House of Commons Hansard #166 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was pops.

Topics

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have several petitions to present. The first bears 831 signatures.

The petitioners call on parliament to enact two strike legislation requiring everyone who is convicted for the second time of one or more sexual offences against a minor to be sentenced to life without eligibility for parole or early release whatsoever.

The second group of petitions bears 736 signatures. The petitioners call on parliament to eliminate the right of a convicted pedophile to be let out of jail on bail pending an appeal. This would thereby ensure the protection and safety of the victims and the community of such a convicted offender.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition bearing 25 signatures.

The petitioners say that in the opinion of the House the government should authorize a proclamation to be issued to the governor general under the great seal of Canada amending section 7 of the charter of rights and freedoms to recognize the fundamental rights of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and to recognize the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. The petitioners urge the legislative assemblies to do likewise in the provinces.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Art Hanger Reform Calgary Northeast, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have 53 signatures on the last petition.

These petitioners request that parliament exempt all physical and sexual offenders from the provision of section 742 of the Criminal Code.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I have a petition on behalf of citizens throughout Canada who call on the government to comply with article 11 of the Canadian Human Rights Act and comply with the human rights tribunal decision in the matter of pay equity.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Liberal

Murray Calder Liberal Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of a group of constituents from Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey I would like to present the House of Commons with a petition that requests the government, through the Medical Research Council, increase and adequately fund the remaining years of the Canadian Multicentre osteoporosis study.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Allan Kerpan Reform Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, it is truly an honour to present two petitions on behalf of constituents of Blackstrap, Saskatchewan. They are both very important.

The first petition deals with the repeal of Bill C-68. I have somewhere in the neighbourhood of 70 signatures on this petition.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:10 p.m.

Reform

Allan Kerpan Reform Blackstrap, SK

Mr. Speaker, the second petition deals with amendments to the Young Offenders Act, specifically reducing the age of eligibility from 12 to 10 years.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Reform

Roy H. Bailey Reform Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition from people in the immediate areas of Ottawa, Kanata and Nepean, pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petition contains over 600 signatures. These people are deeply concerned about the topic of pornography.

The petitioners are asking parliament to pursue changes to legislation that would give municipalities some say and a right to prohibit these activities within their communities.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to Introduction of Private Members' Bills.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Does the chief government whip have the unanimous consent of the House to revert to private members' bills.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Private Members' BusinessRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Kilger Liberal Stormont—Dundas, ON

moved:

That the following bills: Bill C-445, in the name of Mr. Kilger (Stormont—Dundas), entitled “An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Stormont—Dundas” and standing in the list of items outside the Order of Precedence;

a bill in the name of Mr. Stoffer (Sackville—Eastern Shore) entitled “An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Sackville—Eastern Shore” and standing on the Order Paper under the heading “Introduction of Private Members' Bills”, (item no. 20);

a bill in the name of Mr. Dumas (Argenteuil—Papineau) entitled “An Act to change the name of the electoral district of Argenteuil—Papineau” and not having appeared on the Notice Paper;

be deemed carried at all stages without debate or amendment.

Private Members' BusinessRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Does the chief government whip have unanimous consent to present the motion?

Private Members' BusinessRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Private Members' BusinessRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

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

Private Members' BusinessRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(Motion agreed to)

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

John Maloney Liberal Erie—Lincoln, ON

Mr. Speaker, I have four petitions to present today.

The first two petitions implore this House and parliament to enact a bill to amend the Marriage Act (Prohibited Degrees) and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.

PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Liberal

John Maloney Liberal Erie—Lincoln, ON

Mr. Speaker, the second pair of petitions from my riding of Erie—Lincoln is from petitioners who implore this government to enact legislation to authorize a proclamation to be issued by the governor general under the great seal of Canada amending section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to recognize the fundamental right of individuals to pursue family life free from undue interference by the state and to recognize the fundamental right and responsibility of parents to direct the upbringing of their children. These petitioners urge the legislative assemblies of the provinces to do likewise.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Ottawa—Vanier Ontario

Liberal

Mauril Bélanger LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Canadian Heritage

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Is that agreed?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

12:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut Court of Justice and to amend other acts in consequence, be read the third time and passed.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

December 4th, 1998 / 12:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to this bill.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-57. I thank my colleague from the New Democratic Party for permitting me to speak before her. I also want to indicate to the Chair that I will be splitting my time with the member for St. John's East.

