John Duncan

[Questions On The Order Paper, June 12th, 1996]

What is the amount of financial assistance provided by the federal government for Tsa-Kwa-Luten Lodge, Quadra Island, B.C., for; ( a ) construction of the lodge; ( b ) operation of the lodge; and ( c ) total federal contribution to date since its inception?

[Canadian Bill Of Rights, June 10th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we are here today to debate and ideally to support and pass Motion No. 205 respecting individual property rights.

While this is not a novel undertaking, its time may have come, given that Canadian parliamentarians and others have been trying to entrench a property rights amendment in the bill of rights and/or in the charter of rights and freedoms going back to at least 1968.

While I find it difficult to follow in the footsteps of Pierre Trudeau, it is not difficult to support what is the logical extension of the bill of rights by amending it and providing a greater measure of protection for individual property rights.

I can see no logical reason not to support the motion. Quite simply, it transcends partisan politics. The history behind the motion speaks to its non-partisan, apolitical past.

As it now stands there is little protection for a person's right to own, use and enjoy property. What little protection there is can be found in the Canadian Bill of Rights, Mr. Diefenbaker's historic document.

The beauty of this motion is that it does not threaten some provinces and special interest groups which argue against including property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms because they feel it intrudes into areas which are the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces. By using the bill of rights this issue is avoided and provincial concerns are assuaged.

It is time to raise this issue from its dormancy, remove the fears of some, particularly the New Democratic Party which can extrapolate concerns where there are none, and give Canadians a basic protection which for far too long has eluded us.

Pierre Trudeau tried several times to include property rights in the bill of rights, then again in the proposed charter of human rights, and then again he proposed them in a constitutional amendment bill. This was all followed by a motion introduced in the House of Commons by Tory MP John Reimer in 1987 on property rights which the House supported in a major way with a vote of 108 to 16.

In 1982 a property rights resolution was passed unanimously by the B.C. legislature, followed by very similar support with a resolution in the New Brunswick legislature in 1983 and the Ontario legislature in 1986.

In 1987 the Canadian Real Estate Association commissioned a poll which found that 81 per cent of Canadians considered property rights were either very or fairly important. In a follow-up paper in 1991 the real estate association called for an amendment to the charter to include property rights.

The deficiency in the bill of rights, let alone the charter, is glowing in its lack of recognition of property rights. If we compare this with the fifth amendment to the United States constitution which calls for due process of the law and compensation with respect to private property, we are primitive in Canada and sadly unconscious of this basic fundamental right. Why we have deprived Canadians of this inherent right confounds many observers, among them constitutionalists and the courts.

If our concern is generated by a lack of a definition of property we could only go to the Canadian law dictionary to help define it for us. The dictionary breaks property into two forms: real property, lands, tenements or any interest in buildings erected or affixed to the land; and personal property, goods, chattels, effects and the like.

As it now stands, the government's power to pass legislation through which it takes private property without providing compensation is unlimited. Government can arbitrarily step in to take private property without any kind of compensation. This is outright scary in a country like Canada.

This has come home to roost twice in recent times, specifically Bill C-22, now called Bill C-28, the Pearson airport debacle, and Bill C-68, the firearms act. These two examples of trampling on personal property rights would never have seen the light of day if we had a property rights amendment.

It is inherently one's right to enjoy one's personal and real property and the right not to be deprived of it unless the person is accorded a fair hearing and is paid fair compensation for it. This is hardly a radical concept, and should these two elements be infringed it is not too much to ensure remedy through the courts.

This would be a check and balance against the tyranny of concentrated power in government. There is a fundamental interdependence between personal rights and liberties and the personal rights in property. Property rights are a cornerstone of any civilized society, the notion that you own yourself and your labour.

This motion will enrich Canadian society, protect individual freedoms and protect the environment. People protect the environment around them, their personal property. Governments weigh political benefits of protecting the environment and consequently personal property. It seems so patently unfair to deprive Canadians of this fundamental premise in life. Let us not allow this opportunity to slide by once again.

