Hugh Hanrahan

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague in terms of quality of purpose. I suggest to her that the vast majority of Canadians would also agree with her.

I would agree with her and Canadians would agree with her on the very point that the process as it now exists is separate from politicians rather than involving politicians. They have seen it work over a period of time. What it seems to be in this instance is change for the sake of change. I do not believe that change is for the benefit of the Canadian people. I doubt very much if my constituents or anyone else in the country would see it in that manner.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I have had concerns expressed to me with regard to the boundary changes. I have also had constituents recognize that the process by which they can express their concerns to the commission is a valid one. They are much more confident with that process than with a committee of politicians deciding on where boundaries should or should not be.

They are concerned but they see the opportunity they have to express those concerns in a traditional and fair manner.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, March 21st, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will begin by expressing my opposition to Bill C-18. I also acknowledge the fact that the Liberal government must truly be committed to deficit reduction. I can make this statement because any government willing to scrap an electoral boundary commission report that has cost Canadians nearly $5 million must be committed to fiscal responsibility.

To make matters even more convincing, the government will be asking Canadian taxpayers to go through this process all over again even though the present commissions' report has not been tainted by any political influence. Nor is there any outcry from Canadians regarding the current redistribution process other than the fact that they do not want the number of seats in Parliament to increase.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the government's plan is that there is no strong defence for interfering with the present process before determining if the public hearings are not successful. We can also see that throughout Canada's history the issue of electoral boundary redistribution has been a contentious issue. This hostility is derived from the very premise that those who have power are never willing to relinquish their hold on it.

I think the idea of politicians redrawing their own boundaries lies at the very core of a serious problem in Canada. That problem is a lack of trust by the public regarding politicians. It is evident therefore that this government does not see that Canadians are unhappy with the entire process in which politicians have been doing their business. Canadians want change. They want a new style of openness. They want a new style of fairness. This type of legislation can only be viewed as regressive.

This House was given the absolute right to redraw the electoral boundaries at Confederation. However because of the contentious nature of electoral redistribution which I have already mentioned Parliament has agreed to share this responsibility of redistribution with the electoral boundaries commissions created in 1964.

Since the creation of these electoral boundaries commissions public perception that there are not considerable amounts of political interference to the readjustment process has diminished. This political interference which took place before the creation of the electoral boundaries commissions was an attempt to assure as far as possible the re-election of the members of the governing party.

This is absolutely wrong. I hope that this government is not travelling down the same path of early governments.

It is important to note that since 1964 while many politicians have been unhappy with the outcome of redistributions, there has rarely been the concern of political interference. This is for the simple fact that these commissions are non-partisan.

There are 11 electoral boundaries commissions in Canada, one in each of the provinces and one in the Northwest Territories. These commissions consist of three members: a chairman who is appointed by the chief justice of the province from among judges in that province and the other two members of the commission are appointed by the Speaker of the House. These two individuals are usually university professors or non-elected officials of the legislative assemblies.

The commission looks primarily at the number of people in the province, not political partisanship. They do not consider how the changes will affect one party over another. In fact the largest criticism of the commissions is they do not consider enough non-political information. Many times they overlook the common community interests or community identities.

It is important to ensure that redistributed boundaries correspond as closely as possible to the national quotient while also taking into account community interests and the historical pattern of an electoral district.

These factors then will enable the commissions to properly manage the geographic size of districts with sparsely populated areas. The commissions are allowed to deviate from the provincial average by plus or minus 25 per cent. This allowance then allows them to accommodate the human and geographic factors.

Another issue that is troublesome for me is that in 1985 Parliament passed the Representation Act which set out a formula for redistribution. It was a constitutional amendment which ensured that no province could have fewer seats than the 1985 level of representation regardless of the population of that province.

The exception is P.E.I. which can have no fewer MPs than senators. We therefore have done away with the premise of absolute representation by population. The government would like to suspend the Representation Act and attempt to develop a new proposal for the consideration of the House.

Let us start with the basic premise of rep by pop. Within the concept of representation by population emerges the concept of equality of vote. Any notion of equality of rep by pop may permit if countered by the fact that the current and historical development of representation in Canada has only partially been based on the notion of representation by population.

Since Confederation, Canada has developed a system with respect to electoral representation whereby the heavily populated provinces retain a majority of the seats within the House of Commons while the less populated provinces receive an adequate number of seats to ensure representation.

