Stephen Harper

[National Referendum, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, that is one of the more rapid policy changes we have seen. It certainly does not reflect the trust us approach we heard from the Prime Minister yesterday on the lobbying issue.

In committee a couple of days ago the member for Saint-Denis was saying that many voters are too illiterate to be able to get their names on voters lists and referendums. We believe that Canadians are well informed and should be consulted.

It has been the position of this party in the past that on constitutional issues there should be national referendums. Quebec's separation would be-

[National Referendum, June 17th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I noted with interest reports this week that the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs made some comments that the federal government is contemplating holding a referendum on Quebec independence. It is good to see the government acknowledge the value of direct democracy.

Can the minister give us some details of the government's plans? What would be the timing of a national referendum and when would the House expect to hear more details?

[Non-Confidence Motions, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am addressing the motion of the member for Mission-Coquitlam to permit free votes more frequently in the Chamber, specifically for MPs to fully represent the views of their constituents of the government's legislative program, and that a defeat of the government not automatically be considered a measure of confidence.

I am happy to follow the previous speaker, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, not only because he endowed a promotion on me today but because he raised a number of issues that are crying with such misinformation that they demand a response. I am happy to do so if anyone is still watching after that particular discourse.

The member gave an example of what occurred in Parliament, that there has not been very much cross party voting. It is a good illustration of what we are talking about here. The motion does not talk about members wildly firing off in all directions on every particular issue. It implies that under certain conditions and for very particular reasons of constituent representation we would expect and allow members of various parties to represent those views.

So far, as we all know, the government has presented a very light legislative agenda to the House. The issues that are divisive between the parties have in every single case touched directly upon the program on which we as members of the Reform Party and which they as members of the Liberal Party were elected.

The one instance the member provided of some free voting in the House was when three Liberal members broke with the government to vote different from government members on one particular private member's motion which he chastises our party for not having split on. That particular motion was that we build an expensive infrastructure of high speed rail between Windsor and Quebec City. Given the ridings of members of Parliament of the Reform Party, it is not hard to figure out that they would be unwilling unanimously and freely to agree to such a ridiculous proposition from the point of view of their own constituents.

That should clear up some of the misconceptions raised about free voting and about what it means. Voting freely, which we favour and which we have advocated, is not that we would vote stupidly as the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell suggested.

The second point that really should be made concerns background. We should remember when we get into notions of cabinet confidence and caucus solidarity a bit of history. I seriously hope the member is not trying to convince the House and Canadians that there is no such thing as confidence in the Chamber today, any more than there is no such thing as parties. These kinds of positions are maybe legalistic but clearly ridiculous.

Historically the function of confidence has changed dramatically. We should remember that in the early days of the parliamentary system the purpose of the confidence convention was to ensure that ministers of the crown, who originally were representatives in a very true sense of the Monarch, had the confidence of the elected people to function in their capacities. Today the meaning or the context has entirely changed. Today the Monarch is not usually a direct participant in the political affairs or daily affairs of the nation. The cabinet is representative of the outcome of general elections. The cabinet confidence and the confidence convention applied to the Chamber in this day and age is not to make cabinet report to the House. It has been turned around in the new context to make the House responsible to cabinet. That is the problem we have to look at.

I fully support the motion. We should give some thought to why it is, in spite of the legalistic declarations that appear in some of the standing orders and others, that the confidence convention has not been broken. We should ask ourselves what needs to be done to create a new kind of system.

We have suggested from time to time that the Prime Minister could rise and suggest to the House that there be the freedom to vote more freely. It is true, but in and of itself it is not adequate. It suggests that the Prime Minister possesses such power that he or she could simply determine whether or not votes were free and, that raises questions about whether votes really are free.

There are a number of mechanisms in other countries; the three line whips in Great Britain, the fact that political parliamentary parties are organized on a more bottom-up basis in countries like Australia. This allows a very different style of leadership to emerge whereby it is not just the formalities of practice that apply but there are real issues of diversity of power within political parties that give members greater say and a greater ability to represent their constituents, particularly where those conflict with more broad party interests that are not necessarily representative.

There is a lot I want to say on this issue of how we should examine the deficiencies of the power structure. Unfortunately, I do not have the time. I appreciate the Chair's patience and I will terminate my remarks now.

[Non-Confidence Motions, June 15th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, can you tell me how much time I have? I gather we are near the end of this.

