Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the last comment first. The taxpayers of Canada are not paying for that. That is coming from party funds.
Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.
Supply May 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would like to address the last comment first. The taxpayers of Canada are not paying for that. That is coming from party funds.
Supply May 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. I would like to say that the first cut we proposed was to the MPs' pension plan, for which we did not get any support from the other side of the House.
I would like to say further that just because the words of Aristotle and Plato and Jesus Christ were said 2000 years ago, does that make them any less relevant today? Is the truth not the truth? Is right not right and wrong not wrong? Does right become wrong or wrong become right just because 200 years have gone by?
I ask the hon. member to consider that the reason these people are quoted is because they spoke the truth. They had a fundamental understanding of the way society could best construct itself to operate in a manner that allowed personal freedom and liberty to exist. The hon. member laughs but he is not listening to the words.
Furthermore, the cuts the Reform Party proposed during the election campaign were very detailed. Obviously the hon. member has never looked at them but it is there for all to see. It is very comprehensive. It is probably a little outdated now because the cuts are going to have to be even more severe based on the deficits we are running. We made that plan on a deficit that has since ballooned significantly.
I will close by saying that the information is there. If the hon. member would like I will make sure he gets a copy of that.
Supply May 3rd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on the motion before the House today. I would like to begin by talking about the role of government in a free society.
The cornerstone of freedom and justice requires acknowledgement of at least one fundamental principle: each person owns him or herself. We in Canada accept this principle and indeed embrace it because the antithesis of self-ownership is of course slavery which western democracies have condemned. I do not believe anyone in this country would ever knowingly endorse slavery.
An operational definition of slavery is that a person toils while having no ownership rights to the fruits of his toil. They are owned and/or controlled by someone else. Therefore, private or collective theft is an attack on the principle of self-ownership; a person works hard to produce tangible benefits, for example a car or a television, a house or money, and the theft of this violates the principle of self-ownership. Murder, kidnapping, assault and other acts of violence are also an attack on the principle of self-ownership and therefore must be prohibited.
Self-ownership also implies that two or more individuals should be free to engage in peaceable voluntary exchange without interference by third parties.
The protection of these rights, called natural law by philosopher John Locke and others, constitutes the proper role of a moral government. In other words, the role of government is to protect people from domestic aggression, protect the nation from foreign attack and, through a judiciary system, resolve disputes arising among its citizens.
Contrast this ideal with what has happened in Canada over the past three decades. There has been a concerted attack on the principle of self-ownership through the tax system. The federal government has gradually increased taxation levels to a point at which today the average Canadian has to work for more than half a year just to pay his or her tax bill.
We like to consider Canada a free country, but just how free are we when we are forced to give up half of everything we produce? In my view we have all become, to a large extent, slaves to Revenue Canada.
I ask the House if this is not in fact the case. Furthermore I ask just because our tax system has the force of law behind it, does that make it morally right?
South Africa had a system of apartheid for many years. That was also backed by the force of law, enforced by the state. Did the fact that apartheid was state sanctioned make it morally right? What about slavery in the United States in the last century? Was slavery morally right just because the government decreed it was law?-of course not.
In fact, apartheid and slavery represent the ultimate abuse of the principle of self-ownership. With the rise of the welfare state or state socialism all governments, including Canada, have in varying degrees made significant departures from moral government functions. The welfare state is immoral because it violates one of the basic foundations of self-ownership, the right to own what one produces.
State socialism is a political process whereby property that rightfully belongs to one person is confiscated and given to another to whom it does not belong.
The primary justification for this attack on self-ownership, at least that led by otherwise decent people, can be found in people's desire to do good things like help the poor, care for the elderly, help the sick, or create a fair income distribution.
While these may be commendable objectives, the fact of the matter is that government does not have any resources of its very own. Acknowledgement that government does not have any resources of its own forces us to recognize that the only way governments can give one citizen a dollar is to first, through intimidation, threats and coercion, confiscate that dollar from some other citizen.
If you do not believe that Revenue Canada uses intimidation, threats and coercion, just try not paying your taxes and see what happens.
In a moral society voluntary exchange should be maximized and involuntary exchange minimized. A society which maximizes voluntary exchange can be described as embracing free enterprise or a market driven economy. The opposite of a market economy is, of course, a command economy. There is ample empirical evidence as we approach the end of the 20th century that command economies do not work. The former Soviet Union is a graphic example of this.