This bill will amend the Nunavut Act with respect to the Nunavut court of justice. It will also amend other acts as a consequence. It is a very important step in our justice system.

I would commend my colleague from South Shore who has been a strong and vigorous spokesperson, not only on behalf of his riding, but on behalf of the Progressive Conservative Party and all Canadians with respect to his responsibilities as critic for the Indian and northern affairs portfolio.

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

Her participation in Tuesday night's hockey game also showed that she is one of the Liberal Party's smoothest skaters. I look forward to hearing her provide some lessons to her less limber and perhaps less timber happy colleagues, especially the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke.

Before I begin my remarks on Bill C-57 I want to highlight an often overlooked participant in the creation of the Nunavut territory. He was a leader with foresight and vision who pursued an aggressive and activist agenda. He was the Right Hon. Brian Mulroney, who as prime minister set the wheels in motion to establish the Nunavut territory by signing the Nunavut land claims agreement in 1992. The creation of Nunavut is yet one more reason why Mr. Mulroney was named a Companion to the Order of Canada. Furthermore, it was under his government, as well as that of the Right Hon. Joe Clark as constitutional affairs minister, that aboriginal people became full participants at formal constitutional negotiations for the first time in Canadian history.

It was refreshing to hear the Minister of Finance say a few weeks ago that it was because of the PC government's economic plan that the budget is now balanced. It cannot be stressed enough that it was the previous Progressive Conservative government which gave aboriginal peoples a voice at the constitutional table, a voice through a royal commission, a voice through the Corrections and Conditional Release Act and a voice for our Inuit people now through the signing of the Nunavut land claims agreement.

Today we are debating another piece of legislation that was introduced by a government with a proud legacy, that is, the government of the Progressive Conservative Party. Although our party's ambitious policies were unpopular at the time, history has shown that it was by and large the Progressive Conservative Party that brought forward these initiatives for the betterment of Canada.

Bill C-57 deals with the best way of providing a court system for Nunavut, which is a new and expansive territory. There have been those who object to granting the people of Nunavut a single court system. They may object, on the basis of jurisdictional concerns, that this bill would create an intrusive precedent. They may object on the basis that this bill might somehow violate the equality provisions of the charter of rights and freedoms and create constitutional problems. I believe this piece of legislation addresses those problems in a fair and practical way.

As the justice critic for our party, I do not share the objections that have been raised by some opposition members. Bill C-57 appears to recognize the unique circumstances in which the people of Nunavut live. First and foremost in this unique environment is that the Inuit people will form a strong majority of the Nunavut population; 17,000 of the 22,000 residents or 77%. Nunavut's territory also represents approximately one-fifth of the overall size of Canada, yet its population is only 22,000, less than one-quarter of 1% of the entire population.

In that context, let us compare Nunavut's size and population with other jurisdictions. Nunavut's 1.9 million square kilometres fall just under the figure for Greenland. Nunavut is five times the size of Germany, four times the size of Sweden and one-fifth the size of China. With those expansive territorial boundaries we must factor in population distribution. Nunavut only has one-hundredth of one person for every square kilometre of its physical territory. Canada, as a whole, has nearly three people living per square kilometre. Ontario has 11 people per square kilometre.

Nunavut's main human and territorial characteristics are not only unique to Canada, they are unique to the entire world. For example, Nunavut has only 20 kilometres of highways.

Moreover, there is disparity between communities. The largest community is its future capital, Iqaluit. More than 3,000 people call Iqaluit home.

The community is located approximately 2,000 kilometres from Ottawa and the average temperatures range from -30° Celsius in January to 15° Celsius in July. Iqaluit residents experience 24 hours of daylight in June, while they find no more than six hours of daylight in the month of December.

Grise Fiord is Nunavut's most northern community. In fact, I believe it is one of Canada's most northern communities and it is a community I had the pleasure to visit some time ago. It is a full 2,700 kilometres from the capital. The population is only about 130 people, who experience an average temperature of -35° Celsius in January. These hearty souls also live in 24 hours of daylight in June and around the clock darkness in December.

