Wait until the next election.
Lost his last election, in 2004, with 36% of the vote.
Supply February 21st, 1994
Wait until the next election.
Supply February 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member started his speech by stating that the Reform Party thinks Parliament is broken. I would just like to inform him that we do not really think it is broken, we just think it needs a little refurbishing.
We want more openness in this Parliament and we want more opportunity to allow the people of Canada in this information age to have more input into this House and to be able to see that we are actively debating issues that are of importance to them.
The hon. member knows that the rules are changed by the government, in effect, because it has the voting power in this House. The standing order will be changed only with the approval of the government. The member also knows that motions on the Order Paper are extremely unlikely, by sheer volume, to ever come up for debate.
The hon. member consistently refuses to agree to a new system that would bring better representation for his constituents. I would like to ask the member why he is afraid to debate petitions in this House in front of television cameras. Is he afraid that his constituents might see that he does not represent them properly in this House?
Supply February 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I would take the hon. member's suggestions under advisement and perhaps suggest that his party use its opposition days to introduce topics of its choice.
On the matter of how we would choose petitions, that was a subject of my speech. I mentioned that perhaps selecting petitions with the largest number of signatures would automatically place them in the realm of being a petition of national importance. That would certainly be one suggestion.
Supply February 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his comments, but I cannot help feeling that they were directed well away from the topic of the debate and certainly the spirit of the debate.
I reiterate that the motion before the House today was placed there by the Reform Party because we want to help voters of Canada have a greater say in the running of their government. For them to see that occasionally major petitions actually get discussed in the House in front of the television cameras so that the whole of Canada can see it would be going a long way toward opening up that process for Canadians.
Supply February 21st, 1994
Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the whip of the Reform Party, I would like to advise the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 43(2), our speakers on this motion will be dividing their time.
This motion brought forward for discussion by the Reform Party is another indication of our party's commitment to find ways the people of Canada can have a greater input into the decision making process of government.
We want to encourage ongoing discussions of important issues in every community right across Canada. We feel that this does not always have to involve the government. It does not have to be sponsored or funded by the government.
People like to discuss important issues with their friends and their neighbours. They like to write letters to the editors of the local newspapers and they like to call local talk shows on both television and radio.
Some start petitions as a way of highlighting the concerns of the community. These things happen spontaneously without any cost to the government and they certainly do not require government input or interference. Government attempts to influence the outcome of community discussions on issues can easily backfire.
Huge sums were spent by the previous government funding the yes side of the 1992 referendum but the people of Canada made up their own minds on the issue and the majority voted against the government position.
The politicians at the time refused to apologize for their attempts to manipulate the result of the referendum and the will of the people. To this day many are unable to accept the result and continue to criticize the referendum process.
The Reform Party takes the opposite position entirely. We strongly supported the right of voters to express their will through the 1992 referendum and we absolutely accepted the result. We continue to actively push for a regular set of referendum questions to be placed on a separate referendum ballot at the time of each federal election. The cost would be minimal, whilst the benefits to the people of Canada would be enormous. By allowing them to take an active part in important decision making we would be showing the people of Canada that we the politicians are prepared to listen to their concerns.
We believe this type of referendum plays an essential part in the new democracy which is finding its way into our parliamentary system. Petitions are a form of mini referendum. Initiated by citizens they are sometimes very localized in nature with just a few thousand signatures. Sometimes they are of national importance, carrying as many as a million or more signatures.
Unfortunately governments, because they are often absorbed in their own agenda, tend to ignore petitions or these mini referendums. Ministers are photographed accepting this petition or that petition, taking the opportunity to be in the news instead of taking the opportunity to follow the will of the people.
Many petitions specifically seek to change a government direction or policy. There is a public perception, perhaps accurate, that instead of seeing this as a way of building voter confidence and a way of correcting flaws in policy, a government will shuffle the petition off into a black hole somewhere and will continue on with what it calls its mandate.
Governments are failing to recognize the key to re-election in the information age is to be responsive to the will of the people. Future political stability rather than depending on party unity is going to depend on being responsive to voter concerns. Failure to introduce at least some basic forms of participatory democracy will condemn us to many years of political upheaval and uncertainty.
One government member has stated that petitions are acknowledged and do not disappear. That is not the perception of members of the public. Most adults have probably signed a
1595
petition at one time or another-I know I have-and have probably been as disappointed as I have that no matter how many signatures are on a petition there is no real way to turn the petition into legislation which addresses the concerns of the petitioners.
Regular open consideration and debate of major petitions presented to the House would go a long way toward showing citizens that their concerns are being discussed in Parliament, that their signatures on a petition really does count, that a major petition will be discussed here, and that the government may take notice and act to change or introduce legislation to deal with the concerns.
If something is worth doing it is worth doing it well. More credibility would be added to the process if a free vote could take place at the end of the debate. Instead of being partisan we would have an opportunity as MPs to work together, to actively support or reject the direction suggested by a petition.
There is no threat to the government in agreeing to amend the standing orders in the way our motion suggests. There simply are not any downsides to this suggestion. What harm can possibly be done by the occasional debating of petitions?