It is no coincidence that individual freedom and liberty are virtually non-existent in a command economy because governments which maximize involuntary exchange must rely on the force of law and the force of a police state to achieve their aims.
Command economies by their very nature are immoral and in fact evil. The elite political apparatus uses the power of the state to coerce citizens to accept their economic dictates.
What I find disconcerting is the extent to which Canada, which prides itself on being a free country, has moved toward involuntary exchange.
Consider that the average Canadian must work until sometime in July to become free of his tax burden. The first six months of each year are spent producing wealth which is confiscated against his will through taxation. This money is then spent on a variety of government initiatives and programs that the taxpayer in many cases would not support on a voluntary basis.
Walter Williams, the renowned professor of economics at George Mason University, characterizes this as economic rape. In a free market business cannot get a dollar from me unless I voluntarily give it first. If a special interest group wants my money it will have to come to me first and convince me that it truly does represent my interest before I choose to give it the money.
Consider Canada today. Canadian businesses and special interest groups can get my money from me whether I choose to give it to them or not. They only have to come to Ottawa to get permission.
For example, when the directors of Massey-Ferguson, International Harvester or Bombardier want my money, when representatives of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women or the arts community needs some dough they could come knocking on my door and ask me but they know that I would probably tell them to get lost. They know that and so they come to Ottawa to secure the assistance of the government to force me to give them my money.
Thomas Paine warned that government, even in its best state, is but a necessary evil; in its worst state, an intolerable one.
We are all aware that government needs money to operate, to perform its legitimate role. This money has to be obtained through taxes which of course constitutes coercion. However, if government limits itself to its moral functions coercion is minimized.
The federal government has strayed from this ideal, far from this ideal. When we see billions of dollars shovelled out to Canadian business and industry, to special interest groups, to subsidize money losing crown corporations and in direct transfers to Canadian families that already have incomes of over $100,000 a year we know the taxpayer has been had.
There is no justification for which this is acceptable. This is a perversion of government, a direct assault on the individual liberty of our citizens and a serious violation of the principle of self-ownership. I would argue that since we work more than half of the year to pay our taxes we are more than one-half slaves to the dictates of this federal government.
The most disturbing news is that with our massive debt and ongoing $40 billion deficit Canadians are destined to continue as slaves to a greater and greater degree.
Until government reduces spending in a meaningful way this will not change. Therefore, while changes to income tax could surely make the system fairer and more user friendly the government must couple this with serious spending reductions, with the idea that Canadians have a right to self-ownership and will make better economic decisions on a voluntary basis than this government ever will through its top down, command management.
People in countries with larger amounts of economic freedom are far richer and have greater human rights protections than people who live in countries where state socialism prevails.
The free market with its supporting institutions of private ownership of property and voluntary exchange not only advances the human condition but promotes a more moral relationship among people. The most important case for free markets is its consistency with and promotion of fundamental moral principles and respect for human rights.
Our tax system, more particularly the level of taxation in Canada, stands in dark contrast to the ideals of freedom, liberty and self-ownership.
Sahtu Dene And Metis Land Claimsettlement Act May 2nd, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in opposition to Bill C-16, otherwise known as the Sahtu Dene and Metis comprehensive land claim agreement. Before I begin debating the terms of the agreement, I want to make an observation about the big media establishment in the country that I think badly needs to be said.
The debate on Bill C-16 began on Monday last week, April 25, with members on this side of the House speaking openly and honestly about their concerns with the agreement. This marks a precedent, the first time the old style tradition of the old line political parties not debating such issues publicly being broken.
This is because Reformers believe that we must not be afraid to talk honestly about native self-government and land claims. We cannot expect to achieve workable solutions to the challenges we face as a nation unless we engage in such debate.
Following the debate on Monday, I eagerly scanned the newspapers and watched television news broadcasts to see how the media treated this issue. Do you know what I discovered, Mr. Speaker? The press totally ignored the issue. I could not find any coverage on Bill C-16 anywhere.