[Justice, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are clear that one of the, if not the root cause of crime is the criminal himself. We expect to see that addressed.

Yesterday, the separatist member for Saint-Hubert referred to the unanimous opposition of Quebec's so-called experts on crime to minor amendments to the Young Offenders Act.

What will the government do to ensure that the real voice of the great majority of Quebecers and Canadians who favour tougher action against crime is indeed heard by the government in these endless studies?

[Justice, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, Canadians are clear in their belief that the number one solution to these problems is in the criminal justice system.

One in four Canadians reports having been the victim of crime in the past two years; 44 per cent of Canadians have taken measures to protect themselves including the purchasing of weapons, 73 per cent want the death penalty restored for the killing of police officers and 86 per cent want laws to make it more difficult to get parole.

Are these some of the concerns that the minister plans to bring forward in his criminal justice reforms?

[Justice, June 10th, 1994]

Mr. Speaker, according to an Angus Reid and Southam News poll on criminal justice released yesterday, 82 per cent of Canadians say the justice system is too soft on crime, while only one per cent think it is too harsh.

This is the case in all regions of the country. For example, in Quebec, 74 per cent say that the system is too permissive and only 2 per cent say that it is too strict.

My question is for the Minister of Justice. What concrete measures will the minister be introducing to address these very clear concerns of Canadians about the criminal justice system?

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I would agree strongly with the hon. member that she is confused. In fact she is so confused that I was barely able to understand the last half of that intervention.

However I will comment on the initial point which I think was important, and that is the issue of constitutional change and when and how we should pursue it.

Our party did say during the election campaign, as did the government, that Canadians were not interested in discussions of comprehensive constitutional change at this time. I would certainly agree with that. I think our priorities should be elsewhere.

Unfortunately we have to face the reality we have here. We have a party in the House which day after day is talking about the most dramatic and wide-ranging constitutional changes possible and that is the disintegration, separation, division, redivision of the federal state into two completely separate states, one which would presumably be a unitary state in Quebec and the other which as yet is undefined.

We hear this daily. We are heading into an election in Quebec where this will be an issue. Of course the separatists do not want to describe this as constitutional change because they realize it would immediately raise in the minds of the population of Quebec all the complexities and difficulties that are involved in that. The fact is that Quebecers are going to be asked very shortly to discuss constitutional change once again and to discuss it in the context of all the problems that exist with federalism.

We recognize those problems are there. We advocate some solutions to them. I am merely pointing out in my statement that we do have some constitutional perspectives here. We also have some things we would like to change about the country that can be pursued outside the constitutional framework.

The whole purpose of the motion while obviously not entering into constitutional negotiations is to raise the fact that there are alternative constitutional perspectives, including reforming ones, that do not require the kind of upheaval that separatism would entail.

[Supply, June 7th, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am delighted to rise to speak to the motion by the hon. member for Calgary Southwest that we affirm our desire for unity as a federal state. Specifically I would like to address the clause of the motion that we affirm the equality and uniqueness of all our citizens and provinces.

The equality of citizens is at the heart of a fundamental principle of democracy and one that I put to members we have drifted from in recent years, at least some would say the elite have drifted from as a country toward a concept called group rights.

In the Charlottetown accord we had this concept becoming more and more a proposal to entrench that kind of concept in our Constitution, where rights of citizens are determined not regardless of race, language, culture or gender but because of them. This commentary, this observation is not simply my own. The former leader of the Liberal Party, Mr. Trudeau, noticed this during that period when he talked about the hierarchy of rights embedded in the accord.

What this trend toward group rights has done, in our view, is not just detract from the fundamental principle of the individual and the individual's rights within the collectivity but has also had the effect, in our view, of a loss of our greater sense of collective identity as a nation.

I would reflect on Andrew Coyne's editorial yesterday in the Globe and Mail where he noted that group rights and its linkage to comprehensive philosophy of political victimology had led us to see ourselves increasingly as a nation of victim groups and ultimately as a victim nation, one without identity or power.

As Reformers we propose that we get back to the roots of liberal democracy, that we reaffirm the principles of democracy in a modern age and manifest political equality through institutional reform. Specifically we advocate free votes for the people's representatives in the Parliament of Canada, direct democracy among the population at large, introducing in the modern age with our educated populations mechanisms of referendum, initiative and recall, and even in the area of constitutional change, mechanisms like constitutional conventions and popular ratification.

