Brian Fitzpatrick

[Parliamentary Reform, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member's response toward the senate is something that I would like to follow up on. Assuming that we are not going to have a sovereignty issue in the province of Quebec and that we are one country, I think the member would agree with me that one of the problems we have in this country is that too much power is concentrated in the hands of too few, in the Prime Minister's Office.

The Australians, the Americans and the Germans have a federal system of government. I think that the regions in those countries feel that they are better represented. They feel that way because they have a senate that has real power at the centre and can represent their interests effectively and act as a check and a balance on the concentration of power in the prime minister's office.

Would my learned colleague see the merit, if the country is to stay intact, in having an elected senate that can fairly represent all the regions, including his region, at the centre and take some of the power away from the Prime Minister's Office?

[Senate of Canada, November 20th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, one of the cornerstones of Canadian Alliance policy remains our commitment to an elected Senate. At the convention that gave birth to the Reform Party our members saw the need to overhaul an institution that was detached, unaccountable and obsolete. Fifteen years later the Senate is even less relevant to Canadians. That must change.

In an elected Senate we have the opportunity to reinvigorate Canadian political life by better representing Canada's regional diversity. An elected Senate would provide a much needed source of opposition to the expanding power in the Prime Minister's Office.

Canadians deserve no less; they certainly should not have to pay for and support an organization that often resembles little more than a retirement home for Liberals.

[Committees of the House, October 31st, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I value my individual freedom. However, if I must surrender it in this society for the public good, I would much prefer being governed by the majority point of view than the tyranny of the minority. I want to make that clear.

Voting on bills is something totally different from the appointment of people to positions that require the trust of everyone in the House. We went through a procedure here where we voted for the Speaker of the House. Members did not worry about the gender of the person, what ethnic background the person had or what region of the country he or she was from. We voted collectively for what we thought was the best person for the job. Today I think we have a Speaker of the House who has the trust and the confidence of just about every member in the House. It is a real tribute to the secret ballot and the results of the secret ballot. I am absolutely amazed that a member of the House would look at secret ballots as some sort of dangerous concept.

Would the member propose that we go back to having the Prime Minister appoint the Speaker of the House as a reform of Parliament?

[Agriculture, October 25th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister.

When we had the ice storms in this country the government moved quickly. When we had the floods in the Saguenay the government moved quickly. Western Canada is experiencing the worst drought since the great depression. The throne speech made absolutely no mention whatsoever of this great disaster. Existing government programs, including NISA, are totally inadequate.

When will the government announce an emergency--

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, it seems to me there is a two stage process involved here. The government could ratify the accord but the implementation of it seems to be something different. There are constitutional problems that exist on implementing a treaty of this nature. The ratification of the accord could be a straw man, to use that term, and the government very well know that legally it could have huge problems in implementing this because of constitutional precedents and the Canadian Constitution.

Could the hon. member enlighten the House on some of the constitutional hurdles involved in implementing a treaty like this?

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the member talks of dire circumstances. I will set out some facts for this gentleman. I would like him to respond.

Since 1950 the world's population has increased. Poverty in the world has been decreased. In 1950 the average man's life in this country was 49 years long. It is 78 years today. Women are living much longer. If the climate is getting as bad as he says it is, why is our population not going down? Why is poverty going down and why is our life expectancy not seriously declining? It just defies all his logic. I would be living on borrowed time if I were living in 1950 figures, but somehow the environment in this world has allowed me to live to the age of 56 and with any luck I will be 78 years of age. If the environmental circumstances are as serious as he says, how come we are living longer on this planet and we are living better as human beings as time goes on?

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to deal with the premise behind the hon. member's speech. The premise is that climate scientists are unified in saying that there is a greenhouse crisis on this planet. Some of those leaders back in the seventies and eighties were predicting an ice age, not global warming. Of the 1,800 alleged climate scientists in the U.S. who supported Kyoto, analyses show that only 250 were legitimate climate scientists. There are thousands of climate scientists who take serious disagreement with Kyoto.

Does the member not accept the fact that climate scientists are very much divided on this question?

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I have visions of Kyoto meaning bigger government. We are getting into something called emissions trading. It seems that every single entity in the economy will have to be audited by somebody and there will have to be monitoring and tracking of this procedure. This would mean more government, more regulation and more government civil servants in Ottawa just to administer and deal with the matter.

Does the hon. member have any idea of how many new jobs in the public sector Kyoto will mean?

[Supply, October 24th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I want to raise a question in terms of competency. I understand that countries, such as France, are already below the 1990 level because they utilize atomic power. I was absolutely amazed, better put shocked, that the government did not get any credits whatsoever for the Canadian uranium industry that supplies that atomic energy to Europe. To me this speaks of incompetence. We did not get credits on natural gas exports. We did not get credits on the export of uranium to countries that are using that to get under those levels.

Would the member comment on why we are not getting any credits for the export of uranium to European countries?

[Resumption of debate on Address in Reply, October 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I found the member's speech interesting. It is a topic that is well worth pursuing.

I have often thought that the federal government is preoccupied with trying to find ways to invade provincial jurisdiction, things like health, education and social services and abandons other areas that it has clear constitutional power to deal with. Section 91 gives the federal government the power to deal with trade in commerce and any conflict in constitutional law between that and provincial property and civil rights is usually won out by the federal government.

Why does the government not take the bull by the horns and take the initiative on the capital market question and create one national security system and help build a vibrant growing economy that works east and west, not just north and south?