Admittedly many bills pass through the House that are not very interesting or newsworthy, but this is surely not the case with Bill C-16 which will convey benefits of an enormous piece of land 50 times the size of Prince Edward Island, almost one-third the size of British Columbia, to less than 1,800 aboriginals for all time.
One would think that with all the remaining land claims yet outstanding the press would be somewhat interested in what is going on here. I know the people in my riding are and I am sure the people in British Columbia and all of Canada are. How is that an MP's expense account or the theatrics of question period can remain front page news for days and yet when we see an issue of such profound importance to all Canadians, aboriginal and non-aboriginal alike, being debated the media is asleep at the switch?
I have concluded that it is either indifference born out of laziness or a tacit agreement not to provide serious coverage on issues which challenge the Liberal left agenda that has been wholeheartedly adopted and supported by a bunch of the big media in the country.
Having said that, I would like to discuss the elements of the bill which I cannot support. As has already been pointed by many of my Reform colleagues, the Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement constitutes a massive conveyance of land and benefits to a group of less than 1,800 people, half of them children.
There is not likely to be much protest coming from non-aboriginals in the land claim area because there are so few of them. Yet the land in question is important to all Canadians. It has the potential to generate an enormous amount of wealth, jobs and tax revenue in the future. That potential will be seriously affected by this agreement.
One cannot help but be struck with the magnitude of the land transfer. Over 42 square kilometres for every adult will be conveyed fee simple. The vast majority of Canadians meanwhile own only their own property, the property that their house is on, and spend most of their working lives paying off mortgages so that hopefully they can own their land fee simple in their retirement years.
According to Statistics Canada's 1991 census, 21.5 million adults live in Canada today. If each one of these adult Canadians were to be granted 42 square kilometres of land by the government one would require a land mass of approximately one billion square kilometres to meet that conveyance.
Given that the actual total land mass of Canada is just over nine million square kilometres one would need therefore an area more than 100 times the size of Canada's total land mass to meet that obligation.
In a world which continues to experience significant population growth and where population density in many countries is measured in hundreds of human beings per each square kilometre it is impossible to reconcile this massive land grant.
I ask aboriginal people to consider this very carefully. Canada's population continues to grow. We continue to accept immigrants and refugees from all over the world to come and make their home here. While we may disagree with the current immigration levels, all Canadians and all members of the House embrace this. Immigration provides benefits not only for the newcomers to Canada but to the people already living here, much like the European migration to North America brought benefits to this land and to its original aboriginal inhabitants many years ago.
Admittedly colonization created much hardship and injustice for native Indians of the day as well and we recognize that as an inescapable part of our history. When I consider the land aspect of this agreement, I must conclude that at best it is 18th century thinking at a time when we are approaching the end of the 20th century.
In addition to the outright transfer of over 40,000 square kilometres of land fee simple, the federal government will pay out approximately $130 million over the next 15 years to the Sahtu Tribal Council. This equates to more than $130,000 for each adult covered under the agreement.
Again, to put this into perspective, if every adult Canadian was given the same amount of money, the government would need more than $3 trillion in the bank to write out the cheques. Three trillion dollars is more than four times Canada's total debt of $700 billion which includes federal, provincial and municipal government debt.
Furthermore, even after such a massive transfer of land and cash nothing in the agreement affects the ability of the Sahtu Dene and Metis to receive existing and future benefits under aboriginal programs. In discussions with my constituents on the land claims question, I hear a diverse range of opinions on how to resolve the issue.
The one consistent theme running through all of this is finality. People want assurance that the resolution of the land claims will entail a systematic reduction and phasing out of taxpayer funded aboriginal programs delivered by the government. This agreement does not achieve this.
I would now like to talk about the beneficiaries of the $130 million to be paid out to the Sahtu Tribal Council. Only some $3,500 will be given to individuals as one-time grants. Virtually all the benefits conferred on the Sahtu Dene and Metis under this agreement will be controlled by Indian leaders rather than distributed to individuals.
All governments, including this one, are notoriously bad managers of wealth and resources. I do not believe a majority of Canadians have any doubts about that whatsoever. If I were a rank and file Sahtu Dene or Metis, I would far prefer that I received a direct personal benefit rather than having money and land given over to the control of a tribal council.
