Mike Scott

[Oceans Act, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in speaking to the motions before the House the Reform Party would like to be on record as saying that we agree with the parliamentary secretary on Motion No. 1. We will be supporting it because it fits with what we believe Canadians want. It certainly fits with what the Reform Party has been talking about, which is an ecosystem conservation based approach to our oceans, coastal waters and estuaries.

In speaking to Motions Nos. 2, 3 and 4, the Bloc amendments, we offer the following. It is very clear a great deal of hostility is generated in the regions of Canada toward Ottawa over either the real or perceived overlap of jurisdiction or imposing of jurisdiction where Ottawa is interjecting itself in areas where it ought not to be.

I certainly understand the feelings of the members in the Bloc and other members in the House, along with people right across the country, when it comes to the question of jurisdiction.

Upon examining the oceans act and upon contemplating what is attempted to be achieved in the act, it is clear many of the concerns members of the Bloc or members in other regions of Canada might have with respect to Ottawa's jurisdiction cannot be overcome by transferring that jurisdiction to provinces.

For example, many marine resources are transitory: fish, wildlife, seals, birds and so on. They do not respect international boundaries as they do not respect provincial boundaries. They continue in their life cycles without regard to human action or human activity.

It is therefore very important that we have a national approach to husbanding and looking out for Canada's marine resources. Not only that, there are many international aspects and implications for Canada's marine resources and the oceans act does address them in a responsible manner for the most part. However, it is incumbent upon the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to engage in a much broader consultation with the provinces in many areas. That is why on Motion No. 3 we will be moving a subamendment. We have given notice to both the Liberal Party and the Bloc that we will be moving a subamendment. I move:

That Motion No. 3 be amended by deleting the following: "taking into account the areas of jurisdiction of each level of government".

[Fisheries, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what is being done is the commercial fleet is being decimated at the same time the native fishery is being increased.

B.C. fishermen will not stand idly by and watch this government do to their industry what successive governments have done to the east coast. We will not stand by and watch the rape of our resource

in the name of politics. We will not let this minister wash his hands of the damage he is doing to our resource that sustains thousands of British Columbians.

If the B.C. fish population is so threatened as to warrant the downsizing by half of the B.C. commercial fleet, then why is he radically increasing the size of the native fishery at the same time?

[Fisheries, June 4th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the fisheries minister said it was despicable that we would ask why he is decimating the Pacific salmon fleet and at the same time allocating more fish to the native fishery. Clearly the minister thought it was despicable that we could see through the smoke and mirrors to his real agenda.

I have a very simple question for the minister: Is it true that the size of the commercial fleet in British Columbia is being slashed and at the very same time the size of the native fishery is being expanded? Yes or no?

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, perhaps the hon. member was not here for my entire intervention earlier. For his benefit I will recap once again.

The member comes from a province of approximately seven million people. I come from a province of about three million people. There are provinces in Canada with only several hundred thousand in population. When we have a democratic system that elects members to the House on the basis of population it means that some provinces or regions in Canada are going to be under represented.

Let me offer a graphic example of how a regional interest can be overridden by the powerful political forces in central Canada. During the late 1970s and early 1980s the Liberal government of the day led by Pierre Trudeau was in a bit of a cash crunch. It looked over at Alberta and British Columbia and saw an opportunity to reach into the energy well of those provinces to dig out a whole fistful of dollars. As members may recall, energy prices were rising.

Alberta and northeastern British Columbia have tremendous oil and gas reserves. They were developing and bringing onstream more properties all the time. The federal government adopted a national energy program.

The national energy program was nothing more than a legislated rape of Alberta's and British Columbia's oil and gas reserves. There was no opportunity for a Senate to review that legislation to ensure the regional interests of Alberta and British Columbia were protected from the strong, dominant, centrifugal political forces in Ottawa and in Ontario and Quebec. That is why I fear for the future of Confederation, for the future of Canada, as a country of 10 equal and harmonious provinces if we do not have a Senate.

There will come a time in the future when another such silly idea as the national energy program will be dreamt up by some federal government, maybe even this one. It has come up with some pretty silly ideas. It will be foisted on some region in Canada that is not prepared to accept it. That will create a tremendous feeling of unrest and ill will and possibly be a move for separation of other provinces from the federation.

