is no other way when in fact there could be 10 different ways to do the same thing.
Would the member care to elaborate on her understanding of what is meant by self-government or inherent right? As far as we are concerned, it is the fact that we were here, we had a system in place. The Government of Canada and through it the Canadian people at large must acknowledge that we have the right to determine our future. We have that right to set up a self-government within our geographic areas without necessarily having to ask permission from a government that has been around for 125 years or so.
I wonder if the member would care to elaborate.
Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, as the parliamentary secretary has outlined a number of principles related to self-government, I will identify some of the key principles that I think my constituents would be interested in and those that perhaps are a little greyer to some people than they should be.
Aboriginal self-government will operate within the existing Constitution. It is an important tool which will allow our aboriginal peoples the ability to make a lot of the key decisions which they need to make for themselves. Sometimes it is not appropriate for the federal government or the provincial governments to make all the decisions for this diverse group of communities which have very specific needs and problems that have either been neglected or that government policies at the provincial and federal levels in the past have tried to ameliorate but have only served to exacerbate because we tried this one size fits all philosophy.
The aboriginal peoples in the communities across Canada, particularly in B.C., need to be able to use their inherent rights to make the decisions within the context of the Canadian Constitution that will benefit their communities and see them be empowered.
It is ironic that around the world people are recognizing the rights of empowerment of women, empowerment of individuals to make decisions, to have the tools to ensure they will be productive members of our communities so that we are more economically viable, we are more environmentally friendly and we take care of our population issues. All too often people within our own country do not recognize the importance of those values when it comes to a very specific group of people, the first people of Canada, the aboriginal peoples. Whether it was 30,000 years ago or more, they still were definitely our first peoples and we must give them the tools.
The other aspect, which seems to me to be common sense, but of course common sense is all too often not very common, is that the current system under which we have been operating has not worked. We have seen aspects of the aboriginal communities doing very well. I do not mean to draw from their success, whether it be in the arts, in business or in other areas of our communities. The aboriginal peoples have done very well in many aspects.
However, there are too many problems. There are too many young aboriginal people in jail. There are too many aboriginals who are dropping out of school, who do not seem to feel a part of Canadian society. It is incumbent on us to do everything we can to give them the tools so that they can be the best people that they can be.
This bill, this new approach to things, given that it was proceeded with after 18 months of consultations with the communities and with our provincial and territorial partners, has given us the answers and the policy decisions that they would like to see in here. It will be successful and it will make a huge difference in the lives of many Canadians, particularly our young aboriginal Canadians, to whom we must leave a good legacy.
Val Meredith Reform Surrey—White Rock—South Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am one of the first to support self-government at a local level within the context of Canada being the nation. Not only do I talk about it, I have worked hard to implement it.
I do have a concern which I would like the hon. member opposite to address. How do we deal with the aboriginal communities who see inherent self-government as being separate and apart from Canada? They see the right of inherent self-government as a separate and distinct nation from that of Canada. How will we deal with those aboriginal communities which see inherent government as being separate from the Government of Canada?
Paddy Torsney Liberal Burlington, ON
Mr. Speaker, certainly this is a process which is evolving. I am pleased to have her support for the concept and for this bill in terms of self-government.
There is going to be a series of negotiations, but I have outlined already the basic principles on which we are proceeding. It must be within the context of the Constitution and we must ensure the structures are appropriate on the issues they have decision making power on and it is all outlined in the bill and in the process we are going forward with.
British Columbia Treaty CommissionGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
It being 1.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
Daphne Jennings Reform Mission—Coquitlam, BC
moved:
That, in the opinion of this House, representation in the Senate should be equal from each province, elected by the people, and have sufficient power to make it effective in order to better represent the people of the less populous provinces.
Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour for me today to rise as the mover of Motion 459 and therefore to speak in favour of it.
Advocating a triple E Senate has been part of the platform of the Reform Party of Canada virtually from its inception. As Senate critic over the past year I have had the opportunity to research the Senate. Senate reform for the Reform Party and for all of us from the less populous provinces addresses a feeling of alienation from central Canada and the central government, which has grown through the last two decades.
This feeling of alienation stems from the reality that governments will respond positively to pressure exerted by the provinces or the regions that contain the largest portion of our population. Sometimes these policy responses are at the expense of the smaller provinces and their desires. Equality of representation of provinces in the second chamber of Canada's central Parliament we believe would give the people of the less populous provinces real clout over the policy agenda of the federal government.