I experienced a number of challenges practising law in rural Nova Scotia. At that time I always found it a pleasure to work with the law enforcement community and those who administer our criminal justice system. By and large, I found that many of those individuals work long, hard hours and go above and beyond the call of duty, like police officer George Mageney in the community of Stellarton, in my riding of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, who I have a great deal of time and respect for.

It is nevertheless difficult for me, drawing upon my own experience, to perceive how court proceedings as they relate to criminal, civil or family law, would occur effectively and efficiently in such a large jurisdiction as this new territory. With such a small population and with such diverse communities, this will truly pose an incredible challenge to the people of this new territory of Nunavut.

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

It amends the Judges Act to provide for three superior court judges on the Nunavut Court of Justice and also to provide for full membership in the Canadian Judicial Council for senior judges in each of the territories.

It amends, most consequently, the Criminal Code to provide for new structures and procedures for the Nunavut Court of Justice in the following areas: jurisdiction of judges; summary conviction appeals; a new statutory form of release; judicial interim release; and elections as to a mode of trial.

All of those technical changes that occur within our Criminal Code are encompassed in Bill C-57.

It also amends the Young Offenders Act to ensure adequate structures and procedures for a single level of trial court, consistent with the new structures and procedures in the Criminal Code.

I believe the drafters of this legislation should be credited because it does mesh nicely with the existing provisions of the code.

I therefore welcome Bill C-57 as a positive measure that recognizes the unique characteristics and conditions of the people and the territory of Nunavut. However, I have a number of concerns which were not completely addressed at the justice committee by the minister and her officials.

The first concern deals with the greater use of justices of the peace. The Department of Justice believes that with appropriate training there is potential for greater use of justices of the peace to conduct preliminary inquiries and in some cases summary conviction trials. I endorse this concept. My concerns mainly arise out of the training and the funding for such training that will ensure that those who appear before these justices of the peace will receive adequate treatment under the law, the same treatment that they would receive from a properly ordained justice, if I can use that term.

I share the belief of many that the greater use of justices of the peace would not only benefit this single justice system in Nunavut, but also some of the courts, as our friends in Nunavut would say, in southern Canada, that is, the rest of Canada.

If the role of justices of the peace is to expand, training must be assured. Unfortunately, responsibility for this training falls solely under the responsibility of the Nunavut territorial government. So the federal government is once again, in some instances, able to wash its hands clean and download to a territory or a province. It is therefore problematic for the federal government, through Bill C-57, to open the door for increased responsibilities for justices of the peace without assuring that they will in fact be able to fund this new initiative.

We need only look at the federal government's downloading of the funding of the young offender programs in the rest of Canada to fear that similar problems could arise in Nunavut.

We need to ensure that Bill C-57 accurately reflects both the needs of Nunavut and the obligation of the Government of Canada to protect the due course of justice.

I join my colleagues in the Progressive Conservative caucus to support the bill as it is very positive in content. Let us continue to build upon the legacy of Inuit self-government left by the Progressive Conservative government.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

12:30 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Norman E. Doyle Progressive Conservative St. John's East, NL

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to say a few words on Bill C-57, an act to amend the Nunavut Act. The bill is important not only for what the legislation entails but also for what it represents. The bill provides for a single tier court system in the new territory of Nunavut.

The creation of this territory on April 1, 1999 will be a very historic occasion. The legislation will help to ensure that when that day comes everything will be ready to begin operations and allow for a very smooth transition for this new territory.

The Northwest Territories and the rest of Canada will be watching with interest when Nunavut becomes a territory. With the unique justice system the legislation will put in place there will be even greater reason to monitor the situation closely.

The single court system has been discussed on many different occasions but has never been implemented by another province or territory. It will be interesting to see how well it meets the needs of the Inuit people. Currently all provinces and territories operate on the two court system.

I will provide some historical background and information on the demographics and size of Nunavut. The creation of a separate Nunavut territory has been discussed for many years, beginning in 1976 with a request by the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada to have a boundary drawn between the eastern and western sections of the Northwest Territories. It was not until a land claim settlement was signed in 1993 under the Conservative government of the day that the new territory was realized. The creation of Nunavut was included as a provision of that agreement.

