Peter Milliken

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response To Petitions, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to seven petitions.

[Points Of Order, October 23rd, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite right in his vigilance in seeing that the rules are correctly applied and interpreted. I commend his efforts in this regard.

I note that he is not objecting to the fact that the vote is scheduled for 5.30 p.m. this afternoon. I submit that the decision which the Speaker made at the time of the request last week was correct.

I refer the hon. member to Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii):

During the sounding of the bells, either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may ask the Speaker to defer the division. The Speaker then defers it to a specific time, which must be no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next sitting day that is not a Friday. At that time, the bells sound for not more than fifteen minutes.

When the request was made on Thursday it was deferred in accordance with this standing order to the next sitting day that was not a Friday, which was Monday, at a time not later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. In other words, the chief government whip, who I believe made the request last Thursday, made it in accordance with Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii) in requesting that it be deferred until Monday at 5.30 p.m. I believe he had that right under that standing order.

I know that Standing Order 45(6)(a) deals with Friday divisions. It was intended as a rule to deal with divisions which might otherwise take place on Fridays, in saying that it went to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Monday. In respect of Thursday votes, that was intended as an explanation. However, the rule which allows the time to be fixed was set in Standing Order 45(5), not in Standing Order 45(6).

No doubt the hon. member makes a very neat point. However he has missed the other part of the rule, which in my submission applies in this case. That is the rule to allow the chief government whip or the chief opposition whip to set a time earlier than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on any day when a vote is deferred.

It would be incongruous if the rule relating to Thursday divisions was different from that relating to divisions deferred on any other day. If, for example, a division is demanded today, the chief government whip or the chief opposition whip may defer the division to any time tomorrow not later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. It would be incongruous if the rule were interpreted, as the hon. member has suggested, that where a division is demanded on a Thursday it must go to 6.30 p.m. on Monday and not to any intermediate time. It cannot go to Friday. That much the rule is clear on.

I submit that Standing Order 45(5) allows for discretion in asking for a vote any time during the day on Monday, assuming that Monday is the next sitting day, no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. That is the purpose of the rule, in accordance with the interpretation which has been placed on it over many years. The decision which was made last Thursday to defer the vote until 5.30 p.m. today by the Chair on request was absolutely correct.

[Senate, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I do hope these needless interruptions will not be taken off my time. I am pressed to finish what I think is an accurate speech and I am looking forward to the hon. member making his own instead of interrupting by arguing.

Again, I express my shock that the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam would come forward with proposals very similar to what was in the Charlottetown accord after that accord was rejected out of hand by the electors of her riding, and even more shockingly was rejected by her party and opposed vigorously by her party while some of us had the good sense to support it.

Despite the fact that the accord contained provisions for major Senate reform, including measures to provide for representation of aboriginal peoples and new powers to veto any House of Commons legislation that changed taxation policy in key areas of natural resources, this accord failed. I stress that.

The Charlottetown negotiations demonstrated that agreement among first ministers, territorial and aboriginal leaders was possible, but it was not arrived at easily. Although the Reform Party leader referred to the accord negotiated by 17 parties as the

Mulroney deal, it was in fact the result of a very complex process that required extensive accommodation and compromises.

Writing in the Edmonton Journal , former Alberta Premier Don Getty said: ``The package was so difficult to get, I would say it was almost a miracle that we were able to put it together''. Yet here the Reform Party, having worked against it and having striven for its defeat, now is pulling chunks out of it and saying it supports this and that, let us do this and let us do that. It shows what a lack of sound policy thinking it has. It keeps going back to things that are really dead. The Reform Party should rethink this resolution.

I urge the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam to consult with her leader again, refer him to the quote I have read from the little green book, and ask him what he really thinks of this motion to see if he does not think that perhaps it is pie in the sky, unnecessary, and not a reasonable thing to put forward in Canada as we know it today, having gone through these two recent constitutional discussions at great length and at great pain to our country.

[Senate, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I remind the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek-Assiniboia that this motion deals with the Senate; it is not on gun control. He may have heard the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam spend half of her time speaking on gun control. The only reason she did so was that her arguments on this motion were so thin she ran out of them in about ten minutes and had to fill in the rest of her time on gun control.

