Debates of April 20th, 1998

Nunavut Act

[Jake Hoeppner, Reform, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, that was really an enjoyable little speech. I can hear that the hon. member did listen to the speech or read it because at least he got some good meat out of it.

What really astounds me is that for 30 years we have had successive Liberal and Conservative governments fill that other place. Every time they change governments they change the positions in there. Why have we $600 billion of debt in this country if they have been doing such a terrific job? They are supposed to be the house of second thought to guide this House along if we do not know the proper procedures or the financial situation of the country.

For 30 years I sat on my tractor and my combine and have heard that things are improving in this country. Where have they improved? We are number 12 as far as income per capita is concerned, the worst of the industrialized nations. I think it is time that someone in this House stood up for two hours and really put the facts before this House. That is why we have the problems, because the house of second thought or sober thought never realized there was no thought in this House. It did not know how to run this country.

We have $600 billion of debt piled on the future of our children and grandchildren. The leader of the official opposition is not supposed to say what is wrong with this place. They cannot listen to him. I think it is high time we started to take the bull by the horns and then take him by the tail, swing him and throw him out. That is what is going to happen.

From one member we came to 52 members. We are now 60 members and the next time there will be 152 Reform members on that side. Then let us see if they are going to listen to what this leader is going to say about the Senate. They will not be getting reappointed, I can tell them that. They will get elected because people will have the right to do that.

Not only that but farmers will not be thrown in jail anymore for selling their own grain when they can get a better price. That is the way we will have this country run. We will have a democracy out here. We will not have a dictatorship. When I see this House and this country compared to the democracy of Cuba I get real upset.

I think we have the right in this House to say what is wrong with this place and to try to improve it. That is why we are here. That is why we will say it time and time again whether it takes an hour or two hours, so I hope the hon. gentleman can give me an answer. Why do we have these problems in this country when it has been Conservatives and Liberals continuously running this country and putting us into this mess?

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to respond to some of this. I am a little bewildered by what the hon. member is seeking to get.

I am not questioning the honesty of the hon. member. I am sure he is honest and I am sure upon reflection he thinks most people in this place are, hopefully all of them, as well. I question his judgment but I do not question his honesty at this point. I am sure he is an honest person even if occasionally he makes these remarks by accusing others of being dishonest. I am sure there is honesty in him notwithstanding those inappropriate remarks.

Getting back to the subject he raised, before he puts his other foot in his mouth, I will try to answer the questions that he has put forward. First of all, what we are debating today is a bill to create a new territory, to allow that territory to exist, to be represented in both houses of this great country. That is what it is about.

When the hon. member talks about the so-called mess that he sees, when he talks about all these things that he sees being wrong with this country, I want to advance the following proposition to him. Yes, this House is to hold governments accountable. Yes, this House is to make the place better. This House is not to destroy this House or the other house in the process. That is wrong and I will keep saying it when it occurs.

This happens to be, notwithstanding the member's comments, the greatest country in the world. It has not been destroyed. It is still the best. It is going to get better with or without the agreement of the hon. member across. Canadians generally want this country to be better. That is what is going to happen. That is why it will get better.

The hon. member in his remarks said that this country is not democratic enough and that is why he is making his comments. It is his leader who invoked the words of a dictator in his speech. Is there not something wrong with that reasoning? Is there not at least something that is potentially defective with that way of looking at it?

This country is working and it is working well. Yes, we want our parliamentary institutions to modernize. We want the federation to improve. That is exactly what this bill is doing. It is creating a new territory to make the federation better. That is one of the reasons why we are debating this bill.

Having now answered the hon. member, I restate to the people of Nunavut our best wishes and hopefully the best wishes of everyone in this House for this bill to proceed after some debate to the committee, return to this House, eventually pass the other place and receive royal assent in good and proper time so that the people can continue to build the building blocks of this great country and make it one step better by the creation of Nunavut. That is my wish to the good people of Nunavut. I look forward to that great day, April 1 next year, when all this finally comes together. Hopefully at that point we will all be together, all partisan considerations aside, to rejoice with the people of Nunavut.

