Reg Alcock

[Canada-China Legislative Association, November 27th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, last week I had the honour of travelling to China with several of my colleagues from the House and Senate to participate in the first meeting of the Canada-China Legislative Association.

This new association was created under the sponsorship of Speaker Parent, Speaker Molgat and that of the chair of the Chinese National People's Congress, Mr. Li Peng.

Our counterparts from the standing committee of the National People's Congress were Jiang Xin Xiong, Zheng Yi, Zeng Jianhui, Lu Congmin, Liu Zheng, Tao Xiping, Wang Shuming, Jamyang Losang Jigme Tubain Qoigyi Nyima, and Yang Zhenhuai.

Together we covered a wide range of topics of importance to legislators from the functioning of our respective governments to many of the more difficult issues we all face: respect for the rights of minorities, the rule of law, the development of a civil society, human rights, protection of the environment and much more.

Together we began a process which I believe will deepen the already positive relationships that exist between our two countries.

[Senator Selection Act, November 26th, 1998]

I as well.

In 1992 with the Charlottetown Accord we moved to a point in this discussion that we have never been able to get to before. We actually had a proposal for a triple E Senate. We actually had the agreement of all the provinces that the Senate would be equal, 6-6-6; 62 members. We made provisions for aboriginal representation. It was something that I think many people who are seized with this issue would never believe we would get to, but we got there. What did the Reform Party do? The Reform Party had a proposal for an equal, effective and democratically elected Senate. It opposed it. It fought against it. In the end it was voted down.

The Meech Lake accord failed, so the process that was used under that failed along with it. It was rejected. I supported the Charlottetown accord for those very principles. I think a triple E Senate is a very good thing, particularly for western Canada.

Now we are into this debate that sort of capitalizes on people's desire to make fun of the Senate or to continue to denigrate a group of people who I think do marvellous work on behalf of Canada and put forward what they say is an important improvement. I am astounded, frankly, that the Reform Party would support this bill or even think of proposing it.

The two provinces the Reform Party is most populous in, Alberta and British Columbia, represent 23% of the population. They have 11.5% of the Senate seats. The Reform Party is proposing that we enshrine that, that we give that inequality legitimacy. I do not understand why it would want to make legitimate a process that contains a real inequality for the west. There seems to be no particular advantage to be gained from that. It is true that the Senate needs reform but if we want to have a democracy, a democratically elected Senate, the member himself said part of the functioning of a democracy is at the end of the term that we are elected for we go back and stand in front of the people again and ask for a renewed mandate. A one time election of a senator into a position until he or she is 75 does not allow for any ability to go back in front of the people. On the issue of how the rest of the Senate functions, we have a few who are elected democratically and a few who are living out their terms in the Senate. How does this lead to a competent, functioning, well organized approach to improving democracy?

I support the goal. The goal is laudable. But the approach taken by the Reform Party to produce a reform of the Senate is simply too glib and I think somewhat misses the point.

If we want a Senate that gives true balance to the disproportional rep by pop that we have in this House, one that becomes a true house for the regions or the provinces, which I would like to see it become, surely we need to reform the entire institution.

It is too complex an organization to play around with one little item, to change one or two facets of it. We need to sit down and reform the Senate. We need to do it in the way we have been trying to solve all the problems we face right now, piece by piece, looking at the problem, coming together with the provinces, with our partners, having the discussions, arriving at a consensus and acting on that consensus. That is the way we will get to true constitutional change.

That is the way, working through and carefully solving problems one at a time, we have managed to get from the very difficult financial circumstances we were in when we came to government in 1993 to today. That is a process I hope all members would support. But to jump into this debate to change one small facet of this I suspect makes the problem worse, not better.

I support the member in his desire to continue this debate on the reform of the Senate. I certainly will be among members of the House who will spend a lot of time and energy attempting to produce a more effective parliament for Canadians. But I cannot support this particular approach.