By no means does the federal government reflect the notion of representation by population in its purest form. Rep by pop has been altered in order to guarantee a minimum number of seats within the House to less populated provinces so that they do not become under represented if their population base decreases.

Thus while the principle of representation by population may be said to lie at the heart of the electoral apportionment in Canada, it has from the beginning been altered by other factors.

Due to Canada's vast geographic size and regional differences, a modified version of representation by population has emerged. It is therefore determined that the equality of votes guaranteed to Canadians is one of relative equality and not

absolute equality. Therefore we do not have equality of voting power but rather relative equality of voting power.

This relative equality is not just within the provinces but between the provinces as well. For example, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick constituting 6.1 per cent of the population are guaranteed 7 per cent of the seats. Alberta and British Columbia comprise just under 22 per cent of the population while we are entitled to only 20 per cent of the seats.

The west is not only under represented in Parliament, we are also under represented in the Senate. How can a region of Canada that has less than 11 per cent of the population have over 28 per cent of the Senate seats while western Canada has over 29 per cent of the Canadian population with only 23 per cent of senate seats. These injustices must be rectified. The west wants in.

Canada is a country of many regions and there are probably as many definitions of regionalism as there are people defining it. Regionalism is not some sort of disease to be stamped out. Rather it is a healthy manifestation but lacking a healthy institutional outlet.

The only true significant political failure of the Canadian experience is its chronic inability to solve those regional tensions. The Senate was established to protect the interests of the provinces. Yet, for too long western Canada has felt that its interests have not been adequately represented in the federal Parliament. The National Energy Program is just one example and the possibility of a carbon tax implemented at source is another.

The Canadian Senate lacks legitimacy in the eyes of many Canadians because it is an appointed body that runs counter to the fundamental Canadian belief that democratic governments should be conducted by an elected rather than an appointed body. What Canadians need is a triple-E Senate, an effective, elected and equal Senate. A reformed Senate will not just benefit one province or one region. It will help build a better and stronger Canada.

We should have an elected Parliament based solely on representation by population with a constant number of members of Parliament. This concept will only work if we have an elected Senate to which all regions of Canada have an equal number of senators.

This would ensure that Parliament reflects the notion of one man, one vote, and allows the Senate to reflect the regional interests of our nation.

Moving on to specific recommendations of the recent electoral boundaries commission which has recommended that Calgary be given one additional seat for a total of seven, while Edmonton in Alberta would remain at six and 26 respectively, it was encouraging that the commission did recognize that Calgary and Edmonton have traditionally the same number of representatives in Ottawa.

Because the number of electoral districts for Edmonton remains at six the proposed changes to the boundaries are relatively minor. The changes that will be made to my riding are not extensive and I feel that they have been done in a just manner.

Edmonton-Strathcona's population will be almost 16 per cent above the provincial average yet it is well within the established plus or minus 25 per cent deviation.

Although I do not wholeheartedly agree with this plus or minus 25 per cent as an absolute figure, I do agree that there needs to be some allowance in riding size because of urban and rural differences. However I am not convinced that the deviation presently allowed has not been picked arbitrarily.

Why should it not be plus or minus 20 per cent, 15 per cent, 10 per cent? However, this is an issue that I will leave to debate another day and I will continue with the specific changes to Edmonton-Strathcona recommended by the commission.

The southern tip of Edmonton-Strathcona will be lost to Edmonton Southwest while we gain the northeastern part of Edmonton Southeast riding. Although I realize the need for redistribution, I do have some trouble with the map that has been made for Edmonton. However, with a few minor changes in the electoral boundaries which would ensure that the riding populations of the rest of Edmonton are closer than they are presently, I can see nothing else that is substantially wrong with the commission's report. These small changes could be made through the public consultation process.

In fact these consultations or hearings are to begin in Quebec on April 12. They will move across Canada over the next three months and are due to hold hearings in Edmonton on April 28 at two o'clock and at 7.30 p.m. at the Macdonald Hotel.

The present process of designing constituencies by independent boundaries commissions for each province has worked well. We do not need a change for the sake of change. If the electoral boundaries commissions were inherently flawed then changes would be made. However, this has not been shown to be the case.

The use of such non-partisan commissions has made it possible to give consideration to community interest criteria without including a partisan tone to the nature of the equation and/or the process.

