Lost his last election, in 2004, with 36% of the vote.
Equalization Payments February 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister.
It would appear that because corporations in Quebec are paying income tax at a rate approximately one-half the rate being paid by corporations in the rest of Canada, that the people of B.C., Alberta and Ontario are subsidizing businesses in Quebec.
Could the Prime Minister confirm that equalization payments to Quebec would be much lower if corporations in Quebec paid their fair share of corporation income taxes?
Equalization Payments February 9th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Under the agreement recently negotiated with the provinces by the Minister of Finance, Quebec will receive $3.7 billion in equalization payments-that is 47 per cent of the total-while B.C., Alberta and Ontario receive nothing.
The formula used to calculate the size of the equalization payments is said to take into account the ability of individual provinces to tax their residents.
Since the Prime Minister wants all taxation to be fair and to close all loopholes, how can he approve of such a large payment to Quebec when the tax rate for corporations in Quebec is only 6.9 per cent, while it is between 15 per cent and 17 per cent for corporations in the rest of Canada.
House Of Commons Standing Orders February 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the member justified voting against the wishes of his constituents on the basis that they could judge him at election time. But the hon. member knows that there are many issues that come before the House during a session and that it is unreasonable for him to say that they could judge him on one or other issue of the hundreds that come before us.
Can the member not see that by picking and choosing when his personal beliefs will interfere with his representation of the people who elected him, that he is taking an elitist attitude to the people who elected him.
Recall Legislation February 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister constantly brings up ancient history in response to this question. The constituents of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville are clearly showing they are not satisfied with the Prime Minister's suggestion last week in this House.
Recall Legislation February 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister agree that there is a general mood among the public of Canada in support of recall legislation?
Recall Legislation February 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, my question is for the right hon. Prime Minister.
During this past weekend a meeting attended by more than 500 people in the riding of Markham-Whitchurch-Stouffville resulted in a demand that the government investigate the circumstances surrounding the election of the sitting member. A petition has also been initiated with the intention of collecting around 40,000 signatures to support this demand.
Will the Prime Minister acknowledge that these events are symptomatic of the growing public support for recall legislation among the voters of Canada.
House Of Commons Standing Orders February 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. It gives me the opportunity to expand a little. Some valid reasons that I suggested earlier in my speech might be a criminal act by a member or a proven failure to properly represent the constituency.
I do not pretend to be the person who would write the legislation or who has taken sufficient input to know all the reasons that could be valid.
In terms of the cost of democracy, there is a cost to democracy which we are ready to accept in terms of recall. That push that is out there is telling us that people are prepared to have a cost of recall. I have to say that the member is assuming that recall is going to happen every day and shows a fear of recall. Recall is such a rare event that it would be well worth the cost when it eventually happens.
House Of Commons Standing Orders February 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I suspect as a result of his question in the House that he will get some telephone calls from his riding requesting that there be recall.
I can see that he has not yet been made immune to recall phobia disease either. I hope we will manage to make some progress on this over the ensuing months.
House Of Commons Standing Orders February 7th, 1994
Mr. Speaker, I can see that the hon. member opposite has not yet been made immune to recall phobia disease, but I am pleased he paid attention and did not notice the squirming around him at the time.
This is not a matter of popularity of the government. It is a matter of individual recall. There is definitely a public movement out there to have some accountability in members. I would repeat to the hon. member that a critical part of recall legislation must have built into it the ability to assess the reason for recall. That is really the key to it. There is nothing to be afraid of if there are established genuine reasons, not just a matter of popularity.
House Of Commons Standing Orders February 7th, 1994
I hear laughter from the other side of the House, and that is because this is silly.
It is not because the NDP and Reform supporters could not get together on such a project but because good recall legislation sets up reasons for recall so that political and special interest groups cannot initiate recall simply because they did not vote for the member.
The threshold number of signatures of eligible voters on a petition for a byelection could be very low indeed if the recall petition first has to pass an eligibility test before a commissioner of elections.
The responsibility would lie with the persons initiating a recall petition to prove that there were grounds for that petition.
As I have already said, it would not be sufficient for petitioners to simply say that 60 per cent of the voters did not vote for the member. Nor could they state that the member failed to represent the constituency properly unless they could produce evidence for the commissioner of elections to prove that this was the case. Therefore it is not the number of signatures on a petition for recall that is critical. It is the validity of the reason for the recall petition that is important.
Some likely valid reasons for a petition could be a criminal act by a member, a proven failure to vote in accordance with the clear majority wish of the constituents, misrepresentation, for example, as has been recently revealed in the House, and so on.
In places like California, Montana and North Dakota recall legislation exists with petitions thresholds of less than 20 per
cent. I challenge any member of this House to point out when the last recall took place in one of those states for any reason, let alone by a special interest group.
The voters of jurisdictions where recall exists hardly ever need to recall a member because the threat of recall ensures that they receive good representation and therein lies the real reason recall is opposed by the traditional party structures in Canada.
It has nothing to do with claims that special interest groups could initiative mischievous recall because, as I have already pointed out, legitimate reasons for recall can be built into legislation. We can also build in limits on the number of times recall can be initiated in a term or at what point in a term that petition could begin.
Nothing brings on a violent attack of recall phobia disease more than the thought that MPs might actually vote to represent their constituents in the House. Good recall legislation can answer all of the concerns of those MPs who have been struck with recall phobia disease. It can totally eliminate the fear for good MPs while still making possible the recall of MPs who have failed to represent their constituencies or have conducted themselves in an inappropriate manner.
I am personally unafraid of recall. I do not get shivers down my spine. I do not squirm uncontrollably in my seat or hurl insults or catcalls at the mention of that six-letter word. I am immune to recall phobia disease.
With a bit of logical thought every MP in the House could be immune to recall phobia disease. Hopefully there will soon be a time when we will vote to accept recall legislation as part of the ongoing reforms of our parliamentary system.
In the meantime I once again thank the government for having given us the opportunity to discuss this motion. I expect to vote in favour of the motion.