As the member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough said, the agreement gives the Inuit control of about 350,000 square kilometres within the more than two million square kilometres that will become Nunavut. The Inuit will make up approximately 80% of the population of the new territory which will be approximately one-fifth of Canada's land mass. However it will only have a population of 22,000. That sparse population base makes the one court system preferable in the eastern arctic.

Less time will be spent travelling to remote communities with only one court level. A judge will be able to rule on cases relating to criminal, civil or family matters while in the community, negating the need for a number of judges to make similar trips. That should reduce costs and eliminate administrative details such as the scheduling of numerous court appearances. In time the judges should become more familiar with the different communities, which may assist them in their duties.

The one court system was chosen for the eastern arctic at the request of the Inuit. The Inuit have their own views of what a justice system should provide. It is hoped that a one tier system will better meet their requirements. We shall have to wait to see if that is the case.

The creation of Nunavut on April 1, 1999 has special significance for me. It will be the first new territory or province created since Newfoundland joined Confederation in 1949. Obviously that will be a very historic day for Canada. I am pleased to support a bill that will help to ensure the transition occurs smoothly and put in place a system which will be adequate to address the needs of the Inuit and non-Inuit residents of the eastern arctic.

I had the opportunity in the last session of parliament to speak to a bill which also amended the Nunavut Act. I am pleased to speak again to another amendment to the act. I will be watching closely with my colleagues when Nunavut becomes the newest territory in Canada in April 1999.

Nunavut ActGovernment Orders

12:35 p.m.

NDP

Bev Desjarlais NDP Churchill, MB

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on behalf of the New Democratic Party to Bill C-57.

The people of Nunavut have a unique culture and deserve to have a court system which reflects their culture and geographic realities. The NDP has been consistent in its support for self-government and that is why at second reading our aboriginal affairs spokesperson indicated our principled support for the bill.

However I have very serious concerns about the bill. If the court system created by the bill is implemented, it will have devastating consequences for the Manitoba Dene whose traditional territory straddles the Manitoba-Nunavut border. The Manitoba Dene are my constituents. Although I too support self-government for Nunavut, I cannot support or endorse a bill which runs counter to their well-being.

The Manitoba Dene are those bands in the Dene nation whose reserve lands fall within Manitoba. There are two such bands, the Northlands First Nation who signed a treaty with Canada in 1907 and the Sayisi Dene First Nation who signed a treaty in 1910.

These treaties guaranteed members of the nations the inalienable right to hunt, fish, trap and select reserve lands anywhere in their traditional territories. Fifty-seven per cent of their traditional territory lies north of the 66th parallel that divides Manitoba and Nunavut. This area represents less than 5% of the territory of Nunavut.

Ever since these first nations signed their treaties they have continued to hunt, fish and trap in their traditional territories north of 60. When the federal government negotiated the Nunavut agreement with the Inuit of Nunavut, the Manitoba Dene asked to be included in these negotiations but were inexplicably and unjustly excluded. There was no justification for this exclusion.

The government was negotiating the transfer of lands to which the Manitoba Dene have a right according to treaty. In a feeble attempt to justify what it had done the federal government claimed out of the blue that the Manitoba Dene had no rights north of 60.

This claim would almost be laughable if it did not have such serious consequences for the Manitoba Dene. No one who knows anything about the Manitoba Dene believes this ridiculous claim in light of the mountains of evidence to the contrary. Archeologists have proven that bands have occupied lands of north of 60 for 2,600 years. These bands have no less than 25 burial sites north of 60. They have occupied lands north and south of the 60th parallel for as long as there have been historical records about them.

For most of the past two and a half centuries they have been a nomadic society. The staple of their diet was the caribou and they travelled across vast distances following the great northern caribou herds. This is why their traditional lands do not match up with the nice straight lines we see on maps. Caribou do not care about the lines on maps. By the terms of the treaties the Manitoba Dene signed in the first decade of this century they have an undeniable claim north of 60.