These independent commissions have allowed us to redraw constituencies based primarily on equality of the vote which includes specific criteria based on a national quotient and have also included a need for justification of variations that deviate dramatically from the quotient.

In conclusion, this process has worked and it has been fair. Any alteration to the process will raise suspicions and a sense of unfairness among the Canadian public. Bill C-18 does not give the appearance of fairness to the Canadian public.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to briefness I will respond to the final question regarding fees.

I quite agree with the suggestion that fees are an appropriate matter. It has always been my belief that if a student in an educational facility takes some ownership of the facility, the training, he is much more likely to succeed than if he had not.

I would not be opposed to user fees in that they would serve two purposes. They would give the student some opportunity to participate in his own education. They would also cut back on the public expenditure.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments. He correctly points out-and we are consistently pointing it out to the Canadian people-that while a balanced budget is a necessity it must be done in a way that is priorized.

We see education as an investment for Canadians. That is one area our members and Canadians at large have told us very clearly should not be cut. We do not want to see a lost generation and the problems implied with such a lost generation.

While we believe in fiscal responsibility, our program of zero in three clearly shows many areas in which we can make responsible cuts to the budget. However we would not include in that advanced education, training of our youth, federal payments to medicare, or environmental concerns.

[Borrowing Authority Act, 1994-95, March 7th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to rise in the House for my first major address.

It is with a great sense of pride and humility that I stand before you and the rest of Canada as the representative for Edmonton-Strathcona. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people of my riding for the trust they placed in me as their representative in the 35th Parliament. I would like to assure them that I will do my very best to represent their views in the House of Commons. I would also like to thank my wife Dianne and daughter Margaret for their support and patience during the campaign.

The constituency of Edmonton-Strathcona is an extremely diverse riding with a wide range of small and medium sized businesses. It is also the home to, in my opinion, the best educational facility in the country, the University of Alberta.

It was the youth of my constituency who gave me the inspiration to seek a seat in Parliament. Clearly they recognized the implications of the national debt on their futures. Given the increasing debt and the demographics of our country, it is little wonder that so many of our population of all ages look with such growing concern at the future implications of this debt. While both the Reform Party in its blue book and the government in its red book have taken significantly different approaches to the debt problem, neither party has suggested it be attacked by placing the burden on youth.

The Reform Party, while suggesting many cutbacks, also suggests that these cutbacks be priorized. In surveying our members and Canadians in general we have concluded that a number of areas must be maintained. These include federal grants to medicare, the environment and advanced education.

If we are to leave a Canada to our children similar to the Canada our parents left to us, then we must offer hope to the younger generation. We must not only attack our debt but do it in a manner which allows for a clean environment, a healthy and educated population able to confront the global economy in a confident manner. This is one of the major challenges of this Parliament.

To emphasize the present situation let me cite the following. A recent article by the Globe and Mail reporting on a study from Statistics Canada stated that unprecedented numbers of young Canadians have been wrestled out of the workforce. Proportionately more of them lost their jobs than adults and it will take longer for them to gain back these jobs than it will be for adults. The same article, quoting Dr. Phipps of Dalhousie University, suggests it is possible that by the time the economy does produce good jobs a fresh generation of better trained, better educated young people will be vying for these jobs. The prospect that a combination of all these factors could produce a lost generation is very real.

On a more individual level, I would like to cite a letter received by an employer in my constituency from a recent university graduate. In it he states:

I am a 1993 graduate of the University of Alberta with a BSc in meteorology. Unfortunately due to the state of the job market, I had no success in gaining employment in my field. I would like your company to consider me for any position that may be available from answering phones to lab analysis.

These are just two examples of problems facing the youth in our country today. What is perhaps of greater concern is that this problem of youth unemployment is occurring at a time when there are as many as 400,000 jobs available in our economy.

John Yurxa of Yurxa Research stated in a recent speech in Edmonton that "the economy will have no shortage of lucrative jobs in the remainder of this decade, it is just that you will need a new set of skills to get them. The fact is there are now over one and a half million Canadians out of work, yet many employers say they cannot find the workers they need. In fact, today, the mismatch between job seekers and job vacancies is so high that if it could be remedied overnight, up to 400,000 jobs would be created instantly".

It would seem the problem of youth unemployment can be found in the structural unemployment that is present in the Canadian economy. The solution to this problem lies in matching the training of our youth to the demands of the marketplace.

