John English

[Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation And Safety Board, December 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 32(2), I have the honour to present, in the two official languages, the report of the auditor of the Canadian Transportation Accident Investigation and Safety Board.

This report deals with the financial year ending March 31, 1995. The report stands referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.

[Manganese Based Fuel Additives Act, November 27th, 1995]

Madam Speaker, on November 8 the member for Chicoutimi asked the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs about the mandate of the cabinet committee on unity.

The minister replied that the committee was going to look at all the possibilities for constitutional and administrative changes in the federation.

The member further asked if the minister could inform the House whether the committee would look at options, such as a resolution to recognize Quebec's distinct character, as well as a bill on regional referendums.

The minister responded that the commitments made by the Prime Minister during the campaign concerning a distinct society and constitutional veto for Quebec will be fulfilled.

The initiatives announced today by the Prime Minister represent a ground breaking and effective way of achieving a major constitutional objective without reopening the Constitution, since Lucien Bouchard and the PQ government have stated clearly and repeatedly that they were not interested in constitutional change.

Our legislation on the right of veto ensures that we will not make any constitutional change Quebec does not want. We must not let the intransigence of Lucien Bouchard and of the Quebec government impede the adoption of non-constitutional changes, changes the people of Quebec and of other Canadian regions are looking forward to.

The results of the October 30 referendum have shown the clear desire of Quebecers to remain within Canada, a country that they have helped to build into the tolerant, compassionate society we know today.

At the same time, the referendum has signalled that Quebecers and many other Canadians are looking for changes within the federation that will make the government more responsive to the needs of Canadians.

[Very Reverend Laszlo Tokes, November 9th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the Very Reverend Laszlo Tokes, moderator of the Hungarian Presbyterian Church in Transylvania, is visiting Canada from November 7 to 15.

The Romanian revolution in December 1989 was sparked by Reverend Tokes. He is a champion of human rights for minorities. He will address in general the human rights problems facing all Romanian minorities, especially those of the nearly three million Hungarians in Transylvania: the loss of Hungarian language schools and universities, the prohibition of the use of the language itself and the eradication of fundamental Hungarian culture.

The Very Reverend Laszlo Tokes is a man of God. He is a man of peace who stood unarmed against the brutal Ceausescu regime and sparked a revolution. His continued battle in fighting for human rights and minority rights is one which we all encourage and support.

[``On To Ottawa'' Trek, November 2nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the motion of the hon. member for Regina-Qu'Appelle concerning the 1935 "On to Ottawa" trek and the Regina riot.

The hon. member's motion recalls a time and place far removed from the Canada of today. It was the time of the Great Depression, a time of staggering unemployment, prolonged and terrible drought and the near collapse of national economies. There were shrinking markets and falling prices, all of which contributed to human misery and hardship on a scale seldom seen before in North America.

This was a time when a woman working in a textile factory in Quebec could work a 60-hour week and earn only $5. The millions of acres of prairie wheat fields were turned into dust bowls and farmers walked away from family farms they had worked all their lives.

In 1929 when the depression began there were 107,000 unemployed in Canada. By 1933, the worst year of the depression, there were 646,000 unemployed, approximately one-quarter of the Canadian work force at that time.

The response of the Bennett government to the depression for younger men was to organize work camps. These work camps were organized under the Department of National Defence. The workers within them were paid 20 cents a day. This was an early and very harsh form of workfare.

Conditions in the camps were well described by the member for Qu'Appelle. They were camps in which work was done for the sake of doing work. "We are playing at highway building", reported the striker in his diary. "What a joke we are. We make a ditch one day and then change the plans and find that it is in the wrong place". A public servant for the Conservative government: "Not one cent of public money has been spent on reading material and recreational equipment".

The member has performed a service in drawing to our attention the consequences of this kind of attitude toward the unemployed and the consequences of using work camps, workfare or whatever to deal with the unemployed.

One of the workers wrote at the time: "It is really the fact that we are getting nowhere in the plan of life that moves us forward to march to Ottawa. We are truly a lost legion of youth rotting away for want of being offered a sane outlet for our energies".

The work camps were organized in B.C., it must be said, largely by communist workers. The workers organized for the trek to Ottawa and by the time they got to Regina in June of 1935 there were 12,000 workers. The Liberal premier of the province, Premier Gardiner, protested that the government of the day had decided to stop the workers there. Prime Minister Bennett met with the workers. The reply he gave them was very harsh and indeed he would not even let them talk.

On July 1 unfolded the tragedy that has been described by the member opposite. One policeman died and we mourn his memory. Dozens of policemen and others, workers obviously, were injured. It is a black mark in the history of the depression. It is a black mark in the history of the city of Regina as well.

