House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.
Canada Customs December 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman in question has had his communications returned. There are procedures in place for handling the complaint that he has. I believe it would be appropriate that this take place and I certainly will not comment on his medical condition.
Canada Customs December 13th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I assure the House that the wearing of a poppy is no ground for any concern with Revenue Canada. The rules are clear for senior managers. Wearing a poppy by people in uniform is perfectly acceptable.
If in Mr. Scott's case there was any suggestion or concern, it was against the policy of the department. I do not have any information as to whether it was a failure of policy in this instance.
Mr. Scott has a number of opportunities to proceed with various grievance procedures. Under the circumstances it would be inappropriate for me at this time to comment any further on this case.
Child Tax Benefit Program December 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, before I respond to the question may I thank the hon. member for her consistent endorsement and championship of the problems and rights of children.
In response to her question, the integration of the program in one department is allowing us to maximize the efficiency and to improve our client services in a number of ways: first, by processing the child tax benefit applications at one stage instead of as was formerly the case; second, by eliminating the duplication of databases and the weekly transfers of information that previously took place between two departments; third, by simply reducing program costs and finally, by providing clients with a single point of contact.
Underground Economy December 6th, 1995
Typically, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about off the record information.
We in Revenue Canada have a number of situations which can be difficult. One example is the transport of grains across the border to the United States where our customs officers are told not to stand in the way of a speeding truck. No, they take the licence number and we arrest the truck later. That is the type of situation we have there which of course the Reform Party, which approves of running the border, thinks is a good thing.
With respect to other situations in which there could be risk to our officials, we instruct them not to take unnecessary risks. We
instruct them to proceed with their work. We certainly do not instruct them, as the hon. member has claimed, to avoid any visible minorities.
Underground Economy December 6th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the basis of the hon. member's question is false.
Customs December 5th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to report that Canada Customs is fully prepared to provide extra services at the border during this holiday season. There is an increase in traffic at this time. A large proportion of the 110 million people who come into Canada come at that time.
Our job is to provide, through extra shifts, part-time workers, and some student customs officers, the best possible service at this time. In addition, this year we will also have at our busiest airports special client service representatives to assist those who may be in trouble.
I think we should recognize that the customs service of Canada is probably the best in the world. They work very hard and long hours during the holiday season protecting this country against illegal weapons, drugs, and other such things. I hope the House will recognize the important work they do, particularly at this time of year.
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, you will note that the hon. member for the first time is linking these constitutional issues with unemployment. It is about time the Bloc recognized that because it is very important.
The member goes on to say that there can be no change and vetoes will be there. Vetoes provinciate, he is right. Does he regret that we are giving or establishing a veto for Quebec so that the constant refrain that Quebec will be forced to accept changes from other parts of Canada will suddenly disappear as a complaint, a whine, a constant background noise that we hear from the Bloc Quebecois? Maybe that is the Bloc's concern. The issue is that if there are major changes the regions of the country, Quebec, Ontario, the maritimes, the west, or British Columbia do not want, then there is no point in proceeding with the changes because they are unacceptable to the overall.
Let us not get entirely hooked up on the issue of constitutional change. These are not constitutional measures. It is an example of the ingenuity of Canadians. It is an example of the ingenuity of the Prime Minister in overcoming problems without necessarily going back to the Constitution. If in the future people would like to see changes, administrative arrangements that would improve the system of government of Canada, I will bet that future generations of Canadians will be just as good as we are at arranging them outside as well as inside the Constitution.
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the first point made was that somehow the veto was linked to the economy. Let me put it this way. The economy will benefit dramatically from getting the wrangling of constitutional issues such as the referendum and separation out of the way. The economy will improve when we deal with these measures here in the House quickly and get back to the real agenda for all Canadians, whether they live in Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia or any other province. We must get the economy back in shape, get interest rates down and get the unemployed that the member's party has never linked before to the issue of constitutional development. Fortunately you now have and I think it is about time that you recognized the linkage between the-
Constitutional Amendments Act November 30th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the series of motions and the legislation that is before us today essentially come down to three items: the issue of the regional veto, the distinct society and attempts to further improve the economy of the country with more devolution and reorganization of economic activity between the provinces and the federal government.
This all must be considered in light of the fact that in approximately 18 months a meeting between the provinces and the federal government will be required to consider the 15th anniversary of the 1982 agreements with respect to amendment and that must be borne in mind at all times. As described by the Minister of Justice, this is a bridge to the meeting which will take place 18 months hence. Those who would like to have the motion, the resolution and the economic measures expanded to something greater should recognize that.
Some of the suggestions I have heard, particularly from the Reform Party, would take over a year to implement. There would have to be a full discussion, meetings and the whole long rigmarole which we remember from Charlottetown. It should be understood
that this is not a substitute for the 1997 meeting which will be held between the provinces and the federal government.
