House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 61% of the vote.
The Economy April 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I do not know who the hon. minister has been talking to, but if you look at the economic forecasts in the Financial Post or you ask
the private businessmen or investors in this country you will get a different scenario.
I would like to know if the Prime Minister still believes that further cuts are not necessary or should we wait until the Minister of Finance is back in this House to get a second opinion?
The Economy April 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, here we are just seven weeks since the budget and today's Financial Post paints a vastly different economic climate from what was predicted in the Liberal budget.
My question is for the Prime Minister. Short term interest rates for 1994 are up a full percentage point from February and growth is down. For 1995 it is the same picture, interest rates up and growth down, according to 12 leading Canadian firms.
Using the government's own method of analysis, I wish to ask the following question. We all know the Prime Minister said that he has the people and he has the plan. What is the plan now that his people have been proven wrong?
Student Loans April 11th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, Michael McIntosh of Matsqui, British Columbia recently received one of those mean old letters from Revenue Canada which stated Revenue Canada was about to garnishee his income tax refund to pay off an outstanding student loan.
However, Mr. McIntosh has no outstanding student loan. In 1972 he paid it off in full. Now, 22 years later the government claims he still owes 75 cents principal and $39 in interest accrued. The error is with the government that delayed the processing of the payment 22 years ago. This is ridiculous.
The Prime Minister has said he has the people and he has the plan. How can one implement any plan with people who make decisions like this?
Official Languages Act March 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I happen to be on the public accounts committee and what the public accounts committee deals with are the direct costs. I am referring to the indirect costs as well.
Since it is business as usual across the way, I wonder if the government intends to continue with the $5,000 grant to the Canadian Kennel Club to promote bilingualism. Is it a part of the government's bilingualism policy to train English sheep dogs and French poodles to communicate with each other?
Official Languages Act March 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I want to make it absolutely clear that I am not questioning the value of bilingualism but the practice and the cost of official bilingualism as mandated by the Official Languages Act.
Government officials have told me that they are not allowed to report the true costs of conforming to the rules of official bilingualism.
I would like to ask a question of the Acting Prime Minister. Will the government commit to an open debate in the House on the true cost of official bilingualism with full disclosure by all government departments so that we can settle the question of cost of bilingualism once and for all?
Members Of Parliament March 24th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, let us get the facts straight about the government's compensation report recently tabled in this House. It is business as usual. Although the Conservatives started it, the Liberals could have stopped it but did not. The initial cost of the report was $150,000 and has escalated to $200,000.
It recommended severance pay for all MPs even though many have jobs to go to after their mandate. It recommended more money for senators and it recommended a 37 per cent pay increase for MPs. The Liberal Party suggests that MPs deserve a raise because they work so hard.
Let us consider ourselves Corporation Canada and we are its 295 directors. Corporation Canada spends $160 billion a year and loses $40 billion. Do MPs deserve this self-indulgence? No. Balance the budget and we will talk about it.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act March 24th, 1994
We noticed that.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act March 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague's observations are thought provoking. It is important to note that the government has introduced a bill on a process which is already taking place. Our constituents by and large really do not know this is happening.
Far be it for us as politicians to get involved and take it upon ourselves to change it on their behalf when already there is a process in place. As much as I may dislike the change in the electoral boundary of Fraser Valley West, the fact is that I and everyone else in that constituency has a process and an avenue to address it through the hearings that are going on.
My hon. friend is absolutely correct. Why do we want to get into another process? We have already spent $5 million, which is too much in my opinion. Why are we not just taking it upon ourselves to let the process run its course? That is what it should do.
We do not know everything that is better for everybody. This process has been operating for a long time. Let it run its course.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act March 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has made some interesting comments. I should clarify one thing. He talked about a listening technique. I will read part of my speech again.
In 1990 the majority Conservative government wanted to legislate the GST against the opposition of the majority of Canadians and opposition parties, including the majority of Liberal senators. I think that is what I said. The member can read it in the record. Listening skills are important in the House of Commons.
It is important to understand that in a democracy the people are never wrong. Given that, one has to give some credibility to the electorate that if they are concerned about issues they will let us know. Right now we do not hear very much, if anything about this. In fact beyond these walls it is not a big problem.
I want to talk about defending the status quo. It is ironic that when an issue comes up they expect us as Reformers to take an opposite position on it, but we do not.
We are for change. We are for changes in referendums. We are for changes in free votes. We are for changes in elected senators. We are for changes in recall. We are for balanced budgets and for changes to the criminal justice system. Those are the kinds of changes we are for. We are not for changes in a process for political gain rather than other gains.
When it comes to the status quo the member is talking to people who are against the status quo on many issues. It does not mean that on every issue it must be changed. A government member who suggests that just because it is there it should be changed is probably looking at the wrong methodology for undertaking that change.