[Dick Harris, Reform, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Madam Speaker, the hon. House leader across the way is really missing the point we have been making today.

The point was that we in the Reform Party believe that the best thing we could do under this new government formation of Nunavut would be to give it a real democratic tool to work with. It will have the right to elect its member of Parliament. Give it the right to elect its senator. Do not impose the mistakes that the Liberals and the Tories have made for decades. Do not impose that mistake on this new government. Give it a chance. Give the people of this new government a chance to have a true and pure democratic process. That is what we are asking for.

The problem is that this government is so steeped in tradition and bad habits in this patronage system that it cannot see past all these things that have been so destructive to democracy in this country.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Madam Speaker, the Senate as presently constituted in terms of the system of appointment was obviously not invented by anyone presently sitting in this House. It was there long before we came along. There have been changes from time to time to the system. The age requirement has been altered. The distribution between provinces has been altered. There have been changes made to that process.

[An hon. member]

You missed the most important one.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

The hon. member says I have missed something important, presumably referring to the election of senators. I campaigned for the election of senators. I campaigned for the Charlottetown accord at the same time that the Reform MPs, some of whom are sitting in this House, actively campaigned against it. There is a bit of duplicity in some of the comments we are hearing today.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

Madam Speaker, I am very honoured to speak on behalf of our caucus on Bill C-39. The Nunavut Act has made a major change in the perception of our country. The design of the northern territories—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Rick Laliberte, NDP, Churchill River, SK]

I may be missing part of the dialogue that is taking place in the House.

This legislation introduces the preliminary requirements for the preparations leading up to 1999. It is very much needed. I can understand the reason for these acts, bills and the points which are being raised.

I am honoured to speak on this bill which plays a part in the history of the development of our country.

The hon. member from the official opposition stated that the design of this House is like a vessel. I still view it that way. This is a vessel that was created by the British North America Act which colonized this region of North America. In attaining our sovereignty and in living with and learning from the aboriginal people we have not redesigned or re-envisioned our country in our symbolisms to adopt the original people of this land.

Members will see that the Northwest Territories has been governing itself with a legislature designed not according to party structure but one which is designed to govern by consensus. I will be intrigued to see what symbolism and designs will be adopted in the Nunavut legislature.

People have been bantering about the issue of the Senate today. They should take the time to listen to the aboriginal peoples' view of governance in this country. If they want to be radical there are issues which we could debate, but this is not the time. Debating the Senate has no place in this act. Let Nunavut prepare itself with as much time as it has. It has less than 12 months to prepare itself to govern a gigantic region. Nunavut's communities and peoples have diverse needs. Give Nunavut the time to prepare. Let it take on the Senate debate with the rest of Canada when it is prepared. Now is not the time. We wasted many hours of debate today, hours that could have been fruitful. Dialogue could have taken place for the people of Nunavut. Congratulations could have been extended to the new Northwest Territories in governing itself and its regions.

I raise the example of governance by consensus. Today the Leader of the Opposition asked why not adopt an American style of representation. Look at the history of American governance. The Iroquois confederacy is here in our neighbourhoods. The democratic system was designed from that. Those concepts and perceptions were adopted. That is what Canada has to do today. If we are going to debate we have to open up these walls. This vessel has to be re-envisioned. The legislative structures of our provinces should also be re-envisioned.

The design of this House involves us arguing against the other side, arguing with fellow Canadians about the future of our country and our children. We should be supporting each other for the benefit of our future and our children. We should find better means and better ways. We could create a circle.

I envision the Library of Parliament. The parliamentary library is a round building. That building survived a fire. It persevered a test. It is a symbol of the strength of this country. It was the only circular building of the parliament buildings and it survived the fire. Why could we not use that as a symbol of the unity of this country? If there were times of war when we had to make a decision to send our young men and women to war, why could we not decide in the round room in a symbol of unity?

Even the symbol of our flags and governance structure could be decided that way. I do not think a partisan setting is the right place.