It is so fundamental an issue that it is difficult not to get repetitive in debate on this issue. The opponents of entrenching property rights will extrapolate potential scenarios unreasonably to make their case. The crucial issue is to define property in a practical working definition.

The fifth amendment to the constitution of the United States specifically protects private property. Americans have lived with this definition for over 200 years and it has stood the test of time.

Canada has every opportunity to define private property in a Canadian context to bring us up to the same standard of protection of private property as other western democracies. There is no requirement in Canadian constitutional law that compulsory taking of property be effected by a fair procedure or that it be accompanied by fair compensation to the owner.

This motion would have the effect of extending private property rights to non-natural persons such as corporations. For the federal government to pass legislation such as the Pearson airport package, which has the effect of nullifying contracts and agreements without compensation, would require a vote of at least two-thirds of the members of the House of Commons. The net effect would be that the Liberal government could not single handedly achieve this Pearson bill without other parties' support. This is an enlightened provision on so fundamental an issue.

In summary, I quote words presented in October 1995 to the Canadian Real Estate Association. Mr. Speaker, you may recognize the words because they are yours, the member for Edmonton Southeast:

In countries where such rights are weak or non-existent, the arbitrary power and special privileges of the elite increase and the power of the common man or woman is diminished. Without the protection of due process, the ordinary citizen is powerless in the face of a state that exists only to perpetuate and strengthen it and/or its elite.

In the Soviet Union, for example, the individual can never say to the state or its officers `this is mine and you cannot take it away from me'. Due process and fundamental justice are but dreams to the residents of the U.S.S.R.

We know there has been a passage of time since that statement was made. However, I think this is a very essential bill. There is a reason the Reform Party has brought this up more than once.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, I addressed that in my speech. The Senate does not represent regional interests except when it is not dominated by the government of the day. The government of the day will post haste, at full gallop, do everything in its power to ensure that it dominates the other place. We have seen this in Canada's history time and time again.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

A replenisher of the treasury. That is gender neutral. Other functions, of course, would be to act as a party researcher and to be a part of the election readiness machine.

There are also other concerns about the role of Senators. Certain senators hold corporate directorships. Senators are held to a different set of standards than members of Parliament because they are not elected and the Senate does not deal with legislation in a substantive way. Well, I am afraid they do. The potential is there and I do not think the Criminal Code should be the standard of conduct for any government institution. That is not good enough.

I share concerns that the terms of reference in the selection by patronage of appointment to the Senate often reflect the political wishes of the governing party rather than the greater good of the nation or of representing the regional interests of the region from which the senator is appointed. I believe that is clear.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, one of the concerns that has been expressed about the Senate is that the people who are appointed to the Senate are there to provide a variety of functions, one of which is the function mentioned by my colleague, to be bagmen. I do not know if there is a gender neutral term. Bag people? Is that what we call bagmen now? I am not sure. Because of the potential negative connotation of the word bagmen maybe nobody is seeking gender neutral terminology for it.

[Supply, May 28th, 1996]

Madam Speaker, the member for Fraser Valley West is a hard act to follow.

Do we need a Senate? Many Canadians do not think so. They think it is irrelevant, it is held in contempt or it is the butt of jokes, and the polls would indicate that is the case as well.

We do not hear this about other senates in the democratic free world where we have elected senates. We do not hear that about the senate to the south of us. What is the main reason? It is very clear the main difference and the main reason why they are credible and accepted is they are elected and very often they are the prime people who are responsible for regional interests. They are accountable and that follows from being democratically elected.

There are times in Canada when our Senate has been very relevant. Primarily this is when it is not a rubber stamp. There are a few times when the Senate is not nominated by the government of the day. We saw this in this Parliament for the first couple of years and there were some issues on which the other place did some very responsible things. Of course, that is not convenient or comfortable for the government of the day.

There are two kinds of senators. There are many ways we could categorize senators. There are those who were previously elected officials, such as members of Parliament, who know what democratic accountability is. From my province of British Columbia there are a couple of members who leap to mind as being in that category. Generally speaking, if we were to ask the public in British Columbia who were the B.C. senators, those two individuals would be most recognizable. If we were to ask for a credibility quotient those two individuals would once again have the highest credibility quotient. Very often they are head and shoulders above the rest.