The equality of citizens does not preclude the uniqueness of citizens. We hear objections whenever we raise this point. We recognize there are all kinds of communal and individual identities within the country. We are suggesting the Government of Canada should concentrate its efforts on the responsibility for the promotion of our collective identity as a nation rather than the focus it has had in the past generation on things like official multiculturalism or the promotion of Canada as a federation of two founding peoples: the English and the French.

In our view we should be going toward more race, culture, language neutral concepts of our nationhood. Defining a country as a union of founding peoples, English and French, in this day and age is to Reformers as ridiculous as it would be to define it as a nation of two founding religions: the Protestants and the Catholics.

I would also like to speak about the equality of provinces, the second portion of that clause. This refers, in our view, to what is a fundamental principle of a federation. The fact that we are a federation of provinces was clearly recognized in the 1867 Confederation constitution and quite properly so since it superseded the disastrous binational unitary state of 1841 to 1867. In Canada we have not always lived up to the concept of equality of provinces. My province of Alberta and the prairie provinces generally were deliberately created as inferior political units after Confederation, an error that was not corrected for decades.

At all times, because of the way our parliamentary system unfolded, small provinces have found themselves at the federal level subjected to the domination of the central provinces of Ontario and Quebec through the systematic skew of power in the House of Commons and the decline of the Senate as an effective political institution.

Later all provinces, even the large provinces, have found problems in the federation as an increasingly unbalanced federal spending power has been able to override clear areas of provincial jurisdiction. This breakdown of division of powers has occurred for both the federal and provincial governments.

We propose as Reformers to reaffirm our commitment to provincial equality through institutional reform and also through re-establishing a balanced division of powers in the federation. I have spoken many times in the House of our hope to reform the Senate based on the triple-E model, to restore the Senate as an effective second Chamber through electing senators and providing equal representation to the provinces. In other words, we want a Senate that is the kind of effective regional Chamber that the Fathers of Confederation had intended so that in the Parliament of Canada federal law-making is more than a simple domination of small provinces by large provinces.

This concern for regional representation is not only a matter for small provinces; it is also a concern for small regions in large provinces like British Columbia, Ontario and Quebec as well. Indeed, we hope to have a provision in a reformed Senate for regional representation within large provinces, for example, for the Gaspé and the North Shore in Quebec or for northern Ontario.

Of course, when we speak of the equality of provinces in this motion, we also speak of their uniqueness. Our critics will say, "Of course you just want to see Quebec as a province like the others." Of course not. Equality does not mean identity. The federal principle does not mean that the provinces are identical; it means that they share certain values and policies, for example, the economic criteria mentioned in the motion, but the federal principle also means that provinces have their distinct character and uniqueness through the division of powers in a federal state. Canada's uniqueness includes, for example, such things as the cultural realities in the province of Quebec, language, of course, and certain geographical realities such as natural resources in the western provinces. In a federal state, these things should be in provincial jurisdiction and the division of power should be respected in a developed federal state.

In conclusion, I have spoken in the context both of equality and uniqueness of provinces, of many things that are in Canada today and also things we would like to see changed. Some of the

changes I have mentioned are mere policy matters. Others would be more serious constitutional changes at some point.

I remind all members, in conclusion, that all serious constitutional change, all constitutional change, anything that would significantly change in our federation the status of any citizen or any province requires respect for democracy, for the Constitution and for the rule of law. It is not compatible with unilateral or illegal actions. I expect that as we debate our future in the next few months that the expectation of all Canadians will be that we continue to function in the context of a constitutional democracy and we will all respect the rule of law.

[Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Suspension Act, 1994, June 3rd, 1994]

Madam Speaker, I am happy to answer both questions.

First, on the issue of the committee study, obviously myself as well as the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminister would expect the committee to do a wide ranging study, but in the end we have to give the public a reason to suggest why we would completely suspend and eventually kill the process that has been under way.

I would suggest that there are certain minimum parameters that would justify killing it this time as opposed to waiting for

next time. We are not going to change a couple of commas in the Elections Act and use that as an excuse, as I said before, to flush $5 million or $6 million down the toilet. I would suggest that the public itself has some fairly obvious parameters in mind.

I am rushed here but I will answer the second question which concerns my position on the Senate.

Obviously now that the Reform Party supports the bill I would urge the Senate to give it consideration and to see the wisdom in supporting it. The Senate has the constitutional power to pass or defeat any piece of legislation. That power is not conferred upon it by myself.