I receive entreaties on an ongoing basis from native people living on reserves within my riding telling me of the injustices they receive at the hands of their leaders. They tell me of nepotism where band jobs and other perks go to relatives and friends of native leaders while others are shut out.
This is typically the way government functions. Look at the federal government's behaviour, if members need any convincing. It is for these reasons that I believe in the value and dignity of the individual over the collective regardless of what collective we are talking about. I am a strong advocate for settlements government to individual rather than government to government.
Incidentally I believe the reason a majority of natives voted against the Charlottetown accord is that the rank and file individuals living in aboriginal communities recognize that self-government was not necessarily in their interest but rather the narrow interests of the Indian leaders. They know that power consolidated into the hands of a few people is rarely a good thing. It has not been good for Canada in the case of our federal governments or the provincial governments. At a time when our national institutions are struggling to become more populous, to break down the barriers of arrogant, political elitism, natives in Canada are not interested in going in the other direction.
Therefore before I can support any legislation for self-government or land claim resolutions, I want to see the affected aboriginal people have an opportunity to decide by referendum whether they want self-government, and in the resolution of land claims, whether they want money and land turned over to themselves as individuals or to the band leaders.
My deepest concern over the bill is the precedent being set for future land claim negotiations. The Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement along with the Nunavut and other agreements entered into recently up north are no doubt being carefully studied by aboriginals in the rest of Canada, particularly in British Columbia.
There are now 38 land claims registered in B.C. with more to follow. The first B.C. land claim to be accepted by the federal government for negotiation is the Nisga'a claim which is within my riding of Skeena. Negotiations have been under way for some time behind closed doors and therefore in a forum where my constituents have no information as to what is on the table in terms of land and resources. When my constituents express their deep concern about being shut out of the process, they are patted condescendingly on the head and told by government officials not to worry, that their best interests are being looked out for. These are largely the same government officials who patted us on the head and told us that the Charlottetown accord was good for us and we should vote for it.
We can therefore understand why people in my riding are very doubtful that their interests are being protected. The Sahtu Dene and Metis agreement will only serve to heighten their concerns.
If the people of Canada had not been given an opportunity to vote on the Charlottetown accord in a referendum we would
have had it imposed on us even though a majority of Canadians and almost 70 per cent of British Columbians found it unacceptable.
It is imperative that the people in Skeena receive an opportunity to vote on a proposed land claims settlement within the riding to ensure that the settlement agreement is not imposed from the top down. In saying that, let me reassure Indian people who may be listening that Canadians are very fair minded and I am sure that any just and equitable settlement proposed will be supported.
I would like to read from a letter I have recently sent to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development which encapsulates the concerns of my constituents with respect to land claims:
Dear Minister:
As we are both aware, negotiations between the Nisga'a people of North West British Columbia, the Federal Government and the Province of B.C. are ongoing and have been for some time in an attempt to resolve the outstanding Nisga'a land claim.
The land claimed by the Nisga'a falls within my constituency of Skeena and consequently is of great concern to all people living in the riding. I have received numerous phone calls, letters, and personal entreaties from constituents who are fearful of what a land claim resolution might mean for them.
Given that the foundation of our economy in Skeena rests squarely on resource industries, fishing, forestry, and mining, and understanding that these resources are inextricably linked to the land base, this same land which is being claimed by natives, it is easy to see why people are concerned.
These ongoing land claim negotiations are taking place behind closed doors, out of the public eye, and this heightens concern, worry, and uncertainty.
I wrote to you earlier this spring on behalf of Andy Burton, Mayor of Stewart, asking that you allow a representative of this community to be appointed to the negotiating team. This request was denied.
My purpose in writing today is to request detailed, specific information which may help to re-assure my constituents.
What is the timetable for settlement of the Nisga'a land claim?
When do you expect to have an agreement in principle signed?
Will every Nisga'a have the right, as an individual to vote to accept or reject the agreement?
Will members of the Nisga'a band have the option of receiving benefits conferred under the agreement on a personal basis, that is, directly from the Government rather than to the Band Council on his/her behalf?
Will non-Natives in the Land Claim area have the right, as individuals, to vote to accept or reject the agreement?
Has your department assessed potential socio-economic impacts of a land claim settlement on surrounding non-Native communities? If so, could you provide these to me and if not will you commit to do so before signing any agreement?
