Debates of Sept. 29th, 1997

Speech From The Throne

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on June 2 of this year I received a mandate from the people of Erie—Lincoln to represent their concerns in the House. I am honoured to have been given this responsibility by my constituents and I am proud to be the first member of Parliament for the riding of Erie—Lincoln.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the people in the areas of the Niagara peninsula that supported me in 1993 and then became parts of new ridings due to redistribution. I enjoyed working with the warm people and progressive municipalities of the town of Pelham and Welland South. It was an honour to serve you. I have many fond memories of events I attended and friendships made.

The new riding of Erie—Lincoln brings in two fine new areas, the town of Dunnville and the town of Lincoln. The town of Dunnville is located on the Lake Erie shore and is dissected by the friendly Grand River. It is a picturesque community of greenhouses, mixed farming, light industry and most importantly, great people.

The town of Lincoln is located on the southerly shore of Lake Ontario in an area renowned for its tender fruit and vineyards and yes, great people as well. The excellent wines that are produced in the town of Lincoln are a testament to the unique micro climate found in the peninsula.

During my travels to the new areas of the riding I have been impressed by the number of small businesses that are actively exporting their products around the world. I welcome both communities to the Erie—Lincoln riding and look forward to representing them to the best of my ability.

The riding of Erie—Lincoln truly runs from lake to lake to river. It runs from the Niagara River and the American border at Fort Erie down the shore of Lake Erie to Port Colborne and Wainfleet and on to Dunnville, then up into West Lincoln to the heart of the peninsula and on to Lincoln on the shores of Lake Ontario. It is a wonderfully diverse and unique riding, a virtual microcosm of Canada. I look forward very much to working for my constituents in the upcoming mandate.

I would also like to take this opportunity, as I did in my maiden speech in January 1994 to thank my family, Sherrie, Megan, Patrick, Alanna, Andrew and Sarah, my parents and my siblings for their ongoing support and understanding. All those present in the House know of the sacrifices that an elected official must make and the toll that an election campaign and representation in Ottawa can take. My family cannot be thanked enough.

During the spring campaign and throughout the summer months the constituents of Erie—Lincoln delivered a very clear message that something must be done about unemployment. I was pleased to hear in the speech from the throne that “Stimulating job creation and economic growth has been, remains and will continue to be a major objective of the Government of Canada.” I applaud this initiative.

While the job creation figures are impressive, 947,000 jobs since October 1993, and while many of these jobs are well paying, full time jobs, in my riding where unemployment remains too high, this is little consolation. The government must continue to seek out the opportunities that will put Canadians back to work and which will put many young Canadians to work for the first time in productive and fulfilling jobs.

We must continue to look abroad to market our excellent competitive Canadian products. We must investigate partnerships with the private sector. We must break down interprovincial trade barriers. We must continue to cut the red tape for small businesses and entrepreneurs. Most of all we must continue to see the unemployment situation for what it is, a battle, a war that must be fought until every Canadian who wishes to work and can work is afforded that opportunity.

The fiscal course is set. The budget is to be balanced in 1998-99, a truly remarkable achievement that has earned the admiration of the world community.

I fully support the direction the government has pursued. As difficult as it was we implemented many necessary cuts, all the while keeping in mind the values Canadians hold dear, those values that set us apart from other nations. The government's values are clear: responsibility, compassion, fairness and respect.

I caution the government with the words written by a constituent. My constituent wrote “Canada is a country, not a corporation”.

We cannot be driven by the bottom line at the expense of the livelihood, dignity and welfare of Canadians. Unemployment strikes at the very essence of an individual, leaving him or her unable to provide for self or family. Families can be traumatized by joblessness whose lives are seriously affected, sometimes irreparably.

No level of unemployment is acceptable. I will continue to examine ways in which Erie—Lincoln can seize the opportunities available to it and shall have the same access to services and programs as large urban centres.

Many Canadians and Erie—Lincoln residents are concerned about the unity of our fine country. The large French Canadian population in my riding has close ties to Quebec. We believe that la belle province is a fundamental part of our Canadian heritage.