I think those symbols will be adopted by the new territories that are being created in the north. Nunavut will certainly search their aboriginal ancestry, the symbolism of their peoples of the past and their history of governance.

Referring to aboriginal people as being uncivilized is untrue. Look at the future of our sustainable development and figure out who was uncivilized. The industrial age is poisoning and polluting our world. Find out where the future of our country and our world is going. Question who really was uncivilized. Give credence to the aboriginal people of this country and empower them to share their views and adopt this form of governance on this land for their future and for the future of everyone.

I congratulate the people of Nunavut for creating the dialogue, for lobbying the powers that be to recognize their need in a self-government public style model of governance. In future years we will see them debating national issues. They will have seats recognizing their territories in this place and in the other place. They will truly share their view and their dialogue which is rightfully theirs.

One of our ancestors, a great leader of the Metis people, Louis Riel, envisioned the future as being part of this great country by building on and allowing the people of those regions that were joining this country to be given the same privileges, rights and opportunities to reflect their views and their ways of life in the laws and in the Constitution of this country. You cannot stifle those people.

It came to pass in 1998. The issue of Louis Riel returned along with the struggle which he and the Metis people had for recognition in this country. They never did anything wrong. They wanted to represent themselves the same way the Nunavut people want to. It is the same way with the people of Alberta, British Columbia, Saskatchewan and other regions of this country. The people of Quebec want to represent and reflect the needs of their people and their future. That is a right we have in the democratic structure of this country.

For us to debate other issues aside from Nunavut is wasting their time. They need time to prepare. Let us pass this bill as fast as we can and allow the other place to give it sober second thought. Hopefully, in passing this legislation Nunavut can prepare itself.

[Derrek Konrad, Reform, Prince Albert, SK]

Madam Speaker, I would first like to thank you for the opportunity to speak to something as important as the creation of this new territory of Nunavut. I would also like to take the opportunity to congratulate the people themselves on this auspicious day when we are debating the bill to create the Nunavut territory.

Now that the time of official establishment of the territory is getting close it is reassuring to see that the government is making sure, through the first part of this bill and its many amendments to the original Nunavut Act, that the territory is going to be a little more effective.

I would like to state my support for the amendment moved by the Leader of the Official Opposition, which was seconded by my colleague, the hon. member for Skeena, who is the critic for Indian affairs and northern development.

I would urge hon. members of the opposition parties as well as all democratically minded members of the government to support Reform's amendment. This amendment only makes sense. The people of Nunavut should be consulted on how their senator is selected, the same as they have had a chance to voice their opinion on the many other political procedures that will govern them.

I would like to add that this amendment makes all the more sense when we take into consideration the fact that the people of Nunavut are taking a whole new approach to government in the territory. Their new ideas on government have been encouraged and are being put into practice in this bill.

The people of Nunavut are adopting a system in which the legislature will have no political parties. Members will be elected without party platforms. This form of government, while not generally adopted by Canadians as a whole, recognizes the unique character of this piece of Canada. Implementing non-party government recognizes and accedes to a desire for a different form of government, one to replace the status quo.

We are calling on the government at this time to take the logical next step, to give the people of Nunavut the right to select their representative and to send him or her to Ottawa as their own representative for their region in that place which was supposedly established for the protection of the regions.

The Prime Minister now makes all Senate appointments. He recommends the governor general. He names all nine supreme court justices and the heads and members of all federal boards, panels, commissions and agencies. It is not too much to expect that Canada in general and Nunavut in particular be spared one more Liberal crony in the upper chamber.

In light of this, I ask whether it makes any sense at all that the people of Nunavut who have a refreshing approach to everything else and who get to do everything else differently should have their senator be some Liberal hack appointed by the Prime Minister. The answer is no. It just does not make any sense at all. The two just do not go together.

The people of Nunavut have offered interesting new ideas and approaches to government. Those ideas and approaches are based on their cultural background.

The government, with this bill, has the chance to do the same. Will the government take this opportunity to offer those fresh new ideas for once and implement them?