The hon. member's motion suggests that the Conservative government of the day bears much of the responsibility for what took place in Regina and the judgment of history. The judgment of history in this case does largely bear out the hon. member's claim. I might add that during the depression solutions were not easy. Many kinds of solutions were made in various countries. The new deal in the United States was a very successful response to the depression but one that was thought to be authoritarian by many others.

There were responses. In Italy Mussolini responded by making the trains run on time but also causing wars in places as far away as Abyssinia and responses in Germany where public works projects did create jobs.

The party that the hon. member represents, the CCF, was formed during the 1930s and it sought solutions too. I quote from the Regina manifesto which called for complete social ownership and public management of the Canadian economy. It stated: "All financial machinery, transportation, communications, electric power and all other industry and services essential to social planning should be nationalized and operated by the state; furthermore there be no compensation for bankrupt private concerns for the benefit of promoters and for stock and bond holders".

That is not the stand of his party today obviously. I mention this only because we have to give credit to people's views and their times and not to support R.B. Bennett's decision on that day in this particular case. However we can recognize that for us to judge today what they thought then reflects the judgment of a later day. We cannot, except in exceptional circumstances, apologize for history. The only people who can apologize for what took place in Regina, July 1, 1935 are the people who made the fateful decisions that precipitated the riot and they are dead.

To apologize for the actions of a government in 1935 would be a well meant but futile gesture. If we cannot change history we can learn from it and we can look at the past wrongs through actions today.

If you look at the demands of the strikers in 1935, you can see that the men who marched on Ottawa have in many ways had their wishes come true.

The Canadian people tossed the Bennett government out of office in Ottawa in October 1935 and the Liberal government, which took office under Mackenzie King, righted many of the wrongs against which the strikers protested. For example, section 98 of the Criminal Code, which had been used for arbitrary arrest of strikers and others, was abolished.

By 1940 we had unemployment insurance in this country. After 1940, we built a social system that offered a kind of minimum that the strikers and the people in the depression did not have.

The best monument to the memory to the strikers of 1935 is the Canada we live in today. It is in our health care system which was created about 25 years afterward. It is in our system of unemployment insurance. It is in our comprehensive social services and it is in our fair hiring practices which was central to the protest made by the workers in Regina in 1935.

Look around and ask, could the "On to Ottawa" trek and the Regina riot happen in Canada today? I think the answer is an unequivocal no. The hon. member has done a service to the people by placing the motion before the House, but while I cannot agree with this call for an official apology, I can applaud the sentiment that inspired this motion expressing profound regret that this government, indeed, all Canadians feel for what happened to Canadians during the Great Depression.

It would be more fitting to honour the memory by taking the opportunity presented by this motion to re-dedicate ourselves to the principles of social justice that were lacking in Canada in 1935.

Let us then work together to build a country where there is social equality and equal opportunity for all. It seems wrong to look at our own times and compare them to the 1930s and suggest that the conditions today, in any way, resemble those of the 1930s. The pay for the young men in the work camps was 20 cents a day. There was no unemployment insurance. There was no health insurance. There was no social system. There were no easy answers as well.

Today, for whatever problems our economy faces, we have an unemployment rate that is probably one-third of what it was in the depression. We have protection for people who have lost their jobs. We have a government that is committed to creating jobs and work for Canadians and to maintaining a social system that protects the interests of all Canadians.

I hope members will agree, including the member for Regina-Qu'Appelle, that what we have accomplished since 1935 is itself the best memorial to the strikers in Regina in July 1935.

[United Nations, October 24th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, today, October 24, is an anniversary that celebrates peace over war and unity over division. Fifty years ago 31 nations from around the globe ratified the UN charter. It was on that day that Canada and other like-minded countries sought to ensure the peace and security that had proven so elusive to their generation.

Today every Canadian from Quebec to Newfoundland to British Columbia can take pride in the accomplishments of Canada within the UN as exemplified by prominent Canadians like Lester Pearson, Major General Roméo Dallaire and Mr. Jules Deschênes at the World Court in The Hague. All have helped to build a strong and flourishing reputation for Canada.

The UN espouses the principles of unity and co-operation. As we approach an uncertain time in our own history, let us remember how we as Canadians have promoted such principles. October 24 marks an opportunity for all of us, from coast to coast, to reflect on what a united country can achieve and what a divided country will certainly lose.

[Mining Exploration And Development, October 4th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the question raised by the hon. member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake on September 27 regarding the 1994-95 report of the Indian Claims Commission and its first recommendation which called for the establishment of a new, independent land claims policy and process.