In the address the right hon. prime minister spoke of a disturbing study showing that Canadians knew very little about one another. I am convinced that an increased knowledge of the other would bring greater understanding to those who are ambivalent about Canadian unity. Despite language, race or religion the day to day concerns of Canadians are the same from coast to coast to coast: family, employment and the economy. We are all more alike than we may realize.

I embrace the desire to be innovative as we look at national unity. I commend the premiers and territorial leaders on the recent Calgary initiative. Oftentimes a fresh approach is required. At all times an open mind is required.

Children are our most precious resource. Some say they are our future, and I agree. I would also point out they are very much a part of our present. Throughout the past year as a member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs I was part of a group committed to studying the youth justice system. The message in what we heard rang loud and clear. The most effective way to stem youth crime is not always tougher sentencing, corporal or capital punishment, but by preventing young people from falling into a life riddled with criminal activity.

Moneys carefully spent on programs dealing with children from their prenatal period through their elementary school years is crucial to preventing young people from committing that first petty crime, a first crime that can lead very often to a lifetime of criminal behaviour and incarceration at enormous cost to Canada and Canadians.

There is little doubt in my mind after visiting with young offenders, police, judges and youth workers from coast to coast to coast that child poverty proves to be a major setback for many young children that may lead to learning difficulties, adaptation problems and potential criminal activity.

The government has acted by increasing the contribution for the Canada child tax benefit by $850 million per year with higher payments to begin July 1 of next year. It is a step toward the very necessary eradication of child poverty.

I was pleased to hear in the Speech from the Throne that the government is committed to working with provincial and territorial governments to develop a broader agenda for children including clear outcomes in measuring their success. Our children ask little of us. They want only to have strong support of families and safe communities in which to develop. This is the very least we owe them.

In my riding of Erie—Lincoln it was announced that all four hospitals would be either closed or their services downgraded substantially. This is unacceptable. Many of my constituents have very real concerns about the present state and future of our medicare system. They are worried the high quality of health care they have come to expect and deserve will not be there for them when they most need it.

We have responded to these concerns and will continue to respond as we must. The government is committed to providing a minimum transfer of $12.5 billion to the provinces and territories for health care. This increase will see the cash payment entitlements to the provinces and territories rise by $700 million in 1998-99 and $1.4 billion the year after.

With the nation's finances in good shape we will soon be in a position to make choices and investments that support this Canadian priority.

Also being examined are innovative ways to provide health care to an aging population that is on the whole healthier than the last generation and much more able to live at home for longer periods of time.

We are expanding home and community care, providing Canadians with better access to medically necessary drugs, and examining the quality and effectiveness of health care across the country through the health transition fund.

The government is also working hard to prevent the many diseases and illnesses that are very costly to treat once diagnosed. Funding for initiatives such as breast cancer, HIV and AIDS and tobacco reduction are key elements in the prevention strategy. We must work with the provinces to ensure universal and accessible health care is available for all Canadians, rural or urban.

It is no longer possible for an economically viable nation to live in isolation of world affairs and events. Canada has been renowned over the years for its contribution to peacekeeping efforts. As a country we believe in the values of collective responsibility as seen through our public pension system, publicly funded health care system and equalization payments.

As one of the have nations of the world we have a responsibility to the have nots to help them through conflict and struggle by providing some security for the innocent civilians and to help provide safe havens for refugees, hopefully contributing to a resolution that will see them return home.

These are all part of our responsibilities to our friends and neighbours around the world who through no fault of their own are not fortunate enough to have the stability and prosperity we find in Canada.

Canada is not only a peacekeeper. It is a peacemaker and a leader. From Lester B. Pearson in the 1950s to my hon. colleague, the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in his humanitarian efforts to rid the globe of the hideous and maiming land mines, Canada has shown itself to be an independent leader in this arena. December's conference in Ottawa will demonstrate again to the world the honesty and tenacity with which we tackle these controversial issues.

In conclusion, too often it is easy to talk about the negative or the work to be done, but I cannot help but to think that we as Canadians get too wrapped up in it. Canada is the best nation in the world to call home and we have that privilege.

Admittedly there will always be work to be done and the best can always get better. I am committed to working to make Canada a better place to live. My constituents and family provide much of the enthusiasm that fuels my efforts.