I would like to remind members that earlier today the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development said in her speech “We have to ensure that the voice and representation of the people of the Northwest Territories and the western Arctic and eastern Arctic is heard in the Senate”.

We could not agree more. We want to ensure that the people of Nunavut have representation in the Senate and not the other way around. What we do not want to see is some Liberal Party hack appointed to the Senate to represent the people of Nunavut, rubber stamping Liberal policies when he bothers to come to Ottawa at all.

We call on this House to support the amendment of the official opposition so that the people of Nunavut have a say in how their senator is elected.

We look forward to the passage of the Reform amendment, the ensuing election and the welcoming of the Nunavut senator to Parliament upon his or her appointment.

If the amendment is defeated it will be with a lot less enthusiasm that the official opposition will support the bill.

Given all the positive reasons for holding a Senate election put forward by the Leader of the Official Opposition and supported by our members, it should pass—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I must interrupt the hon. member as it is 6.30 p.m. You will have approximately 15 minutes left at the resumption of debate on this bill if you so wish.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Madam Speaker, the day before international human rights day I challenged the Minister of Foreign Affairs about the Liberal government's silencing of a First Nations chief and the attempts to silence Canadians concerned about human rights abuses.

Chief Gail Sparrow of the Musqueam First Nation was to give a speech to address APEC representatives on November 25. The government then told Chief Sparrow her speech was to be shortened by one minute. The government then cancelled Chief Sparrow's presentation altogether. Why? Because Chief Sparrow had the gall to give casual mention to human rights in her speech. Her first draft to the representatives included the phrase “I encourage you to ensure there is respect for the dignity of all people”.

The Prime Minister's office chose to silence this First Nations leader in order to ensure that APEC leaders like General Suharto of Indonesia would not be reminded of their systemic human rights abuses. Shame.

Or was this a slap in the face for the Musqueam people for daring to suggest to the Department of National Defence that the government should not pave over part of Deadman's Island to build a helicopter pad for APEC visitors without first properly investigating what impact this might have on Musqueam grave sites and heritage?

Regardless, the government did everything to silence the Musqueam people and others who dared to raise human rights issues while at the same time bending over backward for the political comfort of those like Suharto who are responsible for the death, torture and abuse of citizens of their own countries.

The government had the opportunity to refuse to invite Mr. Suharto to Canada by using section 19 of Canadian immigration law to have Suharto declared a war criminal and unfit for entry into Canada. When I questioned the minister of immigration about Suharto being allowed to enter Canada, she indicated that he had not been convicted of any crime. When I asked her who would convict him, she had no answer.

Far from keeping known human rights abusers like Suharto out the government instead chose to deploy many large canisters of tear gas indiscriminately over peaceful protesters. Even worse, Canadian officials met with Suharto in Indonesia to assure him his security provisions would be met.

Signs posted by UBC student Craig Jones calling for free speech, democracy and human rights were torn down by RCMP officials, even though the signs were outside the so-called security zone. Why did the government go so far out of its way to silence Canadians concerned about human rights and those who were raising these concerns by peaceful and democratic means?

Why did the government not use its power to prevent a known human rights abuser like Suharto from entering Canada? Why did the government go out of its way to assuage General Suharto's concerns about security while in Canada?

As things now stand, history will remember Suharto as a bloody, ruthless and evil man. I am ashamed that the Liberal government went out of its way to assuage and to welcome this man, even to the point of silencing Canadians like Chief Sparrow and Craig Jones.

The government will likely respond with generalities about protecting heads of state, about how Chief Sparrow could have met one on one with APEC leaders, about investigations into RCMP activities. Not good enough. The responsibility lies with the Prime Minister's office and with this government. The issue of silencing a First Nations chief is not an issue for the public complaints commission but for the Prime Minister's office.

I ask, is the government's first priority in respecting the rights of our own citizens or is it in paving the way for known international human rights abusers to be comfortable in Canada? Is the government's priority in silencing Canadians like Chief Sparrow and Craig Jones in order to offer a platform for known human rights abusers like General Suharto?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Madam Speaker, the hon. member is all at sea, or as somebody said, all in the grass, in his statement because it has a number of purported statements of fact that just are not so.