This motion is about Senate reform. If the hon. member had read the motion instead of making these interruptions, he would realize what I am talking about. We are talking about the Senate and I was talking about the approach of the New Democratic Party to the Senate. It wanted to abolish it. The motion before us is not for abolition; it is for a triple E Senate and it is that to which I wish to speak.

The hon. member's motion proposes changes to the powers, the method of selecting senators and the number of members by which a province is entitled to be represented in the Senate. Thus, the motion would require a constitutional amendment under the seven provinces with 50 per cent of the population general amending procedure. That is what would have to be done in order to achieve the amendment as proposed by the hon. member.

This seven and fifty amendment as we call it, seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population represented by those seven provinces, must have the consent of the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of two-thirds of the provinces representing at least 50 per cent of the population according to the most current general census. The Senate could in respect of such a constitutional amendment exercise a six-month suspensive veto.

Once again, I would say to the hon. member that the Charlottetown accord contained a Senate amendment proposal along the lines proposed in the hon. member's motion, but it was defeated by a majority of Canadians in a majority of the provinces. There is little evidence to indicate that Canadians wish to reopen this constitutional debate. Other issues, such as the economy and job creation, are the priorities of Canadians. That is why the government is dealing with those issues and not the one the hon. member has raised today or any others like it.

I think the hon. member would agree that despite her best intentions, this is not a good time to be opening a constitutional debate in this country, as her motion would suggest. In Quebec the current government of that province is unlikely to approve any constitutional changes, save for an amendment making the province an independent country.

It is important to note that because Quebec's approval will be necessary to achieve the kind of Senate reform she wants, we should not bother pursuing it. We have to have that agreement. It is not just because it has to be part of the seven and fifty portion of the agreement; Quebec has a special arrangement.

Quebec of all the provinces is divided into 24 electoral divisions for the purposes of representation in the Senate pursuant to section 22 of the 1867 Constitution Act, the British North America Act. Because Quebec senators must meet their property or residence qualifications in the division they represent, it could be argued that a scheme for Senate reform which sought to provide equal representation for the provinces, as this motion does, might require not

only seven of the provinces representing half the population but also a bilateral amendment with Quebec if the current provisions respecting these 24 seats were to be altered.

Bilateral and multilateral amendments are covered by section 43 of the Constitution Act. It provides that an amendment to the Constitution in relation to a provision applying to one or more but not all provinces requires the consent of the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of each province to which the amendment applies. Imagine getting that kind of agreement in the Senate, let alone in the provincial legislatures involved.

Bilateral or multilateral amendments are not subject to minimum and maximum time limits and do not require votes by a majority of the members of the legislative bodies involved. Otherwise they are subject to the same rules as the seven and fifty amendments and the Senate is limited to a suspensive veto.

Thus even if Parliament were to pursue the motion and seek to amend the Constitution in accordance with it, it is doubtful we could secure the requisite consent of the National Assembly in Quebec. Furthermore there is also no guarantee other provinces would approve of these changes.

The Ontario government of Premier Mike Harris could hardly be expected to weaken the province's influence in the upper chamber without getting something in return, being mindful of the defeat of former Premier David Peterson in 1990 after he agreed to give up some of Ontario's seats in order to keep the Meech Lake accord alive. We all remember that. I thought it was a generous gesture on the part of the premier but it was not popular in Ontario. Mr. Speaker, you would remember that; you have a seat in Ontario.

Smaller provinces like Nova Scotia and New Brunswick which together represent 6 per cent of the population and hold 19 per cent of the Senate seats are hardly likely to be enthusiastic supporters of the motion put forward by the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam. Therefore I think there is very little reason to believe that these provinces would consent to any changes unless they got something in exchange, like a stronger constitutional obligation for the federal government to make equalization payments. I only throw that out as one suggestion out of many possibilities.

Furthermore we could not contemplate radical Senate reform without public participation. Various groups would argue that other constitutional issues are far more pressing than changes in the Senate and should take precedence over the Senate, things like entrenching specific rights of aboriginal peoples in the Constitution.

Again, I draw attention to the failure of the 1992 Charlottetown accord. This accord contained provisions for an elected, equal and more effective Senate, all of the things that are in this motion. It was rejected in a federal referendum in nine provinces and two territories and in a provincial referendum in Quebec. A majority of Canadians in a majority of provinces voted no.