I welcome the new members of the House of Commons to this institution. To serve the public is perhaps a calling, definitely a right, and truly a responsibility we all have. I look forward to working with all my colleagues in a constructive fashion that will build on our successes as a country and will make Canada stronger than ever as it enters the new millennium.

[Jack Ramsay, Reform, Crowfoot, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague across the way for a very good speech. I might mention that we shared chairs on the justice committee and travelled all across the country looking at the Young Offenders Act. I was always appreciative of his practicality and his common sense when it came to addressing the issue.

It is nice to hear from him today and I have a question for him. Inasmuch as the throne speech stated that the government would “develop alternatives to incarceration for low risk non-violent offenders”, would the hon. member be prepared to support an amendment to the Criminal Code that would exempt violent offenders from conditional sentencing?

The former justice minister agreed that convicted rapists should not walk the streets, that they should be doing time. Because the benefits of conditional sentencing have not been exempted from violent offenders, would he consider supporting an amendment to the Criminal Code that would do that very thing and bring the law into line with the promise made in the throne speech that they would develop alternatives to incarceration only for low risk and non-violent offenders and allow violent offenders, particularly those who commit acts of rape, to do time in jail for no other purpose perhaps than the deterrent effect it might have?

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to publicly acknowledge your appointment to the Chair. It certainly will be enlightening to have you there. I am sorry we have lost you as a member of the opposition to comment on our debates. You always had a very practical approach. We are very glad to see you as perhaps the first non-member of the government sitting in that position. It is a welcome and refreshing step.

In response to the member for Crowfoot, I agree there is too much violence in society, domestic violence and violent criminal activities. While I support the removal of conditional sentencing for violent offenders, I think it certainly has merit. We would have to examine it very closely, but I am inclined to agree with the member that a message has to be sent to the citizens of country that violence cannot be tolerated in any way, shape or form.

A tap on the wrist is insufficient for that type of behaviour. I would like to see the private member's bill I am sure the member will propose.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the sober speech made by the hon. member for Erie—Lincoln.

The member showed some foresight in dealing with many of the issues at stake. However, as you know, I am more interested in certain points than in others. Sometimes, that foresight was lacking or not so sharp. I am referring in particular to his statement that Quebec is part of the so-called Canadian heritage.

Let me quickly go back in time and remind you that Quebec City was founded some 400 years ago. Canada, on the other hand, is 130 years old. Quebec City helped promote a nascent culture that blossomed through its contacts with many aboriginal nations. To be sure, the Conquest, 150 years later, enriched the culture of the people who were already there and who were already considering themselves a people.

I will conclude by saying that the anglophone ocean now surrounding us continues to try to assimilate us, not realizing that we are a real people. There are 7 million people in Quebec, 85 percent of whom are francophones. Ours is a pluralistic society. What does the hon. member think of this?

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. The hon. member for Erie—Lincoln can give a very brief reply if he wishes to do so.

[John Maloney, Liberal, Erie—Lincoln, ON]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec is a fine province that we are proud to have as part of Canada. It is unique. It is different. We enjoy going there. We all have relatives there. In my area of Erie—Lincoln there are many French Canadian people who have family in Quebec.

However Quebec does not have the monopoly on the French culture. My area is one. St. Boniface is another and the Acadians in New Brunswick are another. There are areas throughout Canada. We respect the French factor in Canada, but Quebec is not the sole governance of that.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate you on your appointment. I will be splitting my time with the member for North Vancouver.

As this is my maiden speech I would like to take the opportunity to let my constituents know I am truly honoured to be in the House of Commons representing them as the newly elected member of Parliament for Edmonton East. I would also like to inform the people who are listening to this debate today that we are debating the Speech from the Throne.

Many of the members of this assembly can trace their heritage to a common path. We share ancestors that sailed by the shadow of the Quebec citadel, some stopping, most going onward to Montreal or beyond.

My ancestors came to Canada in the 1850s. They, like many immigrants before and since, followed this route to Upper Canada. Like the French before who enjoined the land of the aboriginals, so too did the British. My wife's ancestors who came from Ukraine in 1910 travelled this conduit to settlement, as did many others who followed. The first impressions of this new country for most of Canada's immigrants was the impressive heights of the Quebec citadel and the wharfs of Montreal.