Have you considered the potential cumulative effect that over 40 land claims could have on the B.C. economy?
Considering that the Nisga'a land claim is the First claim in B.C. to be negotiated and will set the floor and not the ceiling for benefits and land conveyance, will you commit to a detailed study of the above mentioned potential cumulative effect?
Have you considered the tax base generated by the resource industries in the claim area which provides direct benefits to all Canadians, and how this base may be affected by land claim settlements?
Do you intend to provide fair compensation to non-Nisga'a people who are economically injured or displaced as the result of land claim settlements? If so, can you provide details of your policy on compensation? I am not just referring to fishermen, forestry workers or miners, but also the thousands of retail, commercial, and service jobs that exist because of these industries.
Will regulations in place to protect and enhance renewable resources apply to resources conveyed to the Nisga'a people?
Will the Nisga'a people be entitled to ship unprocessed round logs for export? If so, what percentage of their timber is subject to this practice?
Mr. Minister, these are serious questions which my constituents need and deserve answers to and I trust that you will respond in a forthright and detailed manner to each one.
What I am getting at with this letter is the fact that the land claim issue is not just about aboriginal people. It is about all of us and how we will continue to function as a society both economically and politically. At the end of the day we all want and need essentially the same things regardless of our linguistic, cultural or ethnic backgrounds. We want an opportunity to live and work in a free country and within an economy that provides decent food, shelter, clothing and education for our children and allows us to enjoy the benefits of modern technology to enhance our lifestyles.
The Sahtu Dene and Metis land claim agreement is not an agreement which considers the long term interests of all Canadians, including the aboriginal peoples involved. It serves to heighten the deep concern my constituents have with the process of land claim resolutions.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994 April 12th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, before I talk on Bill C-18, I would like to respond to some of the remarks made by my friend from the Bloc who spoke before me. He mentioned the other place and suggested that we should do away with it. He said there was a growing mood in Canada for abolishing the Senate.
I would like to address that and say that the reason the other place has no credibility right now is that it is not elected and it is not accountable.
I suggest it is essential for the future of Canada and for regional fairness that we have a strong and vibrant Senate. Our vision is that senators should be elected and be accountable and there should be regional fairness in their distribution.
Going to Bill C-18, I have spoken on this issue before. I have to say we are very much opposed to this bill because it smacks of political interference.
It is very clear from the news reports I read in British Columbia while I was there for the recent hiatus that people in that province are deeply concerned that what we have here is business as usual. We have politicians who when they do not like something, instead of going through due process and allowing a fair and unbiased process to proceed, want to get involved by commandeering that process and steering it in a direction that is favourable to them.
Furthermore there is a good deal of concern among taxpayers that we have $5 million invested in this process right now and we are in danger of losing that. As a matter of fact we will lose the value of that money if this process is indeed suspended for 24 months and the commissions are abolished.
At the same time the government talks about a commitment to capping the number of MPs it attacks us on these benches for not wanting to see this happen. We have asked time and again and have moved an amendment to say if you want our support on a motion then instead of saying you are going to review the number of MPs, cap the number of MPs, make a firm commitment to it. There is no commitment in Bill C-18 to do this.
I find it very difficult to support a motion which we only look at reviewing the number of MPs, only look at studying something. If we do not think it is right then we should make a commitment up front that we are going to come up with a formula for capping the number of MPs.
I think the government would find a good deal of support from this side of the House, possibly unanimous support, if it moved in that direction but we have not seen that. I was in my riding recently, as were most members. I received very little expression of concern from my constituents on the matter of electoral boundary changes. Believe me, my riding changes dramatically, maybe not as dramatically as some of the other people in this House but it does change dramatically. It increases by about 25 per cent. I already have one of the largest geographic ridings in Canada. It is very difficult for a member to service now and it is going to become even more difficult under the proposed changes to the electoral boundaries commission.
However, there is a process in place and the people in my constituency are prepared to live with that process. They are prepared to work within it. I believe that should be the position that all of us take as members in this House, that rather than trying to hijack the process we work within it.