Far from being an insult to the Musqueam people or to Chief Sparrow, the government went out of its way with the APEC conference to recognize the role of our native peoples.

The single event of the APEC conference that was held outside the downtown Vancouver area was the episode at the Museum of Anthropology in the University of British Columbia, the heart of my constituency. The significance of it is simply that it is on territory historically with which the Musqueam people are associated and in functions there they take a major part.

In fact Chief Sparrow was given the unprecedented opportunity of greeting every one of the APEC leaders who arrived with our Prime Minister. She was the only person other than the Prime Minister to be allowed to do so.

The only issue on the speeches was simply the time factor. All those who were to speak were given strict time limits. It was found that times were in excess and this is how the program was changed. However, there is no particular issue that Chief Sparrow met the heads of the APEC countries and that her ideas and influence were certainly present.

The leaders' declaration issued after the APEC conference contains language that reflects the links between economic development, the well-being of people, including workers, and of course the role of native peoples. In fact this is a theme dear to the present government. If one consults the most recent declaration of the Americas conference which just concluded in Santiago, one will find a similar expression inserted at Canada's insistence on the role of native peoples in our culture.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Madam Speaker, on March 17 I asked why the government would not agree to full parliamentary hearings on the multilateral agreement on investment and the negotiations surrounding the MAI when the very ability of our governments to make sovereign laws about the economic future of our country was at stake.

In particular I asked whether the Liberal government would agree to the recommendations of the Saskatchewan government that there be a full impact analysis of the MAI, a full parliamentary debate and a vote. All we are asking for is that Parliament be allowed a say on the matter while we can still make a difference. Why? Because the scope of the MAI goes well beyond legislation that MPs will ever see in Parliament. The MAI limits the future ability of the federal, provincial and municipal governments in this country to make laws in the public interest of Canadians.

The Saskatchewan NDP minister responsible for trade agreements, Bernie Wiens, wrote to the Minister of International Trade in February “Virtually every aspect of provincial jurisdiction over local economic and social management will be directly affected by an MAI. No such agreement should apply to Saskatchewan without its explicit consent”.

Signing the MAI would mean that foreign corporations and investors must be treated the same as Canadian corporations, but when foreign corporations think they have been hard done by they could sue the Government of Canada or other jurisdictions or go to arbitration. Canadian corporations would not be extended the same right.

Foreign investors and corporations would be protected from any future laws that tried to protect or create jobs or laws to strengthen Canadian environmental standards or compliance with Canadian research and development objectives. If forced to comply, they could be compensated by Canadians. It is ironic that the Liberals will bend over backward to compensate foreign companies but not the sick and innocent victims now afflicted with hepatitis C.

Members of the Reform Party cannot wait for the MAI. Showing their true colours as nothing more than shillers for big foreign business, Reform's main criticism of the Liberals is that they are negotiating in secret rather than spending huge amounts of taxpayer dollars to tell everyone how great the MAI will be for big foreign corporations.

The Reform member for North Vancouver slipped and gave away the real reason they love the MAI. It would protect and accelerate moves toward private health care. That is what Reform wants to see in Canada, private, for profit health care, a two tier health care system, one for the rich and one for the rest of Canadians. The MAI would deliver a two tier health care system.

The campaign being led by the Council of Canadians and by the NDP in Parliament for public debate on this issue is finally starting to click with people. Toronto Star columnist Rosemary Spiers said last Thursday:

—the Council of Canadians and the NDP['s]—successful campaign against the MAI—has forced the Liberals into retreat—

Canada will not sign the MAI this month, we are told, in Paris. It may later, but this delay shows that public pressure can sometimes make a difference. It is a lesson the government better have learned for the next time because there are more national negotiations coming down the pipe. One example is the financial services agreement which is almost finalized without even coming before the House of Commons. This would provide for example, a 100% foreign ownership of Canadian banks.