However, I am getting ahead of myself. I would like to spend some time today talking about the original purpose of the Senate; in other words, why it was created. I would like to speak about how it has performed this role, then deal with the criticisms of the Senate and attempt to respond to them. I will then conclude with the reasons why I believe the triple E concept for the Senate makes a lot of sense.
The Senate was designed to perform two main functions, the review of legislation emanating from the lower House, and provide a forum wherein the regions would have a voice in the central Parliament's law making process. It was to provide an institutional voice to small governments and perhaps to minority groups against the popular majority of the lower house. One could say that it was designed to act as a political bridge between the component parts of the federation and the central government.
The work of the Senate as presently constituted in the scrutiny of legislation has been praised by most political commentators. Also, Senate committees have carried out useful investigative studies over the years, which have added new information to policy development. Yet criticism has been levelled against senators who have stayed in the post regardless of the fact that they may show up only once a year, some less often than that. This criticism stems from the fact that senators used to be in for life. Also, because of undeserving patronage appointments Canadians have lost respect for the Senate, so much so that it has resulted in uncomplimentary names and references such as the old boys' club.
However, the main criticism of the role played by the Senate in our country concentrates on the inability of the institution to represent all regions. This has led to great frustration in western Canada predominately because there is a definite perception that central Canada, because of sheer numbers, sets and controls the public policy agenda.
Following on this argument is the feeling that senators, because they are not elected, have no legitimacy to act. Therefore, even if senators decided to start voting in regional or provincial blocs, they would not have the ultimate legitimacy to do so, in that they are not elected by the people of Canada. This is a strong reason for an elected Senate.
Bear in mind as well that our present Senate's powers are virtually equal to those of the House of Commons, except that while it can initiate legislation except money bills, it cannot hold up constitutional amendments for longer than 180 days. With these two exceptions, it is important to note that it can defeat, amend or indeed stall all legislation coming from the House of Commons. However, because of its lack of legitimacy its exercise of these powers is constantly subject to criticism. Therefore this lack of equality of representation and legitimacy to act to either defend or promote the interests of the smaller provinces has given great impetus to the movement of Senate reform.
While the impetus to a triple E Senate seems to have grown out of actions by the previous Liberal government to implement the national energy program, there have been other proposals for reform. Let us take a look at some.
The most popular subject for these proposals has been the method of selection of senators. Popular election, provincial government appointment, and a mixed formula whereby half would be appointed and half elected have been proposed through the years. As early as 1908 Senator David suggested one third of the Senate chamber be named by the federal government, another third by the provincial government, and the final third by universities and other public bodies.
A popular suggestion for reform in the 1970s was the creation of the House of the Provinces. This second chamber would be made
up of delegates appointed by the various provincial governments or perhaps provincial cabinet ministers. This was a second chamber modelled on what was then the West German upper house. While this reform had many supporters, especially among the provinces, it was obvious that this Senate could quickly evolve into a house of obstruction or a constitutionalized permanent federal-provincial conference. Neither scenario would have a long term positive effect on how the country is governed. Provincial interests only would be advanced in the upper house, with the national interest taking, at best, second place.
The idea of an elected Senate attained prominence in 1981 with the publication by the Canada West Foundation of "Regional Representation-the Canadian Partnership". It was based on the work of Dr. David Elton of the foundation and Mr. Burt Brown of Alberta. In 1982 Senator Duff Roblin, former Premier of Manitoba, proposed that senators be elected on a basis similar to the elected system in Australia.
The first federal parliamentary report to espouse an elected Senate was written by the Special Joint Committee on Senate Reform and released in 1983. It is noteworthy that the Senate co-chair of the committee is now the Speaker of the Senate, Senator Gil Molgat of Manitoba.
More recently, the Meech Lake accord proposed a hybrid type of appointment procedure for Senate vacancies, and the 1992 proposed Charlottetown accord proposed an elected Senate. I remember in British Columbia just how this was interpreted by our present NDP government. As a matter of fact, it was the B.C. provincial government's interpretation of the proposals for Senate change in the recent Charlottetown accord that helped to precipitate my entry into politics. At the time there was some suggestion that the provincial government would control the format of how the elections by the people would proceed.
In B.C. statements were being made by elected government MLAs and the premier that there would be equal men and women and the government would look after candidate selection for Senate seats. The first statement flies in the face of Canadian tradition. Canadians have long been committed to a system of merit for job applications. That is, those who can do the job best should do it. And any potential candidates for a Senate position must come from all spectrums of the province, not from government patronage lists.