First, I would like to say that the work the Indian Claims Commission is currently doing in the area of claims is commendable. The minister has the highest respect for this effort.

Second, the Liberal Party of Canada's election platform states:

A Liberal government will implement major changes to the current approach. A Liberal government will be prepared to create, in co-operation with aboriginal peoples, an independent claims commission to speed up and facilitate the resolution of all claims. The commission would not preclude direct negotiations.

Let me assure the House that the government is committed to building new partnerships with aboriginal peoples based on trust and mutual respect. The resolution of land claims is an important part of this initiative.

In fact, the federal government is committed to increasing the rate of land claim settlements. We are seeking innovative ways to resolve the impediments that slow this process. There has been, however, significant progress in resolving claims, including 44 specific claim settlements as well as five comprehensive claim settlements since the government took office.

The minister has invited substantive commentary from First Nations and First Nation organizations on concrete proposals for change and is awaiting further guidance from aboriginal people and others. The government, in co-operation with First Nations, needs to think through how the claims policies could be overhauled within the climate of restraint that affects us all. The recent report of Justice Hamilton will assist in this regard.

It is important all Canadians understand and respect this process as it benefits all Canadians.

[United Nations, June 22nd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, 50 years ago on June 26, 1945, toward the end of the war that shattered nations and killed tens of millions of people, the governments of the world agreed to a United Nations charter.

With the hope of creating a collective security that would prevent future global conflicts, leaders envisaged the UN as the essential body for observing world peace. In exemplary fashion, Canada went to San Francisco committed to the dream of a world where swords would be replaced by ploughshares.

In co-operation with other nations, Canada has sought to realize the goals of the charter through a range of missions: from humanitarian aid to committing peacekeeping troops to troubled areas throughout the world.

As a middle power, Canada has earned world respect for its role in brokering peace agreements and in its unwavering efforts in fostering sustainable human development for those countries burdened by political and economic repression.

In this year, the 50th anniversary of the United Nations, I ask that all Canadians reflect on the values and principles of this body. Let us recall that the first words of the charter are "We the people". In truth, the UN is us, the dream of what we, the people, might best be.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I agree that this is a very important matter.

I believe the member for Elk Island raises some important points about the retention of certain records and the importance of the decision prior to destruction.

Currently the situation is that all proposals for destruction under the care of the archivist must be reviewed internally. There will be an examination of all contractual and legal obligations, the importance of the records in relation to the mandate of the National Archives, and that the National Archives acquisition policy must determine if these specimens or copies are held in other depositories.

I am inclined to agree with the member for La Prairie that it is deplorable that some records have been destroyed in the past which fall within the purview of historical records of importance. It is important that a board of this kind recognize at all times the importance of the historicity of records.

I do not think this amendment responds to that need. The current board of voluntary users effectively scrutinizes historical records. Moreover, the archivist has undertaken to establish a voluntary panel of experts on archives matters which will represent a cross section of interests across Canada, representing users, institutions and archival communities. This board will preserve historical records as is necessary.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has spoken most eloquently about the need for transparency

and openness. He has also spoken often in the House of Commons about the word "economy". In the case of this motion the two purposes are in conflict.

I say this with respect to the hon. member's amendment. This motion seems to perpetuate the requirement that the minister lay before Parliament an annual report on the operations of the act.

The rationale for eliminating annual reports is government-wide. It is an attempt to lower costs and is focused on reducing associated preparation costs. We intend to provide new mechanisms such as expanded Part III estimates, and most important, new department outlet documents will be provided to parliamentary committees for this review.

In this case the argument for economy is a very cogent one. There are other means through which transparency and openness will be provided.

[Government Organization Act (Federal Agencies), June 21st, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the comments of the member for Elk Island on the excellence of CBC programming. I share his views in that respect.

The difficulty with this motion by the member for Elk Island is that the proposal to reduce the CBC board of directors from twelve to two plus the president and the chairperson to form the board would in effect render the CBC's programming excellence that we just heard complimented operationally dysfunctional.

Secondly, there is a more technical reason why this amendment cannot be supported by the government. The statutory committee structure of the CBC board of directors would be rendered redundant. Under the Broadcasting Act the corporation has to have two permanent committees on English and French programming, plus an audit committee of at least three directors. With a board of two directors of course these committees would again be operationally dysfunctional. Therefore a subsequent amendment to the Broadcasting Act would be required. Naturally that is a separate exercise from this bill and one we did not intend in the presentation of this bill.

Finally, the regional representation would be dramatically affected. With only two directors it would be impossible to recognize all of Canada's regions and diverse interests and therefore it would completely undermine regional representation.

It is therefore impossible for the government to support this amendment.