There is a reason for this. They carry the tradition, the responsibilities and the accountability that had to go with everything an elected official has in their terms of reference. They have carried that into that other place.

The Senate has left itself wide open for criticism on so many fronts. All of our institutions are challenged if they do not change with the times. We need look only at royalty in Great Britain and other places.

The old political institutions, the old political parties, the whole party discipline system, these practices are changing. There is a new found interest in direct democracy. The Reform Party is a reflection of direct democracy coming to the House of Commons.

Some of the party discipline that has been traditional in the House of Commons is starting to change in the governing parties in my view as a consequence of the Reform Party's presence in the House of Commons. We saw that on the sexual orientation bill, Bill C-33, with the backbench Liberals wanting to express a non-government point of view. We understand the same thing is to express itself with regard to Newfoundland schools coming up.

This will not go away. It is the thin edge of a very fat wedge. The old political parties will have to reinvent themselves, as will the Senate. The more the House of Commons changes and the more the Senate entrenches itself in its non-elected and non-accountable ways, the more irrelevant it will become. This is a shot across the bow for the other place. If the Senate were elected it would follow that this would create accountability and we would not need to be having this debate in all likelihood.

Once again, by bringing this motion to the House, Reform is rocking the boat on the status quo. I was delighted to hear the comments from our Bloc colleague who sees our point. Once again we find the Liberal government defending the status quo. It has exploited the current system to its advantage for decades. It is not difficult to understand why it wants to defend the status quo even though it is indefensible in the public's mind. What a sad spectacle this is.

The senators will stand on principle, so the speculation goes, and not appear before the House committee to defend their estimates. This is not a House of Lords. This is Canada where our young country should be creative, constructive and invigorated by fresh challenges, not cloistered and defensive in every way and entrenched in historical irrelevance.

No senator has appeared before a committee of the House of Commons since 1888. This would be the first time since 1869 that any senator has ever appeared before a House committee to defend expenditures. Does this precedent mean this should be the case? No, quite the contrary.

This is a very important reinventing of a very important institution. There is symbolism that in the main estimates this is vote one. One could hardly say this has simply been overlooked through all the years, nor could one say that this time. By virtue of its mere placement, it is impossible to overlook.

Canada has had in its history one elected senator, Stan Waters from Alberta. Stan Waters from Alberta ended every speech in the Senate with, I believe: "And besides all that, the Senate should be reformed". I understand he did that every time. A wake up call is needed. It is unfortunate the late Stan Waters is not here to witness what we are going through today, which appears to be of such little interest to the government.

The Senate has always tended to be the home for those of privilege, accustomed to perks, travel and expense accounts. Audits generally turn a blind eye to those individuals who enjoy such prestige. It was only in the 1980s that the House of Commons got control of its operations and procedures. Until that time it also was enjoying very loose control procedures. Now it is time for the Senate to get under the microscope and face those same expectations of the taxpayers if it wishes to be something that was once revered and not held in contempt.

I co-operated with a senator from British Columbia and a senator from Nova Scotia to carry on an ad hoc parliamentary committee, joint committee hearings in British Columbia on the light station issue. This was a good and valuable exercise. It was good for British Columbians, it was good for me, it was good for the senators, it was good for these institutions and in my mind displayed some of the things that could occur and would occur on a regular basis if we had two institutions reformed in some minor and in some major ways.

It took creativity on our part. In a sense we were battling the status quo in order to get this ad hoc parliamentary committee on the road. We did not get help from very many people. When we made the final report, which I think was a valuable report, the House denied me the unanimous consent to table it in the House. I think it was a loss to the House, and there should be a provision for doing things differently. If members want to participate in these kinds of things the House should encourage them and the product

of those hearings or procedures should automatically be tabled in the House.

The two senators with whom I participated are previous members of Parliament of long standing. They understood the system, accountability and their responsibility to the people and the taxpayers. One senator was in cabinet for an extended period of time and has a very high credibility index, in particular in British Columbia which is where she is from.

