Lost his last election, in 2011, with 2% of the vote.
Parliament Of Canada Act November 23rd, 1999
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-337, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (recognized political parties).
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide that only parties with the recognized membership of 10% or more of the total membership of the House of Commons, with representation from at least three provinces or territories, shall be recognized political parties.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Official Languages Act November 23rd, 1999
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-336, an act to amend the Official Languages Act (provision of bilingual services).
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to redefine the criteria set out in the Official Languages Act by which the language rights guaranteed by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will be provided so as to avoid unnecessary expense.
It sets out a standard of 25% of the population speaking an official language as a significant demand that warrants service in the official language.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Supply November 22nd, 1999
Madam Speaker, the hon. member kept using the words “divisive” and “uncertainty”. She said that our calls for a referendum on the issue would cause uncertainty and divisiveness.
My question for her is how on earth could a referendum in which all the citizens could participate and exercise their democratic will, and after which there would be a clear result, possibly create uncertainty? Would that not clarify the matter? Would that not empower the people of British Columbia to determine their destiny on this?
Petitions November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by thousands and thousands of people, possibly tens of thousands, which calls upon the government not to support a proposal made by the heritage minister to place a 3.5% levy on video distribution. They point out that this would cost consumers $65 million a year, that the tax would be in addition to the 7% GST, that it would add between 72% and 200% to the amount of tax the federal government collects on the rental of a single video, and that it would increase the cost of renting a video by between 20 cents and 50 cents.
Considering the number of signatures on the petition, I think the government should take this very seriously.
Petitions November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the second petition I have, also signed by residents of Saskatoon—Humboldt, calls upon parliament to bring in legislation in accordance with the provisions of the Referendum Act, 1992 which would require a binding national referendum to be held at the time of the next election to ask voters whether they are in favour of government funding for medically unnecessary abortions.
Mr. Speaker, it may interest you to know that I have a private member's bill which essentially would have the same result.
Petitions November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.
The first one bears several hundred signatures of residents from Saskatoon—Humboldt who call upon parliament to enact legislation to amend the Marriage Act and the Interpretation Act so as to define in statute that a marriage can only be entered into between a single male and a single female.
Regulatory Budget November 22nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the Motion No. 207 brought forward by the Tory member of parliament for Kings—Hants.
Like so many other ideas of the fifth place party, when we strip away the veneer we are left with another Red Tory irresponsible socialist nightmare. About the only positive thing I can say about the motion is that it is not votable, so we will not be wasting three hours of parliament's time debating it.
However, if it had been deemed votable, I would have voted against it and encouraged fellow MPs to do the same. I say this not so much for what the motion attempts to accomplish but for what it does not do.
The motion tries to introduce increased accountability into the regulatory process. However, it deals with accountability in terms of costs and forgets about the regulatory process itself.
In that sense the hon. member has put the cart before the horse. Reform's approach, as outlined in our blue book policy, states that the Reform Party supports restrictions on the number and types of orders in council permitted by a government during its term in office. It goes on to state that until we form government Reform Party MPs will strive to make parliamentary committees effective in reviewing any regulation before implementation.
As the official opposition, my Reform Party colleagues and I believe that by changing the regulatory process to make it more accountable we get cost effectiveness.
I will elaborate later on how this is achieved. However, I first want to provide context and background on how the regulatory process works or, more accurately, does not work.
Regulations, or as they are also described statutory instruments or delegated legislation, are passed through order in council or governor in council. As all members know, this is done under the auspices of the minister's authority.
Let us not kid ourselves. They are drafted, vetted and the product of bureaucratic thinkers. There is nothing wrong with this per se. Indeed, with British parliamentary democracies having evolved the way they have, legislative authority must be delegated.
However, as a consequence and with little or no accountability, unelected people are making what are effectively laws. The authority to do this is legitimately contained in every bill that comes before parliament. But that is not where my concern is.
Given that any government bill tabled contains the words “the governor in council may make regulations”, the bulk of a bill's legislative intent is not in the legislation itself but in the regulations that follow after a bill's passage. This is where my concern is.