As a point of interest, we must recognize in our country that to hire employees according to an ethnic and gender preference program is not working. In California, where the selection of employees has been based on preferential treatment based upon race and gender over the last while, Americans are going to see a ballot question in the 1996 election year that will potentially forbid the use of ethnicity or gender as criteria for either discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group by the government.
Those who take the time to think realize that discrimination, if it exists, cannot be cured by counter discrimination. It is very divisive and fundamentally unfair.
During the 1980s a unique event in the history of the Senate occurred in Alberta. Alberta enacted legislation to enable persons to stand for election on a province-wide basis to contest a vacant Senate seat. An election was held and Reform Party member Stan Waters topped the polls. He was subsequently summoned to the Senate by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister. Unfortunately we lost Stan Waters before he had the opportunity to show Canadians just how valuable an accountable senator could be. The election of Senator Stan Waters is a valuable precedent. Unfortunately, it was not followed with later Senate appointments from Alberta.
That very briefly is the history of how we got to where we are now, the history of why the contents of this motion are so dear to the hearts of all of us who represent the Reform Party.
The triple E Senate should be elected, and therefore accountable. It is our belief that a Senate must be popularly elected. In a democratic age in a country that prizes democracy so highly, an appointed upper house lacks legitimacy.
More specifically, elected representation is essential in addressing issues of equity, since an elected Senate would place greater emphasis on increasing the likelihood that people will be elected based on merit rather than appointed simply to fulfil equity quotas. This would also address the longstanding problem of patronage appointments.
Let us take a look at the issue of patronage and the practice of the government to promote adding party members and friends to the Senate, whether as a result of section 26 of the Constitution Act or just to fill vacancies.
Section 26 of the Constitution Act 1867 provides that in exceptional circumstances an additional four or eight senators may be appointed. This provision was invoked in December 1990, when the Senate systematically opposed passage of the legislation introducing the goods and services tax, legislation that had been passed after much contentious debate in the Commons. Here it could be argued that the Canadian people did not want the GST, but in order to raise more money in taxes-sounds like England in the days of wicked King John and others-the government of the day forced through legislation that people did not want by invoking section 26 and adding more senators.
If senators were elected by the people of Canada, the Prime Minister and present government could not run roughshod over the wishes of the people or set the odds in his government's own favour, but would have to abide by the will of the people.
At this time I must remind the House that we have a similar situation in the House of Commons today. We have the hated legislation on the contentious Bill C-68. The people of Canada do not want the national gun registration. Most of them know that forcing law-abiding Canadians to register guns that have been collected over the years, some as collector's items, some to be used in hunting, and some left to them as heirlooms from their fathers from a previous period in history, will not make Canadians one bit safer in their homes.
Most Canadians have done their research and know of the thousands of weapons smuggled in each year over our borders. Most Canadians know that these illegal weapons will not be registered. Most educated Canadians know that criminals or those with minds of criminal intent can get guns in all of our major cities from the underground network. Worst of all is the computer list that honest, law-abiding citizens will be placed on when they register their guns. They say those lists will be secure. American and Canadian authorities already admit that security cannot be guaranteed any more. The criminal element in the new computer world and information age breaks our security time and time again. American spokespersons readily admit the computer criminal gets access from supposedly secure documents.
Now our law-abiding citizens are going to have their names placed on these lists. Criminals will be able to access these lists. How safe now will Canadians be in their homes? If they are law-abiding citizens already, their guns will be locked up with the bullets in different places. The criminal will have the advantage both of surprise and of being prepared for a fight. Is this what this government wants, to put good, law-abiding citizens in jeopardy? No, it says. Then why have the national gun registration? Will it make Canadians safer in their homes? No. Will their names being placed on a list for all and sundry to steal from make them safe? No. Is this then another way for this government to raise money, taxes, as it is already deep in debt and going deeper all the time? Possibly.
This is the damage that occurs in our country when senators are placed in positions as vacancies occur, rather than being elected by Canadians, for the Senate can vote against government legislation. It can vote against poor government legislation.
In the case of the GST, which costs us heavily in the administration of it, the Prime Minister of the day invoked section 26 and appointed more senators at his own will and forced the GST on the Canadian people. In this way, the governing party became a majority in the Senate and the hated GST legislation finally passed.
How has the GST helped Canadians? It has forced some businesses into bankruptcy. It has added extra tax burdens on
already heavily taxed citizens. At present, when Canadians get their pay cheques, after taxes they are taxed again. And the promise of the government of the day that part of the GST would go toward reducing the deficit and debt did not happen. What about the growing underground economy, growing because of the enormous tax load placed on Canadians?