Because the process will be suspended for 24 months if this bill passes, British Columbia and Ontario will go into the next century, indeed the next millennium, with the same electoral boundaries and the same distribution they had based on the 1980 census. If there is one thing that generates a good deal of concern and anger in British Columbia, and I am sure that Ontario feels the same way, it is the fact that we are being short-changed. We are not receiving a proper representation based on our population, which is something our democracy ascribes to. I have been hearing a lot from my constituents on that.
Let me suggest that the government proceeds with this bill at its political peril in British Columbia and in other parts of Canada as well. If the country goes into another election without redistribution having taken place, there will be a price to pay and the government should be aware of that. There is a strong feeling and strong sentiment in British Columbia that that is the case. People are not happy with that.
If the government wants to introduce Bill C-18 and wants to have an opportunity to examine the process, why not do it in 12 months? Certainly anything that can be done in 24 months can be done in 12 months. We do not see a reason for holding up the process any longer than is necessary. Furthermore we do not see a requirement to suspend or to abolish the present commissions and come up with new commissions 24 months from now and start all over at square one. Why not at least retain some of the value of the dollars that have been spent?
I support the Reform amendments for those reasons.
I feel very strongly that the government should make a statement that it is going to cap the number of seats rather than just talk about reviewing the number of seats. We have to put a firm cap on the number of seats. We have to show Canadians that we are indeed concerned about the expenditure of taxpayers' dollars. We certainly do not need more representatives in this House than we have now to oversee the affairs of the country.
We want to retain the current commissions and preserve the value of the work that has been done. This can be done and still allow the government the opportunity to review the work of the electoral boundaries commissions and to review the process that is in place. I support very strongly that if we suspend the process we only suspend it for 12 months and not 24 months.
We must keep the process scrupulously non-partisan and non-political. We must do it in a way that Canadians can see that we have not engaged in political interference, that it is not business as usual, that we have not looked at trying to further or protect our own political interests, but looked at the best way to achieve redistribution and electoral boundaries changes based on what is best for the country.
We must ensure that representation by population is observed in the next election. As I said earlier, the government is going to have a very heavy political price to pay if it does not follow that. I reiterate again that British Columbians are very unhappy. They will be very unhappy if they go into an election in 1996, 1997, 1998 or whenever it happens with the same boundaries that they have had based on the census of 1980.
B.C. and Ontario deserve nothing less than a fair shake as do all of the provinces when it comes to distribution. We must continue to subscribe to representation by population. This bill flies in the face of that and will put British Columbia and Ontario at a disadvantage in the next election.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994 April 12th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, first I would like to respond to some of the remarks-
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act March 24th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I have been listening with interest to the comments and arguments raised by members opposite.
Today I rise to speak against Bill C-18. As has been pointed out by my colleagues on this side for the last two days of debate on this, the passage of this bill will terminate the work of the electoral commissions. It will effectively prevent redistribution from occurring in time for the next election. Also a budget of
$7.8 million was allocated to the commission. Approximately $5 million of that has already been spent, the benefit of which will be lost if this process is terminated at this time.
Members talk about the effects on their ridings. I must agree with my colleague from Calgary West that these are not our ridings. We tend to take ownership of these ridings as politicians. If anything the ridings own us, we do not own them. In that sense we have a duty to represent the interests and the wishes of those people in the riding we represent.
A number of questions arise for me on that note. Many of my constituents would wonder why we are effectively throwing $5 million of taxpayers' hard earned money down the drain to suspend this process. There should be some good reasons for doing so.
I hear arguments about trying to cap the number of MPs in the House of Commons. That is a valid point and I agree with it. However there is nothing in this proposed legislation that would cap the number of seats. Getting away from some vague wording about reviewing the increasing number of seats, let us talk about capping the number of seats. If members opposite had included that in the proposed bill then I think they would have found support from the Reform Party, but they have not. They have only proposed to talk about it. I have a great deal of difficulty with that.
My background is in small business. When we say we are going to do something, we do it. We do not talk about doing it. We do not say we are going to review and study it. We say we are going to do it. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the government could not have included that in the bill.
The boundaries of my riding-I am talking as if I owned it but I do not-the boundaries of the riding I represent, Skeena, will be affected greatly if this current proposal by the electoral commission goes through. Right now my riding is probably one of the largest geographically in Canada and my boundaries are going to increase 20 per cent by my calculations.