I point out that the distinct society definition is quite limited. The wording has been very carefully chosen. It is that the House recognize that Quebec is a distinct society within Canada and that the House recognize that Quebec's distinct society includes its French speaking majority, its unique culture and its civil law tradition. These are important parts of the Canadian reality which are generally understood and accepted across the country. Wherever one may be in Canada it is well known that there are these three elements of Quebec society which distinguish that society from the societies of all other provinces and territories.
It is also important to recognize that Canada is not a homogeneous country. It is a country of many variations: regional variations, variations in its population, where it came from, how settlement has developed and how attitudes have developed. It is that diversity which we celebrate so often and which makes Canada one of the more unique countries of the world. It is an important part of the Canadian reality. It was that long before 1867.
We have to remember that diversity means there are differing needs and differing aspirations in the different regions of the country. Historically, provincial differences have dictated the need for different approaches. The British North America Act and the changes which were implemented in 1982 with the Constitution have made it perfectly clear that we have historically recognized those differences. If we go back beyond 1841 we will find that the differences within Canada have always been recognized in constitutional documents. It is one of the reasons so much of the country has been able to flourish. It is the reason for which we are the envy of the world.
Acknowledging Quebec as a distinct society is part of something perfectly logical and natural. It is not something which is being forced on any part of the country. It is a recognition of differences of which we have all known since our first days as Canadians. It is part of the evolution of Canada to recognize that distinctiveness and to make the accommodations which the bill and the resolution put forward. It is also a recognition of the affection and considerable pride which Canadians have in Quebec, which we saw in the few days before the referendum vote.
I would like to speak about the veto. These changes have not come completely out of the blue. They have been discussed before. Veto provisions were discussed at the time of the Victoria charter in 1971. Vetoes have been discussed at many constitutional conferences, in the press and elsewhere. In no way is this some sudden imposition of a formula which has been devised. It is a responsible recognition that over that long period of time certain basic understandings of the nature of the country have become evident with respect to the Constitution and the veto, particularly with respect to the 1982 changes.
Again I would stress that the current formulae for changing the Constitution are in four categories. You have some changes which would require the federal government and all the provinces before there could be a change. Others affect only a single province and the federal or perhaps even single provinces themselves and their neighbour. In addition you have this category which is the seven provinces and 50 per cent of the population.
All that is being put forward is that the federal government is limiting itself by legislation in the manner in which it will exercise the federal veto. It is not a constitutional change and that should be recognized. It is not a question of embarking on some great adventure as has been attempted by previous governments with Meech and Charlottetown where there were many things incorporated as well as the issue of the veto.
I will turn to the veto with respect to western Canada and in particular, with respect to British Columbia, my home province. At the present time for British Columbia to succeed it would have to impose a veto on constitutional change under the seven and fifty formula. It would have to have the support of three of the smaller provinces, so there would be four provinces opposing. In other words, the seven provinces requirement would not be met. Or else British Columbia would have to go in with one of the bigger provinces and thus, get 50 per cent of the population opposing.
The present proposal which does not change the Constitution is that if British Columbia opposed a constitutional change and it got one of the three western provinces to agree with it, then the federal government would not proceed with the constitutional change. Thus there is the so-called veto. The veto remains with the federal government but it would be exercised in that way. That is very important.
There is a substantial change proposed with respect to the powers of British Columbia on the veto. That is why I thought it appropriate that the headline in the newspaper pointed out that B.C. and Quebec were getting changes and the two provinces were listed side by side.
Second, when British Columbia gets to the position of having 50 per cent of the population of western Canada, then of course it will essentially have the veto of its own in the same manner as Quebec and Ontario.
At the present time British Columbia is about one-third the size of Ontario and about one-half the size of Quebec. In the not too distant future, because currently British Columbia has a about 44 per cent of the population of western Canada, it will reach 50 per cent; when, I do not know. All I know is that over the last 15 years British Columbia has dramatically expanded with an increase in population of something approaching 29 per cent. It is important to recognize that there has been substantial gains and this trajectory, this trend is likely to continue.
I will turn to the point that has been raised that this will somehow prevent future constitutional change because there will always be provinces which will oppose it. Obviously we will never
get constitutional change, for example, with respect to the Senate. To this I say I do not think we should sell future generations of Canadians so short. They will be capable of making intelligent decisions, just as we have been, just as our forefathers and mothers and all past generations have been.
Why do we have to suggest that they will be unable to handle the matter of constitutional change to take care of the differences that I spoke about at the outset of my speech in an acceptable manner? Obviously they will be able to do that and we should trust them to be able to do that.
Mr. Speaker, I am sharing my time with the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. This is a responsible package which will help hold us as a country together and allow that diversity and development and ability to continue to remain the world's leading country in the future.
We want a united Canada in British Columbia. We are willing to recognize that there have to be some trade-offs. Not everybody can get everything all the time. There has to be some recognition that to keep Canada going we cannot simply be a people who say no to everything.
When we have a whole country to govern there must be trade-offs. This country we are trying to govern happens to be the best country in the world. I think it is well worthwhile to make the trade-offs to keep it together and that is what this package is all about.
Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act November 28th, 1995
moved that the bill, as amended, be concurred in.