The recent budget included in its job creation an entire section devoted to apprenticeship programs for the training of youth. This apprenticeship program is to be introduced in 1995-96 and will cost the Canadian taxpayers $96 million in the first year and an additional $192 million in the following year. While I applaud the government for recognizing the problem of youth unemployment, some serious questions as to the structure of this program must be asked.

How did the government come up with these figures? Why $96 million? Why not $50 million or $150 million? Will these programs meet the needs of the mismatch between job training and job requirements? Who will be eligible for these programs? Where and under whose auspices will these programs be delivered?

As mentioned earlier, I agree with the government's decision to initiate the youth initiative program. However, if it is to offer real hope to our youth it must be tailored to the needs of the market. Another program that does not offer real prospects for employment will only add to the frustration of our youth.

I suggest the government take the following into consideration in developing the youth initiative program. First, identify through co-operation with industry, labour and the provinces those skills that are actually needed in present and future markets.

Employment growth in the Canadian economy in recent years has been in services. Throughout the eighties, however, more than 90 per cent of occupations covered by apprenticeship programs have related to manufacturing and construction. Most vacancies now exist in informational technology, telecommunications and environmental technologies.

My second suggestion is that industry participate, not only in setting the standards but also in the financial responsibility for these programs. Here we can look at two existing programs as models: One, the very positive aspects of the Canadian provincial apprenticeship programs already in existence; and two, the programs of other countries, particularly in Germany.

A third suggestion is that like trade apprenticeship programs, the youth initiative program should include some sort of credential on completion. This accreditation should be nationally recognized in order to ensure mobility from one province to another. This would allow for the free movement of workers to areas experiencing economic growth. This suggestion may be criticized by some who believe that apprenticeship programs are essentially a provincial responsibility. While this is mainly true, the provinces have already in place interprovincial standards under their red seal program which in Alberta covers approximately 90 per cent of the certified journeymen.

A final suggestion for the youth initiative program is that it must be focused on areas that do not jeopardize existing employees. To simply train our youth to replace at a lower wage present workers would only increase conflicts within the workforce.

It is estimated that 60 per cent of youth go directly from high school to the job market. Our experience shows a high school education, while necessary, will not be sufficient for the market demands of the future. The youth initiative program if done properly offers an opportunity and hope for our nation's youth. However, if done improperly it will be seen as a short term, quick fix government program and a waste of Canadian taxpayers' money.

[Cfb Edmonton, February 18th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to express the feelings of many Edmontonians, particularly those in Edmonton-Strathcona, regarding Canadian Forces Base Edmonton.

While I recognize that some restructuring of our military must be considered in terms of fiscal responsibility, I would ask that the Minister of National Defence consider the following regarding CFB Edmonton.

It is the largest supply and service depot in western Canada. It has recently undergone a $10 million expansion. It contains the fourth largest runway in the world.

What concerns me most is that the department is considering these base closures before it has determined the new role of the Canadian military. It would seem logical to first conduct such a review and then decide what bases should be closed.

CFB Edmonton is the gateway to the north and it is extremely well suited to serve Canada's needs in the next century.

[Employment, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, the unemployment rate is higher today than it was when this government was elected last October.

Will the minister commit to a goal of reducing unemployment by at least 1.5 per cent annually during the mandate of this government?

[Employment, February 11th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Human Resources Development and is inspired by Ms. Ellen Reid of London, Ontario.

This government has promised to reduce both the deficit and the unemployment rate. The Minister of Finance has stated his deficit goal for the next year and has committed to a three year goal equal to 3 per cent of the GDP.

Is the Minister of Human Resources Development prepared to establish similar goals for the reduction in the rate of unemployment?

[Interprovincial Trade Barriers, January 26th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your election to the chair.

I would also like to inform the House that presently there are over 500 interprovincial trade barriers which cost Canadians over $6.5 billion annually. These barriers make it easier to trade with Mexico and the United States than within our own borders.

Creating a single economic market in Canada would help counter the nation's current regional drift and would allow Canadians to work where they choose.

The federal and provincial governments signed an agreement last week for the removal of many of the 500 barriers. This is extremely encouraging.

The Reform Party caucus is supportive of these efforts and applauds the provincial and federal governments for providing a clear definition of interprovincial trade barriers. As well the commitment of these governments to the June 30, 1994 time line is most commendable.