It is very difficult for members of Parliament to effectively represent geographically large ridings. A lot of travel is involved. Many small communities are far apart. Many communities in my riding are only accessible by air or water, some of them only by air. I know full well the kinds of problems members have to face in dealing with these ridings. Therefore when the boundaries of my riding expand it sends a lot of warning signals to me and I have some difficulties with it.
I remind members that there is a process. My constituents and I can make representations to the commission when it holds public meetings in Prince Rupert. We can submit our objections or suggestions for changes to the proposals the commission has made. This is a matter of process and something I fully subscribe to.
I understand why many members may not like the proposals in front of them. I do not like the proposals that are in front of me. The ridings of several of my colleagues in the Reform Party will disappear altogether. Members in other parties are facing the same problem.
However there is a process and I have not heard anyone question the process in these debates. I have not heard anyone say that what we have here is the work of a partisan commission which is out to do political damage to one party or another. That is not the case.
What these commissions are doing by all accounts is non-partisan and unbiased. They are attempting to achieve the objectives they have been given under section 51 of the Constitution Act and the Boundaries Readjustment Act. If in fact that is what the commissions have been working toward, then I question why we want to suspend or get involved in the process. Why would we want to have political interference?
We are talking about political interference. A process has been established and it is functioning. Members of Parliament do not like it. Members of Parliament are going to suspend the process so they can change it to something they like. That is political interference. There is no other description for it. What matters in this debate as far as I am concerned is what Canadians want, not what politicians want.
As I said earlier, any of my constituents who do not like the proposals can make representations before the commission on May 31, 1994 in Prince Rupert. The real evidence of voter concern in my riding will become evident through this public forum.
The bill before us if adopted is political interference at best. It opens the door for partisan manoeuvring. Indeed one would have to ask if this is not the real intent of the bill. Why would the government introduce it if it did not intend to gerrymander or play with the boundaries to the way it wants them rather than the way the commissions have proposed them.
Every citizen of this country no matter what their occupation must play by the rules. That is the law of Canada. If you break the rules, you forfeit either your freedom or some of your hard earned money, or both. If you disagree with the validity of the rules or the laws of the land, if you do not like the processes that are in place, you are at liberty to work through lawful means to try to change them. That is a fundamental principle of democracy.
We as members of Parliament are legislators. We make laws, we change laws, we amend laws. Sometimes we even strike laws from the books when we think they no longer represent what Canadians want. However we are not above the law.
In our positions as members of this great House, the very cradle of our democracy, we are in positions of great power. We are the legislators. We have the ability to change laws. Nothing makes Canadians more cynical than to see people being put in these positions of power and then abusing that power when ordinary Canadians do not have the opportunity of using that power to their own ends. That is precisely what is happening with this bill.
In recent years Canadians have become increasingly displeased with Parliament. They have expectations as to how public servants should conduct themselves. They become very cynical when they see politicians attempting to manipulate the system for their own personal gain.
There is only one way for Canadians to interpret the passage of this bill. They must conclude that once again the politicians in Ottawa are circumventing due process, a process that most agree is fair and unbiased, for their own gain.
When we all came to this House in January we were talking about conducting ourselves differently in the 35th Parliament. We talked about moving away from the practices previous governments and members engaged in.
Canadians want to believe this. It is therefore vitally important that we back up what we are talking about now through our deeds rather than through our words. Many members are unhappy with the changes that the commission has proposed. Some fear these will impact on their future electoral prospects. Looking at it objectively, the displacement is felt by all parties and virtually all members. No one party or individual was singled out.
As I said earlier, many members on this side of the House will be severely impacted if the current boundary proposals are adopted. Yet we maintain that the process must be allowed to continue and that those who are unhappy with the commission's proposals can make representations within the parameters that the process establishes, rather than voting in favour of this motion out of concern for their own personal political considerations.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act March 24th, 1994
Madam Speaker, on a point of order. It appears by my count that we do not have a quorum present.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act March 24th, 1994
Madam Speaker, I heard the hon. member casting disparaging remarks about the Reform Party. He likens us to Ronald Reagan who was elected as President of the United States on the promise of reducing the deficit and trying to get the massive debt under control.