I do not want to see an end to the Senate. We get a taste of how useful the Senate could be from time to time, especially when representing regional interests. Let us join the 21st century before we leave the 20th century.

A 1991 auditor general's report was referred to in earlier speeches by other members. It is useful to look at what is being said. This is important stuff. I have gone through the executive summary. I do not think very much has changed since 1991 in this regard. If it has changed, let us hear about it. The only way we will hear about it is if we have vote one of the estimates defended by the very people who prepared those estimates, the senators from the appropriate committee.

We found the Senate has neither formally nor informally delegated clear responsibility to management, nor has it made clear for what it will hold management accountable. That is a pretty straightforward recommendation from the auditor general.

The Senate does not adequately report on its administrative, financial or human resource management performance and does not possess sufficient information to enable it to do so systematically. That is pretty straightforward.

To improve accountability the Senate should periodically publish details of travel, telecommunications and office expenditures of senators. It is amazing what public disclosure will do for accountability.

Senators have insufficient incentives to manage their office expenses with due regard for economy and efficiency. The details of the expenditures should be publicly reported.

There are lots of reports in every bureaucracy that sit on shelves and gather dust. When we are talking about expenditures of taxpayer funds, there is no more important single role for members of Parliament and for the House of Commons than to be watchdogs and to be calling for accountability for the expenditures of taxpayer funds.

When we get vote one on the estimates and an organization, the other place virtually thumbing its nose at the House of Commons standing committee responsible for going over the estimates, there is something very wrong. The public deserves better.

The final statement in the auditor general's report recommends that where appropriate the operational mandate should be clarified, costs ascertained, opportunities for productivity improvement seized and the types and levels of service provided should be re-examined to see if other less costly levels of service might also be acceptable to senators.

I felt very blessed to talk to this item today. I was beginning to wonder if there were any way as members of Parliament we could talk in a substantive way about the functioning of the other place.

I understand there is historical reticence to do so but I also understand that historical reticence is leading us nowhere. It is leading to the abolition of the Senate. I do not endorse the abolition of the Senate. I would like to see the Senate reformed.

Organizations that dig in their heels are setting themselves up for a much bigger fall than institutions that embrace change, that smell the winds of change and decide they want to seek a fresh mandate, new systems, that they want to be in step with or ahead of the times. It is long overdue in this longstanding Canadian institution that we are speaking about today. That is my strongest recommendation.

[Questions On The Order Paper, May 27th, 1996]

Of the 633 Indian bands in Canada: ( a ) how many are covered by aboriginal policing agreements, ( b ) what is the total cost for aboriginal policing agreements for fiscal year 1993-94; fiscal year 1994-95; and the estimated final cost for fiscal year 1995-96, and ( c ) of these agreements in question ( b ), what is the federal government financial component of these aboriginal policing agreements for fiscal year 1993-94; fiscal year 1994-95; and the estimated final cost for fiscal year 1995-96?

[Petitions, May 1st, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by 51 of my constituents regarding section 718.2 of Bill C-41.

The petitioners pray and request that Parliament not pass Bill C-41 with section 718.2 and not include the undefined phrase sexual orientation.

[Nisga'A Land Claims, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, we do comprehensive analyses more than the minister. We supported the Split Lake agreement. We supported the Pictou landing agreement.

The Nisga'a deal sets a precedent for future land claims across Canada. It gives the Nisga'a constitutional protection for preferential tax treatment forever. This ends the possibility of an equal taxation system for all Canadians.

Why has the minister broken his promise to deal with native taxation on a national basis?

[Nisga'A Land Claims, March 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, in this Parliament the Bloc Quebecois has supported every major government aboriginal initiative outside Quebec.

If the Nisga'a deal was in Quebec rather than in British Columbia, the Bloc would not support it because of the precedent established by the transfer of ownership of public roads to the Nisga'a. The memories of disputes over ownership of roads at Oka, the Mercier bridge and Akwesasne are too fresh.

Why is the minister promoting a deal in British Columbia that he would not dare promote in Quebec?