Outside Quebec, Canadians rejected the accord by 54 per cent to 45 per cent with 1 per cent casting spoiled ballots. Quebecers voted 55 per cent no, 42 per cent yes. In the member for Mission-Coquitlam's own province of British Columbia the Charlottetown accord suffered its most resounding defeat where 67.2 per cent voted no. Yet she trots into the House today and puts forward exactly the same provision that was in the Charlottetown accord.

I thought her party trumpets how democratic it is all the time. The will of the people in her own province was 67 per cent against this proposal and what does she do? She trots in here and proposes the same thing. I have hit another nerve and this one is from Saskatchewan.

[Senate, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member. I know I would enjoy hearing his remarks, but I think in terms of the normal rotation of speakers among the parties that a government member should participate in this debate at some point.

The hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam has proposed a motion to the House and I am pleased to speak on it. I was surprised that she did not quote from her leader in the course of her remarks. I thought a decree had been issued from the leader's office that all members of the Reform Party were to quote the leader in every speech at least once. Perhaps she forgot the decree this afternoon.

I would like to help her out because I have a quote from the little green book. It is the little book of Reform, the gospel according to the hon. member for Calgary Southwest and the Reform Party.

The hon. member for Calgary Southwest in one of his more lucid moments said: "The three priorities of the present Senate are in order: protocol, alcohol and Geritol". These remarks might be considered by some to be insulting of the Senate. I guess for that reason the hon. member for Mission-Coquitlam did not feel it was appropriate to quote those remarks. However, I have quoted them.

The hon. member for Calgary Southwest evidently thinks these remarks are appropriate. I know that his views are shared by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster because the last time I quoted this he was citing along with me. He remembered all the words. He had memorized the words of his leader and quoted them along with me.

I point them out because there is a lot of agreement on that point among members of her party apparently. Yet, at the same time, they have not proposed the abolition of the Senate, as members of the other group which was largely western based, the New Democratic Party, used to do and still does. They now are back to abolition but for a while they supported the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, you will remember in the last Parliament when we were debating the GST that the NDP changed its principles. The principle was that there could not be an unelected body in Parliament; however, it changed its principles in the course of the GST debate.

I see that I have hit a nerve.

[Questions On The Order Paper, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

[Committees Of The House, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 93rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which lists the members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and the associate members of the standing committees.

With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.

Mr. Speaker, I move that the 93rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

[Government Response To Petitions, October 20th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to 55 petitions.

[Endangered And Threatened Species Act, October 18th, 1995]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Davenport raised an important issue when he asked this question of the Minister of the Environment a month ago. He of course based it on an editorial in the Globe and Mail. I want to refer to that which was on the subject of the need to take action on climate change. It was published shortly before the hon. member asked his question.

The editorial makes some good points about voluntary approaches and the need to adapt to a rapidly changing climate. These clearly are not enough to deal with the problem. After all, the evidence that our climate may be changing at an unprecedented rate is rolling in on a daily basis as the hon. member has indicated.

In Canada, the summer of 1995 was the third warmest in a century. The year 1995 was the second worst year in history for forest fires. Record rains have hit Alberta and five early season tropical storms hit parts of the Atlantic provinces.

This year is shaping up as the earth's warmest year on record. It is also a preview of what we can expect in the future. Scientists are concluding that recent data constitute growing statistical evidence that their previous predictions of climate change are being borne out.

Therefore, in calling for voluntary reductions of emissions of greenhouse gases the Globe and Mail is heading in the right direction. After all, the Globe and Mail would have us recognize that the costs of climate change are also rapidly rising. Damages from the Alberta floods in June exceeded $50 million. Heat and humidity helped fuel one of Ontario's most destructive storms, causing $20 million in property losses and firefighting costs associated with the loss of nearly seven million hectares of forest across Canada.

By reducing our emissions of greenhouse gases we will reduce the threat and costs of climate change and at the same time create jobs and become more competitive economically. I am quite sure that as Canada's business leaders continue to respond to the economic opportunity associated with reducing energy consumption, thereby reducing emissions of greenhouse gases, the Globe and Mail will take another step in the right direction and agree that the goals contained in Canada's national action program on climate change must be met, that we must stabilize our emissions of greenhouse gases at 1990 levels by the year 2000 and address further reductions over the longer term. Meeting such a goal will require that we take a mix of approaches, voluntary measures wherever possible and market-based or regulatory measures where appropriate.

As my time has run out, I conclude my remarks.