Madam Speaker, this is my opportunity to reply to the Speech from the Throne. I would like to digress for a moment as I have had an interesting experience this last week or so.
My mother has been visiting with me here in Ottawa. She reminds me of the wonders of serving in this place. She has come from Alberta to stay with us for a month. Her reaction to the things we do here has been enlightening to me. Her almost childlike enthusiasm, seeing the things that she has seen, reminds me that this is a very special place and a very special opportunity. It reminds me as well of what a privilege it is to serve my constituents and express their ideas and constructive thoughts.
I have had a recent responsibility change in parliament. I served as health critic for the official opposition for quite some time and have moved to another responsibility, intergovernmental affairs, which hardly anyone knows what it means.
I would like to take this opportunity as well to express my thanks to those individuals who made my job as health critic so enjoyable. I had an opportunity to associate with and have interchange with associations across the country, medical, nursing, dental and chiropractic associations and many individuals who had strong positions.
For instance, the public who fought for freedom in health foods and in alternative therapies were very powerful individuals. They made their positions so strongly known that the government changed some of its direction in those areas. I met some victims who contracted hepatitis C from tainted blood. Their powerful position, especially that of a young man, made the government look shaky in some instances.
I would like to focus on little Joey Haché, a young man with an illness that should have made him weak, should have sapped his strength, but instead has made him strong. I want all Canadians to know how proud I am to have known him and to have had a little opportunity to interchange with him.
Now, to this new job in intergovernmental affairs, I looked through the throne speech to see all the things that related to unity in our country, which is the main responsibility that particular job entails. I want to be very careful that the wording I use is exact because Reformers believe that Canada can be united by reforming the federation on the principle of equality and through a rebalancing of power. Knowing what that means and what, from my party's perspective, we mean in terms of unity, I looked carefully at the throne speech to see what it said on the issue of unity.
This was the government's response:
The best way to achieve the promise of Canada for every citizen is to work together to build the highest quality of life for all Canadians. [—]The Government of Canada therefore reaffirms the commitment it has made to Quebeckers and all other Canadians that the principle of clarity, as set out by the Supreme Court of Canada, will be respected.
This is the Government of Canada's response on this very important matter: the clarity of the question, the majority acceptable, and the negotiation process. These are not the best way to ensure Canada's unity.
As the Reform Party sees it, the way to ensure our country's unity is to make changes in the federation. For instance, we would like to strengthen or improve the exercise of federal legislative and administrative authority in the following areas: defence, foreign affairs, monetary policy, regulation of financial institutions, criminal law, definition of national standards, equalization payments, international trade and interprovincial trade.
These are important matters that come under federal jurisdiction. must try to strengthen or improve the exercise of provincial legislative and administrative authority in the following areas: natural resources, manpower training, social services, education, language and culture, municipal affairs, sports, housing, and tourism.
These are to diminish federal intrusion into exclusive areas of provincial responsibility. What does that mean to my home constituency in Alberta? That means that many of the things that Albertans are disappointed with and unhappy with in the way our federation works would be answered. What would that mean for those disaffected in Quebec? In my view, and in the view of my party, it would mean exactly the same thing, a rebalancing of the powers of confederation based on the principle of equality. That is quite different than just simply saying there is one way, the status quo. That has been the complaint I have heard over and over again from my Quebec colleagues, many of whom feel there is no other option but to split from this country.
My colleagues across the way seem to think that the option is to stay rigid. We believe that there is a troisième voie, a third way, another mechanism to reach the same goal: a stronger federation, not for those in these halls but for our children.
Some other things that we think would go a long way toward improving our country would be changes in the way things work in this House. We believe that we could involve members of parliament better to make backbench MPs feel that they have a powerful place here by freeing up votes on issues that should not be a vote of confidence. If a vote causes a bill of the government to fail, there could simply be a vote of confidence in the government so that the government itself would not fail. That is done in other jurisdictions. It is mind numbing to my constituents at home why we have the convention that the failure of a bill would cause the government to fail. There are very few bills that should cause the government to fail.
One other important thing would be to have the ability to fire a liar, and that is to recall a politician who has made a promise and then lied. And I do not mean just to have a politician resign and then run again.
We also believe that we could involve the public better in terms of being able to initiate by citizens' initiative information or laws that are not coming from the government and binding national referenda on major important issues, especially moral issues. Three hundred and one individuals in the country should not decide an issue of such importance.
These things, in terms of direct democracy, we are convinced would make a huge difference to the way this place works and also to the way politicians are looked at and thought of.
Time is always short. The government had very little to say about unity, maybe hoping that the unity problem would gradually diminish. I have looked at the unity debate over the last 30 years and have found that the interest in sovereignty goes up and down, and it is usually from combative things that are done in this place that sovereignty gets its strength.
I look forward to working with my colleagues in the House on this issue and I look forward as well to an interchange with Canadians who will guide me and help me to be at least a proper debater in this area.