Canada by this time had embraced the railroads and more than anything else developed the interior territories by threads of rails emanating from its rapidly growing cities of Montreal and Toronto. Montreal was the hub of the dynamic business region and largest city in Canada up until the 1960s.

Business dynamics of cities have changed since then. Toronto now replaces Montreal in size and Vancouver may in turn in the future given its present growth rate. What Montreal retains is the true essence of Canada's multicultural make-up. Its cultural mosiac is a product of 350 years of enlightened immigration. This cultural diversity is shared by many cities and towns in Canada.

Edmonton East is just one of those cosmopolitan communities. Encompassing city hall and the Alberta legislature, Edmonton East also has a variety of cultural communities, Ukrainian, Italian, Chinese and others. Cultural diversity is a treasured part of our community. A large and popular cultural event is the Edmonton heritage day festival. Our community celebrates its individuals' heritage as well as enjoying the celebration of others.

Edmontonians truly do enjoy multiculturalism. Some groups display great pride in cultural accomplishment without federal funding. More groups should. Multiculturalism should not be about money. It should be about community involvement and community participation.

As a father of two teenage daughters, one in high school, the other in university, I am proud to say that they view, as I do, race and colour as transparencies. They simply do not exist in our lives.

In the global community of the next millennium discrimination will be a non-starter for those who will want to be equal partners in world affairs. Canada has become a major global trading country because of its diversity of cultures and the insightfulness it brings.

Canada Day is a product of evolution from the French-aboriginal encounter, to the early British stewardship, to the birth of a nation in 1867, already growing with immigrants from all corners of the earth, less than 500 years since Europeans set foot in Newfoundland.

What concerns me deeply is the very reason that brings me to this Chamber, Canadian unity. I truly believe in Canada's diversity. I have had a long and memorable relationship with a very significant part of our country. Since 1962 I have sometimes lived in, worked in and often visited Quebec. The most important visit was to Quebec City during the 1995 referendum. To be in Quebec City for the vote was important to me, to my past.

On October 31, like many thousands of Canadians, I was in shock and disbelief that our country could be lost for want of 100,000 votes. It was not a simple consultative referendum as we were told. It was a serious well orchestrated campaign for separation.

Thousands of Canadians reacted as I did. Dozens of unity groups sprang up. I organized a group in Edmonton. While several projects were completed I realized that to make a serious impression I could better serve Canadian unity from within a political party that truly supports Canadian unity. Ultimately it will be the government that makes constitutional changes, but we encourage suggestions from all Canadians that want to foster Canadian unity. I will bring forward concerns of people and groups in my role as deputy critic of intergovernmental affairs.

I stand here as a product of the 1995 referendum. I am not here pretending to have answers but I am here to try to help. Canadian unity is not just Quebec and the rest of Canada. Unity is successfully dialoguing concerns of all Canadians. It is renewing federalism. It is emphasizing the equality of the people of Canada as well as the equality of its partners, the provinces.

If Canadians have the will and determination we can resolve federal-provincial concerns, we can resolve aboriginal concerns and we can resolve linguistic concerns. The people of Edmonton East are just like the people of Gaspé and people from all across Canada.

What can and will work to bring this country together is to give Canadians everywhere the feeling that they have a government that cares, a government that will bring about real jobs by reducing taxes, not just floating statistics, a government that will support fair reduced taxes after it has begun a debt reduction program, a government that will make families a priority, a government that will work to make our streets safer by recognizing and correcting the misguided Young Offenders Act, a government that will repair the damage done by the past governments to the all important social safety net and pensions, a government that will view taxpayers for who they are, our employers, not simply as walking wallets.

Then all Canadians will feel better about themselves, about their families, about their well-being in senior years, about their justice system, about their government. Then we will have something to wave a flag about. Then we will have something to be proud enough about to even buy a flag ourselves. Then we might have unity.

[Pierre De Savoye, Bloc, Portneuf, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate our new colleague on his election and I am surprised, as well as happy, to learn that he is here because of the 1995 referendum. As a result, unlike certain members of the preceding Parliament, he understands that the Bloc Quebecois members who are here today are not an anachronism and are not completely out of touch with Quebec realities. In Quebec, 49.4 percent of the people voted yes, and the member was sufficiently impressed by that percentage that he decided to come to the House to debate the question, just like us.

