Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.
Vancouver Port Authority March 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport.
The Vancouver Port Authority recently approved a Las Vegas style casino project even though such for profit casinos are not legal in British Columbia. Could the minister explain why a federal authority is approving tenders for activities that are currently illegal in British Columbia?
Supply February 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his statement and his question.
Certainly the issue of government spending in total is very important to the Reform Party and we intend to examine all government spending. We have been doing that and we advocate that in the future to see how we can reduce spending and create efficiency.
When the member talks about an embassy buying a trash can for $490 he is right on the mark. However, I do not see what that has to do with duplication and overlap of government services. Quite honestly that is a separate issue. It is one that is very important to us as well and we intend to pursue it.
Supply February 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his question. First of all I cannot comment on the motivations for the Bloc Quebecois to bring this motion forward. I really do not know what the intent was. All I can say is that was my reaction in reviewing it and that is what prompted my engagement in the debate today.
As far as the difference between duplication and overlap, they both cost taxpayers money. We are concerned about getting at the issue of the economics of it as opposed to defining what the difference is between duplication and overlap. They both are inefficient and they both cost taxpayers money. That is the angle we want to attack it from. There does need to be discussions among various levels of government concerning duplication and overlap and there clearly is a good case for that.
Supply February 10th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, as this is my first opportunity to speak in the House I would like to begin by congratulating you on your election to the Chair. I would also like to thank my constituents for giving me the opportunity to represent them. I pledge to them I will do the best I can to take that responsibility seriously for the next term.
The motion the Bloc Quebecois has placed on the Order Paper is an issue which the Reform Party has been talking about for many years. We are very much aware of the heavy cost to Canadian taxpayers caused by duplication and overlap among various federal departments as well as between Ottawa and the provinces. We do however have some concerns with the Bloc's proposed solutions.
The Reform Party's deficit elimination strategy, known as the zero in three plan, outlines a saving of approximately $500 million to the federal government by eliminating these redundancies, particularly in natural resource sectors such as agriculture, forestry, mining and energy. We have calculated these savings by examining government accounts available to the public. We therefore question what is the intent of the Bloc in proposing this special committee to do the same thing.
Is this motion designed to revisit the constitutional relationship between the federal government and the provinces? We are somewhat confused as to where the Bloc is headed with this motion and are concerned that it is heading toward a new round of federal-provincial power bargaining.
I would like to speak for a few moments on this subject. The Reform Party has been on record for many years supporting a clearer division of powers between the federal government and the provinces.
Indeed our blue sheet, which outlines the complete platform we campaigned on last fall, expressly calls for the elimination, duplication and overlap between the two levels of government. Specifically our blue sheet states:
The Reform Party supports a re-examination and re-establishment of a clear division of powers between the constitutional levels of government. Legislative authority should rest with the level most able to effectively govern in each area, with a bias to decentralization in cases of uncertainty.
Furthermore we are convinced that for future constitutional negotiations to be successful we must move away from first ministers' constitutional conferences of the type that produced Meech Lake and Charlottetown and endorse a bottom up process of public consensus building.
We must seek to develop democratic, populist based mechanisms which would allow rank and file Canadians to participate in the process. In light of the fact that any fundamental change in federal-provincial relationships would by definition require constitutional amendments, and recognizing that a vast majority of Canadians have no desire for this at this time, I question why our friends in the Bloc are raising the issue. Canadians are in no mood for another round of constitutional deal making, particularly when government deficits and debt are seriously undermining the ability of our economy to perform.
While we agree with the general thrust of the motion before us, we do not see how the issue of federal-provincial jurisdictions can be effectively dealt with without revisiting the Constitution for which there is currently little or no consensus.
I would like to remind members of the Bloc that we have a very constructive set of specific proposals for constitutional reform which incorporate proposals to restructure federal-provincial jurisdictions in a manner we think will be attractive to all provinces, including Quebec.
I extend a sincere invitation to members of the Bloc and all members of the House to carefully examine Reform's written policy position on constitutional reform. The concerns which have led to the introduction of this motion before us today are specifically addressed in that position paper.
We believe that the entrenchment of private property rights and reform of the Senate are also very important to Canadians, as important as redefining federal-provincial relationships. This is because these elements define basic relationships between individuals and governments and underline regional fairness within Confederation.
The right to own private property without fear of being deprived thereof is a fundamental cornerstone of a free market economy and is ultimately the true test of a real democracy. Yet we have not embraced this principle to date.
An effective Senate, democratically elected on the basis of representation by region rather than population, would ensure the interests of all Canadians were protected from the tyranny of the majority, a way to ensure that Canadians would not have to endure another national energy program.
These issues are very important to many Canadians, and we think they deserve equal standing in future constitutional negotiations. However, Canadians have little desire to revisit the Constitution at this time. Until there is a clear consensus to proceed with constitutional renewal, Reformers are committed to advocate and support constructive change outside constitutional discussions. That is what Canadians want and need and that is what they have told us to do.
I understand the frustration of the Bloc Quebecois at the waste of taxpayers' money due to duplication and overlap of government services. I further believe that the turf wars fought by competing bureaucracies are in large part responsible for much of the tension between Quebec and the federal government. I can assure the House that Quebec is not alone in its resentment. The solution in the long run is a decentralization of powers.
Meanwhile we should all be aware of the cost of duplication and overlap. We urge the government to move to eliminate it in a manner consistent with my earlier statement within the framework of an existing Constitution. It is my understanding that the public accounts committee has the ability to scrutinize all spending programs.
Once again I say that although I generally agree with the Bloc Quebecois' intent with this motion I question why we need to create a special committee to cover ground which an existing committee has the ability to cover.
In concluding my remarks, I would like to say that I agree with the Bloc Quebecois' concern over the waste of taxpayers' money, but I believe that this motion comes close to striking at the heart of our Constitution. The Reform Party supports the position that our Constitution should be reformed and that Confederation should be maintained. It can only be maintained by a clear commitment to Canada as one nation in which the demands and aspirations of all the regions are entitled to equal status in constitutional negotiations and political debate.
Aboriginal Affairs January 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, will the minister affirm that the individual rights of aboriginal people as guaranteed to all Canadians under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be protected and preserved under any form of negotiated self-government?
Aboriginal Affairs January 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
The failure of the Charlottetown accord even among aboriginal communities indicated that among other things the people of Canada could not support undefined aboriginal self-government. Although most people understand and identify with the aspirations of aboriginals to control their own affairs there is a deep concern that self-government might threaten the sovereignty of Canada.
Will the minister assure Canadians that his government will promote and protect the sovereignty of Canada at all times when negotiating aboriginal self-government?