The Government of Saskatchewan has outlined reasonable fair guidelines for good international trade agreements: the protection of health care; labour and environmental standards, among others, which I and the NDP support.

I would call on the Liberal government to express support for these principles as well as for public hearings and a vote on the MAI before proceeding any further on our children's future.

[Julian Reed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Trade]

Madam Speaker, I am always amazed that the NDP of all groups would be so opposed to advancing the state of our nation forward.

I would really like to ask my hon. friend, and I realize he cannot answer it in this debate, what his information base is for the kinds of bizarre statements that have been made over the last year. And they are bizarre. They are being taken from a draft. They are not being taken from the text of any agreement. They are being taken from a draft.

My hon. friend has had more experience in Parliament than I have had. He should know very well that when a number of nations get together, a draft is a compilation of a wish list of all of those nations.

What has been ignored all through these months is the fact that a set of reservations has been put in place for Canada, a very large list of reservations I might add. The minister has made it very clear that many of those reservations are make or break deals.

When the hon. member comes along and plays Chicken Little, as the NDP has been doing for months now, the sky is falling and disaster is upon us, I would ask him to remember one thing. Canada now has 54 investment agreements which are bilateral. We have one trilateral agreement. Since the 1950s when the first one was signed, no company has dictated policy in Canada. No health care has been put in jeopardy. No education has been put in jeopardy. Our treatment of native peoples has not been threatened in any way.

I ask the hon. member to consider the fact that history does not bear him out. History shows that Canada works better with rules than it does without rules. We intend—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie.

[Carmen Provenzano, Liberal, Sault Ste. Marie, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise further to my question to the Minister of Justice concerning the relatively new phenomenon of violent group crime by teenagers and young adults of both sexes.

Violent group crime by teenagers and young adults of both sexes is by all accounts a growing problem in Canada. This disturbing new phenomenon has revealed itself in communities across the country including my hometown of Sault Ste. Marie.

In fact as I stand here today a young man from my riding is undergoing intense physical therapy in a Sudbury hospital after apparently falling victim to a brutal hatchet beating by a group of attackers composed of teenagers and young adults. Two of those alleged attackers are young offenders. One of them who at 17 only narrowly qualifies as a young offender is attempting to have his case transferred from adult court to youth court. One of the questions being asked right now in Sault Ste. Marie is why should a 17-year old charged in such a savage crime even have the option of applying for trial in a youth court.

In my opinion and that of a great number of Saultites and Canadians, such accommodations to persons charged with such violent crimes are an insult to the victims. They are inappropriate and in effect amount to a further attack upon them and their families. In fact, they are an insult to the very notion of basic criminal justice.

To illustrate how strongly my constituents feel about this matter, I refer to a petition I recently collected in my riding. This petition called upon Parliament to commission a Canada-wide study of violent group crime by young people and to invoke tough punitive measures to combat such criminal activity.

Five thousand Saultites signed this petition over a three week period. In doing so they voiced their concerns about youth crime and asked the government to address this growing problem before it becomes epidemic. These people clearly recognize, as I do, that we know very little about the phenomenon of youth group crime, that we need to examine what dark antisocial impulses motivate and compel some young people to act in concert and to commit senseless acts of violence without forethought or remorse. They recognize that in order to attempt a solution to the problem we need to establish not only tougher laws but gain a better understanding of the causes and effects of youth crime.

We need to have a meeting of the minds across the country between educators, psychologists, police and legislators to arrive at some understanding of this phenomenon and to formulate a deterrent to violent youth crime.

We need to find answers to basic questions before we offer solutions. The first questions we need to answer are the ones that begin with why.

Why are some young people so desensitized to violence that they band together and commit unspeakable crimes, often without provocation? Why are they not apparently concerned about or at least aware of the consequences of their actions? Why are these young people clearly unable to identify with the victims of their crimes? Why do they appear to be so unattached or non-attached to the consequences of their actions? Why are these consequences not more harsh for young people who go well beyond the bounds of youthful misadventure into the world of violence and even murder?