I would like to ask a question to our new colleague, a question that comes from the conclusions of the previous speaker, who said that Quebec did not have the monopoly on French culture in Canada since there are francophones outside Quebec. There is an important semantic distinction to be made, here. The culture of Quebecers is not French, but “Québécoise”, just like the culture of Acadians is Acadian. There are also other French language cultures elsewhere, authentic French cultures.

Did our colleague, who did come to Quebec, realize how authentic la culture québécoise is, since it is found nowhere else in the world and since it is characteristic of the way our people has evolved over the past 400 years?

I would like to hear his comments. He is in a position to know. He has lived through the referendum. I will listen closely to what he has to say.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague. I do recognize the uniqueness of the language and culture of Quebec, but I also recognize the uniqueness of other parts of Canada.

When I attended the referendum my distinct impression was that I was there because of a failure of our government in Ottawa to perform.

It is not only Quebec which is looking for changes in the federation. Many other parts of the country are also looking for change. We are looking forward to a renewal of the Canadian federation with a consideration for equality, not only equality of the citizens but equality of the provinces.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Wentworth—Burlington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to be a people within a province like the province of Quebec, it is most certainly possible to be a people within the province of Alberta.

But is it true, I ask my colleague, if he wants one people for one country, that it must be a nation like Canada. A people perhaps for the province of Quebec, but a Canadian people for the nation.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I share the concerns of the hon. member. I believe, as I stated in my speech, that Canada is comprised of peoples from all over the world, gathered together in the country of Canada. People who come from different cultural backgrounds and mosaics make Canada a great country. Canada is great because of the diversity of all of its cultures collected together.

[Gérard Asselin, Bloc, Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will agree with me that the throne speech is an empty shell, that it contains nothing to reassure Quebecers, that it has brought little hope to our young people and no hope to our seniors. Seniors tell us “The more things change, the more they stay the same”.

I would like to ask the hon. member whether, when he came to Montreal during the 1995 referendum campaign, it was really in order to save Canada, or was it because of the attraction of a reduced $95 flight from Vancouver to Montreal?

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his comments. However, I will have to correct him.

I was very specific in my speech. I said that I was in Quebec City during the referendum. To the best of my knowledge, nobody paid for my airline flight. I booked it long before that time.

I was there as a concerned Canadian. Going through August and September I watched the polls changing. With Parizeau it looked like 60:40. With Bouchard it looked like 50:50. I was concerned about the dramatic change which occurred over the period of a couple of weeks because another person had taken control.

I was there as a Canadian wishing to experience this vote in Quebec City. I had visited Quebec City several times before. My wife and I have had very fond experiences there.

I wanted to see why people who were my age, 50 years old, with two teenage daughters, who were established in life, would risk going down the road with the uncertainties which separation would bring.

I was there out of concern for my country. I was not there on a cheap flight.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your appointment to your position as Deputy Speaker, an exciting, stimulating position during these speeches.

I would like to take this discussion in the direction of parliamentary reform and the lack of mention of it in the throne speech. I would first like to lead into that with a little story.

On the evening of June 2 this year when it was clear that I had won my riding with an 11 per cent increase in support, I stood in front of my supporters and I thanked them very much for their assistance. One other thing I said to them was that I could not wait to get back to the House so that I could stand here and look at the prime minister and say “I'm back”. And here I am, his worst nightmare.

Before I get right into the nitty-gritty of my first speech—

[An hon. member]

Don't flatter yourself.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

It amuses the members opposite as much as it thrilled my supporters on the night of the election.

I would like to repeat my sincere thanks to my constituents for acknowledging and supporting the style and type of representation that I gave them in the 35th Parliament. I will certainly try to do even better in the 36th.

The victory was sweet because apart from the Liberal campaign that was run in the riding of York South—Weston in an attempt to unseat the sitting member there, I would say that the campaign run by the Liberals in my riding was probably one of the dirtiest and sleaziest in recent history. I do have to mention this to lead into my attack on the parliamentary system if we can call it that.

The Liberal candidate was personally endorsed by the prime minister and he launched into a litany of vicious personal attacks, innuendoes and mud slinging which detracted completely from the issues. The entire campaign turned into a personality thing distressing a lot of people.