Today, because of attrition, the Liberals can stack the Senate and once again we will have the wishes of Canadians put second to the wishes of the Prime Minister and the cabinet. By placing the latest four senators, good strong Liberals, to the Senate we are seeing once again the upper house not accountable to the people. Canadians can do nothing about making senators accountable. Only with an elected Senate is this possible. If the hated gun legislation is forced on Canadians, down the road we will see happen exactly what Canadians warned today's government would happen.
Today's law-abiding citizens will be forced to break the law to protect themselves and their families. Canadians will be more vulnerable in their homes if the criminal element will know where the guns are.
Another costly government bureaucracy will have been created as the present federal government attempts to administer this latest tax burden on Canadians. The present gun registration will have proved no more effective than the existing gun registration, which has been in force for many years. It is past time that we as responsible MPs looked to an elected Senate so unpopular laws are not forced on the Canadian people.
As far as the method of election is concerned, I think we have a lot to learn from our Australian friends. In a recent edition of the Canadian Parliamentary Review , Professor Howard Caddy, in an article about the Australian Senate states that proportional representation ensures that the upper house in Australia does not reflect exactly the representation of the lower house.
He also goes on to say that "as a result of the fact that the political party composition of the Senate is usually different from the House, compromises can be obtained when there is a difference of opinion between the two houses on particular legislation". It can be worked out.
When we look at an equal Senate under the triple E Senate, each province will have the same number of seats. This is the present situation in both Australia and the United States. In such a Senate the less populous provinces would have a majority of the seats just as the more heavily populated provinces do now in the House of Commons.
Regarding equality, at present the Constitution stipulates that there shall be 104 senators, a number that can be changed only by constitutional amendment. Distribution of Senate seats is by region
now in Canada. If we look at Ontario and Quebec, they have 24 each. If we look around the rest of Canada, the west has only 24 between four provinces and the maritimes only 24 between three. The present representation favours central Canada and is unfair.
Do we need 104 senators? No, we do not. Can we lower the numbers? Yes, we can if the will of the Canadian people decides so. Now that senators are no longer elected for life and leave the Senate at 75 years of age, it is opportune to look at the less cost involved in fewer senators and the fact that absenteeism should be a less serious problem than it was in the past. An equal number of seats from each province suggests a fairer representation.
Should the two most populated provinces with the most MPs in the House of Commons also have the most senators in the Senate? No. This policy is unfair for the less populated areas of our vast country.
To be effective the Senate must have adequate power to balance the House of Commons. We do not believe that defeat of a government bill in the Senate should lead to the resignation of the government. However when we are fine tuning the powers of this Chamber we must ensure that the Senate can amend or veto regionally offensive legislation.
In conclusion, the adoption of an elected, equal and effective second chamber in Canada's central Parliament would be of great benefit to our political system. Through equality the interests of small provinces would be protected. With the combination of elected and effective, senators would have the legitimacy to act, to amend or to defeat legislation which did not respect regional differences in the country.
It would also combine the best aspects of the present Senate, its scrutiny of legislation, with the legitimacy to act to defend regional interests.
I realize as with all proposals there is some fine tuning to do. Ways must be found to ensure elected senators do not act to slavishly serve the interests of the political party they represent. They must have the freedom to represent their regions even if the interests of the region do not coincide with the interests of the national political party they represent.
However these are details and we can work them out if we get the fundamentals right, an elected, effective and equal Senate.
André Caron Bloc Jonquière, QC
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the Bloc Quebecois on the motion by my colleague, the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam, which reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, representation in the Senate should be equal from each province, elected by the people, and have sufficient power to make it effective in order to better represent the people of the less populous provinces.
This will be recognized as the proposal for the triple E Senate, that is elected, equal and effective.
Let me state right at the onset that I am going to oppose this motion and I shall close my remarks with what it leads me to conclude about the present Senate.
First, I want to deal with the concept of an elected Senate. To start with, obviously, we know that the Senate is one of the two Houses in this country. A number of countries have two houses, the USA and France, for instance.
What sets the second chamber apart in Canada, as in England, is that it is not elected, in other words the members are appointed. The Senate we have is an elitist Senate, an aristocratic Senate, one that is not accountable. Often its appointees are men or women who have had a long career in politics, or business leaders who backed a given political party, or party organizers who find in the Senate the income and means to allow them to continue to serve their party.
The Senate in its present form is an extremely negative aspect of our democracy. When reference is made to an elected Senate, I think that most people who want to have a Senate, to retain the Senate, would agree that in the current political situation and in response to current views on democracy, the Senate ought to be elected.