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I am sorry to interrupt but the hon. member's time has expired.

[Eleni Bakopanos, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice appreciates the member's concern about youth crime, particularly violent youth crime and especially the tragic events in the member's riding. We are very sensitive to that.

The Minister of Justice will soon be releasing a comprehensive response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. A key focus of this response will be on how we can take effective action to deal with violent youth crime. The youth justice system must be capable of responding effectively to the full range of crimes committed by young people, including serious crimes of violence.

The phenomenon of violent youth crime or gang crime, the degree of violence exhibited by group members and especially the rise of female participation in these groups is of concern to the government.

Youth crime is a complex problem best addressed through a multifaceted strategy. Multi-disciplinary, co-operative approaches involving families, communities, the voluntary sector, victims, mentors as well as mental health and child welfare systems must be encouraged.

As a government we recognize the importance of ongoing research on the phenomenon of youth group crime. The member has asked for a national study of group violence by teenagers. The government has devoted a lot of time and resources over the past three years to examining the youth justice system in some detail.

In fact, this issue was discussed by the first ministers when they met for the first time in August 1997, and by the Minister of Justice and her provincial and territorial colleagues during their meeting, in December of last year.

The minister and the government are now urging all members of the House to express their views when the minister tables her response to the report of the Standing Committee on Justice, and when the legislation is introduced in the House.

[Yves Rocheleau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise today to follow up on a question that I put to the Minister of the Environment on March 25 and to which I received an unsatisfactory reply.

I am going back to the issue in the hope of getting more information. As we know, on March 23, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans announced his department's decision to agree to the Montreal port authority's request and authorize the dredging of the St. Lawrence River to a depth of about one foot, to further deepen the waterway from 11 to 11.3 metres.

The decision was immediately criticized by all environmental groups concerned by and involved in this long-standing issue, including Stratégie Saint-Laurent and St. Lawrence Vision 2000. Stratégie Saint-Laurent monitors all ZIPs or zones d'intervention prioritaire, including the Lac Saint-Pierre ZIP, whose members I salute. These people rightly care about the future and the development of Lac Saint-Pierre, this extraordinary body of water which could be seriously affected if the federal government continues in this direction without holding public consultations.

This is a major project to dredge off the bottom of the St. Lawrence River 350,000 metric tonnes. This potentially polluting material—this will have to be established—may be floating in the water of the St. Lawrence and carried by the current. We do not know. Consultations are required so we know what we are dealing with. We do not know either where this potentially polluting material would be disposed of.

We are talking about a major project involving the dredging of 350,000 metric tonnes. This work would be done without public consultation, even though the Quebec government has just demanded that the public hearings provided for under the law be carried out with respect to the port of Sorel, where 20,000 cubic metres are to be dredged,

We know about the public health protection requirements imposed by Environment Canada on individuals who are no longer allowed to pour dirt and sand in lakes or rivers to build a pier, for instance. In light of what society normally demands of private companies in terms of respecting the environment and ensuring through established standards and mechanisms that the environment is respected, what right does the Government of Canada have to authorize the dredging of 350,000 metric tonnes without complying with the legislative requirement for public hearings?

The fisheries and oceans minister's response was that consultations had taken place. But, according to Marc Hudon, of Stratégie Saint-Laurent, the groups that were consulted still have a great many questions to ask the government in spite of the consultations that have taken place.

I think that this is a matter of public interest with a capital P and a capital I. The port of Montreal may have wishes and concerns with respect to its ability to compete with foreign ports, which is understandable, but in the public interest, Environment Canada must take its responsibilities and show impartiality—

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

I have to interrupt the hon. member. The time allotted has run out.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, I would hope to place a few facts on the table to put the fears of the honourable member to rest.

The approved dredging project is to permit the port of Montreal to further deepen the waterway from 11 metres to 11.3 metres below chart datum.

The depth of 11.3 metres is already available in most of the waterway portion aimed at by the project. The dredging project represents 2% of the navigation channel and less than .07% of the whole St. Lawrence surface between Montreal and Cap à la Roche which is a distance of 150 metres.