It is important for the sake of national unity to have a Senate.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians from coast to coast are unhappy with the status quo. They want to see substantial change.

They are unhappy with the fact that the Senate has been used as a patronage haven. It is anti-democratic to its core and has a tremendous budget. They know that senators are jetting off all over the world on various junkets without accountability to the voters or to anyone else. We are asking for accountability to the House and the member for Kingston and the Islands says we have no right to demand that accountability.

To whom are senators accountable for their budget? Are they accountable to the Prime Minister? They are not accountable to the electors because they were never elected and they do not have to stand for re-election.

Canadians are very unhappy about that. It is very frustrating for Canadians to hear the Prime Minister make promises and statements about changing the Senate. Then they read the red book and hear statements such as those made by the member for Kingston and the Islands here this afternoon, which are contradictory.

It all goes back to what the Liberal Party has done for generations, which is make promises and then the ground shifts. We must keep moving with the times and promises change as time goes by and reality rears its ugly head.

I suppose like the red queen, the promises in the red book mean whatever the Liberals want them to mean. The Prime Minister can change his position two or three times in a month and seems to get away with it. However, I do not think that is going to happen any more. It certainly did not happen on the GST. The member for Hamilton had to resign over her broken promise. I have talked with Canadians from coast to coast over the last 18 months and they tell me they want serious change in the Senate. They are not content with the status quo.

In answer to my colleague in the Reform Party, Canadians are not going to sit back and watch $40 million a year be shovelled into that place with no accountability and be used as nothing more than a patronage haven for whatever prime minister happens to be in office at the time.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to listen to the intervention from the member for Kingston and the Islands. It was very entertaining. There is a very popular box office hit called "Twister". It is also very entertaining and there is a similarity. We could draw the analogy that after being entertained for a couple of hours people have only spent money and received a lot of wind.

The Reform Party has spoken in the House since it arrived about the need for change in our parliamentary system. We have talked about the need for change in our Senate.

There are many members in the House from the Bloc, some from the Liberal Party and from the NDP who advocate that we abolish the Senate. Canadians from coast to coast recognize the Senate is nothing more than a haven for political patronage and has been for a very long time. Canadians are not satisfied with that. They are not getting a bang for their buck. They recognize that it is nothing more than a patronage pay-off for political hacks and they want it changed.

The simple solution is to say we will abolish it. That sounds good. I can understand why members from Ontario and Quebec would feel that was a proper solution. They do not have the problem of the regional parts of Canada where representation by population means they are left vulnerable by many political decisions. The Senate provides an opportunity to ensure regional balance and regional fairness in the face of representation by population.

Canadians understand that we do not have regional fairness when in the Senate. It does not provide a sober second look. It does not ensure that the legislation which passes through the House meets the test of fairness for all Canadians. It is nothing short of an opportunity for the prime minister in office to appoint his or her political hacks. The Canadian taxpayers are virtually saddled with those people for a lifetime. There is no way out.

We in the Reform Party recognized a long time ago that the Senate was not working. Instead of coming up with the simplistic solution of abolishing it, we said we needed to change it to make it work, just as we need to change the House to make it work.

We have talked about recall. We have talked about referenda. We have talked about opening up Canada's parliamentary process both in this House and in the upper House to be a more democratic system, to have a more democratic method of operation. We have talked about the way Parliament is working now is nothing short of a democratic dictatorship.

We have an outbreak of democracy once every four or five years when Canadians go to the polls to elect a new government. We are only electing our next dictator. Whoever becomes prime minister in a majority government, which we get most of the time, becomes a virtual dictator for the next four or five years.

The Prime Minister exercises power over cabinet by virtue of the fact that he appoints and fires cabinet ministers. Loyalty is driven toward ensuring that the Prime Minister's will is done in that inner circle of high powered cabinet ministers.

The Prime Minister has a vested interest in the Senate's remaining as it is because it offers him the opportunity to reward his political cronies. It also offers him the opportunity to give the people of Canada the perception that there is a place for a sober second look at legislation that passes through this House. In reality it is nothing more than a rubber stamp.