Now, for the concept of an equal Senate. From what I have been able to understand, each province would have the same number of senators, like the U.S. Senate. I think some people here either watch too much American television or are at least very much aware of the American philosophy and would like to see in Canada people with the same power as American senators. When we look at American history and the process by which every State large and small, was given the same number of senators, we see that at the time the political philosophy was such that people wanted to create a certain equality between the States by having the same number of senators from each State.
However, that was in the 18th century, and we are in the 20th century. I think that in the 20th century, people do not look kindly on the fact that states or provinces with a population that is relatively low compared with the more densely populated provinces, and I personally and the people of the Bloc as well do not look kindly on the fact that some provinces are given so much power, considering their low population numbers.
If we look at the current system in Canada, each province is represented in the House of Commons, according to a certain ratio
that is used to determine proportional representation. I think that considering the present state of democratic thinking, people are well represented.
There could be some special considerations on the basis of which one part of the country would be better represented than another part, there is the historical aspect, there is the cultural aspect and there are all kinds of considerations, but I do not see why, considering the present state of Canadian culture or Canadian politics, Prince Edward Island would have the same number of senators as Ontario. It would be interesting to see some evidence that this would be better than what we have now.
The concept of an equal Senate takes us back to the Constitution of 1982, in other words, Canada as checker board, a vast country divided into ten parts, with each part being equal to the other. That is what we saw and that is what we see now, to a certain extent under the current amending formula for the Canadian constitution, and I think that if we consider the effectiveness of this mechanism, we may have some reservations about giving certain parts of the country so much power that they could easily obstruct the operations of our institutions.
I am referring to the potential power of entities that may represent as few as 300,000 people out of Canada's total population of 28 or 29 million, so I do not think that today's proposal for an equal Senate is in the interests of Canada and Quebec.
And now, let me deal with the concept of an effective Senate. When the hon. member for the Reform Party introduced her bill, she made a connection between effectiveness and the Senate's power to obstruct, to hold up legislation passed by the House of Commons. I think there is something a little dangerous in all this. It would mean having a Senate that would obstruct the will of the representatives of the people. Two, three or four hundred years ago, the people in the Commons were not always considered to be sufficiently intelligent, knowledgeable or enlightened to debate the real problems, so people were appointed to block their decisions.
Today, however, if we look at countries with only one house, we can see that democracy functions effectively and well there. In Quebec and Ontario there is no longer a second appointed house, and democratic institutions are functioning well. So I do not think we need a second house to block the democratic will of the representatives of the people, as is currently the case.
Reference was made to the gun control bill. It is totally unacceptable, in my opinion, for appointed senators to be able to block legislation passed by a large majority of the representatives of the people. I see it as dangerous for democracy in Canada when people who have not been elected are given the power to prevent the will of the people's representatives from being effectively expressed in the administration of the country.
Therefore, we in the Bloc oppose the motion. The motion is not a votable item, but if it were, we would vote against it, particularly because we have repeatedly called in the House for the abolition of the Senate. We consider the present Senate ineffective. We consider it too costly. According to the budget, the Senate will cost Canada $42 million this year. The services the Senate currently provides have a certain value. However, in comparing their cost with the Senate's potential influence, its effect, if it were operating at maximum capability, I think that, right now, the $42 million spent on the Senate is too much, given the needs and the cuts being made in various areas, where there are desperate needs.
We are calling for its abolition, particularly because we have no hope or expectation of its being reformed. It is impossible. With the Canadian constitution as it currently stands, if we look at sections 38 and 42 of the constitution, we see that Senate approval is required to amend the powers, role, election and appointment of senators in Canada.
So, from what I understand of the way the institution works, I do not think the senators would go so far as to commit hara-kiri. So, I think the only way to abolish the Senate is along the lines of the motion I made in connection with the bill to implement certain elements of the latest budget. It would simply be a matter of cutting off the Senate, of arranging for senators not to be paid anymore, of abolishing the funds needed to operate the Senate so that the Senate dies on its own. With the state of Canada's constitution and the way institutions work, it is beyond reform, it is ineffective, it is not elected, and the powers currently in its hands serve more to hamper the flow of democracy in Canada than to help Canadians live better in this country.
Jim Gouk Reform Kootenay West—Revelstoke, BC
Mr. Speaker, there were some very interesting comments made by the hon. member from the Bloc-
SenatePrivate Members' Business
The Deputy Speaker
Excuse me, colleagues. The Chair has received no indication that anybody on the government side wishes to speak. The Chair has not seen anybody on the government side stand up. However, there is a rotation and we have heard from one member of the Reform Party. Therefore the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.