[Senator Selection Act, November 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise tonight to speak on this issue. It is an issue that I have thought long and hard about during the 10 years that I have been elected.

To put the remarks I want to make tonight in context, I am reminded of a poster that a friend of mine has on the wall of his office. It says for every complex problem there is a simple answer and it is wrong.

That is the problem I have with this bill. Reform of the Senate is a very important issue. It is one that members on this side of the House have been wrestling with for decades. It is one that the Senate has wrestled with.

I really find it very difficult when I see Senators depicted in the way the Reform Party chooses to depict them. I am not certain what cause is advanced by slandering honest, hardworking Canadians who choose to serve their country. I do not understand how that furthers the cause of democracy.

There are a lot of very talented Canadians who work in the other place. They do good work on behalf of the country and they want reform. When hon. members read the joint Senate reports of 1984, 1987, 1992, Senators were calling for reform of the Senate, calling for election.

What is a little confusing in the Reform's approach to this is that the very election cited, the appointment of Stan Waters to the Senate by former Prime Minister Mulroney, was done out of respect for section 4 of the Meech Lake accord which called for a process of appointment upon the recommendation of the province.

This is the example the Reform Party would put forward of how this should work. It was an example that was part of Meech Lake and yet, as I recall, it was the Reform Party that campaigned against Meech Lake and fought for its demise.

[Grey Cup, November 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, once again Winnipeg has demonstrated why it is the greatest city in the world. Despite the fact that our beloved Blue Bombers decided to take the year off Winnipeg nonetheless put on a terrific show for the rest of Canada.

In typical Winnipeg style more people offered to volunteer than were needed. Volunteers greeted incoming visitors, showed them the many wonders to be found in the city with the warmest heart in Canada. They taught them how to party and they saw them off at the airport.

Hubert Kleysen, a resident of the best federal constituency in the greatest city in the number one country in the world, organized the festival of lights parade honouring Winnipeg's central role in transportation.

The halftime show included the largest fireworks display ever put on in Manitoba. Susan Aglukark sang O Canada. Fred Penner and Donovan Bailey entertained young and old alike and, oh yeah, a couple of teams played some football.

The energy to be found in Winnipeg was felt by those teams and they played what is being called the greatest Grey Cup in the history of the league. Once again Winnipeg comes through and if that is not enough good news I am told that next year the Blue Bombers are coming out of retirement.

[The Parliament Of Canada, November 6th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, today is the anniversary of the first session of parliament. On November 6, 1867 a process began which has made Canada one of the greatest democracies in the world.

Working together, debating policies, making laws, holding the government accountable for its actions, challenging orthodoxy and defending rights, each of those who came before us has played a part in the building of a truly extraordinary country.

A country founded on mutual respect, a country flexible enough to accept all differences, a country that draws its strength from its diversity, a country that has transformed this diversity into a model for the entire world.

Over the past 131 years, thousands of Canadians have passed through this House and we who are now passing through must continue this work in progress. We must continue to show the rest of the world that a diverse people can work together.

[Calgary Declaration, November 2nd, 1998]

It takes a few days to pull it together. Under freedom of information I think the departments are given 40 days to prepare it. When it comes before the House all documents have to be put together. Those that are not originally in both official languages have to be translated before they can be entered into the House.

All of that information will be produced.

In terms of the comments that were made by the member from Calgary about the government's supposed concerns about the Calgary declaration, let me read what the former parliamentary secretary of federal-provincial relations said when he spoke on this motion in the House: “The Calgary declaration is based on seven principles that are completely”—completely, not partially, not maybe, not sort of—“in line with our government's national unity policy. It highlights our country's diversity”.

How that can be twisted into some other government playing games with the Calgary accord or not supporting the Calgary accord is a little difficult to figure. The point I would like to make is that if we are truly going down the road to changing, rebuilding, restoring confidence of Canadians in our constitutional framework and we are truly going to rebuild this framework, maybe we should begin that process by trying to work together on it rather than simply making it one more straw man that arguments are created about. I do not know how that assists the process.