However, the perception is falling away. Canadians are demanding that substantive changes be made to the way the House of Commons and the Senate work. For the benefit of the members opposite I say that anybody who is in politics in Canada today who does not recognize that and who is not prepared to deal with that will not be here for long.

That is the reality of change coming to Canada. It is driven by the grassroots, by the citizens of the country. We hear it right across the nation. I know there will be some members from some parties in this House dragged through that change kicking and screaming, but it is coming.

The member for Kingston and the Islands said with regard to the Senate that one Reform senator was appointed by the Prime Minister. To say it was a political appointment is a slight on the remembrance of Stan Waters, a great Canadian who ran for public office, who ran for the position of senator and who was elected by over a quarter of a million voters in the province of Alberta.

I can tell the member for Kingston and the Islands that if Stan Waters were alive today and if he were to hear this member denigrating his election to the Senate, I am certain that Stan Waters, knowing him and knowing the way he was, would have given the member an education out behind the barn. That was Stan Waters' way.

The members talk about the Charlottetown accord and say "you nasty Reformers talk about a triple E Senate, yet when you had an opportunity to vote for a triple E Senate you turned it down in the Charlottetown accord".

I remind members opposite that Canadians are not stupid. They understood clearly that the Charlottetown accord was not about a triple E Senate. There was no requirement for an election. There was an opportunity for provincial premiers to make appointments

to the Senate as opposed to the Prime Minister but there was no requirement for an election.

There was no real opportunity for an effective Senate because the provisions in the Charlottetown accord did not allow the Senate to oversee many facets of legislation which we on this side of the House feel it should have the right to review.

Canadians and Reformers were asked at the time of the Charlottetown accord to buy a pig in a poke. We were told "if you want your triple E Senate", and it was not a triple E Senate, "you will get it if you vote for the Charlottetown accord".

We were not to get a triple E Senate. We were to get about a one and a half E Senate, which does not mean we were 50 per cent of the way to our goal. It only meant that we had slightly improved on a very bad system.

Canadians were also told the Charlottetown accord meant distinct society status for Quebec. They were told that one of the five key components of the Charlottetown accord was the inherent right to aboriginal self-government. The Charlottetown accord was turned down by people in many areas of Canada for those reasons. The accord was not turned down because of the extremely limited provisions for change to the Senate.

The government is quick to implement those failed aspects of the Charlottetown accord which did not sit well with Canadian people from coast to coast. Within weeks of taking office the government turned around and issued statements like we recognize the inherent right of aboriginal peoples to self-government. That was a key component of the Charlottetown accord which was voted down by Canadians, but Liberals opposite will foist it down our throats anyway, like it or not.

Last year the Liberal government passed distinct society recognition for Quebec, although it was clearly voted down by the people in the rest of Canada in the Charlottetown referendum. If the Liberals can implement these other aspects of the failed Charlottetown referendum against the wishes of the Canadian people, why can they not agree to implement changes to the Senate?

Depending on which riding they are in, 80 per cent to 85 per cent of Canadians from coast to coast want change in the Senate. They expect change in the Senate. They demand change in the Senate. During its election campaign the government indicated it would to make changes, that it believed in an elected Senate.

The reality is here now. It was one thing to promise change during an election campaign. That was then, this is now. There will not be an elected Senate. Canadians' hope for change has been dashed by the comments of members opposite today. It has become clear the government, this Liberal Party, has absolutely no intention whatsoever of changing the rules with regard to electing senators. It has made that abundantly clear.

There was a book that was popular several years ago. I cannot remember the name of the author but I recall one of the quotes, that power is rarely or never given but almost always taken. The Reform Party came to Ottawa in part because we wanted to see the tremendous power that is centralized in the Prime Minister's office dissipated somewhat and democratized. There would be more power in the hands of ordinary Canadians.

A major component of that goal is ensuring Canadians have the right to accountability by the Senate, which they pay $40 million for. They should have some measure of accountability. They should have some way of ensuring senators are doing what the voters want and not what the Prime Minister wants.

I will say again that any political party or political representative who does not recognize the need for accountability and who is not prepared to implement that in the future does not recognize that fundamental changes are needed in our system and they are destined for political extinction. It is coming and I do not think voters will accept any less.