My wife and many of the emotionally sensitive people in my campaign were in tears on a daily basis. If any other members were subject to that sort of abuse in a campaign they will appreciate that it is not a very nice way to go. My mother who is 84 years old had come from New Zealand thinking that it was going to be a joyous, happy campaign and she was reduced to sobbing her heart out on the first night that she was here.

As a public figure I am used to the criticism from political opponents. However it has often struck me that those who claim to have the monopoly on tolerance, compassion and understanding turn out to be the least tolerant, compassionate and understanding as they attempt to force through their agenda. The voters of North Vancouver could see through that and they gave the prime minister exactly what he deserves, a Reform representative from North Vancouver and a loyal official opposition from the rest of Canada.

One other thing. He can no longer call us the third party. Some of my constituents are waiting to see if he will use that label for the Bloc. I just have to mention that.

Election campaigns are about power. They are not really about democracy. They are about power for political parties at any cost. As new members in the House will soon learn, this House is not a place for the most part where we carry out the will of the people.

It is unfortunately the place where government members almost always obediently vote the will of the prime minister. And that is not because they always support what is being put in front of them, but because the consequences of voting against the government are so serious. Whether to stick to a principle or to represent constituents, the member for York South—Weston whose achievement in being re-elected to the House as an independent I admire, certainly knows the consequences of standing up for a principle. Sadly what happened to him I believe will act as a strong disincentive for government members to defy or even mildly depart from the instructions of their whip.

Nevertheless we do desperately need some reforms to the workings of this place, reforms that will make it a place of the people rather than a place of the parties. If each and everyone of us perhaps being guided by the general principles and polices of the party had been elected as independents with a mandate to vote the majority will of the constituents, this place could actually turn out to be useful to the average Canadian instead of being an overtaxing, overregulating, overinterfering hindrance to their lives. In fact some of my constituents have made the comment that they think the country runs better when we are not in session.

[An hon. member]

I have heard that.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

One of the PC members mentioned that she has heard the same thing.

The public perception of politicians as people who will say anything to get elected and then do whatever they like would disappear if we were truly representing them. Cynicism would be replaced by respect and we would be doing the job that the majority of voters thinks we should be doing. If we ask them they think we should be representing them, not ourselves or a hard party line.

During the summer I collected a folder full of issues brought up in letters and later some phone calls from my constituents. I tend to do this throughout the year. I pick up the issues and bring them to this place so that I can express them on behalf of my constituents.

Unfortunately I will not have time to go through the whole folder today but I can promise members they will hear about it all over the coming weeks. They are issues that I really should not even need to talk about in this place and there would be no need to talk about them if as I mentioned earlier we were truly representing our constituents.

If we had citizens rights to initiative and referendum at the federal level it would make a major difference. For those who always claim that citizens rights to initiative and referendum are not compatible with our style of parliamentary democracy, I say bunkum.

New Zealand which has a similar parliamentary system introduced citizens rights to initiative and referendum in 1990. The Ontario government is in the process of introducing those same rights for Ontario voters. All it takes is the political will. Members will have the chance to see how it can be done at the federal level when I reintroduce my private member's bill on initiative and referendum hopefully next week.

The city of Rossland in B.C. which is just a small city actually stands as an excellent example of how initiative and referendum can work for citizens. It really cleans up the politics. Prior to the introduction of citizens initiative in Rossland in 1991, four mayors had been tossed out of office in consecutive elections and councillors were being replaced all the time. It was very chaotic.

Since citizens initiative and referendum power was introduced not a single council member or mayor has been voted out of office because the constituents have been able to concentrate on the issues and the council and mayor carried out the wishes of the constituents. They voted themselves some tax increases for repairs to the community as well as voted against some other things.

In the absence of the tools of direct democracy in this place we really remain captive to the will of the prime minister. Unfortunately that means Canadians will have virtually no input to this place over the next few years.

Canadian voters will probably be stuck with the same inadequate justice system which has degenerated under the old line parties into little more than a legal system incapable of protecting them from criminals. Canadian voters will probably be stuck with an immigration system incapable of preventing the entry of hundreds of bogus and criminal refugees every day, also incapable of deporting the offenders after years of taxpayer funded appeals. I wonder how many members know that there are more than 30,000 illegals under deportation order in this country right now.