[Calgary Declaration, November 2nd, 1998]

The member says to give them to him. Let me read the motion: “That a humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all documents, reports, minutes of meetings, notes, memos, polls and correspondence relating to the Calgary Declaration”. We have agreed to do that.

[Calgary Declaration, November 2nd, 1998]

I am sorry. I do not want to be like our NDP friend on the plane who chooses to share all conversations, but there were conversations which took place that I was a party to.

The government has said from the beginning that we do not have any objection to sharing this information. I would suggest on issues such as this one in the future that if there is a concern, if there is information members opposite want, and I am not saying all information will be shared automatically, but the information will be shared. I am certain there will be policy issues and information that will come forward at times between the government and others where it will be difficult to do that.

On this issue, I would advise members that if they want information from the government, perhaps the first approach would be to call the minister and ask if they could have it. If members get told no, then they have the option of going the freedom of information route and all this information would have been received that way, or members could come to the House.

To start at the top simply uses a lot of time that could be spent elsewhere and produces no advantage, no additional result, particularly when members have been told they would get the information. One has to wonder why members came into the House to do this. Is it because they really want to get the information because they are concerned about transparency or is it because they want to create a straw man that reinforces the image members want to create regarding secrecy and lack of accountability? Members want to run against that.

I would argue frankly that it is the latter. I would feel, if I were allowed to feel things around here any more, that that was probably an abuse of the time of this House. More importantly it is an abuse of the process that we have to create if we are going to create the kind of constitution we all want.

What is the official response of the government to this motion? This comes from the speech of the member for Simcoe North. The government agrees to follow up on this initiative. The member in saying this has said his prediction is that the government will vote down this motion. Why are these polls being held back? Why are we not being apprised of the situation? The government's response is “Sure. If you want them, you have got them”.

[Calgary Declaration, November 2nd, 1998]

Ask for them. A member opposite asks where are they? The point is that we moved to this debate before anyone asked for the papers.

[Calgary Declaration, November 2nd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased the motion has come back on the order paper. When it was introduced into the House I was at home awaiting the arrival of my new daughter and was unable to speak to it. I thank the member for Simcoe North, the former parliamentary secretary to the minister of intergovernmental affairs, who stood in my absence and responded on behalf of the government, and the member for Vancouver Quadra who also spoke to the issue.

In trying to respond to the comments that have been made, and certainly the comments that were made when the House was previously seized with the matter, it is important for us to reflect on a couple of points.

I am in my 11th year as an elected person. I spent two terms in the provincial house and I am now in my second term here. It has been my experience—and I think this experience holds in most walks of life—that we do our best work and create the best results when we work together, when we work in co-operation, when we attempt to put aside some of our differences and work on behalf of the best interests of the country and the people we serve.

Nowhere is this more important than in the issue of constitutional reform which affects every person in the country. It is an issue that must be considered very carefully. Each decision we make will become part of the structure of the country for a very long time.

It is not a process to be entered into lightly and I certainly do not hear members opposite suggesting that we should. The important aspect for me is that it is a process that needs to be entered into co-operatively. It is a process that is entered into when people are sitting down, not to fight about their personal differences or their broad political differences, but to look at ways in which they can produce something that is truly in the best interests of Canadians.

Having said that, I am a little surprised by this motion. It is said that if the policies or actions of the government cannot be attacked, then attack the process. Unfortunately, recently in this House when members cannot attack the process, they attack the person.

We have seen a lot of debate in this House in these last few weeks, certainly since we came back into this House in September, that has little to do with reality, little to do with actions of individuals and a lot to do with an attempt by members of this House to personally discredit and attack individuals. I find that extremely distasteful. In the two speeches that were just made I have heard the words “secrecy”, “behind closed doors”, “talked down”, “ramming things through”.

What is the government's response to this motion? It will produce all the papers. That was the government's response before it was debated in the House. There is no secrecy here. There is no attempt to hide anything.