To put it into perspective, think of a government bill. I see the justice minister is in the House, so let us use the government's flawed Firearms Registration Act as an example, otherwise known as Bill C-68. That bill was and is an attack on the fundamental property rights of Canadians. Yet the most offensive part of the bill comes from the potential of governor in council regulations that may be passed at future dates.
The enabling legislation for Bill C-68 contains a regulatory proviso that allows the justice minister to arbitrarily declare any class of firearm prohibited. The firearms can then be confiscated from law-abiding owners.
As for the regulation itself, there is no debate, no vote in parliament and no accountability. Sure there is a weak promise to table any such regulations before the justice committee, but that is a meaningless, token gesture. In fact, the tabling of order in council documents before any parliamentary committee is rarely done. It is even rarer for the government to place draft regulations, along with the bill itself, before a parliamentary committee for consideration.
The point here is that a government bill is a lot like an iceberg; 10% comes in the form of the bill and the other 90% lurks beneath the surface in the form of regulatory authority.
What does my Tory friend offer as a solution to problems of accountability and cost effectiveness? In true Liberal and Red Tory fame, he offers to set up a bureaucracy to watch the bureaucracy, spending money to allegedly save money. When I see and hear that type of impaired logic, I can safely say that Liberal or Tory, same old story.
Am I being overly unfair? Let us look at the record of the red Tory government when it was in power. Does it differ from its Liberal clone on the subject of regulatory accountability? During nine tortuous years in power, did members of the fifth place party do something to make the regulatory process more accountable? Unfortunately, no. Like their Liberal friends before them and in government now, the Tories did nothing. In fact, the statutory measure that would allow for a parliamentary committee to disallow a regulation is still not in place. The Tories could have done it while they were in power and did not.
Of course, their Liberal counterparts are no better and somewhat more hypocritical than the Tories. The Liberals actually pushed for a statutory disallowance procedure while the Tories were in power. Curiously though, now that the Liberals are in power, they are not quite as eager to implement it. Then again, it is not all that surprising if one thinks back to the Liberal GST promise, but I digress.
There are numerous reasons why the Liberals will not enact a statutory disallowance procedure. Political opportunists say one thing in opposition and do another thing in government. Arrogance, disrespect for democracy and the list goes on.
In any event, a great deal of what he proposes is contained in the RIAS which accompanies the regulation. The regulatory impact analysis statement deals with much of what the hon. member is trying to do here with the motion before us. I encourage him to actually pick up a copy of the Canada Gazette Part II and read through the RIAS for any given regulation. It does offer valuable insight into the impact of a regulation. However, I reiterate that the key to accountability lay elsewhere, not in the financial bottom line but in reform of the process itself.
A regulation should not just be given a parliamentary rubber stamp once the Clerk of the Privy Council has been given a copy, as is the case now. Instead, there should be mandatory review by a parliamentary committee before a regulation comes into force. As a preventive measure, this could be done by tabling draft regulations at second reading or during committee consideration of a bill. If the regulation is found to be flawed, then it would be referred to scrutiny of regulations immediately instead of after the fact.
Once there, if the regulation is still found to be flawed, a statutory disallowance procedure could then be used to strike down the offending regulation. My Liberal friends will say that there is already room in the standing orders, but this procedure is not useful because there is nothing compelling the minister to strike down the offending regulation.
Considering that Britain, Australia and New Zealand all have statutory disallowance procedures, the question is, why do we not? The answer is a refusal by cabinet to act on the issue, a refusal by the executive to relinquish absolute power over the regulatory process.
Sadly, this comes from the profound mistrust that government MPs have for the role of parliament and its members. And, like the motion before us, it also demonstrates a deep misunderstanding of the regulatory process.
In closing, if MPs on both sides want to make regulations more accountable, hence cost effective, this is not the way to go about it.