The port of Montreal carried out a number of technical feasibility studies which were completed in May 1996. The project was subsequently submitted to DFO for review under the Navigable Waters Protection Act and under section 35(2) of the Fisheries Act. Both the NWPA and the Fisheries Act triggered the requirement for an environmental assessment under the CEAA.

The port of Montreal conducted a thorough review of the environmental impacts of the proposed project. As required under the CEAA, the DFO subsequently reviewed the findings for the port of Montreal and requested advice from other agencies including Environment Canada and the Quebec department of environment and wildlife. As well, two rounds of public consultations were held.

After carefully considering input from federal and provincial departments and agencies as well as the public, the department concluded that the project was not likely to have adverse environmental effects given the mitigation and compensation measures that were being imposed, as well as the monitoring program which will be implemented.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Madam Speaker, I rise in reference to a question I posed on April 1 to the Minister of Finance regarding his position on recommendations made by the Senate banking committee that the proposed CPP investment board be allowed to increase its foreign property rule from 20% to 30% over a five year period. This would allow the board to invest in foreign securities as opposed to domestic ones and would bring that component up to 30%.

My objection to this recommendation is twofold. First, much consideration has been given not to tie the hands of pension managers who need better investment vehicles to enhance the return on investments of pension funds. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that the vast majority of mutual funds now operated by these same managers cannot even perform at the average of the growth in Canadian stock exchange prices.

In other words most managers underperform even in terms of the averages of a TSE 300 composite index. Their inability to achieve even average returns in Canada should give us a clue to allowing them to expand investments in volatile foreign markets with CPP beneficiaries' money.

This volatility would include foreign exchange fluctuations as well as the general uncertainties of unknown regulatory environments. We only have to think of southeast Asia to believe that is one of those markets.

Can it be demonstrated that the current 20% rule diminishes potential returns in Canada regardless of the limit? For instance, the United States has an unrestricted limit for pension funds, but historically and currently only 10% of these funds are invested in foreign investments.

I refer to Japan which similarly has an unresticted rule but only invests 19%. Australia, which allows its pension managers full discretion of total foreign investment, only invests 16%. In other words it would appear that the norm in the world is under the 20% rule in any case. Why the necessity of changing it? There seems quite frankly to be no empirical evidence for increasing the limit.

My second concern is what I call the cascade effect. If the foreign property rule is increased for the Canada pension plan investment board, it follows that it should also be increased by their pensions, not the least of which is registered retirement savings plans.

Investors are free in this country to invest in foreign assets. The question is do we want to provide an income tax subsidy to do so. Needless to say those who maximize their RRSP contribution limits and take full advantage of the existing foreign component are also the highest income earners. I suggest it is inappropriate to provide them with further tax deferrals with Canadian taxpayers money simply so they can make foreign investments. Quite frankly they are already free to do so with tax paid money.

The minister stated that he would study this with his provincial counterparts. I wonder if the minister could not be more definitive in saying that he opposes this move at this time.

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans]

Madam Speaker, first I compliment the member for Durham on his continuing work and interest in this area.

Let me take the opportunity to express the minister's gratitude to the members of the Standing Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce for their work and the report they produced on the Canada pension plan investment board and its draft regulations.

The new investment board is a key part of the fundamental reform of the CPP approved by the House last year. By investing new CPP funds prudently in a diversified portfolio of investments to earn higher returns, the board will help ensure that the CPP will be there for Canadians in the future.

We are pleased to see that the committee's report is generally supportive of the investment provisions and the governance structure of the CPP investment board that were developed jointly with the provinces. There are a number of ideas in the report, however, that federal and provincial governments will want to consider carefully.

The minister has therefore forwarded the committee's report to provincial colleagues as joint stewards of the Canada pension plan. It is our firm intention to provide the committee with a full response as soon as possible after provincial colleagues have had the opportunity to review the committee's recommendations.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)]

The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7 p.m.)