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act March 21st, 1994
The hon. member says the Liberal party is not dying. I would go back to the original comment I made that if it forgets the past, it is condemned to repeat it. We will see how well the Liberal Party does.
What is striking about this new government is its willingness to allow the direct interference of politicians in a long standing practice. In 1990 the majority Conservative government interfered in a long standing practice and wanted to legislate the GST despite the opposition of the majority of Canadians in this country and opposition parties, including the majority of Liberal senators.
In order to get its way, however, the government at the time with the help of the Queen appointed eight political hacks as senators just to get its legislation passed. If the public does not like it, ram it down its throat is what the government said, which is kind of indicative of things here today. It is the cod liver oil approach, I say, as someone from the maritimes originally.
Canadians are not going to swallow cod liver oil politics any longer. Not only will the Canadian taxpayer have to pay the bill for supporting these political hacks until the age of 75, but the government established a terrible political precedent. If we do not get our way in the House of Commons or we disagree with the accepted rules of our country then we change them to make them fit our political agenda. It is quite similar to Bill C-18.
The fact is that very few people in Canada today really get excited about the political boundaries because they have always changed as the population changes. The only people who have concerns at the moment appear to be the Liberal Party members. Like the Conservatives and the GST, they will interfere in an issue, that of redistribution.
This is neither their right nor any of their business. If this government were really in touch with the people of Canada today it would be attempting to reduce the number of ridings to 200 or 250 and save some much needed money as well as making the job of members of Parliament a little easier.
Having 295 members of Parliament in the past has not really served us that well, has it? For instance, MPs would be able to handle the workload much better if we did not waste so much time passing unnecessary laws like this one.
How could we be spending this time? Look at the state of our economy. Look at the state of our criminal justice system. Look at the number of unemployed people in Canada and look at the stagnating parliamentary system we have today, one which refuses to recall MPs, one which refuses to give Canadians the right to referendums, and one that will not even elect senators.
All these things merit our attention much more than deciding if we are going to postpone a decision we have no business interfering with in the first place.
Is the government that desperate for new legislation? As in the case of the GST, let us look at what a desperate government might do after it sets the precedent of monkeying around with the electoral boundary process.
I am not saying that this is a desperate government, yet. I predict that this Liberal government will be fighting for its very existence in 1997, and then who knows?
If this government interferes with the realignment of electoral seats what is to stop it from realigning seats by interfering with the process in 1997? Perhaps the government may wish to add seats in a particular part of a province that is typically held by a majority of that party's voters. That is why the process has been set apart from politics in the first place.
The action put before this House may mean instead of freezing the number of MPs to be added the public will see more seats eventually. At an average cost of $1 million per MP, do we really need more MPs?
We have already spent $5 million on the process. Now, because politicians do not like the realignment, there is another $5 million out the window-what is $5 million today, they ask.
This government seems willing to throw away tax dollars like this with no regard for common sense. This government wishes to pass the bill before the Easter break, suspending the current process for 24 months. If a new bill is not passed by Parliament within 24 months the process will be restarted under the existing legislation.
The member across in the Liberal Party says he is saving money. Talk about a waste of money, how does one save money by spending it that way?
It is absolutely amazing to me that this government again wants to change the constitutional item relating to electoral boundary redistribution. The government is already embarking on complicated changes to the Constitution related to aboriginal
self-government. The government has recently elected to change the constitutional item relative to Prince Edward Island ferry service.
When it comes to the Reform Party's constitutional issue of insisting on a Senate that is elected, what do we get? The government says the issue was defeated in 1992 in the referendum so Canadians do not want it. Liberal Party members across the way say that they defeated the referendum in 1992. That is the narrow focus we get today.
This government wishes to pass a bill before the Easter break. Why? What is the benefit? Is it to save money? No, I believe it is to fulfil a political ambition.
Why is it when there are majority governments in this country they do what they want and not what the people want? There is nobody crying and screeching about this today other than a party.
It makes one wonder about the Reform Party's platform on referendums, citizens' initiatives and free votes, does it not? Those are things where the people finally get to say what is right or wrong rather than the politicians assuming they know best what is in it for the people.
There is a process in place on redistribution, one that allows all Canadians, including MPs, to state their case at public hearings. They have been established. The new proposal would see Ontario getting four new seats and British Columbia the other two.
I can speak against this issue even though my riding is one of the ridings that will be drastically changed and not for the better. Unlike some members opposite they would prefer to get involved in a political process to change the process rather than address the issue through the appeal process.
The government should do a number of things. It should come clean with the Canadian people and admit it is letting a political concern override a process that has been set up to ensure politicians will not be involved. It should introduce legislation that freezes the number of MPs at current levels. It should get on with the business of really running the country instead of tampering with an already overly complicated system.