The House and Canadians would be better served by a regulation making process that increases parliamentary scrutiny. Contrary to what is being proposed here, it does not mean creating another bureaucracy which functions outside of parliament.
Questions On The Order Paper November 16th, 1999
With respect to Order in Council No. 11 passed on November 29, 1994 declaring a series of firearms as prohibited weapons effective January 1, 1995, what has the government determined to be: ( a ) the total number and type of firearms confiscated under OIC No. 11; ( b ) the total number and type of firearms confiscated for which compensation was given to the owner; ( c ) the rationale or reason behind the issuance of such compensation; ( d ) the total number and type of firearms confiscated for which compensation was not given to the owner; and ( e ) the rationale or reason why no such compensation was provided?
Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act November 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is necessary to discuss the Nisga'a treaty today because Bill C-4 which deals with the space station is also based on a treaty.
It is essential that we discuss in parliament how these treaties are coming into existence and the irrelevance that parliament has with respect to these treaties. It is insulting for these treaties to be signed and sealed as a done deal and then brought before parliament to receive a rubber stamp. This warrants looking at the details of the treaties, in particular the Nisga'a treaty.
The Nisga'a final agreement is going to build barriers and widen the gulf between aboriginal and non-aboriginal people in British Columbia. It strongly contradicts one of the key founding principles of the Reform Party which is that we believe in true equality of Canadian citizens with equal rights and responsibilities for all. That statement is a direct word for word extract from the blue book of the Reform Party.
Civil International Space Station Agreement Implementation Act November 2nd, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I was just getting to the link. I first wanted to establish the method in which the Prime Minister governs the country and that is as a dictator.
The link is that with the bill before us, because there is no opposition, the Prime Minister is quite content to let opposition members of parliament speak in favour of the bill and in essence commend the government. If we are speaking in favour of the bill we are not being critical of an initiative of the government. I was just pointing out that only exists in the instance where we are supportive of a bill.
However, in the case of the Nisga'a agreement there is widespread discontent and unhappiness not only with the agreement but with the manner in which the agreement is being thrust upon the citizens of British Columbia in particular but indeed upon all the citizens of our country. That is something that needs to be discussed. It is not acceptable. People need to be made aware of how this place is being governed. They need to be made aware that solutions exist.
The Reform Party proposes referendums for such major legislation as the Nisga'a agreement. On legislation which is before the House today, we are proposing free votes in the House of Commons in which members are not under the hard iron fist of a dictator but rather are free to vote according to the wishes of their constituents. If a member can demonstrate that his or her constituents are in favour or opposed to any particular bill, such as the space station before us, the member should be free to exercise that right and actually represent the people who elected him or her. Free votes is an answer to improving the democracy of this institution.
I mentioned the Senate. We all know how badly we need Senate reform.
Finally, before I leave this point, there is member recall. The Reform Party has been very strong in advocating the right of constituents to recall their member of parliament if he or she does not represent their wishes.
The lack of an elected effective Senate, the lack of accountability of politicians to the people who elect them and the lack of free votes are all part and parcel of the undemocratic nature by which this government is ruling parliament. It explains why with Bill C-4 because there is no opposition, none of these are real issues. It is not an issue. But in the case of the Nisga'a agreement which was before the House yesterday, all of these democratic principles and concepts were quashed.
With regard to the Nisga'a final agreement, I would like to point out that the form of apartheid which has failed in the past has been used as a template for the Nisga'a and therefore future treaty negotiations. To prove that point I would like to quote from the Oxford Dictionary which defines apartheid as a policy or system of segregation or discrimination on the grounds of race.
The Nisga'a final agreement permanently entrenches the same essential elements as the reserve system in a modern treaty. It creates permanent inequality, disenfranchising non-Nisga'a people and providing for a system of taxation without representation.
Non-Nisga'a people who reside in the affected area will be able to vote for federal and provincial representatives, but they will not be able to vote for or run as council members. Band councils will hold most of the power in the Nisga'a territory and will be responsible for local tax issues. Non-Nisga'a people will have no say in how those tax policies affect them.