Lost his last election, in 2004, with 36% of the vote.
Supply April 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, unfortunately we cannot provide the agenda as requested by the member.
The task force did not release its agenda for last week until this week. The meetings had already taken place by the time we knew where they were and there was absolutely no opportunity for public input whatsoever.
Supply April 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for the question. I would like him to know that in the 10 years since the Reform Party was formed we have always had a policy that the federal government should remove itself from using its spending powers in areas of provincial jurisdiction. It has been an irritation to the west just as it has been to Quebec that this federal government interferes constantly in areas of provincial jurisdiction.
He may also be aware that there has been quite a strong separatist movement in western Canada that has ebbed and flowed from time to time. It even elected two members in Alberta at one stage. In B.C. the support for western separation was measured as high as 17% to 18% at one point in time.
The irritations he mentioned are certainly not limited to Quebec. They are widespread throughout the country. I hear comments from people in Ontario that they feel this place, Ottawa, interferes constantly in what should be left to the provincial government.
Supply April 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, that is a really good question and I thank the member for it. He is from British Columbia and he is well known as what we call a constituency rep. He cares for his constituents and their opinions.
The Mark Trend poll I mentioned asked a question of whether or not people thought the Liberal task force would actually listen or make any difference. Almost 70% thought it would not make the slightest bit of difference. Therein we have an answer to part of his question. People do not believe it will make any difference. All it will do is meet with its own people, Liberal supporters, and not really listen.
Judging by the telephone calls to the radio talk show I mentioned, many of which were from western Canada, they simply did not believe the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia was listening at all to the concerns. Caller after caller said “You are not listening, are you? Will you please be quiet and listen to what I have to say?” They repeated one after the other the same theme that the member really had not clicked to the need to listen to the constituents.
Supply April 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I thought you might stop me on that so I will start again. The article states that if the Prime Minister “and his Liberal flunkies really wanted to know what is on the minds of western Canadians, they could start by unplugging their ears and listening to what those folks sitting across from them in the House of Commons have to say. No, not the separatist Bloc Quebecois, the Reform Party”.
Mr. Perry then went on to state that they would find out very quickly and pointedly why the west does not elect more Liberals, which is of course the real point of this wasteful junket. Mr. Perry also wrote that the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia should know better than to be part of this sham.
I know that my time is running short already. I am going to read out a typical list of western concerns. It is a list that has only grown since the government was elected in 1993. With respect to a few of the items on the list, the government has engaged in a very expensive and lavish public relations exercise, feigning concern and pretending that they have actually done something about the issues but to all intents and purposes nothing has changed.
One of the items on the list is an overhaul of the Young Offenders Act. That is a real overhaul, not the pathetic piece of fiddling while Rome burns that was recently introduced by the Minister of Justice. They want an end to the wheat board monopoly; a referendum on the Nisga'a template; prompt deportation of the tens of thousands of criminal refugee claimants in Canada and an end to refugee claims at the borders; action on judicial activism and a more transparent and public method for selecting judges; reform of the Senate; an end to the use of closure to limit parliamentary debates; and meaningful tax reductions.
That poll I mentioned asked westerners what they thought would be a meaningful tax reduction. Almost 87% said the tax reductions given by the minister were pitiful and that $2,500 to $3,000 per year was meaningful.
Supply April 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, it is because of the government's ongoing and arrogant disregard for the aspirations and valid concerns of the provinces and regions of this country that we are having to debate this motion today. I would like to read it into the record once again:
That this House condemns the government for alienating itself from the regions of Canada by failing to identify and address the concerns and issues of those regions, and as a symbolic first step towards taking responsibility for all of the regions of Canada, the government should rename the Liberal committee on Western alienation the “Liberal Alienation Committee”.
As the debate progresses today, Reform MPs will be speaking one by one about the concerns of Canadians on a region by region basis beginning with the west. We want to try to provide the Prime Minister with information firsthand which is much more detailed and valuable, and perhaps even more relevant than that which will be collected by his partisan task force, a task force which appears to be interested in receiving input only from persons or groups who can be identified as Liberal supporters.
As an example of a meaningful message, I would like the House to consider for a moment a poll of residents in B.C. and Alberta which was completed by Mark Trend Research in late March. The results of the poll provide some important contradictions to the claims made by the Prime Minister that he has been dealing with western concerns.
It is especially interesting to note that barely one in ten of the respondents had even heard of the Prime Minister's task force. That is not surprising in light of the complete failure of the task force to publish an agenda or to even make public the venues for the meetings so that westerners can give their input.
If we take as an example last week's activities of the task force, the chairman of the task force claimed in this House yesterday to have met with 60 individuals and organizations in Manitoba. I have a copy of their agenda here. It is quite clear that it was designed to exclude the public who would more than likely have arrived at the meetings with tough messages embarrassing to the task force.
This agenda was obviously put together months ago. It has been carefully constructed and it is entirely a set of meetings behind closed doors with special interest groups and Liberal Party hacks. Mind you, the chairman could be a bit gun shy of public exposure. In light of his experience on a Canada-wide talk show in early February, I would not blame him for wanting to have his meetings behind closed doors.
In two hours of open radio talk show he did not receive a single call of support from anywhere in Canada, in an entire two hour talk show. In fact, it was probably the hottest of public roastings experienced by any MP in a long time. Callers predicted that the task force would be a complete waste of money and that the members would not listen anyway. This prediction appeared to become a self-fulfilling prophecy as the talk show progressed.