Canadian voters will probably be stuck with the Liberals embarking on a special interest group spending spree wasting money on the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council while they claw back seniors pensions and increase the CPP premiums for workers. Canadian voters will probably be stuck with higher and ever increasing taxes that eat away at their disposable income and kill jobs. Canadian voters will probably be stuck with record levels of political patronage using their tax dollars and borrowing against their children's futures.

They will probably be stuck with the ongoing Liberal social engineering programs which assign rights, privileges and money based on race or gender instead of on achievement or equal opportunity; state sanctioned racism and sexism completely out of touch with the realities of the marketplace.

In a way it is depressing. But in a way it is also invigorating because it will give me the opportunity over the next few years along with my colleagues to speak about these problems in this place. In my role as the direct democracy critic for Reform I will continue to apply pressure for change in this place, changes which would make it more effective and deliver real value for those who pay our salaries.

A strong sense of the need for change was reflected in the results of a vote held here last Monday. I hope there is sufficient resolve to carry that feeling through into meaningful changes as the business of this House progresses.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment because I know that many Canadians do watch the House. I want to defend members of Parliament who may be affronted by the member's comment about voting the way that somebody tells them.

As a member of the government party, I ran in the last election on a government platform which laid out the commitments that the Liberal Party was making to go into a new parliament.

I want constituents of my riding and of my colleagues' ridings to know that when we come to this place we will vote in favour of measures and bills which support a platform on which we ran. That is the mandate, that is the democracy and the accountability in this place.

My question for the member has to do with the issue of being an independent member and voting the will of the people, as the member would put it. I am afraid that the member is actually serious about this. The member continues to refer to New Zealand as a model. New Zealand may be able to do referendums but the population of New Zealand at some three million is the same as taking a referendum in the city of Toronto.

I would like to ask the member a very direct question. When one considers that in the last session of parliament, just half of the 35th Parliament, we had over 400 votes in this House, how is it that he expects to consult and get fair questions to all of the constituents, to get them back and to process them to find out how his constituents feel and still do it with the resources that are available? This is going to cost a phenomenal amount of money.

I would point out to the member that if he truly believes in referendums, then he should not be here because he only got 49 per cent of the vote. More than half of the people said no to that member.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member brought up really good questions and I thank him very much for that. He knows very well that most of us, except for one, ran on a platform associated with a party. So the people who voted for us supported the general principles of that party platform.

He also knows very well that his constituents do not support every single plank of that platform. He is far too arrogant to suggest that therefore he has permission to vote a certain way on every single issue that comes up in this House.

There is another problem because, as he also well knows having been here before, there are many issues that come before this House that were never in a party platform and were never part of any policy material. Those especially are the types of issues where he should be very sensitive to the will of those who are paying his salary I remind him.

He says he is actually afraid that I may be serious. I certainly am serious. He is also very concerned that I am using the example of New Zealand for referendums. Of course he completely ignored the fact that the Harris government in Ontario is introducing similar legislation.

In addition to that, we have as a very good example the country of Switzerland which conducts most of its business, at what we would call the equivalent of the federal level, through citizens initiated referendum. Nobody could say that the Swiss are not smart, that their country does not have a high standard of living and that they do not conduct themselves in a civilized manner, but the difference there is that those people who want input to the government truly have input.

Finally I would like to mention that of course many of the issues that come before this House are not issues that all of the constituents are interested in. Many of them are housekeeping items and minor changes and amendments that affect very few people. It is unrealistic to expect people to take part in a referendum process for such issues.

Nevertheless there are many major things, like the Young Offenders Act, capital punishment and various bills that came through here last year on sentencing reforms on which the public should have had more meaningful input. If the committees of this House genuinely reflected the will of the people instead of the political agenda, most of those bills never would have gone through last year.

All I can say again to the member is to please open his eyes and begin reflecting the will of the constituents because the writing is on the wall: the times they are a changing.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Order, please. It being 6 o'clock, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the motion now before the House.

The question is on the amendment to the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the amendment to the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

All those in favour of the amendment to the amendment will please say yea.

[Some hon. members]

Yea.