There is a different system of government in Canada from what the Americans have in the United States. In Canada the executive branch and the legislative branch sit together whereas Mr. Reagan had to contend with the Democrats who dominated the Congress. In this government and in this Parliament the executive and the legislative branches are one and the same. Therefore they have much more power and ability to deal with deficits and debt than Mr. Reagan did.
Does the member recognize and acknowledge that fact?
I listened to the hon. member's remarks on fighting redistribution and heard that there was an uproar in his constituency over this proposed redistribution. I do not hear that uproar in my riding nor do I hear it in Canada. I do not see it on the front pages of the newspapers; I do not hear it being discussed. I continue to believe mightily it is an issue for members of Parliament much more so than it is an issue for Canadians.
I agree that one issue which is important to Canadians is the expenditure of money. The almost $5 million which has been spent to date will be lost if this government motion succeeds.
Furthermore, if the government is serious about capping the number of seats then why is it not clearly stated in the bill that the number of seats will be capped? If that were stated, the bill would probably have the support of the Reform Party but it is not. There is just a vague acknowledgement that the steadily increasing number of MPs will be looked at, but there is no commitment to stop it.
I ask the member for his comments on that.
Constitution Act, 1982 March 23rd, 1994
As my hon. friend said, it was a group of white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men. No women or minorities were reflected. It was very much a power brokering deal.
I have read a bit of history and I understand that at the time Prime Minister Trudeau considered very carefully going to a referendum because he was having a problem getting the provinces to agree to the amendment of the Constitution. If the government of the day had gone to the people and had asked for their input, we would have today a charter without a notwithstanding clause. That was put in there at the request of the provinces. It was done in a power brokering deal arrangement made behind closed doors with a group of elite politicians.
Does the member who moved the motion not agree that the process was flawed and that if we had the proper process we would not be in the situation we are in today? I guess that leads to the following questions. Where does sovereignty fundamentally reside? Does it reside in the federal government? Does it reside in the provincial governments? Is it shared between them? Or, does it reside in the people where it properly should reside?
The power sharing arrangement was constructed by and for political interests.
I go on from there to say that the framers of the charter in my view have a fundamental misunderstanding of what a charter of rights is for. A charter of rights should be about freedoms from and not entitlements to.
If we look at the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it is today, it is not that. There are certainly some reflections of that idea in there but it is more than that. It has some fundamental omissions in my opinion and it has some things in there that we could easily do without.
I would like to talk about the omissions first. There is no entrenchment of private property rights. This was done to serve the interests of the provincial governments but it certainly is not in line with what Canadians want. I suggest again if the process had been right that would be in there.
There is no tax limitation clause. There is no ability for the people to say that government can have only so much of my skin and I want the rest. There is no ability to do that within the charter. There is no deficit limitation clause. There is no ability for the people to say that government can only go into debt so far, that government can only have deficits of such a per cent of gross domestic product and no more.
That is not in the charter. There is no ability within the charter for referendums, initiative or recall and that could very well have been placed in there as well. It is something that we in this party know from campaigning and talking to people throughout Canada is very popular with the people but it is not in our charter.
I want to talk now about a part of the charter that we could do without. Section 15 of the Constitution Act of 1982 provides in subsection (1) that no Canadian will be discriminated against because of race, sex, disability, et cetera. Subsection (2) of the same section notes that the first section does not mean that government may not enact laws that are intended to ameliorate past discriminations.
What this subsection implies is that subsection (1) holds unless government has decided that a reverse discrimination program is in order. If there is such a program, the rights of those who are affected by such programs are simply forfeited in the interest of achieving the aims of the program.
This reverse discrimination or affirmative action provision in effect means that there is no protection for individuals from discrimination against them by Parliament if Parliament deems that in some past period of time some group covered by subsection (2) was discriminated against. This is another fundamental flaw in the charter.
While I agree that the notwithstanding clause is fundamentally undemocratic and its removal would enhance the charter and give it real meaning and protect the inalienable rights of Canadians, there are these other changes to the charter that need to be addressed as well.
In line with that, as my hon. friend earlier suggested, we have to look at reforming appointments to the Supreme Court. We have to look at a more democratic way of having those appointments made so that people can feel that at the highest levels of protection of our democratic interests we do have a democratic institution, an institution that is elected and not appointed, that is there to safeguard those interests.