The member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia made comments like “We have to pursue what we think is in the national interest” and “I hope the passions diminish and westerners accept the legislation”. He was talking about the ill-fated gun control bill, the Liberal gun control disaster. His comments made it quite clear that he had no intention of listening to the input from law-abiding gun owners who are sick of being treated like criminals.
Another comment from the task force chairman on that talk show was in connection with the probably unconstitutional Nisga'a treaty that is being dealt with in B.C. His answer to a request from one of the callers was “You know we don't believe in referendums”. To say the least, this is a truly insensitive statement from someone who claims to be leading a group which in the Prime Minister's words has a mandate to travel throughout the west on a fact finding mission. No wonder a caller to the show told the member that he is obviously deaf and needs a hearing aid.
In fact, the Mark Trend poll I mentioned earlier found that 65% of people in B.C. want a referendum on the Nisga'a treaty. That is up from 60% three months ago and up from 48% in August 1998. The more people learn about the agreement, the less they want it. The fact is they do not want two arrogant governments, each elected with less than 38% of the popular vote, ramming down their throats a system of government which is 100% based on race and which is probably unconstitutional.
On the flight to Ottawa from Vancouver this week I sat alongside a B.C. businessman who had lived in South Africa for seven or eight years. He told me, as have so many of my constituents who have lived in South Africa prior to coming to Canada, that the Nisga'a treaty does exactly what South Africa was told by the international community to abandon. It sets up a government based on race, a system of apartheid and racism and homelands rather than a system of equality of peoples.
Even the Liberal Party of B.C. is against the Nisga'a treaty and has launched a court challenge against the unconstitutional delegation of powers contained in the agreement.
Yet the member for Charleswood St. James—Assiniboia and his so-called task force are choosing to ignore the concerns of the people of B.C. and even what their own provincial counterparts are telling them. Unfortunately, the callers to the radio talk show were correct when they said that the task force would be a flop. They know that the vast majority of government members are simply trained seals who will vote the way they are told to vote by the Prime Minister regardless of the input they have received from the people in the west.
It is a sad commentary on our dysfunctional parliament that men and women who no doubt in their private lives are intelligent, thoughtful and reasonable people have no option but to vote the way they are told by the Prime Minister because otherwise he will not sign their nomination papers. It prevents them from representing their constituents.
In contrast, soon after westerners started the Reform Party, they included in the party constitution a provision which prevents a leader of the party from refusing to sign nomination papers. In the Reform Party it is the executive council, a body elected from the members at large which decides whether or not a leader will sign a candidate's nomination papers. Reform MPs are guaranteed the freedom to do what has to be done when it needs to be done in terms of voting freely in the House.
This is good because that Mark Trend poll I keep mentioning found that in both Alberta and B.C. more than 87% of the people want parliament reformed to establish free votes as the norm rather than the never. They want their MPs to represent them, not a political master in an office on Parliament Hill. Until the task force comes to grips with that reality, we all know that the callers to CKNW's radio talk show were absolutely right that the task force is a big waste of money and resources.
Surely it might make the task force members feel all warm and fuzzy inside when they meet with their carefully chosen sympathetic supporters, but as Winnipeg Sun copy editor Mark Perry wrote back in January “If Chrétien and his Liberal flunkies really wanted to know what's on the minds of Western Canadians”—
Supply April 13th, 1999
moved:
That this House condemns the government for alienating itself from the regions of Canada by failing to identify and address the concerns and issues of those regions, and as a symbolic first step towards taking responsibility for all of the regions of Canada, the government should rename the Liberal committee on Western alienation the “Liberal Alienation Committee”.
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns April 13th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I just wonder if the parliamentary secretary could do as well on notices of motions and get P-70 responded to as soon as possible.
Questions On The Order Paper April 13th, 1999
What were the total costs incurred by the government since 1995 as a result of the negociations to return Christine Lamont and David Spencer to Canada, iremized by department and including, but not limited to, administrative and travel costs for ministers and other parties to the negotiations, RCMP expenses associated with the physical return of Ms. Lamont and Mr. Spencer to Canada and transportation costs within Canada?
Bank Act March 24th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member mentioned a number of ways government actions can cripple the activities of Canadian banks. That takes me back to the previous speech from the NDP member who was talking about the Tobin tax and how it would solve the problems of the world because it would get those nasty speculators.
It is true that the government side did vote for that Tobin tax last night. The only reason I can think for doing that is that it is a tax and Liberals like taxes. They voted for it because it is a tax. There simply was not any logical reason to do it.
An NDP speaker earlier was talking about how these dreadful speculators had to be stopped. If there is one way to cripple our Canadian banks it is to introduce a Tobin tax and remove from their possession all the major international transactions and the major corporate business that would be going on. It would all be transferred to different countries.
When I came to Canada 20 years ago, 1979, the Canadian dollar was worth more than 90 cents U.S. Today it is down to about 67 cents U.S. I ask who caused that. Overspending, overtaxing, oversized government caused that. It did more damage than all the speculators we could name.
Can the hon. member think of any case, any example where speculators did more damage than overspending, overtaxing, oversized government?
Motions For Papers March 24th, 1999
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
On January 28 of this year I submitted a Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers in connection with section 31 of the Elections Act and the Communist Party of Canada.
A week ago in this House I brought this matter to the attention of the parliamentary secretary who said, and I quote from Hansard , “I will certainly look into that matter as soon as possible”.
Could the parliamentary secretary please tell the House what he has found out by looking into the matter? Exactly how long will I have to wait to get the answer to this question?