The Government of the Northwest Territories acknowledges the ridiculousness of the federal government's position with an administrative measure called the border A licence area. Within this area, which very closely coincides with the traditional territory of the Manitoba Dene, Manitoba Dene are not required to have a licence to carry out their traditional practices.

This policy directly contradicts the federal government's claim but acknowledges the reality of the situation. To this day the Dene of Manitoba still hunt, fish and trap north of 60. In these communities where most food has to be flown from the south, making it very expensive, most people still rely on hunting and fishing to feed their families.

Despite the evidence arrayed against their position, the Government of Canada clings irrationally to its claim that the Manitoba Dene have no rights north of 60. Even when in 1993 the standing committee on aboriginal affairs unanimously called on the government to recognize the rights of the Manitoba Dene within Nunavut, the government refused. At that time the Progressive Conservative Indian affairs minister said that the Manitoba Dene claim north of 60 would have to be resolved in the courts.

In response to this challenge, the Manitoba Dene filed a claim with the Federal Court of Canada asking the court to enforce their treaty rights. This case remains before the court today. While the Dene of Manitoba case has dragged on, the Liberal government has forged blindly ahead with the implementation of the Nunavut Act.

The bill before us today is to establish a Nunavut court of justice to reflect the unique cultural and geographic realities of Nunavut. I say again that my party and I support the Inuit right to self-government and we support the creation of a separate court system for the territory.

The Northern Manitoba Tribal Council, of which the Manitoba Dene are members, the Manitoba Keewatinowi Okimakanak, also officially support the Inuit of Nunavut. However, they know as I do that it is not fair and it is not right to settle one land claim at the expense of another.

When Nunavut comes into being a few months from now, the Nunavut wildlife management board will have jurisdiction over hunting, fishing and trapping in the traditional territory of the Manitoba Dene. Nunavut leaders have refused to recognize the treaty rights of the Manitoba Dene until there is a ruling from the court. In the meantime, since the rights of the Dene are not recognized, they will be subject to the rules and regulations of the Nunavut wildlife management board.

The Nunavut court of justice created by the bill will have the power and responsibility to enforce the regulations of the board. I cannot in good conscience support the creation of a legal authority that will prevent the Manitoba Dene from hunting, fishing and trapping in their traditional lands. I therefore submitted an amendment to the bill which would have granted a stay of prosecution of the Manitoba Dene people charged with these kinds of offences in their traditional lands.

I want to take a moment to read that amendment:

Any proceedings before the Nunavut Court of Justice that involve the Denesuline of Manitoba claiming as a defence any matter set out in the claim presently being advanced for and on behalf of the Sayisi Dene First Nations and the Northlands First Nation in the Federal Court of Canada (Trial Division) in a Statement of Claim dated March 9, 1993, as amended, initiating suit T-703-93 against the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Attorney General of Canada (among other defendants) shall be stayed pending the final decision of the Federal Court of Canada with respect to the matter of, if the matter is appealed or referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, the final decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.

When the Table ruled this amendment out of order because it went beyond the scope of the bill, I was extremely disappointed and frustrated. This one amendment could have protected the treaty rights of the Manitoba Dene until the courts affirmed them.

How typical of the disrespect and contempt with which the Canadian government has treated these people. In a bill dealing with the Nunavut court of justice and its jurisdiction to try different crimes in the territory of Nunavut, an amendment to temporarily modify its jurisdiction seems entirely within its scope to me, especially in light of the number of omnibus bills we have seen pushed through the House in the last two months. What hypocrisy on the part of the Liberal government. Without tainting or delaying the process that the people of Nunavut deserve, the Manitoba Dene, MKO and I have done what we can to try to amend the bill within the methods available to us.

Now that we are at third reading all I can do is say I am opposed to the bill. I will continue to do everything I can to ensure that the rights of the Manitoba Dene are respected. The Manitoba Dene deserve justice. If their treaty rights are respected there is no reason why the Inuit and the Dene cannot find some sort of mutually acceptable accommodation in the context of Nunavut.

I emphasize again that the area in question is less than 5% of Nunavut. Rather than promote such a resolution, successive Liberal and Conservative governments have denied Manitoba Dene treaty rights and have acted as roadblocks to their justice.