I urge all members to join me in supporting this motion. I hope many of them will speak in its favour. I am very disappointed government speakers so far seem to be taking a negative position simply because this is a Reform motion. The opportunity to debate petitions before the House would show constituents across Canada that we really care about their concerns.
I would like to relate the discussion today to the red book. Government speakers regularly imply that because people voted for a Liberal government every one who voted Liberal supports every single policy position in the red book.
Either government members are naive-and I do not believe that to be true of the majority-or else they are taking an unreasonable position that can be seen through by every clearly thinking Canadian. Obviously not every person who voted Liberal agrees with every policy in the red book. They probably voted Liberal after feeling that on balance they were making the best choice, even though some of the policies may have been unacceptable to them.
Even government members will have to admit there are probably a few policies in the red book the majority of Canadians would like to see changed. That is not because the original research was faulty but because times change and opinions change. What is wrong with adapting to changing times? What is wrong with recognizing that a particular policy has outlived its usefulness and is no longer appropriate? What better way for voters to indicate this than by starting a major petition?
If the government acted upon a major petition following an open debate in the House, its popularity would be enhanced and it would be more likely to win again in the next election. This is my free advice to the Liberal Party.
This seems like such a simple principle to me that I do not understand why governments continue to regularly defy voters. Why do they force through their mandate and then wonder why they are defeated at the next election? If all of us here value the opinions of our families, our neighbours and our friends, by extension we must value the opinions of all Canadians.
We must work together to give them a greater say in the House by allowing the debate of petitions on their behalf. Treating petitions more seriously is one way to gain the confidence of the Canadian voter, especially on major petitions such as the one requesting changes to the Young Offenders Act.
The process of debating petitions would be new and would no doubt need to be modified in the light of experience after the first few sessions. There would have to be a fair way of selecting petitions for debate as we could clearly not handle every one that was presented to the House.
If selection were made on the size of the petition there would be an automatic built in judgment as to the importance of the subject to be handled in the House. Clearly a petition with a million or more signatures will have been well organized and will probably deal with a matter of national importance, while petitions with a few thousand signatures are probably in response to an issue of a localized nature and would be better dealt with by municipal or provincial governments. Once those governments see that we are debating major issues developed from major petitions in the House, they will have much greater confidence in us as their representatives.
Once again I urge all members of the House to show their constituents that they are listening to the opinions of constituents and are conducting themselves accordingly. I urge them to support the motion.
The Economy February 15th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I am disturbed to note that the Canadian dollar dropped by more than half a cent yesterday, continuing a rapid decline which started after the last election.
Since the end of October 1993 the dollar has lost more than two and a half cents, raising the cost of imports and increasing the risk of rapidly escalating interest rates in the near future.
The Minister of Finance has not publicly set a target level for either the dollar or interest rate levels. I urge him to do so as soon as possible so that Canadian businesses and citizens can make plans for future spending.
The minister must be aware that upward pressure on the cost of living will result from the decline of the dollar. I hope that he is not trying to inflate his way out of an impending debt crisis rather than take positive action to reduce government spending.
The message from the people of Canada is clear. Cut out entire segments of government and grants to special interest groups rather than raise taxes or permit a major decline in the Canadian dollar.
Criminal Code February 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his speech which I found to be quite entertaining. At one point he was talking about following the offending vessel for hours and hours. I had the vision of being a third of the way across the Atlantic before the negotiations were finally over and we were going to get tough on this vessel that had broken the rules. Then I had the vision in which we said to the people: "Everybody out of the stern because we are going to shoot you in the rudder".
I wondered what happens if the ship turns the other way? Do we then tell them: "We are going to shoot you in the bow so everybody run to the stern?" What if the people on board do not obey the rules that we ask them to obey? Does the member really think he is making practical suggestions?
Immigration February 14th, 1994
Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Could the minister tell the House, without getting upset and emotional, why he will not reduce immigration levels in line with the wishes of the majority of Canadians even if he personally feels it is the wrong decision?
Immigration February 14th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
The Vancouver Province newspaper on Friday, February 4, 1994, asked the question: ``Does Canada accept too many refugees and immigrants?'' Ninety-seven per cent of those who responded said yes; only three per cent said no. Obviously the immigration section of the red book is not very popular.
The government has regularly stated that it wants consultation-
Income Tax Act February 14th, 1994
I would like to thank the hon. member for his speech and ask him a question in line with the small business comments which he made. He mentioned small business a number of times in his speech.
I am from the riding of North Vancouver where there is a pretty high concentration of small businesses and quite a large number of home-based businesses. They certainly are concerned about taxes and high tax levels. In fact I get a lot of feedback from them in line with the member's wish that the tax act be modified and moved toward a single tax of some sort. There is a lot of support for that.
The other side of the equation is that the area of government expenditures and spending creates the need for more and more taxation. The hon. member mentioned that small businesses in his riding give him plenty of feedback on the tax issue. Could he tell me whether he receives regular feedback from small
businesses in his area that the government should cut its spending as well.