We can listen to the Liberal members opposite talk about how much they believe in democracy, about how much they believe in keeping their election promises when they clearly do not. They clearly do not believe in democracy. They twist words around. They twist sentences around. They twist promises around. They will do anything to avoid making the changes required. They will do anything to avoid having a triple E Senate because it does not work in their political party's interest and it does not work in the Prime Minister's interest. It certainly works in the interests of the Canadian people.

As I said earlier, the Canadian people are no longer content to sit back and watch business unfold as usual. There will be an election within the next year or two, possibly this fall. I believe two of the key issues in that election for Canadians will be just how democratic the process is and how good their representation is in Ottawa.

When I go back to Atlantic Canada I talk to the fishermen. As the fisheries critic I end up talking to a lot of fishermen. They tell me that their elected representatives are not in agreement with the minister on a particular policy. The constituents they have been elected to represent are not in agreement with the minister's policy. However, these MPs dare not come back to Ottawa and take a contrary position to the minister for fear of punishment. We have seen that punishment demonstrated graphically by the Prime Minister in the last six or seven weeks.

We have seen how a Liberal MP, who wanted to stand up for his election promises and for what his constituents wanted, was hustled out of that party quicker than you could blink when he dared do it.

The question of representation on the part of Canadian voters is becoming more serious all the time. They are no longer content to live with the status quo.

In closing, we hear all the eloquent words from the Liberal MPs on the other side. We hear the rhetoric about how the government would like to see a more open and democratic process. We see it in the red book promises. We see it in interviews with various Liberal MPs in the media from time to time. However, for all those people out there who may be watching, the reality is that there is absolutely no commitment to that at all. The government is not committed to having any changes in the status quo. The only way Canadians will have that in the future is to elect a Reform government.

[Petitions, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and honoured on behalf of constituents in Terrace, British Columbia to present the following petition. Whereas the legislature of Newfoundland passed a resolution calling for a constitutional amendment to remove the rights of denominational classes of persons to operate their own schools following a provincial referendum, and whereas if the Parliament of Canada accedes to the proposal to amend the Constitution at the request of one provincial government, it would set a precedent for permitting any provincial government to suppress the rights of a minority.

Therefore the petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Constitution as requested by the Government of Newfoundland and refer the problem of education reform in that province to the Government of Newfoundland for a resolution by other non-constitutional procedures.

[Fisheries, May 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, crab fishermen in New Brunswick were justifiably outraged when they learned the fisheries minister planned to reallocate a portion of their quota to

groundfishermen. This is a classic case of robbing Peter to pay Paul. More to the point, the minister has graphically demonstrated why fisheries in Canada are in trouble. Political decisions override sound management of the resource and political reallocation on both coasts undermines industry viability.

Does the minister not realize his half baked make work program at the expense of crab fishermen just creates instability? How long will it be before Canadian taxpayers are asked to bail out another failed fishery?

It is long past time that politics and fisheries management were surgically separated in Canada. Canada's commercial fishery is not some elaborate social program; it is a business and it ought to run like a business.

As long as politics overrides science and drives management decisions, the biological integrity of the resource is threatened and economic failures will continue to be the hallmark of the federal government.

[Petitions, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of constituents, 40 of whom live in Kitimat in my riding. They have presented the following petition: "We the undersigned citizens of Canada draw the attention of the House to the following: Whereas a majority of Canadians believe that the privileges which society accords to heterosexual couples should not be extended to same sex relationships; and whereas societal approval including the extension of societal privileges would be given to same sex relationships if any amendment to the human rights act were to include the undefined phrase of sexual orientation as a grounds of discrimination; therefore your petitioners pray and request that Parliament not amend the Canadian Human Rights Act or the charter of rights and freedoms in any way which would tend to indicate societal approval of same sex relationships or homosexuality, including amending the Canadian Human Rights Act to include in the prohibited grounds of discrimination the undefined phrase of sexual orientation".

[Point Of Order, May 9th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I seek permission of the House to table a petition. I recognize this is not the hour for petitions but unfortunately I just received it. It is from a number of my constituents. I just received it from the clerk of petitions. It does deal with the legislation that is before the House.